I think we are both at work and can't look this up but I think your wrong except for the at will power and the marking power. For the encounter and daily stuff that your picking out my impression was you can pick any encounter or daily from the other classes list - but the designers hedged the bet and added the bit about this being of a notably lower level.
Indeed, work and all, but I think what you may be confusing with the power-swap feats (the mention of taking an at-will suggests this) is the ability to forgo a Paragon Path for more extensively multiclassing. In that case, yes you are limited as to the level of powers you can take (generally, to a little under the level you get Paragon Path powers at, since classes don't give powers of equal level).
But neither of us will be able to back that up until we get home. :)
I'd say it is about the same as the original 3E offerings. But, Paizo has upped the ante so much that KotS was a HUGE disappointment...
This is very disappointing. I'm desperately interested in trying 4e, so much that I want to put our current campaign on hold for a while. KotS was my first choice for the test.
This further weakens my faith in WotC. How are we to believe they can maintain online versions of Dragon and Dungeon with this kind of shoddy work? Or or provide new adventures. Or write new splatbooks.
I think they had an extraordinary asset in Paizo, and they threw it away. Now, they have a far-less-than-ordinary team with little experience with such things.
This is very disappointing. I'm desperately interested in trying 4e, so much that I want to put our current campaign on hold for a while. KotS was my first choice for the test.
This further weakens my faith in WotC. How are we to believe they can maintain online versions of Dragon and Dungeon with this kind of shoddy work? Or or provide new adventures. Or write new splatbooks.
I think they had an extraordinary asset in Paizo, and they threw it away. Now, they have a far-less-than-ordinary team with little experience with such things.
I think just as one can be a master musician but be unable to write your own songs, one can be a master gamesmith, but be unable to write your own adventures.
WotC does amazing rules work, IMO, but their adventures can be hit or miss. Dragon and Dungeon both seem to be continuting their tradition of taking 3rd party submissions, not becoming a simple publishing arm of the devs personal stuff, so I expect them to remain pretty high quality. Likewise, I don't think we'll have any problem with WotC and their splatbooks. Adventures are the one spot they might be dicey on ... hopefully Dungeon will pick up any slack they leave off (and if not, Necromancer is still making a 4E AP as well ... I think?)
I'd say it is about the same as the original 3E offerings. But, Paizo has upped the ante so much that KotS was a HUGE disappointment...This is very disappointing. I'm desperately interested in trying 4e, so much that I want to put our current campaign on hold for a while. KotS was my first choice for the test.
This further weakens my faith in WotC. How are we to believe they can maintain online versions of Dragon and Dungeon with this kind of shoddy work? Or or provide new adventures. Or write new splatbooks.
I think they had an extraordinary asset in Paizo, and they threw it away. Now, they have a far-less-than-ordinary team with little experience with such things.
Keep on Shadowfell is a dungeoncrawl. The story is a little flat, but (unlike many, I gather) I thought the presentation, for an introductory adventure, was incredible - frankly I liked having the included full size battlemaps, and haven't seen the quality issue that many have put out there regarding the printing.
That said, if my group decides to go 4e (and it seems likely), I'm looking at going back and converting some of my 1e adventures, possibly starting with N2: The forest oracle as my first adventure for the new group.
- Ashavan
Keep on Shadowfell is a dungeoncrawl. The story is a little flat, but (unlike many, I gather) I thought the presentation, for an introductory adventure, was incredible - frankly I liked having the included full size battlemaps, and haven't seen the quality issue that many have put out there regarding the printing.That said, if my group decides to go 4e (and it seems likely), I'm looking at going back and converting some of my 1e adventures, possibly starting with N2: The forest oracle as my first adventure for the new group.
- Ashavan
I really (and let me stress that by bolding here, REALLY) liked the touch of giving battlemaps for the module. Hopefully this is something they keep up.
<Pause while I put on my tin-foil hat>I think WotC is trying, in part, to compete with computer games -- that only works if you're selling computer games.
BTW, good post, and I agree with most of what you say :)
Thanks for actually reading it. I also agree with your comments. There is a definite emphasis in 4e that makes it easier to play in a certain way that is apparently different from 3e. Not bad, but not my bag, baby.
And you have alluded to my personal beef with WotC. There is a definite product cycle with RPGs, and D&D especially: the publisher puts out a new edition of the core rules, justifying a new line of adventures, accessories, and supplements for the fans to buy. Just like what happened with 3.5, 3e, AD&D2e (revised), AD&D2e, AD&D, and so on since J.R.R. Tolkein fans started rolling dice and pretending to be elves back in the 1970s. What concerns me is the increasing pace and turnover of this cycle. Editions went from lasting 10 to about 5 years. The same thing happened to consumer electronics, and the main result I've seen are more things at a lower price and lower quality that you have to replace (and pay for) more often. But that's an economic phenomenon and largely irrelevant of the merits of 4e on its own.
This is also why I plan on supporting (and hopefully playing) Pathfinder. Thank you Paizo.
