On the "4th Edition sucks, don't be like them!" argument.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

22 people marked this as a favorite.

Though calling it an argument is using the loosest definition of the term.

All over these boards from so many different people I see this being thrown around. If 4E attempted it, and failed at it, then that must mean any attempts to do something even vaguely similar are doomed to fail. And not just doomed to fail, doomed to the EXACT SAME RESULTS.

This is generally how that scenario goes down, and the most common form it takes:

Person A: "The classes should be balanced with each other, let's try to do that."
Person B: "4E tried to balance the classes and homogenized them! Obviously any attempts to balance the classes will result in the same!"

My rebuttal? Homogenization is not the same as balancing. Balancing things does not mean that all the classes need to be good at the same things, in the same way. It just means they all need to be really good at their niche, but not to the exclusion of everything else (especially when other classes exist that can fill both roles). The classes are already fairly well balanced with each other, insofar as the current system allows (having spellcasting ability automatically gives you mondo utility), and the classes are not even vaguely homogenized.

Just because 4E did it and it resulted in a bit of sameness between the classes does not mean that every attempt by anyone ever is doomed to the same result. That makes no sense, please stop pretending it does.

In addition, I sometimes see this:

Person A: "You know what would be cool? X mechanic. I think it would be really fun and add a lot to the game."
Person B: "That sounds a lot like Y mechanic from 4E! And 4E sucks, no exception. Nothing from 4E worked properly in the slightest and adding anything similar to it will destroy the game!"

Okay, seriously? First off, I'm not wholly convinced that 4E is the "Worst thing evar" like many seem to believe, so this is doubly silly to me.

Secondly, so what? Assume, for the sake of argument, that 4E was the worst game ever made, inferior to everything that has come before or will come after. Does that mean all of its mechanics are terrible and shouldn't be touched with a 10 foot pole? NO. It means that said mechanics did not come together into a cohesive whole in order to make a good game. Bad things CAN have good ideas in them. Look at all the movies, books, and games that come out that have really cool worlds, or characters, or try to bring up new and interesting ideas...which are ruined by the writing, pacing, and other characters in the book.

Does that reduce the overall quality? Oh yes, definitely. Does that invalidate entirely the fact that some aspects of it were good? Not in the slightest.

So transplanting those good aspects (if done properly) to another, better made piece of media wouldn't really be detrimental, now would it?

I think that's about it for me. /rant and all that. I'm just really tired of seeing this everywhere.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I do agree that the fact that 4e failed miserably doesn't mean that it's the only possibility...but I really disagree that balance is all that important. It certainly means more in Pathfinder than in Stormbringer...but it's balanced fine for me. When you have a system like this...a lot of the 'balance' falls upon the campaign the GM runs...and the degree of optimization in the characters...and you can't force either of those.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since I was still using my 3.0 books and hadn't sunk $1000 in 3.5 material, I didn't have the knee-jerk reaction that many folks did when WotC announced that they were torpedoing their own product line.

I've played 4th Edition quite a bit. It has several weaknesses and has a more synthetic, board-game-rules feel than either 2nd or 3rd edition (or PF): but it has a few actual strengths and several good points. Paizo's post-CRB books include several subtle points which suggest that they paid close attention and integrated a few things that made sense to them. (Look closely at the Guide archetype for rangers and compare it to the 4E ranger; or look at how inquisitors and cavaliers employ teamwork feats and compare that with the 4E warlord). I agree with your general point, Rynjin, that you shouldn't spurn a diamond just because you found it in a bowl of oatmeal.

(Might not want to eat the oatmeal, though. Who knows what else is in there?)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Why do people keep saying 4e is balanced?

The Exchange

Probably because the power disparity between weapon-users and spell-users isn't very great. (There are still some classes that are distinctly superior to others - a trend that got worse as more books came out - but some of the low-powered classes use prayers/spells/hexes and some of the overpowered ones use martial 'exploits', so...)

(EDIT: Wow, I'm having trouble referring to 4E as something that still exists. Probably because it's all in the past to me.)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there is a difference between '4E tried to do that, dont do that' and 'The mindset and choices made by 4E were thus, i Dont want pathfinder taking the same position'

At least for anyone making a rational point that should be it. There is a difference between 'dont try and balance the classes' and 'dont prioritize game balance and the function of the system over the connection between theme, flavor and story to the mechanics to the point where you create dissasociative mechanics'. 4E did both of those things, the former is welcome in pathfinder, the latter is not.

Alot of the arguments boil down to that, the creators set out to solve very real problems in 3.x dnd. For the most part many of those problems were eliminated, but it came at a cost (namely a rational connection between the game mechanics and the flavor describing them). The game is quite good, but for many it is too much game and not enough world building. Ofcourse there are still people who just react knee jerk and everything in 4E is bad. But is ok to take 4E as a learning experience, particularly in view of the goals they were trying to acheive in creating the system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Okay, seriously? First off, I'm not wholly convinced that 4E is the "Worst thing evar" like many seem to believe, so this is doubly silly to me.

