Alas 4E I knew you well.


4th Edition

101 to 137 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Mr. Slaad wrote:
David Marks wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
What about the worst case I have seen? The paladin's divine challenge. Why should the paladin's deity shoot laser beams (radiant damage) from the sky to punish enemies for "not" attacking one of their followers? If they are going to smite someone, shouldn't they smite someone for "attacking" the paladin? This rule is so gamist it is laughable. There is no possible explanation for this that wouldn't sound completely ridiculous. It exists for one reason: To make enemies want to attack the palading so he can fulfil his role as a "defender".

Off the top of my head, the Paladin vows to protect his allies from one opponent, and his god gives him the backup.

Cheers! :)

I understand you like 4e, but there are some rules so ridiculous you can't possibly defend them. Just because you like the system (as do I) doesn't mean you need to defend every little thing about it. I personally think the marking is ridiculous as well.

Thank you for your voice of reason. You make a good point. Just because you like 4E, doesn't mean you have to defend every little part of it no matter how ridiculous it is. I like 3.5, but I will fully admit that there are some parts of it that are so ridiculous I wouldn't be sad to see them go. I can't even get my head around someone not thinking divine challenge is ridiculous. Trying to defend it seems even more ludicrous.

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
Mr. Slaad wrote:
David Marks wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
What about the worst case I have seen? The paladin's divine challenge. Why should the paladin's deity shoot laser beams (radiant damage) from the sky to punish enemies for "not" attacking one of their followers? If they are going to smite someone, shouldn't they smite someone for "attacking" the paladin? This rule is so gamist it is laughable. There is no possible explanation for this that wouldn't sound completely ridiculous. It exists for one reason: To make enemies want to attack the palading so he can fulfil his role as a "defender".

Off the top of my head, the Paladin vows to protect his allies from one opponent, and his god gives him the backup.

Cheers! :)

I understand you like 4e, but there are some rules so ridiculous you can't possibly defend them. Just because you like the system (as do I) doesn't mean you need to defend every little thing about it. I personally think the marking is ridiculous as well.
It does not sound ridiculous to me. If a paladin is the protector then why wouldn't his god provide him the ability to keep an aggressor form attacking others?

It still doesn't make sense. If the deity wants to help the paladin protect people, why not just blast all the aggressors instead of that one guy who's not attacking the paladin? It makes no sense. There seem to be a lot of better ways to do this. Why not just have the marked enemy take penalties to hit and damage against non-marked foes to show his lack of confidence from backing down from the challenge? That's just one way. It wouldn't be hard to come up with others that draw the opponent's attention to the paladin without being cheesy, non-sensical supernatural abilities that simply do not make any sense in the context of the world.

The Exchange

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
It still doesn't make sense. If the deity wants to help the paladin protect people, why not just blast all the aggressors instead of that one guy who's not attacking the paladin?

Then the paladin would be a divine controller rather than a defender. The paladin is all about single combat not about blasting hordes of bad guys.

The Exchange

pming wrote:
Ditto on the MSHA (Re: Marvel Super Heroes Advanced, re: FASERIP). In fact, we just made new characters a few weeks ago (before me and my wife moved to a new house). As far as I'm concerned, the MSHA game is the *best* game system for heroics of any power level.

Agreed. I so love that game.

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
It still doesn't make sense. If the deity wants to help the paladin protect people, why not just blast all the aggressors instead of that one guy who's not attacking the paladin?
Then the paladin would be a divine controller rather than a defender. The paladin is all about single combat not about blasting hordes of bad guys.

But that is admitting that the paladin is doing something inefficient to fit into a specific class role.

The Exchange

Mr. Slaad wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
It still doesn't make sense. If the deity wants to help the paladin protect people, why not just blast all the aggressors instead of that one guy who's not attacking the paladin?
Then the paladin would be a divine controller rather than a defender. The paladin is all about single combat not about blasting hordes of bad guys.
But that is admitting that the paladin is doing something inefficient to fit into a specific class role.

Hardly. It is saying that his god wants him to personify the holy warrior rather than the holy bolt thrower.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:


It still doesn't make sense. If the deity wants to help the paladin protect people, why not just blast all the aggressors instead of that one guy who's not attacking the paladin? It makes no sense. There seem to be a lot of better ways to do this. Why not just have the marked enemy take penalties to hit and damage against non-marked foes to show his lack of confidence from backing down from the challenge? That's just one way. It wouldn't be hard to come up with others that draw the opponent's attention to the paladin without being cheesy, non-sensical supernatural abilities that simply do not make any sense in the context of the world.

The marked foe DOES take penalties to hit all of the Paladin's allies ... that is the nature of the Marked condition. You take a -2 to all attack rolls except against the target which has Marked you.

There are some Divine Prayers that do blast all of a holy man's enemies. Some may be available to Paladins, and they can always be acquired through multiclassing if not.

Some parts of 4E are very weird, and can be difficult to come up with in game explanations of what is happening. This isn't one of them, at least for me. Maybe you have more trouble.

Cheers! :)

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
Mr. Slaad wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
It still doesn't make sense. If the deity wants to help the paladin protect people, why not just blast all the aggressors instead of that one guy who's not attacking the paladin?
Then the paladin would be a divine controller rather than a defender. The paladin is all about single combat not about blasting hordes of bad guys.
But that is admitting that the paladin is doing something inefficient to fit into a specific class role.
Hardly. It is saying that his god wants him to personify the holy warrior rather than the holy bolt thrower.

