[4e] I am apathetic towards it

[Solo]

So, after hearing so much about 4e, I find myself not caring one way or antoehr. It's just another, different game otu there marketed towards a different audience that happens to be related to the game I play.

Anyone else?

[EvilElitest]

4E is pretty much a board game styled play based loosly after D&D, as it is generally simplified version (D&D for dummies if you will). I'd be apathetic if it was just another game generally based off of D&D rather than its heir, but now i'm worried things won't get better

Well we still have pathfinder
from
EE

[adanedhel9]

Pretty much my thoughts, too. There are some things I like. There are some that I don't. But my interests and 4E have diverged (both are partly to blame) to the point where I really don't care.

I am disappointed that the game didn't live up to the early previews that got me so excited. I guess I deserve what I get for listening to marketing-speak.

[FoE]

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!" or even "I'm apathetic with 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 D&D instead of debating which version is better?

[Draz74]

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

... in theory, shouldn't we all be playing D&D instead of ever posting on these forums, short of PBP games or a few rules questions with "urgent" in the subject line? :smallwink:

Anyway, I find myself agreeing with this thread. 4e seems great for one-shots or for introducing new RPGers to D&D. Other than that, I think it's a good system but I like 3e better.

[Tsotha-lanti]

4E is pretty much a board game styled play based loosly after D&D, as it is generally simplified version (D&D for dummies if you will). I'd be apathetic if it was just another game generally based off of D&D rather than its heir, but now i'm worried things won't get better

Well we still have pathfinder
from
EE

Yeah, man, it's not like there were AD&D 2E board games -- oh, wait...

[KillianHawkeye]

4E is pretty much a board game styled play based loosly after D&D, as it is generally simplified version (D&D for dummies if you will). I'd be apathetic if it was just another game generally based off of D&D rather than its heir, but now i'm worried things won't get better

Well we still have pathfinder
from
EE

I don't usually get involved in these discussions, but can people PLEASE stop inferring that I am somehow stupid or slow for liking the fact that 4e simplifies character & NPC creation, streamlines session prep-time, and fits all the info I need into little notecard-sized quantities??

Sheesh! :smallsigh:

[Kurald Galain]

So, after hearing so much about 4e, I find myself not caring one way or antoehr. It's just another, different game otu there marketed towards a different audience that happens to be related to the game I play.

Yes! Apathetic people of the world, DO WHATEVER! Meh!

[Solo]

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!" or even "I'm apathetic with 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 D&D instead of debating which version is better?

I don't care.

[Jimp]

Play whichever version you enjoy. For serious guys. I tend to play a lot of 2e because it works well with my group. Other times I play 3e because parts of the system might work really well with an idea or its mechanics make it easy to work out something particular. I'm sure I'll play 4e at some stage, I just have to get the damn books first :smallamused:

[Kabump]

4e: I like it. 3.5: I like it. See, you CAN like both systems. Not saying you have to, just that its possible.

[Serpentine]

I'm more or less inclined to agree. There are some good ideas I'll probably nab from it, but there's also a lot I really don't like or that isn't good or different enough to change. I started to create a 4e character a while ago, and it really was a lot quicker and easier, but it was also, I found, really boring. When I'm creating a 3.5e character, I'm excited to do it. I find it really fun. 4e, though, was just... dull. Also there's no way I could make a master spy wizard in 4th ed, which would be incredibly easy in 3rd. :smallannoyed:

[EvilElitest]

I don't usually get involved in these discussions, but can people PLEASE stop inferring that I am somehow stupid or slow for liking the fact that 4e simplifies character & NPC creation, streamlines session prep-time, and fits all the info I need into little notecard-sized quantities??

Sheesh! :smallsigh:

i'm not saying your stupid, i'm saying it is like the book D&D for dummies, or say, Classical music for dummies. The people who read it aren't dumb, it just means the game is like a simplified cut down version of the game

and while you can become apathetic towards it, most of the hostility comes form 4E because 4E is the new D&D. If it was just another version, or a differen't game loosly based after D&D, i don't think hte complaints would be as nasty, but it is the new D&D, you don't like it, your screwed
from
EE

[Indon]

I'm pretty much the absolute opposite - ambivalent, rather than apathetic. There are aspects I really like about 4'th edition. There are also aspects I really dislike about 4'th edition.

But when I talk about things I like about 4'th edition, nobody starts up discussion about it, so most of my discussion is instead about things I don't like about 4'th edition. *shrug*

[RoboticSheeple]

So, after hearing so much about flamewars about 4e, I find myself not caring one way or antoehr. It's just another, different flame otu there marketed towards a different audience that happens to be related to the flame I play.

Anyone else?
:smallwink:

[mostlyharmful]

Yeah, for the most part. Like Serpentine says there are some good ideas in it but for the most part it doesn't really do much of anything for me either way. I'll wait for the splatification before I make up my mind in any major way but in general Meh, I'll probably point new players/groups towards it because it seems easier to get into but beyound that I'll just stick with the rule base/ game engine that I know and the House-rule book I've worked up.

[Deepblue706]

4E didn't really solve any problems I had with the game. I don't hate it, I don't love it - I'm mostly apathetic towards how it actually operates. Maybe it works for some people. But, I don't care enough to go out and buy the books.

I try to get involved with more games when I can, to test out different aspects, so that I might develop a better understanding of it (because perhaps I may come to like it after seeing more)...but the limited experiences I've had have yet to make me feel strongly for or against it - but I just know it's not something I'd spend money on, because it just seems absolutely pointless to upgrade, because of how my playstyle has developed. I'm sure it works great for a number of people, but it doesn't appear to have anything that actually adds to the way I play.

There's some neat little abilities with some silly little fluff and they have nice little perks when you successfully hit a guy. Whatever - I don't need a little insert that gives me visuals for attacks (My imagiantion is vibrant enough already, thank you), and I don't need to have every technique I could imagine having its own unique rules (I can improvise rulings on techniques not described in the books, and they don't necessarily have to be totally different in mechanics because it happens to *look* a little different).

Some people might prefer that, and that's okay. I don't like it, but I don't hate it, and I don't think liking it is inherently bad.

There's healing surges, which I guess are good for the system. But, I actually found being low on HP with no way of healing to be thrilling. Sure, HP is an abstraction, and you could justify the surges...although I think actually being *wounded* is an interesting game mechanic. No, I don't think being bloodied does it justice. Being stuck at a low number could represent a wound, even if your rolls are unhindered. I dunno - just "getting better" as quickly as you can doesn't appeal to me very much.

But as for the other stuff?

Races: hooray, we're all special. Who cares.

Classes: oh look, now they explicitly tell you a job that you fulfill. How cute.

Feats: blah blah, no more interesting than 3E's.

Skills: still just as piss-poor, don't care.

Attributes: whatever.

Defenses instead of saves: same thing to me, buddy.

No more multiple attacks: makes no difference to me.

I'll play it, sure - if that's the agreed game. When I compare it to other fantasy roleplaying systems, I think of it as equal. No better, no worse. I'd only stick with 3E for a while longer, because I'm more familiar with it. If the boards filled up with only 4E games, my only real problem would just be adjusting to some additional rules.

[Ralfarius]

I don't care.
It's okay, Solo. We still love you... But you are going to have to move into the attic, chained to a wall, with a bucket of fish heads once a week as your only food.

[RukiTanuki]

i'm not saying your stupid, i'm saying it is like the book D&D for dummies, or say, Classical music for dummies. The people who read it aren't dumb, it just means the game is like a simplified cut down version of the game

and while you can become apathetic towards it, most of the hostility comes form 4E because 4E is the new D&D. If it was just another version, or a differen't game loosly based after D&D, i don't think hte complaints would be as nasty, but it is the new D&D, you don't like it, your screwed
from
EE

WE GET IT. We get it, we get it, we get it. You think it's simple. You think it's dumber. You think it's for stupid people. And no matter how much we stress that no, it's more like the difference between Risk and Chess, that fewer rules do not make it dumb and that more rules do not make it better, we understand that you will continue to repeat "it's stupid," never bring a single additional sentence of explanation as to WHY you feel that way, and will do so until others quit out of frustration, enabling you to obtain your hollow, sour victory over something that didn't have a winner in the first place.

[deep breath]

I think it's about time I just muted The Usual Suspects.

[batsofchaos]

WE GET IT. We get it, we get it, we get it. You think it's simple. You think it's dumber. You think it's for stupid people. And no matter how much we stress that no, it's more like the difference between Risk and Chess, that fewer rules do not make it dumb and that more rules do not make it better, we understand that you will continue to repeat "it's stupid," never bring a single additional sentence of explanation as to WHY you feel that way, and will do so until others quit out of frustration, enabling you to obtain your hollow, sour victory over something that didn't have a winner in the first place.

[deep breath]

I think it's about time I just muted The Usual Suspects.


There is a vast chasm between the phrase "it's dumbed down." and the phrase "it's dumb, and people who play it are dumb." Saying something is 'dumbed down' does come with the insinuation that it is simple-minded, but there is no phrase that doesn't give that implication. Less complicated, simpler, easier to learn, smaller learning curve, fewer rules, simplified mechanics, less paperwork, etc. ALL carry an element of insult to them. Nowhere in that post did EE insult anyone. He clarified that what he meant by "DnD for Dummies" was not that the game was for stupid people, but rather it read like the guide book series "____ for Dummies."

[EvilElitest]

{Scrubbed}

[Jayabalard]

So, after hearing so much about 4e, I find myself not caring one way or antoehr. It's just another, different game otu there marketed towards a different audience that happens to be related to the game I play.

Anyone else?Yup, pretty much the same here. A resounding "Meh"


I'm spamming this in many threadsFixed that for you

[EvilElitest]

Wow, i just chocked seeing that last post, and i feel somewhat guilty and ashamed, it was because of laughter
from
EE

[Solo]

It's okay, Solo. We still love you... But you are going to have to move into the attic, chained to a wall, with a bucket of fish heads once a week as your only food.

But what will you do about my evil twin?

[Ralfarius]

But what will you do about my evil twin?
Turkey dinner.

[Jerthanis]

EvilElitest, I think you should avoid using the D&D for dummies comparison in the future because of the charged nature of the word "dummies". The fact that there's a series of books which are introductory guides to various things doesn't change the fact that it can be taken to mean it insultingly. Personally, I think it's a good trait if a book is simple enough that a total newbie can approach it and feel comfortable with the ruleset.

I'm a minor boardgame enthusiast, although I don't get to play a lot. A while back, I bought the Marvel Heroes boardgame and memorized the rules, messed around with it and brought it over to my friends' house, sure it would be a good time. It was so complicated that my friends who were not boardgame enthusiasts were completely lost and the night ended before the game had concluded. We haven't played since. You know what boardgame sees a lot of play across all demographics? Monopoly. It's approachable, and thus, is fun for a group of non-fanatics. If they republished Marvel Heroes with rules simple enough that I could actually play it with my friends, do you know what I'd do? I'd buy it.

Why should RPGs be any different?



No its not like risk or chess, it is more like say, D&D miniatures, and D&D itself. or, if you want to imagine it more like advanced book supported D&D miniatures/war gaming edition that is well done as far as a game goes i suppose, but not as a D&D edition. 4E is like a board game based upon D&D with a similar concept, the real beef comes from it being a new edition


So far in our 4th edition campaign, we've investigated a murder, solved a logic puzzle, tracked a group of goblins through a city, browbeat a witness until he told us who took the McGuffin, and found the thief hidden in a barrel. How is this at all like a miniatures game?

[Thinker]

Maybe you simply didn't grasp the concept right


Wow, look at that, i didn't call the people who play it stupid, wow, so that makes your claim
that i only think it is for stupid people utterly wrong.


Not reading what i say, wow, smooth there

No its not like risk or chess, it is more like say, D&D miniatures, and D&D itself. or, if you want to imagine it more like advanced book supported D&D miniatures/war gaming edition that is well done as far as a game goes i suppose, but not as a D&D edition. 4E is like a board game based upon D&D with a similar concept, the real beef comes from it being a new edition

Actually, i have, again and again and again and again, you specifically tend to mysteriously vanish and not come back

Does lying to prove your point somehow make your argument more valid i wonder? Really, you'd think that it would discredit you rather than supporting your argument. Honestly, i mean i suppose i can understand the nifftyness of saying "Oh you make pointless claims and never backed them up" but when i'm actually infamous, and even pro 4E people will say this, for massive walls of text, where do you get that idea? I find the idea of not backing up what i say utterly offensive and absurd. Wheres Mathew, he can make a valid argument, he just addresses what i say


Yes, why actually counter an argument when you can...........made a personal attack. Yeah



Now batofchaos got it right (thanks), i was referring to the book. Except imagine the book as the game itself
from
EE

No you're wrong.

[Indon]

So far in our 4th edition campaign, we've investigated a murder, solved a logic puzzle, tracked a group of goblins through a city, browbeat a witness until he told us who took the McGuffin, and found the thief hidden in a barrel. How is this at all like a miniatures game?

Battletech is a miniatures game and yet a Battletech campaign can feature extensive RP.

[Scintillatus]

World of Darkness is a roleplaying game and yet a World of Darkness campaign can feature extensive combat.

Construct a point, please. This is pretty circular; I can apply your maxim to any system simply by changing gamename, gametype, and nongametype.

Chess is a strategic game but it can feature extensive nudity.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Battletech is a miniatures game and yet a Battletech campaign can feature extensive RP.

Battletech is an exception, though, in that, like dragons, it has the "Awesome" template.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Chess is a strategic game but it can feature extensive nudity.

Little thing to add: There's actually a chess that DOES have nudity, both in-game, and as a sort of penalty.

Now, on topic: I really don't get why 4th is called "D&D for dummies", really. For starters, its combat system is deeper in that it's much more open to various tactics that were completely unfeasible in 3.5, and it's skill use system makes skills as meaningful as normal combat, instead of a lone roll. Then, it (of course), doesn't hinder RP, the same way 3.5 does (Clarification: The same way 3.5 doesn't hinder it, I mean), and even opens up new concepts which are now mechanically viable without cheese, like a swashbuckler. So I really don't see where that's coming from.

[Corolinth]

EvilElitest, I think you should avoid using the D&D for dummies comparison in the future because of the charged nature of the word "dummies". The fact that there's a series of books which are introductory guides to various things doesn't change the fact that it can be taken to mean it insultingly. Personally, I think it's a good trait if a book is simple enough that a total newbie can approach it and feel comfortable with the ruleset.A similar counter-argument can be raised that perhaps the reader should avoid taking the most hostile interpretation of text communication, particularly when said text can be reasonably interpreted to carry a far less malicious connotation. (As in this case, as an allusion to a popular series of reference manuals).

Compare the following statements:

"4E is pretty much a board game styled play based loosly after D&D, as it is generally simplified version (D&D for dummies if you will)."

"I can't help but notice that Fourth Edition has simplified the alignment system down to five alignments, most likely because the vast majority of our current crop of gamers are too stupid to understand the Law-Chaos axis."

There is a vast gulf between those two statements. One is a critique of the game system as a whole, and hinges upon a comparison to a rather well-known series of books (one that has been a popular cultural icon longer than the poster has been alive, if I remember Evil Elitist's age properly). The second is a direct statement that the game was designed around the shortcomings of its audience.

[Innis Cabal]

i don't care that no one else cares about it, i dont care what people think about the whole thing in general, i would just like to see everyone posting on it and cluttering up what is otherwise an ok forum

[JaxGaret]

Chess is a strategic game but it can feature extensive nudity.

No, that's extensive nudity featuring some people over there playing chess.

It's all about priorities.

:smallsmile:

[Human Paragon 3]

I think an important distinction must be made about the "For Dummies" remark. Yes, it is in reference to the popular instruction booklets, one of which I own (bookselling for dummies). But who are those books for? Beginners and those who are not ready for the expert version.

If I wanted to learn HTML, I might buy HTML for dummies. I could learn the basics that way and start writing websites using the simple instructions therein. I suspect most expert coders would find little of use in that tome.

I consider myself an RPG expert, both as a player and a DM. I would not buy the book "D&D for Dummies" or "RPGs for Dummies," but I would, and did, buy the 4e core books, which, in my opinion, are great for beginners, intermmediate players, and experts.

I don't inted to graduate to a new system once i've learned 4e. On the contrary, after playing a variety of games, including 3.5, 4e appeals to me because it is easier to play but more difficult to master. That is, anyone can make a character in a few minutes and learn the concepts, but this frees up mind space for in-game tactics and world building. You see?

[EvilElitest]

EvilElitest, I think you should avoid using the D&D for dummies comparison in the future because of the charged nature of the word "dummies". The fact that there's a series of books which are introductory guides to various things doesn't change the fact that it can be taken to mean it insultingly.

Be that as it may, it doesn't make my comparison any less accurate. LIke, say a board game compared to an orginal source, a video game compared to a movie it was based on, a movie compared to a book, it just covers the basic, it doesn't fully embrace the entire story, nor does it always capture the total complexity. It is fine as its own product in its own niche, and yet is in fact "D&D for Dummies" (and yes, i mean the books) just like i read "classical Music for Dummies" it has the basic, it explains the concepts, and presents the basic points and the general feeling and understanding, but it is only the fancy cover of the book, the proluge if you will, or maybe a summery. It lacks depth, it lacks complexity, and it lacks detail. It is like they said "Alright guys, lets just focus on making it balanced (which i doubt it is, but far more than say, 3E) but in order to do this with have to simplify it and cut out complexities." I mean, it is like the D&D movie to an extent (and i'm not referring to the crappy acting and directing and such, just the story line). It tries to stuff D&D, which is actually a very complex game, into an hour and a half, or in this case, a quick game


Personally, I think it's a good trait if a book is simple enough that a total newbie can approach it and feel comfortable with the ruleset.
Personally, i don't think we should aim for the lowest common demonomator. Now i'm not saying the game should hate new players and try to make the game hell for them, but it is far easier to simplify a complex game then to complixasize (I have a copy right on that word) a simply one. A lot of stuff in D&D is dropped, generally on the basis of being too complexed or considered "unnecessary" and by the last statement i mean not supported by the one general style of play that 4E supports. 3E, for all of its many faults, offered a lot of options, customization, i mean it brought a lot to the table. Awful diplomacy aside, it was designed, like 2E as an extremly complex huge game, just a badly balanced game. 4E takes one style of play, namely the whole video game element (and by that i mean the world, not hte game revolving around the Pcs, and the focus on making them seem oh so epic)
I mean monsters, fluff, NPCs, Alignment, magic items, classes, healing surges,
combat options, the whole thing, it feels like a game where you just want to be a hero in the kill bill sort of sense and kick some @$&. Simple, easy, and quick
Now here is something i'm often misunderstood on. That style of epic, look at me i'm the hero, while not my personal favorite, isn't bad on its own. IT isn't a style that automatically makes the people who play it morons. If you enjoy, lots of fighting, with cool combat options, not worrying about details or complexities. Ands you know what, that is fine. That isn't something that makes you morons. And 4E is styled towards that style of gaming. In fact it totally focused around it. Simply, easy, and quick. I mean, i can imagine me and some friends saying "Hey you know what, i think it is time to play a quick game of D&D. Let have a quick fight" make some characters and be total badass. And the game is great for that, in the same way Exalted is great for the whole "I am a super EPIC hero of EPIC power who will EPICALLY defeat you in an EPIC manner." You like that great, and i might play it once in a while if i feel like or. Or how rolemaster is great for you know, super realism and grittiness. Or how World of Darkness is great if you like that style of vampires, werewolves and demons. 4E reminds me, there was a book i saw once where it was saying "miss the old days of dungeon crawling, where NPCs existed to be killed and you only needed to hack and slash" or something to that effect. Now i'm not saying 4E is a hack slash only game, but in the same sense that it is aimed at one style. It is a niche game, or something for a quick casual game. And if it was realized as such, or as a board game (because it really contains a lot of board game miniature elements) i would look at it, and say "Well it is based after D&D, but you know what, not my thing" But i wouldn't feel anger towards it. I wouldn't hate it. I wouldn't feel any ill will towards it at all. I mean, take the extremly popular D&D minatures. It would be like a combination of simplified D&D and miniatures, which i have to admit, would be really really really cool.

However, it is the new edition of D&D. And so all D&D is going to have to fit into this niche, or well, sucks to be you. And as a new child of D&D, that is where D&D falls short. There is so much that it doesn't support and simplifying, with change that wasn't needed (Cosmology, NPCs, Alignments, gods, monsters) stuff that is simply not considered important (other style of worlds, Evil options, "not cool" gods, ect) and really, it supports one way of playing and as the new age of D&D, that is like WotC is giving the finger to anybody else. I mean, there is a lot of pretty justified criticisms of the new edition as the successor to D&D, and taht is pretty valid. IF it was realized as its own game, it would be pretty much "meh, not for me"
People who disagree are pretty much being told "This is the way to play D&D, your wrong, we don't support you". Sure we can homebrew it back to normal, but that doesn't change the edition




I'm a minor boardgame enthusiast, although I don't get to play a lot. A while back, I bought the Marvel Heroes boardgame and memorized the rules, messed around with it and brought it over to my friends' house, sure it would be a good time. It was so complicated that my friends who were not boardgame enthusiasts were completely lost and the night ended before the game had concluded. We haven't played since. You know what boardgame sees a lot of play across all demographics? Monopoly. It's approachable, and thus, is fun for a group of non-fanatics. If they republished Marvel Heroes with rules simple enough that I could actually play it with my friends, do you know what I'd do? I'd buy it.

Why should RPGs be any different?
As a board game fan myself, i say, it shouldn't be like that. I mean call me people who play the M game dumb, but when i play board games, i want games that are challenging. Monopoly is fun to play with people who don't play board games as much as i do, but in terms of actual quality board games, it falls short. Now i don't dislike monopoly, but if the best, most super special awesome board game is being realized, i don't want it to be aimed only for non board gamer crowd

4E might make a great D&D for dummies (yes i mean the book) in the sense of it acting as a basic introduction to D&D



So far in our 4th edition campaign, we've investigated a murder, solved a logic puzzle, tracked a group of goblins through a city, browbeat a witness until he told us who took the McGuffin, and found the thief hidden in a barrel. How is this at all like a miniatures game?

1) I was referring to the game design, its main focus is advanced combat
2) Well you could do taht with frankly any game through.

Thinker, are you joking? Going "your wrong" and leaving is frankly the worst type of arguing


Also Corolinth, how long has teh dummies series been around? i was born in 1991 and i know it was around in 1994 at least

On the subject on experts, i dont' feel 4E has anything to offer on an "expert level" It might be fun, but i hardly find it imersive


from
EE

[darkzucchini]

EvilElitist and I haven't always seen eye to eye (I know I got my start on this forum argueing with him about the Grey Guard PrC), but frankly, I have got to agree with him on this whole apathetic about 4e thing.

If 4e was a stand alone variant I would be perfectly happy with it, you could call Dungeons and Dragons Heroes, or something along those lines. But the problem is that 4e is effectively killing off 3e and leaving many of us with a game that many people don't feel fits their gaming style.

I have got to say that I am not one to feel nestelgic, I embraced 3e when it came out for its multiclassing, skill system (though far from perfect it felt like a great improvement over 2e), and its over all versatility.

4e does not feel like that to me. I am not saying that it is a bad game or that it inhibits roleplaying, or even that all the ideas that it presents are bad ideas. To me it feels like the game has lost much of the versatility of character creation in favor of balance, which I personally feel is not all that necessary in a co-operative roleplaying game.

For example, in 3e I could have built duel-weilding Fighter and jumped into Rogue for a couple levels of sneak attack and evasion. Now, if I want to be able to effectively fight with two-weapons I have to multi-class into Ranger, which then prevents me from multi-classing into Rogue for my sneak attack.

I also have problems with the fluff the game presents, and especially the lack there of in the MM. Sure, its easy enough make up my own fluff for monsters, but I used to enjoy reading the MM and all the other monster compendiums. Hopefully the 4e MM is not a sign of future products to come from WotC. (And whats with Blue Dragons? Why change their habitat to coastal? The coolest thing about the Blue Dragon was that it lived in the desert and covered up its rather bright coloring with illusionary magic).

Lastly, I would like to address the idea that many 4e supporters are putting out that 4e is a much more indepth game thanks to the tactics of combat. I have got to say that I love tactics in combat, but I didn't feel that 3e was without them. If you wanted to push a character back, say away from the squishy party members or towards the rogue to set up for a sneak attack, you can make a bull rush attempt. The biggest difference now is that success was not guaranteed back then but had to be earned through opposed stat checks. I don't like the idea of being able to push the Ogre around with my 14 Str Fighter. Its even worse when you look at Mountain Breaking Blow with which you can push a dragon back 15 ft so long as you hit. Whoever, I do believe that 4e was conceived with some good intentions, of making it so the fighter didn't spend nearly ever round making a full attack in combat and so the wizard could not take everybody's role and do it better, perhaps this is why I tend to prefer low level DnD games. But I do not like the resulting game that was born from these ideas, as, to me and many others, a fighter no longer feels like a fighter nor a wizard like a wizard.

Sorry that I have been rather long winded, but I do not feel apathetic about this new edition of Dungeons and Dragons. I am instead saddened and angered by what I see as the death of a great game in exchange for the development of a new system that many people feel is wholly inadequate.

[Trizap]

I'm apathetic as well, don't really like or hate it, I just consider 3.5 and 4E different and separate, don't really consider either to be better than the other.

[Jerthanis]

Thinker, are you joking? Going "your wrong" and leaving is frankly the worst type of arguing

You do realize you do this type of arguing all the time, right? You did it in the very same post. Let me show you:


Be that as it may, it doesn't make my comparison any less accurate. LIke, say a board game compared to an orginal source, a video game compared to a movie it was based on, a movie compared to a book, it just covers the basic, it doesn't fully embrace the entire story, nor does it always capture the total complexity. It is fine as its own product in its own niche, and yet is in fact "D&D for Dummies" (and yes, i mean the books) just like i read "classical Music for Dummies" it has the basic, it explains the concepts, and presents the basic points and the general feeling and understanding, but it is only the fancy cover of the book, the proluge if you will, or maybe a summery. It lacks depth, it lacks complexity, and it lacks detail. It is like they said "Alright guys, lets just focus on making it balanced (which i doubt it is, but far more than say, 3E) but in order to do this with have to simplify it and cut out complexities." I mean, it is like the D&D movie to an extent (and i'm not referring to the crappy acting and directing and such, just the story line). It tries to stuff D&D, which is actually a very complex game, into an hour and a half, or in this case, a quick game

Here is you saying, "I'm right. I'm right. I'm right." over and over for several paragraphs. You give examples of how your point could be made, but at no point do you form a solid connection between 4th edition and the things you're comparing it to. Show me how 4th edition is D&D for Dummies in that it's only the surface of a complex thing, because I find it every bit as complex and deep as 3rd edition, if not more-so. Tactics change round by round, the choice of one power over another is a significant alteration in your capabilities, and your ability to assist others in out of combat utility is often vital to success, so coordinating actions is usually necessary.



Personally, i don't think we should aim for the lowest common demonomator. Now i'm not saying the game should hate new players and try to make the game hell for them, but it is far easier to simplify a complex game then to complixasize (I have a copy right on that word) a simply one.

"Lowest common denominator" is a phrase bandied about commonly as a way of insulting the common man, as if there's this elite of smart people over a world full of complete idiots. I disagree with this assumption. I think that something simple enough that anyone can understand it is an ideal, and any more complex and you're just being elitist. Only *this* tall or taller can ride this ride, sorry.



As a board game fan myself, i say, it shouldn't be like that. I mean call me people who play the M game dumb, but when i play board games, i want games that are challenging. Monopoly is fun to play with people who don't play board games as much as i do, but in terms of actual quality board games, it falls short. Now i don't dislike monopoly, but if the best, most super special awesome board game is being realized, i don't want it to be aimed only for non board gamer crowd

The best board game ever will be useless if only 10 people are smart enough to play it, and people can have just as much fun with Monopoly. And yes, people can have just as much fun of the same type playing 4th edition as opposed to 3rd.



1) I was referring to the game design, its main focus is advanced combat
2) Well you could do taht with frankly any game through.

...But we used the rules presented in the book to arbitrate success or failure, and we were put into an imaginary world to play the roles of heroes in an adventure, like the book says... how exactly could any game facilitate what we did more than 4th edition? You can say, "Any game can include roleplaying, but that doesn't make it a role playing game." but I'm starting to wonder what threshold it has to pass in order to actually be one. Having rules to facilitate your immersion into the role of a fantasy persona with different skills and personality than yourself is my basic working definition of RPG, and 4th edition fulfills this just as well as any other RPG I've ever played. What is your definition of an RPG that would include 3rd edition as an RPG, but does not include 4th edition?




On the subject on experts, i dont' feel 4E has anything to offer on an "expert level" It might be fun, but i hardly find it imersive


from
EE

That's your problem. It's plenty immersive for me. I'm sorry you can't enjoy this awesome game.

[KillianHawkeye]

"Lowest common denominator" is a phrase bandied about commonly as a way of insulting the common man, as if there's this elite of smart people over a world full of complete idiots. I disagree with this assumption. I think that something simple enough that anyone can understand it is an ideal, and any more complex and you're just being elitist. Only *this* tall or taller can ride this ride, sorry.

You are talking about EvilElitest here. What did you expect? It's in his name.

[Prophaniti]

I would probably be most readily described as 'opposed' to 4e, but that is not to say I think it sucks or people who like it are stupid. I'm opposed more in a sense that I will not spend my own money on it, as nothing they changed interests me enough to justify the expenditure. Now, someone in my gaming group has already purchased them (him being one of those people who doesn't pay rent and has loads of disposable income to pre-order all the latest games), and if the group would like to try it out, I'm ok with it. I'd never DM it, and I'd be pretty disappointed if the group decided to stick with it, but they're still my friends and I'd still have fun playing with them.

In the end, I do think its simply a play-style preference. However, those who feel 'insulted' by phrases such as 'dumbed-down' or comparisons to the "______ for Dummies" line of books should really get over it. Come to some self-realization and admit that that is what you like about it. That's was 4E's whole purpose, cleaning up and simplifying the ruleset, and comments about that aspect of the switch are inevitable. Save your indignation for the ones that are honestly and openly insulting, rather than finding offense where none is intended.

[JaxGaret]

In the end, I do think its simply a play-style preference.

I think it goes beyond that. 4e makes prep time for DMs much shorter, for one - customizing monsters and balancing encounters is much easier to do, among other things; that has nothing to do with playstyle.


However, those who feel 'insulted' by phrases such as 'dumbed-down' or comparisons to the "______ for Dummies" line of books should really get over it. Come to some self-realization and admit that that is what you like about it.

If it were dumbed-down or D&D for Dummies, I would certainly admit it. I don't think it is either.


That's was 4E's whole purpose, cleaning up and simplifying the ruleset, and comments about that aspect of the switch are inevitable.

I thought that 4e's whole purpose was either a) to attempt to make the best D&D possible or b) to make $$$, depending on who you ask :smallsmile:

I agree that a big part of 4e's design mantra was simplify & streamline, but I don't see how that necessarily equates to dumber.


Save your indignation for the ones that are honestly and openly insulting, rather than finding offense where none is intended.

You're not talking directly to me here, but I'll just say that if someone posts something here on the boards for everyone to see, it's obvious that it is something that they want people to read and digest.

[Prophaniti]

I think it goes beyond that. 4e makes prep time for DMs much shorter, for one - customizing monsters and balancing encounters is much easier to do, among other things; that has nothing to do with playstyle.
4E, and the changes therein, have everything to do with playstyle, because the changes are to the kind of game that is run right out of the box. From how innately heroic the characters are now, to not having monsters with specific immunities (a thing I very much enjoy both as a player and a DM), to ditching Vancian casting systems, all these things change playstyle. Of course, a DM suitably motivated can certainly adapt a system to a given style, but I'm looking more at how the game is structured to start with.

I thought that 4e's whole purpose was either a) to attempt to make the best D&D possible or b) to make $$$, depending on who you ask :smallsmile:No, its purpose was not to make the 'best D&D possible', that's the kind of line I'd expect from their marketing department. Perhaps they were shooting for 'most accessible' or 'most main-stream-friendly', (though I do think that $$$ was a big part of it, not that that's necessarily a bad thing... I like capitalism) but best? that's a laughable claim of any tabletop rpg. What's best for one is not what is best for another.


I agree that a big part of 4e's design mantra was simplify & streamline, but I don't see how that necessarily equates to dumber.I didn't say streamlined equates to dumber either. I said it can be interpreted that way.


You're not talking directly to me here, but I'll just say that if someone posts something here on the boards for everyone to see, it's obvious that it is something that they want people to read and digest.
I said that people shouldn't find offense where it wasn't intended. Of couse he meant for you to read and digest his comments. He did not, however, intend them to be insulting or disparaging, and I just think people should save the outrage for the posts that are deliberately insulting.

[Kabump]

However, those who feel 'insulted' by phrases such as 'dumbed-down' or comparisons to the "______ for Dummies" line of books should really get over it. Come to some self-realization and admit that that is what you like about it.

My problem with this is the implied meaning behind such statements. If its D&D for dummies, that implies that if I enjoy it and play it, I must be a "dummy", and that this somehow makes 3.5 for "smart" people. This is indirectly implying that you are smarter than me. Yes I enjoy the simplification of rules, but not because Im a moron. I enjoy because not everyone enjoys needlessly complicated rules (3x grapple comes to mind). Yes, I realize that some people like complexity in their rules, as EE obviously does. It allows him a multitude of options he might not be able to do otherwise. I understand what you are TRYING to say with the D&D for Dummies line, I really do. I just don't think you can say that and NOT imply what I've been saying, even if you dont actually mean it. Perhaps I read to much into this, as obviously EE isn't telling people they are stupid for liking 4e, and Im positive he doesn't think that. Its just the manner in which 4e is described it is often times hard to not imply that. FWIW, YMMV, my 2 copper etc etc.

[JaxGaret]

4E, and the changes therein, have everything to do with playstyle, because the changes are to the kind of game that is run right out of the box. From how innately heroic the characters are now, to not having monsters with specific immunities (a thing I very much enjoy both as a player and a DM), to ditching Vancian casting systems, all these things change playstyle. Of course, a DM suitably motivated can certainly adapt a system to a given style, but I'm looking more at how the game is structured to start with.

You completely avoided my point. Yes, 4e changes the playstyle, but it also does more than that, so that playstyle isn't the only factor involved in a comparison.


