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.
Here I think your moving off the reservation to some extent. PCs are good at every skill when dealing with the kinds of things that PCs encounter during adventures. They are not necessarily good at cooking since their is no cooking skill for them to go up by 1/2 their level in. If you stick your PCs into environments that don't deal with things that adventurers deal with I think its up to you to decide how the rules are going to work in that situation. Your going to have to go in that direction in any case since the example DCs in the skill section give you the DCs for stuff that adventurers do and don't really give DCs for stuff they don't do.
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.
I agree with this to some significant extent but my hope for 4E goes beyond what I can do for my personal players in my home game with home brewed adventures. I love a lot of published adventures - I always have and I think that their are some exceptionally talented writers out there.
What attracts me to the 4E skill system is that it allows any designer to make use of skills and skill challenges without having to know the intimate details of my group (just their level). They, in essence, can write adventures that will focus less on combat and more on the non-combat elements and the system will allow me or any other group out there to play in their adventure and have a good time.
|
BINGO!
I have not heard a single complaint about 4e that cannot be solved with this very solid idea. In fact the 4e DMG is full of great suggestions that do just that.
Unfortunately, it doesn't help that I think the system stinks like a rancid fish tied to the bottom of my car's muffler...which is why my arguments of why I want to stick with 3.5 and other arguments of why 4E is spectacular aren't going anywhere with people who have made up their mind.
I like to think of the Great D&D debate as the new abortion debate...it's just not worth brining up anymore.
Unfortunately, it doesn't help that I think the system stinks like a rancid fish tied to the bottom of my car's muffler...
Could you be a bit less ambiguous in expressing your feelings? :P
...which is why my arguments of why I want to stick with 3.5 and other arguments of why 4E is spectacular aren't going anywhere with people who have made up their mind.
I've noticed that, too.
There are plenty that aren't interested in being rational with their criticism, and there are plenty that aren't interested in rational criticism -- on both sides. They say they don't see the point, but I think it's more they won't see the point.
|
There is no debate.
3e is 3e and 4e is 4e.
One is not better than another.
Each person has a preference for one, the other, or both.
This board is not about debate - this board is about 4e.
If you have made up your mind and 4e is not for you then why bother trying to participate in a board about a game you have no wish to play?
|
Oh no, I'm very well aware I can use either two weapons and a longbow on the same character, it's just now if I want to focus my ranger on two weapon fighting I no longer have to lose my mobility to be effective at it, that's the part I really like.
Just a note here on the ranger class -- I really love what Jason did with the PF Alpha ranger class, because it feels so much more *thematically* "correct" than any other version of the class I've seen so far. You can create an old, veteran huntsman who is specialized in tracking and bringing down wild beasts with one spear thrust or arrow and is really at hom in the mountains and forests. Or, you can create an adventurer who is a deadly monsterslayer. Both concepts work mechanically the same way, yet they feel different, as they should.
I'm not sure you could actually create a grumpy old huntsman in the 4E rules?
Oh no, I'm very well aware I can use either two weapons and a longbow on the same character, it's just now if I want to focus my ranger on two weapon fighting I no longer have to lose my mobility to be effective at it, that's the part I really like.Just a note here on the ranger class -- I really love what Jason did with the PF Alpha ranger class, because it feels so much more *thematically* "correct" than any other version of the class I've seen so far. You can create an old, veteran huntsman who is specialized in tracking and bringing down wild beasts with one spear thrust or arrow and is really at hom in the mountains and forests. Or, you can create an adventurer who is a deadly monsterslayer. Both concepts work mechanically the same way, yet they feel different, as they should.
I'm not sure you could actually create a grumpy old huntsman in the 4E rules?
I've not looked at the PRPG ranger that has been created but I'm not really sure what specific mechanics your looking for in order to create a grumpy old huntsman. I'd normally consider that to be mainly an aspect of role playing and character background. Your allowed to create character background in 4E and you are allowed to role play your character concept.
Now mechanically I'd probably choose to take training in certain skills over other skills to be a wily old hunter and it might effect my stat choices a little. I suppose I'd keep the background in mind when picking up my powers but all of this is really just icing around a core that is about role playing and character background.
Oh no, I'm very well aware I can use either two weapons and a longbow on the same character, it's just now if I want to focus my ranger on two weapon fighting I no longer have to lose my mobility to be effective at it, that's the part I really like.Just a note here on the ranger class -- I really love what Jason did with the PF Alpha ranger class, because it feels so much more *thematically* "correct" than any other version of the class I've seen so far. You can create an old, veteran huntsman who is specialized in tracking and bringing down wild beasts with one spear thrust or arrow and is really at hom in the mountains and forests. Or, you can create an adventurer who is a deadly monsterslayer. Both concepts work mechanically the same way, yet they feel different, as they should.
