PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Epic not feeling very "Epic"?



Crow
2008-06-20, 10:28 PM
I just gave epic level play a run-through. Nothing formal, but just a few combats at *around* CR 25.

I am a little underwhelmed. We had a Dragonborn Fighter, an Eladrin Warlord/Wizard, a Human Warlock, and a Halfling Rogue. Overall, while the classes did seem more powerful, to a point, they didn't seem all that epic as far as capabilities are concerned. The wizard had some powers that had wider areas of effect, and the fighters had more W's, but not much else besides status effects which didn't last very long at all. Maybe this is something to do with still being used to 3.x (level 25 would be roughly equivelant to what...16-17th level?), but the combat felt similar to low level combat. It was nice having a larger assortment of abilites, but they still ran out pretty fast, and if you chose any situational ones, you may not get a chance to use them at all. Also, there was still the problem of having to chip away at enemies for a long time. Luckily, it is very easy to keep your allies alive.

Again, this was not a full-fledged game. Just a few combats run for the hell of it. Has anyone else given epic-level characters a try? If so, please post your impressions.

The Necroswanso
2008-06-20, 10:38 PM
Well the epic is streamliend into progression. It's standard now. Not some game breaking god-hood... Unfortunately it won't feel as ridonculous.

EvilElitest
2008-06-20, 10:42 PM
i felt the same way, but i don't like epic play anyways. However, i feel that 4E focused so much effort on making the player feel like the big old hero at level 1 that it makes epic play seem redundant. When you epic your entire career, the official epic level seems silly
from
EE

Crow
2008-06-20, 10:43 PM
I've never played 3.x epic. But I have played in the 15-18 range.

It just doesn't seem like your characters can do all that much more than they could at lower levels. I can't really descibe it, but it's just that "feel" you get from playing it.

EvilElitest
2008-06-20, 10:49 PM
I've never played 3.x epic. But I have played in the 15-18 range.

It just doesn't seem like your characters can do all that much more than they could at lower levels. I can't really descibe it, but it's just that "feel" you get from playing it.

I like 18-21 level games in 3E, just not actual epic, because there the balence is just so awful i just can't take it anymore. I like the idea, but it really seems like way to hard of an idea to manage. Now in 4E, they might have balenced Epic better, but it just feels like higher level,
from
EE

Kristoss
2008-06-20, 10:57 PM
I'm sure wizards will publish "super epic" in a few years. Which will be epic as we know it from 3.x, As you have mentioned 4th epic is just part of the normal level range for 4th ed.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-20, 11:02 PM
I'm sure wizards will publish "super epic" in a few years. Which will be epic as we know it from 3.x, As you have mentioned 4th epic is just part of the normal level range for 4th ed.

Yep, that was the idea to extend the Sweet Spot.

EvilElitest
2008-06-20, 11:02 PM
I'm sure wizards will publish "super epic" in a few years. Which will be epic as we know it from 3.x, As you have mentioned 4th epic is just part of the normal level range for 4th ed.

would they do that.......yeah, they would.....sigh

if you only have a sweet spot and nothing else, then it isn't a sweet spot, it is the norm. If everybody is super, nobody is
from
EE

Kizara
2008-06-20, 11:07 PM
Well, one of the problems with 3e was that things got a bit... out of hand at higher levels.

Characters could do anything, had huge amounts of resources and lots of bonuses coming from everywhere. They were also massively more powerful then characters 10 levels lower, and by more then just ability to deal more damage.

Personally, I liked this conceptually but thought that some of the larger issues of destablization you get at higher-levels could use some tweaking.


With 4e, they dealt with this problem by simply not having this element in the game (which is fairly indictitive of their design philosophy IMO). Thus, characters aren't really anymore capable or 'epic' at level 25 to level 5.

Imagine if the whole game was (on 3e's scale) levels 3 to about 11. Now spread that out over 30 levels.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-20, 11:09 PM
Well, one of the problems with 3e was that things got a bit... out of hand at higher levels.

Characters could do anything, had huge amounts of resources and lots of bonuses coming from everywhere. They were also massively more powerful then characters 10 levels lower, and by more then just ability to deal more damage.


Yes, the term I hear used is Rocket Tag. You hit them before they hit you (applies thricely in Epic).

JaxGaret
2008-06-20, 11:12 PM
Part of it most likely was that you were only half-Epic; the 26th level epic utility power and the 30th level destiny feature are a big part of what makes Epic play feel truly "epic".

Also, there are two houserules that might make Epic play feel a bit more Epic; one is my proposed houserule to make combats feel less like extended chip-away slugfests - if you feel a monster has too many HP, you reduce its HP by half, and reduce its monster level by 1. See this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83475) for reasoning why.

The other proposed houserule is also in that thread, by gw. You can simply not allow powers to be "lost" via leveling; this gives Epic characters a much larger collection of powers at their disposal as compared to Paragon characters.

Crow
2008-06-21, 12:27 AM
Part of it most likely was that you were only half-Epic; the 26th level epic utility power and the 30th level destiny feature are a big part of what makes Epic play feel truly "epic".

Maybe, I hope you're right. I am not trying to compare 4e epic to 3.x epic. I think we all know that the two are on a totally different scale. What I am trying to say, is that it just didn't seem like my character could do a whole lot more than he could before. I didn't feel all that more powerful than i did when I was giving our first level characters a whirl. It just doesn't have that "epic" (Not in the 3.x sense, but in the classical sense) feel.

Has anyone else given it a try yet?

Friv
2008-06-21, 12:35 AM
would they do that.......yeah, they would.....sigh

if you only have a sweet spot and nothing else, then it isn't a sweet spot, it is the norm. If everybody is super, nobody is
from
EE

Um...

I don't want to come in on either side of this debate, because I haven't actually played 4e yet (and wasn't a big D&D fan in 3e, really), but you should possibly parse your argument before making it.

Because if you want to use that quote in this context, what you are actually arguing is that every game needs a section that is not fun in order for you to recognize that the other part is.

"If everything is fun, then nothing is."

I hope I don't have to explain why I disagree with this concept.

Frost
2008-06-21, 01:02 AM
Yes, they talked a lot about extending the sweet spot. But judging from the actual game WotC decided the sweet spot was from level 3-8. A level 9 3.5 character really has more complex, varied, and impactful options then level 30 characters in 4e.

You can't feel like you are genuinely epic, because what epic means to most people is something that has no place in 4E.

Kizara
2008-06-21, 01:15 AM
Yes, the term I hear used is Rocket Tag. You hit them before they hit you (applies thricely in Epic).

Indeed.

To extend that analogy, everyone in 4e has daggers. Some have differently-shaped or colored daggers, but really they are just daggers.

Later on, people get swords. They do more, but really amount to the same thing in the end. Everyone still has their differently-shaped and colored swords.


Also, everyone wears magical chainmail at the begining. So while the daggers can eventually kill, its a hacking contest for the most part. Now, later on they have fullplate. Which means you need even more wacks to wear someone down.


Metaphors ftw!

JaxGaret
2008-06-21, 01:19 AM
It's much, much easier to make combat more deadly in 4e than it is to make combat less deadly in 3e.

For example, I have proposed a simple fix for the "4e monsters have too many HP" problem: halve any offending monster's HP and drop its monster level by 1. Read here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83475) for reasoning why.

Kizara
2008-06-21, 01:26 AM
It's much, much easier to make combat more deadly in 4e than it is to make combat less deadly in 3e.

For example, I have proposed a simple fix for the "4e monsters have too many HP" problem: halve any offending monster's HP and drop its monster level by 1. Read here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83475) for reasoning why.

Ok, so you take away some of the armor. I completely agree that this would improve the game, since one of my major issues with it is that it's designed to be a game but the game is too BLOODY EASY.

However, even if you took off some of the armor, its still somewhat lame to only have daggers.

JaxGaret
2008-06-21, 01:36 AM
Ok, so you take away some of the armor. I completely agree that this would improve the game, since one of my major issues with it is that it's designed to be a game but the game is too BLOODY EASY.

However, even if you took off some of the armor, its still somewhat lame to only have daggers.

I wouldn't say that 4e is too easy. I've killed plenty of PCs in 4e.

I like the fact that everyone has the same weapons in 4e. Perhaps you would have preferred everyone to have rocket launchers, but I certainly would not. Since everyone does not have rocket launchers, they have daggers.

Or is there some happy medium that you would have preferred? Could you possibly outline how one might go about designing that?

thewamp
2008-06-21, 01:41 AM
I wouldn't say that 4e is too easy. I've killed plenty of PCs in 4e.

I like the fact that everyone has the same weapons in 4e. Perhaps you would have preferred everyone to have rocket launchers, but I certainly would not. Since everyone does not have rocket launchers, they have daggers.

Or is there some happy medium that you would have preferred? Could you possibly outline how one might go about designing that?

I think the idea is that he would have preferred it more battle royale... really actually, the premise behind the movie (minus the disturbing aspects of teenagers killing each other) is very much like 3rd edition. Unfortunately, I can't think of a good analogy to 4th, so that doesn't mean much.

LurkerInPlayground
2008-06-21, 02:11 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Paragon the new Epic? Or "high-level" play, at any rate.


Metaphors ftw!
People seem to be arguing by metaphor a lot these days.
Bluntly, it's not working. A casual scroll through this thread seems to be adequate proof of that.

We have colored daggers or swords or something. Some chainmail. Rocket launchers. Umm. . . Battle Royale.

Come on people.

JaxGaret
2008-06-21, 02:20 AM
I think the idea is that he would have preferred it more battle royale... really actually, the premise behind the movie (minus the disturbing aspects of teenagers killing each other) is very much like 3rd edition. Unfortunately, I can't think of a good analogy to 4th, so that doesn't mean much.

Could you explain this a bit further? I'm not sure what you're getting at :smallsmile:

Titanium Dragon
2008-06-21, 02:24 AM
Epic play in 3.x sucked.

Yeah, I know some people liked it, but most people detested it. Really, the whole upper levels of 3.x (really, the moment wizards began getting out of control) the game ceased to really be the same game and ultimately ceased to really be fun.

The problem is that being uber powerful isn't really what D&D is about; its about a certain level of power. 3.x failed at that, miserably. Power variance was extremely high between different character classes and between different sorts of monsters.

Ultimately epic play completely trivialized monsters (and further trivialized nonspellcasters) and made the game largely unfun. You were superpowered to the point where there wasn't anything which could realistically threaten you save things which basically broke the rules of the game you did.

Rocket tag doesn't feel epic; it feels stupid.

The point of epic play is for people to be fighting enemies far beyond the ken of what they previously were capable of. The reason epic play is epic is the scope of what you're affecting. Combat is going to be pretty similar regardless of level; if it isn't, then the game failed horribly. This may come as a surprise to some people, but others will see the truth - the reality is that a game system is idealized for a certain type of play. Once you stray too far from that, the game is no longer fun. So the game can change, but not too much, and it has limits beyond which you cannot stray and keep the game itself intact.

Epic play isn't about the game but about what you're doing with it from the roleplaying standpoint.

icefractal
2008-06-21, 02:47 AM
The problem is that the flavor "you're a demigod!", and the actual gameplay "you're somewhat more competent!" don't line up at all.

You get somewhat better at doing what you do, but end up sorely lacking in what most people would call epicness.
* Ability to change things permanently - Even as a so-called "demigod", you still can't make an illusion that lasts more than a day, or create a teleportation circle, or really do anything with a permanent effect.
* Use cool powers - sure, you get new ways to deal damage and move enemies around. But what of other stuff? There's only one flight power that lasts over five minutes, and teleportation remains extremely expensive. Hell, you can't even be invisible without sustaining it ... or open a door in less than 10 minutes!
* Killing power - Not that significant a rise. Killing an army is something you'd expect an Epic character to be able to do, and is not possible unless the DM makes them not just minions, but low level minions. And compared to your power at lower levels, you're just not that much more deadly.

Maybe I wouldn't mind as much if they just called you "experienced heroes", but claiming that you get to be a demigod but not even having as much actual power as a 9th level 3E character is uninspiring.

Titanium Dragon
2008-06-21, 03:04 AM
The problem is that the flavor "you're a demigod!", and the actual gameplay "you're somewhat more competent!" don't line up at all.

Well, given Orcus is probably a match for a demigod...


You get somewhat better at doing what you do, but end up sorely lacking in what most people would call epicness.
* Ability to change things permanently - Even as a so-called "demigod", you still can't make an illusion that lasts more than a day, or create a teleportation circle, or really do anything with a permanent effect.

Creating permanent stuff is problematic within the D&D system. You can't really do that stuff within the confines of the system and still be playing the same game, I'm afraid.


* Use cool powers - sure, you get new ways to deal damage and move enemies around. But what of other stuff? There's only one flight power that lasts over five minutes, and teleportation remains extremely expensive. Hell, you can't even be invisible without sustaining it ... or open a door in less than 10 minutes!

Flight is horribly broken, hence the great deal of restriction on it. I think if you read the Tarrasque's entry in the MM you'll see why flight is such a problem. Basically, it eliminates massive amounts of monsters and adventures. It has to be heavily controlled by the DM.


* Killing power - Not that significant a rise. Killing an army is something you'd expect an Epic character to be able to do, and is not possible unless the DM makes them not just minions, but low level minions. And compared to your power at lower levels, you're just not that much more deadly.

So? You're a high level dude, you aren't fighting mooks anymore. And should an epic character be able to slaughter an army on their own? I don't think so, really.


Maybe I wouldn't mind as much if they just called you "experienced heroes", but claiming that you get to be a demigod but not even having as much actual power as a 9th level 3E character is uninspiring.

Sure, except for the fact that 4e is fun and 3e was not much fun after you'd done it for a while. Breaking the game is only fun for so long, until you realize that you don't have a game to play anymore. There's a reason they got rid of a lot of the garbage high level spellcasters could do previously - it was horrendously broken and unfun for the rest of the party and bad for the game on the whole.

JaxGaret
2008-06-21, 03:04 AM
The problem is that the flavor "you're a demigod!", and the actual gameplay "you're somewhat more competent!" don't line up at all.

Why not? Hercules was a Demigod, and his power level lines up just fine with Epic or even Paragon 4e characters.

[quote=icefractalYou get somewhat better at doing what you do, but end up sorely lacking in what most people would call epicness.[/quote]

Oh yeah? Take that up with Beowulf, Hercules, Odysseus, Cucuhullain etc. They're epic heroes. Even Merlin wasn't all-powerful like 3e Wizards are.

The gods are less powerful, too. Orcus is almost a god, and he's a 33rd level Solo. Moradin is rumored to be 38th level, and the chart tops out at 40, which presumably is the level of the Overgod. Epic heroes are few and far between.

Draz74
2008-06-21, 03:05 AM
^(@icefractal) Some of that sounds like stuff they'll save for splatbooks. New epic-only Rituals and so on.

But it seems to me that the only way the game can feel truly "epic" is for the DM to carefully craft it that way. Make epic-level monsters hard to find anywhere in the campaign world, so that most foes are easy for epic characters to beat. However, those few epic monsters are busy with plots to destroy the entire world, or assassinate gods, or ... stuff like that. So the epic characters still feel stressed, even though they're pretty much the Big Bads On The Block, because they're the only ones who can deal with the things that need to be dealt with.

Also, the DM needs to emphasize flashy things that are traditionally associated with epic play (even if they can actually be done at Paragon tier too), such as rampant plane-shifting.

Titanium Dragon
2008-06-21, 03:06 AM
Why not? Hercules was a Demigod, and his power level lines up just fine with Epic or even Paragon 4e characters.

Indeed. Being a demigod doesn't mean you're brokenly powerful, just powerful.

I think what people fundamentally don't understand is this:

No system is going to be able to handle fighting goblins which act like goblins should and gods who act like gods should. The two are mutually exclusive. No system handles it well.

What you ultimately have to do to make it work is either make the goblins more like gods or make the gods more like goblins. As people enjoy fighting goblins, and don't really enjoy rocket tag, it is logical to make the gods more like goblins.

This is the fundamental problem with statting out things like gods - you come to the (entirely logical) conclusion that if you level up enough you can kill them. People like challenging the gods. The problem is that you can't really make the gods godly and have that work at all. Hence D&D's gods being ultimately pretty wussy in 4e - yeah they're tough, but they're not beyond everything else.

If you want gods to be gods, you can't really stat them out.

JaxGaret
2008-06-21, 03:18 AM
Indeed. Being a demigod doesn't mean you're brokenly powerful, just powerful.

Right.


I think what people fundamentally don't understand is this:

No system is going to be able to handle fighting goblins which act like goblins should and gods who act like gods should. The two are mutually exclusive. No system handles it well.

What you ultimately have to do to make it work is either make the goblins more like gods or make the gods more like goblins. As people enjoy fighting goblins, and don't really enjoy rocket tag, it is logical to make the gods more like goblins.

Good point.


This is the fundamental problem with statting out things like gods - you come to the (entirely logical) conclusion that if you level up enough you can kill them. People like challenging the gods. The problem is that you can't really make the gods godly and have that work at all. Hence D&D's gods being ultimately pretty wussy in 4e - yeah they're tough, but they're not beyond everything else.

If you want gods to be gods, you can't really stat them out.

Well, since the 4e PCs top out at level 30, and monsters keep on increasing to level 40, it'll take a lot of Epic PCs to be able to challenge a god.

For instance, it would take well over twenty level-30 PCs to make an even match with a level 40 Solo Overgod.

Orzel
2008-06-21, 04:32 AM
3e's epic was all about breaking rules and making new ones ("Dexterous Will" I break your long ranged mind control with me dexterous fingers, yeehaw!). In 4e, there are real rules and guidelines for epic so it doesn't feel that much different than non-epic.

MartinHarper
2008-06-21, 05:06 AM
* Ability to change things permanently - Even as a so-called "demigod", you still can't make an illusion that lasts more than a day, or create a teleportation circle, or really do anything with a permanent effect.

There's magic item creation, which is fairly permanent.
Also, there's home-brew. Since combat ability isn't being traded for non-combat utility any more, the DM can hand out homebrewed non-combat utility like candy without it unbalancing the game.

Create Castle
You hew a castle out of solid rock, either by brute force, or with arcane power.
Level: 26
Category: Construction
Time: 1 day
Duration: Permanent
Component Cost: castle-sized monolithic piece of rock (priceless).
Market Price: n/a
Key Skill: Athletics or Arcana.
Secondary skill: Dungeoneering.
Effect: Make a Dungeoneering check and add it to the Athletics or Arcana result. The castle lasts for that many years before it requires structural repair.


As people enjoy fighting goblins, and don't really enjoy rocket tag, it is logical to make the gods more like goblins.

I don't see that gods fighting beings with godlike power should necessarily be "rocket tag". I'd expect gods to have better defences than their attacks, which is why Loki doesn't sneak up on Thor when he's not looking and kill him in the surprise round.

namo
2008-06-21, 12:36 PM
Epic in 3.5E can be viable and fun - people don't have to break the rules (just like in the rest of 3.5). I do realize it's largely a problem of perception: I'm with the people who think Epic heroes should be able to influence whole cities/nations/planes, but I am not any more right than people who think 4E's approach is good (of course !).


This is the fundamental problem with statting out things like gods - you come to the (entirely logical) conclusion that if you level up enough you can kill them. People like challenging the gods. The problem is that you can't really make the gods godly and have that work at all. Hence D&D's gods being ultimately pretty wussy in 4e - yeah they're tough, but they're not beyond everything else.

If you want gods to be gods, you can't really stat them out.

When you can kill gods, you are basically a god. Divine play is even beyond epic play...

Frost
2008-06-21, 01:38 PM
Can people please realize that no one but you is talking about 3.5 Epic?

We are talking about the feeling of epicness, and how you don't have it because level 9 characters in 3.5 can do things that feel far more epic in scope then anything any character (or God) can do in 4e.

The point being, that no one, not even Gods can actually create an effect outside of a distance of 100ft. Fireballing someone 1400ft away isn't gamebreaking in 3.5 because it rarely comes up, and it's fireball, but every once in while you are presented with a situation where you remember that you can totally do things over really long distances.

Creating a Wall of Stone, and then coming back to find it still there is awesome, and makes you feel awesome. These things are literally beyond the Gods in 4e.

Other things that feel epic, level 9 3.5 characters (and CR 3 monsters) can do, but that 4E can never do are: bringing someone (or something) else to you through a badass gate from another plane, casting a spell in the morning, and having it stay active all day, doing anything at all, even if it's just running fast, or breaking walls, where you can do it more then twice as well as someone who isn't built for it. Ect. That's what we are talking about with "Epic" not 3.5 Epic rules. The problem is that 4E characters can't do any of that.

Callos_DeTerran
2008-06-21, 01:53 PM
Can people please realize that no one but you is talking about 3.5 Epic?

We are talking about the feeling of epicness, and how you don't have it because level 9 characters in 3.5 can do things that feel far more epic in scope then anything any character (or God) can do in 4e.

The point being, that no one, not even Gods can actually create an effect outside of a distance of 100ft. Fireballing someone 1400ft away isn't gamebreaking in 3.5 because it rarely comes up, and it's fireball, but every once in while you are presented with a situation where you remember that you can totally do things over really long distances.

Creating a Wall of Stone, and then coming back to find it still there is awesome, and makes you feel awesome. These things are literally beyond the Gods in 4e.

Other things that feel epic, level 9 3.5 characters (and CR 3 monsters) can do, but that 4E can never do are: bringing someone (or something) else to you through a badass gate from another plane, casting a spell in the morning, and having it stay active all day, doing anything at all, even if it's just running fast, or breaking walls, where you can do it more then twice as well as someone who isn't built for it. Ect. That's what we are talking about with "Epic" not 3.5 Epic rules. The problem is that 4E characters can't do any of that.

The problem with you talking about the 'feeling of epicness' is that an epic feeling is subjective. Of all the things you listed above, none of those things scream epic to me. They scream dull. Like making a permanent stone wall. That really seems epic? Some of those aren't so much dull as they can lead to brokeness...and how are you opening gates at 9th level without UMD cheese and a scroll of gate, hmm?

What your saying is that 4th edition lacks the feeling of epicness as YOU see it. As for knowing what the gods can do in 4th how do you know that? A) There haven't been any stats for them yet. B) They are in fact gods. If they can't do something minor like that by virtue of their combat stats a DM has every right to say they do it anyway, gods remember?

So just because 4th edition lacks long-lasting GAME EFFECTS doesn't mean it lacks epicness.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-21, 02:06 PM
Other things that feel epic, level 9 3.5 characters (and CR 3 monsters) can do, but that 4E can never do are: bringing someone (or something) else to you through a badass gate from another plane, casting a spell in the morning, and having it stay active all day, doing anything at all, even if it's just running fast, or breaking walls, where you can do it more then twice as well as someone who isn't built for it. Ect. That's what we are talking about with "Epic" not 3.5 Epic rules. The problem is that 4E characters can't do any of that.

Frost, you did play the game, right?

I mean, at first level, you can make a all day lasting spell: Tensar's Floating Disc. If you are going to exaggerate at least try to make it sound plausible.

Just because Rituals aren't combat spells doesn't mean they aren't spells.

Frost
2008-06-21, 03:00 PM
The problem with you talking about the 'feeling of epicness' is that an epic feeling is subjective. Of all the things you listed above, none of those things scream epic to me. They scream dull. Like making a permanent stone wall. That really seems epic? Some of those aren't so much dull as they can lead to brokeness...and how are you opening gates at 9th level without UMD cheese and a scroll of gate, hmm?

What your saying is that 4th edition lacks the feeling of epicness as YOU see it. As for knowing what the gods can do in 4th how do you know that? A) There haven't been any stats for them yet. B) They are in fact gods. If they can't do something minor like that by virtue of their combat stats a DM has every right to say they do it anyway, gods remember?

So just because 4th edition lacks long-lasting GAME EFFECTS doesn't mean it lacks epicness.

1) The problem is that if someone else posts a thread about how 4e epic levels don't feel very epic to them, it's disingenuous to completely ignore their meaning and argue against the 3.5 epic strawman that they weren't talking about.

2) Wall of Stone doesn't feel very epic on it's own in 3.5, because you can do so many things, but the fact that you can build fortresses on your own is pretty cool, and wall of stone is pretty damn epic compared to anything a 4e character can do. Not to mention Fabricate.

3) By using the Planar Binding spells.

4) I'm talking about the things you can do, not neccissarily that they have to be done in the way 3.5 did them. Flying can be balanced by AC penalties, or taking more damage from burst effects, or not being able to avoid attacks as well and taking more damage, ect. Very few people actually complain about the Planar Binding spells other then the infinite Wish chains they can create, which are easily removed in 4e by not having wish, so just make an ability to summon one ally or something.

5) Because Gods can't look at someone and make them die because even if it only happens on a 20 it's still faster to spam that till you kill someone then it is to try to do HP damage. Because 4e doesn't have powers that cripple people for more then 2 rounds, ever, because the mechanics don't support it and "it's not fun!" for whomever is crippled. Because making things happen, that then stay happened forever just doesn't exist anywhere in the 4e system other then by paying gold, which is called buying an item.


Frost, you did play the game, right?

I mean, at first level, you can make a all day lasting spell: Tensar's Floating Disc. If you are going to exaggerate at least try to make it sound plausible.

Just because Rituals aren't combat spells doesn't mean they aren't spells.

No they aren't spells, they are magic items. You spend money and get an effect, that's not a spell, that's an item.

And I'm sorry, I wanted this to be clear, useful spells, anything that actually matters, which Tenser's doesn't.

Note that if I'm exagerating so much, and it doesn't even sound plausible, then why can you only bring up a half hearted counter to one of my points, instead of all the true ones.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-21, 03:48 PM
So... Exalted? I mean, that's a game built around making epic characters and doing "epic" things. You even get bonuses if you describe how epicly you do something. Wouldn't that be a good metric for describing the entirely subjective term of being "epic?"

Personal Views
The way I see "epic" is by the level of challenge that you're dealing with. As low-level heroes, you'll be killing goblins and maybe clearing out dusty tombs. It's dangerous, personally, but it's not exactly going to be rocking the world. Maybe you'll be able to save a town or two - it's pretty awesome to have broken the raider's siege by challenging the bandit lord to one-on-one combat and winning.