No, its purpose was not to make the 'best D&D possible', that's the kind of line I'd expect from their marketing department. Perhaps they were shooting for 'most accessible' or 'most main-stream-friendly', (though I do think that $$$ was a big part of it, not that that's necessarily a bad thing... I like capitalism) but best? that's a laughable claim of any tabletop rpg. What's best for one is not what is best for another.

I think you missed the smiley, denoting that it was a joke.


I didn't say streamlined equates to dumber either. I said it can be interpreted that way.

Certainly. I disagree with that interpretation.


I said that people shouldn't find offense where it wasn't intended. Of couse he meant for you to read and digest his comments. He did not, however, intend them to be insulting or disparaging

How do you know their intent?


, and I just think people should save the outrage for the posts that are deliberately insulting.

Agreed.

[RebelRogue]

If 4e was a stand alone variant I would be perfectly happy with it, you could call Dungeons and Dragons Heroes, or something along those lines. But the problem is that 4e is effectively killing off 3e and leaving many of us with a game that many people don't feel fits their gaming style.
I don't really see the problem. Do you really think 3.5 needed more splatbooks? Nothing is keeping you from playing 3.5 as it is (or however you happen to houserule it). I liked 3.5 a lot, but I think it was slipping out of hand with all the abusable options and bad fixes anyway. Personally, I think I'll play both (and other games occasionally), but right now trying 4th out is pretty exciting to me.

[RukiTanuki]

Well, my apologies to the thread. That was a moment of personal exasperation that I should have remedied differently. Hopefully I've taken the right step now.

The whole discussion is so multifaceted to me, that do think it's hard to discuss individual angles without switching subjects. Over the weeks, I've become more and more sure that the conversation mostly covers differences in opinion and preference.

Third and Fourth are both somewhere in the middle of a scale between "freeform" and "everything has a concrete mechanic." Really, I think they're far closer to each other than either is to either extreme. People prefer different layers of rules and freeform adjudication (and to be clear, neither's "better"), and it seems like everyone has a small hope that others would prefer their way (if for no other reason than to have a larger community to enjoy their playstyle).

I don't think I have much more to contribute to this particular facet of the discussion.

[Kompera]

4E is pretty much a board game styled play based loosly after D&D, as it is generally simplified version (D&D for dummies if you will). I'd be apathetic if it was just another game generally based off of D&D rather than its heir, but now i'm worried things won't get better

I am liking 4e. It plays much better than 3.x, which is pretty much a board game styled play based loosely after AD&D. 3.x is an unbalanced mess, kind of like a D&D for dummies if you will. Not that I'm saying that people who play 3.x are dummies, just that the rules are not well written and fall apart after you hit about level 10 or so due to huge imbalance issues between the classes.
I'm so very glad things got better.

[Kompera]

For example, in 3e I could have built duel-weilding Fighter and jumped into Rogue for a couple levels of sneak attack and evasion. Now, if I want to be able to effectively fight with two-weapons I have to multi-class into Ranger, which then prevents me from multi-classing into Rogue for my sneak attack.

Or you could, you know, look at what you're trying to build and not worry about preconceptions brought about by class names. A duel-wielding fighter with sneak attack is what you want to create. This means that you won't be using a shield, of course. Which means that you're not as much of a defensive fighter as you are focussed more on offensive attacks. So forget about the fact that there is a class called the Fighter and that you used that word in your description of what you're trying to build. Don't let a class name narrow your options. Say instead that you want to create a warrior or fighting man whose combat style with two weapon fighting involves a lot of feints and misdirection allowing him to use his superlative accuracy to strike at vital points on his opponents.

I don't have my books in front of me, and I'm not yet as familiar with the rules as I'd like to be, but I think you could play a Ranger and multi-class into Rogue to make a character which fulfills this concept. The fact that your character is not in the Fighter class also doesn't change the fact that you can indeed make the character you've envisioned, if you allow yourself to get past the labels.

[Starbuck_II]

I don't have my books in front of me, and I'm not yet as familiar with the rules as I'd like to be, but I think you could play a Ranger and multi-class into Rogue to make a character which fulfills this concept. The fact that your character is not in the Fighter class also doesn't change the fact that you can indeed make the character you've envisioned, if you allow yourself to get past the labels.

This statement has win in it.

Followingthat theme:
I like how 4th makes you think more about what you than what you are called.
Now in 4th dual wielding weapon master would be a Ranger (they make best).

[darkzucchini]

Or you could, you know, look at what you're trying to build and not worry about preconceptions brought about by class names. A duel-wielding fighter with sneak attack is what you want to create. This means that you won't be using a shield, of course. Which means that you're not as much of a defensive fighter as you are focussed more on offensive attacks. So forget about the fact that there is a class called the Fighter and that you used that word in your description of what you're trying to build. Don't let a class name narrow your options. Say instead that you want to create a warrior or fighting man whose combat style with two weapon fighting involves a lot of feints and misdirection allowing him to use his superlative accuracy to strike at vital points on his opponents.

I don't have my books in front of me, and I'm not yet as familiar with the rules as I'd like to be, but I think you could play a Ranger and multi-class into Rogue to make a character which fulfills this concept. The fact that your character is not in the Fighter class also doesn't change the fact that you can indeed make the character you've envisioned, if you allow yourself to get past the labels.

Sure, I could do that, but I really want to have Sword Master as my Paragon Path, but I can't get that since I multiclassed into Rogue. Speaking of Rogues, after looking over the class I realized that my axe wielding Dwarven Rogue isn't viable as most Rogue attacks appear to be unusable with an Axe.

The more I look at 4e the more things I find that turn me off from it. It may be for some people, but I was really hoping for a new edition that 3e could be easily translated to (wouldn't have been all that hard, mostly changing how spell casting works, weakening some of the broken spells, and reworking combat a bit to allow for more mobility without sacrificing damage).

[Kompera]

Sure, I could do that, but I really want to have Sword Master as my Paragon Path, but I can't get that since I multiclassed into Rogue. Speaking of Rogues, after looking over the class I realized that my axe wielding Dwarven Rogue isn't viable as most Rogue attacks appear to be unusable with an Axe.

The more I look at 4e the more things I find that turn me off from it. It may be for some people, but I was really hoping for a new edition that 3e could be easily translated to (wouldn't have been all that hard, mostly changing how spell casting works, weakening some of the broken spells, and reworking combat a bit to allow for more mobility without sacrificing damage).
It's trivially easy to invalidate any solution by adding requirements after the fact. In the industry this is called 'feature creep'. Your original concept is demonstrated to be possible. If you choose to add additional feature requests you can easily find that your concept is no longer viable.

If there are few Rogue attacks which work with an axe, there is a reason for that. Axes are not finesse weapons. So by envisioning a finesse fighter who uses non-finesse weapons you've created a set of requirements which no game should be able to satisfy. The fact that this can be done in 3.x speaks more to issues with 3.x and verisimilitude than it does to 4e and so called limits on character concepts. Most concepts will be possible, as long as they are abstracted and not specific. "Finesse fighter" is quite possible, while "Finesse fighter with specific power X" may well not be. The concept is still represented, so any issues with specifics are unfounded.

4e also can not support the character concept of a Batman wizard who solves all game challenges with a broken spell while his team mates look on in awe and amazement, and boredom. All this demonstrates is that the game will allow character concepts which allow for all players to have an equal contribution, but fails to allow character concepts which will break the game.

[darkzucchini]

It's trivially easy to invalidate any solution by adding requirements after the fact. In the industry this is called 'feature creep'. Your original concept is demonstrated to be possible. If you choose to add additional feature requests you can easily find that your concept is no longer viable.

It doesn't matter that I add a later requirement as the point of the argument is just that 4e does not offer the versatility that 3e does. In the end, the abilities that I am able to use and, thus the feel I want for my character, is severely limited by the needless restrictions that are placed on multiclassing.


If there are few Rogue attacks which work with an axe, there is a reason for that. Axes are not finesse weapons. So by envisioning a finesse fighter who uses non-finesse weapons you've created a set of requirements which no game should be able to satisfy. The fact that this can be done in 3.x speaks more to issues with 3.x and verisimilitude than it does to 4e and so called limits on character concepts. Most concepts will be possible, as long as they are abstracted and not specific. "Finesse fighter" is quite possible, while "Finesse fighter with specific power X" may well not be. The concept is still represented, so any issues with specifics are unfounded.

Well that is just the problem that I am getting at, 4e does not have the versatility that I want from a system of rules. In fact, it seems designed to greatly limit what I can translate from my imagination to a character sheet. An axe wielding dwarf who is able to fade out sight, sneak attack, feint away from the enemy to catch them off guard and then sneak attack them again, there is no reason for limiting that type of a character to daggers and short swords. Why must I be using a Light Blade to perform Sand in the Eyes? I just want to play an ax wielding, dirty-fighting dwarven rogue, is that really so much to ask for?

Back in 3e I had a glaive wielding rogue that was blast to play, but such an option is not available in 4e. Such a lack of options is quite depressing to me and many of the other gamers who feel that 4e has constrained their ability to create the characters that they want to play.


4e also can not support the character concept of a Batman wizard who solves all game challenges with a broken spell while his team mates look on in awe and amazement, and boredom. All this demonstrates is that the game will allow character concepts which allow for all players to have an equal contribution, but fails to allow character concepts which will break the game.

I find it sad the number of people who had problems Batman wizards. If you find an offending spell do one of three things: talk to the player about not using the spell all the time and allowing the other characters a chance to shine; strike the offending spell from the character's spellbook and the game; homebrew the spell to the point where you feel it is balanced (i.e. in my games, Fly requires total concentration to maintain, and Teleport leaves the mage mentally exhausted and unable to cast spells for 10 minutes). And if you mage can wipe out the BBEG of the game or even the session by himself, you have obviously done something horribly, horribly wrong in making the encounter appropriate for their level.

[Serpentine]

For Dummies is a prolific series of instructional books which are intended to present non-intimidating guides for readers new to the various topics covered. Despite the title, their publisher takes pains to emphasize that the books are not literally for dummies. The subtitle for every book is "A Reference for the Rest of Us!"I maintain that 4th ed. is D&D for Dummies. It's simplified, limited and some pains seem to have been gone to to make it unintimidating. None of these things are in themselves bad. It makes it easier for new players to get into it. It's easy - and that's what the [ ] for Dummies series is about. If people take offense to this in my mind beautifully apt description, well, tough titties. It works.
I can't remember whether I said this before or not, but I decided I wanted to try playing a spy-wizard. Granted, I was inspired by a number of the spells from 3.5 like Secret Page, but I'm sure that if you look around through fantasy there'll be plenty of other examples. So, I thought I'd try making it with 4e. I discovered, to my disappointment and boredom, that the Wizard options were Blasty McBlastBlast, Bangy Bangonson and Explodey von YouCanOnlyChooseThisIfYouWorshipThisGodWhichHasThi sExactNameAndFlavourPants. Whatever happened to the bookish wizard? The old man buried in a book the size of his torso? The subtle Illusionist? Is there any way, now, to play the seductive, enchanting sorceress? Pleh. BoooooRING.
The thing I really don't like about it, that I've mentioned elsewhere and that Zucchini, I think it was, alluded to is that they keep saying that this is a "whole new game!", "should not be thought of as the same game as 3rd edition!". If this is really true, then there is no reason to stop reprinting 3.5ed books. Now, I'm not saying that they should keep writing more - I think 3.5 had pretty much reached its potential as far as new material went. There is no reason, though, to stop reprinting the old material except to force players who haven't gotten around to buying them yet into this "whole new game!"
Take other books, for example. Because it's sitting right in front of me, I'll use a real one, A History of China, second edition, by J. A. G. Roberts. Now, this second edition no doubt has lots of alterations and additions to the first edition. Overall, though, it's the same book, so they have stopped reprinting the first edition. If, as no doubt there will be, another book was written that also happened to be called A History of China but otherwise had nothing to do with this one, even if they were produced by the same publisher, Roberts' version would still be printed, because it's a completely different book.
Now take games as an example. Parker Brothers makes Monopoly. Within the Monopoly series there are, for example, a UK version, an Australian version and a "Here and Now" version. I would suggest that they'd be analogous to, say, Eberron and Forgotten Realms. It's also gone through a series of gameplay and board alterations and upgrades, like new editions. Now, what Wizards claim to have done is basically invent Cluedo and call it Monopoly - a Whole New Game that happens to have the same name. So now Parker isn't going to make any of the actual Monopoly games, because dammit people ought to be playing Cluedo-Monopoly now!
Wizards can't - or, more realistically, shouldn't - have it both ways. Either it's a new version of the old game, in which case they've just gotta deal with the flack from the people who liked the old version, or it's a whole new game in which case there's no reason to scrap the old one.

[Thrud]

I maintain that 4th ed. is D&D for Dummies. It's simplified, limited and some pains seem to have been gone to to make it unintimidating. None of these things are in themselves bad. It makes it easier for new players to get into it. It's easy - and that's what the [ ] for Dummies series is about. If people take offense to this in my mind beautifully apt description, well, tough titties. It works.
I can't remember whether I said this before or not, but I decided I wanted to try playing a spy-wizard. Granted, I was inspired by a number of the spells from 3.5 like Secret Page, but I'm sure that if you look around through fantasy there'll be plenty of other examples. So, I thought I'd try making it with 4e. I discovered, to my disappointment and boredom, that the Wizard options were Blasty McBlastBlast, Bangy Bangonson and Explodey von YouCanOnlyChooseThisIfYouWorshipThisGodWhichHasThi sExactNameAndFlavourPants. Whatever happened to the bookish wizard? The old man buried in a book the size of his torso? The subtle Illusionist? Is there any way, now, to play the seductive, enchanting sorceress? Pleh. BoooooRING.
The thing I really don't like about it, that I've mentioned elsewhere and that Zucchini, I think it was, alluded to is that they keep saying that this is a "whole new game!", "should not be thought of as the same game as 3rd edition!". If this is really true, then there is no reason to stop reprinting 3.5ed books. Now, I'm not saying that they should keep writing more - I think 3.5 had pretty much reached its potential as far as new material went. There is no reason, though, to stop reprinting the old material except to force players who haven't gotten around to buying them yet into this "whole new game!"
Take other books, for example. Because it's sitting right in front of me, I'll use a real one, A History of China, second edition, by J. A. G. Roberts. Now, this second edition no doubt has lots of alterations and additions to the first edition. Overall, though, it's the same book, so they have stopped reprinting the first edition. If, as no doubt there will be, another book was written that also happened to be called A History of China but otherwise had nothing to do with this one, even if they were produced by the same publisher, Roberts' version would still be printed, because it's a completely different book.
Now take games as an example. Parker Brothers makes Monopoly. Within the Monopoly series there are, for example, a UK version, an Australian version and a "Here and Now" version. I would suggest that they'd be analogous to, say, Eberron and Forgotten Realms. It's also gone through a series of gameplay and board alterations and upgrades, like new editions. Now, what Wizards claim to have done is basically invent Cluedo and call it Monopoly - a Whole New Game that happens to have the same name. So now Parker isn't going to make any of the actual Monopoly games, because dammit people ought to be playing Cluedo-Monopoly now!
Wizards can't - or, more realistically, shouldn't - have it both ways. Either it's a new version of the old game, in which case they've just gotta deal with the flack from the people who liked the old version, or it's a whole new game in which case there's no reason to scrap the old one.

Nicely analogy. Although, having been a philosopy major in college my mind tends to say analogy=bad.

:smallbiggrin:

Ahem. You have, however, managed to clarify in my mind some more of the things that irritated me about the game. Though I have to say almost all of them pale in comparison to the fact that they intentionally didn't put a lot of stuff in the first set of core books because they intend to put them in later books, and they want everyone to understand that those are to be considered 'core' too. At over $100 per set of 'core' books that is a huge expenditure. And whilst I can afford it, it irritates me no end that I would need to. I bought 3.0 PHB, DMG, MM and never bothered with any of the other splatbooks. Oh, I let my players buy the expansion booklets for their additional classes, but limited the game to that. I never saw a need for anything more. Now, though, the new books coming out will not be easily ignorable splatbooks, but new core manuals. (though I am sure there will be splatbooks too.)

Perhaps this all ultimately comes from my deep longstanding love of the Hero system, which, as flawed as it may be, has allowed me to duplicate every other RPG I have ever played with a single core book.

(At last count, using the Hero system, I have run a Battletech campaign, a Star trek campaign, a Star Wars campaign, a Vampire campaign (though that was very short as I love the storyteller system too. I just wanted to see how it would work.), a D&D style fantasy campaign, and yes, several superhero campaigns. All without having to buy anything more than the $20 core rulebook.)

[Kompera]

I find it sad the number of people who had problems Batman wizards. If you find an offending spell do one of three things: talk to the player about not using the spell all the time and allowing the other characters a chance to shine; strike the offending spell from the character's spellbook and the game; homebrew the spell to the point where you feel it is balanced (i.e. in my games, Fly requires total concentration to maintain, and Teleport leaves the mage mentally exhausted and unable to cast spells for 10 minutes).
So what you're saying is that 3.x required heavy GM houseruling to become playable. If this was acceptable to you for 3.x, why are you not willing to do the same for 4e? Let your Rogue use his axes and roll on.

[Serpentine]

How is discussing a potential problem with a player "heavy houseruling"? It's not as though 3.5 had a shortage of spells, there were always bound to be some that are problematic just through sheer numbers. All it took to get one of our players to take Wind Walk of his list was one game of completely bypassed encounters...* And the same player got to use it again in another game under special circumstances anyway.


*If the DM had been more experienced at the time, it probably wouldn't have taken even that.

[Stickforged]

So what you're saying is that 3.x required heavy GM houseruling to become playable. If this was acceptable to you for 3.x, why are you not willing to do the same for 4e? Let your Rogue use his axes and roll on.

But doing this in a perfectly balanced system, you risk serious imbalance issues... thus ruining the game.

4ed is, by definition, built with careful balance considerations. So any house ruling can destroy the same balance, with unforeseen consequences.

The worst of it is, imho, that WotC created 4ed so rigid* on purpose, to force players to buy the inevitable splatbook galore...

* note: rigid not in gameplay or character build, but in rule customization. There are no rules at all in any 4ed core manual suggesting new class creation, new paragon path, new powers, etc... not at all... You are discouraged to fiddle with the rules.

[Kurald Galain]

But doing this in a perfectly balanced system, you risk serious imbalance issues... thus ruining the game.

4ed is, by definition, built with careful balance considerations. So any house ruling can destroy the same balance, with unforeseen consequences.

Yeah right. They said the same thing about 3E, and we all know how that turned out.

Seriously, people, 92% of D&D players use some kind of house rule, 61% of those are not aware that what they're doing is, in fact, house ruling, and 38% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[Dan_Hemmens]

So, after hearing so much about 4e, I find myself not caring one way or antoehr. It's just another, different game otu there marketed towards a different audience that happens to be related to the game I play.

Anyone else?

That's more or less exactly why I like it: it's another, different game marketed at a different audience which happens to be related to a game I don't play.

[Stickforged]

Yeah right. They said the same thing about 3E, and we all know how that turned out.

I'm not telling anything 'bout 3e... I'm speaking of 4ed. It is true 3.5 is badly balanced and house ruling dependant but you can fiddle with that rules... there are guidelines to do it. If you do it with obnoxious intent than you destroy the game, any game, even 4ed.

In 4ed you can't fiddle with the rules. Period. You are not supposed to. They are not guidelines, they are hard written, steel impressed, cast iron, immutable rules.

If this is good for you, all the better... but i don't like it. Years (and years) ago we migrated from BD&D (basic to immortal, 3 full campaigns) to AD&D. It was refreshing... Ah i can make an Elven Cleric now!

Then we jumped into 2nd edition. Streamlined rules, less tables, good. And lot of new options.

Then 3.0 and 3.5... And i must say, i like only 2 things in this rules. Multiclassing and Organic character build.

It is true that 3.5 is broken in many ways, but 4ed is not a real solution. Just killing the patient with a shot in the head then using cell samples to grow a clone, totally different.

In 4ed i cannot do the same things i've done in my campaigns, nor can my players. We unanimously decided (after playtesting the Keep adventure) not to migrate in 4ed.

You cannot say we are opposed to change. We have done a lot of changes in our playstyle BD&D-->AD&D 1ed-->AD&D 2ed-->D&D 3.0-->D&D 3.5--X we stop now.

In my campaigns all characters use D20 modern starting classes (tough hero, fast hero etc.) as unproven youths, than take training in the core classes they find available as the story progresses (and they make the story go on, i only provide guidelines and background).

Clerics are banned. I use a variant of the Ur-priest for base priest and prestige classes for priests of all gods, so you must earn your divine power.

All wizard spells must be researched or earned in adventure. Any spell is subject to approval (as many are not appropriate to the campaign).

All magic items are one of a kind or player built. And so on. And it works. We have already completed 5 campaigns successfully and noone complained.

You think i can do all that things with 4ed? Perhaps in 3-4 years, after a ton of new material...


Seriously, people, 92% of D&D players use some kind of house rule, 61% of those are not aware that what they're doing is, in fact, house ruling, and 38% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I think you are half joking on that... otherwise i don't see the relevance.

[Mythlor]

IM humble opinion, I think what this thread is addressing is a larger apathy of gamers towards the 4E rules. When I read 4E D&D (not any version of AD&D) feel like I am reading the "Basic Box Set" from a long time ago.

What I believe is not seen inside the rules of 4E is the RPG element of the AD&D system, which was present in the earlier Editions. 4E is simpler, more to a common audience, sure this is true and will build a larger audience and money for WOC. But I still feel like I bought the basic/floor model not the advanced gaming system. I cannot generate a bard, necromancer and/or druid which I liked for the role-playing element and edgy characters. I am sure that we will have to wait and see some new advanced level material for these character classes.

[Dan_Hemmens]

IM humble opinion, I think what this thread is addressing is a larger apathy of gamers towards the 4E rules. When I read 4E D&D (not any version of AD&D) feel like I am reading the "Basic Box Set" from a long time ago.

Good feeling, isn't it.


What I believe is not seen inside the rules of 4E is the RPG element of the AD&D system, which was present in the earlier Editions. 4E is simpler, more to a common audience, sure this is true and will build a larger audience and money for WOC. But I still feel like I bought the basic/floor model not the advanced gaming system. I cannot generate a bard, necromancer and/or druid which I liked for the role-playing element and edgy characters. I am sure that we will have to wait and see some new advanced level material for these character classes.

It is my understand that long ago, in the distant past, when Gygax suggested adding a Thief class to the game, Arneson replied "you want to be a thief, steal something."

You want to play a bard? Great, there's nothing in the rules which says your character can't be a bard. Want to play a druid? Guess what, nothing in the rules to say you can't be that either. Necromancer? The Shadowfell is right there go play in it.

Does it give you the specific, game mechanical powers associated with those character builds from 3.X? Of course not, but apparently this is about roleplaying so I'm sure that's not an issue.

[Jayabalard]

Good feeling, isn't it.It seems pretty obvious to me that it's not a good feeling for him.

There's a certain level where you can gloss over the mechanical abilities of a class and ignore labels, but it only works so far. Sure you can take a melee fighter class, ignore all of the labels, call him a "wizard," and his attacks "spells" but for many (most) people that's not nearly as satisfying to play as a class that is designed with mechanics that support the fluff of a wizard. The same can be said of bards, druids, necromancers, etc.

[Dan_Hemmens]

It seems pretty obvious to me that it's not a good feeling for him.

There's a certain level where you can gloss over the mechanical abilities of a class and ignore labels, but it only works so far. Sure you can take a melee fighter class, ignore all of the labels, call him a "wizard," and his attacks "spells" but for many (most) people that's not nearly as satisfying to play as a class that is designed with mechanics that support the fluff of a wizard. The same can be said of bards, druids, necromancers, etc.

Core D&D never had mechanics to support the fluff of a Necromancer, you basically got to play a wizard with a few negative energy powers and some weak summons. As for Bards and Druids: Bard is a job description, Druid is a religion.

I have absolutely no problem with people who prefer 3.X because of the greater mechanical flexibility. I have no problem saying "X was my favourite class, I am disappointed it is not in the core rules". I have a big problem with people saying "I liked class X because of the roleplaying and the absence of these classes means that 4E does not support roleplaying". Basically I think people need to be a little bit more honest with themselves. There's nothing wrong with liking Druids because it's cool to turn into a bear, but it has very little to do with how well the system supports "roleplaying".

[Frost]

I have absolutely no problem with people who prefer 3.X because of the greater mechanical flexibility. I have no problem saying "X was my favourite class, I am disappointed it is not in the core rules". I have a big problem with people saying "I liked class X because of the roleplaying and the absence of these classes means that 4E does not support roleplaying". Basically I think people need to be a little bit more honest with themselves. There's nothing wrong with liking Druids because it's cool to turn into a bear, but it has very little to do with how well the system supports "roleplaying".

And how exactly do you roleplay a Necromancer who can't raise zombies? Are you even a Necromancer at that point? No.

So unless you want to play the level 30 Demigod Cleric of Vecna who has spent his entire life searching for a way to raise a body as a zombie, and still can't because he's apparently just that mentally retarded, you aren't playing a Necromancer.

[Dan_Hemmens]

And how exactly do you roleplay a Necromancer who can't raise zombies? Are you even a Necromancer at that point? No.

Since Animate Dead is a - what - fifth level Arcane spell, the same question applies to any 3.X "Necromancer".

Get ritual casting (by playing a Wizard or otherwise), take Gentle Repose at level 1 and Speak with Dead at level 6 and bam, you're a necromancer.

[Animefunkmaster]

My problem with this is the implied meaning behind such statements. If its D&D for dummies, that implies that if I enjoy it and play it, I must be a "dummy", and that this somehow makes 3.5 for "smart" people.

Perhaps, I am going to take the long road in this argument. I am learning to play guitar. I am reading the book "Guitars for dummies", I enjoy it. This does not make me feel stupid for reading the book, nor do I find that people think I am stupid for reading the book (If I was reading 'Reading for dummies' I might have a different opinion). I feel it would be stupid to try and play the guitar without a book to help me.

I do know that I do not know, and will not know, the same things as people who have been playing guitar for a long time. While I feel being new to guitar, I am better off learning from "Guitars for Dummies", but I could probably get the same experience from any How to play guitar manual. I am sure, though, that people who have played for a long time will not get the same enjoyment as those who are new.

So, this relates to 4e in the following way:
-It is just another manual on how to play Table Top RPGs.
-It is new-er, and therefore should be more mainstream
-In it's current version it is simpler than other editions (which have a ton of splat)
-For those playing other table top rpgs and for those who have purchased other books, they will not enjoy 4e to the same extent as someone who is completely new, but they will be able to pick it up easier.

The system is a tool for RP and group activities.

[Golthur]

Actually, one of the best wine books I have is "Wine for Dummies". It's very useful and informative :smallsmile:

Nonetheless, I can see why some people might find the "for Dummies" label insulting, even though I can also see why the label might be appropriate.

Would "Complete Idiot's Guide to D&D" be better? :smallamused:

[Frost]

Since Animate Dead is a - what - fifth level Arcane spell, the same question applies to any 3.X "Necromancer".

Get ritual casting (by playing a Wizard or otherwise), take Gentle Repose at level 1 and Speak with Dead at level 6 and bam, you're a necromancer.

Since you know, that means level 9 Wizards can cast it, not to mention level 5 Clerics, yeah being able to make zombies for 1/2 to 3/4ths of your career is a lot more necromancy then never ever for any reason. Seriously, believe it or not, people actually played 3.5 at levels higher then 5. No granted no one apparently plays 4e past level 5 either around these parts, but seriously.

3.5: Can raise zombie and do badass stuff, not to mention the level 1 spell Summon Undead.

4e: never ever ever, because they can't balance summons since having 15 level 1 Wizards is enough to kill most level 15 enemies, so summoning anything even remotely close to your level is going to be result in being ten times stronger then everyone else.

How can you honestly say: But look, in 3.5 you can raise zombies, so obviously 3.5 can't play a necromancer either.

Speaking with the dead doesn't make you a necromancer, it makes you someone capable of divinations.

[Starbuck_II]

Since you know, that means level 9 Wizards can cast it, not to mention level 5 Clerics, yeah being able to make zombies for 1/2 to 3/4ths of your career is a lot more necromancy then never ever for any reason. Seriously, believe it or not, people actually played 3.5 at levels higher then 5. No granted no one apparently plays 4e past level 5 either around these parts, but seriously.

3.5: Can raise zombie and do badass stuff, not to mention the level 1 spell Summon Undead.

4e: never ever ever, because they can't balance summons since having 15 level 1 Wizards is enough to kill most level 15 enemies, so summoning anything even remotely close to your level is going to be result in being ten times stronger then everyone else.

How can you honestly say: But look, in 3.5 you can raise zombies, so obviously 3.5 can't play a necromancer either.

Speaking with the dead doesn't make you a necromancer, it makes you someone capable of divinations.

Cleric and Warlock have all the summon powers in 4th. So just like 3rd, Clerics are better summoners/necromancers.

[SamTheCleric]

Cleric and Warlock have all the summon powers in 4th. So just like 3rd, Clerics are better summoners/necromancers.

In fact... doesnt the cleric summon ghostly knights? That can easily be seen as necromancy.

[Jayabalard]

Actually, one of the best wine books I have is "Wine for Dummies". It's very useful and informative :smallsmile:

Nonetheless, I can see why some people might find the "for Dummies" label insulting, even though I can also see why the label might be appropriate.

Would "Complete Idiot's Guide to D&D" be better? :smallamused:likewise, juggling for the complete klutz is a great way ot learn juggling, and I'd never think less of someone, or even think they were particularly clumsy, because they had it.

[Tusalu]

My problem with 4e is that it takes over for 3.5 as official D&D - this stops me from getting new material for the wonderful game called D&D. Because as I believe many must have said before: 4e is NOT roleplaying, except in the loosest sense of the word. I mean of all the RPG systems I am familiar with D&D was the most combat-focused already in 3.5. And now they come up with things like character roles, which basically limits your oppurtunities for creating a unique character. When I make a character I have a character like the ones in books and films in my head, not a piece in a wargame. I DON'T want to make a character based on a role in combat, I want to make one based on my imagination, an idea of a unique set of abilities and classic stereotypes.

Sorry of that just sounded like insane ramblings - I'm really tired right now.

[Dan_Hemmens]

How can you honestly say: But look, in 3.5 you can raise zombies, so obviously 3.5 can't play a necromancer either.

In 3.5 you can raise zombies *eventually* with precisely *one* spell out of your repertoire but you're *basically* just a wizard.

And if you want to actually try to bring somebody *back* from the dead as something other than an animated corpse, well you're out of luck there.


Speaking with the dead doesn't make you a necromancer, it makes you someone capable of divinations.

I really hate to play the etymology card but:

Necromancer. From "Necro" - the dead - and "mancy" divination. Speaking to the dead is the definition of Necromancy. 3.X arcane casters can't do that, however. In core your options as an arcane "Necromancer" are tiny, and mostly limited to different types of negative energy damage and the odd summon. A 4th Edition Fighter with Ritual Casting is as much a necromancer as a 3.X Wizard with Negative Energy Ray.

I don't disagree that some people will want those specific, game mechanical abilities, I just wish people would stop confusing that with "roleplaying".

[Frost]

In 3.5 you can raise zombies *eventually* with precisely *one* spell out of your repertoire but you're *basically* just a wizard.

And if you want to actually try to bring somebody *back* from the dead as something other than an animated corpse, well you're out of luck there.

In 3.5 you get to raise many zombies pretty early on and continue to do so for most of your career. They can then follow you around and kill things for you. You can also create other more powerful undead, take control of undead you find, detect undead, and drain the life force of enemies, and bring dead people back to life.

In 4E you can: Bring people back to life, and supposedly drain the life force of enemies (which works exactly like burning them, hitting them, shining light on them, shocking them, ect.)


I really hate to play the etymology card but:

Necromancer. From "Necro" - the dead - and "mancy" divination. Speaking to the dead is the definition of Necromancy. 3.X arcane casters can't do that, however. In core your options as an arcane "Necromancer" are tiny, and mostly limited to different types of negative energy damage and the odd summon. A 4th Edition Fighter with Ritual Casting is as much a necromancer as a 3.X Wizard with Negative Energy Ray.

And yet, in the English language, that's not what Necromancy is, so if we were typing this in ancient Greek, then you would have a point, but since we aren't...

And no, a Fighter with Ritual casting is exactly like a Rogue with UMD and a scroll, he makes a skill check and spends money to accomplish a minor effect.

A Fighter with Ritual casting is not a Necromancer, because he does not do any necromancy using the English definition of the word.


I don't disagree that some people will want those specific, game mechanical abilities, I just wish people would stop confusing that with "roleplaying".

I wish people would stop claiming that what your character can do has absolutely no bearing on what type of character they are. And would stop claiming that you can "roleplay" a necromancer/bard/druid, because they can claim the title, and would recognize that when someone says, "I want to play a Necromancer but I can't in 4e." They mean: Hey I want to play someone who raises zombies, but I can't. And telling them, "Just say you can." isn't helpful at all.

I don't personally see it as a flaw of 4E, but claims to "just RP it" are not helping anyone.

[Indon]

Necromancer. From "Necro" - the dead - and "mancy" divination. Speaking to the dead is the definition of Necromancy.

So, what, to play an aquamancer in 4'th edition I should run around with a dousing rod? Do I get to practice Pyromancy by looking at fires and divining that they're gonna burn things?

I should think the reason you're loath to use that argument is because it's really, really bad. Necromancy is equivalent to animation of the dead in our culture nowadays. If someone asks, "Can I be a necromancer?" You don't give them some BS about, "Here's how to be something completely unrelated that I call a necromancer, and now you're better off!" You tell them how to animate dead.

But if it'll make it easier, just think about a person's meaning when they say something instead of just their words. When someone says, "Necromancy", try thinking about what they're trying to say - and that's probably someone that raises zombies, in this context.

I'm all for reflavoring things - just play a Wizard and pretend all your powers involve really fast zombies performing martial arts on your opponents or something, bam you're a necromancer (and an awesome one, if I may add)! But don't redefine them.

[Kompera]

How is discussing a potential problem with a player "heavy houseruling"? It's not as though 3.5 had a shortage of spells, there were always bound to be some that are problematic just through sheer numbers. All it took to get one of our players to take Wind Walk of his list was one game of completely bypassed encounters...* And the same player got to use it again in another game under special circumstances anyway.
I'll try to be more clear. 3.x requires heavy house ruling to be playable. This is not a discussion with a player about a potential problem, read the prior comment. Look at the examples given, not by me, but by the person I replied to. They represent support for the necessity of heavy house ruling to make 3.x playable, and this is not coming from me.