I'm always scared to mention there are some things in 4E I like at the risk of being chewed out by some form of insanity. Even if there is a particular bit of fluff or class concept I like its at the risk of being attacked by some form of feral beast. Feels like it anyway.

Rynjin wrote:

Person A: "The classes should be balanced with each other, let's try to do that."

Person B: "4E tried to balance the classes and homogenized them! Obviously any attempts to balance the classes will result in the same!"

I see that a lot. I think its ridiculous too. It gets worse when people insist that not balancing things is better. I think its okay for a class to do something better than another, and definitely to be different. I do not think that means throwing balance out the window is okay, or that I should be okay with major imbalances. I think its entirely possible to create unique and flavorful classes that are relatively balanced with each other. I feel like it ignores a problem sometimes.


'4E' brings with it the emotional and historical context a lot of people who'd be on these boards have with it; WotC's marketing campaign at its release alienated many players, and so frankly part of PF's appeal is and has always been 'It's D&D, but not 4e!!'

So I actually figure that's most of it; the ideas presented after that don't matter, because people have stopped listening anyway.


Balanced for what? Combat? If you're trying to balance for DPR, yes, you will homogenize them. If you're balancing for overall adventure effectiveness, that's possible but a cloudier issue since it depends on your DM. Fighters want more skills, for example. But giving them more skills would make a perceived weak rogue class even weaker.

I agree with the OP in principle. Hitler ate salads and was a bad man. That doesn't mean we shouldn't eat salads. But I am totally against balancing all the classes for combat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, so there are two people on the forums who agree with my viewpoint on these things...


Coarthios wrote:

Balanced for what? Combat? If you're trying to balance for DPR, yes, you will homogenize them. If you're balancing for overall adventure effectiveness, that's possible but a cloudier issue since it depends on your DM. Fighters want more skills, for example. But giving them more skills would make a perceived weak rogue class even weaker.

I agree with the OP in principle. Hitler ate salads and was a bad man. That doesn't mean we shouldn't eat salads. But I am totally against balancing all the classes for combat.

Well, first off, balancing for combat does not mean everybody need high DPR.

The Bard is one of the best contributors in combat even if he doesn't even CARRY a weapon.

But combat is a good portion of the game, so contribution in that aspect is necessary, just as it's necessary that every class bring SOMETHING to the table out of combat.

Most classes are good about this, but some are hyper-specialized in one direction or the other, which should be fixed, and not fixed by making them functionally identical to other classes.

Shadow Lodge

Rynjin wrote:
Okay, seriously? First off, I'm not wholly convinced that 4E is the "Worst thing evar" like many seem to believe, so this is doubly silly to me.

While I can agree with some of your premise you do need to remember that (being on a Pathfinder board) is that a lot of the fans of Pathfinder really kind of exist because they didn't dig 4E. It's not universal, mind you, but Wizards/4E burned a lot, a lot of it's fans, and made a lot of claims with their (upcoming) 4E system that simply just never happened, they instead just wrote those issues out of the game, not fix them. So a lot of those players had a very bitter taste in their mouth after 4E and came to Pathfinder instead, where they felt treated better, (true or not).

Pathfinder, for example, incorporated it's player base into the designing of their rules set, where Wizards had basically kept almost everything a big secret, leaking a little bit of fluff and "4th Ed will be so much better because 3E sucks at _______". Paizo's staff also took an active part with the fans on the boards, joking, commenting, answering questions, game related or not), as well as supported some of the contributors rather than mass lay them off once the system was done.

As for the 4E game itself, there are a few things I liked (their idea for the Cleric was great, the idea of passive skill checks as a core mechanic, the way they handle monsters was really cool in general), but a lot, lot more I didn't. Of those that I did not like, on one hand it feel like after playing it a while, it directly ruined the game, and that's just my opinion. On the other, though, there where some interesting ideas, and I would rather they tried with new things, even if I did not like them, than they didn't try at all.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought 4E was interesting; I kinda dug the tactical chess aspect. At will/Encounter/Daily powers seemed a breath of fresh air compared to Vancian spellcasting. Marking enemies, encouraging not to wander off to attack other people, seemed promising as well.

I wasn't so enchanted with the skills/skill challenge aspect; that's when it started to feel artificial and video-gamey to me. So I enjoyed the game as a combat board game, which I enjoyed; but for RP with a system with a more coherent skill system to do many non-combat things, I'll turn to PF, White Wolf, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase, ...

I do believe in dipping my toes in new waters now and then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thoroughly agree with you on this. I actually like a lot of things about 4e, though there are some things that grievously go against it (speed of combat is an insurmountable one, imo). The problem is that a lot of the things I like about 4e aren't quick and easy fixes that you can just house-rule for PF. The main things I liked were that the base math of the system was improved so that things scaled better across levels, and that classes felt competent (even if not very powerful) at low levels. The encounter-based resources are also something I wish PF could adopt, though not in the same way 4e did it.

