things you dislike about 4E v.2

[turkishproverb]

When was the last time you saw someone (inexperienced enough to need to follow the PHB suggestions) play a conflicting alignment without screwing up the party dynamics?

2nd to last campaign in my last group. Though I admit, it can be a fluke

[Oracle_Hunter]

So, what your saying is, every fighter you make is going to have either Rain of Blows or Armor Piercing Thrust... See, that doesn't really feel like a lot of diversity to me.

No, no, every Spear Fighter. See, many Fighter powers vary in effectiveness with the weapon you choose. That's why my example fighter builds spoke about weapons so much - it's really important to the fighters in 4e.

You should read the 4e PHB sometime. It really is quite good.


Let's leave 3.5 out for a bit and just focus on 4e. All your neat math there (I can't check it, unfortunately, I'm just relearning algebra:smallredface:), your 288 possible combinations, or whatever it is... They seem pretty stale from another perspective, because every single one of them is going to have Power A or Power B. Sometimes you have a C or D in there, sure, but that isn't the same thing as other games (not just 3.5) where you have at least a dozen possible options available all the time.

Also there's my favorite part of 4e, the "selective power amnesia" to consider. You have to lose some abilities to learn new ones. I have no idea what that does to the math (probably something horrible), but I'm pretty sure that nips your 3145728 possible 10th level builds down quite a bit.

A dozen possible actions which don't actually matter to the game at hand. That was one of people's main complaints with 3e - you have so many potentially useful options you just never use. 4e made its powers broader so that they are generally useful, instead of highly specialized.

A clear example is the 3e Trip Fighter. You just couldn't trip people two size categories larger than you - you spent all those feats to be the best trip fighter ever, and suddenly you're useless because you're fighting Mature Dragons. Same with Rogues with backstabs, Rangers with Favored Enemies, and... well every Fighter build ever aside from the Shock Trooper.

In 4e, all of your powers work nearly all the time. You don't need a thousand varieties of backstabbing (or, a half-dozen feats and special magic items) to do something in every combat - you just need one type of backstabbing. This cuts down on bookkeeping (which some people enjoy) but doesn't actually reduce your flexibility that much.

On Amnesia: At 30th level, you have 2 at-wills, 4 encounters, 4 dailies, and 7 utilities. You can choose 4 of 32 Encounters, 4 of 32 Dailies, and 7 of 28 Utilities. That seems to be about 6 x 10^9 possible combinations (or more?) but by this point I'm sure the math is no longer impressive.

If you think all characters are "the same" in 4e then I don't expect to change your opinion... but have you actually looked at 4e? The fact that you didn't know how important weapon choice was to fighters leads me to believe you may not have actually read it over. If not, then I highly recommend sitting in a bookstore for an hour and reading over the PHB - you may be pleasantly surprised.

[Thrud]

"If you choose an alignment for your character, you should choose Good or Lawful Good. [I don't know why they left out Unaligned, it's perfectly functional] Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all characters are Evil or Chaotic Evil, playing an E or CE character disrupts the adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you." (PHB 19)

When was the last time you saw someone (inexperienced enough to need to follow the PHB suggestions) play a conflicting alignment without screwing up the party dynamics? I agree with this paragraph being here, I just think that players should realize it's a guideline, free to be broken. Just make sure you decide to break it as a group.

I had a player who played LE in our mostly neutral good party incredibly well. The whole party thought he was LN most of the game. But throughout it all he was using the party's travels to make connections for his assassins guild, bribe people, blackmail people, do a little careful assassination on the way, etc. And he would never dream of messing with the rest of the party because they made an agreement to work together to deal with the massive overarching threat that was encompassing the world. And if there is one thing a LE does well it is keeping his word. Until the EXACT moment he isn't required to any more.

One of the best games I ever had, actually. It is part of the reason I find 4ed so patronizing, when they decided to dumb many elements down in the interests of 'party balance and unity'

However, having character classes that are specifically designed around making other party members move and attack for you makes having evil characters much more difficult to work in 4ed. Which is another reason I hate warlords.

[Zocelot]

If you think all characters are "the same" in 4e then I don't expect to change your opinion... but have you actually looked at 4e? The fact that you didn't know how important weapon choice was to fighters leads me to believe you may not have actually read it over. If not, then I highly recommend sitting in a bookstore for an hour and reading over the PHB - you may be pleasantly surprised.

Weapon choice only gives you an encounter power at levels 3, 13, and 23 and a feat at Paragon tier(one at Heroic as well if you use a heavy blade). Additionally, there is only usually one power that your weapon gives a bonus to. That bonus however, makes the power much better then any others, so it is almost always a no-brainer to choose that one power.

[The New Bruceski]

However, having character classes that are specifically designed around making other party members move and attack for you makes having evil characters much more difficult to work in 4ed. Which is another reason I hate warlords.
Well, the teammate gets to choose to do so. Having an evil character refuse, or try to put an ally in a position that's good for the warlord but screws the other player over, doesn't seem to me to be any more detrimental than not playing as a team in previous editions:

"Hey, move over there so I can flank him."
"No."

It just wasn't bound up into a single action in 3.x.

[Thrud]

Except that being evil doesn't mean being dumb. Any ability that allows you to move allies around on the board can be twisted by someone who is evil. You don't have to do it in such a way as to be obviously trying to kill an ally. Just moving him into advantageous situations where he will take a little more damage but still win the fight can have a massive effect at the end of the day. What if you do this regularly so that PC 1 is out of healing surges, and Warlord still has several of his. Then, before resting that night you kill him, because you have many more HPs, and or saved some sort of power that can mess with him.

That sort of thing simply cannot be supported in the rules any more. I don't particularly care for this form of gameplay, but every now and then it is O.K. In 4ed though the whole thing tends to fall apart.

[nagora]

"If you choose an alignment for your character, you should choose Good or Lawful Good. Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all characters are Evil or Chaotic Evil, playing an E or CE character disrupts the adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you." (PHB 19)

Speaking as a chaotic neutral: they can blow that out of their celestial trumpet.

[The New Bruceski]

Except that being evil doesn't mean being dumb. Any ability that allows you to move allies around on the board can be twisted by someone who is evil. You don't have to do it in such a way as to be obviously trying to kill an ally. Just moving him into advantageous situations where he will take a little more damage but still win the fight can have a massive effect at the end of the day. What if you do this regularly so that PC 1 is out of healing surges, and Warlord still has several of his. Then, before resting that night you kill him, because you have many more HPs, and or saved some sort of power that can mess with him.

That sort of thing simply cannot be supported in the rules any more. I don't particularly care for this form of gameplay, but every now and then it is O.K. In 4ed though the whole thing tends to fall apart.

But movement is optional. How is this different from giving strategies to the party that weaken one player over the course of a day?

I understand what you're saying about an evil character's tactics, I just don't understand how it's limited to the 4e Warlord.

[The New Bruceski]

Speaking as a chaotic neutral: they can blow that out of their celestial trumpet.

Yeah, I don't understand why they didn't even mention Unaligned in that paragraph either.

[Thrud]

But movement is optional. How is this different from giving strategies to the party that weaken one player over the course of a day?

I understand what you're saying about an evil character's tactics, I just don't understand how it's limited to the 4e Warlord.

Because the entire point of the character class is based upon getting other people to do your fighting for you. If you just continually say 'no' to that character then it is as if the player is not actually there. Which means that your party is down a character. I mean, honestly, if the Warlord is there but you keep ignoring it, then what is the point of him even being in the party?

In 3ed saying 'no' when someone asks you to provide a flank does not actually completely remove the characters usefulness from the game. They can still fight. They are just not giving you a minor situational modifier. Big difference.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Because the entire point of the character class is based upon getting other people to do your fighting for you. If you just continually say 'no' to that character then it is as if the player is not actually there. Which means that your party is down a character. I mean, honestly, if the Warlord is there but you keep ignoring it, then what is the point of him even being in the party?

That's a bit of an overstatement. While Warlords have many useful shifting powers, they still do damage with their weapons in the process. It's not like they're just sitting in the back of the party shouting "hey, you guys fight!" they actually have to be up in the melee, swinging away, to do anything with their powers.

[The New Bruceski]

Because the entire point of the character class is based upon getting other people to do your fighting for you. If you just continually say 'no' to that character then it is as if the player is not actually there. Which means that your party is down a character. I mean, honestly, if the Warlord is there but you keep ignoring it, then what is the point of him even being in the party?

In 3ed saying 'no' when someone asks you to provide a flank does not actually completely remove the characters usefulness from the game. They can still fight. They are just not giving you a minor situational modifier. Big difference.

Somebody's trying to get you killed, and you're worried about hurting their feelings?

[Crow]

Still, there's enough to keep you busy for a while. Surely enought to keep me going untill PHB2 gets out, so it's ok.

This seems to catch what I was saying earlier about how the 4e basic books don't "stand on their own" like the core 3.5 books. I hear a lot of times how "they'll be releasing this in another book", or "I can't wait for this to come out".

The more I look at it, the more it seems to me that 4e was designed in such a way as to sell more books, because the system does not stand on it's own as well as 3.5 did. The game was released pretty recently and people are already falling over themselves to get supplements. I never needed to leave core 3.5 as a DM or a player (unless one of my players went out and bought a book, which was rare), but I honestly can't see playing 4e for any extended period of time, and NOT needing to do so.

I know the power descriptions take up a large part of each class section and fill a lot of space inthe book (meaning they can only cram so many in there), but seriously, there are about a hundred ways that you could make power descriptions take up less space per page. I don't think it's a matter of "We crammed in so many options that we couldn't fit them all in this book!". I think it's about selling supplements.

[EvilElitest]

You keep on repeating this, and still I see no evidence for it whatsoever!

apart from eight pages of text? And the parts of the books actively forbidding certainly styles of play (evil, monsters, non epic ect)
its a board game more than a new edition
from
EE

[Thrud]

Somebody's trying to get you killed, and you're worried about hurting their feelings?

No, I'm not talking about feelings here. It is like bringing along a cleric in 3ed and saying 'you can't cast any spells.' If that is the case, then why bring him in the party? If you deny him his primary ability, then why have him at all? Yes, he can do other stuff, but his main function has to do with manipulating other PCs. That + Evil = bad idea.

This is just a minor irritant to me, though. I just chimed in because it was something I had been thinking about. It seems to me that the fact that 4ed pretty much specifically states that the players should be good is just another dumbing down of the game. It just contributes to my feelings so far that though you can be entertained by any RPG, some are just better than others. 4ed is just not going to be one of my favorites, because every time I read more I find more about it that seems to be patronizing me. Just my feelings here. Sure I am having some fun in the game I am in at the moment, but I think I have lost interest already and I am going to find some other game to join.

[Oracle_Hunter]

This seems to catch what I was saying earlier about how the 4e basic books don't "stand on their own" like the core 3.5 books. I hear a lot of times how "they'll be releasing this in another book", or "I can't wait for this to come out".

I think part of this comes from the transition from 3e, which had billions of stuff added after Core, to 4e which has far fewer than the full 3e product line. People who are used to playing Monks and Warblades and Beguilers are naturally waiting for their favorite class to come out in 4e.

Having never really played outside of 3e Core, I'm perfectly satisfied with the range of the 4e Core, and I certainly don't plan to buy any of their splatbooks. Anyhow, that's why I think you hear so many people waiting for more stuff to come out - WotC has modeled their D&D on splatbooks since the start of 3e and many of the people who started D&D with that are now used to buying tons of splatbooks to "enhance" their game.

In 2e I only bought two "Complete" books - the Complete Book of Villains (which was sweet) and the Complete Book of Necromancers (for similar reasons). Any fancy stuff my PCs did was strictly homebrewed or just RP'd - they didn't need a "Dread Pirate" kit to become pirates.

[EvilElitest]

however if you want hte special powers that comes with the class, you nee PRC. I thin PCs were a good idea, they were just implemented wrong
from
EE

[Crow]

I think part of this comes from the transition from 3e, which had billions of stuff added after Core, to 4e which has far fewer than the full 3e product line. People who are used to playing Monks and Warblades and Beguilers are naturally waiting for their favorite class to come out in 4e.

I can understand that, but the problem begins when you have people like myself, who used only core in 3.5, feeling like they are going to need splatbooks for 4e to feel complete.

[Thrud]

I can understand that, but the problem begins when you have people like myself, who used only core in 3.5, feeling like they are going to need splatbooks for 4e to feel complete.

Right, which comes from taking my 2 favorite classes, Monk and Bard, and making them not be 1st round core any more. Which automatically makes me have to wait for the 2nd round of 'core' in order to play them. I only ever really played core in 3ed too, yet as crow said I am already disappointed and wanting more. Which is just a way to make us have to buy more books. The same way that the whole 'oh no, we are going to have multiple versions of the core books, they aren't just going to be splatbooks.' Just another money grabbing technique.

[Erk]

No, I'm not talking about feelings here. It is like bringing along a cleric in 3ed and saying 'you can't cast any spells.' If that is the case, then why bring him in the party? If you deny him his primary ability, then why have him at all? Yes, he can do other stuff, but his main function has to do with manipulating other PCs. That + Evil = bad idea.

This is just a minor irritant to me, though. I just chimed in because it was something I had been thinking about. It seems to me that the fact that 4ed pretty much specifically states that the players should be good is just another dumbing down of the game. It just contributes to my feelings so far that though you can be entertained by any RPG, some are just better than others. 4ed is just not going to be one of my favorites, because every time I read more I find more about it that seems to be patronizing me. Just my feelings here. Sure I am having some fun in the game I am in at the moment, but I think I have lost interest already and I am going to find some other game to join.
I don't see how refusing a warlord's orders and thereby making him/her waste actions is any different from refusing to cooperate with the party in any other way. If the warlord is actively trying to harm you and you're refusing his/her orders, then s/he ought to clue in and ask before using you in one of those moves. If not, you're just being a dink by intentionally gimping a character based on tactics, which is equally possible in any edition of D&D. In fact, I daresay it's easier in 3e, where a poorly (some would say well) built wiz, cleric, or druid can steal the thunder from the entire party.

EvilElitest, I don't have any idea what you mean by 4e actively preventing any playstyles. I've already run a one-shot gritty, low cinema post-apocalyptic science fiction campaign with less than 5 minutes of rewriting rules - simply converting "bloody" value to "wounds" that could not be healed by surges and reducing HP from Con+(class value) to Con Modifier+(1/2 class value) made fights tense and rough, and the abilities are easily and amusingly reskinned in seconds, far faster and more fun than doing the same in 3e, where too many classes have complex spells that only fit well in a fantasy setting. With 3e I never felt it fit anything but high, cheesy, magical fantasy, and went to other RPGs if I needed something else. So explain how 4e cannot be versatile for playstyles, instead of just asserting it, please.

tl;dr = I've done more genres and playstyles in just a handful of 4e campaigns than I did with 3e in the whole time I used it.

EDIT: Also, regarding alignment: I don't really like the phrasing of the PHB guide either, but I don't disagree with the sentiment. Most, not all evil characters in a predominately good party wind up doing nothing but throwing off the course of the story and plot, pissing off the other characters, and selfishly ruining the game. In my experience. Since they can be done well, the phb could do with an escape clause saying that "it takes an experienced and dedicated roleplayer to play this kind of character effectively" or something, but really. Does anyone actually take the How To Play guidelines as gospel?

[Blackfang108]

Because the entire point of the character class is based upon getting other people to do your fighting for you. If you just continually say 'no' to that character then it is as if the player is not actually there. Which means that your party is down a character. I mean, honestly, if the Warlord is there but you keep ignoring it, then what is the point of him even being in the party?

Heal Monkey.

Also,
You haven't REALLY looked at the class.

I play a Warlord. The entire purpose of the class isn't to get others to do the fighting for you, it's to increase the effectiveness of the others in the party.

Let's say you have a short sword and you have a fighter with a Greataxe. Commander's strike makes your action more damaging.

I play a tactical Warlord. I help get the PCs and Monsters into a more advantageous position overall. Move the Mobs away from the SquishyWizard and towards/between the Paladin and the rogue, while throwing a heal to those who need it.

At the same time, I'm on the front lines, distracting the enemies from the Goblin/Kender rogue (Plays a goblin like a Kender, minus the Kleptomania.)

I keep the wizard out of harm's way. I may not deal the most damage, but I help increase the damage the others deal out.

Although, my new Greatsword may put me above the Paladin... so long as he doesn't use his breath Weapon.

[black dragoon]

In other words you're the cleric minus healing? I know the feeling I once was a cleric without heal spells:smallwink:

[Blackfang108]

In other words you're the cleric minus healing? I know the feeling I once was a cleric without heal spells:smallwink:

Inspiring Word.
Aid the injured.

What do you mean "Minus the healing"?

I have healing powers. Plenty, even.

The only PC who died was executed. It's kind of hard to use a HS when your head is 3 feet from your body.

[black dragoon]

Taken back.:smalltongue:
Dear looks like the cleric is being phased out rather nicely along with the paladin all rolled into one juicy warlord flavored package.

[Starsinger]

Because the entire point of the character class is based upon getting other people to do your fighting for you. If you just continually say 'no' to that character then it is as if the player is not actually there. Which means that your party is down a character. I mean, honestly, if the Warlord is there but you keep ignoring it, then what is the point of him even being in the party?

I really have to question why you'd keep saying no. And for that matter, if your party members keep saying no when you offer them things like extra attacks or free moves, just take powers that buff allies instead.


That's a bit of an overstatement. While Warlords have many useful shifting powers, they still do damage with their weapons in the process. It's not like they're just sitting in the back of the party shouting "hey, you guys fight!" they actually have to be up in the melee, swinging away, to do anything with their powers.

Unless you take the interpretation for Commander's Strike that the ally must be in melee range with the enemy and not you. In which case, I suppose the Warlord could sit in the back shouting "Hey, you guys fight!" But that doesn't seem particularly fun to me.

Edit:
Taken back.:smalltongue:
Dear looks like the cleric is being phased out rather nicely along with the paladin all rolled into one juicy warlord flavored package.

Except the Cleric is still there, just as Clericlicious as ever. So's the Paladin, only less with the useless (well useless and Divine Grace) and more with the actually being able to protect things.

[Ulzgoroth]

You may notice I use the Standard Array for all my characters - these are not CharOp types.

Secondly, you are more than willing to double check my math, but here's what I did for the 1st level fighter:
(options 1 Handed) + (options 2 Handed) = ((2 of 4 at-will)x(1 of 4 encounter)x(1 of 4 daily)) + ((1 of 3 at-will)x(1 of 4 encounter)x(1 of 4 daily))

I subtracted Tide of Iron from the 2 Handers, since they'll never use shields.

The number of permutations is described as N!/(N-R)! and you multiply independent choices together. N = number of options, R = number of selections to be made.

This becomes ((4!/(4-2)!)x(4!/(4-1)!)x(4!/(4-1)!))+(3!/(3-2)!)x(4!/(4-1)!)x(4!/(4-1)!)x) = (12x4x4)+(6x4x4) = 192+96 = 288 variations.

Whups! Looks like there are 288 basic builds for 1st Level Fighters. My math might be off (I haven't done permutations in a while) but I'm sure there's a math person out there who can check for me.
Your math is a bit off. At the least, one of three is 3, not 6. Also, unless order matters, two of four is 6, not 12.

Still 144 options, which is pretty substantial if it's a good representation of the real space of possibilities.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Unless you take the interpretation for Commander's Strike that the ally must be in melee range with the enemy and not you. In which case, I suppose the Warlord could sit in the back shouting "Hey, you guys fight!" But that doesn't seem particularly fun to me.

Good news!

They errata'd (http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1396) that too (#18) :smallbiggrin:


Still 144 options, which is pretty substantial if it's a good representation of the real space of possibilities.

Thanks for checking my math. I think it is a good representation, but someone else can go pick through the 1st level Fighter power selections to pair it back further - and that still doesn't include Feat choices which, while not as powerful as Expansion Pack 3e feats are still very useful. Racial Feats, especially, but between Alertness, Toughness, Improved Initiative, Quick Draw, the Fighter Feats, MC Feats, and Weapon Focus (and maybe some more?) I think you'll find enough to go on.

Remember especially that most of the "cool" of a character comes from Class now, not Feats.

[Blackfang108]

Dear looks like the cleric is being phased out rather nicely along with the paladin all rolled into one juicy warlord flavored package.

It seems more like they are trying to offer more options than just Cleric for main healing classes. And they're trying to make the cleric more than just a heal monkey. Whic is the main reason I've never played a Cleric in 3.5. Everyone always whines when the Cleric jumps into Melee.

My current party is:
Warlord/Feylock - Me
Paladin
Rogue
Wizard - Planning on Multiclassing to Cleric

I have the most Healing overall, the Paladin has backup healing, and the Wizard will have a minor backup, which he'll probably keep to wake me up after I get knocked to negative hitpoints. Again. (Running count: 3)

But the paladin is replacing a ranger (the executed guy), so I should last longer, not being the only frontline melee.

[black dragoon]

See my party never really complained that I wasn't a heal monkey primarily because during battle I'd toss walls and defensive measures to prevent damage.

[MartinHarper]

I like 4e, but here are two of mine:

4e Basic Grab and 4e Basic Bullrush are too weak, relative to other at-will standard actions. Both actions would be more reasonable as move actions. This discourages players from interacting with the terrain in cool ways.

Death is too binary. The rules don't support a party being 'left for dead' and surviving, or being crippled, or permanently blinded, or losing a limb, or whatever. The only possible long-term consequence of a sword fight is death. I don't have a problem with the realism of that, but it gets in the way of some stories.

[MartinHarper]

Yeah, I don't understand why they didn't even mention Unaligned in that paragraph either.

Unaligned is a lack of an alignment. So it's saying, if you pick an alignment then you should pick one of the Good ones or you can not pick an alignment and stay unaligned.

Chaotic Neutral falls under Unaligned.

[Starsinger]

The rules don't support a party being 'left for dead' and surviving, or being crippled, or permanently blinded, or losing a limb, or whatever. The only possible long-term consequence of a sword fight is death. I don't have a problem with the realism of that, but it gets in the way of some stories.

When you drop someone to 0 hp you can choose to leave them unconscious or dead.

[Kompera]

"If you choose an alignment for your character, you should choose Good or Lawful Good. [I don't know why they left out Unaligned, it's perfectly functional] Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all characters are Evil or Chaotic Evil, playing an E or CE character disrupts the adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you." (PHB 19)

When was the last time you saw someone (inexperienced enough to need to follow the PHB suggestions) play a conflicting alignment without screwing up the party dynamics? I agree with this paragraph being here, I just think that players should realize it's a guideline, free to be broken. Just make sure you decide to break it as a group.Not only that, but the quoted text is right on many levels.

It's difficult enough in RL to mix Republicans and Democrats (feel free to substitute any two other groups with fairly divergent values on a great many issues) for long periods of time where they would have plenty of time to learn of each other's viewpoints without there being some tension and possibly some arguments. The same would be true and even more amplified in a RPG setting with an adventuring party where everyone was good except one person. The goods would find that, while they didn't necessarily agree with their fellow goods on every subject, they could still respect them. But unless the evil person is very consciously hiding or misstating their values and beliefs in every conversation and in every action over months or years of time, the goods will naturally come to dislike this person, not respect their views, and eventually wonder why they shouldn't just replace them with another member.

Which in a meta-game sense is a trivial thing to do: Hey, Jim, your character is disliked by all the other characters. You have tried to conceal your evil alignment, but over months of time you just couldn't hide all of your attitudes and values which differ largely from the rest of the characters. They ditch you, roll a new character, and you can figure that if you're not good this time that this will eventually happen again. So choose wisely.

In character it's still easy, but might lead to that disruption and anger that the PHB refers to, assuming that this hasn't happened to date already. If it hasn't, then the evil is probably not playing their alignment correctly.
Who wants to help out these random peasants, even though that's not our main mission? Every hand goes up except the evil. Who treats the stable boy well, and who berates him for any small error? All the goods the former, the evil the latter. Sure, the evil can try to mask their alignment, neither of the prior examples has to be correct for any given character. But the concept applies in any case.
If a character goes through life acting CG to mask their LE alignment, then maybe they need an alignment change to match their actions.

[Thrud]

Not only that, but the quoted text is right on many levels.

It's difficult enough in RL to mix Republicans and Democrats (feel free to substitute any two other groups with fairly divergent values on a great many issues) for long periods of time where they would have plenty of time to learn of each other's viewpoints without there being some tension and possibly some arguments. The same would be true and even more amplified in a RPG setting with an adventuring party where everyone was good except one person. The goods would find that, while they didn't necessarily agree with their fellow goods on every subject, they could still respect them. But unless the evil person is very consciously hiding or misstating their values and beliefs in every conversation and in every action over months or years of time, the goods will naturally come to dislike this person, not respect their views, and eventually wonder why they shouldn't just replace them with another member.

Which in a meta-game sense is a trivial thing to do: Hey, Jim, your character is disliked by all the other characters. You have tried to conceal your evil alignment, but over months of time you just couldn't hide all of your attitudes and values which differ largely from the rest of the characters. They ditch you, roll a new character, and you can figure that if you're not good this time that this will eventually happen again. So choose wisely.

In character it's still easy, but might lead to that disruption and anger that the PHB refers to, assuming that this hasn't happened to date already. If it hasn't, then the evil is probably not playing their alignment correctly.
Who wants to help out these random peasants, even though that's not our main mission? Every hand goes up except the evil. Who treats the stable boy well, and who berates him for any small error? All the goods the former, the evil the latter. Sure, the evil can try to mask their alignment, neither of the prior examples has to be correct for any given character. But the concept applies in any case.
If a character goes through life acting CG to mask their LE alignment, then maybe they need an alignment change to match their actions.

I think I mentioned this elsewhere (possibly even in this thread), but I had a player WAY back in the old days of 1st ed when I actually used alignments, who played a LE character in a mostly LG and NG party, and he did it very well. He would never have dreamed of messing with the party in any way because of the social contract they had entered into in order to defeat world shaking 'big bad'. However, the whole time he was with the party, whenever they went to a new town or city, he would spend all his adventuring money setting up contacts, getting assassins guilds started, bribing people, doing a little clandestine assassination, etc. He played his character PERFECTLY. He had ulterior motives for everything, but he integrated into the party very well. He and the paladin got along especially well. And when the campaign ended I kept him on as an NPC because his character was played so well I only ever had to think 'How would Eric have played this situation' and I knew what the guy would do. And none of the other party members ever caught on. It wasn't until the end of the campaign that we told the rest of the players, and they all thought it was one of the greatest games ever, simply because of the hidden side of the character that they never even knew about.

[Erk]

I think I mentioned this elsewhere (possibly even in this thread), but I had a player WAY back in the old days of 1st ed when I actually used alignments, who played a LE character in a mostly LG and NG party, and he did it very well. He would never have dreamed of messing with the party in any way because of the social contract they had entered into in order to defeat world shaking 'big bad'. However, the whole time he was with the party, whenever they went to a new town or city, he would spend all his adventuring money setting up contacts, getting assassins guilds started, bribing people, doing a little clandestine assassination, etc. He played his character PERFECTLY. He had ulterior motives for everything, but he integrated into the party very well. He and the paladin got along especially well. And when the campaign ended I kept him on as an NPC because his character was played so well I only ever had to think 'How would Eric have played this situation' and I knew what the guy would do. And none of the other party members ever caught on. It wasn't until the end of the campaign that we told the rest of the players, and they all thought it was one of the greatest games ever, simply because of the hidden side of the character that they never even knew about.

Sure. And you remember this guy because he played an exceptionally difficult role and played it exceptionally well. The majority of players do not have that level of skill, and wind up doing exactly what the PHB warns against. If that were not the case, your story would lose its impact and memorability! Clearly an unusually good player can make any difficult character turn out very well, but the PHB isn't there to advise those who already know how to play that well.

[Thrud]

Sure. And you remember this guy because he played an exceptionally difficult role and played it exceptionally well. The majority of players do not have that level of skill, and wind up doing exactly what the PHB warns against. If that were not the case, your story would lose its impact and memorability! Clearly an unusually good player can make any difficult character turn out very well, but the PHB isn't there to advise those who already know how to play that well.

Perhaps. But I still think the option should be there. I imagine that my old friend from way back when would probably be horrified by the fact that the option has virtually been removed from the game now. Yes, it is technically still possible, but it is much harder now because the rules pretty much explicitly say you can't, rather than saying 'this is tricky to pull off, and should only be entered into with the consent of the DM'. I just feel it is another of those things that contribute to my general feeling of the game being dumbed down. Does it mean that the players are dumber? No, absolutely not. I even realize why they did it. It tries to appeal to a wider market. But that can't stop me from feeling like the game designers are being a tad patronizing now by patting us on the head and saying 'you all be good little boys and girls and make sure you play well together.'

Like I've said elsewhere, most of my dislikes related to 4ed are really all gut feelings, so it is hard to quantify them.

[Erk]

Perhaps. But I still think the option should be there. I imagine that my old friend from way back when would probably be horrified by the fact that the option has virtually been removed from the game now. Yes, it is technically still possible, but it is much harder now because the rules pretty much explicitly say you can't, rather than saying 'this is tricky to pull off, and should only be entered into with the consent of the DM'. I just feel it is another of those things that contribute to my general feeling of the game being dumbed down. Does it mean that the players are dumber? No, absolutely not. I even realize why they did it. It tries to appeal to a wider market. But that can't stop me from feeling like the game designers are being a tad patronizing now by patting us on the head and saying 'you all be good little boys and girls and make sure you play well together.'

Like I've said elsewhere, most of my dislikes related to 4ed are really all gut feelings, so it is hard to quantify them.

You're taking PHB advice too seriously. If it were not possible to play an evil character with RAW, there would be no evil alignment in the PHB; it would be in the DMG instead. The PHB tells you, specifically, what you should do. Just as you can make a wizard with 9 Int, you can make an evil character with the PHB, no strings attached and no holds barred. Nothing prevents anyone from playing just as your friend did before. It's merely "advised against".

And may also require some homebrewed Channel Divinity feats if the evil character is a cleric or paladin of an evil deity; such is life. I for one do not use the default gods, so all my CD feats are homebrewed. Thus, I am a bit biased about the importance of this oversight.

[turkishproverb]

But a level 1 int 9 wizard can be a great Roleplaying opportunity. I've played one before, adn upon reaching level 2 he simply took three levels in rogue because he was fed up with magic.

[Erk]

But a level 1 int 9 wizard can be a great Roleplaying opportunity. I've played one before, adn upon reaching level 2 he simply took three levels in rogue because he was fed up with magic.
I don't intend to sound mean (internet loses voice tone) but either you missed the point or that's a nonsequitor... my point is that while the PHB says that it's a bad idea to play an Int9 wizard, or an evil character in a good party, it doesn't specifically prevent either option. It just advises against it, which is quite reasonable. Someone interested in an RP challenge is of course allowed to play an advised-against character design; this is such common knowledge that the "I'm an RPer" argument for autonerfing your character is a cliche!

[turkishproverb]

I don't intend to sound mean (internet loses voice tone) but either you missed the point or that's a nonsequitor... my point is that while the PHB says that it's a bad idea to play an Int9 wizard, or an evil character in a good party, it doesn't specifically prevent either option. It just advises against it, which is quite reasonable. Someone interested in an RP challenge is of course allowed to play an advised-against character design; this is such common knowledge that the "I'm an RPer" argument for autonerfing your character is a cliche!

Actually, I was being half sarcastic and pointing out basically what you said. I Will admit that I also put a bit of non sequenter in there as it was something i did just for fun.

[Kletian999]

Actually, I was being half sarcastic and pointing out basically what you said. I Will admit that I also put a bit of non sequenter in there as it was something i did just for fun.

To continue the Non sequitar, a comic about a 9 Int wizard

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/9/05/

[EvilElitest]

"If you choose an alignment for your character, you should choose Good or Lawful Good. [I don't know why they left out Unaligned, it's perfectly functional] Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all characters are Evil or Chaotic Evil, playing an E or CE character disrupts the adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you." (PHB 19)

When was the last time you saw someone (inexperienced enough to need to follow the PHB suggestions) play a conflicting alignment without screwing up the party dynamics? I agree with this paragraph being here, I just think that players should realize it's a guideline, free to be broken. Just make sure you decide to break it as a group.

having a mature group? That tends to work quite well
from
EE

[The New Bruceski]

having a mature group? That tends to work quite well
from
EE

Does the "perfect gaming group" argument also fall under the Oberoni Fallacy, or does it need to be noted separately? I don't think you can leave guidelines out of the book on the assumption that nobody needs to be told it's a bad idea.

