PDA

View Full Version : things you dislike about 4E v.2



Pages : [1] 2 3

EvilElitest
2008-08-29, 10:43 PM
{Scrubbed}

Generally, what do you not like about 4E? Please be as descriptive as possible.

Remember, you don't have to be totally anti 4E to post your complaints. I play 3E, and i can point out a massive number of absurdities and annoyances. Post minor complaints, major complaints, and moderate ones.


Now when the first thread was started, there was also a "What do you like about 4E" where nobody was allowed to post any criticism. I'll most likely make that thread tomorrow. here, while i'm not saying you shouldn't try to defend 4E, which is perfectly reasonable, don't provoke people or try to say that criticizing 4e is somehow wrong. Above all, this is a thread of criticism and for people to explain why they don't like aspect of 4E
anyways, have fun


My main complaint is absurd disappointment with WoTC. I don't think 4E really fails as a game, it is suited for playing in on manner. it fails as a new edition of of D&D. Ideally it would be a spin off game of D&D, you might say it would be great as an RPG supplement to the D&D minature games, because it does that well. However, it simply falls short in its massive simplicity as the 4th edition of D&D

from
EE

Knaight
2008-08-29, 10:54 PM
I dislike how hit points and such are handled, with severe wounds and such not being handled very well. I also think that magic was balanced the wrong way, and lost a lot of versatility, where a spell failure mechanic, possibly with backfire, or just a more moderate daze/stun effect applied to the more interesting spells would have sufficed. I don't like the disconnect between mechanics and fluff, such as the constant special comments thrown in, where the low level PCs aren't even all that powerful. Its by no means a horrible game, but these are a few of its bigger flaws. That and the reduction of multiclassing causing the necessity to jump through hoops to create a lot of characters.

Gavin Sage
2008-08-29, 10:57 PM
Providing for reference the list originally created by Oracle_Hunter (iirc) condensing the complaints about 4e into a seven major categories:


1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
3) 4e is unrealistic
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
7) 4e is oversimplified

I personally subscribe to all seven points particularly #4 and #1.

EvilElitest
2008-08-29, 10:59 PM
that menu is extremely simplified however, it just touches the surface.
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-29, 11:13 PM
I've been wary to put in my 2Cp but her it goes.
I believe 4E is trying to be something it is not primarily an MMORPG.*cough*Warcraft*cough* THey have turned magic into almost totally an offensive practice and have made even simple utility spells annoyances to deal with. I do admit that spellcasters were overpowered in 3.x yes but at the same time they provided a unique flavor by creating strange rather harmless effects or interesting roleplaying opportunities.
Monsters have become cardboard cutouts. I've found that in 3.x monsters were easy to design and customizing them to what you needed could be a fun time. It also seems more harried. due to a whole set of new classes that are monster specific. Personally I liked the fact that a goblin fighter was a FIGHTER! not some mook level three. alright that's it fir now lest a torrent of hellish flaming be loosed upon the threads.

Gavin Sage
2008-08-29, 11:22 PM
that menu is extremely simplified however, it just touches the surface.
from
EE

Too true, each could make a several page term paper and the whole thing a doctoral thesis on psychologoy and gameplay.

4e has taught me how important the metagame aspect is to a rich roleplaying experience.

monty
2008-08-29, 11:29 PM
I really don't like how similar they made the classes. I know they aren't identical; don't try to say I said that. But the mechanics are too similar. 3e had a complex physical combat system, it had a well-developed magic system, it had the ToB stuff, it had the ToM stuff, it had invocations...I could go on. 4e has powers. Complex mechanics seem to have been melted down to "I use <power>." Then, sometimes you have to wait before you can use it again. Maybe I'm just weird, liking the complexity of multiple combat systems.

Also, I don't like the way they balanced the classes. Again, maybe I'm just weird, but I liked the inherent superiority of the spellcasters. It just makes sense to me that something bound by physics would be weaker than something that isn't. And it gave me more options to do what I want. When I want to rape face, I can go Batman on everybody. When I just want to hit stuff, I can play a fighter, comfortable knowing that if I start messing up, the party wizard can save me.

monty
2008-08-29, 11:30 PM
Too true, each could make a several page term paper and the whole thing a doctoral thesis on psychologoy and gameplay.

4e has taught me how important the metagame aspect is to a rich roleplaying experience.

I'm probably going to take psychology next semester. Now I have an idea for a paper!

EvilElitest
2008-08-29, 11:32 PM
Too true, each could make a several page term paper and the whole thing a doctoral thesis on psychologoy and gameplay.



There is a difference between a sum up is flat out wrong. Also, the idea that people need to break the 4E complaints down into certain list standards rather than actually accepted the complaint at face value is always rather jaring





4e has taught me how important the metagame aspect is to a rich roleplaying experience.

So flat uninteresting monsters, races, classes and world is a sign of rich roleplaying game. Hmm, puts legend of five rings, FR, and in fact, most RPGs into perspective.
from
EE

Gavin Sage
2008-08-29, 11:35 PM
So flat uninteresting monsters, races, classes and world is a sign of rich roleplaying game. Hmm, puts legend of five rings, FR, and in fact, most RPGs into perspective.
from
EE

You seemed to missed how by "taught" I was referring to learning much like watching an idiot stick a fork into an electrical socket and watching the results to learn to do better. :smallwink:

EvilElitest
2008-08-29, 11:36 PM
You seemed to missed how by "taught" I was referring to learning much like watching an idiot stick a fork into an electrical socket and watching the results to learn to do better. :smallwink:

ah. So in the sense of looking at Dominic Deegan and being told "Yeah, don't do that" sort of thing. Sorry didn't catch your sarcaism:smallbiggrin:
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-29, 11:40 PM
Another burst of Rant!:smallbiggrin:
I've gotta agree on making the combat simplified. 3.x had rulings on doing just about any combat maneuver in the book and if it didn't it would suggest what it'd be around for a challenge. from what I've heard of 4E it takes some serious tweaks to get the system to roll with you like that.
Also, the classes bother me as well. Magic feels like I simply throw a different flavored pudding at them depending on the spell and though I like the whole branching idea for true DND it doe not seem to fit. In D20 modern it worked because well you were the hero and depending on what you had for a major ability score it would determine what you became after you honed your skills for a few levels. In DND you picked life from day one. You were meant to hack apart , blow up, miracle whatever and challenge Destiny. Now you pick at the the start and have to listen to IT!?

EvilElitest
2008-08-29, 11:41 PM
i have to agree with dragon in terms of the massive simplicity thats come about. It just takes away flavor
from
EE

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-08-29, 11:43 PM
I think the backstory and fluff with the whole shadowfell and faewild went a bit far. Bad enough to have the cosmology lesson but they then integrated it into race abilities that are hard to explain without it.

Also the alignment simplification really raised more questions than it answered. It makes the great wheel look like an Z instead. Heck if they wanted simple just go with D&D oldschool and have lawful, neutral and chaotic and avoid moral questions altogeather, or good neutral and evil. Unaligned is just neutral without any guts anyway... what if I want a character who believes in balance but is willing to take sides... not easy to do anymore.

Despite these issues I have to say I actually like 4rth ed better than 3 and 3.5......

But I still play a 2nd ed game so there!

I just had to get that off my chest. Sorry for the rant.

Fan
2008-08-29, 11:44 PM
i have to agree with dragon in terms of the massive simplicity thats come about. It just takes away flavor
from
EE

I side with you on this, also may I present My favorite reviewers opinion of 4th ed. And is that GITP forums on his comp in the background? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIqtMFCFIc0)

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-29, 11:47 PM
that menu is extremely simplified however, it just touches the surface.
from
EE

Y'know, if you want, you can just update the list with examples under each category.

Like so:
1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
- a) Magic system
- b) Power System
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
- a) Gnomes
- b) Half-Orcs
- c) Bards
- d) Druids
3) 4e is unrealistic
- a) Healing Surges
- b) Skill Advancement
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
- a) No crafting skills
- b) Too combat focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
- a) Magic is too weak/expensive
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
- a) PCs have too much HP / heal too easily
- b) PCs can do too much at 1st level
- c) PCs are just better than NPCs
7) 4e is oversimplified
- a) Skill System
- b) Disassociated Rules

Just post it on every page, updated with the complaints from the previous page. Keep it spoilered, and it shouldn't screw up the formatting.

Enjoy!

black dragoon
2008-08-29, 11:52 PM
Thank you EE!:smallsmile:
that's means alot coming from one the Gitp notables!
Yeah, Continued rant.
Races: Let's see where to start. Tiefers. Poor poor Tiefers. Seriously Did they simply say screw this! we're changing the whole cosmos and making the tiefers auto-dammed! They had other playable races which were the same thing in many ways. The name escapes me They were in Fiendish Codex II...anyways and the eladrins! You turned celestials into Fay! lord what's next the t'nari and Baatezu are the same race and there's no Blood War?

Thurbane
2008-08-29, 11:53 PM
Another problem I have is the way stats/mechanics are differentiated between PCs and everyone else. One of the features I really liked about 3E was the fact that everyone, from a raven to a beholder to a human rogue were all built on the same base mechanics of HD and ability scores. From my (admittedly very limited) understanding of 4E rules, they have taken a significant step backwards to pre-3E rules where monsters and NPCs used very different base mechanics to PCs.

monty
2008-08-29, 11:55 PM
Another problem I have is the way stats/mechanics are differentiated between PCs and everyone else. One of the features I really liked about 3E was the fact that everyone, from a raven to a beholder to a human rogue were all built on the same base mechanics of HD and ability scores. From my (admittedly very limited) understanding of 4E rules, they have taken a significant step backwards to pre-3E rules where monsters and NPCs used very different base mechanics to PCs.

Oh yes, forgot about this. I think that PCs should be special because of their class levels, not because of some arbitrary rules of the universe that say they somehow work differently from everybody else.

EvilElitest
2008-08-29, 11:55 PM
Y'know, if you want, you can just update the list with examples under each category.

Like so:
1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
- a) Magic system
- b) Power System
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
- a) Gnomes
- b) Half-Orcs
- c) Bards
- d) Druids
3) 4e is unrealistic
- a) Healing Surges
- b) Skill Advancement
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
- a) No crafting skills
- b) Too combat focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
- a) Magic is too weak/expensive
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
- a) PCs have too much HP / heal too easily
- b) PCs can do too much at 1st level
- c) PCs are just better than NPCs
7) 4e is oversimplified
- a) Skill System
- b) Disassociated Rules

Just post it on every page, updated with the complaints from the previous page. Keep it spoilered, and it shouldn't screw up the formatting.

Enjoy!

no i don't think that is an actual accurate way to rate complaints. Its just ignoring the issue. The issue is that your simply grouping complaints, instead of addressing the complaints.


FF fanbody

This guy is interesting, i have to say he like the "everyday D&D man" through i've only seen this one review. He just seems is a normal guy talking. I think its nice to see his perspective and i certainly like what he says, but personally i prefer sort reviews of Yathzee

Don't get me wrong, i don't think he is a bad reviewer, he has god points, and he makes his point, he just doesn't have any style. Which is what he pretty much is, a normal guy making an option, more than a reivew. I will check out what he has to say

that being said, i like his cut and paste idea

Oh my god. A RPG Yahtzee would be amazing





Thank you EE!
that's means alot coming from one the Gitp notables!
Yeah, Continued rant.
Races: Let's see where to start. Tiefers. Poor poor Tiefers. Seriously Did they simply say screw this! we're changing the whole cosmos and making the tiefers auto-dammed! They had other playable races which were the same thing in many ways. The name escapes me They were in Fiendish Codex II...anyways and the eladrins! You turned celestials into Fay! lord what's next the t'nari and Baatezu are the same race and there's no Blood War?

NP. I have to say, you know what is weird. I'm so use to being a normal Gitp guy (i've only been here for two year) so i'm not use to being a a notable.

I generally agree with all you say (of course i'm basis because i predicted most of these a while ago)

from
EE

Fan
2008-08-29, 11:57 PM
no i don't think that is an actual accurate way to rate complaints. Its just ignoring the issue. The issue is that your simply grouping complaints, instead of addressing the complaints.


FF fanbody

This guy is interesting, i have to say he like the "everyday D&D man" through i've only seen this one review. He just seems is a normal guy talking. I think its nice to see his perspective and i certainly like what he says, but personally i prefer sort reviews of Yathzee

Don't get me wrong, i don't think he is a bad reviewer, he has god points, and he makes his point, he just doesn't have any style. Which is what he pretty much is, a normal guy making an option, more than a reivew. I will check out what he has to say

Oh my god. A RPG Yahtzee would be amazing

from
EE

I tottaly agree with you there EE, although he did do a couple video game reviews so as with Final Fantasy 8, alone in the dark, and some HORRIBLE Sega Cd games like Mircosom. He is pretty much a well educated guy giving his opinion on a certain topic.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-29, 11:58 PM
no i don't think that is an actual accurate way to rate complaints. Its just ignoring the issue. The issue is that your simply grouping complaints, instead of addressing the complaints.

Wait... what issues? Who's rating? And how should these issues be addressed - I thought this was a gripe thread?

If anything, this list helps focus the discontent people feel towards 4e; it should help them more clearly vocalize what they dislike about it.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:00 AM
I tottaly agree with you there EE, although he did do a couple video game reviews so as with Final Fantasy 8, alone in the dark, and some HORRIBLE Sega Cd games like Mircosom. He is pretty much a well educated guy giving his opinion on a certain topic.

true. He is a very normal guy sort of reviewer. Personally, i don't think he is a great reviewer (lacks presentation) and he the best presenter (i don't take his word a lot) but he is a great normal guy and it is worth looking at what he says as the kinda "normal option" but i haven't check out his other reivews so maybe i'm being too bias

from
EE

Jerthanis
2008-08-30, 12:01 AM
I dislike how deadly minions are, surrounding and swarming over the PCs and grinding away their hitpoints and granting combat advantage to each other and getting in the party's way. They seem like they should be easy to take out! They've got only one hit point, yet for some reason their reasonable defenses keep them from getting hit most of the time and it still takes a couple good swings to take one out, and in the meantime they're hacking away at your shins and opening you up for their allies. It seems so much like these guys just serve to show how awesome the PCs are by wading through monsters like they're nothing, but in actual play, these jerks will give you nightmares.

I also hate how little it's like MMOs. In most MMOs I've played, the Tank types have ranged taunt abilities to influence the AI to come over and attack them specifically, and the monster has no choice but to do so. I liked how the 3.5 Knight had this ability because it made it so much easier to play it like WoW. Also, MMOs that aren't City of Heroes tend to balance team content assuming fights are against a single powerful monster more often than not, that the heroes must utilize 'pulling' to fight properly, while 4th edition encounter design is all about the villains outnumbering the heroes at every turn. I liked how 3rd edition was much better for this MMO style 'one big bad' method of play. Also. in 4th edition, if you can't keep up with the monster, you can't stop it from doing anything, and even if you do manage to mark it, it can still throw attacks at other people if that's necessary. If you run over to the goblin archer to mark it, and your mage is at 3 HP, that goblin can easily just down that mage anyway if they can hit past the penalty you gave him.

I also dislike how at comparable levels you're so much weaker than in 3.5, contributing to an atmosphere that there are dreadful and horrible things out there that you're better off avoiding, while in 3.5, by the time you're level 5, you and your friends could gank things like Beholders and Mind Flayers fairly easily... otherworldly monsters that can make the soul of a strong man tremble... while in 4th edition you've got to wait almost to level 20 to have a chance! It makes you wonder how this dark, gritty world has been teetering on the brink for long enough that your characters can get strong enough to save it.

I DO actually dislike how few encounter powers you tend to get, and how there's really no recovery method at all until much later levels, and then it's in only a few very specific paragon paths and with only one epic destiny, and THEN only at 30th level. When you've got 2 encounter powers and 1 daily power, you're not choosing between the most useful tool in a toolbox, you're choosing whether the fight is dangerous enough for a daily, or if you can get by with only Encounters. When you absolutely NEED another use of the fighter power Come and Get It and nothing else will do, you're pretty much just up a creek.

Orzel
2008-08-30, 12:03 AM
I'm upset that 4E didn't expand the usage of raw ability checks and break the Monster/PC barrier. By level 8 you can easily (and want to) have ability scores over 22. You can be stronger than a ogre, tougher than a troll, etc... and I still need magic to jump 20ft in the air without a running start.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:03 AM
Hunter, i'm saying that i don't like those groups and i don't like those classifications, i find them undeeded, incorrect, and unnecessary. A good complaint doesn't need to be forced into a catagory,that demeans the option in quesiton and belittles the point. Now maybe we are not on the same page, so i aplogize if i come off as cross (my fire fox broke, so i'm in a bad mood and lacking spell check) but i think the very act of grouping complaints isn't needed and makes the options less valid
from
EE

Shadowtraveler
2008-08-30, 12:04 AM
I hate how helpful and friendly the 4e DMG and MM are. It feels like they're designed to help you as the DM create encounters and loot with minimal fuss.

Where's all the tables with % rolls? Where's the thunder and doom of earlier editions? I want my players to know pain and misery, darnit! :smallfurious: :smalltongue:

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:07 AM
I hate how helpful and friendly the 4e DMG and MM are. It feels like they're designed to help you as the DM create encounters and loot with minimal fuss.

OYE. I didn't complain about 4E in the "What do you like about 4E" thread, don't be annoying snide in this one

In all honesty, the helpfulness in the three books is because they are so bloody simplistic, which is basically kick in the nads with a happy face:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:
from
EE

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-30, 12:08 AM
Hunter, i'm saying that i don't like those groups and i don't like those classifications, i find them undeeded, incorrect, and unnecessary. A good complaint doesn't need to be forced into a catagory,that demeans the option in quesiton and belittles the point. Now maybe we are not on the same page, so i aplogize if i come off as cross (my fire fox broke, so i'm in a bad mood and lacking spell check) but i think the very act of grouping complaints isn't needed and makes the options less valid
from
EE

Grouping makes complaints less valid? If anything, it shows that many people find the same problems that you do - it's the Wisdom of Crowds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_crowds), writ large. If you don't try to categorize these complaints, then it's just a long, jumbled list of things that annoy people. In a sense, such a list seems more trivial - like people are nitpicking instead of finding serious flaws they can agree on.