1) talk to the player about not using the spell all the time and allowing the other characters a chance to shine
Translation: Ask a player to allow the other players a chance to shine. And if that player replies "You know, I'd rather cast my spells when I like, why should I have to nerf my capabilities because the other players didn't choose to play a Wizard, too?" When the GM needs to even consider asking a player to throw the rest of the players a bone based solely on the disparity in their character's capabilities, that should be a strong indication that something is rotten in Denmark.

2) strike the offending spell from the character's spellbook and the game
Translation: No discussion going on here. GM fiat. Given that sheer number of broken spells in 3.x, this means heavy house ruling, as each one has to be reviewed and judged for possible removal from the game.

3) homebrew the spell to the point where you feel it is balanced (i.e. in my games, Fly requires total concentration to maintain, and Teleport leaves the mage mentally exhausted and unable to cast spells for 10 minutes).
Translation: No discussion going on here. GM fiat. Given that sheer number of broken spells in 3.x, this means heavy house ruling, as each one has to be reviewed and altered to suit the GM's sense of balance.

And now your examples:

1) All it took to get one of our players to take Wind Walk of his list was one game of completely bypassed encounters...
Translation: The GM had to make a decision to ret con the players spell book. Always an indication of a failed rules set if you have to change them on the fly after observing how they ruin the game.

2) * And the same player got to use it again in another game under special circumstances anyway.
Translation: Even the ret con was not satisfactory, it was further modified later or the player was given a fiat based "pass" to use the stricken spell under fiat based circumstances. Always an indication of a broken game when fiat has to be used so heavily, changed, and used again for different reasons under different circumstances.


So yeah, heavy house ruling, no matter how you spin it to try to marginalize the scope.


But doing this in a perfectly balanced system, you risk serious imbalance issues... thus ruining the game.

4ed is, by definition, built with careful balance considerations. So any house ruling can destroy the same balance, with unforeseen consequences.

The worst of it is, imho, that WotC created 4ed so rigid* on purpose, to force players to buy the inevitable splatbook galore...

* note: rigid not in gameplay or character build, but in rule customization. There are no rules at all in any 4ed core manual suggesting new class creation, new paragon path, new powers, etc... not at all... You are discouraged to fiddle with the rules.

Oh, please. You are both saying that 4e is a perfect paradigm of balance, but that any small change will break it beyond playability ("Ruining the game"), and at the same time you're trotting out a conspiracy theory that it was created to be such a perfectly balanced system in order to force the players to buy any additional rules which are published.

Rubbish.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the game is perfect and can't stand any new rules or changes to existing rules, then none will be published. If the players are forced to buy all new rules which are published, then the game can stand changes without being thrown out of balance.

Please, people. Like this rule but not that one. Be apathetic, or love it, or hate it. Or any other of a broad spectrum of reactions. But if you have a strong opinion either for or against 4e, at least attempt to live up to some standard of intellectual honesty. The rules can't be awful for reasons which are mutually exclusive.

And as to the supposed rigidity, please point your browser over to the WotC website, where you'll find more than one article which contains house rules. The article on converting 3.x characters to 4e completely invalidates your conspiracy theory that the game can't stand any change from the RAW and forces players to wait for and purchase further publications.

[Indon]

1) talk to the player about not using the spell all the time and allowing the other characters a chance to shine
Translation: Ask a player to allow the other players a chance to shine. And if that player replies "You know, I'd rather cast my spells when I like, why should I have to nerf my capabilities because the other players didn't choose to play a Wizard, too?" When the GM needs to even consider asking a player to throw the rest of the players a bone based solely on the disparity in their character's capabilities, that should be a strong indication that something is rotten in Denmark.

Lemme ask you a related question: Why is the status quo to let players exploit the rules to the maximum in-game benefit?

Why do you say, "Well, we shouldn't nerf this player," rather than saying, "We should help keep the player from exploiting things to break the game"?

[Tormsskull]

I should think the reason you're loath to use that argument is because it's really, really bad.

Aw man, that is perfect! Just shy of sig worthy. :smallwink:

[Kompera]

And yet, in the English language, that's [speaking to the dead] not what Necromancy is, so if we were typing this in ancient Greek, then you would have a point, but since we aren't...

nec·ro·man·cy (nkr-mns)
n.
1. The practice of supposedly communicating with the spirits of the dead in order to predict the future.
2. Black magic; sorcery.
3. Magic qualities. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/necromancy)


Main Entry:
nec·ro·man·cy Listen to the pronunciation of necromancy
Pronunciation:
\ˈne-krə-ˌman(t)-sē\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
alteration of Middle English nigromancie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin nigromantia, by folk etymology from Late Latin necromantia, from Late Greek nekromanteia, from Greek nekr- + -manteia -mancy
Date:
1522

1 : conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events 2 : magic, sorcery (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/necromancy)

Two online dictionaries are in disagreement with you. Do you have a source which supports your definition?

[Kompera]

Lemme ask you a related question: Why is the status quo to let players exploit the rules to the maximum in-game benefit?

Why do you say, "Well, we shouldn't nerf this player," rather than saying, "We should help keep the player from exploiting things to break the game"?

I think you are looking at something is a very narrow way and finding meaning which is not present. There is no "status quo to let players exploit the rules to the maximum in-game benefit". There is only using a spell as written to do what it says it will do.

You could bring up rules lawyering such as that which created Pun Pun, but I am not discussing any such aberrations at all, and I'd rather not have them dragged into the conversation.

There are an almost innumerable number of spells in 3.x which break the game just being used in the straightforward way in which they were written and for the specific function for which they were intended. This use is not any kind of exploit, nor it is seeking "maximum in-game benefit" in any way outside of the benefit the spell exists to provide.

And yet it this straightforward usage needs to be either limited (nerfed, in the nomenclature), or removed entirely, in order to try desperately to bring some kind of balance to 3.x.

Look at the example given by people other than me in the conversation you are replying to:


All it took to get one of our players to take Wind Walk of his list was one game of completely bypassed encounters...

Here we have Wind Walk being removed from a players spell book by a GM after a completely ruined play session brought about by the completely legitimate application of this spell in a very intuitive and straightforward manner: This spell lets the party avoid almost any, and in the example given, all, encounters the party does not wish to fight. So much for the GMs prepared encounters, so much for maintaining 4 combats per day, so much for the adventure for that evening's play.

So let me ask you in return:
Why do you call casting a spell for the straightforward reason of using it for its intended purpose "exploit[ing] the rules to the maximum in-game benefit?" There is no exploit here that I can see. No rules lawyering, no shady interpretations of language to try to get one over on the GM, no obscure source book, no munchkinism. This is simply casting a core spell and using it for exactly what it is useful for.

[Worira]

And yet, in the English language, that's not what Necromancy is, so if we were typing this in ancient Greek, then you would have a point, but since we aren't...

And no, a Fighter with Ritual casting is exactly like a Rogue with UMD and a scroll, he makes a skill check and spends money to accomplish a minor effect.

A Fighter with Ritual casting is not a Necromancer, because he does not do any necromancy using the English definition of the word.


Please look words up before you tell people the definition of them.

Edit: Damn ninjas, with their ability to move faster than a shamble. Oh well, this post shall now be about this comic strip. (http://scarygoround.com/?date=20021029)

[LurkerInPlayground]

Of course, the quibble over the etymology of "necromancy" isn't really the issue here.

People are complaining that 4e sucks because you can't raise the dead and because you can't homebrew the system very easily to support that.

Which, of course, is the same argument we've heard before. Just described in a different way:

"4e sucks because it doesn't allow for roleplaying."
"4e sucks because it doesn't allow you to do problem-solving. . . only using magic."
"4e is less realistic than 3e."
"4e sucks because the classes are not only more uniform, they are uniform."
"4e is an exception-based rule system. 3e is consistent and intuitive."(Nevermind that spells are essentially nothing but exceptions to the rule).
"4e makes it too easy to for other classes to cherry-pick Ritual Casting. Therefore, it sucks bad because cherry-picking never happened at all in 3e."

They all basically say the same thing:
"I'll select any reason, however unsupported, to hate 4e."

Fine, you can hate 4e, but let's drop the pretension that you're being reasonable about it.

But let's get back to killing the latest fad in pretension:
A) There are rituals in the Monster Manual that allows you to raise the dead. At least two of them.

And there's at least three monsters with fluff entries that allude to hidden rituals to create them: Death Knights, Mummies and some multi-skulled abomination I can't remember the name of. There's even a ritual for a wizard to transform into a lich.

B) You want *more* necromancy without buying splatbooks? Easy. Homebrew another ritual using the other rituals as reference. It'll take you like 5 minutes to do. Find a monster and match it to a cost and level. Done.

C) Speaking to the dead is still pretty hardcore.

D) Monsters can be easily homebrewed by taking pre-existing monsters and swapping powers. Nothing prevents you from letting your players "research" new powers or rituals. (The super-secret Kung-Fu technique I developed while I was on a sabbatical to the mountains.)

[Thrud]

I think you are looking at something is a very narrow way and finding meaning which is not present. There is no "status quo to let players exploit the rules to the maximum in-game benefit". There is only using a spell as written to do what it says it will do.

I just want to point out here that you are complaining about house rules stopping a written spell from doing what it says it should do, whilst touting a system that basically has done the same thing, only 'officially' by taking them away completely.

It still horrifies me that all the uses of spells that have been posted on this board as examples for why magic is so overpowered ever even happened in the first place. The more I read these posts, the more happy I am for my gaming group. Perhaps that is because we all tend to play games like Storyteller, Champions, and Shadowrun, which all have terrible holes in them that allow players to do anything they ever wanted, and it is only roleplaying that stops people from doing it. I guess that is why those of us that dislike 4th ed say it discourages roleplaying. We were wrong. We had it backwards. It just panders to those who don't know how to roleplay.

In a game of Mage all it takes is 3 dots of correspondence for any mage to utterly destroy any vampire ever. (You, I use a horribly vulgar effect to put you into orbit on the sunny side of the earth. Have fun with direct sunlight and re-entry, ouch, I just gained 4 paradox. Bummer. But on the plus side the 6th gen prince of the city is now ashes.)

Or any vamp with sufficient presence can kill anyone he has ever met simply by forcing him over and over again to come to him. With larger and larger hordes of minions waiting.

Or in the Hero system it is perfectly possible for a character in a low powered game (150 or so points) to have a power that is a quadruple penetrating, fully indirect, invisible power effect, no endurance, continuous, 1 pip killing attack that will eventually kill anyone ever, without even having to let anyone realize that it was you.

But these things don't happen in reasonable games. And I have never found the need to specifically have rules to say that they can't be done, because a reasonable player should know that.

I guess D&D just attracts a different brand of players. Maybe that is why there is a growing amount of snobbery amongst White Wolf players. Because the rules are so horribly broken that it really does take roleplaying on the part of the players not to exploit the holes. I guess this is the reason behind my knee jerk reaction against 4th ed. Because it assumes that I am such a bad player that I require a rule for every possible permutation of combat, because I don't know any better than not to try to break the game, or know how to prevent troublesome players from doing the same.

Hmm, yep, I think that is it.

Damn, now I sound like one of those irritating white wolf snobs that annoy me so much when I talk with them. God now I need a beer.

:smallannoyed:

[Crow]

Once you begin bringing in the definition of a word, you've already lost the argument. Seriously, try to understand what the person is trying to say.

Dausuul's Fallacy, baby.

To Kompera: I've never found that 3.x required houseruling. My group has played it for years with no more houseruling than any other system we've played. Your statement is highly subjective and really does not advance your argument.

[Thrud]

To Kompera: I've never found that 3.x required houseruling. My group has played it for years with no more houseruling than any other system we've played.

Yeah, exactly my point. Everyone seems to tout how the crappy 4th ed system adds to the roleplaying experience because if something isn't covered, you can just 'roleplay it out' when all you ever had to do in 3rd ed was just roleplay it out and everything was fine.

[darkzucchini]

Two online dictionaries are in disagreement with you. Do you have a source which supports your definition?

I believe what those you are arguing with were trying to get at is that in practically ever fantasy setting necromancy has involved, to one extent or another, the creation and control of undead. Yes, most of us are aware that the general, non-gaming, non-fantasy definition of necromancy is referring to
a particular form of divination. But that definition has no baring on the current discussion, which is about what you cannot do under the 4e system as is. And its pretty clear, you, as a PC, cannot going running around with a horde of skeletal minions following at your heel.

[QUOTE=Kompera;4487059]There are an almost innumerable number of spells in 3.x which break the game just being used in the straightforward way in which they were written and for the specific function for which they were intended. This use is not any kind of exploit, nor it is seeking "maximum in-game benefit" in any way outside of the benefit the spell exists to provide.

I really feel that you are exaggerating the number of broken spells in 3e, or perhaps we just disagree on what counts as broken. Most spells are not completely overpowering and, if you are playing your villains smart, you can often counter the spells that would ruin your game. For example, by the time the PCs can cast Teleport the enemy can cast False Vision, when they can cast Fly the NPCs can Dispell Magic them. Even save or die spells aren't incredibly broken if most of your big, bad villains have a very high chance of resisting the spell. Besides, you can do unto the PCs as they do unto you.


Here we have Wind Walk being removed from a players spell book by a GM after a completely ruined play session brought about by the completely legitimate application of this spell in a very intuitive and straightforward manner: This spell lets the party avoid almost any, and in the example given, all, encounters the party does not wish to fight. So much for the GMs prepared encounters, so much for maintaining 4 combats per day, so much for the adventure for that evening's play.

I really see little problem in the PCs skipping over those encounters that they don't want to deal with. It can be somewhat perterbing to the DM if one of the encounters was particularly important or cool, but in the end it is up to the PCs to decide what they want to do. I also find that most of the groups I have DMed for or PCed in would rather meet the encounters head on anyways, combat challenges are one of the reasons that they play the game.

As I have always believed, being a good DM involves being able to tailor your game to the people who are playing it. If your group is a bunch of cracked-out power gamers, power game right back at them.

I have never said that 4e should be burned and erased from the memory of mankind, I just feel that it has turned off the path of ever increasing options that has been part of the evolution of D&D in favor a balancing the classes that, while a nice thought, is not the largest draw to D&D for me or most of the people I know.

[marjan]

Yeah, exactly my point. Everyone seems to tout how the crappy 4th ed system adds to the roleplaying experience because if something isn't covered, you can just 'roleplay it out' when all you ever had to do in 3rd ed was just roleplay it out and everything was fine.

I agree that neither 3e, nor 4e supports RP better than the other, but would you please provide me with universal RPing which would make Polymorph fine as it is.

[Kompera]

Once you begin bringing in the definition of a word, you've already lost the argument. Seriously, try to understand what the person is trying to say.

Dausuul's Fallacy, baby.
I'm glad you feel that way. I now refer you to the person who originally claimed that the definition of Necromancy was something which is not, you can tell them they have lost personally. All I did was correct a mis-statement of fact.

[Crow]

I'm glad you feel that way. I now refer you to the person who originally claimed that the definition of Necromancy was something which is not, you can tell them they have lost personally. All I did was correct a mis-statement of fact.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. The section directed at you was headed with "To Kompera:". Sorry you misunderstood.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Sure, I could do that, but I really want to have Sword Master as my Paragon Path, but I can't get that since I multiclassed into Rogue. Speaking of Rogues, after looking over the class I realized that my axe wielding Dwarven Rogue isn't viable as most Rogue attacks appear to be unusable with an Axe.

The more I look at 4e the more things I find that turn me off from it. It may be for some people, but I was really hoping for a new edition that 3e could be easily translated to (wouldn't have been all that hard, mostly changing how spell casting works, weakening some of the broken spells, and reworking combat a bit to allow for more mobility without sacrificing damage).

Um, there is a reason most of the rogue abilities don't work with an axe: it just doesnt make sense. Axes are heavy, not very finnessable. But now that I look at the book, it appears that all of the non utility powers have essentially the same requirements. That I'm not sure if I like. Although it looks like Rogue is the only class which has such harsh requirments. Your dwarf in 4e would most likely be a Dwarven Fighter, who took the initial Rogue multiclass feat, and then later took the Utility power related one, so you could get powers like Shadow Stride (which allows you to hide, then move and hide without revealing your position), who then later took the paragon path Pit Fighter, who focuses on high damage powers. So you now have a dwarf who uses dirty tactics and stealthy manuevers, with an Axe.

Alot of people complain about 4e being so damn simple, and that your options are extreamly limited. I find this exactly the opposite. In 3e, I had this wizard, who by chance was rewarded a vorpal longsword. I was absolutely striken with delight with the tought of a spell casting wizard who could lob off a head or two as well! To my dismay, I soon learned that I could never hit with my sword even if I tried, and that even if I did, the damage would be considerably lower than even my first level spells. Guess what, as soon as I can play 4e (instead of DMing. Got a PbP game and need a player, PLEASE PM ME!) I will remake my blasty wizard, although now I can wield my sword, get a couple of Fighter or Rogue powers, and be USEFUL with it. 4e fixed the hitting problem AND the damage problem.

In my opinion, 4e greatly improved multi-classing and character generation with these changes. To me it seems like maybe the number of options have dropped a little bit (probally concepts that can be made, just with a little description alteration), but the number of concepts THAT WORK WELL have GREATLY increased. Think about it for a second. If you want a wierd concept, and decided to go for it, you would not have to worry about it being so much worse than the base class or something. I guess that may have been some of the fun with 3x, finding out that "WOOT, I can make *insert obsucre character concept here*" and then later saying "Oh wait, this sucks so bad, I *either A. am completly useless, or B. Always stray towards the core concept to be somewhat viable anyway*. But hey, at least I can make it right? .... right?"

Face it, in 3x if you wanted a certain concept which blended any of the 3 core basics (Martial, Divine, and Arcane) it would normally not turn out too well. But in 4e, mix up any of the classes and you can get something cool that works.

To me, so far making character looks like a ton of fun (expirimenting with different power combinations, how your combat powers will interact with your utility powers in-game), and cant wait for some supplements.

(So yeah, if any PbP game, or other MSN using whatever needs a wizard, please PM me, really looking to play)

[Kompera]

Yes, most of us are aware that the general, non-gaming, non-fantasy definition of necromancy is referring to a particular form of divination.Most, perhaps. But not even all of the participants in this discussion thread.


I really feel that you are exaggerating the number of broken spells in 3e, or perhaps we just disagree on what counts as broken. Most spells are not completely overpowering and, if you are playing your villains smart, you can often counter the spells that would ruin your game. For example, by the time the PCs can cast Teleport the enemy can cast False Vision, when they can cast Fly the NPCs can Dispell Magic them. Even save or die spells aren't incredibly broken if most of your big, bad villains have a very high chance of resisting the spell. Besides, you can do unto the PCs as they do unto you.If your party is all Pixies, there is no dispelling their flight or invisibility. Offense is generally speaking more potent than defense, just spend 5 minutes re-reading any Batman Wizard thread and you'll see that there is zero counter to a save-or-suck or save-or-lose spell no matter what defenses the opponent has. Spell resistance or high saves offer only a false sense of security. There is a spell for every season and every reason, if you look carefully enough. And a game balanced based around "Do unto them before they do unto you" does not make for very good play.

All of your statements above simply further demonstrates why the 3.x zeitgeist is broken.


I really see little problem in the PCs skipping over those encounters that they don't want to deal with.
That's nice and all, but apparently Serpentine and his group did feel that it had broken their game and forced a change. Express your view on how their issue with the spell and the consequences seems like a little problem to them, please.


I have never said that 4e should be burned and erased from the memory of mankind, I just feel that it has turned off the path of ever increasing options that has been part of the evolution of D&D in favor a balancing the classes that, while a nice thought, is not the largest draw to D&D for me or most of the people I know.
And here we have a perfect summation of the differences of opinion between those who like 3.x and those who like 4e:

3.x players like "ever increasing options", and balance be damned.
4e players like balance, and "ever increasing options" be damned.

I'll go with 4e, at least while it remains balanced. I find the options most 4e detractors bemoan losing are for the most part selfish and unsportsmanlike. Not being able to play a 3.x Wizard in a 4e game does mean that the player won't be breaking the game and dominating the play at the expense of the other players. And I could care less that this "option" has been written out of the new game. On the contrary, I'm quite pleased to see that it has been banished. And for those who are unwilling to use a little imagination to adapt their character concept into the rules framework, I hold very little pity for their inability to do so. The options are there, it just takes a little work and imagination to find them. If specific power X isn't available in 4e that isn't a character concept, it's a meta-gaming concept. Work within the game to find the way to craft your concept and accept that some powers and abilities just are not possible for the sake of balance.


[...]4e does not have the versatility that I want from a system of rules. In fact, it seems designed to greatly limit what I can translate from my imagination to a character sheet. An axe wielding dwarf who is able to fade out sight, sneak attack, feint away from the enemy to catch them off guard and then sneak attack them again, there is no reason for limiting that type of a character to daggers and short swords. Why must I be using a Light Blade to perform Sand in the Eyes? I just want to play an ax wielding, dirty-fighting dwarven rogue, is that really so much to ask for?

You want to play your "axe wielding Dwarven Rogue", and are dismayed that axes are not usable with Rogue abilities? And you want to believe Stickforged, that allowing your Rogue to use his abilities with axes will be game breaking?
Fine.
Buy your Dwarven Rogue daggers and call them "light axes", or whatever you want to call them. It's really as simple as that. It does require some application of imagination, but it also allows you to play the character concept you wanted while not modifying any rules. To continue to deny that 4e can craft this character concept you want is to deny that you have the tools you need to do so, but are unwilling to apply those tools due to what appears to be a willful refusal to make the attempt. Or another possibility is that you prefer the damage of the axes over the damage of a light weapon. In which case you would be power gaming, not trying to take a translation of your character concept from your imagination to your character sheet. But your stated objective was to "translate from my imagination to a character sheet" this Dwarven Rogue concept. Taking that at face value, you're not power gaming. You can make this character concept. You might not be able to make it ZOMG, OP!, but that has nothing to do with your stated purpose of translating imagination to character record sheet.

And yes, before you or anyone else rebuts with some other concept which 4e can not model: I know these exist. I believe that these will grow fewer as other materials are published, just as the options for 3.x characters grew with each new publication. And WotC is publishing new material on their web site seemingly constantly to help expand options. So take a deep breath and wait for it. Some concept won't ever be able to be modeled, because they would involve a regression to the imbalance of 3.x. The 3.x style Batman Wizard, for example, will never be modeled in 4e. The Batman Wizard is mutually exclusive of a balanced rule set, so you won't see it unless the game breaks.

[ALOR]

I just played my 1st game of 4e over the weekend and i must agree "meh" sums up my impression of it. Not a bad system really, just not a big enough change to get me to buy all the new books for it. Then again I had really no problem with 3.5 in the first place. :smallbiggrin:

[Serpentine]

2) strike the offending spell from the character's spellbook and the game
Translation: No discussion going on here. GM fiat. Given that sheer number of broken spells in 3.x, this means heavy house ruling, as each one has to be reviewed and judged for possible removal from the game.Given the sheer number of any spells in 3.5e, I really don't see how this is meant to be heavy. Removing one spell from scores, possibly hundreds... Oh noes!

1) All it took to get one of our players to take Wind Walk of his list was one game of completely bypassed encounters...
Translation: The GM had to make a decision to ret con the players spell book. Always an indication of a failed rules set if you have to change them on the fly after observing how they ruin the game.Nothing of the sort. The DM was inexperienced and didn't have a concept of just what that spell could do. After the game, he said to the player "uh... I think I'd like it if you didn't prepare that spell anymore" and the player went "fair enough, it's not much fun going around everything anyway".

2) * And the same player got to use it again in another game under special circumstances anyway.
Translation: Even the ret con was not satisfactory, it was further modified later or the player was given a fiat based "pass" to use the stricken spell under fiat based circumstances. Always an indication of a broken game when fiat has to be used so heavily, changed, and used again for different reasons under different circumstances.He found himself in the middle of the ocean all alone with a Rod of Wonder. Wind Walk happens to be one of the abilities of a Djinn, which he happened to summon. Simple as that. You'll note that we didn't even rule that the spell doesn't exist at all, but rather the player simply agreed not to use it.

That's nice and all, but apparently Serpentine and his group did feel that it had broken their game and forced a change. I would like to stress again that there was nothing forced. We agreed to it, because D&D is a team game, with real, living, breathing people involved, who can have discussions and come to agreements about things. Also: her group. It is for this very same reason that things like the unbalance in Druids and Wizards has never been a problem, because as long as someone's character concept isn't "more awesome than everyone else", everyone's willing to do whatever's necessary to make the game fun for everyone. And simply not using a powerful spell is not "heavy houseruling".

They all basically say the same thing:
"I'll select any reason, however unsupported, to hate 4e."

Fine, you can hate 4e, but let's drop the pretension that you're being reasonable about it.Oh, so if someone doesn't like it, they must be being unreasonable about it, huh? I happen to dislike it because there's things I don't like about it and I don't appreciate your dismissing our concerns as petty spite nor your implication that only unreasonable people have any problem with it.
I'm not going to be playing it because I find it boring. Simple as that. I'll take what I want from it, scrap the rest, and remain pissed off that they've stopped printing something they claim is completely different simply to try to force me onto something I don't want to play.

[Dan_Hemmens]

So, what, to play an aquamancer in 4'th edition I should run around with a dousing rod? Do I get to practice Pyromancy by looking at fires and divining that they're gonna burn things?

Actually if you want to play an aquamancer you should do scrying in pools of water, if you want to be a pyromancer you should do scrying by gazing into fire both of which, in my opinion, are actually much much cooler than just "I shoot fire/ice".


I should think the reason you're loath to use that argument is because it's really, really bad.

I know, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately in this context the really, really bad argument is also the right argument.


Necromancy is equivalent to animation of the dead in our culture nowadays.

If by "our culture" you mean "mainstream geek culture" you're probably right. But mainstream geek culture can go perform anatomically improbable sex acts as far as I'm concerned. I far prefer necromancy sans zombies.


If someone asks, "Can I be a necromancer?" You don't give them some BS about, "Here's how to be something completely unrelated that I call a necromancer, and now you're better off!" You tell them how to animate dead.

If somebody asks "Can I be a necromancer" I will say "it depends on what you mean by 'Necromancer'".

3.X, straight out the box, lets you play a character with the word "Necromancer" written on their character sheet who does not feel very much like what I would like a Necromancer to be. 4E lets you play a character who does not have Necromancer written on their character sheet who actually feels slightly *more* like what I would like a necromancer to be (since anybody can take Ritual Casting and mess around with the life-and-death side of magic).

Again I have no argument with the people who don't like the fact that spellcasters have fewer options in 4E. I object to the people who claim that this restricts roleplaying.


But if it'll make it easier, just think about a person's meaning when they say something instead of just their words. When someone says, "Necromancy", try thinking about what they're trying to say - and that's probably someone that raises zombies, in this context.

Great! They're asking for a specific, in character power. They can complain about "roleplaying" when they come back with an actual idea for a character.


I'm all for reflavoring things - just play a Wizard and pretend all your powers involve really fast zombies performing martial arts on your opponents or something, bam you're a necromancer (and an awesome one, if I may add)! But don't redefine them.

Suggesting that a character who speaks with and raises the dead could be considered a necromancer isn't "redefining" anything, any more than saying that a character who summons zombies is a necromancer is "redefining" it.

[Dan_Hemmens]

In 3.5 you get to raise many zombies pretty early on and continue to do so for most of your career. They can then follow you around and kill things for you. You can also create other more powerful undead, take control of undead you find, detect undead, and drain the life force of enemies, and bring dead people back to life.

In 3.5 out of the box you get to raise a couple of zombies at level 7 and create more powerful undead much later. And you can *totally* drain the life force of your enemies in 4E, just play a Warlock.

Arcane Necromancy was only really suppored in 3E with splatbooks, and since "Shadow" is almost certain to be one of the first new Power Sources to come out, I don't think there's going to be a shortage of "Necromancer" classes out there.


In 4E you can: Bring people back to life, and supposedly drain the life force of enemies (which works exactly like burning them, hitting them, shining light on them, shocking them, ect.)

I like that you stuck a "supposedly" in there. Why do the 4E purple lasers only "supposedly" suck the life force of enemies while the 3.X ones (presumably0 "really" do it?


And yet, in the English language, that's not what Necromancy is, so if we were typing this in ancient Greek, then you would have a point, but since we aren't...

As other people have pointed out, it's still the definition of Necromancy in English. You, personally, happen to assume that "Necromancer" means "zombie summoner". That isn't my problem.


And no, a Fighter with Ritual casting is exactly like a Rogue with UMD and a scroll, he makes a skill check and spends money to accomplish a minor effect.

I'm sorry, but the moment you start to say that achieving major magical effects by performing complex rituals is somehow "not real magic" you lose.

Is your idea of "magic" so utterly defined by D&D that you can't even *imagine* a world in which sorcery is not the province of spell slots and uses per day?


A Fighter with Ritual casting is not a Necromancer, because he does not do any necromancy using the English definition of the word.

He does not do any necromancy according to your definition of the word, which appears to be "Casts 3.X spells with the [Necromancy] descriptor". That is your problem not mine.


I wish people would stop claiming that what your character can do has absolutely no bearing on what type of character they are. And would stop claiming that you can "roleplay" a necromancer/bard/druid, because they can claim the title, and would recognize that when someone says, "I want to play a Necromancer but I can't in 4e." They mean: Hey I want to play someone who raises zombies, but I can't. And telling them, "Just say you can." isn't helpful at all.

No, I absolutely understand that that's what they're saying. Which is why I like to point out, repeatedly, that "I want to play somebody who raises zombies" is not a roleplaying preference but a power preference.

Druid, Bard, Necromancer and for that matter "Thief" are in character descriptions of what your character does. If your character does magic (including ritual magic) which relates to death and the dead, then he's a necromancer. If he plays music and tells stories, he's a bard, if he worships nature and has a weird obsession with balance, he's a druid. The fact that you don't get the specific game mechanical abilities does not mean that you can't roleplay those characters, only that you don't get powers for it.


I don't personally see it as a flaw of 4E, but claims to "just RP it" are not helping anyone.

They're not helping anybody because people continue to insist that "my character raises zombies and fights with a greatsword" is the same sort of character-driven statement as "my character's actions are characterised by repressed self-loathing".

[Serpentine]

Alright, I've got a question for you. Can you make Xykon in 4th ed.? As a playable character (aside from the fact that few DMs would allow a Lich in a game, at least not an ordinary one)? With all his classic, damn scary abilities intact, or at least equivalent/comparible?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Alright, I've got a question for you. Can you make Xykon in 4th ed.? As a playable character (aside from the fact that few DMs would allow a Lich in a game, at least not an ordinary one)? With all his classic, damn scary abilities intact, or at least equivalent/comparible?

Umm, lich asided, I really don't see what's stopping you.

[JaxGaret]

Alright, I've got a question for you. Can you make Xykon in 4th ed.? As a playable character (aside from the fact that few DMs would allow a Lich in a game, at least not an ordinary one)? With all his classic, damn scary abilities intact, or at least equivalent/comparible?

An epic Lich Wizard or Wizard/Warlock would fit the bill pretty well. Of course, there are some specific spells he uses that simply don't exist in 4e, but that's to be expected. All the major ones are there.

The undeadification powers will presumably have to wait for the Shadow power source book(s), and a multiclass from Wizard into one of those classes.

[Serpentine]

Whoever it was said they wanted to play a Necromancer but couldn't, because apparently you can't do the necromancy stuff he wants in 4th ed. You were saying that you don't need to be able to do necromantic things to be a necromancer and that this person was asking for powers, not a roleplaying character concept like he said he was. So, I've given you a character, very roleplayable, a Necromancer of the sort he's looking for, and want to see whether that person is right and it's not doable or whether you're right and you can roleplay a character without the powers.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Whoever it was said they wanted to play a Necromancer but couldn't, because apparently you can't do the necromancy stuff he wants in 4th ed. You were saying that you don't need to be able to do necromantic things to be a necromancer and that this person was asking for powers, not a roleplaying character concept like he said he was. So, I've given you a character, very roleplayable, a Necromancer of the sort he's looking for, and want to see whether that person is right and it's not doable or whether you're right and you can roleplay a character without the powers.

Okay, to be more specific:

To *roleplay* Xykon you don't need any magical powers whatsoever. The essence of the character is that he's a joke villain, he does evil things for evil reasons while cackling and having a certain degree of self-awareness about the whole procedure and being easily distracted. That's the character, distinct from the powers.

As for his powers, if we ignore the stuff that is specifically 3.X based (that is to say, the specific named powers) all Xykon actually does is kill people with magic. He occasionally uses charm effects, but they're by no means integral to his character. Similarly he very seldom actually animates dead, most of his minions are actually Hobgoblins. He presumably has some kind of ritual that animates the dead, but he doesn't actually use it very much, which is why all his minions are hobgoblins.

[JaxGaret]

I would say that he does more undead animation than charm spells.

But you're right, Dan, pretty much what he does is kill things but good with magic.

Actually, since Xykon is an NPC, it would be easier to build him closer to his 3e incarnation than making him as a PC would be, since you can give him whatever specific powers you feel like.

He would be about a 25th level Solo Artillery.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I would say that he does more undead animation than charm spells.

But you're right, Dan, pretty much what he does is kill things but good with magic.

Actually, since Xykon is an NPC, it would be easier to build him closer to his 3e incarnation than making him as a PC would be, since you can give him whatever specific powers you feel like.

He would be about a 25th level Solo Artillery.

Of course that opens the other can of worms: is it okay to have different rules for PCs and NPCs?

[JaxGaret]

Of course that opens the other can of worms: is it okay to have different rules for PCs and NPCs?

I think so.

Before I became familiar with the system, I thought the fact that NPCs and PCs ran on different rules was Stupid! Balderdash! How Could That Work?!?

But it does work. I really like the NPC system, it makes creating and customizing encounters/monsters as a DM a joy. It's one of my favorite things about 4e.

Plus if you really feel like it, you can create NPCs with very similar power sets to PCs, using the NPC creation and template rules.

[ghost_warlock]

Plus if you really feel like it, you can create NPCs with very similar power sets to PCs, using the NPC creation and template rules.

