This is at the root of a lot of my uneasiness with 4e. The importance of combat equality is so obvious that, IMO, it sends a message that other aspects of the game are less important.How would the inequality of combat effectiveness amongst characters help other aspects of the game?It wouldn't. I didn't suggest it would.
I'm saying that 4e sets a certain tone. When people claim such a thing, they are correct. I'm not attacking 4e -- I'm defending those that say they dislike it.
I have also, on occasion, tried to defend those that do like 4e.
So your uneasy about the tone that the importance of equality of combat effectiveness in 4E that might make people feel that other aspects of the game where less important even though you don't feel that this is true yourself.
;)
(just playing with you Tatterdemalion)
Yah know, I'm getting really fracking sick of people badmouthing bards. I'm also getting sick of people who think "every char. has to be able to hurt the bad guys every round in combat, or the char. sucks!"
I think the argument was (and I may be putting words into Antioch's mouth here) while fighting critters and doing damage is something everyone can contribute to (to some degree), a mechanics-based social encounter boils down to the bard rolling a good diplomacy check and the adventure moving on. There's no participation from the other party members and really only one roll from the bard's player himself.
Personally, my enjoyment of the bard depends on my involvement with the campaign setting. Because the whole point of bards (to me) is the lore of the land and the world's society and history, if I personally don't care about it, it's not worth playing.
for me and my group 4e lacks the ability to present non-heroic roleplaying opportunities with ease.
4e portrays the PCs as heroes from level 1 through to level 30, the fixed scaling of the DCs and powers makes this hard to avoid.
That's a spot-on comment, Q. I hadn't thought of it that way but, being a big fan of the "common man in extraordinary situations" kind of heroism, I too miss the opportunity to start my players off as townsfolk thrust into a larger world (or whatever).
Of all the changes going from 3.5 to 4th ed, it's the NPC classes and profession/crafting skills that I miss the most. That may just be a symptom of, like you said, being forced into the role of hero from the start.
I like the more realistic approach to D&D sometimes but I can't see an easy way of accomplishing this in 4e.
When I get my books, I'll likely be taking a look at how they stat "soldier" type NPCs or what have you and see if I can't adapt that into a variety of 0-level character options. Perhaps a wizard or cleric who can only cast rituals, fer instance or a fighter with only a base attack ability. Maybe cutting out the "at will" abilities entirely is a good place to start for a 0-level character.
|
It's not that I think 4th edition kills the roleplay, I feel it changes the way you can approach it in the game.
Developing certain flavours of characters seems to have vanished (illsuionists or necromancers, maybe even the magic wielding rogue who goes invis or sleeps the guards). With most things so combat focused, and rituals taking so long, it limits the way people can handle a situation.
Trying to interrogate someone or win your way into a secret hideout or even trying to get past the guard on the door to an exclusive club used to be about casting charm or sleep (sometimes more than once a day!), as well as having high charisma and diplomacy. With the new rules, it feels as if those options just aren't there. Limiting those choices may hinder certain groups in role playing their preferred character type.
What happens when you fail the skill challenge to get past the guards on the bridge with the "dangerous item" you've aquired for your employer. Since you've already used your daily sleep spell, do you now kill all the guards because they're doing their job. I'm sure you all understand that's an extreme example, but it's the kind of situation that pops up in our group all the time and with the massive variety of spells and gear (and even bards heaven forbid) in 3.5 it means there are more options in what to do now rather than go off and try again or kill everyone.
Options leads to creative thinking, which in turn leads to better opportunities for roleplay. Limit those options and you start to stifle certain ways of thinking which I fear may lead to a narrow range of stereo types.
Telling a good story is all about a good DM and the interaction of the party, that's not going to change from one system to another. How the story unfolds is in part affected by the mechanics of a game.
The reason bards suck mechanically is because they are incapable of contributing to various things as good as other characters, and anything they do can be just as easily achieved by another class. Plenty of classes can ramp up Diplomacy to the same amount of ranks. The single roll-Diplomacy encounters can be done by anyone person, but the main problem is that the are single roll and really lead by one guy. I could play a rogue with maxed out social skills and still be semi-useful in combat.
I think that the bard needs a lot of work, but to like their concept. I think it could be easily expanded upon to make them incredibly useful beyond making a Diplomacy roll here and there just because no one else wanted to: if they were a leader-type class they could do basically what they do now, just be effective at it.
It's not that I think 4th edition kills the roleplay, I feel it changes the way you can approach it in the game.
I think it encourages it just as much, if not more so.
Developing certain flavours of characters seems to have vanished (illsuionists or necromancers, maybe even the magic wielding rogue who goes invis or sleeps the guards). With most things so combat focused, and rituals taking so long, it limits the way people can handle a situation.
There are still illusion spells in the game (ghost sound is on the pregen sheet and is at-will, for example). There are also illusionary rituals in addition to illusion spells.
I've never played in a game where a rogue ran around invisibly and casting spells, but that could be done in 4th Edition, and much more competently.
Not all rituals take a long time: tenser's floating disk takes 10 minutes and lasts all day, so does endure elements.
Trying to interrogate someone or win your way into a secret hideout or even trying to get past the guard on the door to an exclusive club used to be about casting charm or sleep (sometimes more than once a day!), as well as having high charisma and diplomacy. With the new rules, it feels as if those options just aren't there. Limiting those choices may hinder certain groups in role playing their preferred character type.
With skill challenges you can do all of the above, but the difference is that more than a handful of classes can meaningfully assist in this. One character could use Diplomacy, another could Bluff, and still another could use Intimidate. How those skills might apply could easily require some interesting social-roleplaying.