But your point also highlights why 4e doesn't appeal to me: when I want instant visual gratification, I play video games. When I want "meat"-y fantasy, I settle into a long D&D session. I want to maintain that distinction.
WotC does amazing rules work, IMO, but their adventures can be hit or miss. Dragon and Dungeon both seem to be continuting their tradition of taking 3rd party submissions, not becoming a simple publishing arm of the devs personal stuff, so I expect them to remain pretty high quality.
I don't, necessarily.
WotC should have pulled out all the stops with the first 4e adventure, but they didn't bother. I think that's the simplest way to put it -- at times, they just don't bother.
If they keep up this spotty good today/crappy tomorrow pattern, I won't bother either. I'm trying to, but at some point my confidence is going to be gone.
I'd say it is about the same as the original 3E offerings. But, Paizo has upped the ante so much that KotS was a HUGE disappointment. Shoot, look at some of the stuff that was put up in Dungeon on-line by WOTC since the end of the magazines... Some excellent adventures. I don't understand why they couldn't get someone awesome like Nickolas Logue to do a killer adventure for the debut... instead of the cliched dungeon crawl that we did get.
My feelings exactly.
What really annoys me with this is the lack of balance - and by balance I mean balance in play styles. If I rope some new players into playing the game its important that I try and give them an adventure that features all sorts of aspects of RPGs. After all I probably roped them in with a theme like "Its like an interactive story of high adventure!". I'm not really putting this on display if I then put them through one combat encounter after another with very little rational for why they are here.
I sometimes think that there is some kind of belief that you need to start the players off with really simple adventures but I feel that this is exactly the wrong tact to take with new players. New players are going to need to be prompted a lot but for them the combat mechanics are NOT going to be the high point of the adventure. Its going to be the story. We need to rope new players in with a good story and interesting or funny NPCs and they'll hopefully learn to appreciate the combat mechanics given some time.
Now possibly this was not made for new players ... but if you've got vets I have a hard time thinking that they made an adventure with very little plots because veteran players just want mindless combat.
They do themselves no favours with this drek in terms of marketing either. "An adventure devoid of plot and filled to the gills with killing monsters and taking their stuff for no particular reason!"
Yeah - I got to race out and buy that. Its no wonder that people think that 4E is an endless hackfest with this kind of lame adventure.
OK I'm exaggerating a little - but I sure wish I was exaggerating a heck of a lot more.
Sigh.
They own the rights to Whispering Cairn. They should have converted that adventure for their initial introduction if they could not be bothered to hire say, Greer, to make them an adventure.
Now possibly this was not made for new players ... but if you've got vets I have a hard time thinking that they made an adventure with very little plots because veteran players just want mindless combat.
Maybe it was made for video gamers. Maybe the accusations are true :/
Or WotC is run by a bunch of imbeciles -- take your pick. BTW, I don't think they're imbeciles.
Or WotC is run by a bunch of imbeciles -- take your pick. BTW, I don't think they're imbeciles.
Sigh.
Sometimes I do.
To be fair they did the exact same thing in 3.0. They made a great rule system and then failed to really exploit it. The result was that '3.0 is nothing but a combat game' was something of a rallying cry for those who loved 2nd edition for years. This is part of what I mean by 'they do their own marketing a disservice.' If their actual adventures are almost nothing but combat, devoid of truly gripping stories and interesting role playing opportunities then what are people supposed to think? Of course they'll think its a pure combat game, Individual DMs that believe in the system, like myself, can hardly come to your house and run you through a RP heavy adventure.
Maybe its just that it takes time before the designers manage to really get deep into the tool box and learn how to ramp up the game. Still, even if thats true, then they should probably pick a good adventure from an earlier era - something that features a little bit of everything all tied up into a yummy whole, and do a conversion. Surely they could have used the rules to figure out how to do such a conversion, and if they can't, well then they have bigger issues on their hands then bad story design.
Or WotC is run by a bunch of imbeciles -- take your pick. BTW, I don't think they're imbeciles.
Sometimes I do.
Hmmm... DDI, online magazines, KotS, GenCon, Forgotten Realms reboot, no campaign support for a long time. You might be onto something :/
|
Hmmm... DDI, online magazines, KotS, GenCon, Forgotten Realms reboot, no campaign support for a long time. You might be onto something :/
While all of those are completely legitimate points, It's still the GenCon thing that really has me scratching my head. I signed up for my events and when WotC announced theirs, even if I had wanted to sign up, I really didn't want to give up the events I was (in some cases amazingly) able to grab.
Adventures are the one spot they might be dicey on ...Something I find strange is that Chris Perkins and Bruce Cordell still both work there, and they both wrote some incredible adventures in the '90s. Why haven't they been able to do it since then? :-/
So true.
The really strange thing is that they should know that interesting plot heavy adventures are actually very well received.
I mean I don't know much about Paizo's market share etc. but Paizo has rode that 'quality adventures' bandwagon pretty hard and have had a lot of success with that market model. It obvously works to put out good product - the proof is in the pudding, as it were.