[Starsinger]

having a mature group? That tends to work quite well
from
EE

If you're mature/arrogant/experienced/illiterate/advanced/whatever enough to disregard the guidelines in the book, what does it matter what they suggest? I'd much rather have the books written for new people with stuff that more experienced players ignore, than have the book written for experienced role players with newbies scratching their heads and having to suffer :belkar: in the party.

Edit: "You" in the above paragraph does not refer to any individual entity and is the generalized "you".

[horseboy]

I like heavy rules and fairly realistic interpretations of real life actions and mechanics. 4E just strikes me as not being this kind of game.Boy are you in the wrong system. Seriously, have you looked into H.A.R.P?
You can play evil characters, yes, but the PHB is specifically prohibitive of this, even saying that your other party members will be "mad at you" if you play an evil character. This is not only far from universal, but also an incredibly patronizing thing for the creators of a game to say to their audience.Eh, I've stopped giving warnings and just proceed directly to the physical head smacks to Chaotic Stupid and Stupid Evil players. Let'sface it, if they're into "But I'm EVIL, see it says so here on my sheet" and "hehehe EVIL is cool!" the odds of them being at least one of the two are staggering. All the more reason to just chuck alignment out the window to start with.

Does the "perfect gaming group" argument also fall under the Oberoni Fallacy, or does it need to be noted separately? I don't think you can leave guidelines out of the book on the assumption that nobody needs to be told it's a bad idea.I think it would be a permutation of the "StrawDM" fallacy.

What do I dislike? The art. One of the defining attributes of a dragon is it's eyes, even the Discovery Channel can tell you that. Then they give them those, little, tiny eyes and the limbs don't line up. Why no tail? a lizard without a tale? Then there's all the fugly armour and weapons. Yeah, that's my biggest beef.

[NephandiMan]

Well, I've been lurking the 4e critical threads for a while, and I haven't seen this mentioned so far, so I'll add it here: it seems as though 4e will make it quite difficult for authors to write interesting novels based on it. I'm not talking about the various campaign settings - I don't know enough about the changes to them to know whether the settings themselves will be interesting - but about the characters peopling them. In previous D&D editions, there was enough variety in character creation that, for example, two wizards could face off against one another, and each could be quite different from the other in terms of spells, magic items, and other arcane accoutrements. In 4e, unless WotC really goes to town with splatbooks (as I'm sure they will), it will be well-nigh impossible for characters of the same class not to seem like cookie-cutter versions of one another (mechanically, I mean - in terms of personality, they can of course vary as much as they ever have).

But even if 4e splatbooks bring a whole host of new powers, it will be all but impossible for characters to do interesting things with them. I can just imagine the long-lost evil twin speaking to the hero, right before their climactic showdown: "Brother...at long last we meet. Now tremble before me, or suffer the wrath of my minor status ailments!"

Doesn't have much punch, does it? For really epic threats, 4e writers will be virtually forced to turn to actual monsters, the kind that may make good cannon fodder in-game, but tend to wear thin pretty quickly in fiction. And the sad thing is, unless WotC is willing to upend the balance for which they've worked so hard, that's about as epic as I can see 4e ever getting - and that's without the dramatic tension-killers known as "healing surges"...

[The New Bruceski]

Well, I've been lurking the 4e critical threads for a while, and I haven't seen this mentioned so far, so I'll add it here: it seems as though 4e will make it quite difficult for authors to write interesting novels based on it. I'm not talking about the various campaign settings - I don't know enough about the changes to them to know whether the settings themselves will be interesting - but about the characters peopling them. In previous D&D editions, there was enough variety in character creation that, for example, two wizards could face off against one another, and each could be quite different from the other in terms of spells, magic items, and other arcane accoutrements. In 4e, unless WotC really goes to town with splatbooks (as I'm sure they will), it will be well-nigh impossible for characters of the same class not to seem like cookie-cutter versions of one another (mechanically, I mean - in terms of personality, they can of course vary as much as they ever have).

But even if 4e splatbooks bring a whole host of new powers, it will be all but impossible for characters to do interesting things with them. I can just imagine the long-lost evil twin speaking to the hero, right before their climactic showdown: "Brother...at long last we meet. Now tremble before me, or suffer the wrath of my minor status ailments!"

Doesn't have much punch, does it? For really epic threats, 4e writers will be virtually forced to turn to actual monsters, the kind that may make good cannon fodder in-game, but tend to wear thin pretty quickly in fiction. And the sad thing is, unless WotC is willing to upend the balance for which they've worked so hard, that's about as epic as I can see 4e ever getting - and that's without the dramatic tension-killers known as "healing surges"...

When have D&D novels ever cared about the rules? While magic sure took a toll on Raistlin, he was never limited to casting a spell once/day, but perfectly fine casting others. The setting is what matters, and that's going to be the same as always.

[EvilElitest]

Damn, i hate it when my spell check breaks


One of the best games I ever had, actually. It is part of the reason I find 4ed so patronizing, when they decided to dumb many elements down in the interests of 'party balance and unity'
\
Thud, i hate to break this to you, but your not ready for the true RPG experience. 4E is right in making the way known to you. Remember young padawon, don't seek knowledge, you don't deserve it. 4E is like a big brother, watching over you......you don't want to go back int he box do you?
/sarcasim


EvilElitest, I don't have any idea what you mean by 4e actively preventing any playstyles.
So the parts where i complained about this in detail were missed? Alright, lets go through with this absurdity again

4E's absurdly patronizing approach to a new edition was getting rid of complexity. In other words, streamlining the edition into a single style of play (action) and cutting everything else out, because apperently thats too complicated.

The great wheel. Meh, too complicated, who likes planar travel anyways, ditch it

Alignment. This game doesn't need moral implications , ditch it.

Evil characters. It doesn't work like that, evil characters are the antagonists, good guys are the protagonists, taht is all you need to know.

NPCs? Well like anybody interacts with the world

Consistency? Nobody cares

Monster fluff? Nah, they only exist to be killed. Duh

Non combat gods? Now what player will actually interact with the world they play in to encounter the god of harvest. like thats important

Style of plays? What style of play, you play points of light and you will like it

Non combat? Eh what

Unique classes, what are you talking about

Gnomes? Who uses them?

Minons? how does that not make sense


/sarcasim

4E promotes a guantlet/diablo style of play at best, promoting it with fancy pictures and a fake focus on cool, in hopes this masks its shallow nature, much like Kill Bill (which might have been a parody)


I've already run a one-shot gritty, low cinema post-apocalyptic science fiction campaign with less than 5 minutes of rewriting rules - simply converting "bloody" value to "wounds" that could not be healed by surges and reducing HP from Con+(class value) to Con Modifier+(1/2 class value) made fights tense and rough, and the abilities are easily and amusingly reskinned in seconds, far faster
4E is totally unsuited to any gritty style (or any requiring in world consistency for that matter, but that is a different gripe). The basis of the Pcs is taht they are special unique people with super powers. Its like playing a gritty diablo, it doesn't work You can make a gritty setting, and if so power to you, but if they can simply recharge their powers, and NPCs are so much weaker, it totally isn't suited without treaking


and more fun than doing the same in 3e, where too many classes have complex spells that only fit well in a fantasy setting. With 3e I never felt it fit anything but high, cheesy, magical fantasy, and went to other RPGs if I needed something else. So
3E isn't very easy to do low magic in your right. 3E is flawed (i've never said i wanted 3E for ever, i want a new edition) however it at least tries and makes the effort to be varied in play styles, it doesn't do it very well but it at least tries. 4E is like a board game, it does one style of playing very well (very very very well) but ignores everything else. If 4E was a spin off game, that would be fine, but as a new edition it is a step back in evolution


explain how 4e cannot be versatile for playstyles, instead of just asserting it, please.

couldn't you just counter the things i've already said?



Unaligned is a lack of an alignment. So it's saying, if you pick an alignment then you should pick one of the Good ones or you can not pick an alignment and stay unaligned.

Chaotic Neutral falls under Unaligned.
Whitch is bloody stupid. I mean, honestly, the 4E alignment system is bloody stupid even by D&D standards and that is pretty good. the 3E alignment is actually quite good, just badly explained. Every possible personality is pretty much covered and you can be an evil person without being a ruthless sociopath, you know, like the Khan, or William the Conquerer, or Scar from FMA, or 90% of the cast from Song of fire and ice

4E as part of its phobia to complexity, and wanting to make itself seem important by "reforming stuff" without rhythm or reason deiced to randomly change everything, and nothing at the same time. They try to promote a more "complex diverse alignment system" but because 4E has around the same amount of complex diversity as Gauntlet, divides the entire world into black and white, with all evil people being ruthless baby eating sociopaths, and good people being in theory perfectly good wonderful flower children, basically the same system as Fable, and taking all the until then incorrect complaints about the alignment system and making it true. Of course, in reality the good people are simply anything the PCs feel like being, because in an attempt to avoid "good and dumb" the simply made it so "Good is what you want it to be" thus ruining the point of moral implications. So now everything is nice and neat

oh wait, what about people who for what ever reason don't fit into this simplistic view on good and evil. In eariler editions, there were more than two bloody alignments (which 4E's morality pretty much is) so you'd fit people into categories based upon their actual quality rather than simply their story role, but this is 4E, which hates options in the same way Martin hates his characters, so you can't expect that. If you don't fit into the two arbitrary categories, your all grouped together into the unaligned grouping and nobody says anything more

It is such a.......immature way of handling it. 3E has major problems in terms of alignment, but most of that comes from the way they explained it, not the system itself. In BoED and BoVD they explained in detail what makes good and evil clear. Murder is always evil, along with rape, torture and human sacerfice, and good values include mercy, kindness and protecting others. It makes clear that ends don't justify the means.

In 3E, good and evil are objective forces, but right and wrong/personal beliefs are subjective and left to personal ideas.

in 4E, it is pretty much, good =PCs, bad =bad guys Unaligned= everybody's else, which pretty much ruins the entire point of alignment
Its lazy, crass, and pretty much a crop out on WotC point because they want to avoid any sort of complexity, both in going through the trouble of actually explaining their alignment system, and dealing with moral issues in a role playing game (gasp).

now if they ditched alignment totally, i wouldn't mind that much. I'd be upset, but i'd understand WotC thought process and quite frankly, i can deal and even respect that action, if i disagree personally. This however is simply insulting

Oh and on the idea that good and evil people can't work together, BS. Not all evil people are ruthless sociopaths. Napoleon would be evil, Richard the Lionheart would be evil, some version of Robin Hood would be evil, Julies Caesar would be evil, General Lee would be, many of Edding's characters would be evil, I mean come one. Being evil does not make you a ruthless sociopath. The point of evil is that it doesn't have any requirements (other than law/chaos)

To be evil you must
1) have committed or are currently committing a few evil acts
2) and have made no attempt to repent or atone

That is it. Literally, thats it. you can be a perfectly good person, not just appearing to be a good person, but actually being a good person and still be evil. You know, just like more nasty people in real life. Evil simply means that if you really want to, you can get away with nasty stuff, there is nothing that compels you to. An evil person does not to commit an evil action every day to keep his alignment.

A good person can only commit a few (if any) evil acts before saying goodbye to the the realms of D&D heaven, while an evil person can commit as many evil actions as they want as long as they still commit some few evil acts, or haven't repented for past actions.








Does the "perfect gaming group" argument also fall under the Oberoni Fallacy, or does it need to be noted separately? I don't think you can leave guidelines out of the book on the assumption that nobody needs to be told it's a bad idea.
1) having a group that can handle basic maturity of conflicting morality isn't an expectation of perfection, its an expectation of general common sense. I'm not reaching for the stars when i say "yeah, it is quite possible to play an evil character in a non moronic perfectly understandable manner", because you can always look at the real world for examples of this. It isn't that had nor is it acting for much. Its more like acting for a group to be able to use their imagination, it isn't that diffacult
2) 4E's suggestions are basically limitations on ways to play. 4E's is well known for its hatred of complexity, so saying a statement like "don't play evil" is quite frankly limiting. this is simply more of 4E's love of limitations and simplification, and in this case lazyness, because it is a lot easier for them to simply say "don't play evil" rather than actually explore the morality in their damn game


If you're mature/arrogant/experienced/illiterate/advanced/whatever enough to disregard the guidelines in the book, what does it matter what they suggest?

Don't evade the point. What am i asking for. Basic player maturity, and basic Designer quality. Not that much. Instead i get a "guideline" which is basically a crop out.


I'd much rather have the books written for new people with stuff that more experienced players ignore, than have the book written for experienced role players with newbies scratching their heads and having to suffer :belkar: in the party.

Again, basic maturity. If a guy is going to play Belkar, then that is the fault of the player. maybe if your group suffers so many problems that you need a nice little summery to tell you how to play your games, then that is a problem with your group. The game can provided suggestions, it should not provide limits on ways to plays, that is essentially promoting only one style of play




When have D&D novels ever cared about the rules? While magic sure took a toll on Raistlin, he was never limited to casting a spell once/day, but perfectly fine casting others. The setting is what matters, and that's going to be the same as always.
1) Actually Dragonlance did follow D&D rules, they just never broke the 4th wall. Goblins does this as well
2) I think his point is the lack luster fluff in 4E makes novels harder to write if your aren't planning on playing diablo II
3) The setting? Like you know, the Basic setting. Oh wait, thats been scrapped. FR? Well tahts a giant recone. THe fluff? Hah.

on and who said cleric and paladin are the same. not true

Cleric is now more of the "healer" in the sense of dude in robe who constantly heals, basically a different wizard.

the paladin is essentially a crusader, taking away the code was awful
from
EE

[horseboy]

Damn, i hate it when my spell check breaks Oh, I've seen worse from you. You're getting better, think you'll be going for a walk now.


The great wheel. Meh, too complicated, who likes planar travel anyways, ditch it

Alignment. This game doesn't need moral implications , ditch it.

Evil characters. It doesn't work like that, evil characters are the antagonists, good guys are the protagonists, taht is all you need to know.Oh, I agree that it would have been better to just drop them completely, though that's one of the cows they couldn't get rid of completely. Look at all the grief about the monk and bard, and they're actually going to be back.


NPCs? Well like anybody interacts with the worldThey're there, they're just Schrodinger's NPC's. Having and not having what properties the DM needs them to. ;)


Monster fluff? Nah, they only exist to be killed. DuhWell, that's the job of the setting. Wasn't one of the things about 3.x and what it needed "more" of was setting neutrality. Course, Feywyld and whatzit bunger that pretty good.


Non combat? Eh whatIf you want non-combat, why are you playing D&D?


Unique classes, what are you talking aboutThat one I really don't get. They're all unique. Of course, I've been playing systems with unified mechanics for 16 years, so don't think "mechanics" when I think "class."


Gnomes? Who uses them?People with Monster Manuals.


Minons? how does that not make senseYeah, minions do annoy me, even though I'm used to kobolds only having 1 hit point.



4E D&D is totally unsuited to any gritty style
Fixed that for you. ;)




Of course, in reality the good people are simply anything the PCs feel like being, because in an attempt to avoid "good and dumb" the simply made it so "Good is what you want it to be" thus ruining the point of moral implications. So now everything is nice and neatI find that when plumbing moral quandaries works better without a rules set telling me how I have to react to them, so no, have never seen the value in the alignment system at all, nor see how having 9 is better than only 3 or 5 or any other arbitrary number of arbitrary restrictions.



Oh and on the idea that good and evil people can't work together, BS. Not all evil people are ruthless sociopaths. Napoleon would be evil, Richard the Lionheart would be evil, some version of Robin Hood would be evil, Julies Caesar would be evil, General Lee would be, many of Edding's characters would be evil, I mean come one. Being evil does not make you a ruthless sociopath. The point of evil is that it doesn't have any requirements (other than law/chaos)Okay, now I'm curious, how would General Lee be considered "evil"?

[Jerthanis]

4E promotes a guantlet/diablo style of play at best, promoting it with fancy pictures and a fake focus on cool, in hopes this masks its shallow nature, much like Kill Bill (which might have been a parody)

Kill Bill was an affectionate parody through and through, however, I believe it was also one of the most interesting stories about an evil protagonist, convincing the audience to feel sympathy without undermining the sheer villainy of its main character. While I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion of Kill Bill, I'd be interested to know why you apparently don't like Kill Bill, when apparently you enjoy the moral quandries involved in "rooting" for an objectively "bad" person.



4E is totally unsuited to any gritty style (or any requiring in world consistency for that matter, but that is a different gripe). The basis of the Pcs is taht they are special unique people with super powers. Its like playing a gritty diablo, it doesn't work You can make a gritty setting, and if so power to you, but if they can simply recharge their powers, and NPCs are so much weaker, it totally isn't suited without treaking

I'd argue that the default accepted setting of 4th edition presents a "darker" medieval world than 3rd edition did. True grittiness is difficult within 4th edition rules without houserules, so you're kind of right though. I consider a setting gritty if the common person has no chance opposing the forces of darkness, but the protagonists can with struggle.



Whitch is bloody stupid. I mean, honestly, the 4E alignment system is bloody stupid even by D&D standards and that is pretty good. the 3E alignment is actually quite good, just badly explained. Every possible personality is pretty much covered and you can be an evil person without being a ruthless sociopath, you know, like the Khan, or William the Conquerer, or Scar from FMA, or 90% of the cast from Song of fire and ice

4E alignment solved nothing that was wrong with D&D alignment, but I don't think that means the double axis method was particularly useful as a tool to help a person model or communicate their character's personality. I've heard one argument against alignment stated that you can define Batman without stretching his character as conforming to the ideals of more than half the possible alignment combinations, and he's a fairly simple character archetype. If you're roleplaying in an attempt to play a person realistically, and with a fully realized personality, coming up with a combination that fits them is a meaningless extra step that won't help you understand them any better anyway.

As a mechanic it's even worse, a source to grant or deny class features (no lawful bards or barbarians!), an "Identify Friend and Foe" system, and to key special powers like Blasphemy or Smite Evil, it boiled down all these interesting moral dilemmas down into "do my magic powers work or not?"

If it's not helpful for getting into the head of your character for RPing, and it's only useful as a mechanic in terms of activating magic items and spells, then what's the point of having it at all? I've said it before, 4e's biggest failure with the alignment system was in not scrapping it and building a better one from scratch.



It is such a.......immature way of handling it. 3E has major problems in terms of alignment, but most of that comes from the way they explained it, not the system itself. In BoED and BoVD they explained in detail what makes good and evil clear. Murder is always evil, along with rape, torture and human sacerfice, and good values include mercy, kindness and protecting others. It makes clear that ends don't justify the means.

In 3E, good and evil are objective forces, but right and wrong/personal beliefs are subjective and left to personal ideas.

Here's where we differ, because I think objective good and evil is immature. If it's a good to show mercy, and the person you showed mercy to goes on to kill someone, no one will thank you for showing that bit of mercy, least of all yourself. Boiling down something as complicated as right and wrong, good and evil to a set of observances and behaviors that can be applied to any situation is ignoring everything interesting about morals.



To be evil you must
1) have committed or are currently committing a few evil acts
2) and have made no attempt to repent or atone

That is it. Literally, thats it.

Having a simple definition isn't terribly helpful if the troublesome element is being defined recursively. An evil person is one who has committed evil acts without atoning. An evil act is something an evil person would do, or a good one would have to atone for. An evil person is someone who does evil acts, while a good person would have to atone for evil acts he commits. See how this isn't really useful as a definition?

I guarantee you could tell me a list of evil acts that I wouldn't consider even rude, while I could list some things that I consider evil that wouldn't ping on your radar.

Blah, I didn't mean to go on so long about alignment, I mostly wanted to jump in with a new thing I've found I dislike about 4th edition: You can only use 1 action point per encounter, even if you save up the extra action point. Considering a lot of Paragon tier class features utilize action points to recover encounter powers or make rerolls, it would be nice to be able to make use of the new class features without always having to give up what abilities action points have given you for the first 10 levels to do so. Some monsters list in their tactics the idea that they'll use all their action points as fast as they can, so I don't see why the PC who has slugged through four fights without resting can't on a fifth fight just go hog wild with them.

[nagora]

Kill Bill was an affectionate parody through and through, however, I believe it was also one of the most interesting stories about an evil protagonist, convincing the audience to feel sympathy without undermining the sheer villainy of its main character. While I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion of Kill Bill, I'd be interested to know why you apparently don't like Kill Bill, when apparently you enjoy the moral quandries involved in "rooting" for an objectively "bad" person.
I've only seen Part 1 but the reason I've not bothered with Part 2 is that the plot moves exclusively by hitting things. There may well be an interesting moral question, but frankly the movie doesn't care. Hellboy II suffers the same problem: "Ah, Hellboy, I've found an interesting plot device here which may involve some careful consideration" *PUNCH* "Sorted". It drags after a while.


4E alignment solved nothing that was wrong with D&D alignment, but I don't think that means the double axis method was particularly useful as a tool to help a person model or communicate their character's personality. I've heard one argument against alignment stated that you can define Batman without stretching his character as conforming to the ideals of more than half the possible alignment combinations, and he's a fairly simple character archetype.
I think that's got a lot more to do with how Batman has been portrayed differently in different periods and media. Batman as originally conceived is clearly CG - doesn't like working in groups, is fighting evil even when it involves self-sacrifice and being labeled a danger by society at large. Later angst-ridden versions have drifted towards CN.


If you're roleplaying in an attempt to play a person realistically, and with a fully realized personality, coming up with a combination that fits them is a meaningless extra step that won't help you understand them any better anyway.
Alignment should really grow from action, not be imposed. Special cases include clerics and paladins who are judged daily by an outside agent.


As a mechanic it's even worse, a source to grant or deny class features (no lawful bards or barbarians!)
That's an archetype issue. If you don't think of barbarians and bards that way, then perhaps change it. As it happens, I do think of barbarians that way and don't use bards at all.


an "Identify Friend and Foe" system, and to key special powers like Blasphemy or Smite Evil, it boiled down all these interesting moral dilemmas down into "do my magic powers work or not?"
So, you think that in a world with magic there would not be a way to detect Jack the Ripper by the evil aura he radiates? I think myth and legend disagrees with you.


If it's not helpful for getting into the head of your character for RPing,
Which it is.

and it's only useful as a mechanic in terms of activating magic items and spells,
Which it's not.


then what's the point of having it at all?
Because it's a very useful tool for the DM in many situations, as a guide to how NPCs will act and react to PC actions. Bering in mind that deities are NPCs too


I've said it before, 4e's biggest failure with the alignment system was in not scrapping it and building a better one from scratch.
I've heard that before; never seen any evidence that it can or needs to be done.


Here's where we differ, because I think objective good and evil is immature.
Yes, well. Firstly I disagree in RL, and secondly, in a game where we have demons and wizards I think it is a practical necessity.


If it's a good to show mercy, and the person you showed mercy to goes on to kill someone, no one will thank you for showing that bit of mercy, least of all yourself.
If you know the person is going to do that then the D&D system says that showing them mercy is not a good act. If you don't know then it is a good act either in the game or the real world. "Kill them all and let god sort them out" is not a good morality anywhere.


Boiling down something as complicated as right and wrong, good and evil to a set of observances and behaviors that can be applied to any situation is ignoring everything interesting about morals.
I think you've been bitten by a bad DM at some point. AD&D alignment simplified morality by placing it on an objective footing, but it did not eliminate moral quandries or debates. That's why, for example, CG and LG characters can be at each other's throats as often as LG and LE.

AD&D alignments were no more or less restrictive than AD&D classes, and largely for the same reasons.


Having a simple definition isn't terribly helpful if the troublesome element is being defined recursively. An evil person is one who has committed evil acts without atoning. An evil act is something an evil person would do, or a good one would have to atone for. An evil person is someone who does evil acts, while a good person would have to atone for evil acts he commits. See how this isn't really useful as a definition?
Evil was clearly defined in 1e, and as far as I can see it still is fairly well defined. There is no recursiveness


I guarantee you could tell me a list of evil acts that I wouldn't consider even rude, while I could list some things that I consider evil that wouldn't ping on your radar.
Who cares? The game defines the term; our RL definitions are not the issue. Otherwise alignment would be useless.

[Fan]

Things I dislike about 4th ed.
1: everything.

[nagora]

{double post, sorry}

[Dausuul]

Yeah, I don't understand why they didn't even mention Unaligned in that paragraph either.

They do. They say "If you choose an alignment." If you don't choose an alignment, you are Unaligned by default.

[The New Bruceski]

They do. They say "If you choose an alignment." If you don't choose an alignment, you are Unaligned by default.
I suppose that makes sense. It seems a little clumsy to me, but it scans right.

[Jerthanis]

I've only seen Part 1 but the reason I've not bothered with Part 2 is that the plot moves exclusively by hitting things. There may well be an interesting moral question, but frankly the movie doesn't care. Hellboy II suffers the same problem: "Ah, Hellboy, I've found an interesting plot device here which may involve some careful consideration" *PUNCH* "Sorted". It drags after a while.

Part 2 contains approximately 100% of the plot, so I can understand your problem.



I think that's got a lot more to do with how Batman has been portrayed differently in different periods and media. Batman as originally conceived is clearly CG - doesn't like working in groups, is fighting evil even when it involves self-sacrifice and being labeled a danger by society at large. Later angst-ridden versions have drifted towards CN.

Yet he's a founding member of the JLA, works closely with the police who he greatly respects and honors, is careful never to break laws outright in his pursuit of justice, which is an ideal he holds above all. (LG)

He also fosters a child who through his influence decided to become a masked crimefighter, to channel his feelings of loss into anger and revenge. He actively puts this child in harm's way to further his own goals. (NE?)

If you look at one tiny aspect of a character, yes, Lawful or Good might describe them, but if your character is interesting, they're either going to be jumping around the alignment scales regularly or is a robot programed to simulate behavior based on an artificial model. If I ever play a character whose personality and methodology can be summed up in two words, I'm going to make a new character to fix that glaring mistake on my part.



That's an archetype issue. If you don't think of barbarians and bards that way, then perhaps change it. As it happens, I do think of barbarians that way and don't use bards at all.

This sort of comes down to a personal view of class. I personally see class as a collection of powers and abilities that can represent the in-world abilities of a make believe person. This being the case, there are times I would stat up people with only the abilities granted in mind. A hard hearted beat cop might be a Barbarian because he's extremely fast on his feet from all the foot chases he does, but sometimes lets his anger get the better of him and fights stronger than his short, compact structure would suggest. When this collection of abilities has a restriction on his or her personality, that's annoying to me.



So, you think that in a world with magic there would not be a way to detect Jack the Ripper by the evil aura he radiates? I think myth and legend disagrees with you.

Oh, is that how they eventually caught Jack the Ripper? They used Detect Evil on him? Did they know Dracula was evil because when the Paladin looked at him he was red instead of blue? Did they send for Beowulf because Grendel was evil, or because he was killing them? I think Myth and Legend says a lot of things about a lot of different topics, and the ability to detect the evil in the hearts of men is by no means a universal trope in all great stories.



Which it is.

Which it's not.


Because it's a very useful tool for the DM in many situations, as a guide to how NPCs will act and react to PC actions. Bering in mind that deities are NPCs too

It's only a useful tool if the personality of the NPC isn't fully realized and you need a lightning fast snap judgment to define an NPC you didn't plan for, and I submit that deciding the character is loyal to any concept is as effective as defining them in reference to the alignment system, if not more so.



I've heard that before; never seen any evidence that it can or needs to be done.

You don't believe it can be done? What about D20 Modern, which replaced alignment with a system by which a person defines his loyalties for himself? Or perhaps Exalted, where you define your motivation, which describes your ends, your intimacies, which define to some degree your means, and Virtues, which define your limitations. For that matter, any RPG system that doesn't HAVE an alignment system has already done it. I'll buy that for some people, it doesn't need to be done, but it's self evident that it can be done. But this thread is about "Things you dislike about 4e" and I dislike the double axis alignment, and if anything they made it worse by making it a singular axis.



Yes, well. Firstly I disagree in RL, and secondly, in a game where we have demons and wizards I think it is a practical necessity.

Perhaps, post-Muslim Arabic myth has the concept of humans, who God made out of the earth, and the djinni, who God made out of fire. Djinni are demonic spirits that live alongside us, but they were also given free will like humans and can choose to do what they wish. These are demons who have all their demon-ness, but retain their ability to have complex personas that don't always fit within just one moral absolute. While some myths support the idea of moral absolutism, you've got to pick and choose your sources if you want that to be uniform.



I think you've been bitten by a bad DM at some point. AD&D alignment simplified morality by placing it on an objective footing, but it did not eliminate moral quandries or debates. That's why, for example, CG and LG characters can be at each other's throats as often as LG and LE.

I'm just arguing that a system by which a personality can be broad enough to be described using several different alignments depending on circumstances and culture is either worthless, or at least more trouble than it's worth.



Who cares? The game defines the term; our RL definitions are not the issue. Otherwise alignment would be useless.

What happens when the book doesn't specifically define an act as good or evil? Our RL definitions MUST come into play then.

[nagora]

Yet he's a founding member of the JLA, works closely with the police who he greatly respects and honors, is careful never to break laws outright in his pursuit of justice, which is an ideal he holds above all. (LG)

He also fosters a child who through his influence decided to become a masked crimefighter, to channel his feelings of loss into anger and revenge. He actively puts this child in harm's way to further his own goals. (NE?)
This is what I meant about the varying depictions over time; they're not consistant and certainly Batman has spent a lot of time in a lot of depictions breaking the law outright (breaking and entering springs to mind, as does common assult).


If you look at one tiny aspect of a character, yes, Lawful or Good might describe them, but if your character is interesting, they're either going to be jumping around the alignment scales regularly or is a robot programed to simulate behavior based on an artificial model. If I ever play a character whose personality and methodology can be summed up in two words, I'm going to make a new character to fix that glaring mistake on my part.
I don't really think "good team player" and "loner" are quite the straight-jackets you're making them out to be.


This sort of comes down to a personal view of class.
I think so. I see class as a basic and widely known template onto which a player stamps a personality to make an individual example of that template.


Oh, is that how they eventually caught Jack the Ripper? They used Detect Evil on him?
Yes. Didn't you hear? Seriously, the idea that evil has a "taint" is not unusual, nor is the idea that some people can detect it. I'm not saying it's universal.


It's only a useful tool if the personality of the NPC isn't fully realized and you need a lightning fast snap judgment to define an NPC you didn't plan for, and I submit that deciding the character is loyal to any concept is as effective as defining them in reference to the alignment system, if not more so.
I disagree.


You don't believe it can be done? What about D20 Modern, which replaced alignment with a system by which a person defines his loyalties for himself? Or perhaps Exalted, where you define your motivation, which describes your ends, your intimacies, which define to some degree your means, and Virtues, which define your limitations. For that matter, any RPG system that doesn't HAVE an alignment system has already done it.
What I mean is that the D&D alignment system is good at describing those characters too, so there's no need to use a different system, nor is there any case where the D&D alignment system would not have worked.


I'll buy that for some people, it doesn't need to be done, but it's self evident that it can be done. But this thread is about "Things you dislike about 4e" and I dislike the double axis alignment, and if anything they made it worse by making it a singular axis.
Well, I think we can agree on that last point.


Perhaps, post-Muslim Arabic myth has the concept of humans, who God made out of the earth, and the djinni, who God made out of fire. Djinni are demonic spirits that live alongside us, but they were also given free will like humans and can choose to do what they wish. These are demons who have all their demon-ness, but retain their ability to have complex personas that don't always fit within just one moral absolute. While some myths support the idea of moral absolutism, you've got to pick and choose your sources if you want that to be uniform.
This is too far and too big an off-topic jaunt, but I understand what you are saying; I just don't accept that there is any use for a non-absolute morallity system in RL or a game. If you don't have an absolute morality then you can forget having good or evil or making any sort of moral judgement on anything anywhere ever. Which is kind of useless.


I'm just arguing that a system by which a personality can be broad enough to be described using several different alignments depending on circumstances and culture is either worthless, or at least more trouble than it's worth.
It would be. AD&D's alignment system avoided that by defining its terms in such a way that a reasonable DM can extrapolate to a wide range of cases.



What happens when the book doesn't specifically define an act as good or evil? Our RL definitions MUST come into play then.
I don't see that that follows.

I don't think we should extend this hijack any further; if you want to pursue it, why not start a new topic?