Anyhow, that's my view. If you don't like lists, you don't have to use them; but if you just don't like the list I came up with, make one yourself. Think of it like a petition - you don't ask people to scrawl on a piece of paper their personal beefs with an issue, you write a simple and concise statement of grievances and have people sign to show their agreement with that statement. I wouldn't say that petitions trivialize anyone's grievances, would you?

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:11 AM
Grouping makes complaints less valid? If anything, it shows that many people find the same problems that you do - it's the Wisdom of Crowds, writ large. If you don't try to categorize these complaints, then it's just a long, jumbled list of things that annoy people. In a sense, such a list seems more trivial - like people are nitpicking instead of finding serious flaws they can agree on.

Making list isn't less valid, however fitting all complaints into seven arbitrary and partially inaccurate articles does render them less valid.
If you want to list complaints feel free, however i don't like how those are used as the definition of 4E complaints because they don't cover everything
from
EE

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-30, 12:14 AM
Making list isn't less valid, however fitting all complaints into seven arbitrary and partially inaccurate articles does render them less valid.
If you want to list complaints feel free, however i don't like how those are used as the definition of 4E complaints because they don't cover everything
from
EE

Well, what doesn't it cover? Expand! Refine!

Duos Greanleef
2008-08-30, 12:15 AM
Being a Dragonborn character used to require a good deal of roleplaying in that you had to be recruited by someone who had already gone through the ritual to become one. It required an undying dedication to a patron dragon race. After you had gone through the trials, you constructed a magical egg around yourself and slept in it. When you awoke, you had the Dragonborn template added to your previous racial features.
Now it's as easy as saying: "I want that one!":smallannoyed:

That being said, I like just about everything else about 4E better than 3.X.:smallsmile:

Jerthanis
2008-08-30, 12:18 AM
Making list isn't less valid, however fitting all complaints into seven arbitrary and partially inaccurate articles does render them less valid.
If you want to list complaints feel free, however i don't like how those are used as the definition of 4E complaints because they don't cover everything
from
EE

If you don't feel Oracle_Hunter's list is accurate, could you script up a list for yourself that you'd consider more accurate? It seems to me that Oracle Hunter just tried to make up a list that clarifies what people actually do dislike about 4th edition, and he took his data from the previous thread itself.

If you personally disagree with his statements, then by all means, tell us which one you disagree with, but Gavin Sage at least seems to think the list is at least passable, or he wouldn't have posted it on this thread as well, so unless there's a problem with lists in general, I don't know what exactly you're objecting to.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-08-30, 12:19 AM
I don't like how the game encourages min/maxing.
The idea that the two attributes may be albe to effect a stat, but they made it almost too easy.
Example: In the game I currently am In, I was lucky enough to have three pretty good stats. I made a Ranger fluffed to be a Barbarian. The character is uncharismatic, focused around moving and hitting, etc.
However, we are now level 5, this character came late as my previous one (a Paladin) died. My DM simply told me to recycle my stats. That's pretty good. I put 18 in Str and Dex. I had one more 18, and the problem became where to logically put it. To put it in CON would have been beneficial, but it was entirely unnecesarry. It would have granted me only 5 more, albeit useless, HP.
The character is a Barbarian, so it's not known for it's high intelligence. The character is poor on social graces so it would have made no sense to put it in CHA. So, I was stuck putting it in Wis, simply to boost my knowledges.
Granted this is mostly a nitpick as part of my luck with high stats, but it opened my eyes to how easy it became to be nigh untouchable.

My AC is currently 20, with all the defenses being 17. Once again, it may just be luck, but the game makes min/maxing a little too easy as many classes will use 3 different stats, save for the Paladin.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 12:20 AM
His review is pretty accurate. I have things I think they did right(not many mind you) and a horrid amount of what they did wrong.
Anyway back to the rant. I'm staying out the list discussion I much rather vent:smallbiggrin:
The Fraggin' Planes: I MISS THE GREAT WHEEL PERIOD!

turkishproverb
2008-08-30, 12:25 AM
Well, what doesn't it cover? Expand! Refine!

The fact Wizards announced the release date like 2 months after saying they weren't working on a "4th Edition" Of D&D?

Jerthanis
2008-08-30, 12:25 AM
Example: In the game I currently am In, I was lucky enough to have three pretty good stats. I made a Ranger fluffed to be a Barbarian. The character is uncharismatic, focused around moving and hitting, etc.
However, we are now level 5, this character came late as my previous one (a Paladin) died. My DM simply told me to recycle my stats. That's pretty good. I put 18 in Str and Dex. I had one more 18, and the problem became where to logically put it. To put it in CON would have been beneficial, but it was entirely unnecesarry. It would have granted me only 5 more, albeit useless, HP.
The character is a Barbarian, so it's not known for it's high intelligence. The character is poor on social graces so it would have made no sense to put it in CHA. So, I was stuck putting it in Wis, simply to boost my knowledges.
Granted this is mostly a nitpick as part of my luck with high stats, but it opened my eyes to how easy it became to be nigh untouchable.

My AC is currently 20, with all the defenses being 17. Once again, it may just be luck, but the game makes min/maxing a little too easy as many classes will use 3 different stats, save for the Paladin.

*blink* so, you're saying that when you use the option to roll your stats instead of using point generation, and when you roll very high on your stats, you end up with a more powerful character than if you had lower stats? If that wasn't the case, I'd wonder what the point of having stats at all would be.

Are you trying to say that powerful characters are more easy to make, because character creation is simpler, and tells you more directly which stats you should have high for each class?

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:25 AM
If you don't feel Oracle_Hunter's list is accurate, could you script up a list for yourself that you'd consider more accurate? It seems to me that Oracle Hunter just tried to make up a list that clarifies what people actually do dislike about 4th edition, and he took his data from the previous thread itself.

If you personally disagree with his statements, then by all means, tell us which one you disagree with, but Gavin Sage at least seems to think the list is at least passable, or he wouldn't have posted it on this thread as well, so unless there's a problem with lists in general, I don't know what exactly you're objecting to.

the lists contents are the problem (through some of them are rather inaccurate, but that isn't the issue) the problem is they are too limiting. That is only seven complaints, instead of seven categories of complaints. There are far to many issues that people have brought up to have them forced into. Galvin Sage picked two taht the list presented, but people in the last thread at least viewed that as an actual categorization of complaints, rather than seven items on a list

I'll explain in detail tommorow, because it is 1:30 where i am and i need sleep

Good night all
from
EE

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-30, 12:28 AM
The fact Wizards announced the release date like 2 months after saying they weren't working on a "4th Edition" Of D&D?

That... sounds more like a complaint about WotC than 4e. I suppose "4e came out too early" would be a unique category. You could expand it to "WotC stopped supporting 3e" to cover all other losses of splatbooks, favorite campaign settings, adventure paths, d20 materials, and the like.

It seems a *bit* outside the ambit of a thread about 4e, but that's what I'd call it.

EDIT:
@EE - I look forward to your list.

It'd seem to me that my categories are broad enough to capture many different complaints. For instance, #3 can include complaints about Healing Surges, Other Non-Magical Healing, Martial Powers, Skill Advancement, and DCs that vary by level, just to name a few. The main complaint about all these features is that they aren't sufficiently realistic, so they all fit under that one category, no?

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:28 AM
The fact Wizards announced the release date like 2 months after saying they weren't working on a "4th Edition" Of D&D?

....yeah i forgot about that, what was up with that?
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 12:33 AM
I forget did 4E premiere around the time any major Cons?

turkishproverb
2008-08-30, 12:33 AM
That... sounds more like a complaint about WotC than 4e. I suppose "4e came out too early" would be a unique category. You could expand it to "WotC stopped supporting 3e" to cover all other losses of splatbooks, favorite campaign settings, adventure paths, d20 materials, and the like.

It seems a *bit* outside the ambit of a thread about 4e, but that's what I'd call it.



....yeah i forgot about that, what was up with that?
from
EE

Honestly? My bet is they were working as hard as possible for non compatibility with 3.5 above all else and as such wanted to keep sales high for as long as possible before the announcement.


For my part though it means 4th edition was hoisted on us under false pretext, leaving me in a position to doubt everything done to support it, or trust the developer of the game. And that is somethign that DOES weaken the game for me. (and the fact it needed such fast errata sort've supports this)

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 12:35 AM
4e= Windows Vista?
anyways it could simply be a money grab.

turkishproverb
2008-08-30, 12:36 AM
4e= Windows Vista?
anyways it could simply be a money grab.

Money grab?
So 4e does=Vista


And I suggested the money grab.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-08-30, 12:36 AM
Oh yes, the Errata.

ERRATA IS NOT SUPPOSED TO FIX BALANCE!

Granted, the fact that the game could be broken, even if only to an extent, from the pre-release materials, says a lot about how well their attempts at "balance" worked.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 12:39 AM
Too balanced really.
I rally get the feeling this a 3.o fiasco all over again. I mean this basically what happened last shift. They tried putting something out quickly and cheaply and didn't analyze possible implications of such an attempt. basically good ol' fashioned half-assery.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-30, 12:44 AM
For my part though it means 4th edition was hoisted on us under false pretext, leaving me in a position to doubt everything done to support it, or trust the developer of the game. And that is somethign that DOES weaken the game for me. (and the fact it needed such fast errata sort've supports this)

Who said there wasn't going to be a 4e? Not doubting it, just trying to find the source. Most places I've found attribute it to the large body of people that fall under WotC. There's probably good citations out there, but my google-fu is weak.

turkishproverb
2008-08-30, 12:46 AM
Who said there wasn't going to be a 4e? Not doubting it, just trying to find the source. Most places I've found attribute it to the large body of people that fall under WotC. There's probably good citations out there, but my google-fu is weak.

IN my case being at a con and hearing the WOTC guy say it, but I know someone much more important said it in an interview/speech/pressrelease somewhere.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-08-30, 12:46 AM
Who said there wasn't going to be a 4e? Not doubting it, just trying to find the source. Most places I've found attribute it to the large body of people that fall under WotC. There's probably good citations out there, but my google-fu is weak.It was a press conference, IIRC. And I'm really surprised that that's not false advertising or something, it should be illegal.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 12:49 AM
Thought so they really are just trying to rake in cash. For lords' sake from the sounds of things you NEED minis just to handle encounters! Those are not cheap mind you.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-30, 12:51 AM
It was a press conference, IIRC. And I'm really surprised that that's not false advertising or something, it should be illegal.

That's why I'm curious who actually said it. Everything I've pulled up on google has degraded down to "everybody knows" level by now. I know there's a source, but I'm having no luck finding it.

Mainly I'm curious if it was from marketing, management or designers.

Knaight
2008-08-30, 12:55 AM
You seemed to missed how by "taught" I was referring to learning much like watching an idiot stick a fork into an electrical socket and watching the results to learn to do better. :smallwink:

Real idiots use two electrical sockets, simultaneously sticking a fork in both, one in each hand, causing a bigger current loop.

Dhavaer
2008-08-30, 01:02 AM
I don't like that the infernal pact for warlocks is based on Constitution instead of Charisma.

Crow
2008-08-30, 01:09 AM
That's why I'm curious who actually said it. Everything I've pulled up on google has degraded down to "everybody knows" level by now. I know there's a source, but I'm having no luck finding it.

Mainly I'm curious if it was from marketing, management or designers.

One of the designers said it too. There was an official "rumor-squashing" announcement on the WotC boards that is where the "two months" figure comes from. Someone on those boards i'm sure will have a link.

turkishproverb
2008-08-30, 01:10 AM
One of the designers said it too. There was an official "rumor-squashing" announcement on the WotC boards that is where the "two months" figure comes from. Someone on those boards i'm sure will have a link.

unless they scrubbed it to hide evidence. the GW boards do that all the time. :smallmad:

Hallavast
2008-08-30, 01:14 AM
That... sounds more like a complaint about WotC than 4e. I suppose "4e came out too early" would be a unique category. You could expand it to "WotC stopped supporting 3e" to cover all other losses of splatbooks, favorite campaign settings, adventure paths, d20 materials, and the like.

It seems a *bit* outside the ambit of a thread about 4e, but that's what I'd call it.



Well, out of bounds or not, you've touched on perhaps the one thing about the whole deal that turns me off to a new edition. I dislike that 4E is a new edition to the exclusion of 3.x. A mixture of brand loyalty and certain points that I liked about 3rd edition (like the extremely complex modularity of the character/monster creation system along with campaign settings tied to the novels I'd read) is what kept me buying those products. Between 3E and 3.5 I had probably spent over $500 on Dungeons & Dragons books alone (not including dice, miniatures, battlemats, or other supplimentary tools).

Now what the hell am I supposed to do? I'm not in highschool anymore, so I don't have the disposable income that I did when 3.5 came out - not that I'd want to scrap all my books and essentially start my collection over anyway. 4th edition simply does not bring anything to the table that would justify purchasing a new edition. It has a "fast-paced", innovative combat system. Big deal! My games (the memorable ones) were rarely centered on combat anyway. Don't get me wrong; combat is fun when it pertains to the story at hand and lends to the roleplaying, but I'm not really looking for a new way to roll initiative, so to speak.

Further, they have taken a well established campaign setting (Forgotten Realms) and warped it into something unrecognizable. How am I supposed to work "a hundred years pass, many notable archmages were killed, Mystra was murdered, Thay is now run by the undead, and there's dragonborn running amok" into my campaign?

It wouldn't be so bad if I were able to ignore these changes and still run my FR campaign using the 4E rules, but the races and cosmology in the core rulebooks follow the assumption that you will use the fluff set down in the book. If I won't use that much of the books, then why bother converting?

"Keeping track of a whole bunch of languages is hard, so lets only have 10 spoken and written languages in the world" *slap*

"Dwarves, a race traditionally know for living underground, can no longer see in the dark" *slap*

"I'm a monster! Rawr!" *slap*

There are 8 (if i'm not mistaken) classes in the PHB. That is 3 less than 3rd edition. The ones taken out are presumably being put back in if you buy the splatbooks. This means I get to pay more money if I want to integrate the classes that are already in my campaign into a 4E game.

In short, what I'm saying is that the question should not be "why don't you play 4E?" It should be "what reason do you have to convert to 4E?" I have found no reason to convert. It's not a problem with the game so much as it's a problem with the game's title and producers.

Thurbane
2008-08-30, 01:35 AM
I suppose "4e came out too early" would be a unique category.
Please add my subscription to that point, as well. :smallbiggrin:

Crow
2008-08-30, 01:40 AM
I liked how the core three books were the center of 3.5, and the splatbooks were essentially optional. (Ignoring the balance issues and all else, the SRD can stand on it's own for the most part)

That said, it seems as if 4e was designed from the beginning to require the player to purchase additional supplements. I'll even ignore the classes which weren't included in the basic three books. If a group of characters is expected roughly at each level to have an item of their level, one below, and one above, over the course of 20 or 30 levels, you are going to start running out of new and interesting treasure. You'll probably be alright for your first campaign, but by the next one, it will all be old hat. The same goes for the monster manual. If you integrate different monsters with different roles and make well-balanced and interesting encounters, you have enough monsters for maybe 3 campaigns at a given level. Luckily, there are servicable monster creation rules to offset this, but I've already had to use them twice in 4 sessions. This is too much for me. I don't like these things.

I also don't like the index in any of the books. They aren't very useful at all, but the worst is the Monster Manual. Some of the monsters are listed by their "name" and level, but are actually a sub-monster, and it gives no indication of what type of monster it falls under. So you basically have to go to the table of contents and guess at it until you figure out what it is.

Dode
2008-08-30, 03:23 AM
Between 3.5E and 4E D&D went from a game where if you applied enough thought to enough splatbooks you could break the game with overpowered characters, to a game that was effectively unbreakable and completely balanced by making sure every option available in the game was generic and mild. No matter how much creativity you put into a character he would still be comparable and not much different from a character randomly assembled within 15 minutes. I'm going to stick with 3.5e because a broken mechanic a player picks is more tolerable to me then sitting around with a rogue trying to decide whether a +1 to attack when you have combat advantage or +1 to attack rolls with light weapons is a better use of a feat.

Starsinger
2008-08-30, 03:43 AM
I dislike how deadly minions are, surrounding and swarming over the PCs and grinding away their hitpoints and granting combat advantage to each other and getting in the party's way. They seem like they should be easy to take out! They've got only one hit point, yet for some reason their reasonable defenses keep them from getting hit most of the time and it still takes a couple good swings to take one out, and in the meantime they're hacking away at your shins and opening you up for their allies. It seems so much like these guys just serve to show how awesome the PCs are by wading through monsters like they're nothing, but in actual play, these jerks will give you nightmares.

I also hate how little it's like MMOs. In most MMOs I've played, the Tank types have ranged taunt abilities to influence the AI to come over and attack them specifically, and the monster has no choice but to do so. I liked how the 3.5 Knight had this ability because it made it so much easier to play it like WoW. Also, MMOs that aren't City of Heroes tend to balance team content assuming fights are against a single powerful monster more often than not, that the heroes must utilize 'pulling' to fight properly, while 4th edition encounter design is all about the villains outnumbering the heroes at every turn. I liked how 3rd edition was much better for this MMO style 'one big bad' method of play. Also. in 4th edition, if you can't keep up with the monster, you can't stop it from doing anything, and even if you do manage to mark it, it can still throw attacks at other people if that's necessary. If you run over to the goblin archer to mark it, and your mage is at 3 HP, that goblin can easily just down that mage anyway if they can hit past the penalty you gave him.

I also dislike how at comparable levels you're so much weaker than in 3.5, contributing to an atmosphere that there are dreadful and horrible things out there that you're better off avoiding, while in 3.5, by the time you're level 5, you and your friends could gank things like Beholders and Mind Flayers fairly easily... otherworldly monsters that can make the soul of a strong man tremble... while in 4th edition you've got to wait almost to level 20 to have a chance! It makes you wonder how this dark, gritty world has been teetering on the brink for long enough that your characters can get strong enough to save it.

I DO actually dislike how few encounter powers you tend to get, and how there's really no recovery method at all until much later levels, and then it's in only a few very specific paragon paths and with only one epic destiny, and THEN only at 30th level. When you've got 2 encounter powers and 1 daily power, you're not choosing between the most useful tool in a toolbox, you're choosing whether the fight is dangerous enough for a daily, or if you can get by with only Encounters. When you absolutely NEED another use of the fighter power Come and Get It and nothing else will do, you're pretty much just up a creek.

QFT I'm Starsinger and I approve this message.