Really this just does not make much sense - I mean how much are they paying these lawyers? I bet that Greer would have cost them pennies on the dollar in comparison - and (sad to say) Greer would have probably been getting a great contract by industry standards even while making a tiny fraction of what the Lawyers were getting for the same time investment.
I just don't understand why they would decide to skip hiring a freelancer for this if their other duties in developing the game made creating a strong product that showed off many of the different elements of 4E impossible.
|
A nice and detailed review. But it does confirm one of my problems with 4th. The system is heavily focused on tactical combat. The whole fun factor of 4th ed. according to the article revolves around that. Some ppl like this, so great news for them. I am not so enthusiastic about it.
One thing that bothers me about the review is the seeming lack of diversity he ties with 3.5 combat. I fail to connect.
I think we are both at work and can't look this up but I think your wrong except for the at will power and the marking power. For the encounter and daily stuff that your picking out my impression was you can pick any encounter or daily from the other classes list - but the designers hedged the bet and added the bit about this being of a notably lower level.Indeed, work and all, but I think what you may be confusing with the power-swap feats (the mention of taking an at-will suggests this) is the ability to forgo a Paragon Path for more extensively multiclassing. In that case, yes you are limited as to the level of powers you can take (generally, to a little under the level you get Paragon Path powers at, since classes don't give powers of equal level).
But neither of us will be able to back that up until we get home. :)
OK you win.
Your right I was thinking of the Paragon multi-class rules and not the feat swapping in the heroic tier.
A lot of good stuff.
You've really summed up a lot of my feelings on this very succinctly.
I think that its possible, with the players handbook in particular, to get hung up on all the lists of powers and miss out on the fact that their really is a kind of dichotomy in the game regarding what one does outside of combat and what one does in combat.
Consider:
3.5 characters were play balanced with the idea that being good outside of combat compensated you for being weak in combat and vice versa. If you great in combat you get less skill points and vice versa. Its kind of a 'shining moments' theory. When you need to break into the house its time for the rogue and the bard to shine. Later when your trying to escape the guards it'll be time for the fighters to shine. Its not a bad system with well balanced characters but its one that the 4E has chosen to eschew.
Your not play balanced between how good you are in combat versus how good you are outside of combat. Everyone is always useful in both situations though often in different ways. Beyond that they've pulled back on the min-maxing in part to insure that your character can't become some kind of a liability in combat because you've put to much emphasis on fighting nor is it going to be a situation where characters that concentrate on being good at combat at the expense of being good outside of it. Sure you can concentrate your feat choices all on combat orientated stuff and never for things that help with skills. It will make you better in combat - but the feats are purposefully pretty weak. Combat reflexes gives you +1 when you get an opportunity attack - not +4. Your just a tad better then the fighter that choose to pick up say linguist (you choose three languages and can now read, speak and write in those languages) or Long Jumper (+1 on athletic checks and you can make long jumps from standing).
The design of the game essentially insures that choosing to focus your fighter on stuff outside of combat does not make him a lousy fighter. He's still a damn fine fighter. Sure he could be slightly better but only a little bit and if he goes with none combat choices he gets some nice pay off as well.
Now if your DM does nothing but combat encounters its obvously going to be best to choose combat orientated feats but if your facing a mix of combat encounters, skill challenges and role playing encounters then your fighter might very well decide that being able to speak three extra languages (to help with Role Playing encounters) is definitly worth it while picking up Long Jump could be of real use in the adventure both for helping out with skill challenges and for spelunking in strange environments.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I would disagree that the game is balanced outside of combat. Fighters aren't going to find themselves of much use in non-combat situations with just Streetwise and Intimidate. Yes, they have athletics, but in practice adventures don't hinge on whether or not you can climb something - if you're meant to get over it, you will get over it.
This is only true if you use the mechanics to decide if diplomacy is successful. If you focus on the roleplaying aspect, even the gruff dwarven fighter can convince with good arguments.
OK but now your off the reservation. Obviously if the mechanics are not going to come into play then it does not that you don't have any real diplomacy skill.
Note though that the 4E DMG specifically addresses this aspect. It divides role playing encounters into different parts and draws a distinction between something that is a skill challenge or that is decided with a skill check and role playing that is basically about gaining some information but that does not carry any real penalty for failure.
If there are no real penalties for failure - like your just talking with the merchant ot your asking directions to the Green Dragon Tavern then this is not a skill challenge nor does it require a skill check. The lack of penalty for failure means that the mechanics of deciding this with dice are not needed. Just role play the scene.
That is one of the things that 4th IMO has done better than 3rd.
BUT due to the simpliefied skill system there is not much difference skillwise between PCs. Most Rogues with the same theme will have the same skill bonuses, differing only in their Ability bonuses.
...and feat choices and power choices of which you get a fair number in the system - some choice in this area comes up at every level. That said you are correct to some extent. The real factor not their ability scores so much as the fact that everyone gets every skill at 1/2 their level and that the differences between character A) and character B) is rarely truly extreme mechanically. Can the rogue pick the lock? Probably, but its possible that the fighter or the mage could as well. Its presumed that all of them have some familiarity with getting past locked doors being adventurers and all.