[Erk]

4E's absurdly patronizing approach to a new edition was getting rid of complexity. In other words, streamlining the edition into a single style of play (action) and cutting everything else out, because apperently thats too complicated.I'd argue that it's not the complexity that's the problem. I just replayed an adventure arc I'd done in 3e in my 4e campaign. The adventure was about 2/3 the length, because combat ran much faster and players spent a lot less time arguing about what checks and bonuses they should get where, in and out of combat. This is a trend I've noticed on several occasions, simply because there are fewer ridiculous factors to think about on every die roll. Less of a simulation? Probably. Better for the GM and players? Definitely.

Oh, incidentally, this was apparently an impossible adventure arc, because it had only a single true fight and the rest of the adventure was done through noncombat puzzle solving and skill challenges. But we all know 4e can't do that, so I'm not sure how it happened.


The great wheel. Meh, too complicated, who likes planar travel anyways, ditch it


Monster fluff? Nah, they only exist to be killed. Duh

Non combat gods? Now what player will actually interact with the world they play in to encounter the god of harvest. like thats important Because GMs need the handbooks to spell out their gameworld for them and cannot be trusted to figure out their own mythology? Seriously, having these things set in by the books is not making the game more complicated, it's making it more premade. 4e already has too much of that with the "history" of dragonborn, gods and primodials, feywild/shadowfell, etc... and 3e had far more still than 4e does.


Evil characters. It doesn't work like that, evil characters are the antagonists, good guys are the protagonists, taht is all you need to know.In one of my posts that you quoted I just finished writing about how the PHB does not ban evil characters nor block that play style at all. You can choose to ignore this as you will.


Minons? how does that not make senseEither don't use minions, or RP them as the unlucky blokes that don't survive a hail of arrows and stabs with swords and all that, but instead go down to the first axe to the throat. Given the mortality rate of medieval weaponry, minions are generally more realistic than most other D&D monsters.


4E promotes a guantlet/diablo style of play at best, promoting it with fancy pictures and a fake focus on cool, in hopes this masks its shallow nature, much like Kill Bill (which might have been a parody) You're starting to make me wonder if you've ever actually played 4e for more than 20 minutes, or GMed it.


4E is totally unsuited to any gritty style (or any requiring in world consistency for that matter, but that is a different gripe). The basis of the Pcs is taht they are special unique people with super powers. Its like playing a gritty diablo, it doesn't work You can make a gritty setting, and if so power to you, but if they can simply recharge their powers, and NPCs are so much weaker, it totally isn't suited without treaking So, you're essentially calling me a liar. That's really cool. Is grit something that can only be managed by a particular set of combat rules, then? My players were hanging on their seats concerned about their wounds getting infected, stressed every time they entered combat, gradually accruing bloodier and bloodier injuries... healing surges kept them able to fight, but as the wounds grew they got more and more nervous. Sure, it wasn't Call of Cthulhu, but the players' reactions - that being the most important part - made it very clearly a gritty campaign. Apparently either we weren't playing 4e D&D, or the game was not actually gritty because the Bioweapon (eladrin wizard) was capable of lighting things on fire with his hands as long as his internal battery had a few minutes to recharge between shots.


couldn't you just counter the things i've already said?I believe not much of what you said hasn't already been refuted, and the stuff that is left mostly consists of you telling me that despite my experiences, 4e can't be used for multiple playstyles. I must be playing it wrong; I'll try to enjoy it less.


2) 4E's suggestions are basically limitations on ways to play. 4E's is well known for its hatred of complexity, so saying a statement like "don't play evil" is quite frankly limiting. this is simply more of 4E's love of limitations and simplification, and in this case lazyness, because it is a lot easier for them to simply say "don't play evil" rather than actually explore the morality in their damn gameI wouldn't say 4e is known for a "hatred of complexity", it's known for a removal of unnecessary material. That's quite different. The game is still very complex in terms of what it can do, but I don't expect you to know that as I am pretty sure you haven't played it very much.


Cleric is now more of the "healer" in the sense of dude in robe who constantly heals, basically a different wizard. OK what?!! Clearly you've never played either a cleric or a wizard, nor even read the 4e rules on them! They are nothing alike! That's like saying the 3e Warlock is basically a different Wizard because both of their powers are magical in nature!


the paladin is essentially a crusader, taking away the code was awful Possibly the only thing you'll find me agreeing with you on. Paladins should be held to a moral code; it's a fundamental of their flavour. The 3e code, of course, was a pathetically flawed one. And boy, it was SO HARD for me to tell my players that paladins in my game world have to behave in a lawful good manner.

[EvilElitest]

warning

Following post was delivered by a very cranky dyslexic insomniac who's spell check isn't working. If something seems like a personal insult, it most likely is poor word choice.


Oh, I've seen worse from you. You're getting better, think you'll be going for a walk now.

oh, what?


Oh, I agree that it would have been better to just drop them completely, though that's one of the cows they couldn't get rid of completely. Look at all the grief about the monk and bard, and they're actually going to be back.

I was being sarcastic. If they ditched alignment totally i wouldn't mind, but instead we have this monstrosity which has the worst of both worlds

The rest of it is just WotC simplifying the game, because they hate complexity. Apperently that stuff is too much for the average player to handle, so in their normal patronizing way, they break it down. D&d for dummies at its heart (and yes, i refer to the books)


They're there, they're just Schrodinger's NPC's. Having and not having what properties the DM needs them to. ;)
That isn't the point of NPCs. in 3E, and to a lesser extent, 2E NPCs existed not as plot devices, but as actual other beings in the world. The PC were the only people in the world who had class levels. They started out as above average, but still follow the same rule base as the rest of the world. If a DM felt it was too much trouble he could simply ignored it, however the system shouldn't work under the assumption of inconsistency and laziness.


Well, that's the job of the setting. Wasn't one of the things about 3.x and what it needed "more" of was setting neutrality. Course, Feywyld and whatzit bunger that pretty good.
Ok,
1) While technically 3E is a greyhawk setting based game, there was next to no setting referencing at all
2) Ok, total double standard there. 4E is no less setting specific then 3E, it just has a different setting. So this isn't a change of style, just a loss of complexity and use of simplification
3) again, 4E brings about no setting neutrality, it brings less. I mean, they even dictate the play style, bloody points of light.



If you want non-combat, why are you playing D&D?

Up until 4E, the statement that D&D is nothing but a combat game would be an utter fallacy, but apperently WotC felt that limiting their own game was suppose to be an improvement.

Combat is a big part of D&D, but that isn't its only selling point. The game exists beyond that. And it is in fact, shockingly complex and in depth in terms of existing setting/gods/races/classes and what not. Diplomancy problems aside, no D&D game has to be a combat game, at least until 4E, where the game is custom suited to becoming into a combat game. In fact this touches upon something else, the fact that 4E would be a good spin off game, a niche game like Exalted, where it could only focus on making one element of the game really good, instead of a new edition, where it has an obligation to not be too radically different from the old edition, which 4E changed to the point of absurdity


That one I really don't get. They're all unique. Of course, I've been playing systems with unified mechanics for 16 years, so don't think "mechanics" when I think "class."

as said before better tahn i could, its all the same color of paint


People with Monster Manuals.

Evading the point. I'm referring to removing them from the 3E games as a race. It wasn't needed and didn't acomplish anything


Yeah, minions do annoy me, even though I'm used to kobolds only having 1 hit point.

Kobolds don't actually only have 1 hit point in D&D, they are weak race, but they don't have to be used as fodder. Their fodder level is decided by their class which makes a lot more sense in game.


Fixed that for you. ;)
wrong, 2E pulled it off, 1E pulled it off, 3E can pull it off somewhat awkwardly. Are all your points based upon taking D&D fallacies and preaching them as truth, now only with 4e making them no longer fallicies?



I find that when plumbing moral quandaries works better without a rules set telling me how I have to react to them, so no, have never seen the value in the alignment system at all, nor see how having 9 is better than only 3 or 5 or any other arbitrary number of arbitrary restrictions.
What double standard is this? 4E is just as as arbitrary, on wait, even more so than 3E could hope to be.

As i said, if they cut alignments all together, i'd be upset, but i could take it without complaint. this mongrel system however is an abomination


And relying on fallacies and evasion to prove a point doesn't accomplish much i hope you realize


Okay, now I'm curious, how would General Lee be considered "evil"?
For all his good traits, he still supported an evil (D&D) standard goverement and tolerated evil acts under his orders. At best, he is LN, most likely LE, later to reform to LN following his defeat. He was a great man, and i say that as a southerner, but that doesn't justify the Civil War.

Nathan Bedford Forest would be another example of hero who would be considered evil (through he did reform in the end)



Kill Bill was an affectionate parody through and through, however, I believe it was also one of the most interesting stories about an evil protagonist, convincing the audience to feel sympathy without undermining the sheer villainy of its main character. While I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion of Kill Bill, I'd be interested to know why you apparently don't like Kill Bill, when apparently you enjoy the moral quandries involved in "rooting" for an objectively "bad" person.
I never said that Kill bill was awful, its just shallow

The thing about Kill Bill, while it does have a sociopaths main character, it does a very bad job of making the audience hate her. Let me expand

The Bride is a ruthless sociopath who gets a few pet the dog moments. Now i wouldn't mind that, except the director did a very bad job of making use feel that. Its like 300, it is evident that the movie makers are rooting for the main character, and the ways they glorify her ruthless and upsetting actions makes me question the choice of the director.

Take the scene where she cuts off the negotiators arms. Each time was totally unneeded, i mean the first time she could have just knocked her out rather than risk her dying of blood loss (and you know, not being a total bitch in the process but hey) and again in the torture scene. Nobody calls her out of that, and the tone of the film implies that this is a glorification of violence rather than a frown upon violence. If you compare this to light's actions in death notes, or the many characters in Darker than black/Vinland saga who use ruthless and questionable methods, while the actions of the characters are explained along with their motives, the viewer never feels a sense of "oh yeah, go for it" when watching it. While it can vary from disgust to horror to interest, the tone is never one of glorification. The viewer understands lights actions, and enjoys the fact that he breaks the main character sterotype, but is still disgusted by his actions. The characters in Darker than black are all interesting and quite likable, but in the end, almost all of them are ruthless sociopaths. The vinland saga people's actions are quite understandable, but they are always shown as awful. explained by the time period, but awful none the less.

song of ice and fire does this quite well, i mean you understand the ruthless characters and can sympathize with them, but their evil actions are still quite evil non the less

Ironically, even pulp fiction did this to an extent, with a few exceptions.

Now in Kill Bill, the sense of rooting for the main character is made part of the tone, (nobody calls her out for her evil actions) and quite frankly, most of the people she kills are simply put, better human beings then the main character, and thats saying a lot (except for eye patch lady). Now maybe QT was hoping to do that, but if thats the case, then it isn't morality problems, just incompetence. Personally, i found the massive glorification of violence disturbing in both this and Pulp fiction, through the latter has enough humor and good ideas to make up for it. It never reaches the level of glorification that 300 does (it doesn't have the propagandia ether so thats a plus)
They at least make an attempt, and the villains are pretty good with some exceptions (eye patch, school girl, the 88)

In the end, Kill Bill isn't a bad film. It just isn't impressive and extremly shallow. It doesn't bring very much to the stage that hasn't been done better except excessively and almost immature gore. Even as a parody, the way it was done ether makes it a slight above average action movie, or a bad parody.

If i had to give it a number rating, and i hate doing that, i'd judge it three times
As an action film, it would get an 80%
as a parody, a 54%
as a general film, a 71%

It isn't so much a film i hate, because there a few good ideas, it just isn't impressive

On a related note, QT always ruins his movies through unrealistically over the top violence. particularly the tone in which he uses that. The rapist hospital dude, the slaughter in Japan, and the sadists in Pulp Fiction are all examples of this

A good scene was the accident in the car however, very funny



I'd argue that the default accepted setting of 4th edition presents a "darker" medieval world than 3rd edition did. True grittiness is difficult within 4th edition rules without houserules, so you're kind of right though. I consider a setting gritty if the common person has no chance opposing the forces of darkness, but the protagonists can with struggle.
darker? Gritter? in a realm where the main characters can slaughter people by the mass? Where magic has reached absurd levels? Where the PCs are set up as super heros

under your definition of Gritty, then 2E would be (and is) quite gritty. In fact, i tend to use that as a Gritty setting when i do use it. 3E can do gritty with trouble, 4E simply can only pull of diablo gritty at best

maybe if your really good, Beserk grittyness




Here's where we differ, because I think objective good and evil is immature. If it's a good to show mercy, and the person you showed mercy to goes on to kill someone, no one will thank you for showing that bit of mercy, least of all yourself. Boiling down something as complicated as right and wrong, good and evil to a set of observances and behaviors that can be applied to any situation is ignoring everything interesting about morals.
1) If right and wrong were objective you'd be right. However, in D&D, good and evil are just names fro two powerful forces, right and wrong are totally subjective, and are left up to personal option (redcloak ect) as i said in my big paragraph
2) That is a cultural thing, if the person in question happens to kill again, the blood is on your hands, not theirs.
3) There is nothing about good that requires stupidity. Mercy doesn't mean letting them go (remember, execution with a fair trial is not murder)
4) Mercy is a good value, it is what makes good different from evil. Rape, murder, torture are alwasy evil, not matter what happesn
5) and 4E changes nothing of that. If you don't want any alignment, fine, but 4E only makes the old rules more streamlined and even more objectiev and undefined.



Having a simple definition isn't terribly helpful if the troublesome element is being defined recursively. An evil person is one who has committed evil acts without atoning. An evil act is something an evil person would do, or a good one would have to atone for. An evil person is someone who does evil acts, while a good person would have to atone for evil acts he commits. See how this isn't really useful as a definition?
actually it is. A good person, can't commit evil acts. If he does too many evil acts, he ceases to be good. Atonement can save him, but part of atoning is acknowledging that what he did was wrong and trying to not do that again in the future. If a good person commits the same action again and again, then atonement won't work in the long run.

An evil person doesn't see what was wrong with his evil acts in the first place and doesn't see the need to atone, for what ever reason



As a mechanic it's even worse, a source to grant or deny class features (no lawful bards or barbarians!), an "Identify Friend and Foe" system, and to key special powers like Blasphemy or Smite Evil, it boiled down all these interesting moral dilemmas down into "do my magic powers work or not?"

Again, fallacy (until 4E, where it is pretty much the truth). As said in BoED, being evil is not a crime. If you kill somebody simply because they detect evil, then you are a murderer and thus are on the road to evil yourself. Good and evil are simply the way people interact with life, not their position in the game. Again, if your players go into a japanese based society, by D&D standards, most everybody will be neutral or evil.


If it's not helpful for getting into the head of your character for RPing, and it's only useful as a mechanic in terms of activating magic items and spells, then what's the point of having it at all? I've said it before, 4e's biggest failure with the alignment system was in not scrapping it and building a better one from scratch.
1) Alignment doesn't deiced your character's personality, it only classifies it. If your playing it as the defining explanation of your characters actions, then you are doing it wrong
2) there are two ways to do morality in an RPG, one is D&D pre 4E explained logical morality that is made clear, the latter is no objective morality at all and everything is left up to personal decisions.



I guarantee you could tell me a list of evil acts that I wouldn't consider even rude, while I could list some things that I consider evil that wouldn't ping on your radar.
That is right and wrong, which are subjective. Good and evil are objective, right and wrong are not in the world of D&D. Evil acts are things like torture, murder, using poison (personally i don't think that is evil but i didn't make the rules) lying for profit or personal gain, some forms of thievery, human sacrifice, slavery, murder, rape, brutality, demon worship, genocide ect.




Oh, is that how they eventually caught Jack the Ripper? They used Detect Evil on him? Did they know Dracula was evil because when the Paladin looked at him he was red instead of blue? Did they send for Beowulf because Grendel was evil, or because he was killing them? I think Myth and Legend says a lot of things about a lot of different topics, and the ability to detect the evil in the hearts of men is by no means a universal trope in all great stories.
well if you used detect evil in Victorian England, you get a good deal of the society, so it actually doesn't narrow down your options at all.

Also, you don't prove anything with your examples




You don't believe it can be done? What about D20 Modern, which replaced alignment with a system by which a person defines his loyalties for himself? Or perhaps Exalted, where you define your motivation, which describes your ends, your intimacies, which define to some degree your means, and Virtues, which define your limitations. For that matter, any RPG system that doesn't HAVE an alignment system has already done it. I'll buy that for some people, it doesn't need to be done, but it's self evident that it can be done. But this thread is about "Things you dislike about 4e" and I dislike the double axis alignment, and if anything they made it worse by making it a singular axis.
as i said, too ways to do morality
1) clearly defined good and evil
2) totally subjective

Both of them work perfectly fine in almost every setting



Perhaps, post-Muslim Arabic myth has the concept of humans, who God made out of the earth, and the djinni, who God made out of fire. Djinni are demonic spirits that live alongside us, but they were also given free will like humans and can choose to do what they wish. These are demons who have all their demon-ness, but retain their ability to have complex personas that don't always fit within just one moral absolute. While some myths support the idea of moral absolutism, you've got to pick and choose your sources if you want that to be uniform.
that would simply make them outsiders and the good and evil of them decided by individuals



I'd argue that it's not the complexity that's the problem. I just replayed an adventure arc I'd done in 3e in my 4e campaign. The adventure was about 2/3 the length, because combat ran much faster and players spent a lot less time arguing about what checks and bonuses they should get where, in and out of combat. This is a trend I've noticed on several occasions, simply because there are fewer ridiculous factors to think about on every die roll. Less of a simulation? Probably. Better for the GM and players? Definitely.

And yet, 4E's entire design basis is getting rid of complexity to obtain combat. combat complexity it has, and thats about it. As i said, would be a fine spin off game, but as a new edition, it fails.

It is just a shallower version of a previous edition, that focuses all of its efforts on doing one thing right, and letting everything else decay


Oh, incidentally, this was apparently an impossible adventure arc, because it had only a single true fight and the rest of the adventure was done through noncombat puzzle solving and skill challenges. But we all know 4e can't do that, so I'm not sure how it happened.
Incidentally, evading my points with nitpicks doesn't prove me wrong. How about adress what 4E took out in its quest to patronize the players?


Because GMs need the handbooks to spell out their gameworld for them and cannot be trusted to figure out their own mythology? Seriously, having these things set in by the books is not making the game more complicated, it's making it more premade. 4e already has too much of that with the "history" of dragonborn, gods and primodials, feywild/shadowfell, etc... and 3e had far more still than 4e does.
does anybody read threads through anymore? How many times do i need to adress the exact same fallacies and empty excuses before i make a point
1) 4E's fluff/gameworld/history is pitifully small and badly detailed, and quite frankly, uninteresting. Actually, with a few exceptions, all of the fluff in 4E is shallow wastes of time
2) Ok, lets adress this fallacy. Just because the DM can make up their own fluff does act as an excuse for games to not produce fluff. Nor does this make people who enjoy fluff and demand a a game to not simply be a shallow mess of mechanics to be somehow have impaired imaginations. I liked most of the D&D fluff, it was interesting, had a lot of cool elements about it, and plenty of cool stuff and interesting ideas. THat is what made the game interesting. That is what makes Exalted interesting, Legend of the fire ring, the WW games, scarred lands, even bloody Warcraft RPG is the fluff. That is what makes the game world seem interesting and alive, (FR, ebberon, Planescape, Ravenloft, dragonlance). 4e is simply a shallow mess of mechanics and resembles gauntlet because of this




In one of my posts that you quoted I just finished writing about how the PHB does not ban evil characters nor block that play style at all. You can choose to ignore this as you will.
1) It strongly suggests for players to not play evil character, it explicitly states that it is a bad idea, with some jumbled explanations. Yeah, i wonder what that is hinting
2) Hmm, no options for evil characters, evil gods aren't included in teh PHP and aren't detailed, the nature of evil (or good for that matter) aren't explained or made clear, evil races are basically cannon fodder, and a extremly strong suggestion is made to not play them. Oh that certainly isn't a limitation on play style, not at all
3) and if we are throwing around accusations of ignoring posts, how about my entire point on alignment? Giant paragraph on the last post?




Either don't use minions, or RP them as the unlucky blokes that don't survive a hail of arrows and stabs with swords and all that, but instead go down to the first axe to the throat. Given the mortality rate of medieval weaponry, minions are generally more realistic than most other D&D monsters.
1) Homebrewing doesn't fix a problem with the game, otherwise 3E could be a perfect game
2) things that go down with one hit and somehow live to an adult age are more realistic than monsters with actual class levels? Interesting



You're starting to make me wonder if you've ever actually played 4e for more than 20 minutes, or GMed it.
i don't know, you could read my actual posts and attempt to counter them rather than relying on evasions, you might find out




So, you're essentially calling me a liar. That's really cool. Is grit something that can only be managed by a particular set of combat rules, then?
If that is your standard, then you've called me a lying, cheating, hack who lacks the ability to think creativity. Lets not waste time with personal insults and focus on the actual point shall we?

Oh and as i said before,
1) liking 4E isn't bad. it would be a fine spin off game, but as a new edition it fails
2) and you can play 4E differently, but it isn't designed to support that. I mean, i can play a hack and slash with raven loft, but it isn't designed to be played that way



My players were hanging on their seats concerned about their wounds getting infected, stressed every time they entered combat, gradually accruing bloodier and bloodier injuries... healing surges kept them able to fight, but as the wounds grew they got more and more nervous.
Good for you (and i don't mean that sarcastically) but you don't prove anything. That is simply a use of tone and atmosphere as well as having players who are willing to play along, that isn't the game design style, which is more about making a very good combat game (which it does)


Sure, it wasn't Call of Cthulhu, but the players' reactions - that being the most important part - made it very clearly a gritty campaign. Apparently either we weren't playing 4e D&D, or the game was not actually gritty because the Bioweapon (eladrin wizard) was capable of lighting things on fire with his hands as long as his internal battery had a few minutes to recharge between shots.
2E does a great gritty game style, because death is quite possible running out of resources is very easy, and you die really really easily. in 4E, you can only need a few mins to recharge (everything) death is hard for PCs, and the game spends so much time to play you up as awesome that it becomes absurd

Like i said, if you can pull of gritty, congratulation you have a good group, but taht doesn't make the game any more suited to it. try 2E and you will find it is a much more gritty game (unless your going for the Berserk feel)

I believe not much of what you said hasn't already been refuted, and the stuff that is left mostly consists of you telling me that despite my experiences, 4e can't be used for multiple playstyles. I must be playing it wrong; I'll try to enjoy it less.
so 8 pages of me explaining my points don't matter then? Odd, i seem to be answering everything you say


I wouldn't say 4e is known for a "hatred of complexity", it's known for a removal of unnecessary material. That's quite different. The game is still very complex in terms of what it can do, but I don't expect you to know that as I am pretty sure you haven't played it very much.
1) oh define Unnecessary material" that material is the complexity that 4E is removing as part of their love of simplification. It is complex in combat and not much else
2) What is this? I've explained several times that i've played 4E, i own all three of the main books. Are you going to refute claims with actually backing and evidence or just evade points with claims of my apparent ignorance. I've played the game, i've read the books and i own them even now. You want to demonstrate my apparent ignorance, then base it upon something other then empty words, because other wise, quite frankly and no offense intended to you personally, your wasting my time.



OK what?!! Clearly you've never played either a cleric or a wizard, nor even read the 4e rules on them! They are nothing alike! That's like saying the 3e Warlock is basically a different Wizard because both of their powers are magical in nature!

you going to back that with anything? Anything at all? Anything? THe cloistered cleric is much like the 4E cleric. And much as i hate to make WoW referenced ( I actually do, that isn't me being sarcastic) the Wow priest in some senses.

And i've played the D&d wizard in 3E many times, with all of its broken glory. Mind explaining in detail why i'm wrong



Possibly the only thing you'll find me agreeing with you on. Paladins should be held to a moral code; it's a fundamental of their flavour. The 3e code, of course, was a pathetically flawed one. And boy, it was SO HARD for me to tell my players that paladins in my game world have to behave in a lawful good manner.
Alight good. Now here is my question. You've argued that 4E's doesn't take away complexity and fluff doesn't matter, but doesn't this all fall under the "unnecessary material" that 4E took away. Is this a double standards?
from
Ee

[horseboy]

oh, what?Your review of the 4th edition books that nobody could read. You've gotten much better, congratulate your English teacher for me.


The rest of it is just WotC simplifying the game, because they hate complexity. Apperently that stuff is too much for the average player to handle, so in their normal patronizing way, they break it down. D&d for dummies at its heart (and yes, i refer to the books)WotC afraid of complexity? Apparently you've never tried to play Jihad.


That isn't the point of NPCs. in 3E, and to a lesser extent, 2E NPCs existed not as plot devices, but as actual other beings in the world. The PC were the only people in the world who had class levels. They started out as above average, but still follow the same rule base as the rest of the world. If a DM felt it was too much trouble he could simply ignored it, however the system shouldn't work under the assumption of inconsistency and laziness.Every part of the setting is there for plot, including the NPC's.


Ok,
1) While technically 3E is a greyhawk setting based game, there was next to no setting referencing at all
2) Ok, total double standard there. 4E is no less setting specific then 3E, it just has a different setting. So this isn't a change of style, just a loss of complexity and use of simplification
3) again, 4E brings about no setting neutrality, it brings less. I mean, they even dictate the play style, bloody points of light. Oh, don't make me have to get Starsinger in here to complain about built in fluff of sorcerers, or how a paladin had the exact same code irregardless of who they served, or Radiant Servant of Pelor, or the Gods sections, yeah the PHB has the same about, didn't read 4th DMG, the 3rd pissed me off too bad to ever pick one up again. 4th monster has less than 3rd, so combined, unless the DMG is just chocked full of setting specific fluff, then all together 4th would have less.

Up until 4E, the statement that D&D is nothing but a combat game would be an utter fallacy, but apparently WotC felt that limiting their own game was suppose to be an improvement.Are you REALLY going to make me have to go look up that link Matt gave me a while back about how even the creator of OSIRIC was lamenting about how in prior editions so much of the game was combat and so little was actually deeper than "I kill it and take it's stuff,"?


Combat is a big part of D&D, but that isn't its only selling point. The game exists beyond that. And it is in fact, shockingly complex and in depth in terms of existing setting/gods/races/classes and what not. Diplomancy problems aside, no D&D game has to be a combat game, at least until 4E, where the game is custom suited to becoming into a combat game. In fact this touches upon something else, the fact that 4E would be a good spin off game, a niche game like Exalted, where it could only focus on making one element of the game really good, instead of a new edition, where it has an obligation to not be too radically different from the old edition, which 4E changed to the point of absurdity Combat, and maybe feeding OCD while creating characters. If you think 3.x is shockingly complex and deep, you really need to check out more systems.



as said before better than i could, its all the same color of paint And as said before: "Can't see the forest for the trees."



Evading the point. I'm referring to removing them from the 3E games as a race. It wasn't needed and didn't acomplish anything No, they still exist in 3E as a race. They also exist in 4th as a race.


Kobolds don't actually only have 1 hit point in D&D, they are weak race, but they don't have to be used as fodder. Their fodder level is decided by their class which makes a lot more sense in game. In Basic D&D, 1st edition and 2nd edition they were 1/4 hit dice monsters. That means to find out how many hit points they have, you roll a d8 and divide by 4, round up. That meant they had 1 or at best 2 hit points. Unless it was the chieftain, I think he was 3HD. The first time I saw a kobold not go down in one hit in 3 was one of the first freak out minutes I had.

wrong, 2E pulled it off, 1E pulled it off, 3E can pull it off somewhat awkwardly. Are all your points based upon taking D&D fallacies and preaching them as truth, now only with 4e making them no longer fallicies?Any system where a character can jump off a space ship, belly flop through the atmosphere and slam into the ground, dust themselves off and walk away like nothing happened is not "gritty". Taking 1.21 gigawatts and not even being dazed is not gritty. I play Rolemaster, you're not going to win this one.

What double standard is this? 4E is just as as arbitrary, on wait, even more so than 3E could hope to be.

As i said, if they cut alignments all together, i'd be upset, but i could take it without complaint. this mongrel system however is an abominationYou might have gotten me to agree with "just as", but the arbitrary number of arbitrary tags inhibiting my RPing in an RP game doesn't matter. They're still a bad idea.

For all his good traits, he still supported an evil (D&D) standard government and tolerated evil acts under his orders. At best, he is LN, most likely LE, later to reform to LN following his defeat. He was a great man, and i say that as a southerner, but that doesn't justify the Civil War. Well, there's a whole different alignment argument, about how incredibly inhibiting the alignment system is, that one thing and the entire civilization is deemed "Evil." Not to mention having to breakout Clausewitz.

Past here you stopped talking to me, so I stopped reading.

[turkishproverb]

WotC afraid of complexity? Apparently you've never tried to play Jihad.

You do know that was co created with the white wolf people, and that wizards dropped it when they decided to focus on magic?

How about the fact that virtually none of the important designers of that game are at Wizards anymore, and they weren't owned by hasbro at the time?

I might agree with you if you posted something modern, but Jihad isn't really a big help to your argument.

[The New Bruceski]

You do know that was co created with the white wolf people, and that wizards dropped it when they decided to focus on magic?

How about the fact that virtually none of the important designers of that game are at Wizards anymore, and they weren't owned by hasbro at the time?

I might agree with you if you posted something modern, but Jihad isn't really a big help to your argument.

You want complexity from WotC? Try playing a Magic deck that involves Banding. :smalltongue:

[turkishproverb]

You want complexity from WotC? Try playing a Magic deck that involves Banding. :smalltongue:

Yea, but when was the last time you saw banding in a new set? :smallamused:

[Jerthanis]

Now in Kill Bill, the sense of rooting for the main character is made part of the tone, (nobody calls her out for her evil actions) and quite frankly, most of the people she kills are simply put, better human beings then the main character, and thats saying a lot (except for eye patch lady).

I don't believe a character within the text has to specifically call out a person and define their acts as evil for the audience to understand the underlying concept that they're bad people. People in general are smart enough to know when a person is an assassin, a killer for hire, they're a bad person. However, if someone leaves the theater of Kill Bill vol 2 without sympathy for the Bride, I think they should go to a doctor, because they lost their heart somewhere. David Carradine himself says that the scene between himself and the Bride during the flashback in the beginning of vol 2 is the finest piece of cinema he's been a part of. I dunno, I guess I just think that Kill Bill was a phenomenal story and am still surprised the world doesn't agree with me. (Even other people who like it don't tend to cite the story as a reason why, so I might just be a unique flower.) In either case, your feelings toward Kill Bill don't really elucidate your feelings about Evil as Protagonist to me, so we should let it drop probably.



4E simply can only pull of diablo gritty at best

maybe if your really good, Beserk grittyness

I would define Diablo and Berserk as two of the grittiest mainstream fantasy stories ever written. Diablo is a world teetering on the brink of utter oblivion against the unstoppable might of incredibly powerful demon lords and their armies. Against them are a plucky band of people who would die and be forgotten if they didn't have a plethora of powerful allies. Berserk is a world where an oppressive church slaughters everyone who thinks differently from themselves, and worships what they think is a benevolent god, but which is in fact evil, and interested in killing everyone and everything. If an inquisition which (I actually cringed remembering this) ties heretics to wagon wheels, their torso in the center and each limb splayed outward, and then the wheel used to pull the carriage until every one of their limbs is snapped off at the elbow and knee, while those people are still alive isn't gritty to you, I don't ever want to see what you'd consider gritty.

If they said on the back of the D&D 4th edition PHB, "You can play games like Berserk with this book", I would have counted that as an enthusiastic + toward the game.



Again, fallacy (until 4E, where it is pretty much the truth). As said in BoED, being evil is not a crime. If you kill somebody simply because they detect evil, then you are a murderer and thus are on the road to evil yourself. Good and evil are simply the way people interact with life, not their position in the game. Again, if your players go into a japanese based society, by D&D standards, most everybody will be neutral or evil.

Uh... what? I didn't mention anything about killing people who pinged good or evil, I meant that alignment as a mechanic was regulated to activating magic items or abilities, and was binary for whether a power would work or not. If I'm the target of Blasphemy, and I'm Good, I'm stunned or worse. If I'm Evil, nothing happens. I dislike mechanics like this, so I'm inclined to believe Alignment as a mechanic is useless. That's what I was saying. Also, I think if you're talking about a Feudal Japanese society focusing particularly on the Samurai or Nobility classes being neutral or evil, then the same can be said about Feudal Europe, so I don't know why you made the distinction. If you're talking about modern Japan, well, I can't say I agree.


well if you used detect evil in Victorian England, you get a good deal of the society, so it actually doesn't narrow down your options at all.