I'm not sure you could actually create a grumpy old huntsman in the 4E rules?
I don't see why I can't, there's nothing stopping me from making my ranger a grumpy old huntsman. Well aside from that rule on page 321 that strictly outlines what kind of background your character may have, but I'm ignoring it.
Now I have no objection to PCs all having a set of 'basic adventuring skills' they automatically develop with experience, indeed I use something like that in my homebrew. I just like to have a few specialized adventuring skills that not every PC can do, like interpreting magical script, reconfiguring mechanical devices and so forth. I'd also feel a logical disconnect if a party became skilled in something 'adventurous' they'd never learned about or encountered before in their career, which is theoretically possible in...
Without checking my books, I'm pretty sure certain skill uses are only available if Trained in the skill. I know Arcana has a few, and I think Thievery suggests the DM make some of the more technical areas of that skill Trained Only as well.
In all honesty, I thought the sparsity of Trained Only skill uses was one of 4E's failures, although I can see why they went the way they did, with a more loosely defined list of skill uses.
Cheers! :)
|
Without checking my books, I'm pretty sure certain skill uses are only available if Trained in the skill. I know Arcana has a few, and I think Thievery suggests the DM make some of the more technical areas of that skill Trained Only as well.
In all honesty, I thought the sparsity of Trained Only skill uses was one of 4E's failures, although I can see why they went the way they did, with a more loosely defined list of skill uses.
Cheers! :)
I checked this the other day.
There are a grand total of 2 standard Trained only applications and one suggested one.The suggested one is as you noted in Thievery, saying the DM can decide that certain things can only be done trained.
The two defined trained only ones are:
1. Using Acrobatics to reduce falling damage
2. Using Arcana to know things about the Far Realm
I think one needs to remember that with feats having less combat power and being available more often and skill related utility powers being available that a 'specialist' is not just someone who has trained in a skill, they are someone who has trained, taken feats for that skill and taken powers which enhance that skill.
|
|
I checked this the other day.
There are a grand total of 2 standard Trained only applications and one suggested one.The suggested one is as you noted in Thievery, saying the DM can decide that certain things can only be done trained.
The two defined trained only ones are:
1. Using Acrobatics to reduce falling damage
2. Using Arcana to know things about the Far Realm
3. Using Arcana to detect magic.
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.
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
While I am currently running KotS (it has a classic feel to my players and me. It reminds some of the old edition players of Keep on the Borderlands), I must say that this has been a wonderful addition to the game myself. It doesn't matter if some of the maps are reprints, I didn't have them. If WotC took a page from Fiery Dragons book this would have been an outstanding adventure (Fiery Dragon made thinly veiled paper tokens for the adventure, they are a must have for the adventure). It would be an EVEN better idea to include custom minis of the BBEG and important minions for adventures. Especially if that BBEG was reoccuring though out the path.
While I am currently running KotS (it has a classic feel to my players and me. It reminds some of the old edition players of Keep on the Borderlands), I must say that this has been a wonderful addition to the game myself. It doesn't matter if some of the maps are reprints, I didn't have them. If WotC took a page from Fiery Dragons book this would have been an outstanding adventure (Fiery Dragon made thinly veiled paper tokens for the adventure, they are a must hvae for the adventure). It would be an EVEN better idea to include custome minis of the BBEG and important minions for adventures. Especially if that BBEG was reoccuring though out the path.
I'd agree more than 100% with you, if that was at all mathmatically possible. Hell, I'll give you 115% just for good measure anyway.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see either of those ideas. :(
The tokens would probably get axed 'cause they cut into possible mini sales, while the included mini idea would get axed 'cause they wouldn't want to give out non-randomized minis.
Although I guess if they had a mini that wasn't one of the rare, more expensive types, maybe they'd be willing to include it. They had Drizzit included with the White Dragon right?
I'm not hopeful, but I am eager to buy it anyway! :)
I'd agree more than 100% with you, if that was at all mathmatically possible. Hell, I'll give you 115% just for good measure anyway.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see either of those ideas. :(
The tokens would probably get axed 'cause they cut into possible mini sales, while the included mini idea would get axed 'cause they wouldn't want to give out non-randomized minis.
Although I guess if they had a mini that wasn't one of the rare, more expensive types, maybe they'd be willing to include it. They had Drizzit included with the White Dragon right?
I'm not hopeful, but I am eager to buy it anyway! :)
This is a bit of a catch 22. Paper tokens (which I printed on card stock and attached to plastic bases [10 for .99 cents]) are a good thing, but not as good as say 3d plastic pre-painted minis. By including more in your product that appeals to the buyer you are more likely to sell that product. The problem is that the product now costs more money to make. They may sell more units, but a higher price might put people off. Look at the dicussion for the 4e core rules set for an example.