What a silly god. This is one of those abilities I don't like. It seems to gamist, even with all of these explanations. You can accept them, I'm just not fine with them.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:


Thank you for your voice of reason. You make a good point. Just because you like 4E, doesn't mean you have to defend every little part of it no matter how ridiculous it is. I like 3.5, but I will fully admit that there are some parts of it that are so ridiculous I wouldn't be sad to see them go. I can't even get my head around someone not thinking divine challenge is ridiculous. Trying to defend it seems even more ludicrous.

So far as powers go I really don't see this as one of the ones thats particularly problematic. There are far worse powers in the book IMO.

Essentially the Paladins Divine Challenge is magic. I don't really follow an argument of 'magic can't, or should not be able to, do that'. Why not? Its magic.

The power that blinds people for a round 'by getting blood in their eyes' is far worse IMO. That one's going to take skill for my group to explain every time it comes up.


Mr. Slaad wrote:


What a silly god. This is one of those abilities I don't like. It seems to gamist, even with all of these explanations. You can accept them, I'm just not fine with them.

I don't think explaining things from the Gods perspective works very well with the conceits of 4E. There are no fallen Paladins or Fallen Clerics. It would seem that once you have the powers they seem to work even if you've become so full of hubris that your actually perverting your Gods intentions instead of serving them. Possibly Manual of the Planes will explain why a Paladin of Pelor can become evil and still access his divine power but until then we simply don't know. It does stand to reason though that the Gods themselves are not reviewing every action that a character makes as Pelor would have cut this Paladin off if they were being this careful - though maybe he's actually being granted the power by Asmodeus or something along these lines.

In regards to the power being gamist - yes I agree. Paladins have a role to fulfil in the party and their powers, especially their mainstay powers tend to be designed to fulfil that role.

The Exchange

Mr. Slaad wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Mr. Slaad wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
It still doesn't make sense. If the deity wants to help the paladin protect people, why not just blast all the aggressors instead of that one guy who's not attacking the paladin?
Then the paladin would be a divine controller rather than a defender. The paladin is all about single combat not about blasting hordes of bad guys.
But that is admitting that the paladin is doing something inefficient to fit into a specific class role.
Hardly. It is saying that his god wants him to personify the holy warrior rather than the holy bolt thrower.
What a silly god. This is one of those abilities I don't like. It seems to gamist, even with all of these explanations. You can accept them, I'm just not fine with them.

Well, 3.5 does the exact same thing. Paladins and clerics of the same god have very very different magical abilities.

And while we are on gamist D&D problems - why do all clerics turn undead regardless of the deity they worship?

Let's face it - divine class abilities in D&D have always been "gamist" with no real rhyme or reason to them.

If you want to see how divine magic should work then look at RuneQuest where different gods provide their worshipers with spells and abilities tied directly to the nature of the god and his or her mythology.

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
It still doesn't make sense. If the deity wants to help the paladin protect people, why not just blast all the aggressors instead of that one guy who's not attacking the paladin?
Then the paladin would be a divine controller rather than a defender. The paladin is all about single combat not about blasting hordes of bad guys.

Your missing my point. I'm not saying the paladin should be a controller. I'm saying it would make more sense in the context of the game world for the deity to blast the paladin's enemies than to blast one guy because he's attacking the wizard instead of the paladin. This is typical 4E philosphy. A rule doesn't have to make sense. It just has to let the PC fulfill his combat role. If the marked enemy was weakened or took a penalty to damage, or maybe if the paladin got some kind of a super smite opportunity attack when he attacked someone else, that would make more sense thematically, and he would still be doing his job as a defender. The way divine challenge currently works is just one glimpse at how an overly gamist element can ruin part of the game for some people. I simply cannot accept RAW divine challenge.

Scarab Sages

crosswiredmind wrote:


And while we are on gamist D&D problems - why do all clerics turn undead regardless of the deity they worship?

Except of course for those that rebuke them instead.

Actually isn't the turning of undead a rule because it allows players to simulate the literature in which a priest stands with the symbol of his god and turns away the undead? Seems more simulationist than gamist to me.


Wicht wrote:


Except of course for those that rebuke them instead.

Actually isn't the turning of undead a rule because it allows players to simulate the literature in which a priest stands with the symbol of his god and turns away the undead? Seems more simulationist than gamist to me.

While possibly true, Wicht, the literature you talk about generally is set in the real world, and the god the priest worships in the Judeo-Christian God.

In a fantasy world that does not have one all-powerful deity, where many gods stand over interests that have no reasonable connection to the undead, be it turning or rebuking them, it is kinda silly they all get it.

Back in 2E that wasn't the case with all the different specialy priests (I still remember the time the Priest of Grumbar didn't happen to mention he couldn't Turn Undead until the party was about to be overcome by zombies ... oops!) but in 3E it doesn't matter if you worship the god of death or the god of rocks ... undead fear you for some strange reason.

Cheers! :)

Edit: True simulationism in re: to Divine-powered classes (to use a 4E-ism) would involve every class in effect being different, having widely divergent abilities based on the portfolios of their deity. In some regards, you saw this in 2E with each god giving different level of access to the priestly Spheres, semi-analogues to arcane's spell schools. This was really hard to balance though, as some portfolios just don't really lend themselves well to prayers suited for adventuring. 3E gave all Clerics full access to the same list with very minor differences based on the god they worshiped, for what I can only assume was for pure balance reasons.