Or even worse, the Wizard, played as the bookish Sage with his special knowledge of the arcane messes up a die roll. The Fighter on the other Hand rolls high and now the Fighter tells the Wizard about the basics of some arcane stuff. Can be frustrating for the sage...
This is true. Could happen. The core assumption of 4E is that the fighter is an adventurer. She actually knows a fair bit about the arcane - part of her job description. Sure the wizard in the party is the true expert but he does not know everything about the arcane and there are some things our fighter knows that the wizard does not.
I actually can see how this will occasionally be a bit odd but there are a lot of benefits with this system and this is the major detraction I've seen mentioned.
Personally, when this comes up, and it will, I'll encourage my players to use this as a role playing opportunity. If the wizard has no idea what that creature in front of them is (failed his arcane check) and the fighter does (made her arcane check) I'll encourage the player to come up with a tid bit on how she knows about these creatures while the wizard does not. On the other hand if the fighter fails an athletic check while the wizard pulls it off (to raise a portcullis or something). Well then the obvious fighter response is "I must have loosened it for you."
I admit its not perfect but the alternative is basically '...sorry you can't help here you don't have any skill points in this area and the DC is to high'. This is the trade off for usually saying 'yes you can' when a player wants to do something. Note that this is not an absolute however. In the extremes, when the DCs are really hard, tasks can be simply above what a player could pull off with 1/2 level skill points and a d20. In this case there is a pretty good chance that even the expert in the party will fail but if its hard enough we do get into an area where only the party expert has any chance at all.
I would disagree that the game is balanced outside of combat. Fighters aren't going to find themselves of much use in non-combat situations with just Streetwise and Intimidate. Yes, they have athletics, but in practice adventures don't hinge on whether or not you can climb something - if you're meant to get over it, you will get over it.
In practise if there is any kind of a skill check or Skill Challenge then there is always another way around. Its bad adventure design to make it so that any skill check or skill challenge is the end all and be all of an adventure. If you can't convince the Duke to help you the adventure needs to address what that means and provide a way forward. Thats simply the nature of good adventure design.
Beyond this - Well if Streetwise does not come up in your game well then your right its not going to come into play. Personally I think its a pretty good looking skill focus to take for a fighter if your going to do much adventuring in cities and towns. It encompasses Gather Information, one of the skills that involves a fair bit of role playing in my 3.5 campaign. If your not doing much in cities or towns then maybe Endurance is a better skill focus for the fighter player.
By the way, you still didn't provide a way to make two five-foot-steps in one turn. But I completely missed the Two-Weapon Pounce when I read the PHB II, I'll have to use that next time I play a 3.5 game.Tumble, dc 40. Move 10' as a 5' step. In the Extreme Tumbling sidebar from Oriental Adventures. (I think it's chapter 4, around page 46, but I'm not at home and don't have the book with me.)
By the way, I looked it up, and it's on pg. 56.
|
|
I would disagree that the game is balanced outside of combat. Fighters aren't going to find themselves of much use in non-combat situations with just Streetwise and Intimidate. Yes, they have athletics, but in practice adventures don't hinge on whether or not you can climb something - if you're meant to get over it, you will get over it.
But compare the 4e fighter to the 3e fighter out of combat. At least the 4e fighter has something to do.
|
|
But compare the 4e fighter to the 3e fighter out of combat. At least the 4e fighter has something to do.
Oh I've always had plenty to do with my fighter out of combat...bark orders and tell people they're not searching hard enough. ;-)
Okay seriously for a second, saying fighters have nothing to do outside of combat is a bit of a stretch. I've played enough fighters and rarely have I had problems finding things to do out of combat. Yes, actually performing search checks isn't exactly my area of expertise, but out-of-combat doesn't mean "I search this wall" over and over. Players should be at least somewhat responsible coming up with ideas for what their characters do out of combat. Another pet peeve of mine with 4E (if you've been keeping track this is about 20) is the skill system. Everybody is about the same, and players don't have any ability to shape their own set of skills beyond choosing a few as "trained" and taking feats. But even that doesn't allow for a whole lot of differentiation between characters of the same class.
|
|
But compare the 4e fighter to the 3e fighter out of combat. At least the 4e fighter has something to do.Oh I've always had plenty to do with my fighter out of combat...bark orders and tell people they're not searching hard enough. ;-)
Okay seriously for a second, saying fighters have nothing to do outside of combat is a bit of a stretch. I've played enough fighters and rarely have I had problems finding things to do out of combat. Yes, actually performing search checks isn't exactly my area of expertise, but out-of-combat doesn't mean "I search this wall" over and over. Players should be at least somewhat responsible coming up with ideas for what their characters do out of combat.
Exactly. If you can play a fighter out of combat in 3e and still find things to do then 4e should be no different and, in fact, you have even more options than 3e.
Another pet peeve of mine with 4E (if you've been keeping track this is about 20) is the skill system. Everybody is about the same, and players don't have any ability to shape their own set of skills beyond choosing a few as "trained" and taking feats. But even that doesn't allow for a whole lot of differentiation between characters of the same class.