Edit: I don't think treasure parcels go far enough towards providing an adequately equal wealth distribution mechanic. What if one PC takes both of the N+3 items? I mean, it's nearly as bad as just throwing the treasure monsters are supposed to have at PCs and praying it matches WBL in the end.

Charity
2008-08-30, 03:45 AM
I don't like that the infernal pact for warlocks is based on Constitution instead of Charisma.

That does annoy me as well. Surely Tieflings shoul be better at the infernal pact?
But I think it would be pretty easy to just house rule it into Cha if you want to... Though that would make Con pretty useless as a warlock.

Starsinger
2008-08-30, 03:50 AM
That does annoy me as well. Surely Tieflings shoul be better at the infernal pact?
But I think it would be pretty easy to just house rule it into Cha if you want to... Though that would make Con pretty useless as a warlock.

I have a houserule that you may switch all instances of two ability scores for your class powers. (With a bit of tweaking to follow when necessary.)

For example, want be a Charisma based cleric? Fine. Anytime a normal cleric power says wisdom, use charisma. When it says Charisma, use wisdom. I haven't had much opportunity to test it, but I don't see a problem so far.

Talic
2008-08-30, 03:59 AM
I have a houserule that you may switch all instances of two ability scores for your class powers. (With a bit of tweaking to follow when necessary.)

For example, want be a Charisma based cleric? Fine. Anytime a normal cleric power says wisdom, use charisma. When it says Charisma, use wisdom. I haven't had much opportunity to test it, but I don't see a problem so far.

Strength based wizard? lol.

Myshlaevsky
2008-08-30, 04:01 AM
Strength based wizard? lol.

I think it'd be Wisdom. That's the seconday power ability score, isn't it? Could end up a little strange, like a ranged Str Ranger, but it seems like it'd be okay. That could make a nice throwing weapon/hammer character, I suppose.

EDIT: Or would it be Wis for the Ranger?

Swok
2008-08-30, 04:02 AM
Or Dex or Con. It still needs to be an instance of a classes used ability.

Edit: That was about Wizards. Though in the case of the ranger, switching str for ranged means melee is switched to dex in the case of the feat. I think.

Starsinger
2008-08-30, 04:18 AM
Right, switching strength and dex for ranger results in Two-Weapon-Finesse and Heavy Thrown ranged powers.

Dode
2008-08-30, 04:42 AM
You can already use physical stats for spellcasting using the Illumian race in CoD. Best application I could think of was a Str-based Duskblade.

Jerthanis
2008-08-30, 04:45 AM
Edit: I don't think treasure parcels go far enough towards providing an adequately equal wealth distribution mechanic. What if one PC takes both of the N+3 items? I mean, it's nearly as bad as just throwing the treasure monsters are supposed to have at PCs and praying it matches WBL in the end.

Yes, I didn't think of this but I honestly do agree. Treasure Parcels are useful for absolute newbies, but it's barely useful as anything more than an idea-generating guideline for anyone else.

But I'm so busy being glad we're off the paradigm of "Free Market Magic Item Shoppe in every sizable town or your XYZ is screwed over because it has no access to the absolutely vital magic items which the class hardly functions without." of 3rd edition that I can hardly fault it for anything magic item related.

For the record, my favorite magic item distribution guide was given in the 2nd edition DMG where it said, "DM, come up with the quantity and availability of magic items in your setting, and determine for yourself how many magic items your players should have." In 3.5, this strategy became one of those jokes that aren't funny and make you kind of feel awkward by midlevel, so I'm just so happy that in 4th edition saying, "No Magic Items at ALL!" just means like... take 1-5 away from the defenses of your foes some of the time depending on level... and it's exactly the same balance.

So yeah, I'm going to run a "No Wizards, no clerics, no Warlocks, no magical classes" 4th edition game when the PHB2 comes out with a couple more classes for variety, with no magic items and it's going to be a "Badass normals fight off supernatural foes in a world without easy access to supernatural power by humans." And it's going to be awesome.

Oh, and I just wanted to put in that there was a linked video review on the first page that mentioned that it was a bad move that they put the magic item rules in the PHB, but I think it was a good idea, because it's more likely that a player will need to look up the information for his own items mid-session to understand, say, what kind of action it takes to activate it, or what have you. Honestly, putting magic item rules in the DMG just means that players need the DMG. It's like if you put the rules for the monsters you can summon in another book... or the rules for flight... or how much it would cost to buy a boat and how hard it is to sail one.

nagora
2008-08-30, 05:16 AM
That... sounds more like a complaint about WotC than 4e. I suppose "4e came out too early" would be a unique category.
Yes: "game was blatantly not playtested properly" is another class of complaint. Just flicking through the errata shows that there were issues with, for example, skill challenges which were picked up very quickly after release (I think on the first day actual players posted here) - why were they not picked up very quickly before release?

Charity
2008-08-30, 05:55 AM
I have a houserule that you may switch all instances of two ability scores for your class powers. (With a bit of tweaking to follow when necessary.)

For example, want be a Charisma based cleric? Fine. Anytime a normal cleric power says wisdom, use charisma. When it says Charisma, use wisdom. I haven't had much opportunity to test it, but I don't see a problem so far.

This might have implications when it comes to multiclassing. Being able to be a wis based wizard for cleric multiclassing or str based rogue for other martial multiclassing might cause multiclassed characters to weild more power than single classed characters.

Mastikator
2008-08-30, 08:30 AM
I dislike the way wizards have the role of controllers when they really are blasters. Not that I have anything against blasters or controllers. It just doesn't make sense to call a blaster a controller.

I also dislike healing surges. They were fine for monks with "wholeness of body" because there was a quasi-magical fluff about that. But the healing surges aren't justified with any fluff in 4e. And I shouldn't be forced into making up my own justification for it. It doesn't make any sense.

I dislike the whole "at will, per encounter and per day" mechanic. For wizards, clerics and other magic based characters, it's fine. For mundane character, it's not fine. There's no reason why a rogue should only be allowed one per encounter attack per encounter unless it literally depends on some kind of ammunition. Which it mostly doesn't.
Sure, it's balanced. Nice. It still doesn't make any sense.

I don't like how 4e doesn't make any sense. It depends on my willingness to suspend my disbelief.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 08:37 AM
And How! It sickens me to think they committed most these for A. balance and for B. profit. A few posts ago someone hit on exactly what I was talking about in the later.

Viruzzo
2008-08-30, 08:46 AM
That does annoy me as well. Surely Tieflings shoul be better at the infernal pact?
But I think it would be pretty easy to just house rule it into Cha if you want to... Though that would make Con pretty useless as a warlock.
That annoys me too, but I think a better solution would be to change Tieflings to +Con, +Int instead of modifying the class. It actually makes more sense to me than them being +Int, +Cha.


Yes: "game was blatantly not playtested properly" is another class of complaint. Just flicking through the errata shows that there were issues with, for example, skill challenges which were picked up very quickly after release (I think on the first day actual players posted here) - why were they not picked up very quickly before release?
It's not a "for example" case, it's the only great example. All the other stuff is decently balanced, and they fixed the worst power (Blade Cascade) quite soon. It's annoying that they have to fix stuff, but at least they're fixing it. 3.0 was flawed and instead of putting out decent errata they left as it was and published a revised edition... Now that is evil!

Mastikator
2008-08-30, 09:01 AM
And How! It sickens me to think they committed most these for A. balance and for B. profit. A few posts ago someone hit on exactly what I was talking about in the later.They are sacrificing sensibility for balance to the point where the game no longer makes enough sense.

This is bad.

I want it to both make sense AND be balanced.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-30, 09:36 AM
Y'know, if you want, you can just update the list with examples under each category.

Like so:
1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
- a) Magic system
- b) Power System
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
- a) Gnomes
- b) Half-Orcs
- c) Bards
- d) Druids
3) 4e is unrealistic
- a) Healing Surges
- b) Skill Advancement
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
- a) No crafting skills
- b) Too combat focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
- a) Magic is too weak/expensive
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
- a) PCs have too much HP / heal too easily
- b) PCs can do too much at 1st level
- c) PCs are just better than NPCs
7) 4e is oversimplified
- a) Skill System
- b) Disassociated Rules

Just post it on every page, updated with the complaints from the previous page. Keep it spoilered, and it shouldn't screw up the formatting.

Enjoy!

The problem is your list is erronous.

Look at Part 2:
a. Gnomes: 4th has them so why are you complaining they don't exist?
And part 3:
Skill Advancement? How did that be unrealistic?
Isn't that more realistic than 3rd's? I've been alive for 20 levels, but I've learned nothing (You'd think a Fighter would have some idea what magic was, but he has no knowledge Arcane, or what a troll is, etc).

And explain part 7: How does oversimplified and disassociating fit in category?

You could do this:

1) 4e is not D&D; it's a different d20 game
- a) Magic system
- b) Power System
2) 4e doesn't have X race or class
- a) Half-Orcs
- b) Bards
- c) Druids
3) 4e is unrealistic
- a) Healing Surges
4) 4e is too narrowly focused
- a) No crafting skills
- b) Too combat focused
5) 4e Epic isn't Epic
- a) Magic is too weak/expensive
6) 4e Heroic isn't Gritty
- a) PCs have too much HP / heal too easily
- b) PCs can do too much at 1st level
- c) PCs are just better than NPCs
7) 4e is oversimplified
- a) Skill System


That would remove the the errors. Like really, who complained no Gnomes when we all see them in the game (I have one in my party).

nagora
2008-08-30, 10:22 AM
Now what the hell am I supposed to do? I'm not in highschool anymore, so I don't have the disposable income that I did when 3.5 came out
Plenty of others still are and still do, though. Basically, your own post says why WotC don't care what you think about 4e.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 10:30 AM
i dislike how they destroyed FR. I accidently got the book today (eh?) and it broke my heart. A perfectly good setting ruined

And no stop, don't start whining about why you don't like FR, why the idea of NPCs having power is somehow offensive, the wizard bartender jokes or the high magic setting. Weather you personally liked FR is besides the point, the point is they ruined a well established setting with no respect or regard to the settings itself. It is like destroying ebberon. I don't like ebberon (ok, thats a lie, i do like it, i just don't like it as much) and i would be very upset if they ruined the entire story back ground. its not weather you liked the setting, it is the lack of respect for the game

Also, can we stop with the snide "Oh i don't like how this change was good, look at me i'm so cunning, hah hah hah". As i said, unneeded, and only provokes people
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 10:38 AM
I stand with you on this EE. I can't even imagine how badly they're going to give to Ebberon. And why the H*!! is Thay ruled BY UNDEAD!:smallfurious:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-30, 10:41 AM
Look at Part 2:
a. Gnomes: 4th has them so why are you complaining they don't exist?
And part 3:
Skill Advancement? How did that be unrealistic?
Isn't that more realistic than 3rd's? I've been alive for 20 levels, but I've learned nothing (You'd think a Fighter would have some idea what magic was, but he has no knowledge Arcane, or what a troll is, etc).

And explain part 7: How does oversimplified and disassociating fit in category?

Dude, I didn't make up those entries. People have been complaining that the Skill Advancement system is unrealistic (nobody should get good at everything at the same time) and that Gnomes are not playable races. I am not making this up.

I honestly still don't know what to do with dissociated mechanics. I put it in oversimplified since it seems most people consider the "dissociated mechanics" to be things like the Power System, Skill Challenges, and other stuff that tries to simplify the system.

New part 8: "4e came out too early" which covers sabotaging the proper 3e product-cycle, being poorly play tested, and the like.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 10:45 AM
I keep hearing about these Healing Surges How do these things work? Is it just once per day the party gains back X HP for no real reason or what?

nagora
2008-08-30, 10:47 AM
I keep hearing about these Healing Surges How do these things work? Is it just once per day the party gains back X HP for no real reason or what?
No, the party gains back 100% of their HP per day for no reason; healing surges are to keep them going in between.

Jayabalard
2008-08-30, 10:48 AM
Too true, each could make a several page term paper and the whole thing a doctoral thesis on psychologoy and gameplay.

4e has taught me how important the metagame aspect is to a rich roleplaying experience.I think that his point was more that it's a gross oversimplification (which is a great first step for marginalizing someone else's opinion)

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-30, 10:51 AM
I keep hearing about these Healing Surges How do these things work? Is it just once per day the party gains back X HP for no real reason or what?

Every character has a number of Healing Surges per day equal to N+(con mod) where N is determined by their class. Almost all healing effects expend a single Healing Surge, so no single character can be healed more than the number of Healing Surges they have per day.

Additionally, once per encounter a character may spend a Second Wind Action to recover one Healing Surge worth of HP.

Between Encounters (during Short Rests) characters may spend as many Healing Surges as they want (up to their maximum number remaining) to restore their HP.

After a Long Rest (6 hours) characters recover all of their HP and Healing Surges. You can take a Long Rest once per 12 hours.

Viruzzo
2008-08-30, 10:54 AM
Weather you personally liked FR is besides the point, the point is they ruined a well established setting with no respect or regard to the settings itself.
Saying that they ruined it is not objective: you don't like the new FRs, others may. As an example I'll put "A feast for crows": many didn't like the many changes (read: deaths) it introduced, but it's the author that decides what happens, and sooner or later someone in the world will be displeased. You're not bound to buy the books if you don't like what the authors create.


I keep hearing about these Healing Surges How do these things work? Is it just once per day the party gains back X HP for no real reason or what?
Don't get me wrong, but evidently you haven't played 4E, so why don't you try it instead of complaining? You may be surprised. :smallsmile:

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 11:05 AM
I was simply curious though I really don't like how those sound. Part the fun I have in DnD is the fact that though heroic a character can and more than likely will die if he doesn't fight smart and hard against his enemy. This however sounds like they basically allowed the heros to run wild and are effectivley nigh immortal so long as the can run away for a few minutes. Sure it's more cinematic But I've never really seen DND as that type of game. It's struck me more as a novella or short-story style where if the main characters do have flaws and can very easily at times die if they're not careful.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 11:05 AM
Saying that they ruined it is not objective: you don't like the new FRs, others may. As an example I'll put "A feast for crows": many didn't like the many changes (read: deaths) it introduced, but it's the author that decides what happens, and sooner or later someone in the world will be displeased. You're not bound to buy the books if you don't like what the authors create.

Utterly wrong comparison. Feast for crows, while the most depressing book yet, doesn't change the very aspect of the book. The bad stuff that happens as a continuation of the story, its just the story moving on.

FR isn't the story moving on natrually. The silence of Lolth, Time of Troubles, those are world changing events taht are done in a natural manner, this is simply changing for the sake of the game. Its disrepectful, its badly done, and it ruins the already existing game



Don't get me wrong, but evidently you haven't played 4E, so why don't you try it instead of complaining? You may be surprised. :smallsmile:
1) I haven't played FATAL, and i'm reasonable sure it is an awful game
2) i actually have played 4E, it is a failure as new edition
3) and you don't have to play the game to find fault with the awful changes


from
EE

monty
2008-08-30, 11:08 AM
1) I haven't played FATAL, and i'm reasonable sure it is an awful game
2) i actually have played 4E, it is a failure as new edition
3) and you don't have to play the game to find fault with the awful changes

QFT. Also, playing 4e would require a group to play it with, and my group refuses to try it (not that I have a problem with that). Also also, I'd be hesitant to spend money on books for a system that I'm pretty sure I won't like.

nagora
2008-08-30, 11:08 AM
It's struck me more as a novella or short-story style where if the main characters do have flaws and can very easily at times die if they're not careful.
Actually, that's a very nice way of putting it. Individual sessions/scenarios are not chapters in a book where everyone knows the main characters are going to survive, they're short stories that may or may not have a sequal if they make it.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 11:12 AM
I was simply curious though I really don't like how those sound. Part the fun I have in DnD is the fact that though heroic a character can and more than likely will die if he doesn't fight smart and hard against his enemy. This however sounds like they basically allowed the heros to run wild and are effectivley nigh immortal so long as the can run away for a few minutes. Sure it's more cinematic But I've never really seen DND as that type of game. It's struck me more as a novella or short-story style where if the main characters do have flaws and can very easily at times die if they're not careful.

I agree, what i liked about 2E/3E is that it rewarded you for being smart and thinking outside the block, and wasn't afraid (2e more so) to make the players have trouble) where as 4E bends itself backwards to make the characters feel awesome. however when you ruin your own fluff and world in order to do so, being awesome actually isn't' that exciting, and i don't feel like i earned it. Some games can be epic without breaking the game (Exalted) this isn't one of them.


Its like making a magnificent bastard, you try to hard to make one you only get a smug snake. The attempts to make you feel mighty and epic are like Mookie's attempt to make Domonic seem like a cool and likable character, forced and hollow.

from
EE
edit
Monty
Yeah i understand that and i hate the "You haven't played it argument" but i actually did buy the core set and did play it (I bought it from Pazio so at least some of my money goes to them) with my group. It was.......depressing. I will give them credit from some of the art but it just doesn't offer anything really.
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 11:16 AM
Thank you:smallsmile:
In truth I can be a very HARSH DM. In fact I almost killed off the guy I was Co-Dming with at one point. I relented and instead mind controlled him rendering him fairly useless.But alas that's a tale for another time.
That's my personal interpretation of the game. I'm sure there is multiple but, in this playgrounder's eyes that's what DND should be. A story not a two-bit action movie like Dugeon Siege or that loathsome DND movie.

Viruzzo
2008-08-30, 11:24 AM
@black dragoon
See, that is what I mean: healing surges may seem bad, but they actually work out pretty decently. Out of combat healing to full is nothing new, it has always been present in the form of healing spells, to the point that 3.x introduced spontaneous cures for good clerics to prevent them having to memorize only "Cure X Wounds" spells. True, now the players wake up with full HP. Before they had their cleric use his newly memorized Heal to... Start the day with full HP. 4E does the same with less fuss.
Also, the nigh-immortality of 4E PCs is a myth, point.


FR isn't the story moving on natrually. The silence of Lolth, Time of Troubles, those are world changing events taht are done in a natural manner, this is simply changing for the sake of the game. Its disrepectful, its badly done, and it ruins the already existing game
Why is it hard for you to just say that you don't like the way the have changed the setting, instead of insisting that "they ruined it"? Why has it to be true for everyone? I can't say for myself that I like the new FRs because I have never liked any versione of it, but I'm pretty sure many people are fine with the new one.
Besides, I don't think that "naturally" means "how I wanted it to be".