The Exchange

Wicht wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


And while we are on gamist D&D problems - why do all clerics turn undead regardless of the deity they worship?

Except of course for those that rebuke them instead.

Actually isn't the turning of undead a rule because it allows players to simulate the literature in which a priest stands with the symbol of his god and turns away the undead? Seems more simulationist than gamist to me.

OD&D assumed clerics were all tied to just one god - in fact it was the only god if not the God. The notion that each and every deity is interested in either turning or rebuking undead is silly. If a cleric can create bursts of positive energy to create some form of effect wouldn't each god shade that effect to reflect their own personal interests?

The Exchange

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I simply cannot accept RAW divine challenge.

And that is just fine. I highly doubt you would accept any element of 4e. Or, as in this case, you have raised the bar of acceptance so high that 4e will never match it.

Dark Archive

My group also switched back to 3.5. I run two separate groups and they both hated 4th ed. I like the system but gotta give the people what they want.

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I simply cannot accept RAW divine challenge.
And that is just fine. I highly doubt you would accept any element of 4e. Or, as in this case, you have raised the bar of acceptance so high that 4e will never match it.

The point I'm trying to make is that 4E would be a lot more desirable as a role-playing game if they decided to have class abilities and powers that made sense in the context of the game world, fit thematically, and were somewhat grounded in reality. Instead of shooting laser beams at someone for not attacking you or pushing, luring, etc. a gargantuan creature 15 ft, how about some abilities that don't provoke, a "Yeah, right!" or "That's stupid" response from your average player. Let's get rid of this, "He has to do this because he is a controller, defender, etc." mentalitiy, and have more of a "What should a fighter, wizard, etc. realistically (as far as realism goes in D&D) be able to do at this level?" approach. That's the irritating thing about 4E. It looks like it has potential, and seems like a fun game if you play it as a minis tactical combat game, but the overly gamist stuff is a huge turnoff as far as a long term RPG game goes. Even CWM said he's not going to playing it much. What does that say about it's staying power?


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
It still doesn't make sense. If the deity wants to help the paladin protect people, why not just blast all the aggressors instead of that one guy who's not attacking the paladin? It makes no sense. There seem to be a lot of better ways to do this.
WotC's Nightmare wrote:

Your missing my point. I'm not saying the paladin should be a controller. I'm saying it would make more sense in the context of the game world for the deity to blast the paladin's enemies than to blast one guy because he's attacking the wizard instead of the paladin. This is typical 4E philosphy. A rule doesn't have to make sense. It just has to let the PC fulfill his combat role.

If the marked enemy was weakened or took a penalty to damage, or maybe if the paladin got some kind of a super smite opportunity attack when he attacked someone else, that would make more sense thematically, and he would still be doing his job as a defender.

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that 4E would be a lot more desirable as a role-playing game if they decided to have class abilities and powers that made sense in the context of the game world, fit thematically, and were somewhat grounded in reality.

Nightmare, I think I'm finally understanding why you object so strongly to this power, and I'd like you to try and see my way of thinking on this subject, and indeed the thematics of many of 4th edition's powers.

The paladin’s divine challenge ability is about the paladin confronting a single foe, using his faith as shield for those around him as he confronts an enemy of his god in single combat. That is the theme of this specific power.

It is not about defending a group of people or smiting all the paladin’s foes, such as you describe in the first quote. Those woudl both make excellent paladin powers. That kind of power would be very thematic for a paladin, but that is not what Divine Challenge is about.

Divine Challenge is about the kind of self sacrificing, single combat that a holy knight might engage in to defend others.

Can we agree upon that?

Now, if we agree on that, lets talk about the in-game effects of the power.

Why is having the paladin’s faith harm his foe directly a problem with that theme? If the foe turns his back or attempts to attack the paladin’s comrades, the paladin smites him for his cowardly actions, doing damage to his foe.

That seems very thematic for a divine knight to me. How the paladin does that smiting is left vague, and that is intentional design choice which has been built into the edition as a whole.

I think this may be the problem you have with many of 4th editions powers. The exact visual effects and in game rational of most powers in fourth edition have been left intentionally vague.

The game mechanics have been detailed out, but who a character performs the power in game has been left vague to give the DM and players leeway in what the in-game world effects of a power are.

The DM can describe a particular power in whatever way best fits the setting. A general version is given in the power description, but the little fluff pieces are not the set in stone example of how the power must work in your particular game world, or even to your particular character. Fourth edition intentionally does not pin these things down because they want you, the DM, to be able to create the world you desire.

You keep saying "blast" and "shooting laser beams" like the only way the paladin could be doing that damage is holding up his hand and shooting energy beams at the monster. But that is not the only way the power can be described. There are a dozen different ways you could describe how the damage is being dealt, and you as the DM can chose the one that fits your game world best.

One paladin might indeed shoot a beam a light at his foe.
Another could call down fire from the heavens.
A paladin third might do nothing visible; while their god's dark power destroys the creature from the inside.

You can describe the way the paladin deals damage as a quick sword stroke that can't be dodged, where the paladin’s sword glows with holy power. The description would be just like an attack of opportunity that never missed, which is one of your examples.

