The Red Death's page

Sure you could make your own horseshoes, but why would you? You can pay other people to do it while you are out doing what you do - ADVENTURE.

That's a very modern way of thinking. Not to take this too far, but I know many players I know, including myself, would think of that statement as misplace when talking about medieval fantasy.

Why does a cavalier make horseshoes? To understand and master everything that is part of horseriding. To be one with the specialty and develop true mastery. To learn and connect with the subject of study the way each subject of study tap into the each other. The same reason why a weapon master would forge his own weapon. And so on.

There's also the question of isolation, in a "PoL" setting where basically you will be totally secluded sooner or later. Would be a bummer then to not know how to fix a horseshoe or repair a bow, wouldn't you think?

I'm not saying you're "wrong". You are totally entitled to your opinion. I'm just trying to explain how many players could disagree with this.

_______

BTW, I too am unhappy with the potential expenditure of Skill Training to get more Interests/Expertise. Anyone would have an alternate advancement to propose, besides spending valuable feats on this?

What about...

You start with one Interest at level 1.

At each odd level of the heroic tier after level 1 (level 3, 5, 7 and 9), you may take another Interest or upgrade an Interest to an Expertise.

You can later choose to retrain these Interests/Expertises, at a rhythm of one Interest per level. Example: a fighter with Expert (heraldry) and Interest (metalwork) may choose to later retrain has Interest (heraldry) and Expert (metalwork), or Interest (heraldry), Interest (metalwork), Interest (painting), etc.

You basically can swich an Interest to another or downgrade an Expertise to an Interest to gain another Interest or upgrade one you already have to an Expertise, once per level.

Simpler, and completely independent of Skills.

I had an interesting conversation with one of my friends about 3E, 4E and modularity. My assertion was (and is) that 4E is far more modular than 3E, because 3E is integrated where 4E is modular.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this, based on the definition you have of modularity. How do you define "modularity", here?

That will help me understand. Thanks!

Oh, and singing is a CHA based power, if anything <(^_^)>

Oops. That was a brain fart on my part. LOL

Just an idea popping here...

You get to choose for your character 1 Interest at the beginning of the game (level 1).

An Interest is like a skill. It is associated with an Ability score, and to make checks with it, you use the 1/2 level + modifier equation.

An interest is a hobby, something that your character does/knows/is interested in besides adventuring. Any craft, any particular knowledge not covered by the existing skills can be covered by an Interest.

Interest (politics) INT
Interest (painting) DEX
Interest (singing) DEX (or WIS?)

And so on.

You can buy Skill Training as normal to acquire a new Interest.

If you spend a Skill Training in an interest you already have, it becomes an Expertise, adding +5 to the check equation.

Expert (heraldry) INT

For instance.

What do you guys think? Problem solved, for those who wanted more skills to play with?

I like 4E's Critical Hits, myself. It's much simpler than confirmation rolls. A broader array of Skills would be nice, but the mechanic is much simpler than Skill ranks as well (I actually liked that part of PRPG Alpha 1. Too bad it was nerfed).

These are the two that come to my mind.

I would run 4E to see how it fares in actual play. I'd probably start a game with beginners to RPGs to really feel the difference with previous editions, and decide if I'd go on based on that experience.

I'm sure I will support PRPG financially. After, whether I run it straight out of the box or run an Experimental Might game down the road, I do not know.

Wow. Just... "wow".

Ernest. Just my thanks on this one. This is one complete overview. Not devoid of subjectivity, but what critic isn't? That's an excellent piece.

Please do the same for the MM and DMG, if you feel like it.

One of my gripes with some of the older editions was that easy access to too much information gathering magic meant that a lot of neat stories could not really be told.

And this is a totally understandable point of view. I actually share it.

What I really think would have been great is a "High Level Handbook" that would have decrypted all the pitfalls of high level and not-so-high-level spells to be able to create adventures that fit the D&D paradigm of Third Ed.

It never happened. That's more than a missed opportunity. That's dumb to have missed such an opportunity for a valuable product.

I saw this thread on ENWorld and thought this was an occasion for us to have a nice hypothetic conversation here on Paizo.com.