This is one of the problems I have with the system, why wouldn't NPCs already have similar power sets to the PCs? An NPC wizard should use the same sorts of spells you'd expect from PC wizards because they're both supposed to be wizards.

This problem bites both ways. Say the party fights an enemy "wizard" who uses a particular spell. Later, when the party wizard becomes more powerful (perhaps even more powerful than the NPC was), he cannot learn that same spell simply because that spell is an NPC-only power - which would no sense from the character's perspective. "Game-breaking" would also be a completely incomprehensible explanation for why a character can't learn a particular 'spell' used by an NPC.

I have no problem with certain monsters having unique abilities PCs can't have access to - humans/dragonborn/halflings/etc. aren't chokers so they don't have the same physical capabilities as a choker and therefore would have different power suites. But when the only thing differentiating an NPC from a PC in-game is training there's no reason, in-game, why they can't learn the same abilities.

But, meh, along came a homebrew...

[Kurald Galain]

But when the only thing differentiating an NPC from a PC in-game is training there's no reason, in-game, why they can't learn the same abilities.

True enough.

It strikes me that the 4E ruleset is just begging for a Blue Mage (or, for that matter, a Spellthief) that lets you use other people's powers. Shame that WOTC's Spellthief "conversion" loses its signature ability.

[Indon]

I think you are looking at something is a very narrow way and finding meaning which is not present.
You didn't answer my question. In fact, you tried to avoid looking at what my question asks while reiterating the exact logic which leads me to ask it:


And yet it this straightforward usage needs to be either limited (nerfed, in the nomenclature), or removed entirely, in order to try desperately to bring some kind of balance to 3.x.

And this is me:


Why do you say, "Well, we shouldn't nerf this player," rather than saying, "We should help keep the player from exploiting things to break the game"?


This is simply casting a core spell and using it for exactly what it is useful for.

...for maximum in-game benefit.

All you're saying is that it's easier to break the game using some facets of the system, which is perfectly understandable. But why is it the duty of the system to make sure the game is unbreakable, rather than the player?

[Serpentine]

Okay, to be more specific:

To *roleplay* Xykon you don't need any magical powers whatsoever. The essence of the character is that he's a joke villain, he does evil things for evil reasons while cackling and having a certain degree of self-awareness about the whole procedure and being easily distracted. That's the character, distinct from the powers.You seem to have an incredibly narrow view of what constitutes a character. Xykon is an incredibly evil walking skeleton who, yes, kills people for magic, and also uses magic to animate those people and use them for his same purposes. All you seem to be doing is removing the bits that 4e doesn't cater for and saying "this will do! You don't need any more, and if you do, you're obviously useless and don't know how to roleplay".
If you want to play, for example, a badass wizard (or cleric) who finds malicious pleasure in animating the corpses of his enemies and turning them against their friends, you need to be able to animate dead. If you want to be able to play a dwarf who has a deep connection with his racial heritage and ancestral axes but who finds his talent in more sneaky and underhanded techniques than traditional and likes to employ the tactic of creeping up behind someone and burying one of those axes in their head, you need to be able to play a Rogue or something Rogue-like and wield axes (I hadn't heard that you couldn't. That's one bit I'm definitely not grabbing). If you want to play a bookish wizard with greater skill and interest in the more subtle arts of manipulation and secrecy than in blowing stuff up, you need access to appropriate spells.
In a game like this, the scope of roleplay may be far wider in scope than the mechanics, but they are still restrained by them. Just because you can imagine it doesn't mean you can do it, and if you can't do it, you can't roleplay it. There is a huge difference between deciding not to use a spell and having to create whole slabs of material in order to do what you want to roleplay.

[Dan_Hemmens]

You seem to have an incredibly narrow view of what constitutes a character. Xykon is an incredibly evil walking skeleton who, yes, kills people for magic, and also uses magic to animate those people and use them for his same purposes. All you seem to be doing is removing the bits that 4e doesn't cater for and saying "this will do! You don't need any more, and if you do, you're obviously useless and don't know how to roleplay".

Yes, I have a narrow view of what constitutes "a character" because I actually think that the narrow definition is much, much more useful than the broad definition.

If you define "character" so broadly that it includes specific game mechanical details it ceases, to my mind, to actually be "character" in a meaningful sense and becomes (as nagora would probably put it) a wish list of powers.

To put it another way: how would you stat Elan in an RPG? Bearing in mind that he is explicilty required to have "the Dashing Swordsman Prestige Class". No homebrewing, mind.

You could do it in Over the Edge, or Wushu, but he doesn't work in 3.X any more than in 4E.


If you want to play, for example, a badass wizard (or cleric) who finds malicious pleasure in animating the corpses of his enemies and turning them against their friends, you need to be able to animate dead. If you want to be able to play a dwarf who has a deep connection with his racial heritage and ancestral axes but who finds his talent in more sneaky and underhanded techniques than traditional and likes to employ the tactic of creeping up behind someone and burying one of those axes in their head, you need to be able to play a Rogue or something Rogue-like and wield axes (I hadn't heard that you couldn't. That's one bit I'm definitely not grabbing). If you want to play a bookish wizard with greater skill and interest in the more subtle arts of manipulation and secrecy than in blowing stuff up, you need access to appropriate spells.

Okay, to go through the examples.

Number one: You see to me, that reads as "if you want to play, for example [a guy] who finds malicious pleasure in [screwing with people in really nasty ways]". The undead stuff is just flavour text.

Number two: First off, you can *absolutely* do that in 4E. You just don't get to claim a bunch of your rogue bonuses on your axe attacks. But again, the *character* there is: "[origin] who feels strongly connected to his heritage, but has found his life leading down a different path."

Number three: Bookish wizard with greater skill in the subtle arts of manipulation? Great. Get training in Diplomacy, that's the subtle art of manipulation.


In a game like this, the scope of roleplay may be far wider in scope than the mechanics, but they are still restrained by them. Just because you can imagine it doesn't mean you can do it, and if you can't do it, you can't roleplay it. There is a huge difference between deciding not to use a spell and having to create whole slabs of material in order to do what you want to roleplay.

Again, you're applying a definition of "roleplay" which essentially means "possess specific game mechanical powers". It honestly staggers me that people fail to make this distinction. All the examples you listed above were predicated on the assumption that those characters would be statted up in D&D 3.X. You took a bunch of 3.X powers and then tacked a character background onto them. The background translates into 4E just *fine*, it's the mechanics which don't.

[Serpentine]

It staggers me that you completely refuse to admit that characters are at least in part defined by what they do, not just some vague discription that could apply to almost anyone. I don't want to play just some guy who happens to mess with people, I want to play a guy who messes with people by animating their corpses. Well, not really, but that's the example. Your insist on broadening concepts until they're utterly meaningless. "A guy who finds malicious pleasure in screwing with people in really nasty ways"? ""[origin] who feels strongly connected to his heritage, but has found his life leading down a different path"? What is that? It's nothing. There's nothing interesting there. You can't play that. I don't want subtlety through diplomacy, or at least not only that. I want it through magic. Because that's what that character does. And, whether you're willing to accept it or not, what a character does contributes to what that character is. The choice, interpretation and application of an ability will be a factor in defining the roleplaying of a character which is expressed in the choice, interpretation and application of abilities.

[Indon]

I know, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately in this context the really, really bad argument is also the right argument.
No, it's not. Your argument is that "Yes, the system can't do what you want it to, but it can do something I think is way cooler." That's not even right or wrong - that argument doesn't even merit a truth value. It's just bad.


Again I have no argument with the people who don't like the fact that spellcasters have fewer options in 4E. I object to the people who claim that this restricts roleplaying.
Of course it restricts an aspect of roleplaying. That aspect, however, is conceptual variety, not conceptual quality. Having limited build options restricts your roleplaying in the same way that having a specific setting does - you can't be a laser-wielding futuristic version of James Bond in a fantasy environment.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. It might even be good sometimes - the lens that narrows its' focus can increase its' clarity. But it's definitely restricting. I personally feel that build-related restrictions on roleplaying are somewhat disadvantageous, but they can bring significant benefit elsewhere (in this case, balance) so it's a give-and-take thing.


Great! They're asking for a specific, in character power. They can complain about "roleplaying" when they come back with an actual idea for a character.
So they come back asking to play a character like Vilkata from Fred Saberhagen's Swords novels, having just read the books and being eager to explore the concept of such a character. What do you do? Say, "Your character concept is unoriginal and sucks, GTFO of my game," or maybe, "Your character concept is unoriginal and sucks, here's one I like way more that the system can actually handle," eh?


Suggesting that a character who speaks with and raises the dead could be considered a necromancer isn't "redefining" anything, any more than saying that a character who summons zombies is a necromancer is "redefining" it.

Dude, language is consentual reality, and you ain't got no consensus here.

[Dan_Hemmens]

It staggers me that you completely refuse to admit that characters are at least in part defined by what they do, not just some vague discription that could apply to almost anyone.

But that's exactly it, characters are *not* defined by what they do. Not at all. Not in any way.

You want to play a necromancer? Great, but what is it about this guy being a necromancer that appeals to you? Is it the transgression, the hubris, the reputation, the fatalism? It's why you're a necromancer that makes you an actual character.


I don't want to play just some guy who happens to mess with people, I want to play a guy who messes with people by animating their corpses. Well, not really, but that's the example. Your insist on broadening concepts until they're utterly meaningless.

No, I insist on broadening concepts until they no longer contain references to specific game mechanical abilities.


"A guy who finds malicious pleasure in screwing with people in really nasty ways"? ""[origin] who feels strongly connected to his heritage, but has found his life leading down a different path"? What is that? It's nothing.

All I did was take out the specific reference to game mechanical concepts.

Again, the problem is that you're viewing the character as a justification for the abilities, and not the other way around (presumably not least because you've come up with these ideas specifically as examples for characters that require specific abilities).

Let's take the axe-wielding dwarf rogue. Okay, so he was raised a dwarf, he has strong ties to dwarvish culture, he was taught that the only proper weapon for a dwarf to use was an axe. Great. But he found that his talents lay in stealth rather than in open conflict. Brilliant. Now what about this character requires that they be statted up specifically as an axe-wielding rogue? And what makes it so vital that they have to get Sneak Attack damage on their axe blows? How does it change the character?


There's nothing interesting there. You can't play that. I don't want subtlety through diplomacy, or at least not only that. I want it through magic. Because that's what that character does. And, whether you're willing to accept it or not, what a character does contributes to what that character is.

But you're not asking for subtlety, you're asking for the blunt instruments of Mind Control and Illusions. Subtlety is about roleplaying. Tolkein's wizards were "subtle and quick to anger" and none of them ever cast Charm Person or Silent Image.

[SmartAlec]

"Your character concept is unoriginal and sucks, here's one I like way more that the system can actually handle," eh?

Let's shorten that to here's one the system can actually handle.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here? So you want to play a character who's similar to character from X place. That's not different from wanting to play a character like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Beowulf or freaking Han Solo. You'll always end up with 'Buffy, but in 4th Ed', or 'Beowulf, but in Traveller' or 'Han Solo, but in Vampire'. The personality's the same but the abilities - you'll just have to be happy with 'as close as you can get'. It's the same in ANY system, unless you're playing a system explicitly designed for that character.

Or GURPS. *shudder*

[Dan_Hemmens]

No, it's not. Your argument is that "Yes, the system can't do what you want it to, but it can do something I think is way cooler." That's not even right or wrong - that argument doesn't even merit a truth value. It's just bad.

On the contrary, what I am saying is "the system cannot do what you want it to, because what you want it to do is 'be the other system' which it manifestly cannot."


Of course it restricts an aspect of roleplaying. That aspect, however, is conceptual variety, not conceptual quality. Having limited build options restricts your roleplaying in the same way that having a specific setting does - you can't be a laser-wielding futuristic version of James Bond in a fantasy environment.

But at that point you once again define "restricts roleplaying" into meaninglessness. All games restrict roleplaying because they do not allow you to play characters which are mechanically impossible in the game, so why is anybody even bothering to *talk* about it?


That's not necessarily a bad thing. It might even be good sometimes - the lens that narrows its' focus can increase its' clarity. But it's definitely restricting. I personally feel that build-related restrictions on roleplaying are somewhat disadvantageous, but they can bring significant benefit elsewhere (in this case, balance) so it's a give-and-take thing.

Fair enough, I feel that build-related restriction on roleplaying are highly advantageous, because they allow you to stop thinking about "build" and start thinking about "character".

More specifically: people keep trying to frame the 3.X/4E debate as being about "roleplaying versus wargaming" or "freedom versus balance" and that's a false dichotomy.


So they come back asking to play a character like Vilkata from Fred Saberhagen's Swords novels, having just read the books and being eager to explore the concept of such a character. What do you do? Say, "Your character concept is unoriginal and sucks, GTFO of my game," or maybe, "Your character concept is unoriginal and sucks, here's one I like way more that the system can actually handle," eh?

I say "sorry, I haven't actually read those books, can you explain me what it is about that character that you like, and why you are so interested in playing him?"

[Serpentine]

Can I *headdesk* now? Is this a good time for that?

What is appealing about playing a Necromancer? How about making freaking zombies? Don't say that's a D&D-specific thing because it pops up all over the place.
Why does the sneaky axe-weilding dwarf need to be a Rogue? Because Rogue is what mechanically represents sneakiness in D&D, including sneaking up on someone to kill them quietly with a single blow or picking that exact spot when they're distracted.
Why shouldn't a subtle wizard use subtle magic? Blowing stuff up ain't exactly subtle, nor is it particularly interesting. We're talking about a game here. The mechanics represent your character. Sure, it doesn't represent all of your character, but it's better to have some things defined than to have everything imagination-based. If I want to play a manipulative spell-caster, I want that manipulation represented in his spell-casting, or else what's the damn point? Abilities and role-playing are intrinsically entwined. Deal with it.

I want to mention again that I don't actually hate 4e in itself, I just don't like it, partly because it has such limited build options. That's not necessarily a bad thing, except that none of the options interest me all that much, or at least not the Wizard ones. Maybe they'll release more options, but why can't I just make the sort of character I want to play?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Can I *headdesk* now? Is this a good time for that?

What is appealing about playing a Necromancer? How about making freaking zombies? Don't say that's a D&D-specific thing because it pops up all over the place.

That's absolutely fine. At that point you are making a request for a specific power. That's fine. Just don't say the game which doesn't allow you to raise zombies is restricting your "roleplaying" like it's some kind of hack and slash grind fest.


Why does the sneaky axe-weilding dwarf need to be a Rogue? Because Rogue is what mechanically represents sneakiness in D&D, including sneaking up on someone to kill them quietly with a single blow or picking that exact spot when they're distracted.

Or you could be a ranger. Or a fighter with cross-class ranks in sneak. Again the point is that you're not really interested in the character (all the fluff about heritage and callings and whatnot) you're just interested in getting massive axe damage.

Which is fine, but again, saying "no, this particular attack in this particular system does not work with an axe" is not restricting your roleplaying, it's restricting your power.


Why shouldn't a subtle wizard use subtle magic? Blowing stuff up ain't exactly subtle, nor is it particularly interesting. We're talking about a game here. The mechanics represent your character. Sure, it doesn't represent all of your character, but it's better to have some things defined than to have everything imagination-based. If I want to play a manipulative spell-caster, I want that manipulation represented in his spell-casting, or else what's the damn point? Abilities and role-playing are intrinsically entwined. Deal with it.

Blowing stuff up isn't subtle, but neither is mind control. Charm Person is not a subtle spell. Casting it on somebody and then making them do stuff for you does not make you "manipulative".

Again, when you say "I want to play a manipulative spellcaster" you're really saying "I want to play a spellcaster who specializes in this particular line of spells." Which, once again, is fine. But in every case it's the powers you can't get, not the underlying character concept.

[Serpentine]

No, I'm saying "I want to play a manipulative spellcaster who is manipulative with their spells". The character concept is expressed through its mechanics and abilities which in turn influence the character concept. And I'm done with this argument because it's going absolutely fricking nowhere because you can't seem to distinguish between "wanting to have a concept expressed mechanically" and "wanting to be able to do awesome stuff" and insist that you shouldn't try to use mechanics for roleplay or roleplay with mechanics. Do you think that when they were coming up with the idea for Superman that it consisted entirely of "this guy who came from somewhere else as a kid and is trying to do good for no return", or did they say "this hero from another planet who can shoot lazer beams from his eyes and run really fast and who also likes to do good things for no reward"? I find the latter a lot more interesting and useful.

[Jayabalard]

I actually think that the narrow definition is much, much more useful than the broad definition.So, by more useful, it seems that you mean "easier to defend my point of view"


But that's exactly it, characters are *not* defined by what they do. Not at all. Not in any way.completely false; people are defined by what they do as much as what they think, say and have experienced.


No, I insist on broadening concepts until they no longer contain references to specific game mechanical abilities.Nope, you're just trying to handwave things away by saying that they aren't part of the character or roleplaying when they are in fact character concepts and do have an effect on the role that a character plays.

[GlordFunkelhand]

The problem with 4e is that it starts with the role. And then creates a character to fill the role.
Necromancers in 4e would most likely work similar to the DiabloII class of the same name.. guess it would even result in the same sort of lag when you start to use your minions.. hm... maybe the 4e necromancer will just get an undead pet.
Mind affecting wizards will most likely need to play a psion ;)

[EvilElitest]

EvilElitist and I haven't always seen eye to eye (I know I got my start on this forum argueing with him about the Grey Guard PrC), but frankly, I have got to agree with him on this whole apathetic about 4e thing.
hey i know you


You do realize you do this type of arguing all the time, right? You did it in the very same post. Let me show you:

No i didn't. I didn't simply say "Oh look, your wrong. Yeah, i don't need to back that up, you are just wrong. That is it. Simply and utterly wrong" I did what anyone with an essay does, i backed it up


Here is you saying, "I'm right. I'm right. I'm right." over and over for several paragraphs.
No, i'm explain my option, the same way most of these posters are



You give examples of how your point could be made, but at no point do you form a solid connection between 4th edition and the things you're comparing it to. Show me how 4th edition is D&D for Dummies in that it's only the surface of a complex thing, because I find it every bit as complex and deep as 3rd edition, if not more-so. Tactics change round by round, the choice of one power over another is a significant alteration in your capabilities, and your ability to assist others in out of combat utility is often vital to success, so coordinating actions is usually necessary.
That is the thing, 4E has, or at least appears to have advanced tactics. However, in order to get this balance and tactics is simplifies and dumbs down everything else. Taking away options, reducing the game’s innate complexity, reducing monsters to nothing but stat blocks. the game, like a board game, or even most video games, makes the primary focus combat and everything else a lesser concern



"Lowest common denominator" is a phrase bandied about commonly as a way of insulting the common man, as if there's this elite of smart people over a world full of complete idiots. I disagree with this assumption. I think that something simple enough that anyone can understand it is an ideal, and any more complex and you're just being elitist. Only *this* tall or taller can ride this ride, sorry.

1) I see no problem with Elitism, and maybe I’ve read to much Julius Caesar and like song of fire and Ice too much, but a lot of people are stupid. But that isn’t the point I’m trying to make here
2) My point is that by trying to appeal to the public and making things simpler, witch is 4E goal, for good or bad, you simplify it and yes, make it less complex so more people can understand it, you do weaken the game. And maybe I like Bradbury’s work a bit too much for my own good, but by reducing something, simplifying it, dumbing it down you weaken the product and the audience as a whole and create…D&D for dummies, something that is understandable to the common person who doesn’t understand D&D, and lacks the complexity of the more rounded edition, except in the area of combat, which makes it play like a board game or video game, where that is the only thing that matters. By making the game simply for the common non D&D person to play it, the game is simplified and complexity is lost



The best board game ever will be useless if only 10 people are smart enough to play it, and people can have just as much fun with Monopoly. And yes, people can have just as much fun of the same type playing 4th edition as opposed to 3rd.

And yet people lay complex board games all the time. People can have fun playing 4E, they can also have fun playing Warhammer or any game. That isn’t the issue, as I said before, as its own game it is fine, the problem comes from it being a new edition of D&D




...But we used the rules presented in the book to arbitrate success or failure, and we were put into an imaginary world to play the roles of heroes in an adventure, like the book says... how exactly could any game facilitate what we did more than 4th edition? You can say, "Any game can include roleplaying, but that doesn't make it a role playing game." but I'm starting to wonder what threshold it has to pass in order to actually be one. Having rules to facilitate your immersion into the role of a fantasy persona with different skills and personality than yourself is my basic working definition of RPG, and 4th edition fulfills this just as well as any other RPG I've ever played. What is your definition of an RPG that would include 3rd edition as an RPG, but does not include 4th edition?

Complexity, versatility, options, dedication, a feeling of actual commitment to the work, rather than nothing but a war gamy styled rule book.
3E, for all of its faults, did honestly attempt to create a logical and indepth game with plenty of options and abilities. 4E creatures a game that promotes why style of gaming. If you like that, fine, the problem comes when it is a new edition of D&D. 3E was a valiant attempt to bring about a D&D world that supported complexity. It supported options. It supported in depth fluff and descriptions, and had a very good system going for it. Its flaw was lack of organization and balence issues. If you did a new edition, it is perfectly feasible to make a new edition with teh good of 3E and then balancing it. Some of 4E's changes i personally dislike like, but i can understand, like Wizards. But most are simply utter simplification, like the monsters in the MM and the new cosmology. It is like we aren't smart enough to handle the complexity 3E supported. As 4E is mostly a money making gambit, i find this absurd, by appealing to more people you simplify the game and ruin it for the people who like complexity and options and versititlity and verisimilitude
Yes i'm elitist, but i'd rather be elitist than shallow
3) As i said, as its own game, it just caters to those who like that style over others. Fine, fair enough, it breaks D&D down, you know like D&D for dummies and focuses on combat. Fair enough, but as a new edition of D&D, if you don't like that style, well sucks to be you


That's your problem. It's plenty immersive for me. I'm sorry you can't enjoy this awesome game.
And shredded Moose is an amazingly immersive and deep comic, i'm sorry you simply weren't able to share my experience :smallwink:
Really, you can make any game fun, that doesn’t make the design good




I think it goes beyond that. 4e makes prep time for DMs much shorter, for one - customizing monsters and balancing encounters is much easier to do, among other things; that has nothing to do with playstyle.

So? In doing so it makes a rather shallow style of gaming and doesn’t encourage anything else. I hate the prep time, because while using minions and what not is easier to me, it is also lazy and incompetent, at least for somebody who likes to obtain a level of realism in the games and supports consistency. Also the PCs entitlement is awful for DM, it is like a monty haul game
Now you can use that and not be a shallow person yes, if you don't give a damn about consistency, fine. But the game is still supporting annoying inconsistencies, like the minion rule



If it were dumbed-down or D&D for Dummies, I would certainly admit it. I don't think it is either.
But that is the stated purpose of 4E, in all but name, is a simplified D&D. Alignment, consistency, minions, cosmology, monsters, it isl like they want to simply though the basics of D&D without going into any sort of detail



I thought that 4e's whole purpose was either a) to attempt to make the best D&D possible or b) to make $$$, depending on who you ask

I agree that a big part of 4e's design mantra was simplify & streamline, but I don't see how that necessarily equates to dumber

Best edition possible would be 3E but actually balanced
4E's streamlining it leads to taking away things simply because apperently it is too much for me to handle. Night vision, angels, alignment, cosmology, and NPCs, it is like they don't think i can handle the old way and need to break it down to help me understand. Like i said, it works great if you simply don't care and like that play style, but the game is certainly not supporting complexity

like i said, fine for its own thing (i just wouldn't touch it) but not as a new edition





You're not talking directly to me here, but I'll just say that if someone posts something here on the boards for everyone to see, it's obvious that it is something that they want people to read and digest.
true, doesn't you need to find offense where non is needed




My problem with this is the implied meaning behind such statements. If its D&D for dummies, that implies that if I enjoy it and play it, I must be a "dummy", and that this somehow makes 3.5 for "smart" people. This is indirectly implying that you are smarter than me. Yes I enjoy the simplification of rules, but not because Im a moron. I enjoy because not everyone enjoys needlessly complicated rules (3x grapple comes to mind). Yes, I realize that some people like complexity in their rules, as EE obviously does. It allows him a multitude of options he might not be able to do otherwise. I understand what you are TRYING to say with the D&D for Dummies line, I really do. I just don't think you can say that and NOT imply what I've been saying, even if you dont actually mean it. Perhaps I read to much into this, as obviously EE isn't telling people they are stupid for liking 4e, and Im positive he doesn't think that. Its just the manner in which 4e is described it is often times hard to not imply that. FWIW, YMMV, my 2 copper etc etc.
When i say D&D for dummies, i am referring to the the "For Dummies" series

And i don't support needless complexity, i dislike the grapple rules as much as anybody, i just like complexity, it in reading, Eragon is simply and boring, the work of a hack, while Song of Fire and Ice is a stunningly complex and complicated interesting book.




You completely avoided my point. Yes, 4e changes the playstyle, but it also does more than that, so that playstyle isn't the only factor involved in a comparison.
Except is "DA PLAYSTYLE", acording to 4E, that is the one true way to play. And if you like that play style, thats fine, wonderful, you can enjoy yourself greatly. But if you don't like that style.........yeah


How do you know their intent?

because i said it wasn't my intention. As i said

4E supports one way of playing. And personally, i think it supports a shallow world. However if you don't care as much about details about me, then it is a wonderful system if you like that style. If you don't care as much, then you can enjoy it for the style it supports, just like you can enjoy Exalted if you like the whole epic thing. It as a new edition that it suffers

just i have say, why ditch gnomes. It is just uncool



I don't really see the problem. Do you really think 3.5 needed more splatbooks? Nothing is keeping you from playing 3.5 as it is (or however you happen to houserule it). I liked 3.5 a lot, but I think it was slipping out of hand with all the abusable options and bad fixes anyway. Personally, I think I'll play both (and other games occasionally), but right now trying 4th out is pretty exciting to me.
No i don't want more splat books, 3.5 was horrible broken realize. I want a new edition, one that has the good qualities of 3E, mixed in with better balence and more options and interesting stuff. Like 3E to 2E, and even through i really do love 2E, i felt it was an improvement, i just think more 2E options should come about




Third and Fourth are both somewhere in the middle of a scale between "freeform" and "everything has a concrete mechanic." Really, I think they're far closer to each other than either is to either extreme. People prefer different layers of rules and freeform adjudication (and to be clear, neither's "better"), and it seems like everyone has a small hope that others would prefer their way (if for no other reason than to have a larger community to enjoy their playstyle).
4E and 3E are too different extrems on the gaming specturm


I am liking 4e. It plays much better than 3.x, which is pretty much a board game styled play based loosely after AD&D. 3.x is an unbalanced mess, kind of like a D&D for dummies if you will. Not that I'm saying that people who play 3.x are dummies, just that the rules are not well written and fall apart after you hit about level 10 or so due to huge imbalance issues between the classes.
I'm so very glad things got better.
your saying 3E is like a board game. ok, yes i realize the nifftyness of trying to turn somebody's comments back on them and being all like "Hah, see i made you taste your own medice, i'm so clever" i realize how useful that is, but you need to make sure it makes sense. 3E playing like a board game? I'm sorry, that is simply absurd as an idea. Or D&D for dummies, it doesn't make sense. 3E was complex, in depth and option filled, that isn't D&D for dummies, that is the flawed attempt to reach "Perfect D&D" through it failed badly. Really, try sarcasim that actually works in conception please, it makes the discussion actually more valid sounding, as far as fictional RPG games go




Or you could, you know, look at what you're trying to build and not worry about preconceptions brought about by class names. A duel-wielding fighter with sneak attack is what you want to create. This means that you won't be using a shield, of course. Which means that you're not as much of a defensive fighter as you are focussed more on offensive attacks. So forget about the fact that there is a class called the Fighter and that you used that word in your description of what you're trying to build. Don't let a class name narrow your options. Say instead that you want to create a warrior or fighting man whose combat style with two weapon fighting involves a lot of feints and misdirection allowing him to use his superlative accuracy to strike at vital points on his opponents.
home brewing doesn't make a game better, otherwise 3E is a perfect game
4E doesn't support versatility in terms of creation options, because it is streamlined. As i said, fine if you like streamlined, awful if you don't



It's trivially easy to invalidate any solution by adding requirements after the fact. In the industry this is called 'feature creep'. Your original concept is demonstrated to be possible. If you choose to add additional feature requests you can easily find that your concept is no longer viable.
that isn't trivial, that is a basis of limitations of streamlined rules. Bending the rules might work, but but bending the rules doesn't make the game better



4e also can not support the character concept of a Batman wizard who solves all game challenges with a broken spell while his team mates look on in awe and amazement, and boredom. All this demonstrates is that the game will allow character concepts which allow for all players to have an equal contribution, but fails to allow character concepts which will break the game.

I hate this argument. Nothing personal, i really just hate his argument. Yes 4E gets ride of teh awful batman thing, but really think about it, just because it doesn't support that doesn't make the game better, it just mean it is in another direction. You can't use 3E's flaw with the batman design as a basis of 4E greatness


The thing I really don't like about it, that I've mentioned elsewhere and that Zucchini, I think it was, alluded to is that they keep saying that this is a "whole new game!", "should not be thought of as the same game as 3rd edition!". If this is really true, then there is no reason to stop reprinting 3.5ed books. Now, I'm not saying that they should keep writing more - I think 3.5 had pretty much reached its potential as far as new material went. There is no reason, though, to stop reprinting the old material except to force players who haven't gotten around to buying them yet into this "whole new game!"
exactly. If it was a whole new game, then make a whole new game. WotC can support two different roleplaying games

Take other books, for example. Because it's sitting right in front of me, I'll use a real one, A History of China, second edition, by J. A. G. Roberts. Now, this second edition no doubt has lots of alterations and additions to the first edition. Overall, though, it's the same book, so they have stopped reprinting the first edition. If, as no doubt there will be, another book was written that also happened to be called A History of China but otherwise had nothing to do with this one, even if they were produced by the same publisher, Roberts' version would still be printed, because it's a completely different book.
Now take games as an example. Parker Brothers makes Monopoly. Within the Monopoly series there are, for example, a UK version, an Australian version and a "Here and Now" version. I would suggest that they'd be analogous to, say, Eberron and Forgotten Realms. It's also gone through a series of gameplay and board alterations and upgrades, like new editions. Now, what Wizards claim to have done is basically invent Cluedo and call it Monopoly - a Whole New Game that happens to have the same name. So now Parker isn't going to make any of the actual Monopoly games, because dammit people ought to be playing Cluedo-Monopoly now!
Wizards can't - or, more realistically, shouldn't - have it both ways. Either it's a new version of the old game, in which case they've just gotta deal with the flack from the people who liked the old version, or it's a whole new game in which case there's no reason to scrap the old one.
you are amazing you know that


So what you're saying is that 3.x required heavy GM houseruling to become playable. If this was acceptable to you for 3.x, why are you not willing to do the same for 4e? Let your Rogue use his axes and roll on.

It wasn't acceptable for 3E. That is why we wanted a new edition. 3E is broken as written, 4E is limited as written

Stick forge is really bringing up some damn good points, nice job



Core D&D never had mechanics to support the fluff of a Necromancer, you basically got to play a wizard with a few negative energy powers and some weak summons. As for Bards and Druids: Bard is a job description, Druid is a religion.

There is a reason why we have classes. When you use a class system, then it makes sense to have classes for every concept. if you don't use a class system, like say GURPS, then thigns change


I have absolutely no problem with people who prefer 3.X because of the greater mechanical flexibility. I have no problem saying "X was my favourite class, I am disappointed it is not in the core rules". I have a big problem with people saying "I liked class X because of the roleplaying and the absence of these classes means that 4E does not support roleplaying". Basically I think people need to be a little bit more honest with themselves. There's nothing wrong with liking Druids because it's cool to turn into a bear, but it has very little to do with how well the system supports "roleplaying".

1) 4E's support of roleplaying or lack thereof depending on option comes from versatility
2) There is more to liking a class then liking only its mechanics, you like the fluff that goes with it. I like the idea of a person who binds beings who are nothing more than concepts and uses them to his advantage, and yet if i don't have the mechanics
I like shadow magic users and yet if i don't have the mechanics




Perhaps, I am going to take the long road in this argument. I am learning to play guitar. I am reading the book "Guitars for dummies", I enjoy it. This does not make me feel stupid for reading the book, nor do I find that people think I am stupid for reading the book (If I was reading 'Reading for dummies' I might have a different opinion). I feel it would be stupid to try and play the guitar without a book to help me.

Thank you. I"m looking to see if there is a book called "podcast making for dummies" so i can one easily. I'm not dumb for reading it, i'm just not familar with how to use it

however you won't find me reading classical music for dummies, because i know a lot about it. however somebody who wants to learn more, it is a great book to read




In 3.5 you can raise zombies *eventually* with precisely *one* spell out of your repertoire but you're *basically* just a wizard.

And if you want to actually try to bring somebody *back* from the dead as something other than an animated corpse, well you're out of luck there.

class dread necomancer anybody?



I'll try to be more clear. 3.x requires heavy house ruling to be playable. This is not a discussion with a player about a potential problem, read the prior comment. Look at the examples given, not by me, but by the person I replied to. They represent support for the necessity of heavy house ruling to make 3.x playable, and this is not coming from me.

And in both 3E and 4E, we don't consider house rulings when we point out its flaws.




Oh, please. You are both saying that 4e is a perfect paradigm of balance, but that any small change will break it beyond playability ("Ruining the game"), and at the same time you're trotting out a conspiracy theory that it was created to be such a perfectly balanced system in order to force the players to buy any additional rules which are published.

Rubbish
actually, at least according to WotC, it is



You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Why not? What the hell else am i going to do with it? Its a freaking cake, if i can't eat it, what else is it good for




Aw man, that is perfect! Just shy of sig worthy.
please indon, please sig it


4e sucks because it doesn't allow for roleplaying."
"4e sucks because it doesn't allow you to do problem-solving. . . only using magic."
"4e is less realistic than 3e."
"4e sucks because the classes are not only more uniform, they are uniform."
"4e is an exception-based rule system. 3e is consistent and intuitive."(Nevermind that spells are essentially nothing but exceptions to the rule).
"4e makes it too easy to for other classes to cherry-pick Ritual Casting. Therefore, it sucks bad because cherry-picking never happened at all in 3e."

All are legitimate complaints, except maybe the second one


They all basically say the same thing:
"I'll select any reason, however unsupported, to hate 4e."