1) I haven't played FATAL, and i'm reasonable sure it is an awful game
2) i actually have played 4E, it is a failure as new edition
3) and you don't have to play the game to find fault with the awful changes
Not quoting you, not talking to you? Anyway:
1) still, it's not the same as trying it, and also I've yet to find someone who likes FATAL, while 4E is appreciated by many.
2) repeat with me: "if I don't like something it does not mean that it's inherently bad".
3) talking about stuff you've only heard about it's not a good way to do... Well anything!

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 11:40 AM
I've looked through the Monster manual I was NOT pleased. My hobby is thinking up new and strange ways to kill players even when the encounter is underwhelming at first glance. The monsters in there struck me as generic and intended to be simply a nuisance. Of course this is not true for all creatures the Tarrasque is still a monster of incredible power and terror but seriously Who actually uses that thing as a Legitimate encounter? Also they statted Orcus! you DO NOT STAT A GOD FIRST THING! It shows the players that gods are killable and from what I've plausibly. I enjoy the fact that as a God they were nigh indestructible and couldn't be stopped. They are the forces of the universe given shape. I really don't see how you could say to your player
"Oh yeah guys. You can kill a demigod of the undead now so have at it!"

Gavin Sage
2008-08-30, 11:53 AM
i dislike how they destroyed FR. I accidently got the book today (eh?) and it broke my heart. A perfectly good setting ruined

Its not like we didn't know it would be a trainwreck to begin with.

I think HOW they ruined FR is particularly bad though. I mean the last thing the setting needed was more random crap added to it. Its biggest drawback is the sheer size and WotC just went and hammered on more and more stuff. Nevermind the central trigger for everything is underwhelming when its the third time someone has done it in the setting.

Viruzzo
2008-08-30, 11:53 AM
Well Orcus is as you say demigod, not a god. Since PCs can ascend to demigodhoodness themselves, it may be acceptable that 5 of them may (with difficulties since it's max level +3) destroy him... After all, it's epic.

nagora
2008-08-30, 11:58 AM
@black dragoon
See, that is what I mean: healing surges may seem bad, but they actually work out pretty decently. Out of combat healing to full is nothing new, it has always been present in the form of healing spells, to the point that 3.x introduced spontaneous cures for good clerics to prevent them having to memorize only "Cure X Wounds" spells. True, now the players wake up with full HP. Before they had their cleric use his newly memorized Heal to... Start the day with full HP. 4E does the same with less fuss.
In other words, in previous editions the players had to work the healing into their planning, and cope with the consequences if that plan went wrong (say by the cleric being killed/captured). Now they get that for free with absolutely no in-character logic to it.

Which says nothing, of course, of clerics who's deities do not allow them to heal, or who do not allow them to heal non-worshippers. Or clerics of deities devoted to healing.

Just because 3e assumed that clerics were only ever played in one way does not justify in any way removing the possibility for them to be played in a more flexible way. Now, the healing cleric is undeeded while the roleplaying significence of the restricted or non-healing cleric is totally negated.

The healing surges are not in themselves a bad idea, they're just far too generous. The "bad night's sleep" full heal is just power-gamer/munchkin/kiddie-rules <something rude>.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 11:59 AM
I understand The Demigod situation. But the thing is it's in the MM. I really can't get why you would flat out say that as a player you can kill nigh-Omnipotent deity demon. They should BE AFRAID OF SUCH THINGS!

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:16 PM
@black dragoon
See, that is what I mean: healing surges may seem bad, but they actually work out pretty decently. Out of combat healing to full is nothing new, it has always been present in the form of healing spells, to the point that 3.x introduced spontaneous cures for good clerics to prevent them having to memorize only "Cure X Wounds" spells. True, now the players wake up with full HP. Before they had their cleric use his newly memorized Heal to... Start the day with full HP. 4E does the same with less fuss.
Also, the nigh-immortality of 4E PCs is a myth, point.

1) Healing surges as a device however do level some very accurate complaints
2) Except one is spells, the other is simply getting a boost
3) and while 4E character aren't nigh immortal, they certainly are overly epic and the center of an attempted to make them overly awsome.


Why is it hard for you to just say that you don't like the way the have changed the setting, instead of insisting that "they ruined it"? Why has it to be true for everyone? I can't say for myself that I like the new FRs because I have never liked any versione of it, but I'm pretty sure many people are fine with the new one.
Actually FR is the most complained about part of 4E, even the designer had misgivings. And yes, it certainly was ruined, in the same way the new star wars were ruinous. The very changes themselves aren't respectful. This isn't a natural change over time, it is more like a reconne without any respect or good treatment and destroying already established consistency


Besides, I don't think that "naturally" means "how I wanted it to be".

Its a recone, not a natural story writing style.



1) still, it's not the same as trying it, and also I've yet to find someone who likes FATAL, while 4E is appreciated by many.
2) repeat with me: "if I don't like something it does not mean that it's inherently bad".
3) talking about stuff you've only heard about it's not a good way to do... Well anything!
1) Acually i do know people who liked FATAL, but fine, if you want a better example, 300 is liked by many, which doesn't change the fact it is little more than racial propagandai as well as being a bad movie on every other like
2) and i repeat again, that such an argument is a fallacy and only serves to diminish complaints. There are people who liked Phantom Menace, it is still a bad movie. Shreeded Moose is still an awful comic, Dominic Deegan is still an over bloated example of hackery Eragon is still nothing more than a glorified fan fiction
3) BS. I don't need to play FATAL to be aware of its quality. I don't need to watch Birth of a nation to be aware of the racism (I actually have watched but that is besides the point) and i don't need to play guitar hero to understand how the game works.

On another note, why are you here when you argument basically is "Well i liked it"
from
EE

edit



Its not like we didn't know it would be a trainwreck to begin with.

I think HOW they ruined FR is particularly bad though. I mean the last thing the setting needed was more random crap added to it. Its biggest drawback is the sheer size and WotC just went and hammered on more and more stuff. Nevermind the central trigger for everything is underwhelming when its the third time someone has done it in the setting.
I know. If they just converted it to 4E but made it consistent with the old fluff, i'd most likely still buy 4E FR books, just for their own value, but this was just like the new Dune's in terms of badness


"the've ruined everything. the world isn't happy any more"
from
EE

Viruzzo
2008-08-30, 12:28 PM
Just because 3e assumed that clerics were only ever played in one way does not justify in any way removing the possibility for them to be played in a more flexible way. Now, the healing cleric is undeeded while the roleplaying significence of the restricted or non-healing cleric is totally negated.
Problem is, you needed a healer. Or a healing wand, or potions, or something, but you needed it. Clerics are exptected to heal, they may not but before 4E that would have been a problem. Now in 4E if the cleric doesn't want to heal for some reason the party will have to rely less on items.
It's not the roleplaying impact of the non-healing clerics that has been reduced, it's their gameplay impact. This makes it more viable IMO to make non-healing clerics without getting shout at by the other players.
Also, there is no planning involved in sleeping to memorize healing spells and then cast them. The only thing a 3.x good cleric needed to do to heal again was to go bed whenever he completely ran out of spells...


I understand The Demigod situation. But the thing is it's in the MM. I really can't get why you would flat out say that as a player you can kill nigh-Omnipotent deity demon. They should BE AFRAID OF SUCH THINGS!
Then as DM it's your duty to infuse righteous terror in their hearts! :xykon:
Seriously, the problem is that high level players will fear enemies proportionally to the real risk they run, and that depends on the DM mostly. If you save them too often, they will zerg Asmodeus (http://www.dorktower.com/2001/01/05/comics-archive-13/) sooner or later...

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:35 PM
Problem is, you needed a healer. Or a healing wand, or potions, or something, but you needed it. Clerics are exptected to heal, they may not but before 4E that would have been a problem. Now in 4E if the cleric doesn't want to heal for some reason the party will have to rely less on items.

Actually i think the game was better off before when you needed a healer or an item or a potion. It was more challenging and the characters classes had more unique qualities and healing was a far bigger deal. With the massive need to make things easier for the players, it just reduced the experience

and resting for 8 hours is very much challenging. Making sure you had a safe place, the need to set up camps within the Dungeons and to make sure you chose your spells right. Anybody who played Baldur's gate knows what i'm talking about



Then as DM it's your duty to infuse righteous terror in their hearts! :xykon:
Seriously, the problem is that high level players will fear enemies proportionally to the real risk they run, and that depends on the DM mostly. If you save them too often, they will zerg Asmodeus (http://www.dorktower.com/2001/01/05/comics-archive-13/) sooner or later...

However the other problem is that most of hte monsters have lose their mystic in the transition to 4E. Even Asmodeus who was more scary as a lord of hell then a major deity
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 12:44 PM
Trust me on most cases I do not save the player. If they are foolish enough to try and take on a god let them. I won't pull out a stat block and say
"welllll....It's like this the fighter just did Xdmg. and Orcus failed his save Vs. Death. Congrats Guys YOU KILLED A FRACKKIN GOD!"
Instead I would run it more along the lines of:
"alright so are yo sure you want to destroy a god Death?"
'party nods.'
"alrighty then. Go out and KILL not just prevent but KILL every worshipper of said GOD OF DEATH take two aspirin and call me in the morning. Then find the weapon that KILLED THIS GUY THE LAST TIME. retrieve it from the ABYSS Re-Bless it appeal to the celestials for aid so that you can storm it's NIGH IMPREGNABLE FORTRESS MADE FROM THE FLAYED SOULS OF THE DAMMED and face HIM ONE ON ONE PIERCING HIM IN THE HEART AT HIS MOST VULNERABLE MOMENT WHILE FENDING OFF THE UNTOLD FIENDS AND UNDEAD THAT SERVE HIM. From here ensure he stays dead THIS TIME by purging the evil from his soul by sealing it within a sacred artifact from the seventh layer of Celetia and bury it at the bottom of the River Oceanus for all eternity. Only then can you say you BEAT a god. "
To me that is how you need to get rid of Orcus the DEMIGOD. A real god is a Whole other story.

Viruzzo
2008-08-30, 12:46 PM
Actually i think the game was better off before when you needed a healer or an item or a potion. It was more challenging and the characters classes had more unique qualities and healing was a far bigger deal.
It still is in 4E.


and resting for 8 hours is very much challenging.
It still is in 4E.


However the other problem is that most of hte monsters have lose their mystic in the transition to 4E. Even Asmodeus who was more scary as a lord of hell then a major deity
For you. Again reasoning by absolutes.


1) Acually i do know people who liked FATAL, but fine, if you want a better example, 300 is liked by many, which doesn't change the fact it is little more than racial propagandai as well as being a bad movie on every other like
2) and i repeat again, that such an argument is a fallacy and only serves to diminish complaints. There are people who liked Phantom Menace, it is still a bad movie. Shreeded Moose is still an awful comic, Dominic Deegan is still an over bloated example of hackery Eragon is still nothing more than a glorified fan fiction
3) BS. I don't need to play FATAL to be aware of its quality. I don't need to watch Birth of a nation to be aware of the racism (I actually have watched but that is besides the point) and i don't need to play guitar hero to understand how the game works.
1) Comparing the terrible ideology behind 300 and 4E? Racism can objectively considered a negative trait (applies to FATAL too), but are there such flaws in 4E?

2) By what mean is "The Phantom Menace" a bad movie? We both didn't like it, but does that make it bad? If it's critical acceptance you take as measure, well I don't recall 4E being widely bashed by affirmed RPG critics (if there are any).

3) You say don't need to play FATAL to be aware of it's quality, but what you are criticizing about it are the element unrelated to the system. Saying that it's racist and sexist doesn't mean it's bad a system. It's probably enough to keep sensible people from playing it, but it's not the same thing.

clericwithnogod
2008-08-30, 12:52 PM
Also, there is no planning involved in sleeping to memorize healing spells and then cast them. The only thing a 3.x good cleric needed to do to heal again was to go bed whenever he completely ran out of spells...


Point of (for some reason, little-known or oft-forgotten) Fact:

"A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells." - D20 SRD

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:53 PM
It still is in 4E.

No, because the game has become so streamlined and simplified that the classes are painfully similar


It still is in 4E.
I'm talking about the strategy in resting in prior editions, but


For you. Again reasoning by absolutes.
resonsing through standards. I'd much rather do taht than reason through evasion


1) Comparing the terrible ideology behind 300 and 4E? Racism can objectively considered a negative trait (applies to FATAL too), but are there such flaws in 4E?

2) By what mean is "The Phantom Menace" a bad movie? We both didn't like it, but does that make it bad? If it's critical acceptance you take as measure, well I don't recall 4E being widely bashed by affirmed RPG critics (if there are any).

3) You say don't need to play FATAL to be aware of it's quality, but what you are criticizing about it are the element unrelated to the system. Saying that it's racist and sexist doesn't mean it's bad a system. It's probably enough to keep sensible people from playing it, but it's not the same thing.
1) No i'm referring to the fact taht popularity doesn't determine quality, and it never has.
2a) by every standard in terms of movies except for special effects it failed. Bad directing, bad acting, awful editing, painful story telling use, inconsistent world use, sipmly painful
2b) There are also many many criticism of 4E, and to be frank, there aren't any good RPG critics (at least what i'm aware of).
3) Except i didn't play it and i'm still quite aware of the crappy game quality as well and the awful gaming system.


Now my question is if your main argument is "I don't agree because i liked it" why are you on this thread?
from
EE

Jerthanis
2008-08-30, 01:01 PM
I understand The Demigod situation. But the thing is it's in the MM. I really can't get why you would flat out say that as a player you can kill nigh-Omnipotent deity demon. They should BE AFRAID OF SUCH THINGS!

If you read and understood the statblock, you'd fear him. Difficult terrain surrounds him wherever he goes, making it nigh upon impossible to close on him, particularly in armor. All the while, he's got a teleport speed, enabling him to jump around the combat grid without taking opportunity attacks whenever he wants. People within a huge radius are taking constant sizable damage. He can KO a person with a single standard action, and if no one gets that person back up again within 6 seconds, they're dead forever.

Seriously, I'd have to build a party specifically designed to off Orcus to have the fight be anything less than incredibly grueling even at level 30.

Also, EE, Black dragoon, Flawed as it may be, you should play a couple sessions of 4th edition anyway. It won me over in actual gameplay, not from reading the book, and pretty much everyone who plays it says it reads poor and plays well. It's not going to brainwash you or anything, I've got a couple of people in my gaming circle that loudly clamor for the return of 3rd edition and were never won over by our current 4e campaign. But still, you could perhaps gain an appreciation for what other people see in the game, and maybe you'd have something more specific than, "It doesn't have quality"

Which brings me to the biggest thing I dislike about 4th edition, the fact that it's driven a wedge between people who all like the hobby, but don't like the same edition of D&D. It means when my one friend runs a 3.5 game, those of us who like 4th edition better think it's a step backwards, and we have a lot of trouble having as much fun as we could be, and when we run a 4th edition game, the 3.5ers can't stop treating it like a cartoon.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I'm going to say this again: 4th edition is harder (in my experience) than 3rd edition ever was.

Also, while I agree that saying FR was "ruined" is a bit of a sweeping overgeneralization, and I can imagine people liking it just as much or more... but myself, I didn't really like the Realms all that much. I'd play in it if someone asked me to, but I wasn't jumping at the chance to play a Cormyr knight or a Thayan Wizard. Still, there were some things I liked a lot about FR. Some things I had to admit were reasons to play in the setting. All these elements seem to have been taken out of 4e Forgotten Realms. I'd still play if someone asked me to... but I would no longer linger on the prospect of playing a Dwarven Cleric of Helga Brightblade, the Chaotic Good goddess of Dwarves, cooking and battle or something like that.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 01:09 PM
I understand your reasoning But call me a staunch traditionalist in the loosest of terms:smallbiggrin:
I enjoyed 2.0 and the older editions it just seems to strike a nerve deep down inside me that keeps flaring up at the thought of how they barely gave 3.5 five-ten years before wiping the slate clean. This isn't a console war. the transition to something like this needs time and caring they rushed the job and botched the product like they did 3.0. Wizards has in effect failed at what I can only imagine TSR did fairly well to alst as long as it did.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-30, 01:10 PM
I was simply curious though I really don't like how those sound. Part the fun I have in DnD is the fact that though heroic a character can and more than likely will die if he doesn't fight smart and hard against his enemy. This however sounds like they basically allowed the heros to run wild and are effectivley nigh immortal so long as the can run away for a few minutes. Sure it's more cinematic But I've never really seen DND as that type of game. It's struck me more as a novella or short-story style where if the main characters do have flaws and can very easily at times die if they're not careful.

Healing surges are actually very rough.

In 3.5, you can have infinite healing (buy scrolls, wands, hireling Clerics) to heal you.

In 4th, you can't ever be healede more than you healing surges. okay, you can be a Utility Cure Light Wound, but that is a Daily.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 01:14 PM
You let your players have hireling clerics? that could have been the problem. Scrolls and potions can only last so long and to top it off they didn't reappear every eight hours. When I play I made healing something tha was hard to do and worthwhile at the same time.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 01:15 PM
Also, EE, Black dragoon, Flawed as it may be, you should play a couple sessions of 4th edition anyway. It won me over in actual gameplay, not from reading the book, and pretty much everyone who plays it says it reads poor and plays well. It's not going to brainwash you or anything, I've got a couple of people in my gaming circle that loudly clamor for the return of 3rd edition and were never won over by our current 4e campaign. But still, you could perhaps gain an appreciation for what other people see in the game, and maybe you'd have something more specific than, "It doesn't have quality"

As i said earlier in this thread, twice i have played 4E. And i determined that it brings nothing to the table and is nothing more than a disappointing lackluster waste of 90 bucks



Which brings me to the biggest thing I dislike about 4th edition, the fact that it's driven a wedge between people who all like the hobby, but don't like the same edition of D&D. It means when my one friend runs a 3.5 game, those of us who like 4th edition better think it's a step backwards, and we have a lot of trouble having as much fun as we could be, and when we run a 4th edition game, the 3.5ers can't stop treating it like a cartoon.
The reason why is that 4E isn't a bad game on its own, it is just a bed new edition. If it was a spin off of D&D or its own game it could do very well but instead it is simply a bad game because it is a step back as new editions go
from
EE

Jerthanis
2008-08-30, 01:33 PM
As i said earlier in this thread, twice i have played 4E. And i determined that it brings nothing to the table and is nothing more than a disappointing lackluster waste of 90 bucks

Excuse me, it's just that you have really unspecific complaints about the game, and I had to assume that was because you hadn't played it. Black Dragoon is the one who said he hadn't played it, and apparently has no desire to play it either.



