So you don't enjoy your character dying, but you like it better when it's more likely to happen? You prefer a higher likelihood of something happening that you don't enjoy to a lower likelihood? I thought the whole point of increasing fun was to make things that you don't enjoy less likely to occur.
No, that's not what I said, and I suspect you're being purposefully obtuse about it.
The enjoyment or lack of enjoyment doesn't come from the character dying - I was simply responding to the statement you made.
The game where the low-level play is quite dangerous is more fun for me. So what you're reduced to doing now is actually arguing what is more fun for other people, right?
That's because this is all subjective. Face it.
I'd love to hammer this out in terms of a debate, but this isn't quite the place. I simply consider 4th Edition to be superior in terms of gameplay, and I feel reasonably assured that this can be supported in terms that would be very difficult to disagree with.4th Edition, in the aggregate, is an example of an improvement in game design over D&D 3.5, I believe.But that statement just goes to show the subjectivity, because while I play and enjoy both I find 3.5E to be superior :)
A lot of the problem is the gameplay people want. 4e is better balanced at all levels in terms of powers/damage for classes. This in some ways makes them similar. I find 3e offers more in its general design. However, 4e seems to work better for more casual gamers. Since my group keeps sliding in that direction so am I.
However, to do it they removed and simplified the magic items to do it. A wand of wonder makes no sense in this new game. I was converting CurseAzureBonds to 4e and thought of all the odd use magic items that don't fit anymore and how they would break the balance. Of course I'll probably add them back in, maybe a scroll mechanic that cost dailies or something.
|
Historically, the change to a new edition has been followed by a fairly peaceful and gradual transition where most folks playing an old edition move to a new edition. For whatever reason, the 4e/3.5 has been more visibly acrimonious than prior incarnations. I think a big part of that is the increased presence of the internet, blogs, and forums like this in how companies do business. When 3.0 came out I didn't even own my own computer. Now I have 2. On a forum like this, zealots on both sides can fight out the "mines better, no mines better, NO mines better, NO MINES better, NO MINES BETTER" arguments with no real reprecussions. You have blogs dedicated to trumpeting the strengths and denouncing the weaknesses of both systems. You could even make a strong argument that the presence of internet forums is a major player in Paizo's decision to go with the OGL instead of the GSL.
The thing I would really like to know, is how much of the yelling on both sides is backed by sales numbers. All the Paizo folks that have commented on the issue say that Paizo is doing better than expected and that demand for their products is on a steady rise since the announcement of PFRPG. So by all measures their is still a healthy market for 3.5. Yet on the flip side, 4e is dominating the shelves at all the big retailers and you get a blog from a guy like Clark who says the market for 3.5 has completely dried up. The GSL has recieved broad criticism from every 3PP I have seen talk about it. Yet WotC seems to have no interest in changing it, which implies their sales numbers are so good they don't see a need for 3PP's. I don't really understand it. What I do know is that good game systems have a way of living long after they are "dead".
I think that 4e is a decent game in the few times I've tried it with friends. I like 3.5 better, but that is a personal preference. The Pathfinder RPG is the direction I personally wish 4e had gone. That said, 4e does a pretty good job of dealing with some of the major problems with 3.5, but I personally feel they do that at the price of other important elements. The balance between classes is great, but every class basically does the same thing now, with only differences being in the flavor text, and power type. I don't see how that isn't as repetitive as "I hit that" over and over. When I playtested 4e with my friends that is exactly how it felt. The same thing over and over again. There isn't particularly good damage scale-ability as the 30th level powers don't do that much more damage than the 1st level ones. The learning curve is lower, which is a very good thing for bringing new players to the hobby. I think it all comes down to personal preference.
One final thought, is that I wonder if the acrimony of this particular edition change will be the one that continues to drag on. It is hard to see a time in the future where people still aren't fighting about this. Hopefully, that won't be the case. However, it's been going on for over a year now and seems to be getting worse instead of better.
|
So you don't enjoy your character dying, but you like it better when it's more likely to happen? You prefer a higher likelihood of something happening that you don't enjoy to a lower likelihood? I thought the whole point of increasing fun was to make things that you don't enjoy less likely to occur. I realize that risk needs to be inherent in a D&D game, but are you really going to tell me that a game design that includes the significant chance of a player's first experience being the death of the character he's looked forward to playing is preferred?That's an extremely unfortunate example for you. One of the main things I like better as a player in 3.5E is that the low-level play is much more dangerous. Not that anyone enjoys their character dying, but I prefer the possibility that what you described will happen to my first level character more than I enjoy the 4E way of approaching it.
Our games tend to be deadly, particularly at low levels, and we tend to have more FUN that way. I typically roll 2 or 3 characters so I'll have the next one ready if the first one bites the dust.
Hell, some people jump out of planes with parachutes for kicks.
I'm not going to tell them that the people going to the zoo are objectively having more fun.
Hell, some people jump out of planes with parachutes for kicks.I'm not going to tell them that the people going to the zoo are objectively having more fun.
You get people who are so wrapped up in their own mindset or outlook that they literally can't conceive of anyone viewing things differently. That's the problem with discussions like this. Most of us realize this is all subjective and that one person's fun may differ from the others (and that it doesn't matter as long as they are both having fun). A few figure if something wouldn't be fun for them it couldn't possibly be fun for anyone else.
But not everyone in the "gamer crowd" (which in my opinion isn't even a single coherent group) is going to agree with each other.
There are always hold-outs and rebels, but as with any significant group of people that share a common trait, they tend towards a specific.
Can't argue with that.
[off-topic rant]Applying the concept of "averages" to people is one of my big pet peeves. How would that work? "Combine person A with person B then cut the result in half?"[/off-topic rant]
Applying the concept of averages to people is how population statistics is done. And yes, that's how it works.
Back on topic, it's not possible to objectively quantify fun.