Fine, you can hate 4e, but let's drop the pretension that you're being reasonable about it.
Oh yes Lurker it is in fact a conspiracy. You see, everybody who dislikes 4E gets together every sunday, and after drawing a pentagram in blood and killing a few babies, we we all get together and draw lots on what we are going to hate 4E for that week, so we make make sacerfices to crytic. Its a damned conspiracy, we don't actually care about 4E, we just want to ruin the new edition so to perfect the second coming isn't that right?
Or maybe, just maybe, there is a reason, and your just using the arguments of a close minded extremist.


B) You want *more* necromancy without buying splatbooks? Easy. Homebrew another ritual using the other rituals as reference. It'll take you like 5 minutes to do. Find a monster and match it to a cost and level. Done.

homebrewing doesn't make the system itself any better, it just fixes it for your games



Please, people. Like this rule but not that one. Be apathetic, or love it, or hate it. Or any other of a broad spectrum of reactions. But if you have a strong opinion either for or against 4e, at least attempt to live up to some standard of intellectual honesty. The rules can't be awful for reasons which are mutually exclusive.

Intellectual honesty, you just claimed that no 4E complaints are reasonable.


And as to the supposed rigidity, please point your browser over to the WotC website, where you'll find more than one article which contains house rules. The article on converting 3.x characters to 4e completely invalidates your conspiracy theory that the game can't stand any change from the RAW and forces players to wait for and purchase further publications

Um, you realize that house ruling doesn't make the game better as written. Othewise 3E would be perfect

What conspiracy theory? Dear god, it is like the arguments of an extremist


Um, there is a reason most of the rogue abilities don't work with an axe: it just doesnt make sense. Axes are heavy, not very finnessable
hand axes? Throwing axes. Being hit in the back with an axe. I could see that easily

from
EE

[Indon]

On the contrary, what I am saying is "the system cannot do what you want it to, because what you want it to do is 'be the other system' which it manifestly cannot."
Or just be as or more capable than the other system at doing things.


But at that point you once again define "restricts roleplaying" into meaninglessness. All games restrict roleplaying because they do not allow you to play characters which are mechanically impossible in the game, so why is anybody even bothering to *talk* about it?
Because some do it more than others, and in different ways. An RPG which is not setting-specific has no setting restrictions on roleplaying. An RPG with more build freedom has less build restrictions on roleplaying. It's very much meaningful.


Fair enough, I feel that build-related restriction on roleplaying are highly advantageous, because they allow you to stop thinking about "build" and start thinking about "character".
It also keeps you from thinking about the synergy between the two. It promotes a disconnect between mechanics and immersive elements.


More specifically: people keep trying to frame the 3.X/4E debate as being about "roleplaying versus wargaming" or "freedom versus balance" and that's a false dichotomy.
I agree. You could have both strong roleplaying and wargaming facets in a game, and you could have both significant character freedom and mechanical balance in the same game. 4'th edition D&D does not, not because anything was 'given up' trying to achieve something else, but because it was simply made weak in these elements.


I say "sorry, I haven't actually read those books, can you explain me what it is about that character that you like, and why you are so interested in playing him?"

He's a middling-powerful sorceror/warlock-type who commands a force of demons. I'm not going to give an in-depth character analysis because it would take too long, though.

If your strategy is to disconnect the character from the mechanics, and redirect your player into mechanics that make the system work ("Here, use my character concept instead, it's better") just say so.

[EvilElitest]

Alot of people complain about 4e being so damn simple, and that your options are extreamly limited. I find this exactly the opposite. In 3e, I had this wizard, who by chance was rewarded a vorpal longsword. I was absolutely striken with delight with the tought of a spell casting wizard who could lob off a head or two as well! To my dismay, I soon learned that I could never hit with my sword even if I tried, and that even if I did, the damage would be considerably lower than even my first level spells. Guess what, as soon as I can play 4e (instead of DMing. Got a PbP game and need a player, PLEASE PM ME!) I will remake my blasty wizard, although now I can wield my sword, get a couple of Fighter or Rogue powers, and be USEFUL with it. 4e fixed the hitting problem AND the damage problem.

You had the option, it just isn't a feasible one because of your build
4E however only lets you really do a blasty wizard, as Serpintian said



In my opinion, 4e greatly improved multi-classing and character generation with these changes. To me it seems like maybe the number of options have dropped a little bit (probally concepts that can be made, just with a little description alteration), but the number of concepts THAT WORK WELL have GREATLY increased. Think about it for a second. If you want a wierd concept, and decided to go for it, you would not have to worry about it being so much worse than the base class or something. I guess that may have been some of the fun with 3x, finding out that "WOOT, I can make *insert obsucre character concept here*" and then later saying "Oh wait, this sucks so bad, I *either A. am completly useless, or B. Always stray towards the core concept to be somewhat viable anyway*. But hey, at least I can make it right? .... right?"
They streamlined mutliclasing and character creatino, they didn't make it any better, just quicker
3E had balence issues, but you can't point out 3E flawed attempts and some how use that to justify 4E not even giving your the option in the first place
from
EE

[SmartAlec]

completely false; people are defined by what they do as much as what they think, say and have experienced.

So what you're saying - indirectly - is that people, or characters, are defined as much as by what they think, say and have experienced as much as what they do.

So if a character cannot do something - if, say, a character can't raise zombies - that character is not then null and void. If this is so, you fall back on the other three - in this case, when it comes to character ability, it'll be experience you'll be looking for. How will this character's experiences in the world he lives in shape what he does?

You'll end up with a version of that character who actually fits into the gameworld you're trying to fit him in. Ok, he won't be able to raise zombies, but he'll still be that character.


Nope, you're just trying to handwave things away by saying that they aren't part of the character or roleplaying when they are in fact character concepts and do have an effect on the role that a character plays.

Oh, come off it; 'I want a character who messes with people by raising zombies' isn't any more a character concept than 'I want a character who kills people by shooting lasers' or 'I want a character who can leap tall buildings in a single bound'.

[Indon]

You'll end up with a version of that character who actually fits into the gameworld you're trying to fit him in. Ok, he won't be able to raise zombies, but he'll still be that character.
You say exactly that he will be a version of that character. That is different.

[Kletian999]

Can I *headdesk* now? Is this a good time for that?

What is appealing about playing a Necromancer? How about making freaking zombies? Don't say that's a D&D-specific thing because it pops up all over the place.
Why does the sneaky axe-weilding dwarf need to be a Rogue? Because Rogue is what mechanically represents sneakiness in D&D, including sneaking up on someone to kill them quietly with a single blow or picking that exact spot when they're distracted.
Why shouldn't a subtle wizard use subtle magic? Blowing stuff up ain't exactly subtle, nor is it particularly interesting. We're talking about a game here. The mechanics represent your character. Sure, it doesn't represent all of your character, but it's better to have some things defined than to have everything imagination-based. If I want to play a manipulative spell-caster, I want that manipulation represented in his spell-casting, or else what's the damn point? Abilities and role-playing are intrinsically entwined. Deal with it.

Maybe they'll release more options, but why can't I just make the sort of character I want to play?

RE: Necromancers. Currently, the core books have no rules about summoning minions. Over time, they will test and undoubtedly come up with them. If you DM allows it, you can try your own hand: an at will power that creates a Minion class zombie from a fallen creature at level equal to yours that you can command to move and attack- have that replace a wizard at will power and try it. Flavor all the wizard spells to do necrotic damage instead, etc. The rules don't prohibit it so there's nothing stopping you from making something until Wizards codifies the concept themselves.

RE: Rogue. Rogues can use axes, they just can't sneak attack with them because axes hurt to much to be balanced. If you want to Sneak attack with axes, use the dagger's dice definitions. Alternatively, be a duel wield ranger- they can also stealth and use any weapon they want.

RE: subtle wizard. Is he subtle in the middle of battle or out of the battle? What do you define as subtle magic? There are charm effects in the monster manual, use them to inspire a mind control or confusion spell. The rules don't prevent players from coming up with these powers it's just they haven't codified them enough yet to publish.

[SmartAlec]

You say exactly that he will be a version of that character. That is different.

Are you honestly criticising 4th Ed because it won't let you play a PC who commands an army of demons?

I mean, come on. Work with us here. Not only did you totally skip over the stuff that makes this guy you mentioned who he is, you went straight to that? And you can't see the problem?

[Serpentine]

Oh, come off it; 'I want a character who messes with people by raising zombies' isn't any more a character concept than 'I want a character who kills people by shooting lasers' or 'I want a character who can leap tall buildings in a single bound'.Your turn to come off it. That was a later oversimplification of a concept that I went into a decent amount of depth describing in an abstract manner a well-fleshed-out character used as a more tangible example of someone else's character concept. If you're going to attack that character concept, attack the whole damn thing.

By the way, I have never come across a character concept that wasn't easily translated into 3.5e, or with a bit more difficulty if sticking to core, including random figures picked out of films, history, books etc. The very first character I tried to make in 4e (a wizard who works as a master spy with his spellcasting focused on that task, the one as an example above) failed miserably and, what's more, wasn't nearly as much fun to make as it would have been in 3.5.

[Indon]

I mean, come on. Work with us here. Not only did you totally skip over the stuff that makes this guy you mentioned who he is, you went straight to that? And you can't see the problem?

I make a blatantly obvious example in order to blatantly demonstrate the point - powers have an impact on character concept. No matter how hard you try, you can not completely divorce the two.

If your point is that it's not a particularly large system weakness, then say as much. But don't pretend it's not a system weakness. Playing a version of a character is not playing that character - it's being close, which isn't necessarily bad.

Am I the one who's not working with you, who refuses to acknowledge that you are making sacrifices and compromises, however small they may seem?

[Ralfarius]

Playing a version of a character is not playing that character - it's being close, which isn't necessarily bad.
I'm not certain this entirely true. I've had, in my day, a few characters that I've rotated in through various systems and genres. The thing that ties them all together is their personality, their background, and how it feels to be roleplaying them. The whole mechanical ability/class selection etc parts are not what define the character, in my opinion. Anecdotaly, I would say that all these different "versions" are, in fact, the same character, and the mechanics of playing him/her are unrelated to the actual character beyond affecting dice rolls.

The mechanics simply exist as a way to determine how to win challenges within the confines of a mechanical system which tries to provide a measure of quantifiable fairness to all parties involved, rather than a vehicle for your role playing.

This discussion hearkens me unto the arguments of "roleplay/rollplay" which led to the Stormwind Fallacy of old. Not to actually invoke said fallacy (it doesn't quite apply here), but I personally believe that my mechanics shouldn't be dipped into my role playing, but rather enjoyed as the separate entities and the separate purposes for which they exist.

[SmartAlec]

I make a blatantly obvious example in order to blatantly demonstrate the point - powers have an impact on character concept. No matter how hard you try, you can not completely divorce the two.

All you have shown - Serpentine and Indon both - is that you cannot seperate the two, I'm afraid. Was this demon-summoner always able to summon a horde of demons? What would this necromancer do, in a world where raising zombies is not possible? The demon-summoner would find another way; the necromancer would have to find other ways to defile the bodies of his foes. The character hasn't changed. You've missed the point; you've been spoiled by 3rd Ed's attempt to mechanically incorporate everything. It's not the vampire-slaying that defines Buffy, or the ability to rip monster's arms off that defines Beowulf, or the blaster pistol that defines Han. Buffy's sassiness, sharp wit and genre-savviness, Beowulf's gloriously over-the-top arrogance and pride, and Han's cockiness and tendency towards slick chicanery; those are character concepts. As long as they are unchanged, the character is there.

This is not a system weakness. Or if it is, it's a system weakness that applies to all systems ("I want my blaster pistol for my 3rd Ed Han Solo, dammit!"). Free your minds.

[Indon]

I'm not certain this entirely true. I've had, in my day, a few characters that I've rotated in through various systems and genres. The thing that ties them all together is their personality, their background, and how it feels to be roleplaying them. The whole mechanical ability/class selection etc parts are not what define the character, in my opinion. Anecdotaly, I would say that all these different "versions" are, in fact, the same character, and the mechanics of playing him/her are unrelated to the actual character beyond affecting dice rolls.

I do that, too - but I wouldn't need to call them different character versions if they were all the same guy. They're all very similar, and I might even give them all the same name. But they're different characters. The Roland whom to the dark tower came is not Roland the Gunslinger, he's just the Gunslinger's inspiration.


The mechanics simply exist as a way to determine how to win challenges within the confines of a mechanical system which tries to provide a measure of quantifiable fairness to all parties involved, rather than a vehicle for your role playing.
When you put the game into a vehicle, I think it should have room for the entire game.


Not to actually invoke said fallacy (it doesn't quite apply here), but I personally believe that my mechanics shouldn't be dipped into my role playing, but rather enjoyed as the separate entities and the separate purposes for which they exist.

As I've said in a bunch of threads before - if you aren't using a game for roleplaying, you aren't playing a roleplaying game - you're just roleplaying in a regular one.


Was this demon-summoner always able to summon a horde of demons? What would this necromancer do, in a world where raising zombies is not possible? The demon-summoner would find another way; the necromancer would have to find other ways to defile the bodies of his foes. The character hasn't changed.
Dude, you just talked for like an entire paragraph about precisely how the character changes as a result of changing conditions. Of course the character has changed. The character may have many things in common with his other version - his name, many personality traits - but he has been adapted to a new environment. He is an adaptation.


you've been spoiled by 3rd Ed's attempt to mechanically incorporate everything.
Well, yeah, that's precisely my point. I'm also spoiled by things like processed food and clean water - I'd bitch if I lost either of those (not that I'm losing anything with 4'th edition, but I digress).

That's because mechanically incorporating things is good, and enhances the roleplaying experience, provided it's done passably well.


As long as they are unchanged, the character is there.
Those are just facets of characters. If I just want to play a snarky scoundrel, sure, that could be Han Solo... or it could be Bruno the Bandit. It takes more than personality traits to define a character well.


This is not a system weakness. Or if it is, it's a system weakness that applies to all systems ("I want my blaster pistol for my 3rd Ed Han Solo, dammit!"). Free your minds.

As I said, it applies to different systems to different degrees. Your GURPS Han Solo could indeed have a blaster pistol. Your 3'rd edition King Arthur can actually own a minor artifact as a weapon - heck, you could do that in 4'th edition too by ignoring the spirit of the artifact rules.

It hits 4'th edition harder than it hits 3'rd edition because 3'rd edition has more build variety.

I don't play a game to have a freed mind. I start out with one. The game imposes limitations on what I will do - hopefully for a purpose.

[EvilElitest]

OK no body is commenting on my duel meta post. Thanks
anyways, great job indon and serpintine

from
EE

[Myatar_Panwar]

You had the option, it just isn't a feasible one because of your build
4E however only lets you really do a blasty wizard, as Serpintian said


They streamlined mutliclasing and character creatino, they didn't make it any better, just quicker
3E had balence issues, but you can't point out 3E flawed attempts and some how use that to justify 4E not even giving your the option in the first place
from
EE

I would truely like to see the player who could make an Eldritch Knight who then would use his sword as much as his magic. Sure, I guess you could do it, but in melee your basically a Fighter with lower BA and none of the bonus feats. But you have FULL spellcasting progression... Hrm.... I wonder which side of the axis you will lean towards???

And I find it truely HILARIOUS that just because so many builds can be done with 3x, its so much better. Well guess what, you can make all the builds you damn well please, but in truth most of them will suck horribly, and you will once again be stuck with the basics to be viable. Its like people can say: "Yes, yes I can make this build but 4e can't" and then later saying "No I will never play it. It would suck!" Its the truth. But guess what? In 4e you can mix any class and come up with an interesting and VIABLE concept.

If I wanted to play a Necromancer in 4e I would make a base wizard with an evil alignment. I would have him focus on Cold related spells (Chill Strike, Ray of Frost, etc. In my opinion, those are the types of spells a Necromancer would commonly use), then I would give him the rituals Speak With Dead and Gental Repose. I would also get him the Heal skill and Raise Dead. I would then continue to multiclass with Warlock and go Infernal, focusing on powers with the Nerotic and Fear keyword. Then at level 11 I go into the paragon path Life Stealer (I know this one deals with the Warlock mark, but I would just give my character a mark with the same mechanics but w/o the + to damage). So I now have a caster who uses cold and necrotic spells, who can raise the dead and steal the lifeforce out of enemies. Close enough for me. And if you want a necromancer npc, there is a Death Master template which directly relates with Necromancy. I used it in my last game.

For a manipulating caster, I would probally take a wizard and give him the diplomacy skill. Then whenever I was using diplomacy, I would say that my character doesnt uses the standard methods, but rather uses soothing words as well as minor colorful/ hipnotizing spell effects from Prestiditation to go further in enticing the guy. *Gasp* roleplaying strikes again!

[Stickforged]

Oh, please. You are both saying that 4e is a perfect paradigm of balance, but that any small change will break it beyond playability ("Ruining the game"), and at the same time you're trotting out a conspiracy theory that it was created to be such a perfectly balanced system in order to force the players to buy any additional rules which are published.

Rubbish.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the game is perfect and can't stand any new rules or changes to existing rules, then none will be published. If the players are forced to buy all new rules which are published, then the game can stand changes without being thrown out of balance.

Please, people. Like this rule but not that one. Be apathetic, or love it, or hate it. Or any other of a broad spectrum of reactions. But if you have a strong opinion either for or against 4e, at least attempt to live up to some standard of intellectual honesty. The rules can't be awful for reasons which are mutually exclusive.

And as to the supposed rigidity, please point your browser over to the WotC website, where you'll find more than one article which contains house rules. The article on converting 3.x characters to 4e completely invalidates your conspiracy theory that the game can't stand any change from the RAW and forces players to wait for and purchase further publications.

Umm, i was going to reply but EvilElitest has done the job for me...

I must clarify however, showing my "intellectual honesty" you accused me of not having, that "i do like" a lot of mechanics (skill challenges and the entire DM book and new monster attacks) of 4ed. I simply cannot find useful the player's handbook as is not suited to my campaigns.

When i converted from 1st to 2nd to 3rd to 3,5 i had no problems at all, as all new editions clarified and added things.

4ed clarified and balanced a lot of rules and mechanics but is more closed in itself. To adapt my campaign style to it as for now is impossible, and this is sad, not for me but for WotC as i will not buy the new books of 4ed... obviously the reason they made them in the first place.

Obviously this is no conspiracy, but simply a marketing move. One i don't like at all.

As for the house ruling... please surprise me, read my previous post accurately and show me a mechanical (and not purely role playing, as i can use any system from Basic d100 to Rolemaster ignoring mechanics) way to do the same things in 4ed.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Or just be as or more capable than the other system at doing things.

Which it is! Glad we're finally able to agree on that.


Because some do it more than others, and in different ways. An RPG which is not setting-specific has no setting restrictions on roleplaying. An RPG with more build freedom has less build restrictions on roleplaying. It's very much meaningful.

It's not meaningful, because it makes "restricts roleplaying" into a completely value-neutral statement.


It also keeps you from thinking about the synergy between the two. It promotes a disconnect between mechanics and immersive elements.

Sorry, how does it do that? How does "knowing what the hell it wants to be about" make a game less immersive?


I agree. You could have both strong roleplaying and wargaming facets in a game, and you could have both significant character freedom and mechanical balance in the same game. 4'th edition D&D does not, not because anything was 'given up' trying to achieve something else, but because it was simply made weak in these elements.

4E *has* significant character freedom, what it does not have is the ability to flawlessly replicate 3.X characters, or brokenly powerful wizards.


He's a middling-powerful sorceror/warlock-type who commands a force of demons. I'm not going to give an in-depth character analysis because it would take too long, though.

Advance warning. I'm going to capslock this bit, because I really think people are failing to understand this really very basic point.

"middling powerful sorcerer/warlock typewho commands a force of demons" TELLS ME NOTHING ABOUT THE CHARACTER. Nothing, nix, nada, zip, zilch, rien, NO-THING.

What's the first thing this guy would take out of a burning building? How does he act in a crisis? What kind of food does he like to eat? Is he straight or gay? What does he actually want to do with his life.


If your strategy is to disconnect the character from the mechanics, and redirect your player into mechanics that make the system work ("Here, use my character concept instead, it's better") just say so.

My strategy is not to "disconnect the character from the mechanics". The character and the mechanics are already disconnected. Really, really they are.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Your turn to come off it. That was a later oversimplification of a concept that I went into a decent amount of depth describing in an abstract manner a well-fleshed-out character used as a more tangible example of someone else's character concept. If you're going to attack that character concept, attack the whole damn thing.

The Wizard or the Necromancer. The Wizard still hasn't got a personality.


By the way, I have never come across a character concept that wasn't easily translated into 3.5e, or with a bit more difficulty if sticking to core, including random figures picked out of films, history, books etc. The very first character I tried to make in 4e (a wizard who works as a master spy with his spellcasting focused on that task, the one as an example above) failed miserably and, what's more, wasn't nearly as much fun to make as it would have been in 3.5.

This means one of two things.

a) 3.X is the perfect system, the ur-system, the ultimate roleplaying game.

b) Your preconceptions are so slanted towards 3.X that you honestly can't tell the difference between "how this would be done in 3.X" and "how this should be done."

As for your wizard: at level one, take Skill Training Diplomacy, Skill Training Insight and Skill Training Stealth. Take Cloud of Daggers, Thunderwave an Ray of Frost as your at-wills, Ray of Enfeeblement as your Encounter, Sleep and Freezing Cloud as your Daily choice. For rituals, you're spoiled for choice, I might recommend Comprehend Language, Secret Page, Silence or Animal Messenger, depending on the particular kind of spymaster you were after.

What *exactly* about this character isn't supported by 4E, other than your desire to give him specific spells which have been removed from the system?

[Jerthanis]

No i didn't. I didn't simply say "Oh look, your wrong. Yeah, i don't need to back that up, you are just wrong. That is it. Simply and utterly wrong" I did what anyone with an essay does, i backed it up

Well, let's just leave this at this: I believe you failed to make a convincing argument on the grounds that you didn't make a solid connection between the actual 4th edition rules and the statements you were saying about it. I maintain that you come into threads, write one sentence about something or other being "inconsistent" and declare victory. However, it's entirely possible you forged an ironclad argument as to how 4th edition is entirely without options and I just missed it somewhere in your post.



That is the thing, 4E has, or at least appears to have advanced tactics. However, in order to get this balance and tactics is simplifies and dumbs down everything else. Taking away options, reducing the game’s innate complexity, reducing monsters to nothing but stat blocks. the game, like a board game, or even most video games, makes the primary focus combat and everything else a lesser concern

This is actually something I've been kind of burning to get off my chest recently. After making some 4th edition characters and playing in a few 4th edition sessions, one of our DMs announced he wasn't interested in DMing 4th edition, and in his sessions, we'd continue to play 3rd edition. I returned ready to really mine the plethora of splatbooks to find the one class that perfectly suits me, and I fell flat on my face. First of all, the DM hates Tome of Battle, so three of my favorite 3.5 classes were out of the picture. So I started looking through all the other books ever, from Incarnum to Psionics, from Complete Adventurer to Complete Zebra, I looked for a class and realized that 90% of them play exactly like each other. I built a Soulborn, only to realize it's 90% identical to a Paladin... I made a Psychic warrior only to find it's a lot like a crappier cleric, being a melee self-buffer, but with worse spells. I considered playing a Wizard, but I know the one spell of each level that is their best one, and wonder why I'd bother casting anything else! Psion was the same way, but I have less experience with them. Comparing any full base attack bonus class with any other, I couldn't find any real mechanical difference than there is between the Paladin and Fighter in 4th edition.

When it came to feats, there are something like 9 good ones total, and every other one is a speedbump to a good one, or just crappy. I can't be a Fighter who is perceptive, I can't make a Ranger who is a diplomat, I can't make a wizard who thieves (unless I want to just cast the spells every wizard knows anyway)... When it came to selecting feats for a 6th level 3.5 game I said to myself, "Where'd all my options go?"



1) I see no problem with Elitism, and maybe I’ve read to much Julius Caesar and like song of fire and Ice too much, but a lot of people are stupid. But that isn’t the point I’m trying to make here
2) My point is that by trying to appeal to the public and making things simpler, witch is 4E goal, for good or bad, you simplify it and yes, make it less complex so more people can understand it, you do weaken the game. And maybe I like Bradbury’s work a bit too much for my own good, but by reducing something, simplifying it, dumbing it down you weaken the product and the audience as a whole and create…D&D for dummies, something that is understandable to the common person who doesn’t understand D&D, and lacks the complexity of the more rounded edition, except in the area of combat, which makes it play like a board game or video game, where that is the only thing that matters. By making the game simply for the common non D&D person to play it, the game is simplified and complexity is lost

I have enormous respect for the common man. I ride the bus regularly, and people on the bus are lonely, and love to talk, so I've met a 40 year old mentally retarded garbageman who knows details about commercials from the 1970s that I doubt anyone else on the planet remembers... down to the ages and names of the actors who appeared in them. Talking to him over the course of several distinct bus rides, I couldn't help but marvel that this person is of below average intelligence, yet I go to a college with people who are supposed geniuses and will never know what this man knows. In my experience, there aren't stupid people... just poor test takers.

And there's just as much out-of-combat stuff in 4th edition as there was in 3rd edition. There just aren't powers that say, "You instantly win the next social encounter" or, "you win the next mobility based obstacle" in such a variety of ways.



And yet people lay complex board games all the time. People can have fun playing 4E, they can also have fun playing Warhammer or any game. That isn’t the issue, as I said before, as its own game it is fine, the problem comes from it being a new edition of D&D

Okay, fair enough. I can recognize that 4th edition is going in a different direction than 3rd, and if it's different, then naturally some people will genuinely dislike it, and all I can really argue against is those times when your arguments don't apply as much to 4th edition as you may believe.

I still urge you to give it a fair shake. It won me over through actual play, not by any rule written in the manuals. If you spend three to six sessions on it and decide it's not your cup of tea... well damn, I'm really out of arguments. I'll continue to believe that you're wrong in thinking that the system is any less deep, or that there are significantly fewer options, but I won't ever believe you're being unfair.

[THAC0]

So? In doing so it makes a rather shallow style of gaming and doesn’t encourage anything else. I hate the prep time, because while using minions and what not is easier to me, it is also lazy and incompetent, at least for somebody who likes to obtain a level of realism in the games and supports consistency. Also the PCs entitlement is awful for DM, it is like a monty haul game
Now you can use that and not be a shallow person yes, if you don't give a damn about consistency, fine. But the game is still supporting annoying inconsistencies, like the minion rule

I have to disagree. By reducing the prep time, you're able to get the mechanics down quickly and spend the rest of your time building worlds and realism. Reduced prep time makes your world a better place!

Not to mention how awesome it is when you work 60 hour weeks.






3E playing like a board game? I'm sorry, that is simply absurd as an idea.

IMO, 3e plays as much like a board game as 4e does... Perhaps I missed your definition of what makes 4e a board game?



I hate this argument. Nothing personal, i really just hate his argument. Yes 4E gets ride of teh awful batman thing, but really think about it, just because it doesn't support that doesn't make the game better, it just mean it is in another direction. You can't use 3E's flaw with the batman design as a basis of 4E greatness

I can. It goes something like this: "This was broken in 3e. It is no longer broken in 4e. Let us all celebrate with joy!" :smallwink:



The thing I really don't like about it, that I've mentioned elsewhere and that Zucchini, I think it was, alluded to is that they keep saying that this is a "whole new game!", "should not be thought of as the same game as 3rd edition!". If this is really true, then there is no reason to stop reprinting 3.5ed books.

There's a great reason - money. And I really don't blame WotC for trying to make some. The tabletop gaming industry is not particularly lucrative compared to many other hobbies.

[Dan_Hemmens]

When it came to feats, there are something like 9 good ones total, and every other one is a speedbump to a good one, or just crappy. I can't be a Fighter who is perceptive, I can't make a Ranger who is a diplomat, I can't make a wizard who thieves (unless I want to just cast the spells every wizard knows anyway)... When it came to selecting feats for a 6th level 3.5 game I said to myself, "Where'd all my options go?"


I believe "+1" is the generally used term on these boards.

I actually want to highlight this because it illustrates pretty much exactly what I've been saying about people who are feeling limited by 4E: if you come to (Game X) expecting to be able to apply the assumptions of (Game Y) you're bound to be disappointed.

I'm sure that *somewhere* in 3.X there's a splatbook that will allow you to have a diplomatic ranger (Cosmopolitan: Diplomacy, perhaps) or a wizard who thieves (as you point out, you *can* always just use the standard "make everybody else obsolete" options). But damn if it isn't easier to just buy Skill Training for your character at chargen.

[SadisticFishing]

This post. I am apathetic towards it.

I also didn't read through all 5 pages to see if there are any other responses like this.

More importantly, try it before you bash it. And don't try it with the idea "I'm going to hate this game", because you will.

[Conners]

There are things I like, and things I don't like, about the new system.

On one hand, it's mostly simpler, and it fixes some of the problems of 3.5ed that were just TOO complicated to bother with. Its simplicity also means I can hopefully get some siblings of mine who don't have enough time to learn the 3.5ed system, or are uninterested because it's so complicated, to try a game with me.

On the other hand, they've dumb-ed it down needlessly in some areas, such as the fact more than half of the languages are taken out, and the fact that all races have two +2 bonuses to stats (why are goblins and hobgoblins given +2 CHR.....?). I also don't like some of the added fluff, gnolls being my least favourite change going from evil tendentious animoids, to die-hard demon worshiping, blood-crazed, rampaging savages... and I thought they were too evil before O_O.

Still, I'm trying to fix the "problems" with it in another thread, and I find it mostly a change for the better (combat has gotten more strategic). Here's the thread if you're interested: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4489918#post4489918

[Indon]

Well guess what, you can make all the builds you damn well please, but in truth most of them will suck horribly, and you will once again be stuck with the basics to be viable. Its like people can say: "Yes, yes I can make this build but 4e can't" and then later saying "No I will never play it. It would suck!" Its the truth. But guess what? In 4e you can mix any class and come up with an interesting and VIABLE concept.

Most 3'rd edition builds can contribute to equal-level ECL combats. Those builds can be wildly different in power relative to each other, but it's actually not hard to make a character that, by RAW, can by and large contribute.

So really, the only condition is that everyone's playing characters about as powerful as each other. The Monk/Favored Soul/Warlock/Fighter party works just fine.


Close enough for me.

And that's exactly what you're doing - getting close. But not getting there.


Which it is! Glad we're finally able to agree on that.

Apparently I need to clarify.


On the contrary, what I am saying is "the system cannot do what you want it to, because what you want it to do is 'be the other system' which it manifestly cannot."


Or just be as or more capable than the other system at doing things.
I'm saying that what the system manifestly can not do, is be as or more capable than the other system at doing things.

For all the grognarding and complaining, this is not at all a problem 3'rd edition had when it came out. Stuff from AD&D could convert over because 3'rd edition had much more build options. People complained about a lot of things in 3'rd edition, but never "3'rd edition is a less mechanically versatile system than AD&D is".


It's not meaningful, because it makes "restricts roleplaying" into a completely value-neutral statement.
Well, yeah. Unbounded creativity can be a bad thing, haven't you ever played Cowboys and Indians (or freeform RP'd on a forum) and had a godmoder?

There are actual reasons, good reasons, that one might restrict roleplaying. Only without such a reason is it clearly a bad thing.

I need to switch computers, so I'll finish a bit later.

[Jayabalard]

So what you're saying - indirectly - is that people, or characters, are defined as much as by what they think, say and have experienced as much as what they do.Yup, they're all equal facets of the character; if you change any one of them then you're dealing with a different character.


So if a character cannot do something - if, say, a character can't raise zombies - that character is not then null and void.False; as soon as that character is missing one thing, you are no longer playing that same character... you're playing a character that is somewhat like the character that you want to play. Similar != Same.


If this is so, you fall back on the other three<snip>Ok, he won't be able to raise zombies, but he'll still be that character. This is the "fall back on what 4e can actually do" which is exactly what people are complaining about. It is NOT the same character. The player is being forced to play something other than what they want to play due to the limitations of the system. To many people, this is simply not acceptable. For others, it may or may not be acceptable based on how major or minor that facet is to that character.

For many people who want to play a necromancer, being able to raise undead is a major facet. They will not consider any character that cannot raise undead to be a real necromancer, and they won't be satisfied playing a fake necromancer that is missing something that important to the character

[Dan_Hemmens]

Yup, they're all equal facets of the character; if you change any one of them then you're dealing with a different character.

First of all, I fully acknowledge that what I'm about to say is a classic slippery slope argument but:

Where do you draw the line? If I change, say, my character's clothes, is he the same character? What if I give him a different primary weapon (say a Longsword instead of a scimitar). When I level up, does my character become a different person, because his capabilities change? Will he be a different person if I take different feats?


False; as soon as that character is missing one thing, you are no longer playing that same character... you're playing a character that is somewhat like the character that you want to play. Similar != Same.

But equally Same != Identical.

Some elements of a character are integral to that character, some are utterly cosmetic.

To take an example I've used before: Romeo, in Shakespeare's original text, fights Tybalt with a sword. Clearly, therefore, Romeo is capable of using a sword and clearly, therefore fighting with a sword is not part of his character.

However, in the movie William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, the whole thing is set not in 17th century Verona but in 20th Century California, and all the fights take place with knives and guns.

If you are making the argument that capabilities are an essential part of character, then it follows that stage-play Romeo is actually a different character to movie Romeo. Despite the fact that it's literally the same play, adapted for the screen.


This is the "fall back on what 4e can actually do" which is exactly what people are complaining about. It is NOT the same character. The player is being forced to play something other than what they want to play due to the limitations of the system. To many people, this is simply not acceptable. For others, it may or may not be acceptable based on how major or minor that facet is to that character.

For many people who want to play a necromancer, being able to raise undead is a major facet. They will not consider any character that cannot raise undead to be a real necromancer, and they won't be satisfied playing a fake necromancer that is missing something that important to the character

And for many people who want to play a necromancer, being able to communicate with the dead is a major facet. For many being able to heal people is a major facet. For many people the most important thing about being a necromancer is holding the balance between life and death.

The point is, 3.X players are naturally used to working with 3.X. When a 3.X player says he wants to play a Necromancer of course he's going to want to play what 3.X defines as a necromancer, that's what he's used to.