None of these descriptions change the mechanical effect of the power, but it allows you to build a theme for each paladin that is vastly different based upon whether the paladin serves a Sun, Fire, Shadow, or War god.

The damage type remains radiant damage, because it's a divine attack, but the color and form of that radiance, the effects that cause it, are all left up to the DM and the player to describe.

This allows you to form a distinct theme for each faith. Crackling black energy, glowing white light, fiery red vengeance, all of them could count as radiant damage without changing how that damage effects people mechanically.

The Exchange

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that 4E would be a lot more desirable as a role-playing game if they decided to have class abilities and powers that made sense in the context of the game world, fit thematically, and were somewhat grounded in reality.

And the point I am trying to make is that every edition of D&D has problems this. This is not just a 4e problem.

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
It looks like it has potential, and seems like a fun game if you play it as a minis tactical combat game, but the overly gamist stuff is a huge turnoff as far as a long term RPG game goes.

Actually it makes a crappy board game. I've played D&D minis and find it to be rather dull. 4e is a roleplaying game and as such is great fun.

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Even CWM said he's not going to playing it much. What does that say about it's staying power?

Yes, yes I did. I am getting tired of D&D in all of its incarnations with the exception of Pathfinder. Pathfinder has pulled me back to 3e for a while just as the Living Forgotten Realms has me playing 4e. For my own gaming group the games of choice are now Warhammer and Chaosium's Basic Role Playing. 4e needs more time to cook before I run it as a regular home game.

Sovereign Court

I see where you are going with this, and if the description wasn't dealing your charisma as radiant damage, I could see those descriptions working. As it is written now, it screams bolts of light (laser beams) shoot from the paladin to punish someone for not attacking him. I think it should be some sort of opportunity attack (possible with a shift of a few squares beforehand), maybe based on charisma with possibly some small amount of additional radiant damage, but they went with the laser beams. Let's frame it as a multiple choice question.

Which one of these sounds like something a paladin should and would be able to do to protect someone.

a) charge the enemy about to attack the ally
b) shout at or challenge the enemy to get his attention
c) interpose your shiled or yourself between the attacker and your ally
d) use some sort of ranged weapon attack to draw the enemy's attention
e) shoot bolts of light (laser beams) at the aggressor to punish him for not attacking you specifically

One of these doesn't fit a paladin at all, and that's the one the 4E design team chose. I have no idea why.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I see where you are going with this, and if the description wasn't dealing your charisma as radiant damage, I could see those descriptions working.

Wait, so because it uses Charisma as damage bonus, my descriptions don't work? Are you kidding me?

"Charisma (Cha) measure's your force of personality."

That's a direct quote from the player's handbook. You're telling me that basing the damage bonus off the paladin's conviction invalidates my descriptions of holy fire?

Are you honestly telling me that you can't you imagine any of the description I gave, which are based soley on the faith of the Paladin calling forth the power of his god, as being based upon the Charisma of the Paladin?

Divine challenge can be summed up in one sentence:
"Face me heathen, or suffer the wrath of my god!"

Why do you insist on imaging the wrath of god as voltron style laser beams instead of holy fire or vengeful lightning bolts from heaven?


WotC's Nightmare wrote:

I see where you are going with this, and if the description wasn't dealing your charisma as radiant damage, I could see those descriptions working. As it is written now, it screams bolts of light (laser beams) shoot from the paladin to punish someone for not attacking him. I think it should be some sort of opportunity attack (possible with a shift of a few squares beforehand), maybe based on charisma with possibly some small amount of additional radiant damage, but they went with the laser beams. Let's frame it as a multiple choice question.

Which one of these sounds like something a paladin should and would be able to do to protect someone.

a) charge the enemy about to attack the ally
b) shout at or challenge the enemy to get his attention
c) interpose your shiled or yourself between the attacker and your ally
d) use some sort of ranged weapon attack to draw the enemy's attention
e) shoot bolts of light (laser beams) at the aggressor to punish him for not attacking you specifically

One of these doesn't fit a paladin at all, and that's the one the 4E design team chose. I have no idea why.

I'd say the Paladin gets to use magic as part of the way their character works as its one of the interesting things about Paladins - they have access to divine magic. From your list of alternatives it seems as if your problem is that the Paladin has access to divine magic, every alternative you give is essentially mundane. However if I'm playing a Paladin I want it emphasized that I'm not just a fighter with a stick up my butt but a Holy Warrior capable of accessing holy (or unholy) magiks.

The Exchange

Teiran wrote:
Are you honestly telling me that you can't you imagine any of the description I gave, which are based soley on the faith of the Paladin calling forth the power of his god, as being based upon the Charisma of the Paladin?

I think you have touched upon a key reason that some see 4e as "gamist". 3e explained everything in excruciating detail. Players or GMs did not need to exercise their imagination to visualize how things worked. 3e is very mechanical at times. 4e uses evocative language to describe the use of powers.

So when someone asks "how does the rogue slide a dragon", I see the GM asking "well, how do you think he did it?".

Just because the mechanics in 4e do not have a point-by-point detailed description of how they work does not mean a player cannot describe it. Your examples above prove that it can be done.

Sovereign Court

Teiran wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I see where you are going with this, and if the description wasn't dealing your charisma as radiant damage, I could see those descriptions working.