Perhaps not in the perfect sense, but I believe it's possible to boil many things down to X mechanic is more fun than X mechanic and have the vast majority of people agree.
It varies from person to person. If "most people have more fun with this, that means it's objectively better" were a valid argument, then D&D would likely have died out in favor of video games.
Most people PLAY more video games, but that doesn't mean that most people would have more fun with video games if they gave D&D a try. But I do understand where you're coming from. Would my argument be easier to stomach if I framed it in the context of what a person new to a role-playing game would find fun? Or what the majority of RPG players find fun? There are no hard stats on any of this, but oftentimes it's not difficult to imagine what the answer would be.
See, it's the "I believe" that cancels out the argument of objectivity. I have no problem with you believing that, but it's not a provable, objective fact that one system is better.
I only put "I believe" in there because I know if I didn't someone would take the opportunity to call the statement arrogant, whether or not it was. It shouldn't be necessary to append "I believe" or "in my opinion" to everything, since it ought to be obvious that the fact that you're saying it makes it your opinion, but it usually helps to keep the flames to a minimum.
|
What's more fun to you? Having the chance to, upon facing your first encounter as a D&D player ever, have the orc barbarian win initiative, walk up to you, swing his greatsword, score a critical, and reduce your poor 4 hit point wizard from living to outright dead in a single action, before you've so much as cast your first spell? Or going into your first encounter knowing that you are safe from having to roll up a new character before your first action? The former is quite possible in D&D 3.5. The latter is true of 4th Edition. I don't think any gamer can tell me that they would have more fun rolling up a new character after such a death than if they'd actually gotten to participate in the encounter with their friends.
Of course a level 4 orc raider does 1d12+17 on a critical hit in 4E. While not guaranteed, that can actually kill a 10 + Constitution wizard in 4E.
Without critical hits, a level 3 white dragon can fly up, claw for 1d8+4, claw for 1d8+4 again, bite for 1d8+4 plus 1d6 cold, look at the dead wizard, spend an action point, and breathe for 3d6+4 plus slow and weaken on everyone else.Both are well within the rules for a first encounter ever as a D&D player in 4E, and practically guaranteed as an encounter before you hit 3rd level if you use WotC adventures.
You get people who are so wrapped up in their own mindset or outlook that they literally can't conceive of anyone viewing things differently. That's the problem with discussions like this. Most of us realize this is all subjective and that one person's fun may differ from the others (and that it doesn't matter as long as they are both having fun). A few figure if something wouldn't be fun for them it couldn't possibly be fun for anyone else.
Hell, some people jump out of planes with parachutes for kicks.I'm not going to tell them that the people going to the zoo are objectively having more fun.
I apologize for trying to assert that certain mechanics could be objectively called "better" than others. There are, as you've pointed out, people who are willing to call just about anything fun. But I don't think we are served well by arguing over such corner cases. As a gaming community we should be looking towards how the community at large would react to something.
Not to mention there is the old adage when gambling, "the higher the risk, the greater the payoff".
As a gaming community we should be looking towards how the community at large would react to something.
Sure, that's marketing. You go for either the biggest commonality or develop a niche. It doesn't bother me if more people find 4E superior. I don't know if they do or not, and I don't particularly care. I find 4E fun enough and will continue to play it. My group prefers 3.5 so we'll do that and Pathfinder as well. We even throw in the occasional 1E, or non-d20 Call of Cthulhu, or Warhammer RPG. It's all fun in my view.
On the other hand, I find World of Warcraft to be mind-numbingly dull. So I know I'm in the minority :)
EDIT: I should note that I routinely play in a game that has a mortality rate of at least 80% or more for new PCs. If it weren't fun I would quit. Heh.
What's more fun to you? Having the chance to, upon facing your first encounter as a D&D player ever, have the orc barbarian win initiative, walk up to you, swing his greatsword, score a critical, and reduce your poor 4 hit point wizard from living to outright dead in a single action, before you've so much as cast your first spell? Or going into your first encounter knowing that you are safe from having to roll up a new character before your first action? The former is quite possible in D&D 3.5. The latter is true of 4th Edition. I don't think any gamer can tell me that they would have more fun rolling up a new character after such a death than if they'd actually gotten to participate in the encounter with their friends.Of course a level 4 orc raider does 1d12+17 on a critical hit in 4E. While not guaranteed, that can actually kill a 10 + Constitution wizard in 4E.
Without critical hits, a level 3 white dragon can fly up, claw for 1d8+4, claw for 1d8+4 again, bite for 1d8+4 plus 1d6 cold, look at the dead wizard, spend an action point, and breathe for 3d6+4 plus slow and weaken on everyone else.Both are well within the rules for a first encounter ever as a D&D player in 4E, and practically guaranteed as an encounter before you hit 3rd level if you use WotC adventures.
If 1d12+15 damage (Orc Raiders in the Monster Manual are level 3, and even if they were level 4 it wouldn't go high enough to kill) kills your Wizard in one hit, you're doing it wrong. A 1st-level Wizard with 10 con has 20 hit points, and would have to take a full 30 points of damage to be killed outright. Anything else simply drops him unconscious and at worst forces the Cleric or what-have-you to spend a minor action healing him.
In other words, you'd have to be fighting a creature much higher level than you, have him roll a twenty to hit, have him possess an ability that vastly increases his critical hit damage, have him roll a 12 on his d12 damage die, and your 1st-level wizard would still have the ability to participate in the combat rather than go off in a corner and roll up a new character.
As a gaming community we should be looking towards how the community at large would react to something.Sure, that's marketing. You go for either the biggest commonality or develop a niche. It doesn't bother me if more people find 4E superior. I don't know if they do or not, and I don't particularly care. I find 4E fun enough and will continue to play it. My group prefers 3.5 so we'll do that and Pathfinder as well. We even throw in the occasional 1E, or non-d20 Call of Cthulhu, or Warhammer RPG. It's all fun in my view.