The problem is that, with the exception of encounter based resources (which could still be a possibility with new archetypes and classes), these things that 4e fixed are built into the base mechanics of the system. You could strip out the "Powers" mechanics of 4e, redo the way skills are handled, add more non-combat material, and you'd have a system that at its base is well done, but you can't transplant the way the 4e system math scales into PF, without rewriting the system entirely. You can't front-load key class features much more than they are currently, because of the way multiclassing works, so you'd have to re-write the rules on multiclassing, which would likely require rewriting the system entirely.

As such, these are things that at best, I can hope for with PF 2.0, but even then I know are unlikely, since even with how much multiclassing is discouraged in PF, I can't see them doing away with it entirely, to be replaced by archetypes or the like, and rewriting the base system math is unlikely, since the general feel I'm getting from the boards is that if a new edition is created, people want to be able to use material they already have, if tweaked a little, like 1e to 2e, or 3.5 to PF.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While anti-4e hysterics are unnecessary, taking an element from 4e just because it made it into that game is equally unnecessary for Pathfinder.

That's not to say that the designers shouldn't look at other games for inspiration or innovation.

However, a lot of what the OP is ranting against stems from people explicitly suggesting that Pathfinder adopt 4e-style mechanics. Prior to Pathfinder's release and continuing through when Pathfinder was in its infancy and 4e was still viewed as "the dominant game", there were a quite a few vocal posters railing against Paizo for not getting onboard the 4e/GSL bandwagon. For most of the early-adopter Pathfinder crowd, 4e was a HUGE step in the wrong direction.

Since 4e's decline/failure*, there's been an uptick in suggestions to add some 4e elements to Pathfinder and a lot of Pathfinder fans have no interest in it. Whether those suggestions are due to input from fans of both systems, willing Pathfinder converts, or reluctant Pathfinder converts whose 4e fields have dried up is anyone's guess.

One can argue the rationality of it, but one should acknowledge that looking to 4e for design inspiration carries some negative implications for many that looking at Savage Worlds, Hero, GURPS, Shadowrun, etc. doesn't.

*NOTE: I'm not slamming 4e. Objectively, the game is dead/in-decline from a publishing and 3PP-support standpoint as WotC is working on 5e/Next. There is, however, a large quantity of antecdotal evidence (some from opinions expressed by WotC staff) that 4e was not as successful as desired, fractured the fan base, and was too radical a departure from prior editions. By that criteria, I'm calling 4e to be in decline or a failure at this point it time as opposed to when it launched.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
What really disgusts me though is that the general consensus still seems to be that casters are overpowered. This is even supported by adventure developers stating (for the last 10 years consitently) that high level casters throw off the narrative of their story, or at least have the potential to do so if played intelligently. What I'm asking for is stories written in adventure paths accommodating these things (Divinations, teleportation etc.).

Morain, high-level casters ARE extremely powerful, but not necessarily if your whole party is committed to acting like they're still 1st level: going room to room killing monsters. What makes them powerful is their ability to choose NOT to follow that paradigm -- to throw off the narrative of the story, as you've alluded.

There are a lot of adventures/APs where you go into one dungeon to find the scrap of parchment that leads you to another dungeon that holds the amulet of the planes that transports you to the extraplanar dungeon where a prisoner (NPC ally of yours) is being held by the BBEG, who in turn resides on a different plane in a different dungeon. And the AP sort of expects you to tackle those things in that order, and to kill all the monsters in each dungeon along the way.

But, the thing is, higher-level casters have the tools so that they can choose not to do that. Divination, properly used, allows you to bypass one or both of the first two dungeons entirely. Following the timeline, that might mean that your NPC friend hasn't even been taken prisoner yet, eliminating the third dungeon as well. Instead, you can use divination or planar ally spies or whatever to find out that the BBEG is also planning to do horrible things in location X as part of his plans, which might be considered "backstory" in the AP as written, but is now within your grasp to pre-emptively put a stop to. And maybe you find the BBEG at that location. Even if he escapes, you now know who he is, so they can scry his location, teleport or plane shift there, bypass 90% of his "lair" dungeon, and take him out for good.

Most of the time, the DM doesn't want to deal with all that, and I really don't blame him or her -- because he's prepped a prewritten AP, and here the players aren't following the script, throwing all that work out the window! So most DMs, consciously or unconsciously, more or less railroad the party into pretending to be 1st level again. Either they pull the really stale "the bad guy and all his plans are mysteriously divination-proof" thing (even though no such thing may be written in the AP or in any way supported by the rules), or through other mechanisms. For example, "No! You can't go sraight for the bad guy! He captured your ally and you have to rescue them first!" -- forgetting that, as a point of plot continuity, he only captured their friend AFTER they crashed his 1st two dungeons, as a hostage against them crashing the fourth.