Of course, not every situation is a skill challenge: it could just take a single Diplomacy or Bluff check.
What happens when you fail the skill challenge to get past the guards on the bridge with the "dangerous item" you've aquired for your employer. Since you've already used your daily sleep spell, do you now kill all the guards because they're doing their job. I'm sure you all understand that's an extreme example, but it's the kind of situation that pops up in our group all the time and with the massive variety of spells and gear (and even bards heaven forbid) in 3.5 it means there are more options in what to do now rather than go off and try again or kill everyone.
I suppose what happens then is the same thing that would happen in 3rd Edition if you botched your single-allowed skill check. I'm not even considering the various spells and such that could potentially be used in case things went sour.
Options leads to creative thinking, which in turn leads to better opportunities for roleplay. Limit those options and you start to stifle certain ways of thinking which I fear may lead to a narrow range of stereo types.
You get more options in 4th Edition, both in and out of combat. Fighters can do more than make basic attack rolls, but they can also meaningfully contribute in skill challenges (and not just social ones).
With most things so combat focused, and rituals taking so long, it limits the way people can handle a situation.
Thread Jack - There should be optional rules to include 'fast' rituals on scrolls or memorized as daily powers so it can be used in an encounter. The only example I could find is Knock which is a Ritual that uses a Healing Surge. I presume this is anticipated to be used during an encounter and the Healing Surge make it 'cost' something that requires resource management. -End Thread Jack
And, as has been pointed out (numerous times) before, the words "hater" and "irrational" do little for the level of dialog here.
You're right. Hating 4E for irrational reasons does little for the level of dialog here.
Trying to interrogate someone or win your way into a secret hideout or even trying to get past the guard on the door to an exclusive club used to be about casting charm or sleep (sometimes more than once a day!), as well as having high charisma and diplomacy. With the new rules, it feels as if those options just aren't there. Limiting those choices may hinder certain groups in role playing their preferred character type.
What happens when you fail the skill challenge to get past the guards on the bridge with the "dangerous item" you've aquired for your employer. Since you've already used your daily sleep spell, do you now kill all the guards because they're doing their job. I'm sure you all understand that's an extreme example, but it's the kind of situation that pops up in our group all the time and with the massive variety of spells and gear (and even bards heaven forbid) in 3.5 it means there are more options in what to do now rather than go off and try again or kill everyone.
Options leads to creative thinking, which in turn leads to better opportunities for roleplay. Limit those options and you start to stifle certain ways of thinking which I fear may lead to a narrow range of stereo types.
I have to disagee with this latest statement. Options may lead to creative thinking. But too many options may lead to remove thinking at all - since you have something ready for every situation that occurs.
If a situation where the PCs have to pass a bunch of guards without killing them, and they don't have charm spells, they have to think creatively to pass them - they have to either talk to them and try to cheat/persuade them, or try to sneak through them for instance. Another option is to knock them unconscious, which may help them this time, but later they may be suffer the consequences later for the agression and disrespect of the law.
Now, if the PCs have charm spells... well, they just use charm spells. The player says "I will make the guard sleep" and it's over. No creativity. No role-playing opportunities. No fun.
The same apply to many other obstacles that on 3.5E are "insta-solved" with spells. Diseases are a good example. On 3.5E, a low-level paladin is already capable of curing almost any disease in the world. This discard a lot of interesting plot hooks, like finding an antidote for some dying friend or for a large plague that is infesting a town. On 4E, cure disease is costly and its efficacy depends on the level of the caster, making dealing with them much more complex than "find the nearest cleric or paladin".
Role-playing does not depend on magic. If you say that magic is necessary for an improved roleplaying experience, then only spellcasters can enjoy this improved experience. The excessive reliance on magic is, for me, one annoying thing from 3.5E because it disrupts the balance of usefulness between characters (I'm not even talking about combat balance).
A 3.5E level 20 wizard can stop the time, shapechange to a dragon, charm hordes of enemies, teleport everyone to another plane, make the entire party fly, summon demons from Hell, call meteors from the sky, fool an entire village with illusions, etc.
A 3.5E level 20 fighter can... stab with his sword. Outside of combat, he can... climb, jump... woops, no more skill points.
|
A 3.5E level 20 wizard can stop the time, shapechange to a dragon, charm hordes of enemies, teleport everyone to another plane, make the entire party fly, summon demons from Hell, call meteors from the sky, fool an entire village with illusions, etc.
A 3.5E level 20 fighter can... stab with his sword. Outside of combat, he can... climb, jump... woops, no more skill points.
Wrong - that 20 fighter can attack the lvl 20 wizard and knock him down, interrupt his spells, disarm him, and grapple him to keep him from casting any spells.
Just because players choose to use nothing but power attack all the time doesn't mean more options aren't available.
Wrong - that 20 fighter can attack the lvl 20 wizard and knock him down, interrupt his spells, disarm him, and grapple him to keep him from casting any spells.
Just because players choose to use nothing but power attack all the time doesn't mean more options aren't available.
It's pretty fair to state that a level 20 Wizard in 3.5 will stomp a level 20 Fighter in 3.5 excepting some pretty extraordinary circumstances. Even the most awesome Fighter builds are going to have to rely on magic items to even the playing field (magic items the Wizard also will have access to, but much less need of) and of course if one of the Wizard's 9th level spells is Disjunction, say bye to the Fighter's shiny gear.
This doesn't really prove that 3.5 is inferior or anything, but I don't think there is much of an argument to be made that the two classes are equal at 20th. It just ain't so.