On the other hand, I find World of Warcraft to be mind-numbingly dull. So I know I'm in the minority :)
EDIT: I should note that I routinely play in a game that has a mortality rate of at least 80% or more for new PCs. If it weren't fun I would quit. Heh.
Haha, perhaps. Enjoying WoW is all about knowing people who play. I'd find it dull too if I didn't have a great community around me. I'd say the same goes for D&D as well.
Increasing and decreasing levels of fun about as subjective as one can get.What's more fun to you? Having the chance to, upon facing your first encounter as a D&D player ever, have the orc barbarian win initiative, walk up to you, swing his greatsword, score a critical, and reduce your poor 4 hit point wizard from living to outright dead in a single action, before you've so much as cast your first spell? Or going into your first encounter knowing that you are safe from having to roll up a new character before your first action? The former is quite possible in D&D 3.5. The latter is true of 4th Edition. I don't think any gamer can tell me that they would have more fun rolling up a new character after such a death than if they'd actually gotten to participate in the encounter with their friends.
If that's your ONLY criteria of fun then great.
But both games are a little broader than that.
Also i've had that happen on a few 1E & 2E games and it never made the game less fun. Not for me anyway.
Increasing and decreasing levels of fun about as subjective as one can get.What's more fun to you? Having the chance to, upon facing your first encounter as a D&D player ever, have the orc barbarian win initiative, walk up to you, swing his greatsword, score a critical, and reduce your poor 4 hit point wizard from living to outright dead in a single action, before you've so much as cast your first spell? Or going into your first encounter knowing that you are safe from having to roll up a new character before your first action? The former is quite possible in D&D 3.5. The latter is true of 4th Edition. I don't think any gamer can tell me that they would have more fun rolling up a new character after such a death than if they'd actually gotten to participate in the encounter with their friends.If that's your ONLY criteria of fun then great.
But both games are a little broader than that.
Also i've had that happen on a few 1E & 2E games and it never made the game less fun. Not for me anyway.
Oh, of course. That was just an example of a mechanic that I think the vast majority of gamers can agree is an improvement.
Haha, perhaps. Enjoying WoW is all about knowing people who play. I'd find it dull too if I didn't have a great community around me. I'd say the same goes for D&D as well.
Yeah they people you play with is a huge factor. I played DDO for a long time simply because I had a great group of people to play with. If it wasn't for that, the game itself wouldn't have kept me. Same with Vanguard and LOTRO.
I'm looking forward to Warhammer, and might even try Age of Conan, but the trick is getting that great group of people.
/derail
|
How do you tell a story about drow that your not allowed to use by GSL?You don't. Instead you tell a story about "dark elves" (using standard elf stats). Of course if you don't use the word "drow" then don't get to have those meanful arguments like, "is it 'drow' with 'row' as in 'row your boat' or is it 'drow' with 'ow' like in 'cow'?"
I think the more interesting thing is, how do you prevent people from using Drow, when they are in open domain as a part of Norse Folklore?
I apologize for trying to assert that certain mechanics could be objectively called "better" than others. There are, as you've pointed out, people who are willing to call just about anything fun. But I don't think we are served well by arguing over such corner cases. As a gaming community we should be looking towards how the community at large would react to something.
That's very magnanimous of you, going from forming some kind of objective hierarchy of gaming mechanics to marginalizing people who happen to like a different sort of fun than you as "corner cases", naturally implying they are some kind of statistical anomaly, outliers of gaming taste, and thus largely dismissable.
It might have become clear to you that the gaming community at large reacts to things in a whole lot of varied ways because of the way they prefer to have their fun.
That's very magnanimous of you, going from forming some kind of objective hierarchy of gaming mechanics to marginalizing people who happen to like a different sort of fun than you as "corner cases", naturally implying they are some kind of statistical anomaly, outliers of gaming taste, and thus largely dismissable.
I apologize for trying to assert that certain mechanics could be objectively called "better" than others. There are, as you've pointed out, people who are willing to call just about anything fun. But I don't think we are served well by arguing over such corner cases. As a gaming community we should be looking towards how the community at large would react to something.
I'm sorry if that's difficult to hear, but unfortunately that's the nature of the business. A game cannot please everyone, it seems, and so you are forced to neglect a subset of consumers. Of course, smart publishers will take care to neglect as small a subset as possible in order to maximize their audience, but it does absolutely create these "corner cases", where one's idea of a fun time falls outside the bounds created for a given game.
|
|
I think the more interesting thing is, how do you prevent people from using Drow, when they are in open domain as a part of Norse Folklore?
How do you tell a story about drow that your not allowed to use by GSL?You don't. Instead you tell a story about "dark elves" (using standard elf stats). Of course if you don't use the word "drow" then don't get to have those meanful arguments like, "is it 'drow' with 'row' as in 'row your boat' or is it 'drow' with 'ow' like in 'cow'?"
By having the people sign a license that says they can't use Drow.
I think the more interesting thing is, how do you prevent people from using Drow, when they are in open domain as a part of Norse Folklore?
I suppose it depends on whether or not your use of the Drow conforms more to the Norse myths or is more clearly derived from D&D uses. But if the former, will the story/adventure be as compeling as if it were the latter? Probably not, because it wouldn't fit in with our gaming conception of the Drow as built up by years of development in D&D.
|
|
I'm sorry if that's difficult to hear, but unfortunately that's the nature of the business. A game cannot please everyone, it seems, and so you are forced to neglect a subset of consumers. Of course, smart publishers will take care to neglect as small a subset as possible in order to maximize their audience, but it does absolutely create these "corner cases", where one's idea of a fun time falls outside the bounds created for a given game.That's very magnanimous of you, going from forming some kind of objective hierarchy of gaming mechanics to marginalizing people who happen to like a different sort of fun than you as "corner cases", naturally implying they are some kind of statistical anomaly, outliers of gaming taste, and thus largely dismissable.