Mid-level? Now you're dealing with kingdom-sized threats. Killing dragons so fierce that the king has offered his daughter's hand in marriage to the slayers. Sounds good. Toppling the revolutionary cabal that was going to assassinate the High Priest and break the seal that confined a demon prince and his Company of the Damned? Pretty tough, but you can do it. Organizing a popular resistance to remove a corrupt noble from power and free his serfs from terrible oppression? Excellent.

At the Epic level, you're dealing with world-level threats. Invading monstrosities from beyond, thousand year old prophecies, and trying to stop a demi-lich from ascending to godhood? Those are the challenges I'm looking for.

Can you do that in 4e? Sure can. It's all about storytelling. If you really want your Epic Level PC to make a worldwide network of teleportation circles, then talk to your DM into making a campaign designed around it. Epic stuff should never be "easy" to do - like making magic items in 2e, it should be an adventure by itself.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-06-21, 04:12 PM
Feeling epic... Hrm

Maybe your looking at this the wrong way. You said you were only doing a few (random, im assuming) encounters? Well then I doubt it had much story behind them? I would never really expect that the powers would seem much more epic than your first level powers. But maybe if you had a nice background to work off of, you could truely appreciate the epicness when you realize that here you are, no longer a mere mortal, an adventurer who against all odds made it to the pinicle of life, fighting a fire-breathing horned demon from the deep deep Abyssal planes, possibly older than the creation of man, who could crush your formal self, then proceed the destroy all that you had ever held dear, and you are winning.

That, sounds VERY epic to me.

Edit: I would also like to say that making such a high character, and not actually acheiving that through normal leveling can definatly deter from the epic feelings. You would probally feel much more powerful if you had been through all of the trials and hardships with your character to get to where he is, rather than just saying "it happened". Or at least thats how I feel whenever I make a high level character on its own. Its kind of shallow.

Chronos
2008-06-21, 04:27 PM
So, we're using Hercules as the standard of what an "epic" character should be able to do, then? Well, most of his famous Twelve Labors amounted to fighting mighty monsters, and I suppose 4e models that well enough (if you can agree on how powerful the monsters should be, of course). But along the way, he also diverted one river, filled another with rocks to the point that it became unnavigable, split a mountain in two, held up the weight of the sky for a day, and went to the Underworld and returned under his own power. I'd say that, yes, he had a "lasting, permanent effect" on the world, and if the game isn't able to model that, then it's not doing its job.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-06-21, 04:41 PM
So, we're using Hercules as the standard of what an "epic" character should be able to do, then? Well, most of his famous Twelve Labors amounted to fighting mighty monsters, and I suppose 4e models that well enough (if you can agree on how powerful the monsters should be, of course). But along the way, he also diverted one river, filled another with rocks to the point that it became unnavigable, split a mountain in two, held up the weight of the sky for a day, and went to the Underworld and returned under his own power. I'd say that, yes, he had a "lasting, permanent effect" on the world, and if the game isn't able to model that, then it's not doing its job.

Yes, well not all adventurers have the pleasure to have a Diety as a parent, most have to work for their power. If they would ever hope to acheive what Hercules could, they would probally have to become a god themselves, which is as far as I can tell, way past level 30.

Crow
2008-06-21, 05:23 PM
Chronos has somewhat gotten what I am trying to say, as has Frost. The capabilities of the characters past level 20 just don't seem to have much "oomph". You can't really make a lasting impact on the world. One of my favorite spells in 3.x was Control Weather. Sure, it didn't have very much combat utility, but damn did you feel powerful when you blotted out the sun with thunderheads. I was actually really disappointed that it wasn't included as a ritual. "Epicness" shouldn't have to mean that you are breaking the rules (though it very well might). But you should be able to leave a massive stone monlith somewhere for the peasants to admire and tell stories about how it got there ("Ragnar the great summoned it from the earth to block the charge of the mighty whatever...").

bosssmiley
2008-06-21, 05:44 PM
"Yarr, textwall ahoy!"

Of course a level 30 4E character is going to feel less epic in scope and scale of power than a 30th - or even a 20th - level 3E character: the top-out level of power isn't equivalent. Epic tier in 4E is EINO (Epic In Name Only) to people who knew the ELH. It should more properly be called 'high level', as in AD&D levels 13+.

It seems that that's intended though. A 30th level 4E character is really supposed to be less gobsmackingly, game-breakingly epic than a 20th level 3E one. I can't think of a single 4E character model that can go nova and throw around multiple time stops, howls of the banshee, wishes or metamagicked-out-the-wazoo enervations like a well crafted high-level 3E Batman wizard could, can you? All these delicious high level effects are now 1/day in 4E, which is a power level about on a par with 17th level under the 3E power scale.

As I see 4E, the designers made a sincere - albeit flawed - attempt to taffypull 3E levels 3-15 until they stretched out over a playable 30 levels. They averred in the pre-release podcasts that they wanted to keep the new edition of the game within the famous 'sweet spot' in which D&D actually *worked* without the maths breaking down. They wanted to maintain play in the part of the 3E power continuum before time stop and AoE save-or-dies came in to turn the game into caster-only Rocket Launcher Tag. For all the b0rkage, nerfery, baby/bathwater mix-ups and mathematical goofiness in the new edition, the designers did manage to keep BAB, Saves and skills for most characters of equivalent level within one RNG of each other. That alone is more than 3E Core ever managed.

In some respects 4E characters are being intentionally dragged back into the pre-metamagic, pre-WBL, pre-'infinite loop Pun-Pun exploit' model of play that BECMI or (non-Dark Sun, non-Netheril) AD&D characters inhabited. The focus of play has to be on ingenious use of character power because the sheer earthshaking, mountain-raising, plot stomping horsepower of Athasian Psionic Enchantments, Netherese Arcanism and Epic Magic has simply gone the way of the dinosaur. It's a crying shame that some of the flavourful 'feel my wrath' stuff like the aforementioned control weather had to go out with the sheer overpowered '...and I win' stuff though. I mean, calling up storms to sink the ships of the enemy or bury them in snowdrifts is practically a benchmark of epic fantasy. :smallcool:

Who knows though, the across-the-board nerfing in 4E may - very tentatively - be a good thing. However *meh* their powers may be in the padded sumo world of 4E, your high level fighter absolutely isn't just the fullcaster's bagboy any more. He can now contribute beyond level 12 instead of just acting as part of Yugi Magi's (http://www.yugiohtheabridgedseries.com/) cheerleading claque. Heck, Leeroy Jenkins now needs to contribute his share just so the party can saw through all the binary minions, 100hp orcs and 9999hp top tier solo monsters within an evening. :smallwink:

It could be that restoring truly epic effects like flying fortresses, personal wish-slave Efreeti and Brigadoon demi-planes to their rightful place in the realm of "If sir has to ask, then sir cannot afford" setting colour may make for a better, more cinematic game in the long run. The measure of a man is his adversaries (and their crystalline celestial fortresses and demonic legion garrisons) after all.


TL;DR
4E nerfed epic power for the good of the game. :smallconfused:
(Boy, does that ever look weird)

And now, having betrayed the grognard code by acknowledging that 4E may be something other than merely the filthy mewling lovespawn of Earthdawn and Mordheim, I leave this thread a broken man. I will require the aid of a second in my honourable seppuku. :smallamused:

Starbuck_II
2008-06-21, 05:56 PM
No they aren't spells, they are magic items. You spend money and get an effect, that's not a spell, that's an item.

And I'm sorry, I wanted this to be clear, useful spells, anything that actually matters, which Tenser's doesn't.

Note that if I'm exagerating so much, and it doesn't even sound plausible, then why can you only bring up a half hearted counter to one of my points, instead of all the true ones.

By that definition, Raise Dead and Wish in 3.5 are magic items: you spend something and get an effect.

Saph
2008-06-21, 06:01 PM
Of course a level 30 4E character is going to feel less epic in scope and scale of power than a 30th - or even a 20th - level 3E character: the top-out level of power isn't equivalent.

I think it's a bit more than that - my 11th, 12th, and 13th-level characters in 3.5 all feel more epic to me than a 30th-level 4e character. The problem is that, as someone stated earlier on, the mechanics just don't sync up with the flavour. In theory an epic-level 4e character is supposed to be a spectacular person of world-shaking importance, but in practice you're basically the same as you were at lower levels, just with a bigger stick. Your title might be 'demigod', but all that really means is that you hit twice as hard and can take twice as much damage.

The impression I've gotten so far is that if you want to model 'epicness' - ie characters that can just flat-out break the normal rules and accomplish nearly anything with time - you're better off sticking with highish level 3.5 play, say around level 11-15. 4e's power level just doesn't go high enough. By the same token, if you want to play characters that are tough and capable despite being 1st-level, 4e is better.

- Saph

sonofzeal
2008-06-21, 06:02 PM
By that definition, Raise Dead and Wish in 3.5 are magic items: you spend something and get an effect.
I can see that making sense in the context of "goods and services". It would be more of a "service" than a "good", and something a party member might be able to provide, but it's still fundamentally a purchase while the casting of Fireball usually isn't.

For me, anything you have to pay a not-insubstantial amout of resources for has a profoundly different feeling than something you can do for free.

Chronos
2008-06-21, 10:09 PM
Yes, well not all adventurers have the pleasure to have a Diety as a parent, most have to work for their power.What do you think "demigod" means? Even if that's something you have to earn in 4e, the implication is that you're reaching the same power level as the famous demigods of myth, like Hercules.

JaxGaret
2008-06-21, 10:30 PM
So, we're using Hercules as the standard of what an "epic" character should be able to do, then? Well, most of his famous Twelve Labors amounted to fighting mighty monsters, and I suppose 4e models that well enough (if you can agree on how powerful the monsters should be, of course).

Agreed.


But along the way, he also diverted one river, filled another with rocks to the point that it became unnavigable, split a mountain in two, held up the weight of the sky for a day

Those were all made possible by Hercules' great strength; non-caster characters in 3e could not do these things any better than 4e characters can.


, and went to the Underworld and returned under his own power. I'd say that, yes, he had a "lasting, permanent effect" on the world, and if the game isn't able to model that, then it's not doing its job.

Epic 4e characters can certainly travel to the Underworld and back under their own power. And not just casters; any character with Ritual Casting and of sufficiently high level can do it.

You have to remember that along with all of the PCs being less powerful overall in the 4e world, all of the NPCs are equally less powerful; there is just as much room for 4e characters to making lasting effect on the world as 3e characters. A 3e character might make more world changes in a shorter period of time, yes, but it was also more likely for someone else to come in and change those things themselves in a short period of time, negating any changes your character made.

EvilElitest
2008-06-21, 10:41 PM
Um...

I don't want to come in on either side of this debate, because I haven't actually played 4e yet (and wasn't a big D&D fan in 3e, really), but you should possibly parse your argument before making it.

Because if you want to use that quote in this context, what you are actually arguing is that every game needs a section that is not fun in order for you to recognize that the other part is.

"If everything is fun, then nothing is."

I hope I don't have to explain why I disagree with this concept.

who said anything about fun? By Sweet spot, the meaning of feeling super powered. Now in 3E (ignoring balence issues for a second) you are weak, then you get into the sweet spot, and it is good, hey, now you are actually heros. Your big, bad, and dangerous. Your powerful, after a few levels of being kinda weak (not pathetic certainly, but no superman) Now, you are finally feeling accomplished. Sure your not the biggest fish in the pond, but you are certainly something

When you get higher, you become really a significants force, not Drizzt or Elminster, but really something. And finally, your get to the magical spot where you really are super. Its a nice feeling, that is brought about as a reward of levels of struggle, and not acomplishment

Now in 4E, you are at that point the whole time. And personal feelings on the matter aside, it makes epic, not seem epic, just another ten levels



The problem with you talking about the 'feeling of epicness' is that an epic feeling is subjective. Of all the things you listed above, none of those things scream epic to me. They scream dull. Like making a permanent stone wall. That really seems epic? Some of those aren't so much dull as they can lead to brokeness...and how are you opening gates at 9th level without UMD cheese and a scroll of gate, hmm?
4E epic is like just another stage in being a high level character. While his examples aren't perfect (through a perfect stone wall, hmmmm the possibilities)


What your saying is that 4th edition lacks the feeling of epicness as YOU see it. As for knowing what the gods can do in 4th how do you know that? A) There haven't been any stats for them yet. B) They are in fact gods. If they can't do something minor like that by virtue of their combat stats a DM has every right to say they do it anyway, gods remember?

On hte subject on 4E gods, in Races and classes they said they were making gods more accessible and stat worthy, and yet in Worlds and monster they are beyond the reach of mortals. Which is it



from
EE

Titanium Dragon
2008-06-21, 11:32 PM
I don't see that gods fighting beings with godlike power should necessarily be "rocket tag". I'd expect gods to have better defences than their attacks, which is why Loki doesn't sneak up on Thor when he's not looking and kill him in the surprise round.

Well, it isn't just rocket tag. Fighting a god, though, is very different from fighting a goblin, unless the god is a pretty weak thing that lacks all that much power. Oddly, it really seems like they dialed back greatly on the 4e gods; as they no longer grant divine power in the first place, it isn't unreasonable for them to be killable because they don't actually have special power to begin with.

The problem is that when you do that, gods are no longer really gods so much as powerful, immortal extraplanar beings. In my mind, gods are simply beyond the normal ken in ways that mortals simply cannot hope to match. The ability to hear and grant prayers implies incredible power.


The point being, that no one, not even Gods can actually create an effect outside of a distance of 100ft. Fireballing someone 1400ft away isn't gamebreaking in 3.5 because it rarely comes up, and it's fireball, but every once in while you are presented with a situation where you remember that you can totally do things over really long distances.

Actually, having ranges like 1400 ft is actually pretty gamebreaking, as by the time people get to you, they're dead. 100 feet is a pretty reasonable maximum range for most things, and 200 feet is sufficient for pretty much all reasonable situations.


1) The problem is that if someone else posts a thread about how 4e epic levels don't feel very epic to them, it's disingenuous to completely ignore their meaning and argue against the 3.5 epic strawman that they weren't talking about.

I think people simply misinterpreted what you were talking about. The word "epic" has meaning in D&D, and when you use it to mean something other than its rules meaning it is confusing. You should have probably used a different word, like "powerful", "potent", or perhaps say something like "Epic characters unable to shape the world".


2) Wall of Stone doesn't feel very epic on it's own in 3.5, because you can do so many things, but the fact that you can build fortresses on your own is pretty cool, and wall of stone is pretty damn epic compared to anything a 4e character can do. Not to mention Fabricate.

The problem with spells like Wall of Stone and Fabricate is their brokenness. They're really cool ideas, but an instant stone wall is a crippling debuff, and being able to build fortresses on a whim with Fabricate leads to all sorts of unfortunate situations - particularly the breakdown of WBL. Not that you couldn't make Fabricate into a ritual where the ritual costs as much to do as the structure it creates is worth and takes a while to cast, but honestly, I think being able to instantly build a fortress, cool as it is, leads to more headaches than it is worth.

There's nothing WRONG with it, per se, but it implies a rather different sort of game, and if you compare Fabricate to the power of 4e powers, it is pretty much as strong as the very, very best of them.


4) I'm talking about the things you can do, not neccissarily that they have to be done in the way 3.5 did them. Flying can be balanced by AC penalties, or taking more damage from burst effects, or not being able to avoid attacks as well and taking more damage, ect. Very few people actually complain about the Planar Binding spells other then the infinite Wish chains they can create, which are easily removed in 4e by not having wish, so just make an ability to summon one ally or something.

You're just wrong. You have two options:

1) No non-flying melee foes whatsoever. Zero. You have INFINITE armor class against them. Nothing you do to it is going to balance it against them, so once you allow flying, you must ditch all non-flying melee creatures.
2) Flying is very limited, either in height or duration or some other respect.


5) Because Gods can't look at someone and make them die because even if it only happens on a 20 it's still faster to spam that till you kill someone then it is to try to do HP damage. Because 4e doesn't have powers that cripple people for more then 2 rounds, ever, because the mechanics don't support it and "it's not fun!" for whomever is crippled. Because making things happen, that then stay happened forever just doesn't exist anywhere in the 4e system other then by paying gold, which is called buying an item.

SoDs are highly unfun, as is sitting out for long periods of time because the DM rolled well.


No they aren't spells, they are magic items. You spend money and get an effect, that's not a spell, that's an item.

No, they are spells. You just don't want to call them spells because it ruins your argument. Powerful spells have to have limits like that to make them fair, and material components have been around for absolute ages.

Basically, in summary:

High level 3.x play was unfun. It was also highly unbalanced and characters could completely rend the game to shreds, often without even trying. If they TRY to do crazy things with spells, the game will break.

Epic has no really clear definition.

A lot of epic deeds should NOT be spells or similar abilities, but things you actually have to do, unless the point is to basically be a god. And if you want to be a god, then you are playing the wrong game.

D&D is fundamentally about something. 3.x failed at it largely because the game broke in half, tried to do other things, and failed at them miserably. 4e tossed out the "trying to be too many things" to focus on what it was supposed to do well.

The reason epic play in 3.x was garbage was because it was essentially stapled onto the system and they tried to make characters exponentially more powerful, but as it turns out that makes for a poor game, imbalance, and ultimately makes the game not work. Even high level play was that way, and upper mid level play could be that way as well, depending on whether or not the wizard took good spells.

Where you see godly, many people see lame.

Helgraf
2008-06-22, 12:21 AM
5) Because Gods can't look at someone and make them die because even if it only happens on a 20 it's still faster to spam that till you kill someone then it is to try to do HP damage. Because 4e doesn't have powers that cripple people for more then 2 rounds, ever, because the mechanics don't support it and "it's not fun!" for whomever is crippled. Because making things happen, that then stay happened forever just doesn't exist anywhere in the 4e system other then by paying gold, which is called buying an item.

You apparently have forgotten about petrification.

Stone-Eye Basilisk (p. 26 Monster Manual)
Petrifying Gaze (standard; at-will) * Gaze
Close blast 3; +17 vs. Fortitude; the target is slowed (save ends)
First Failed Save: The target is immobilized (save ends)
Second Failed Save: The target is petrified (no save).

Beholder Eye Tyrant (p 32 Monster Manual)
Eye Rays (standard; at will)
... 8 - Petrifying Ray: Ranged 10, +22 vs. Fortitude, he target is slowed (save ends)
First Failed Save: The target is immobilized (save ends)
Second Failed Save: The target is petrified (no save).

Now, unless I'm missing something, petrification doesn't 'wear off' like stunning or fear or things of that nature...

And of course, there's numerous ways of ensuring those saves are failed; powers and tricks that worsen character saving throws being the most obvious one. Pair off your monsters correctly, and you can go a long way toward making sure that those status effects last a good deal longer than "2 rounds" (by which I presume you're referring to the statistical probability that after 2 d20 rolls, one of them will be a 10 or higher).

JaxGaret
2008-06-22, 12:25 AM
Also, right in the MM, both Nightwalkers and Bodaks have powers that drop enemies directly to 0 HP on a Hit.

Helgraf
2008-06-22, 12:26 AM
Also, right in the MM, both Nightwalkers and Bodaks have powers that drop enemies directly to 0 HP on a Hit.

Also, Orcus. And if Orcus kills you, you're coming back as an undead in short order. No saves there.

thewamp
2008-06-22, 01:40 AM
Could you explain this a bit further? I'm not sure what you're getting at :smallsmile:

Looks like the thread's passed this point, but Battle Royale metaphor explained:

In 3e, everyone's got a different weapon. Some suck, but among those that are good, it's an interesting mix. Compare that to 4e where the metaphor breaks down. That said, as someone pointed out, metaphors aren't the best means of comparing and I'm going to go sit in my corner and read this thread.

Ominous
2008-06-22, 01:47 AM
You have to remember that along with all of the PCs being less powerful overall in the 4e world, all of the NPCs are equally less powerful; there is just as much room for 4e characters to making lasting effect on the world as 3e characters. A 3e character might make more world changes in a shorter period of time, yes, but it was also more likely for someone else to come in and change those things themselves in a short period of time, negating any changes your character made.

Taken to the extremes, you're arguing that Superman being nerfed into a spider is still epic because Doomsday has been nerfed into a wasp. I apologize ahead of time for yawning during the epic battle between spider-version Superman and wasp-version Doomsday.

If an all out battle between two epic beings doesn't result in the sinking of an island, a mountain being wrent asunder, or a region being referred to as "the Wastelands" or "the Obsidian Plains" for millenia afterwards, it is not epic, and neither are the combatants.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-06-22, 01:56 AM
Chronos has somewhat gotten what I am trying to say, as has Frost. The capabilities of the characters past level 20 just don't seem to have much "oomph". You can't really make a lasting impact on the world. One of my favorite spells in 3.x was Control Weather. Sure, it didn't have very much combat utility, but damn did you feel powerful when you blotted out the sun with thunderheads. I was actually really disappointed that it wasn't included as a ritual. "Epicness" shouldn't have to mean that you are breaking the rules (though it very well might). But you should be able to leave a massive stone monlith somewhere for the peasants to admire and tell stories about how it got there ("Ragnar the great summoned it from the earth to block the charge of the mighty whatever...").

Cant have a lasting impact on the world? What the heck are you talking about? I'm sure the peasents think of their entire world not being destroyed as a "lasting impact". And doing things like you mentioned (summoning a monlith) sounds much more like an adventure hook and result for the DM to organize than something you should be able to do on a regular basis. Unless of course you want the enemies to be doing crap like that every round until a minute passes and the earth is just utterly destroyed by tons of events that should be rather unique. Unless of course your enemies cant be as strong as you ("I cant 1-hit them, not epic!") and then its just a shallow experience.

If you want to do something like that (we all do) then it would/ should probally be a part of the overall campain. Or maybe just a one-time DM approved deal. In my opinion it should not be something the books tell you to do. Let it be unique. Unless you plan on leaving wierd stuff like that everywhere (9 levels before 30, lots of encounters), and by then its no longer unique. It would be too easy to just "do it", if you want to feel epic then make sure your DM is ready to supply you with some epic adventure plots and outcomes.

Or maybe thats just my opinion of the term. To me, epicness is a direct result of how far your character has come since that first day at the tavern, and what hes accomplised since. The harder you have to work for your impact on the planet, the more rewarding in the end. You don't need to have god-like super powers in my opinion to be epic. Heck, if you can kill a god without having powers equivilent to his, then isnt that more epic than being on par with him?

Chronos
2008-06-22, 02:09 AM
Those were all made possible by Hercules' great strength; non-caster characters in 3e could not do these things any better than 4e characters can.I didn't mention 3e there. Yeah, if Hercules is our standard, then 3e fails, also, at least for the warrior types at player-accessible power levels.

And I sort of had a hunch that Plane Shift might be a ritual; take that one off the list of examples. But if you're going to say that 4e can model Hercules, then you still need the other feats of strength.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-22, 03:10 AM
I like 18-21 level games in 3E, just not actual epic, because there the balence is just so awful i just can't take it anymore. I like the idea, but it really seems like way to hard of an idea to manage. Now in 4E, they might have balenced Epic better, but it just feels like higher level,
from
EE
I had the same feeling reading the epic parts (didn't find an available group to try it yet, damnit), and it's just "you are level 21, you can get 21th level powers", instead of how 3.x was. Maybe the only real change would be the epic destinys thing, as paragon paths are the thing that differentiates heroic and paragon level.

Frost
2008-06-22, 03:24 AM
By that definition, Raise Dead and Wish in 3.5 are magic items: you spend something and get an effect.

Well since no one actually uses Wish for Wish, and they actually just used it to create items or give themselves inherent bonuses, yeah, it's an item. And yes, oh course Raise Dead is an item, you pay 5000gp to come back to life, that's sure as hell an item. Heck with a 10 minute casting time it's an item even if it's free, just a cheep item. It's certainly not an ability you use.

Talic
2008-06-22, 03:48 AM
I don't see that gods fighting beings with godlike power should necessarily be "rocket tag". I'd expect gods to have better defences than their attacks, which is why Loki doesn't sneak up on Thor when he's not looking and kill him in the surprise round.

Is it better to be feared, or respected? To which I say, "Is it too much to ask for both?"

Gods, if modelled correctly, should be nigh unkillable. They should be nearly permanent aspects of the world.

They should also be nigh unstoppable. Their blows should split mountains. Their will should alter the land. They should hurl lightning that can strike mortals dead in one blow.

Gods aren't "ECL 31". Gods are "eat your face", if modelled according to the common concepts of the polytheistic, pantheonic, deity structure.

Dausuul
2008-06-22, 04:18 AM
Can people please realize that no one but you is talking about 3.5 Epic?

We are talking about the feeling of epicness, and how you don't have it because level 9 characters in 3.5 can do things that feel far more epic in scope then anything any character (or God) can do in 4e.

I find this statement pretty funny, because D&D has never felt epic to me, at any level. Not in 1E, not in 2E, not in 3E, and not in 4E either. High-level characters are glorified dungeon crawlers and always have been.

An epic game, to me, would be one where you unleash powers that rival the forces of nature. Battles that smash mountains, change the course of rivers, and shake the earth for miles. Spells that conjure up entire castles out of nothing, blot out the sun, or raise tens of thousands of undead minions. Armies and cities going up like dry leaves in a wildfire as the titans that are the PCs and their foes meet and clash.

Problem is, all that is way the hell out of the scope of what D&D was designed for. Making it work would require building what amounts to a whole new game. So D&D sticks to what it's made for.

marjan
2008-06-22, 04:42 AM
Well since no one actually uses Wish for Wish, and they actually just used it to create items or give themselves inherent bonuses, yeah, it's an item. And yes, oh course Raise Dead is an item, you pay 5000gp to come back to life, that's sure as hell an item. Heck with a 10 minute casting time it's an item even if it's free, just a cheep item. It's certainly not an ability you use.

One must ask then: What the hell is spell?

icefractal
2008-06-22, 05:33 AM
The problem isn't that 4E epic doesn't go to 3E epic levels - it's that it doesn't even go to 3E mid-levels. While the game may change radically around level 15 or so, there's a whole stretch of levels before that where people can fly around and teleport and make walls of stone ... and the game doesn't break! Those kind of powers are something that can be handled easily, if you simply account for the fact that they exist when DMing.


Now I can understand that DMs might not want to have to take all that into account at heroic tier. Maybe they want to use a plot from a low-magic setting, where a deep canyon is a true menace. So by all means, limit all that stuff at heroic tier.