By the same token, many players don't have the imagination to play the scenario like that. Or maybe they do, but they want to make the DM's life easier, because he's a nice guy and all, so they play along with the railroad even if, on some level, they realize that there are really 20 other ways they could be approaching things.

In any event, if the players have the imagination to think outside the train line, and if the DM has the energy and improv ability to roll with it and follow the logical results, then the game at high levels is entirely different from the one you play at low levels. Because most fights can be bypassed by spells, information becomes more valuable than swords and armor. And the people with the tools to obtain that information, to travel vast distances instantaneously so as to make use of it, and to put monkey wrenches in the enemy's ability to do the same -- they're the ones who are calling the shots.

In D&D, it's spells that allow you to do that. Because no one saw fit to give the fighter a world-spanning empire as a class feature that would enable him to have, in effect, eyes and nearly-limited power in a lot of places at once. And no one wants to sit around while the rogue breaks into the prison and rescues the hostage solo (even if he had the abilities needed to do so) while they attack the BBEG simultaneously during the next session (while the rogue's player stays home).

So, in a nutshell, that's the deal. Casters are more powerful because thir abilities put them on only slightly lower footing than the DM's, when it comes to making narrative decisions. Fighters and rogues and monks can't do that. Either the DM artificially empowers them because he feels sorry for them or, far more often, he simply drags everyone else down to their level, and you end up with high-level parties still doing dungeon crawls, of all things. In which case the fighter is just fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morain wrote:
I do enjoy a role play heavvy game where really stats don't matter at all, it's all down to the individual player. In conclusion the worst anyone can ever do is to try to be like 4th.E D&D and balance classes, because balance is the death of role playing.

If all you're doing is ignoring the rules and role-playing, then balance between classes shouldn't matter to you one way or the other, should it? I mean, you just role-play and make up a story. If they're balanced mechanically, you ignore that, in exactly the same way ther lack of balance doesn't impact you now.

You can ALWAYS play make-believe story hour and ignore the rules, no matter what the rules are. So why be so against mechanical balance, if you're going to ignore most of the mechanics anyway?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't really see how balance is the death of roleplaying at all. If we assume that each character in the group is roughly as powerful as one another, then... play continues precisely as it did before, with each member contributing and needing to have their own story and points of interest.

The only thing a lack of balance seems to add is to open up the story where one character is the important one and the others are his henchmen, which you could already do by making that one character higher level than the others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Morain wrote:
I do enjoy a role play heavvy game where really stats don't matter at all, it's all down to the individual player. In conclusion the worst anyone can ever do is to try to be like 4th.E D&D and balance classes, because balance is the death of role playing.

If all you're doing is ignoring the rules and role-playing, then balance between classes shouldn't matter to you one way or the other, should it? I mean, you just role-play and make up a story. If they're balanced mechanically, you ignore that, in exactly the same way ther lack of balance doesn't impact you now.

You can ALWAYS play make-believe story hour and ignore the rules, no matter what the rules are. So why be so against mechanical balance, if you're going to ignore most of the mechanics anyway?

The casters should be the shot callers and the go to guys for anyting at high levels. Yes. What's the problem with this? It just makes sense to me.

I do Gm a bit, but I mostly play. When I play I think I play about 40% caster characters. but it was more fun before in third edition when casters had their rightful place at the top of the hierarchy. I repeat again that balance is the death or role playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tried 4th Edition and really disliked it. The sad part it, I could see how much of it came from SAGA, and other pre-4th things I really liked (such as the Book of 9 Swords). I really got the feeling that the 4E suffers from having several good (even great) ideas that were pushed so far that they stopped being good at all.

On the balance thing, I have a different idea of balance than some. Every class should feel useful a majority of the time, based on the class features. There shouldn't be large portions of the game where the player feels like he can make a run to the corner store and not really miss out on contributing anything.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Morain wrote:
The casters should be the shot callers and the go to guys for anyting at high levels. Yes. What's the problem with this? It just makes sense to me.

Then just cap everyone else at 6th level. When you say a fighter has the same level and XP as a wizard ot cleric, you're claiming that his narrative power as a go-to guy is equal to that of a 14th level wizard or a 14th level cleric or a CR 14 monster. If he's far behind (like, say he's really only got half that moxy), then make him 7th level, not 14th. Claiming he's 14th is totally dishonest.

Now, it might be that you place even less value on honesty than you do on balance, when it comes to game rules, but that's a separate discussion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morain wrote:
The casters should be the shot callers and the go to guys for anyting at high levels. Yes. What's the problem with this? It just makes sense to me.

I'd be okay with that if your talking about NPCs, particularly characters of higher levels than the players. However it doesn't work very well when your basically saying the guy your working with is your "go to guy" who solves all your problems. What is this, the wizard and friends?