I apologize for trying to assert that certain mechanics could be objectively called "better" than others. There are, as you've pointed out, people who are willing to call just about anything fun. But I don't think we are served well by arguing over such corner cases. As a gaming community we should be looking towards how the community at large would react to something.
True, but I really haven't seen any evidence that 4e is more liked than 3.5.
I'm sorry if that's difficult to hear, but unfortunately that's the nature of the business. A game cannot please everyone, it seems, and so you are forced to neglect a subset of consumers. Of course, smart publishers will take care to neglect as small a subset as possible in order to maximize their audience, but it does absolutely create these "corner cases", where one's idea of a fun time falls outside the bounds created for a given game.
It may be the nature of the business to cater to people who are likely to enjoy the product you make, but that's a far cry from people not adopting the new product being "corner cases" no matter how big your audience is.
True, but I really haven't seen any evidence that 4e is more liked than 3.5.I'm sorry if that's difficult to hear, but unfortunately that's the nature of the business. A game cannot please everyone, it seems, and so you are forced to neglect a subset of consumers. Of course, smart publishers will take care to neglect as small a subset as possible in order to maximize their audience, but it does absolutely create these "corner cases", where one's idea of a fun time falls outside the bounds created for a given game.That's very magnanimous of you, going from forming some kind of objective hierarchy of gaming mechanics to marginalizing people who happen to like a different sort of fun than you as "corner cases", naturally implying they are some kind of statistical anomaly, outliers of gaming taste, and thus largely dismissable.
I apologize for trying to assert that certain mechanics could be objectively called "better" than others. There are, as you've pointed out, people who are willing to call just about anything fun. But I don't think we are served well by arguing over such corner cases. As a gaming community we should be looking towards how the community at large would react to something.
Neither have I, aside from anecdotal evidence. I think it will come in time, though.
|
|
If 1d12+15 damage (Orc Raiders in the Monster Manual are level 3, and even if they were level 4 it wouldn't go high enough to kill) kills your Wizard in one hit, you're doing it wrong. A 1st-level Wizard with 10 con has 20 hit points, and would have to take a full 30 points of damage to be killed outright. Anything else simply drops him unconscious and at worst forces the Cleric or what-have-you to spend a minor action healing him.
In other words, you'd have to be fighting a creature much higher level than you, have him roll a twenty to hit, have him possess an ability that vastly increases his critical hit damage, have him roll a 12 on his d12 damage die, and your 1st-level wizard would still have the ability to participate in the combat rather than go off in a corner and roll up a new character.
So a character is not allowed to have an 8 Con?
10 + 8 = 18 + 50% = 27 = 12 + 15 = wizard dead in one shotSo in other words, I have to use a creature that is well within the average range for a starting encounter (Keep on the Shadowfell features level 3 monsters in the early encounters), with a standard ability (the high crit weapon), to completely kill a character.
That was your standard.
Nothing about what other damage was rolled.
Nothing about it being above the base level of the PCs.
Just a standard monster that could kill on a crit.
I provided that. In fact, I provided two, though I notice you have absolutely no rebuttal to the dragon.
You said you were sure nobody could disagree with you about how 4E was more fun based on subjective criteria you feel are objective. Well there is an objective example of how your 1st level 4E character can die just as easily as your 3E character before ever getting to act.
If you want to give up on the one shot extreme case, there are just as many basic combos that can take a character down in his first encounter in 4E as there are in 3E.
It may be the nature of the business to cater to people who are likely to enjoy the product you make, but that's a far cry from people not adopting the new product being "corner cases" no matter how big your audience is.
I'm sorry if that's difficult to hear, but unfortunately that's the nature of the business. A game cannot please everyone, it seems, and so you are forced to neglect a subset of consumers. Of course, smart publishers will take care to neglect as small a subset as possible in order to maximize their audience, but it does absolutely create these "corner cases", where one's idea of a fun time falls outside the bounds created for a given game.
Is it?
Is it?
I'm forced to conclude you have no idea what a corner case really is.
If 1d12+15 damage (Orc Raiders in the Monster Manual are level 3, and even if they were level 4 it wouldn't go high enough to kill) kills your Wizard in one hit, you're doing it wrong. A 1st-level Wizard with 10 con has 20 hit points, and would have to take a full 30 points of damage to be killed outright. Anything else simply drops him unconscious and at worst forces the Cleric or what-have-you to spend a minor action healing him.
In other words, you'd have to be fighting a creature much higher level than you, have him roll a twenty to hit, have him possess an ability that vastly increases his critical hit damage, have him roll a 12 on his d12 damage die, and your 1st-level wizard would still have the ability to participate in the combat rather than go off in a corner and roll up a new character.
So a character is not allowed to have an 8 Con?
10 + 8 = 18 + 50% = 27 = 12 + 15 = wizard dead in one shotSo in other words, I have to use a creature that is well within the average range for a starting encounter (Keep on the Shadowfell features level 3 monsters in the early encounters), with a standard ability (the high crit weapon), to completely kill a character.
That was your standard.
Nothing about what other damage was rolled.
Nothing about it being above the base level of the PCs.
Just a standard monster that could kill on a crit.I provided that. In fact, I provided two, though I notice you have absolutely no rebuttal to the dragon.
You said you were sure nobody could disagree with you about how 4E was more fun based on subjective criteria you feel are objective. Well there is an objective example of how your 1st level 4E character can die just as easily as your 3E character before ever getting to act.
If you want to give up on the one shot extreme case, there are just as many basic combos that can take a character down in his first encounter in 4E as there are in 3E.
You're right, a Wizard who put the absolute lowest stat possible into Con fighting a creature who outlevels him, has an ability specifically designed to deal huge amounts of damage on a crit, and rolls maximum on both attack and damage rolls can kill in one hit.
