3.5 or 4.0?

[SeeKay]

I usually DM. I like complex worlds but hate the mismatch between classes. I tend to start everyone at level 3 to 5 in 3.5 to get everyone out of melee dominance and usually try to end them before everyone gets to level 15 to prevent magic dominance. I like lots of skills and I make my players think and have lots of non-combat situations.

I hear that 4.0 has lots of balancing but there is still some classes that are not fully ready at level 1 and that casters still start to take over at higher levels. I hear that the skill list is slashed. I hear that the alignment system has been "fixed" (I never saw it as broken) but the game now sort-of forces you to be "good". I hear that it is combat focused and the "role-play" is limited.

So now to my question; should I just stay with 3.5 with all it's broken stuff or should I get 4.0 and homebrew it out the wazoo to get that "complex world" feel that I like?

[Crow]

Try 4e out of the box. From what it sounds like, you will be just fine with it as it is. The classes hang just fine at level 1, and the casters don't really leave anyone behind at any level. In fact, most of the classes are pretty much the same on all fronts. The skill list is fine unless you desperately need craft and profession skills. It is true that good-aligned groups will have way more material to work with than evil ones. It is not exactly true that the roleplay is limited. The game is much more of a tactical wargame now, though.

As far as the complex world is concerned. That's up to the DM.

[monty]

You might try 3.5 with ToB and psionics instead of standard melee and casters. I've never had a chance to play both at once, because my DM has an irrational fear of psionics, but I've heard that the two systems are fairly well-balanced together.

[SeeKay]

I'll look into the Psionics. I've always felt that it was more of a "Sci-Fi" thing than a "Fantasy" thing, but if it's a fixed (or at least more fixed) system, I'll look into it. Any insights on 3.5 Psionics?

[Crow]

Temporal Acceleration+Control Body+Solicit Psicrystal+Teleportation powers = Mobility Hell

[MeklorIlavator]

I'll look into the Psionics. I've always felt that it was more of a "Sci-Fi" thing than a "Fantasy" thing, but if it's a fixed (or at least more fixed) system, I'll look into it. Any insights on 3.5 Psionics?

You can't spend more power points than your manifester level on a power. Alot of complaints against the system balance wise would be solved if this rule was applied.

[Lord Tataraus]

Another option is to download Pathfinder Beta (it's free!), the classes are more balanced than 3.5 and actually are playable at 1st level!!!

[monty]

I'll look into the Psionics. I've always felt that it was more of a "Sci-Fi" thing than a "Fantasy" thing, but if it's a fixed (or at least more fixed) system, I'll look into it. Any insights on 3.5 Psionics?

To be honest, I never really understood that mindset. What do supernatural (not the D&D term) mental powers have to do with science?

[Knaight]

Heh. I consider psionics to bring sci-fi into fantasy if they are added.

[SeeKay]

Psionics are used in many Sci-Fi situations to create a type of "magic" person without the long robes and dusty tomes.

[Knaight]

Or, in my opinion fantasy masquerading as sci-fi, there is no science about it. That doesn't make a series bad, for instance I religiously read the Pip and Flinx series, but that doesn't make it sci-fi.

[EvilElitest]

well i'm sure everbody already knows my bias so i don't know what difference this will make but


If you like combat games, might as well take 4E. But be warned, for other styles of gaming, it is simplified to such an absurd extreme taht it barely even resembles the same game
from
EE

[BizzaroStormy]

Im gonna have to agree with Tataraus on the whole pathfinder thing, although when we played it, the classes were more or less custom due to us playing a LotR setting.

[Thrud]

Or, in my opinion fantasy masquerading as sci-fi, there is no science about it. That doesn't make a series bad, for instance I religiously read the Pip and Flinx series, but that doesn't make it sci-fi.

Heh, it's closer to Sci Fi than Star Trek is.

Not that that is saying much.

:smallbiggrin:

[Lord Tataraus]

Or, in my opinion fantasy masquerading as sci-fi, there is no science about it. That doesn't make a series bad, for instance I religiously read the Pip and Flinx series, but that doesn't make it sci-fi.

Pip and Flinx rules!!!

Anyway, on the topic of psionics as sci-fi and not fantasy, well that's because most people think of the River Tam/Kerrigan/Akira type psions, but what about fortunetellers or enchanters who seem to have the innate ability to see into the future or charm monsters and people to their will? How about the travelling gypsy who can guess exactly what you are thinking or the strange magician who can cast power magic with his hands tied behind his back? If you describe the abilities of the psion from the commoner's perspective it is much less sci-fi and more strange foreign magic.

[SeeKay]

well i'm sure everbody already knows my bias so i don't know what difference this will make but


If you like combat games, might as well take 4E. But be warned, for other styles of gaming, it is simplified to such an absurd extreme taht it barely even resembles the same game
from
EE

Actually EE, I hate "combat only" games. I love making my players have to use their minds and role-play and I love them having to invest at least some picks in skills to help them outside of battle. I've read some of your posts as well as others. That's why I'm asking if the fixes in 4.0 are worth the simplifications.

[Knaight]

Pip and Flinx rules!!!

Anyway, on the topic of psionics as sci-fi and not fantasy, well that's because most people think of the River Tam/Kerrigan/Akira type psions, but what about fortunetellers or enchanters who seem to have the innate ability to see into the future or charm monsters and people to their will? How about the travelling gypsy who can guess exactly what you are thinking or the strange magician who can cast power magic with his hands tied behind his back? If you describe the abilities of the psion from the commoner's perspective it is much less sci-fi and more strange foreign magic.
Exactly. Although my position is that putting any of those in sci-fi makes it fantasy. Also do you realize that that post means that 3 posters in this thread know about the Pip and Flinx series. Thats just amazing, considering how obscure Foster is.

[arguskos]

Exactly. Although my position is that putting any of those in sci-fi makes it fantasy. Also do you realize that that post means that 3 posters in this thread know about the Pip and Flinx series. Thats just amazing, considering how obscure Foster is.
4 posters. :smallbiggrin:

I love Pip and Flinx (Pip more than Flinx though).

Just tossing that out there.

-argus

[Rockphed]

Make that 5. I haven't read them, but I recognised them. If memory serves, it was either those books or Discworld, and I found the start of Discworld before I figured out which one those started with.

As to why psionics causes an aversion for some people, all I can say is that it both carries the pseudo-science-fiction flavor while also not having any clear examples of Fantasy Psionics done right. This is the fault of the people explaining and naming Psionics rather than a lack of fantasy material that could be referenced. Off the top of my head, the Heralds of Valdemar and Joust(both by Mercedes Lackey) do a pretty good job of incorporating Telepathy and Precognition(though not so much telekinesis, but I never liked that one anyway) into their respective systems of magic.

With your standard wizard, all wizards relate to the wizard Trope, whether they are wear a robe and have a beard that goes to their toes or the complete opposite, WIZARD calls up an image that people can edit in their mind. Much the same for Barbarian, Paladin or rogue.

On the other hand, what is a Psion? The word means almost nothing to me. That, in my mind, is the biggest reason for Psionics' failure to win people over.

[mabriss lethe]

On the other hand, what is a Psion? The word means almost nothing to me. That, in my mind, is the biggest reason for Psionics' failure to win people over.


true enough.