Wait, so because it uses Charisma as damage bonus, my descriptions don't work? Are you kidding me?

"Charisma (Cha) measure's your force of personality."

That's a direct quote from the player's handbook. You're telling me that basing the damage bonus off the paladin's conviction invalidates my descriptions of holy fire?

Are you honestly telling me that you can't you imagine any of the description I gave, which are based soley on the faith of the Paladin calling forth the power of his god, as being based upon the Charisma of the Paladin?

Divine challenge can be summed up in one sentence:
"Face me heathen, or suffer the wrath of my god!"

Why do you insist on imaging the wrath of god as voltron style laser beams instead of holy fire or vengeful lightning bolts from heaven?

The "radiant" damage is the real sticking point. If it was weapon damage, it would be a lot more acceptable. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree on this. I think that paladins should be more physical, and their divine abilities should be more subtle. Leave the holy bolts from the sky to clerics, the masters of divine magic.


I absolutely agree there.

My team took 3rd place in the D+D Open, which was 4e this year. I HATE this game. I cannot begin to express my disgust for it. It's great for TOURNAMENT play, where you have a brief number of fixed encounters.

But as far as real roleplaying and long term campaigning is concerned, I don't like this game at all.

It feels wrong. Even though playing a fighter was massively powerful, I HATED it. It didn't feel like D+D. It felt like something else. I was making tactical decisions based on what my powers could do, and not on what the most in-character thing for my character to do was.

I hate the feeling that my battle skills are based on the Wizard's ability to declare Prophecy of Doom, target one guy, and then if I hit him, I autocrit him. That really felt like something out of a bad video game. We used that ability on the lead monster in EVERY encounter.

In the last round, we spent 2 healing surges the whole time. Every POSSIBLE thing we could do to abuse temporary hit points, we did. The most powerful ability in the game is the ability to use temporary hit points to make sure your characters don't spend any surges.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:


The "radiant" damage is the real sticking point. If it was weapon damage, it would be a lot more acceptable. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree on this. I think that paladins should be more physical, and their divine abilities should be more subtle. Leave the holy bolts from the sky to clerics, the masters of divine magic.

Well, at least we've gotten at what your real complaint is.

The mechanics and description of the power don't matter, because your problem is that the paladin is using divine magic at all.

Can't really argue with that. That's a purely stylistic judgment about what you think the Paladin class should be. I obviously disagree, but at least now I understand why you're against it.

To avoid this kind of confusion, you might not want to complain about laser beam effects, when what really bothers you is that the paladin is using this kind of magic at all, not how the magic is described or how the power works. You'd do better by saying:

"I dislike that the new paladin's defender power is based upon magic, instead upon martial prowess. The paladin should be more martial then divine, especially since classically they used very little magic, and certainly not offensive magic until high levels."

You get your point across in a clear way that can't really be argued with, and avoid stirring up anger over the way disparaging you describe the power as shooting laser beams. That kind of thing does nothing but tweek those of us who like the new version of the game. Phrasing your arguement in the way I have does not.

The Exchange

Balabanto wrote:
It feels wrong. Even though playing a fighter was massively powerful, I HATED it. It didn't feel like D+D. It felt like something else. I was making tactical decisions based on what my powers could do, and not on what the most in-character thing for my character to do was.

That is not the fault of the game. If you do not want to use a power because your character would not use it then don't use it. No one is forcing you. If you don't want to take the tactically optimal route for the sake of roleplaying then do it. The rules of the game do not force choices on you. The rules give you options and you still choose to act or not act on them.

Balabanto wrote:
I hate the feeling that my battle skills are based on the Wizard's ability to declare Prophecy of Doom, target one guy, and then if I hit him, I autocrit him. That really felt like something out of a bad video game. We used that ability on the lead monster in EVERY encounter.

You don't like teamwork? Huh? And how is this any different than 3e where a magic missile or fireball sets up the bad guys for the other party members to hack up?

Seriously. You make it sound like you opened the 4e PHB and a malevolent alien jumped into your brain and started firing neurons for you. Nothing in 4e is forcing you to make any particular tactical decision.

As for temporary hit points - they are no more or less abusable then they were in 3e.

The Exchange

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
The "radiant" damage is the real sticking point. If it was weapon damage, it would be a lot more acceptable. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree on this. I think that paladins should be more physical, and their divine abilities should be more subtle. Leave the holy bolts from the sky to clerics, the masters of divine magic.

In 3e Paladins heal, cast spells, detect evil, and smite. They ooze magic.

Scarab Sages

crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
The "radiant" damage is the real sticking point. If it was weapon damage, it would be a lot more acceptable. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree on this. I think that paladins should be more physical, and their divine abilities should be more subtle. Leave the holy bolts from the sky to clerics, the masters of divine magic.
In 3e Paladins heal, cast spells, detect evil, and smite. They ooze magic.

Not meant to be snarky, but detect evil is the equivalent of a first level spell, smite is inconsequential until very high levels, and their spells are cast at 1/2 level and from a very limited list. If that is oozing magic, then clerics are downright putrified with it.


crosswiredmind wrote:
Balabanto wrote:
It feels wrong. Even though playing a fighter was massively powerful, I HATED it. It didn't feel like D+D. It felt like something else. I was making tactical decisions based on what my powers could do, and not on what the most in-character thing for my character to do was.