As opposed to the 3.5 1st-level barbarian orc, who doesn't need to be tooled at all for dealing high damage on a crit, who only needs to roll average on his damage, and who is of equal level to the party.
You're absolutely correct, this without a doubt proves that 4th Edition is just as lethal as 3.5 at low levels.
As for the dragon, yes, the encounters can turn lethal by the end of an adventure. But the dragon would have to continue attacking the PC even after he or she dropped unconscious, which I usually avoid doing since it can lead to exactly this - unnecessarily lethal games.
|
|
You're right, a Wizard who put the absolute lowest stat possible into Con fighting a creature who outlevels him, has an ability specifically designed to deal huge amounts of damage on a crit, and rolls maximum on both attack and damage rolls can kill in one hit.
As opposed to the 3.5 1st-level barbarian orc, who doesn't need to be tooled at all for dealing high damage on a crit, who only needs to roll average on his damage, and who is of equal level to the party.
You're absolutely correct, this without a doubt proves that 4th Edition is just as lethal as 3.5 at low levels.
And who has to roll a critical hit.
You casually left that part out I see.And who has to confirm that critical hit, something not needed in 4E.
You forgot that too.
And you still have no answer at all for the white dragon.
So yes, on that basis, I am absolutely correct, and this without a doubt proves that 4E is just as lethal as 3.5 at low levels.
If however you want to actually discuss something other than extreme chances, and accept the same range of cases for 4E as you want to use for 3E, then perhaps it might not. Since you are unwilling to consider such it seems we will never know.
|
|
Building on what Brent said earlier, I think we're seeing a lot more of the arguments between editions, due to the fact that the internet is in heavy usage now, compared to the 1->2 and 2->3 changes, which were largely debated in the local gaming store.
However, the source of the biggest resistance to 2nd and 3rd edition (and 3.5) was focused primarily around spending the money. "Why should I buy a new edition of this game, they just want to squeeze more money out of me!" As many people have noted, though, once people played the new edition, they were gradually won over.
The release of 4th Edition has seemed a bit different to me, on a number of levels. For one, the radical redesign of one of the most popular campaign settings has put a lot of people up in arms. Secondly, though, the 4th edition rules are very different than any previous version of D&D.
Lastly, there is a unique situation here in that companies are in a position to continue fully supporting 3.x, and even sort of take over its mantle, to a degree. This was in no way possible with 1st or 2nd edition.
You're right, a Wizard who put the absolute lowest stat possible into Con fighting a creature who outlevels him, has an ability specifically designed to deal huge amounts of damage on a crit, and rolls maximum on both attack and damage rolls can kill in one hit.
As opposed to the 3.5 1st-level barbarian orc, who doesn't need to be tooled at all for dealing high damage on a crit, who only needs to roll average on his damage, and who is of equal level to the party.
You're absolutely correct, this without a doubt proves that 4th Edition is just as lethal as 3.5 at low levels.
And who has to roll a critical hit.
You casually left that part out I see.
And who has to confirm that critical hit, something not needed in 4E.
You forgot that too.
And you still have no answer at all for the white dragon.So yes, on that basis, I am absolutely correct, and this without a doubt proves that 4E is just as lethal as 3.5 at low levels.
If however you want to actually discuss something other than extreme chances, and accept the same range of cases for 4E as you want to use for 3E, then perhaps it might not. Since you are unwilling to consider such it seems we will never know.
I'm perfectly willing to accept said range. Are you disputing that 4th Edition is less lethal at low levels than D&D 3.5?
Building on what Brent said earlier, I think we're seeing a lot more of the arguments between editions, due to the fact that the internet is in heavy usage now, compared to the 1->2 and 2->3 changes, which were largely debated in the local gaming store.
However, the source of the biggest resistance to 2nd and 3rd edition (and 3.5) was focused primarily around spending the money. "Why should I buy a new edition of this game, they just want to squeeze more money out of me!" As many people have noted, though, once people played the new edition, they were gradually won over.
The release of 4th Edition has seemed a bit different to me, on a number of levels. For one, the radical redesign of one of the most popular campaign settings has put a lot of people up in arms. Secondly, though, the 4th edition rules are very different than any previous version of D&D.
Lastly, there is a unique situation here in that companies are in a position to continue fully supporting 3.x, and even sort of take over its mantle, to a degree. This was in no way possible with 1st or 2nd edition.
You may be right, the circumstances of the gaming community have seen some changes in the last eight to ten years. I always wondered at the "money-grubbing-WotC" argument, though. I have no problem giving my money to a company that continues to support my hobby and does a great job of it, because I know that they need money to continue to operate. As hobbies go, D&D is phenomenally inexpensive.
I don't mean to fan the fires, but a 1st level orc warrior in 3.5 could do 16 points of damage using a greataxe, and not having to crit (just max damage).
Str 17 (13 score + 4 racial)
Damage 1d12+4 = min 5, max 16
So I think a 1st level orc warrior (CR 1/2, so there are usually 2 at least) could easily knock a wizard out of fight if not kill them outright, without a crit. Crit'ing they can wipe out the first level barbarian PC as well, in one hit.
I don't mean to fan the fires, but a 1st level orc warrior in 3.5 could do 16 points of damage using a greataxe, and not having to crit (just max damage).
Str 17 (13 score + 4 racial)
Damage 1d12+4 = min 5, max 16
So I think a 1st level orc warrior (CR 1/2, so there are usually 2 at least) could easily knock a wizard out of fight if not kill them outright, without a crit. Crit'ing they can wipe out the first level barbarian PC as well, in one hit.