I think I wouldn't change a thing in 4E. Yet. I want to see how it plays out extensively before houseruling stuff I don't like.

But since I have to choose, so far, alignment doesn't seem to have too much impact on the powers, so I'd bring back Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good, I guess. I could survive without that houserule, though.

What about you?

Merisiel is available for preorder NOW

Thanks! Now, if I could get my hands on Ezren... ;-)

I agree. The marketing of WotC vs. marketing of Paizo is like comparing night and day. Kudos to Paizo.

Now Pathfinder shouldn't become the "alternate 4E". It should stay 3.5 to provide any valuable alternative to 4E. Which means, if rules change so much from 3.5 as to not ensure backwards compatibility, Pathfinder becomes pointless, or rather, "just another d20 iteration", and we have literally hundreds of these.

Not good.

There are actually many unbalancing effects to wounds/vitality, and it makes the game more complicated in practice. More cons than pros, really. The play's the thing.

I noticed Valeros and Seoni are on back order. When are they going to be back in?

Also, any idea when the other Iconics will become available as minis?

Sure, it's nice to have those sales, no doubt about it.

To be fair, selling core books is the point of the marketing as it relates to D&D. If core books sell, that's the real bottom line, since supplements are, in any case or figure, selling way less than them. That's why 4E is moving towards a "one PHB, MM, DMG a year" model. Everything is core. Everything is supposed to sell at least better.

We'll see.

I suspect it will be successful, not because more people will buy the supplements, but because hardcore fans will buy more books.

so magic use and options aren't tactical?

I didn't say that. But the expenditure of a spell slot is hardly as tactical as creating and maintaining a situation in which Knock could be used without interruption, for instance.

I would agree they're less useful now, but perhaps that is sort of the point?

I agree that was the point. They're not "deus ex machina" anymore (solving the situation out of thin air, without drawbacks), but rather game elements that bring their share of advantages vs. flaws (tactical considerations to be able to use them) to the game table instead.

I see the change as an opportunity for a more nuanced tactical game play here, not a failing.

I have heard from a more than a few people here that Wizards has abandoned their fans with 4e.

How is that even vaguely possible given the dramatic pace of sales - outstripping even WotC's predictions.

The implication that 4e does not appeal to existing players is not born out by the sales figures an the general enthusiasm on many online fora (Paizo being a clear exception). Heck - my FLGS has a long preorder list even though they are not discounting the books. (...)

Just because a number of individuals here on these boards believes that WotC has abandoned its fanbase does not mean that they have. Sales of 4e are set to surpass 3e and the game has not even been released.

I don't think that's just a number of individuals on these boards, sadly.

This is one instance I think where we should carefully consider how 4E has been introduced to the public, and the fans of 3E in particular, as opposed to the contents of the game itself.

WotC's marketing has been nothing short of insulting in that regards by basically saying to its fan "the game you've been playing for some time and buying from us is so broken it's actually the antithesis of fun. Here, have our fourth edition. You'll have fun, now. Really!"

This was pitiful.

Cumulate this with the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon mags, the DDI which many older gamers are reluctant to, and you've got a recipe for rebellion from a sizable portion of the fan base.

Now, take some of the changes introduced in 4E itself which are not understood as anything but change for the sake of change for some fans, like the exclusion of the Great Wheel, the modification of elves, the half orc and gnome not there, and you get even more of a response.

It's not surprising at all, really.

As for sales figures, fans of the game will buy the game because they want to know what it is, even if they have strong negative feelings about it. This does not mean that 4E will be widely played, though. Give it some time. If supplements don't sale well, if we see hints of modifications to the system, even a .5 edition of sorts (they would never call it that way because they said there wouldn't be a .5, but that wouldn't stop them from creating one named differently if it helps sales), changes in design direction, then you can bet the game is not as successful as WotC thought it would be.

I do not see 4e as any more or less tactically driven than any other RPG with a similar amount of mechanics.

I think you do have a point to say that many RPGs don't focus much more than 4E on role-playing itself. Warhammer, previous editions of D&D, etc. come to my mind.

There are games that focus much more on role-playing though. I mentioned Changeling: The Lost as an example, and I would hardly consider it "rules light". That's often a misconception about WW games.

Its mechanics are often closely related to what the player role-plays, and how he ends up role-playing his character though (the connection to faerie, for instance, affects how you feel about the world around you, how you connect with it, how of a loner you feel, etc).

Same could be said about relationships between Blood Potency, clan, disciplines and the way you actually role-play your character in Vampire: The Requiem.

The big difference I see, here, is the level of abstraction that is up a notch in 4E. The fact that level would affect the confidence of your character, his way he relates to those around him, his place in the world, and most importantly, how to decline this in many different ways while building and developing your character, are not the focus of 4E, whereas it actually is in a game like Changeling.

It probably has to do with ideas like "it's not what you are that matters, it's what you do" that influenced this in 4E like it did in Iron Heroes before. It sounds like a cool idea at first, but when you focus on what a character does, you effectively focus on the rules (particularly when differences between options are subtle) at the expense of anything that is not covered by rules.

So while you do have a point as it relates to previous editions of D&D, I do not think you can generalize to "any other RPG".

I do believe that 4E is more tactical than any other previous edition, though. Its focus is more on the neat tricks you do while playing the game rather than immerse yourself in make-believe. It's the powers, the feats, the "did I mark this guy? Do I use my Daily Prayer now or next round?" aspects that the game thrives to make exciting. It's its focus. Not how to role-play a character in the most exciting ways or come up with the most interesting character concepts.

I believe that 3e encouraged the players to think more outside of the box, honestly, and focussed more on character concepts than tactical roles by the concept of prestige classes, the selection of feats, the repartition of skill points, and these dozens of tiny things that would give volume to a character. By contrast, in 4e, you have a handful of powers of each type, feats that are not nearly as defining as they were in 3e, limited, framed PRCs in paragon paths and epic destinies. And roles are very clearly defined, which seems to say "don't think outside of the box, but create a character that fits its role first". It is more constraining, in the name of playability and game play, I think.

PS: sorry for the nebulous post. I kept editing while ideas kept coming in. I hope it's still understandable.

This is a simple result of the fact that so many people on these boards (not you) are trashing 4E in comparison to 3E. There are multiple posts to the effect of "I'll stick with 3E because 4E removed all elements of role-play from D&D"

Not that this is a direct quote. I'm sure I wouldn't have to look far to find one if you want. My assumption has always been that this is essentially the false comparison that the OP was questioning.

I see. Now, for the record, I consider the "I'll stick with 3E because 4E removed all elements of role-play from D&D" to be factually wrong. Role-play does have a place in 4E. I just happen to think it is also factually wrong to pretend it is on the forefront of the game's design.

I am sure there are more. I am no cheerleader - I just can't stomach disinformation.

Thanks. It's just that the cheerleader aspect is so overwhelming, it's hard to not consider your posts as trolls sometimes. Really. I'm trying to inform you, not offend you. I'm sorry if it does.

Now, I hope you don't consider my posts to be "disinformation". Do you? Maybe that's part of the problem.

How does the fact, or lack thereof, that any previous edition would encourage RP more or less than 4E discuss the merits of 4E itself? I just don't understand the eagerness to compare editions with regards to the arguments at hand.

Crosswiredmind, specifically: I saw you complain to feel "unwelcome" here. I just want to say that as of this moment, I have not read you make any compromise on any criticism about 4E yet. Ever. I bet this participates to the reactions many have towards your posts, because I know it makes me feel like talking to a wall who basically would do and write anything to defend 4E. Why are you doing this? What's the point?

What do you dislike about 4E, for instance? I'd like to know. A new thread for you to create, perhaps? A bit of nuance would be welcome and would greatly add to the credibility of your arguments (in my eyes at leat. Not that it matters much, but at least you're aware of it, now).

It seems like people who started with 3.X are more inclined to feel that you need to have RP rules to really have RP. At least, that's been my personal observation. I've had many of my best RP sessions using editions that don't have RP rules.

Just to precise, in case this refers partially to my arguments: my point that RP is not covered by rules isn't to say that because it wouldn't, it would not be RP. It is to point out that saying "role-playing isn't tactical" doesn't explain anything as to the intent and concepts behind the rules' design. It is at best suggested by design, and in this case, I don't see examples that would foster role-playing at the game table. If you have some as it pertains to 4e, with page references, I would be grateful. Really.

RP can be discussed at length in a Role-playing game, too. I would point out games such as Changeling: The Lost and other White Wolf games for such a point (and no, I'm not a big fan of "RP is superior to all" approach of the hardcore WW dicks).

And for the record, I started gaming with AD&D, First edition, back in the 80's.

I disagree. Rituals are not tactical. Most skills have plenty of non-tactical uses. Quests are not tactical. And most importantly roleplaying is not tactical.

1/ Rituals cover 20 pages at the end of the PHB. Among these pages, many rituals do have tactical uses. Silence, Water Walk, "View" rituals, among others.

2/ Skills have more tactical uses than not. The chapter is 13 pages long.
3/ Quests cover goals, not (tactical) means to reach that goal. I would argue that, in the hands of the wrong DM, quests can railroad and inhibit the side-treks that provide mundane role-playing encounters, as I was talking about in earlier posts on this thread. Rather than talking to the fool of the village to try to find out what's going on here, you have a clear idea of where to go, what to accomplish. There are of course some ways in which this inhibition does not happen! But again, what matters is what the noob does with these rules, not what veterans understand by virtue of being veterans.
4/ And most importantly, role-playing as such is not covered by rules mechanics. Role-playing is discussed in the books, but not to the extent tactical situations are. Not by a long shot.

Hence our disagreement here.

I just want to precise: I do not, repeat, do not think 4E sucks. It doesn't. It is a rules system that is tailored for a precise, tactical, gameplay, however, in which role-playing is not on the forefront, but rather a side dish. That's my point.

PS: Ergo, I disagree that role-playing has "no place" in 4E. That is way too much of an overstatement.

If all you ever read (or quote) is that one paragraph you will miss the larger point - fun is relative and you should play in whatever style your particular group defines as fun. They are being descriptive not prescriptive.

And by focusing on any quote alone, you miss the larger point of the conceptual design of 4E, which defines fun very narrowly as anything that is tactical, in essence. (Let alone the fact that you assume I read that passage alone in the first place - how is this supposed to make me feel respected and welcome in this debate?)

I mean, I don't mind debate, but in one case I don't quote and express a large point to be criticized for not doing so, and in the other I quote and get accused of not seeing the larger picture. It really leaves a bad taste of "4E can do no wrong" in my mouth.

Point is, 4E defines "fun" very much. After, anyone has the choice to like or dislike this definition as presented by the game itself - and there's no morally wrong choice to make, really.

What did you think? No one would want to talk about 4th edition at ENWorld?

No, that would have been naive. Of course people will talk about 4E. And of course, people can still talk about other systems. This is part of what I meant: it's just factual, nothing to be really surprised about.

It certainly is possibly they didn't write what they meant to write, in which case it'll get clarified.

That's what I believe. I think you have to maintain the marking (either attack the target or be adjacent to it at the end of your turn) for the target to be subjected to the condition. I.e. you don't have to spend a minor action every round. This seems counter-intuitive to the concept.

Like it or not, ENWorld is now a 4E board through and through, despite what moderators are saying. Other game systems are footnotes or side dishes. Which includes 3rd ed, despite it being a rather lengthy/heavy one.

It's understandable, really. What I don't like is the relative hypocrisy of it all.

With the additional phrasing "before the start of your next turn", it also means that if it attacks someone other than you after your (the paladin's) next turn, it takes no damage. You need to reapply the challenge to keep the damage going.

That's what's confusing to me. This means I have to spend a minor action every round to keep the condition going?

It means that while a creature is affected by a Paladin's Mark, the first attack it makes every round that does NOT include the Paladin inflicts damage upon it. If it makes no attacks, or if all attacks include the Paladin, then no problem. If it makes multiple attacks that do not include the Paladin, it is only damaged by one.

Hope that helps!

Every round. Wow.

It does answer my question! Thanks very "muchly", Sir Dave. :-)

4E really seems to do tactical encounters well. I've read some criticism about the bookkeeping that isn't any lighter with all the modifiers involved through the use of powers during combat, but I think it mostly has to do with gamers not being used to them yet. This will change.