Some skills can only be applied to certain situations if your skill is trained like Arcana and detect magic. Skills like Thievery suggest that the DM can (and should) make most difficult uses trained only.
On top of that trained is a +5. That is a big deal.
As far as skill selection goes - 3e characters are just as limited if they actually want to be effective with their chosen skills.
Differentiation in any class in 4e is actually fairly robust - stats, powers, skills, feats, rituals. Variations in 1st level 4e characters is far greater than that of their 3e counterparts.
|
|
Exactly. If you can play a fighter out of combat in 3e and still find things to do then 4e should be no different and, in fact, you have even more options than 3e.
And here's where I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. For all the reasons I've explained in numerous other posts, I found 4E to be a cookie cutter method of play. The at-will, per-encounter, and daily powers just stymied the way my group plays. In fact, this is easily my #1 hated feature of 4E. I absolutely abhorred it when I got to play. Things happened for no reason whatsoever other than I had a "power" to do so and couldn't happen if I didn't take that "power". Gone were the creative things I've seen players do in all my games without having to worry about two things, 1 - Do I even have a power that allows me to think of doing this, and 2 - If I do, is it one of those stupid daily powers that I'm now unable to use in this creative manner because I used it six hours ago. Before the sky was the limit for our imaginations, now (in combat, I'm not talking out of combat encounters), it's turned into a board game, and that's not what any of us enjoy playing for our RPG. It's why I like Shadowrun, players can do whatever the want to think of to "get the job done." Eliminating that game-play feature eliminates a lot of what our group does.
Some skills can only be applied to certain situations if your skill is trained like Arcana and detect magic. Skills like Thievery suggest that the DM can (and should) make most difficult uses trained only.
On top of that trained is a +5. That is a big deal.
As far as skill selection goes - 3e characters are just as limited if they actually want to be effective with their chosen skills.
Differentiation in any class in 4e is actually fairly robust - stats, powers, skills, feats, rituals. Variations in 1st level 4e characters is far greater than that of their 3e counterparts.
I've played 4E and I understand how skills work, but at the end of the day, a level 10 rogue with a 16 dex will have nearly identical skills to the other level 10 rogue with a 16 dex, who in turn, with the exception of trained skills, will be identical to the fighter with a 16 dex. In fact, all will likely be exactly the same when it comes to certain skills. It turns all the classes into a homogenized mess. Moreover, for some unexplained reason they're now likely on-par if not better than the level 1 wizard in the areas of expertise that shouldn't be areas of expertise for most rogues and fighters. To me, the creativity is lost at worst, and muddled at best when making my character 'different' if I'm identical to every other rogue in terms of how well I can do roguelike-things? I understand it's part of the new paradigm of making everybody equally powerful, but frankly, nobody is equally powerful, and I don't want everybody to be equally powerful in all manners in the games I play and run. The day we all are equally trained at everything we do in life as real people is the day you can drag me out to the shed and shoot me, because I don't want to live (or play) in that world.
Wow, where do I sign up for the game where one guy is powerful and everyone else sucks?
I've played 4E and I understand how skills work, but at the end of the day, a level 10 rogue with a 16 dex will have nearly identical skills to the other level 10 rogue with a 16 dex, who in turn, with the exception of trained skills, will be identical to the fighter with a 16 dex. In fact, all will likely be exactly the same when it comes to certain skills. It turns all the classes into a homogenized mess. Moreover, for some unexplained reason they're now likely on-par if not better than the level 1 wizard in the areas of expertise that shouldn't be areas of expertise for most rogues and fighters. To me, the creativity is lost at worst, and muddled at best when making my character 'different' if I'm identical to every other rogue in terms of how well I can do roguelike-things? I understand it's part of the new paradigm of making everybody equally powerful, but frankly, nobody is equally powerful, and I don't want everybody to be equally powerful in all manners in the games I play and run. The day we all are equally trained at everything we do in life as real people is the day you can drag me out to the shed and shoot me, because I don't want to live (or play) in that world.
I'm going to agree with to some extent but take a different spin on this.
I think we are, as seems to come up a fair bit, looking at things that look similar between characters on their character sheet versus what actually happens at the table.
In practice if one had two rogues and they had the same stat placement they would be very comparable in a lot of skills. Thats true but it seems a lot more similar on paper then at the actual game table. At the actual game table there is that d20 roll to see if the Rogue's manage to successfully do whatever it is they are trying to do with their skills. Each of them will sometimes pull it off and sometimes fail. Even if they are adventuring together the randomness imposed by the d20 is going to lead to them having different amounts of success with different types of encounters. They probably won't feel the same in actual play even if many of their skills are fairly close and quite comparable.
I'd also like to address the fact that your uncomfortable with higher level fighters being as good as low level wizards in the wizards area of expertise. I agree that they are comparable but see this as two different routes to similar skill levels. In D&D both these charadters use their skills do pretty specific things. They identify magical effects, monsters, traps and spells.