Shadow Lodge

Mystery Meep wrote:

I can't really see how balance is the death of roleplaying at all. If we assume that each character in the group is roughly as powerful as one another, then... play continues precisely as it did before, with each member contributing and needing to have their own story and points of interest.

The only thing a lack of balance seems to add is to open up the story where one character is the important one and the others are his henchmen, which you could already do by making that one character higher level than the others.

It is more along the lines of all characters must be balanced against all other characters at all points in time and in all situations that became the issue with 4E. It basically led to everyone basically being and feeling the same very quickly which was the biggest complaint about 4E's balance.

Not saying that's my opinion, but rather that is what many that played it and did not like it, (well, those who didn't play it and did not like it too, for that matter), say about it


2 people marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
It is more along the lines of all characters must be balanced against all other characters at all points in time and in all situations that became the issue with 4E. It basically led to everyone basically being and feeling the same very quickly which was the biggest complaint about 4E's balance, it was just boring.

So they implemented it poorly. If I build a tower out of toothpicks and gumdrops and it collapses, does that mean that skyscrapers are impossible?

Shadow Lodge

please note the edits I made while you replied.


We still play 4e once in a a while. We have a great & very imaginative DM, so that helps a lot. 4E had a number of good ideas. Still, it was a failure. The failure was made somewhat worse by WotC coming out with so many announcements saying how cruddy their past product was and how vastly superior 4E was, as Mystery Meep & Beckett sez. Then, five years later, all Emily Litella.

The thing is- in order to exactly balance the classes, they must be homogenized. This *WAS* a failure. Almost no-one liked this.

Personally, altho I don’t like huge power disparities between classes, I think PF has done a lot to make them all playable.

Of course, still at the very highest levels, where little game play is done, the full spellcasters rule. And, at the lower levels, where a lot of playing is done, the martial classes kick butt. This is from the days of OD&D and I actually like this. As long as in the middle, they can both contribute and all have fun. No doubt, there’s room for improvement- the rogue needs a little boost and the Fighter needs a little help when he can’t Full Attack (I suggested giving the Ftr the Vital strike chain for free, at levels)

Back to 4E- the idea of healing surges and short rests made it so the healbot and the wand of CLW were both obsoleted and this was a Good Thing. Mind you, in combat healing still has to be done from time to time, but the “leader’ can still kick butt, boost, battlefield control, etc. Not just healbot.

I also liked low-powered but still useful “at will” abilities. True, in PF we have cantrips, but I could see something a little bit more powerful.

So yeah, we learned a lot from 4th ed. We saw what should not be done and what can be a good idea.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Morain, high-level casters ARE extremely powerful, but not necessarily if your whole party is committed to acting like they're still 1st level: going room to room killing monsters. What makes them powerful is their ability to choose NOT to follow that paradigm -- to throw off the narrative of the story, as you've alluded.

<snip>

In any event, if the players have the imagination to think outside the train line, and if the DM has the energy and improv ability to roll with it and follow the logical results, then the game at high levels is entirely different from the one you play at low levels. Because most fights can be bypassed by spells, information becomes more valuable than swords and armor. And the people with the tools to obtain that information, to travel vast distances instantaneously so as to make use of it, and to put monkey wrenches in the enemy's ability to do the same -- they're the ones who are calling the shots.

In D&D, it's spells that allow you to do that. Because no one saw fit to give the fighter a world-spanning empire as a class feature that would enable him to have, in effect, eyes and nearly-limited power in a lot of places at once. And no one wants to sit around while the rogue breaks into the prison and rescues the hostage solo (even if he had the abilities needed to do so) while they attack the BBEG simultaneously during the next session (while the rogue's player stays home).

So, in a nutshell, that's the deal. Casters are more powerful because thir abilities put them on only slightly lower footing than the DM's, when it comes to making narrative decisions. Fighters and rogues and monks can't do that. Either the DM artificially empowers them because he feels sorry for them or, far more often, he simply drags everyone else down to their level, and you end up with high-level parties still doing dungeon crawls, of all things. In which case the fighter is just fine.

I can't dispute that spellcasters have the mechanical tools that can short circuit traditional dungeon crawling setups and otherwise transform the game away from its roots in low-level travel and adventure. But I'm not sure that's necessarily a problem unless the table of gamers has a poisonous interplayer dynamic.

You point out how different tables may differ on the topic - whether they follow the conceits of the adventure or not. But even you refer to the players in the collective - and as long as that's the case and the players are on the same page about how they want to conduct the campaign - it won't really matter which character has the power to break out and change the terms of how they are interacting with the campaign. It's effectively a party resource. The group leader could be a rogue if that player happens to be the most decisive and dynamic and the wizard player could be entirely willing to be led and cast his major spells to support the group effort rather than promote his personal agenda.