Also, you don't prove anything with your examples

The point I was arguing was that Detecting Evil in the souls of people is nowhere near universal in Legend and Myth, as Nagora tried to imply. I can't fathom the world you exist in where counterexamples aren't proof of non-uniformity.



you going to back that with anything? Anything at all? Anything? THe cloistered cleric is much like the 4E cleric. And much as i hate to make WoW referenced ( I actually do, that isn't me being sarcastic) the Wow priest in some senses.

Actually, you're wrong about this. 4e Clerics wear heavy armor and duke it out in melee. 4e Wizards wear cloth and would never survive in melee. 4e Clerics overwhelmingly affect only one or very few enemies at a time, while 4e Wizards affect many, many enemies at a time. Clerics almost exclusively add buffs to allies as secondary effects, while Wizards almost exclusively add debuffs as secondary effects.

What's frustrating for me is that you've almost got a point here, but you can't really express yourself here. 4e Clerics are factually NOT robed mystics with magic staffs and long wispy beards conceptually, and you keep losing credibility trying to make it seem like they are.

However, if you were to essentially compare the Cleric's ability to add +1 power bonus to AC against enemy attacks is numerically identical to adding a -1 penalty to an enemy's attack bonus, and in that sense, the roles of Leader and Controller overlap.

If that isn't what you mean, then just throw that on the pile of things I dislike about 4e... mechanically, Leader and Controllers frequently hit the same bonuses and penalties, but in the other direction.

[Oslecamo]

Actually, you're wrong about this. 4e Clerics wear heavy armor and duke it out in melee. 4e Wizards wear cloth and would never survive in melee. 4e Clerics overwhelmingly affect only one or very few enemies at a time, while 4e Wizards affect many, many enemies at a time. Clerics almost exclusively add buffs to allies as secondary effects, while Wizards almost exclusively add debuffs as secondary effects.


Eerr, unless you burn some feats, 4e clerics aren't going to wear more than medium armor at best.

Wizards won't affect many enemies at a time because the bloody party members are in the way, and the wizard spells powers don't care if the people in the area are friends or enemies.

The cleric area powers, however, only hurt enemies, and may even help allies at the same time.

So, the wizard and cleric will hit roughly the same number of enemies.

[Charity]

There is no 'medium' armour in 4e, just light and heavy.

[Jayabalard]

Is grit something that can only be managed by a particular set of combat rules, then? No, it's it's something that is excluded by some combat rules; just a quick example: the less realistic a system represents injuries the less gritty that system is. In 4e, loss of hp cannot be represented by injury due to widespread fast non-magical hp regeneration; this makes 4e less gritty than any other edition of D&D.

[The Mormegil]

It's also allright to call them spells, you know. Just because it's a power-based system, they don't stop being spells. And it's also an in-game term, since it's how Arcane Powers are called.

[Starbuck_II]

There is no 'medium' armour in 4e, just light and heavy.

He probably meant in 3.5 parallels such that since Chain mail is heavy in 4.0 but meduim in 3.5 her calls it meduim even though it was heavy.

Armor though says calling it Heavy is insensitive and wants to be renamed fluffy. Apologize to armor or it might not stop crying. :smallbiggrin:

[Erk]

EE:
Bah, nevermind. I had a huge post written, but lost it, so I'm gonna cut it short. I find 4e easier to modify, faster and more free to play, and generally more a successor to and improvement on 2e than 3e ever was. I've never used half the rules of 3e because they take too long to implement and are frankly useless; I've never used the stats on 95% of the NPCs I've bothered to stat out. Nor have I ever used alignment in d&d, not ever, so I don't care that the 4e system sucks just as much as 3e and 2e. Skills are now clearcut and easy to run, no time wasted deciding which skill best applies and whether synergy should be included or whatever. Monsters now have a wide range of varieties, saving me the time I always used to spend writing goblins that didn't all use the same weapons and tactics. Everything, in general, is streamlined, yet I can still run all the campaigns I used to. WITHOUT the 20 pages of house rules I used to have. And they don't have fluff attached to make my players try to argue with my when I design goblins as a race of engineering-specialised, forest-dwelling, almost-peaceful creatures. Fluff is still not what it should be, because what it should be is what 2e was: undefined, generic, to allow for any campaign world. Failing that, 4e's crunch-detached fluff will do just fine.

That sums up what I can remember. Clearly you expect a far different gameplay experience than I do, one that 4e somehow can't satisfy. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. Cheers!

[nagora]

In Basic D&D, 1st edition and 2nd edition they were 1/4 hit dice monsters. That means to find out how many hit points they have, you roll a d8 and divide by 4, round up. That meant they had 1 or at best 2 hit points. Unless it was the chieftain, I think he was 3HD. The first time I saw a kobold not go down in one hit in 3 was one of the first freak out minutes I had.
Kobolds in 1ed are actually 1/2HD, which means they have 1-4 hp. non-heroic human men-at-arms (ie, normal soldiers) have 4-7hp. Kobold chieftans have 4hp but fight as a 1st level fighter, while normal kobolds have the combat ability of a normal man-at-arms. The absolute maximum hp a kobold (witch doctor) can have btb in 1e is 22 with a combat level equal to a second level fighter. You can tell I've been looking at kobold stats recently, can't you? :smallsmile:

The key item about opponents like kobolds, goblins, and normal humans is that a fighter gets one attack against them per round per level. This is really 1e's version of the minion rule and I think shows an interesting difference between the two systems.

The 1e "minion rule" does not involve any mental gymnastics to rationalise why the target's hit points have suddenly disappeared because of where they are standing (ie, near the boss), it is simply a consequence of the attacker being very skilled. No stat is actually changed yet a very similar effect is achieved, allowing characters like Conan to cut his bloody swath through hordes of opponents who would destroy a 1st level fighter. It seems to me a better way of handling the same concept.

[Jerthanis]

No, it's it's something that is excluded by some combat rules; just a quick example: the less realistic a system represents injuries the less gritty that system is. In 4e, loss of hp cannot be represented by injury due to widespread fast non-magical hp regeneration; this makes 4e less gritty than any other edition of D&D.

While this is true, that the availability of nonmagical healing is such that HP can fluctuate wildly such that you can't help imagining gaping wounds opening and closing before your very eye, I think it's a mistake to write it off as No Grit and call it a day.

You see, a lot of the ability for a player to feel immersed in eirs position in the game is to empathize with eir character. When a lucky blow or a save-or-lose takes a character 100% out of the battle, the emotions of the character and the player wildly diverge as the character feels sudden overwhelming shock and despair and the player feels minorly annoyed. When a situation turns dangerous in 4th edition, it happens as a slow and creeping horror of, "We're not going to win this..." which is how I imagine the situation occurring for the characters as well. When the players can more acutely feel the danger their characters are in, the same end is achieved as most of the desire for grit in games aims for.

I'm also not going to argue abstracted HP or houseruling nonmagic healing out, because both have been done to death.

[archmage45]

Oh and as i said before,
1) liking 4E isn't bad. it would be a fine spin off game, but as a new edition it fails


I don't understand this statement. 4E isn't 3.revised-yet-again, it is an entirely new game. Yes, it's still D&D, and it does much that previous editions did. Some things it does better, and other it does worse. Unlike the 3.x it doesn't try to be most things to most people, it does heroic fantasy in a fun way.

I can understand why this might upset you, but don't expect the apple to feel bad just because you expect it to taste like an orange.

[Swok]

The 1e "minion rule" does not involve any mental gymnastics to rationalise why the target's hit points have suddenly disappeared because of where they are standing (ie, near the boss), it is simply a consequence of the attacker being very skilled. No stat is actually changed yet a very similar effect is achieved, allowing characters like Conan to cut his bloody swath through hordes of opponents who would destroy a 1st level fighter. It seems to me a better way of handling the same concept.

I hate to step into this thread but...this kind of confused me. You're bothered when the monster becomes easier to defeat by the higher level character, but not by the ability to defeat the monster just being a part of the character. I mean, it's essentially the same thing: Monster is easier to kill, and it's just reached in a different way.

On the topic of the thread. The Battlemage PP. Mainly the Arcane "to hell with int" Riposte. It's this cool, nifty ability that you'll probably never hit with.

[horseboy]

Kobolds in 1ed are actually 1/2HD, which means they have 1-4 hp. non-heroic human men-at-arms (ie, normal soldiers) have 4-7hp. Kobold chieftans have 4hp but fight as a 1st level fighter, while normal kobolds have the combat ability of a normal man-at-arms. The absolute maximum hp a kobold (witch doctor) can have btb in 1e is 22 with a combat level equal to a second level fighter. You can tell I've been looking at kobold stats recently, can't you? :smallsmile: 1/2HD? I could have sworn that kobolds and giant rats were 1/4.


The key item about opponents like kobolds, goblins, and normal humans is that a fighter gets one attack against them per round per level. This is really 1e's version of the minion rule and I think shows an interesting difference between the two systems. I never saw that until Pool of Radiance. Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the minion rule, as I'd rather kill in one swing cause I'm that good instead of my opponent that pathetic, but I do understand it's origin doesn't spring suddenly from 4th.

[Starsinger]

On the topic of the thread. The Battlemage PP. Mainly the Arcane "to hell with int" Riposte. It's this cool, nifty ability that you'll probably never hit with.

The most painful part? You don't get your implement/weapon enhancement bonus.

[thegurullamen]

I don't understand this statement. 4E isn't 3.revised-yet-again, it is an entirely new game. Yes, it's still D&D, and it does much that previous editions did. Some things it does better, and other it does worse. Unlike the 3.x it doesn't try to be most things to most people, it does heroic fantasy in a fun way.

I can understand why this might upset you, but don't expect the apple to feel bad just because you expect it to taste like an orange.

It's a comment on the way 4e feels incomplete next to 3.x. 4e simulates combat and does that well, but that's almost all it does. and it does it in a very crunchy way that allows for few styles of play; choose a "wrong" one and the mechanics become dissociative at best. 3.x had rules for behavior and interaction outside of combat that didn't break down into combat/skill mechanical dichotomies.

[nagora]

I hate to step into this thread but...this kind of confused me. You're bothered when the monster becomes easier to defeat by the higher level character, but not by the ability to defeat the monster just being a part of the character.
That's right: changing the monster because I've increased my ability is an abuse of the continuity; me getting better at fighting monsters because, er... I've got better at fighting does not abuse the continuity. It's the difference between saying that when you get strong things get lighter and simply saying that you can lift more. The former requires a serious disconnect from the gameworld whereas the latter does not.

[thegurullamen]

That's right: changing the monster because I've increased my ability is an abuse of the continuity; me getting better at fighting monsters because, er... I've got better at fighting does not abuse the continuity. It's the difference between saying that when you get strong things get lighter and simply saying that you can lift more. The former requires a serious disconnect from the gameworld whereas the latter does not.

It can be argued that the difference between you and the monster is on a double sliding scale represented by your competence/HP and the monster's. The stronger you get, the less hypothetical HP a monster has (assuming HP does not equal wounds.) A 1d6 weapon held by a commoner will do 1d6 damage to an opponent with ten hitpoints whereas a 1d6 weapon held by a master swordsman will do 1d6 damage to a monster with one HP not because the swordsman affects the creature, but because he is ten times better than the commoner and this is reflected in the monster's HP.

That said, this system easily breaks under scrutiny because all who strike any monster must be of equal level AND It doesn't explain the monster's own ability to deal damage in significant amounts nor your lack of relativistic HP.

[nagora]

1/2HD? I could have sworn that kobolds and giant rats were 1/4.
Their hit points are listed as "1d4", so the mist of time may have changed that to "1/4" in your head.

[Jayabalard]

You see, a lot of the ability for a player to feel immersed in eirs position in the game is to empathize with eir character. When a lucky blow or a save-or-lose takes a character 100% out of the battle, the emotions of the character and the player wildly diverge as the character feels sudden overwhelming shock and despair and the player feels minorly annoyed. When a situation turns dangerous in 4th edition, it happens as a slow and creeping horror of, "We're not going to win this..." which is how I imagine the situation occurring for the characters as well. When the players can more acutely feel the danger their characters are in, the same end is achieved as most of the desire for grit in games aims for. None of this has anything to do with being gritty.

[Belkarsbadside1]

The classes are all to common and you can't stray to far from them. the classes are all generic. A rogue played by one character is going to be the same or similar rogue by another character. There is absolutely no variety, which really sucks when you want to be creative. I give 4e 4 out of 10 stars.

[Thane of Fife]

1/2HD? I could have sworn that kobolds and giant rats were 1/4.

Nagora's right - they're both 1/2 HD. Regular rats are 1/4, as are bats and probably most of the small mammals.

Hmm. Now that I look, woodchucks and raccoons actually have more hp than kobolds do....

[The New Bruceski]

The classes are all to common and you can't stray to far from them. the classes are all generic. A rogue played by one character is going to be the same or similar rogue by another character. There is absolutely no variety, which really sucks when you want to be creative. I give 4e 4 out of 10 stars.

This keeps coming up, and I keep not seeing it. Every level you get to pick one of ~four combat powers, and they tend to have quite a bit of variety. Particularly in rogues, where they may do more damage, set the foe up for sneak attacks later (Setup Strike, Topple Over), or give the rogue extra mobility (Bait and Switch, Trickster's Blade). A thug and a nimble evader, one of whom lands strong blows to the foe's soft spots and the other one weaves between enemies leaving cuts as evidence of his passing, are both Rogues, and don't seem any more similar than characters of the same class in previous editions.

Where are you taking issue?

[Beleriphon]

Where are you taking issue?

I think its the general lack of options other than what weapon a rogue uses. At least for the moment. As more books come out I think we'll see many of the members of the same class are too similar to each other complaints disappeaer, this despite the fact that each charater has up to 18 feats to differentiate each other in addition their gear.

[The New Bruceski]

I think its the general lack of options other than what weapon a rogue uses. At least for the moment. As more books come out I think we'll see many of the members of the same class are too similar to each other complaints disappeaer, this despite the fact that each charater has up to 18 feats to differentiate each other in addition their gear.

Don't forget powers. Most of the time while one may be better for a particular fighting style, there isn't only a single option per level.

[Jerthanis]

None of this has anything to do with being gritty.

Yes, I said, "You may be right, but..."

I believe 4th edition achieves the ends of a gritty rules system, even if it takes houseruling to make it use the same means to get there.

[Crow]

I think its the general lack of options other than what weapon a rogue uses. At least for the moment. As more books come out I think we'll see many of the members of the same class are too similar to each other complaints disappeaer, this despite the fact that each charater has up to 18 feats to differentiate each other in addition their gear.

Part of the reason they feel the same is because of the retraining rules. Essentially every Rogue is pretty much the same, and can do the exact same things as any other rogue. They are just choosing to use a different power right now.

[nagora]

The classes are all to common and you can't stray to far from them. the classes are all generic. A rogue played by one character is going to be the same or similar rogue by another character. There is absolutely no variety, which really sucks when you want to be creative.
I don't count using different combat tactics as being particularly indicative of creativity in a roleplaying game. If two characters of the same class are "the same" when played by different players then you've got a serious problem with the quality of your players. Feats, skills, powers and other mechanical geegaws only paper over that and are, in my opinion, undesirable features of an archetype-based game like D&D. Personality is far more important than any of that fluff.

[J.Gellert]

I dislike what they did to the game at large. It is completely different, beyond recognition - it is not Dungeons & Dragons.

3rd edition did not do this. They changed the rules, but the game was the same. I can replay any 2nd edition adventure with 3rd edition rules (in fact I have done so numerous times). Now? Meh. 4th edition is not D&D, it's a mix of MMORPG/TCG/Wargame that happens to be called D&D.

The one thing that people seem to consistently like about it is balance. How long will it last? Will it survive the first 3 splatbooks? What about 5? 10 splatbooks? I don't think so. And I don't care to wait around and see because 3.5 edition is mature and works for me and my group.

[Jayabalard]

I believe 4th edition achieves the ends of a gritty rules systemOther than the actual grittyness, which it doesn't capture at all.

even if it takes houseruling to make it use the same means to get there.Using this same logic, you can play a gritty game of monopoly, so this really doesn't have anything to do with people disliking 4e because it doesn't do gritty.

[TwystidMynd]

Other than the actual grittyness, which it doesn't capture at all.
Using this same logic, you can play a gritty game of monopoly, so this really doesn't have anything to do with people disliking 4e because it doesn't do gritty.


{Scrubbed}

[Theodoric]

A game I would call gritty is WFRP, which has rules for insanity (more detailed than CoC, IMO) and for cutting off limbs. DnD never really gets to that, but can emulate it to a certain degree.

[Shosuro Ishii]

Every level you get to pick one of ~four combat powers, and they tend to have quite a bit of variety.

While I can't speak for everyone, This is where I take issue with 4ed. There really is no variety in powers. Sure, they have nice little flavor differences, and some of them use different weapons, but 95% of non-utility powers can be summed up like this:

Attack: Ability X vs. Save Y
Hit: XdX damage + minor status effect (save ends), movement or allow someone to healing surge.
Miss: 1/2 XdX damage - Hit effect

Sure, you can make a million different rogues, but they're all premutations on the 'I do as much damage as I can rogue' which is what from my PoV what everyone has been reduced to.

[Crow]

While I can't speak for everyone, This is where I take issue with 4ed. There really is no variety in powers. Sure, they have nice little flavor differences, and some of them use different weapons, but 95% of non-utility powers can be summed up like this:

Attack: Ability X vs. Save Y
Hit: XdX damage + minor status effect (save ends), movement or allow someone to healing surge.
Miss: 1/2 XdX damage - Hit effect

Sure, you can make a million different rogues, but they're all premutations on the 'I do as much damage as I can rogue' which is what from my PoV what everyone has been reduced to.

...and it's not like your power choice really matters, since you can just swap it out for the one of the other ones when you level up.

[Jerthanis]

Other than the actual grittyness, which it doesn't capture at all.

When you say to yourself, "I want to play a gritty game." Why do you say that? What qualities are inherent to a gritty game that you find desirable? To me saying, "4e isn't gritty" is like saying, "This Turkey Sandwich isn't a Roast Beef Sandwich"... Oh, well, it's still going to fill you up if you're hungry.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, "What hunger does a gritty game fulfill for you?" because my hunger for gritty games is satisfied by 4e even without houserules.



Using this same logic, you can play a gritty game of monopoly, so this really doesn't have anything to do with people disliking 4e because it doesn't do gritty.

Houserules to make 4e gritty are as follows: Take damage equal to or above your bloodied value in one blow and you're automatically reduced to 0 HP if you weren't knocked even lower by the blow. Every time you're bloodied you're subjected to an endurance check against a disease (to be statted up by the DM following the guidelines for diseases in the DMG) unless proper care is taken of the wound (Heal check against the disease can apply before the first extended rest), Finally, every time you're bloodied you lose a healing surge from your current maximum capacity of healing surges and every time you get knocked to 0 or lower you lose two. Lost healing surges this way recover at one per extended rest after a 12 hour period of light activity.

There, a million times grittier than 3rd edition with almost assuredly half as much work. The only reason 1st and 2nd edition are still grittier is that negative HP was an optional rule, healing magic was more rare, and HP tended to be so incredibly low.

Touting out the tired "You can RP monopoly with houserules, thus you're wrong" rebuttal isn't enough for me, because these houserules are so easy and intuitive to come up with and to incorporate, while monopoly is such a different paradigm that you'd first need to establish a closer bond between gamepiece and player, then make it possible in any respect for the gamepiece to suffer. I'm almost entirely sure you couldn't introduce three rules to make monopoly gritty.

[Hallavast]

I don't count using different combat tactics as being particularly indicative of creativity in a roleplaying game. If two characters of the same class are "the same" when played by different players then you've got a serious problem with the quality of your players. Feats, skills, powers and other mechanical geegaws only paper over that and are, in my opinion, undesirable features of an archetype-based game like D&D. Personality is far more important than any of that fluff.

You're side-stepping the issue. Yes, we all know you prefer a more rules-lite game. However, a system with more options to build a class mechanically differently is a better system (in regards to character creation) than one that uses a "cookie cutter" mechanical build. Whether you make your rogue the foppish swashbuckler who happens to be the son of Count Reginold III of Dumferling rather than a guy named Jim has no bearing on the value of a system's character creation. While the viability of using different combat tactics with different characters of the same class might not mean anything to you, they are a large part of Dungeons and Dragons and happen to mean quite a bit to a large number of players.

This has probably been mentioned already, but if it has, then I will reiterate that 4e character creation seems very similar to World of Warcraft. Every member of a given class is mechanically very very similar. You can change how the class (mechanically) plays slightly by selecting different gear and placing talent points (feats) in different areas (WoW actually has further customization by allowing professions to influence stats and gear. I'm curious to know if 4e has something similar).

This is all done to make sure the game is fair and balanced mechanically so that a player doesn't have to worry about being inferior just because he picked a "bad class". I would like to contend that this balance, while paramount in an MMO, is largely irrelavent in a tabletop RPG where a human being is the final arbiter of the rules. A DM can override any unfair advantage or crappy mechanic at his discretion in order to make sure everyone is having "fun". Note that I am not committing the operoni fallacy here, because I am not stating that DM fiat has any bearing on actual inherent game balance, but rather it has a lot of bearing on defacto game balance.

Now, if you're that loose with the rulebooks, and are that willing to change/ignore the published material anyway, why try to make the case for playing 3e over 4e since they are both equally malleable in this regard? This all goes back to 4e not really being a bad game at all, just a lackluster replacement for 3e.

Frankly, 3e brings more to the table than 4e. It has more published material. This means more ideas, character options (like druids and such), and dungeons to pull from. It provides a good premise for building custom monsters/NPCs that run along the same lines as PC creation (mostly). This is good because it gives the option for the Players to feel immersed in the setting by realizing that, even in the mechanical ingame laws of the universe, they follow the same rules and limitations as everyone and everything else in the world. This cuts down on feelings of "well we only won that fight because we're the PCs and they're the monsters".

Now, 4e has its merits as well, but most of these merits are based on making the game fair and balanced right out of the box (which I've already asserted is largely irrelavent). As a result, the game has lost loads of character creation options (most notably that of arcane casters, item creation, and the general modularity of multiclassing, large spell/feat selection, and prestige classes).

In short, 4e is great in all the wrong places, and lackluster in what sets tabletop RPGs apart from videogames.

[nagora]

You're side-stepping the issue. Yes, we all know you prefer a more rules-lite game. However, a system with more options to build a class mechanically differently is a better system (in regards to character creation) than one that uses a "cookie cutter" mechanical build.
I totally disagree. It just makes it more complex and prone to bugs. In addition, the result seems to be a massive distraction for most players from the task of playing the character.

Likewise, the awful combat system in 3e and 4e is just a tediously over-complicated version of "FRAG" that's been grafted on to the game as a fig-leaf to hide the inadequacy of the designers' attempts at designing a roleplaying-game. "Hey, we may suck at designing character races and giving you interesting ideas for backgrounds and how to run campagins, but look: we've done a neat beat 'em up you don't need a computer for!"

Fabulous.


Whether you make your rogue the foppish swashbuckler who happens to be the son of Count Reginold III of Dumferling rather than a guy named Jim has no bearing on the value of a system's character creation. While the viability of using different combat tactics with different characters of the same class might not mean anything to you, they are a large part of Dungeons and Dragons and happen to mean quite a bit to a large number of players.
Mechanically-derived combat tactics are a large part of two editions of D&D, and not the biggest selling editions either. And, as I mentioned on another thread, the 3e/4e combat system actually robs me of real combat tactics anyway by putting everything into such a dull clockwork system with moronic rules like marking and moving trying to make up for the lack of flexibility by piling more and more rules on to patch more and more flaws in the basic reasoning of the system.

The super-complex combat systems of post-2e are totally unrealistic as well as limiting. Having lots of combat rules does not make your combat system good, just as having skills does not mean you are able to portray your character more accurately, it just paints more detail on the errors. A child can spend a week drawing "Mummy and Daddy" with finer and finer pencils and the result will still probably still look like two balloon-people standing under a fantastically detailed green and yellow polka-dot sky, not "Arnolfini and his Wife".

Unfortunately, the whole thing becomes self-defining and players think that what they are used to is what the combat system should be representing. For example, I know that many 3e+ players are appalled at the idea that during melee in 1e the DM rolls randomly to see which characters are fighting which every round. Yet this is exactly what melee combat is like. The idea that bringing out a combat mat helps to control the combat is true - but in controlling it, it breaks it!

Oh, never mind! :smallfrown:

[FoE]

For example, I know that many 3e+ players are appalled at the idea that during melee in 1e the DM rolls randomly to see which characters are fighting which every round. Yet this is exactly what melee combat is like

What are ya talkin' about, Nagora? I don't remember any such nonsense in the 1E games I played. Everybody attacked each round. Unless my brother (the DM) was running some houseruled version, I can't honestly recall rolling a dice "to see which characters are fighting every round." And I don't remember seeing anything like that in my 1E Dungeon Master's Guide.

[nagora]

What are ya talkin' about, Nagora? I don't remember any such nonsense in the 1E games I played. Everybody attacked each round. Unless my brother (the DM) was running some houseruled version, I can't honestly recall rolling a dice "to see which characters are fighting every round." And I don't remember seeing anything like that in my 1E Dungeon Master's Guide.
No, I mean if the party is fighting 6 orcs then you are supposed to roll, for each party member in melee, 1d6 to see which orc they are attack (for each attack, actually, not just the whole round). If the DM feels it's appropriate then two characters/monsters can remain in combat as a sort of mini-duel from that point on, but then the next opponent of the winner is chosen at random. DMG p70. As usual, the DM can adjudicate special circumstances.

[Hallavast]

I totally disagree. It just makes it more complex and prone to bugs. In addition, the result seems to be a massive distraction for most players from the task of playing the character.
Complexity in character generation is a good thing. "Bugs" are irrelavent in any game possessing an arbiter of human intelligence.



Likewise, the awful combat system in 3e and 4e is just a tediously over-complicated version of "FRAG" that's been grafted on to the game as a fig-leaf to hide the inadequacy of the designers' attempts at designing a roleplaying-game. "Hey, we may suck at designing character races and giving you interesting ideas for backgrounds and how to run campagins, but look: we've done a neat beat 'em up you don't need a computer for!" So, either the combat system is "neat" or it's "tedius" and "overcomplicated". Which is it? Also, I'm seldom at a loss for ideas for backgrounds and campaign inspiration. While the core 3e books don't give you much in this regard, I wouldn't agree that the company "sucks" at providing these things. ToB was a nice source of this, and there are dozens of adventure modules and premade campaign settings that you can get ideas from if you're drawing a blank.


Mechanically-derived combat tactics are a large part of two editions of D&D, and not the biggest selling editions either. And, as I mentioned on another thread, the 3e/4e combat system actually robs me of real combat tactics anyway by putting everything into such a dull clockwork system with moronic rules like marking and moving trying to make up for the lack of flexibility by piling more and more rules on to patch more and more flaws in the basic reasoning of the system. Robs you eh? You don't have to use all the supplemental combat material, you know. If you like storyteller systems, that's fine and dandy. I do not agree, however, that those are more popular than games like D&D.



The super-complex combat systems of post-2e are totally unrealistic as well as limiting. Having lots of combat rules does not make your combat system good, just as having skills does not mean you are able to portray your character more accurately, it just paints more detail on the errors. Having fewer rules for combat does not give you any inherent realism. It just makes everything more abstract, which probably means you'll have that "disconnect" from the rules due to them not matching up with your efforts to execute a "tactic"



Unfortunately, the whole thing becomes self-defining and players think that what they are used to is what the combat system should be representing. For example, I know that many 3e+ players are appalled at the idea that during melee in 1e the DM rolls randomly to see which characters are fighting which every round. Yet this is exactly what melee combat is like. The idea that bringing out a combat mat helps to control the combat is true - but in controlling it, it breaks it! How do you not know which person you're fighting? How is movement random? I'm sorry, but I can't swallow this as real. I would love for you to elaborate on this.



Oh, never mind! :smallfrown:
Eh?

Edit: nevermind about the elaboration. I see what you're saying. I would contend, however, that there is more conscious choice in this regard than you claim.

For example, whenever I've participated in mock battles or skirmishes I was pretty much able to chose whom I went after unless someone attacked me first. Moving past someone to pick a target would have probably gotten me killed, but I might have attempted it if I was so inclined. This is modelled fairly well in 3e's Attacks of opportunity system.

And btw, if you're saying 2e combat was less complicated than 3e, shall I remind you of things like weapon speed factors, changing initiative every round, weapon type vs armor type modifiers, and a rather large list of redundant weapons? In fact, I'd argue that when Combat & Tactics came out for 2e, it was way more complicated than 3e.

[nagora]

Quick responses 'cause I'm busy and this is a waste of time:

"Neat" was my characterisation of WotC's design idea/presentation, not my opinion of the combat system.

I despise storyteller systems with the exception of the Baron Munchhausen game.

Having fewer rules for combat means fewer restrictions which lessens the disconnect and makes it feel less like moving counters about a board.

Brawling melee in a dark dungeon (or a tavern) is madly random. I've been there and it is. A tactical party can do something about it, but darkness has a huge effect on the ability of a party to control what happens in any space considerably larger than the party's combined weapon reach. There are many other aspects of combat and tactics that the 3e combat system simply can't handle, and 4e's approach has partially been to throw patches over those bugs with silliness like marking an moving rules, as well as powers that simulate fear and intimidation - both of which we are perfectly cabable of doing in 1e combat through roleplay.

I'm saying nothing about 2e because I've never played it. I did see the player's handbook once.

Weapon speed and Armour V Weapon rules were optional in 1e. If you used them then there were very few redundant weapons, especially if the DM was running a gritty world where technology levels are accounted for (the group I'm starting tonight simply won't have the option of initially buying a longsword, for example, because of where they are).

"never mind" as in "no one who's reading this will change their mind or even try playing in a different style, so there's no point in writting any more". The lightbulb has to want to change, as they say.

[Starbuck_II]

"never mind" as in "no one who's reading this will change their mind or even try playing in a different style, so there's no point in writting any more". The lightbulb has to want to change, as they say.

Sometimes the ,lightbulb does not change because its filament has run its course as well.

Plus, turning a lightbulb off and on too manmy times hurts a lightbulb (mythbusters).

[Jayabalard]

To me saying, "4e isn't gritty" is like saying, "This Turkey Sandwich isn't a Roast Beef Sandwich"... Oh, well, it's still going to fill you up if you're hungry.
But they have a different flavor; since what I'm after is a particular flavor and not an end result, the fact that both of them fill me up and make me non-hungry is irrelevant. Eating cardboard would do the same thing, but it's still not going to satisfy that particular hunger either.

[Eorran]

I have to say I really disagree with the "4e classes are all the same" argument. Probably because I started D&D with 2e, and all my favorite campaigns took place with that ruleset. If you're used to having a specific class for every possible build option, which is the way 3.x gravitated in the end, then I can see where you wouldn't necessarily like the 4e system. I can easily have several 2e builds that are mechanically very similar, but end up playing very differently, based entirely on the choice of tactics during the game. This parallels 4e much more than 3e, I think.
Multiclassing, in particular, I like better in 4e. In 3rd, multiclassing was useful for specializing into something, while 4e multiclassing is better for generalizing. Example: a fighter/wizard in 3e is going to suck hard at both roles of spellcaster and fighter. In 4e, he's either as good as a normal fighter with a bit of spellcasting thrown in, or vice versa.

I guess part of the reason is I've just tried converting some of my 2nd ed characters into 4th, and I found I liked the 4e conversions much better than the 3.x.

On topic, what I dislike about 4e is the wondrous item list not feeling very... wondrous. Where's my giant mecha crab barrel? Or Daern's Instant Fortress? Or a bag... that you can pull animal out of. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0130.html) I like the lack of boring magic items (amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, whatzit of attibute +x, etc.), but I want my wierd/funky/just plain cool items back.

[ZekeArgo]

On topic, what I dislike about 4e is the wondrous item list not feeling very... wondrous. Where's my giant mecha crab barrel? Or Daern's Instant Fortress? Or a bag... that you can pull animal out of. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0130.html) I like the lack of boring magic items (amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, whatzit of attibute +x, etc.), but I want my wierd/funky/just plain cool items back.

I dunno about you, but in all the time I've been playing all of those "weird, odd, and generally expensive items in the books" have honestly just remained there: in the books. Playing IRL and on websites like RPoL it's the same theme: weird stuff is custom made if it's allowed, and otherwise ignored.