I, personally, felt that the Necromancy options in 3.X were rubbish. An arcane caster, I felt, could be a necromancer in name only. Sure you could get "spooky" powers and a little bit of summoning, but you never got to really feel like you held the power of life and death.

Either way though, that has nothing to do with the *character*.

[SmartAlec]

Yup, they're all equal facets of the character; if you change any one of them then you're dealing with a different character.

In terms of mechanics; maybe. In terms of character; only if you roleplay him/her differently. And you don't have to.


It is NOT the same character.

Going in circles now; we're back to the 'class/skills/spells/powers are integral to how a character is roleplayed', and we've been there about half a dozen times already this thread alone. So, again: THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO AFFECT THE WAY YOU ROLEPLAY THE CHARACTER.

[Jayabalard]

In terms of mechanics; maybe. In terms of character; only if you roleplay him/her differently. And you don't have to.Yes... yes I do have to. Because it's not the same character. I cannot play the necromancer who cannot raise undead the same that I can play the necromancer who can raise undead. It's simply not possible. They are fundamentally different characters.


Going in circles now; we're back to the 'class/skills/spells/powers are integral to how a character is roleplayed', and we've been there about half a dozen times already this thread alone. So, again: THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO AFFECT THE WAY YOU ROLEPLAY THE CHARACTER.A false statement; It does indeed have to affect the way that I roleplay. Writing a sentence in all caps and bold does not make it the truth.

You may well be willing to change your character to adapt to what the mechanics of 4e allow, but not everyone is willing to make that kind of sacrifice; some people are not willing to change fundamental portions of a character and roleplay them completely differently just because the system has some silly limitations.

[AKA_Bait]

Can't we split the difference here people? There are characters that are defined by what they can do and there are characters that are not so defined. Consider the various moments in film/literature where a character loses the power to do x, which had been central to their self image and motivations. In those cases, if you take away the ability then you do fundimentally alter the character.

Are all characters and all aspects of characters like this? Obviously not. The Romeo example is a good one of how a minor change to a characters capabilities doesn't change the the character. However, consider on the flip side the character of Magneto. If you took away his mutant powers, the use of which and posession of which in substantial part defined him as an individual, you take away the foundation of his personality and motivations.

[Jayabalard]

First of all, I fully acknowledge that what I'm about to say is a classic slippery slope argument but:

Where do you draw the line? If I change, say, my character's clothes, is he the same character? What if I give him a different primary weapon (say a Longsword instead of a scimitar). When I level up, does my character become a different person, because his capabilities change? Will he be a different person if I take different feats?This is dependent on the two things:
1. The player: Different players have different opinions on what level to difference is a fundamental change in the character.
2. The character in question: Some characters are defined more by what they can do than others are. Some are totally defined by the things tat they can do. Some of the, what they can do is of minor, or no importance.

This is what people mean when they say that there are characters that cannot be played in 4e, characters that are defined by what they can do. Certainly, this occurs in pretty much all systems, but the reason that people complain about it for 4e is that there are far more characters that cannot be portrayed in 4e than there were in 3e.


Can't we split the difference here people? If you mean, can we agree that some characters are defined by what they can do, and some are not, then I can agree with that.

But that's the core of the disagreement. Some people are claiming that there are characters that cannot be played in 4e that could be played in 3e (there exist a character such that yadda yadda yadda). Others are claiming that there are not characters that cannot be played in 4e (there does not exist a character such that yadda yadda yadda). If we agree that some characters are defined by what they can do, and some aren't then it's trivial to show that there are characters that cannot be played in 4e.

Which is probably why some people have taken up that stance and tried to dictate what can be considered "roleplaying a character" ... as far as I can see, that's the only way to back up the "there does not exist" claim.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Can't we split the difference here people?

All I'm asking for is for people to accept that "is not mechanically identical to 3.X" is not the same as "restricts roleplaying". I don't think it's unreasonable.


There are characters that are defined by what they can do and there are characters that are not so defined. Consider the various moments in film/literature where a character loses the power to do x, which had been central to their self image and motivations. In those cases, if you take away the ability then you do fundimentally alter the character.

Ah, you see I'd actually argue that those moments actually show that the character isn't defined by their powers. When Spiderman loses his powers in Spiderman 2 he doesn't cease to be spiderman, he's just Spiderman without his powers. Furthermore, ninety percent of the time, the "the hero loses their powers" arc is expliclty designed to show that the character isn't defined by their powers.

When Buffy loses her powers in Helpless she freaks out because something obviously weird is happening to her, but the whole point of that episode is that Buffy, even without her powers, would still fight to defend those who needed it, and would still be capable of defeating evil with her own native abilities. Same with virtually any other "X loses their powers" arc.


Are all characters and all aspects of characters like this? Obviously not. The Romeo example is a good one of how a minor change to a characters capabilities doesn't change the the character. However, consider on the flip side the character of Magneto. If you took away his mutant powers, the use of which and posession of which in substantial part defined him as an individual, you take away the foundation of his personality and motivations.

Again, I think magneto is an extremely bad example. The point of Magneto is that he's the dark reflection of Professor X, he's the victim who became the oppressor, the man who took the fight for freedom too far. That's what he's about, that's the essence of his character.

Yes, Magneto would not be exactly the same as he is now if his powers were different (although most comic book characters have powers that change over time anyway) but he would still be the same character whether he was a telepath or a shapeshifter or whatever.

To put it another way, if I wanted to create "Magneto" as a character in an RPG my first thought would not be "right, what IC abilities allow me to control metal" it would be "right, what IC minority can I be a member of, and have a supremacist agenda to support?"

[SmartAlec]

Yes... yes I do have to. Because it's not the same character. I cannot play the necromancer who cannot raise undead the same that I can play the necromancer who can raise undead. It's simply not possible. They are fundamentally different characters.

I'm not at all convinced of this; this is the point where, for me, what you're trying to say breaks down. How are they different in character? I realise you've already just said, "one of them can't raise undead in a manner that affects the game." That's a mechanical difference. It will make no difference to how I roleplay him. He will still be the same morbid, cackling maniac with a ghoulish tendency to pay far too much attention to corpses.

[Indon]

Sorry, how does it do that? How does "knowing what the hell it wants to be about" make a game less immersive?
Because it'll mean you'll notice if you don't "want to be about" tactical combat.

Though, to be fair, it's probably better just to not use the system for things it's not suited for, and if you notice a disconnect like that between character concept and system support, it's pretty easy to either discard the character or the system.


4E *has* significant character freedom, what it does not have is the ability to flawlessly replicate 3.X characters, or brokenly powerful wizards.
It has fairly good character freedom, yeah. It just doesn't have the same degree that 3.x has - a fact which you might deride as insignificant by writing it off as, "Well, so you can't make stupid-broken characters," but the fact is that you could use, rather than abuse, such freedom, as well. It's all right to get rid of the abuse - but the use does go with it.


*middling powerful sorcerer/warlock typewho commands a force of demons" TELLS ME NOTHING ABOUT THE CHARACTER. Nothing, nix, nada, zip, zilch, rien, NO-THING.
He's a natural commander, intelligent and interested in the esoteric. He commands men with his charisma and creatures with his arcane powers towards his own, generally selfish, ends.


My strategy is not to "disconnect the character from the mechanics". The character and the mechanics are already disconnected. Really, really they are.

Well, then. 3'rd edition is balanced because every character concept can be played with the Wizard class. :P


I considered playing a Wizard, but I know the one spell of each level that is their best one, and wonder why I'd bother casting anything else!
I wonder why, too. Do you know?


When it came to feats, there are something like 9 good ones total, and every other one is a speedbump to a good one, or just crappy.
Well, there aren't that many good feats in core, certainly. But outside of core you can take feats to give yourself a 1-1 skill point ratio for skills, and then more feats to gain more skill points


And there's just as much out-of-combat stuff in 4th edition as there was in 3rd edition. There just aren't powers that say, "You instantly win the next social encounter" or, "you win the next mobility based obstacle" in such a variety of ways.
Your statements are contradictory. You're saying with everything after the first sentence that there is less out-of-combat stuff in 4'th edition, and that that's a good thing. That's a fine position to take.


IMO, 3e plays as much like a board game as 4e does... Perhaps I missed your definition of what makes 4e a board game?
I disagree. 3'rd edition plays much less like a boardgame because so many aspects of combat trivialize the 'board' aspect - why bother breaking out the mat when your combat can be resolved with your fighter going, "I charge-power-attack the first dragon for a zillion damage!" while the wizard says, "I laserbeam the second dragon."

Not necessarily a good thing, but it definitely had a hand in trivializing the tactical element of the game, and I would without doubt say that 4'th edition is way better at tactical combat.


Where do you draw the line? If I change, say, my character's clothes, is he the same character? What if I give him a different primary weapon (say a Longsword instead of a scimitar). When I level up, does my character become a different person, because his capabilities change? Will he be a different person if I take different feats?
I, personally, use story continuity. So while Childe Roland is not Roland the Gunslinger, the characters of this webcomic form a single ensemble cast despite running multiple concurrent storylines (http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/).


However, in the movie William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, the whole thing is set not in 17th century Verona but in 20th Century California, and all the fights take place with knives and guns.
Lemme throw your example right back at you - are the characters from West Side Story the same as those in Romeo and Juliet? They essentially have the same feelings, personalities, and perform the same actions - they just have different names, are part of a differently-named storyline, and have different capabilities (like, they don't get their english nerfed to Shakespearian language).


The point is, 3.X players are naturally used to working with 3.X. When a 3.X player says he wants to play a Necromancer of course he's going to want to play what 3.X defines as a necromancer, that's what he's used to.
If I play an Abyssal sorceror in Exalted, I better be able to raise the dead with my Necromantic Circle Sorcery.


Either way though, that has nothing to do with the *character*.

I don't think this point is clear enough for you to legitimately reiterate it without resolving it. West Side Story is not Romeo and Juliet. Roland the Gunslinger is not Childe Roland.

Not to say that capabilities make the character - merely that they're one of many aspects which are part of composite personhood. If I were to have a significantly different job, I would be a different person - because not only is my profession an aspect of myself, but my job has and will continue to shape other aspects of me. Ditto if I had a different personality, different physical attributes, and so on.

[Dan_Hemmens]

This is dependent on the two things:
1. The player: Different players have different opinions on what level to difference is a fundamental change in the character.
2. The character in question: Some characters are defined more by what they can do than others are. Some are totally defined by the things tat they can do. Some of the, what they can do is of minor, or no importance.

This is what people mean when they say that there are characters that cannot be played in 4e, characters that are defined by what they can do. Certainly, this occurs in pretty much all systems, but the reason that people complain about it for 4e is that there are far more characters that cannot be portrayed in 4e than there were in 3e.

It's the attempt at quantification that I object to.

People who are used to 3.X will naturally think of characters in 3.X terms, it will therefore seem to them as if 3.X can support a huge number of characters while 4E can support hardly any. However, as another poster observes upthread, the moment you come to 3.X with a 4E mentality you observe the exact same phenomenon. You start saying to yourself (as
Jerthanis observed) "Why can't I play a ranger who is also a diplomat". The simple option of adding any skill to any character - combined with the fact that "trained" in a skill is as good as you ever get, opens up a wealth of options for starting 4E characters that aren't open to 3.X characters. The ability to get full ritual casting for anybody is likewise huge.

In 3.X if you wanted to play a warrior-mage you had to jump through a huge number of hoops. In 4E you can give Ritual Casting to a fighter with no trouble whatsoever. Of course the 3.Xers present this as a flaw in the system, because anything that wasn't possible in 3.X must, by definition, be unrealistic.


If you mean, can we agree that some characters are defined by what they can do, and some are not, then I can agree with that.

But that's the core of the disagreement. Some people are claiming that there are characters that cannot be played in 4e that could be played in 3e (there exist a character such that yadda yadda yadda). Others are claiming that there are not characters that cannot be played in 4e (there does not exist a character such that yadda yadda yadda). If we agree that some characters are defined by what they can do, and some aren't then it's trivial to show that there are characters that cannot be played in 4e.

Which is probably why some people have taken up that stance and tried to dictate what can be considered "roleplaying a character" ... as far as I can see, that's the only way to back up the "there does not exist" claim.

My specific issue is with people who are trying to use the absence of specific mechanical options from 4E as evidence that it somehow "does not support roleplaying" or that it "restricts roleplaying" more than 3.X. This is stuff and nonsense.

Are there specific characters - where "character" is used to mean "game construct which interacts with the gameworld through the rules" which cannot exist in 4E? Of course there are. Most of them are some kind of Wizard. But that isn't restricting "roleplaying" it's just restricting character building.

[AKA_Bait]

If you mean, can we agree that some characters are defined by what they can do, and some are not, then I can agree with that.

But that's the core of the disagreement. Some people are claiming that there are characters that cannot be played in 4e that could be played in 3e (there exist a character such that yadda yadda yadda). Others are claiming that there are not characters that cannot be played in 4e (there does not exist a character such that yadda yadda yadda). If we agree that some characters are defined by what they can do, and some aren't then it's trivial to show that there are characters that cannot be played in 4e.

I wouldn't call it trivial. Even if as a general principle we accept that there is some character such that it is defined by it's abilities and also that there is some character such that it is not defined by it's abilities, that does not, by itself, show that there is some character such that it is defined by its abilities that can be represented under the 3.x system and cannot be represented under the 4e system.

That said, I don't really see where the argument comes from that every character at this point that could be represented under 3.x can be represented under 4e. There are clearly chracters, that can't be without homebrewing... yet. Of course, there are concepts that I can represent under 4e base rules that I cannot do with 3.x Core either.


All I'm asking for is for people to accept that "is not mechanically identical to 3.X" is not the same as "restricts roleplaying". I don't think it's unreasonable.

Not mechanically identical to 3.x no, that's silly. One can argue, reasonably, that there are concepts which can be better mechanically represented in 3.x than in 4e. Easy mechanical representation of a thing can help facilitate roleplaying. The complete inability to represent a thing, or extreme difficulty in doing so, does restrict it (under any system).


Ah, you see I'd actually argue that those moments actually show that the character isn't defined by their powers. When Spiderman loses his powers in Spiderman 2 he doesn't cease to be spiderman, he's just Spiderman without his powers. Furthermore, ninety percent of the time, the "the hero loses their powers" arc is expliclty designed to show that the character isn't defined by their powers.

No, you are missing the point of those arcs. The character is defined in large part by their powers, if they were not then there would be no story arc in their loss. The character simply wouldn't care anymore than I do when I lose my keys. The point of those arcs, and the resolution at the end, is the character realizing that they don't have to be defined by their powers, even though they had been defining themselves that way. Those arcs are about redefining self, not initially defining self. It's a good, and popular, arc, because the character changes or grows as a result of the loss. Without the initial identification of self, there is no story.

[Jayabalard]

It will make no difference to how I roleplay him. He will still be the same morbid, cackling maniac with a ghoulish tendency to pay far too much attention to corpses.It will make a huge difference in how I roleplay him. The lack of certain abilities leaves me in a situation where I cannot roleplay certain characters. Whether it affects how you play your character does not have anything at all to do with whether it affects how or whether I can play my character in a given RPG system.


People who are used to 3.X will naturally think of characters in 3.X terms, I'm not used to 3.X. I'm used to (primarily) GURPS, palladium and 1e AD&D. I never had much interest in 3.X. So you can't really file me in that drawer.


But that isn't restricting "roleplaying" it's just restricting character building.Restricting character building does restrict roleplaying. If you can't build it, then you can't roleplay it.

You can claim that you think it's not a bad thing if you want, but it's silly to claim that it doesn't lead to some restrictions on what and how people roleplay.

[Dan_Hemmens]

It has fairly good character freedom, yeah. It just doesn't have the same degree that 3.x has - a fact which you might deride as insignificant by writing it off as, "Well, so you can't make stupid-broken characters," but the fact is that you could use, rather than abuse, such freedom, as well. It's all right to get rid of the abuse - but the use does go with it.

Again, this is because you're viewing everything through the lens of 3.X. If you start from the assumption that the 3.X model of a character is the only way to do it of course 3.X is going to look like it gives you more options.


He's a natural commander, intelligent and interested in the esoteric. He commands men with his charisma and creatures with his arcane powers towards his own, generally selfish, ends.

High Charisma, Skill Training: Arcana. Job done.


Well, then. 3'rd edition is balanced because every character concept can be played with the Wizard class. :P

The tragic thing is that that does more or less sum up the "why 3.X is better" arguments...


I, personally, use story continuity. So while Childe Roland is not Roland the Gunslinger, the characters of this webcomic form a single ensemble cast despite running multiple concurrent storylines (http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/).

Okay, but by that definition no two incarnations of the same character are ever the same, even if they're mechanically identical. Not only can our hypothetical Necromancer not be created in 4E, but once he's been created in 3.X he can never be created again, not even in another 3.X game, because it's a different continuity.


Lemme throw your example right back at you - are the characters from West Side Story the same as those in Romeo and Juliet? They essentially have the same feelings, personalities, and perform the same actions - they just have different names, are part of a differently-named storyline, and have different capabilities (like, they don't get their english nerfed to Shakespearian language).

Firstly, you didn't actually answer my question. Are Romeo and Juliet the same characters in different productions of the play or not? If I make a production in which Romeo is also a juggler, or a tennis player, does that make him a different character.

To actually answer your question, I've not seen West Side Story in a long time, but I'm pretty sure that Maria and ... whatever his name is, the guy, don't actually have the same personalities as Romeo and Juliet. For a start they don't have their morbid obsession with death. I'm also pretty sure they don't kill themselves, which again makes a huge difference.


If I play an Abyssal sorceror in Exalted, I better be able to raise the dead with my Necromantic Circle Sorcery.

That's because that's what Abyssal Sorcerers can do in Exalted.


I don't think this point is clear enough for you to legitimately reiterate it without resolving it. West Side Story is not Romeo and Juliet. Roland the Gunslinger is not Childe Roland.

But not because they have different abilities but because they have different personalities.


Not to say that capabilities make the character - merely that they're one of many aspects which are part of composite personhood. If I were to have a significantly different job, I would be a different person - because not only is my profession an aspect of myself, but my job has and will continue to shape other aspects of me. Ditto if I had a different personality, different physical attributes, and so on.

At which point you are yet again defining your terms so broadly they're meaningless.

[Indon]

You start saying to yourself (as
Jerthanis observed) "Why can't I play a ranger who is also a diplomat". The simple option of adding any skill to any character - combined with the fact that "trained" in a skill is as good as you ever get, opens up a wealth of options for starting 4E characters that aren't open to 3.X characters. The ability to get full ritual casting for anybody is likewise huge.

Those are excellent points. 3'rd edition would have been tremendously well-served by a simple feat to grant two additional class skills and one extra skill point per level, and another feat to take spellcasting for one or two spells. That would have increased the ability of 3'rd edition to facilitate roleplaying - and is in fact pretty easy to put in.

But to call making a Fighter/Wizard a 'series of hoops' is rather silly.

[Jayabalard]

Firstly, you didn't actually answer my question. Are Romeo and Juliet the same characters in different productions of the play or not? If I make a production in which Romeo is also a juggler, or a tennis player, does that make him a different character..Missed that one.

No, they are not necessarily the same. They're not even necessarily the same characters in the same production with different actors/actresses playing them.

Same archetype? Sure.


At which point you are yet again defining your terms so broadly they're meaningless.Broad terms are no more meaningless than narrowly defined terms. Since part of what you're arguing about is semantics and meanings, you're being more than a little absurd; you don't get to arbitrarily and narrowly define terms to support your own argument.

[Dan_Hemmens]

No, you are missing the point of those arcs. The character is defined in large part by their powers, if they were not then there would be no story arc in their loss. The character simply wouldn't care anymore than I do when I lose my keys. The point of those arcs, and the resolution at the end, is the character realizing that they don't have to be defined by their powers, even though they had been defining themselves that way. Those arcs are about redefining self, not initially defining self. It's a good, and popular, arc, because the character changes or grows as a result of the loss. Without the initial identification of self, there is no story.

The character has come to define himself in terms of those abilities and learns that he is incorrect to do so. It is the recognition that it is not the character's abilities that define them that leads to the growth you're talking about. It's not "losing your keys" it's "losing your job". It's a big event that changes the way you think about yourself.

If a character's powers were literally integral to their character, then losing their powers would be literally equivalent to losing their personality. The whole point of those arcs is that the loss of their powers does not, on a fundamental level, change who they are. Superman is still Superman, even in the presence of Kryptonite.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But to call making a Fighter/Wizard a 'series of hoops' is rather silly.

Firstly, I cannot create a Fighter/Wizard at first level. You need to be at least level 2 to multiclass (much of the vaunted "flexibility" of 3.X only kicks in at high level). This of course makes it extremely hard for me to actually justify the build in my character background: if I've always dabbled in magic, why have I only just learned to cast spells?

Then of course in order to develop as both a Fighter and a Wizard, my character has to go all out multiclass, in which case I'm already basically being a sub-par fighter and a sub-par wizard and still not actually matching my character concept. I get the ability to use Magic Missile, which I don't want, but I don't get the ability to use full ritual magic, which I do want. I could go with a "gish" build, but again that's not what I'm after. I don't want to go into battle with a sword in one hand and a spell in the other, I want to fight my battles with a sword, and spend my evenings reading dusty tomes of forbidden lore for purely non-combat reasons.

Trival in 4E, horribly impractical in 3.X.

[Jayabalard]

If a character's powers were literally integral to their character, then losing their powers would be literally equivalent to losing their personality. The whole point of those arcs is that the loss of their powers does not, on a fundamental level, change who they are. Not true. At the beginning, the powers are literally integral to the character; at the end it isn't. During the story, the character changes; at the end of the story arc, the character is not the same as they were when the story arc began.

The point of those arcs is that DO fundamentally change who they are; at the end of their arc, they are a much more complete person rather than someone who defines themselves by their powers.


You need to be at least level 2 to multiclass (much of the vaunted "flexibility" of 3.X only kicks in at high level). Level 2 does not qualify as "high level"

Noone denies that 3e gets more flexible as you get higher level; quite the contrary, the common complaint is that 4e does not mirror this, that the flexibility does not significantly increase .

[Dan_Hemmens]

Missed that one.

No, they are not necessarily the same. They're not even necessarily the same characters in the same production with different actors/actresses playing them.

Same archetype? Sure.

At which point, I once again have to use the phrase "so broad it's meaningless". If you're defining "character" so broadly (or, depending on how you look at it, so narrowly) that a change of actor makes a character "not the same" then no RPG system can represent any character ever, which makes this entire discussion pointless.


Broad terms are no more meaningless than narrowly defined terms. Since part of what you're arguing about is semantics and meanings, you're being more than a little absurd; you don't get to arbitrarily and narrowly define terms to support your own argument.

But other people get to arbitrarily and broadly define terms to support *their* own arguments?

If your definition of "character" is so broad as to include literally everything about them, including their game mechanical abilities, then no RPG system can represent any character from any other RPG system, or from anything else (or to put it another way, every RPG character is wholly unique). In this case there is absolutely no point in arguing whether a particular character can or can not be represented in any given system.

Just to remind everybody, this whole tangent about Necromancers started because somebody complained that 4E wouldn't let him be a Druid, Bard or Necromancer, which he really liked "for the roleplaying". Now maybe he really was using the word "roleplaying" in its broadest sense, meaning that he enjoyed the overall experience of playing those Classes in 3.X, but I somehow doubt it. It seems infinitely more likely that he was talking about the "fluff" aspects, the "personality and motivation" aspects, and *those* can appear in any system you care to name.

[Jayabalard]

Trival in 4E, horribly impractical in 3.X.I don't think that anyone has claimed otherwise. Certainly there are characters that can be roleplayed in 4e that cannot be roleplayed in 3e, just like there are characters that can be roleplayed in 3e that cannot be roleplayed in 4e.

Of course, since 3e is so much more flexible, especially as the levels increase, there are more limitations on the characters that can be roleplayed in 4e than there were in 3e. Hence the complaint that 4e is limiting roleplaying options.


But other people get to arbitrarily and broadly define terms to support *their* own arguments?broad definitions are inclusive; narrow definitions are exclusive. Being inclusive is ok, exclusive not so much.

You cannot define roleplaying so that it does not include what other people consider roleplaying; it is fine for someone to use a broad definition of roleplaying that includes both what you do as roleplaying and what they do, and also what Alice, Bob, and Carol consider roleplaying.


If your definition of "character" is so broad as to include literally everything about them, including their game mechanical abilities, then no RPG system can represent any character from any other RPG system, or from anything else (or to put it another way, every RPG character is wholly unique). hello straw man.

The issue is that you cannot dictate what makes up roleplaying a character for someone else. You are more than welcome to limit yourself in what you chose to to use in roleplaying a character but it's not ok to try and force that limitation on other people.

[AKA_Bait]

It seems infinitely more likely that he was talking about the "fluff" aspects, the "personality and motivation" aspects, and *those* can appear in any system you care to name.

Can I play a heroin addict? A character whose sole motivation in life at this point is to do whatever it takes to get his fix, if there are no addictive substances in the game?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Not true. At the beginning, the powers are literally integral to the character; at the end it isn't. During the story, the character changes; at the end of the story arc, the character is not the same as they were when the story arc began.

Something cannot cease to be integral to something else. By definition if something is integral to a thing, to remove the integral component is to destroy the thing. That's what "integral" means.


The point of those arcs is that DO fundamentally change who they are; at the end of their arc, they are a much more complete person rather than someone who defines themselves by their powers.

But the point is that it is the arc that changes the character, not the actual loss of power. Buffy without her powers does not cease to be Buffy, if she did she wouldn't be *able* to grow as a result of the arc, because there would be no "her" to do the growing.

And if the powers were integral to the character, how would those arcs even work? Character defines self by powers. Character loses powers. Character learns that actually they were totally right. Character gets powers back again.


Level 2 does not qualify as "high level"

It does when you're writing background for a level one character.


Noone denies that 3e gets more flexible as you get higher level; quite the contrary, the common complaint is that 4e does not mirror this, that the flexibility does not significantly increase .

So people are criticizing 4e because it remains equally flexible all the way through? Colour me confused.


I don't think that anyone has claimed otherwise. Certainly there are characters that can be roleplayed in 4e that cannot be roleplayed in 3e, just like there are characters that can be roleplayed in 3e that cannot be roleplayed in 4e.

Of course, since 3e is so much more flexible, there are more limitations on the characters that can be roleplayed in 4e than there were in 3e.

That's where I disagree. It's nonsensical to talk about there being "more" or "fewer" limitations on characters based purely on mechanical options.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Can I play a heroin addict? A character whose sole motivation in life at this point is to do whatever it takes to get his fix, if there are no addictive substances in the game?

No rules for addictive substances <> no addictive substances.

Want to play an addict? Go right ahead.

[SmartAlec]

Can I play a heroin addict? A character whose sole motivation in life at this point is to do whatever it takes to get his fix, if there are no addictive substances in the game?

Yes. The addictive substance doesn't need any definition in the rules. The bare bones of it is that it's purely a device you use to play your character. It's down to you to roleplay the addiction, the withdrawl, the personality flaws that led him or her down this road.

(ninja'd by Dan!)

[AKA_Bait]

Yes. The addictive substance doesn't need any definition in the rules. The bare bones of it is that it's purely a device you use to play your character. It's down to you to roleplay the addiction, the withdrawl, the personality flaws that led him or her down this road.

(ninja'd by Dan!)


No rules for addictive substances <> no addictive substances.

Want to play an addict? Go right ahead.

Now, lets say I want to play someone addicted to creating undeaded servants and... doing things to them, which does require in game mechanics. How do I do it without undead creation rules?

[Dan_Hemmens]

broad definitions are inclusive; narrow definitions are exclusive. Being inclusive is ok, exclusive not so much.

Broad definitions tend to make discussion meaningless, because they tend to make any statement you want to make totally noncontroversial.

Further, broad definitions tend to be used as a springboard for narrower definitions. People start out by saying "4E gives you fewer build options than 3.X" (which is manifestly true: simplification is a design goal). They then say "therefore 4E restricts roleplaying more than 3.X" which is true if you adopt a broad definition of roleplaying.

They *then* start to say that this means that 4E is "not a roleplaying game" or "is just descent/world of warcraft/whatever", switching from the broad definition to the narrow. They take the idea that 4E restricts *one aspect* of roleplaying and use it to imply that 4E restricts *all* aspects of roleplaying.

*That's* why I use narrow definitions.


hello straw man.

It's not a straw man, it's your actual argument. If Romeo is a different character when he's played by a different actor, it is manifestly impossible for two different versions of the same character to ever be "the same". In this case the question of whether a particular character can or can not be represented under this or that system is meaningless.


The issue is that you cannot dictate what makes up roleplaying a character for someone else. You are more than welcome to limit yourself in what you chose to to use in roleplaying a character but it's not ok to try and force that limitation on other people.

And I'm not trying to, what I'm trying to do is to stop people using the above-described rhetorical trickery to equate "mechanical complexity" with "viability as a roleplaying game".

[Jayabalard]

No rules for addictive substances <> no addictive substances.

Want to play an addict? Go right ahead.You might want to double check what he wrote. He did not say anything about rules. He's speaking strictly of fluff. In a game world where are no addictive substances, you cannot play his heroin addict.


Something cannot cease to be integral to something else. By definition if something is integral to a thing, to remove the integral component is to destroy the thing. That's what "integral" means.Not to destroy necessarily. But the origional ceases to be. The Spiderman with his powers who defines himself by his powers ceases to be; The Spiderman with no powers who still defines himself by those powers comes into existence; over time, a new Spiderman comes into being, one that no longer defines himself by those powers. 3 different characters in one story arc all with the same name and actor.

People are criticizing 4e because it remains pretty much equally inflexible all the way through, while 3e becomes geometrically more flexible at higher levels.


It's not a straw man, it's your actual argument. If Romeo is a different character when he's played by a different actor, it is manifestly impossible for two different versions of the same character to ever be "the same". In this case the question of whether a particular character can or can not be represented under this or that system is meaningless.No, it's not, and claiming that it is my argument is the very definition of straw man argument.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Now, lets say I want to play someone addicted to creating undeaded servants and... doing things to them, which does require in game mechanics. How do I do it without undead creation rules?

You don't.

Notice the way it works. You need rules for the mechanical power (creation of undead minions) but not for the character trait (addiction).

[SmartAlec]

Now, lets say I want to play someone addicted to creating undeaded servants and... doing things to them, which does require in game mechanics. How do I do it without undead creation rules?

Woah, woah, go back a bit.

Why do they need in-game rules? You're not going to be using them in combat. From the sound of it, you're not going to be using them for anything other than something which I hope you're not saying you need in-game rules for. :smalleek:

[AKA_Bait]

You don't.

Notice the way it works. You need rules for the mechanical power (creation of undead minions) but not for the character trait (addiction).

Right, but I want to be addicted to making and doing things to undead minions. How can I portray that kind of character without the mechanical power to create undead minions?


Woah, woah, go back a bit.

Why do they need in-game rules? You're not going to be using them in combat.

They will be in combat though. I want my undead minions follow me everyplace, including dangerous, combat filled places. I'll need stats for them, even if they aren't designed to attack anything. Or should the monsters just all ignore them all the time becuse there are no mechanics for them?


From the sound of it, you're not going to be using them for anything other than something which I hope you're not saying you need in-game rules for. :smalleek:

Never read the BoEF? :smallwink:

[Dan_Hemmens]

You might want to double check what he wrote. He did not say anything about rules. He's speaking strictly of fluff. In a game world where are no addictive substances, you cannot play his heroin addict.

I read what he wrote very carefully. He very deliberately said "game" which could equally well describe the rules or the world. I'm pretty sure it was just a setup for his second point.


Not to destroy necessarily. But the origional ceases to be. The Spiderman with his powers who defines himself by his powers ceases to be; The Spiderman with no powers who still defines himself by those powers comes into existence; over time, a new Spiderman comes into being, one that no longer defines himself by those powers. 3 different characters in one story arc all with the same name and actor.

You realize that this is perilously close to the ontological argument? What you're now saying is that a character's powers are integral to a version of that character to whom those powers are integral.

But if you're going to define "Spiderman with his powers" "Spiderman without his powers" and "Spiderman having lost his powers and got them back again" as literally three different characters then once again makes a mockery of the idea of being able to represent any given "character" in any given system.


No, it's not, and claiming that it is my argument is the very definition of straw man argument.

You keep saying that, but you've just made exactly the same argument again.

If you're going to argue that every time anything significant happens to a character, they become a wholly different character (as you just have, in this very post, with Spiderman) the whole concept of being able to create the same character more than once becomes totally meaningless. You can't represent any character in any game, because they turn into a different character the moment anything *happens* in the game.

[hamishspence]

"Character" can mean personality and memories rather than abilities. The number of times we see TV or book characters undergo a "body swap" is numerous. Powers do not entirely define the person, though they are relevant.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Right, but I want to be addicted to making and doing things to undead minions. How can I portray that kind of character without the mechanical power to create undead minions?


By being addicted to something other than making undead minions. Thus you play the same type of character with different powers.

[AKA_Bait]

By being addicted to something other than making undead minions. Thus you play the same type of character with different powers.
Bolding mine.

The same type of character is not the same thing as the same character. The link of the addiction to the power is a motiviating factor to the RP of the character.

I can create another character with a common thread linking them, addiction in this case, but is the character who is addicted to undead minion creation really going to reasonably have the same personality as someone who is addicted to heroin?

They may have the same personality trait but some expressions of that trait will require mechanics. I'm not saying it's often, or that the characters are even going to be particularly interesting or even very very differently RP'd, but they will not be the same.

[ghost_warlock]

Woah, woah, go back a bit.

Why do they need in-game rules? You're not going to be using them in combat. From the sound of it, you're not going to be using them for anything other than something which I hope you're not saying you need in-game rules for. :smalleek:

3e has rules for that...stuff. (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Erotic-Fantasy-Gwendolyn-Kestrel/dp/097420451X) :smallwink:

[SmartAlec]

They will be in combat though. I want my undead minions follow me everyplace, including dangerous, combat filled places. I'll need stats for them, even if they aren't designed to attack anything. Or should the monsters just all ignore them all the time becuse there are no mechanics for them?

Now if I was your DM, I'd say, 'don't be a twerp' and tell you No, because having undead zombies following you everywhere is inherently impractical if you're going to go anywhere near a settled area. Plus, it'd be a pain for me to do. But it wouldn't be the system that's blocking you, it'd be me. Plus it wouldn't be restricting your character's roleplay at all - he can still want them to follow him everywhere, regardless of whether they can or can't.