If you want to give psionics its due, you have to temporarily strip the context from both its system and the standard 3.5 magic system. ignore the names and the silly new-agey fixation on crystals. focus on the numbers and the system mechanics. compare the hard and fast crunch between the two systems. psionics uses a comparatively well balanced and flexible system. Standard 3.5 really doesn't. If it makes you feel better, ignore the word "Psionic" and replace it with "magic"

[Kaihaku]

Eh... I like psionics. I like magic. I don't like the two together.

[Totally Guy]

I'm running my first campaign ever in 4th edition and it seems to be going very well. The world I'm running isn't totally well defined but I've put the PCs "Lost on a magical island" so I restrict the immediate knowledge I need on the world to 2 towns and 2 distant towns which are occasionally mentioned. The game world is as complicated as can be described to the players. The tech level is of the not outstanding "seen it a million times" variety. But the political system is my own creation and made our last session pretty good.

So it can still be done but you can't define every person's stats within the city and you can't generally simulate lots of things that happen off screen. But my style isn't about owning a world and letting the PC's into it it's about providing the best dang adventure I am capable of doing.

[Gorbash]

On the other hand, what is a Psion?

Mind Mage.

[Jothki]

With your standard wizard, all wizards relate to the wizard Trope, whether they are wear a robe and have a beard that goes to their toes or the complete opposite, WIZARD calls up an image that people can edit in their mind. Much the same for Barbarian, Paladin or rogue.

On the other hand, what is a Psion? The word means almost nothing to me. That, in my mind, is the biggest reason for Psionics' failure to win people over.

It seems to me that that problem exists because wizards and sorcerers have overtaken what would normally be handled by psionics in a fantasy world. If psionics was a fundamental part of the system from the beginning, then any caster who focused on illusions, divinations, or manipulating people's minds would probably be a psion. Since arcane magic already handles that, though, psionics was forced into the new-agey stuff.

[Starsinger]

Actually EE, I hate "combat only" games. I love making my players have to use their minds and role-play and I love them having to invest at least some picks in skills to help them outside of battle. I've read some of your posts as well as others. That's why I'm asking if the fixes in 4.0 are worth the simplifications.

Yes. The fixes are worth the simplifications. My group in general disliked 3.5 because it had to have stats and rules for everything under the sun. Some people saw this as brilliantly fleshing out the game, we saw it as (mostly) useless clutter that got in the way.


Off the top of my head, the Heralds of Valdemar and Joust(both by Mercedes Lackey) do a pretty good job of incorporating Telepathy and Precognition(though not so much telekinesis, but I never liked that one anyway) into their respective systems of magic.

When Heralds use Telekinesis they call it "Fetching". It's specifically mentioned in Magic's Pawn. One of the Heralds who are "dorm mates" with Vanyel and Tylendal uses Fetching to make sure a crossbow fired grappling hook latches on, or something like that. It's during around the time That 'Lendal kills himself and Van attempts suicide.

[Flickerdart]

Mind Mage.
The problem is that Wizards already do that, up to and including Mind Rape.

[Aron Times]

4E is much easier on the DM. All classes use a single unified system without making everyone feel the same. Monster creation is much simpler and more balanced than before, and page 42 of the DMG covers most of the things not explicitly covered by the rules.

[DMfromTheAbyss]

My suggestion would be to try 4rth ed in a controlled situation, maybe just fool around with the game, do a mock combat or 2 with different characters, make up a character or three. Then after you've seen what the system is like you can make the call on weither it's right for you.

In general 4rth ed is simpler to handle from a DM perspective, has an amazing amount of balance, and can basically be used "out of the box" balance wise, you just have to get imaginative a bit to create some of your own stuff for flavor, as what fluff it has is better off ignored or absorbed into whatever world the DM is envisioning (IMO). Also adding monsters and getting creative is easier under the simpler critter construction rules.

Stay with 3rd ed. if you really want to keep playing the character creation/optimization game, as it's almost completely gone in 4rth ed. If you want lots of "creative" characters that can entail just about anything you can imagine, but will probably have to cut back on as a DM for game balance, then 3rd ed has way more options. You can use about as much material as you can stand, and have a wealth of splat books to cover just about anything. For world building games, involving followers, castle construction, and the simulationist stuff 3rd ed is better (not neccessarily good as simulationist games go but way more than 4rth).

So it's a matter of weither you want to build with the huge amount of stuff from 3rd ed and have to chop out stuff left right and center, and houserule a lot. Or Go with 4rth ed and have to get creative with anything unsupported, and deal with a new ruleset of course which can itself take some work to understand.

Ultimately the choice is yours, and largely a matter of taste.

[Moff Chumley]

4th, in my opinion, makes makes it easier to import your own flavor, hence fleshing out your own world, because of the generic feel to it. Hand in hand with that is the fact that if your player wants to write his own class abilities, it's extremely easy, and very easy to balance. Same with monsters and traps. 4e doesn't in any way discourage roleplaying, but the rules focus on combat. I'm fine with this, because roleplaying shouldn't HAVE rules (aside from rolling the occasional d20, but in noncombat situations, do you really need a table for most things?)

So, here's another vote for 4e.

[Shadow_Elf]

I also vote for 4e (though, to be fair, I've only played a few encounters in 3.5e and I never bought the rulebooks for it)

The best part about 4e (IMHO) is that everything is comparable mathematically. You know that a +2 to X is about the same as a +4 bonus to Y, etc. It is easier to compare your homebrew to exisitng things, as everything seems to have an unwritten, intrinsic value when it comes to creating a whole.

Also, it is easy to implement in any setting you want. Just move some fluff around, homebrew a few races, create a few legendary artifacts and a couple of monsters and you've got the basis for a unique campaign world.

[Tsotha-lanti]

How are complex worlds a 3.5 thing but not a 4.0 thing? With the rules focusing on challenges, you can build the rest of your game - the world - any way you like. (And you mostly don't have to design it around stuff like teleport, fabricate, etc.) The game frees me, as a DM, to make any kinds of plots and encounters I like, more than 3.5 allowed. I no longer have to reckon with hundreds of spells that can completely circumvent cool challenges and bulldoze through plots, intrigues, and dramatic situations.

I'm running Dragonlance in 4E, and the only thing that's changed is how combat etc. works. The exact same world, the same sourcebooks, the same kinds of adventures - everything works the same.

The bit about what you've heard is a lot of BS that people who don't like the game repeat, mostly. The alignment system doesn't force anything on you, any more than old editions - my players could play Dragonarmy officers if they wanted. (Sure, I'd need to create some good dragons for them to fight, but that takes all of 15-30 minutes per new age-color combination, and less for any type where you've already done at least one.)

[Yakk]

I usually DM. I like complex worlds but hate the mismatch between classes. I tend to start everyone at level 3 to 5 in 3.5 to get everyone out of melee dominance and usually try to end them before everyone gets to level 15 to prevent magic dominance. I like lots of skills and I make my players think and have lots of non-combat situations.

The (approximate) range 4 to 8 was the "sweet spot" that 4e D&D was designed to emulate, probability distribution and power balance wise.

It isn't perfect.