Also true, but I'm worried that we're straying too far from the topic of the thread. Differences in lethality are important, definitely, but I don't think this is one of the main reasons Pathfinder is being considered incompatible with 4th Edition. I think, all in all, Paizo has some good reasons for taking the position they did. Until such a time as the environment for switching improves, supporting the fans in converting the material seems like a fine way to handle things.
|
|
You may be right, the circumstances of the gaming community have seen some changes in the last eight to ten years. I always wondered at the "money-grubbing-WotC" argument, though. I have no problem giving my money to a company that continues to support my hobby and does a great job of it, because I know that they need money to continue to operate. As hobbies go, D&D is phenomenally inexpensive.
Agreed. I think to some degree, WoTC (and TSR before it) are interested in making money - they are, after all, a business, but I don't think the caricature of a bunch of schemers plotting to separate gamers from their money is anything other than absurd.
Personally, I had every intention of continuing my habit of picking up every major book released, and switching to 4th Edition, at first. It was only after seeing everything being done with the Forgotten Realms 4E, and being less than impressed with 4E, rules-wise, that I generally lost a lot of confidence in WotC's ability (and intention) to put out products that cater to my needs.
|
|
I'm perfectly willing to accept said range. Are you disputing that 4th Edition is less lethal at low levels than D&D 3.5?
I think that the lethality of 4E is significantly more situational than 3.5 at low levels.
That is, you need to work a considerable bit more to find the particular combinations of monsters and party composition to produce higher chances of character death.I think such a design has several significant flaws,
On the player's side, it creates a false sense of confidence. If it is so difficult to die at 1st level, a player can easily come to believe his character can never be killed at any level.
It also destroys any sense of on accomplishment for the player, as even reasonably inept play should lead to survival. 3E had the problem of people wanting to skil to 3rd level because surviving 1st and 2nd level was perceived as being nothing more than random luck. With this, 4E will create a reason to skil to 3rd level because surviving 1st and 2nd level is simply an exercise in rolling dice with no skill needing to apply.
On the DM side, it sets up situations where DMs are either bloodthirsty player killers for using those particular creatures, or they are accused of such because the players happened to get ridiculously unlucky against a very reasonable encounter.
The real key in all of this has always been a combination of adventure writing and DM running, and it is more an issue of publicity than of required rules.
It is not the realm of the ultra-genius to write an introductory adventure that is of somewhat less than average lethality, It is equally not outside the abilities of the "average" starting DM to simply not try and kill characters.
Either way, the real primary focus is not on experienced players, but on those people having their first experience with the game ever, who will give a disgusted grunt and walk away to find something fun to do because some git decided he needed another notch on his battlemat, or some inexperienced DM felt he could not fudge the dice or tactics in a printed adventure.
I'm perfectly willing to accept said range. Are you disputing that 4th Edition is less lethal at low levels than D&D 3.5?I think that the lethality of 4E is significantly more situational than 3.5 at low levels.
That is, you need to work a considerable bit more to find the particular combinations of monsters and party composition to produce higher chances of character death.I think such a design has several significant flaws,
On the player's side, it creates a false sense of confidence. If it is so difficult to die at 1st level, a player can easily come to believe his character can never be killed at any level.
It also destroys any sense of on accomplishment for the player, as even reasonably inept play should lead to survival. 3E had the problem of people wanting to skil to 3rd level because surviving 1st and 2nd level was perceived as being nothing more than random luck. With this, 4E will create a reason to skil to 3rd level because surviving 1st and 2nd level is simply an exercise in rolling dice with no skill needing to apply.
On the DM side, it sets up situations where DMs are either bloodthirsty player killers for using those particular creatures, or they are accused of such because the players happened to get ridiculously unlucky against a very reasonable encounter.The real key in all of this has always been a combination of adventure writing and DM running, and it is more an issue of publicity than of required rules.
It is not the realm of the ultra-genius to write an introductory adventure that is of somewhat less than average lethality, It is equally not outside the abilities of the "average" starting DM to simply not try and kill characters.
Either way, the real primary focus is not on experienced players, but on those people having their first experience with the game ever, who will give a disgusted grunt and walk away to find something fun to do because some git decided he needed another notch on his battlemat, or some inexperienced DM felt he could...
I think it's a little more complicated than this. It is not possible for a completely inept party to survive a challenging encounter unscathed in 4th Edition, regardless of level. 4th Edition's play requires an understanding of tactics and a willingness to work as a cohesive team to a degree that D&D 3.5 only began to touch on in its final years. On top of that, I don't think that a false sense of security is created anywhere. I haven't yet seen a player character die, thanks primarily to quick action on the part of his fellow adventurers, but at the same time I have seen parties struggle to pull through an encounter. In my experience with 4th Edition it has seemed like much more of a group effort. It was less how well you as an individual fared in the combat, whether you went down or stayed standing or how much damage you dealt, but much more about the party's successes and failures.
EDIT: Just as an example, I was playing in a 1st-level game this last Friday and noticed something I thought was awesome. Our party had a Warlord, Cleric and Ranger, among other things. From out of nowhere, the players of these characters started combining their talents to "chain" attacks together. The Warlord would begin with an easy attack that dealt little damage but added +3 to an ally's next attack and damage roll (Furious Smash). The Cleric would follow up with a more damaging attack that took advantage of the +3 and also granted an ally a +4 to an attack roll (Righteous Brand). The Ranger then finished the chain by using the huge +4 bonus to hit the target with a high-damage attack. By this point, that monster is either dead or just clinging to life, thanks to the party taking advantage of everyone's abilities. And I wasn't even part of this, I was a few squares away dealing with the rest of the monsters. Totally awesome.
It's all very clear.
Some people like 4th edition, some people like 3.5. People who like 3.5 are annoyed by 4th edition. People who like 4th edition are annoyed that they can't convince friends to join them. Hence big and lengthy debates for ever and ever.
And whoever was talking about the story of the White Dragon and the wizard needs to read the rules of probability. It simply isn't worth arguing the point tbh. For a start the young white dragon is a party mob, so a wizard would not be soloing it, anyway. Even saying this, the wizard would very likely survive a round or two's attacks and with a healer or warlord, longer. In 3.5 a 5HD white dragon would easily wipe out an entire 1st level party with one breath, even if they saved.