The reason why is that 4E isn't a bad game on its own, it is just a bed new edition. If it was a spin off of D&D or its own game it could do very well but instead it is simply a bad game because it is a step back as new editions go
from
EE

Like this one. This doesn't say a thing about the game except that it's like a spinoff, bad, not good, and a step back.

Honestly, I feel like D&D 4th is a giant leap forward, abandoning legacy mechanics in favor of more fun and interesting ones, putting more trust in the hands of the players, and having a tight focus on telling interesting stories about heroic fantasy characters in a world that needs heroes. This as opposed to 3.5 which tried to be a system for literally every type of game you could conceive of. They tried and failed to make a system that was as comfortable portraying the antics of Superheroes, Modern Spy/Action movies, Old West Shootout movies, high seas adventure, and whatever other genres you can think of, with the portal to these game types being the standard Heroic Fantasy game D&D. The fact is, RPG systems don't adapt outside their genre very well, and generic systems run up against problems. An example is that in d20 modern, bringing a sword to a gunfight is a good idea, because ranged weapon attacks tend to be really bad in D20.

Recaiden
2008-08-30, 01:40 PM
4e is not a bad game, but it is totally different from 2nd edition or 3.x

What i dislike most is how FR was utterly destroyed. I will set any of my 4e games in a hombrew setting or a 4e version of how FR was in 3.c

Healing surges are actually useful to me.

I dislike the loss of other mechanics like psionics, incarnum, binders. I really liked that part of the mechanics.

I dislike how there is little mechanical support for out of combat actions.

Finally, i dislike the lack of options, but by buying some splatbooks i could still have all the options i need, or homebrew something.

Just because some people like something, that does not mean it doesn't have problems or is actually bad.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 02:06 PM
Excuse me, it's just that you have really unspecific complaints about the game, and I had to assume that was because you hadn't played it. Black Dragoon is the one who said he hadn't played it, and apparently has no desire to play it either.


My complaints have always been very specific, and i have been keeping up with 4E since its announcement thank you very much


Like this one. This doesn't say a thing about the game except that it's like a spinoff, bad, not good, and a step back.

because quite frankly it is, Its massive simplification and stream lining of the game leads to a massive loss in complexity. The total loss of fluff and consistency, as well as the loss of world building aspects leads to the game seeming like Gauntlet and the focus of a hack and slash. The changes that are simply jarring (Loss of gnomes, cosmology, blood NPC rules) seem to be a cynical attempt to dumb down the game for the masses, which is out right insulting. the game designs itself is a step back wards in evolution, the monsters being the most jarring example

Quite frankly, i have made so many specific complaints over the 4E come about that i think people understand what i'm talking about when i say that. I've played the game, i've read the books, i certainly know what i'm talking about when i say that 4E is fine as its own game, but a failure as a new edition



Honestly, I feel like D&D 4th is a giant leap forward, abandoning legacy mechanics in favor of more fun and interesting ones, putting more trust in the hands of the players, and having a tight focus on telling interesting stories about heroic fantasy characters in a world that needs heroes.
No, because it destroys so much complexity abandons so much of the game's own legacy and the massive dumbing down of the game leads it to only be suitable to one style of gaming, which makes the game as a new edition extremely shallow. You can't call it a new step in evolution when it becomes less complex, less about choices and options, more streamlined, and less open ended. Its like saying that Dark Alliance is a better game than Baldur's gate because it is focused upon one style of play and does it better.



This as opposed to 3.5 which tried to be a system for literally every type of game you could conceive of. They tried and failed to make a system that was as comfortable portraying the antics of Superheroes, Modern Spy/Action movies, Old West Shootout movies, high seas adventure, and whatever other genres you can think of, with the portal to these game types being the standard Heroic Fantasy game D&D.
Superheros, modern spy, old west shoot outs? Yeah, ok, don't accuse me of not backing it, because while you an accuse 3E of a lost of mistakes (and it certainly deserves the criticisms, it was a very flawed edition) i didn't catch very many cow boys running around



The fact is, RPG systems don't adapt outside their genre very well, and generic systems run up against problems. An example is that in d20 modern, bringing a sword to a gunfight is a good idea, because ranged weapon attacks tend to be really bad in D20.

Your complaints are so vague and undefined that you aren't actually addressing anything here. Pointing out flaws in 3E doesn't make 4E flaws any less evident
from
EE

Crow
2008-08-30, 02:09 PM
Problem is, you needed a healer. Or a healing wand, or potions, or something, but you needed it. Clerics are exptected to heal, they may not but before 4E that would have been a problem. Now in 4E if the cleric doesn't want to heal for some reason the party will have to rely less on items.

Actually you didn't need a healer at all. I've ran many groups that didn't have a healer, and at low levels didn't have wands, potions, etc... Out of combat healing worked just fine when you weren't magically healed to full hitpoints after 6 hours of rest. It just took longer.

Unfortunatly, having to recover from your wounds wasn't popular enough. As I said in the other thread in regards to healing surges;


It's a little odd that any injuries sustained in the first fight of the day (mind you, bad enough that you could possibly die in just three rounds of death saving throws), would not affect you at all after that combat, provided some ally was nearby enough to provide a heal check at the right time. Every wound, no matter how serious or life-threatening can be shrugged off with no difficulty as long as you get some timely first aid?

The New Bruceski
2008-08-30, 02:42 PM
@black_dragoon:
Since there's a lot of heated feelings and hyperbole flying on both sides, and you haven't played the game, here's a couple more healing surge details.
--Each surge restores 1/4 of your hit points.
--Surges per day range from 6 (strikers and Wizard) up to 10 (Paladin), + con modifier as stated. A feat can give 2 more, otherwise they don't go up (aside from increasing con).
--Most permanent healing (as opposed to temporary) uses a healing surge, either with an additional effect (the basic heal is 2/encounter, target spends a healing surge and adds 1d6) or with a replacement effect (potions heal 10 (or more with better potions) instead of your surge value, the Paladin's lay on hands spends one of his surges but the target heals for >their< surge value). I don't think I've seen an exception that wasn't a daily power.
--Everyone can Second Wind once per encounter (standard action), which spends a healing surge and takes a total defense action. Otherwise they can only be used by class-specific powers or between encounters. Or magic items. "Free" use between encounters still counts against the limit of surges per day.

I'm not saying whether you should like them or not. For some people that's too much healing to have in a day. For others it's not enough, or in the wrong hands. I just wanted to make sure the facts were straight.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 02:48 PM
Thank you very much for clarifying that topic at bit further. Still don't like it but hey that's just me. :smalltongue:
BTW I personally enjoy D20 modern thank you very much and I have yet to see a guy wielding a sword and a man intimate with the ways of Gun-fu not come to a stand still.

nagora
2008-08-30, 02:52 PM
It still is in 4E.
{scrubbed for fact checking}

Kurald Galain
2008-08-30, 02:56 PM
Problem is, you needed a healer. Or a healing wand, or potions, or something, but you needed it.

Only if your campaigns focused heavily on combat.

Knaight
2008-08-30, 03:28 PM
3) You say don't need to play FATAL to be aware of it's quality, but what you are criticizing about it are the element unrelated to the system. Saying that it's racist and sexist doesn't mean it's bad a system. It's probably enough to keep sensible people from playing it, but it's not the same thing.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, has rules for rape, utterly fails at its goal of being realistic in description, has such gems as "Retard Strength", and any number of things. Racist and sexist just scratches the surface.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 03:33 PM
I don't even want to know how horrible that system has to be:smalleek:

Knaight
2008-08-30, 03:41 PM
You need to go read the review of it. It should probably end up linked eventually, I'm not sure where it is. That game has... issues.

EDIT: Found it, its right here (http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/fatal.html). The review itself contains profanity, and is not safe for work. It is nothing compared to how bad the game is.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 03:45 PM
I can only imagine. Somehow I get the feeling that amongst systems FATAL is the creepy kid that stalked people for fun and threw rocks at them for no reason.
(If anybody gets the reference HIGH FIVE!!!:smallbiggrin:)

turkishproverb
2008-08-30, 03:50 PM
A review of it (http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/fatal.html)

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 03:51 PM
i can't say i get reference, but FATAL is like shreeded moose in terms of badness


Also, an FMA setting? How could i miss this
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 03:53 PM
Never really took off sadly. I shall the reference in four more posts. till then let's see this terrible terrible thing.:smallconfused:

It's...It's terrible. I'm having trouble reading this review(partly because the dialog is rather funny at times) and also EXTREME disbelief ANY SANE HUMAN MIND could create that atrocity without ripping out their eyes and cerebral cortex while singing I'm A little Teapot.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 04:52 PM
oh don't worry, the webcomic shreeded moose will ruin your faith in humainty even more
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 05:16 PM
Three more posts!
*wanders around with a papermache Conch.*

Kabump
2008-08-30, 05:16 PM
It all comes down to simulationist vs gamist. If you break down complaints those who prefer simulationist TEND (not always) to prefer pre-4e. Those with gamist tendencies dont usually see as much wrong. It all comes down to what kind of style you prefer. Doesn't make the edition right or wrong, its all opinion in the end.

nagora
2008-08-30, 05:20 PM
Only if your campaigns focused heavily on combat.
I do think, in 1e at least, that low levels are very hard to do without healing if you like a bit of action in the game. From about 8th level onwards you can dispense with it.

I'm about to start a new 1e sub-campaign with a cleric of Odin in the initial party, so we'll see how it goes (1e Odin was not a fan of healing, so the cleric will be restricted).

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 05:25 PM
One more post!:smallbiggrin:
I agree with the above views actually I've always liked a little crunch in my system and 3.x and older brought plenty to the party. 4e strikes as DND lite. I really don't like that. 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.
*blows conch and watches as a plane crashes*

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 05:37 PM
It all comes down to simulationist vs gamist. If you break down complaints those who prefer simulationist TEND (not always) to prefer pre-4e. Those with gamist tendencies dont usually see as much wrong. It all comes down to what kind of style you prefer. Doesn't make the edition right or wrong, its all opinion in the end.

a good game can have a balence as 3E attempted (and failed) to do, rather than 4E which is almost all gamist. It pretends to be a story telling game, but in reality it has about the same depth as dark alliance
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 05:41 PM
Agreed So has anyone figured out that reference yet?

Kabump
2008-08-30, 05:44 PM
a good game can have a balence as 3E attempted (and failed) to do, rather than 4E which is almost all gamist.

While I dont agree its almost all gamist, its definitely more gamist than 3E, of that there is no doubt.



It pretends to be a story telling game, but in reality it has about the same depth as dark alliance


This I also disagree with. It has plenty of depth. Just not the same depth as 3E. I get plenty of depth from both editions, YMMV of course.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 05:51 PM
While I dont agree its almost all gamist, its definitely more gamist than 3E, of that there is no doubt.

It is is very much made in the very ideal of hte gamist philosophy. The 4E world only function with meta gaming at work



This I also disagree with. It has plenty of depth. Just not the same depth as 3E. I get plenty of depth from both editions, YMMV of course.

Not at all, have you read the monster manual?
from
EE

Viruzzo
2008-08-30, 05:52 PM
Now my question is if your main argument is "I don't agree because i liked it" why are you on this thread?
My main argument is "it's not bad just because you didn't like it". When people hand out opinions like facts it really gets on my nerves.
Also, I suppose the purpose of forums is to discuss things. If you want a thread that is just a long list of complaints, what would be the point of it?


Not at all, have you read the monster manual?
Would you care explain us how the 3.5E MM is so filled with the "depth" that the 4E one apparently lacks?

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 05:54 PM
That is one of my sorest points with 4E. I don't like cardboard monsters.:smallfurious:
also

It was a reference to the Novel Lord Of The Flies.:smallwink:

Kabump
2008-08-30, 05:57 PM
It is is very much made in the very ideal of hte gamist philosophy. The 4E world only function with meta gaming at work

Not at all, have you read the monster manual?
from
EE

There is ALWAYS use of metagaming, its merely how much you are comfetable with, and different degrees. HP, wizard spell limits, AC, looking in the monster manual to know what their weakness is are all metagaming. Some are acceptable and some arent.

As to your second post, yes. Ive read the monster manual. Its just that, a monster manual. Your point? And so as to not derail this thread any more, Im going to cease my debate here, as it is off topic.

monty
2008-08-30, 05:58 PM
My main argument is "it's not bad just because you didn't like it". When people hand out opinions like facts it really gets on my nerves.

"things you dislike about 4E v.2"

Things you dislike. Not things that are objectively wrong with it. Just the things that you, personally, do not like. His argument is valid in this thread because it's explicitly an opinion.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 06:09 PM
My main argument is "it's not bad just because you didn't like it". When people hand out opinions like facts it really gets on my nerves.

I didn't like phantom menence because of the awful directing, bad plot, script writing, acting, storytelling, editing, and the over use of computor graphics.

I dislike 4E for many reasons, as i've already mentioned again and again and it is a failure as an edition (as i've mentioned before)

now i don't really like Exalted that much, but it isn't a bad game. It just isn't in my taste.

Also, I suppose the purpose of forums is to discuss things. If you want a thread that is just a long list of complaints, what would be the point of it?

except your only saying "well i liked it" or "tahts only your option" If your want to counter an argument find, but if your going for live and let live, why come to this thread



Would you care explain us how the 3.5E MM is so filled with the "depth" that the 4E one apparently lacks?
first off, i don't need to prove 3E did something better to prove 4E is wrong. I dislike both editions, i just dislike 4E a lot more

and have you read the 4E MM? The monsters are nothing more than creatures to be killed, even worst than 3E, and thats saying a lot. 3E, for all its many faults, and while not having a great MM, at least was able to establish in the description a sense that the monsters weren't just combat fodder, while 4E 's mm is like a FF monster list, just the states and a few sentences explaining what it is and how you kill it


on other notes


The game should funciton with a meta gaming goal, not the world itself


And yes, i expect a MM taht is actually interesting to read, as it presents the monsters as living beings in the world, not glorified fodder


from
EE

Edea
2008-08-30, 06:10 PM
The main things I -dislike- (i.e. opinion only) about 4e are:
=============================================
*The Power System. I abhor it, especially dailies; encounter powers are merely difficult to rationalize in-game for me, but the daily system of power use drives me nuts (see: Party Narcolepsy, and no, ambushing the party isn't going to help; either it'll end with TPK, or when they do succeed (and grow increasingly irritated with the GM), guess what they're going to say with regards to what they're doing next?). There's a reason I shied away from PrCs that tried to use loads of 1/day powers for their class progressions in 3e).

*Multiclassing. What the hell is this? Someone please kill it with fire. Initiate feats are too powerful (from 4e's perspective), and the rest of it pretty much screws your character except in a specific number of exceptions.
The feat qualifying bit is just a laugh seeing as most feats with a class specification usually have a class feature requirement to go with them that the Initiate feat doesn't grant.

*Magic Items. Sorry, I like christmas trees and magic bazaars. I'm the player equivalent of a magpie (or a dragon X3); if it's shiny and does lots of stuff, I want it. I also like making lots of neat items a la Artificer. That's not in 4e. The abilities of the items themselves are pretty lackluster, and the use limits are ATROCIOUS, as are the scaling price tags.

*Rituals. How much for that mirror in the window, you say? The price of these things (especially as you go up in level), combined with their casting times and the fact that most run off of skill checks, means that the only ones your going to even use are the Restoration class of rituals and Enchant/Disenchant Magic Item. Everything else is pretty much a DM gimme. I hate, hate, HATE rituals as they are currently implemented; the only thing they did right with them is to open them up for use irrespective of a character's class.

*Monster Design. What is up with some of these monsters and their special abilities? Recharges? I want my PC to have the ability to roll a d6 for recharge chances on their powers. My character feels like a schlemiel next to most of these things; heroic, my shine-loving ass. I think Blue Mages would break this game, easily. Also, what the abilities actually do usually trounce PC powers; the drow arachnomancer and his huge, nasty burst power come to mind almost immediately.

I now also have these opinions after having played it multiple times, unlike before, where I saw the fly power in a preview and had a knee-jerk reaction.

nagora
2008-08-30, 06:12 PM
It was a reference to the Novel Lord Of The Flies.:smallwink:
But there was no one on the island to blow the conch when the plane crashed; indeed, the conch had yet to be found.

Edit: indeed, the plane didn't technically crash, either.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 06:29 PM
True. Random hints really. I was hoping someone would grab at it after the Conch reference.
Anyways back to 4E smashing:smallsmile:
It really does not feel like DND to me it likes what WoW would be on pen and paper. ANd I personally don't like WoW either so yeah. I've always enjoyed monster manuals primarily because even 3.x with it's less than stellar descriptions at times made an attempt to fit them into the ecology of a world. sure there were a lot of predatory species but most were omnivores in truth and now it seems like there is no ecology it's simply eat something smaller than you are till get to humans and bunnies.

Manoftyr
2008-08-30, 06:35 PM
Really, the only thing I truly *TRULY* dislike about 4E is the new alignment system...I liked the law/chaos good/evil axis as it was and I don't like the idea of putting everything that's not Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil under some gigantic 'good/evil/unaligned' umbrella.

However, other then that I don't really mind the new addition too much as a lot of the new things like how magic items have been watered down and such can be modified easily enough to suit each campaign individually.

Sebastian
2008-08-30, 06:45 PM
Racist, sexist, homophobic, has rules for rape, utterly fails at its goal of being realistic in description, has such gems as "Retard Strength", and any number of things. Racist and sexist just scratches the surface.

And as a system it sucked, too. (for the little I could stand to read it, at least)

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 06:48 PM
Agreed FATAL well deserves the title worst system ever. I feel bad for the poor guys who had to review that horrid abomination.:smallfrown:

Sebastian
2008-08-30, 06:50 PM
I do think, in 1e at least, that low levels are very hard to do without healing if you like a bit of action in the game. From about 8th level onwards you can dispense with it.

I'm about to start a new 1e sub-campaign with a cleric of Odin in the initial party, so we'll see how it goes (1e Odin was not a fan of healing, so the cleric will be restricted).