4e is more of a heroic fantasy genre engine: the rules in 4e are about how to pace things.

3.5 mixes that with a reality simulator.

So 4e monster stat blocks contain what you need to create a combat opponent that generates an interesting fight. If you want a 4e monster to have a power outside of combat for plot purposes, you simply dictate it does. On purpose, such powers and details are left out.

Players are both a combat engine, and a set of non-combat capabilities -- skills, attributes, equipment and rituals they know.


I hear that 4.0 has lots of balancing but there is still some classes that are not fully ready at level 1 and that casters still start to take over at higher levels.

I cannot think of a level 1 class that isn't 'ready'.

There are a handful of relatively minor balance issues. Many of them have been patched, because they relied on single powers that where not quite "tight" enough designed.

A ranger, built right, has a chance of doing too much damage in a single round.
A wizards, built right, has a chance of chain-stunning a high-level solo for too long at high levels.


I hear that the skill list is slashed.

Yes. There are fewer skills, with the idea that each skill is 'about as broad'. So instead of having a separate Jump and a Climb skill, there is one skill called 'athletics'. Instead of a separate Hide and Move Silently skill, there is one skill called 'stealth'.

Really, the skill list in 4e is much better than the 3e skill list.

Skill mechanics have gone from a point-based system to a "you either are trained, or not". Note that in 3e, most people maxed almost all of their skills for their level -- so the difference is more cosmetic than anything. In 4e, a trained skill is 'auto-maxed' for your level.


I hear that the alignment system has been "fixed" (I never saw it as broken) but the game now sort-of forces you to be "good".

The 4e base assumption is that your players are neutral through lawful good.

They removed LN, LE, NG, NE, CN, CG alignments. Well, not really -- they merged them.

NN/LN/CN can be covered by their Unaligned alignment.
NG/CG is covered by their Good alignment.
LE/NE is covered by their Evil alignment.


I hear that it is combat focused and the "role-play" is limited.
Barring skill challenges (which are a crufty system, but good inspiration), there aren't many "role-play" mechanics in 4e. I said mechanics, and I meant it.

Roleplay doesn't need mechanics, other than when there is a conflict between what you want to do and what the universe you are roleplaying allows.

4e has combat mechanics, has out-of-combat ritual (ie, spell) mechanics, has skill mechanics, and has a structure for an involved out-of-combat challenge that uses skills to attempt to defeat it (skill challenges).

3e has combat mechanics and skill mechanics. It uses the same mechanics for in-combat and out-of-combat spells (note that this leads to some of the economy-crash cases, ie wall of iron makes more gold in iron than it costs in gold dust to cast...)


So now to my question; should I just stay with 3.5 with all it's broken stuff or should I get 4.0 and homebrew it out the wazoo to get that "complex world" feel that I like?

The world itself can be as complex as you want -- but 4e doesn't produce the rules that define how the world works, if that makes sense.

Neither does 3e, really -- as it has no rules for the economic impact of a large-scale gold drop after the heroes come back from killing the dragon.

4e attempts to cover conflict between the players and the world, and provides tools for the DM to use to deal with this conflict (skill challenges, combat, rituals) in a mechanics based manner, instead of just fiat.

[Knaight]

As for the skills, some of them have been merged together well, some not so well. For instance Acrobatics is Balance and Tumble, and Stealth is Move Silently, and Hide. Those are good merges. Athletics is Jump, Climb, and Swim. That isn't a good idea, mostly due to the whole climb and swim thing. That and jump could just be put under strength already, or in some cases dex. That said its pretty easy to modify the skill list in either game.

[Yakk]

Meh. If you want someone who doesn't swim:
Cannot Swim: Skill Trait
Gain a +1 bonus to all Athletics rolls that do not involve swimming. Get a -5 penalty to all Athletics rolls that involve swimming.

That took all of 3 seconds to homebrew, 2 of which involved typing it out...

[Knaight]

I just split the skill. Took even less time.

[Isomenes]

Actually EE, I hate "combat only" games. I love making my players have to use their minds and role-play and I love them having to invest at least some picks in skills to help them outside of battle. I've read some of your posts as well as others. That's why I'm asking if the fixes in 4.0 are worth the simplifications.

My group has been running a very heavily non-combat 4E game, and the ruleset has provided for us in every instance what we want to do. EE does have his bias, but in no way mistake it for fact. :smallwink:

[monty]

Meh. If you want someone who doesn't swim:
Cannot Swim: Skill Trait
Gain a +1 bonus to all Athletics rolls that do not involve swimming. Get a -5 penalty to all Athletics rolls that involve swimming.

That took all of 3 seconds to homebrew, 2 of which involved typing it out...

If you typed all of that in two seconds, then I can think of some good careers for you.

[Yakk]

I just split the skill. Took even less time.
But now, people who want to deal with traps or pick pockets are strictly worse off.

[monty]

But now, people who want to deal with traps or pick pockets are strictly worse off.

He didn't say split all the skills. Just that one.

[Knaight]

Yeah, just that one. Well that and I split thievery apart into "locks and traps" and theft. And everyone gets 1 more trained skill than normal to make up for it. For two different characters, basically I allow splitting a skill however much the player wants it, and people usually split skills up. 2 splits is another trained.

[Vortling]

To the OP: I recommend asking your players how much they enjoy high movement tactical fantasy combat. That's what 4e does well. Everything else you may want to do with the system falls squarely into "Rule 0" situations. If you're looking for anything else there are lots of better systems.

[Kurald Galain]

To the OP... You hear a lot of things and most of it is exaggerated either way.

3E has more complex worlds, by virtue of having been around longer. This will likely be fixed in a year or two. But there isn't any particular reason why you couldn't use a 3E world in a 4E setting.

Level 1-30 in 4E corresponds roughly to level 5-12 in 3E. Weaker or more world-shatteringly powerful characters are not supported. This is by design, as 5-12 (or thereabouts) was considered the "best part" of 3E, at least by the WOTC design team.

4E has less skills and a stronger focus on combat. If you want lots of skills and non-combat situations, it may not be the best system for your playstyle.

4E is more balanced, by design intent. The primary way of achieving this is by making classes and attacks and so forth more alike. All classes are "fully ready at level 1". I haven't heard conclusive evidence that anything in particular takes over at higher level, except that a certain level-30 (!) cleric power is considered overpowered. Not that most campaigns will ever get there...

The skill list is slashed, yes, although arguably 3.5 (and especially 3.0) has a few superfluous skills. More importantly, in 3.5 it's possible for a character to specialize and become much better in a skill than anyone else; in 4E, skill is mostly dependent on level, which means that all moderate-to-high level characters can use pretty much every skill. To compensate for this, cliffs automatically become steeper as you level up. This is a matter of personal preference - for comparison, in White Wolf games you can become near-superhumanly expert in some skill at the beginning, and you don't really level up period.

The alignment system is not so much fixed as removed - in that it no longer has mechanical bearing on the game. Instead of two axes, 9 combinations, there's now one axis with 5 points on it. Then again, there is widespread disagreement on whether 3.5 alignment was a good thing to begin with. Bottom line is that you can play either edition with the other edition's idea of alignment, or without alignment period.