However the wizard is doing this because - at the beginning of his career, he has read dusty tombs of magical monsters and studied the theory and practice of spell casting. He can even put that theory into practice in small ways that he has learned. He's identifying the monster because he recognizes its description from the dusty tombs or he's read about similar creatures and is guessing that this monster has similar abilities based on tells he's read about.
the fighter is doing the exact same thing, but she's acquired the knowledge from hard experience. She recognizes monsters abilities because they are similar to things she's run across during her adventures. The only books she's read are A Pocket Guide to Things That Go Bump in the Night but experience allows her to identify arcane monsters or other effects that adventurers are likely to come upon. Its sort of like being a university trained but inexperience naturalist versus the New Guinea hunter that has lived and hunted in this area for many years. Both can tell you a lot about the flora and fauna and both might well know similar things but they came to that knowledge in very different ways.
Again the variability of the d20 and its successes and failures are going to make both classes feel somewhat different even if their actual probabilities of gaining any specific success or failure are about the same. Presumably both players would role play their knowledge differently as well.
In any case I see your issue to some extent but feel that what we gain from such a system like the ability for all the players to participate more fully to the adventures success outside of combat and the fact that this system makes adding skill checks and challenges to published adventures by authors who don't know your specific group (just what level they are designing an adventure for) are worthwhile trade offs for a more cookie cutter look on the character sheets. When forced to choose I'd rather mechanics are designed to play well at the table then look good on character sheets and I think this is one of those places where one must choose.
WotC is not really pulling their weight here but I look forward to many adventures that focus a lot more on skill checks and skill challenges in the adventures then was really feasible in 3.5. Due to the fact that, in 3.5, the author is faced with limited word count. If they include a bunch of skill checks there is some real danger that no one even has the appropriate skills. In 4E the author is assured that the PCs do have the appropriate skills. They still might fail the challange but it can never be the case that the encounter, as written, is of no use to some of the groups that play the module,
Any way, I might have to wait for stuff like the Necromancer's AP to get my wish of adventures featuring a little less combat and a little more in the way of skill checks and skill challenges however. I'd love to see a skill challenge heavy version of Prince of Redhand. Essentially I think that the 4E rules provides the tools and meta character design to really allow for just such adventures - if only adventure authors will make use of them.
A lot of people are being disappointed in 4E character creation because they are expecting something that is intentionally not there: a high level of customization.
Before, after you choose your race, class, and ability scores you get down to the nitty gritty and start fine tuning your character. In 4E, once you choose your race, class, and ability scores you are just about DONE. Intentionally. They want us to agonize over which Class and Race will help us fit our concept, NOT agonize over how to make a certain Class and Race combo fit our concept.
A lot of the choices that make characters different are no longer supposed to be available at 1st level. They're given to you as you level up and make different choices and are derived from the powers you choose and how you describe them in play.
People are going in and looking for one thing--character options at first level--and that's the one greatest part of the game they've changed. We're looking at a MAP and wondering why it looks funny and we haven't really begun to understand that it's meant to represent a globe.
|
|
MisterSlanky,
My perspective on the homogeneity issue is not one you will be able to grasp unless you understand my experience with this game.
If you have ever played OD&D or AD&D you would have found that all X level PCs on any one class were identical from the perspective of mechanics. In spite of this players found way to make their characters unique.
3e turned the class concept upside down. It is the only edition of the game where a player could mix and match classes in almost any combination possible. That led to some interesting and unintended consequences. Some folks liked the new paradigm. I kinda liked it but 4e feels more like the way I played the game from 1976-1982.
I have a difficult time understanding why a PC must be mechanically differentiated in order to be different from other characters within the same class because I grew up with a game where that was never possible.
4e appeals to me because it brings back thematic classes but allows for an immense amount of customization (skills, feats, powers, rituals, etc.). Further more multiclassing, though limited, adds yet another dimension to give to each character.
I understand that you prefer the amount of customization that 3e provides, and I am not trying to convince you that you should not. But I want you to understand that infinite character variation is not something that D&D has always had, nor is it something that everyone wants in their game.
Cheers
|
|
<snipped for length>
I understand that you prefer the amount of customization that 3e provides, and I am not trying to convince you that you should not. But I want you to understand that infinite character variation is not something that D&D has always had, nor is it something that everyone wants in their game.
And this I think is where you may have trouble grasping the fundamental problem many have with the system. I started gaming in the early 80's and cut my RPG gamer teeth originally on the D&D red box and enjoyed it. The excitement was there, but it was quickly overshadowed by the next system that pulled me in - Top Secret SI. Suddenly the breadth of character generation options became visible to me, and the cut-and-dry system that was D&D (including its Dwarves always warriors and elves always as wizards) started to limit what I, and my friends wanted to come up with. This was expanded even more when I started playing Shadowrun where we instantly threw the concept of an "archetype" out the window.