But when does it change? When are you finally allowed to laugh at a castle wall, or a canyon, or a horde of zombies? By the time the game is calling you a demigod, don't you think you could be facing some different types of challenges than you were at level 1?

Oh, and incidentally ... it was mentioned that the NPCs are weaker as well, so comparatively you're the same? Not so much. There's all kinds of magic that NPCs can apparently do, like create permanent teleportation circles, that the PCs just plain can't. You're the world's greatest archmage? Sorry, you still can't make one of these circles that "most wizard's guilds and major temples have". By the time you reached 20th level in 3E, you could do just about anything an NPC could do. In 4E? You never get there.


Personally, I would think that an entire 20 levels devoted to low-impact abilities that allow the same types of challenges to always work would be enough. Can't even 1/3 of the game support those people who like eventually gaining world-changing power?

Tengu
2008-06-22, 06:17 AM
An epic game, to me, would be one where you unleash powers that rival the forces of nature. Battles that smash mountains, change the course of rivers, and shake the earth for miles. Spells that conjure up entire castles out of nothing, blot out the sun, or raise tens of thousands of undead minions. Armies and cities going up like dry leaves in a wildfire as the titans that are the PCs and their foes meet and clash.


You would like Exalted. Of course, only people who hate fun wouldn't...

Xuincherguixe
2008-06-22, 06:37 AM
Bonecrusher Hates Fun!

Indon
2008-06-22, 09:08 AM
So... Exalted? I mean, that's a game built around making epic characters and doing "epic" things. You even get bonuses if you describe how epicly you do something. Wouldn't that be a good metric for describing the entirely subjective term of being "epic?"

I was indeed going to suggest Exalted for those individuals who wanted that epic feel.


But along the way, he also diverted one river, filled another with rocks to the point that it became unnavigable, split a mountain in two, held up the weight of the sky for a day, and went to the Underworld and returned under his own power.

And the only one of these a newbie Solar Exalt (Eclipse caste with good Occult and charms to beat up spirits) could not do in some way is hold up the weight of the sky, I should say. Admittedly - it's not all done with brute strength, but in a rather more diplomatic and magical way.

Heck, the first time the Exalted party I'm running entered a shadowland, they entered the Underworld by accident.


But maybe if you had a nice background to work off of, you could truely appreciate the epicness when you realize that here you are, no longer a mere mortal, an adventurer who against all odds made it to the pinicle of life, fighting a fire-breathing horned demon from the deep deep Abyssal planes, possibly older than the creation of man, who could crush your formal self, then proceed the destroy all that you had ever held dear, and you are winning.

That, sounds VERY epic to me.

The very wind of Malfeas (Exalted's version of Hell) is alive, and hates you. Possibly personally, your soul might have history with it.

You know what sounds epic to me? Fighting that. Then, once you've beaten him down, and you're gasping for breath after the fight, realizing that since he can not die, he'll just be back in a day or two to try to kill you again. Have fun trying to do whatever you came to do. (Alternately, you could one-up your own previous incarnations and find a way to finish the job)


You would like Exalted. Of course, only people who hate fun wouldn't...

Aye.

Frost
2008-06-22, 09:58 AM
One must ask then: What the hell is spell?

Anything you cast for it's non-permanent effects.

icefractal
2008-06-22, 02:43 PM
So we should go to a whole different system to experience a change in scope? That's not a great endorsement of 4E, given that 3E handled anywhere from gritty to heroic to mythical to godly power (just in 1-20, Epic not necessary).

Why is it better for people who want to experience different scales of power to play several different games, rather than those who want to stick with one power scale sticking to a certain range of levels (like 1-10, or even 1-20)?


Because for me, a large part of what defined D&D was character growth. In many games, you start out as a normal person, and end up as a more experienced normal person. Or you start out as a superhero, and stay there. Those games are fine, but there's already plenty of them - that's not what I'm looking for in D&D.

D&D was a game where you could start out trying to scrap together enough gold for your armor, while running away from angry goblins, and then go through being a powerful hero, to being a mythical force of legends, to a near-demigod with world-shaping powers. And it was fun! Far from being "unfun", it a lot more fun than just experiencing one part of that journey would be.

And I was prepared for 4E to take merely a part of that progression - maybe cut out the grittiest of the low-levels, and the most world-shaping of the high levels. But I though they'd at least keep some element of change - where you start facing genuinely different challenges in different ways. But no, they've taken one slice of a journey and called it the entire destination - and claiming that you're a "demigod" during part of it is just adding insult to injury.

marjan
2008-06-22, 04:00 PM
Anything you cast for it's non-permanent effects.

Then why don't you consider rituals spells? That's what most of them do.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-22, 06:10 PM
As ever the problem here is that peoples' ideas of what counts as "epic" is totally coloured by 3.X.

For my money "Epic" means "is involved in events which are vast in their scope". For my money, 3.X never felt remotely "epic": flying and teleporting is not "epic". Zapping your enemies from half a continent away is not "epic". It's just power inflation.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-22, 06:21 PM
As ever the problem here is that peoples' ideas of what counts as "epic" is totally coloured by 3.X.

For my money "Epic" means "is involved in events which are vast in their scope". For my money, 3.X never felt remotely "epic": flying and teleporting is not "epic". Zapping your enemies from half a continent away is not "epic". It's just power inflation.

Vast in scope... you mean like being able to, via magic, raise up a small town into a massive fortress and begin dominating the surrounding lands?

Or seal up an entire canyon? Build a flying, living pirate ship that bombards enemy towns with coins which explode when examined closely?

All of these things are entirely possible at, what, 10th level?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-22, 06:26 PM
Vast in scope... you mean like being able to, via magic, raise up a small town into a massive fortress and begin dominating the surrounding lands?

Or seal up an entire canyon? Build a flying, living pirate ship that bombards enemy towns with coins which explode when examined closely?

All of these things are entirely possible at, what, 10th level?

No, not what I mean at all. You're confusing "overpowered" with "epic".

Beowulf is epic. Lord of the Rings is epic. Paradise Lost is epic. It's about events, not about powers.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-22, 06:30 PM
I've never played 3.x epic. But I have played in the 15-18 range.

It just doesn't seem like your characters can do all that much more than they could at lower levels. I can't really descibe it, but it's just that "feel" you get from playing it.

I've given high level combat a try in 3.5.

Turns took about an hour each; players had so many options that it was utterly obscene, mages could pretty much rip the whole world in half while melee characters could just hit things extra hard, characters die to a few well placed monster hits, and monsters have so many hit points hat you're essentially waiting for them to die uncermoniously to a save or die.

It was a hideous monstrosity; frankly I think toning down the massive number of options you had and reducing the heaviness of your actions is a good thing. It means you can move up to epic conflicts against powerful foes without the system breaking.

nagora
2008-06-22, 06:45 PM
If you want gods to be gods, you can't really stat them out.
This is a lesson D&D has been failing to learn since 1976 :smallfrown:

JaxGaret
2008-06-22, 06:57 PM
This is a lesson D&D has been failing to learn since 1976 :smallfrown:

Pretty much.

Though it's easy to houserule it so; it's harder to do the reverse.

marjan
2008-06-22, 07:06 PM
This is a lesson D&D has been failing to learn since 1976 :smallfrown:

And hopefully they will forget to fail it regarding 4e.

JaxGaret
2008-06-22, 07:11 PM
And hopefully they will forget to fail it regarding 4e.

It is rumored that Moradin is a 38th level Solo monster. I imagine that the Overgod will be a 40th level Solo monster.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-22, 07:17 PM
No, not what I mean at all. You're confusing "overpowered" with "epic".

Beowulf is epic. Lord of the Rings is epic. Paradise Lost is epic. It's about events, not about powers.


But I'm talking about the power to achieve events. How are you supposed to do epic things when you can't have epic results? Epic is just overpowered with style.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-22, 07:30 PM
But I'm talking about the power to achieve events. How are you supposed to do epic things when you can't have epic results? Epic is just overpowered with style.

You achieve epic results the same way you achieve regular results: hard work. It isn't "epic" to be able to wish away an army as a standard action - nobody is going to write a story about that.

Now, if you unified the warring tribes of the Kandark Plains by defeating each of their chiefs in singe combat so that the invading orc army lead by the Warmaster could be stopped, that's pretty epic, and totally within the scope of 4e rules to do.

If you really want to be a tiny god, D&D isn't really a good system for it - you play heroes, not gods. Exalted, now, is a better fit.

icefractal
2008-06-22, 07:36 PM
Beowulf is epic. Lord of the Rings is epic. Paradise Lost is epic. It's about events, not about powers.That's a viable definite of "epic" in general, but not as a description of a power level. By definition, if your definition of "epic" can apply to level 1 characters, then it isn't a description for "epic level" or "epic tier". Since both 3E and 4E use "epic" as a description of a certain power level, that's the definition I feel relevant to this topic.

Also I would point out that "protagonists as mere mortals witnessing events they can barely comprehend, and maybe playing a bit part" is a good plot for a book, but not my idea of an enjoyable game.


If you really want to be a tiny god, D&D isn't really a good system for it - you play heroes, not gods. Exalted, now, is a better fit.In 3E you could do both, as well as grim-n-gritty to boot. In 4E, you can't. I'm still waiting to hear how this is an improvement.

EvilElitest
2008-06-22, 07:40 PM
I had the same feeling reading the epic parts (didn't find an available group to try it yet, damnit), and it's just "you are level 21, you can get 21th level powers", instead of how 3.x was. Maybe the only real change would be the epic destinys thing, as paragon paths are the thing that differentiates heroic and paragon level.

Pretty much. In 3E it is epic so its all "EPIC. THE NEW AGE" sort of feeling. Then you realize how horrible broken it is and run hiding in a corner but the point remains, there is a feeling of difference




Beowulf is epic. Lord of the Rings is epic. Paradise Lost is epic. It's about events, not about powers.

I can do that at 1st level if i think out side of teh box. That has nothing to do with power level, that has to do with drama


from
EE

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-22, 08:54 PM
I can do that at 1st level if i think out side of teh box. That has nothing to do with power level, that has to do with drama


from
EE
Except you can't defeat an Ancient Red Dragon at first level, even if you think outside the box.

You can fight larger opponents, greater threats, and use more powers. Also, because you run from level 1 to level 30, you have a relative level of how much more badass you are.

Also, having three tiers provides a useful way to structure your campaign around differing levels of heroics.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-22, 09:08 PM
In 3E you could do both, as well as grim-n-gritty to boot. In 4E, you can't. I'm still waiting to hear how this is an improvement.

Okay, I try again.

3e was bad at both being a game of Heroic Fantasy and a game of Tiny Gods. This is the much-noted gap between high-level play and low-level play; you just did not play the same game between the two. This is not just because Tiny Gods are more awesome than Heroes, but it is because Tiny Gods can thwart all but the most sophisticated villains with ease - you played mental chess with your DM, and not with the plot. Heroes lacked the resources to craft such "win buttons," which is why it was not "rocket tag."

4e has made it so that Heroes end up solving problems the same way no matter their level - by being heroic. The cannot just wave their hands and conjure up the specific solution of their problem, and they do not need to start facing down Crazy Prepared (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrazyPrepared) Wizards just to break a sweat. As such, Heroes continue to do "heroic" things, which ostensibly is the purpose of D&D, if you were to try and find its "purpose."

In order to play a high-level 3e "heroic" game, your DM needed to either heavily restrict the powers available to your PCs (far stricter than "Core Only") or the PCs all had to agree to forgo the "win button" powers. As is oft stated, just because you can fix something doesn't mean it isn't broken, and such was the case with so-called Epic 3e play.

Now, playing Tiny Gods is a fine game to play. However, 3e was not a good system even for that - compare it to the way Exalted deals with doing Epic Things, and I think you'll have to agree it is more fun to have to narrate how you are doing your Epic Thing rather than just say "I cast these three spells and wait for Time Stop to end." If you liked the "win button" aesthetic of 3e Epic and haven't tried Exalted, I would heartily encourage you to try it out - I think you'll find it a far more satisfactory game.

Me? I'm just happy I can actually play a character from 1 to 30 as a Hero now, and have fun doing Beowulf-style Epic things.

Chronos
2008-06-22, 09:17 PM
Except you can't defeat an Ancient Red Dragon at first level, even if you think outside the box.Perhaps not, but you can defeat a wyrmling red dragon at first level, and then go around telling all the barmaids how huge it was. If defeating dragons at first level isn't epic, then it doesn't become epic just because both you and the dragon got bigger. And if defeating dragons at first level is epic, then what's the big deal with epicness? Any first-level schlub can do it.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-22, 09:26 PM
Perhaps not, but you can defeat a wyrmling red dragon at first level, and then go around telling all the barmaids how huge it was. If defeating dragons at first level isn't epic, then it doesn't become epic just because both you and the dragon got bigger. And if defeating dragons at first level is epic, then what's the big deal with epicness? Any first-level schlub can do it.

This is exactly why I think it's a bad idea to be fighting iconic monsters at first level. True, it's not really "how much you can kill" that should define whether something is Epic, but having a Baby Red Dragon head outside your bar is pretty damn impressive.

And why are you killing baby dragons anyhow? They're adowable! :smalltongue:

Legit-Stuff
Although I'm not sure where Chronos is going here, but I'm going to hold it up for the proposition that being Epic isn't in what you do, but what you had to do to do it. Killing a Baby Red Dragon by dropping a rock on its head, or by getting lucky with an Arrow of Slaying isn't Epic by itself. However, if you had to go on a quest to find the Arrow of Slaying that involved crossing to distant lands, or if in order to position the dragon for the rock-in-the-head one of your party members had to go out and act as bait, then maybe, yes, that's a little heroic.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's the journey, not the result, that makes the story.

Indon
2008-06-22, 10:23 PM
Beowulf is epic. Lord of the Rings is epic. Paradise Lost is epic. It's about events, not about powers.

Evem by that definition, Exalts are still way more epic than 4'th edition D&D characters. They can travel continents and get lost in thousand-mile stretches of constantly-shifting wilderness. They can slay serpents with a thousand heads. They can bring an army against Heaven and kill the gods.

Some of that is setting. But you know what? Some of it is powers, too. An Exalt can summon portals to teleport armies. An Exalt can invoke cunning and powerful demons and make deals for power with them. An Exalt can slay an enemy with a single word, at great cost to their very being.

I wish the 4'th edition D&D character luck that wishes to survive to climb from a lake of fire - at any level. (I only need to wish the 3'rd edition D&D character luck for probably at most 15 levels or so, because even the Fighter's likely to pick up energy resistance to fire eventually)

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-22, 10:48 PM
Evem by that definition, Exalts are still way more epic than 4'th edition D&D characters. They can travel continents and get lost in thousand-mile stretches of constantly-shifting wilderness. They can slay serpents with a thousand heads. They can bring an army against Heaven and kill the gods.

Some of that is setting. But you know what? Some of it is powers, too. An Exalt can summon portals to teleport armies. An Exalt can invoke cunning and powerful demons and make deals for power with them. An Exalt can slay an enemy with a single word, at great cost to their very being.

I wish the 4'th edition D&D character luck that wishes to survive to climb from a lake of fire - at any level. (I only need to wish the 3'rd edition D&D character luck for probably at most 15 levels or so, because even the Fighter's likely to pick up energy resistance to fire eventually)

Ah, semantic arguments. The primary question we're dealing here is whether "epic" refers to the scope of the story or the powers evinced by the character. Are the Labors of Hercules more Epic than the Odyssey, in other words.

I would argue that what made LOTR and Paradise Lost epic is the struggles that the characters had to face. Was it Gandalf what made LOTR epic, or that a humble hobbit from the Shire was able to stop the greatest evil in the land through sheer force of will? Is it that Satan fought God and lost that made Paradise Lost epic, or was it the sheer scope of Satan's character? You can argue either side of these, of course, but I, for one, think that it is what the character had to go through that is important (traveling to Mordor, challenging one's Creator) rather than what they did (defeating a Balrog, fighting an army of angels). In any case, I think you'll probably agree that it makes a better story to go on a quest to find a Ring of Wishes than to actually cast a Wish.

But what about Beowulf? Well, while not being a scholar of such literature, it is clear that a lot of Beowulf was about this larger-than-life character doing larger-than-life stuff. But he did not need to go about slaying gods to look awesome (which is where the challenge rating was in Epic 3e) but he went about fighting the Big Bads and boasting about it. Heck, many people think the death of Beowulf was a heck of a lot more "epic" than his battle with Grendel.

Finally though: is Exalted more Epic than 4e? Sure, in the "Tiny Gods" sense - that's the point of the setting. Exalted have tiny sparks of the divine in them so they should be able to take a mountain in the face. But the humble human who, 20 levels ago, was flesh and blood like everyone else? Why should he suddenly be able to take a swim in lava? Is he even remotely connected to the man who was proud to be able to save a village from bandits?

EvilElitest
2008-06-22, 10:52 PM
Except you can't defeat an Ancient Red Dragon at first level, even if you think outside the box.

You can fight larger opponents, greater threats, and use more powers. Also, because you run from level 1 to level 30, you have a relative level of how much more badass you are.

Also, having three tiers provides a useful way to structure your campaign around differing levels of heroics.

1) actually i can, i just have to use a lot more elaborate plans and i have a higher death risk
2) Also the poster i responded to said about effected large scale things, which you can do at any level
3) Except in 4E, i'm always being held by the hand and made into this super hero. Unlike say, 2E where death is really really really possible, which makes some conflict bloody dangerous. If i become high level, well then i damn well deserve it, i feel really accomplished
3) I don't think it adds anything, i mean that is a pretty basic D&D plan idea

from
EE

Starbuck_II
2008-06-22, 10:56 PM
I wish the 4'th edition D&D character luck that wishes to survive to climb from a lake of fire - at any level. (I only need to wish the 3'rd edition D&D character luck for probably at most 15 levels or so, because even the Fighter's likely to pick up energy resistance to fire eventually)

Well, You can get 15 Resist Fire by level 24 (through magic items):

Or be a level 20 Tiefling (20 at level 30).

Kompera
2008-06-22, 11:26 PM
3) Except in 4E, i'm always being held by the hand and made into this super hero. Unlike say, 2E where death is really really really possible, which makes some conflict bloody dangerous.
Except in 3.x, I'm always being held by the hand due to all of those broken spells making me into this super hero. Unlike, say, 4e where death is really, really possible, which makes some conflict bloody dangerous.

icefractal
2008-06-22, 11:28 PM
3e was bad at both being a game of Heroic Fantasy and a game of Tiny Gods. This is the much-noted gap between high-level play and low-level play; you just did not play the same game between the two.I guess this is just a difference of opinion then, because for me "not playing the same game" at 1st and 20th level was a feature, not a bug. When I say it supported both "heroic" and "demigod" style play, I mean that some levels supported heroic and other (higher) levels supported demigod-style - not that all levels supported both. If you want heroic style play for the entire campaign, then I guess this would be an improvement. If you like the scope to change as you rise in levels, it isn't.

If 3E is a buffet with appetizers, entrees, and dessert, then 4E is one with just entrees. As a result, it has a bigger selection of entrees, but there is no cake.

THAC0
2008-06-22, 11:37 PM
Man, I've been one roll away from dying in about a third of my combats in 4e so far.

Apparently I'm doing something wrong. :smallwink:

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-23, 12:18 AM
1) actually i can, i just have to use a lot more elaborate plans and i have a higher death
Explain one. That doesn't involve "I roll nothing but 20's and he rolls nothing but 1's"


2) Also the poster i responded to said about effected large scale things, which you can do at any level
Again, one of the strengths of the system is that it gives a framework to have heroic tier characters saving a village and epic characters saving the world.


3) Except in 4E, i'm always being held by the hand and made into this super hero. Unlike say, 2E where death is really really really possible, which makes some conflict bloody dangerous. If i become high level, well then i damn well deserve it, i feel really accomplished
It's an accomplishment in the same way that it is to beat a really buggy video game that has horrible controls and overly hard bosses that kill you with one hit.
The best game designs are the ones that greatly challenge you, but you survive and win in the end. In 4e, you can control how difficult the game is, that's a great addition.

As opposed to previous editions, where a rotten roll or an overpowered ability kills off a character suddenly in an otherwise easy encounter.


3) I don't think it adds anything, i mean that is a pretty basic D&D plan idea.
I suppose it doesn't, but I like to have things nicely marked.

turkishproverb
2008-06-23, 12:47 AM
Sure, except for the fact that 4e is fun and 3e was not much fun after you'd done it for a while. Breaking the game is only fun for so long, until you realize that you don't have a game to play anymore. There's a reason they got rid of a lot of the garbage high level spellcasters could do previously - it was horrendously broken and unfun for the rest of the party and bad for the game on the whole.

Yea. You keep saying this, and it'll probably catch on just like the exaggerations about 2nd did, but the fact remains it ain't true unless yo got (or are) a royally crappy DM.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-23, 01:23 AM
Yea. You keep saying this, and it'll probably catch on just like the exaggerations about 2nd did, but the fact remains it ain't true unless yo got (or are) a royally crappy DM.

No, seriously, did you not notice all of the various "broken" builds you could make with splatbooks? The Pun Puns, the Omnifiscers, the Infinite Damage Crusader? Not to mention the entire threads of perfectly legal by RAW builds that resulted in absurd outcomes? Is your argument that a "good" DM would be able to anticipate all such brokeness and just rule around it?

Just because you can fix it, doesn't mean it's not broken.

Hell, what I like most about 4e is that I don't have to spend my time worrying about how the rules are going to screw me, the DM, over. I hate realizing that the PCs can do something by the rules which, in the interest of keeping the game interesting for everyone else, I have to ignore. All it does is cheat my PCs out of a build that they assumed, because it was in the rules, would work just like it said.

Now, this isn't stupid stuff like "oh, I guess you can dominate my BBEG in one round and totally destroy his plan" but this is more of the "um, why don't we just scry the BBEG's pet dog, TP in, and zap him the BBEG with a Save or Suck and call it a day?" To actually go through that measure-countermeasure rigmarole for every BBEG eats up most of my time to write better stories and would consume the in-story time & resources of my BBEG... the amount of permanent spells and contingencies you see floating around high-level 3e campaigns is just silly.

If you like that sort of stuff, then bully for you, but sometimes I like my PCs to act like Big Damn Heroes and not some sort of magic'd up SpecOps team. If you want to play Special Forces Epic games, I repeat, Exalted is the game for you.

Crow
2008-06-23, 01:56 AM
No, seriously, did you not notice all of the various "broken" builds you could make with splatbooks? The Pun Puns, the Omnifiscers, the Infinite Damage Crusader? Not to mention the entire threads of perfectly legal by RAW builds that resulted in absurd outcomes? Is your argument that a "good" DM would be able to anticipate all such brokeness and just rule around it?

How many of those "builds" actually saw time in a game (Before somebody copied them from a forum, that is)? Really? While it hasn't reached the scale of 3.x yet, there are folks already hard at work trying to break the game, and by the time 4e has as many splatbooks as 3.x, I'd be willing to bet there will be just as many broken builds. But the good thing is, that aside from the people who frequent the forums and deliberately jack a build off of them (at this point, the player is intentionally trying to break the game), most groups are never going to see these "builds".


Hell, what I like most about 4e is that I don't have to spend my time worrying about how the rules are going to screw me, the DM, over. I hate realizing that the PCs can do something by the rules which, in the interest of keeping the game interesting for everyone else, I have to ignore. All it does is cheat my PCs out of a build that they assumed, because it was in the rules, would work just like it said.

The problem with an exception-based ruleset is that eventually (as splatbooks come out) this is going to happen with 4e too.

Nu
2008-06-23, 02:48 AM
I believe the term "epic" in 4E is not so much supposed to represent the capabilities of your character, but rather the consequences of your actions.

For example, a group of 11th-15th level adventurers cannot destroy the ancient red dragon-tyrant that has seized a third of the world and transformed it into his dominion, but a group of 25th level adventurers can. Sure, you might say that your abilities don't "feel" all that more impressive than you were 10 levels ago, but the proof would be in the deed of destroying the dragon, which would've been impossible back then.

Point is, perhaps the "epic" is supposed to be in the actions you take, and as you scale up in level, your impact on the world is supposed to scale appropriately. Now, you could set it up so that the world is such that a group of 5th level adventurers are capable of world-shattering events like taking down important warlords and halting armies in their steps via subterfuge and sabotage, but I don't think that's quite what DnD was designed for--ever.

If this point has already been brought up, I apologize--I got through about half the thread, but it's late and I'm too tired to take everything in, I think. Just ignore me in that case.

Jerthanis
2008-06-23, 03:16 AM
No, not what I mean at all. You're confusing "overpowered" with "epic".

Beowulf is epic. Lord of the Rings is epic. Paradise Lost is epic. It's about events, not about powers.

+1

When I think of the actual value of epic gaming, it doesn't come down to the things that my character can do... but what happens to my character and the choices he makes.

As a level 5 king, my kingdom comes under attack by orcs, at level 15 it's attacked by a dragon, at level 30 it's all the legions of hell.

When I'm level 5, I don't even know or understand my own destiny. At level 15 I find it inescapable. At level 30 I write my own destiny. To me, this is the real difference between Heroic and Epic tiers.

I do admit, I haven't played above the heroic tier, but looking ahead at the powers I'll have access to, it actually sounds pretty cool. I don't know how it'll feel in actual play, but I'm cautiously optimistic that what makes 1st-3rd level awesome will be just as awesome at 25th. Even if it doesn't... no loss for me, I've never enjoyed the mechanics of other editions' high level games anyway.

namo
2008-06-23, 03:18 AM
Perhaps not, but you can defeat a wyrmling red dragon at first level, and then go around telling all the barmaids how huge it was. If defeating dragons at first level isn't epic, then it doesn't become epic just because both you and the dragon got bigger. And if defeating dragons at first level is epic, then what's the big deal with epicness? Any first-level schlub can do it.

That's very much how I feel too. I actually envy people who find that epicness resides in storytelling only : then you can rename the wyrmling to a great wyrm and be epic at level 1 (you'll have fewer feats and powers but the feel won't be very different).

@Oracle_Hunter - About 4E and broken builds: a few builds can already one-shot Orcus (it's not as bad as 3.5E... yet). I have to agree with Crow: if you play with reasonable people you're not going to see stupidly broken builds. If you don't... players and DMs can always screw each other over.