Yes, the books suggest that you have to be good, because the game is heroic yadda yadda yadda. That's easily ignored if your playstyle is different.

4e is combat-focuesed, that's the whole point. Roleplay is as limited as you want it to be. The PHB is about 99% crunch so doesn't encourage much per se in the way of roleplaying, but then what you do between your encounters (a word which generally means "fights") and how long it takes you is up to your group.

So what you should do is try it once or twice to form your own opinion.

[Rockphed]

There are actually problems with playing evil characters in 4th edition, but only if they play an evil Cleric or Paladin. The evil Gods do not have Channel Divinity feats listed in the Players Handbook, so you would need to write your own, but you are playing in a custom world, so you would need to do that anyway.

[Erk]

Galain mostly speaks sense, but has perpetuated a few of the more commonly repeated myths about 4e.


4E has less skills and a stronger focus on combat. If you want lots of skills and non-combat situations, it may not be the best system for your playstyle.
I don't agree entirely; 4e does lack some noncombat skills, mainly craft, but for the most part it has no difficulty simulating noncombat situations in any way 3e can. The skills provided are plenty for the average RPer, unless you have characters trying to build boats from scratch or forge weapons in game a heck of a lot. Then you will need a bit of homebrew (but not a lot).


The skill list is slashed, yes, although arguably 3.5 (and especially 3.0) has a few superfluous skills. More importantly, in 3.5 it's possible for a character to specialize and become much better in a skill than anyone else; in 4E, skill is mostly dependent on level, which means that all moderate-to-high level characters can use pretty much every skill.
Actually, it's more that excelling in a skill depends on expending feats. With feats you can gain something like +8 in a skill (maybe more, I am not very fluent in epic/paragon feats yet). Since the highest level-dependent bonus is +15 for a level 30, a +8 is always going to be a vastly higher level than an untrained skill user gets. Just as in 3e, a focussed character will be far better at a given skill than an untrained one. The difference is mainly in the amount of bookkeeping.


To compensate for this, cliffs automatically become steeper as you level up. This is a matter of personal preference - for comparison, in White Wolf games you can become near-superhumanly expert in some skill at the beginning, and you don't really level up period.I'm sorry but this is some kind of weird urban legend. Nowhere I can find in the PHB or DMG does it say anything about DCs scaling with players. Just as in 3e, the Skills chapter details average DCs to accomplish goals.

Where the mistake lies is that higher level characters are expected to be presented with more difficult challenges. Just as a L20 faces far nastier monsters than a L1, a L20 is more likely to try to scale a sheer cliff face DC20+ than a L1 is. To the L1, such a cliff face would be presented as a barrier, not an obstacle to be overcome.


4e is combat-focuesed, that's the whole point. Roleplay is as limited as you want it to be. The PHB is about 99% crunch so doesn't encourage much per se in the way of roleplaying, but then what you do between your encounters (a word which generally means "fights") and how long it takes you is up to your group.

So what you should do is try it once or twice to form your own opinion.Not badly put; more to the point, the PHB mainly keeps its paws out of RP and devotes itself to combat related stuff. Likewise, your class dictates your combat abilities but isn't as related to what you can do during RP as it was in 3e. Some find this frustrating, others find it liberating (Why, exactly, must my fighter devote so much developmental time if I want him to understand the principles of magic?).

My final advice is, give 4e a readthrough and try it out with your friends in a simple one-off game. Don't form your opinions just from the books either; I was very leery until I actually tried the game. You may be very pleasantly surprised!

[Tsotha-lanti]

My final advice is, give 4e a readthrough and try it out with your friends in a simple one-off game. Don't form your opinions just from the books either; I was very leery until I actually tried the game. You may be very pleasantly surprised!

Excellent post, and a conclusion that I can agree with (and an experience that mirrors my own; I disliked the idea of the game immensely, but found the practice of it far preferrably to older editions).

[SeeKay]

Ok. I'm starting to get a full picture of 4.0...

The descriptions of the PBH being focused on combat are apparently over-rated. It's just focused on the battle and lets the RP happen.

It sounds like I'll have to split or homebrew a few of the thief skills to allow for more diverse rogues, but I do love that hide and move silent are one roll. Plus, I will have to add ship building, weapon making and a few other "craft" skills (Yes. They do come up often in my games).

Can monsters still have classes (and are those classes "PC-level" classes, if they can)? One thing I liked about 3.X was that if you saw a kobold, you really didn't know if it was a lvl-1 warrior or a lvl-15 fighter/cleric/blackguard, all you knew was that it was short and yipped a lot.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Ok. I'm starting to get a full picture of 4.0...

The descriptions of the PBH being focused on combat are apparently over-rated. It's just focused on the battle and lets the RP happen.

It sounds like I'll have to split or homebrew a few of the thief skills to allow for more diverse rogues, but I do love that hide and move silent are one roll. Plus, I will have to add ship building, weapon making and a few other "craft" skills (Yes. They do come up often in my games).

Can monsters still have classes (and are those classes "PC-level" classes, if they can)? One thing I liked about 3.X was that if you saw a kobold, you really didn't know if it was a lvl-1 warrior or a lvl-15 fighter/cleric/blackguard, all you knew was that it was short and yipped a lot.

1) Rogues don't actually need to be split. A lot of the "super rogue" powers you normally would get from high skill values are now Utility powers. Since a given Rogue can only take 1 Utility per Utility Level, there is plenty of scope for specialization. And don't forget Skill Focus!

Plus, certain skill combinations make for different rogues:
- Trapfinders: Perception, Dungeoneering, and Thievery
- Second Story Men: Acrobatics & Stealth
- Scouts: Athletics & Stealth
- Con Artists: Bluff & Diplomacy

2) Crafts are best handled as Feats that follow the Ritual Casting rules; you can just build most things for market price, but if it's really necessary to make a roll, make a skill check based off of Ability + 1/2 LV + 5. You can make the DCs to suit your game, but Profession Skills are just not worth it, IMHO.

3) Monsters are far more diverse in 4e. There is no "kobold" - there are many different basic builds of kobolds with different inherent powers. If you want to customize them further, you can add a Template on them (this includes Class Templates) or you can futz around with them using the very-handy rules in the DMG.

[The New Bruceski]

3) Monsters are far more diverse in 4e. There is no "kobold" - there are many different basic builds of kobolds with different inherent powers. If you want to customize them further, you can add a Template on them (this includes Class Templates) or you can futz around with them using the very-handy rules in the DMG.

I just wanted to emphasize this. There are DMG/MM guidelines to not only add classes/templates onto monsters, but to scale them up/down in level (and there is discussion on the limitations of such things). You can't easily make a level 1 kobold into a Level 30 Elite, but it's possible to provide a challenge for the players should they stumble upon a "hidden tribe" of extra-tough kobolds at level 7 or so.

[Zaeron]

Several notes on the topic of splitting skills, etc.

The skill system, as written, is absolutely beautiful in my eyes. I choose to view them as a 'set' of skills that come together. I.E. Hiding and Moving Silently form the Stealth set of skills. By the same token, picking pockets, concealing weapons, picking locks, and disabling traps all fall under 'thievery'. One could argue that rogues are 'not diverse', because most of them will take thievery, but I'd like to offer a counterpoint.