And the mini's might still be collectable becuase there would only be two ways to get them. Its a scary example, but look at Yu-gi-oh cards. The ones that you could get from McDonalds were hard to find. Just like they have Frostie that special beholder ( I think).
|
|
Oh no, I'm very well aware I can use either two weapons and a longbow on the same character, it's just now if I want to focus my ranger on two weapon fighting I no longer have to lose my mobility to be effective at it, that's the part I really like.Just a note here on the ranger class -- I really love what Jason did with the PF Alpha ranger class, because it feels so much more *thematically* "correct" than any other version of the class I've seen so far. You can create an old, veteran huntsman who is specialized in tracking and bringing down wild beasts with one spear thrust or arrow and is really at hom in the mountains and forests. Or, you can create an adventurer who is a deadly monsterslayer. Both concepts work mechanically the same way, yet they feel different, as they should.
I'm not sure you could actually create a grumpy old huntsman in the 4E rules?
I've not looked at the PRPG ranger that has been created but I'm not really sure what specific mechanics your looking for in order to create a grumpy old huntsman. I'd normally consider that to be mainly an aspect of role playing and character background. Your allowed to create character background in 4E and you are allowed to role play your character concept.
Now mechanically I'd probably choose to take training in certain skills over other skills to be a wily old hunter and it might effect my stat choices a little. I suppose I'd keep the background in mind when picking up my powers but all of this is really just icing around a core that is about role playing and character background.
Sure, it is about role-playing, but I was speaking from the mechanical POV -- no matter what, your grumpy ranger is going to have powers that border on magical in 4E. And can you be mechanically more "effective" (as in "having higher damage/attack bonuses") against beasts and animals than goblinoids, giants or other monsters? Can you even create a ranger who is actually "sucky" at combat -- or, precisely, "sucky" at melee but deadly with a bow?
Of course, you can stat an NPC with "unique" abilities, but can you create a PC ranger who is an old huntsman and an expert "beastslayer" but little else?
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
You know, I didn't know where to put this observation, so I'll file it here...
I've heard several people point out to me that one of the things that irritates them about 4e is that they "left out a bunch of stuff." Or "it's only half a game". The first example? Equipment, weapons, and armor. "They only dedicate, like, a page to each!!!"
Really? No. The Equipment chapter uses nine pages of text and tables (no, I didn't count artwork, either). Still, pretty skimpy compared to 3.5, which weighed in at nearly 18 pages of text and tables. OK, then. Half the content...half the game?
Then, I strolled down memory lane, and cracked open my AD&D PHB, 1st edition, and looked at what that tome dedicated to equipment, weapons, and armor.....ready?
Four pages. Mostly tables.
So...my point? This "lack of content" isn't really...lacking. This is likely an example of "rules bloat"...like the software industry experiences "software bloat". RPG rulesets have gotten larger and larger, more complex, more rules covering every possible question. TSR got itself in trouble printing so much stuff with 2nd edition, and 3.5 has...well, how many "Complete" books? And three compendiums? I have a PDF that is simply tables of all the known feats...it's 199 pages. That's just tables...no detailed text!
Honestly, I really do believe 4e is about simplification, somewhat. Now...ask me again in a year or two, when I'm holding PHB II and III, plus Ritual book I, Paragon Paths, Vol 1, and so on.
Again, my observations...that's all. Yes, I still play 3.5. Yes, I still love the Pathfinder line. I just wanted to throw this out there for thoughts and discussion. Friendly discussion.
Sure, it is about role-playing, but I was speaking from the mechanical POV -- no matter what, your grumpy ranger is going to have powers that border on magical in 4E.
Rangers are certianly going to have Ranger powers in 4E. Obviously you can choose which ones but your going to have stuff from the ranger list unless you multi-class and pick up fighter powers or something. I can focus my powers on ones that will be huntsmen like however.
And can you be mechanically more "effective" (as in "having higher damage/attack bonuses") against beasts and animals than goblinoids, giants or other monsters? Can you even create a ranger who is actually "sucky" at combat -- or, precisely, "sucky" at melee but deadly with a bow?
I can make a Ranger thats abilities focus on bow use over melee combat certianly.
Of course, you can stat an NPC with "unique" abilities, but can you create a PC ranger who is an old huntsman and an expert "beastslayer" but little else?
I think what your asking is if one can use 4E to make a Ranger that is mechanically identical to whatever the PRPG ranger will eventually be. The answer is no. Nor can PRPG make a 4E Ranger. The systems are not carbon copies of each other.
I can use either system to make a huntsman certianly, its simply a matter of role playing and choosing my abilities to focus on things that I think are huntsman like but they will mechanically differ from each other.