I always thought that D&D needed some better form of non-magical/natural healing, but with healing surges they overdid it a little, even if the real problem is the "six hour nap fix everything".

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 06:54 PM
An actual Healing skill would have been nice but that would not have worked with this system by the looks of things. So they did away with the old alignment system. Did they kill off the Blood War to?:smallyuk:

Sebastian
2008-08-30, 06:59 PM
Would you care explain us how the 3.5E MM is so filled with the "depth" that the 4E one apparently lacks?

it is not, if you want a MM with deep you should go back to the 2nd edition.

But still with all its flaws 3e MM is still deeper than 4e, 4e monsters have all the deep of MTG cards (which their stats actually resemble a lot)

Well, Ok, that is not entirely fair.
Some of MTG monsters have an interesting background.

Sebastian
2008-08-30, 07:12 PM
An actual Healing skill would have been nice but that would not have worked with this system by the looks of things. So they did away with the old alignment system. Did they kill off the Blood War to?:smallyuk:

The one in D20 modern wasn't too bad, but again, D20 modern was my favorite implementation of D20

They killed the whole Great Wheel, not just the Blood War.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 07:18 PM
I know I kinda thought D20 modern may have been a form of proto-fourth but apparently not.

I heard about the wheel. Did Sigil go down in flames as well?

Thurbane
2008-08-30, 07:32 PM
The one in D20 modern wasn't too bad, but again, D20 modern was my favorite implementation of D20.
For any interested in this, the free PDF Modern Principles (http://swordsedgepublishing.ca/SEP4200.pdf) has some good advice for this sort of thing (the Treat Injury skill).

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 07:45 PM
i liked the 2E and 3E MMs, through the best seem to be published by 3rd party groups
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 07:46 PM
Agreed, I think this is partly because they have to be able to standout in the torrent of WOTC products.

turkishproverb
2008-08-30, 08:22 PM
Agreed, I think this is partly because they have to be able to standout in the torrent of WOTC products.

lol

You...do realize that makes a great double entendre don't you?

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 08:24 PM
O.o
Squick!??!

turkishproverb
2008-08-30, 08:28 PM
O.o
Squick!??!

Torrent- easily could reference a bittorrent style torrent or a torrent of product flooding the market.

Not every double entendre is sexual.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 08:37 PM
Sorry read the FATAL review and kinda been squicked out since then. It really does seem to be that WOTC saturates a market with a product to effectively hold a monopoly over it through sheer numbers.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 10:26 PM
FATAL, Squick, Emotional scarring, lost of faith, rage, hatred, pain, agony, depression, and feeling unclean guaranteed
from
EE

Knaight
2008-08-30, 10:36 PM
Beats seeing the actual game. Incidentally over on the Wotc Forum, there is a section dedicated to women in gaming. One of the threads was someone asking about whether all ganes were like FATAL. Which makes one wonder, what would happen if FATAL had been widespread and locked onto by the people claiming D&D was satanic?

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 10:53 PM
gads, DND would have been banned without a doubt. That, that...thing gives a bad name to gamers male or female. At least us with our edition disagreements can agree one thing FATAL must be wiped clean from history and the minds of gamers everywhere.:smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 10:57 PM
if FATAL was popular among D&D players, i'd ban D&D. This can only be solved through fire.

from
EE

Crow
2008-08-30, 10:58 PM
Dude, let's just get back to the topic at hand. FATAL talk can have it's own thread (and does...they're all the same).

Another thing I dislike about 4e, and this is merely opinion; All the "choices" 4e gives me as I advance my character are a veneer. Feats choices are usually obvious, or have so little impact it doesn't matter unless I planned and built around it from day 1. The choices of powers a character has at a given level is much smaller than it looks because some powers are clearly superior to others. A lot of times, your "path" choice at level 1 makes the choice even more obvious. As a DM, my players are way less creative than they used to be. It's all about the powers, and there is such a fixation upon them that they no longer react to the situation and surroundings unless there is a power which will clearly interact with it (trying to break them of this). I suspect it's because the powers are still shiny and new.

player: "Oh man, I can't push that guy off the ledge because I burned my power that slides the enemy. Bummer."
me: "Dude it's called bull rush! It's not just about your powers."

Multiclassing is very limited, and severely punished if you don't have the proper stats. Again, it is something you need to plan from day 1 to get any value out of unless you just happen to have the right stat spread.

It just bugs me. At first it looked like you had a lot of choices, but after playing, there is just a certain "feel" that you really don't.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 11:00 PM
Forget fire. Do what Atari did and simply erase the terror from existence by burying them Somewhere in the deserts.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 11:14 PM
Forget fire. Do what Atari did and simply erase the terror from existence by burying them Somewhere in the deserts.

pretty much

oh but crow, i think those option you've mentioned are too compbilimicated for my mind
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 11:18 PM
Nothing like an inflexible system to stifle a mind. I remember several times where players in my group actively push the limits of what they can up to and including charging someone off the side of a cliff.

turkishproverb
2008-08-30, 11:20 PM
Nothing like an inflexible system to stifle a mind. I remember several times where players in my group actively push the limits of what they can up to and including charging someone off the side of a cliff.

I remember the days of using grease not in combat, but in sabotaging the cooking of a chef that had ticked off my mage.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 11:20 PM
Nothing like an inflexible system to stifle a mind. I remember several times where players in my group actively push the limits of what they can up to and including charging someone off the side of a cliff.

i think your thinking out side the box there, you know the party doesn't approve of that. Do you want to go back into room 101?
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 11:26 PM
:smalleek: Not again!
*hides behind a Prole*
IN truth my group more often than not actively thinks outside the box. We once used a archon with a mild version searing light to drill through a couple hundred feet of Ice to retrieve a weapon on the other side. We've also brought down the roof literally on the enemy in the same adventure. thinking outside the box is our specialty really.:smalltongue:

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 11:27 PM
what i liked about 2E (which i only recently planned) is the inherent complexity in the game and the challenge to the players to actually think creatively with spell, rather than just video game style casting
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 11:29 PM
Agreed you had a similar amount chance in 3.x but 4e's looking to be more geared to use as your told to style of play.

ghost_warlock
2008-08-30, 11:36 PM
After playing through several encounters in KotS this weekend, I have something new that I dislike/hate about 4e:

Daily powers.

They're not fun; they suck. Due to the Attack vs. Defense system if you don't squeeze out every single bonus to the attack roll, you're going to have a high chance of missing. Typically, the piddly effect you get even on a miss is < spamming an at-will.

Encounter powere are just about as bad, but at least you know that you'll have another chance to fail the attack roll next encounter. :smallamused: Unfortunately, most encounter powers are simply a wasted standard action if they miss. :smallfrown:

Running out of spells was something spellcasters bemoaned in previous editions. Now, even fighters, rogues, and the like can enjoy the feeling of letdown when they've blown all their "cool" daily/encounter powers on poor attack rolls and are left spamming at-wills.

Knaight
2008-08-30, 11:39 PM
IN truth my group more often than not actively thinks outside the box. We once used a archon with a mild version searing light to drill through a couple hundred feet of Ice to retrieve a weapon on the other side. We've also brought down the roof literally on the enemy in the same adventure. thinking outside the box is our specialty really.:smalltongue:

Sounds like my style. I'd like to point out that tiny jars full of finely ground hot pepper slung from a sling to form a cloud of eye stinging pepper is fun.

black dragoon
2008-08-30, 11:40 PM
yeah....no.
I do not like that. Powers that didn't involve hitting you something sharp are the spellchuckers job not everyone. I'd been happier if they had just watered down the casters a little. rather than trying to flat out level the whole field period.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 11:52 PM
oh i hate minions too.
from
EE

Fan
2008-08-30, 11:56 PM
One word people" GNOMES.

I hate Chris Perkins.:smallannoyed:

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 12:02 AM
Agreed on minions and in truth I think everyone hates gnomes:smallbiggrin:

ghost_warlock
2008-08-31, 03:17 AM
Agreed on minions and in truth I think everyone hates gnomes:smallbiggrin:

Actually, I think the KotS module is the first time in any game where I've actually gone out of my way to kill a gnome. :smalleek:

Starsinger
2008-08-31, 04:00 AM
This might have implications when it comes to multiclassing. Being able to be a wis based wizard for cleric multiclassing or str based rogue for other martial multiclassing might cause multiclassed characters to weild more power than single classed characters.

I dunno, I haven't seen any yet, but if it opens up the door to more viable multiclassing that doesn't seem like a bad thing. If I come across any exploits I'll rethink it, but so far it seems like a good idea.


I was simply curious though I really don't like how those sound. Part the fun I have in DnD is the fact that though heroic a character can and more than likely will die if he doesn't fight smart and hard against his enemy.

Good news, that's still the case. In fact, that's the usual cause of death. As opposed to, "Damn! I rolled a 1 on my fort save, I guess the medusa petrified me to death!" with all the climactic excitement that entails. Or the "Oh man! The Orc warrior crit me for 18 damage! That kills my level 1 wizard in one shot." 4e took the random (usually) out of player death.


Actually i think the game was better off before when you needed

This is actually a problem of mine with 1e and 2e too, but I'll pick on 3.5 for it because it's my favorite edition to pick on (mostly because my knowledge of 1e and 2e is limited to what I see discussed here, and I'm not about to talk about something I don't know enough about)

Adventuring Clerics. Okay, pretend for a moment, that there are no deity-less clerics. All Clerics work for some god or another. Now, all parties are expected to have a Cleric, since they do the healing thing better than Druids (If only for Spontaneous heals). This means, that whatever the PCs are doing is somehow more important for the Cleric than actually promoting the values and worship of their god. Every adventuring party should be some god-driven crusade with the number of adventuring clerics out there.

Note: This does not apply to Clerics of Farlanghan (sp?) who's about the one deity I see who would promote this. Also Boccob, who doesn't give a boop.

nagora
2008-08-31, 04:24 AM
Good news, that's still the case. In fact, that's the usual cause of death. As opposed to, "Damn! I rolled a 1 on my fort save, I guess the medusa petrified me to death!" with all the climactic excitement that entails.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way around - turning people to stone is what medusa did/does. The saving throw is not the attack, it's your defence. The excitement in a scenario with such a creature is in trying to avoid ever having to make that throw. If you fail to avoid the gaze, then by all rights you should be dead, but the system gives you a chance to avoid the fate of normal people in that situation.


Or the "Oh man! The Orc warrior crit me for 18 damage! That kills my level 1 wizard in one shot."
Well, that's why crits are a bad idea not why lots of HP is a good idea.

Starsinger
2008-08-31, 04:27 AM
I think you're looking at it the wrong way around - turning people to stone is what medusa did/does. The saving throw is not the attack, it's your defence. The excitement in a scenario with such a creature is in trying to avoid ever having to make that throw. If you fail to avoid the gaze, then by all rights you should be dead, but the system gives you a chance to avoid the fate of normal people in that situation.

The 4e Medusa still turns you to stone, it's just no longer "Damn! 1d20 roll has completely destroyed my character."

nagora
2008-08-31, 04:35 AM
The 4e Medusa still turns you to stone, it's just no longer "Damn! 1d20 roll has completely destroyed my character."
Yeah, but my point was that that should be the case in 1e (and other editions) too: it's up to the player to find a way of engaging the medusa without being turned to stone. If it comes down to that 1d20 then the player has done something wrong (or the DM is a ****, but that's another thread). That attempt at avoidance is the excitement of "save or xxxx" encounters.

The best way to play Russian Roulette is to find a way to not pull the trigger.

Or, if you prefer: Kobiashi Maru.

Dhavaer
2008-08-31, 04:50 AM
I heard about the wheel. Did Sigil go down in flames as well?

As WotC are bringing back Planescape, Sigil is probably still around.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-31, 05:08 AM
Another thing I dislike about 4e, and this is merely opinion; All the "choices" 4e gives me as I advance my character are a veneer.

It just bugs me. At first it looked like you had a lot of choices, but after playing, there is just a certain "feel" that you really don't.

That's true. While creating a 4E character involves many choices, most of those are very obvious. This also means that you can seriously nerf your character (without realizing it) by making choices based on flavor rather than effect.

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 10:26 AM
So you sre encouraged to make a particular kind of character?:smallconfused:
That sounds like
"Here you go! One levelX fighter statted out just for you!:smallbiggrin:"
"but...Bob has the exact same Fighter as I do... I mean isn't that kinda contradicting yourself?"
"No!You to have very different fighters! look at your ability scores."
"they're the same...."
"Feats?"
"Same...I'm just gonna play a rouge now..."

EvilElitest
2008-08-31, 10:59 AM
Good news, that's still the case. In fact, that's the usual cause of death. As opposed to, "Damn! I rolled a 1 on my fort save, I guess the medusa petrified me to death!" with all the climactic excitement that entails. Or the "Oh man! The Orc warrior crit me for 18 damage! That kills my level 1 wizard in one shot." 4e took the random (usually) out of player death.

Yeah, because that shows the world is dangerous. A world where nobody dies, where the PC have special things to pervent them from dying looses any drama. Oh you died fighting a medusia and got turned to stone. Well that is what a medusa traditionally does, guess life isn't fair. 3E was over zealous in terms of doing this, but having the courage to kill of PCs and not treat them like gods is good. I know hte argument "but i put so much effort into this character" But within a game world, every single person has their own personality and character, and that doesn't keep them from dying. If you can die, then the world is far more threatening and we don't have this absurd PC invaurablity.


This is actually a problem of mine with 1e and 2e too, but I'll pick on 3.5 for it because it's my favorite edition to pick on (mostly because my knowledge of 1e and 2e is limited to what I see discussed here, and I'm not about to talk about something I don't know enough about)

2E would kill you off a lot more than 3E, death was very common in 2E, which is the most "realistic" of the editions to an extent


Adventuring Clerics. Okay, pretend for a moment, that there are no deity-less clerics. All Clerics work for some god or another. Now, all parties are expected to have a Cleric, since they do the healing thing better than Druids (If only for Spontaneous heals). This means, that whatever the PCs are doing is somehow more important for the Cleric than actually promoting the values and worship of their god. Every adventuring party should be some god-driven crusade with the number of adventuring clerics out there.

Note: This does not apply to Clerics of Farlanghan (sp?) who's about the one deity I see who would promote this. Also Boccob, who doesn't give a boop.

Not really, because not every god doesn't need to have a massive crusade. You complaint doesn't even make sense. not all clerics are required to convert people, then just have to worship their own god. This is a polytheistic world here


Also why do people hate gnomes. WoW and Dragonlance gnomes aside, they aren't that bad
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 11:26 AM
Adventures if anything should die more often than not. They actively go out of their way to find dangerous places and creatures that will possibly kill them. Sure they are heros but that doesn't mean they're immortal.
As for Clerics. For a cleric Adventuring is a sort sucking up to the god as a pass-time. If you are A. healing people constantly showing your good nature(UNLESS YOU"RE EVIL!!!:smallbiggrin:) That's gotta look pretty good on in the books. Second your making a name for your religion. You're showing that you god looks out for the innocent and will face any challenge.

And now for the Medusa example. If you have a party member get turned to stone don't flat out say he's dead. Remeber this works like flesh to Stone the spell. And there is a reverse to that so turn it into a side-quest and let the party have some fun mabye find some extra loot her and there and be able to bring back their poor fellow so that they can rub it in his face at the end of the day.

Sebastian
2008-08-31, 11:34 AM
I know I kinda thought D20 modern may have been a form of proto-fourth but apparently not.

I heard about the wheel. Did Sigil go down in flames as well?

They said it will be in the new manual of the planes, but with the way planes are in 4e either it will be Sigil in name alone or it will be a "square peg in round hole" kind of thing.

FoE
2008-08-31, 11:34 AM
Also why do people hate gnomes. WoW and Dragonlance gnomes aside, they aren't that bad

"Oh, darn, I just can't decide what type of race my character should be. See, I want to be a Small character ... but I don't want to be clever and resourceful like a halfling ... or tough and stoic like a dwarf. Besides, those races are too well-established in popular fantasy fiction anyways! And I sure do hate them popular fantasy books!"

*Watches Travelocity commercial*

"Wait! I know! I'll play a gnome! And they're good at ... illusions, or something, so I'll be a wizard specializing in illusions, ie. an illlusionist! Wow, what a clever choice I've made! Nobody EVER plays a gnome illusionist!"

"And now to resume crying myself to sleep."

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 11:34 AM
So you sre encouraged to make a particular kind of character?:smallconfused:
That sounds like
"Here you go! One levelX fighter statted out just for you!:smallbiggrin:"
"but...Bob has the exact same Fighter as I do... I mean isn't that kinda contradicting yourself?"
"No!You to have very different fighters! look at your ability scores."
"they're the same...."
"Feats?"
"Same...I'm just gonna play a rouge now..."

Yeah, not so much.

On each of the class pages in the PHB WotC provided two example builds for 1st level characters (likely as an aide to new players). In addition, many of the classes have a selectable class feature at level 1 (Warlock Pacts, Ranger Fighting Styles, Rogue Styles, Wizard Implements) which is unchangeable and gives certain bonuses when using some powers (among other things).

After making those choices, you choose 3-4 skills from a class skill list, and then you can choose 2 of 4 at-will powers, 1 of 4 encounter powers and 1 of 4 dailies. Then you can choose 1 feat.

Humans get 1 additional at-will, 1 additional feat, and 1 additional trained skill from their class skill list. Eladrin get 1 additional trained skill from any class list, 'cause Elves are just Better (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurElvesAreBetter). :smalltongue:

Then, (nearly) every level you get to choose 1 of 4 new powers, and frequently, a new feat. By 10th level, you'll have 11 powers (out of 40) and 6 feats. At 11th level, you choose 1 of 4 Paragon Paths for your class, each of which 3 unique class traits and have 3 unique powers. You continue to get new powers as you approach 20, though now you can swap them in for lower-level powers. You also get more feats, this time from the Paragon Feat list.

At level 21, you choose 1 of 3 Epic Destinies. Each Destiny gives destiny traits. You keep getting new powers, and new feats (now from the Epic Feat List).

EDIT: It should be noted that few of these choices are "traps" that will gimp your character. Sub-optimal power choices are obvious on the face because they depend on ability scores that are low for you, or are melee powers while you are a ranger character (and vice-versa).

Kurald Galain
2008-08-31, 11:35 AM
...and of course, many people ran older-edition campaigns in which the characters didn't drop like flies all the time.