As a DM, I always got real excited when I heard there was going to be a rogue - I could finally use all those cool traps! But... what if my rogue didn't take Disable Device, Pick Lock AND Search? Well... then all those cool traps just got a lot more dangerous.

But not every rogue has an 18 int and is human.. not every rogue can afford to invest in three separate skills that will all probably come into play. Now, all a trap finding rogue really needs is Perception and Thievery - both skills which he will use far more often than you might normally use search and disable device. Instead of investing 3 of his 9-10 skill points per level in Search, Disable Device and Pick Lock, now he's just marking Thievery as a trained skill, one of the.. five, I believe? That he gets.

On the flip side, it is very, very easy to add additional uses to skills, or create new skills. For example, I'm the kind of player who always took forgery - and always tried to use it. I was that guy who copied orders when we dressed up as guardsmen for the evil Baron Von Evilguy, forging his signature so we could get in, etc. But on the whole, forgery was a terrible skill. It was a big investment for little return. Now, it 'doesn't exist'. However, a simple intelligence check with a bonus based on level and possibly some modifiers as appropriate, and bam, I have my forgery check.

D&D 4th ed isn't 'dumbed down', it's streamlined. Unnecessary rules have been removed, and little used rules have also been removed. But what people don't see is that the system has become much easier to modify. Does your rogue hate his level 5 encounter powers? It takes maybe 5 minutes to create an encounter power that suits him. Does he hate all the available paragon paths? Half an hour's thought can create a new one. Are all the monsters inappropriate for your situation? There's a handy, comprehensive guide you can follow that is very helpful.

I hear the arguement frequently that these things should be in the base book - that because they're not there, the books aren't as complete as 3.5 was, less comprehensive. I disagree, simply because I often found that 3.5 was comprehensive in ways that were superfluous, and not detailed enough in areas that I needed detail. Thus, I often had to homebrew 3.5 anyway.

Thing is, homebrewing 4.0 is easy. In 3.5, creating a prestige class was a nightmare. Was it properly balanced? Did it have too many dead levels? How would it compare to the other players in the group? How would it compare to the straight fighter 8 of the group? Oh god, why won't that fighter 8 take another class, wtf!

Monster creation? What CR was that monster you threw at your party last week? I don't know. You don't either! Good luck making sense of him. Oh, and that CR 4 kobold wizard you just threw at your party? He's going to kill half of them.

4.0 simplifies many aspects of homebrew in the nicest possible ways. The monster creation rules, while not perfect, are fairly comprehensive and well written. In fact, most of the 'broken' monsters I've seen so far are examples of monsters that didn't follow the monster creation rules (usually by ignoring the damage guidelines. That's a real common way to end up with overpowered monsters in the MM.)

On top of that, creating new things for your players is a beautiful, wonderful experience. It takes maybe an hour to create a paragon path. It takes ten minutes to create a power. Even if your player was absolutely dead set on playing a dual wielding rogue, it would be possible to give him what he wanted in the form of rogue powers related to dual wielding.

I'm not saying that it doesn't take work - it does. But a lot of times, when creating 3.5 content, I had a real feeling of... stumbling around in the dark. Maybe this ability was balanced. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe this would be good, maybe it would suck. Maybe this monster would be a TPK, maybe it would die in one round. 4.0 removes a lot of that, and makes being a DM much easier, in my eyes.

[Kurald Galain]

The descriptions of the PBH being focused on combat are apparently over-rated. It's just focused on the battle and lets the RP happen.
No, the PHB can accurately be described as focusing almost entirely on combat. The game is as focused as you want it to be.


Plus, I will have to add ship building, weapon making and a few other "craft" skills (Yes. They do come up often in my games).
If you do, you should probably give characters extra skill slots; otherwise people have to nerf themselves to become able to craft. This, incidentally, is also the problem with the rogue's "high skill value" powers - if you take them you are unable to take certain other powers that tend to come into play far more often. It's either "become better at picking pockets once per day" or "become more mobile in every combat", things like that.

[Yakk]

The skill list is slashed, yes, although arguably 3.5 (and especially 3.0) has a few superfluous skills. More importantly, in 3.5 it's possible for a character to specialize and become much better in a skill than anyone else; in 4E, skill is mostly dependent on level, which means that all moderate-to-high level characters can use pretty much every skill. To compensate for this, cliffs automatically become steeper as you level up. This is a matter of personal preference - for comparison, in White Wolf games you can become near-superhumanly expert in some skill at the beginning, and you don't really level up period.

To be clearer -- your edge over your fellow players can easily grow, but it doesn't get to the point that any challenge that you have a < 100% chance of pulling off, they have a 0% chance of pulling off.

I interpret the "1/2 level bonus" of a physically weak Wizard when making a Jump roll to be .. the Wizard is cheating, and using a tad of relatively mundane magic. It generates the same result, causes a cooler image, and solves the "I don't want my weak wizard to be able to jump over a chasm".

It isn't that cliffs get harder to climb -- but rather, at higher levels, only harder to climb cliffs are worth mentioning as obsticles, and at lower levels the cliffs would be an impossible barrier instead of a challenge.



Level 1-30 in 4E corresponds roughly to level 5-12 in 3E. Weaker or more world-shatteringly powerful characters are not supported. This is by design, as 5-12 (or thereabouts) was considered the "best part" of 3E, at least by the WOTC design team.

That's mechanically more than thematically. Level 1 through 10 characters are "heroic" -- ie, from a talented young wizard, through to the best warrior in an entire army.

Level 11 through 20 are "Paragon" -- these people do acts that gives them renoun over the entire world.

Levels 21 through 30 are "Epic" -- at this scale, you travel the universe, shacke the foundations of reality, and 5 of you can challenge a lesser diety.

At the same time, you aren't casting chain-contingency planar creation gate with a side order of "destroy all life within 100 miles" spells.


I don't agree entirely; 4e does lack some noncombat skills, mainly craft, but for the most part it has no difficulty simulating noncombat situations in any way 3e can. The skills provided are plenty for the average RPer, unless you have characters trying to build boats from scratch or forge weapons in game a heck of a lot. Then you will need a bit of homebrew (but not a lot).

I mean, the mechanics for Profession and Craft in the PHB of 3e sucked. :-) If NPCs followed those rules, the world economy was crap. They where basically an after-thought.


Since the highest level-dependent bonus is +15 for a level 30, a +8 is always going to be a vastly higher level than an untrained skill user gets. Just as in 3e, a focussed character will be far better at a given skill than an untrained one. The difference is mainly in the amount of bookkeeping.

Note that the ratio between bonuses ... is meaningless in a d20 vs target number situation. What matters is the difference between bonuses.


The descriptions of the PBH being focused on combat are apparently over-rated. It's just focused on the battle and lets the RP happen.

There is, as noted, a skill challenge system in the DMG. It is pretty rough, but if you run with it and play with it, you can create some neat encounters.

The basic idea is to produce a challenge, and determine how hard it is to fix. Each skill success is 1 unit of progress towards overcoming the challenge.