As my gaming experience grew, my desire to have a broader and broader more flexible system grew. The advent of 3E was the first time I had been excited to play D&D in years (even though I did play in a AD&D2E game for a long time), and although it's not my favorite system, I've been able to work with it because it's flexible enough for me and my group. Heck, when I bought the first D20 version of Star Wars (migrating from the D6 version), I was royally pissed because in my mind there should be no such thing as a smuggler or Jedi "class". The original D&D to this date feels dated because of its inflexibility and my first play experience with 4E made me feel like I just feel 20 years into the past, and not in a good nostalgic way.
I know this is what some people like, but I've come to realize through all the 4E vs. 3E arguing that the number one problem with 4E is that the game has pulled backwards and become too abstract again. I've never appreciated simulation style games up until this point when I suddenly realized that the 4E game design went too far with my suspension of disbelief, and character customization is a direct result of that design decision. All-in-all to me the game feels like a massive step backwards. Mark my words, after two years of spat books and other WotC publications 4E will begin to bloat as badly as some believe 3E has, just the bloat will come in the forms of too many powers that result in too many rules breaking and/or special rules variants that this "elegant" system will begin to show cracks. Of course, by then the board of directors will be asking when they'll be expecting the next influx of money from D&D 5E.
The good news is my group has enough 3E books to last through the apocalypse, and we're all huge fans of alternate systems that will now likely begin getting more attention again. It's been a long time since my West End Star Wars books got a workout, and maybe it's time to move on to something completely different.
|
|
I know this is what some people like, but I've come to realize through all the 4E vs. 3E arguing that the number one problem with 4E is that the game has pulled backwards and become too abstract again.
I hear ya. I love simulationist gaming too. I love open character development. For that I have Runequest. The role D&D plays in my gaming life is that of a high fantasy escapist game. I like that it is moving towards the abstract as that is the role it has always played.
I really enjoyed 3e and I can appreciate why folk want to stick with it. Enjoy.
|
Before the sky was the limit for our imaginations, now (in combat, I'm not talking out of combat encounters), it's turned into a board game, and that's not what any of us enjoy playing for our RPG.
Truly and purely out of curiosity, have you read the 4e DMG section outlining how to handle a player kicking an ogre into a brazier of flaming coals? It's on page 42.
This is why I believe the mechanics of 4e actually enhance the idea of roleplay more than 3.5 does. Basically, the system proposes the idea of everyone getting a shot, and not just the one who dedicated his limited character resources to it.
"Everyone is special, which is another way of saying no one is." (The Incredibles)
Good explanation and points in your post, thank you. 4e is certainly a different take on the idea of "balance" and "roles", and this thread is clarifying a lot of that. But the more it does so, the less I think I'm comfortable with 4e. For someone with my age and experience, perhaps it's just too much effort to shift, especially with more appealing alternatives like Pathfinder, but it may happen eventually.
Happy Adventuring.
Truly and purely out of curiosity, have you read the 4e DMG section outlining how to handle a player kicking an ogre into a brazier of flaming coals? It's on page 42.
I can't speak for the guy you replied to here, but to me that example is on the list of issues. Can you do anything you imagine? Well actually yes, you can. But the example shows how the game boils down to crushing "whatever you can imagine" into the same-ole same-ole one mechanical template for resolution. And since bonuses are expected to be within a range for a character and defenses are all within a range for a monster of level X, the expected outcome will be pretty much the same regardless of what you imagine. Very cheap.
Why buy the game at all? Sit around a table with friends and talk through everything. If a player describes an action their character is good at, then they have a 2 in 3 chance of success. An action that isn't quite as fit to them, 50/50, and an action that is a weakness for them is 1 in 4. Just as in 4E, players will always make certain they describe their actions in ways that utilize their characters strengths (the fighter will brute force the ogre into the brazier, the rogue will use gracefully trip the ogre into the brazier, the wizard will hit the ogres knees for just the right leverage into the brazier... ). It all comes out the same. Seriously, you can replace that whole element of 4E with a 1d6 resolution system.The worst part is, the only thing that changes is the only thing that should be the same. Push Ogre A into Brazier B: what is the damage done? Answer: Depnds on the level of the character that did the pushing. HUH???
Yeah, I agree that the mechanics can most certainly handle anything you can imagine and the sky's the limit. But the mechanics will handle it just one way. When you land on Boardwalk in monopoly you can describe how you make the payment any way you want. The sky is the limit. You can talk about running drug deals, washing dishes in the back, pulling out your wad of cash, taking out a loan, ... the sky is the limit. But the gameplay doesn't change in an way to let your imagination enhance the game experience. Is 4E that bad? Not at all, it is vastly better than monopoly. But that extreme example just makes the point that simply allowing the player to describe something doesn't mean that the mechanics are rewarding. Monopoly does a horrid job of handling the imagination. 4E does a marginal job of handling it. But hey, the 4E system is simple.
I can do whatever I imagine. And the resolution part (the part that makes 4E be 4E) feels like a board game.
|
|
Truly and purely out of curiosity, have you read the 4e DMG section outlining how to handle a player kicking an ogre into a brazier of flaming coals? It's on page 42.