Its a shame really, that stuff is cool to think about uses for, but I've never been in a position to make use of the Crab Barrel (CRAB BATTLE!) or even artifacts outside of crazy, level 60 epic games.

All of that stuff is just so underutilized that it comes to the point where you have to ask: why print it at all if its not going to be used?

[FoE]

No, I mean if the party is fighting 6 orcs then you are supposed to roll, for each party member in melee, 1d6 to see which orc they are attack (for each attack, actually, not just the whole round). If the DM feels it's appropriate then two characters/monsters can remain in combat as a sort of mini-duel from that point on, but then the next opponent of the winner is chosen at random. DMG p70.

Hmm. My brother (who was my first DM) must have ignored that rule, and I never picked up on it. Thank the gods, because that kind of sucks. Who wants a dice roll to determine who they attack?

[Starsinger]

I dunno about you, but in all the time I've been playing all of those "weird, odd, and generally expensive items in the books" have honestly just remained there: in the books. Playing IRL and on websites like RPoL it's the same theme: weird stuff is custom made if it's allowed, and otherwise ignored.

Its a shame really, that stuff is cool to think about uses for, but I've never been in a position to make use of the Crab Barrel (CRAB BATTLE!) or even artifacts outside of crazy, level 60 epic games.

All of that stuff is just so underutilized that it comes to the point where you have to ask: why print it at all if its not going to be used?

I'm going to have to agree, the only people I've ever heard about using items like that used them specifically so they could say, "Yeah we use the bag of tricks and the dust of dryness."

[Eorran]

I dunno about you, but in all the time I've been playing all of those "weird, odd, and generally expensive items in the books" have honestly just remained there: in the books. Playing IRL and on websites like RPoL it's the same theme: weird stuff is custom made if it's allowed, and otherwise ignored.

Its a shame really, that stuff is cool to think about uses for, but I've never been in a position to make use of the Crab Barrel (CRAB BATTLE!) or even artifacts outside of crazy, level 60 epic games.

All of that stuff is just so underutilized that it comes to the point where you have to ask: why print it at all if its not going to be used?

Well... some of that's true, I guess. On the other hand, even one of these items can make for a lot of fun in a campaign. Daern's Instant Fortress is a favorite of mine. It changes a lot of how your group adventures (no more finding a safe place to sleep), and that's kinda the point of these items. I know of one group whose Folding Boat was a major plot point, and their only storage space.
And if you have any of the older books, it requires no conversion to drop one of these into 4e (except figuring out it's level... if you care about that.)

CRAB BATTLE FTW!:smallbiggrin:

[nagora]

Hmm. My brother (who was my first DM) must have ignored that rule, and I never picked up on it. Thank the gods, because that kind of sucks. Who wants a dice roll to determine who they attack?
It's also a mechanic used in some editions of Pendragon. Again, it captures the flavour of battlefield combat. If you don't like it, of course, then you should come up with a tactic for preventing it. By which I mean, actually have your character do something about it instead of just pressing the "mark" button on your control pad.

[Starsinger]

"mark" button on your control pad.

Nagora, I'm surprised at you. I expected a more intelligent response than "Lol aggro, videogame!" from you.

[ZekeArgo]

Well... some of that's true, I guess. On the other hand, even one of these items can make for a lot of fun in a campaign. Daern's Instant Fortress is a favorite of mine. It changes a lot of how your group adventures (no more finding a safe place to sleep), and that's kinda the point of these items. I know of one group whose Folding Boat was a major plot point, and their only storage space.
And if you have any of the older books, it requires no conversion to drop one of these into 4e (except figuring out it's level... if you care about that.)

CRAB BATTLE FTW!:smallbiggrin:

But thats the thing: any one of those items can be houseruled and custom-made into any game, regardless of edition, setting, or honestly even game system. So other than giving new players ideas for odd things to add, why have that stuff taking up space in a book, either increasing its cost or taking up space from things that'll actually describe the game better.

[Jerthanis]

But they have a different flavor; since what I'm after is a particular flavor and not an end result, the fact that both of them fill me up and make me non-hungry is irrelevant. Eating cardboard would do the same thing, but it's still not going to satisfy that particular hunger either.

I notice you didn't answer my question.


Nagora, I'm surprised at you. I expected a more intelligent response than "Lol aggro, videogame!" from you.

Why would you expect that? Nagora has beaten on the Mark = Aggro and Marking = No In-Game Representation for a long time, despite several different people pointing out how it's entirely different than aggro in videogames, and entirely related to the in-game actions of the character interfering with attacks directed at others through distraction or aggressive parrying. Nagora still cleaves to his belief that Marking is a disassociated mechanic despite all this, so I have a feeling he'll take this belief to his grave... proudly.

[FoE]

It's also a mechanic used in some editions of Pendragon. Again, it captures the flavour of battlefield combat.

Full-on-war, maybe, with a field choked with combatants and there's no semblance of order. But D&D encounters rarely involve that kind of scale.

[Starsinger]

Why would you expect that? Nagora has beaten on the Mark = Aggro and Marking = No In-Game Representation for a long time, despite several different people pointing out how it's entirely different than aggro in videogames, and entirely related to the in-game actions of the character interfering with attacks directed at others through distraction or aggressive parrying. Nagora still cleaves to his belief that Marking is a disassociated mechanic despite all this, so I have a feeling he'll take this belief to his grave... proudly.

There's just a line there to me, which I really didn't expect him to cross.

[Crow]

Well it doesn't help that a lot of the pro-4e people refer to the fighter "managing aggro" in some discussions. When people use that particular terminology it tends to reinforce the views of people who would be inclined to say 4e is like a video game.

I think 4e would make a terrible video game. I hate having to use hotkeys.

[horseboy]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, "What hunger does a gritty game fulfill for you?" because my hunger for gritty games is satisfied by 4e even without houserules.pFor me it's a taste for fear, detail and danger. Sure, I may be 50th level, but I still have to worry about a sniper hiding in the trees.



House rulesA good start. I'd layer the wound rules from Earthdawn, modified slightly, over the top of it. So, if you take more more damage in one attack than your healing surge value, you receive a wound. You receive a -1 modifier to all actions for each wound you have, in addition to healing 1 less hit point per healing surge per wound you have. Wounds can only be healed after all hit point damage has been healed. One healing surge heals one wound. You did do away with the "all damaged recovered over night," bit too, right?
You're side-stepping the issue. Yes, we all know you prefer a more rules-lite game. However, a system with more options to build a class mechanically differently is a better system (in regards to character creation) than one that uses a "cookie cutter" mechanical build. Whether you make your rogue the foppish swashbuckler who happens to be the son of Count Reginold III of Dumferling rather than a guy named Jim has no bearing on the value of a system's character creation. While the viability of using different combat tactics with different characters of the same class might not mean anything to you, they are a large part of Dungeons and Dragons and happen to mean quite a bit to a large number of players.Of course, when your choices are things like toughness they may as well not be there, they're just taking up space that could have been used for something useful.


Now, if you're that loose with the rulebooks, and are that willing to change/ignore the published material anyway, why try to make the case for playing 3e over 4e since they are both equally malleable in this regard? This all goes back to 4e not really being a bad game at all, just a lackluster replacement for 3e. There's one point of difference, I don't consider 4th to be a replacement of 3rd. I consider it to be a replacement of 2nd, with 3rd being an evolutionary dead end.

I despise storyteller systems with the exception of the Baron Munchhausen game.There's a Baron Munchhausen RPG?!?!?! This thread was now worth reading.

[nagora]

There's just a line there to me, which I really didn't expect him to cross.
Sorry, but I do think there is a major disconnect with marking, and I know that some people can rationalise it away. The effect that it has used to be quite straight-forwardly done by RP in every previous edition; there just seems to be no need for the effect other than to appeal to video gamers who are used to/expecting it. It's a fifth wheel that sticks out like a sore thumb on a bicycle.

I didn't think it was quite such a touchy subject, though.

[Jayabalard]

I notice you didn't answer my question.I figured since you wanted to talk in analogies you'd have a better chance of understanding if I communicated that way. The answer remains the same; in both cases it's due to a difference in flavor (which makes it kind of funny that you picked a food analogy).

[Jerthanis]

A good start. I'd layer the wound rules from Earthdawn, modified slightly, over the top of it. So, if you take more more damage in one attack than your healing surge value, you receive a wound. You receive a -1 modifier to all actions for each wound you have, in addition to healing 1 less hit point per healing surge per wound you have. Wounds can only be healed after all hit point damage has been healed. One healing surge heals one wound. You did do away with the "all damaged recovered over night," bit too, right?

That wound system seems nice, but in 4e's system I have a feeling it would quickly cause a feeling of "first blood is last blood", because 4e has a (very) roughly 50% chance to hit with most of your attacks against a level-equivalent foe, so taking a -1 for each wound could make you quickly unable to effectively retaliate. In any case, all houserules require playtesting anyway, so I'd be willing to give this a spin. Resting just restoring yourself to your current maximum number of healing surges, and not healing your HP to full as well sounds okay, though I'm not sure it's necessary if every wound has a chance of getting infected and one day of intense fighting is leaving you half as capable the next day anyway.


I figured since you wanted to talk in analogies you'd have a better chance of understanding if I communicated that way. The answer remains the same; in both cases it's due to a difference in flavor (which makes it kind of funny that you picked a food analogy).

So you play gritty games because you like gritty games? Can you understand why I'm having trouble following you? You can say that it tastes different, but that doesn't answer me what qualities you like about gritty games.

What Horseboy wrote is basically what I'm asking for actually. I already described that what I like about gritty games is the visceral connection between your character and your player, as the character suffers each wound, the players feels the same emotional reaction as eis character does.

[nagora]

Why would you expect that? Nagora has beaten on the Mark = Aggro and Marking = No In-Game Representation for a long time, despite several different people pointing out how it's entirely different than aggro in videogames, and entirely related to the in-game actions of the character interfering with attacks directed at others through distraction or aggressive parrying.
The thing is, that in a game that is SO detailed about where everyone is and doing in relation to each other the marking ability is out of place. Ironically, it makes more sense for the more abstract 1-minute long combat rounds of 1e. In any edition, it looks wrong as soon as you pull out the minis and people can see that the marker can't really be interfering with the markee's ability to hit the er..demarkee.

Even WotC's examples of combat with marking on their site have this problem with people marking by remote control all over the place, which is all right(ish)* for classes where marking is a magical ability, but just looks plain stupid for anyone else.

*why does divine challenge not simply do damage to the target? What sort of weirdo deity gives out powers like that? It's like the powers have no reference to logic!

[Diamondeye]

As far as I'm concerned "aggro abilities" are just one more reason to dislike 4E. Those are something for computer games, where the monsters simply respond to programming, which is often pretty much the same for every mob in the game, or nearly all of them.

The DM should be deciding what each monster does based on what kind of monster it is and how it generally fights, and the circumstances. Aggro abilities aren't needed to force the DM to fight the monster a certain way. Really, if the DM was always having monsters go around the fighter-types without these, especially with unintelligent monsters or those not realizing the threat spellcasters pose, he was really not doing a good job of portraying the enemy.

[Jerthanis]

The thing is, that in a game that is SO detailed about where everyone is and doing in relation to each other the marking ability is out of place. Ironically, it makes more sense for the more abstract 1-minute long combat rounds of 1e. In any edition, it looks wrong as soon as you pull out the minis and people can see that the marker can't really be interfering with the markee's ability to hit the er..demarkee.

I think the problem is that games don't have to choose to be uniformly all abstract or all non-abstract. D&D dropped the abstract positioning system because people (the designers at least) didn't like that their characters were being moved around by complete arbitrary randomness, but it didn't pick up hit-location tables or introduce a scaling penalty wound system, because people (again, the designers) didn't mind an abstract damage system.

D&D is full of abstractions, but over time they've added abstractions and taken others away. Marking is a new abstraction, but one that represents a definite in-character tactical decision.

[horseboy]

That wound system seems nice, but in 4e's system I have a feeling it would quickly cause a feeling of "first blood is last blood", because 4e has a (very) roughly 50% chance to hit with most of your attacks against a level-equivalent foe, so taking a -1 for each wound could make you quickly unable to effectively retaliate. In any case, all houserules require playtesting anyway, so I'd be willing to give this a spin. Resting just restoring yourself to your current maximum number of healing surges, and not healing your HP to full as well sounds okay, though I'm not sure it's necessary if every wound has a chance of getting infected and one day of intense fighting is leaving you half as capable the next day anyway.Yeah, forgot about the scaling. The usual formula is wounds -1=penalty, I adjusted it to reflect the fewer HP's, but ED TN scales slower, so you may have to jiggle it a little. As to it taking a while to get back on your feet, yeah, I've seen it take two/two-and-a-half weeks even with some stupid amounts of magical healing to get everyone back up to fighting" strength". That just makes combat all the less desirable and all the more gritty. :smallwink:

[Swok]

*why does divine challenge not simply do damage to the target?

Divine challenge doesn't "simply do damage" because paladins are protectors, not killers. They mostly have abilities that deal with self sacrifice to assist their allies. Challenge to give enemies the incentive to attack them, and penalizing them if they don't attack the people they're protecting and healing other people with their own health. It's almost like they're intended to be defensive.

[Blackfang108]

As far as I'm concerned "aggro abilities" are just one more reason to dislike 4E. Those are something for computer games, where the monsters simply respond to programming, which is often pretty much the same for every mob in the game, or nearly all of them.

The DM should be deciding what each monster does based on what kind of monster it is and how it generally fights, and the circumstances. Aggro abilities aren't needed to force the DM to fight the monster a certain way. Really, if the DM was always having monsters go around the fighter-types without these, especially with unintelligent monsters or those not realizing the threat spellcasters pose, he was really not doing a good job of portraying the enemy.

You do realize that the monsters are in no way forced to attack the character that marked them, right?

granted, they do take a -2 to attacks against anyone else, but they can still attack the squishy wizard instead of the Paladin.

It's not Aggro so much as distraction.

This isn't WOW or FFXI, and Marking is not the same as the Warrior's "Provoke" skill.

[Diamondeye]

You do realize that the monsters are in no way forced to attack the character that marked them, right?

granted, they do take a -2 to attacks against anyone else, but they can still attack the squishy wizard instead of the Paladin.

It's not Aggro so much as distraction.

This isn't WOW or FFXI, and Marking is not the same as the Warrior's "Provoke" skill.

I realize all of that. It's still unnecessary.

[Jayabalard]

Divine challenge doesn't "simply do damage" because paladins are protectors, not killers. They mostly have abilities that deal with self sacrifice to assist their allies. Challenge to give enemies the incentive to attack them, and penalizing them if they don't attack the people they're protecting and healing other people with their own health. It's almost like they're intended to be defensive.That's a purely metagame explanation. I don't think is going to help win nagora over.

[Thurbane]

Stupid question - what is Aggro? Is this a feature of WoW or another videogame?

[Jayabalard]

Stupid question - what is Aggro? Is this a feature of WoW or another videogame?Yes, though it far predates MMORPGS (it goes back to muds iirc); NPC's have aggro lists that control who they attack. It's a simplistic but reasonable effective way for those games to function.

[Starsinger]

I realize all of that. It's still unnecessary.

Because the 3.5 model was so much better.

Fighter: *Stands infront of enemy* Hey! down here! I'm the guy in the armor! Go for me!
Opponent with Int greater than 3: *Ignores the Fighter*

[Jayabalard]

Because the 3.5 model was so much better.Yes, that does indeed sound better.

[Swok]

That's a purely metagame explanation. I don't think is going to help win nagora over.

So in fluff paladins are indiscriminate murderers? Damn. News to me.

If you want it fluffy terms? Paladins focus on protecting before killing. They are charged with defending things. They are the type of people who become bodyguards and take the bullet for their charges. Their religious order demands that they protect others. Their religious order has keeping others safe as a great idea. The dark god they serve demands one of it's followers (the paladin) to protect it's other followers. The fluff reasons differ from paladin to paladin. I mean, if you stripped the mechanical terms from what I said, it could be a fluff explanation. I mean, hell, if those weren't terms used in the mechanics of the system, it could be a fluff description.

[Starsinger]

Yes, that does indeed sound better.

Sarcasm aside, there's a reason the word "meat shield" the 3.5 and backwards term for fighters, sounds derogatory. That's because it is. It's literally saying "a piece of meat with a shield is just as effective as you."

[nagora]

Because the 3.5 model was so much better.

Fighter: *Stands infront of enemy* Hey! down here! I'm the guy in the armor! Go for me!
Opponent with Int greater than 3: *Ignores the Fighter*
Yes, I have to say that sounds better. Why do you think an intelligent opponent wouldn't do that?

It seems from this comment and some others (by other posters) that marking is intended to make crap tactics viable. If you have weighed yourself down with armour and then stood in the middle of an open space, opponents should walk around you and slaughter your friends, because you are an idiot and it's not up to the game to rescue you from your own lack of talent, is it?

Should falling damage be reduced because you didn't check for a pit trap?

[Swok]

Yes, I have to say that sounds better. Why do you think an intelligent opponent wouldn't do that?

It seems from this comment and some others (by other posters) that marking is intended to make crap tactics viable. If you have weighed yourself down with armour and then stood in the middle of an open space, opponents should walk around you and slaughter your friends, because you are an idiot and it's not up to the game to rescue you from your own lack of talent, is it?

Should falling damage be reduced because you didn't check for a pit trap?

The thing is? Falling into a pit trap/down a cliff and dying/being seriously wounded is presented in that way in fantasy. Warriors in shining armor protecting their allies is also in fantasy. Guess which one 3e D&D fails at?

[Kurald Galain]

Because the 3.5 model was so much better.

Fighter: *Stands infront of enemy* Hey! down here! I'm the guy in the armor! Go for me!
Opponent with Int greater than 3: *Ignores the Fighter*

No, indeed the 3.5 model fell notoriously short here. That's because they tried to market it to a grid and didn't think the consequences through. Any non-grid based version of D&D, the fighter could simply say "I interpose myself between my squishy friend and the troll", and he would. If you think about it realistically, a trained warrior should be able to step sideways a bunch to stay interposed.

In a turn-based grid-based combat system, turns out this suddenly doesn't work any more. So a variety of kludges were created to attempt to fix that. The only one that really seems to work is the 4E "AOO hit = you stop moving now" mechanic.

[Diamondeye]

Because the 3.5 model was so much better.

Fighter: *Stands infront of enemy* Hey! down here! I'm the guy in the armor! Go for me!
Opponent with Int greater than 3: *Ignores the Fighter*

That wasn't the 3.5 model. It said nothing about how monsters with INT greater than 3 were supposed to ignore fighters, especially if that would mean (as it generally did) that bypassing him would leave him at their back, not something most creatures are keen to do, especially when we have them think in-character and not use metagame logic to decide their courses of action.

The 3.5 model was the DM saying "How can I make this encounter challenging and fair" which he could do just fine without silly mechanics to assist him.

[Crow]

No, indeed the 3.5 model fell notoriously short here. That's because they tried to market it to a grid and didn't think the consequences through. Any non-grid based version of D&D, the fighter could simply say "I interpose myself between my squishy friend and the troll", and he would. If you think about it realistically, a trained warrior should be able to step sideways a bunch to stay interposed.

In a turn-based grid-based combat system, turns out this suddenly doesn't work any more. So a variety of kludges were created to attempt to fix that. The only one that really seems to work is the 4E "AOO hit = you stop moving now" mechanic.

Ding!

I've often wondered if going to a "declare action, run turns simultaneously", system would aleviate some of the difficulties.

[Jayabalard]

Sarcasm aside, there's a reason the word "meat shield" the 3.5 and backwards term for fighters, sounds derogatory. That's because it is. It's literally saying "a piece of meat with a shield is just as effective as you."I'm not being sarcastic. I think that does sound better.


I've often wondered if going to a "declare action, run turns simultaneously", system would aleviate some of the difficulties.You left out the word "Back" as in "going back to a"

[Starsinger]

I'm not being sarcastic. I think that does sound better.

I wasn't referring to your post as sarcasm.

[Draco Dracul]

On topic, what I dislike about 4e is the wondrous item list not feeling very... wondrous. Where's my giant mecha crab barrel? Or Daern's Instant Fortress? Or a bag... that you can pull animal out of. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0130.html) I like the lack of boring magic items (amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, whatzit of attibute +x, etc.), but I want my wierd/funky/just plain cool items back.

Bag of tricks is going to be in adventurer's vualt, which is comming out this month along with some statues that each sommon a specific creature.

[Kurald Galain]

I've often wondered if going to a "declare action, run turns simultaneously", system would aleviate some of the difficulties.

Take my word for it, it does. Or better yet, give it a try. I have yet to see a game system where initiative rules actually add anything besides time and needless dice rolls.

[Knaight]

It can slow things down in a grid based game. That said, what works really well is splitting the movement and attacking phase. That and as far as going "back" to a system, tons of non D&D stuff does that, in addition to previous additions.

[Starsinger]

Sarcasm aside, there's a reason the word "meat shield" the 3.5 and backwards term for fighters, sounds derogatory. That's because it is. It's literally saying "a piece of meat with a shield is just as effective as you."

I take it back. A piece of meat with a shield is more cost effective. If the Fighter dies, it's what, 5k GP in diamonds to bring him back? Whereas a cow is worth 10g.

[EvilElitest]

Here is one thing that has always confused me? If this is a thread about complain/whining about 4E, why do people hang around to defend it? i mean i don't really mind, but it seems a little silly and pointless. I mean, its like going to a thread dedicated to pointing out what you like about 4E and saying what you don't like,


Your review of the 4th edition books that nobody could read. You've gotten much better, congratulate your English teacher for me.

1) Thank you, through my english teacher had nothing to do with it
2) people could read it, just will difficulty and confusions. That thread had like 18 pages


WotC afraid of complexity? Apparently you've never tried to play Jihad.

Modern example please? they had complexity during 3E (less in some ways then 2E but different) however in 4E we have a strong need for simplification


Every part of the setting is there for plot, including the NPC's.
In standard D&D, the basic assumption is that there is no plot. The plot is made up by the DM. Unlike exalted, D&D doesn't and never has, ever functioned upon a story basis, and never has. The game isn't designed around some sort of meta plot or other sort of story line. Story elements are left up the particular DM not individuals. Even 4E doesn't do this, through it does give out rather glaring hints

Can D&d support a game concerning a maga plot and story which controls the entire world (like David eddings setting)? Certainly. Does it have too? No. It can also be used for sand box style, or simply side quest style. The world should be able to act normally without direct influence from the players when first made like FR (generally) its part of immersion. If you, a specific DM, don't care fine, its easier to ignore a rule then bring about one



Oh, don't make me have to get Starsinger in here to complain about built in fluff of sorcerers, or how a paladin had the exact same code irregardless of who they served, or Radiant Servant of Pelor, or the Gods sections,
1) I'm, i've argued with Starsinger on this forum, on this thread, if he wants to show up, sure
2) there are code problems yes, but i don't see how they relate to your point?


yeah the PHB has the same about, didn't read 4th DMG, the 3rd pissed me off too bad to ever pick one up again. 4th monster has less than 3rd, so combined, unless the DMG is just chocked full of setting specific fluff, then all together 4th would have less.
What?


Are you REALLY going to make me have to go look up that link Matt gave me a while back about how even the creator of OSIRIC was lamenting about how in prior editions so much of the game was combat and so little was actually deeper than "I kill it and take it's stuff,"?
you do that, i don't think it will make much of a difference. D&D has a lot of combat certainly, but it isn't a plot game focused game.

Combat, and maybe feeding OCD while creating characters. If you think 3.x is shockingly complex and deep, you really need to check out more systems.



No, they still exist in 3E as a race. They also exist in 4th as a race.
They exist in 4E as a monster, a very different focused race. they existed in 3E as a very different beings then 4E


In Basic D&D, 1st edition and 2nd edition they were 1/4 hit dice monsters. That means to find out how many hit points they have, you roll a d8 and divide by 4, round up. That meant they had 1 or at best 2 hit points. Unless it was the chieftain, I think he was 3HD. The first time I saw a kobold not go down in one hit in 3 was one of the first freak out minutes I had.
Any system where a character can jump off a space ship, belly flop through the atmosphere and slam into the ground, dust themselves off and walk away like nothing happened is not "gritty".
As i said ,D&D isn't built to be gritty. I said it can be made to resemble gritty game and of these editions 2E does this best, where death is quite possible and likely. 4E is the worst of the lot


Taking 1.21 gigawatts and not even being dazed is not gritty. I play Rolemaster, you're not going to win this one.
And rolemaster is a fine game, and you might want to point out to your fellow 4E supporters that for the same reasons plus many more, 4E does not do gritty


You might have gotten me to agree with "just as", but the arbitrary number of arbitrary tags inhibiting my RPing in an RP game doesn't matter. They're still a bad idea.
That isn't any arbitrary inhibitations in the aligniment system. As i said, good and evil aren't the same as right and wrong


I don't believe a character within the text has to specifically call out a person and define their acts as evil for the audience to understand the underlying concept that they're bad people. People in general are smart enough to know when a person is an assassin, a killer for hire, they're a bad person.

there is a difference between portraying horrible people as such and glorifying them. Birth of a nation shows a lynching and shows it as justice. Axlexander Neichky (is that how it is spelled) shows having a man torn apart by an angry mob as something to praise the heroes for. The Bride is shown positivity in her slaughter. Compare this to death note. Light's actions are explained but they are clearly note being showed as justice, nor are they being glorified, just portrayed. compare this to the Godfather, where the actions of the mobsters, despite them being the main character, still display a sense of horror from the viewer. All of the Brides actions are gloried, and the tone of hte movie highly implies taht we should be rooting for her. Instead of looking like a sociopath, she looks like a badass, which is very disturbing. She comes off as an anti hero rather than a villain.


However, if someone leaves the theater of Kill Bill vol 2 without sympathy for the Bride, I think they should go to a doctor, because they lost their heart somewhere.
Then call me sick, through i often feel sick from the portrayals in the films. I found her back story about as appealing as Manson's home life. Its cliche, and heavy handedly done. Ironically enough, the Japanese/American Assassin's story was much better, if also grotuse and heavy handed
Hell compare this to a psychopathic (somewhat) character Guts (or Gatsu).
He too, like the bride is an angry misunderstood man with a tragic past on a quest for revenge. but in his story, apart from being done in a more human manner, touches the audience more. Also, it shows him as a more human character. He may be badass at times, but he never really evokes admiration, mostly pity had how this person does such monstrous things, and yet is simply unable to put himself to a good use. Gut's story is tragic because at first he only exists as a killing machine, and then h realizes how empty his existence is as only a weapon, and after committing some truly shocking acts, he starts trying to change and reform, while lacking the actual ability to do so (sadly he isn't actually stupid, just uneducated). And then the spoilers happen and everything goes down hill from there



David Carradine himself says that the scene between himself and the Bride during the flashback in the beginning of vol 2 is the finest piece of cinema he's been a part of. I dunno, I guess I just think that Kill Bill was a phenomenal story and am still surprised the world doesn't agree with me. (Even other people who like it don't tend to cite the story as a reason why, so I might just be a unique flower.) In either case, your feelings toward Kill Bill don't really elucidate your feelings about Evil as Protagonist to me, so we should let it drop probably.
1) Carradine's option doesn't impress me very much. The best scene i'd say would be the one between the assassin and the Bride in the hotel when they confirm that she is going to have a baby.
2) what story? The story is simply a series of cliches, some of them are properly executed (making them tropes instead) but it isn't an impressive story by anymeans

ok, i'll start another thread on this some time






I would define Diablo and Berserk as two of the grittiest mainstream fantasy stories ever written. Diablo is a world teetering on the brink of utter oblivion against the unstoppable might of incredibly powerful demon lords and their armies. Against them are a plucky band of people who would die and be forgotten if they didn't have a plethora of powerful allies. Berserk is a world where an oppressive church slaughters everyone who thinks differently from themselves, and worships what they think is a benevolent god, but which is in fact evil, and interested in killing everyone and everything. If an inquisition which (I actually cringed remembering this) ties heretics to wagon wheels, their torso in the center and each limb splayed outward, and then the wheel used to pull the carriage until every one of their limbs is snapped off at the elbow and knee, while those people are still alive isn't gritty to you, I don't ever want to see what you'd consider gritty.

That is the diablo world, not the game play. The world is gritty and the storyline is gritty, but hte game play itself is not. The gameplay isn't gritty at all, you just smash your way through everything (ok simplfication, but general idea). The world and storyline are quite gritty certainly, but that is because Blizzard, for all of their faults, are very very good storytellers and world designers (and good luck for them on that in the future diablo III), and can establish the tone. But the books don't do that, so that is individual DMs. as i said, if individual DM do a good job setting a tone, that doesn't make the system any better unless it is part of the game essentially.

You can do diablo style gritty quite fine in 3E, just with less over the come (if balanced) combat

also, you missed the big point of Beserk to a limited extent, the point of the game is that the entire world is controlled by an omi powerful being who is evil (really bad predestination) and wishes nothing but pain and suffering upon the world. The story lines sadness comes mostly through character's interactions

The fall of Griffith and the personality and sadness of Gatsu

its gritty because of the personal experiences of the characters. And considering how much 4E focuses upon the "player Power" lack of control over their lives (or free will) the people in the world of Berserk have is kinda against that
And in beserk too, the story is gritty, the events are gritty, the world is gritty, but the actual combat is not (which is what 4E is all about, combat, it doesn't really care about fluff much). the combat isn't gritty, more epic and brutal and over the top (see gory and shocking) but not actually gritty most of the time.

Again, that is the story, not the style of play. i mean, in a sense, even warcraft is gritty in that sense


A better example of a truly gritty setting would be Song of ice and fire, HBO's rome, or even to a limited extent vinland saga.


If they said on the back of the D&D 4th edition PHB, "You can play games like Berserk with this book", I would have counted that as an enthusiastic + toward the game.

You can play games like Berserk in 3E. Its actually easier i find to play Beserk 3E, through 4E does diablo better than 3E



Uh... what? I didn't mention anything about killing people who pinged good or evil, I meant that alignment as a mechanic was regulated to activating magic items or abilities, and was binary for whether a power would work or not.
didn't your point refere it being used as an automatic bad guy detecter. Hmm, oh well. A


If I'm the target of Blasphemy, and I'm Good, I'm stunned or worse. If I'm Evil, nothing happens. I dislike mechanics like this, so I'm inclined to believe Alignment as a mechanic is useless. That's what I was saying.
[QUOTE]
It makes sense through, from a view Point. The holy Amulet of the good deity couldn’t be used by an evil person (hence the whole smite X Y type). I mean it is like items that are specific to a certain class or race. It makes a certain quality unique.
However, if you just don’t like that specific mechanic, that is much easier to get rid of then the rest of the system
[QUOTE]
Also, I think if you're talking about a Feudal Japanese society focusing particularly on the Samurai or Nobility classes being neutral or evil, then the same can be said about Feudal Europe, so I don't know why you made the distinction. If you're talking about modern Japan, well, I can't say I agree.

1) Actually, I think it was eairler on this thread, if not this thread, I called Europe as an example as well. Japan was just another example, a better one because it is a good example of a society that by D&D’s standard is evil,the people of their family are quite fine
2) I said 16th century Japan.


The point I was arguing was that Detecting Evil in the souls of people is nowhere near universal in Legend and Myth, as Nagora tried to imply. I can't fathom the world you exist in where counterexamples aren't proof of non-uniformity.

Except somebody detecting as evil, realistically, wouldn’t be that uncommon. So players using it wouldn’t make that much of a difference. I would help them detect demons and devils, but that makes sense.



Actually, you're wrong about this. 4e Clerics wear heavy armor and duke it out in melee. 4e Wizards wear cloth and would never survive in melee. 4e Clerics overwhelmingly affect only one or very few enemies at a time, while 4e Wizards affect many, many enemies at a time. Clerics almost exclusively add buffs to allies as secondary effects, while Wizards almost exclusively add debuffs as secondary effects.

What's frustrating for me is that you've almost got a point here, but you can't really express yourself here. 4e Clerics are factually NOT robed mystics with magic staffs and long wispy beards conceptually, and you keep losing credibility trying to make it seem like they are.

However, if you were to essentially compare the Cleric's ability to add +1 power bonus to AC against enemy attacks is numerically identical to adding a -1 penalty to an enemy's attack bonus, and in that sense, the roles of Leader and Controller overlap.