Cheers! :)
And, as has been pointed out (numerous times) before, the words "hater" and "irrational" do little for the level of dialog here.
You're right. Hating 4E for irrational reasons does little for the level of dialog here.
How about hating it for rational reasons, or loving it for irrational reasons?
:P
Wrong - that 20 fighter can attack the lvl 20 wizard and knock him down, interrupt his spells, disarm him, and grapple him to keep him from casting any spells.
Just because players choose to use nothing but power attack all the time doesn't mean more options aren't available.
It's pretty fair to state that a level 20 Wizard in 3.5 will stomp a level 20 Fighter in 3.5 excepting some pretty extraordinary circumstances. Even the most awesome Fighter builds are going to have to rely on magic items to even the playing field (magic items the Wizard also will have access to, but much less need of) and of course if one of the Wizard's 9th level spells is Disjunction, say bye to the Fighter's shiny gear.
This doesn't really prove that 3.5 is inferior or anything, but I don't think there is much of an argument to be made that the two classes are equal at 20th. It just ain't so.
Cheers! :)
And.. the subject of the topic was mainly comparing what classes can do outside combat.
To Wrath: What I meant is, if you say that "3.5E has better role-playing because it has more spells", than it means than only characters who have all these spells enjoy the "role-playing superiority" of 3.5E. I really don't believe that because one of the best roleplayers of my group plays an orc barbarian.
A 3.5E level 20 wizard can stop the time, shapechange to a dragon, charm hordes of enemies, teleport everyone to another plane, make the entire party fly, summon demons from Hell, call meteors from the sky, fool an entire village with illusions, etc.
A 3.5E level 20 fighter can... stab with his sword. Outside of combat, he can... climb, jump... woops, no more skill points.
Wrong - that 20 fighter can attack the lvl 20 wizard and knock him down, interrupt his spells, disarm him, and grapple him to keep him from casting any spells.
Just because players choose to use nothing but power attack all the time doesn't mean more options aren't available.
Oh yeah, the fighter can maybe perhaps charge the wizard, and hit him once to deal some damage. The wizard takes a 5-foot step back, uses time stop to give himself some time to setup buffs, and then play resumes with the wizard flying overhead dispelling the fighter's crap before he lays out a meteor swarm or some save-or-die effects.
Like clerics being "better than fighters" this sounds great on paper, or in theory, but doesnt work so well in actual play.
|
Options leads to creative thinking, which in turn leads to better opportunities for roleplay. Limit those options and you start to stifle certain ways of thinking which I fear may lead to a narrow range of stereo types.Telling a good story is all about a good DM and the interaction of the party, that's not going to change from one system to another. How the story unfolds is in part affected by the mechanics of a game.
I totally agree with you.
I also say that 4th edition's emphasis on the combat system is mostly the result of Hasbro's gradual incorporation (for better or worse) of the battle map as a standard part of D&D. Once they started to go in that direction with 3rd, they pretty much had to work out all the kinks that arose in the switch from the player telling the DM "I want to draw my sword and block the orcs from coming through the door, can I get there in time?" to the player physically counting out the squares on a map and moving his mini past all the potential AOOs to the little drawing of a door.
Thinking back on all the Saturdays my friends and I spent playing D&D in high school, I remember my unarmored fighter with a rapier being quite the ass-kicker who once took out a dozen orcs, two ogres and a hill giant all by himself (in a running battle that spanned four city blocks, an anchored ship and a rowboat).
That, of course, was in a 2nd edition campaign where I could say "I run through the giant's legs, jump through the window into the inn, and stab his thigh as I go past" and get away with it.
Put that same fight on a battlemap, and suddenly "I engage the orcs, but I keep moving so they can't surround me" becomes near impossible to accomplish.
Mixing miniature gaming with table-top roleplaying may be a great business strategy, but putting combat on a grid map requires a lot of extra complexity in the combat rule system. It also shifts the balance of power in the game to where what happens on the grid can become more important than what happens off of it. The rules end up assigning characters a roll on the battlefield, and the players end up building their character to best fit that role, and then you start getting into trying to figure out the "best ability scores to have" and the "best weapon to use" where "best" equals "most effective way of winning the combat encounter" and all that cycles around until suddenly D&D becomes a board game with a little extra talking.
Actually, it almost seems to me as though 4th edition has brought D&D full circle back to the Chainmail days that started everything. D&D started as a miniature game with an experience point system, gradually lost the battlemap and minis through 1st & 2nd editions, then gradually gained them both back until it is, once again, a miniature game with an experience point system.
Maybe 5th edition will move back away from the map?
You can roleplay just as easily in 4E as in any other edition; I speak from (now) experience. The game isn't nearly as combat oriented as some people seem to believe (it's a popular meme, it seems). The true difference is that the game has been changed to actively make everyone viable in combat. That's not focusing the game MORE on combat, it's delivering a balanced (so far) combat system for those who've wanted one. The new books delve into roleplaying and immersion probably much more than 3E, if looked at objectively.
The only way 4E could be considered as promoting less roleplaying than older editions is in the Skill system. It's just as useful in 4E and much easier to manage, BUT it doesn't allow as much variety. If variety is more important than ease of use and balance than, yeah, the Skill system doesn't offer as much as 3E. HOWEVER, since the Skill system is only a 3E thing, I didn't see it as something iconic or important that should be salvaged as-is. I've played DnD since my beloved red box and the Skill system has always just been a recent addition to me, along with Feats. I liked it so am glad that some form carried over to the new edition but don't mind that it was changed.
The game just plays very well.
|
|
And, as has been pointed out (numerous times) before, the words "hater" and "irrational" do little for the level of dialog here.
I know. Mea culpa - mea culpa. But I am getting tired of folk saying 4e is X, Y, Z when it is so clear that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, clearly have not read the rules, and clearly have not played the game,
I've seen a lot of comments to the effect of how 4th Edition takes away from or doesn't allow for roleplaying. Now that I've had a chance to read the demo rules from Keep on the Shadowfell, I'm getting the exact opposite impression.
Before I post any arguments to these other comments I'm seeing, I wanted to find out exactly why some of you feel the way you do.
What is it about 4th edition that makes you think it's unfriendly to role playing?
Hiya.
From reading the rules, especially the DMG, it most definitely seems that 4e is almost entirely focused on 'miniatures-based table-top battles'. For me, the most telling paragraph/section so far is in the DMG. It's titled simply "Fun". It's short, so I'll post it here as an example of the mentality that is behind the design of all things 4e:
Fun is one element you shouldn’t vary. Every encounter
in an adventure should be fun. As much as
possible, fast-forward through the 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!
So, basically, any time you aren't in a battle or soon-to-be-battle isn't "fun". Haggling with the elven clothing merchant? Not fun. Convincing the guards you are weary from travel and simply desire a safe place to rest for the night? Not fun. Attempting to parley with the pirate captain for a simple trade of information? Not fun.
...I guess I've been "NOT having fun" for the last nigh-30 years then, playing 1e/Basic D&D... *sigh*
|
|
With most things so combat focused, and rituals taking so long, it limits the way people can handle a situation.Thread Jack - There should be optional rules to include 'fast' rituals on scrolls or memorized as daily powers so it can be used in an encounter. The only example I could find is Knock which is a Ritual that uses a Healing Surge. I presume this is anticipated to be used during an encounter and the Healing Surge make it 'cost' something that requires resource management. -End Thread Jack
You can cast a ritual from a scroll in half the time.
Wrong - that 20 fighter can attack the lvl 20 wizard and knock him down, interrupt his spells, disarm him, and grapple him to keep him from casting any spells.
Just because players choose to use nothing but power attack all the time doesn't mean more options aren't available.
It's pretty fair to state that a level 20 Wizard in 3.5 will stomp a level 20 Fighter in 3.5 excepting some pretty extraordinary circumstances. Even the most awesome Fighter builds are going to have to rely on magic items to even the playing field (magic items the Wizard also will have access to, but much less need of) and of course if one of the Wizard's 9th level spells is Disjunction, say bye to the Fighter's shiny gear.
This doesn't really prove that 3.5 is inferior or anything, but I don't think there is much of an argument to be made that the two classes are equal at 20th. It just ain't so.
Cheers! :)
Having seen a thread which went on for many pages (it kicking around here somewhere) where two players faced off in an Arena I have to actually give the advantage to the 20th level fighter.
However I think this really side steps the point. Even though I think that a 20th level fighter has the edge in a battle Mano-a-Mano with a 20th level wizard the reality is that situation almost never comes up. The problem really is that the Wizard can massively impact the world around him in a large number of impressive ways. The fighter basically can't. This tends to make playing the Wizard very popular simply becuase he can do so much.
|
|
Wrong - that 20 fighter can attack the lvl 20 wizard and knock him down, interrupt his spells, disarm him, and grapple him to keep him from casting any spells.
Egad - the hulk can beat up superman ala D&D.
WIZ20 simply wins - always. Grapple? Plenty of V only spells that make the WIZ20 go POOF. Then the WIZ20 casts force bubble or cage, time stop, some delayed blast fireballs inside the cage, etc. etc.
WIZ20 beats any other 20 without braking a sweat.
Now about the hulk and superman ...
** spoiler omitted **So, basically, any time you aren't in a battle or soon-to-be-battle isn't "fun". Haggling with the elven clothing merchant? Not fun. Convincing the guards you are weary from travel and simply desire a safe place to rest for the night? Not fun. Attempting to parley with the pirate captain for a simple trade of information? Not fun.
...I guess I've been "NOT having fun" for the last nigh-30 years then, playing 1e/Basic D&D... *sigh*
That quote is not a proper representation of what the DMG is saying. It's obvious the DMG does NOT tell you to not roleplay or that a particular way of playing is better than another. It's in the section detailing Encounter making and is there to help new DMs in putting together encounters so they don't get sidetracked. It's not a default of how to play the game. For instance, here's an actual quote from the book:
Fun!
The last essential component of a D&D game is fun.
It’s not the DM’s job to entertain the players and
make sure they have fun. Every person playing the game
is responsible for the fun of the game. 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.
Everyone should treat each other with respect and
consideration, too—personal squabbles and fights
among the characters get in the way of the fun.
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.
|
Really I gotta say, if we're going to be bible-bashing with DMG's I've got the killer. This is from the 3.0 DMG:
Back to the Dungeon!
Dungeons facilitate game play. Dungeons, being underground, set appart the "adventure" from the rest of the world in a clean way. The idea of walking down a cooridor, opening a door, and entering an encounter--while a gross oversimplification and generalization--facilitates the flow of the game by reducing things down to easily grasped and digestible concepts....In the Dungeons & Dragons game, the classes, spells, magic items, and mmany other facets of the game have been designed with dungeons in mind. That's not to say that the dungeon is the only possible adventuring environment, but it's the default setting....When in doubt...use a dungeon.When I first read that I about clawed out my eyeballs. You want to talk about being unfriendly to roleplaying? Yarg!
I suggest you look up the same passage in the 3.5 DMG. What you'll find is an impeccable analysis of why the dungeon is a paradigm for adventuring in D&D. Not the fact that it is underground. Not the fact that it is replete with monsters and loot. No. It's the fact that the players' decision making process is integrated into game play in a straight forward way that's exemplary for the game, wherever you take it. They mention the idea of thinking of an adventure as a "flow chart", where you can exchange dungeon rooms for urban encounters and so on. It's the opposite of rail roading. Whereas 4th edition DMG says: DM, wheel your players from one encounter to the next ("Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter, and on to the fun!"). Look at who's doing the moving here. And if you look up the description of the wilderness skill challenge, you'll see how this is implemented in the actual rules. No matter what happens, the next combat encounter - in fact, the very "next" one no matter what you do - is just around the corner. Your players cast dice, but it's not them who decide on the sequence of what happens.
So, no, 3.5 and 4E are just as big an antithesis on this one as it gets.
By contrast I think the 4e quote is talking about speeding through slow parts. I don't think that's roleplaying at all. Roleplay is the good stuff. It's getting into town, or whistling your way across seven days of walking in the woods, or taking an hour to pull away the rubble from the secret enterance. Or for that matter, going through a bunch of empty dungeon tunnels. It's about editing, and I don't know that that's such a bad idea.
No it says, walk by the guards if the PLAYERS don't find it interesting. Not: if it isn't conducive to the adventure. Rather: DMs, make an adventure where menial tasks and day to day interactions DON'T PLAY A ROLE. Sorry, the end result of that surely allows roleplaying but it isn't a life I find worth roleplaying.
Hiya.
From reading the rules, especially the DMG, it most definitely seems that 4e is almost entirely focused on 'miniatures-based table-top battles'. For me, the most telling paragraph/section so far is in the DMG. It's titled simply "Fun". It's short, so I'll post it here as an example of the mentality that is behind the design of all things 4e:
** spoiler omitted **
So, basically, any time you aren't in a battle or soon-to-be-battle isn't "fun". Haggling with the elven clothing merchant? Not fun. Convincing the guards you are weary from travel and simply desire a safe place to rest for the night? Not fun. Attempting to parley with the pirate captain for a simple trade of information? Not fun.
...I guess I've been "NOT having fun" for the last nigh-30 years then, playing 1e/Basic D&D... *sigh*
Funny, I think your 4E DMG must be missing a lot of pages. Because my 4E DMG says the following:
You need other challenges to spice up and add variety
to adventures. Sometimes these challenges are
combined with combat encounters, making for really
interesting and strategic situations. Other times, an
encounter completely revolves around character skills
and social interactions.
My good Duke, if you grant our petition for aid,
it will not only help us complete our quest, but it will
also secure your duchy from the ravages of the goblin
horde for a season or more. Surely you can see the
sense of that. (Makes a Diplomacy skill check and gets a
success.)
Duke: Hmm, well said. I do remember the Battle
of Cantle Hill. Nasty business. (The DM informs the
players that the History skill can now be used to aid in this
challenge.)
Kathra: I’m trained in History! I make a History
check to see what I know about that battle. (Makes a
History check and gets a success.)
DM: You know that the Duke fought in the Battle of
Cantle Hill before he rose to his current station. It was
a terrible battle between the people of the duchy and
a horde of goblins from the nearby mountains. The
duchy barely won the day, thanks in large part to the
actions of the Duke.
Kathra: Well, then I tell the Duke that I remember
the tale of that battle well, and how he bravely fought
off the goblins to save the duchy. Help us today, and
such a battle won’t have to be repeated!
Duke: I’m listening. Continue. (The DM says that
Kathra’s response is worth a +2 bonus to Elias’s check.)
Elias: I get a +2 bonus? Great! I’m going to use it to
help our cause with a well-placed bluff. Duke, I know
for a fact that the goblin leader is raising an army
even as we speak. If we don’t enter the mountain and
disrupt that army, the goblins will overrun the duchy
before the next moon rises! (Makes a Bluff check with a
+2 bonus and gets a success.)
The actor likes to pretend to be her character. She
emphasizes character development that has nothing to
do with numbers and powers, trying to make her character
seem to be a real person in the fantasy world. She
enjoys interacting with the rest of the group, with characters
and monsters in the game world, and with the
fantasy world in general by speaking “in character” and
describing her character’s actions in the first person.
The actor values narrative game elements over
mechanical ones. Unlike the storyteller, she values
her character’s personality and motivations over other
story elements.
An actor . . .
✦ Provides PC background, emphasizing personality.
✦ Plays according to her character’s motivations.
✦ Prefers scenes where she can portray her character.
✦ O ften prefers social encounters to fights.
Engage the actor by . . .
✦ Facilitating her PC’s personality and background
development.
✦ Providing roleplaying encounters.
✦ E mphasizing her character’s personality at times.
✦ Recruiting her to help create narrative campaign elements.
One way to ease the job of roleplaying a wide variety
of characters is to give each one a distinctive
trait—something the heroes remember that character
by. If the tavern keeper on duty during the day is
hard of hearing and the one on duty at night speaks
loudly (and tactlessly), the players have an easier
time remembering which is which. Traits that have
an easy, obvious effect on how you play that character
are best. It’s one thing to tell the players that a criminal
contact has bad breath, but it’s quite another to
play him so that he ends every sentence with a noticeable
exhalation of breath toward the characters. If
your voice and acting talents are up to the challenge,
creating distinctive voices for important characters
is a great way to make sure they stick in the players’
minds, and different facial expressions can create a
vivid picture of different characters
If your players create detailed backgrounds for their
characters and their group, reward their efforts. Use
their backgrounds to craft quests and adventures. Invent
situations where their backgrounds are useful. Let the
character who was raised by a blacksmith charm some
important information out of the baroness’s blacksmith—
or notice an important fact how a metal lock was forged.
Give the characters important information they know
because of their past history, such as the location of a
particular shrine or magical location that appears in the
lore of their original homeland.
One small warning: Make sure you make every
character’s background useful or important from time
to time. Don’t let a whole campaign revolve around
one character’s story.
Now, speaking seriously. Picking a completely out-of-context quote to prove your point doesn't help.
That, of course, was in a 2nd edition campaign where I could say "I run through the giant's legs, jump through the window into the inn, and stab his thigh as I go past" and get away with it.
Put that same fight on a battlemap, and suddenly "I engage the orcs, but I keep moving so they can't surround me" becomes near impossible to accomplish.
Mixing miniature gaming with table-top roleplaying may be a great business strategy, but putting combat on a grid map requires a lot of extra complexity in the combat rule system. It also shifts the balance of power in the game to where what happens on the grid can become more important than what happens off of it. The rules end up assigning characters a roll on the battlefield, and the players end up building their character to best fit that role, and then you start getting into trying to figure out the "best ability scores to have" and the "best weapon to use" where "best" equals "most effective way of winning the combat encounter" and all that cycles around until suddenly D&D becomes a board game with a little extra talking.
Actually, it almost seems to me as though 4th edition has brought D&D full circle back to the Chainmail days that started everything. D&D started as a miniature game with an experience point system, gradually lost the battlemap and minis through 1st & 2nd editions, then gradually gained them both back until it is, once again, a miniature game with an experience point system.
Well its worth pointing out that 4E, while certianly incorperating battlemats, is not necessarily more restrictive then 3.5 in their use. In fact I get the impression that one of the goals of 4E was to take the experience that was l earned with battlemats in the 3rd edition era and try and improve on the model.
Also, while 2nd edition could be very free form, did you normally find that this was the case. My experience with 2nd edition was that, on average, it was actually really static. Mostly the front line guys fought the front line baddies and the wizards and such fired spells over the heads. Things rarely moved around - the fighter player 'blocked' access to the Wizard - the front liners took turns concentrating on one monster until it died and then switched to the next monster while spell casters fired spells over peoples heads.
My actual experience at the table has been that the miniatures usually add diversity to the combat. Monsters must be physically blocked from getting to the wizard and that often means that the players can't just concentrate on one enemy until it dies, their too spread out for that. Rogues and Monks don't usually fight the mooks that the fighter is engaged with (in his role defending the wizard) but instead infiltrate to take the fight to enemy range attackers. The Cleric tends to move around the battle field more due to the dictates of healing and often ends up being forced to do battle with enemies because they have moved to engage him and not the other way around.
On average I've found the battlemat made combats unique and exciting then 2nd edition though I can think of a handful of 2nd edition combats that took place in situations that just could not have been easily simulated with a battlemat.
|
|
In LG, I have seen roleplaying episodes like "Rites of Eternal Spring" written by Eric MengeGeoff has some of the best mods ever written for this game. I wish WotC would publish a Best of LG compilation.
The rights reverted back to the authors after the play period. WoTC doesn't own the episodes. I wrote a Sheldomar and three Ulek episodes.
|
|
Wrong - that 20 fighter can attack the lvl 20 wizard and knock him down, interrupt his spells, disarm him, and grapple him to keep him from casting any spells.Egad - the hulk can beat up superman ala D&D.
WIZ20 simply wins - always. Grapple? Plenty of V only spells that make the WIZ20 go POOF. Then the WIZ20 casts force bubble or cage, time stop, some delayed blast fireballs inside the cage, etc. etc.
WIZ20 beats any other 20 without braking a sweat.
Now about the hulk and superman ...
Except that the only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + the level of the spell you’re casting) or lose the spell.
Don't want to grapple? Just give the Fighter a Spiked Chain. When he tries to 5' step away, he provokes an attack of opportunity. Trip! Tries to cast time stop? Another attack of opportunity - interrupted! Crap, there goes his spell.
Anyways, my point never was that the Fighter (or the Wizard for that matter) was more powerful than the other. I was merely refuting the claim that the only thing a lvl 20 fighter can do is poke with his sword - and you guys all jumped on me. Chill out!
Don't blame us ... we get extra damage while flanking! :)
PS: I still don't agree with you re: the Ftr20 v Wiz20 thing, but this thread isn't the place for that, so I'll let it go.
Funny, I think your 4E DMG must be missing a lot of pages. Because my 4E DMG says the following:
Spoiler:
Jarret: I’m going to try to handle this with diplomacy.
etc...etc...etc...
Now I like this. One of the biggest peeves with me and a mechanics based social encounter is that it often comes down to a single roll by a single character. At best you might get an "assist" roll from some of the other players, but it's not the cooperative success that a combat victory is.
It sounds like the new system is set up for ensuring that each character helps (or hinders) a social encounter, presumably by the "four successes before three failures" (or whatever) system that I'd read about.
Coming up with a great way to keep all the players involved, even in the social encounters, sounds like a plus in the "We like RP" column. I wish there was an encounter like that in Shadowfell. I may have to invent one just to give my players the chance to experience one during our trial sessions.
Now I like this. One of the biggest peeves with me and a mechanics based social encounter is that it often comes down to a single roll by a single character. At best you might get an "assist" roll from some of the other players, but it's not the cooperative success that a combat victory is.
It sounds like the new system is set up for ensuring that each character helps (or hinders) a social encounter, presumably by the "four successes before three failures" (or whatever) system that I'd read about.
Coming up with a great way to keep all the players involved, even in the social encounters, sounds like a plus in the "We like RP" column. I wish there was an encounter like that in Shadowfell. I may have to invent one just to give my players the chance to experience one during our trial sessions.
If you check out the Web Extras for KotS, they did include a Skill Challenge for the module, although I don't know the contents of said challenge (as I think I'll be playing through the module, and have avoided too many spoilers as to its contents)
I'm sure someone here can/will provide a link, and if not I'll try to track one down for you.
Cheers! :)
|
- The 3.5E PHB has one paragraph of how to role-play a dwarf. The 4E PHB has five paragraphs.
While I will agree with you to a certain extent, these sections of the 4ed PHB are written at the 4th grade level or so.
Play a dwarf if you like to be tough and gruff!
Play a elf if you want to be mysterious and graceful!
Meh.
Wrong - that 20 fighter can attack the lvl 20 wizard and knock him down, interrupt his spells, disarm him, and grapple him to keep him from casting any spells.Egad - the hulk can beat up superman ala D&D.
WIZ20 simply wins - always. Grapple? Plenty of V only spells that make the WIZ20 go POOF. Then the WIZ20 casts force bubble or cage, time stop, some delayed blast fireballs inside the cage, etc. etc.
WIZ20 beats any other 20 without braking a sweat.
Now about the hulk and superman ...
Except that the only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + the level of the spell you’re casting) or lose the spell.
Don't want to grapple? Just give the Fighter a Spiked Chain. When he tries to 5' step away, he provokes an attack of opportunity. Trip! Tries to cast time stop? Another attack of opportunity - interrupted! Crap, there goes his spell.
Anyways, my point never was that the Fighter (or the Wizard for that matter) was more powerful than the other. I was merely refuting the claim that the only thing a lvl 20 fighter can do is poke with his sword - and you guys all jumped on me. Chill out!
I'll just cast defensively, which has a DC of 24 for 9th-level spells. Whats my Concentration check? 23? I guess I fail on a 1, then.
As for the other fighter tricks, those work out fine as long as the fighter has the feat and doesnt go against anything bigger than he is. At higher levels many things have more HD than the fighter, are stronger, and/or just bigger than he is.
An old dragon has a grapple of +52. Good luck with that. Same thing if you felt like tripping. A pit fiend has a +35, and at 20th-level that might not be such a big gamble, but I wouldnt try it against the frost giant jarl as he's got a +33 even though you'd tackle him at about three levels prior.
- The 3.5E PHB has one paragraph of how to role-play a dwarf. The 4E PHB has five paragraphs.While I will agree with you to a certain extent, these sections of the 4ed PHB are written at the 4th grade level or so.
Play a dwarf if you like to be tough and gruff!
Play a elf if you want to be mysterious and graceful!Meh.
Well yeah, but it pretty much spells out why you'd want to be a race, at least on a simple level. And why else would you make it more complicated than that? "Play an eladrin if you want a character like Soveliss. Soveliss wakes from his trance. It is still somewhat dark out, but he can barely make out daylight on the horizon. He turns around and looks at the rest of his adventuring party. He wonders, what is it like to sleep such sleep... He chuckles. A shame, how inefficient, he thinks to himself and prepares for the day." Okay, I'm exaggerating, but I'm pretty sure this is how I'd roleplay Eladrin, or at least one who was an elitist jerk.
- The 3.5E PHB has one paragraph of how to role-play a dwarf. The 4E PHB has five paragraphs.While I will agree with you to a certain extent, these sections of the 4ed PHB are written at the 4th grade level or so.
Play a dwarf if you like to be tough and gruff!
Play a elf if you want to be mysterious and graceful!Meh.
Like I said, picking an out-of-context quote to prove your point doesn't help. Are you going to say that the entire text about dwarves or elves from the 4E PHB seem "written for 4th grade" (and the "paragraph" about dwarves or elves from 3.5E PHB does not?)
Presenting a basic steoretype, such as "Play a dwarf if you like to be tough and gruff" may be useless to experienced games, but for new players who aren't familiar with what a D&D elf or dwarf is, it's a good start.
The problem with the 3.5E core books is not "lack of focus on role-playing", but to assume that everyone who reads it is already plays D&D for X years, so there is no need to waste space explaining how does a dwarf, elf, etc. acts. This also applies to the Monster Manual - heck, the 3.5E MM has two lines of non-combat information for succubus.
How about hating it for rational reasons, or loving it for irrational reasons?
:P
Touche.
All joking aside, though, what I meant was this:
...I am getting tired of folk saying 4e is X, Y, Z when it is so clear that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, clearly have not read the rules, and clearly have not played the game,
|
|
Except that the only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + the level of the spell you’re casting) or lose the spell.
Teleport - verbal only. Time Stop - verbal only. DC25 Concentration check? I don't even have to roll. DC29? Same - no roll.
Time stop, teleport, force cage, dead fighter.
Don't want to grapple? Just give the Fighter a Spiked Chain. When he tries to 5' step away, he provokes an attack of opportunity. Trip! Tries to cast time stop? Another attack of opportunity - interrupted! Crap, there goes his spell.
5 foot step does not provoke an AoO. Besides, casting defensively is automatic - DC20 for the teleport, DC24 for the time stop.
Aagin - dead fighter.