Have some consequences for failure that are pre-planned (ie, after 3 failures, the Kobold guards spot you, and go and rally the fort -- or, after each failure, you lose a healing surge from the overwealming heat, etc). Have some ballpark DCs set up for skills you expect players to find useful. Allow players to improv something else that might progress towards solving the problem.

Give players (and yourself) some narritive control over what happens, beyond your basic idea you prepared.

With consequences for failure, mechanics for how hard it is (both in terms of DC, and number of successes), this means that your non-combat encounter mechanical grounding like a combat encounter does.

And by presuming multiple successes to defeat it, and possibly consequences if you aren't fast (the Duke doesn't have much time: the players have 3 minutes to convince the Duke of their plan to get the golden chicken (they are told the Duke is busy, and be brief), and you decided that they need 10 successes total between them to pull it off.)


3) Monsters are far more diverse in 4e. There is no "kobold" - there are many different basic builds of kobolds with different inherent powers. If you want to customize them further, you can add a Template on them (this includes Class Templates) or you can futz around with them using the very-handy rules in the DMG.

*nod*. The base type of a Kobold is the role the Kobold plays in the encounter, and not the race. That role is more important to the Kobold's design.

So a Kobold Slinger will look more like an Orc Spearthrower than it will look like a Kobold Dragonshield.

As monster mechanics are pared down to what you would need for a single encounter, building encounters is easier in 4e than 3e. The mechanics presume that you are going to be throwing about as many monsters at the players as there are players (with rules for what to do when you want more or less -- minions, elites and solos).

The balancing mechanic used isn't perfect (fire beatles, drake swarm, etc), but it is better than CR.


Thing is, homebrewing 4.0 is easy. In 3.5, creating a prestige class was a nightmare. Was it properly balanced? Did it have too many dead levels? How would it compare to the other players in the group? How would it compare to the straight fighter 8 of the group? Oh god, why won't that fighter 8 take another class, wtf!

To be fair, building a new complete class in 4e is hard. It would be like building a new spellcaster with it's own list of unique spells. :-)

Modding a class, turning a Paladin into a Death Knight, is easier.


4.0 simplifies many aspects of homebrew in the nicest possible ways. The monster creation rules, while not perfect, are fairly comprehensive and well written.
*nod*, learn the monster creation rules. Check your MM monsters against them. Throwing 5 level 1 Fire Beatles against a level 1 party ... will kill everyone. Dead! And if you read the monster creation rules, the fire beatle entry ... well, it looks like they did a typo. Heh.


Plus, I will have to add ship building, weapon making and a few other "craft" skills (Yes. They do come up often in my games).
In a Dragon article, they implemented craft skills as a character background feature. It let you, well, craft things. :-)

[nagora]

*nod*. The base type of a Kobold is the role the Kobold plays in the encounter, and not the race. That role is more important to the Kobold's design.
By "role" here, do you mean "combat role"? I think it's important, given that the "role" in "roleplaying" does not mean "combat role", to be clear.


Meh. If you want someone who doesn't swim:
Cannot Swim: Skill Trait
Gain a +1 bonus to all Athletics rolls that do not involve swimming. Get a -5 penalty to all Athletics rolls that involve swimming.

I did actually LOL at that. Do you honestly think that makes ANY sense in-character? Why would anyone get +1 to athletics rolls because they can't swim?! Do they also get +1 if they can't sing? What about computer programming, surely in a fantasy world not being able to do that must be worth +2 at least!

[Tsotha-lanti]

By "role" here, do you mean "combat role"? I think it's important, given that the "role" in "roleplaying" does not mean "combat role", to be clear.

Combat role, yes. I don't see how race generally would pertain to non-combat role?


I did actually LOL at that. Do you honestly think that makes ANY sense in-character? Why would anyone get +1 to athletics rolls because they can't swim?! Do they also get +1 if they can't sing? What about computer programming, surely in a fantasy world not being able to do that must be worth +2 at least!

You're right. And why the crap would a blind character in GURPS be better at something else? Disadvantages shouldn't give you points to spend elsewhere!

It's called mechanical balancing. If a character is bad at something, they're better at something else.

I personally like the idea of splitting skills and getting a new trained skill for every two splits. Doesn't seem too unbalanced.

[AKA_Bait]

Busy at work so apologies for not really reading anything much past the OP. Once people starting talking about psionics I kinda zoned out...

I'd go with 4e. It sounds like you prefer your games aimed at the 'sweet spot' of 3.x that 4e was specifically designed to inhabit. 4e is better balanced, although that potentially comes at the cost of feeling homogenous. I don't get that feeling from it, but others do. Tactical combat is a much bigger part of the game in 4e than 3.x and part of what makes each of the classes feel different comes from the variation of effects their powers produce in combat.

Some will disagree with me (EE I'm looking at you) but I don't think 4e will inhibit roleplaying. The one thing I'd suggest ignoring in the system, or more accuratley doing differently, are skill challenges. If you do decide to use them, be sure you look up the recent eratta.

[nagora]

Combat role, yes. I don't see how race generally would pertain to non-combat role?
How could race not pertain to non-combat role? I'm confused by this question.


You're right. And why the crap would a blind character in GURPS be better at something else? Disadvantages shouldn't give you points to spend elsewhere!
Well, insofar as point-buy systems are crap, no they shouldn't.


It's called mechanical balancing. If a character is bad at something, they're better at something else.
That's ludicrous. History is jammed full of people, including sailors, who could not swim; did they all have +1 acrobatics? Are land-locked peoples inherently better at handstands?

Are you saying that a character should have a reward for every skill they don't have?! That's a bit mad.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Are you saying that a character should have a reward for every skill they don't have?! That's a bit mad.

You're just trolling now. Enjoy, I guess.

[nagora]

You're just trolling now. Enjoy, I guess.

I'm not trolling, you were supporting the position that NOT having a skill (swim) means a character should be rewarded with a bonus to some other unrelated skill (acrobatics). I know 4e groups swimming and athletics together, but even allowing for that slight silliness, the idea is still bizarre and counter intuitive and carries the implication that people who can't swim are better at jumping, running and standing on their hands. GURPS is indeed full of nonsense like that, but that's no defence.

[AKA_Bait]

How could race not pertain to non-combat role? I'm confused by this question.


I believe this is talking about the mechanical design of the monster, which is really all the designers have purview over in terms of how the game is really played once the book ends up in a DM's hands. Certianly, character race will play a factor into their non-combat interactions but what that factor actually is (positive, negative, neutral, some mix thereof) is going to vary from setting to setting more than their mechanical role in combat is going to.

What I mean is this, kobolds are mechanically shifty and squirmy little reptile things that move around quite a lot in combat. The design reflects this. However, that combat characteristic doesn't really have any impact on how they are viewed in a given campaign setting. They could be viewd as those squirmy but reliable little guys that make up the Good King Bob's scouts/spies or they could be the evil little creatues that inhabit mines and set fire to all who enter. Whatever situational modifier their race will play in social interactions is going to be just that, situational to the game being played and shouldn't be reflected in the general mechanics where it can be avoided.

[DeathQuaker]

So now to my question; should I just stay with 3.5 with all it's broken stuff or should I get 4.0 and homebrew it out the wazoo to get that "complex world" feel that I like?