If there end up being a lot of interplayer rivalries and jealousies, spellcasters exploiting their game transformative powers for their own advantage could be problematic, yes. But I suspect that a group with that sort of dynamic is bound to have problems arise anyway unless every character has the exact same power resources in every possible way - and even then you may get plotting against each other to gain advantage.


In the interest of full disclosure, I've never actually played 4e, so I have no idea how fun it is or isn't, or how boring, or how well-balanced. All I know is that I opened up the 4e PH with some excitement, saw that 90% of the abilities had effects like "slide your opponent X number of squares" and decided that I was probably too old to be playing with dolls anymore.

There may be awesome ideas in 4e. There may not. But either way, I agree with the OP that the claims of "any attempt to balance classes better = all classes are the same = 4e = end of the world" are logically and realistically flawed on any number of levels.


Bill Dunn wrote:
But even you refer to the players in the collective - and as long as that's the case and the players are on the same page about how they want to conduct the campaign - it won't really matter which character has the power to break out and change the terms of how they are interacting with the campaign. It's effectively a party resource.

To a large extent I'm forced to disagree -- you can still call it a "party" at that point, but what you really have are some people who are doing things, and others who are simply tagging along.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth[/quote wrote:
The thing is- in order to exactly balance the classes, they must be homogenized.

This is another thing I strongly disagree with, though I don't find it as poisonous as the things in the OP.

Balance =/= Sameness. It just means everybody has a niche they fill and a niche that is NEEDED without being so specialized into that niche that they're extremely useless everywhere else.

For example, from what I hear the old Thief class was basically THE skill guy, and he was a required class for the function of any group...but that's ALL he did. In a fight he'd be better off hiding in a corner and twiddling his thumbs than actually fighting.

Which IMO is poor design. You can make classes that fill different niches, or the same niche in different ways without making them homogenized or useless everywhere else.

Look at the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger. They all fill the same niche: Combat (mostly DPR, with Paladin being heavily defensive). I don't think anyone could accuse them of being the same, in any way at all. As well, they're all usable out of combat, Barbarian and Ranger having good skills (Ranger more so) and class abilities useful out of combat, and the Paladin being Cha focused which let him both be the face and boost his defenses simultaneously.

All of the classes should be balanced like that with each other. Each brings something new to the table, but can fill roughly the same role. And 90% of the classes DO do that, with a few just needing tweaks to bring them up or down (ignoring full casters in general since that's an issue with the whole system and not the classes).

The problem is people saying "No, don't balance the classes! That will ruin them and make them the same because 4E did that!" which is flat out wrong and completely illogical.

Liberty's Edge

I played D&D 4 once or twice. I don't care for the rules set.
Specifically I do not like the following elements: minions, "per encounter" abilities, healing surges, short rest vs. long rest distinction, the set of action types, and the way diagonal movement is still 5' per square.
On the plus side, a changeling character is a hell of a lot of fun to role play.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

In the interest of full disclosure, I've never actually played 4e, so I have no idea how fun it is or isn't, or how boring, or how well-balanced. All I know is that I opened up the 4e PH with some excitement, saw that 90% of the abilities had effects like "slide your opponent X number of squares" and decided that I was probably too old to be playing with dolls anymore.

For my money, the method of balancing classes in 4e fell pretty flat. It's true that they did open up ritual casting, the potentially carte blanche magical methodology to cover all sorts of non-combat applications of magic, to everybody by allowing all non-casters to take access via a feat. However, all normal casters pretty much got that feat for free as well at least one of the skills on which the rituals were based. Meanwhile, non-casters had to invest the feat in ritual casting and probably another one to pick up either Arcana or Religion to serve as the feat prerequisite (and maybe even a 3rd if they wanted Nature or Heal rituals instead). And on top of that, with the rampant stat dumping in 4e, chances are those non-casters were investing in combat-worthy stats that left those skills fairly low, leaving them behind their caster compatriots again.

But ultimately, the worst sin of 4e in this regard was it made magic (as in magic useful for combat) not very magical. Wizards couldn't even levitate anyone until 6th level and they could only fly for 1 round starting at 16th level. It was like comparing a City of Heroes character against a superhero character created in a comic-simulative tabletop RPG.


Theconiel wrote:

I played D&D 4 once or twice. I don't care for the rules set.

Specifically I do not like the following elements: minions, "per encounter" abilities, healing surges, short rest vs. long rest distinction, the set of action types, and the way diagonal movement is still 5' per square.
On the plus side, a changeling character is a hell of a lot of fun to role play.

Can I ask why you didn't like what you didn't like about it? I like per encounter abilities when they're better balanced, lets me use them out of combat as utility too. I like healing surges because it gives a chance to get a second wind and heal outside of combat. I haven't cracked open the rulebook in forever myself...

Glad you liked changeling though!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Wizards couldn't even levitate anyone until 6th level and they could only fly for 1 round starting at 16th level.