Back to the original question. The answer is absolutely nothing. 4th edition is no less flexible than 3.5. It's an RPG, so if you want to do it, you can do it. You don't need a rulebook to tell you.
Bards, barbarians, druids all exist in the monster manual in some form and this will be cemented in PHB2. All NPCs are handled as monsters now. Creating new powers for monsters is incredibly easy. Even I can do it and have done it for Crimson Throne.
How long did it take? Not long. What about balance? Can I be sure the powers are balanced? It's all in the DMG. Can Queen Ileosa be a bard? Yes. Does she need to be a bard? No, because as roleplayers we can change things. We have that power to imagine something different, solve problems and make things good from bad. We just need to want to do it and therein lies the problem.
It's all very clear.
Some people like 4th edition, some people like 3.5. People who like 3.5 are annoyed by 4th edition. People who like 4th edition are annoyed that they can't convince friends to join them. Hence big and lengthy debates for ever and ever.
And whoever was talking about the story of the White Dragon and the wizard needs to read the rules of probability. It simply isn't worth arguing the point tbh. For a start the young white dragon is a party mob, so a wizard would not be soloing it, anyway. Even saying this, the wizard would very likely survive a round or two's attacks and with a healer or warlord, longer. In 3.5 a 5HD white dragon would easily wipe out an entire 1st level party with one breath, even if they saved.
Back to the original question. The answer is absolutely nothing. 4th edition is no less flexible than 3.5. It's an RPG, so if you want to do it, you can do it. You don't need a rulebook to tell you.
Bards, barbarians, druids all exist in the monster manual in some form and this will be cemented in PHB2. All NPCs are handled as monsters now. Creating new powers for monsters is incredibly easy. Even I can do it and have done it for Crimson Throne.
How long did it take? Not long. What about balance? Can I be sure the powers are balanced? It's all in the DMG. Can Queen Ileosa be a bard? Yes. Does she need to be a bard? No, because as roleplayers we can change things. We have that power to imagine something different, solve problems and make things good from bad. We just need to want to do it and therein lies the problem.
Well said.
|
Fourth edition is gamist. It is a game first, and a story telling vehicle second. Many of the changes to the lore and the core are changes that invalidate what many of us grew up playing. Fourth edition is also an attempt to distinguish D&D from the cultural milieux of western fantasy. Things in fourth edition are easier to market as an IP for digital products. In a nutshell, fourth edition is geared to tell very different stories, and story takes a back seat to rules.
Pathfinder is a continuation of the pulp and fantasy traditions that the game grew from. It is a story telling vehicle, with rules that still interfere with that function, but are open and inclusive enough to let individuals engineer the game as they see fit, and tell the stories they want to tell.
Some refer to the difference as gamist vs. simulationist, although both games contain both characteristics.
So here is what is incompatible:
4E:
Rules make the world hard to visualise as a breathing, living entity.
The game worlds are made of small points of light, unaware of a larger context, which makes the game easier to pick up.
Creatures and characters follow different rules, and monsters statistics are solely there to illustrate the three things it can do in combat. There is no ecology, or need for one.
Characters have limits on them that exist solely as a mechanical handicap for game balance, viz. only a second tier, level 10+ character can use a ring.
4E limits choice to help new players learn the game. It is an attempt to recapture the success of the old red box days, when anyone could learn to play the game in an afternoon or so.
4E incorporates elements that make it more like a computer game, and less of a literary endeavor.Pathfinder:
Pathfinder is developed to make widely divergent playstyles possible on one world, (and some planets) Realism is a focus, and the game is made for people who view story as primary, and rules as a malleable vehicle to help resolve arguments.
Golarion is a world that is linked together...
Damn fine post.
*beer*
Drink brother.
|
|
In particular, I'm concerned with the posts on what has happened to the Forgotten Realms. I've always loved the FR setting, and to be honest I see a LOT of similarities between it and Paizo's setting - Golarion just happens to be more organized and cohesive overall, though FR has its own charm in its iconic characters and long history. Has the 4E re-imagining of the Realms really made it that unattractive?
Whether or not the 4E Realms are unattractive is going to be a matter of opinion, and there are more than enough flame-bait threads on these forums and elsewhere over it. I'll try to present it from as neutral/objective a position as possible (I don't like the 4E version myself).
One thing that can be taken as fact, is that a lot of prior Forgotten Realms fans have major issues with the changes, to varying degrees.
I would ask yourself what it is you like about the Forgotten Realms, and then attempt to assess how much of that is still present in the materials being presented by the WoTC 4E design team.
Can you still get a "Realmsian" feel to the adventures there? Probably. I certainly won't say that it has become "Eberronified" just because of the deaths of various gods and NPCs, or the introduction of new elements. For me, though, I find that I have lost faith in the designers of the 4E Realms. By this, I mean that I don't feel that I can trust them not to pull the rug out from under my feet again, and run rampant through a setting I love, chopping out things they find disagreeable, with questionable rationales backing them.
Anyway, there's a lot more that could be said here, and probably deserves its own topic.
Arcesilaus:
As someone who likes both 3.5E and 4E, I'm curious about what you found in 4E to be factors in reducing the number of headaches when it comes to DMing a campaign.
The reason I ask is because I'm planning to begin a campaign soon (in about a month) and am undecided on which of three options to choose:
1) Using 4E rules and running a Forgotten Realms campaign (beginning with the starter module and the FR adventure that will be released next month).
2) Using Pathfinder RPG rules and running a Paizo AP.
3) Using 4E rules and running a Paizo AP (and spending the necessary time to do conversions).
As you seem to have chosen #3, I'd really like to see some more of your input and perspectives on the matter. While I don't even remotely want to jump into the 3.5E vs. 4E argument, I must say that I've been influenced at least a bit by the comments here.