@Nu - the boundary is artificial. Why isn't it a 5th level dragon taking over the world ?

We are going back to Chronos' point: it's likely that in 4E either all levels will seem epic to someone... or none will. And hey, it's good for the former.

edit: @Jerthanis - good luck against the legions of hell. There's not really a way to fight even a small army in 4E. Maybe if you collaborate with your DM you can create a Ritual, but they are supposed to be non-damaging as far as I can tell.

turkishproverb
2008-06-23, 03:26 AM
How many of those "builds" actually saw time in a game (Before somebody copied them from a forum, that is)? Really? While it hasn't reached the scale of 3.x yet, there are folks already hard at work trying to break the game, and by the time 4e has as many splatbooks as 3.x, I'd be willing to bet there will be just as many broken builds. But the good thing is, that aside from the people who frequent the forums and deliberately jack a build off of them (at this point, the player is intentionally trying to break the game), most groups are never going to see these "builds".



The problem with an exception-based ruleset is that eventually (as splatbooks come out) this is going to happen with 4e too.


....


What he said.

Jerthanis
2008-06-23, 03:28 AM
edit: @Jerthanis - good luck against the legions of hell. There's not really a way to fight even a small army in 4E. Maybe if you collaborate with your DM you can create a Ritual, but they are supposed to be non-damaging as far as I can tell.

Who says you have to fight them head on? Maybe you just need to close the portal or something. Maybe you actually need to depend on allies and strengths developed through the story, rather than your character's individual power. Whatever, I'm not writing this story, the DM is.

Nu
2008-06-23, 04:34 AM
@Nu - the boundary is artificial. Why isn't it a 5th level dragon taking over the world ?



Because they're not powerful enough? Even if you try and say that the "boundary is artificial," the fact of the matter is that an epic wyrm is a great deal more powerful than a wyrmling.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-23, 05:26 AM
edit: @Jerthanis - good luck against the legions of hell. There's not really a way to fight even a small army in 4E. Maybe if you collaborate with your DM you can create a Ritual, but they are supposed to be non-damaging as far as I can tell.

Again, you're defining everything in terms of the capabilities of 3.X characters. Yes, a 3.X party could (primarily through the use of magic) literally defeat an army single handed (and at comparatively low levels). That's not epic, it's just powerful.

To my mind, the capabilities of high level 3.X characters are *contrary* to the feeling of "epic" play. Again we get back to the "Mind Blank/Scry/Teleport" version of Lord of the Rings.

Saph
2008-06-23, 06:41 AM
Again, you're defining everything in terms of the capabilities of 3.X characters. Yes, a 3.X party could (primarily through the use of magic) literally defeat an army single handed (and at comparatively low levels). That's not epic, it's just powerful.

To my mind, the capabilities of high level 3.X characters are *contrary* to the feeling of "epic" play. Again we get back to the "Mind Blank/Scry/Teleport" version of Lord of the Rings.

So 4e characters are 'more epic' because . . . they're not very powerful?

Honestly, I think what you're really saying here is that you like 4e more than 3.5, so you find it more fun, and therefore find it more 'epic', which doesn't really have any connection to how capable or powerful your character is. We're working on different definitions of the words here.

Oh, and your description of 3.5 high-level play is mostly wrong, but I've told you so many times that you should get your facts right about 3.5 that I've given up hope that you'll ever listen to me. :P

Anyway, a good DM can give a 4e campaign some of the feel of Lord of the Rings and thus make it feel 'epic' in the sense of a long exciting adventure, but I think that's purely dependent on the skill of the DM. A bad DM would make it feel like DM of the Rings - endless orcs and a railroad plot. Actually, one of the main things I've heard from the pro-4e people about why they like 4e is that players have less ability to resist railroading and thus have to do whatever the DM has decided they should, which I'm decidedly ambivalent about.

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-23, 07:22 AM
So 4e characters are 'more epic' because . . . they're not very powerful?

Honestly, I think what you're really saying here is that you like 4e more than 3.5, so you find it more fun, and therefore find it more 'epic', which doesn't really have any connection to how capable or powerful your character is. We're working on different definitions of the words here.

On the contrary, I haven't said *anything* about whether 4E is more or less epic than 3.X. Only that "Epic" and "Powerful" are not the same thing.


Oh, and your description of 3.5 high-level play is mostly wrong, but I've told you so many times that you should get your facts right about 3.5 that I've given up hope that you'll ever listen to me. :P

I didn't *provide* a description of high level 3.5 play (other people are throwing around terms like "rocket tag" - I'm not). All I said was that I, personally, find the specific abilities which people say make 3.X more epic (flying, teleporting, being able to zap people from half a continent away, being able to beat up whole armies) to make a game, in general, less epic.


Anyway, a good DM can give a 4e campaign some of the feel of Lord of the Rings and thus make it feel 'epic' in the sense of a long exciting adventure, but I think that's purely dependent on the skill of the DM. A bad DM would make it feel like DM of the Rings - endless orcs and a railroad plot. Actually, one of the main things I've heard from the pro-4e people about why they like 4e is that players have less ability to resist railroading and thus have to do whatever the DM has decided they should, which I'm decidedly ambivalent about.


What I like about 4E is that it gives players fewer options to trivially shortcut things in uninteresting ways. When players can just fly over stuff that is not, in my opinion, interesting or creative.

Saph
2008-06-23, 08:40 AM
On the contrary, I haven't said *anything* about whether 4E is more or less epic than 3.X. Only that "Epic" and "Powerful" are not the same thing.

Yes, but 4e specifically calls 21-30 the 'epic tier'. That suggests that they ARE using 'epic' to mean 'powerful'.


What I like about 4E is that it gives players fewer options to trivially shortcut things in uninteresting ways. When players can just fly over stuff that is not, in my opinion, interesting or creative.

Ah, well, that's the problem. For me, being able to 'trivially shortcut things in uninteresting ways' is the whole fun of being higher level. I hate playing systems where no matter how far you advance, you can't put your abilities to use to shortcut problems.

- Saph

bosssmiley
2008-06-23, 09:08 AM
My personal benchmark for epic has long been the one suggested by Simon Phipps on his Runequest site (http://www.soltakss.com/).

In High Level/Epic play you stop playing reactively and start to reshape the politics and mythos of the game world for your own ends. Given enough time and dedication you can establish kingdoms, found dynasties, change cultures and even (Runequest specific) re-write the formative myths of the Godtime and change the entire cosmology of the world.

In effect: beating up a monster, however tough, is low level in scope. Changing the game world in a lasting manner - whatever your ECL - is epic.

The two D&D game worlds that did epic scope and scale best IMO? Birthright and Planescape; both notably low power in modern D&D terms, but both high in "Wow!" factor.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-23, 10:17 AM
Yes, but 4e specifically calls 21-30 the 'epic tier'. That suggests that they ARE using 'epic' to mean 'powerful'.

Which is because Epic characters are more powerful than Heroic characters or Paragon characters. They are not more powerful than 3.X characters, but this is by design. You still can't say "3.X characters are more powerful than 4E characters, therefore 3.X is more genuinely epic than 4E" because it's a nonsensical circular argument (which amounts, effectively to "I prefer 3.X therefore it is more epic").

If you're going to take the semantic argument, 4E uses "epic" to mean "the levels of 4th Edition D&D between 21 and 30", so 4E Epic gameplay is epic by definition.


Ah, well, that's the problem. For me, being able to 'trivially shortcut things in uninteresting ways' is the whole fun of being higher level. I hate playing systems where no matter how far you advance, you can't put your abilities to use to shortcut problems.

Fair enough. As far as I'm concerned shortcutting problems completely defeats the point of playing the game. It turns the whole thing into a rush to the finish line.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-23, 10:59 AM
@Oracle_Hunter - About 4E and broken builds: a few builds can already one-shot Orcus (it's not as bad as 3.5E... yet). I have to agree with Crow: if you play with reasonable people you're not going to see stupidly broken builds. If you don't... players and DMs can always screw each other over.

So, system-robustness digression:
The problem was never the intentionally broken builds, but the accidentally broken ones. Because of the way 3e was built (with highly modular characters) it was easy for character "builds" to appear which were just broken. I mean, look at Diplomancy: a first level Bard with a Skill Focus and Negotiator is nearly able to charm anyone he can talk to, by RAW. Which is why everyone ignored RAW Diplomacy rules.

3e was just not a robust system. It required constant tweaking and DM oversight to make sure it didn't break down.

I would argue that 4e is actually a more robust system, and that if WotC is going to break it, it will have to try very, very hard. Even the Orcus Slayer (http://www.big-metto.net/RP_Wiki/index.php?title=Kenshiro_Cascadero_%22Rattata%22_O rcuslayer%2C_Level_30) requires you to hit 17-37 times in a row with a highly specific magic item combination, and to be level 30. This is a far cry from the Level 4 Omnificer (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-546612) or the Level 5 Pun-Pun (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=491801) which could break the world. In 4e, you aren't going to see these kind of "blank check" abilities going around - it goes against the way the system is set up.

Now, you can argue that it is better to have these "blank check" powers as they give more character "flexibility," but I would say that it is far better to be forced to go to the DM if you want to do something "epic" as these powers allow. DMG 42 gives an excellent framework for the DM to resolve such situations, and forces the players to use their characters, and not just their own ingenuity, to play the game.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-23, 11:12 AM
Yea. You keep saying this, and it'll probably catch on just like the exaggerations about 2nd did, but the fact remains it ain't true unless yo got (or are) a royally crappy DM.

Really? I have a great DM, he has a lot of experience and does a great job.

The party wizard polymorphs into a twelveheaded hydra and can tank much better than any of the melee characters.

He can cast freedom of movement to evade grapples, and can dispel what NPC mages do, while other characters have no effective countermeasures.

If they face a SR/Magic Immune foe, he casts grease, polymorphs, and goes to town.

He has spells that can kill a hundreds of HP BBEG in 1 round with an unlucky save.


This makes the game unfun for everyone but the wizard. Please tell me what how my DM is doing a crappy job.


You know, before 4e came out, people across the net had clearly articulated the gross and terrible balance problems between the classes. Now that 4e is out, people seem to act like nothing was wrong. How?

Chronos
2008-06-23, 11:22 AM
Hell, what I like most about 4e is that I don't have to spend my time worrying about how the rules are going to screw me, the DM, over. I hate realizing that the PCs can do something by the rules which, in the interest of keeping the game interesting for everyone else, I have to ignore. All it does is cheat my PCs out of a build that they assumed, because it was in the rules, would work just like it said.I can break any game, with any ruleset, in under five minutes, without even looking at any of the rulebooks.

DM: As the party enters the inn, you notice seated at the bar--
Me: I attack the party's cleric.
DM: You what?
Me: I said, I attack the cleric. What do I need to roll to hit him?

Presto, broken game. Now, I would of course never do something like this, but for the exact same reason, I would also never try to sneak the Omniscificer into a game, either.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-23, 11:39 AM
I can break any game, with any ruleset, in under five minutes, without even looking at any of the rulebooks.

DM: As the party enters the inn, you notice seated at the bar--
Me: I attack the party's cleric.
DM: You what?
Me: I said, I attack the cleric. What do I need to roll to hit him?

Presto, broken game. Now, I would of course never do something like this, but for the exact same reason, I would also never try to sneak the Omniscificer into a game, either.

Straw. Man. That breaks an adventure, not a game.

3e Diplomacy by RAW - it takes a first level character with two feats and high CHA to turn a skill set into an insta-win button. Can the DM say "no, he doesn't do that?" Yes, but being able to fix something doesn't mean it's not broken. If the rules, followed as written, allow absurd results, then they are broken (which is to say, the do not work as intended).

C'mon man, I know you can do better than that. :smallwink:

Frost
2008-06-23, 12:07 PM
This makes the game unfun for everyone but the wizard. Please tell me what how my DM is doing a crappy job.

Well this isn't your DM doing a crappy job (though he is, because it shouldn't matter that you have save or dies, boss battles should still be fun and challenging, Polymorph while broken is never going to turn a Wizard into someone who can melee the crap out of a Stone Golem, and your Wizard would be smarter to cast Polymorph on the Rogue and Fighter then himself anyways).

The problem is that everyone else in the group is doing a terrible job if they aren't capable of contributing. If the Wizard has save or dies, so should the Cleric, and he should have buffs, (like Freedom of Movement that Wizards can't cast) and your Rogue should be doing hundreds of damage a round and your Druid should be doing all three of those things at once.

Crow
2008-06-23, 12:11 PM
My personal benchmark for epic has long been the one suggested by Simon Phipps on his Runequest site (http://www.soltakss.com/).

In High Level/Epic play you stop playing reactively and start to reshape the politics and mythos of the game world for your own ends. Given enough time and dedication you can establish kingdoms, found dynasties, change cultures and even (Runequest specific) re-write the formative myths of the Godtime and change the entire cosmology of the world.

In effect: beating up a monster, however tough, is low level in scope. Changing the game world in a lasting manner - whatever your ECL - is epic.

The two D&D game worlds that did epic scope and scale best IMO? Birthright and Planescape; both notably low power in modern D&D terms, but both high in "Wow!" factor.

I adapted some 3.x Birthright rules for our last 3.x campaign, and I must say it was awesome.

While I agree with what you're saying in the first chunk of your post, I also think that there is an element of badassitude that needs to be present for something to feel really "epic". What you're describing are epic adventures, not epic characters. A regular guy who goes on a long adventure to save the world is still just a regular guy. A regular guy who learns to harness the weather and call down blinding sleet is an epic character.

I agree that many of the broken spells and abilities needed to go. But in the developers' effort to get rid of the broken things, they threw out some really cool stuff as well.

Beating up a monster is low-level in scope, but beating up an epic monster like an ancient dragon shouldn't be. Thank god for high level minions though...Standard encounters (not just solos) take some grinding before you get all four down. This definately takes away from the epic feel for me, since every battle before the big bad is a long mop-up session. Solo grinding on the other hand seems to make the battle seem more epic, so long as the creature still remains a threat until it goes down, which not all of them do...I am thinking about trying out JaxGaret's half-hp houserule for standard monsters.

nagora
2008-06-23, 12:30 PM
I can break any game, with any ruleset, in under five minutes, without even looking at any of the rulebooks.

DM: As the party enters the inn, you notice seated at the bar--
Me: I attack the party's cleric.
DM: You what?
Me: I said, I attack the cleric. What do I need to roll to hit him?

Presto, broken game. Now, I would of course never do something like this, but for the exact same reason, I would also never try to sneak the Omniscificer into a game, either.

Most of our parties didn't include a cleric.

Indon
2008-06-23, 12:44 PM
Which is because Epic characters are more powerful than Heroic characters or Paragon characters. They are not more powerful than 3.X characters, but this is by design. You still can't say "3.X characters are more powerful than 4E characters, therefore 3.X is more genuinely epic than 4E" because it's a nonsensical circular argument (which amounts, effectively to "I prefer 3.X therefore it is more epic").

If you're going to take the semantic argument, 4E uses "epic" to mean "the levels of 4th Edition D&D between 21 and 30", so 4E Epic gameplay is epic by definition.

How about "Third edition D&D's epic game has far more of the qualifying factor, increased power over previous levels, than 4'th edition's epic game has."

Or, the short version, "Third edition's epic game is better at the thing that defines 4'th edition's epic game."

Or, the really short version, "Third edition's epic game is more epic than 4'th edition's epic game."

Or the extremely short version, "Third edition's more epic than 4'th edition is."

But really, why argue semantics? Just play Exalted instead.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-23, 01:27 PM
Well this isn't your DM doing a crappy job (though he is, because it shouldn't matter that you have save or dies, boss battles should still be fun and challenging, Polymorph while broken is never going to turn a Wizard into someone who can melee the crap out of a Stone Golem, and your Wizard would be smarter to cast Polymorph on the Rogue and Fighter then himself anyways).

The problem is that everyone else in the group is doing a terrible job if they aren't capable of contributing. If the Wizard has save or dies, so should the Cleric, and he should have buffs, (like Freedom of Movement that Wizards can't cast) and your Rogue should be doing hundreds of damage a round and your Druid should be doing all three of those things at once.
You're right, FoM isn't a wizard spell, my bad. I was trying to keep it core, and I forgot to do my homework. :smallredface: He usually uses the much, much better lightning leap.

You're generally right, the wizard did use an often forgotten rule that allows him to share his polymorph with his familiar.

Also, he more often polymorphed the party scout into a griffin.


Also, save or dies can ruin the game. You walk into the room, and finger of death the BBEG; 5% chance at least of killing the adventure. The DM can slap on a Death Ward, but then he can cast feeblemind. The DM can slap on a clarity, but then you can plane shift, the DM can dimensional anchor...but at this point you start to see a problem. You end up with a metagame rock/paper/scissors match between player and DM; that's an ugly way to design.


I'm not saying that nobody else could contribute, but it's really hard to say there wasn't a grossly huge imbalance between classes; not just in power level but in terms of the extremely huge number of options that certain classes had and other's didn't.

Dyrvom
2008-06-23, 02:22 PM
With Orcus as a level 33 almost-god Demigod, I'd say level 40 is a good measure for "you are by then at god power, if not a few levels sooner".

turkishproverb
2008-06-23, 03:13 PM
Really? I have a great DM, he has a lot of experience and does a great job.

The party wizard polymorphs into a twelveheaded hydra and can tank much better than any of the melee characters.

He can cast freedom of movement to evade grapples, and can dispel what NPC mages do, while other characters have no effective countermeasures.

If they face a SR/Magic Immune foe, he casts grease, polymorphs, and goes to town.

He has spells that can kill a hundreds of HP BBEG in 1 round with an unlucky save.


This makes the game unfun for everyone but the wizard. Please tell me what how my DM is doing a crappy job.


You know, before 4e came out, people across the net had clearly articulated the gross and terrible balance problems between the classes. Now that 4e is out, people seem to act like nothing was wrong. How?

Did said character explain how he knew about that hydra? Make a knowledge check? how did he cast nonwizard spells without dipping? IS your dm watching the spells cast for the day? its fairly easy for an opponent to slip away using a scroll and come back later, or send someone back in his stead.

Did your dm give the BBEG ANY defense against magic at ALL?

can he count on faster dispel? Giving the BBEG (or any enemy caster) a few levels of spell addict can push him up in threat level really fast. NOt the only way to do it, but an easy one.

if he casts grease, can you be sure a minion can't dispel it? or that the enemy doesn't have some other defense? if he's said hydra, is he really going to be able to move either?

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-23, 04:51 PM
Did said character explain how he knew about that hydra? Make a knowledge check? how did he cast nonwizard spells without dipping? IS your dm watching the spells cast for the day? its fairly easy for an opponent to slip away using a scroll and come back later, or send someone back in his stead.

Did your dm give the BBEG ANY defense against magic at ALL?

can he count on faster dispel? Giving the BBEG (or any enemy caster) a few levels of spell addict can push him up in threat level really fast. NOt the only way to do it, but an easy one.

if he casts grease, can you be sure a minion can't dispel it? or that the enemy doesn't have some other defense? if he's said hydra, is he really going to be able to move either?
First, you missed the part where I noted that I mistakenly forgot FoM is not a wizard spell, I was trying to make the example core for simplicity: it's actually much worse, he polymorphs into a Rukanyr and uses Lightning Leap and Permeable Form...he's nearly invincible.


As for these fixes, they are the exact problem.

Knowledge Arcana check to know the monster? That's not in the spell rules, and it doesn't guarantee he can't make the check. Why am I adding an arbitrary restriction if everything's so great.

Pump the BBEG with special classes and dispel? Fine, but if I do that with every encounter it's crappy and artificial, and I'm punishing the wizard for playing his class effectively.


The DM should not have to play mental rock/paper/scissors with his players to counter their balance issues! What if I want them to fight melee monsters?


I don't want a system I need to fix, I want a system that works.

For that matter, if you're expected to fix all the problems with 3.5, why can't you fix all these problems you're having with 4e?

Crow
2008-06-23, 05:01 PM
Knowledge Arcana check to know the monster? That's not in the spell rules, and it doesn't guarantee he can't make the check. Why am I adding an arbitrary restriction if everything's so great.

It's pretty explicitly spelled out in the rules regarding knowledge skills, and since polymorph is not a divnation spell, the wizard needs to know the capabilities and details of the creature he is turning into.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-23, 05:04 PM
Alternatively, you could tell the wizard to stop being a twit and trying to ruin every encounter.

turkishproverb
2008-06-23, 05:09 PM
First, you missed the part where I noted that I mistakenly forgot FoM is not a wizard spell, I was trying to make the example core for simplicity: it's actually much worse, he polymorphs into a Rukanyr and uses Lightning Leap and Permeable Form...he's nearly invincible.


As for these fixes, they are the exact problem.

Knowledge Arcana check to know the monster? That's not in the spell rules, and it doesn't guarantee he can't make the check. Why am I adding an arbitrary restriction if everything's so great.

Pump the BBEG with special classes and dispel? Fine, but if I do that with every encounter it's crappy and artificial, and I'm punishing the wizard for playing his class effectively.


The DM should not have to play mental rock/paper/scissors with his players to counter their balance issues! What if I want them to fight melee monsters?


I don't want a system I need to fix, I want a system that works.

For that matter, if you're expected to fix all the problems with 3.5, why can't you fix all these problems you're having with 4e?


1. If you don't think you need to fix 4e, your rudely mistaken. Its combat is already pretty well cracking, while not yet as bad as 3rd core. Course, it hasn't had the time.

2. How again do they polymorph into a monster they don't know exists? Yous till haven't said where the play will allow it. Its not even sensible in game OR out.

3. Knowledge arcana for knowing about a creature? more like knowledge (nature) 0r (the planes) or even knowledge (psionics) under the right monster. Knowledge arcana ain't getting you most monsters realistically.

4. Yea, sorry, lightinging leap don't count for me, it's noncore and thus optional. If a DM allows somethign like that, its his fault mroe than the game systems if its broken your experience. NO different than broken homebrewing. Granted, what I listed as a solution to spells could be seen as the same situation (and it sort've is), but things aren't a matter of all splat or no splat, and as I mentioned, it is all of 1 option of how to deal with things.

Most of the problems can be dealt with simply by having the DM enforce the rules, or know how to deal with a party with differing skills (not necissarily levels of skill). The most broken things in 3.5 were the existing diplomacy system and Perform (for being confusing and senseless in its application)

5. Every encounter? No, but again, you have to prove the player would know HOW to perform these feats, would know where they're going with teleport, be ensured of no risks in flight, etc. Fact is, DM's tend to be lazy and thus can't even enforce the rules to solve the problems of "broken" characters. You'll be complaining about how it was "so easy to make a character that could kill Orcus" when 5th comes out I'm sure.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-23, 05:09 PM
Alternatively, you could tell the wizard to stop being a twit and trying to ruin every encounter.

Yeah! "Hey wizard! Stop using the spells you have to win. Why can't you cast magic missile instead?" :smalltongue:

It's not like he was trying to turn Bags of Holding inside out and walk through walls, the dude was using a spell as written. If you make him make a knowledge (dungeoneering) check, then he'll just put all his skill points in it until he can recall it at ease.

This is just an example of dealing with broken rules and unbalanced power levels. I'm glad I don't have to deal with it now.

turkishproverb
2008-06-23, 05:20 PM
Yeah! "Hey wizard! Stop using the spells you have to win. Why can't you cast magic missile instead?" :smalltongue:

It's not like he was trying to turn Bags of Holding inside out and walk through walls, the dude was using a spell as written. If you make him make a knowledge (dungeoneering) check, then he'll just put all his skill points in it until he can recall it at ease.

This is just an example of dealing with broken rules and unbalanced power levels. I'm glad I don't have to deal with it now.

That reminds me, Time to kill Orcus.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-23, 05:35 PM
4. Yea, sorry, lightinging leap don't count for me, it's noncore and thus optional. If a DM allows somethign like that, its his fault mroe than the game systems if its broken your experience. NO different than broken homebrewing. Granted, what I listed as a solution to spells could be seen as the same situation (and it sort've is), but things aren't a matter of all splat or no splat, and as I mentioned, it is all of 1 option of how to deal with things.
I don't play core only or know anyone who plays core only. And there's plenty of broken things that are core. Polymorph (You don't need every monster, five ranks in and Knowledge is enough to make a check to identify the form you'll want to be using most often.), Divine Power and Righteous Might, Wild Shape, just to name a few.

Also, how is the DM supposed to know how every spell or feat is going to play out in a game? Without having being able to playtest an ability, what if it ends up being broken after it appears in the game?

Sure, you can ban the stuff that's clearly and utterly broken like Celerity; but what about the stuff that's just slightly broken like Lightning Leap? It's not a very good game when the DM makes you rebuild your character every time you do something impressive.


5. Every encounter? No, but again, you have to prove the player would know HOW to perform these feats, would know where they're going with teleport, be ensured of no risks in flight, etc.
Where? Find the pre-req on feats that says "you have to have trained in this combat technique" or a spell that says "Your wizard can only learn this spell if he has been to the plane of fire"? Who makes up these restrictions? The DM? How hard is it for someone to come up with a reason why his character can know a feat or spell?

According to the rules, you can take a feat if you meet the pre-reqs, anything else is as optional as any splatbook.

I'm not saying 4e has no problems, but I have yet to see a problem as utterly glaring as existed in 3.5

I'll say it again, as it bears repeating:
"You can fix it" does not make the system good.


In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.


Fact is, DM's tend to be lazy and thus can't even enforce the rules to solve the problems of "broken" characters.What rules? You didn't mention rules, you mentioned custom fixes that you say are implied. The players in my game don't cheat, they just use the rules given to them.


You'll be complaining about how it was "so easy to make a character that could kill Orcus" when 5th comes out I'm sure.
I hope I do, because that'll mean that 5e improved on a problem with 4e. Just like 2e improved on 1e, and 3e improved on 2e. And frankly, like I think 4e has improved on 3e.

So nothing is perfect, that's expected. That doesn't mean that 4e isn't closer than 3e.


If your point is that "4e is probably just as broken and we haven't realized it yet"; than please provide examples proving that and don't just speculate.

Indon
2008-06-23, 05:37 PM
Alternatively, you could tell the wizard to stop being a twit and trying to ruin every encounter.