If I understand it correctly, 4e is based on 30 levels vs. 20 through, right? So getting levitate at 6th level in 4e would be exactly like a 3e/PF sorcerer getting it at 4th, if I'm interpreting that correctly. And 16th in 4e would be like 11th in 3.5/PF -- only 1 level after the sorcerer gets overland flight.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
But even you refer to the players in the collective - and as long as that's the case and the players are on the same page about how they want to conduct the campaign - it won't really matter which character has the power to break out and change the terms of how they are interacting with the campaign. It's effectively a party resource.
To a large extent I'm forced to disagree -- you can still call it a "party" at that point, but what you really have are some people who are doing things, and others who are simply tagging along.

If it's an effect like astral travel, teleport, using some magic to create a pocket dimension, or something else that is capable of being adjudicated quickly, does it really matter? The individual character may have the mechanical trigger, but it doesn't hog the game session's time or spotlight because it's more a means to an end.

I think there are game systems where this could be more of a problem. The classic example is any game that does anything simulative with computer hacking like Cyberpunk. The netrunner really did play a different game and it was very difficult for a solo, cop, or rocker to tag along and have any effect whatsoever. But we've never really encountered the same problem in D&D. A caster could get into a Q&A session with contact other plane or speak with dead, but how many groups had a caster use a spell like that without other players suggesting questions to ask? Again, unless there was a difficult interplayer dynamic, I suspect very few did. In fact, I suspect we usually spent more time adjudicating a rogue sneaking off and scouting or gathering information than we typically spent on wizards divining things. And I'm sure that nobody thinks of the rogue as being a character who changes the nature of the game very much.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Wizards couldn't even levitate anyone until 6th level and they could only fly for 1 round starting at 16th level.
If I understand it correctly, 4e is based on 30 levels vs. 20 through, right? So getting levitate at 6th level in 4e would be exactly like a 3e/PF sorcerer getting it at 4th, if I'm interpreting that correctly. And 16th in 4e would be like 11th in 3.5/PF -- only 1 level after the sorcerer gets overland flight.

How long does overland flight last compared to 1 round for the 16th level fly spell? Yeah, 4e's magic wasn't very magical.


Rynjin wrote:
DrDeth[/quote wrote:
The thing is- in order to exactly balance the classes, they must be homogenized.

This is another thing I strongly disagree with, though I don't find it as poisonous as the things in the OP.

Balance =/= Sameness. It just means everybody has a niche they fill and a niche that is NEEDED without being so specialized into that niche that they're extremely useless everywhere else.

For example, from what I hear the old Thief class was basically THE skill guy, and he was a required class for the function of any group...but that's ALL he did. In a fight he'd be better off hiding in a corner and twiddling his thumbs than actually fighting.

The problem is people saying "No, don't balance the classes! That will ruin them and make them the same because 4E did that!" which is flat out wrong and completely illogical.

In order to balance, you then must make all the niches equal, and they are not. Then, you have to make the ways PC’s fill those niches (skills, spells, combat) equal- which is very hard, esp at high vs low levels. Or, do like Runequest and get rid of classes altogether, but STILL, despite that, one guy ended up focusing on melee, another at casting Healing , another at sneaking and skills, another at… which ended up the same.

The old “thief’ class was a very valuable member of the party, and still useful in combat. Mind you, back then the dungeons were crammed full of Gygaxian traps. But he was still useful in combat.

No one is saying “don’t make the classes MORE balanced”. We’re saying “No, don't balance the classes! That will ruin them and make them the same – because that’s the ONLY way to make them exactly equal.” And, one other thing- different campaigns and different play groups have different ways of doing things. A class that may be “weak” in your group may be strong in ours. So, any attempt at fully balancing the classes require homogenization, which is what we don’t want.

I got no problem with Fighters getting 4Skp lvl, or Rogues getting some more HP, etc. But if the classes are not homogenized, they will not be equal. If they are not equal, then some will have to be on the bottom. Boosting them just makes other classes the new “least powerful”.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Morain wrote:
The casters should be the shot callers and the go to guys for anyting at high levels. Yes. What's the problem with this? It just makes sense to me.
I'd be okay with that if your talking about NPCs, particularly characters of higher levels than the players. However it doesn't work very well when your basically saying the guy your working with is your "go to guy" who solves all your problems. What is this, the wizard and friends?

yes, that's what's most fun to me. Even when I'm playing the fighter.

I still get the most excited about fighter type charecters, and I don't feel one bit belitteled by the casters. I'm the macho man after all. And when I do play the wizard I delight in the knowledge that I own the world and all must submit to me. This is how it should be and your characater is always what you make it yourself. Mechanics matter little. Nerfing casters though destoys the entire game and all fun to be had within it! TRUTH! Believe me for I know all.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I knew all once. It was great. Oddly enough, everybody who knew me back then assures me that I was quite insufferable. (chuckle)


Morain wrote:
TRUTH! Believe me for I know all.