And of course, it could still be done. There are stats for zombies and rules for minions in the game; if I absolutely had to bend over backwards to make this thing of yours work because you were pulling a major sulk or something, and no other player disagreed, then I'd start to use them as a kind of mindless 1hp scenery. It wouldn't even be an Oberoni Fallacy; I wouldn't be making up any kind of houserule, I'd just be putting some extra stuff on the board from time to time.

Bottom line is, though, you're just plain pushing things to the point where it wouldn't be the system that'll block you, it'd be the DM. You see, if you force your RP to affect the mechanics... that's when you become a godmoder, if you will. That's when you cross the line.

[Jayabalard]

You keep saying that, but you've just made exactly the same argument again.
I said: "No, they are not necessarily the same. They're not even necessarily the same characters in the same production with different actors/actresses playing them."

That is not the same argument as "Romeo is a different character when he's played by a different actor"

It would be the same argument as "Romeo can be a different character when he's played by a different actor"


If you're going to argue that every time anything significant happens to a character, they become a wholly different character (as you just have, in this very post, with Spiderman) the whole concept of being able to create the same character more than once becomes totally meaningless. This is not the case, and I didn't claim this. I've said that when significant things happen to a character, they can become a new character. In the spiderman arc, I gave specific examples of where his character changed.

The fact that a characters change when significant events happen to them does not stop you from creating a particular character. Once you create it, it sits there on the paper exactly as you created it; it doesn't change until you change it while playing the game.

That's the primary draw of roleplaying for many people; choosing the path as a character changes and grows into someone new.


You can't represent any character in any game, because they turn into a different character the moment anything *happens* in the game.Not true. The fact that characters change does not prevent them from being represented in the game.

I've made no claim about there being any necessity of artificially holding a character at a particular snapshot. Nor have I made any claim that being able to play a single character without it ever changing is in any way desirable (quite the contrary). What I have claimed is that I want to be able to pick the starting point, and either grow the character into other specific points, or let it grow whereever my fancy takes me.

[AKA_Bait]

It wouldn't even be an Oberoni Fallacy; I wouldn't be making up any kind of houserule, I'd just be putting some extra stuff on the board from time to time.

Sorry, but it would be. You would be creating a houserule that allowed me to create and have undead minions. That you are doing so loosley doesn't mean you are not doing so.



Now if I was your DM, I'd say, 'don't be a twerp' and tell you No, because having undead zombies following you everywhere is inherently impractical if you're going to go anywhere near a settled area. Plus, it'd be a pain for me to do. But it wouldn't be the system that's blocking you, it'd be me.

Come now, it's both. The system doesn't provide a mechanic for me. That the DM doesn't want me to, or if it's practical IC, is beside the point here.

[hamishspence]

depends on the setting: in some settings or novels getting the zombie above ground is tricky, and limited duration. Or a lot or work is needed to control them.

"Necromancers" do not have to be "undead horde masters" at least, not controllling horde indefinitely. Warlock The Dead Walk in 3.5 (no gems) works: you only have them for a short time.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Bolding mine.

The same type of character is not the same thing as the same character. The link of the addiction to the power is a motiviating factor to the RP of the character.

I can create another character with a common thread linking them, addiction in this case, but is the character who is addicted to undead minion creation really going to reasonably have the same personality as someone who is addicted to heroin?

They may have the same personality trait but some expressions of that trait will require mechanics. I'm not saying it's often, or that the characters are even going to be particularly interesting or even very very differently RP'd, but they will not be the same.

Good point, well argued. Let me be more specific.

Addiction to creating and subsequently boning undead servants, and addiction to heroin are not only mechanically different, they're also psychologically different. One is a chemical dependency, the other is ... well it's whatever you choose to make it.

From the definition of "character" which I use and consider to be useful, it should be entirely possible to create a character with the same drives, motivations and psychological makeup as your magic necrophiliac. If you still feel that not having zombies is a deal breaker, no harm no foul, but at that point I would argue that you are looking for a specific mechanical ability, not an actual personality trait.

Again, the reason I get so picky about this is because people are so quick to denounce 4E as "not facilitating roleplaying" or "not being a proper roleplaying game". I have no problem with people who like 3.X, I have no problem with people who don't like 4E. I have a problem with people who make the series of mental steps from "different set of mechanical options" to "fewer mechanical options" to "fewer roleplaying options" to "dumbed down" or "World of Warcraft".

[SmartAlec]

That the DM doesn't want me to, or if it's practical IC, is beside the point here.

No, it's not. I maintain that a character's roleplay can exist without mechanics to back it up; alongside the mechanics, if you will, without interfering with it. But in order to try to put me in a position where I am wrong, you're trying to force your roleplaying into the mechanics, which is a much more agressive stance. I do not consider it the same thing at all. This is when roleplaying actually stops being roleplaying and starts being godmoding.

[webgem]

I'd just like to put in that I am also apathetic at this time. If I pulled out my 2.0 stuff, I think I'd feel like I was playing a similar game to 3.x, with different mechanics. If i compared my 2.0 or 3.x stuff to 4.0, I think I'd feel a fairly different game. Thats not bad, just that I did, like many people, expect a better but similar version of 3.0/3.5. I liked the multiclass system, and although it would have been hard to do, I think it would be possible to have balanced it. SW Saga simplified the skill set, and dropped multiple attacks, but retained the multiple class system. I'm not sure how balanced that was, but I liked that. The power system isn't too bad in my opinion, it does seem to hint towards more options, and I think if it was more varied and fleshed out it would work better, but it does seem to be a very different feel. This will probably come with time and money true, but I feel like out of the box 3.0 was more what I am looking for in a game, and I would have liked to see a product that did the work of making it more balanced for me, not balanced and radically changed. Either way I plan on playing 4th edition with my girlfriend because she did find 3.0 very confusing, and if she likes 4.0, but wants something with more options I'll go back to 3.5, if not all good. After all this ranting, my main point might look something like this:

3.0 achieved what I wanted without having to do much work. It is easier in my opinion to say "lets not have that in the game." Than for me to figure out a way to do something in 4.0 that isn't there. In fact, that might make 3.0 d&d for dummies for me, and I'm perfectly happy following a rule set that works to a degree, and being labeled a dummy because of it, the less work and more fun I have, the better.

[AKA_Bait]

From the definition of "character" which I use and consider to be useful, it should be entirely possible to create a character with the same drives, motivations and psychological makeup as your magic necrophiliac. If you still feel that not having zombies is a deal breaker, no harm no foul, but at that point I would argue that you are looking for a specific mechanical ability, not an actual personality trait.

And I would disagree. I don't see the Zombie Necrophiliac as being motivated to do the same things as the heroin addict by virtue of being addicted to a different thing. The two, even with a similar psychological makeup, would not behave the same way since the object and cause of their addiction is different. For me, it's silly to say that two characters who behave differently, even with a similar psychological makeup, can be called the same character.

That said, for your definition of "character", I agree with you. I think your definition is too limited and likley to provoke argument that is nothing more than semantics. Beyond that though, there really isn't anything to discuss.


Again, the reason I get so picky about this is because people are so quick to denounce 4E as "not facilitating roleplaying" or "not being a proper roleplaying game". I have no problem with people who like 3.X, I have no problem with people who don't like 4E. I have a problem with people who make the series of mental steps from "different set of mechanical options" to "fewer mechanical options" to "fewer roleplaying options" to "dumbed down" or "World of Warcraft".

Well, I would agree with you that typically those are over reactions and probably not even accurate. I get annoyed when people are quick to argue that mechanics don't ever placeany limit on RP, however slight and however circumstantial.


No, it's not. I maintain that a character's roleplay can exist without mechanics to back it up; alongside the mechanics, if you will, without interfering with it. But in order to try to put me in a position where I am wrong, you're trying to force your roleplaying into the mechanics, which is a much more agressive stance. I do not consider it the same thing at all. This is when roleplaying actually stops being roleplaying and starts being godmoding.

Wait... what?

I gave you a character concept (addicted to zombie minion nookie) and asked how to do it inside a system without supporting mechanics for it. You have yet to give me an answer other than 'it's a silly concept and the DM shouldn't allow it' or 'I'd house rule some mechanics in'. You have a proposition, namley "a character's roleplay can exist without mechanics to back it up" and I gave you an example of a situation where for the rest of the system to work, since there are mechanics for other things, some mechanics would be needed. I pointed out an exception to your alleged universal principal. How is that godmoding?

I will grant you that in a freeform game RP has nothing to do with mechanics and cannot be limited by them, because there are none. Once there are mechanical rules there is an interplay bettween the two, however slight. I just gave you an example of it.

[Dan_Hemmens]

And I would disagree. I don't see the Zombie Necrophiliac as being motivated to do the same things as the heroin addict by virtue of being addicted to a different thing. The two, even with a similar psychological makeup, would not behave the same way since the object and cause of their addiction is different. For me, it's silly to say that two characters who behave differently, even with a similar psychological makeup, can be called the same character.

Which brings me back to the "Romeo and Juliet" question. Is "kills Tybalt with a sword" sufficiently different to "kills Tybalt with a gun" that they become different characters?


That said, for your definition of "character", I agree with you. I think your definition is too limited and likley to provoke argument that is nothing more than semantics. Beyond that though, there really isn't anything to discuss.

That's fair, I take the opposite view, which is that the broad definition is too limited (because it makes it practically impossible for two characters ever to be considered "the same").


Well, I would agree with you that typically those are over reactions and probably not even accurate. I get annoyed when people are quick to argue that mechanics don't ever placeany limit on RP, however slight and however circumstantial.

I can see why that ticks you off, but I think that the point is that you have to distinguish between "slight and circumstantial" limits and "you can't create that character" limits.

No character can be represented perfectly in any RPG system. Any character can be represented imperfectly in any RPG system.

[AKA_Bait]

Which brings me back to the "Romeo and Juliet" question. Is "kills Tybalt with a sword" sufficiently different to "kills Tybalt with a gun" that they become different characters?

I gave you the romeo example earlier. Let's stick with mine. Is "digs up corpses, animates them, and does nasty things to them" sufficently diffrent from "robs people and shoots up" that they become different characters? I'd say so.


That's fair, I take the opposite view, which is that the broad definition is too limited (because it makes it practically impossible for two characters ever to be considered "the same").

It does make it difficult. I view that as a smaller problem than one that's created by telling someone that their character is the same as something they don't think it is because of the more limited definition.


I can see why that ticks you off, but I think that the point is that you have to distinguish between "slight and circumstantial" limits and "you can't create that character" limits.

No character can be represented perfectly in any RPG system. Any character can be represented imperfectly in any RPG system.

Sure, I agree with that. But there are levels of imperfection and difficulty fitting the character into the system. Basically, sometimes an RPG system is not conducive to a character concept, sometimes it is and there is a whole range in between that is different for every system. 4e bashers might have a point if they said that the 4e class set up was less conducive to the easy creation of certian character concepts than 3.x. But that's a much different and less extreme claim than 'I can't make this character'.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I gave you the romeo example earlier. Let's stick with mine. Is "digs up corpses, animates them, and does nasty things to them" sufficently diffrent from "robs people and shoots up" that they become different characters? I'd say so.

But what about "digs up corpses and does nasty things to them" without the "animates them" prereq? It's a good deal closer IMO.


It does make it difficult. I view that as a smaller problem than one that's created by telling someone that their character is the same as something they don't think it is because of the more limited definition.

True, and obviously I'd never actually tell somebody "no, this is still your character" if they thought it wasn't. On the other hand I'd see nothing wrong with trying to help a player fit his concept into the system, and one way I'd try to do that would be to say (for example) sorry, there's no rules for undead minions yet, but if you're interested in the Dark Magic vibe, you could try a Warlock, alternatively, we could reflavour some of the rituals for you: how about Corpse Messenger in place of Animal Messenger? If it's still a dealbreaker then that's fine, I just get antsy when people try and define all of their various preferences in terms of roleplaying, with that irritating emphasis on "role".


Sure, I agree with that. But there are levels of imperfection and difficulty fitting the character into the system. Basically, sometimes an RPG system is not conducive to a character concept, sometimes it is and there is a whole range in between that is different for every system. 4e bashers might have a point if they said that the 4e class set up was less conducive to the easy creation of certian character concepts than 3.x. But that's a much different and less extreme claim than 'I can't make this character'.

Pretty much.

So we basically appear to be agreeing about stuff. Cool.

[SmartAlec]

Wait... what?

This is pretty simple, and it's been mentioned many times in this thread. You could play that character without having the zombies appear in situations where game mechanics are involved, no problem. Once you stepped over into 'I want them in combat situations', you stepped beyond wanting a device to roleplay a character and into - yes, I guess I have to repeat this - asking for a mechanical power.

So no, I didn't give you an answer because it's been given already. But there it is, again, for the Nth time in this thread.

[Dan_Hemmens]

This is pretty simple, and it's been mentioned many times in this thread. You could play that character without having the zombies appear in situations where game mechanics are involved, no problem. Once you stepped over into 'I want them in combat situations', you stepped beyond wanting a device to roleplay a character and into - yes, I guess I have to repeat this - asking for a mechanical power.

So no, I didn't give you an answer because it's been given already. But there it is, again, for the Nth time in this thread.

To be fair to AKA_Bait, I think what he's trying to do is to give an example of a situation where a particular bit of "flavour text" could be reasonably considered to require game mechanical backup. While you *could* make a case that his walking zombie sex slaves didn't require game rules, I think it'd be a dangerous precedent, because in general D&D does use specific rules for magical effects, even minor ones.

Although you could always just let it count as a use of prestidigitation.

[SmartAlec]

I guess we could sum this up as:

"You can have anything you want, provided you never have to ask for it."

[AKA_Bait]

To be fair to AKA_Bait, I think what he's trying to do is to give an example of a situation where a particular bit of "flavour text" could be reasonably considered to require game mechanical backup. While you *could* make a case that his walking zombie sex slaves didn't require game rules, I think it'd be a dangerous precedent, because in general D&D does use specific rules for magical effects, even minor ones.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm trying to do. Spells always have rules in the kind of system we are discussing. Also, I think it's a pretty reasonable thing not to have to say that "I'd like to be able to RP my character a particular way in both combat and non-combat situations". For example, if I wanted to make my Zombie sex addict, I'd like the opportunity to go "Nooo! That was a sweet peice of..." when some random monster takes the head off of my most recent aquisition. That's a bit of RP I could not do without either a) houseruling that in this specific situation you don't need to use mechanics for combat (which is an exception) or b) houserule some statistics for the zombie sex slave.


Although you could always just let it count as a use of prestidigitation.


Still be a houserule I think, unless I missed the zombie sex slave option in prestidigitation. :smallwink:


I guess we could sum this up as:

"You can have anything you want, provided you never have to ask for it."

I wouldn't say that. Although I would say that you seem to be arguing that "You can RP anything you want, so long as you don't mind ignoring the general rules of the system or houseruling additions to them."

[JaxGaret]

Just to make a point:

An undead necrophiliac character can be created in 4e. First of all, there is a Ritual in the MM called Dark Gift of the Undying which conceivably a PC could use to create undead - but that's really beside the point; the undead necrophiliac part of the character is no problem. Undead exist in 4e. The character can put the moves on them. The real hurdle is in creating the undead.

Now, as we all know, there are several ways to skin a cat. You can create undead via your own spells, which is currently not an option strictly by RAW (I presume it will be with the release of the Shadow power source, and there is the aforementioned Ritual use by a PC for an absurdly easy houserule. It's really a no-brainer. As an added benefit for our purposes here, completing the Ritual leaves the character Weakened for 1d10 days... as if they had in the process spent themself somehow :smallwink:). Alternatively, you can pay someone else a certain monetary value to create those undead for you, via Dark Gift of the Undying, or others which are mentioned but not quite thoroughly spelled out in the MM - which leads me to the next one: you can also, if all else fails, research undead thoroughly, figure out which ones could help you satisfy your... urges, and locate something such as a Nightwalker, beat it into submission, and force it to create Bodaks for you to cater to your every whim as willing servants.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

[Indon]

Again, this is because you're viewing everything through the lens of 3.X. If you start from the assumption that the 3.X model of a character is the only way to do it of course 3.X is going to look like it gives you more options.
You seem to be working from the assumption that it's impossible for a system to just plain be better than another system at having more mechanical options. That's not true.

For all the complaints about 3'rd edition when it came out, 'lack of mechanical options' was never one of them. Because 3'rd edition had more, period. Looking 'through the lens of AD&D', your character was pretty much always convertible in some sense. You didn't have to give up major parts of your character like your capabilities to do so.



High Charisma, Skill Training: Arcana. Job done.
Personality is not the whole of character. If it was, what need would we have for the concept of character - we would all just be roleplaying personalities.


The tragic thing is that that does more or less sum up the "why 3.X is better" arguments...
Well, aside from the fact that it doesn't, (that argument would be mockingly summed up with, "the players should always be perfectly mature and game-knowledgable and then everything will work just fine") it's also based on your logic - that there is no meaningful connection between mechanics and flavor.


Okay, but by that definition no two incarnations of the same character are ever the same, even if they're mechanically identical. Not only can our hypothetical Necromancer not be created in 4E, but once he's been created in 3.X he can never be created again, not even in another 3.X game, because it's a different continuity.
Well, yeah.

Say I make a bunch of characters in a bunch of different games with the same group, all with the same name, and all with the same personality features. If I try to talk about that character with my group, it won't be long before they ask me, "which one?"

Each has performed different things. Each has experienced different things. And if they have different abilities, each would respond to a problem in a different way in accordance with those abilities. Those things are extremely relevant to the character, and without them, you'll just get your group confused.


Firstly, you didn't actually answer my question. Are Romeo and Juliet the same characters in different productions of the play or not? If I make a production in which Romeo is also a juggler, or a tennis player, does that make him a different character.
If you're changing the script to include a juggling or tennis scene, I should think so. But I'll give a more clear example: Would Mercutio be the same character in Romeo and Juliet if he weren't so good at fighting? Not remotely, because he wouldn't have been so eager to get into a fight if he were less confident.


That's because that's what Abyssal Sorcerers can do in Exalted.
It's what Necromantic Sorcery does in Exalted - non-Abyssals can use the Necromantic circle too, if I recall.


But not because they have different abilities but because they have different personalities.
Often there can be no separating the two. A knight that uses a sword is going to think in different ways than a 'knight' that uses two semi-automatic pistols.

And even when there is separating the two, two characters with identical personalities and distinct abilities must be treated as two distinct characters if any discussion regarding their capabilities or actions were to come up. So if we had a double-character named Batman, one was the character of DC comics fame and the other had the powers of a demigod, and a versus thread came up on this forum, the first question everyone would ask would be "Which Batman?"


At which point you are yet again defining your terms so broadly they're meaningless.

It's clearly not meaningless - it's even necessary for a great deal of possible communication regarding characters.


I guess we could sum this up as:

"You can have anything you want, provided you never have to ask for it."
"You can have the Model T in any color you like, so long as it's black."

Edit: I don't necessarily agree with this - 4th edition has pretty decent mechanical variety. Just not as much as 3'rd edition (Unless, of course, you count every class that wasn't pure Wizard, Cleric, or Druid as so weak as to be completely unplayable, in which case 4th edition probably pulls ahead, barring any kind of reflavoring arguments).

[JaxGaret]

Edit: I don't necessarily agree with this - 4th edition has pretty decent mechanical variety. Just not as much as 3'rd edition (Unless, of course, you count every class that wasn't pure Wizard, Cleric, or Druid as so weak as to be completely unplayable, in which case 4th edition probably pulls ahead, barring any kind of reflavoring arguments).

I would say that, for the most part, casters and non-casters in 3e are mutually unplayable (or - more accurately - characters 2 or more tiers apart on the power scale, there being five tiers). In other words, there needs to be a certain agreed level of power/optimization of characters among the players beforehand, or else you run into the issues that we are all so familiar with.

That significantly cuts down on options, per campaign.

[Serpentine]

I'd like to state something of my original argument in a different way:
Many things from 3.5 inspired me to create various characters (my spy Wizard was inspired by the spell secret page). From those things, abilities or flavour or a cool idea, I build a complex, in-depth character with background, motivations, fears, and so on - I do not start from some abstract concept of emotions, "a guy who believes in goodness and doing right who lost his puppydog as a child etc. etc.", that all comes later. That does not make my character any less a character than one that began with abstract concepts. Nothing I've seen in 4e has so inspired me. Thus, it does not interest me. Others may have been inspired by something in 4e. Thus, it interests them. Fine. But don't tell me I'm wrong just because I have different tastes.

To the question of whether I wouldn't play a Necromancer in a world that doesn't allow you to make zombies: In a world in which one cannot create, manipulate, summon, or otherwise have control over the un/dead, no, I would not play a Necromancer, because I wouldn't be able to play a Necromancer. Throwing ice around (roll xd6) and "stealing life-force" (roll xd6) is not my idea of necromancy. The Necromancer wasn't actually my idea at all, but apparently it's not the person whose idea it was' idea of necromancy either.

As for the problem of unbalance, why wouldn't you just choose all the best spells? It's called roleplaying :smallwink: In my game at the moment we have a reasonably gimped Cleric/Sorcerer/Arcane Whatsit (mostly gimped because of spell choice, to the point where she's actually falling behind), a Swashbuckler who is lots of fun but for whom I'm going to introduce an item or two to help her deal more damage to keep up with the Rogue who has become almost unhittable due to choices of feats made not because they would make him unhittable but because they go with his character concept, a Knight (mine) who is kept deliberately down a bit to avoid becoming one of those uber DMPCs I hear so much about, and a Witch who would probably be more useful if he actually used his Hexes. We're not a particularly balanced party - the Rogue could probably slaughter just about any other character, and not only because he's a level higher - but it doesn't matter, because we're a team. Every character can do things that other characters can't, and every player makes sure his/her character doesn't step on anyone else's toes. It doesn't matter whether this character could beat that character, because they're not going to be fighting each other.
Really, I think that most of the problems people have with 3.5 come more down to game-abusing players than the game itself, and most of the "fixes" in 4e just control said game-abusers, possibly at the expense of reasonable players.

edit: I remembered something that really annoyed me about the 4e PHB. It told me what to do. It didn't say, "Well, the most important abilities for this class are this, this and this, so it would be best to put your highest stats in those." Oh no, it said "The most important abilites for this class are this, this and this, in this order, so put your highest, second highest and third highest stats in each of those." No, bugger you! I won't let you tell me how to play my damn character! If I want to play a strong Wizard who's a little bit dim, I bloody will! Making suggestions on how to make your character as effective as possible is one thing, but telling me how to, commanding me? And trying to make me powergame, what's more? Bugger that. I was actually disappointed, after reading that, that I had actually given 2 of the 3 most important abilities the highest stats. I'm a little bit antiauthoritarian like that.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I'd like to state something of my original argument in a different way:
Many things from 3.5 inspired me to create various characters (my spy Wizard was inspired by the spell secret page). From those things, abilities or flavour or a cool idea, I build a complex, in-depth character with background, motivations, fears, and so on - I do not start from some abstract concept of emotions, "a guy who believes in goodness and doing right who lost his puppydog as a child etc. etc.", that all comes later. That does not make my character any less a character than one that began with abstract concepts. Nothing I've seen in 4e has so inspired me. Thus, it does not interest me. Others may have been inspired by something in 4e. Thus, it interests them. Fine. But don't tell me I'm wrong just because I have different tastes.

First of all: you realize that Secret Page exists, as a spell, in 4E. It's a first level ritual.

Second of all: That's exactly what I mean when I say you're looking through the "lens" of 3.X. Obviously a character who is inspired by specific game mechanics in one RPG won't translate well to another RPG. That's cool, that just means that you like one game better than the other, for perfectly sensible personal reasons. But it has nothing to do with one game having more "options".

"I find the options in 3.X more interesting than the options in 4E" is fine. Where I take exception is when people start saying "I find the options in 3.X more interesting than the options in 4E, therefore the options in 3.X are better than the options in 4E, therefore 3.X facilitates roleplaying and 4E doesn't."


To the question of whether I wouldn't play a Necromancer in a world that doesn't allow you to make zombies: In a world in which one cannot create, manipulate, summon, or otherwise have control over the un/dead, no, I would not play a Necromancer, because I wouldn't be able to play a Necromancer. Throwing ice around (roll xd6) and "stealing life-force" (roll xd6) is not my idea of necromancy. The Necromancer wasn't actually my idea at all, but apparently it's not the person whose idea it was' idea of necromancy either.

That's fair. Raising zombies isn't my idea of necromancy. To each his own. It's when you go from "you can't raise zombies" to "this game does not facilitate roleplaying" that I have a problem.


As for the problem of unbalance, why wouldn't you just choose all the best spells? It's called roleplaying :smallwink: In my game at the moment we have a reasonably gimped Cleric/Sorcerer/Arcane Whatsit (mostly gimped because of spell choice, to the point where she's actually falling behind), a Swashbuckler who is lots of fun but for whom I'm going to introduce an item or two to help her deal more damage to keep up with the Rogue who has become almost unhittable due to choices of feats made not because they would make him unhittable but because they go with his character concept, a Knight (mine) who is kept deliberately down a bit to avoid becoming one of those uber DMPCs I hear so much about, and a Witch who would probably be more useful if he actually used his Hexes. We're not a particularly balanced party - the Rogue could probably slaughter just about any other character, and not only because he's a level higher - but it doesn't matter, because we're a team. Every character can do things that other characters can't, and every player makes sure his/her character doesn't step on anyone else's toes. It doesn't matter whether this character could beat that character, because they're not going to be fighting each other.
Really, I think that most of the problems people have with 3.5 come more down to game-abusing players than the game itself, and most of the "fixes" in 4e just control said game-abusers, possibly at the expense of reasonable players.

However, as you freely admit, your rogue has become nigh-unhittable due to totally in-character choices. This is why "roleplaying" can't keep spellcasters in check, because "batman" or his analogues are legitimate role-playing options for a wizard.


edit: I remembered something that really annoyed me about the 4e PHB. It told me what to do. It didn't say, "Well, the most important abilities for this class are this, this and this, so it would be best to put your highest stats in those." Oh no, it said "The most important abilites for this class are this, this and this, in this order, so put your highest, second highest and third highest stats in each of those." No, bugger you! I won't let you tell me how to play my damn character! If I want to play a strong Wizard who's a little bit dim, I bloody will! Making suggestions on how to make your character as effective as possible is one thing, but telling me how to, commanding me? And trying to make me powergame, what's more? Bugger that. I was actually disappointed, after reading that, that I had actually given 2 of the 3 most important abilities the highest stats. I'm a little bit antiauthoritarian like that.

I can see how that's annoying, but remember the books aren't just targetted at experienced roleplayers who know what they want, but also at newbies who want to be reasonably effective.

And a slightly dim wizard will be weak but playable in 4E. A sligtly dim wizard in 3.X will be literally incapable of casting spells.

[Kompera]

3E had balence issues, but you can't point out 3E flawed attempts and some how use that to justify 4E not even giving your the option in the first place

That's completely illogical. Of course you can. The only reason most of those options no longer exist is that they were unbalancing. Thus, the entire reason they were removed is because 3.x had balance issues which 4e hopes to have addressed.

Other option will become available through future publication. Wizards is already publishing material available freely on their web site which expands options. So that further dispels the "4e was designed to be so rigid in order to force people to buy any additional materials" theory. As if 3.x didn't have piles of additional materials as well, although I never heard anyone posit that they were somehow forced to purchase any of them. At your credit limit? Don't buy anything else. But that doesn't mean that options do not exist.

[Kompera]

Given the sheer number of any spells in 3.5e, I really don't see how this is meant to be heavy. Removing one spell from scores, possibly hundreds... Oh noes!
You consistanly understate the issue. The discussion is not about any one spell. It's about the need to review every single spell in order to ensure that each is balanced. And while opinions of course differ about which spells are unbalancing, I am confident that the majority would put the number at at least an order of magnitude higher than one.


Nothing of the sort. The DM was inexperienced and didn't have a concept of just what that spell could do. After the game, he said to the player "uh... I think I'd like it if you didn't prepare that spell anymore" and the player went "fair enough, it's not much fun going around everything anyway".
I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. But I'm pretty sure it supports my position. I can't see a spell in 4e which would make an inexperienced GM need to ask a player "Please, don't use that spell any longer, it ruins the game."
And what if the GM was experienced? How would that change things? Would the house rule that it can't be cast simply have existed before the player cast it? I don't understand what experience has to do with a spell being able to ruin the game session, unless you intent to reply that an experienced GM would design encounters to foil that spell. Because that would be so artificial as to make a mockery of the game. Every encounter would need to be able to counterspell, fly, see invisible, whatever, just to counter this one spell? And since there are plenty of other similarly unbalanced spells those would need to be worked in, too. Pretty soon every encounter is a group of super genius casters, with a handful of metamagiced spells already cast just waiting for the players to wander by. Does your game look like that? No? Then don't blame your GM for the existence of this spell.


He found himself in the middle of the ocean all alone with a Rod of Wonder. Wind Walk happens to be one of the abilities of a Djinn, which he happened to summon. Simple as that. You'll note that we didn't even rule that the spell doesn't exist at all, but rather the player simply agreed not to use it.
Ok, so the spell was unbalancing to the game, unless cast by an NPC under very specific conditions. You're continuing to make my point.


I would like to stress again that there was nothing forced. We agreed to it, because D&D is a team game, with real, living, breathing people involved, who can have discussions and come to agreements about things.It's wonderful that there was an agreement that the spell ruined the fun of the game. But that changes nothing. The player had a spell option removed by fiat. The fact that the player did not protest and even agreed that this was necessary changes nothing, and again supports my position. The spell should never have existed if it had to be removed.



Oh, so if someone doesn't like it, they must be being unreasonable about it, huh? I happen to dislike it because there's things I don't like about it and I don't appreciate your dismissing our concerns as petty spite nor your implication that only unreasonable people have any problem with it.

I'm not going to be playing it because I find it boring. Simple as that. I'll take what I want from it, scrap the rest, and remain pissed off that they've stopped printing something they claim is completely different simply to try to force me onto something I don't want to play.
You say one thing, and then immediately demonstrate the opposite.
You claim to happen to dislike it for whatever reasons you find to dislike it for itself. Which would be your opinion and you're welcome to it.
Then you turn around and state that you're "pissed off that they've stopped printing something they claim is completely different simply to try to force me onto something I don't want to play."

Who is forcing you to play what, now? I'd really like an answer to that, because I've heard this outrageous bit of falsehood from more than one critic of 4e. It seems like, in the rush to bash the new version, that any bit of preposterous hyperbole is fair game. And that's what I meant in my earlier post by wanting a little intellectual honesty from the detractors of 4e.

It is statements like these which give people the impression that the dislike of the product is, to quote you, "unreasonable" and "petty spite."

[Kompera]

Obviously this is no conspiracy, but simply a marketing move. One i don't like at all.
Please. Saying that it is a marketing move designed to force you to buy additional material is saying that it is a conspiracy. You are not forced to buy anything. I wish 4e detractors would stop harping on this insane theory that dollars are going to be pried from their wallets via some evil 4e magic. It's not honest, it's not accurate, and it's not possible. Buy what you want to buy, don't buy what you don't want to buy. Say that you hate 4e, but don't say that it is forcing you to do anything, because that is simply not true at all.

[Tormsskull]

Triple post!!!! Ahhhhhhhh!


You are not forced to buy anything.

That is true. I don't think anyone is trying to actually, literally, say that WotC is forcing them to buy extra books. They are using the word "force" in a different sense.

In my mind, WotC knows that the Core label holds a lot of "weight" to it. I'd be willing to wager that a lot of people buy the 3 Core books and then don't buy any accessory books. So in order to increase their sales, they are trying to transfer the "weight" of the Core label onto additional books.

And by weight, I do not mean pounds or kilograms, just to be clear.

[Kompera]

Triple post!!!! Ahhhhhhhh!
Yeah. Well, I was away from the thread for a while, and found a lot I wanted to reply to.


I don't think anyone is trying to actually, literally, say that WotC is forcing them to buy extra books. They are using the word "force" in a different sense.
I appreciate your attempts to clarify the statements of others, but unless they themselves offer up these same qualifiers then my objections to their statements must stand. There is nothing forcing anyone to buy any 4e product, core or otherwise, despite the many claims of many people to the contrary. There is no conspiracy at work. There is no evil agenda. Continue playing 3.x if that is your system of choice. You are welcome to do so. But please, stop with the falsehoods about 4e. If you hate it for any reason at all which is valid, such as it's inability to represent broken characters like the Batman Wizard, that's all fine and good. Hate away. But please don't barter that hatred for a completely valid reason up into some kind of mythical, illogical, and completely false hatred based on lies and propaganda. No one is denying anyone the right to dislike, hate, or be apathetic about a game system. But it is reasonable to ask that the dislike, hate, or apathy be described in terms of opinion about things which actually exist.

[Indon]

I would say that, for the most part, casters and non-casters in 3e are mutually unplayable (or - more accurately - characters 2 or more tiers apart on the power scale, there being five tiers). In other words, there needs to be a certain agreed level of power/optimization of characters among the players beforehand, or else you run into the issues that we are all so familiar with.

That significantly cuts down on options, per campaign.

Certainly, but 4'th edition has similar concerns - you need a good distribution of party roles in order to face encounters viably (meanwhile, you can simply break 3'rd edition's CR system with your individual builds to remove any such concerns). If not, then the DM has to bend over backwards to make your group work - which is the same kind of problem a DM has with disparate power levels in a group.


That's completely illogical. Of course you can. The only reason most of those options no longer exist is that they were unbalancing. Thus, the entire reason they were removed is because 3.x had balance issues which 4e hopes to have addressed.

Certainly.

But the moment someone demonstrates a better way could have been used, your argument is quite defeated. Then you have to use a better argument anyway.

Seriously. You might want to throw the baby out with the bathwater if there's really no way of saving the baby, but if you do it, and then someone's all, "Why didn't you just take the baby out?" it seems kinda silly.

[Stickforged]

That is true. I don't think anyone is trying to actually, literally, say that WotC is forcing them to buy extra books. They are using the word "force" in a different sense.

In my mind, WotC knows that the Core label holds a lot of "weight" to it. I'd be willing to wager that a lot of people buy the 3 Core books and then don't buy any accessory books. So in order to increase their sales, they are trying to transfer the "weight" of the Core label onto additional books.