The 4E cleric may still do meele, but I still hold the WoW cleric (and no, I don’t like the MMO/4E comparison) as what it resembles. It can still fight yes (and the normal best armor is chainmail, unless you take a battle cleric), but it is far more limited than the last version, and not from a simply balance perspective. I realize that Clerics were over powered, but 4E’s broke them down to so much they aren’t so much as a revised class as a similar but different class.

Erk


EE:
Bah, nevermind. I had a huge post written, but lost it, so I'm gonna cut it short.

Yeah, that is annoying



I find 4e easier to modify, faster and more free to play, and generally more a successor to and improvement on 2e than 3e ever was.
[/QUOTE
Faster, easier to modify? Certainly. Worth the cost, certainly not. And here is the thing, do you mind actually explaining why it is more of a successor to 3E, when it cuts out so much, while 3E, for all of its many faults, is quite true to 2E, through not perfect, the transition is much easier. I mean, what you consider “usless details” are still part of the game, and as you haven’t explained why the game is better of without the same complexity, your claims are rather jarring.
[QUOTE]
I've never used half the rules of 3e because they take too long to implement and are frankly useless;

Define useless. Why are they useless? What makes them unneeded. You have said you liked the paladin code, isn’t that also useless by the same count?



I've never used the stats on 95% of the NPCs I've bothered to stat out. Nor have I ever used alignment in d&d, not ever, so I don't care that the 4e system sucks just as much as 3e and 2e.

So your admitting that 4E supports one style of play, one that is suited to your, hence why its better.

Now lets have a loot at this for a second. I mean, you seem to be rather picky when it comes to the D&D rules you use. But logically, there must be plenty of people who like those rules and use different styles of gaming. unless your saying that your style is the one true style, (which I doubt) your basic point is “well, it works for me” now there actually isn’t anything wrong about that. However, that is why I said 4E is better suited to a niche game, one that suits one style of play and focuses on doing it well (like Exalted or Rolemaster) As I said, 4E would maek a great spin off game, or an officially rule book for the miniature game. However as a new edition, where it simplifies so much, it fails. remember, it is always easier to get ride of stuff then add it./


Skills are now clearcut and easy to run, no time wasted deciding which skill best applies and whether synergy should be included or whatever. Monsters now have a wide range of varieties, saving me the time I always used to spend writing goblins that didn't all use the same weapons and tactics.

And in response, Skills are not simplified, boring and basic, Monsters are basic boring, with awful fluff that basically makes them uninteresting mindless monsters. suits your style of play, but not mine, where a newe edition of D&D should be more accommodating


Everything, in general, is streamlined, yet I can still run all the campaigns I used to. WITHOUT the 20 pages of house rules I used to have. And they don't have fluff attached to make my players try to argue with my when I design goblins as a race of engineering-specialised, forest-dwelling, almost-peaceful creatures. Fluff is still not what it should be, because what it should be is what 2e was: undefined, generic, to allow for any campaign world. Failing that, 4e's crunch-detached fluff will do just fine.

1) 2E actually had pretty detailed fluff.
2) And what do you mean when fluff isn’t important? IS this a rule now? You might not use fluff, but that doesn’t render fluff void. Fluff makes the game interesting and worth reading, instead of boring number crunching. saying fluff doesn’t matter is a remarkably absolute view


That sums up what I can remember. Clearly you expect a far different gameplay experience than I do, one that 4e somehow can't satisfy. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. Cheers!

I wanted 4E to be a worthy new edition, not perfectly suit my style of play. It isn’t a niche game, its is suppose to be a more accommodating game to many different styles.



I don't understand this statement. 4E isn't 3.revised-yet-again, it is an entirely new game. Yes, it's still D&D, and it does much that previous editions did. Some things it does better, and other it does worse. Unlike the 3.x it doesn't try to be most things to most people, it does heroic fantasy in a fun way.

I can understand why this might upset you, but don't expect the apple to feel bad just because you expect it to taste like an orange.

Tahts the problem it is a complextly different game in the way a spin off game might be, not a new edition. This isn’t a natural change, it’s a total recon. It supports one style of play, and simplifies/erases so much of the old game it is barely recognizable. This isn’t nearly as absurd as the 2E/3E shift, and yes I am perfectly aware of the problems that came from that. A new edition should support many aspects of D&D, and should be more like a fix of the older edition’s problems (and there were many problems) rather than a totally new game. 4E would be a fine spin off game, not a new edition


hate to step into this thread but...this kind of confused me. You're bothered when the monster becomes easier to defeat by the higher level character, but not by the ability to defeat the monster just being a part of the character. I mean, it's essentially the same thing: Monster is easier to kill, and it's just reached in a different way.

Its more consistent this way. In 3E, a creature didn’t simply exist to be killed, they had a race and class like everybody else. They just happen to be low level/weak, not creatures that lliterally exist to be killed, which doesn’t make sense from an in game perspective and is absurdly gamist


Firkraag


I dislike what they did to the game at large. It is completely different, beyond recognition - it is not Dungeons & Dragons

Thank you




I dunno about you, but in all the time I've been playing all of those "weird, odd, and generally expensive items in the books" have honestly just remained there: in the books. Playing IRL and on websites like RPoL it's the same theme: weird stuff is custom made if it's allowed, and otherwise ignored.

Its a shame really, that stuff is cool to think about uses for, but I've never been in a position to make use of the Crab Barrel (CRAB BATTLE!) or even artifacts outside of crazy, level 60 epic games.

All of that stuff is just so underutilized that it comes to the point where you have to ask: why print it at all if its not going to be used?

Correct me if I’m wrong here ZekeArgo, but are you basically saying “well I don’t use it, so nobody else must, and so it isn’t important and can be scrapped”




Nagora, I'm surprised at you. I expected a more intelligent response than "Lol aggro, videogame!" from you.

is making a comparison somehow limit his point in somehow. I mean, he did have a point, that fact he made a video game reference doesn’t make it any less important. Isn’t that evading the point.



Why would you expect that? Nagora has beaten on the Mark = Aggro and Marking = No In-Game Representation for a long time, despite several different people pointing out how it's entirely different than aggro in videogames, and entirely related to the in-game actions of the character interfering with attacks directed at others through distraction or aggressive parrying. Nagora still cleaves to his belief that Marking is a disassociated mechanic despite all this, so I have a feeling he'll take this belief to his grave... proudly.


The same sort of pride you use when arguing against him with your beliefs I notice. Why do you criticism him for the same thing your doing in terms of beliefs? Its a little odd

Good day
from
EE
Edit
Starsinger, i would remind you, that pointing out balence problems with 3E doesn't make 4E any better. I dislike both editions for those problems, i just dislike 4E more

[Starsinger]

Wall of Text
Edit
Starsinger, i would remind you, that pointing out balence problems with 3E doesn't make 4E any better. I dislike both editions for those problems, i just dislike 4E more

Aww, I feel special that you took time out to chastise me. Pointing out balance problems with 3e does make 4e better if 4e fixes that balance problem. What you just said is about the equivalent of saying, "The fact that PCs instantly shut down if power surges doesn't make Laptops superior if power shuts down because they have a battery supply."

As a contrast, my pointing out that you spelled balance wrong doesn't make my post better than yours. I just dislike yours more :smalltongue:

[Aron Times]

EE, don't you have better things to do than bash 4E? You don't like it; we get it. You don't have to keep telling us about it.

[turkishproverb]

EE, don't you have better things to do than bash 4E? You don't like it; we get it. You don't have to keep telling us about it.

I don't know, I think given the location it makes more sense than supporting it. :smallbiggrin:

[Starsinger]

I don't know, I think given the location it makes more sense than supporting it. :smallbiggrin:

This thread or this forum? :smallamused:

[turkishproverb]

This thread or this forum? :smallamused:

Pick one. :smallamused:

Seriously though, I do love the way 4E liker's feel the need to fight any complaints about 4E even if that is what the thread is about.

[thegurullamen]

Pointing out balance problems with 3e does make 4e better if 4e fixes that balance problem.

Not if it does so at the cost of the rest of the previous edition. Then it's just sort of a half-a**ed fix. (Yeah yeah yeah, this is a weak argument, but it does get to the core of my anti-4e-as-a-new-edition stance. Just don't take it at face value.)

[Jayabalard]

EE, don't you have better things to do than bash 4E? You don't like it; we get it. You don't have to keep telling us about it.You could always choose not to read this thread; that kind of begs the question: if you don't want to read things that are against 4e, then why are you reading a thread entitled "things you dislike about 4e" in the first place?


I don't know, I think given the location it makes more sense than supporting it. :smallbiggrin:Agreed; but some people just get incensed when someone is wrong on the internet (http://xkcd.com/386/), so I guess it's to be expected.


Pointing out balance problems with 3e does make 4e better if 4e fixes that balance problem. This isn't true even if you agree with the assumption that the lack of balanced in 3e is actually a problem; nor is it relevant to the thread, unless you're saying that this is something you dislike about 4e, which doesn't make any sense to me.


I take it back. A piece of meat with a shield is more cost effective. If the Fighter dies, it's what, 5k GP in diamonds to bring him back? Whereas a cow is worth 10g.This doesn't make any sense; if the fighter takes enough damage to be killed, then it's quite likely that if you replace him with a piece of meat and a shield then someone else, or even multiple someone's, would have died in his place. So there's no cost savings.


I wasn't referring to your post as sarcasm.Then I'm not seeing what you said had anything to do with the post that you quoted.

[Starsinger]

This doesn't make any sense; if the fighter takes enough damage to be killed, then it's quite likely that if you replace him with a piece of meat and a shield then someone else, or even multiple someone's, would have died in his place. So there's no cost savings.
Pfft. Area will save or dies, gorgons, disintegrate rays, what have you. Things happen, people die. With enough gentle repose, that piece of meat can be with you forever.

Then I'm not seeing what you said had anything to do with the post that you quoted.

Where I said "The 3.5 model is better" was sarcasm.

[horseboy]

especially when we have them think in-character and not use metagame logic to decide their courses of action.First rule of the streets, chummer, geek the mage.
Here is one thing that has always confused me? If this is a thread about complain/whining about 4E, why do people hang around to defend it? i mean i don't really mind, but it seems a little silly and pointless. I mean, its like going to a thread dedicated to pointing out what you like about 4E and saying what you don't like, If you're going to hate on something, hate on it for valid reasons. When I say "I hate the art." That's a purely subjective opinion. Saying "4th edition only supports one play style," is trying to make a declaration of fact. Facts can be proven or dis-proven. It's dis-proven that it only supports one play style, as Jeth's (I think it was) experience proves alone. As he actually has radically altered the "typical" play style.


Modern example please? they had complexity during 3E (less in some ways then 2E but different) however in 4E we have a strong need for simplification Honestly I quit dealing with WotC right around Homelands. :smallwink:


In standard D&D, the basic assumption is that there is no plot. The plot is made up by the DM. Unlike exalted, D&D doesn't and never has, ever functioned upon a story basis, and never has. The game isn't designed around some sort of meta plot or other sort of story line. Story elements are left up the particular DM not individuals. Even 4E doesn't do this, through it does give out rather glaring hints

Can D&d support a game concerning a maga plot and story which controls the entire world (like David eddings setting)? Certainly. Does it have too? No. It can also be used for sand box style, or simply side quest style. The world should be able to act normally without direct influence from the players when first made like FR (generally) its part of immersion. If you, a specific DM, don't care fine, its easier to ignore a rule then bring about oneOkay, I'll agree that D&D has no metaplot, and did you really mean that the basic assumption of D&D is that there isn't a plot? Cause that would imply that, yes, D&D is nothing but "I kill it and take it's stuff." In that kind of game, NPC's exist to either be killed or sell you stuff to kill stuff with. Actually trying to get the world to be able to act normally without direct influence from the players in that sort of situation would require major warping of the rules set. And let's face it, unless you're in Tippyland you're going to be using a dump truck of Handwavium to explain how you don't.



1) I'm, i've argued with Starsinger on this forum, on this thread, if he wants to show up, sure
2) there are code problems yes, but i don't see how they relate to your point?It's an arbitrary fluff restriction. Exactly what you're complaining about.

you do that, i don't think it will make much of a difference. D&D has a lot of combat certainly, but it isn't a plot game focused game. Uh...wanna try that one again.


As i said ,D&D isn't built to be gritty. I said it can be made to resemble gritty game and of these editions 2E does this best, where death is quite possible and likely. 4E is the worst of the lot

And rolemaster is a fine game, and you might want to point out to your fellow 4E supporters that for the same reasons plus many more, 4E does not do gritty That's just it, no version of D&D does gritty. To complain about 4th edition not being gritty is like complaining that you have to put your own Parmesan on your popcorn because nobody sells it with it(It's quite tasty by the way).

That isn't any arbitrary inhibitations in the aligniment system. As i said, good and evil aren't the same as right and wrongThe alignment system in itself an arbitrary inhibition. Whether you have to pick between 9 predetermined personalities or 5 or 3 really doesn't change that. The fact that alignment is much more divorced from the mechanics in 4th than in 3rd makes it much easier to ignore. You know, to allow more styles of play. :smallwink:

[Crow]

Aww, I feel special that you took time out to chastise me. Pointing out balance problems with 3e does make 4e better if 4e fixes that balance problem. What you just said is about the equivalent of saying, "The fact that PCs instantly shut down if power surges doesn't make Laptops superior if power shuts down because they have a battery supply."

4e doesn't "fix" the balance problem at all. It is a whole new system, not a fix. It is a new game with the D&D name slapped on it, and given enough splatbooks, it will be unbalanced at some point too.

[Hallavast]

That's just it, no version of D&D does gritty. To complain about 4th edition not being gritty is like complaining that you have to put your own Parmesan on your popcorn because nobody sells it with it(It's quite tasty by the way). It is fairly easy to make 3e grit compatible (though Nagora probably wouldn't like the fix, because it involves using "more rules" :smallwink: ). I honestly have no idea if 4e shares a similar ease of fixing, but I'd like to hear valid arguments from an unbiased party either confirming or denying this, if possible.

[nagora]

It is fairly easy to make 3e grit compatible (though Nagora probably wouldn't like the fix, because it involves using "more rules" :smallwink: ).
Okay, then, try me :smallsmile:

The easiest way to add grit to D&D is to cut back the amount of XP you give out as the DM, since that filters down to things like HP, damage done, saving throws etc. I know a DM who never lets PCs get past 4th level and the resulting campaign was apparently very gritty with basically no other rules changed.

It does partly depend on one's definition of "grit", of course.

[Hallavast]

Okay, then, try me :smallsmile:

The easiest way to add grit to D&D is to cut back the amount of XP you give out as the DM, since that filters down to things like HP, damage done, saving throws etc. I know a DM who never lets PCs get past 4th level and the resulting campaign was apparently very gritty with basically no other rules changed.

It does partly depend on one's definition of "grit", of course.

Yeah. That's a popular method. You kinda lose about 60% of the books' value by doing that though as you never reach higher level play.

The method I use for some campaigns involves using the vitality/wounds alternate rule along with getting rid of full casters (druids, wizards, sorcerers, clerics, and so on). The Bard's spells known/per day is narrowed to a paladin/ranger level approach (or removed entirely with compensation added elsewhere if the group so chooses). This goes for any class with Bard level spellcasting. The magic items allowed are basically determined on a case-by-case order. If the DM wants the item in, then it's in (this is less strenuous than you'd think, considering the DM won't have to bother evaluating items which he doesn't put into an adventure). The result is a very dangerous, low magic, gritty feel that still allows the party to face things like beholders and adult dragons upon occasion.

[EvilElitest]

Aww, I feel special that you took time out to chastise me. Pointing out balance problems with 3e does make 4e better if 4e fixes that balance problem.

Not if it does more damage on its own. 4E's fix doesn't make it a better game, because the cost isn't worth it. 4E doesn't fix things, it totally changes things through simplification until it is an entirely new new game, like a spinoff game that focuses on one element of playing, or a D&D for dummies.
pointing out flaws in 3E doesn't make the more annoying flaws in 4E any less evident, its just side stepping the issue


What you just said is about the equivalent of saying, "The fact that PCs instantly shut down if power surges doesn't make Laptops superior if power shuts down because they have a battery supply."

No, it is more like this
"Hey i don't like the new starways trilogy because X, Y and Z"
"well the old starwars trilogy had bad computer graphics"
You don't prove anything. Ok, the old starwars isn't as visually stunning as the new one, but that doesn't change the fact that it is simply a better series then the new one. Your not disproving my point, your evading the question and trying to disprove another game which i don't like anyways. 3E has massive balence issues, your point? I wanted a new better edition. 4E is simply worst then 3e, which is kinda impressive. Its worst then 3E, because 3E, for all its faults actually has enough good stuff to make up for it, barely. 3E needed a major change. 4E's changes same at the cost of massive simplification, that it isn't worth it.



As a contrast, my pointing out that you spelled balance wrong doesn't make my post better than yours. I just dislike yours more :smalltongue:
Ok, my post lacks spelling. But despite that, my post addresses a massive amount of issues on this board



EE, don't you have better things to do than bash 4E? You don't like it; we get it. You don't have to keep telling us about it.
Ok, this is odd. You went on to a thread, a thread taht was all about pointing out the flaws in 4E, and then seem to be upset that, people seem to be upset about 4E for one reason. So ether your saying, my option doesn't matter because i took half an hour to type up a big post, and actually address the points made. So i have to wonder, what are you trying to prove. I mean, your just making random negative comments without much explanation

Also i don't think i'm 4E bashing. bashing is attacking it for the sake of attacking it, while i'm attacking it for an actual reason.




Seriously though, I do love the way 4E liker's feel the need to fight any complaints about 4E even if that is what the thread is about
its ironic actually, because on the threads that are made to be pro 4E, anyone who mocks 4E is accused of starting a flame war actually. I make me wonder, what are people trying to prove. I mean, i don't mind arguing with folks, i like that sort of stuff, but i have to question the logic behind it



If you're going to hate on something, hate on it for valid reasons. When I say "I hate the art." That's a purely subjective opinion. Saying "4th edition only supports one play style," is trying to make a declaration of fact. Facts can be proven or dis-proven. It's dis-proven that it only supports one play style, as Jeth's (I think it was) experience proves alone. As he actually has radically altered the "typical" play style.
then what about pro 4E threads? You could say the same thing. If your going to like something, do so for valid reasons, and if your going to disprove something, do so with actual backing. Because of this, Jeth hasn't disproved anything, because his main points (which i addressed above) is that you can home brew it to play something else, because he doesn't think fluff matters very much. I don't agree with this assertion, and as i said, countered it above.



Okay, I'll agree that D&D has no metaplot, and did you really mean that the basic assumption of D&D is that there isn't a plot? Cause that would imply that, yes, D&D is nothing but "I kill it and take it's stuff." In that kind of game, NPC's exist to either be killed or sell you stuff to kill stuff with.
Your assertion isn't correct. A game setting lacking an overall plot does not make it a kill fest, i mean take Ebberon or FR. It just means that the world/setting doesn't exist to suit a giant story, and instead exist as a world in its own right. That doesn't give any bearing to it being a hack fest. In fact, hack and slash games fit the metplot idea far better, because everything in the worst exist to suit the purpose of the meta plot



Actually trying to get the world to be able to act normally without direct influence from the players in that sort of situation would require major warping of the rules set. And let's face it, unless you're in Tippyland you're going to be using a dump truck of Handwavium to explain how you don't.

That isn't true at all. Tippy world is a result of balence problems, not metaplot issues, entirely different problems. A world should be able to act perfectly fine without the PCs showing up, because it (like you know, the real world) simply act on its own in a logical fashion.


It's an arbitrary fluff restriction. Exactly what you're complaining about.
Its not arbitrary, because it is a feature of the class. You aren't forced to take the class. Also it isn't a fluff restriction, its a code, which is entirely different. A fluff restriction would be more like not allowing any character to take that specific code, or play evil characters. i don't mind a code being part of a class feature, it is waht makes that class unique and it makes sense. i mean, the idea of the champion of Law and good having some restrictions makes perfect sense and also fits the character concept (it is always harder to be good). A cleric of a god must do his gods will. It makes sense within game


Uh...wanna try that one again.
just because combat is a big part of D&D doesn't mean that D&D only has to be a combat game.


That's just it, no version of D&D does gritty. To complain about 4th edition not being gritty is like complaining that you have to put your own Parmesan on your popcorn because nobody sells it with it(It's quite tasty by the way).
except 2E and 3E do gritty better. THey don't do it well, but they can do it better than 4E could hope to pull off.


The alignment system in itself an arbitrary inhibition. Whether you have to pick between 9 predetermined personalities or 5 or 3 really doesn't change that. The fact that alignment is much more divorced from the mechanics in 4th than in 3rd makes it much easier to ignore. You know, to allow more styles of play.
_
Do you mind not using fallacies to prove your point? the alignment does not define your personality. They aren't nine personalities that everybody has to fit, they are nine categories that personalties fit into. That isn't arbitrary at all. Breaking the system down into black and white as 4E has done is arbitrary, as is discouraging evil players
from
EE

[thegurullamen]

its ironic actually, because on the threads that are made to be pro 4E, anyone who mocks 4E is accused of starting a flame war actually. I make me wonder, what are people trying to prove. I mean, i don't mind arguing with folks, i like that sort of stuff, but i have to question the logic behind it

There's very little logic involved. If you come into an anti-4e thread, it's either for a) discussing your anti-4e stance, b) examining others' (for whatever reasons) or c) for defending 4e. The first two types of people obey the "un"written laws of the forum while the third runs entirely contrary to it. Right here, logic flies out the window in favor of whining, defensive stances on pro-4e opinions and other forms of annoying Internet behavior. In short, emotional excess splattered on the forums. (Obligatory statement: That said, it's not that all pro-4e arguments are emotional brats shouting about their insecurities, it's just that a polarized thread like this one tends to draw such people out. Plenty of annoying anti-4e'ers can be found in this and the pro-4e forum as well.) In short, you're asking for logic from people who don't know better than to browse a thread about other peoples' opinions which run against theirs and then trying to use (usually faulty) logic to convince them that their opinions are absolutely (and I use that term in its most literal form) wrong.

[Knaight]

You also see people in the middle, arguing the more ridiculous arguments for both sides, and the people who play other games, and argue about it when people make broad sweeping statements that insult the intelligence of people who play them. For instance, people who say that simplification is bad, and insult every game simpler than 3.5. Although if you want that, then you use the Wotc boards (apparently you become stupider for using a simpler game system, as they are all dumbed down. And all the complexity is inherent in the math, as opposed to say the setting, or the characters. Utter crap.)

[horseboy]

then what about pro 4E threads? You could say the same thing. If your going to like something, do so for valid reasons, and if your going to disprove something, do so with actual backing. yeah, I can agree with this, sorta. You can like things that both editions share, but they're not an improvement 4th made. Likewise, you can't hate something multiple editions share and blame 4th. And remember, never have I said I actually "like" 4th edition. I just loathe 3.x so much I think I could -well let's not give St. Jude any more work than we have to. I'd give 4th a 5 out of 10.
Because of this, Jeth hasn't disproved anything, because his main points (which i addressed above) is that you can home brew it to play something else, because he doesn't think fluff matters very much. I don't agree with this assertion, and as i said, countered it above.

except 2E and 3E do gritty better. They don't do it well, but they can do it better than 4E could hope to pull off. No, they don't. The only time D&D could be considered a "gritty" game was prior to 1980 when gritty games hadn't come out yet. As Hallavast's post points out, to make 3rd "gritty" takes just as much house ruling as Jeth's "gritty" 4th house rulings. Therefore 4th can be just as gritty as 3rd.

Your assertion isn't correct. A game setting lacking an overall plot does not make it a kill fest, i mean take Ebberon or FR. It just means that the world/setting doesn't exist to suit a giant story, and instead exist as a world in its own right. That doesn't give any bearing to it being a hack fest. In fact, hack and slash games fit the metplot idea far better, because everything in the worst exist to suit the purpose of the meta plot Well, one it would depend on what said metaplot was. 2nd That wasn't what you said. This makes more sense, but is a completely different thought.


That isn't true at all. Tippy world is a result of balance problems, not metaplot issues, entirely different problems. A world should be able to act perfectly fine without the PCs showing up, because it (like you know, the real world) simply act on its own in a logical fashion. Tippy world is what happens when balance is so bad it becomes a metaplot issue. Sure, the Worlds and Monsters book said that they weren't interested in having to deal with NPC's when they're not around, but what actually, factually, mechanically prevents the game world from acting perfectly fine without the PC's showing up? Unlike in 3rd where you'd have to go through the core rule book with a machete just to make it make some logical sense.


Its not arbitrary, because it is a feature of the class. You aren't forced to take the class. Also it isn't a fluff restriction, its a code, which is entirely different. A fluff restriction would be more like not allowing any character to take that specific code, or play evil characters. i don't mind a code being part of a class feature, it is waht makes that class unique and it makes sense. i mean, the idea of the champion of Law and good having some restrictions makes perfect sense and also fits the character concept (it is always harder to be good). A cleric of a god must do his gods will. It makes sense within game. That it never changes to reflect the tenants of the characters faith makes it an arbitrary restriction.


just because combat is a big part of D&D doesn't mean that D&D only has to be a combat game. To retread an old favorite, Just because Monopoly is a game about owning property in Atlantic City, doesn't mean you can't use it as a game about global military domination.



Do you mind not using fallacies to prove your point? the alignment does not define your personality. They aren't nine personalities that everybody has to fit, they are nine categories that personalties fit into. That isn't arbitrary at all. Breaking the system down into black and white as 4E has done is arbitrary, as is discouraging evil players
fromIt's not a fallacy, it's a horrid system that if I didn't know better would think purposely put there to make a campaign last longer while everybody sits there and argues about can they do that with their alignment.

[Jerthanis]

then what about pro 4E threads? You could say the same thing. If your going to like something, do so for valid reasons, and if your going to disprove something, do so with actual backing. Because of this, Jeth hasn't disproved anything, because his main points (which i addressed above) is that you can home brew it to play something else, because he doesn't think fluff matters very much. I don't agree with this assertion, and as i said, countered it above.

I hate how you're apparently the sole arbiter of who provides sufficient backing, because to me you just keep saying, "It's oversimplified and lost all its complexity because WotC dumbed it down." over and over again, and passing "good and evil are different than right and wrong, therefore, alignment is a worthy system" off as an airtight proof of how the D&D morality system is totally awesome. I also think I've stated a decent, if not airtight case for 4e being very open to multiple playstyles, and with alignment being a fundamentally flawed system worthy of being thrown out entirely, yet here you characterize me as someone who doesn't ever back myself up with anything at all.

I accept that I may be wrong, and might fail to convince anyone of anything, but I hate not being treated with respect.



Do you mind not using fallacies to prove your point? the alignment does not define your personality. They aren't nine personalities that everybody has to fit, they are nine categories that personalties fit into. That isn't arbitrary at all. Breaking the system down into black and white as 4E has done is arbitrary, as is discouraging evil players
from
EE

I guess our issue is that we don't see how it's any more arbitrary to have five (or three, or two, or seventeen) arbitrary categories that personalities fit into than having nine categories that personalities fit into. Help us understand, because we aren't coming from a position where we think Alignment is useful for anything whatsoever, so we have no scales to measure how 9 can be better or worse than 5, because we (I) don't measure this kind of thing in numbers.

And I didn't come into this thread to defend 4th edition, it's worthy of having flaws pointed out, I just hate it when pots call kettles black (Their alignment is childish while ours is better) and when something is described as having a flaw I have experienced the game not having. (PCs are superheroes who cleave easily through innumerable hordes being showered with glory and riches the whole way.)

And yeah... 4e's art tends toward the suck. Oddly I really liked a lot of the concept and preview art, but I'm not a fan of the Ebberon artist guy who did the covers.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Because it's that time again.



Fallacy
1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.
2. a misleading or unsound argument.
3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.
4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
5. Obsolete. deception.
[Origin: 1350–1400; < L fallācia a trick, deceit, equiv. to fallāc- (s. of fallāx) deceitful, fallacious + -ia -y3; r. ME fallace < MF]

Remember: just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's a fallacy!

[Hallavast]

Well, in my opinion, 3e alignment fails to give players and DMs what they want; an objective moral system to judge actions. It doesn't matter that such a thing does not exist, because 3e alignment comes off as an attempt to present this. Alignment in general is a broken system if you're looking for objectivity. Indeed the best way to handle 3e alignment, in my mind, is to never explicitly tell the players their alignment and to just have any mechanical aftermath of such be completely subject to DM opinion.

I don't believe 4e alignment to be any better or any worse in this regard. I suppose some people like the dual axis approach that 3e provides. Instead of everything being black, white, and gray; things were black, white, gray and red, blue, or purple if you take my meaning. Some believe that the more classified you get, the more accurately you can ascertain true alignment. Some folks, on the other hand, think that this is a waste of time.

Both "systems" are broken as far as objectivity. Something interesting to consider, however, is: if one believes further classification is pointless and the whole system useless, then why would they even want an alignment system in the game to begin with?

3e alignment is a vain attempt at classifying alignment into something that can't be achieved, and 4e alignment is just a "lip service" remnant of tradition that 4e no longer cares about anyway.

Both are fairly comical when you think about it. :smallamused:

[Thurbane]

I guess our issue is that we don't see how it's any more arbitrary to have five (or three, or two, or seventeen) arbitrary categories that personalities fit into than having nine categories that personalities fit into. Help us understand, because we aren't coming from a position where we think Alignment is useful for anything whatsoever, so we have no scales to measure how 9 can be better or worse than 5, because we (I) don't measure this kind of thing in numbers.
Personally, I think the 9-alignment system works better than 4E's system because it has two axis. It's kind of like the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2) system, but stead of Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian scales, it has Good/Evil and Law/Chaos...

[The Mormegil]

Well, I like this art better, for instance. And I'm not the only one. But I suppose you can live with bad art, if you need to. I think an RPG should be more a game of imagination than a videogame where art is actually what you're playing with all the time.

[Starsinger]

Personally, I think the 9-alignment system works better than 4E's system because it has two axis. It's kind of like the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2) system, but stead of Left/Right and Authoritarian/Libertarian scales, it has Good/Evil and Law/Chaos...

I honestly prefer an alignment system like Rifts' wherein you had Good alignments (and descriptions of 2-3 Good alignments) and you had Evil alignments (and descriptions of 2-3 Evil alignments) and you had Selfish alignments (and descriptions of 2-3 Selfish alignments). They didn't try to make it on an axis, or a scale or some sort of grid, which is really the downfall in 3rd's alignment system. Meanwhile, they didn't try and say 'this is more Good than that" which is my issue with Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil in 4's alignment system. Of course, since it has no mechanical effect, I find myself never looking at that little box anyways.

[nagora]

Well, in my opinion, 3e alignment fails to give players and DMs what they want; an objective moral system to judge actions.
Why do you say that; I've never had any real trouble with using the alignment system to judge/classify player actions.

[Jayabalard]

I honestly prefer an alignment system like Rifts' wherein you had Good alignments (and descriptions of 2-3 Good alignments) and you had Evil alignments (and descriptions of 2-3 Evil alignments) and you had Selfish alignments (and descriptions of 2-3 Selfish alignments).Just FYI: This is just the general palladium system alignment, so it's a bit more general than just Rifts.


Meanwhile, they didn't try and say 'this is more Good than that" which is my issue with Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil in 4's alignment system. They are listed from more good to less good (more evil)

It did pretty clearly spell out that principled was more good than scrupulous; superman is used in the example for Principled and a vigilante is used in the example for scrupulous. The latter is more willing to venture into the grey area.

While unprincipled was in the selfish section it was more more "good" than Anarchist. This is made very clear: "This person is basically good, but often acts selfishly and holds their personal freedoms above most else. Think about Han Solo." vs "This character will indulge himself in anything, and will at least consider doing anything if the price is right. Life has a meaning, but his own life has the greatest meaning. Anarchist characters are constantly teetering between good and evil. "

Likewise the evil alignments go from less evil to more evil: Miscreant which is just a slightly more evil version of selfish, to Aberrant which is "noble evil" who keeps his word to Diabolical who does evil for evil's sake

It's main difference with the D&D alignment system is the lack of "Neutral" alignments... which was primarily because Kevin Siembieda didn't like them. The books made some pretty snide comments about that, which were clearly aimed at D&D's alignments system.


Of course, since it has no mechanical effect, I find myself never looking at that little box anyways.I seem to recall that in the palladium Fanatasy RPG alignmentt could have a mechanical effect, and that certain martial arts were only available for certain alignments in Ninja's and Superspies, but that that's a long time ago.