Really, it does the hack n'slash well, as far as I can tell from reading the core books. (and it is not a bad thing. I personally love hack n'slash dungeon delving done well)

It glosses over other aspects of the game, however. I did appreciate the passages about character personality and such: they are well written, and point out that part of the appeal a character has that would not described by mechanics. But it also devotes the vast majority of its pages to tactical elements. It's what it does.

Basically, if you're a veteran DM or player, you'll still be able to build a consistent personality and role-play a memorable character, for sure. But then again, a veteran DM could play tactical encounters with Vampire The Masquerade or Immersion Role-playing with D&D if s/he wanted to. A veteran player could make other people cry at the game table while playing Toon.

What matters is what the noob does with these rules. And clearly, town guards aren't fun, encumbrance isn't fun, mundane, non-tactical elements to the game aren't really fun. He will do as the DMG tells him: "on to the fun", the fights, the tactics, the Skill challenges.

But then again, when you consider the encounter with the town guards at the city gate, how can you know if it isn't fun if you don't play it in the first place? By skipping time and time again to the tactical challenges of 4E, a DM might just skip the most memorable parts of traditional game sessions.

While a target is marked, it takes -2 penalty on attack rolls for any attack that doesn't include you as a target. Also it takes radiant damage equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target before the start of your next turn.

"it takes radiant damage equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target before the start of your next turn."

I'm confused by this sentence. Does that mean that the target takes damage the first time it attacks someone else potentially every round, if it does so, or just the first time it does so after being marked, and no more for the rest of the encounter/until its unmarked?

Lets examine this claim.

4E DMG wrote:

Fun!

Everyone speeds the game along, heightens the drama, helps set how
much roleplaying the group is comfortable with, and brings the game world to life with their imaginations...
.. Different people have different ideas of what’s fun about D&D. Remember that the “right way” to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy. If everyone comes to the table prepared to contribute to the game, everyone has fun...

In fact, I could type the entire first chapter of the DMG, which is wholly devoted to good DMing skills, as evidence against your claim. It notes different types of players and suggests ways to tailer the game to each, and it stresses again and again that the important thing is to have fun. If your group wants to roleplay talking to the guards everytime they come back to town, trust me, the 4E DMG...

To which I answer:

Fun is one element you shouldn't vary. Every encounter in an adventure should be fun. As much as possible, fast-forward through parts of an adventure that aren't fun. An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn't fun. Tell the players they get through the gate without much trouble and move on to the fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren't fun, so don't sweat them, and let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun. Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren't fun. Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun.

Like it or not, 4E does frame the concept of "fun" very narrowly. But really, you can look at the Skill array, the effects of the vast majority of powers - it's all about tactical encounters. What isn't tactical isn't deemed fun, interesting or worth spending time on in 4E. Unless you have Skill Challenges, potential roll fests, that is.

I'm sure a veteran DM can make great sessions out of 4E. It's a solid, coherent system in and by itself, it seems. But encouraging role-playing at the expense of tactical encounters? Acknowledging the potential blast that seemingly mundane events in the game can provide in terms of role-playing (which was the point of my first post)? It doesn't.

Tatterdemalion wrote:

4e doesn't forbid non-dramatic scenes, but certainly discourages it, and thus indirectly discourages character development.

Where and how does it do that?

By implying that anything that isn't "fun" can be looked over, ignored. "On with the fun": According to the rulebooks, meeting with town guards is not worth spending time on since it's mundane. Nevermind that some of the most exhilarating/hilarious/memorable/i.e. "fun" moments of roleplaying may and do actually occur during "mundane" encounters. Nevermind the inherent unpredictability of the game itself, and thus of seemingly mundane encounters on paper that happen to be the best, most entertaining moments of the game play.

The structure of the rules themselves gloss over anything that would be non-dramatic. The list of Skills, and Skills that have been nerfed from 3.x to reach this current one, is just an example of this. Anything that doesn't relate to a/ combat or b/ any aspect of dungeon exploration simply isn't needed because it's lame, boring, an obstacle to the "real fun", according to this game.

I think it's fairly accurate to call this a fact. Now, some can love these changes because they define the fun of the game on the same terms as its designers, but others might and will disagree.