I was thinking tha same things. Thanks for clarifying that :smallwink:

To Kompera: I wish to point out that i do not hate 4ed. It was you that managed to say "hate" five times in five lines... I never said so. Simply i don't like all the mechanics. Your thinking 4ed perfect is a personal opinion i can respect whitout problems, and i wish you long and funny hours of playing it.

Alas, we are in a topic where we are expressing concern or apathy about 4ed.
Other writers here are arguing intelligently and logically about the topic, defending their ideas pro 4ed without yelling "hate" every line they write. If you find this line of thought stressing or painful, then why are you posting here?

[darkzucchini]

I appreciate your attempts to clarify the statements of others, but unless they themselves offer up these same qualifiers then my objections to their statements must stand. There is nothing forcing anyone to buy any 4e product, core or otherwise, despite the many claims of many people to the contrary. There is no conspiracy at work. There is no evil agenda. Continue playing 3.x if that is your system of choice. You are welcome to do so. But please, stop with the falsehoods about 4e. If you hate it for any reason at all which is valid, such as it's inability to represent broken characters like the Batman Wizard, that's all fine and good. Hate away. But please don't barter that hatred for a completely valid reason up into some kind of mythical, illogical, and completely false hatred based on lies and propaganda. No one is denying anyone the right to dislike, hate, or be apathetic about a game system. But it is reasonable to ask that the dislike, hate, or apathy be described in terms of opinion about things which actually exist.

Look, no one believes that the WotC has a crack team of secret operatives who will bust down your door and hold a gun to your head if you do not convert over to 4e. Thinking that someone is using the word 'force' in such a way is utterly ridiculous. However, it should be noted that WotC is a business with profits as its highest goal, and will there for do all that is within its capability to encourage the adaptation of this new system and discourage the use of the old.

We will see applications that once catered those who played 3.5 disappear. Not only does MythWeavers lack a 2e character sheet format, it doesn't even have a standard 3e character sheet. This isn't a giant conspiracy between MythWeavers and WotC, it makes sense, why create a program that only a small fraction of the gaming community is going to use.

Old campaign world will die out. Planescape and Dark Sun didn't survive the transition from 2e to 3e, and The Scarred Lands died on jump from 3e to 3.5, who's to say that campaign settings like Eberron or Iron Kingdoms will make it to 4e? I'll tell you who, WotC. If they want to, the WotC can stop producing anymore Eberron setting books and they can deny Privateer Press the write to use the 4e system. Sure, you can keep playing them, but do you have any idea how hard it is to come by a group who plays, say, Dark Sun?

Magazines that cater to gamers will no longer have articles on 3.5. Dungeon (or whatever it was replaced with) will no longer create adventures for 3.5.

If all goes as planned, these tactics will prod the vast majority of gamers toward playing 4e. Its not a conspiracy, its good business sense. Some of us could band together and form our own D&D system, but Dungeons and Dragons is a brand name, a popular one at that, and it is unlikely that our new system would over take D&D as the dominant gaming system.

But those of us who prefer 3.5 are hoping that their are enough of us that the switch to 4e will be unprofitable for WotC and will encourage them to return more towards the 3.5 style of D&D (perhaps with the next edition catering to our wants, or perhaps with a new version of 3.5 with some fixes marketed as 4e and the current 4e renamed Dungeons and Dragons Heroes, or something along those lines).

[Serpentine]

You consistanly understate the issue. The discussion is not about any one spell. It's about the need to review every single spell in order to ensure that each is balanced. And while opinions of course differ about which spells are unbalancing, I am confident that the majority would put the number at at least an order of magnitude higher than one.Nope. Maybe every spell that my players choose to prepare, or more likely every spell that turns out to be problematic. So far, that's been 2.


I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. But I'm pretty sure it supports my position. I can't see a spell in 4e which would make an inexperienced GM need to ask a player "Please, don't use that spell any longer, it ruins the game."
And what if the GM was experienced? How would that change things? Would the house rule that it can't be cast simply have existed before the player cast it?He would, indeed, have asked the player to choose a different spell, or instead he would have designed his game to take it into account.


It's wonderful that there was an agreement that the spell ruined the fun of the game. But that changes nothing. The player had a spell option removed by fiat. The fact that the player did not protest and even agreed that this was necessary changes nothing, and again supports my position. The spell should never have existed if it had to be removed.It was useful in some conditions, and game-breaking in others. So we kept it in the game for those times where it would be useful, and agreed to remove it - a truly trivial decision, I don't know why you keep carping on about it - where it was not. Easy-peasy. One single problematic spell of scores of non-problematic spells, dealt with, no hassle.


You say one thing, and then immediately demonstrate the opposite.
You claim to happen to dislike it for whatever reasons you find to dislike it for itself. Which would be your opinion and you're welcome to it.
Then you turn around and state that you're "pissed off that they've stopped printing something they claim is completely different simply to try to force me onto something I don't want to play."I do not. They are forcing me because they are no longer printing or otherwise supporting 3.5 material, thus making it an "available 'til it's sold, first come first served" deal that means that if I don't go out and buy them now I can't get those books any more - at least not legally. That is how they're forcing me, by not making the other one available at all. It will get to the point where if I want D&D material, it's 4e or nothing, never mind that it's a completely different game and not one I want to play.

[nagora]

For example, if I wanted to make my Zombie sex addict, I'd like the opportunity to go "Nooo! That was a sweet peice of..." when some random monster takes the head off of my most recent aquisition. That's a bit of RP I could not do without either a) houseruling that in this specific situation you don't need to use mechanics for combat (which is an exception) or b) houserule some statistics for the zombie sex slave.

Every aspect of that is wrong, especially in the moral sense!

Why does the situation outlined need either a) or b)? I don't see any reason at all. I say this as someone who has a character who runs an undead brothel in one (non-D&D) game.

[Indon]

Look, no one believes that the WotC has a crack team of secret operatives who will bust down your door and hold a gun to your head if you do not convert over to 4e. Thinking that someone is using the word 'force' in such a way is utterly ridiculous. However, it should be noted that WotC is a business with profits as its highest goal, and will there for do all that is within its capability to encourage the adaptation of this new system and discourage the use of the old.
The WotC black ops team is reserved for busting down the doors of third-party producers and destroying their stuff to remove any support you might have playing the system.

They don't have legal justification to do it to the consumer... yet.

[AKA_Bait]

Why does the situation outlined need either a) or b)? I don't see any reason at all. I say this as someone who has a character who runs an undead brothel in one (non-D&D) game.

Does your non-D&D game have combat mechanics or mechanics for creating such things? Remember, that the example includes creating these things (a magical effect for which in D&D a spell, which is a mechanical effect, or if in 4e a ritual, also a mechanic, is pretty much always required) and that his little wormy love bugs will be following him around everyplace, including combat, where it would be problematic for them never to be attacked. If they are attacked, they will at least need defenses and HP.

Sure, you could handwave these things, but that's still houseruling to provide something the system doesn't give you on it's own which for other, similar things, it does. We are talking within the system itself.

[SmartAlec]

Sure, you could handwave these things, but that's still houseruling to provide something the system doesn't give you on it's own which for other, similar things, it does. We are talking within the system itself.

I thought the point was not that the system didn't, but that the system doesn't need to. Or, to put it another way, 'there's nothing wrong with handwaving'. If you want to roleplay your corpses dying in combat, roleplay it, there's no need to bring the rules, the DM or the other players into it.

[AKA_Bait]

I thought the point was not that the system didn't, but that the system doesn't need to. Or, to put it another way, 'there's nothing wrong with handwaving'. If you want to roleplay your corpses dying in combat, roleplay it, there's no need to bring the rules, the DM or the other players into it.

Look, this is why I conceded to you that if you are playing a freeform game there is nothing restricting you. However, when a game has established mechanics for particular aspects of play (in the case we are discussing spells and combat) then you are essentially discarding the game system itself when you handwave those aspects of it. At that point we are no longer discussing the stregnths and weaknesses of a particular system but are talking about the stregnths and weaknesses of either a particular DM or a particular homebrewed variant system. i.e., it's not a defense of a system to say 'well I can just ignore the systems requirements to get what I want'. That's obviously and always going to be true, but if anything it indicts the flexability of a system rather than defends it.

[Stickforged]

Ummm, concerning the Necromancy subject... WotC will probably release it in a future splatbook for mature readers, as the "book of vile darkness"...

[AKA_Bait]

Ummm, concerning the Necromancy subject... WotC will probably release it in a future splatbook for mature readers, as the "book of vile darkness"...

Well yeah. As has been mentioned, the Shadow power is almost certianly going to have that stuff. It was just being used as an example, at least in my case, of something the system can't currently model and how that can effect RP options.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I thought the point was not that the system didn't, but that the system doesn't need to. Or, to put it another way, 'there's nothing wrong with handwaving'. If you want to roleplay your corpses dying in combat, roleplay it, there's no need to bring the rules, the DM or the other players into it.

I'm actually pretty much with AKA_Bait on this one. Sure there's no rule saying your character can't create undead minions, but there's no rule saying he can and, crucially, that's usually the sort of thing which has a specific rule in that sort of game.

That said, this and a couple of other things have got me thinking about this sort of effect in 4E, for which I will be producing a new post soon.

[hamishspence]

I'm really hoping Open grave would have details on necromancer class, monsters, rituals, items. Since its out in january, and PHB2 isn't going to have necromancers.

[THAC0]

I do not. They are forcing me because they are no longer printing or otherwise supporting 3.5 material, thus making it an "available 'til it's sold, first come first served" deal that means that if I don't go out and buy them now I can't get those books any more - at least not legally. That is how they're forcing me, by not making the other one available at all. It will get to the point where if I want D&D material, it's 4e or nothing, never mind that it's a completely different game and not one I want to play.

I'm pretty sure you'll still be able to get them legally - and cheaper! I could go out today and buy myself a complete set of 1e D&D books if I wanted to, and that's without resorting to the internet. Of course they are used, but you'll still be able to obtain the books.

[JaxGaret]

Certainly, but 4'th edition has similar concerns - you need a good distribution of party roles in order to face encounters viably (meanwhile, you can simply break 3'rd edition's CR system with your individual builds to remove any such concerns). If not, then the DM has to bend over backwards to make your group work - which is the same kind of problem a DM has with disparate power levels in a group.

Not at all the same thing, because it is easier as a DM to compensate for the entire party being aggregately less or more powerful than to compensate for individual party members being too powerful or not powerful enough.

[Kompera]

Certainly.

But the moment someone demonstrates a better way could have been used, your argument is quite defeated. Then you have to use a better argument anyway.

Seriously. You might want to throw the baby out with the bathwater if there's really no way of saving the baby, but if you do it, and then someone's all, "Why didn't you just take the baby out?" it seems kinda silly.
No one has demonstrated a better way. To do so they would need to present a work which is of equal scope as the 4e rule set. I doubt most people are willing to put forth that kind of effort, no matter how much they hate 4e.

And, no, it's not at all sufficient to say "Hey, why not remove all of the broken spells from 3.x and call it a day?" That's not something any group of people would ever be able to come to a consensus on, and so it's not a valid point.

The bottom line is: The system is the system. It is impossible to say "It could have been done better if only <x>", because someone else will come along and say "It could have been done better if only <y>."

So again: Love it, hate it, whatever. But do so for reasons which are honest and less filled with hyperbole and outright falsehood than has been expressed in the many "I hate 4e" posts since it was released.

[Oslecamo]

So again: Love it, hate it, whatever. But do so for reasons which are honest and less filled with hyperbole and outright falsehood than has been expressed in the many "I hate 4e" posts since it was released.

Then, by all means, the "I hate 3.X" crowd should bother to actually read the 3.X rules, since 90% of the complains about 3.X I see in the forums are there because people just skip the rules and repeat twisted versions of what they heard.

For example:

Fact:
The druid's animal companion is strong.

Twisted version from someone who readed the fact but just eyeballed the rules concering animal companions:
The druid's animal companion is as strong as a noncaster

Really twisted version based on the above coment, from someone who probably never read the animal companion section

OMG you newbz the druid's AC will pwn melees solo lolz!

This has lead to the creation of a lot of "reasons which are honest and less filled with hyperbole and outright falsehood " about 3.X, but hey, it doesn't stop the "I hate 3.X" from using them, so why does the "I hate 4.X" crowd also can't use them? Are you allowed to houserule to your pleasure and we must subimt to your personal (lack of)view of the rules?

[JaxGaret]

Oslecamo, simply because some people are misguided in their dislike of 3e does not mean that all persons who acknowledge the flaws of 3e are deluded.

There is no "they're using dirty tricks so I can too". It doesn't work like that - there is no "us" and "them". There are only individuals with their personal viewpoints.

[Prophaniti]

So again: Love it, hate it, whatever. But do so for reasons which are honest and less filled with hyperbole and outright falsehood than has been expressed in the many "I hate 4e" posts since it was released.
I've got some good, honest reasons to dislike 4E. I'll not rant on all of them, since I've done so before, and am not rabidly opposed to playing it, simply disinclined to do so voluntarily.

There is one thing, though, that I'd like to point out. Something I've noticed recently, as I've flipped through the books my friend left over here.

Why are the classes designed, chosen, listed and compared based on their combat role right there in the manual? A Striker, a Defender, a Controller, and all this nonsense. Of course, they had roles like this from 1e, and it is what they were best at. My point is that this was always secondary. Something that was focused on by wargame enthusiasts who played D&D and noticed the intriguing tactical elements. Now, it is not only written into the manual, but it is a fundamental cornerstone of the design concept!

I'm playing an RPG, not a tactical miniatures wargame. I don't want to be a Striker, I want to be a Ranger, I want to play a class that is a concept, not a tactical choice. This, to me, is a perfect example of exactly why 4E has gone a direction I choose not to take, furthering seemingly every idea and design philosophy I didn't like in 3.5 and taking them in exactly the wrong direction. This is right up there with every ability dealing damage in my list of 'Things Gone Wrong With 4E'.

I want the classes to be built around ideas taken from stories and themes, and have any tactical element be entirely incidental, because I'm playing an RPG. For a game to qualify for this label, combat tactics and balance should be a secondary consideration to character concept and, well, roleplaying. To me, 4E is a D&D that no longer qualifies for the label 'RPG' and I am greatly saddened by that.*

*The preceding rant is an expression of personal opinions. Any disagreements are welcome, but please keep this in mind when writing responses.

[JaxGaret]

I want the classes to be built around ideas taken from stories and themes

They are.


, and have any tactical element be entirely incidental, because I'm playing an RPG.

It being an RPG does not mean that it cannot be tactical. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.


For a game to qualify for this label, combat tactics and balance should be a secondary consideration to character concept and, well, roleplaying.

Character concept and roleplaying are the player and DM's province, not the system's. 4e doesn't inherently limit player creativity or roleplaying opportunities any more than 3e did.

IMO I find it less limiting.


To me, 4E is a D&D that no longer qualifies for the label 'RPG' and I am greatly saddened by that.

You seem to be choosing to define RPG as something other than a Role Playing Game. Could you detail your exact definition of RPG, since it is not the usual one?

[Prophaniti]

It being an RPG does not mean that it cannot be tactical. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Character concept and roleplaying are the player and DM's province, not the system's. 4e doesn't inherently limit player creativity or roleplaying opportunities any more than 3e did.

IMO I find it less limiting.How does having all the character options save for a handful of archetypes stripped away limit you less? I'm aware that roleplaying is primarily the province of the people rather than the system. What I'm looking for is a system that facilitates my roleplaying, feels immersive and does not deliberately break my suspension of disbelief. I have no need or desire for a system that places balance and tactical design at the top of its list of priorities. Sure, a system can have tactical elements and still be a good rpg, I said as much. What I don't see happening is a system being entirely focused on tactics to the exclusion of all else and still being a good rpg.

There are things in both 3.5 and 4E that disturb my immersion. I've never claimed 3.5 was a perfect system for me, I mostly play it because everyone I play with plays it, brand recognition and all that. I've simply seen more in 4E that breaks my disbelief than in 3.5. Here's some examples: Why is there no limit on how many Magic Missles the wizard can cast? Why are so many spells Rituals now, that anyone can (with effort) learn? Why did they remove most of the SoS spells, or rather, most of the spells, period? (I could go on for a while, but let's keep this concise) Why? I'll tell you why. Balance. Balance and Tactics. The two things I care the least about when I play an RPG. Those are priorities when I play Warhammer army battles, not D&D, not even when I play Warhammer Roleplaying.

If these are important concepts in an RPG to you, fine. I don't understand why, but I'm sure you won't even notice all the things that were sacrificed for balance's sake. Me, I'll be elbow-deep in manifold character build options (all spelled out for me and requiring only tweaking instead of ground-up construction) and multitudinous spells (batman wizards have yet to crash my game, and I've got a big DM Fiat flyswatter ready if such pests ever do), and thoroughly enjoying every minute of it.

[SmartAlec]

Here's some examples: Why is there no limit on how many Magic Missles the wizard can cast?

This actually makes perfect sense in context. Rather than storing spells in his head, a Wizard in 4th Ed manipulates magic in the air and shapes it into spells with gestures and incantations. Thus, the limitation of magic is not headspace, it's how difficult and how exhausting the spell is. Magic Missile is simple; just pulling some energy out of the air, shaping it into a crude missile and letting fly, the magical equivalent of making a snowball. Because it requires no complex manipulation and the amount of contact the wizard has with the energy is minimal, it's something that hardly taxes him at all. More powerful spells require the wizard to take a breather before he attempts that spell again, sometimes as long as a day.

4th Ed has lots of stuff like that. Might take some getting used to, but once your head's in the right gear, it's fine. Just takes a little time to get used to the paradigm shift.

[Gavin Sage]

It being an RPG does not mean that it cannot be tactical. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

There are limits to that. While I do understand D&D began as a board game, I've always played it without any sort of board. Want to attack someone this turn in melee, ask the DM if you're close enough. Want to move in X way, ask DM if it can be done or needs a tumble check. Distance was vague at best, and formation only occaisonally marked with the likes of coins. I don't need abilities that that have "move target X squares" along with a game so obviously devoted to having minatures.

Going further for pages and pages of Powers how many are glorfied ways of dealing damage. A number being redundant at that, I counted at least 3 classes with a "7[W]+stat" ablities. Those not dealing damage have a tendency to do something like "move X squares" which is purely a tactical ablity. And the whole notion of Encounter powers is a clear message about this being a combat game.

Now none of this ostensibly passes the limit between being an RPG and a combat game.... but we have pages upon of ablities to give you new fancy doohickies in combat, when 3.5 would have handled many of them with the basic attack progression, or a generalized ablity. And then there's the action points and healing surges and the aversion to any sort of disadvantage

Combine that with a massive shortening of utility ablities. I don't think Rituals cover half the spells they are replacing from just the PHB. This all sends a clear message that 4e cares almost exclusively about combat, combat, combat. Yes you are not limited to combat, but its all the books care about how is it still an adventure game?


Character concept and roleplaying are the player and DM's province, not the system's. 4e doesn't inherently limit player creativity or roleplaying opportunities any more than 3e did.

IMO I find it less limiting.

I'm not sure how it less limiting given that character concept often relies upon a mechanical aspect which reflects it. Quite aside from classes that aren't there at all, the classes as a rule are much more limited. There might still be illusion spells, but I despair of building any decent illusionist without even a Silent Image. I can become a immortal but I can't cover a pit with illusionary floor.... wait WHAT?

[Prophaniti]

Good to hear from someone who sees most of the same things I do when I look at the new books. I prefer to play without models as well. I often find that, perhaps counter-intuitively, using models on a grid actually impedes my ability to imagine the fight and immerse myself in it.

[Kompera]

I do not. They are forcing me because they are no longer printing or otherwise supporting 3.5 material, thus making it an "available 'til it's sold, first come first served" deal that means that if I don't go out and buy them now I can't get those books any more - at least not legally. That is how they're forcing me, by not making the other one available at all. It will get to the point where if I want D&D material, it's 4e or nothing, never mind that it's a completely different game and not one I want to play.
On the subject of 4e, are you capable of posting anything other than obvious hysterics filled falsehoods?

First we have the ridiculous and complete falsehood of "[WotC is going to] force me onto something I don't want to play," which can not be supported by any rational argument. Don't like 4e? Don't play it. As you say, easy-peasy. It is a complete lie to state that you're being forced to play 4e, it reeks of hyperbole and hysterics, and it is utterly false and unsupportable by any rational argument.
At the absolute worst, you could claim that you might, possibly, as a hypothetical look into a future which no one can see clearly, not be able to play your favorite version of D&D, because everyone else who lives near you is playing a version you don't like. But there is a mile of truth between that statement and saying that you are forced to play 4e.

And now it's some blather about not being able to "legally" get no longer published D&D material. Are you really, really trying to say that WotC is now forcing you into a life of crime? Please, allow me to spare you a few years in the penitentiary. This link (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=AD%26D&x=0&y=0) is your get out of jail free card, a source of readily available previously published D&D source material. At a discount. I suggest that you avail yourself of this vendor rather than claim again that you won't be able to "legally" get old D&D materials.

And please, try to post honestly in the future. No one likes a bald faced lie. Even if your passions are high and you feel you must grasp at any straw to make 4e seem like The Great Satan, it's not worth the loss of your reputation and honor to make these ridiculous and obviously false statements.

[Kompera]

Look, no one believes that the WotC has a crack team of secret operatives who will bust down your door and hold a gun to your head if you do not convert over to 4e. Thinking that someone is using the word 'force' in such a way is utterly ridiculous.
Perhaps it's clear to you that no one believes this, but reading posts at face value, they way they should be read, that is not at all clear to me.

I actually agree with you to an extent. I don't believe that anyone really thinks that they are going to be forced to play 4e. I think instead that detractors of 4e feel that they must use the most emotionally charged and false statements as possible in their campaigns against 4e. Possibly because they have no rational arguments and must rely on falsehoods and exxagerations, perhaps because they feel that demagoguery is the only say to sway others to believe as they do, and perhaps because they simply have high passion on the subject and that lets slip their reason and restraint. I can't guess which of these is the real motivation, because I can't guess at the motivations of others. But what remains clear is that there are a lot of highly charged and false statements being thrown around by detractors of 4e, the example of "being forced to play 4e" being only one of these which has been repeated over and over.

[Crow]

I think instead that detractors of 4e feel that they must use the most emotionally charged and false statements as possible in their campaigns against 4e. Possibly because they have no rational arguments and must rely on falsehoods and exxagerations, perhaps because they feel that demagoguery is the only say to sway others to believe as they do, and perhaps because they simply have high passion on the subject and that lets slip their reason and restraint.

I really like the sweeping generalisations. It really ads that extra "oomph" to your argument. Obviously anybody who doesn't particularly like 4e has no real reason to hold that opinion. Thanks for clearing that up!

[Kompera]

This has lead to the creation of a lot of "reasons which are honest and less filled with hyperbole and outright falsehood " about 3.X, but hey, it doesn't stop the "I hate 3.X" from using them, so why does the "I hate 4.X" crowd also can't use them? Are you allowed to houserule to your pleasure and we must subimt to your personal (lack of)view of the rules?
Pardon me? Are you suggesting that I've used hyperbole and falsehoods to misrepresent 3.x? I don't think so. But if you find issue with any of my statements about 3.x, feel free to bring them up and I'll be happy to discuss them with you. And I'm not sure at all how house rules got dragged into your point, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the subject. But I'll welcome any observation you care to make about my "lack of" view on the 3.x rules, so long as you're able to back up your point and not just make wild accusations without any substantiation.

I'm playing in a 3.5 campaign now. I really enjoy the game. That doesn't prevent me from seeing the flaws in the system, nor does it prevent me from acknowledging that 4e has corrected most or all of those flaws, as far as my limited play in 4e has revealed to me to date.

I have never, ever said that anyone should go to 4e and abandon 3.x. I have never, ever said that 3.x can not be a fun game to play. What I have said is that I appreciate the way that 4e has corrected the balance issues in 3.x, and that is about it. Aside from that, my position on the war of the versions has been centered on pointing out the flawed arguments, false statements, hyperbole and demagoguery, and other such intellectually dishonest positions of those who appear to want to attack 4e for whatever reasons. If people would just kindly limit themselves to statements of opinion (which as opinion are unimpeachable), and not resort to foolishness such as "4e is forcing me to do <x>!", or similar statements, I'd be pretty silent on the subject other than my own statements of opinion.

[Kompera]

I really like the sweeping generalisations. It really ads that extra "oomph" to your argument. Obviously anybody who doesn't particularly like 4e has no real reason to hold that opinion. Thanks for clearing that up!
It's not a "sweeping generalization" when I give examples. But thanks for supporting my point by distorting the truth to try to make me look bad!

[Crow]

It's not a "sweeping generalization" when I give examples. But thanks for supporting my point by distorting the truth to try to make me look bad!

I know some lazy german shepherds. But it doesn't mean all german shepherds are lazy just because I use the lazy ones as examples.

[Kompera]

I know some lazy german shepherds. But it doesn't mean all german shepherds are lazy just because I use the lazy ones as examples.
Would it have offended you less if I had said "I think instead that [many] detractors of 4e feel that they must use the most emotionally charged and false statements as possible in their campaigns against 4e"?

I didn't say "all", but I suppose without the qualifier it could have been taken that way.

[Crow]

I wasn't offended by it. But yes, throwing in the qualifier would certainly make it seem less "flamey".

[Indon]

Not at all the same thing, because it is easier as a DM to compensate for the entire party being aggregately less or more powerful than to compensate for individual party members being too powerful or not powerful enough.

Both involve changing the encounters the party would face - what about one makes the changes harder than the other?


No one has demonstrated a better way. To do so they would need to present a work which is of equal scope as the 4e rule set. I doubt most people are willing to put forth that kind of effort, no matter how much they hate 4e.

Nonsense. Game rules are modular enough that often a simple description of a potential house-ruling is sufficient to demonstrate a superior method.

For instance, races.

Game Feature: The only races that have playable rules are those which would have been evaluated as low-LA/RHD in the previous edition.

Question: How do you allow for more exotic races (races that previously had LA/RHD in 3.x) without the problems posed by LA/RHD?

Answer: LA could still have been used, and RHD could have employed racial replacement powers.

Because most of the problems caused by LA were problems related to balancing the usefulness of linearly scaling LA versus exponentially scaling character levels, this problem does not even exist in 4th edition, which features largely linearly scaling character levels. The only major LA-related problem with related to hit points at low levels, which was also solved by 4'th edition.

And the major problem with RHD, aside from its' similar linear scaling, was that RHD levels were simply weaker than class levels on a 1:1 basis. Now, since most aspects of leveling have been evened out across all classes, only the powers would make the difference - so RHD could now be as simple as having racial substitution powers.

There's an example 'better way' for one specific aspect of a game system.

[AKA_Bait]

Both involve changing the encounters the party would face - what about one makes the changes harder than the other?


Because in the case of the party that lacks a role, and would therefore be weaker against one kind of encounter, the DM can avoid using those encounters so much, or use ones that are a few levels lower. He can do this generally, without needing to do too much work on individually tailoring the encounters themselves.

In the case of the party where one character is markedly more powerful than the others the DM has to either customize every encounter to neutralize the power differential (which gets old and starts to look hackneyed fast) or give different WBL to the characters to try to balance it out (which can appear to be unfair).

[Indon]

Because in the case of the party that lacks a role, and would therefore be weaker against one kind of encounter, the DM can avoid using those encounters so much, or use ones that are a few levels lower. He can do this generally, without needing to do too much work on individually tailoring the encounters themselves.

In the case of the party where one character is markedly more powerful than the others the DM has to either customize every encounter to neutralize the power differential (which gets old and starts to look hackneyed fast) or give different WBL to the characters to try to balance it out (which can appear to be unfair).

I think you're unintentionally comparing a more common, low-severity version of one problem with a rarer, high-severity version of the other.

The party that lacks a role is not very hard to compensate for, just as the party without much power differential (say, Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Bard, with of course the Bard being the weakest not being a full spellcaster).

But I think what you're thinking of is the classic "Party has an unoptimized fighter and Batman Wizard" example, which would be more comparable to "Everyone plays a Ranger," in 4'th edition. Both of these parties are going to require the DM to bend over backwards to create good encounters for them.

[AKA_Bait]

I think you're unintentionally comparing a more common, low-severity version of one problem with a rarer, high-severity version of the other.


See, I guess it's that I have found that parties with versitile full casters (Wizards, Clerics, Druids) tend to be unbalanced enough in 3.x without going the full batman / CoDzilla to need to require that kind of tailoring somewhat regularly. Save or lose/dies make a huge difference and can make other party members feel useless even without a fully optimized caster in the party.

Basically, it's that I feel the more severe problem occurs more frequently in 3.x because the intentionality threshold for the PC's making that kind of unbalanced party is much lower in 3.x than 4e. Couple that with the additional work which goes into the 3.x kind, even though it's admittedly less than if the party were fully optimized (and if you want we can call it a near wash) 4e balance seems better thought out.

[Indon]

Basically, it's that I feel the more severe problem occurs more frequently in 3.x because the intentionality threshold for the PC's making that kind of unbalanced party is much lower in 3.x than 4e.

I'd say it probably varies by group style - some probably have bigger problems with one than the other in either direction. I'd just call it a wash.

[AKA_Bait]

I'd say it probably varies by group style - some probably have bigger problems with one than the other in either direction. I'd just call it a wash.

Possibly, I guess I just have trouble seeing how it can vary much on the missing a party role side, assuming a competent DM in both cases.

[Gavin Sage]

Good to hear from someone who sees most of the same things I do when I look at the new books. I prefer to play without models as well. I often find that, perhaps counter-intuitively, using models on a grid actually impedes my ability to imagine the fight and immerse myself in it.

Somehow that dragon is less impressive when represented by an unused plastic Warhammer base. And George Washington's quarter portrait looks nothing like my character, I'm probably not even playing a male because it real life that creeps people out.

I suppose if I wanted to spend money on actual miniatures it might be different (course that elf has the wrong hair color and painting is beyond me) but I have several other habits I spend too much money on, I don't really want to spend another twenty when I'm already diving in for a hundred.

[JaxGaret]

Possibly, I guess I just have trouble seeing how it can vary much on the missing a party role side, assuming a competent DM in both cases.

Agreed.

Also, doesn't 3e suffer from both issues? A party of four 3e Fighters has the same problems (lack of healing and devastating magic) as four 4e Rangers.

The 4e party arguably has more access to magic due to the Ritual Magic feat. The 3e party has only cross-classed UMD to get by with.

This is assuming no multiclassing, of course.

[Prophaniti]

*snip*

I more meant that I prefer not to use a grid at all, and let all the action take place in my head. Some of my group agrees, some don't, but usually we only bust out the grid for really big or complicated battles, when we're likely to forget who's near who. Often, if there's a question, the DM just explains as best he can, or sometimes draws a diagram of where everyone is right then. Then we get on with the action without the tedium of counting out movement squares and such.

[Kompera]

Nonsense. Game rules are modular enough that often a simple description of a potential house-ruling is sufficient to demonstrate a superior method.

For instance, races.

Game Feature: The only races that have playable rules are those which would have been evaluated as low-LA/RHD in the previous edition.

Question: How do you allow for more exotic races (races that previously had LA/RHD in 3.x) without the problems posed by LA/RHD?

Answer: LA could still have been used, and RHD could have employed racial replacement powers.

Because most of the problems caused by LA were problems related to balancing the usefulness of linearly scaling LA versus exponentially scaling character levels, this problem does not even exist in 4th edition, which features largely linearly scaling character levels. The only major LA-related problem with related to hit points at low levels, which was also solved by 4'th edition.

And the major problem with RHD, aside from its' similar linear scaling, was that RHD levels were simply weaker than class levels on a 1:1 basis. Now, since most aspects of leveling have been evened out across all classes, only the powers would make the difference - so RHD could now be as simple as having racial substitution powers.

There's an example 'better way' for one specific aspect of a game system.
It just doesn't work that way. You'll have one camp decrying your house rule, "But, that's not RAW!", another will "LOL, Oberoni fallacy", a third will just say they hate your idea, a fourth will like it but in a modified form, and some tiny fraction might say they like it and will use it.

And this is not an exhaustive list.

So I stick by my prior statement.

[Frost]

It just doesn't work that way. You'll have one camp decrying your house rule, "But, that's not RAW!", another will "LOL, Oberoni fallacy", a third will just say they hate your idea, a fourth will like it but in a modified form, and some tiny fraction might say they like it and will use it.

And this is not an exhaustive list.

So I stick by my prior statement.

Except the game designers themselves could have written it into the system. Thus making it so that no one claims Oberoni, it is RAW, and they don't get to modify it or throw it out without that being a houserule.

He is pointing out one objective way that the designers could have made 4E a better game. They didn't thus it is easy to point out a way to build a better system then the one in use, it's called the one in use plus this system.

[Indon]

Also, doesn't 3e suffer from both issues? A party of four 3e Fighters has the same problems (lack of healing and devastating magic) as four 4e Rangers.

The 4e party arguably has more access to magic due to the Ritual Magic feat. The 3e party has only cross-classed UMD to get by with.

The significant power level variation in 3'rd edition characters can readily trivialize this - four fairly well-optimized power attacking Fighters with compound bows as secondary weapons are going to perform well in most combat encounters - though, trap-heavy encounters are another story.

Coincidentally, traps in 4'th edition are an area that has elicited little complaint - probably because it's a legitimate, unconditional improvement from 3'rd edition.

[Kurald Galain]

Coincidentally, traps in 4'th edition are an area that has elicited little complaint - probably because it's a legitimate, unconditional improvement from 3'rd edition.

Well, except for the part where it requires a high DC spot check to see the elephant in the room :smallbiggrin:

[Indon]

Well, except for the part where it requires a high DC spot check to see the elephant in the room :smallbiggrin:

Firstly, that's a skill system concern.

Secondly, it's a magically stealthy elephant.

[The New Bruceski]

Well, except for the part where it requires a high DC spot check to see the elephant in the room :smallbiggrin:
I'm pretty sure that's not new. I have to double check, but I believe 3e says that all traps have a spot DC of at least 20, and only folks with Trapfinding can find traps with DCs higher than 20.

So if I dig a hole in the middle of a room, you're not allowed to see it 95% of the time. I'm gonna go look that up now, I know there was >some< quirk of how things were written...

EDIT: Bingo, 3.5 PHB page 50, the Rogue's Trapfinding ability. Finding a nonmagical trap has a DC of at least 20. So if I'm in a room and call myself a trap, I get to be invisible!