Hmm...don't we have a Palladium writer on this board? He may remember better than I.

[horseboy]

Because it's that time again.
Remember: just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's a fallacy!Maybe we should start calling it "The Fallacy fallacy." :smallwink:

Both are fairly comical when you think about it. :smallamused:Yeah, terribly silly. Course, I do feel the need to point out that red box only had three alignments (Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic) with lawful described as "good" and chaotic described as "evil." So it's not even like it's indicative of 4th.


I honestly prefer an alignment system like Rifts' wherein you had Good alignments (and descriptions of 2-3 Good alignments) and you had Evil alignments (and descriptions of 2-3 Evil alignments) and you had Selfish alignments (and descriptions of 2-3 Selfish alignments). They didn't try to make it on an axis, or a scale or some sort of grid, which is really the downfall in 3rd's alignment system. Personally I prefer more a Whispering Vault style for character personalities. Write down 5 (or more if you not actually playing Vault) adjectives. "Good" and "evil" can be the adjectives used, if you want, but you get a much more complex personality without having to fight any rules, or delaying the game arguing or "Mother may I" crap.

Meanwhile, they didn't try and say 'this is more Good than that" which is my issue with Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil in 4's alignment system. Of course, since it has no mechanical effect, I find myself never looking at that little box anyways.Jay, I think he meant in 4th, not in Palladium. Though Nexx Mark Hall could probably answer your question.

[Jerthanis]

Maybe we should start calling it "The Fallacy fallacy." :smallwink:

The Fallacy fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy) is slightly different, arguing that a conclusion must be false if a fallacy was used to prove it. Here we have the word 'Fallacy' being used as a simple proxy for the phrase, "I disagree with you and wish to cancel my subscription to your newsletter."

[Oracle_Hunter]

The Fallacy fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy) is slightly different, arguing that a conclusion must be false if a fallacy was used to prove it. Here we have the word 'Fallacy' being used as a simple proxy for the phrase, "I disagree with you and wish to cancel my subscription to your newsletter."

Informative! From now on, let's cite from The Other Wiki's List of Fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) so as to heighten the level of debate through the use of Latin :smalltongue:

[Oslecamo]

Informative! From now on, let's cite from The Other Wiki's List of Fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) so as to heighten the level of debate through the use of Latin :smalltongue:

Hmmm...No. People already twist the english language enough. Adding a second language to the discussions won't really help at anything.

Anyway, we're discussing stuff such as dragons and people who can swim in lava. Who called real world philosophy in here?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Hmmm...No. People already twist the english language enough. Adding a second language to the discussions won't really help at anything.

Anyway, we're discussing stuff such as dragons and people who can swim in lava. Who called real world philosophy in here?

Don't look at me - I wasn't discussing the alignment system :smallbiggrin:

[Oslecamo]

Don't look at me - I wasn't discussing the alignment system :smallbiggrin:

People have been discussing what's good and what's evil for thousands of years. It would be strange if Wotc managed to settle the thing.

[black dragoon]

That may very well end the world as we know it so please all ye zombies let that not be true.

[Oracle_Hunter]

People have been discussing what's good and what's evil for thousands of years. It would be strange if Wotc managed to settle the thing.

True, yet people refuse to accept alignment as a purely in-game construct.

Tangent
WotC (or TSR) didn't intend for the alignment system to solve the true nature of Man - it was just supposed to be a framing device for a genre of fiction which plays heavily into the conflict between Good and Evil.

To allow a slightly more complex game, they introduced two axises: Good & Evil and Law & Chaos, and stuck "neutral" in between. Now you could have non-evil antagonists who differed by methods of action (the CG freedom fighter who keeps getting in the way of the LG Paladin) or in aims (that LG Paladin is going to have problems with the LN Tyrant, even if he approves of the Tyrant's actions against the CE Barbarians).

These "rules of morality" seem to stick in some players' craws as being Not How It's Done (that is to say, introducing "real world philosophies" into the game) instead of just accepting it as part of the game.

Is this right or wrong? Who can say - personally, I feel you should play the game you want to play, and if the rules in one system are too cumbersome, you should play another.

So, I guess my point is: alignment is as much a consequence of the fictional universe as fire-breathing dragons and swimming in lava. You can either apply real world thinking or not - but there is no logical reason (though there may be emotive ones) to declare one aspect of the game off-limits to "realism" but not others.

EDIT: Shoot, I wish I could pin down which Fallacy that is :smalltongue:

[Hallavast]

Why do you say that; I've never had any real trouble with using the alignment system to judge/classify player actions.

Just because you agree with the classifications of what is "moral" or "just" given in the book, does not make them objective. Moral objectivity is a myth. Basically, in order for the alignment system to work, everyone has to just accept that it is valid for the purpose of the game. A general agreement of how to interpret actions as good/evil/lawful/chaotic/neutral is also required.

My group long ago simply decided to agree with the system despite our "disagreements" with it. And that has gone a long way for making the system work.

Anyone who tries to test the actual objective morality of the alignment system will find it sorely lacking.

[Hallavast]

So, I guess my point is: alignment is as much a consequence of the fictional universe as fire-breathing dragons and swimming in lava. You can either apply real world thinking or not - but there is no logical reason (though there may be emotive ones) to declare one aspect of the game off-limits to "realism" but not others.

Well the problem with such a divorce comes when a player wants to play a paladin (or whatever) and has to choose that character's system of ethics and morals.

If you wish to play a character that believes in what you truly believe is good, then you are applying your own knowledge and conscience to how you roleplay that character. If your knowledge and conscience is ever classified as "evil" by your group's interpretation of the book's subjective rules, that can be very disheartening (an excellent opportunity for drama, but only if you can handle the rammifications of trying to prove a given moral concept to the group through your character). You may choose to simply conform your character's conscience to be more inline with that of the game world (and by extension the group). This will probably lead to a disconnected relationship between you and your character.

So such a divorce between game world alignment and real world morals is not so desirable if you've any inclination to play the game to anywhere near its fullest artistic capacity. If you make it just another game (like monopoly), then you're right. It doesn't matter and such a divorce is very desirable, since you don't have to try to tie your own beliefs to anything, and just roll the dice and have fun.

Edit: sorry for the double post.

[turkishproverb]

Not really. one of the greatest challenges in acting from an artistic perspective is making or acting as a character with different morals and ethics than yourself. This could be seen as an extension of that.

[nagora]

Just because you agree with the classifications of what is "moral" or "just" given in the book, does not make them objective.
A good point, although irrelevant since I didn't say that.


Moral objectivity is a myth.
1: in your opinion; 2: This is a game largely about Myth.


Basically, in order for the alignment system to work, everyone has to just accept that it is valid for the purpose of the game. A general agreement of how to interpret actions as good/evil/lawful/chaotic/neutral is also required.
Yes. So?


My group long ago simply decided to agree with the system despite our "disagreements" with it. And that has gone a long way for making the system work.
That's pretty well what you're supposed to do, so it's not surprising that it makes it work better.


Anyone who tries to test the actual objective morality of the alignment system will find it sorely lacking.
In what sense? Do you mean outside of the game? Firstly, that's as unimportant as saying that none of the spells work either, and secondly, I don't think the AD&D alignment system is really that far out of whack with RL morality. Certainly, it's a better system than most religions - but that's "damning with faint praise", I guess.

[Yahzi]

Here's what I do. This follows the five stages of moral development, from highest to lowest. I dispense with the other alignments because they don't make any sense to me (LN might as well be a robot, and CN wouldn't last more than 3 days. True Neutral means you're in a coma.)

NG - Pure good. Universal rights; always does whats best for everyone (including Team Monster, when possible).

If there's a city of orcs over the hill, he won't attack them without provocation, and he won't condone genocide unless it is the only possible way to produce peace and justice.

LG - Lawful good. Social contract. Limits his moral concerns to his society. People (or Team Monster) who live outside the rules don't get to claim the benefit of the rules. On the other hand, if you make a deal with somebody (even a Monster), you're kind of obligated to carry through on it.

If the orcs over the hill make a teaty, then the LG will honor it.

CG - Chaotic good. Peer Approval. Limits his moral concerns to his peer group, whether they be family, tribe, fellow soldiers, aristocrats, or whatever. Not particularly prone to cause harm, but if the group say's its cool to do so (or worse - asserts its not cool to not do so!), will freely engage in violence. Will break the rules for his friends, and expects them to do the same. Preoccupied with honor.

Any time the general group decides the orcs over the hill need to die, the CG will OK with that, as long as they like/respect the person saying it.

LE - Lawful evil. Desire for gain. Not so much inclined to do harm as indifferent to it, as long as they are profiting.

Will attack the orcs over the hill if it looks like an easy, profitable victory.

CE - Chaotic evil. Fear of punishment. The only thing that restrains the CE is the threat of immediate, dire punishment. Otherwise they do whatever seems entertaining at the moment.

Will attack the orcs over the hill after getting drunk.

NE - Pure evil. Diabolic madness. Even the prospect of self-destruction will not sway his actions. Will always do whatever seems amusing. Permanently obsessed with self, while also having an inexhaustible need to bolster their own ego.

Will attack his own city and frame the orcs for it.

[nagora]

Here's what I do. This follows the five stages of moral development, from highest to lowest. I dispense with the other alignments because they don't make any sense to me (LN might as well be a robot, and CN wouldn't last more than 3 days.
Lawful Neutral: Works with others with similar goals to achieve more than each can alone; does not care about those not in the group, neither wanting to spread the rewards of the group's achievements to the wider population nor wishing to "punish" them for not cooperating/joining the group.

Chaotic Neutral: May work with others with identical or orthagonal goals to achieve more than each can alone; but will not take orders, be told what should be done, or compromise for "the greater good" etc. Must be forced to cooperate or reasoned with otherwise. This means they normally work alone and are happy to do so. Does not care/think much about those other than themselves who do not share their values, believing that they should be free to pursue their goals as long as they leave the CN individual alone. Live and let live, but nothing beyond that.

In either case "goals" can be anything from opening a hardressers to locating the fountain of youth.


True Neutral means you're in a coma.
True Neutral is the ultimate power-gamer of the gods - balancing the other alignments against each other in order to leave a "DMZ" in the middle where "normal" people can live their lives. Very odd. Nothing, IMO, to do with druids.

[EvilElitest]

yeah, I can agree with this, sorta. You can like things that both editions share, but they're not an improvement 4th made. Likewise, you can't hate something multiple editions share and blame 4th. And remember, never have I said I actually "like" 4th edition. I just loathe 3.x so much I think I could -well let's not give St. Jude any more work than we have to. I'd give 4th a 5 out of 10. No, they don't.
[/QUOTE
3E has three main problems

1) Execution. 3E, like 2E had lots of good ideas and great things in theory, it just failed in execution, namely in balence and logic. It had a lot of great ideas, that were hindered by bad/sloppy work
2) Orginization. There were so many Classes, monsters, races, Prestige classes/feats ect that nobody could make a proper organization
3) WotC simply didn't care as per normal.

Actually you can, if one edition takes an already existing problem and makes it worst
[QUOTE]

The only time D&D could be considered a "gritty" game was prior to 1980 when gritty games hadn't come out yet. As Hallavast's post points out, to make 3rd "gritty" takes just as much house ruling as Jeth's "gritty" 4th house rulings. Therefore 4th can be just as gritty as 3rd.
Well, one it would depend on what said metaplot was. 2nd That wasn't what you said. This makes more sense, but is a completely different thought.
2E and 3E can do it better than 4E


Tippy world is what happens when balance is so bad it becomes a metaplot issue. Sure, the Worlds and Monsters book said that they weren't interested in having to deal with NPC's when they're not around, but what actually, factually, mechanically prevents the game world from acting perfectly fine without the PC's showing up? Unlike in 3rd where you'd have to go through the core rule book with a machete just to make it make some logical sense.
That is entirely a balence issue. 3E is intentually inconsistent, in fact it is designed to be internally consistent. It fails due to the fact WotC can't do balence.


That it never changes to reflect the tenants of the characters faith makes it an arbitrary restriction.

But its not arbitrary because nobody forces them to take those classes. It makes sense for certain orders and groups to have a specific code/way to act


To retread an old favorite, Just because Monopoly is a game about owning property in Atlantic City, doesn't mean you can't use it as a game about global military domination.

bad example, because monopoly is designed to be played in one way, while 3E has combat as a small part, but isn't (in theory) disigned to be a pure combat game.



It's not a fallacy, it's a horrid system that if I didn't know better would think purposely put there to make a campaign last longer while everybody sits there and argues about can they do that with their alignment.
The purpose of the alignment system is to define good and evil within their world. It does not define personality, personalities fit within the aligniment system. That is entirely different in context. The system isn't designed for arguments and is quite well thought out, just badly explained at first




I hate how you're apparently the sole arbiter of who provides sufficient backing, because to me you just keep saying, "It's oversimplified and lost all its complexity because WotC dumbed it down." over and over again, and passing "good and evil are different than right and wrong, therefore, alignment is a worthy system" off as an airtight proof of how the D&D morality system is totally awesome.
How do i not have backing? I've explained my option and backed it with points in detail, IE the last giant post. The idea that i don't back my points is absurd, when i clearly do with extremly long explanations. Not backing my point would be more like not addressing somebody's elses replies to my points. You disagree. Fine. You have a point to make. Great. Don't what to adress what i said. Ok then. But don't accuse me of not backing my points when i've clearly have.



I also think I've stated a decent, if not airtight case for 4e being very open to multiple playstyles, and with alignment being a fundamentally flawed system worthy of being thrown out entirely, yet here you characterize me as someone who doesn't ever back myself up with anything at all.

1) And i've countered both your arguments because most of them rely on fallacies (not all) or misinterpretations. You think i'm wrong, certainly, but would you kindly adress what i said
2) Well what you've said right now doesn't have any backing, but i wasn't actually refering to you
3) I said by what i said, 4E is a limited shallow system that is aimed at one play style, alignment is a well thought out well rounded system that doesn't limit roleplaying at all, its only problem being its explanation (to be fair, you might just like no moral system at all in a game, but 4E doesn't do that ether). And i've backed up that option.


I accept that I may be wrong, and might fail to convince anyone of anything, but I hate not being treated with respect.

Wait, you say that and then not only accuse me of not backing points, but not even
A) Proving how i don't back points
B) not addressing the points in question

What?



I guess our issue is that we don't see how it's any more arbitrary to have five (or three, or two, or seventeen) arbitrary categories that personalities fit into than having nine categories that personalities fit into. Help us understand, because we aren't coming from a position where we think Alignment is useful for anything whatsoever, so we have no scales to measure how 9 can be better or worse than 5, because we (I) don't measure this kind of thing in numbers.
any personality of any character can fit quite fine into the aligniment system. If you want help to understand, i remind you that i already addressed that before.

And as i said before, there are two ways to do morality. The Old D&D alignment system, or no alignment at all. 4E does a perverse cross breed


And I didn't come into this thread to defend 4th edition, it's worthy of having flaws pointed out, I just hate it when pots call kettles black (Their alignment is childish while ours is better) and when something is described as having a flaw I have experienced the game not having. (PCs are superheroes who cleave easily through innumerable hordes being showered with glory and riches the whole way.)
1) Wait, like accusing me of not backing arguments and then not backing it. Maybe i'm intercepting insults where they are none and if so i'm sorry, but that sound's a little silly right there
2) Well as i said, the 4E alignment is childish, its entirely black and white and has not explanations. It has just the worst traits of the 3E system, and basically is simply the bad setotypes of the old system now made official
3) Well i did go into some detail concerning that actually


And yeah... 4e's art tends toward the suck. Oddly I really liked a lot of the concept and preview art, but I'm not a fan of the Ebberon artist guy who did the covers.

meh, i like the backgrounds

Oracle hunter

That definition seems to fit. I don't think its intentional, and is mostly a sign of misunderstanding/misinterpretation rather than active meanness or ruthlessness but a fallacy all the same.

also, any moral idea can fit within the aligniment system, its a category not a personality requirement.

from
EE

[The New Bruceski]

2E and 3E can do [grittiness] better than 4E

My apologies if this has been addressed before, but could you please define what you mean by "gritty" and how it would be done better or worse?

I'm not trying to single you out here, I'd like others to do the same, particularly horseboy (if he's still the one you were replying to). It just seems that the word's been tossed back and forth enough that any accepted meaning has been muddled. If one person can argue that "grittiness" is handled the same by two systems, and another can argue one system does it better, neither one providing evidence (and thus apparently believing that their position is obvious), I think it's time to see if they're looking at the same object.

[Hallavast]

A good point, although irrelevant since I didn't say that. I didn't necessarily mean the 2nd person "you". Replace "you" with "one" if you wish.



1: in your opinion; Seriously, I have never found any evidence to support the claim that morality is objective. Nor have I met or even heard of anyone who has. If you know how to solve that particular chestnut, by all means submit your proof to me via PM.


2: This is a game largely about Myth. You're oversimplifying. I think you know what I mean.



Yes. So?


That's pretty well what you're supposed to do, so it's not surprising that it makes it work better.

But... but what, you don't care about how doing this is counterintuative to a deeper philosophical relationship between a player and his/her character? If you haven't read my other post, please do. If you have read it then why do you choose to ignore big important chunks of my argument?



In what sense? Do you mean outside of the game? Firstly, that's as unimportant as saying that none of the spells work either, and secondly, I don't think the AD&D alignment system is really that far out of whack with RL morality. Certainly, it's a better system than most religions - but that's "damning with faint praise", I guess.

...

If you can't see the value of having an expressed philosophical connection with a character, (especially when you're trying to do that on purpose!) then I can't make you see my point of view. We are obviously playing very different games.

I am sorry.

[Hallavast]

My apologies if this has been addressed before, but could you please define what you mean by "gritty" and how it would be done better or worse?

I'm not trying to single you out here, I'd like others to do the same, particularly horseboy (if he's still the one you were replying to). It just seems that the word's been tossed back and forth enough that any accepted meaning has been muddled. If one person can argue that "grittiness" is handled the same by two systems, and another can argue one system does it better, neither one providing evidence (and thus apparently believing that their position is obvious), I think it's time to see if they're looking at the same object.

Gritty, to me, means being afraid for your life (or rather, your character's life). It also implies realism through reasonable simulation. This can be done by toning down magic in general, playing at lower level scales (in some cases), and giving combat a chance to kill a character in one round (regardless of level). It is designed to enforce a more cautious and realistic playstyle. IMO 3e RAW doesn't model this very well; hitpoint scales are way too high, magic can accomplish almost anything for you, and you are overall not afraid for your life unless you encounter something vastly higher level than the party. The nice thing about 3e, in this regard, is that it is easily tweaked to support such a "gritty" playstyle (I have outlined possible methods in an earlier post if you're curious).

Do you have any specific questions about "gritty"?

[nagora]

I didn't necessarily mean the 2nd person "you". Replace "you" with "one" if you wish.
OK


Seriously, I have never found any evidence to support the claim that morality is objective. Nor have I met or even heard of anyone who has. If you know how to solve that particular chestnut, by all means submit your proof to me via PM.
If I get time this week I might. I hammered out an argument about objective morality a few years ago in a long debate with someone else.


You're oversimplifying. I think you know what I mean.
I do know what you mean, I just don't see why you think it matters in a game where we play wizards and halflings. If the D&D morality axis was simply off-the-wall mad, then I could see why there might be a difficulty, but it's not.


But... but what, you don't care about how doing this is counterintuative to a deeper philosophical relationship between a player and his/her character? If you haven't read my other post, please do. If you have read it then why do you choose to ignore big important chunks of my argument?
If you've actually specified the problem then I missed it. You say the alignment system causes a disconnect but you've not given any examples (that I've seen, there are a lot of pages in the thread and I think I've read them all but perhaps not).


If you can't see the value of having an expressed philosophical connection with a character, (especially when you're trying to do that on purpose!) then I can't make you see my point of view. We are obviously playing very different games.

When a player asks me what the game system considers Good and Evil and I reply "Generosity, tolerance, and self sacrifice; actions that increase the well-being of as many as possible" and so on are Good, while Evil is "Taking from others, working to increase your own position at the cost of others; domination and avarice", they tend not to say in return "Those are the wrong way 'round! What a ridiculous system" and stomp off in a huff. I doubt that yours would either.

So, where actually is the problem?

[Starsinger]

Tippy world is what happens when balance is so bad it becomes a metaplot issue. Sure, the Worlds and Monsters book said that they weren't interested in having to deal with NPC's when they're not around, but what actually, factually, mechanically prevents the game world from acting perfectly fine without the PC's showing up? Unlike in 3rd where you'd have to go through the core rule book with a machete just to make it make some logical sense.
That is entirely a balence issue. 3E is intentually inconsistent, in fact it is designed to be internally consistent. It fails due to the fact WotC can't do balence. I wanna take this in response to your response to Horseboy first. The fact that 3rd edition is internally inconsistent ala every where should be a Tippy Society is because WotC doesn't know how to balance. The fact that 4e is internally consistent a la because you said so is because WotC made it balanced. I'm seeing a disconnect here.



That is entirely a balence issue. 3E is intentually inconsistent, in fact it is designed to be internally consistent. It fails due to the fact WotC can't do balence.

The underlined sentence confuses me. Either it's intentionally inconsistent, or it was designed to be internally consistent. You really can't and I mean can't as in "physically impossible" be designed for both.

[Hallavast]

I've only 20 mins before I have to go to class. Please excuse my brevity. I will address your request for detailed examples when I get back tonight.



If I get time this week I might. I hammered out an argument about objective morality a few years ago in a long debate with someone else. I would very much appreciate that. I really do think that I am asking for the impossible, however.



I do know what you mean, I just don't see why you think it matters in a game where we play wizards and halflings. If the D&D morality axis was simply off-the-wall mad, then I could see why there might be a difficulty, but it's not. Indeed. The problem with a disconnect is not felt 100% of the time. There are times, however, when you want to play a character close to your heart (and indeed there are times when you want to play an everyman character who has no supernatural powers or any particular skill beyond the average person). The crux of the alignment problems is that different people view good and evil (especially specific actions or intentions) differently. Sometimes differently than what is codified in the book. Matters of love, honor, self preservation, and conscience all impose unique difficulties to a system that tries to categorize all things as right wrong or neutral. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight comes to mind (mostly because I just read the poem again for my english lit class). Many different people would have different takes on how to classify some of Gawain's actions as either self serving (evil/neutral) honorable (lawful) or virtuous (good).



If you've actually specified the problem then I missed it. You say the alignment system causes a disconnect but you've not given any examples (that I've seen, there are a lot of pages in the thread and I think I've read them all but perhaps not). I hadn't used an example, but I'd hoped that I spelled it out pretty clearly before.



When a player asks me what the game system considers Good and Evil and I reply "Generosity, tolerance, and self sacrifice; actions that increase the well-being of as many as possible" and so on are Good, while Evil is "Taking from others, working to increase your own position at the cost of others; domination and avarice", they tend not to say in return "Those are the wrong way 'round! What a ridiculous system" and stomp off in a huff. I doubt that yours would either. One can't use a nigh perfect player group as a general indicator of potential flaws in a system. :smallwink:



So, where actually is the problem?

The problem goes back to the problem with the world's morality and conscience, of course. Supernatural powers are supposed to be distinct from our world. But in specific cases ( like playing a morally flawed character modelled after a player's philosophical intentions), such a distinction is not desired. It rarely comes up with me personally, but that's just me. It stems from the fact that I do not believe in true altruism.

Gah! I'm late.

[Weiser_Cain]

Change for change sake
all tiefling looking the same and way too demonic
Loss of multiclassing!!!!!!
Level cap
Setting flavor creep into classes
Non-magical 'powers'
Splitting the core books increasing the already silly high entry price.

[EvilElitest]

My apologies if this has been addressed before, but could you please define what you mean by "gritty" and how it would be done better or worse?

Certainly, thanks for asking. When i refer to gritty, i have in my head the type you find in Song of Ice and Fire or Rome. it is set in a very realistic grey world (not necessarily dark world, which is something else entirely). The primary points of a gritty game is that
1) Combat, while not necessarily realistic, is not pretty or romantic. Random people are dangerous, fighting is dangerous on its own (IE, the actual act of combat is always threatening and dangerous, numbers make a difference. Combat also isn't pretty, a sword does a lot of brutal damage, it isn't wonderful or happy, and results in damage on both sides.
2) As of such, life isn't fair. People die from minor things in undramatic manner, life is cheap and death is always around the corner. Characters die in very realistic (somewhat) ways that aren't considered "dramatic" by regular standards (example, in one month, i lost four characters, to a charging random boar, to a ruin that fell apart, his horse kicked him off, and an avalanche. Along with that comes a feeling that isn't quite dark, but not clean, where bad guys win just as often as good guys and everybody is grey (with a few key exceptions)
3) low key. I want to say realism, but that isn't a total requirement. However, magic isn't like FF where its common place and people can destroy buildings with their shear awesome. Magic tends to be more low key and less prevalent if their is any at all
4) Realitive general realism.
There is more to it but that is the general idea. My best inspirations are Song of ice and fire/Rome. Other stuff could be Chavlir D'Eon, Vinland Saga (on the edge) and High school of the dead, which are on the verge.
Some stuff can have a gritty setting or story line, like Diablo or Beserk, but aren't gritty in actual preformence (Diablo's gameplay is fun, but certainly not gritty, and Beserk has Guts killing people in the hundreds with out a problem)



I'm not trying to single you out here, I'd like others to do the same, particularly horseboy (if he's still the one you were replying to). It just seems that the word's been tossed back and forth enough that any accepted meaning has been muddled. If one person can argue that "grittiness" is handled the same by two systems, and another can argue one system does it better, neither one providing evidence (and thus apparently believing that their position is obvious), I think it's time to see if they're looking at the same object.

2E can actually do gritty quite well, if clumsily. 3E without change (IE no homebrew) can do it, but not easily. With homebrew, you can pull it off well enough. 4E can be done in atmosphere, but in actual playing context isn't computable




I wanna take this in response to your response to Horseboy first. The fact that 3rd edition is internally inconsistent ala every where should be a Tippy Society is because WotC doesn't know how to balance. The fact that 4e is internally consistent a la because you said so is because WotC made it balanced. I'm seeing a disconnect here.. \
4E's world's aren't internally consistent by design. They aren't made to be internally consistent, it is all about the PCs. 3E's worlds are meant to be internally consistent, just fail in execution. it is designed (flawed but still) to have an internally consistent world)

And i meant to say internally, not intentionally

from
EE

[Weiser_Cain]

....I also hate the very concept of action points.

[The New Bruceski]

Do you have any specific questions about "gritty"?

I don't think so. I'm trying to back off from arguing in here, and just watch what points come up. It just felt like the word was turning into a "nuh uh" "uh huh" argument when it didn't need to.

[nagora]

....I also hate the very concept of action points.
I mentioned on another thread that my current group simply refused to use them (in a totally homebrew system, not D&D), so you're not alone.

[horseboy]

Yay I have electricity!


3E has three main problems

1) Execution. 3E, like 2E had lots of good ideas and great things in theory, it just failed in execution, namely in balence and logic. It had a lot of great ideas, that were hindered by bad/sloppy work
2) Organization. There were so many Classes, monsters, races, Prestige classes/feats ect that nobody could make a proper organization I never saw any of good ideas in 3.x. Well, no ideas that weren't better implemented in other systems at about the same time/earlier in better ways. I really don't think it so much organization as it was just WotC milking their cash cow.


3) WotC simply didn't care as per normal. That one we'll agree on.


Actually you can, if one edition takes an already existing problem and makes it worst That said, from 3 to 9 to 5 isn't making it worse.


2E and 3E can do it better than 4E


That is entirely a balance issue. 3E is intentually inconsistent, in fact it is designed to be internally consistent. It fails due to the fact WotC can't do balance.


4E's world's aren't internally consistent by design. They aren't made to be internally consistent, it is all about the PCs. 3E's worlds are meant to be internally consistent, just fail in execution. it is designed (flawed but still) to have an internally consistent world)

And i meant to say internally, not intentionallyExcept 4th's worlds are more internally consistent than 3.x's. No longer do you have to pull Alexandrian level munchkinry to get NPC's to be competent enough to be able to do what players need them to do, but vulnerable enough to need the PC's. No longer are you constrained by a poorly written not play tested-by-players-with-a-brain rules that break at level 5. Worlds can be more organic, with less fridge logic head scratching.


But its not arbitrary because nobody forces them to take those classes. It makes sense for certain orders and groups to have a specific code/way to actBut when ALL orders and groups follow the exact same code, that makes no sense.



bad example, because monopoly is designed to be played in one way, while 3E has combat as a small part, but isn't (in theory) designed to be a pure combat game.
Edwards]Then people making new versions of D&D were using this **** against us. Ryan Dancey's "20 minutes of fun packed into four hours" became a favorite quote for people to take completely out of context and attack previous editions of D&D because they didn't deliver what (it was assumed) gamers wanted... and obviously 3rd edition did, through it's careful selection of feats and power-ups and balanced encounters and battlemat-styled game play.

As if that wasn't bad enough, let's not forget Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics series, which are supposed to ape 1st edition in terms of atmosphere and play style. The tag line for those things?

Remember the good old days, when adventures were underground, NPCs were there to be killed, and the finale of every dungeon was the dragon on the 20th level? Those days are back. Dungeon Crawl Classics don't waste your time with long-winded speeches, weird campaign settings, or NPCs who aren't meant to be killed.


What the **** is that? I may have been a module-addicted isolated retard of a child gamer, but holy ****ing hell we never played like that. But I fear that's what the D&D culture of modules-as-campaigns has spawned. We did show some ingenuity, in creating our own modules, in putting personality into PCs and NPCs and making interaction as meaningful as we were able, in making alterations to make these disparate modules fit together into a cohesive campaign together (even today, a lot of people picking up traditional D&D ask for suggestions of a succession of modules to be their campaign, not to supplement it), in trying to make this world "real" and not just the connection of unrelated dungeon crawls (or wilderness crawls as the case may be) that was laid out before us.

But if you weren't so far into it, and all you saw were dungeons and monsters in endless succession, of course the White Wolf "storyteller" tag would fool you. Of course you could believe such an important man like Ryan Dancey when he talked about how all of us poor gamers were being so poorly served that we were spending over 95% of our time not having any fun. And of course modern gamers could easily believe that some random dungeons (those generators were in the books...) and random monsters with no substance other than running around killing things were the entirety of the game.

It would be so simple to just blame the modules. In some ways, that's a fair accusation. It seems that the people writing the material completely missed the disconnect between their gaming style and those of the millions out there entering gaming culture through a random discovery at Toys'R'****in'Us. All the Dragon articles and RPGA ads weren't going to help them get through to us when the meat of most of their published adventures was "here's the dungeon, here's a reason to go in if you're lucky, have fun!"

And that influence was so pervasive that Dungeons and Dragons, as presented by Wizards of the Coast, is nothing more than a reflection of the surface of the game as presented by 1970s and 1980s gaming products.
[/quote]

The purpose of the alignment system is to define good and evil within their world. It does not define personality, personalities fit within the alignment system. That is entirely different in context. The system isn't designed for arguments and is quite well thought out, just badly explained at first At first? Alignment has been around for 34 years. In that whole, entire time it has NEVER been well explained. Deep, complex personalities don't fit into them because you inevitably hit the "You're __________, they don't do that." It was either ignore characters or ignore alignment.

[nagora]

At first? Alignment has been around for 34 years. In that whole, entire time it has NEVER been well explained.
I disagree. (For a change :smalltongue:). Alignment was paraphrased and thumbnailed in magazines and even some modules in a way which muddied the waters; then later editions failed to re-assert the system's clarity and even enshrined some of the misconceptions. But it was once a clear and simple system which served well as a framework in which to judge things like the relationship between worshippers and dieities and PCs and NPCs.

[EvilElitest]

Yay I have electricity!