Rather than try to write another obscenely long post, I'll just defer to ByronD as his response as it's pretty close to what I'd have written. Yes I have read it, and it's just another example of the game mechanics that are on my list of frustrations (related directly to the saving throw mechanic I'd add).
But how is that any different for 3e, 2e, or any other e?
3E attempts to model how Character A interacts with Challenge B.
4E attempts to model how a Level A character interacts with a Level B challenge.That is a huge fundamental difference. And for 3E it leads to vastly more rich and detailed interactions that are actually supported by the mechanics. As opposed to simply putting a narrative on top of the same mechanic, no mattter what the character/challenge combination happens to be.
I'd also like to address the fact that your uncomfortable with higher level fighters being as good as low level wizards in the wizards area of expertise. *snip*
However the wizard is doing this because - at the beginning of his career, he has read dusty tombs of magical monsters and studied the theory and practice of spell casting. *snip*
the fighter is doing the exact same thing, but she's acquired the knowledge from hard experience. She recognizes monsters abilities because they are similar to things she's run across during her adventures. *snip* Its sort of like being a university trained but inexperience naturalist versus the New Guinea hunter that has lived and hunted in this area for many years.*snip*
That argument isn't very convincing, because high-level 4E characters have an level-bonus to skill for everything, including areas they have never encountered in "the school of hard knocks". That's like a New Guinea hunter being suddenly transported to Texas who can ride horses and drive cars as well as most locals, despite never encountering Western civilization before.
If it's important to have an explanation, the best one I can think of offhand is 4E characters tap into the Akashic records, their default skills derive from the collective subconscious knowledge of mankind.
To further the example of knowledge skills, I'd think of it like in 3E when the Wizard meets a strange and exotic creature that he hasn't seen and couldn't have read about ... but still gets a Knowledge: Arcana check to ID it. He might not know it specifically, but he can pick up clues compared to creatures he does know and guess "That thing is vulnerable to fire!"
I don't think you'd have to really bring the Akashic Records into things, although that could be an interesting angle to RP for some characters. (I always liked Akashics in AU)
|
|
But how is that any different for 3e, 2e, or any other e?3E attempts to model how Character A interacts with Challenge B.
4E attempts to model how a Level A character interacts with a Level B challenge.That is a huge fundamental difference. And for 3E it leads to vastly more rich and detailed interactions that are actually supported by the mechanics. As opposed to simply putting a narrative on top of the same mechanic, no mattter what the character/challenge combination happens to be.
You and I must be looking at completely different games because I see 3e as d20+modifiers compared to a target number. What other mechanic am I missing?
|
|
Im sorry but I despise the 3.5 skill method.
You do realize that as you level with 3.x skills, you actually GET WORSE?
In a level based game where everything else at least stays constant, your success with skills actually goes down?
BLEH
Unless you simply max rank critical skills. That is what most people end up doing in 3e.
|
|
Im sorry but I despise the 3.5 skill method.
You do realize that as you level with 3.x skills, you actually GET WORSE?
In a level based game where everything else at least stays constant, your success with skills actually goes down?
BLEH
Only if your DM progressively increases difficulties for the same task.
At level 1 with as search skill of 5 I have a 50% chance of finding a DC10 door. I don't suddenly get worse at finding it at level 20 even though I haven't put any skill ranks in the skill. Nor does the door suddenly become a DC20 to find just because I'm level 20.
DCs shouldn't suddenly get harder just because the adventure is getting harder. DCs should match the challenge, period.
|
|
I find it weird that at level 1, you fight kobolds et al, all CR <1 but at level 20, as a DM, are you going to put a CR 1 "challenge", so why the hell are the noncombat challenges STILL the same thing back at level 1?
Why do you honestly think so many pubished adventures don't bother with using skills past level 4?
As well, your analysis doesn't include the auto-scaling nature of some skills AND the opposed roll nature of skills. For example, Escape Artist and Rope Use don't seem like skills you get worse at, but thanks to the autoscaling nature of the math behind them (they use BAB), you get WORSE if you don't put points into them.
Similarly, skills like Spot and Stealth are opposed rolls. As you level, if you don't put max ranks into the skills, you actually get worse as you level.
I just deleted my 3 paragraph response because at this point it's obvious arguing won't get anybody anywhere. I have this to say instead. It's all in the campaign. None of the issues you've just identified have ever been a problem in any campaign I've played in, or run. Just because the method of campaign design you describe exists does not mean it is the only method of campaign design, or even a good method of campaign design.
As a DM there are reasonable and logical ways around everything you have just described. You just need to be creative.
My 2 cp.
I have played about 5 games of 4E since it s release. What I enjoyed is that in combat every one has something to do. What I found interesting is that out of combat everyone was doing something. All of the folks I was playing with were Jazzed.
I am in the process of converting The Crucible of Freya by Necromancer Games and The Whispering Cairn and Three Faces of Evil by Paizo to 4E. I will reserve my opinion on 4E until these have been played through.
I agree with one of the prior posters that the PFRPG Alpha 1 release had a really cool skill system. I wish it had remained.