Anyways, my point never was that the Fighter (or the Wizard for that matter) was more powerful than the other. I was merely refuting the claim that the only thing a lvl 20 fighter can do is poke with his sword - and you guys all jumped on me. Chill out!
So then why did you spend the first two thirds of this post going on about FTR20 v WIZ20?
I could probably roleplay with a deck of playing cards and VCR instructions.
Can I join your game?
|
|
Well its worth pointing out that 4E, while certianly incorperating battlemats, is not necessarily more restrictive then 3.5 in their use. In fact I get the impression that one of the goals of 4E was to take the experience that was l earned with battlemats in the 3rd edition era and try and improve on the model.
Absolutely. From what I've seen so far, I think 4th has done a wonderful job of tightening up combat on the battlemap and giving players more options in a fight than they had in 3rd.
Also, while 2nd edition could be very free form, did you normally find that this was the case.
Absolutely. Combat in earlier editions had to have more freedom because the battlefield existed only in the collective imagination of the people sitting at the table. No counting squares. No getting out a piece of string to see if an opponent has cover. Just questions, answers, and descriptions.
My actual experience at the table has been that the miniatures usually add diversity to the combat.
Mine hasn't. I'm not saying, at all, that miniatures are a terrible addition to the game. There are a lot of things about the way combat is handled in 3rd edition that I love. I'm just saying that adding the battlemap and miniatures changed the way combat unfolds in D&D considerably, and added a huge emphasis on the numbers over the characters.
|
I'm just saying that adding the battlemap and miniatures changed the way combat unfolds in D&D considerably, and added a huge emphasis on the numbers over the characters.
I would not agree with this. There's only a huge emphasis on the numbers over the characters if you allow it. If anything I'd say that the number crunching is a product of the iterative attack, crit, buff/debuff systems that came with 3E and not the battlemap and miniatures. I've used battlemap and miniatures with Microlite20 and it goes *fast*.
And hopefully if combat is a bit more streamlined in 4E there will be less emphasis on "the numbers" and more time devoted to role-playing the characters.
Certainly I would hope so if there's less time watching the 15th level ranger with two weapons + iterative attacks roll all those dice (with crit confirms) and add all those buffs and debuffs up... ("What does prayer add again? and my potion of heroism? don't forget the bard is singing, add that in too...")
Pete
I want to first state, that I've no intention of switching to 4th edition. There are reasons why, they are my own. I will say that there are games out there I don't have (and books for 3rd edition i don't have) that I'd rather pick up.
That being said:
I had a chance to flip through the books today at my FLGS, and I've come to the conclusion that the notion that 4th edition doesn't promote roleplaying is b~+%@#*!. Plain and simple, it's a solid game. It will be fun to play. This I'm sure of.
I am not pro-4th. I'm not buying the books. In fact there are still things about the game that leave a sour taste in my mouth, but these arguments are quite honestly ridiculous, from both camps.
It's apples to oranges now.
|
|
I don't think I'll have a problem. I could probably roleplay with a deck of playing cards and VCR instructions.
-Threadjack:
Hey, back in the days I used the instructions for my Tape Recorder as a mission brief for some Troubleshooters in Paranoia. Just put the thing on the table. No other information available. Needless to say almost all clones died before they even knew what their mission was...|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Hey, back in the days I used the instructions for my Tape Recorder as a mission brief for some Troubleshooters in Paranoia. Just put the thing on the table. No other information available. Needless to say almost all clones died before they even knew what their mission was...
Hey, the paper's white, ultraviolet clearance only. They should have died just for picking it up :)
Of course, the words themselves are black (infrared). If only you could read the words without seeing the paper...
We had our first 4e session Saturday and I discovered the biggest roadblock to roleplaying in 4th Ed is having players who also play World of Warcraft.
WotC and their critics have spent a lot of time talking about how the new D&D is based on MMO concepts that my players latched onto that and refused to see it as anything else. When they weren’t making MMO-based tactics like “holding aggro” and “herding”, they were making MMO-based jokes like “we look for the townsfolk with the exclamation point over their heads” and “can we re-run this instance until we’re all geared up?”
One of my players even named his dragonborn character Om’Grofl which sounded really cool until he explained that it was spelled OMG ROFL.
All my suggestions and arguments about roleplaying their abilities and keeping in character were actually argued against by players who felt that this really was nothing more than a tabletop version of MMO rules.
Mind you, they were having a hoot. They all seemed really engaged in the action and there was a lot of laughs throughout the evening so I didn't push the issue. It's possible that, as we become more used to the rules and the mechanics become more transparent the roleplay will start to come through, but I fear roleplaying in this edition may suffer thanks to WotC's own ad campaign that set up a preconception in the eyes of players who come to the game not even expecting to roleplay.
... but that would happen no matter what game they were playing.
Not true. That had never been a problem with our 3.5 games, but because my players had read WotC's own early promotions of the new edition as having an MMO model, they latched on to that as being the point of the game.
...the biggest roadblock to roleplaying in 4th Ed is having players who also play World of Warcraft.
... but that would happen no matter what game they were playing.
Not necessarily. As Fletch pointed out, WotC is going after that market and deliberately trying to satisfy those players. It's not going to be a big news flash if they think D&D will offer a similar experience.
|
|
... but that would happen no matter what game they were playing.Not true. That had never been a problem with our 3.5 games, but because my players had read WotC's own early promotions of the new edition as having an MMO model, they latched on to that as being the point of the game.
So misinformed players are the problem? I am not sure what you are trying to say. If a WoW player tries any FRPG they will bring with them preconceptions and habits from WoW.
That is not a problem with the RPG. It is a problem with player expectations.