It's perfectly possible to have a world with lethal monsters in it that don't run in at random moments and cause a TPK - that's called good DM'ing. Despite what some people appear to think, you can have something nasty happen to your PC and still have a good time.

If the problem is that "monsters exist that can kill most player characters easily", would the preferred solution be to (1) encourage players to be cautious and giving them a means of escaping or avoiding said monster, or (2) nerfing those monsters so that they no longer pose a credible threat?

EvilElitest
2008-08-31, 11:41 AM
"Oh, darn, I just can't decide what type of race my character should be. See, I want to be a Small character ... but I don't want to be clever and resourceful like a halfling ... or tough and stoic like a dwarf. Besides, those races are too well-established in popular fantasy fiction anyways! And I sure do hate them popular fantasy books!"

*Watches Travelocity commercial*

"Wait! I know! I'll play a gnome! And they're good at ... illusions, or something, so I'll be a wizard specializing in illusions, ie. an illlusionist! Wow, what a clever choice I've made! Nobody EVER plays a gnome illusionist!"

"And now to resume crying myself to sleep."

except, gnomes are just another small race. They aren't, at least in early D&D like the Gnomes on the Travelocity commercials. They aren't a bad race, they just have a bad rep.
from
EE

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 11:43 AM
Eh. Sorry oracle hunter kinda flew off the handle there:smallredface:
It just bothers me that it seems like they try to make a level playing field to the point where there are really only a few good combinations that work without getting trampled under foot.
I tend to let my player's search an area before I spring the beasties upon them. Like I said my group is notorious for solving issues by thinking outside the box. I mean heck one time we effectively made a warforged into a Necron that cannot die due to fast healing. We still inflict penalties upon it when it's taken to zero though.

Viruzzo
2008-08-31, 11:47 AM
Adventures if anything should die more often than not. They actively go out of their way to find dangerous places and creatures that will possibly kill them. Sure they are heros but that doesn't mean they're immortal.
But they are stronger and more experienced. In a dangerous world such as D&D, common people are dying a lot. So probably PCs should have an higher mortality rate than common people in the real world, but not than those of a dangerous fantasy world.


For a cleric Adventuring is a sort sucking up to the god as a pass-time. If you are A. healing people constantly showing your good nature(UNLESS YOU"RE EVIL!!!:smallbiggrin:) That's gotta look pretty good on in the books. Second your making a name for your religion. You're showing that you god looks out for the innocent and will face any challenge.
That explanation (which is the most "believable" one) doesn't make much sense. If healing is what you want to do, making an hospital is better. If you seek to collect knowledge, a library is better. If you want to spread your faith, preaching is better. These are the things the real priests did, and are not apt for a fantasy combat-based RPG, but still making clerics into armored healbots with maces has little pretense of being logical and understandable. Simply put, adventurers need healing, and that's the best they have come with. It works gameplay-wise, but doesn't make an inch of sense, except maybe for gods who favor travelling, adventuring or fighting over everything else.


If you have a party member get turned to stone don't flat out say he's dead.
Depending on the level/spells/money of the group, he will be:
1) as good as dead
2) restored after some time
3) restored almost immediately
This applies also to death in D&D, since it's (more or less easily) reversible. Case 1 is not really much fun for the players if happend because of a single unlucky die roll. Case 2 can be still pretty annoying for the player, since he will have to wait while the others save him (even doing a temporary PC is not much fun).
The problem with save-or-die effects is that they you fear the die, not the monsters. Randomness is not a good answer to fearlessness problems.


...and of course, many people ran older-edition campaigns in which the characters didn't drop like flies all the time.
And of course many people will run 4E campaings where players are often in serious risk of life and feel it. Good DMimg solves everything.


If the problem is that "monsters exist that can kill most player characters easily", would the preferred solution be to (1) encourage players to be cautious and giving them a means of escaping or avoiding said monster, or (2) nerfing those monsters so that they no longer pose a credible threat?
The problem is not that, and (2) is not the solution 4E adopted.
The problem is "monsters exist who have abilities that may 'kill' a party member randomly and instantly", and the solution they went for is removing those abilities and replacing them with dangerous, but not so random ones.

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 11:56 AM
Very true on the cleric issue. Though at least in fantasy I have yet to see a cleric not after a sacred religious artifact lost to time or some sort lost knowledge that the players may be inevitably moving towards. As for Mace wielding Healbot. I typically see clerics who hang in the back and act strictly as support casters in my group. Even the most combat oriented cleric we had still normally played to party strengths and couldn't heal. Wall of blades works wonders:smallbiggrin:. Also it could easily be part of the whole religious experience for that faith.

FoE
2008-08-31, 12:01 PM
except, gnomes are just another small race. They aren't, at least in early D&D like the Gnomes on the Travelocity commercials. They aren't a bad race, they just have a bad rep.

I know, I was just joking how the player got his "inspiration." :smalltongue:

I'm aware of their beginnings in 1E, and I'll tell you this: back then, gnomes were just cheap knockoffs of dwarves. They had virtually the same flavour and abilities. At least in later settings they were better-developed. Unfortunately, the association with lawn ornaments has totally screwed gnomes out of any coolness they might have possessed. For all the complaints against tieflings and dragonborn, at least the name of their species is not associated with pointy red hats.

I like gnomes as monsters, actually. Now they're one of the Fair Folk (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFairFolk) and can be totally evil, murderous bastards.

Viruzzo
2008-08-31, 12:04 PM
Also it could easily be part of the whole religious experience for that faith.
"Find some friends, look for a damp dungeon, bash anything inside it to mincemeat and grab the shiny stuff"? Now that's a commandment! :smallbiggrin:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 12:09 PM
Eh. Sorry oracle hunter kinda flew off the handle there:smallredface:
It just bothers me that it seems like they try to make a level playing field to the point where there are really only a few good combinations that work without getting trampled under foot.
I tend to let my player's search an area before I spring the beasties upon them. Like I said my group is notorious for solving issues by thinking outside the box. I mean heck one time we effectively made a warforged into a Necron that cannot die due to fast healing. We still inflict penalties upon it when it's taken to zero though.

See, I don't think that's an accurate description of 4e design either. Even if you just use the Standard Array for character generation (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) you can make many different versions of each class - you just can't make wacky low-strength fighters or low-intelligence wizards. If you want a DEX fighter, he should be a Rogue (which does it very well), if you want to be a low-INT wizard, be a CHA or CON Warlock.

Examples of 2-Handed Fighter combinations I've made:
- Eladrin Spearmaiden (16 STR, 15 DEX, 12 CON, 14 WIS, 12 INT, 11 CHA)
Uses a Longspear and Eladrin Weapon Training to become a whirling maelstrom of death (1d10+5 for a basic attack, with Reach)
- Elven Swordmaster (16 STR, 13 DEX, 13 CON, 16 WIS, 10 INT, 12 CHA)
Uses a Greatsword and Elven Accuracy to ensure that none can best him in hand-to-hand combat.
- Dwarven Mercenary (16 STR, 12 DEX, 16 CON, 13 WIS, 10 INT, 11 CHA)
Between his Maul and Dwarven Weapons Training, he charges straight into battle and never looks back.

Examples of 1-Handed Fighters I've made:
- Halfling Shock-Trooper (16 STR, 14 DEX, 14 CON, 13 WIS, 10 INT, 13 CHA)
With his scimitar and heavy shield, he takes point on any assault, clearing a path for his larger allies to wreck havoc on the enemy rear line.
- Dwarven Bodyguard (16 STR, 13 DEX, 14 CON, 16 WIS, 11 INT, 10 CHA)
With his longsword, heavy shield, and plate armor, he stands before his commander and makes sure nobody can get to him.
- Human Legionnaire (18 STR, 13 DEX, 14 CON, 12 WIS, 11 INT, 10 CHA)
A master of many weapons, he is always in the vanguard of the force, harrying distant enemies with his javelins, and cutting down with his longsword anyone who dares come face-to-face with him.

All of these are perfectly valid Fighter builds (yes, even the Halfling Fighter) whose only thing in common is high STR. I, for one, am far more pleased with the variety of characters available in 4e Core than in 3e Core, but YMMV.

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 12:18 PM
That quoted section oracle was from 3E. It was one of our Min/Max attempts. I can see some versatility in the system. But I enjoy the fact that there was a level of dumb luck involved in rolls. I never have enjoyed a point-buy system for ability scores and having character's that are quirky is part of the fun. The rouges I've seen have never been Dex. fighters they've typically been thieves or trap finders. The Dex. fighter should be A. the fighter dang nabbit! or B. The ranger who in older editions relied heavily upon dex. at times. Ranged especially. And even two-weapon fighting.

Prophaniti
2008-08-31, 12:33 PM
*list of character examples*
But all you've done is change the race and the chosen weapon, if what we're talking about is builds. Of course, the characters themselves can be as different as night and day, but that's all in the RP.

For the builds, they're all the same thing with a different ribbon tied around it. Even the stat variations are minor (you use Int and Cha as your low stats for almost all of them). The same thing can be done in 3.5 just as easily, with similar stats and weapon choices, and they'd all be on roughly the same level in 3.5, too. Looking at core only (to be fair to the newly released 4e), fighters have about the same level of customizability, perhaps slightly favoring 3.5.

So far, if build options were what bothered me in 4e (they're not), I've yet to be swayed.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 12:40 PM
But all you've done is change the race and the chosen weapon, if what we're talking about is builds. Of course, the characters themselves can be as different as night and day, but that's all in the RP.

For the builds, they're all the same thing with a different ribbon tied around it. Even the stat variations are minor (you use Int and Cha as your low stats for almost all of them). The same thing can be done in 3.5 just as easily, with similar stats and weapon choices, and they'd all be on roughly the same level in 3.5, too. Looking at core only (to be fair to the newly released 4e), fighters have about the same level of customizability, perhaps slightly favoring 3.5.

So far, if build options were what bothered me in 4e (they're not), I've yet to be swayed.

That's because I didn't show the feat selections and power selections - because there are so many of them! I refer to be post two previous where I outline the sheer number of possible combinations of powers and feats as characters level.

Someone with some stat background can work out what (2 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) [all independent] means in terms of potential combinations for character build. That doesn't even include the (1 of 2) that many classes have at generation for Class Abilities (like Ranger Fighting Style, or Fighter Weapon Specialization). And it doesn't even try to count feat combinations.

A Fighter in 3e had 2 feats to choose at 1st level. And then additional feats as he leveled. Many of the feat choices were dependent too (4e feats are not), so fewer actual variations were possible than the number of feats available would lead you to believe. Plus, there were level/attack bonus caps.

EDIT:
Using hopefully the right math, the answer becomes 12 x 4^9 or 3145728 possible 10th level Paladin power builds. There are, including 1 Handed and 2 Handed variations of the 1st level Fighter, 34 possible variations in initial power selection.

Something tells me that a 1st level Core 3e Fighter (even with feats) is not going to have more than that.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-31, 12:51 PM
The problem is not that, and (2) is not the solution 4E adopted. The problem is "monsters exist who have abilities that may 'kill' a party member randomly and instantly", and the solution they went for is removing those abilities and replacing them with dangerous, but not so random ones.

Regarding death, you are correct. Regarding anything else, well, no. Essentially, other than through killing them, it is impossible to adversely affect player characters with anything bad that lasts longer than five minutes.

It's dark? Bring out the everburning torch. Are you hungry? Everlasting provisions are cheap. Ability drain? No longer exists. Geasa? Gone. You can instantly cure any adverse condition in the game with a low level ritual. See the pattern here? 4E expects the player characters to be in optimal condition for every single encounter (unless they're dead). This is, of course, a result of the "everything is hit point damage" design philosophy.

Now I'm sure people like the idea that nothing bad can ever happen to the hero (other than death). But think of all the good books in which the heroes ended up cursed, poisoned, mangled or otherwise suffering...

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 12:57 PM
Here here!:smallbiggrin:
Status effects are a DMs friend. yeah sure alot of races had darkvision but atthe same time negative energy,ability damage and other fun tricks really spiced up combat. Mind control especially. I've been asked not to kill off my co-Dm's PC and relented only to have him viciously forced to fight against his own allies. True that was a battle thing but diseases such as mummy rot can really ruin a person's day.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 01:04 PM
Here here!:smallbiggrin:
Status effects are a DMs friend. yeah sure alot of races had darkvision but atthe same time negative energy,ability damage and other fun tricks really spiced up combat. Mind control especially. I've been asked not to kill off my co-Dm's PC and relented only to have him viciously forced to fight against his own allies. True that was a battle thing but diseases such as mummy rot can really ruin a person's day.

4e has persistent diseases as well. Nice mechanic for them too - they progress into worse and worse forms if they are untreated, and they only get cured slowly.

Unless you use the Cure Disease Ritual, which has a chance of outright killing your PC in unskilled hands. :smallamused:

Edea
2008-08-31, 01:06 PM
Ehehe, looks like we're back to debating/arguing.

Another thing I dislike: XP acquisition rates from monsters. While I like the idea of static XP (not that I know exactly how those XP totals are awarded by ability, I'm guessing it's somewhere in the DMG, and it probably focuses on monster 'title' rather than what they actually do), I don't like where the designers set the XP caps. They're way, way too low.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 01:13 PM
Ehehe, looks like we're back to debating/arguing.

Meh, I've just here to do fact checking. Saying the 4e characters are all the same when, mathematically, it allows a large number of different builds (even at first level) or that 4e doesn't have any persistent injuries (they do - the Disease system) were simple to correct.

If people are going to say that they don't like 4e because the books look funny, or they can't be Gnomish Illusionists, then I have nothing to say - so I don't. :smallbiggrin:

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 01:14 PM
Why is it they got rid of the Schools of magic anyways that partly what set the wizard apart from other classes.

Edea
2008-08-31, 01:19 PM
I think they got replaced with Power descriptors.

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 01:21 PM
Expos Facto. What is it just different damage types because if it is I'm more than willing to flame that to bits in one way or another.:smallamused:

Edea
2008-08-31, 01:27 PM
Hey, I didn't say I liked the idea (and frankly, I don't). Also, flaming is A Bad Thing™.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-31, 01:30 PM
As I put it on another forum, there's a difference between saying "I don't like broccoli because it's green" and "I don't like broccoli because it's orange."

I suppose another irritation would be "I don't like broccoli! It's a blight on the face of the earth! Why do farmers even bother growing it, those idiots? I could run a better farm than them! Why is it so bad? It's obvious, you fool!"

Edea
2008-08-31, 01:35 PM
I love broccoli :smallfrown:.

Also, usually the schools only ever came up for one class. I guess they just saw fit to eliminate the need for that extra consideration during streamlining. I dunno, I'd rather have them back, but it's definitely not a major quibble (for me at least) at all.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 01:39 PM
Why is it they got rid of the Schools of magic anyways that partly what set the wizard apart from other classes.

Actually, I suspect it's because Schools had outlived their usefulness. Back in 2e, the main reason to specialize in a school was to get an extra spell every level - since you could cast so very few, there was a strong incentive to specialize. Now, since wizards always have At-Wills and Cantrips to fall back on, the need for extra spells is somewhat less.

Also, it was damned hard to implement. Look at some of the descriptors for 3e spells - what is a Conjuration and what is an Evocation?

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 01:39 PM
Perhaps A bit to strong a word.:smallredface:
Sorry but if really all they did was say green wiz. You now can better use acid attacks than Blue Wiz.
green wiz:
"But I used to know transmutation...I liked polymorph...."
Blue Wiz.
"What Do I Do?"
you do...Cold Damage.
Blue wiz.
"I...I...was an abjuerer! I don't know how to use that kind of stuff! My specialty is Defense!"
Not anymore Apparently. Hey at least you're not like red Wiz. He does Sonic now....

Crow
2008-08-31, 01:44 PM
Meh, I've just here to do fact checking. Saying the 4e characters are all the same when, mathematically, it allows a large number of different builds (even at first level)

Really now, how different are they really? Half of your power choices are going to be made for you when you choose your "path" at 1st level, otherwise you're pointlessly gimping yourself. Your feats have little effect on much of anything unless you plan them out from day 1 to stack situational bonuses. In many cases, if you don't pick the perfect stat array at the get-go, you're going to have a lot of trouble making use of your "options" at all. Not everyone uses point buy, afterall, not to mention casual players who do not put as much effort into finding the perfect array, but still want to have fun.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-31, 01:49 PM
I love broccoli :smallfrown:.

Because it's orange? :smalltongue:

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 01:52 PM
Agreed, have feats become the character's appendix or something? It seems from what I hear they do next to nothing unless it's one o' clock in the afternoon cloudless but rainy and there is a rainbow cokatiel flying in a figure eight. I.E. rarely ever useful.

Edea
2008-08-31, 01:52 PM
Y'know, if I ever actually saw orange broccoli, I'd probably find myself eating it out of pure curiosity.

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 01:54 PM
I know what to do my senior year of college now:smallbiggrin:
W00T aggies!

ghost_warlock
2008-08-31, 01:56 PM
That's because I didn't show the feat selections and power selections - because there are so many of them! I refer to be post two previous where I outline the sheer number of possible combinations of powers and feats as characters level.

Someone with some stat background can work out what (2 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) x (1 of 4) [all independent] means in terms of potential combinations for character build. That doesn't even include the (1 of 2) that many classes have at generation for Class Abilities (like Ranger Fighting Style, or Fighter Weapon Specialization). And it doesn't even try to count feat combinations.

A Fighter in 3e had 2 feats to choose at 1st level. And then additional feats as he leveled. Many of the feat choices were dependent too (4e feats are not), so fewer actual variations were possible than the number of feats available would lead you to believe. Plus, there were level/attack bonus caps.

EDIT:
Using hopefully the right math, the answer becomes 12 x 4^9 or 3145728 possible 10th level Paladin power builds. There are, including 1 Handed and 2 Handed variations of the 1st level Fighter, 34 possible variations in initial power selection.

Something tells me that a 1st level Core 3e Fighter (even with feats) is not going to have more than that.

I'd just like to point out that your numbers lie somewhat. While technically true, they're not an accurate method of modelling character builds. Many of power combinations that you'd list as 'possible' would be just plain dumb for a player to select. For instance none of your 2H-weapon fighter builds are going to select Tide of Iron for one of their at-wills if the player actually understands the game mechanics; likewise many of the other powers are going to be no-brainer passes because of the player's weapon choice. Any paladin focused purely on Cha-based powers is going to avoid the Str-based powers, negating a little less than half of the options you site (utilities typically don't favor either stat).