In particular, I'm concerned with the posts on what has happened to the Forgotten Realms. I've always loved the FR setting, and to be honest I see a LOT of similarities between it and Paizo's setting - Golarion just happens to be more organized and cohesive overall, though FR has its own charm in its iconic characters and long history. Has the 4E re-imagining of the Realms really made it that unattractive?
I'm not entirely positive that this is the place for such a discussion, but I can touch on the major points, and then we can perhaps continue the discussion elsewhere (although it's possible that others posting in this thread will have some insight to add).
Let me start off by saying that my observations regarding 4th edition are based on only 6 actual sessions of play, including a couple of trial attempts of parts of KotSF and the opening of CotCT (PCs are 2nd level). Basically, the real benefit of 4th edition becomes apparent in the actual game-play (as opposed to game-prep), specifically combat. (Non-combat encounters are by-and-large equivalent in the two editions, although the more limited number of skills that are broader in scope generally improves the odds that someone in the party has a shot at being successful at [insert skill here].) Combat encounters are better in 4th edition primarily because the enemies are easier to run, and the encounters are generally more fun to run and play. The second element is a function of creatures' and NPCs' powers that do a good job of supplying theme and flavor (as opposed to Karzoug the Claimer, e.g., who is only nominally a transmuter) and encourage more movement and action while discouraging "I full attack. I full attack. I full attack."
In response to the reduction of headaches, it results from the fact that NPCs in 4th edition have only a handful of powers with which to choose each round in combat, as opposed to Karzoug again who has a staggering 73 spells memorized, which don't include his glaive that has its own actions or any of his other magical items (admittedly some of those 73 spells are already cast, but that just leads to the inevitable recalculation that follows Greater Dispel Magic). I should state that I don't think that the smaller number of possible attacks limits the NPCs or makes them boring. On the contrary, they allow you to specialize the things that your NPCs do, making them unique and distinctive. When I ran Karzoug, he cast maybe 12 of those spells (with the benefit of time stop). Why bother with the other 60? Trying to keep track of the possible actions and determining the most effective action each round from the possible dozens of choices available to an NPC in 3.5 gives me headaches. The only way to somewhat mitigate this issue is to spend a whole lot of time with set-up and pre-game prep...
The negative side of converting 3.5 adventures to 4th edition is the amount of time spent converting and prepping. Given that 4th edition requires more and larger encounters than 3.5, there is a considerable amount of self-written or scavenged material that must be added, as well. (Assuming you have a target level. I suppose you could just play them as written, if you're happy only reaching level 15, or so.) Now this is probably more prep-time that I spent preparing for 3.5 (certainly for the lower-level adventures), but the prep time is spent actually writing and adjusting adventures, adding character-specific encounters, tweaking story-elements, etc., rather than simply memorizing durations and ranges of spells, supernatural effects, and so on.
In sum, I think some of the most significant improvements made in the transition from 3.5 to 4th edition were in support of the DM, simplifying and enhancing the bookkeeping and allowing more time to be spent on being creative, writing, and developing the adventure.
If you have any further questions or need me to clarify anything, feel free to e-mail me @ arcesilaus [at] gmail, and I hope that helps.
O
|
But the real problem was that the Realms identity had become too diluted with things like Mulhorand (Ancient Egypt), Maztica (Ancient Central and South America), the umpteen billion gods that no one could keep track of, ect. The Realms were so cluttered that DMs were too intimidated to runs campaigns there.
Anecdotal..i sure lots of GMs ran Realms campaigns.
I LIKED the different cultures, and the 'billion gods' since it seemed more realistic (ie earth-like) than one pan-global pantheon.
Mulhorand and the South was a rich place to run games. Now,its mostly gone. I contend that they still could have kept the Realms flavor without cutting swathes of regions away and presenting a more logical change due to the spellplague.
Some things (the Tyr/Helm/Sune thing) are just pretty poor concepts, worse than cliche'.
In any case, I am running a pre-Exploding Realms game in 4e. So I bet that I can run it well, proving the Ao-ignoring designers wrong.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Anecdotal..i sure lots of GMs ran Realms campaigns.I LIKED the different cultures, and the 'billion gods' since it seemed more realistic (ie earth-like) than one pan-global pantheon.
Mulhorand and the South was a rich place to run games. Now,its mostly gone. I contend that they still could have kept the Realms flavor without cutting swathes of regions away and presenting a more logical change due to the spellplague.
Some things (the Tyr/Helm/Sune thing) are just pretty poor concepts, worse than cliche'.
In any case, I am running a pre-Exploding Realms game in 4e. So I bet that I can run it well, proving the Ao-ignoring designers wrong.
good luck, hope it goes well.
Any 3.x games I run will be pre boom (and I find the dilution comment flawed, what culture did Halurra represent?) then again, there are still lots of fey'ri in my realms, I think they rock.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I disagree with the specific formulation "We can't tell the kind of stories we want to tell using Fourth Edition..."
I'd like to point out that that is *not* what we said. What we said was:
Our Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting was designed around the tropes and values of classic fantasy roleplaying, and the Pathfinder Adventure Path books were designed to provide the best gaming experience using the 3.5 system. After careful evaluation of our options, we believe that the 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we've got planned for Pathfinder.
*Can* we tell the stories we want to tell with 4th Edition? Quite possibly. But we believe that, among all systems, the OGL is the one that will provide the *best* foundation for our stories.
*Can* we tell the stories we want to tell with 4th Edition? Quite possibly. But we believe that, among all systems, the OGL is the one that will provide the *best* foundation for our stories.
This. Nevermind the fact that you've already had the rug yanked out from under the company once by WotC when they ended the magazines licenses. The GSL just makes it that much easier, and since it has the clause saying that a product line can't go back to the OGL after using the GSL, I don't see that you had a choice in the matter.
What's that saying? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.