That is not the fault of the game. If you do not want to use a power because your character would not use it then don't use it. No one is forcing you. If you don't want to take the tactically optimal route for the sake of roleplaying then do it. The rules of the game do not force choices on you. The rules give you options and you still choose to act or not act on them.

Balabanto wrote:
I hate the feeling that my battle skills are based on the Wizard's ability to declare Prophecy of Doom, target one guy, and then if I hit him, I autocrit him. That really felt like something out of a bad video game. We used that ability on the lead monster in EVERY encounter.

You don't like teamwork? Huh? And how is this any different than 3e where a magic missile or fireball sets up the bad guys for the other party members to hack up?

Seriously. You make it sound like you opened the 4e PHB and a malevolent alien jumped into your brain and started firing neurons for you. Nothing in 4e is forcing you to make any particular tactical decision.

Actually, I do like teamwork when it's creative and clever. There was nothing creative going on here. It was point and click, point and click. I didn't feel like I was enjoying what was going on, because all of the stuff was described for me. I wasn't getting to define my maneuvers or abilities, they were all described for me by the PHB.

Systems like this only work, like in Hero, when I get to DEFINE how my martial strike works to my satisfaction.

But instead of "Genericizing" the powers, they made them very specific, with specific exceptions to the rules built into every power.

I really can't stand 4th edition for a number of other reasons, first of which on the list is this:

Nothing is standardized.

A 12th level monster is not the equivalent of a 12th level fighter. A 12th level Fighter is the equivalent of a 13th level solo elite. This is a radical disconnect. If the most dangerous opponents are parties of adventurers, then parties of adventurers should be built out the way the PC's are.

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I never got that feeling in any 4e mod I've ever played.

As for temporary hit points - they are no more or less abusable then they were in 3e.


Buh, the quoting got mucked up somewhere. Anyway, I just wanted to say that 4E explicitly urges you to do exactly like Hero, and skin your powers/moves however you want. The fluff presented is just some default suggestions, or a brief description of how they did it. Make up your own explanations and maybe you'll find 4E grooves better.

As for the goose's gander, 4E does disconnect the idea that anything an NPC can do, a PC can do as well. I believe the rules you are thinking of with your Monster 12 = Ftr 12 = Monster 13 Elite are a little off though. Those rules are a quick way to add a classes abilities to an already existing monster and turn them into an elite. In 4E though, you don't really stat NPCs up the same as PCs anymore, and you could make a perfectly viable rival party out of level equivalent standard monsters. They wouldn't look exactly like PCs, but that is sticking with 4E conventions.

Cheers! :)

The Exchange

Jal Dorak wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
The "radiant" damage is the real sticking point. If it was weapon damage, it would be a lot more acceptable. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree on this. I think that paladins should be more physical, and their divine abilities should be more subtle. Leave the holy bolts from the sky to clerics, the masters of divine magic.
In 3e Paladins heal, cast spells, detect evil, and smite. They ooze magic.
Not meant to be snarky, but detect evil is the equivalent of a first level spell, smite is inconsequential until very high levels, and their spells are cast at 1/2 level and from a very limited list. If that is oozing magic, then clerics are downright putrified with it.

It may not be powerful magic but they are a magical class.

The Exchange

Balabanto wrote:
Actually, I do like teamwork when it's creative and clever. There was nothing creative going on here. It was point and click, point and click. I didn't feel like I was enjoying what was going on, because all of the stuff was described for me. I wasn't getting to define my maneuvers or abilities, they were all described for me by the PHB.

... and the PHB also says that the description is there as a guide. It encourages you to make up your own descriptions to fit your character. Besides - how is that any different from 3e where the combat feats describe what happens when you use them?

Balabanto wrote:

Systems like this only work, like in Hero, when I get to DEFINE how my martial strike works to my satisfaction.

But instead of "Genericizing" the powers, they made them very specific, with specific exceptions to the rules built into every power.

As I said above the book actually encourages the player to make up his or her own description of the powers at work. Just because WotC provides a description does not mean that you must use it.

Balabanto wrote:

I really can't stand 4th edition for a number of other reasons, first of which on the list is this:

Nothing is standardized.

A 12th level monster is not the equivalent of a 12th level fighter. A 12th level Fighter is the equivalent of a 13th level solo elite. This is a radical disconnect. If the most dangerous opponents are parties of adventurers, then parties of adventurers should be built out the way the PC's are.

Huh? If anything the monster creation and advancement sections of the DMG make it very clear that there is more standardization in 4e than in 3e. In 3e if a critter had 12HD there was no way to know if it was a match for a 12th level PC - it may be way underpowered or way overpowered. At least in 4e there is a standardization of HP and damage output based on monster level.

Balabanto wrote:
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I never got that feeling in any 4e mod I've ever played.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Balabanto wrote:


I'm back, from outer space, and I just walked in to find you here with that sad look upon your face. You should have changed your stupid lock, you should have made me leave my key, if you had known for just one second I'd be back to bother you.

Oh joy. You're back. And still uninformed and rambling. Lucky us.

Balabanto wrote:
Nothing is standardized.

Unless you were to, ya know, look at the way everything is pegged to levels. Seems like the definition of standardized to me.

Balabanto wrote:
A 12th level monster is not the equivalent of a 12th level fighter. A 12th level Fighter is the equivalent of a 13th level solo elite. This is a radical disconnect. If the most dangerous opponents are parties of adventurers, then parties of adventurers should be built out the way the PC's are.