While still in the box, yes, options seem incredibly numerous. Each choice a player actually makes while building a character reduces the de facto options available for his future choices, however.

Also, maybe I missed it, but I'm also curious about when the discussion shifted from character creation to the options available to 10th-level characters. I guess character creation @ 10th isn't an aberration, though. It does tend to inflate the number of options supposedly available.

Not that mechanics in-and-of-themselves are really an ideal way to model the options a player has for creating his character. With some re-fluffing, two characters with identical powers and feats can have completely different playstyles/personalities. Mechanically, they're identical but tactically they can end up being very dissimilar because they'll make different choices for what to do when it's their turn to shine.

Also, let's not forget that characters also have 3 alignments to choose from! :smallwink:


Y'know, if I ever actually saw orange broccoli, I'd probably find myself eating it out of pure curiosity.

I've seen it - but I wouldn't eat it if I were you. Not all fungus is tasty/good for you! :smalltongue:

Edea
2008-08-31, 01:58 PM
I think every single character I've made in 4e has been Unaligned. Actually, I -like- the Alignment system in 4e; more specifically, I -REALLY- like its mechanical irrelevance.

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 02:00 PM
Because that's not simplifying an incredibly complex system of interacting moral and ethical beliefs that could barely be explained in earlier editions:smallwink:

ghost_warlock
2008-08-31, 02:01 PM
I think every single character I've made in 4e has been Unaligned. Actually, I -like- the Alignment system in 4e; more specifically, I -REALLY- like its mechanical irrelevance.

I've made a couple dozen characters for testing purposes. I think maybe 3 were good and 2 were lawful good; the rest were unaligned. Honestly, the mechanical irrelevance is okay, but it's nice to have the fluff/flavor of the old system. So many of my old characters were LN or CN...

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 02:05 PM
Really now, how different are they really? Half of your power choices are going to be made for you when you choose your "path" at 1st level, otherwise you're pointlessly gimping yourself. Your feats have little effect on much of anything unless you plan them out from day 1 to stack situational bonuses. In many cases, if you don't pick the perfect stat array at the get-go, you're going to have a lot of trouble making use of your "options" at all. Not everyone uses point buy, afterall, not to mention casual players who do not put as much effort into finding the perfect array, but still want to have fun.

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.

Crow
2008-08-31, 07:34 PM
You see though, this is what I was talking about when I said that all your options are a sort of veneer. Having the right stats is only a single facet of the problem. You have 288 possible builds, but really how different are they in play? How many times are you going to pick that one power over the obviously superior one that makes it technically a different build? How many times does a Rogue NOT take backstabber (or whatever the d8 sneak attack feat is called)?

I used to think you had a lot of options too (and you technically do), but when it comes down to it, it all feels the same.

*all of this is in my own subjective opinion*

Xenogears
2008-08-31, 07:53 PM
The thing about 4E I dislike is that I can't afford it so I can't even form an opinion about it. Also that I spent a over a hundred bucks on 3rd Edition books. Not that I can't still play 3rd instead though. Almost everything I hear about 4th is bad though....

Of what I do know... I don't like that when you reach lvl 30 you "die." I know the character might not actually die (the Archmage becomes one with the ultimate magic or something. I dunno. I just read it as one of the spoiler thingies they put on the site before the books came out) but as far as the player is concerned they do (unless you are in the habit of enshrining the character sheets of characters that actually made it to that level.) Sure most people in 3rd Edition don't like playing epic campaigns at lvl 50 but if you do want to then you have the option.

Crow
2008-08-31, 07:58 PM
The thing about 4E I dislike is that I can't afford it so I can't even form an opinion about it. Also that I spent a over a hundred bucks on 3rd Edition books. Not that I can't still play 3rd instead though. Almost everything I hear about 4th is bad though....

Of what I do know... I don't like that when you reach lvl 30 you "die." I know the character might not actually die (the Archmage becomes one with the ultimate magic or something. I dunno. I just read it as one of the spoiler thingies they put on the site before the books came out) but as far as the player is concerned they do (unless you are in the habit of enshrining the character sheets of characters that actually made it to that level.) Sure most people in 3rd Edition don't like playing epic campaigns at lvl 50 but if you do want to then you have the option.

Well technically, you "retire" after your "final quest". Personally, I don't see why they included those endings. I thought the game was about coming up with your own end to the story. I suppose they are just suggestions, but they come on really strong.

Knaight
2008-08-31, 08:05 PM
Well the final quest is supposed to be what wraps up the story, although I have to say how its presented is really bad. The basic idea of "The game eventually ends, and people start with new characters, possibly in a different game" isn't a bad one to put in a game, but "Your characters final quest leads to the achievement of their epic destiny" is.

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 08:18 PM
Yeah, as a hero I gonna say forget that. My destiny is my own. I'll carve a name for myself and by gods if I'm a mage I'll show the world I'm a mage and will stick around even after my destiny has been fulfilled.

monty
2008-08-31, 08:20 PM
Yeah, as a hero I gonna say forget that. My destiny is my own. I'll carve a name for myself and by gods if I'm a mage I'll show the world I'm a mage and will stick around even after my destiny has been fulfilled.

As a spellcaster your goal should be to become immortal, anyway. That's why 3e epic magic is so broken, right?

black dragoon
2008-08-31, 08:26 PM
The epic magic from 3E is similar to that of D20 moderns incantations really. And not every mage seeks immortality. just the really vain and arrogant ones. Sides I'd much rather not join with the ultimate font of arcane whatevers. Then again I'm a dragoon so my shtick happens to be slaying dragons and other nasties not very applicable in the current situation.

Kompera
2008-08-31, 10:37 PM
Almost everything I hear about 4th is bad though....
If you're only reading bad things about 4e, you are reading the wrong forums. :smalltongue: Also, keep in mind that people who dislike a thing tend to be far more vocal about it than people who like a thing. Just as the cook at a restaurant is rarely sent a compliment by a diner who enjoyed their meal, but the cook will receive many complaints from a diner who found fault with their meal.

Gavin Sage
2008-08-31, 11:04 PM
If you're only reading bad things about 4e, you are reading the wrong forums. :smalltongue: Also, keep in mind that people who dislike a thing tend to be far more vocal about it than people who like a thing. Just as the cook at a restaurant is rarely sent a compliment by a diner who enjoyed their meal, but the cook will receive many complaints from a diner who found fault with their meal.

I don't know that I've heard anything good which isn't either subjective, or is a small piece of a bigger hole. I like Hide and Move Silent being combined for example. Do I like the skill list to be as sparse as 4e or for being "skilled" only worth a static bonus?

Simplified mechanics sounds good, but unified mechanics for all classes is not nessecarily what someone who wanted simplification wanted when they said it.

Crow
2008-08-31, 11:50 PM
If you're only reading bad things about 4e, you are reading the wrong forums. :smalltongue: Also, keep in mind that people who dislike a thing tend to be far more vocal about it than people who like a thing. Just as the cook at a restaurant is rarely sent a compliment by a diner who enjoyed their meal, but the cook will receive many complaints from a diner who found fault with their meal.

Yeah, but when you complain about your meal at a restaurant, the whole serving staff doesn't come over and yell at you for not agreeing with them.

*applies more to the WotC restaurant than this one*

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-31, 11:57 PM
Yeah, but when you complain about your meal at a restaurant, the whole serving staff doesn't come over and yell at you for not agreeing with them.

*applies more to the WotC restaurant than this one*

Now THAT depends on your resaurant :smalltongue:.

I at least hope the stuff I say isn't taken for yelling. I am just supremely bored at work and trying to kill some time with internet discussions rather than solitaire. I think it a truly noble cause.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-01, 01:03 AM
You see though, this is what I was talking about when I said that all your options are a sort of veneer. Having the right stats is only a single facet of the problem. You have 288 possible builds, but really how different are they in play? How many times are you going to pick that one power over the obviously superior one that makes it technically a different build? How many times does a Rogue NOT take backstabber (or whatever the d8 sneak attack feat is called)?

I used to think you had a lot of options too (and you technically do), but when it comes down to it, it all feels the same.

*all of this is in my own subjective opinion*

True, this is subjective, but I'd like to point out that "optimality" in 4e is much less clear than in 3e. That is to say that most of the power selections you make depend on what you want your character to be doing more than the one-true-answer.

A good example is a Spear Fighter picking a 3rd level ability. They can either choose Rain of Blows (many attacks, many attack rolls) or Armor Piercing Thrust (one attack, very accurate and damaging); both are really good for spear users, but one is good for hitting many foes at once, while the other is a nearly-guaranteed hit. My Eladrin Spearmaiden took Rain of Blows because she is going to be out in front most of the time, and will have a lot of targets. My Human Legionnaire would go with Armor-Piercing Strike instead, since he's going to fight single targets more often - and that works very well with a Power Attack.

As for the Rogue: it depends if damage is really important to your Rogue. If you want to multiclass, you may not take Backstabber all the time; or if you'd prefer a little better defense (Light Shield Proficiency) more skill monkeying (Jack of all Trades) or just to be superior at some thieving (Focus (Perception) is great for trapfinding; Focus (Bluff) for social situations; Focus (Thievery) for pretty much anything). Just because your "combat role" is a Striker doesn't mean you must be a combat machine - 4e is not (and does not have to be run like) a tabletop wargame and sometimes there are other things that your character may prefer to spend those feat slots on.

But, if you think all the classes are too similar, I'm not going to try to change your mind. I'm just bringing some of my own experiences to the table.

Viruzzo
2008-09-01, 06:54 AM
Simplified mechanics sounds good, but unified mechanics for all classes is not nessecarily what someone who wanted simplification wanted when they said it.
I think that the unification of the class abilities' systems is more due to balance than to simplification. The power system "averages" the complexity of the 3.x's different classes' systems, simplifying wizards and making fighters more complex.
Probably there is a way to have many different ability systems that are balanced, but it's extremely difficult, and the devs didn't take the risk.

Erk
2008-09-01, 09:52 AM
First off, to meet the topic requirements, I don't like:
-dragonborn, tieflings
-chain mail sucking
-strange balance on some weapons, particularly ranged (eg. rogues can't sneak attack with shortbow, even if proficient; crossbows are ridiculously ineffective; longbows have very short range and poor accuracy, making shuriken the most accurate ranged weapon, etc)
-flavour text too integrated with the game (eg. feywild and shadow-thingy have much more campaign world integrated info than "positive and negative planes" did before)
-No built in mechanic for having skills off the class list, such as creation skills.
-Healing surges are a little too easy to get, esp. out of combat.

All of these were very easy to fix. Like, absurdly easy. Now that I've stated 'em outright, I'd like to cut the pessimism a little with the stuff about 4e I do like.

Background:

I've GMed a couple sessions of it now, and just started in on what is going to be our groups Long Term Campaign. Our players consist of my fiancee, who is starting to get into the swing of RPGs in general, and my two friends who are old veterans but rarely played any version of D&D. There are two NPCs to flesh it out, under my control out of combat and cycling among the other players during a fight.

My fiancee is a warlord, my friends are a bow-ranger and a wizard (neither blaster nor controller), and the NPCs are a bow/melee ranger and a fighter.

So, in the first session it was a little rocky as everyone learned the mechanics. By the second session, which opened with a fight, combat was running quite smoothly, and everyone had learned their roles. This is the second fight they've played, yet everyone is already coming together to figure out how they should be working. It's a sort of teamwork I never saw in 3e.

The Warlord quickly learned she couldn't charge in and let herself be surrounded without her fighter buddy taking up her flank, but once he was there she started having a great time dishing out damage (and insisting on rolling damage rolls to chop up minions, because she thought it was funny). The ranger probably had the most fun, as the wizard was a bit annoyed by lack of clear areas to attack and so had a great time getting a bit of Friendly Fire in. That is teaching everyone to leave her a clear area. Everyone has a great time when their turn comes up, and our only remaining problem is getting the turns to cycle faster - a problem we have always had with any game system.

Nobody, not even the two nearly-identical rangers, played at all like anyone else. One of the rangers prefers to go in with a sword and dash back to take a few potshots, the other loves to hit and spends his time with careful strikes. I've not seen any vestiges yet, out of the rather wide number of characters I've already GMed for, of "all classes look alike" or even "all characters of a class are alike". I've GMed two warlords, three rangers, two fighters, etc... all handled very differently.

Out of combat, things were actually exceptionally easy and smooth. With the shorter skill list, and a few homebrewed secondary skills, everyone knew what they could do without consulting a long itemised index. I never found any particular problem trying to justify a given check as fitting inside a larger category, even when it came to the more complicated stuff they did like building a shelter (nature) and a raft (woodcraft, the secondary skill the ranger took).

The few things that annoy me about 4e were homebrewed out, and we never looked back. By second session it appears my party has actually forgot dragonborn and tieflings are in the PHB.

Bottom line: I liked 3e and may even still play it. I really like 4e, and my players like it better. We get more done in a play session, fights are more action-filled and require more thought and teamwork to play, noncombat stuff is mechanically more simple, leaving more time for description and RP, and my friends went and bought the books almost right after playing.

It's getting really hard for me to understand what all the complaints are about, even keeping the open mind. I mean, did nobody here homebrew for 3e, or is 4e somehow allergic to that?

Prophaniti
2008-09-01, 10:22 AM
I know what to do my senior year of college now:smallbiggrin:
W00T aggies!
Aggies?! You mean there's someone else going to that college that lurks on these boards? Everyone I've heard from is down south...

Unless some other state college has the aggies as their moniker... In which case, ignore my babbling.


A good example is a Spear Fighter picking a 3rd level ability. They can either choose Rain of Blows (many attacks, many attack rolls) or Armor Piercing Thrust (one attack, very accurate and damaging);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.

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.

EvilElitest
2008-09-01, 10:26 AM
Well technically, you "retire" after your "final quest". Personally, I don't see why they included those endings. I thought the game was about coming up with your own end to the story. I suppose they are just suggestions, but they come on really strong.

part of 4E is that it feels the need to dictate the way the game is played following one style of play. Unlike 2E and 3E, where the style of play is really left up to you (not quite true do to balance issues, but it is intended to be left up to you) 4E is built around pressuring PCs to play the one true style of D&D


And i'm totally lost on the rest of the conversatin, what are we talking about?



If you're only reading bad things about 4e, you are reading the wrong forums. Also, keep in mind that people who dislike a thing tend to be far more vocal about it than people who like a thing. Just as the cook at a restaurant is rarely sent a compliment by a diner who enjoyed their meal, but the cook will receive many complaints from a diner who found fault with their meal.
or maybe the thigns other people claim to like the system for are bad things. Streamlined games, massive simplification, crappy fluff ect


On on the above poster, just because your players didn't play hte same, that doesn't change the fact taht the clases are designed to be the same

form
EE

RebelRogue
2008-09-01, 10:43 AM
part of 4E is that it feels the need to dictate the way the game is played following one style of play
Erm, no. Where do you get that from?

Personally, I like 4th Ed a lot, but I do agree on the number of viable builds available. The 288 looks impressive but in reality the differences are minor. 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.

EvilElitest
2008-09-01, 11:01 AM
Erm, no. Where do you get that from?

From the fact it only supports one style of play, a very narrow style i might add, and ditched any other style of play from the get go. 4E promotes the "true way to play RPGs" and tries to do taht one style very well, but by only promoting a single manner of playing, and trying to dictate that, it fails as a new edition. would make a great spin off game, but not a new edition
from
EE

RebelRogue
2008-09-01, 11:18 AM
From the fact it only supports one style of play, a very narrow style i might add, and ditched any other style of play from the get go. 4E promotes the "true way to play RPGs" and tries to do taht one style very well, but by only promoting a single manner of playing, and trying to dictate that, it fails as a new edition. would make a great spin off game, but not a new edition
You keep on repeating this, and still I see no evidence for it whatsoever!

black dragoon
2008-09-01, 12:15 PM
Cobleskill? I have a fellow playgrounder at Coby?:smallbiggrin: mabye...

ghost_warlock
2008-09-01, 01:33 PM
You keep on repeating this, and still I see no evidence for it whatsoever!

4e was developed by WotC to simulate Heroic/Cinematic Fantasy games where the characters are the Good Guys and a Cut-Above normal people.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-01, 01:40 PM
4e was developed by WotC to simulate Heroic/Cinematic Fantasy games where the characters are the Good Guys and a Cut-Above normal people.

You can play anti-heroes or evil people too, but evil people are always going to be more trouble (mostly because vast majiority of evil think stabbbing random people is evil).


I agree about cinematic Fantasy.

ghost_warlock
2008-09-01, 01:48 PM
You can play anti-heroes or evil people too, but evil people are always going to be more trouble (mostly because vast majiority of evil think stabbbing random people is evil).


I agree about cinematic Fantasy.

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.

Prophaniti
2008-09-01, 01:52 PM
Cobleskill? I have a fellow playgrounder at Coby?:smallbiggrin: mabye...
Eh, looks like not. I'm at USU, out in Utah. Sorry :smallsmile:

Morty
2008-09-01, 02:00 PM
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.

That, and evil dieties don't have their CD feats, and the way the default world is designed, evil PCs would send everything down the sewer, as they're supposed to be one of the few halfway competend non-villains around.

black dragoon
2008-09-01, 02:04 PM
S'alright:smalltongue:
It's a pretty common term really.
Yeah, I really don't like the sound of that. It almost tells you what alignment you should play?!:smallfrown:

ghost_warlock
2008-09-01, 02:18 PM
That, and evil dieties don't have their CD feats, and the way the default world is designed, evil PCs would send everything down the sewer, as they're supposed to be one of the few halfway competend non-villains around.

Yeah, 4e really isn't into the evil vs. evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilVersusEvil) trope. The devs must not like Dexter (http://www.sho.com/site/dexter/home.do). :smalltongue:

The New Bruceski
2008-09-01, 02:39 PM
S'alright:smalltongue:
It's a pretty common term really.
Yeah, I really don't like the sound of that. It almost tells you what alignment you should play?!:smallfrown:

"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.

black dragoon
2008-09-01, 02:52 PM
I've Seen expirenced players who treat the PHB as The Word of God. In truth I don't know why'd play evil really it seems like most things in the MM are not even just animalistic they're outright Evil and ready to eat anything that moves.
playing the Evil guy you'd have to fight what a choice of three monsters?