I can't tell if your serious or not... I don't know exactly how to respond.

Anyways, I usually don't nerf casters as part of my house rules. Never found a good way to do it without doing more harm than good. I'm told in 4E they still aren't super duper balanced, but again, its been forever since I've cracked open a 4E rulebook.

I do think you can have an okay balance and not homogenize the classes or taking away the ability for one class to do something so another can "get the chance to shine". Magical trap finding is a big example of that.


DrDeth wrote:


In order to balance, you then must make all the niches equal, and they are not. Then, you have to make the ways PC’s fill those niches (skills, spells, combat) equal- which is very hard, esp at high vs low levels. Or, do like Runequest and get rid of classes altogether, but STILL, despite that, one guy ended up focusing on melee, another at casting Healing , another at sneaking and skills, another at… which ended up the same.

The old “thief’ class was a very valuable member of the party, and still useful in combat. Mind you, back then the dungeons were crammed full of Gygaxian traps. But he was still useful in combat.

No one is saying “don’t make the classes MORE balanced”. We’re saying “No, don't balance the classes! That will ruin them and make them the same – because that’s the ONLY way to make them exactly equal.” And, one other thing- different campaigns and different play groups have different ways of doing things. A class that may be “weak” in your group may be strong in ours. So, any attempt at fully balancing the classes require homogenization, which is what we don’t want.

I got no problem with Fighters getting 4Skp lvl,...

Yes, perfect balance is impossible, but a solid balance is not.

Yes, not all niches are equal, and some classes will be better than the others. But the big issue comes in when some classes are a good bit better than the middle of the road and MILES better than the bottom.

Balance variances should be minor and only apparent when used by people who are very good at optimizing, not readily apparent during the natural course of the game with average players.


I think the biggest balance problem is the idea of the niches as spells, skills, and combat, or any similar breakdown. Spells shouldn't be a separate niche entirely from 'performing non-combat tasks' or 'performing combat'; it's not at all unreasonable for a mage focused on blasting to be roughly on par with a warrior focused on violence. It just requires a bit of a paradigm shift.

Basically, the wizard doesn't need to be the catch-all do everything class. We could instead have a greater variety of more focused mage classes, and thread skills into each class.

But that's kind of a tangent, since I don't see PF doing that.

4E accomplished this in one way, but, as mentioned above, that's not really the only possible way to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If someone actually argues as in the OP, either you're arguing with imbeciles or people who are just bad at logic, depending on how mean one feels.

Yes, even the most objectively bad thing in the world can have redeeming qualities. The trains always running on time, for instance. However, there are a few reasons that I'd take issue with someone moving towards D&D4. First, what you think are the good aspects and what I think are the good aspects are probably tremendously different. Balanced classes are good, but homogenization is bad. Where possible, I'd rather move the martials farther away from casters in terms of mechanics, but still more powerful. 4th did the exact opposite of that.

Second, shooting the breeze about RPGs isn't a formal course in logic and rhetoric. It's reasonable to infer that if you push one aspect of 4E, you probably like the package, and if you accept one part of it, then you lose some of your credibility in rejecting the rest. It's not good logic, but it is psychology. Our hypothetical arguer might decide the best course of action is to nip it in the bud before half your playgroup is seriously considering giving fighters Vancian magic maneuvers per day and letting wizards use int to melee damage.

Third, yeah, some people just define themselves by the vehemence and targets of their hate. Those people aren't pleasant.

I'm all for balance, and so are a lot of people. Just look at how popular Book of 9 Swords was. But the closer one hews to 4E, the closer you, well, end up to 4E. And to lots of people, that's the greater concern.


Rynjin your on the right track IMHO. 4e is not going to corrupt the game. And yes a tad more balance is needed as well. As you talk about niches I think what some people are missing is that certain classes are built onto one niche and then are given no more toys. And while they are usually too in there niche they don't function elsewhere while some one else can compently fill their niche and someone else's as well.


With all due respect, mods, I don't believe moving it here was the right decision. The entire thread is about how this specific argument (which happens to reference 4E) is used in relation to proposed changes to Pathfinder RPG, it's not about 4E in itself in the slightest.

At the very least Gamer Life might be a better venue since the OP is mostly a discussion on posters of the forums, and these other players' posts and arguments, though it has evolved into a discussion on the merits of balance (again, as they pertain to Pathfinder RPG).


Rynjin wrote:

With all due respect, mods, I don't believe moving it here was the right decision. The entire thread is about how this specific argument (which happens to reference 4E) is used in relation to proposed changes to Pathfinder RPG, it's not about 4E in itself in the slightest.

I have now flagged it as being in the wrong forum.

1 to 50 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / On the "4th Edition sucks, don't be like them!" argument. All Messageboards