But that would be force-nerfing him, making him play stupid, and so on.

Clearly, if a player is capable of breaking the system, they should be expected to every time. Because that's how players work.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-23, 05:41 PM
That reminds me, Time to kill Orcus.

Did you read the Orcus Killer? You need to be a 30th level character and land 17-37 hits in a row to kill him in one round. Jesus, but people harp on the one build which, if constructed, can kill someone who is actually within their challenge level.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-23, 05:41 PM
But that would be force-nerfing him, making him play stupid, and so on.

Clearly, if a player is capable of breaking the system, they should be expected to every time. Because that's how players work.

Wizards don't rule because the guys playing wizards break the system. Wizards rule because the system is broken. It's an important but subtle difference.

The archetypal "batman wizard" is not like Pun-Pun or the Twice Betrayer of Shar or the Omniscificer (which doesn't *work*). Wizards are given a vast array of resources to use in order to try to overcome problems. Asking a wizard to avoid using these resources is force-nerfing them or making them play stupid. It's like saying to the Rogue "I think you're doing too much damage with that sneak attack, can you not flank as much".

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-23, 05:43 PM
Did you read the Orcus Killer? You need to be a 30th level character and land 17-37 hits in a row to kill him in one round. Jesus, but people harp on the one build which, if constructed, can kill someone who is actually within their challenge level.

To be fair, it does rely on a particularly stupidly worded Ability (I mean really, anything that just lets you keep on making attacks until you miss is a bad idea).

Which is sort of a strike for and a strike against. It's a strike for, because that sort of thing is easily fixed (it just needs to be errata'd to a finite number of attacks) and it's a strike against (because if something that egregiously stupid can make its way into the game there's something wrong with their playtesting).

Indon
2008-06-23, 05:49 PM
Did you read the Orcus Killer? You need to be a 30th level character and land 17-37 hits in a row to kill him in one round. Jesus, but people harp on the one build which, if constructed, can kill someone who is actually within their challenge level.

There's actually a build out there better at killing Orcus, if I recall.

It's a Wizard who takes that Blood-related combat path - it gives an ability to deal damage per square a target moves. Along the way, you can also get another ability which lets you significantly enhance this damage (so that you're dealing something like 1d6+1d10 per square you move the target).

Then you use Wizard powers that force Orcus to move a whole lot - apparently there's some kind of teleporting ability that would let you teleport Orcus 20 squares up, for instance (He doesn't take fall damage, if I recall, but from what I remember the ability renders him prone and he drifts to the ground). Wizards also get some kind of fear ability.

Edit: Unlike the Orcus-Killer, he never needs to make himself vulnerable to Orcus' impressive melee attacks.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-23, 05:52 PM
There's actually a build out there better at killing Orcus, if I recall.

It's a Wizard who takes that Blood-related combat path - it gives an ability to deal damage per square a target moves. Along the way, you can also get another ability which lets you significantly enhance this damage (so that you're dealing something like 1d6+1d10 per square you move the target).

Then you use Wizard powers that force Orcus to move a whole lot - apparently there's some kind of teleporting ability that would let you teleport Orcus 20 squares up, for instance (He doesn't take fall damage, if I recall, but from what I remember the ability renders him prone and he drifts to the ground). Wizards also get some kind of fear ability.

Edit: Unlike the Orcus-Killer, he never needs to make himself vulnerable to Orcus' impressive melee attacks.

Meh, I'll believe it when I see it.

At the moment though, I'm less worried about level 30 characters being able to kill gods than I am about a level 1 bard being able to convince Orcus to play nice :smallamused:

Indon
2008-06-23, 05:55 PM
Wizards don't rule because the guys playing wizards break the system. Wizards rule because the system is broken. It's an important but subtle difference.
The difference is that in the latter statement people are expected to exploit the system - if the system can be exploited, then it is considered broken.

While in the former statement, while it might be particularly easy to break the system as a Wizard (so much so that one might mock players who do not do so, see below for example), that still doesn't mean it's not you doing it.


Yeah! "Hey wizard! Stop using the spells you have to win. Why can't you cast magic missile instead?" :smalltongue:

Crow
2008-06-23, 05:57 PM
Actually, the Blood Mage exploit makes it so Orcus takes damage for every square he leaves. Since he takes up a lot of squares, this damage adds up quickly. It becomes progressively less broken as the target's size decreases.

Thrud
2008-06-23, 06:04 PM
Wizards don't rule because the guys playing wizards break the system. Wizards rule because the system is broken. It's an important but subtle difference.

The archetypal "batman wizard" is not like Pun-Pun or the Twice Betrayer of Shar or the Omniscificer (which doesn't *work*). Wizards are given a vast array of resources to use in order to try to overcome problems. Asking a wizard to avoid using these resources is force-nerfing them or making them play stupid. It's like saying to the Rogue "I think you're doing too much damage with that sneak attack, can you not flank as much".

I'm sorry, but virtually every example of how overpowered wizards are in 3rd ed has come up in my game. The first time I reward them with Xp for being clever. Then the bad guys learn from their mistake and it doesn't work again. Usually in such a way that the player risks certain death if he does it again.

Honestly, the only time there are ever problems with wizards is at around 20th level, and honestly, I have never understood the infatuation with any character at that high a level.

Wizard teleports out of dungeon, teleports back in to find that a hallow has been set up with a dimensional anchor, and there are a lot of guards waiting for him.

Wizard polymorphs into badger and tunnels in. Bad guy has critter with tremorsense trained to notice when people are tunneling in and wizard tunnels into middle of ambush.

Wizard endlessly uses polymorph on other critters to make them useless, bad guy hires wizard to polymorph them back.

Finally, if you follow the simple rules in the game, a wizard gets to learn 2 new spells to add to his book per level. That's it. Anything more than that he has to find. And that shouldn't be a cakewalk. I for one tend to have most wizards protect their spellbooks like they were their children, up to and including having then simply explode if all else fails (hmm, o.k. the children anaolgy was a bad one, unless you want to protect your kids by making them explode. O.K. how about protect them like they were the message given to Ethan Hunt in the mission impossible movies. :smallbiggrin:). And thus Wizards are the way they are supposed to be as they are defined in the game LIMITED in spells. No one ever seems to understand that basic concept. Yes, if you give a wizard access to every spell in the game, shock, horror, they are overpowered. Maybe that is why the game was designed with a built in inhibitor to STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT!

Sheesh.

Every problem with a wizard in a 3.0 game is directly attributable to bad DMing. In a magical world scrying and message carrying is necessarily going to bring around something akin to the information age much earlier than would otherwise be possible. Thus NPC's/bad guys learn from their and other people's mistakes.

And as for not knowing anyone who only allows core books, well, I am one. Never felt the need for them, though over the years I have been persuaded to allow the 'complete' books.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-23, 06:05 PM
Actually, the Blood Mage exploit makes it so Orcus takes damage for every square he leaves. Since he takes up a lot of squares, this damage adds up quickly. It becomes progressively less broken as the target's size decreases.

I think that's a RAW/RAI distinction. I'm sure it's not *supposed* to work that way, heck if every square *occupied* by a Large or Gargantuan creature counted as a square moved they'd need to have enormous movement rates.

Crow
2008-06-23, 06:12 PM
Damn exception-based ruleset. As much as I hate to veer this thread even further off-topic, does anybody have the text for that Blood Mage ability on hand? I'm away from my books.

Edit: I am one of those who only uses Core. Anything else is approved on a case-by-case basis.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-23, 06:15 PM
I'm sorry, but virtually every example of how overpowered wizards are in 3rd ed has come up in my game. The first time I reward them with Xp for being clever. Then the bad guys learn from their mistake and it doesn't work again. Usually in such a way that the player risks certain death if he does it again.

Great, that's your way of dealing with it. The thing is I don't *want* my players looking for "clever" ways of shortcutting the game.


Honestly, the only time there are ever problems with wizards is at around 20th level, and honestly, I have never understood the infatuation with any character at that high a level.

Wizard teleports out of dungeon, teleports back in to find that a hallow has been set up with a dimensional anchor, and there are a lot of guards waiting for him.

Wizard polymorphs into badger and tunnels in. Bad guy has critter with tremorsense trained to notice when people are tunneling in and wizard tunnels into middle of ambush.

Wizard endlessly uses polymorph on other critters to make them useless, bad guy hires wizard to polymorph them back.

Great, that works for you. Some of us, though, do not like to run our games that way. I am not interested in getting into an arms race with the PCs in which I have to concoct ever more elaborate ways to stop them doing things they shouldn't be able to do in the first place.


Finally, if you follow the simple rules in the game, a wizard gets to learn 2 new spells to add to his book per level. That's it. Anything more than that he has to find. And that shouldn't be a cakewalk. I for one tend to have most wizards protect their spellbooks like they were their children, up to and including having then simply explode if all else fails (hmm, o.k. the children anaolgy was a bad one, unless you want to protect your kids by making them explode. O.K. how about protect them like they were the message given to Ethan Hunt in the mission impossible movies. :smallbiggrin:). And thus Wizards are the way they are supposed to be as they are defined in the game LIMITED in spells. No one ever seems to understand that basic concept. Yes, if you give a wizard access to every spell in the game, shock, horror, they are overpowered. Maybe that is why the game was designed with a built in inhibitor to STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT!

But here, once again, you are being forced to design your setting in a specific way, just to nerf one character class. That's *exactly* the sort of safeguard that should be built into the *system*.

I don't want to have to rule out any interpretation of Wizards that isn't "obsessive monomaniacs who will never cooperate on anything" just to explain why my PCs can't get hold of a Scroll of Fly.


Sheesh.

Every problem with a wizard in a 3.0 game is directly attributable to bad DMing. In a magical world scrying and message carrying is necessarily going to bring around something akin to the information age much earlier than would otherwise be possible. Thus NPC's/bad guys learn from their and other people's mistakes.


Not wanting to have to base my entire campaign around the capabilities of one PC isn't bad DMing. I don't want to have to worry about people transforming into badgers or teleporting out of prison. I am not *interested* in running a game in which I pit my ability to manipulate the rules against the players' ability to do likewise. It's not why I play RPGs.

Antacid
2008-06-23, 06:15 PM
Actually, the Blood Mage exploit makes it so Orcus takes damage for every square he leaves. Since he takes up a lot of squares, this damage adds up quickly. It becomes progressively less broken as the target's size decreases.

It's not broken at all if the DM rules that forced movement doesn't trigger damage from the power. That seems to be the obvious intent from the wording. It's only 11th level: it's battlefield control, not a way of nuking Gargantuan monsters. Would probably stop Orcus TPing voluntarily for a round, though.

Leomund's Secret Chest and Blade Cascade, now, THOSE are poorly written.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-23, 06:17 PM
Damn exception-based ruleset. As much as I hate to veer this thread even further off-topic, does anybody have the text for that Blood Mage ability on hand? I'm away from my books.

Edit: I am one of those who only uses Core. Anything else is approved on a case-by-case basis.


Hit: 2d6 + Intelligence modifier damage, and until the end of your next turn the target takes 1d6 damage for every square it leaves.

Have fun with that.

Thrud
2008-06-23, 06:23 PM
But here, once again, you are being forced to design your setting in a specific way, just to nerf one character class. That's *exactly* the sort of safeguard that should be built into the *system*.


Except that it is built into the system. I just said that.

?

edit- Never mind, sorry, lack of sleep making my brain not work. I forgot that years and years ago I houseruled a simple solution that made it impossible to copy spells from scrolls into spellbooks. Which solved the problem with a quick simple fix. All those issues gone at one moment. Been doing it for so long I forgot it was a house rule. I believe I started it all the way back in 2nd ed.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-23, 08:12 PM
It isn't a matter of "homebrewing an extensive setting" either you are in a high magic world, or a low magic one. Pick.

1. Spells are freely available, and not only do your PC wizards have access to every spell in the game; so does everyone else, creating a game of "rocket tag" as it is called. Scrolls are bandied about liked candied trout, which is mass produced in a factory by charisma golems armed with UMD. Almost everyone is covered in magical gear, and wars are very much like modern wars but with Repeating Crossbow of Magic Missile instead of a machine gun.

2. Spells are hard to find. That Scroll of Flight is a powerful magical artifact the Archduke has been keeping hidden in a heavily locked box labeled "In case of emergency that can only be solved by eating lots of butter." (so that people don't realize it has a magic Scroll of Flight). The PC wizard is one of maybe twenty wizards in the universe.

Indon
2008-06-23, 08:14 PM
Actually, the Blood Mage exploit makes it so Orcus takes damage for every square he leaves. Since he takes up a lot of squares, this damage adds up quickly. It becomes progressively less broken as the target's size decreases.

I'm pretty sure the word was that it's not supposed to work that way.

And forced movement causes damage from the power - just not more based on size.

The other killer is that there's a Wizard power/ability (dunno which) that adds an extra die of damage every time the Wizard deals damage - which this ability does every time a square is moved.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-23, 09:13 PM
I'm pretty sure the word was that it's not supposed to work that way.

And forced movement causes damage from the power - just not more based on size.

The other killer is that there's a Wizard power/ability (dunno which) that adds an extra die of damage every time the Wizard deals damage - which this ability does every time a square is moved.

But see, it does damage based on squares LEFT.

Since a 3000 square wide monster is in 3000 squares, stepping one over causes its 3000 component parts to leave a square, thus taking the damage 3000 times.

marjan
2008-06-23, 09:23 PM
I'm pretty sure the word was that it's not supposed to work that way.


In strictly RAW reading it works that way, so it falls in same category as healing by drowning in 3.5.



The other killer is that there's a Wizard power/ability (dunno which) that adds an extra die of damage every time the Wizard deals damage - which this ability does every time a square is moved.

That would be bolstering blood. But it is not exactly broken since you deal same amount of damage to yourself and monsters have much better HP than you do. It only becomes broken if you have a way of dealing damage multiple times in the same round, such as by strictly RAW reading of Blood Pulse.

Crow
2008-06-23, 09:40 PM
Bolstering blood isn't broken. If a gargantuan monster takes leaves 20 squares while under blood pulse, that only counts as one instance of the wizard dealing damage. Every box by itself doesn't count seperately, otherwise a limited amount of damage resistance would totally defeat blood pulse.

The text for Blood Pulse though is quite specific. I don't see a whole lot of room for rules as intended, otherwise they would have worded the power differently. "Takes 1d6 damage for every square it moves." or something like that would have been more appropriate.

LurkerInPlayground
2008-06-23, 09:45 PM
But see, it does damage based on squares LEFT.

Since a 3000 square wide monster is in 3000 squares, stepping one over causes its 3000 component parts to leave a square, thus taking the damage 3000 times.
You could always interpret the ability by stating that a square for Orcus isn't the same square that a small humanoid occupies. Which means you'd have to move him a fair distance to do any damage.


Of course, this would imply that larger creatures have a fairly obscene movement speed relative to the players. Which would make sense, now that I think about it. That is one of the advantages of being big. Larger stride.

Or you could merely rule the number of squares he has been moved is applied for damage. So only the actual displacement is calculated for damage.

Crow
2008-06-23, 09:50 PM
That would be "1d6 per square the target moves"...which is really not close to what the text says. Maybe it was an oversight. I certainly wouldn't let the player get away with it though.

JaxGaret
2008-06-23, 09:57 PM
Even if by RAW Blood Pulse does deal 1d6 damage for each individual square that a monster leaves, would Teleportation count each square as being "left"?

In other words, wouldn't the Blood Pulse only deal damage once, when the creature gets teleported? It arrives in the target square. It doesn't "leave" any of the squares in between.


Instantaneous: When you teleport, you disappear from the space you occupy and immediately appear in a new space you choose. Creatures, objects, and terrain between you and your destination don’t hinder your movement in any way.

JaxGaret
2008-06-23, 10:02 PM
The fact is, there is only one really broken power in 4e core (Blade Cascade), and a few more relatively powerful powers, whereas 3e core had dozens of broken spells and applications or combinations of spells.

If Blade Cascade didn't exist (how on earth did they allow that power through balance testing?), this whole talk of 4e being just as breakable as 3e wouldn't exist.

marjan
2008-06-23, 10:09 PM
Even if by RAW Blood Pulse does deal 1d6 damage for each individual square that a monster leaves, would Teleportation count each square as being "left"?

In other words, wouldn't the Blood Pulse only deal damage once, when the creature gets teleported? It arrives in the target square. It doesn't "leave" any of the squares in between.

The brokeness comes into play when you teleport enemy into air. It then falls and leaves many squares, which is the main source of damage.

Crow
2008-06-23, 10:10 PM
Even if by RAW Blood Pulse does deal 1d6 damage for each individual square that a monster leaves, would Teleportation count each square as being "left"?

In other words, wouldn't the Blood Pulse only deal damage once, when the creature gets teleported? It arrives in the target square. It doesn't "leave" any of the squares in between.

You are correct, by RAW, the monster has only left the original squares which it occupied.

Blade Cascade exists becasue the boners who created the powers did so under the 55% chance to hit at any given level model. I was surprised to not see an errata for that one yet. But whatever.

The topic of this thread isn't to discuss which edition is more broken. The point is to discuss epic level play in 4th edition, and whether people enjoyed it or not, and the reasons why.

JaxGaret
2008-06-23, 10:22 PM
Solo grinding on the other hand seems to make the battle seem more epic, so long as the creature still remains a threat until it goes down, which not all of them do

Yeah, I can see that. Since you're only going to be fighting that single monster (usually), it doesn't really matter if you nova at the beginning of the battle, or spread your encounters and dailies throughout the battle.

But I still feel like most of them have way too many HP.


...I am thinking about trying out JaxGaret's half-hp houserule for standard monsters.

Just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet, here it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83475). Also, note the new commentary on the bottom - it makes it much easier on the DM if they combine the houserule with the single monster level increase, so that they don't have to do any new XP reward calculations.


Blade Cascade exists becasue the boners who created the powers did so under the 55% chance to hit at any given level model. I was surprised to not see an errata for that one yet. But whatever.

Agreed.


The topic of this thread isn't to discuss which edition is more broken. The point is to discuss epic level play in 4th edition, and whether people enjoyed it or not, and the reasons why.

You are correct. Sorry for the off-topic comments and the double post, I got sidetracked (plus I keep on getting those blasted The Server Is Too Busy At The Moment, Nyah notifications - although they are a vast improvement) before I could edit them properly and flesh out my take on the topic: I think that "epicness" is entirely a personal judgment or preference, and as such it is very difficult to say with certainty that "Game X is more epic-feeling than Game Y".

It is possible, certainly; Chutes and Ladders can hardly be described as epic.

Frost
2008-06-23, 11:45 PM
You're right, FoM isn't a wizard spell, my bad. I was trying to keep it core, and I forgot to do my homework. :smallredface: He usually uses the much, much better lightning leap.

You're generally right, the wizard did use an often forgotten rule that allows him to share his polymorph with his familiar.

Also, he more often polymorphed the party scout into a griffin.

My point is that Polymorph, while excessively broken, benefits everyone, the rogue gets tons of SA, the Fighter gets tonnes of Str, and if the Wizard can hit, then the Fighter can Power Attack for his increased BAB and do more damage.

And while I am the first to abuse share spells, keep in mind that they must stay within 5ft, and if they separate at all the spell leaves the familiar and cannot return.

As for FoM, I use Heart of Water with my Wizard's and I have no idea what Lightning Leap does. But it really shouldn't matter, since avoiding grapples and effects isn't that big a deal, especially when enemies can do it too (not all enemies, not DM vs Player Chess, just some of them can.)


Also, save or dies can ruin the game. You walk into the room, and finger of death the BBEG; 5% chance at least of killing the adventure. The DM can slap on a Death Ward, but then he can cast feeblemind. The DM can slap on a clarity, but then you can plane shift, the DM can dimensional anchor...but at this point you start to see a problem. You end up with a metagame rock/paper/scissors match between player and DM; that's an ugly way to design.

See this is the stupid I am talking about. You don't have to come up with a counter for every spell that has a 5% chance of defeating him. So what.

1) It's 5%! That means it really doesn't matter, it never comes up!
2) They need to be within range of the BBEG to do this. If they are fighting him he is supposed to die, or disable them all in thee first round, just don't stand your BBEG within range doing nothing.
3) So your BBEG dies. Guess what, then he get's Resed, or he wasn't the BBEG after all. This seriously happens 5% of the time, you should be able to come up with something for that 1 out of 20 chance.


I'm not saying that nobody else could contribute, but it's really hard to say there wasn't a grossly huge imbalance between classes; not just in power level but in terms of the extremely huge number of options that certain classes had and other's didn't.

Here's a crazy idea that apparently no one but me has ever thought of: Have all your players play decent classes! Seriously, five of the PHB classes are awesome, some of the others are not too bad. Surely they can come up with something.

JaxGaret
2008-06-23, 11:47 PM
1) It's 5%! That means it really doesn't matter, it never comes up!

So many lols. I hope that was sarcasm.


Here's a crazy idea that apparently no one but me has ever thought of: Have all your players play decent classes! Seriously, five of the PHB classes are awesome, some of the others are not too bad. Surely they can come up with something.

It's not a crazy idea, anyone with common sense realizes this. Forcing all the players to play spellcasters or non-spellcasters (or more specifically, within the same tier of class power) isn't going to work for every gaming group. Some people prefer to play one or the other.

There's really four tiers of power, not two, even in core. At the top are the Big Three: Cleric, Druid, Wizard. Next is the Sorcerer in its own tier, along with the Bard if you include splatbooks, otherwise it's down in the next lower tier: the Rogue and Ranger and Barbarian, and the Fighter with splatbooks. At the bottom is the Monk and Paladin, and Fighter without splats. Paladin can also get up to the next tier, but only with very specific builds.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-24, 12:43 AM
See this is the stupid I am talking about. You don't have to come up with a counter for every spell that has a 5% chance of defeating him. So what.

1) It's 5%! That means it really doesn't matter, it never comes up!
2) They need to be within range of the BBEG to do this. If they are fighting him he is supposed to die, or disable them all in thee first round, just don't stand your BBEG within range doing nothing.
3) So your BBEG dies. Guess what, then he get's Resed, or he wasn't the BBEG after all. This seriously happens 5% of the time, you should be able to come up with something for that 1 out of 20 chance.

1) First off, 5% comes up. A lot. Especially when you have multiple save or dies/save or loses to cast. The fighter is expected to attack over and over again...and sometimes he has a 5% chance of hitting at all.
Also, if anything I was diminishing the BBEGs chances; there's a 5% minimum chance of working, and that's if you've highly pumped the bad guy's saves to the point of otherwise automatically succeeding. Probably, the chances are about 25%.
2) He doesn't do nothing, and there are a multitude of ways to get within range. The BBEG can do stuff and still be touched. Especially since certain game enders aren't touch range.
3) You guys killed the ancient red dragon unexpectedly...so it turns out he wasn't really the real bad guy! The players get lucky and I punish them for it? That's bad for everyone.
Especially if my story is already pretty set on this being the bad guy.



Here's a crazy idea that apparently no one but me has ever thought of: Have all your players play decent classes! Seriously, five of the PHB classes are awesome, some of the others are not too bad. Surely they can come up with something.

But what if they [want to play a Monk? What if that's their character? No, that's bad, play a druid, monks are weak.

Players should be able to choose anything that's offered to them without ending up dramatically underpowered.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-24, 07:04 AM
Erm, I don't think you can make a Critical Fail Save, in the same way that skills don't have crits.

Besides, I thought Ancient Red Dragons had spell resistance or somesuch that let em make two saves.

On a whole nother level: Your PCs want to instakill the BBEG. If they didn't, they would beat up the wizard for ruining their adventure with his overpowered magic. So i'll repeat it.

Your PCs want to instakill the BBEG. If a group of players decides they want to kill a villian without a fight, they will do it. Take away their wizard, they'll buy scrolls. Take away their scrolls and they'll divert nearby rivers, take away that, and they'll build hire dwarves to undermine the enemy fortress.

If they really, really want to kill the BBEG like that, let em. Its their style, your job is to provide for them. Forcing the PCs to fight the BBEG is railroading.

Frost
2008-06-24, 09:30 AM
1) First off, 5% comes up. A lot. Especially when you have multiple save or dies/save or loses to cast. The fighter is expected to attack over and over again...and sometimes he has a 5% chance of hitting at all.
Also, if anything I was diminishing the BBEGs chances; there's a 5% minimum chance of working, and that's if you've highly pumped the bad guy's saves to the point of otherwise automatically succeeding. Probably, the chances are about 25%.
2) He doesn't do nothing, and there are a multitude of ways to get within range. The BBEG can do stuff and still be touched. Especially since certain game enders aren't touch range.
3) You guys killed the ancient red dragon unexpectedly...so it turns out he wasn't really the real bad guy! The players get lucky and I punish them for it? That's bad for everyone.
Especially if my story is already pretty set on this being the bad guy.

2) Why didn't your BBEG, disable the party? Is it because he is fighting them and they are supposed to win? Then why is it a problem?

3) It turns out he was controlled by The Great Wizard Bob. Who has a Dragon Orb.


But what if they [want to play a Monk? What if that's their character? No, that's bad, play a druid, monks are weak.

Players should be able to choose anything that's offered to them without ending up dramatically underpowered.

Then they can play a Monk/Sacred Fist, and not suck.

Indon
2008-06-24, 09:46 AM
But what if they [want to play a Monk? What if that's their character? No, that's bad, play a druid, monks are weak.

They can take a page from 4'th edition's (and AD&D's) book and reflavor a more powerful class into being a monk. Druid's a pretty good class for that, even.

Use the shapechanging Druid Variant, remove the animal companion. Grant proficiency with Monk weapons and Improved Grapple. Reflavor shapechanging into "Focusing" or "Powering up" and take spells that would give you a monkish flavor, like Magic Fang.

Saph
2008-06-24, 10:13 AM
Your PCs want to instakill the BBEG. If a group of players decides they want to kill a villian without a fight, they will do it. Take away their wizard, they'll buy scrolls. Take away their scrolls and they'll divert nearby rivers, take away that, and they'll build hire dwarves to undermine the enemy fortress.

If they really, really want to kill the BBEG like that, let em. Its their style, your job is to provide for them. Forcing the PCs to fight the BBEG is railroading.

I think he's got a point here.

A frequent theme of these comparison threads has been "I don't want the players to be able to complete the quest or beat the BBEG in a way that I hadn't planned." I think the people saying this are missing the fact that quite a lot of players don't want to always do things the way the DM has planned. Sometimes, yes; always, no.

I mean, the DM might think that his campaign is a total failure if the party uses a unexpected combination of spells to turn the BBEG lich into a pink-eared bunny rabbit. But the players are quite likely to think it's absolutely hilarious. Sometimes the most fun sessions come when the PCs don't follow the script.

- Saph

Oslecamo
2008-06-24, 10:30 AM
And that's why I give all my BBEG a good array of loyal tll death and beyond minions. So, even if the lord of apocalypse is now a pink bunny, you still have to deal with his cutsom half golem ninja giants of doom.

On a side note, I once had a DM who comented that each session he prepared several paths the party was likely to follow, and we 90% of the times we ended choosing something he wasn't really expecting and he was forced to improvise.


For example, in a game where the party was suposed to carry a powerfull mysterious artifact, and they were being hunted by an elite enemy party. Sudenly we were face to face with them, and the DM hinted that either we ran away or we risked using the artifact to give us the necessary edge to win. We stubornly refused to use the artifact or run away, and ended almost geting wiped out(but killing one of them in return), losing the artifact and forcing the DM to rewrite the storyline as the enemy party ran away to another dimension to use the artifact to their evil plans.

Good times good times:smallbiggrin:

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-24, 10:32 AM
I remember when a vaguely foreboding archway caused my players to assume it was a trap, and spend TWO DAYS preparing to go through it, just because it said (I can't even remember now)

"Ye shall find judgement hereafter" so the players thought it killed them.

Players reacting in ways you hadn't planned is 99% of the fun of the game.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-24, 10:58 AM
2) Why didn't your BBEG, disable the party? Is it because he is fighting them and they are supposed to win? Then why is it a problem?
I want the players to win, but I want it to take a while. I want them to fight, I want everyone to use their strong abilities, and I want there to be a drawn out, cinematic confrontation.

I don't the epic conflict to rage for a few rounds and then suddenly the wizard tosses him into the negative energy plane.


3) It turns out he was controlled by The Great Wizard Bob. Who has a Dragon Orb.
Yeah, so the carefully designed villain who's been part of the story from the beginning is suddenly just some tool for a random wizard I pulled from nowhere. That is really bad for storytelling.


Then they can play a Monk/Sacred Fist, and not suck.
You've missed the point entirely. What if they don't want to play a sacred fist? What if they want to be a multiclass monk/ranger and specialize in the shortbow?


It sucks for me to mandate my players to choose Classes and PRCs for optimization reasons and then fit their characters around that.

Indon is right in saying that reflavoring is an option, but it's a messy option unless you start tweaking the system to make things actually fit. And it also doesn't help if my characters want to play a class because they think the mechanics look cool, say Incarnate or Divine Mind.

We make our own beds on these choices, and balance doesn't have to be so universal that it makes individual class dynamics impossible, but there should be a level enough playing field that you don't sit back doing nothing.



As a different note, I understand improvising...my players really like making me do it. :smallbiggrin:

But the point I was trying to make was that there was a massive mechanics problem that unsatisfyingly led to such problems.

I don't mind improvising because my players chose a surprising way to solve something...I mind when the campaign villain gets baleful polymorphed on a nat 1 save. (Obviously the show must go on, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a problem)

Saph
2008-06-24, 11:31 AM
As a different note, I understand improvising...my players really like making me do it. :smallbiggrin:

But the point I was trying to make was that there was a massive mechanics problem that unsatisfyingly led to such problems.

I don't mind improvising because my players chose a surprising way to solve something...I mind when the campaign villain gets baleful polymorphed on a nat 1 save. (Obviously the show must go on, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a problem)

Well, there's nothing stopping you from giving the villain the Luck or Pride domains (thus letting him re-roll a 1 that would kill him) or just outright saying that he gets 3 rerolls/day to use as he wants.

But if you absolutely can't stand the villain dying by any way other than HP damage, there's a simple way to deal with it; just make him immune to everything else. I actually used a BBEG like this in one of my campaigns. The game had an old-school computer RPG feel, so I set up the final battle as a three-stage boss fight where the PCs had to do him several thousand points of damage over a long battle (because that's how computer RPG boss fights are supposed to go). The fight ended up taking up 80% of the entire final session. Worked pretty well.

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-24, 01:03 PM
I think he's got a point here.

I had a long reply to the original point, but it got eaten by the board.

I think he *looks* like he has a point here, but it's an awfully big assumption to make. I know that when I play RPGs I *absolutely* do not want to insta-kill the BBEG. I absolutely do not want the BBEG to be insta-killed. I do not want to fly over encounters or teleport around them.

But, if you give me those options in character I will have to take them, because there will be no IC way to justify not taking them without my character being some kind of delusional jackass who believes that he's just a playing piece in a game for somebody else's amusement.

Most players, ultimately, don't want to just have victory handed to them on a plate, either by the DM or by another player.


A frequent theme of these comparison threads has been "I don't want the players to be able to complete the quest or beat the BBEG in a way that I hadn't planned." I think the people saying this are missing the fact that quite a lot of players don't want to always do things the way the DM has planned. Sometimes, yes; always, no.

Again, you're making a lot of assumptions. As a DM (or GM, since I seldom run D&D) I don't plan anything. I don't have any expectations or preconceptions for how the PCs are going to deal with the BBEG, or even if they *are* going to deal with him, or if they're going to join him, or ignore him and go catch fish instead.

The only thing I want from the players is for them to try and do something *interesting*.


I mean, the DM might think that his campaign is a total failure if the party uses a unexpected combination of spells to turn the BBEG lich into a pink-eared bunny rabbit. But the players are quite likely to think it's absolutely hilarious. Sometimes the most fun sessions come when the PCs don't follow the script.


Again, speak for yourself. As a player I would feel entirely pissed off if the final showdown with the dread lich king ended with the party wizard polymorphing him into a bunny rabbit.

Crow
2008-06-24, 02:07 PM
I had a long reply to the original point, but it got eaten by the board.

I think he *looks* like he has a point here, but it's an awfully big assumption to make. I know that when I play RPGs I *absolutely* do not want to insta-kill the BBEG. I absolutely do not want the BBEG to be insta-killed. I do not want to fly over encounters or teleport around them.

But, if you give me those options in character I will have to take them, because there will be no IC way to justify not taking them without my character being some kind of delusional jackass who believes that he's just a playing piece in a game for somebody else's amusement.

Most players, ultimately, don't want to just have victory handed to them on a plate, either by the DM or by another player.



Again, you're making a lot of assumptions. As a DM (or GM, since I seldom run D&D) I don't plan anything. I don't have any expectations or preconceptions for how the PCs are going to deal with the BBEG, or even if they *are* going to deal with him, or if they're going to join him, or ignore him and go catch fish instead.

The only thing I want from the players is for them to try and do something *interesting*.



Again, speak for yourself. As a player I would feel entirely pissed off if the final showdown with the dread lich king ended with the party wizard polymorphing him into a bunny rabbit.

If the player didn't want to defeat the BBEG in one shot, he wouldn't have memorized Finger of Death or whatever spell it is, and then he wouldn't have used it. I think the man has a really good point.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-24, 02:23 PM
If the player didn't want to defeat the BBEG in one shot, he wouldn't have memorized Finger of Death or whatever spell it is, and then he wouldn't have used it. I think the man has a really good point.

What about the players? One player may want to memorize it, but if all the others and the DM don't want him too, it's not good for the party.

Also, his point tried to prove that players want to instakill the BBEG because "if they didn't want the wizard to instakill him, they would beat up the wizard for ruining their game."

Except that players don't attack the players, ever, even if they ruin an encounter. Especially if they're just playing their class the way it is designed.

Of course, they can always start the conversation of "please play differently, your class is overpowered." But the fact that you need to artificially limit your play to achieve a workable balance is a weakness of the system.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-24, 02:25 PM
If the player didn't want to defeat the BBEG in one shot, he wouldn't have memorized Finger of Death or whatever spell it is, and then he wouldn't have used it. I think the man has a really good point.

To which there are two points.

Firstly, the original point was that the PLAYERS, plural, wanted to one-shot the BBEG, because if they didn't they would have "beaten up" (I assume metaphorically) the guy playing the Wizard to stop him ruining their fun. I reject this summary of the situation.

Secondly, it is entirely possible that the player memorized Finger of Death because he thought it was a cool spell. This is exactly what's wrong with 3.X Wizards, it's not that people can break the game with them if they put their mind to it, it's that people can break the game with them without even trying.

Take the "flying over encounters" example. I would *absolutely* take the ability to fly for my Wizard. Why? Because being able to fly is cool. Having taken it, however, I would then be stuck with the realization that I could ... well ... just fly over stuff. I might have taken a Phantom Steed because I thought it sounded really cool to fight from the back of a phantom steed, without realizing that, once again, it would allow me to just fly over stuff.

Having realized that however I cannot reasonably, in character, do anything but just fly over stuff.

The point is that access to those kinds of spells puts the players in the impossible situation of having to choose between the fun option and the expedient option. It's like that episode of Red Dwarf where they're trying to escape from Rimmerworld:

"We knock the guard out using a tripwire we weave from strands of this hessian, then we put Rimmer in the guard's uniform, sneak out the prison, steal some swords, and fight our way back to the ship."
"Or we could use the teleporter."
"Or at a pinch, we could use the teleporter."

I honestly think that it's a mistake to assume that all 3.X players feel totally empowered by the fact that Wizard spells give them the option to shortcut encounters. Frankly, if the players all loved it, there wouldn't be half as many complaints.

Crow
2008-06-24, 02:37 PM
Real I think this has to do with playstyle more than anything, or more accurately, DMing style. It's not bad to be able to circumvent encounters in itself. If your group only has one or two encounters per day though, this is going to be a bigger problem.

Subjective argument coming up:

In my games, when the players go to take on the BBEG, they aren't going to fight one or two encounters, but more like 5 to 7. They are storming the dungeon...it's a fast tempo...Even high-level wizards and clerics will need to conserve spells...resting gets interrupted...once they storm the BBEG's palace, they are the hunted ones as the defenders try to seek them out and stop them. The players almost never run into the big bad at full-strength. If the wizard saved a finger of death that long, more power to him. Maybe the BBEG has a defence against it...maybe he doesn't. But by then it doesn't matter. The players have earned their keep, so to speak.

Running my games this way may be a reason why fighters were never useless in my games. Fighters can do it all day long as long as they're still up.

Saph
2008-06-24, 03:20 PM
I had a long reply to the original point, but it got eaten by the board.

I think he *looks* like he has a point here, but it's an awfully big assumption to make. I know that when I play RPGs I *absolutely* do not want to insta-kill the BBEG. I absolutely do not want the BBEG to be insta-killed. I do not want to fly over encounters or teleport around them.

But, if you give me those options in character I will have to take them, because there will be no IC way to justify not taking them without my character being some kind of delusional jackass who believes that he's just a playing piece in a game for somebody else's amusement.

Most players, ultimately, don't want to just have victory handed to them on a plate, either by the DM or by another player.

Who says it's being handed to you on a plate? Trust me, actually using 3.5's spells efficiently and effectively is not easy. The people who say "Oh, all you have to do is play class X and you automatically win" have no clue what they're talking about.

Anyway. Just because an encounter looks anticlimactic to you, it doesn't mean that it sucks for everyone else. Are you actually polling people? Or are you just assuming that because you don't like it, they won't, either?

I've no problem with you saying that you wouldn't like to play this sort of game. But I think you're missing the fact that plenty of other people have different preferences. Hence the thread. 4e high-level play might feel epic to you - well, actually, probably not, since I'm guessing you haven't tried it - but it doesn't feel particularly epic to me, or them.


The only thing I want from the players is for them to try and do something *interesting*.

Interesting for you? Or interesting for me?

Being able to solve problems with flight or teleportation is my idea of 'interesting'.

- Saph

Chronos
2008-06-24, 03:39 PM
If the player didn't want to defeat the BBEG in one shot, he wouldn't have memorized Finger of Death or whatever spell it is, and then he wouldn't have used it. I think the man has a really good point.Players don't memorize spells. If I could memorize spells, do you think I'd waste my time playing silly games with dice? Characters memorize spells.

It's an important distinction, because the players and the characters they control have very different motivations. I, as a player, am motivated by playing a fun game. If it takes me pulling every single trick in the book to beat the villain, and I just barely survive doing it, that's good, from my point of view, because that makes the game more fun. But my character would have another view altogether. My character wants to defeat the villain as quickly as possible, as certainly as possible, and with as little risk as is possible. If my character has the option of using a win button, why wouldn't he take it? It's not because it'd be less fun for him: For him, the fun part is going home after the adventure and ogling the pretty wenches in the bar, or smoking a pipe of good leaf, or reading a book, since I don't have to worry about the evil arch-fiend trying to take over the world (which, interestingly, isn't all that fun to role-play). I, as a player, might not want to use Finger of Death or some other win-button, and I might even ask the DM to contrive some reason why such win-buttons wouldn't work. But if they do work, and my character knows it, roleplaying demands that I use them.

Jayabalard
2008-06-24, 03:44 PM
Players don't memorize spells. Players do too memorize spells. And monster stat blocks. And entire splatbooks.

Saph
2008-06-24, 03:53 PM
I, as a player, might not want to use Finger of Death or some other win-button, and I might even ask the DM to contrive some reason why such win-buttons wouldn't work.

Like, say, using the defences against Finger of Death? The ones that exist in the 3.5 core books?

I do see what you're saying here, but if the DM builds an antagonist with a glass jaw, he's really got no-one to blame but himself when the PCs wipe the floor with him.

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-24, 04:26 PM
Who says it's being handed to you on a plate? Trust me, actually using 3.5's spells efficiently and effectively is not easy. The people who say "Oh, all you have to do is play class X and you automatically win" have no clue what they're talking about.

The original premise of this line of discussion says it's being handed to you on a plate. The assumption that the players are "insta-killing" the BBEG says it's being handed to you on a plate.


Anyway. Just because an encounter looks anticlimactic to you, it doesn't mean that it sucks for everyone else. Are you actually polling people? Or are you just assuming that because you don't like it, they won't, either?

I'm not assuming anything. My sole position here is that the fact that the PCs do something in a game is in no way evidence that it's what the players actually wanted to do.

I don't like to use Forge terminology, but a term they use a lot is "Force" - which is basically the same as railroading, except that they realize that it isn't only the GM who can do it.

If (in theory, I don't want to get into another argument about the practicalities of Batman) the Wizard can present the players with a magical way to circumvent an IC problem, the PCs are pretty much forced to go with it because it is, IC, the best plan. This should not be taken as evidence that the players, out of character, like this option the best.


I've no problem with you saying that you wouldn't like to play this sort of game. But I think you're missing the fact that plenty of other people have different preferences. Hence the thread. 4e high-level play might feel epic to you - well, actually, probably not, since I'm guessing you haven't tried it - but it doesn't feel particularly epic to me, or them.

No, I get that, and that's fine. My only interest is in pointing out that not everybody defines "epic" in the same way (and no, I've not tried 4E Epic play yet, I'm currently running Dark Heresy, which doesn't feel terribly epic at the moment, but is heading that way).


Interesting for you? Or interesting for me?

Interesting for the group as a whole.


Being able to solve problems with flight or teleportation is my idea of 'interesting'.


Which is why you like 3.X and I don't. To be clear, however, I don't find that sort of thing interesting as GM or as a player. This isn't a "I can't railroad my PCs" thing, it's a "I don't like a system which effectively allows my PCs to railroad each other" thing.

Chronos
2008-06-24, 04:58 PM
Like, say, using the defences against Finger of Death? The ones that exist in the 3.5 core books?

I do see what you're saying here, but if the DM builds an antagonist with a glass jaw, he's really got no-one to blame but himself when the PCs wipe the floor with him.OK, then, make the win button Baleful Polymorph, instead of Finger of Death. There's no core defense against that one, it targets the same save, and it has just about the same effect.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-24, 05:02 PM
OK, then, make the win button Baleful Polymorph, instead of Finger of Death. There's no core defense against that one, it targets the same save, and it has just about the same effect.

I think this is one of those fundamental assumption clashes.

Ultimately the DM has unlimited resources so he *should* be able to provide his BBEGs with the means to counter any possible PC "win button". Heck, you can handwave in a Ring of Immunity To Polymporph if you feel like it.

The issue, for me, is not whether it is *possible* to beat "win button" effects but whether it is *desirable* to run a game in which it is *necessary* (and, in the case of this thread, whether "win buttons" are by their nature "epic").

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-24, 05:37 PM
I think this is one of those fundamental assumption clashes.

Ultimately the DM has unlimited resources so he *should* be able to provide his BBEGs with the means to counter any possible PC "win button". Heck, you can handwave in a Ring of Immunity To Polymporph if you feel like it.

The issue, for me, is not whether it is *possible* to beat "win button" effects but whether it is *desirable* to run a game in which it is *necessary* (and, in the case of this thread, whether "win buttons" are by their nature "epic").

Exactly. Moreover, I don't like denying my players access to their best spells and abilities; I want characters to use their best abilities and fight to their utmost power. That's epic to me, not wasting their best powers on manufactured immunities.

Saph
2008-06-24, 06:05 PM
Exactly. Moreover, I don't like denying my players access to their best spells and abilities; I want characters to use their best abilities and fight to their utmost power. That's epic to me, not wasting their best powers on manufactured immunities.

Okay, so . . . now you're saying that it is okay for the characters to use their strongest powers, like death spells. But you don't want the BBEG to go down to them?

I'm genuinely confused here. I mean, you must think it's okay for the BBEG to die somehow, since I don't think you're saying that the objective is a TPK. Is the problem that you only feel that the fight is interesting if it takes a long time and involves the BBEG having his hit points gradually worn down? Because I'm not sure how HP damage is more epic or exciting than any other form of killing an enemy. I mean, no matter whether the BBEG's been spelled or simply had a sword stuck through him, he's just as dead at the end of it.

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-24, 06:28 PM
Okay, so . . . now you're saying that it is okay for the characters to use their strongest powers, like death spells. But you don't want the BBEG to go down to them?

I'm genuinely confused here. I mean, you must think it's okay for the BBEG to die somehow, since I don't think you're saying that the objective is a TPK. Is the problem that you only feel that the fight is interesting if it takes a long time and involves the BBEG having his hit points gradually worn down? Because I'm not sure how HP damage is more epic or exciting than any other form of killing an enemy. I mean, no matter whether the BBEG's been spelled or simply had a sword stuck through him, he's just as dead at the end of it.

- Saph

I can't speak for ArmorArmadillo, but let me see if I can explain my personal take on this.

The way I like to run RPGs, I like to give NPCs stats that make sense for them, not that necessarily give them a good chance of beating the PCs. If my BBEG is a warrior, I won't assume that he's hired a mage to provide him with utility buffs, or that he's wearing a Helm of Mind Blank or a Ring of Spell Turning or anything else. He'll be a guy with a sword. Even if my BBEG is a mage, I'll design him for style more than for efficacy and I won't just blanket assume that he's got defenses against common tactics.

What this means is that if the players sit down and thrash out a game mechanically effective plan, it will be a cakewalk. I simply don't *want* to detail the defences of my villains, I want to devote that time and energy to other things. So if they try to scry-and-die the guy, there is a very, very good chance that it will work, and if the BBEG gets taken down in a single round of combat with a Finger of Death it is anticlimactic to many people.

I *could* work around this, I could design my villains better, but I don't want to, I'd rather play games which work better the way I like to run games.

To put it another way: I don't mind the PCs taking down the bad guy without a fight, but I don't want there to be a system mandated way to do it, because if there's a system mandated method, that's likely to trump all the other methods.

To address your specific point, that "the BBEG winds up dead either way" the thing is that for a lot of us process is what's important. If the PCs convince the villain to mend his ways because we have an intense, in character discussion in which they genuinely convince him that what he's doing is wrong, that's a perfectly satisfactory end to the campaign. If the PCs convince the villain to mend his ways because the Bard grossed out on Diplomacy and got a 60 on his "convince this guy to mend his ways" roll, that's just lame. The end result is the same, but in one case it comes about as the result of IC action, and in the other it comes about as the result of an OOC dice roll.

This is why I'm feeling positive about 4E. Pretty much the only system mandated way to beat anybody is HP damage, which I know how to deal with. Players can still try other plans, but I don't have to worry about getting ambushed by a rule I don't know.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-24, 07:39 PM
Chronos: I, as a player, might not want to use Finger of Death

Perhaps you, as a character, might not want to use Finger of Death. Perhaps you think it is part of the Dark Arts and therefore wrong on some level a fireball isn't? Perhaps you've never HEARD of it. Maybe you really, really want to use it but you've never managed to find a scroll for it and all your 2 spells per level are never it.

I mean, who says wizards PICK the two spells they learn each level? That'd actually be an interesting character concept "Okay, roll the 4d20 and we'll find out what you learn!"

Second, why do you insist on HP damage being the fun part? Perhaps the fun part is the chase scene, or the spending six sessions hunting him down? You wouldn't be the first (glares at the Eighth Doctor) to have a major villain disintegrated. Perhaps the players have fun easily killing a Hulk Smash villain, and then your next on is a Moriarty type whose defenses are cunning and wit.

Indon
2008-06-24, 08:51 PM
But my character would have another view altogether. My character wants to defeat the villain as quickly as possible, as certainly as possible, and with as little risk as is possible. If my character has the option of using a win button, why wouldn't he take it?

People don't work like this. At least, not always (I would go so far as to say not even usually).

There are forms of pseudoscience that have actually led to people's deaths (generally medical, from not seeking modern medicine) - thus I'd say it's safe to say that people can and have died stubbornly holding beliefs that something will work when it is evidently not working.

Secondly, there is pride and arrogance. If your character is proud of his ability to throw fireballs, and he sees another wizard throwing around his easy-mode win buttons, he's not likely to be all, "Wow, I should adopt that, it would make me so much better at adventuring!" He'll be all, "Wow, now I know what the Barbarian means when he says magic is for wusses. Hey, buddy, try wielding some real power, eh?" I shouldn't think I should have to demonstrate that people can and have died for the sake of pride.

But hey, if your character is perfectly humble, and has no other personality flaws that might keep him from adopting the best strategy every time (maybe he's studied in some form of goal-reaching technique), that makes perfect sense.

JaxGaret
2008-06-24, 09:01 PM
Players don't memorize spells. If I could memorize spells, do you think I'd waste my time playing silly games with dice? Characters memorize spells.

It's an important distinction, because the players and the characters they control have very different motivations. I, as a player, am motivated by playing a fun game. If it takes me pulling every single trick in the book to beat the villain, and I just barely survive doing it, that's good, from my point of view, because that makes the game more fun. But my character would have another view altogether. My character wants to defeat the villain as quickly as possible, as certainly as possible, and with as little risk as is possible. If my character has the option of using a win button, why wouldn't he take it? It's not because it'd be less fun for him: For him, the fun part is going home after the adventure and ogling the pretty wenches in the bar, or smoking a pipe of good leaf, or reading a book, since I don't have to worry about the evil arch-fiend trying to take over the world (which, interestingly, isn't all that fun to role-play). I, as a player, might not want to use Finger of Death or some other win-button, and I might even ask the DM to contrive some reason why such win-buttons wouldn't work. But if they do work, and my character knows it, roleplaying demands that I use them.

I've made this same exact point many times over on the 3e Wizards boards back when I was a regular poster there, before that forum's utter destruction.

You're basically playing metagames if you make your characters follow nonsensical motivations (or you're playing a masochistic or suicidal character), and I personally find that kind of roleplaying to be uninteresting in the extreme.

Crow
2008-06-24, 10:50 PM
I've made this same exact point many times over on the 3e Wizards boards back when I was a regular poster there, before that forum's utter destruction.

You're basically playing metagames if you make your characters follow nonsensical motivations (or you're playing a masochistic or suicidal character), and I personally find that kind of roleplaying to be uninteresting in the extreme.

But you are making the assumption that every character will always choose the "best" tactic. Somehow I don't think it's metagaming to say "My fighter likes using a longsword and shield because that's what he always watched his father train with.". Is it metagaming if you want to use something other than a (3.x) greatsword or (4e) maul?

JaxGaret
2008-06-24, 11:15 PM
But you are making the assumption that every character will always choose the "best" tactic. Somehow I don't think it's metagaming to say "My fighter likes using a longsword and shield because that's what he always watched his father train with.". Is it metagaming if you want to use something other than a (3.x) greatsword or (4e) maul?

We were talking about spell selection, not weapon selection. In 3e the weapon you select matters little mechanically (unless it's the Spiked Chain). In 4e it matters a little more, but only due to what kinds of powers you want to use with it. The weapons are still well balanced. 3e spells are not even close to being balanced, and noticeably so.

To stem any cries of "that's metagaming": it's noticeable to the characters. No weapon (other than the Spiked Chain) appreciably outshines others the way that some spells appreciably outshine others, and characters can take notice of that.

If your career path is "adventurer", killing things efficiently is going to either be a) something you do, or b) something that other things do to you.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-24, 11:19 PM
Okay, so . . . now you're saying that it is okay for the characters to use their strongest powers, like death spells. But you don't want the BBEG to go down to them?

I'm genuinely confused here. I mean, you must think it's okay for the BBEG to die somehow, since I don't think you're saying that the objective is a TPK. Is the problem that you only feel that the fight is interesting if it takes a long time and involves the BBEG having his hit points gradually worn down? Because I'm not sure how HP damage is more epic or exciting than any other form of killing an enemy. I mean, no matter whether the BBEG's been spelled or simply had a sword stuck through him, he's just as dead at the end of it.

- Saph

What I want is for their most powerful spells not to be instadeath.

And I don't care whether it's HP damage, ability damage, or just talking him down. I want a memorable conflict, and I feel that for that to be necessary there has to be a beginning, body, and conclusion just like any other story.

And as far as that goes, I think that the importance of length is because it gives a chance for you to get a feel for the battle, to get attached to it, and to feel like it's an accomplishment when you finally plant the final blow.

Crow
2008-06-24, 11:26 PM
We were talking about spell selection, not weapon selection. In 3e the weapon you select matters little mechanically (unless it's the Spiked Chain). In 4e it matters a little more, but only due to what kinds of powers you want to use with it. The weapons are still well balanced. 3e spells are not even close to being balanced, and noticeably so.

To stem any cries of "that's metagaming": it's noticeable to the characters. No weapon (other than the Spiked Chain) appreciably outshines others the way that some spells appreciably outshine others, and characters can take notice of that.

Which has a lot to do with the setting I suppose. It is just as easy to say "My wizard has heard of that.", as it is to say "My wizard hasn't heard of that." But if your setting has magic shoppes, then yeah, it will be harder to claim he's never heard of it than it would in a more low-magic setting. Metagaming is such a strange term, because on the one hand somebody can use it to mean intentionally nerfing oneself by not choosing certain spells, and then in another thread, to describe a person only taking the "good" spells.

A better example on my part may have been; If I choose one spell over another "better" spell because it fits better thematically for my character, am I metagaming?

If your character is a guy who always picks the most expedious approach, never makes tactical errors, and so on and so on, go ahead and pick up finger of death. If every character acts this way...Is it metagaming? I know people who refuse to upgrade to newer technolgy because they are more familiar with the old stuff...to use a real-life example. I know people who will take the long route to a destination because they like driving, or people who ride a bike rather than a car just because they have fun doing it. My dad walks to 7-11 every day in the morning (or did, back when i talked to him). A car would certainly be more expediant, but he'd rather walk.

JaxGaret
2008-06-24, 11:30 PM
Which has a lot to do with the setting I suppose. It is just as easy to say "My wizard has heard of that.", as it is to say "My wizard hasn't heard of that." But if your setting has magic shoppes, then yeah, it will be harder to claim he's never heard of it than it would in a more low-magic setting. Metagaming is such a strange term, because on the one hand somebody can use it to mean intentionally nerfing oneself by not choosing certain spells, and then in another thread, to describe a person only taking the "good" spells.

Clerics and Druids have no such restriction.


A better example on my part may have been; If I choose one spell over another "better" spell because it fits better thematically for my character, am I metagaming?

If that's the reason for it, then no.

If the reason is closer to that you don't want to overshadow the non-casters, so you're consciously taking sub-optimal spell choices, then yes, that's metagaming.

JaxGaret
2008-06-24, 11:33 PM
If your character is a guy who always picks the most expedious approach, never makes tactical errors, and so on and so on, go ahead and pick up finger of death. If every character acts this way...Is it metagaming? I know people who refuse to upgrade to newer technolgy because they are more familiar with the old stuff...to use a real-life example. I know people who will take the long route to a destination because they like driving, or people who ride a bike rather than a car just because they have fun doing it. My dad walks to 7-11 every day in the morning (or did, back when i talked to him). A car would certainly be more expediant, but he'd rather walk.

Allow me to requote myself from a couple posts ago, I edited it after you quoted it:


If your career path is "adventurer", killing things efficiently is going to either be a) something you do, or b) something that other things do to you.

I personally take that to mean that adventurers are more likely to be efficient at killing than not, or they wouldn't be adventurers - they would be food.

In other words, life and death matters are a bit different than driving route selection.

Crow
2008-06-24, 11:34 PM
Ok, so here is the million dollar question:

If you roleplay a specific theme to a character, for the purpose of not overshadowing the other characters, is it really metagaming? Perhaps on one level, but perhaps not on others.

To your fast response above:

Killing things "efficiently" is a metagame concept. A Character will do what works for them, or what they are most familiar with, or what they were originally trained to do. Sometimes this doesn't always work out, as D&D (and real life) has shown over and over again. There are plenty of perfectly good RP reasons to not do things in the most "efficient" way. From a metagame standpoint though, there is no good reason to not do something in the most "efficient" way.

JaxGaret
2008-06-24, 11:42 PM
Ok, so here is the million dollar question:

If you roleplay a specific theme to a character, for the purpose of not overshadowing the other characters, is it really metagaming? Perhaps on one level, but perhaps not on others.

If you are a preparatory caster, yes, because you can swap out your spells on a daily basis. Only spontaneous casters with fixed spell lists avoid that.

Of course, it also just so happens that the prep casters are the stronger ones...

Crow
2008-06-24, 11:46 PM
If you are a preparatory caster, yes, because you can swap out your spells on a daily basis. Only spontaneous casters with fixed spell lists avoid that.

Of course, it also just so happens that the prep casters are the stronger ones...

Duck! I threw another edit on my post above.

How is choosing spells on a daily basis any different than choosing when you level up? Other than the temporal difference of course. In the context of a wizard versus a sorcerer. I concede that Druids and Clerics are immune to this conversation though...I never really liked that they got every spell for "free".

edit: This is my last reply for the night, so take your time. i'll see it in the morning. :smallwink:

JaxGaret
2008-06-24, 11:58 PM
Duck! I threw another edit on my post above.

I'll come back to it later.


How is choosing spells on a daily basis any different than choosing when you level up? Other than the temporal difference of course. In the context of a wizard versus a sorcerer. I concede that Druids and Clerics are immune to this conversation though...I never really liked that they got every spell for "free".

Because if they really feel like they need a more powerful spell, for whatever reason, they can always just get it for that day. There's no hard limit on their power, only the soft limit of their preference for thematic spells. If the **** hits the fan, they have the option of adopting a new theme: I Am Like Unto A Tiny Refreshing God!


edit: This is my last reply for the night, so take your time. i'll see it in the morning. :smallwink:

Me too. Goodnight gitp forums! :smallsmile:

namo
2008-06-25, 02:07 AM
We have strayed far from the original topic but this is just as interesting so here's my take : I find myself agreeing with Crow again. Yes, the 3.5 wizard is deeply flawed, but it is not unsalvageable. Yes, accidental overshadowing of the other players is a possibility... which is why it is good to have reasonable and experienced people play the wizard. Reasonable because they won't abuse the power, experienced because they will know how to walk the fine line of balance.

It is more challenging, but I like it, and I know many others who do too. 4E is certainly easier on the DM since the unbalance is largely reduced (it hasn't quite disappeared) - but I find it too restrictive (I will still play it).

Now, with regards to metagaming my approach is different: I actually find myself having to metagame all the time. It starts at character creation : even in 3E I do the mechanics first and then the background, because if I start by defining the characters in terms of his past and current abilities there is always a mismatch somewhere.

I self-nerf my wizards, and I accept that this is metagaming. But I always have a coherent explanation for why I do it: this one will be overly 'pacifist' and will concentrate on non-damaging spells (i.e. battlefield control), that one will be young and inexperienced, that other one used to be aggressive but got bitten by Spell Turnings... (Shadow_archmagi, Indon and Crow provided other examples.) Just as importantly, they are human(-oid) and sometimes make mistakes (i.e. they don't use the most appropriate spell). They do learn from their mistakes.
Conversely, when the rest of the group is optimized my wizard is more powerful. I strongly believe that metagaming to put yourself on the same level as the people in your group is a good thing. That will remain true in 4E.

As a side note, even out-of-combat I metagame: my characters often have goals or principles that conflict with the group's goals or actions. So sometimes I tone my character's strong personality down so that he/she will protest, argue, but eventually go with the group (adventuring alone sucks :smallwink:). Again, metagaming for the sake of the group strikes me as positive.

As a DM, I do the same when I try to give every character a chance to shine...

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-25, 07:02 AM
But you are making the assumption that every character will always choose the "best" tactic. Somehow I don't think it's metagaming to say "My fighter likes using a longsword and shield because that's what he always watched his father train with.". Is it metagaming if you want to use something other than a (3.x) greatsword or (4e) maul?

Sorry to quote this when it's from earlier in the discussion, but I've got a semi-tangential point to make regarding the weapons analogy.

Obviously, somebody who decides to use a weapon other than the Greatsword or Maul isn't "metagaming" - it's a legitimate IC decision. However by the same token it would be foolish to assume that any player who chooses to use a weapon other than the Greatsword/Maul is explicitly asking to be less mechanically effective.

This whole tangent started with the suggestion that if a player takes Finger of Death then he has the out of character desire to take down the BBEG without a fight. This is not necessarily the case, any more than it is necessarily the case that a sword-and-board fighter has a strong OOC desire to suck compared to the two-hander.

If my character takes a particular spell, it will be because I think that it makes sense for my character to have that spell. If I take Finger of Death, it's probably because I'm playing some kind of necromancer. The problem is the once I know the spell, it makes no sense IC for me not to use it, and use it often. This is going to annoy me as a player, because I'll feel like I'm in an impossible bind, because one of three things can happen:

- I use FoD on the BBEG, he saves, I feel like I've wasted a spell.
- I use FoD on the BBEG, he does not save, I feel like I've ruined the game.
- I don't use FoD on the BBEG, I feel like I've compromised my character.

To put it another way, my problem with "save or suck" spells is that I always feel the outcome sucks either way: they either do nothing (which sucks) or you win trivially (which sucks), but if I'm playing a necromancer, a dabbler in the dark arts, there is no way I'm *not* going to take a spell called Finger of Death.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-25, 07:11 AM
A wizard picks his spells at levelup just like everyone else. At level 20, he'll know 40ish (I always forget how many they get at level 1) at have 36 casts available. The only difference is that he has to say "Now, would I rather have two unseen servants, a shocking grasp and a colour spray, or three unseen servants and a colour spray"

A wizard cannot just redesign his spell list; not unless you've been feeding him scrolls and spellbooks for a looong time. The theoretical omnispell wizard only works in an area which either had a lot of wizards who decided to scatter scrolls all over, has a lot of friendly, or has trusting wizards who loan out spellbooks.

As a scroll costs XP (magical prowess, part of your soul, whatever characters think XP is) and gold to make, I doubt many NPCs make them. I certainly don't often see the PCs making them (then again, I'm usually the caster.) I mean... consider it:

Every scroll you make weakens you, and if it gets lost it means somewhere, someone can now cast a spell you can at no cost to themselves.


*to the above* why are you playing a necromancer then? I mean, if it is your first character, then "holy crap I can 1-shot the BBEG!" is a pretty nice feeling, they'll laugh it off the first time, and you'll probably make new characters afterwords. (because now you know more about ingame mechanics) and the DM will take you aside and ask you to pick a theme that doesn't include 1-hit kills.

Saph
2008-06-25, 09:55 AM
And I don't care whether it's HP damage, ability damage, or just talking him down. I want a memorable conflict, and I feel that for that to be necessary there has to be a beginning, body, and conclusion just like any other story.

And as far as that goes, I think that the importance of length is because it gives a chance for you to get a feel for the battle, to get attached to it, and to feel like it's an accomplishment when you finally plant the final blow.

Is it really an accomplishment to grind a target's HP down?

I mean, if you put me in a 4e game where I have to grind, I'll grind. Specifically, I'll calculate what the average damage output of both sides is, and whether we'll win at the current rate or not. If you're using standard 4e RAW power levels, the answer is going to be yes. Now, the thing is, if you've set it up so that the PCs can grind the target, then the result of this is that killing the BBEG is easier than if save-or-X effects are flying around, not harder, because he's more predictable. In fact, as long as the BBEG stands and fights, this actually means that he's inevitably going to die, because since the randomness has been scaled back in 4e, he really has no chance of winning.

So, basically, as soon as the fight starts, the BBEG is dead. He just doesn't realise it yet. All we have to do is hang in there for a while. Is this really any more of an accomplishment than killing the BBEG with spells?

Also, a note: battle length and instakill spells have no necessary relation to each other. Several of the longest battles I've ever had in D&D games have been ones where deadly save-or-X effects were flying around, and some of the shortest ones have been where the melee PCs brutally stomped the opponent before he had a chance to pull any tricks.


This is going to annoy me as a player, because I'll feel like I'm in an impossible bind, because one of three things can happen:

- I use FoD on the BBEG, he saves, I feel like I've wasted a spell.
- I use FoD on the BBEG, he does not save, I feel like I've ruined the game.
- I don't use FoD on the BBEG, I feel like I've compromised my character.

First, you've gotten the rules wrong again. FoD does damage on a successful save, a fair bit of damage, in fact. (And honestly, a spellcaster complaining about 'wasting' a spell because the enemy saved is like a fighter complaining about 'wasting' an encounter power because he missed.)

Second, you're assuming that death effects are always the most effective things to prepare and that not doing so is 'compromising your character'. This is also wrong.

Finally, it really sounds to me like you're making an effort to come up with reasons to dislike it here. Have you ever played a 3.5 game where the boss fight involves a spell duel with save-or abilities? Because I have, and I've also played a 3.5 game where the boss fight was a giant HP slugfest. Since I've tried both, I've got a pretty good idea of how both play out. Both have the potential to be fun; neither is guaranteed to be more epic or exciting than the other.

- Saph

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-25, 10:34 AM
Well said, saph.

Of course, that may just be because I already agree...

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-25, 10:37 AM
First, you've gotten the rules wrong again. FoD does damage on a successful save, a fair bit of damage, in fact. (And honestly, a spellcaster complaining about 'wasting' a spell because the enemy saved is like a fighter complaining about 'wasting' an encounter power because he missed.)

Actually, it would be more like a fighter complaining about wasting a per-day power because he missed. There's a reason so many Fighter Dailies are reliable.


Second, you're assuming that death effects are always the most effective things to prepare and that not doing so is 'compromising your character'. This is also wrong.

No, I'm assuming that Death effects always make the most sense for a necromancer, and that in the range of circumstances in which they are effective, they are, to some people, boring.


Finally, it really sounds to me like you're making an effort to come up with reasons to dislike it here. Have you ever played a 3.5 game where the boss fight involves a spell duel with save-or abilities? Because I have, and I've also played a 3.5 game where the boss fight was a giant HP slugfest. Since I've tried both, I've got a pretty good idea of how both play out. Both have the potential to be fun; neither is guaranteed to be more epic or exciting than the other.


Great. No arguments from me.

My specific argument is simply this: A player's having chosen specific abilities for his character in no way implies that he actively desires the full metagame consequences of those abilities.

Crow
2008-06-25, 12:35 PM
Don't forget, the Fighters got most of the reliable powers. When my Ranger misses on his Dailies, it's exactly the same as missing with that Finger of Death....with usually less damage, or sometimes none at all.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-25, 01:15 PM
Is it really an accomplishment to grind a target's HP down?

I mean, if you put me in a 4e game where I have to grind, I'll grind. Specifically, I'll calculate what the average damage output of both sides is, and whether we'll win at the current rate or not. If you're using standard 4e RAW power levels, the answer is going to be yes. Now, the thing is, if you've set it up so that the PCs can grind the target, then the result of this is that killing the BBEG is easier than if save-or-X effects are flying around, not harder, because he's more predictable. In fact, as long as the BBEG stands and fights, this actually means that he's inevitably going to die, because since the randomness has been scaled back in 4e, he really has no chance of winning.

So, basically, as soon as the fight starts, the BBEG is dead. He just doesn't realise it yet. All we have to do is hang in there for a while. Is this really any more of an accomplishment than killing the BBEG with spells?
Except the players won't be using the same powers over and over again.
Moreover, the BBEG is supposed to inevitably die, the players are supposed to win. The accomplishment is that it took time and effort to drop him; just like it's an more of an accomplishment to earn a fortune working than winning the lottery.

And the randomness you're praising isn't a benefit. It's a crapshoot. All the memories I have of high level combat involve players dieing randomly and stupidly to instadeath effects. You might as well have been playing a slot machine.


Also, a note: battle length and instakill spells have no necessary relation to each other. Several of the longest battles I've ever had in D&D games have been ones where deadly save-or-X effects were flying around, and some of the shortest ones have been where the melee PCs brutally stomped the opponent before he had a chance to pull any tricks.

Which is the fault of shoddy hp dynamics in 3.x monster design. And the length has no necessary relation because of complete randomness, that's not good design.

I want to be able to count on how things will go, not feel like a 1 in 20 chance is probably going to end things.

Crow
2008-06-25, 01:24 PM
I don't know about you, but I don't feel much excitement from a battle where the outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. Knowing that there are effects flying around that can "insta-kill" you keeps you on the edge. Combat should be dangerous. How come nobody complained that a lucky shot by some punk could kill you in games like Shadowrun? Isn't that basically the same thing?

Also, especially at high levels and low levels, 4e characters do use the same powers over and over again. They're called At-will powers, they are all you have left after a few rounds (especially if you fight multiple combats per day. I suspect most people that had problems with 3.x nearly always fought the BBEG when they were at full strength), and some are better than others (Twin Strike in particular).

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-25, 01:29 PM
I don't know about you, but I don't feel much excitement from a battle where the outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. Knowing that there are effects flying around that can "insta-kill" you keeps you on the edge. Combat should be dangerous. How come nobody complained that a lucky shot by some punk could kill you in games like Shadowrun? Isn't that basically the same thing?

Also, especially at high levels and low levels, 4e characters do use the same powers over and over again. They're called At-will powers, they are all you have left after a few rounds (especially if you fight multiple combats per day. I suspect most people that had problems with 3.x nearly always fought the BBEG when they were at full strength), and some are better than others (Twin Strike in particular).
Okay, I don't know who the math geniuses are here, but who said that you know who's going to win from the beginning?

To calculate that, you'll need to know how much hp the opponent has, each of the party members hp, the average damage output of each opponent based on attack v AC, and how to calculate in variables based on who falls in combat and when.


How exactly are you running these in your head without fail?

Jerthanis
2008-06-25, 03:52 PM
I don't know about you, but I don't feel much excitement from a battle where the outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. Knowing that there are effects flying around that can "insta-kill" you keeps you on the edge. Combat should be dangerous. How come nobody complained that a lucky shot by some punk could kill you in games like Shadowrun? Isn't that basically the same thing?

Well, in theory, the gritty zero-sum game of Shadowrunners existing in a dystopian, Gibsonian future might convey a different feel with its mechanics than a heroic fantasy game. In practice Shadowrun's system is just 9 kinds of broken. You can build a Troll who can shrug off tank shells on one roll, and get laid low by a pistol shot the next round. It's not really lethal, it's entirely random.

4th edition combat is deadly and dangerous... it's just deadly and dangerous in a tactical way. One time, my fighter pushed ahead into a large room full of minions, out from a narrow hallway, and got surrounded and beaten to negatives. If I had drawn them into the hallway, I would have done much better. I liked that dichotomy of "Live with caution, die without it" much better than "I hope I roll a 13 or better, or I'm taken out of this combat completely!"

Crow
2008-06-25, 04:23 PM
Well, in theory, the gritty zero-sum game of Shadowrunners existing in a dystopian, Gibsonian future might convey a different feel with its mechanics than a heroic fantasy game. In practice Shadowrun's system is just 9 kinds of broken. You can build a Troll who can shrug off tank shells on one roll, and get laid low by a pistol shot the next round. It's not really lethal, it's entirely random.

4th edition combat is deadly and dangerous... it's just deadly and dangerous in a tactical way. One time, my fighter pushed ahead into a large room full of minions, out from a narrow hallway, and got surrounded and beaten to negatives. If I had drawn them into the hallway, I would have done much better. I liked that dichotomy of "Live with caution, die without it" much better than "I hope I roll a 13 or better, or I'm taken out of this combat completely!"

I'll have to disagree with your assessment of the Shadowrun combat system (also I am referring to 3rd edition rules, as I don't play 4th). Shadowrun rewards the generalist, and punishes the specialist. Shadowrun can be broken, but characters can usually break only one thing, with the expense of being completely hopeless when thrown out of their element. If "completely broken" to you means "Can do one thing really, really well, but suck at everything else.", then yes it is broken. The combat system is tactical, with an element of randomness thrown in. Definitly not completely random. Experienced players will generally survive longer than inexperienced players, but there is always the chance to die still, which keeps combat exciting, and makes it something to avoid if possible.

4th edition D&D is only dangerous if you do things like you described in your post. My D&D group are anything but tactical geniuses, but still loosely attempt to work together. We have generally been running a 4-player group against 5-player encounters the entire time, have been mixing in some adversaries of up to 2 levels higher than the party for tough fights, and aside from a few close calls, only one player has gone into negatives, and that was in a situation similar to the one you descibed. Deadly and Dangerous it is not, especially at high levels (But then that is just our opinion, YMMV, and apparently does.).

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-25, 04:35 PM
Except the players won't be using the same powers over and over again.
Moreover, the BBEG is supposed to inevitably die, the players are supposed to win. The accomplishment is that it took time and effort to drop him; just like it's an more of an accomplishment to earn a fortune working than winning the lottery.

And the randomness you're praising isn't a benefit. It's a crapshoot. All the memories I have of high level combat involve players dieing randomly and stupidly to instadeath effects. You might as well have been playing a slot machine.

To be fair, this is absolutely a matter of taste. To thee and me, save-or-dies make things feel like a crap shoot. To Saph (if I understand him correctly), the absence of save or dies makes combat feel like a dull postponement of the inevitable.

Neither position is right or wrong, and 3.X favours one while 4E favours the other.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-25, 04:43 PM
Deadly and Dangerous it is not, especially at high levels (But then that is just our opinion, YMMV, and apparently does.).

Shamus Young, on one of his posts about GTA, suggested that the problem with setting the difficulty in a computer game is that there are some players who will say "man, that game is way too hard, I died on nearly every level" while there are others who will say "man, that game was way too easy, I managed to beat some of the levels without dying".

Same with RPG combat systems. Some people will say "man, that game has a really deadly combat system: if you let yourself get mobbed by minions you die" while others say "man, that game has such a wussy combat system, you only die if you screw up and let yourself get mobbed".

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-25, 05:13 PM
To be fair, this is absolutely a matter of taste. To thee and me, save-or-dies make things feel like a crap shoot. To Saph (if I understand him correctly), the absence of save or dies makes combat feel like a dull postponement of the inevitable.

Neither position is right or wrong, and 3.X favours one while 4E favours the other.

Touché, Dan_Hemmens; and, by extension, touché Saph.

Saph
2008-06-25, 06:18 PM
Okay, I don't know who the math geniuses are here, but who said that you know who's going to win from the beginning?

To calculate that, you'll need to know how much hp the opponent has, each of the party members hp, the average damage output of each opponent based on attack v AC, and how to calculate in variables based on who falls in combat and when.

How exactly are you running these in your head without fail?

Statistical averaging, mostly. It's not that hard to make a rough estimate of how much damage your party is taking per round vs. how much is being healed, and compare that against the party's total HP bucket to get a general idea of whether the fight's going badly or well. Gives you something to do when it's not your turn.

But if you want a more definite answer as to "how do I know who's going to win from the beginning?", the explanation's simple:

Because you've already told me.

You've said that "the BBEG is supposed to inevitably die, the players are supposed to win". I mean, you've said you want the fight to be such that the players can't lose because of bad luck, right? To do that, you'll have had to include a large safety margin. You can't make the fight too close, because otherwise if the players get unlucky or make a mistake, they'll lose. So I don't need to do the math; I already know the answer.


To be fair, this is absolutely a matter of taste. To thee and me, save-or-dies make things feel like a crap shoot. To Saph (if I understand him correctly), the absence of save or dies makes combat feel like a dull postponement of the inevitable.

Almost. Save-or-dies are actually a neutral thing for me, I can take them or leave them. The only thing I insist upon in a combat (or a game) is that my choices have to matter. I don't want to play a game which is a near-crapshoot, and I don't want to play in a game which is scripted (though I'll take the former over the latter). I want the outcome of the session to depend upon the decisions me and the rest of my party make. Slugfests bore me, because once I've entered battle, the outcome is largely out of my hands.

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-25, 06:45 PM
Almost. Save-or-dies are actually a neutral thing for me, I can take them or leave them. The only thing I insist upon in a combat (or a game) is that my choices have to matter. I don't want to play a game which is a near-crapshoot, and I don't want to play in a game which is scripted (though I'll take the former over the latter). I want the outcome of the session to depend upon the decisions me and the rest of my party make. Slugfests bore me, because once I've entered battle, the outcome is largely out of my hands.


That's fair, it's a truism after all that a game is a series of interesting choices, and Combat is always a bit tricky like that.

Again, I think it gets back to the "I died on every level/I didn't die on some levels" problem. Nobody wants a game where there is zero risk of death (well, actually some people do, and I've played and enjoyed games like that, but I wouldn't want it in D&D) and nobody wants a game where death is certain or near certain, and there's this huge middle ground where different people feel comfortable.

Personally, I like to go into a fight in an RPG knowing that actually, I'll probably be alright (assuming it's the kind of game where combat is relatively common), so I like my risks as theoretical as possible.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-25, 06:50 PM
You've said that "the BBEG is supposed to inevitably die, the players are supposed to win". I mean, you've said you want the fight to be such that the players can't lose because of bad luck, right? To do that, you'll have had to include a large safety margin. You can't make the fight too close, because otherwise if the players get unlucky or make a mistake, they'll lose. So I don't need to do the math; I already know the answer.
Your point about choices mattering is well made; but I think this is a good reason to avoid luck as a serious factor.

However, by designing encounters and adventurers in a certain way, you can make the players choices the difference between facing a beatable force and an overwhelming one.

Also, it is possible for foes to react to certain tactical maneuvers in a way that negates that maneuver's effectiveness. However, if the only factor is luck, then you can't count on their being a challenge at all. I like counting on things, regardless of how effective they are.

Antacid
2008-06-25, 08:18 PM
How exactly are you running these in your head without fail?

Statistical averaging, mostly. It's not that hard to make a rough estimate of how much damage your party is taking per round vs. how much is being healed, and compare that against the party's total HP bucket to get a general idea of whether the fight's going badly or well. Gives you something to do when it's not your turn.
But you don't know how many HP the enemy has - you have no way of knowing the encounter level at all unless you've memorised the data from the MM. If one of the PCs is dropped or disabled, it completely changes the damage output ratio. Typically solos and elites have powers that can change the balance in one turn if he/she/it happens to do a lot of damage with them.

More to the point, this isn't what you were arguing. You were arguing that beating enemies over a long time isn't any more of an achievement than beating them in one round with a Finger of Death. Well, all I can say to that is, is your DM awake? Because it's his job to make combat challenging by any means necessary. If that means upping the EL, or learning better tactics, or giving the monster a territorial advantage, whatever works.

The problem with win-buttons is not that they make winning less of a statistical achievement, even if they usually do. It's that they reduce combat to an irrelevancy except for that part of it which relates to pressing the win-button. Grinding down monsters by HP damage will always have more potential for variation, because it requires more characters to act effectively over a longer period of time. Even if the outcome is the same the players had to jump over more hurdles to get to it.

turkishproverb
2008-06-25, 09:03 PM
But you don't know how many HP the enemy has - you have no way of knowing the encounter level at all unless you've memorised the data from the MM. If one of the PCs is dropped or disabled, it completely changes the damage output ratio. Typically solos and elites have powers that can change the balance in one turn if he/she/it happens to do a lot of damage with them.

Wrong. If you're party's taking relatively little damage compared to what it has and can repair, chances are your doing well reguardless. One turn change powers are a natural x factor, but something that are included in most calculations as a potential variable.

namo
2008-06-25, 11:38 PM
The problem with win-buttons is not that they make winning less of a statistical achievement, even if they usually do. It's that they reduce combat to an irrelevancy except for that part of it which relates to pressing the win-button.

Spell Turning (via ring) ? Contingencies (via henchman) ?
In a world where wizards have so-called "win buttons", a high-level enemy must know of them to have survived this long... So maybe they're not actually win buttons ?


Grinding down monsters by HP damage will always have more potential for variation, because it requires more characters to act effectively over a longer period of time. Even if the outcome is the same the players had to jump over more hurdles to get to it.

As in: more "I attack" (add roleplay spice to taste). Don't get me wrong: the environment, the circumstances (a chase, a bomb about to explode) and so on can make the grinding less noticeable.

I do know I may not stay at the table if in 4E I'm reduced to using at-will for a sizeable amount of rounds (with the above caveat - but sometimes the BBEG makes a last stand in a featureless throne room).

icefractal
2008-06-26, 05:04 AM
Why does it have to be either: "The BBEG gets insta-killed", or "Nobody can ever be insta-killed"? Why does it have to be "Everything can be bypassed" or "Nothing can be bypassed"?

The problem with 4E is not that it reigned some powers in - it's that it did so with massive overkill, applying a sledgehammer where a chisel would have sufficed. For instance - Flight. It's now 5 minutes/day, much higher level (even relatively speaking), and requires you to sustain it - one of those things would probably have been enough. Teleport jumped straight from "easy to do by mid-level" to "not until high-epic and extremely expensive" - where's the middle ground? Sure, you may not want to bypass the entire adventure, but by epic level don't you think you could at least bypass a moat, or a fence?


And save or die spells - the solution is so obvious, I don't know how they keep avoiding it. Just base it off level directly, as several things in 4E already are:
* X levels higher (or Solo of same level) - Doesn't work, just does some damage.
* X levels lower - They die immediately.
* In between - They die in a couple rounds, unless they make a saving throw (see Beholder).
Doesn't kill BBEGs, wipes out annoyance like it should, and poses a reasonable threat to the standard fare.

Antacid
2008-06-26, 05:06 AM
Spell Turning (via ring) ? Contingencies (via henchman) ?
In a world where wizards have so-called "win buttons", a high-level enemy must know of them to have survived this long... So maybe they're not actually win buttons ?

Those defences are about whether the party can "press the win button". If the DM is spending all his time thinking up defences for save-or-X, that absolutely reduces the relevance of every other aspect of combat to the outcome.


I do know I may not stay at the table if in 4E I'm reduced to using at-will for a sizeable amount of rounds (with the above caveat - but sometimes the BBEG makes a last stand in a featureless throne room).
Maybe DMs are so used to climactic battles being reduced to three-round rocket-tag that it will take a while for them to figure out how to make encounters for the new edition. :smallconfused:

icefractal
2008-06-26, 05:25 AM
To expand on an earlier point, a major way that being higher level becomes tangible is by seeing challenges go from impossible, to challenging, to trivial.

For instance (in 3E at least): At level 1, you can't fly - it's impossible (in core, at least). After a few levels, it's challenging (uses non-trivial resources), but you can do it. By high-level, it's trivial - you can fly around for the hell of it.

Another example: At low-levels, normal castle defenses will stop you. Locked doors, high walls, guards - you're going to have a hard time getting in. By mid-level, you can bypass that kind of stuff, and the canny villain has more sophisticated defenses and more potent guardians. By high-level, you jump directly to where you want to be, and the struggle is about the people you face, not the buildings they happen to be in.

That's progress you can taste. A concrete demonstration of how far you've come. And that's a big part of what was satisfying about 3E high-level play.



What isn't satisfying, for me at least, is when "high-level" means "exactly like low-level but things have fancier names".

Level 1: You wade through the goblin-infested swamp, and climb the cliff to the orc's camp, where you fight the orc warband and return the village's stolen cattle.

Level 30: You wade through the thundering-doom-goblin infested fell-swamp, and climb the fire-cliff of extreme death, to the titan-orc's camp, where you fight the titan-orc wararmy and return the kingdom's magic gold-plated cattle.

Does anyone really want that?

Kurald Galain
2008-06-26, 06:58 AM
Level 1: You wade through the goblin-infested swamp, and climb the cliff to the orc's camp, where you fight the orc warband and return the village's stolen cattle.

Level 30: You wade through the thundering-doom-goblin infested fell-swamp, and climb the fire-cliff of extreme death, to the titan-orc's camp, where you fight the titan-orc wararmy and return the kingdom's magic gold-plated cattle.

Does anyone really want that?

I love your phrasing :smallbiggrin:

And I believe the answer is that yes, at least to a certain extent, WOTC wants precisely that. That is what they meant by "extending the sweet spot" (i.e. making the entire game play like level 6-10 in 3E, or thereabouts), and that is why e.g. locks get a higher DC to pick if the person doing the picking is higher level.

Yes, you can handwave that all away, which I'm sure somebody will do within the next five posts or so, because it certainly won't bother fans of the game. That doesn't invalidate the point, though.

ashmanonar
2008-06-26, 07:17 AM
i felt the same way, but i don't like epic play anyways. However, i feel that 4E focused so much effort on making the player feel like the Big Damn Hero at level 1 that it makes epic play seem redundant. When you epic your entire career, the official epic level seems silly
from
EE

Fixed. You gotta learn how to spell. ;)

Saph
2008-06-26, 07:50 AM
But you don't know how many HP the enemy has - you have no way of knowing the encounter level at all unless you've memorised the data from the MM.

Actually, as soon as one of the monsters is bloodied - a fact of which the DM is required to inform me - I DO know how many HP they have. And that's assuming I can't guess the number before the battle even starts; monsters of the same type have a fairly consistent HP ratio.


If one of the PCs is dropped or disabled, it completely changes the damage output ratio. Typically solos and elites have powers that can change the balance in one turn if he/she/it happens to do a lot of damage with them.

It really isn't as hard as you're making it out to be.


More to the point, this isn't what you were arguing. You were arguing that beating enemies over a long time isn't any more of an achievement than beating them in one round with a Finger of Death. Well, all I can say to that is, is your DM awake? Because it's his job to make combat challenging by any means necessary. If that means upping the EL, or learning better tactics, or giving the monster a territorial advantage, whatever works.

The problem with win-buttons is not that they make winning less of a statistical achievement, even if they usually do. It's that they reduce combat to an irrelevancy except for that part of it which relates to pressing the win-button. Grinding down monsters by HP damage will always have more potential for variation.

No it doesn't. The PCs just have to do the same thing, over and over again. You can spice it up with roleplay and the DM throwing in extra things, but at its mechanical base it's neither varied nor challenging. What you're describing makes combat more of an irrelevancy, not less.

Fights where the PCs or the enemy have the potential (though not the certainty) to lose fast are more challenging, because you actually have to think. In a slugfest, thinking is strictly optional.

- Saph

Indon
2008-06-26, 07:51 AM
The problem with win-buttons is not that they make winning less of a statistical achievement, even if they usually do. It's that they reduce combat to an irrelevancy except for that part of it which relates to pressing the win-button. Grinding down monsters by HP damage will always have more potential for variation, because it requires more characters to act effectively over a longer period of time. Even if the outcome is the same the players had to jump over more hurdles to get to it.

Sir, your game needs more Perfect Defenses.

I recommend... Exalted! Again!

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-26, 09:49 AM
Level 1: You wade through the goblin-infested swamp, and climb the cliff to the orc's camp, where you fight the orc warband and return the village's stolen cattle.

Level 30: You wade through the thundering-doom-goblin infested fell-swamp, and climb the force-cliff of extreme death, to the titan-orc's camp, where you fight the titan-orc wararmy and return the kingdom's magic gold-plated hat.

Does anyone really want that?

You sir, have just summarized everything I felt about 4e.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 12:06 PM
Another example: At low-levels, normal castle defenses will stop you. Locked doors, high walls, guards - you're going to have a hard time getting in. By mid-level, you can bypass that kind of stuff, and the canny villain has more sophisticated defenses and more potent guardians. By high-level, you jump directly to where you want to be, and the struggle is about the people you face, not the buildings they happen to be in.


That's pretty much what I didn't like about it. I don't want the game to get to the point where actual castles stop being a problem.

I don't think it's necessary for the progression from "Fights Goblins" to "Fights Dragons" to go via "Fights Armies".

Indon
2008-06-26, 12:15 PM
That's pretty much what I didn't like about it. I don't want the game to get to the point where actual castles stop being a problem.

I don't think it's necessary for the progression from "Fights Goblins" to "Fights Dragons" to go via "Fights Armies".

You mean "Fights Armies of Dragons".

But, yeah. What's the point of increasing in power if old challenges aren't trivialized and new challenges don't arise? Even 4'th edition, for all its' efforts, still has vestiges of that obvious utility: All the traps and monsters listed in the sourcebooks have actual, listed levels, and while there's a way to modify monsters and traps to any level, there are many unwritten assumptions that can render that absurd (Take Kobolds. They win so rarely that they freak out when they knock someone over. Would it make sense to make an Epic tier kobold? Not with that table, it doesn't).

Not that the scaling capability isn't bad in and of itself - after all, some monsters (like other adventurers) should scale (for recurring villain potential). But making the scaling work so smoothly has come at a cost.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 12:18 PM
You mean "Fights Armies of Dragons".

But, yeah. What's the point of increasing in power if old challenges aren't trivialized and new challenges don't arise?

Oh absolutely, but on the flip side, I do feel that some challenges should remain challenges.

A friend of mine once complained that Lord of the Rings was inconsistent, because there was no reason that Gandalf couldn't just kill all the Orcs outside Helm's Deep. After all, he'd killed the Balrog, and the Balrog should totally be able to kill those Orcs.

Indon
2008-06-26, 12:26 PM
Oh absolutely, but on the flip side, I do feel that some challenges should remain challenges.

A friend of mine once complained that Lord of the Rings was inconsistent, because there was no reason that Gandalf couldn't just kill all the Orcs outside Helm's Deep. After all, he'd killed the Balrog, and the Balrog should totally be able to kill those Orcs.

Well, you know, Gandalf let other people overcome challenges instead of him, because he was metagaming. :P

But when it comes to something remaining a challenge, well, we come back to power level. If your character can never get strong enough to part the red sea, he's always going to have a challenge in getting his people out of Egypt. If he never gets any abilties which would let him break through a door, doors will always present an obstacle.

Level should be an abstraction of power level - and supposedly, at level 21-30 in D&D, these people can concievably fight and kill divine entities.

But they can't conquer Helm's Deep.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-26, 12:30 PM
Well, you know, Gandalf let other people overcome challenges instead of him, because he was metagaming. :P

But when it comes to something remaining a challenge, well, we come back to power level. If your character can never get strong enough to part the red sea, he's always going to have a challenge in getting his people out of Egypt. If he never gets any abilties which would let him break through a door, doors will always present an obstacle.

Level should be an abstraction of power level - and supposedly, at level 21-30 in D&D, these people can concievably fight and kill divine entities.

But they can't conquer Helm's Deep.

Are you presenting that as positive, negative, or neutral, because that's pretty much what I was counting as the major advantage of the system.

Indon
2008-06-26, 12:32 PM
Are you presenting that as positive, negative, or neutral, because that's pretty much what I was counting as the major advantage of the system.

In general terms, neutral.

In specifically "epic" gaming terms? Negative.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-26, 01:58 PM
Is it too late to make the comparison between 4e and Oblivion? With the whole leveling-scaling mechanic? Or, for the cliche value: World of Warcraft.

Monsters with preset algorithms for scaling them up based on adjective ("You see a darkwyrm." "Is it lesser, greater, fiendish, fell, frenzied, or flaming?" "Nope. Just memeish.").

Teleport magic is expensive. Players cannot actually change the landscape. Ever.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 02:02 PM
Is it too late to make the comparison between 4e and Oblivion? With the whole leveling-scaling mechanic? Or, for the cliche value: World of Warcraft.

Monsters with preset algorithms for scaling them up based on adjective ("You see a darkwyrm." "Is it lesser, greater, fiendish, fell, frenzied, or flaming?" "Nope. Just memeish.").

Teleport magic is expensive. Players cannot actually change the landscape. Ever.

Man, and I was about to post "In before Oblivion comparison" :smalltongue:

Seriously though, this is still going on? Has anyone been able to explain why they played 3e instead of Exalted if they are unhappy with high level 4e play?

Antacid
2008-06-26, 02:27 PM
Another example: At low-levels, normal castle defenses will stop you. Locked doors, high walls, guards - you're going to have a hard time getting in. By mid-level, you can bypass that kind of stuff, and the canny villain has more sophisticated defenses and more potent guardians. By high-level, you jump directly to where you want to be, and the struggle is about the people you face, not the buildings they happen to be in.

That's progress you can taste. A concrete demonstration of how far you've come. And that's a big part of what was satisfying about 3E high-level play.
Uh, you do know that spells like Fly, Invisibility et al are all still available in 4e, right? Dimension Door is only 6th level, and there's nothing stopping your wizard from using it to bypass a castle's portcullis or whatever. Oh, and there's a line of teleportation Rituals, culminating in True Portal (28th leve), which lets the party teleport anywhere in the multiverse even if they've never been there before. I'm jus' sayin'...


The PCs just have to do the same thing, over and over again. You can spice it up with roleplay and the DM throwing in extra things, but at its mechanical base it's neither varied nor challenging. What you're describing makes combat more of an irrelevancy, not less.

Ignoring the disadvantageous aspect of wilfully metagaming in a game that depends on suspension of disbelief, your point only holds until the PCs start to lose. Unless there's a chance that that might happen, obviously combat isn't going to be very tense. The only difference is that previously you got your kicks from small numbers of save-or-die rolls, while now they're supposed to come from the overall direction of a combat encounter.

There's no reason why the 4e system can't produce the same effect over more rounds if the DM understands how to balance the encounters. I recall from earlier threads that your party does things like focus all attacks on single monsters until they're dead to reduce incoming damage, then move onto the next. Well, that's inevitably going to mess with the encounter balancing, because the entire 4e EL system is based around 1v1 player/monster matchups.

If I was DMing you, I'd a) up the level of combat encounters to counter some of the metagaming, b) reduce the overall number of combat encounters and give you more roleplaying, to reflect the fact that you're used to spending less time per session fighting things, and c) avoid over-use of grunt-level monsters with predictable abilities, and use more solos and elites mixed in with other monsters. That might be more fun for you personally...


Fights where the PCs or the enemy have the potential (though not the certainty) to lose fast are more challenging, because you actually have to think. In a slugfest, thinking is strictly optional.

The DM should be constantly trying to present you with meaningful choices as in any other area of the game. If you're not having to think, then he is remiss for failing to put you in positions where you have to think. Srsly.:smalltongue:

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-26, 02:55 PM
Man, and I was about to post "In before Oblivion comparison" :smalltongue:

Seriously though, this is still going on? Has anyone been able to explain why they played 3e instead of Exalted if they are unhappy with high level 4e play?

I'm going to go with the traditional arguments of both advancement (sure, exalted can handle Epic well, but does it do the gritty path there?) and availability; neither me nor any of my gaming group have ever seen an exalted book.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-26, 03:08 PM
I'm going to go with the traditional arguments of both advancement (sure, exalted can handle Epic well, but does it do the gritty path there?) and availability; neither me nor any of my gaming group have ever seen an exalted book.

Ah, well done. Availability is always a good argument, but I'm glad to say you can order such things online (http://www.amazon.com/Exalted-Second-Alan-Alexander/dp/1588466841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214510622&sr=8-1).

As for the "gritty path" side of things - I think the "sweet spot" argument comes into play. The game pretty much stalls at certain points while you're transitioning between "gritty" and "epic," which means those interior levels are inferior to either end of the spectrum. Heck, everyone basically agrees that Epic 3e is wildly unbalanced (that's why people like it, after all) so you lose the gritty aspect of gameplay entirely. A neat compromise is to play low level 3e when you want a gritty game and then switch to Exalted when you want an Epic one.

I mean, you don't have to do that, but at $20 for a 2nd Ed. Exalted book, I don't see why you wouldn't. :smallwink:

Kletian999
2008-06-26, 03:48 PM
RE: Challenges never getting easier. The required roll to break down a wall/door is static based on material. Yes an epic character will be stalled by the godforged door made out of pure existance, but will have no problem punching through feet worth of solid rock (walls of Helm's Deep). The DM decides whether the challenges scale with you- they recommend scaling threat to not make things boring. Ever played a game with "GodMode"? It's nice till you've finished touring the place.

RE: Focus elimination tactics making encounters too easy. Any X vs X strategy games hinge on that tactic. You can expect the enemies to do it to you as well as try to move your focus towards safety if they have defenders/healers. Read up on the Bodyguard template in the DM guide or the Mindflayer's Thrall intercept ability. No special level bumping required.

RE: Save or Win versus whittling HP: The monster isn't a doomed as you think just because it's metrics are within killable range. Playing over multiple rounds expects you to strategically recover the damage the monsters give out (reducing it as much as you can through kiting, spreading out of Area effects, watching out for trapped terrain, etc) as well as react to late battle powers/strategy shifts that occur toward the end of the fight. Someone had a "Boss Compendium" PDF in their signature which outlines all sorts of ideas for dynamic encounters with high emphases on evolving strategy throughout the fight. I recommend you check it out.

Indon
2008-06-26, 10:16 PM
Seriously though, this is still going on? Has anyone been able to explain why they played 3e instead of Exalted if they are unhappy with high level 4e play?

For me, it pretty much equates to third-party support.

Which means I'm basically still going to play 3e as an alternate to Exalted (Way to go with your Closed Gaming Licence, Wizards).


I'm going to go with the traditional arguments of both advancement (sure, exalted can handle Epic well, but does it do the gritty path there?) and availability; neither me nor any of my gaming group have ever seen an exalted book.

Exalted can do gritty - but you need more than the core book.

Specifically, you need the Player's Guide (for 1'st edition), which specifies heroic mortal characters.

(The core book has bare-bones rules for heroic mortals, but it'd be like playing low-level AD&D characters - not many mechanical options at all)

I dunno what you'd need for 2'nd edition Exalted gritty.

icefractal
2008-06-27, 12:55 AM
Ok, I get it! Exalted is a game that does epic stuff well. Fine. I'm not saying that isn't an option, but with 3E it wasn't a necessity, because you got the gritty, the heroic, and the demigod stuff all in one package.

To say that if other games can support "epic-style" gameplay then D&D shouldn't is like saying that since bakeries exist, supermarkets shouldn't sell bread. I mean, there are other games that do heroic-level stuff, but you don't see me saying we should ditch that from D&D.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 01:33 AM
Ok, I get it! Exalted is a game that does epic stuff well. Fine. I'm not saying that isn't an option, but with 3E it wasn't a necessity, because you got the gritty, the heroic, and the demigod stuff all in one package.

To say that if other games can support "epic-style" gameplay then D&D shouldn't is like saying that since bakeries exist, supermarkets shouldn't sell bread. I mean, there are other games that do heroic-level stuff, but you don't see me saying we should ditch that from D&D.

Except for the middle part, where D&D did not do well. Between Gritty and Epic you ended up with a lot of the spells that bypassed challenges very easily (meaning you had to overdesign challenges, resulting in "random missions" where a single failed save was all it meant for victory or defeat), and the spots where some PrC progressions hit their sweet spot (by which I mean, overpower) while others get left in the dust.

No, the main reason why, if you like the overpowered Epic of 3e, you should play Exalted is because it models Epic conflicts better. You're not stuck playing a game of rock-paper-scissors with Save-or-Die spells and other win buttons; instead you're flexing your divine powers to actually fight cosmic horrors, or even to build/destroy nations - things that are no more than bookkeeping in 3e. Plus, you still get to literally shape reality with a free-form system that limits you even less than 3e.

As for heroic-level stuff, I don't think anyone out there does Swords-and-Sorcery quite like D&D... and I'm not sure anyone is really trying. But it's a very mechanics-heavy system, and like many people have pointed out, the more rules you have, the less Epic you can be. So, if we're talking about maximizing our Epicness here, why not use a system which is strictly better at delivering what you want?

I mean, nobody on this thread has argued that 4e delivers poorly on the heroic side of the scale, have they?

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 01:43 AM
RE: Challenges never getting easier. The required roll to break down a wall/door is static based on material. Yes an epic character will be stalled by the godforged door made out of pure existance, but will have no problem punching through feet worth of solid rock (walls of Helm's Deep). The DM decides whether the challenges scale with you- they recommend scaling threat to not make things boring. Ever played a game with "GodMode"? It's nice till you've finished touring the place.

RE: Focus elimination tactics making encounters too easy. Any X vs X strategy games hinge on that tactic. You can expect the enemies to do it to you as well as try to move your focus towards safety if they have defenders/healers. Read up on the Bodyguard template in the DM guide or the Mindflayer's Thrall intercept ability. No special level bumping required.

RE: Save or Win versus whittling HP: The monster isn't a doomed as you think just because it's metrics are within killable range. Playing over multiple rounds expects you to strategically recover the damage the monsters give out (reducing it as much as you can through kiting, spreading out of Area effects, watching out for trapped terrain, etc) as well as react to late battle powers/strategy shifts that occur toward the end of the fight. Someone had a "Boss Compendium" PDF in their signature which outlines all sorts of ideas for dynamic encounters with high emphases on evolving strategy throughout the fight. I recommend you check it out.

Man, you need to post more around here. You are spot on right here in this post.

Let me just add that a lot of the problems posted on the past page (4e enemies requiring too much grinding, combats not being randomly deadly enough) can be fixed pretty easily by reducing monsters' HP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83475).

Frost
2008-06-27, 01:46 AM
I would argue that 4E deliver's poorly on heroicness, because to me heroicness means something besides wailing away on Kobolds for hours, it means dieing in one hit and killing in one too. It means gritty, not grinding.

2) Nope, D&D 3.5 does the transition really well, and it's the only game that I've seen that actually has the transition at all, the only game where the game fundamentally changes as you level, giving you a real sense that this is real in a way 4e or exhalted never can.

3) I don't think Exhlated is strictly better at portraying Epic, since Epic in Exhalted and 3.5 mean very different things, I also don't see why when presented with the choices:

a) One system, everything you need, does it all well, shows real character advancement.
b) 3 different systems that all together present themselves about as well as the single system, maybe a little better, but no way to show progress between systems

You have to argue that choice a) is so inferior.

EDIT: Hey, Jax Garet, we all know you have a houserule that boils down to: "Der, der, reduce HP!" Stop harping on it like you get commissions, once per thread is enough.

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 01:56 AM
EDIT: Hey, Jax Garet

Hey Frost! My handle is JaxGaret, no space.


, we all know you have a houserule

Do "we" all know that? Do you know the collective thoughts of everyone visiting the gitp forums?


that boils down to: "Der, der, reduce HP!"

It boils down to "many people feel like monsters' HP are too high in 4e, maybe those of us that actually like the system want to do something about it instead of sitting around with our thumbs stuck up our butts?".


Stop harping on it like you get commissions, once per thread is enough.

I wish i got commissions. No, all I get is the glimmer of hope that someone, somewhere, will use my houserule, and improve their game thereby.

*Cross my heart and hope to die*

Frost
2008-06-27, 02:15 AM
It boils down to "many people feel like monsters' HP are too high in 4e, maybe those of us that actually like the system want to do something about it instead of sitting around with our thumbs stuck up our butts?".

And it boils down to the fact that 5 year olds are capable of coming up with that idea on their own, so no one needs you to tell them that reducing HP fixes the problem of too much HP.

JaxGaret
2008-06-27, 02:23 AM
And it boils down to the fact that 5 year olds are capable of coming up with that idea on their own, so no one needs you to tell them that reducing HP fixes the problem of too much HP.

5 year olds aren't (or generally aren't) capable of applying the logic that Yakk and I did to the problem, and come up with a viable, workable solution.

Crow
2008-06-27, 02:43 AM
Frost, if you check out the thread, they seem to have worked out a decent formula. I haven't gotten a chance to try it in a game though, so we'll see.

Indon
2008-06-27, 10:52 AM
You're not stuck playing a game of rock-paper-scissors with Save-or-Die spells and other win buttons;
Exalted combat is packed with win buttons. It's just that a whole lot of people get them (though, mostly Exalts).


instead you're flexing your divine powers to actually fight cosmic horrors, or even to build/destroy nations - things that are no more than bookkeeping in 3e.
This is largely setting. You can do that in 3e too (and you can technically destroy really unimpressive cosmic horrors in 4'th edition - though you can still build/destroy nations fairly well)


But it's a very mechanics-heavy system, and like many people have pointed out, the more rules you have, the less Epic you can be.
I would say that Exalted is just as rules-heavy as any D&D game (even 3.x) - it's just that the focus of the rules is different.


I mean, nobody on this thread has argued that 4e delivers poorly on the heroic side of the scale, have they?

Well, of course not - that's not what this thread is about. :P

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 10:58 AM
I would say that Exalted is just as rules-heavy as any D&D game (even 3.x) - it's just that the focus of the rules is different.

This is key.

Exalted is designed, explicitly, to model Epic characters. It may have as many rules as 3e, but unlike 3e the Epicness of the powers are built into the rules - I think it's a fair argument that the level 15+ "Epic" you see in D&D was largely accidental due to unbalanced powers. I would argue that, by building a system of simple Win buttons and Counters (Perfect Defense!) Exalted doesn't try to "trick" the DM into forgetting to protect his baddies well enough; it's a standard part of their arsenal.

To paraphrase Klaus Wulfenbach: "Use the right monster ruleset for the right job game."