And you waste it on the internet. For shame


I never saw any of good ideas in 3.x. Well, no ideas that weren't better implemented in other systems at about the same time/earlier in better ways. I really don't think it so much organization as it was just WotC milking their cash cow.
3E has some good ideas and stuff underneath it, it just falls apart due to bad execution/orginization, with wizards lacking the respect for their product to actually change it


That one we'll agree on.
Exactly, that is how 4e was mad, its a cash cow. 3E started with good intentions (badly balenced not well thought out good intentions but still) and then rotted from within, while 4E is wizards just saying "screw it, lets make money"



That said, from 3 to 9 to 5 isn't making it worse.

going from 3 to 5 to 11 certainly is




Except 4th's worlds are more internally consistent than 3.x's. No longer do you have to pull Alexandrian level munchkinry to get NPC's to be competent enough to be able to do what players need them to do, but vulnerable enough to need the PC's. No longer are you constrained by a poorly written not play tested-by-players-with-a-brain rules that break at level 5. Worlds can be more organic, with less fridge logic head scratching.
4E worlds are about as internally consistent as Final Fantasy/Gauntlet. Its a bloody world that exists to act as a pleasure park for the PCs. Your talking about externally consistent, which means the actual rule basis, which 4E is, however from its very design it is internally inconsistent on purpose.


But when ALL orders and groups follow the exact same code, that makes no sense.
um, they don't. Druids and Paladins have very different codes


i fail to see how that quote supports your argument




At first? Alignment has been around for 34 years. In that whole, entire time it has NEVER been well explained. Deep, complex personalities don't fit into them because you inevitably hit the "You're __________, they don't do that." It was either ignore characters or ignore alignment.
fallacy
1) BoED/BoVD for good and evil. Fiend Folios. You want older versions, 2E DMG.
2) how do deep personalities not fit in. Actually explain that if you will. Aligniments come from actions and motives, so what personality wouldn't fit. Animals, the mentally disabled, and certain inhuman evils, thats about it
as i said, alignments aren't 9 personalities, they are nine categories that personalities can fit into

from
EE

[Blackfang108]

Change for change sake
all tiefling looking the same and way too demonic
Loss of multiclassing!!!!!!
Level cap
Setting flavor creep into classes
Non-magical 'powers'
Splitting the core books increasing the already silly high entry price.

As the first point is just whining, and the second makes no sense, I'll respond to the others.

3. It's still there. It just works differently. In fact, unless you're a powergamer, it works wonderfully.
4. Not really. I thought 3.5 had a cap at level 20 when I started playing. Now, you can just keep gaining HP and stat boosts. Yes, no new powers (unless you homebrew), but there's nothing explicitly stating that the game cannot keep going past 30.
5. And Tome of Battle didn't have these? Heck, the Tome of Battle was DEDICATED to these.
6. No, there is a Core group, and then, just like 3.5, there is a Core II group. There is no requirement for the Core II group in order to play the game. I have the PBH II for 3.5 because I like the classes (esp Duskblade), not because I need it.

[Jack Zander]

3. It's still there. It just works differently. In fact, unless you're a powergamer, it works wonderfully.
4. Not really. I thought 3.5 had a cap at level 20 when I started playing. Now, you can just keep gaining HP and stat boosts. Yes, no new powers (unless you homebrew), but there's nothing explicitly stating that the game cannot keep going past 30.
5. And Tome of Battle didn't have these? Heck, the Tome of Battle was DEDICATED to these.
6. No, there is a Core group, and then, just like 3.5, there is a Core II group. There is no requirement for the Core II group in order to play the game. I have the PBH II for 3.5 because I like the classes (esp Duskblade), not because I need it.

3. No it doesn't work wonderfully at all. You can only multiclass between two classes, and really all you get is the ability to pick a different power. That's not multiclassing, that's selecting a power you couldn't normally pick.
4.But it's heavily implied that you retire your characters at level 30. I think they even state this in the book, though I may be thinking of a designer quote instead.
5.We're not talking about tome of battle here, we're talking about 3.5. Not everyone who played 3.5 bought tome of battle. Those who didn't buy it probably had that same issue.
6. PHBII was not Core II. There were many things in that book that upped the power level of both casters and physical classes. In the end, it was really just another splatbook, but without a theme. I know you don't have to go out and buy the new core books in 4.0, but it certainyl feels like you'll be "missing out" if you do, espeically to those who were waiting for the return of their favorite core 3.5 classes.

[EvilElitest]

As the first point is just whining, and the second makes no sense, I'll respond to the others.

1) So getting upset for unneeded and sloppily handled changes is whining and thus bad, rather than a valid complaint, simply because you say so. Classy
2) I think he's referring to the fact the new tieflings are totally different from the old ones


3. It's still there. It just works differently. In fact, unless you're a powergamer, it works wonderfully.
Not really, its just taking a few skills from the other classes. Oh kudos on the powergamer comment, again classy. Honestly through, i don't think powergaming in 3E is the multiclass issue here, there are much better ways for 3E to be broken


4. Not really. I thought 3.5 had a cap at level 20 when I started playing. Now, you can just keep gaining HP and stat boosts. Yes, no new powers (unless you homebrew), but there's nothing explicitly stating that the game cannot keep going past 30.
Well there is hte thing about players retiring after 30


5. And Tome of Battle didn't have these? Heck, the Tome of Battle was DEDICATED to these.
Technically speaking, the martial classes in ToB were magical (flaming swords anyone) but thats just nit picking. However, ToB, weather you liked it or not (i did but i can see the problem people have with it) was just another set of classes which were optional, not the whole thing



6. No, there is a Core group, and then, just like 3.5, there is a Core II group. There is no requirement for the Core II group in order to play the game. I have the PBH II for 3.5 because I like the classes (esp Duskblade), not because I need it.

Actually, WoTC has said the current three books are only part of the "core selection" take that as you will
from
EE

[Blackfang108]

3. No it doesn't work wonderfully at all. You can only multiclass between two classes, and really all you get is the ability to pick a different power. That's not multiclassing, that's selecting a power you couldn't normally pick.
4.But it's heavily implied that you retire your characters at level 30. I think they even state this in the book, though I may be thinking of a designer quote instead.
5.We're not talking about tome of battle here, we're talking about 3.5. Not everyone who played 3.5 bought tome of battle. Those who didn't buy it probably had that same issue.
6. PHBII was not Core II. There were many things in that book that upped the power level of both casters and physical classes. In the end, it was really just another splatbook, but without a theme. I know you don't have to go out and buy the new core books in 4.0, but it certainyl feels like you'll be "missing out" if you do, espeically to those who were waiting for the return of their favorite core 3.5 classes.

3. Ok, fine. I see I'm not going to convince you. You're still wrong, but you're blinded by hate, and I don't care enough to find the eyedrops.
4. Implied is not explicit. End of story there.
5. I didn't buy it or use it. Never will. I LIKE having more options than Full attack, trip, overrun, bullrush, charge, but I didn't like how ToB did it. 4e does it differently, and does it well.
6. But, and this is important, PHBII for 4e will also be, using your definition, a splatbook.

So your favorite class isn't core anymore. Whop-de-freakin-do. So what? there isn't a SINGLE class you want to at least TRY? Barbarian was my favorite 3.x core class. You know what I did about him not being in 4e? I tried something else (Warlord/Feylock). and I'm enjoying it.

I enjoy the MC feat vs being a lvl 3x/4y/2z/6a/1b (Substitute classes for letters). You know why? Because it works WELL.

and EE, you know what? I'm not rising to your bait, except to say this: I wasn't using powergamer as a negative, merely a descriptor. There was no offense intended, and I am genuinely sorry for you if you took any.

[EvilElitest]

3. Ok, fine. I see I'm not going to convince you. You're still wrong, but you're blinded by hate, and I don't care enough to find the eyedrops.

Wait, not i'm confused, he disagrees with you, and you call him "blinded by hate" is it possible that he might actually have a valid option in there. And how is


. No it doesn't work wonderfully at all. You can only multiclass between two classes, and really all you get is the ability to pick a different power. That's not multiclassing, that's selecting a power you couldn't normally pick.
a hate filled message. There isn't even any direct insults there.



4. Implied is not explicit. End of story there.
No because the game directly encourages that and doesn't support anything beyond. that is basically as much as a level cap you can get with this style of RPG


5. I didn't buy it or use it. Never will. I LIKE having more options than Full attack, trip, overrun, bullrush, charge, but I didn't like how ToB did it. 4e does it differently, and does it well.
ok, how about explaining why this is?


6. But, and this is important, PHBII for 4e will also be, using your definition, a splatbook.
WoTC says otherwise


So your favorite class isn't core anymore. Whop-de-freakin-do. So what? there isn't a SINGLE class you want to at least TRY? Barbarian was my favorite 3.x core class. You know what I did about him not being in 4e? I tried something else (Warlord/Feylock). and I'm enjoying it.
that isn't actually the point



and EE, you know what? I'm not rising to your bait, except to say this: I wasn't using powergamer as a negative, merely a descriptor. There was no offense intended, and I am genuinely sorry for you if you took any.
I'm not raising bait, i'm making points. Powergamer is negative statement (and doesn't make sense in context there but what ever) Sorry if your took offense, but that being said, i find the fact that your throwing accusations around rather offensive
from
EE

[Thurbane]

3. Ok, fine. I see I'm not going to convince you. You're still wrong, but you're blinded by hate, and I don't care enough to find the eyedrops.
4. Implied is not explicit. End of story there.
5. I didn't buy it or use it. Never will. I LIKE having more options than Full attack, trip, overrun, bullrush, charge, but I didn't like how ToB did it. 4e does it differently, and does it well.
6. But, and this is important, PHBII for 4e will also be, using your definition, a splatbook.
3. Wow, just, wow…I thought I’d already seen the pinnacle of “You’re opinion is different than mine, therefore you are just a 4E hater and wrong, wrong, wrong!” – but this takes it to a whole new level.
4. End of story. Because you say so? OoooooK…
5. Again, 4E does it well, IYHO. I personally didn’t like ToB either, but I don’t think 4E handles adding extra options to melee combat any better than ToB did. I freely admit, though, this is opinion on my part, just as your view is opinion on yours…
6. As two other people have already pointed out, WotC say that PHBII et al will be considered part of an expanded core. I forget the exact terms they used, but that’s the message they’re sending.

So your favorite class isn't core anymore. Whop-de-freakin-do. So what? there isn't a SINGLE class you want to at least TRY? Barbarian was my favorite 3.x core class. You know what I did about him not being in 4e? I tried something else (Warlord/Feylock). and I'm enjoying it.
Umm, you may want to look at the title of this thread. Things people don’t like about 4E. If a certain race or class missing from the books causes someone to dislike 4E, guess what – it’s a valid topic for this thread. In the words of Mike Muir “Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it don’t make sense”. :smallbiggrin:

I enjoy the MC feat vs being a lvl 3x/4y/2z/6a/1b (Substitute classes for letters). You know why? Because it works WELL.
This is getting old, but, again, this is your opinion. Not saying it isn’t a valid opinion, but don’t go beating people over the head with it like it’s a scientific fact.

and EE, you know what? I'm not rising to your bait, except to say this: I wasn't using powergamer as a negative, merely a descriptor. There was no offense intended, and I am genuinely sorry for you if you took any.
Well, I too thought there was an implied insult there, but perhaps not. The term powergamer (not necessarily by yourself) is often thrown around as a pseudo-insult. Just FYI, though, not everyone who multiclasses is looking for a mechanical benefit – it can just as well be used for fluff reasons.

[EvilElitest]

3. Wow, just, wow…I thought I’d already seen the pinnacle of “You’re opinion is different than mine, therefore you are just a 4E hater and wrong, wrong, wrong!” – but this takes it to a whole new level.
do we have a medal for that yet?


Anyways, it is worth pointing out that multi classing isn't that good from a powergamer viewpoint. There is so much more you can do to break the system
from
EE

[pinkbunny]

Basically, in my view:

3.5e: even in core, you could play any concept imaginable with no more than a re-explaining or two, feats and multiclassing played a huge role in this.

4e: everything's so inflexible, and feats are no longer a real part of your character, it's hard to play anything not spelled out in the books, it just doesn't have the flexibility D&D should have in my eyes.

Basically, there's a spectrum, between complicated, and customizable, and simplistic, and rigid. 3.5 hit pretty near the sweet spot for me, and 4e just seems to overshoot the mark by a longshot.

[Jack Zander]

Wow, I got on expecting to have to give some more counter points to the expected counter of my counter (If that makes any sense...), but I see everyone else jumped on the opportunity before I could.

[horseboy]

2) I think he's referring to the fact the new tieflings are totally different from the old onesYeah, I can see where it would fail a FNG test, provided that WotC supported Planescape in 3.x.

You know what else annoys me? The lack of optional rules. Yeah, yeah, I know all rules are optional, and that this is WotC, so they're going to make you buy a new book with optional rules, but it's just something that I've come to expect in modern games. You know the "for a more gritty game, try this..." or a "For faster play, it's usually easier to..." Those are they things that show things they tried out while playing and while good, not really for everybody, and shows they actually play tested stuff. It's just easier for, if it matters to some one: "Hey, are we using the bleeding wounds option?" "I don't care, anybody want or don't want it?" That way groups can "dial" in things like "grit" and "detail" easier. It's not a hate, just something I'm kinda used to in modern games.
Oh yeah, and 4th edition FR.

[EvilElitest]

Yeah, I can see where it would fail a FNG test, provided that WotC supported Planescape in 3.x.

They would be fine as their own race ironically enough, but apparently WoTC is afraid of new names



You know what else annoys me? The lack of optional rules. Yeah, yeah, I know all rules are optional, and that this is WotC, so they're going to make you buy a new book with optional rules, but it's just something that I've come to expect in modern games. You know the "for a more gritty game, try this..." or a "For faster play, it's usually easier to..." Those are they things that show things they tried out while playing and while good, not really for everybody, and shows they actually play tested stuff. It's just easier for, if it matters to some one: "Hey, are we using the bleeding wounds option?" "I don't care, anybody want or don't want it?" That way groups can "dial" in things like "grit" and "detail" easier. It's not a hate, just something I'm kinda used to in modern games.
Oh yeah, and 4th edition FR.

Thank you. i actually loved the Unearthed Arcania. Ok, it was horribly unbalanced by 3E's standards and didn't expand very much upon its own themes, but i liked all the alternate possibilities and ways to play. 4E just supports one stlye of play, which is why i always consider it more of a spine off game.

And 4E FR? I don't think that ever happened. Ever. yeah i'm pretty sure that never happened and FR hasn't changed in any way at all

....If i shut my eyes i might go away

and zander, we just respect you enough to respond for you
from
EE

[Thane of Fife]

Thank you. i actually loved the Unearthed Arcania.

While I fully agree that optional rules are fun, your point completely falls apart right here. You can't blast 4th edition for not having, in its core, as many optional rules as came out in a 3rd edition supplement specifically designed for optional rules. There may probably will be a similar book in 4th edition's future. But 4th is still a new game. If you're going to pick on it (which is, again, fine with me), pick on it for the flaws in what you have so far.

[EvilElitest]

While I fully agree that optional rules are fun, your point completely falls apart right here. You can't blast 4th edition for not having, in its core, as many optional rules as came out in a 3rd edition supplement specifically designed for optional rules. There may probably will be a similar book in 4th edition's future. But 4th is still a new game. If you're going to pick on it (which is, again, fine with me), pick on it for the flaws in what you have so far.

i was using unearthed arcania as the primal example. 3E core is still more optional (balance issues aside) than 4E is, namely because 4E isn't built to be an optionally based game. I'd rather have flawed options, then uninteresting balance
from
EE

[Thurbane]

I'd rather have flawed options, then uninteresting balance
That may be the truest thing I've read here so far. It sums up how i feel almost exactly.

[EvilElitest]

That may be the truest thing I've read here so far. It sums up how i feel almost exactly.

why thank you, i really think it is the main point. It is kinda the main root of the problem
from
EE

[horseboy]

i was using unearthed arcania as the primal example. 3E core is still more optional (balance issues aside) than 4E is, namely because 4E isn't built to be an optionally based game. I'd rather have flawed options, then uninteresting balance
from
EEUA was what I was referencing in the "having to buy" part of my post. Cheap bastiches. Or course, I'd rather have no system than a bad system, as there's nothing to get in the way. :smallamused:

[EvilElitest]

UA was what I was referencing in the "having to buy" part of my post. Cheap bastiches. Or course, I'd rather have no system than a bad system, as there's nothing to get in the way. :smallamused:

1) Through 3E on its own has more options, i just liked UA's idea
2) Heh, well if you went through with that then wizards wouldn't get money. And they would cry. you woudln't do that to them would you?
from
EE

[Knaight]

Yeah, I can see where it would fail a FNG test, provided that WotC supported Planescape in 3.x.

You know what else annoys me? The lack of optional rules. Yeah, yeah, I know all rules are optional, and that this is WotC, so they're going to make you buy a new book with optional rules, but it's just something that I've come to expect in modern games. You know the "for a more gritty game, try this..." or a "For faster play, it's usually easier to..." Those are they things that show things they tried out while playing and while good, not really for everybody, and shows they actually play tested stuff. It's just easier for, if it matters to some one: "Hey, are we using the bleeding wounds option?" "I don't care, anybody want or don't want it?" That way groups can "dial" in things like "grit" and "detail" easier. It's not a hate, just something I'm kinda used to in modern games.
Oh yeah, and 4th edition FR.

Hell, fudge managed more in 107 pages, 40 of which were examples. The three combat systems, multiple attribute skill interaction systems, and tons of stuff, and it dates back to '94. Fourth edition really has no excuse for this one.

[EvilElitest]

Hell, fudge managed more in 107 pages, 40 of which were examples. The three combat systems, multiple attribute skill interaction systems, and tons of stuff, and it dates back to '94. Fourth edition really has no excuse for this one.

Me- So whats you excuse wizards
Wizards- We don't care
Me- oh.....ok then
from
EE

[horseboy]

Hell, fudge managed more in 107 pages, 40 of which were examples. The three combat systems, multiple attribute skill interaction systems, and tons of stuff, and it dates back to '94. Fourth edition really has no excuse for this one.
Well, D&D, much like all forms of "pop" culture, is 5-10 years behind the times for those who are actually "into the scene."
You'd think they'd have heard the concept enough that they'd be interested.

[EvilElitest]

Well, D&D, much like all forms of "pop" culture, is 5-10 years behind the times for those who are actually "into the scene."
You'd think they'd have heard the concept enough that they'd be interested.

again, they just don't care enough to fix it
from
EE

[Knaight]

Well, D&D, much like all forms of "pop" culture, is 5-10 years behind the times for those who are actually "into the scene."
You'd think they'd have heard the concept enough that they'd be interested.

14 years specifically, so were looking at 15-20 here, since Fudge was hardly the first. 3.5 didn't have much either, a few variants in the DMG, but thats about it until Unearthed Arcana came out. Then again, this is the RPG that is still using classes, so its more or less expected.

[horseboy]

14 years specifically, so were looking at 15-20 here, since Fudge was hardly the first. 3.5 didn't have much either, a few variants in the DMG, but thats about it until Unearthed Arcana came out. Then again, this is the RPG that is still using classes, so its more or less expected.
Well, Character Law was published in '82. Chapters of optional rules "13.0 First Edition Optional Rules." "14.0 Additional Optional Rules". Heck, even first and second had them in the "core" books.

[Knaight]

Right, so lets push this back another 12 years. Wotc is now 26 years behind, although I'm not sure when this became popular enough to be expected. By 1995 it pretty much was though, so 13 years is the bare minimum.

[Colmarr]

again, they just don't care enough to fix it
from
EE

EE, it's difficult to take seriously any argument you make when they're interspersed with uninformed comments like this.

And I use "uniformed" intentionally here because there is no logical way you could have the insight that you claim to have.


Right, so lets push this back another 12 years. Wotc is now 26 years behind

This comment assumes that D&D does it wrong and WotC are at fault for not fixing it. Which has not been proven to the satisfaction of all.

You are effectively saying "Coke is 20 years behind because Pepsi's been out that long and Coke hasn't been made to taste like Pepsi yet".

Again, this is a statement of opinion phrased as a statement of fact.

[Weiser_Cain]

It feels like WOW and I'd rather play WOW than a table top game that feels like it's slow drunk cousin.
And the funny thing is I've been going on for years about how WOW would be better with multiclassing and Prc's like DnD has.

[EvilElitest]

14 years specifically, so were looking at 15-20 here, since Fudge was hardly the first. 3.5 didn't have much either, a few variants in the DMG, but thats about it until Unearthed Arcana came out. Then again, this is the RPG that is still using classes, so its more or less expected.

i hope you realize using classes isn't some sign of a game being primitive, its a different way of playing. Using them badly is another story but just using classes isn't automatically a negative


EE, it's difficult to take seriously any argument you make when they're interspersed with uninformed comments like this.

And I use "uniformed" intentionally here because there is no logical way you could have the insight that you claim to have.
i love how apperently you are the sole abater of what counts as uninformed, so you don't have to actually back up your points.

Its pretty clear that near the end of 3E's history, WotC simply stopped caring and just focused upon the money. I mean, ether that or they are absurdly stupid, which i don't think is true.
from
EE

[Knaight]

Yes, they care about money. They're a business. But a good game makes more money, as do happy customers, so they have incentive to make a good game and make free stuff. And the point is that Wotc is behind the times, classes are just indicative of them using extremely traditional methods. 4e is widely seen as a continuation of 2e, a sort of different branch from 3e, and for whatever reason they didn't think that the expectation for variant rules and such mattered, even though they are in pretty much every other game.

[Thane of Fife]

4e is widely seen as a continuation of 2e, a sort of different branch from 3e, and for whatever reason they didn't think that the expectation for variant rules and such mattered, even though they are in pretty much every other game.

Including 2e....

[Knaight]

Yep. Although Wotc didn't own 2e, which was probably part of the reason.

[EvilElitest]

Yes, they care about money. They're a business. But a good game makes more money, as do happy customers, so they have incentive to make a good game and make free stuff.
[/QUOTE}
Not any more. They have an incentive to make a shallow and cool looking game, which is pretty much what 4E is. They don't need to actually care about hte games' context, hence why they ruined it through lack of respect/simplification
[QUOTE]
And the point is that Wotc is behind the times, classes are just indicative of them using extremely traditional methods.
that isn't behind that times, thats a different way of doing thing. IT takes a lot of hubris to assume that classless gaming is somehow the next step of evolution automatically



4e is widely seen as a continuation of 2e, a sort of different branch from 3e, and for whatever reason they didn't think that the expectation for variant rules and such mattered, even though they are in pretty much every other game.
4E is not at ally a conitiuation of D&D, it lacks so much of the original system. Its a board game version of it, a spine off game, D&D for dummies
from
EE

[horseboy]

You are effectively saying "Coke is 20 years behind because Pepsi's been out that long and Coke hasn't been made to taste like Pepsi yet".You mean New Coke?

Oh, an EE, it's spin off game, not spine off game. It's not a tumor. [/Kindergarten Cop]

[Jack Zander]

You mean New Coke?

Oh, an EE, it's spin off game, not spine off game. It's not a tumor. [/Kindergarten Cop]

Yes, your spine is your backbone. To spin is to twirl.

Horseboy: Improving EE's English since 2008.




P.S. Horseboy is on TV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06TBhGrzyN4)

[nagora]

Yes, they care about money. They're a business. But a good game makes more money, as do happy customers, so they have incentive to make a good game and make free stuff.
That seems a very naive PoV for you. You know marketing and sales are not that simple or Bratz would have sunk without a trace.

[Oslecamo]

And the point is that Wotc is behind the times, classes are just indicative of them using extremely traditional methods. 4e is widely seen as a continuation of 2e, a sort of different branch from 3e, and for whatever reason they didn't think that the expectation for variant rules and such mattered, even though they are in pretty much every other game.

OMG you're right! Classes are completely obsolet!

All the current massively played RPGs don't use classes after all!

WOW...Oh, wait, classes.

Warhammer online! Nope, pesky classes again.

Guild Wars! Heerr, still classes.

Exalted! Wait, most people hardly know it.

Mutants and Masterwhat? Never heard off.

Super perfect 4e! What, it also has classes?

Since the ultimate purpose of an RPG is for the players to have fun, I would say that class based RPGs are making a lot more of people happy than classless systems. Who cares if it's an old idea? It works!

[Frosty]

Well, classless systems *also* work. I love Fallout, for example. It has a classless system.

[Oslecamo]

Congratulations, you're playing the most optimized commoner in history.

Of course it has a classless system. You don't have any special abilities whatsoever!

The whole game is about picking up better and better gear, good use of basic skills and feats and carefull planing+maneuvering.

It's a game where small errors will give you a quick painfull death, and the gear ends up being your character. And we all know how those characteristis are considered heresies by half this forums.

(I'm not negatively critisizing Fallout. Very good game.)

[thegurullamen]

Of course classless systems are better. Shadowrun. I rest my and all other cases currently open. Win.

To re-rail the thread, the thing I hate about 4e is that it isn't not an un- classless system. Those fudruckers!

[DM Raven]

I know it's been said, but I hate that wizards aren't OP like they were in every other D&D edition.

Oh, and I hate the economy stuff...

I want to be able to buy ladders and take them apart to make 2 10 foot poles and sells them at a huge profit...so what? Why do you have to step on my dreams wotc?! ;p

[Colmarr]

i love how apperently you are the sole abater of what counts as uninformed, so you don't have to actually back up your points.

Ad hominem.

I backed up my point. I pointed out that you could not possibly have the knowledge you professed to have. You did not dispute that assertion and I therefore assume that you acknowledge it to be true.

If not, I invite you to back up your position. Kindly demonstrate:

1. Your privileged position inside WotC with access to their decision-making functions and staff; and/or

2. That any other game company "cares".

[Oslecamo]

I want to be able to buy ladders and take them apart to make 2 10 foot poles and sells them at a huge profit...so what? Why do you have to step on my dreams wotc?! ;p

Everybody knows that merchants only acept and sell the lion Mark VII 10 foot poles, famous by their resilience and smoothness, and won't buy half ladders filled with holes.

[Knaight]

That seems a very naive PoV for you. You know marketing and sales are not that simple or Bratz would have sunk without a trace.

Bratz fit the age group it was marketed to perfectly, which is why is sold well. If most people who bought 4e dislike it, they will not sell many more copies, it has to be liked and bought by the customers. Wotc is set up to clean up on splat books, its what they rely on. A quick brand name reliant surge isn't going to cut it. If the game is disliked, and bad, then nobody will buy them. Piss off your customers with a bad game, and you shoot yourself in the foot. Piss off your customers through bad policy, and you shoot yourself in the foot. Speaking of which there is a convenience store in my town that did that, and if things go well, its sales will drop,(I just need to get the fliers out about its age discrimination policy, and watch what happens.) point being that if you anger your customers, they can do stuff, which sometimes means more than just not buying.

[Sequinox]

I'm disappointed that everything is too focused on combat. For one, it makes life terrible if you try to run a diplomacy based campaign, or even just an adventure. Skills, while I liked the system at first, got too overcomplicated. Attribute points, which I also liked at first, sometimes were unreasonable. All of your stats get increased by 1? I can see the reasoning behind it, game wise, but still. That makes everyone stronger, for one. Even the frail wizard gets some time to buff up, I guess. (COUGH COUGHdaniel jacksonCOUGHCOUGH)

Also, there's one thing that I haven't heard yet from anyone. It is nearly impossible to homebrew classes. Oh, paragon paths, sure, but classes take forever. It's really difficult to homebrew even one, so if you want to try a different world (modern, oriental, whatever) it'll take a lot of work. Now, I know that you can just eyeball it and change some fluff, but that's not what I had wanted to do. I had wanted to make a full 30 level class. But that didn't end up happening.

Finally, I guess that this fits with my first complaint, but everything is about combat, even magic. I had a helluva time playing an illusionist once, and I was able to do a whole lot of stuff without drawing my blade even once!

[Thurbane]

Bratz fit the age group it was marketed to perfectly, which is why is sold well. If most people who bought 4e dislike it, they will not sell many more copies, it has to be liked and bought by the customers. Wotc is set up to clean up on splat books, its what they rely on. A quick brand name reliant surge isn't going to cut it. If the game is disliked, and bad, then nobody will buy them. Piss off your customers with a bad game, and you shoot yourself in the foot. Piss off your customers through bad policy, and you shoot yourself in the foot. Speaking of which there is a convenience store in my town that did that, and if things go well, its sales will drop,(I just need to get the fliers out about its age discrimination policy, and watch what happens.) point being that if you anger your customers, they can do stuff, which sometimes means more than just not buying.
There is a definite difference between popular products, and good products. A product can be one, both, or neither. Of course in the case of RPGs, "good" is an extremely subjective term.

[EvilElitest]

Ad hominem.

I backed up my point. I pointed out that you could not possibly have the knowledge you professed to have. You did not dispute that assertion and I therefore assume that you acknowledge it to be true.


Actually i did dispute your point, when i pointed out to you that you don't have any backing other than "Naw, your wrong, you need a document".



If not, I invite you to back up your position. Kindly demonstrate:

Actually throughout this thread i have. Asking for evidence i've given is a little odd isn't it, particularly when it isn't acknowledged.
post 396 and post 436 come to mind.



1. Your privileged position inside WotC with access to their decision-making functions and staff; and/or

2. That any other game company "cares".
1) Um, you understanding of evidence is absurdly flawed if this is what you want. I don't need to have to be in WotC to surmise they don't give a game about their actual game, i can just watch their actions. The new edition is simply a money making device (see prior post explaining its massive flaws in simplification). I can simply surmise based upon evidence that 4E is simply taking the sterotypes and popular conceptions of D&D and making that the norm. Cutting out any context taht is actually challenging, and simply focus on shallow and simplfied version of the game and we get D&D for dummies. As a game, 4E is a very good money making device
2) 2E's designers cared. 3E's did (through not in the end). White Wolf Cares very much about the quality in their games, say what you will of Scarred lands, Exalted, and at least some WoD, they do certainly put a hell of lot of effort in completing their own game.


Of course classless systems are better. Shadowrun. I rest my and all other cases currently open. Win.

To re-rail the thread, the thing I hate about 4e is that it isn't not an un- classless system. Those fudruckers!

That actually doesn't prove anything, just that you like shadowrun


Bratz fit the age group it was marketed to perfectly, which is why is sold well. If most people who bought 4e dislike it, they will not sell many more copies, it has to be liked and bought by the customers. Wotc is set up to clean up on splat books, its what they rely on. A quick brand name reliant surge isn't going to cut it. If the game is disliked, and bad, then nobody will buy them. Piss off your customers with a bad game, and you shoot yourself in the foot. Piss off your customers through bad policy, and you shoot yourself in the foot. Speaking of which there is a convenience store in my town that did that, and if things go well, its sales will drop,(I just need to get the fliers out about its age discrimination policy, and watch what happens.) point being that if you anger your customers, they can do stuff, which sometimes means more than just not buying.
Popular appeal doesn't prove something is good. Eragon is a crappy book, Naruto is an overrated manga, Halo is nothing more than decent, and Dominic Deegan is nothing more than the work of a hack. All are popular. 4E appeals to the majority who know nothing about D&d and simply want to bring in masses with combat appeal, not actual quality. And so we get a game aimed at the lowest common denominator
from
EE

from
EE

[Myatar_Panwar]

Also, there's one thing that I haven't heard yet from anyone. It is nearly impossible to homebrew classes. Oh, paragon paths, sure, but classes take forever. It's really difficult to homebrew even one, so if you want to try a different world (modern, oriental, whatever) it'll take a lot of work. Now, I know that you can just eyeball it and change some fluff, but that's not what I had wanted to do. I had wanted to make a full 30 level class. But that didn't end up happening.


It may take longer to homebrew a class, but it is certainly MUCH easier to make a balanced one.

[charl]

The system is made the way it is to make it easier for wotc to make computer games (or license them at least) out of DnD.
I have no proof of this, apart from the actual way the system works.

[EvilElitest]

It may take longer to homebrew a class, but it is certainly MUCH easier to make a balanced one.

not really, because the balence is much more delicate
from
EE

[Myatar_Panwar]

The system is made the way it is to make it easier for wotc to make computer games (or license them at least) out of DnD.
I have no proof of this, apart from the actual way the system works.

I would like to see the next NWN to be 4e based (which it would be if there is one).

@EE: Ok, sure its easier to un-balance a 4e class than a 3e class, since everything is so balanced in 4e. But its certainly harder to make a true difference if you examine the current powers and certain levels (the whole power-attainment system and the ease of use with the [W] rules really makes it simple).

[EvilElitest]

I would like to see the next NWN to be 4e based (which it would be if there is one).

@EE: Ok, sure its easier to un-balance a 4e class than a 3e class, since everything is so balanced in 4e. But its certainly harder to make a true difference if you examine the current powers and certain levels (the whole power-attainment system and the ease of use with the [W] rules really makes it simple).

wait, i lost you somewhere, can you explain that again?
from
EE