Well, obviously, you should play the game system that I like the best, even though you have no idea who I am and will probably never game with me. :smalltongue:

But in seriousness: have you GMed both of these systems before? What are YOU most comfortable running? Which system's rules do you know best? Do your players have a preference (Frex, I have players who just won't play if I offered to run 4E. Not that I want to run 4E, but still)?

These are the main issues you should be considering when deciding what to run.

As regards 3.x, you say you are worried about class balance. Now, honestly, will all due respect to my fellow Playgrounders, it doesn't matter what OTHER people here think about the class balance. What bothers YOU about it as GM, what actual problems have you had with it in actual real life gameplay? If you otherwise are drawn to 3.x--are there easy enough tacks you can take to make these problems a non-issue? (Frex, eliminating or tweaking problem spells, switching to or borrowing ideas from Pathfinder (http://www.paizo.com).) You've already tried limiting campaign levels--did that work for you? What problems were there with that?

As regards 4E, yes, many people feel it limits their roleplay. Having read the rules, do YOU feel as a GM that this would be a problem for you? Have you actually had this problem? Could you list examples of these problems and seek solutions to those particular issues rather than merely make assumptions that something might be problematic? Do your players have this problem? Are you a flexible enough GM that you know when to put the dice and the minis away and make sure people get their heads into their character and off of the battle grid? Do you feel that where the system could possibly be lacking (frex, hypothetically, maybe skill challenges don't work the way you think they should?) can you as a GM find either tweaks mechanically or seek roleplaying solutions that eliminate this problem?

In the end, it boils down to this: judging by the amount of homebrew you'd have to do for either system and by your players' tendencies, which system would be MORE FUN for you to run? :smallsmile:

[monty]

*nod*, learn the monster creation rules. Check your MM monsters against them. Throwing 5 level 1 Fire Beatles against a level 1 party ... will kill everyone. Dead! And if you read the monster creation rules, the fire beatle entry ... well, it looks like they did a typo. Heh.

I tried to find a picture of the Beatles with a flame photoshopped behind them, but my Google-fu failed me. Although I guess that would only be 4 Fire Beatles...

[Blackfang108]

Actually EE, I hate "combat only" games. I love making my players have to use their minds and role-play and I love them having to invest at least some picks in skills to help them outside of battle. I've read some of your posts as well as others. That's why I'm asking if the fixes in 4.0 are worth the simplifications.

I wouldn't call noncombat RP in 4e "simple."

Mechanically, it has been somewhat simplified, but the mechanics do not detract from complex situations.

I have had three all-day sessions with 4e. we've spent very little time on combat compared to RP.

there is nothing really missing from the "soft" skill list, except for Craft and Profession.

I tend to RP diplomacy instead of making checks, myself. (although I make the occasional one. being the "Face" of the group, I'm expected to use my +8 diplomacy occasionally.)

[SeeKay]

Sorry I took so long to get to this, College projects were due this week.


Well, obviously, you should play the game system that I like the best, even though you have no idea who I am and will probably never game with me. :smalltongue:

But in seriousness: have you GMed both of these systems before? What are YOU most comfortable running? Which system's rules do you know best? Do your players have a preference (Frex, I have players who just won't play if I offered to run 4E. Not that I want to run 4E, but still)?

I haven't bought 4.0 yet. I have versions 1, 2, 3.0 and 3.5 with a few of the 2, 3.0 and 3.5 extras. Before I invest another dime in D&D, I want to know if it's worth it to get the new edition.



As regards 3.x, you say you are worried about class balance. Now, honestly, will all due respect to my fellow Playgrounders, it doesn't matter what OTHER people here think about the class balance. What bothers YOU about it as GM, what actual problems have you had with it in actual real life gameplay? If you otherwise are drawn to 3.x--are there easy enough tacks you can take to make these problems a non-issue? (Frex, eliminating or tweaking problem spells, switching to or borrowing ideas from Pathfinder (http://www.paizo.com).) You've already tried limiting campaign levels--did that work for you? What problems were there with that?

The main problem was "usefulness". At low levels, the "tanks" took down the bad guys before anyone else could do anything. At high levels, the casters could mow the bad guys (and have the blood and gore cleaned up) before the tanks could draw their weapons. So half my party did nothing while the other half did all the work. Other problems were the "forced" class (aka, the Rogue. The ONLY class that could disarm all traps), races that had too many or too few limiters for their power (eventually they were disallowed) and lack of creativity in feat builds (I had 3 players that could change their character sheets without problems). I'm not "drawn" to any system, I'm just not made of money and would like to know if it's worth the cost to invest.


Are you a flexible enough GM that you know when to put the dice and the minis away and make sure people get their heads into their character and off of the battle grid? Do you feel that where the system could possibly be lacking (frex, hypothetically, maybe skill challenges don't work the way you think they should?) can you as a GM find either tweaks mechanically or seek roleplaying solutions that eliminate this problem?

I'm a good enough GM to know when to break out the books and when to put them aside. Personally, I hate the skill-vs-skill system in 3.x, but I haven't seen a good skill-v-skill system in any other game. Many times I'd have to look at everyone's skill level and just call it in my mind if the players would win or the NPCs (got to love DM screens).


In the end, it boils down to this: judging by the amount of homebrew you'd have to do for either system and by your players' tendencies, which system would be MORE FUN for you to run? :smallsmile:

Homebrews? Like adding 2 skill points/level (3 for humans) that can only be spent on craft/profession skills? Playing around with languages and races (ie: humans are 6 "sub-races" with the only difference being starting language and equipment). Having Sorcerers to choose a "blood-line" (the magic creature that gave them the spark of power they have now) and then randomly picking spells that fit that blood-line. Eliminating 'literacy' for some races that didn't emphasize education (wild elves, a few of the humans, most of the humanoids)....

There are lots more, but those were the basic ones. My players tendencies tend to be along the "suicidal" line (many sessions ended in some totally outrageous TPK with the new one starting with laughter and re-rolls), and if they are "dumb" enough to challenge something out of their league, I'll make sure it plays out like it should happen. Heck, they succeeded once out of... 18? ...20? ...times.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Oh hey, you're back.

So which did you choose? :smallbiggrin:

On Point
I think 4e will fit you well. The Decker Problem (AKA oh, the Rogue is bored... TRAP TIME!) is solved neatly while still giving all the classes areas where they shine, and the changes they made in the skill system will probably be a pleasant surprise.

First of all, for "skill vs. skill" checks (like negotiations) the DMG encourages just choosing DCs at the appropriate level instead of worrying about opposed checks. Furthermore, most formerly "opposed" checks (like spotting traps or hidden people) are now based off of the Passive Check (10 + Mod) unless a character/NPC is actively looking (such as "I check for traps" or "I look around for an ambush") which encourages the players to pay closer attention to the game rather than waiting for you to ask for Spot Checks.

Passive Knowledge checks are also neat, because they allow people with high ranks in a Knowledge to be assured that they will know a certain amount about the subject. Active Knowledge checks are reserved for specific questions.

So, I don't know what kind of homebrew you'll think you need, but personally, having used systems as different as Shadowrun and WoD, I've not seen a cleaner one.

Any other concerns?