Yeah...that didn't work in 3e either and you're mangling the 4e terms beyond recognition. But whatever. Logic and accuracy have yet to rear their heads in any of your posts to date, why start now.

The Exchange

Sebastian wrote:

Balabanto wrote:


As for temporary hit points - they are no more or less abusable then they were in 3e.
Temporary hit points don't stack in 4e; they do in 3e. I leave it to you to torture logic and show how this change makes no difference in terms of abusability.

Actually I wrote that last bit.

My observation was going to be that 4e may have more sources for temporary hit points but they don't stack unlike 3e. I just didn't have the rule book to confirm that.

The Exchange

Sebastian wrote:
stuff - then I noticed the faction icon

It figures - living up to the lawyerly stereotype by having your Pathfinder PC sell out to the devil as well?

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

crosswiredmind wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

Balabanto wrote:


As for temporary hit points - they are no more or less abusable then they were in 3e.
Temporary hit points don't stack in 4e; they do in 3e. I leave it to you to torture logic and show how this change makes no difference in terms of abusability.

Actually I wrote that last bit.

My observation was going to be that 4e may have more sources for temporary hit points but they don't stack unlike 3e. I just didn't have the rule book to confirm that.

Ah, I will fix. It's always hard to puzzle out which comments belong to Balabanto given his untraditional (some might say, incorrect) usage of the quote tags.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

crosswiredmind wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
stuff - then I noticed the faction icon
It figures - living up to the lawyerly stereotype by having your Pathfinder PC sell out to the devil as well?

But of course.

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
The "radiant" damage is the real sticking point. If it was weapon damage, it would be a lot more acceptable. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree on this. I think that paladins should be more physical, and their divine abilities should be more subtle. Leave the holy bolts from the sky to clerics, the masters of divine magic.
In 3e Paladins heal, cast spells, detect evil, and smite. They ooze magic.
Not meant to be snarky, but detect evil is the equivalent of a first level spell, smite is inconsequential until very high levels, and their spells are cast at 1/2 level and from a very limited list. If that is oozing magic, then clerics are downright putrified with it.
It may not be powerful magic but they are a magical class.

Yes, they have some magic, but I wouldn't say they are oozing with it. They get smite, lay on hands, and a small handful of spells that are fairly subtle for the most part. The 4E paladin has some good "paladinly" abilities: the channel divinity abilities. Divine challenge just doesn't seem to fit the paladin, especially when it's main function isn't to damage an opponent. It is an indirect "aggro" mechanic that punishes an opponent for not attacking you. I'm sorry, but that's just silly any way you look at it.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:


Yes, they have some magic, but I wouldn't say they are oozing with it. They get smite, lay on hands, and a small handful of spells that are fairly subtle for the most part. The 4E paladin has some good "paladinly" abilities: the channel divinity abilities. Divine challenge just doesn't seem to fit the paladin, especially when it's main function isn't to damage an opponent. It is an indirect "aggro" mechanic that punishes an opponent for not attacking you. I'm sorry, but that's just silly any way you look at it.

Why is it silly? I just don't follow - it seems like a good match to a Paladin.

In any case if this really bothers you - don't play Paladins and/or make a deal with your DM to replace this power with another power. Something off the Warlord List probably has something that would fit the bill.

Sovereign Court

"Drawing aggro" has it's place in an MMORPG, because the computer needs a way to determine who the monster is going to attack. IMHO, it really doesn't have a place in tabletop RPG games. The fighter has a decent way to feel "sticky" without being over-the top ridiculous. Why can't the paladin?

The Exchange

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
"Drawing aggro" has it's place in an MMORPG, because the computer needs a way to determine who the monster is going to attack. IMHO, it really doesn't have a place in tabletop RPG games. The fighter has a decent way to feel "sticky" without being over-the top ridiculous. Why can't the paladin?

Marking is not drawing aggro. If you played WoW and 4e you would know that there is a huge difference.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
"Drawing aggro" has it's place in an MMORPG, because the computer needs a way to determine who the monster is going to attack. IMHO, it really doesn't have a place in tabletop RPG games. The fighter has a decent way to feel "sticky" without being over-the top ridiculous. Why can't the paladin?

I think your so busy equating this with WoW that its ruined the concept for you. I've never really equated the idea with 'drawing aggro' and my DM does not need some special way to determine what the monster is going to attack.

Trying to slot mechanics into WoW lingo really are not the focus of my game. From my perspective its an interesting magic spell that the Paladin can cast as a minor action that bring his enemies to him or punishes them. While it has some similarities to what the Fighter does its more interesting because the ability can be used at range giving the Paladin some ability to influence where combat will actually take place.

However, if this just can't work for you, if its impossible to play a Paladin without thinking WoW then either play a different class - like a fighter, or swap the power out with something else.


I think the idea that DnD doesn't and has never had a way of deciding when and where and who monsters attack is a little ludacris.

The Gm has done it in the past, who hasn't allowed for "Surley and Mean" Intimidation to either scare off or attract bad guys.

Honestly aggro is something that while codified in wow, has been arround since the wargames that rpg's came out of have been arround. Saying aggro belongs in wow is a bit like saying, no of course the players should never have a chance in affecting who and what monsters attack. Yeah it used to be that, not really at all, and now it is more explicit in some cases.