Sure, it is about role-playing, but I was speaking from the mechanical POV -- no matter what, your grumpy ranger is going to have powers that border on magical in 4E. And can you be mechanically more "effective" (as in "having higher damage/attack bonuses") against beasts and animals than goblinoids, giants or other monsters? Can you even create a ranger who is...Oh no, I'm very well aware I can use either two weapons and a longbow on the same character, it's just now if I want to focus my ranger on two weapon fighting I no longer have to lose my mobility to be effective at it, that's the part I really like.Just a note here on the ranger class -- I really love what Jason did with the PF Alpha ranger class, because it feels so much more *thematically* "correct" than any other version of the class I've seen so far. You can create an old, veteran huntsman who is specialized in tracking and bringing down wild beasts with one spear thrust or arrow and is really at hom in the mountains and forests. Or, you can create an adventurer who is a deadly monsterslayer. Both concepts work mechanically the same way, yet they feel different, as they should.
I'm not sure you could actually create a grumpy old huntsman in the 4E rules?
I've not looked at the PRPG ranger that has been created but I'm not really sure what specific mechanics your looking for in order to create a grumpy old huntsman. I'd normally consider that to be mainly an aspect of role playing and character background. Your allowed to create character background in 4E and you are allowed to role play your character concept.
Now mechanically I'd probably choose to take training in certain skills over other skills to be a wily old hunter and it might effect my stat choices a little. I suppose I'd keep the background in mind when picking up my powers but all of this is really just icing around a core that is about role playing and character background.
I suppose I can't, but honestly I wouldn't want to. I mean the character you describe would probably be an awesome NPC. I'd love to NPC him, but unless we're doing some kind of special adventure I'd rather not do that kind of character who's very limited in scope.
Favored enemy was never popular, mainly 'cause unless you knew what was gonna happen in the campaign you always took goblin, 'cause hey every low level character has to face off against goblins, and when it came time to choose the next one, well you could make that bonus against goblins better, but you know that you're probably not gonna see much of goblins pretty soon, so then you get another favored enemy but what the hell do you know what you're gonna face. Which is why I like the way Pathfinder handles it, but I don't plan on playing that any time soon. If anything, favored enemy will be included in Martial Power, alongside the option for animal companions.
|
|
Sure, it is about role-playing, but I was speaking from the mechanical POV -- no matter what, your grumpy ranger is going to have powers that border on magical in 4E.
Rangers are certianly going to have Ranger powers in 4E. Obviously you can choose which ones but your going to have stuff from the ranger list unless you multi-class and pick up fighter powers or something. I can focus my powers on ones that will be huntsmen like however.
And can you be mechanically more "effective" (as in "having higher damage/attack bonuses") against beasts and animals than goblinoids, giants or other monsters? Can you even create a ranger who is actually "sucky" at combat -- or, precisely, "sucky" at melee but deadly with a bow?
I can make a Ranger thats abilities focus on bow use over melee combat certianly.
Of course, you can stat an NPC with "unique" abilities, but can you create a PC ranger who is an old huntsman and an expert "beastslayer" but little else?I think what your asking is if one can use 4E to make a Ranger that is mechanically identical to whatever the PRPG ranger will eventually be. The answer is no. Nor can PRPG make a 4E Ranger. The systems are not carbon copies of each other.
I can use either system to make a huntsman certianly, its simply a matter of role playing and choosing my abilities to focus on things that I think are huntsman like but they will mechanically differ from each other.
Actually, no, I don't mean that the systems should be identical. Because I can create such a ranger in Rolemaster or GURPS, even though those systems are mechanically very different from D&D/D20. My point was that the ranger class -- or, specifically, it class abilities -- enable you to realze both concepts... a "mundane" hunter and a monsterslayer/adventurer ranger.
And that's kind of my "beef" with 4E -- you cannot *mechanically* create a character I described as a PC (you can role-play him as such, but that's different). You can, however, create a "striker" who deals out massive amounts of damage with bow and melee weapons, and whose abilities tagged to his "powers" border on the magical (at least in some cases). Shortly put, you can create an action-movie hero who can be role-played as a ranger.
Note that I'm not criticizing 4E as a whole -- it's thematically and mechanically a different game than 3E than PF RPG.
Actually, no, I don't mean that the systems should be identical. Because I can create such a ranger in Rolemaster or GURPS, even though those systems are mechanically very different from D&D/D20. My point was that the ranger class -- or, specifically, it class abilities -- enable you to realze both concepts... a "mundane" hunter and a monsterslayer/adventurer ranger.
And that's kind of my "beef" with 4E -- you cannot *mechanically* create a character I described as a PC (you can role-play him as such, but that's different). You can, however, create a "striker" who deals out massive amounts of damage with bow and melee weapons, and whose abilities tagged to his "powers" border on the magical (at least in some cases). Shortly put, you can create an action-movie hero who can be role-played as a ranger.
Note that I'm not criticizing 4E as a whole -- it's thematically and mechanically a different game than 3E than PF RPG
I'm not certain what your complaint is. Do you miss Favored Enemy? As others have said, you could absolutely be sucky at melee but excellent at archery (low Str, high Dex, all archery powers and poof, sucky in melee, great at range.)
No, Rangers don't have any Favored Enemy type mechanic yet. I do think one of the PPs is a Beasthunter though. Anyone with the books handy able to check?
Cheers! :)
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
I think a lot of people actually LIKED the system mastery aspect of 3.xAs you allduded to, there were way more weapons and armour in the 3.x PHB but here's where it gets interesting.
Given the WIDER range of options, it also meant that you more likely to pick a "bad" option...
Good point. For the record, I enjoy all the choices that 3.5 gives me. But...I'm a long-time gamer. I have moved up through the ranks, and probably appreciate more complexities in my rules than someone who is just getting into the RPG hobby.
A new gamer (which, we should be honest here, that's the demographic that 4e is largely aimed at...not a bad thing, either) is going to go all glossy-eyed at 20 pages of detailed options of weapons that differ only slightly in damage type, range, size, etc. I know when I returned to D&D, playing in my first 3.5 game, I was overwhelmed. Hundereds of feats, spanning many, many books. Dozens upon dozens of prestige classes, some from sources I'd never even HEARD of. And I? I stuck with a simple, plain vanilla rogue for 5 levels, playing him over a year before I had the confidence to poke around in the extraneous support material. Sometimes, enough choices are TOO MANY choices.
Again, simplicity. Is that really so bad? I mean, for beginners, that's ideal. For "master gamers" like many of us here, maybe it is a rub the wrong way for us...although sometimes hitting the 'reset' button is quite necessary.
To be honest, I really dislike the whole system mastery aspect. Besides the fact that less useful options are scattered throughout the books as landmines to punish those who don't learn the system, it ends up being a giant waste of space once you know what you're doing.
These books are expensive, and having feats scattered throughout that are plainly worthless was always irksome, and I'm glad to seem them trying to tone it down at least.
But I guess opinions differ.
Cheers! :)
Here I think your moving off the reservation to some extent. PCs are good at every skill when dealing with the kinds of things that PCs encounter during adventures.It feels a lot like 1st edition where you made stat checks. Need to climb something? Make a Dex check. Need to swim? Make a Str check. Need to notice something? Make an Int check.
I kind of like this now.
Was that actually in the rules?
My memory is that this was how most DMs house ruled it because it felt to arbitrary for the DM to decide if the character did or did not know something or if they could do something. When the dice decide one can get unfavorable results and its not the DM being a bastard.
I know a proficiency system eventually got added but can no longer remember exactly how that worked (except that it mostly didn't).
Here I think your moving off the reservation to some extent. PCs are good at every skill when dealing with the kinds of things that PCs encounter during adventures.It feels a lot like 1st edition where you made stat checks. Need to climb something? Make a Dex check. Need to swim? Make a Str check. Need to notice something? Make an Int check.
I kind of like this now.
Was that actually in the rules?
My memory is that this was how most DMs house ruled it because it felt to arbitrary for the DM to decide if the character did or did not know something or if they could do something. When the dice decide one can get unfavorable results and its not the DM being a bastard.
I know a proficiency system eventually got added but can no longer remember exactly how that worked (except that it mostly didn't).
Basically, you had to roll a d20 below the appropriate ability score, i.e. if you had the Blacksmithing proficiency you had to roll below your Strength score on a d20 to make something. Some proficiencies actually added to the score you needed to roll under, while some of the harder proficiencies (like engineering) put a penalty on the ability score.
I never actually played 2nd ed. (well once, but we never got anywhere), but I really like it for two reasons: 1) Once you had a proficiency, that was it. None of that messy skill point crap, you were just proficient in what you did. Instead you got more proficiencies as you leveled up, and the game assumed that you were training in your spare time. 2) The proficiency system assumed a basic level of common sense. If you didn't have tools for craft making, then you couldn't craft. Likewise though, if a character has been doing something regularly for some time (the example given is a character who's been making horseshoes for years) then the DM could let the player do things automatically.
Which is why I don't want to play Pathfinder, I don't agree with the new skill system. They had it right the first time, but I guess people won't go for things if it's remotely like anything 4e.
|
Basically, you had to roll a d20 below the appropriate ability score, i.e. if you had the Blacksmithing proficiency you had to roll below your Strength score on a d20 to make something. Some proficiencies actually added to the score you needed to roll under, while some of the harder proficiencies (like engineering) put a penalty on the ability score.
Good old grognard me, I still use this method for general "Ability checks" it is alot easier than establishing a DC from thin air. It is especially useful when deciding how a character should act if the player is undecided or is confused by OOC knowledge.
But point-of-fact, 3.X does use this system, it is just standardized into the d20 mechanic. For any akill you can use untrained, it is just an ability check (d20+modifier) - everyone is proficient in those skills, I don't even fill out skills without ranks.
As a DM there are reasonable and logical ways around everything you have just described. You just need to be creative.BINGO!
I have not heard a single complaint about 4e that cannot be solved with this very solid idea. In fact the 4e DMG is full of great suggestions that do just that.
This isn't a 4e put-down, but any well designed system can by used in "reasonable and logical ways" by a DM/GM being "creative" to resolve in-game issues. For example, a "Pirates of the Carribean-style" shifting-deck fight scene in 3.5 with PCs around 5th level could be handled reasonably with a Balance check at DC 15 (Profession (Sailor) DC 20) each round to avoid being flat-footed and a natural 1 resulting in falling down. The PCs/NPCs can either trust their reactions (Balance) or anticipate the motion (Profession (Sailor)). In more moderate conditions, the DC could be 10 and 15; in more extreme conditions (in the middle of a storm, for example), the DC could be 20 and 25. Running a fight in the same conditions for a 10th or 15th level party shouldn't change the DCs just because the PCs have higher skill totals; however, a DM can (and should) use more extreme situations for higher level PCs, just not all the time (this is where many 3.5 adventures failed, IMO).
The problem that some people see with 4e's approach to skills is that every PC is almost equally good at everything. The problem that some people see with 3.x's approach to skills is that only the experts have a reasonable chance of success at the really difficult stuff, while almost automatically making checks that are a challenge for non-experts.
Both approaches have benefits and drawbacks. 4e makes it easy to write encounters, but makes it difficult for any PC to really shine. 3.x makes it more difficult to write encounters, but allows "expert" PCs to really shine in their fields of expertise. It all comes down to the type of campaign you want to run and how the DM handles assigning difficulties.
|
|
It feels a lot like 1st edition where you made stat checks. Need to climb something? Make a Dex check. Need to swim? Make a Str check. Need to notice something? Make an Int check.
Was that actually in the rules?
It also appeared in the Companion Rules (ie the level 16-25 expansion to the D&D Basic Set), which would be 1983-1984?
Even then, my reaction was one of being underwhelmed, since everyone I knew had been doing it for years.
Basically, you had to roll a d20 below the appropriate ability score, i.e. if you had the Blacksmithing proficiency you had to roll below your Strength score on a d20 to make something. Some proficiencies actually added to the score you needed to roll under, while some of the harder proficiencies (like engineering) put a penalty on the ability score.I never actually played 2nd ed. (well once, but we never got anywhere), but I really like it for two reasons: 1) Once you had a proficiency, that was it. None of that messy skill point crap, you were just proficient in what you did. Instead you got more proficiencies as you leveled up, and the game assumed that you were training in your spare time. 2) The proficiency system assumed a basic level of common sense. If you didn't have tools for craft making, then you couldn't craft. Likewise though, if a character has been doing something regularly for some time (the example given is a character who's been making horseshoes for years) then the DM could let the player do things automatically.
Woah.
We are talking past each other. The post I was reffering to specified 1st edition and thats the edition of the game I'm referring to. A skill system of sorts was added in the Dungineers Survival Guide and the Wilderness Survival Guide, though my memory of how that skill system worked is no longer very clear.
Personally, I quite like the modularity of 3e (a lot) and see it as one of the great strengths. Without having seen the rules for 4e (a huge caveat) what is described sounds like it might be great for a month or two, but if the character classes do wind up being a bit generic would that excitement fade? I'm not sure if that is true, or if the 4e rules are really like that.I mostly agree with what you say here.
Modularity is 3.X' strength and the reason I'll keep playing mostly 3.X.
From my POV, 4e excitement WILL fade after some games, so I'll solely play it from time to time and not for long-running campaigns, BUT I feel that I must defend 4e from comments about its "tactical combat focus"; I really don't think that 4e is more tactical combat focused than 3.X is.
The 4e focus is in everybody being cool _in the same way with different outfits_ while the 3.X / PF focus is in everybody being cool in different ways.
I think that the 3.X paradigm is better for my games and in general for not-only short-term fun, but I understand people that likes the immediate fun-for-today-hunger-for-tomorrow.
I, too, noticed that 4E seems to be more of a "fad" that will eventually fade away then the continue on as "the best D&D has ever been". In time, people will either miss playing their 3E/2E games, or realize that there is a much better MMORPG-styled game to play other than buying $30 books continously to add to your game and much more visually entertaining...World of Warcraft.
A friend of mine had said it himself at my local hobby shop. "Why would I want to play a pen&paper MMORPG when I can simply play a REAL MMORPG and get the same exact style, gameplay, and social interaction as I would in a pen&paper with a lot more options and definitely much more visually stunning? I play D&D for something different than all of that and this 4E doesn't give any of that to me."
Of the 36 PHBs, 24 DMG, and 24 MM the owner of my hobby shop placed on a podium in the shop...only 2 sets were sold. I kinda feel bad, since he's a friend of mine, and though I hate 4E with a passion, I do try to help with the sales by telling people,"If you want to play a very simple hack&slash game, play 4E. You have to erase everything you once knew about D&D, unfortunately, for you to get into 4E and like it. Just cover up the D&D logo if it makes you feel better." Not really convincing, but it's a lot better than what the other 15 regular customers that go there state when they see some poor soul looking through the 4E book. I thought it was just me that abhored the spirit of the game being destroyed by WotC, but apparently there were others that spat foul things about 4E moreso than I would've.
The manager of the store had to put the PHB down after reading the first few chapters because he was so pissed at what they did to D&D, but unfortunately has admitted to being stuck in the predicament of trying to sell those 4E books to take advantage of the "hype" before it wears off and bring the shop some business. Soon, the fad will die and people will go back to playing WoW, City of Heroes, Everquest 2 or whatever else tickled their gaming fancies and 4E will be forgotten.
When WotC learns a tabletop game can NEVER accomplish what World of Warcraft has, maybe we'll finally see D&D return to normalcy.
It's not a bad system. It does look like fun if all you want to do is kill things, and I am going to join a session that a friend of mine is running soon just to mess around. But never will I be able to find myself engaged in it as much as previous editions of D&D. It'll simply be an "instant gratification" gamestyle the group will be playing, total hack&slash since that's what 4E is and we plan on just bull rushing through the Monster Manual.
But for a real and serious D&D game, we turn back to our Friday 3E sessions. :P
This isn't a 4e put-down, but any well designed system can by used in "reasonable and logical ways" by a DM/GM being "creative" to resolve in-game issues. For example, a "Pirates of the Carribean-style" shifting-deck fight scene in 3.5 with PCs around 5th level could be handled reasonably with a Balance check at DC 15 (Profession (Sailor) DC 20) each round to avoid being flat-footed and a natural 1 resulting in falling down. The PCs/NPCs can either trust their reactions (Balance) or anticipate the motion (Profession (Sailor)). In more moderate conditions, the DC could be 10 and 15; in more extreme conditions (in the middle of a storm, for example), the DC could be 20 and 25. Running a fight in the same conditions for a 10th or 15th level party shouldn't change the DCs just because the PCs have higher skill totals; however, a DM can (and should) use more extreme situations for higher level PCs, just not all the time (this is where many 3.5 adventures failed, IMO).
This is true as far as it goes but I've been having a ton of trouble with these ideas in my 3.5 game. I love environment heavy adventures. I almost always try and stick the adventure in some cool location - on the Ice Wall wading through chest high snow, in a moss covered cavern with steaming pouring down the walls and forming little streams that run through the dungeon, a city sunk 1000 feet into a swamp with the players traversing downward on ledges and through the sewer pipes of the ancient ruin, A frozen swamp with thin ice etc.
The problem is my players solution to anything like this is really very simple - they cease to touch the ground and make themselves immune to any energy type that has gotten extreme. I don't think I've been able to make them make any kind of a check like this since they were 6th level. I can design interesting encounters like this but I've gotten to the point where I have to wonder why bother? OK I mean my players think I run very atmospheric adventures but this sort of thing is not supposed to be just the flavour text.
I suspect that any even moderately experience players should be able to do pretty much the same thing. You can run a swashbuckler style game up until about 5th and then the game starts to work against it. Interestingly enough the skill points work very well until around 5th as well since most skills can be used untrained and, for 1st through 5th level players pulling skills off might b easy and it might be hard but its usually at least possible.
4th edition is a very different game.
A friend who plays in my gaming group and used to play Vampire The Masquerade a lot, said 4th edition has more in common with Vampire than with 3.5.
This seemed the proper place to put this.
Yeah, the game needs more possible backgrounds.
Make them up or wait for more to come out.
Personally, I quite like the modularity of 3e (a lot) and see it as one of the great strengths. Without having seen the rules for 4e (a huge caveat) what is described sounds like it might be great for a month or two, but if the character classes do wind up being a bit generic would that excitement fade? I'm not sure if that is true, or if the 4e rules are really like that.I mostly agree with what you say here.
Modularity is 3.X' strength and the reason I'll keep playing mostly 3.X.
From my POV, 4e excitement WILL fade after some games, so I'll solely play it from time to time and not for long-running campaigns, BUT I feel that I must defend 4e from comments about its "tactical combat focus"; I really don't think that 4e is more tactical combat focused than 3.X is.
The 4e focus is in everybody being cool _in the same way with different outfits_ while the 3.X / PF focus is in everybody being cool in different ways.
I think that the 3.X paradigm is better for my games and in general for not-only short-term fun, but I understand people that likes the immediate fun-for-today-hunger-for-tomorrow.I, too, noticed that 4E seems to be more of a "fad" that will eventually fade away then the continue on as "the best D&D has ever been". In time, people will either miss playing their 3E/2E games, or realize that there is a much better MMORPG-styled game to play other than buying $30 books continously to add to your game and much more visually entertaining...World of Warcraft.
A friend of mine had said it himself at my local hobby shop. "Why would I want to play a pen&paper MMORPG when I can simply play a REAL MMORPG and get the same exact style, gameplay, and social interaction as I would in a pen&paper with a lot more options and definitely much more visually stunning? I play D&D for something different than all of that and this 4E doesn't give any of that to me."
Of the 36 PHBs, 24 DMG, and 24 MM the owner of my hobby shop...
Strange, my shop keeps selling out. In fact we preordered more than your store did.
I do like how at first all the nay sayers said it would fail, and now that it's selling a lot suddenly it's "a fad" that will wear out in a year. Kinda like how 3rd ed. did. Oh wait.
|
|
Hey I love 3.5 and DM it regularly
I also am Uber excited about 4th Ed.
Yeah you can't do all those funky things you used to do as a wizard with your spells ... because all the effects were split up and dished out to the other characters so we can ALL have some fun.
And 4th Ed as a MMO? Well the combat rules are many and solid (which helps make fights less boring) ... I'd say simple but with variety.
But as a DM I've got to say the handleing of NonCombat Encounters in the DMG is a godsend. Now I can have meaningful nonambiguous noncombat encounters that generate rewards just like any other encounter. For me it's like what 3E did with traps ... intergrated into the game in a meaningful way. Man I think we've come a long way since we got XP for monsters and XP for their gold. Now we get XP for doing stuff and with my Diplomacy laden PCs now getting their share of the XP (and balanced in combat) we are all playing the same game.
That in my oppinion is less MMO than 3E ever was.
|
|
4e makes it easy to write encounters, but makes it difficult for any PC to really shine. 3.x makes it more difficult to write encounters, but allows "expert" PCs to really shine in their fields of expertise.
I disagree. PCs still have roles and areas of expertise. I have seen individual shine very brightly in 4e.
I think the real difference is that 4e allows a party to get by without a very specific type of expert if the rest of the group can pitch in creatively to overcome the obstacles. In 3e if the expert were missing then no progress could be made unless the GM simply fudged the results.
|
|
Of the 36 PHBs, 24 DMG, and 24 MM the owner of my hobby shop placed on a podium in the shop...only 2 sets were sold.
Hey Razz - I think its time to put up or shut up. Post the name and location of your local. I would like to call him myself to see how his sales are doing.
Here is why. My FLGS, as well as their closest local competition have had big sales of 4e with copies flying off the shelves. You seem to be the only one claiming that 4e does not sell.
So - store name and location, I will call to verify your claims, I will post what I hear right here.
Deal?
Hey Razz - I think its time to put up or shut up. Post the name and location of your local. I would like to call him myself to see how his sales are doing.Here is why. My FLGS, as well as their closest local competition have had big sales of 4e with copies flying off the shelves. You seem to be the only one claiming that 4e does not sell.
So - store name and location, I will call to verify your claims, I will post what I hear right here.
Deal?
Too late!!! I bought them all!!!
I LOVE 4E!!!!
4E 4EVER!!!
Hey Razz - I think its time to put up or shut up. Post the name and location of your local. I would like to call him myself to see how his sales are doing.Here is why. My FLGS, as well as their closest local competition have had big sales of 4e with copies flying off the shelves. You seem to be the only one claiming that 4e does not sell.
So - store name and location, I will call to verify your claims, I will post what I hear right here.
Deal?
Too late!!! I bought them all!!!
I LOVE 4E!!!!
4E 4EVER!!!
Huh. Didn't think trolls had the Int score to spare ranks in Friggin Liar. Clearly I was right, since you failed that check hard.
My local stores including Barnes and Noble have been sold out since Day 3. I ordered mine from hieroglyphsbooks.com (along with Pathfinder AP 8-9!), so I'll be getting them soon myself.
4e doesn't have to do bad for 3e to be good. In fact, even if 4e does terrible, it won't make 3e any better. I'm glad Pathfinder chose to update 3e rather than move on to 4e, but lying about simple facts is just...low class.
Huh. Didn't think trolls had the Int score to spare...
Trolls aren't necessarily dumb -- just mean.