[Yakk]

The main problem was "usefulness". At low levels, the "tanks" took down the bad guys before anyone else could do anything. At high levels, the casters could mow the bad guys (and have the blood and gore cleaned up) before the tanks could draw their weapons. So half my party did nothing while the other half did all the work. Other problems were the "forced" class (aka, the Rogue. The ONLY class that could disarm all traps), races that had too many or too few limiters for their power (eventually they were disallowed) and lack of creativity in feat builds (I had 3 players that could change their character sheets without problems). I'm not "drawn" to any system, I'm just not made of money and would like to know if it's worth the cost to invest.

There are 3 types of problems like this remaining in 4e.

1> One class does 10% to 20% more damage than another, when balance wise they should be the same.

2> A particular power or set of powers missed some important balancing concerns, which causes problems (including extremely high, or in some cases nigh-infinite, damage, or hard-to-break chain stun). Many of these have been errataed.

3> Some systematic problems (Ie, weapons are a tad too good compared to implement powers, but only a tad, and teleporting enemies up to do falling damage...)

But, barring the infinite damage loops (and the like) (the only remaining ones I'm aware of require a convoluted reading of die reroll powers *sigh*), these are problems of scale not of kind like those in 3e.


I'm a good enough GM to know when to break out the books and when to put them aside. Personally, I hate the skill-vs-skill system in 3.x, but I haven't seen a good skill-v-skill system in any other game. Many times I'd have to look at everyone's skill level and just call it in my mind if the players would win or the NPCs (got to love DM screens).

They wrote up an attempt at a better skill-vs-skill system in 4e called a "skill challenge", which is effectively a narrative technique to make a skill situation take longer than a single roll.

The math in the core 4e book ... is off. The errata ... is still off. But the core of the idea remains. Admittedly, it could be used in 3e. ;-)

In 4e, I'd implement an arm-wrestling contest as an opposed skill challenge.

Each player makes a skill check against the other's passive strength. Whoever wins gets a success, or eats an opponent's success if they have any.

Then you both make an endurance check against the passive strength of the other player (10+enemy str+1/2 enemy level), +1 for each round that has passed. You get a -2 penalty on all future strength checks for each endurance check failure.

That's a 'round' of arm wrestling. You repeat until someone gets 4 successes.

Players may choose to use something other than raw strength each round. Ie, they might try a Bluff vs Will, or a Thievery (slight of hand) vs Reflex, or a Arcana vs Fortitude (use a cantrip to create a distracting noise/smell/etc). Repeats of such tactics are less effective.

Viola -- you now have a real encounter based on one player arm-wrestling with an NPC, that doesn't fall down to the roll of a single d20. :-)

That is sort of what 4e skill challenges are like. They supposed to be used for traps, puzzles, chases, negotiations, etc.

[SeeKay]

Oh hey, you're back.

So which did you choose? :smallbiggrin:



Well, Finals are next week, so it'll be after that. Hopefully I'll be able to get a group together next quarter. This was an impossible quarter for all of us to have a day open. I am starting to like the fixes in 4.0, but I guess I'll still have to homebrew a few things to get the world right. Now all I have to do is get the money for a new set of books....

[Thrud]

Meh, I played the game for a couple of sessions. It felt like everything was padded. Too easy. Never any real danger. Then we met up with some critters called Needlefang Drake Swarms, and the party suffered a TPK. And we weren't even doing all that badly in the fight. It just seems to me that the so called vaunted balance of the new system just isn't there. The game is either a cakewalk, or TPK bait. Others have told me that it is just that one monster. TO which I have to reply 'so far'. Honestly the game set out to try to balance everything and in my experience here it hasn't. We were a tad bored with it to begin with, and then the whole party died. Where is the so called 'sweet spot' they claim this system was all about?

Oh well, that is just my opinion. But then D&D has never been my favorite system anyway.

[Kurald Galain]

It just seems to me that the so called vaunted balance of the new system just isn't there. The game is either a cakewalk, or TPK bait.

You're forgetting that "balance" means that "the PCs win". After all, they're supposed to be the heroes. "Balance" refers to every character making an equally useful contribution to said winning.

But I agree about the padding. Like I've said before, other than through character death, it is impossible in 4E to inflict the PCs with anything nasty that lasts longer than five minutes.

[Totally Guy]

But I agree about the padding. Like I've said before, other than through character death, it is impossible in 4E to inflict the PCs with anything nasty that lasts longer than five minutes.


There are some good diseases in the DMG. Not sure how easy they are to cure with heal checks but it's a decent mechanic which is easy to homebrew. It might even be possible to refluff a disease a "wound" and presto the guy keeps bleeding. Yeah yeah oberoni.

[RebelRogue]

Also, a few effects actually last longer than the common "save ends"!

[Tsotha-lanti]

But I agree about the padding. Like I've said before, other than through character death, it is impossible in 4E to inflict the PCs with anything nasty that lasts longer than five minutes.

How's that?

"You broke your leg in the fall. You've lost five healing surges and your maximum goes down by two until you get proper treatment. You're also slowed until you're treated and healed."

In fact, what with the concise conditions, it's pretty easy to inflict just about anything on the PCs.

[Kurald Galain]

"You broke your leg in the fall. You've lost five healing surges and your maximum goes down by two until you get proper treatment. You're also slowed until you're treated and healed."

As Glug says, "Yeah yeah oberoni."


Also, a few effects actually last longer than the common "save ends"!

Yeah, but those still don't last more than five minutes. To top it off, there's a low-level ritual that instantly removes any negative condition. Got a broken arm? Ritual. Mummy rot? Same ritual. Got brain-drained by a zombie? That ritual again. Done.

Seriously, it's obvious from the 4E ruleset that the design intent was that player characters are in top-notch condition pretty much all the time (barring the loss of a few surges or daily powers). Some of the design blogs even point that out. And why not? There are plenty of people who don't consider it fun to have their character suffer, even if it's only a little bit.

[Erk]

It's very true that 4e is a bit wussy if played like 3e. The trick is not to give your characters long periods of rest, once they learn the system. If they're romping through a dungeon, ensure that the dangers keep a-comin'. Ideally, even give them a few periods where their "short rests" are interrupted by traps, wandering critters, strange events that require their attention and break the rest, etc.

The top reason GM's are faced with "too easy" is because they're stuck in the earlier mindset that players need to be able to sleep after every encounter, so dungeons must be a long series of safe passages between dangerous rooms.

Second, 4e has numerous things that are easily tweaked flavourwise to make a more gritty game. One of the more popular: separate regular HP and bloodied HP. Bloodied HP cannot be cured by healing surges anymore (insert your own mechanic for healing it, eg. heals con mod per extended rest). Sure, it's homebrew, but the rules are already there; the retooling is simple and minor. I find that is the case with most 4e homebrew.

Back to OP: your homebrew rules sound alarmingly like mine for 3e, actually. If that's the case, I think you'll like 4e a lot. My campaign still has extensive house ruling (eg. the addition of "secondary skills", linked in my sig; the assumption that all characters are by default illiterate and can't swim, etc), but unlike 3e so far I haven't even had to even remind players of house rules: the system is so modular, they've remembered every rule I put on the table immediately, and my house rules document is only a few paragraphs of short notes.