Oh noes, my versimlitude is disappearing, but then again, I think that happened when the gnome monk/fighter/bard/rogue started using his insane saves and AC along with his social skills to make (at least attempt) to get monsters to waste their time with him rather than you know the rest of us (and no I'm not making this up)

Lgos


Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
My group also switched back to 3.5. I run two separate groups and they both hated 4th ed. I like the system but gotta give the people what they want.

It's so funny guys, I read the same story everywhere....

Two things to seem clear to me now

1- D&D4 is a big mess and players really dont like it. After 1 or 2 sessions, farewell, goodbye, back to 3.5 and older....

2- Lots of players are now exploring other games, so excellent for the business...

Sovereign Court

Logos wrote:

I think the idea that DnD doesn't and has never had a way of deciding when and where and who monsters attack is a little ludacris.

The Gm has done it in the past, who hasn't allowed for "Surley and Mean" Intimidation to either scare off or attract bad guys.

Honestly aggro is something that while codified in wow, has been arround since the wargames that rpg's came out of have been arround. Saying aggro belongs in wow is a bit like saying, no of course the players should never have a chance in affecting who and what monsters attack. Yeah it used to be that, not really at all, and now it is more explicit in some cases.

Oh noes, my versimlitude is disappearing, but then again, I think that happened when the gnome monk/fighter/bard/rogue started using his insane saves and AC along with his social skills to make (at least attempt) to get monsters to waste their time with him rather than you know the rest of us (and no I'm not making this up)

Lgos

I don't know what you are talking about here. It's the DM's job to decide what monsters attack what PC's. Mindless creatures attack whoever is closest, creatures with animal intelligence attack whoever hit them last, and more intelligent creatures target the PC's they perceive as the biggest threat. Sure, if a PC want's to hurl an insult at a villian or a dragon to get it's attention, and it fits with their motivations and personality, they may shift their attention to the offending PC. Then again, they may not fall for the bait. You know some semblence of versimilitude in an RPG is a good thing. Without it you may as well be playing an MMORPG.


In 3.5, i allowed players to use Handle Animal to see if they could "draw agro".

Then there was Bluff for those higher intelligent things.

Or simply roleplaying. Its amazing how creative people can be.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:


I don't know what you are talking about here. It's the DM's job to decide what monsters attack what PC's.

You mean for controlling when creatures activate and attack pc's, this is also known as aggro

WotC's Nightmare wrote:


Mindless creatures attack whoever is closest, creatures with animal intelligence attack whoever hit them last, and more intelligent creatures target the PC's they perceive as the biggest threat.

These are aggro rules, (or rather unwritten rules )and while these vary between groups it means that their is some way or method of aggro

WotC's Nightmare wrote:


Sure, if a PC want's to hurl an insult at a villian or a dragon to get it's attention, and it fits with their motivations and personality, they may shift their attention to the offending PC.

So Pc's can control aggro, often with skills or other means.

WotC's Nightmare wrote:


Then again, they may not fall for the bait.

Whether or not they do, do this, you just agreed with me that thier is aggro in all editions of dnd, that this is the means that Dm's use to decide who attacks what , and that sometimes it is appropiate for pc's to have some control over it.

Yes semblence of versimilitude is good in an RPG, the moral of the story is that any aggro flaws that 4th may have were pretty much already in 3rd. Althought you may not know this other reasons for perfering to play a TTRPG as apposed to a MMORPG include things like companionship and face - to - face social interaction, the enjoyment of infinite original and customizible content, or even just telling a good story (things which mmorpg's can do a lot of, but not all of )

So your trying to tell me that because I A> Disagree with you B> Have attempted to show that the who DnD = wow because of aggro (and your particular hatred for the paladin mark, among other things )and that C> any of your problems with 4th edition are mostly just that , your problems.

That i should stop playing TTRPG's

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
You know some semblence of versimilitude in an RPG is a good thing. Without it you may as well be playing an MMORPG.

We'll I guess I might as well as long as holier than thou, seem to think they are the breadth and width of table top gaming , when in fact it seems to me that your representing an increasingly small and declining section adhering to something or other (It's not 3.5, it may be something more like, the hard division between Video Games and TTRPG's or Old vs New or somethign like that )

You ought to rename yourself Paizo's Worst Nightmare, because honestly I think your threadcrapping and trolling, and being a whiny b$!$$ for the most part and hey because your pro 3.5 its alright, even in the 4th edition forums.

And hey I'm sure I'm going to get a whole lot of "and so are you" well all i can say is I'm waiting for the modhammer to fall, and that i really don't think it affects my arguement at all.

Kthxbby

loo

Sovereign Court

Making a logical choice on who an enemy attacks based on the- motivations, intelligence, and common tactics of the enemy isn't drawing aggro. It's part of running the game, and the best way to do that is to think, "What would this creature/villian do in this situation?" Drawing aggo is when a PC uses some ability that pretty much demands an enemy focus on that PC. They are two completely different things. In short, it's a simulationist versus a gamist way of doing things. I prefer the simulationsit approach, but I never said that people doing it differently were doing it wrong or having badwrongfun. I'm not making personal attacks against you, so why are you taking it so personally and being so vicious with your posts? Relax. It's just a message board, not a political debate.

101 to 137 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Alas 4E I knew you well. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition