Mike Mearls on Game Balance

[Scott Betts]

Mr. Subtle wrote:

*Second, What happens when everything is balanced to fall under a small amount of mechanics? Doesn't everything end-up looking too much the same? What distinction is there between the wizard's magic, and the fighters combat moves? Little, save for flavor and such.

I would argue that the appalling disparity between a wizard's magic and a fighter's combat moves in 3e was something that was very nicely fixed in 4e.

But no, it doesn't end up looking too much the same. 9 times out of 10, you're going to be able to tell which power is a fighter power and which power is a wizard power when it comes out at the table, even without the assistance of flavor text.

[Bluenose]

Mr. Subtle wrote:

I don't want to get "flamy" so I won't go into details here, but I want to make a few points.

*First, Hasn't D&D always had a simulationist feel to it? Why did "balance" take precedence over this in 4e?

*Second, What happens when everything is balanced to fall under a small amount of mechanics? Doesn't everything end-up looking too much the same? What distinction is there between the wizard's magic, and the fighters combat moves? Little, save for flavor and such.

*Third, how does taking the "piddley" little bonuses that used to be entwined with the magic system, and then spreading them-out between all the various powers of all the classes, make combat simpler? In 3.5, you cast a spell and you get +1 for ten minutes, not an everchanging, overlapping, set of bonuses and penalties that reset every combat.

*Fourth, At what point does balance become unrealistic and video gamey?

1. No, it's never been a particularly simulationist game.

2. The distinction between the wizard's magic and the fighters combat moves is in what they do.

3. When you've spent ten minutes tracking the 'buff' spells in your 3.x game for duration and overlap in the effects, and then have to deal with someone casting Dispel Magic you'll probably appreciate how complex that gets.

4. Video games come in as many flavours as Tabletop games, and balance is frequently not a consideration at all.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Here are my thoughts, at least from my own experience playing the game:

Mr. Subtle wrote:

*First, Hasn't D&D always had a simulationist feel to it? Why did "balance" take precedence over this in 4e?

Largely because lots of people felt limited by the simulationism, or that it led to unsatisfactory game elements. The rules had dozens of small sub-systems to account for different situations (encumbrance, grappling, etc), which could both bog down play and require lots of rules checking during the game. In combat, the literalism of certain spells could make them too powerful, especially at high levels where characters had world-altering magics - nothing else could compare.

Similarly, it makes sense in a simulationist setting to have various powers available - things like flight, etc, that are common fantasy elements. But in actual play, this meant that players could quickly get access to them at the right time, and then bypass countless obstacles, avoid or destroy ground-based encounters, and require a completely new game to be written for them by the DM to deal with it. And then another new game to deal with teleportation, and another one to deal with divination, and so on and so forth - the potency of such effects (or specific examples of such effects) made their use commonplace, rather than exceptional. They were great fantasy elements, but didn't work in the context of playing an actual game.

Now, some of those elements could be fixed withless drastic changes - I understand that was one of Pathfinder's goals - but many others found that the steps 4E took were what they were looking for. The key to note is that balance is only part of it - simulation was traded for better gameplay, and a focus on the narrative of the story rather than the simulation of a world. Which... isn't what some are looking for, and that's fine! But 'balance' was only one of the goals for 4E - playability was another big one, and where a lot of the loss of simulation comes from.

Mr. Subtle wrote:

*Second, What happens when everything is balanced to fall under a small amount of mechanics? Doesn't everything end-up looking too much the same? What distinction is there between the wizard's magic, and the fighters combat moves? Little, save for flavor and such.

It's definitely a tricky balancing act. I've found that powers and classes feel very different in actual play, even if the mechanics in the book read very similarly. On the other hand, I think there is room for more diversity - but I'd never want to go back to 3rd Edition, where at different levels, one person explicitly has the 'better' mechanics. And I have to admit it has made things easier as a DM to deal with one unified set of mechanics, rather than countless subsystems.

Mr. Subtle wrote:

*Third, how does taking the "piddley" little bonuses that used to be entwined with the magic system, and then spreading them-out between all the various powers of all the classes, make combat simpler? In 3.5, you cast a spell and you get +1 for ten minutes, not an everchanging, overlapping, set of bonuses and penalties that reset every combat.

The problem was, in 3.5, you cast one spell to get a buff for ten minutes, and another to get a buff for 3 rounds, and another to get a buff for 1.5 minutes, and another to get a buff for 20 hours, and another to get a buff for 1 round. And some buffs gave bonuses that stacked and others didn't, and some buffs adjusted an ability score, which adjusted attack bonuses and damage bonuses and maybe gave more or less depending on if you were using a two-handed weapon or an off-hand weapon. Or you instead had a Strength penalty which had the same weird math, and turned off Power Attack and other feats. And then you got hit by Dispel Magic and the game stopped for 10 minutes.

At low levels, it wasn't a problem, but it didn't take long for buffs to get complicated, and spell preperation even more so. The problem was just too many different things going on - buffs from different sources, with different types of bonuses, of different durations.

4E instead has buffs either last an entire encounter, or one round. And the buffs are almost always direct - a flat addition or substraction, without having math cascading from one element of the character to another. It isn't a perfect system - there are a lot of small bonuses going around, and small conditional bonuses are even worse. But I do find it easier to track, myself, and never run into the problem of several PCs needing to do math for a few minutes to figure out what their character's new stats are - and then having to undo it when buffs are dispelled several minutes later.

Mr. Subtle wrote:

*Fourth, At what point does balance become unrealistic and video gamey?

My personal answer... never. 'Balance' doesn't make something video-gamey - other elements might cause that, whether lack of flavor or reliance on enforced formula. But a game where each character can participate in each scene has nothing to do with it feeling like a video game.

Perhaps the issue is just different understandings of what the goal of 'balance' is. It isn't to make each character identical in every way. Different classes are still better or worse at some things. Different builds can be realized with more or less emphasis on combat. But the goal is to make sure there aren't scenes where only one character gets to be the star to the exclusion of all others. Players don't have to accept being useless in combat in order to build a useful character out of combat. Characters don't need to sacrifice effectiveness for background. And no one class or option serves as the single 'best' choice at every given time.

Goals along those lines can be realized while still having a diverse set of options. Not always perfectly, of course. But it is a very different goal than just suppressing all choices until every option is the same.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Gorbacz wrote:

Last time I checked, 4ed was still labeled as role-playing game, not tactical wargame.

Unless World of Warcraft and jRPGs redefinded RPG as a tactical wargame, at which point we need a new word to refer to the "old" RPGs.

Why? The old versions of D&D were pretty combat heavy.

[Amael]

Mr. Subtle wrote:

*Fourth, At what point does balance become unrealistic and video gamey?

I don't think balance has anything to do with realism,

and as far as video gamey I'm not sure I ever saw this
connection. I do think the feel of 4e was geared less
towards realism and more towards a cinamatic/actiony kind
of feel, but even this can be changed with ease by the DM.
How would you define gamey though?

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Gorbacz wrote:

Not in my view. 3ed had tools for running both combat and non-combat activities, and sourcebooks actually began to develop sub-systems for things like affiliations and business.

The spell/feat/skill system was made with both combat and non-combat stuff in mind. It was a great step up from the previous editions and brought D&D closer to the "universalist" systems such as the Storyteller system or the BRP system. Sure, there was a strong combat angle, due to D&Ds origins as hack-and-slash game, but there was a move in the right direction.

Sadly, 4ed made a step backwards. Sure, we have skills and challenges and pizzaz, but the mechanical focus has shifted from feats and skills and spells to combat - oriented powers that tell me how many squares can I shift as my immediate daily interrupt power. This thread reinforces me in belief that 4ed target audience are tactical wargamers, and hence I'm off the hook here.

My feelings are the opposite. 3.5 did make this move but it was their first attempt to tack on a dynamic skill system on top of the combat heavy rules that had come before. The results were very uneven and led to a number of significant issues. The spell system could, by later levels simply trump the skill system in its entirety. Any group that let the rogue do anything at all in a tough adventure the Maure Castle is just making an error, your don't deal with these perils through the skill system when the magic system can be used to trump them much more dependently. Hence 4E has rituals and they will take the place of many utility powers but the real trump powers that eliminate the need to use the skill system itself are either gone or prohibitively high level.

Hence you can have a murder mystery in 4E at 12th level while you could not really do that in 3.5 because in 3.5 they'll just use magic to find the answers.

Make no mistake the 4E designers have been over the spell list of 3.5 probably hundreds of times searching desperately for content for rituals to put in splat books or Dragon articles. If a spell has not made the transition to ritual status its because said spell is deemed too disruptive of the game to be allowed.

Feats are a little more focused but there are a lot that give some kind of benefit other then a combat one.

Finally the skill system itself is excellent for use in the game. +1/2 per level, initially appears kind of lame but the reason for it becomes apparent as it allows skills to remain a relevant part of the game for much, much, longer then in 3.x. In 3.x the skill system really worked well at very low levels were skills could be used untrained and such but the system itself broke down later on a you got to a situation where either a player had maxed out the skill - in which case making the DC ought to be trivial or no one had put points in the skill in which case making the DC was impossible. In truth +1/2 a level is basically a way of carrying the feel of the low level 3.x skill system through to higher levels so that the skill system remains a vibrant part of the game. Combined with a lack of spells that eliminate teh need for the skill system and you'll find that your players will be using their skills even deep into the campaign.

Hence the changes in 4E, far from taking a step back from non-combat aspects of the game, are in fact an attempt to make the system work really well for those non-combat aspects. Murder Mystery and Political intrigue are types of adventures that can be designed and you won't hit the kind of scary road blocks you'd find in 3.5 where you'd have to deal with 'what if my players have a psion with the dominate power?' - can they just dominate the king or the guards or whoever they need? Even higher level players can be engaged by skill challenges designed around wheeling and dealing with Prince or Pauper (and if you hate skills for your role play in this aspect 4E still works fine with DM fiat).

Your right that a lot of tools have been taken off the table, especially in regards to the magic system, but most of the time the tools have been taken away in order to improve play. Fundamentally 4E characters are a lot weaker then their 3.5 counterparts and this is done so as to keep them from simply circumnavigating the story with their power.

[Snakey]

Amael wrote:

Mr. Subtle wrote:

*Fourth, At what point does balance become unrealistic and video gamey?

I don't think balance has anything to do with realism,

and as far as video gamey I'm not sure I ever saw this
connection. I do think the feel of 4e was geared less
towards realism and more towards a cinamatic/actiony kind
of feel, but even this can be changed with ease by the DM.
How would you define gamey though?

Well, to me, the main issue I had was with the powers. "I shift one square, make an attack, and a random ally gains 1 temp HP." While the intent is often obvious behind the power, sometimes it is hard to visualize what is supposed happening. Also, the battles did get more complex IMO, with alot more writing on scrap paper, and alot of easy to forget stacking conditions that end-up like an equation. The battles also tend to drag and can end in stalemates, which is weird. (like when the invoker nullified a higher-level dragon and made him useless, or when my enemies locked down the players)

You know, If offered, I would probably play in a 4e game if someone else GMd. The game is really fun for heavy combat style campaign, but lacks in realism and RP focus. I understand, and respect those who choose 4e as there game of choice, it's just not for me.

[CourtFool]

Mr. Subtle wrote:

D&D has always been a game that errs on the side of realism

Your idea of realism and mine are most unalike. And I am not talking about the presence of magic.

Mr. Subtle wrote:

Second, What happens when everything is balanced to fall under a small amount of mechanics?

Options = potential imbalance. Actual imbalance can be remedied by a GM willing to exercise 'No' and/or players willing to take some responsibility and play as part of a team. Hero has even more options which can drive a new GM mad and let's not even speak of Mr. One-Trick Sebastian.

[Amael]

Snakey wrote:

You know, If offered, I would probably play in a 4e game if someone else GMd. The game is really fun for heavy combat style campaign, but lacks in realism and RP focus. I understand, and respect those who choose 4e as there game of choice, it's just not for me.

While I respect what your opinion is in

this statement, I have to say that I would
partially agree with the realism statement, but
I do disagree with the RP focus statement.

As far as realism, the nature of the powers that
the PCs have can sometimes lead to a disconnect, which
I did run into as well. My solution for it was to look
at my character and come up with my own personal fluff/flavor
or what have you for why these things would happen. For instance
my Raven Queen Paladin had Virtue as a utility power (grants temp
hp equal to your surge value by spending a healing surge), which I
explained to my dm was a summoning of a horde of ravens sent by the
RQ, and as I take hits, the ravens are destroyed. I actually enjoyed
trying to figure out how to explain the whys of my characters powers.

As for the RP aspect, I have always felt that RP'ing is an independant aspect from the mechanics of the game. I say this from my own dming experience in 4e, that lack of RP'ing in a game has more to do with the DM, PCs, and adventure itself, then with the game rules themselves. I ran a game with about 50/50 combat/rping I would say, with it dipping more into one or the other depending on the moment, and I felt that my pcs roleplayed pretty heavily, just as they did in
3e, 2e, pathfinder, etc. This of course is my own experiences/opinions :)

[Snakey]

CourtFool wrote:

Mr. Subtle wrote:

D&D has always been a game that errs on the side of realism

Your idea of realism and mine are most unalike. And I am not talking about the presence of magic.

Mr. Subtle wrote:

Second, What happens when everything is balanced to fall under a small amount of mechanics?

Options = potential imbalance. Actual imbalance can be remedied by a GM willing to exercise 'No' and/or players willing to take some responsibility and play as part of a team. Hero has even more options which can drive a new GM mad and let's not even speak of Mr. One-Trick Sebastian.

More options do equal more possibility for imbalance. But, more options = more options. With power comes responsibility, and a good GM with a good in-depth system can make good things happen. I guess if you play with people who are out to exploit the system, more options suck, but if your group is into cooperative story telling, then more options = more possibilities. I'm not saying a rules-light system is bad, I just prefer to have more things to build with.

As a GM, the responsibly of in-game balance falls mostly on my shoulders. I guess, to be fair, this load is greatly lessened in 4e.

[Snakey]

Amael wrote:

As for the RP aspect, I have always felt that RP'ing is an independant aspect from the mechanics of the game. I say this from my own dming experience in 4e, that lack of RP'ing in a game has more to do with the DM, PCs, and adventure itself, then with the game rules themselves. I ran a game with about 50/50 combat/rping I would say, with it dipping more into one or the other depending on the moment, and I felt that my pcs roleplayed pretty heavily, just as they did in

3e, 2e, pathfinder, etc. This of course is my own experiences/opinions :)

I agree with this. I can chock it up to inexperience at that time. The thing is though, with PF, my players found a lot more material to RP off of, hidden within spells, feats and whatnot. Everything in 3.5/PF, for the most part, has an obvious function that is based in "reality", and not so much squares on a grid.

[Amael]

Snakey wrote:

I agree with this. I can chock it up to inexperience at that time. The thing is though, with PF, my players found a lot more material to RP off of, hidden within spells, feats and whatnot. Everything in 3.5/PF, for the most part, has an obvious function that is based in "reality", and not so much squares on a grid.

Fair enough :)

My friends who play 4e with me, they are
very attached to 3e/pathfinder and they have
that same opinion as far as RP'ing is concerned.
I'm not sure what it is, but there seems to be a
lot of issues with people who have come from the
older editions and in making the transition there
seems to be a disconnect. I think it may be something
to do, like how you said with spells and whatnot, with
what they may have used as rp'ing tools/devices for their
characters in 3.5/pathfinder/etc, which may not have the
same direct translation in 4e. For me it took some digging
at first and then as I delved into the nature and whys of my
abilities/powers/feats/class I felt I started to grasp rp'ing
my character in 4e better. Either way when you boil it all down
preference is preference :)

[Matthew Koelbl]

Snakey wrote:

Well, to me, the main issue I had was with the powers. "I shift one square, make an attack, and a random ally gains 1 temp HP." While the intent is often obvious behind the power, sometimes it is hard to visualize what is supposed happening.

I can't disagree with this - weak flavor text is one of my big complaints about the books. Not as much because I need them, as because I feel that is an area where a few carefully crafted sentences can add a great deal of flavor without taking up tons of room.

It can admittedly be fun to figure things out on my own - the Warden article today involved a daily power, "Form of the Erupting Volcano", where enemies take ongoing fire damage and are slowed (save ends) that becomes more ongoing damage and are immobilized on a failed save, that eventually becomes resistance and petrified on another failed save. I realized this represented them being covered in molten lava that hardened around them and froze them in stone - but the power never said this, or described it anywhere. For a new player, that is definitely confusing.

That said, I really think any claims that the game is only fun for combat-heavy campaigns, and lacks in RP, just aren't true. It may still not be for you, and those claims might be true in some groups, but 4E has just as much room for RP as any other edition of D&D.

[Stefan Hill]

I disagree that D&D can not be used any more or less than any other RPG for a social heavy game. By the very complexity of a game not based on combat the use of systems and dice become largely irrelevant. Why do most games have large combat sections? Simple, its far easier to come up with a system to emulate a sword swing than one that emulates the thought patterns of a local Duke. If it was so easy than artificial intelligence would be centuries ahead of where it is today. I truly believe that any "system" claiming to have the best "simulator" of social interactions based on dice rolls is selling you snake oil.

As for the idea that the 4e system means characters are too alike in the name of balance. A quick quiz.

I have a 1e/2e/3e/pfRPG character of 1st level. I have just rolled d4+1 for damage. Question. Name my class?

Imagination is what really makes classes and races different, all editions really are just a bunch off numbers on a page. An RPG is what YOU make of it.

S.

[Grey Lensman]

Perhaps I need to try 4E at a Con or something, because after 2 months of playing it most of my group never wants to see the system again. One person is seriously considering tossing the books into the fireplace for the joy of watching them burn, but I am willing to believe that it may have been the games I was in.

My own experiences are that the monsters (especially the solo mobs) never, ever miss when they target anything other than AC, and the combination of this and the "save after taking the effect for a round" rule seriously turned me off of the system, but getting stuck in a video game style "stun lock" for several turns may not be the norm.

The DM told me I could take similar powers, but I have yet to find them in the books.

[TriOmegaZero]

Paul Worthen wrote:

No it's true! In third edition, you were perfectly free to make a character that sucked. In 4e, it's pretty difficult.

I just have to chime in that I don't think it is that difficult. All you have to do is put a 10 in the ability all your powers are keyed off of. And pick feats that give bonuses to things you don't use. Silly, I know, but easy to do.

[Snakey]

It'd be hard to make a suck character in pathfinder too, if you could use 4e's method, 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 base stats, +2 to two for race, what equates to full HD per level, and a bunch of healing surges, second wind, and back to full HP between encounters mechanics...

Seriously, How do you put the fear in your PCs in 4e?
"Oh no, it's a big ass dragon!"
"Don't worry I doubt he can kill us."
"Yeah but it's got tons of HP, and it's gonna take hours to kill that thing."
"Lets run and take an extended rest first."

[Stefan Hill]

Snakey wrote:

It'd be hard to make a suck character in pathfinder too, if you could use 4e's method, 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 base stats, +2 to two for race, what equates to full HD per level, and a bunch of healing surges, second wind, and back to full HP between encounters mechanics...

Seriously, How do you put the fear in your PCs in 4e?
"Oh no, it's a big ass dragon!"
"Don't worry I doubt he can kill us."
"Yeah but it's got tons of HP, and it's gonna take hours to kill that thing."
"Lets run and take an extended rest first."

Play 4e you will find out that your statement doesn't reflect actual game play...

That and hp-bloat has been a problem of all editions after 1e (may be the core 2e).

S.

[Scott Betts]

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

Perhaps I need to try 4E at a Con or something, because after 2 months of playing it most of my group never wants to see the system again. One person is seriously considering tossing the books into the fireplace for the joy of watching them burn, but I am willing to believe that it may have been the games I was in.

My own experiences are that the monsters (especially the solo mobs) never, ever miss when they target anything other than AC,

I just pulled up a random 1st-level monster with a non-AC attack, and it's got a +5. Most PCs average about 13 for non-AC defenses at level 1, and that means they get hit on a roll of 8. A 45% chance to miss is hardly never. Solo monsters generally don't have higher attack bonuses, just more attacks per turn.

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

and the combination of this and the "save after taking the effect for a round" rule seriously turned me off of the system, but getting stuck in a video game style "stun lock" for several turns may not be the norm.

This is definitely not the norm. The number of monsters capable of inflicting stunned (save ends) effects is quite low, and on average you should be rid of the effect after a couple of rounds, assuming your party doesn't somehow free you earlier.

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

The DM told me I could take similar powers, but I have yet to find them in the books.

Any of the Wizard class's stun powers, coupled with their Orb of Imposition class feature, can basically allow you to stun a monster for the entire combat.

[Grey Lensman]

I talked to the DM's housemate last night and I learned the one big thing that tilted the encounters that way. We had an oversized group, and the DM just upped everything rather than put up with the headache of adding more stuff.

And while the wizard class might have an attack or two that can stun (daze doesn't count. If my turn can be taken away, I want stuff that can take a monster's turn away. Not limit the turn, but actually remove it) the swordmage I was playing did not have the option at the level 7.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

Snakey wrote:

It'd be hard to make a suck character in pathfinder too, if you could use 4e's method, 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 base stats, +2 to two for race, what equates to full HD per level, and a bunch of healing surges, second wind, and back to full HP between encounters mechanics...

Seriously, How do you put the fear in your PCs in 4e?
"Oh no, it's a big ass dragon!"
"Don't worry I doubt he can kill us."
"Yeah but it's got tons of HP, and it's gonna take hours to kill that thing."
"Lets run and take an extended rest first."

Given that the monsters also have loads of hit points, and that they are assumed attack in mobs, the basics of encounter design are quite different in 4e than in 3e. So you find you really need those hp, healing surges and so on.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

I talked to the DM's housemate last night and I learned the one big thing that tilted the encounters that way. We had an oversized group, and the DM just upped everything rather than put up with the headache of adding more stuff.

And while the wizard class might have an attack or two that can stun (daze doesn't count. If my turn can be taken away, I want stuff that can take a monster's turn away. Not limit the turn, but actually remove it) the swordmage I was playing did not have the option at the level 7.

Stuns really start showing up for PCs at Paragon levels. I think WotC have gotten better about stuns - the first MM had a few enemies like the Dracolich, Lamia, Banshrae, that simply hand out way too many stuns. But they have eased back on that, and it is hardly the norm - you may have simply gotten a bad run of enemies that, combined with the boosted levels, were just tedious to fight.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Paul Worthen wrote:

No it's true! In third edition, you were perfectly free to make a character that sucked. In 4e, it's pretty difficult.

I just have to chime in that I don't think it is that difficult. All you have to do is put a 10 in the ability all your powers are keyed off of. And pick feats that give bonuses to things you don't use. Silly, I know, but easy to do.

The point is that you can make choices in 3.x that appear good and will actually be good for a level or two and then find out that what you have done has really screwed up your character. Or an option rocks the Hazbul at levels 5-9 but after 10th it turns out to be really sub par. In other words you didn't do something silly instead you failed to anticipate what was going to be going on 4 levels down the road. One of the reasons veteran 3.x players create their build from 1st through 20th ahead of time. Its important to know what your character will be like far into the future in order to try and minimize these sorts of errors.

[SirUrza]

Paul Worthen wrote:

What I mean is that in 3rd edition, making a few bad choices or playing the wrong class put you behind the power curve very, very quickly.

Sweet! Power curves! It's awesome D&D doesn't have a flesh and blood, living DM who's job it is to evaluate what the PCs can handle and run adventure according.. wait...

[Matthew Koelbl]

SirUrza wrote:

Paul Worthen wrote:

What I mean is that in 3rd edition, making a few bad choices or playing the wrong class put you behind the power curve very, very quickly.

Sweet! Power curves! It's awesome D&D doesn't have a flesh and blood, living DM who's job it is to evaluate what the PCs can handle and run adventure according.. wait...

A DM can mitigate the problems of the system. They shouldn't have to, of course, but they can. Sometimes. But when there is power disparity within the party itself, it gets really hard. How do you challenge a group where one player can hit on a 2+ what everyone else needs 20s to hit? Or where one character isn't threatened except by spells that would wipe out the rest of the party?

I'm really not sure what you're objecting to, here. Obviously the system worked for you. That's cool - that's great even! And obviously you don't like 4E and don't feel the changes were needed. But others clearly did, and are expressing the reasons for that right in this thread, both based on the principles of the game and their own personal experiences. Is it really that hard to accept that other people had these issues with the game and prefer a system that addresses them?

[Snakey]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

SirUrza wrote:

Paul Worthen wrote:

What I mean is that in 3rd edition, making a few bad choices or playing the wrong class put you behind the power curve very, very quickly.

Sweet! Power curves! It's awesome D&D doesn't have a flesh and blood, living DM who's job it is to evaluate what the PCs can handle and run adventure according.. wait...

A DM can mitigate the problems of the system. They shouldn't have to, of course, but they can. Sometimes. But when there is power disparity within the party itself, it gets really hard. How do you challenge a group where one player can hit on a 2+ what everyone else needs 20s to hit? Or where one character isn't threatened except by spells that would wipe out the rest of the party?

I'm really not sure what you're objecting to, here. Obviously the system worked for you. That's cool - that's great even! And obviously you don't like 4E and don't feel the changes were needed. But others clearly did, and are expressing the reasons for that right in this thread, both based on the principles of the game and their own personal experiences. Is it really that hard to accept that other people had these issues with the game and prefer a system that addresses them?

I don't think it's like that, I think that everyone who dislikes 3e* tends to exaggerate certain qualities, and it shows either a lack of experience with the system, or an unfair bias. 3e isn't crap, you either like it or you don't, but many, many, many people still play it and love it. Alot of the complaints about balance, just aren't true, especially in play, and I think tend to come from misunderstanding, or vacuous number crunching.

The problem with number-crunching 3e is, the balance of multi-faceted systems and subsystems is hard to quantify, and any mathematical conclusions drawn can only be true on paper, and fall apart totally during play...there are just too many factors, and relationships. The GM and the human element in 3e kills number experiments by the time they hit actual play. So, while true on paper, not so much in play.

I can say that people who dislike 4e do the same thing. 4e's math is mostly simple and obvious, it is not complex to crunch, and is hard to break. What you see is what you get, and player choices are all relatively the same power, save for a few broken powers here and there. The options players get to choose though, can lack real impact, feats are subtle little tweaks and there is not much danger of accidentally miss-choosing something, powers are all scaled to each-other closely, so everyone and everything has equal opportunity.

The problem with this, though, is that while a very forgiving system, 4e lacks the depth of 3e's labyrinthine options and builds. In 3e you can really build a character EXACTLY how you want them, while in 4e you are really pigeon-holed with very limited options. Both good and bad, on the one hand, in 4e you nearly never have to worry about balance, on the other hand, you just don't have as much control of things. One axe- wielding fighter is pretty much the same as another mechanically.

4e, great game that plays well with little effort right out of the box, but lacks that familiar depth of D&D. 3e, great game that keeps the tradition alive with tons of options, and complex mechanics that make for a believable and in-depth experience.

To each his own...

*Note: All instances of "3e" refer mainly to 3.5 and Pathfinder.

[SirUrza]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

A DM can mitigate the problems of the system. They shouldn't have to, of course, but they can. Sometimes. But when there is power disparity within the party itself, it gets really hard. How do you challenge a group where one player can hit on a 2+ what everyone else needs 20s to hit? Or where one character isn't threatened except by spells that would wipe out the rest of the party?

Everyone needs 20s to hit.. wow. What, no spellcasters in the group?

In such a case you ignore the player who hits everything, he's going to hit everything ANYWAY.

[Yasha0006]

You know, having read through this post and considering the question carefully, there is a particular conclusion I've come to.

One of the things that players and DMs who like older editions see about 4e and dislike is that, as has been said, feat selection don't make a huge impact on your character. Sure, there is plenty of choice and selections to make...but having played 4e at high level, I did notice that about the last 2 or three feats I picked, that there really wasn't much choice.

Not to say that I couldn't have chosen other feats, I could have. There wasn't much tradeoff though. I saw very few situations of 'hmm...which of these feats should I really choose'. It did give me the distinct feeling that the choice didn't really matter. The effects of many of the feats have a measurable, but rather minor effect. In some ways, I felt that it cheapened the choice or character build.

I admit, it threw me a bit, seeing that.

[Snakey]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

A DM can mitigate the problems of the system. They shouldn't have to, of course, but they can. Sometimes. But when there is power disparity within the party itself, it gets really hard. How do you challenge a group where one player can hit on a 2+ what everyone else needs 20s to hit? Or where one character isn't threatened except by spells that would wipe out the rest of the party?

This type of disparity NEVER will happen. Your example is way too extreme. What do you do when the party includes an Invoker who can lock all enemies into uselessness? How do challenge the group? How do you challenge a group of players that you can't ever kill?

Seriously, I found it very hard to challenge my players in 4e. They nearly never died, and throwing really tough monsters at them just meant the battles took extra long, which they already do anyway. I had to make the Invoker player switch classes, because he could shut-down anything, making it useless, I had them fight a much higher level dragon, and he just shut it down, and the dragon just shut them down, and the thing ended in a drawn-out stalemate that was exhausting.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Yasha0006 wrote:

You know, having read through this post and considering the question carefully, there is a particular conclusion I've come to.

One of the things that players and DMs who like older editions see about 4e and dislike is that, as has been said, feat selection don't make a huge impact on your character. Sure, there is plenty of choice and selections to make...but having played 4e at high level, I did notice that about the last 2 or three feats I picked, that there really wasn't much choice.

Not to say that I couldn't have chosen other feats, I could have. There wasn't much tradeoff though. I saw very few situations of 'hmm...which of these feats should I really choose'. It did give me the distinct feeling that the choice didn't really matter. The effects of many of the feats have a measurable, but rather minor effect. In some ways, I felt that it cheapened the choice or character build.

I admit, it threw me a bit, seeing that.

You could get this in 3.5 as well with certain classes at high enough level. If your heading toward the end game of the system and you've already picked up 16 feats it can be difficult to find one that really seems all that exciting. Especially when your at a point where +1 to saves or defenses or to damage or to hit just no longer seems meaningful, and you don't really need anything to expand on with your character as the character is already really developed so languages or non-combat role playing perks are not really exciting.

That said I think your issue does come up more with 4E simply because of game balance. Here we are dealing with are two Axe Wielding Fighters as well. Essentially 3.x rewards specialization. So you aim to be unhittable or always hit or do obscene damage. 4E won't let you do any of this. You can hit a bit more often or you can do a bit more damage but you can't get twice the AC of another player, you can't just pump every feat into improving X ability - there is a limit to how far you can progress down any 'chain' before you run out of options. The point, in 4E, is mainly to insure that the player that chooses combat orientated feats can never get so far ahead of the player that chooses linguist feats and skill focus feats that they no longer function in the same combats. Fundamentally the combat focused players are capped to insure that players that don't want to focus on combat can are not severely penalized for their choices.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Snakey wrote:

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

A DM can mitigate the problems of the system. They shouldn't have to, of course, but they can. Sometimes. But when there is power disparity within the party itself, it gets really hard. How do you challenge a group where one player can hit on a 2+ what everyone else needs 20s to hit? Or where one character isn't threatened except by spells that would wipe out the rest of the party?

This type of disparity NEVER will happen. Your example is way too extreme. What do you do when the party includes an Invoker who can lock all enemies into uselessness? How do challenge the group? How do you challenge a group of players that you can't ever kill?

Seriously, I found it very hard to challenge my players in 4e. They nearly never died, and throwing really tough monsters at them just meant the battles took extra long, which they already do anyway. I had to make the Invoker player switch classes, because he could shut-down anything, making it useless, I had them fight a much higher level dragon, and he just shut it down, and the dragon just shut them down, and the thing ended in a drawn-out stalemate that was exhausting.

Have you checked the errata recently? Usually anything really broken in 4E gets nerfed, Certainly I know that at least one very potent invoker power got nerfed in the last major update

Beyond that I think you just might be in for a rocky road ahead if your description is accurate. Its tough to break the 4E system but your players seem to have managed it - I strongly suspect that if you have players hellbent on busting the system they are going to find that Pathfinder is paradise for that style of play since your rewarded for specialization. As a rule 3.x characters are a lot more powerful then 4E characters and there are a lot fewer caps on power. If the goal is to make the most brokenly powerful character, that is just easier to do in 3.x and its derivatives then in 4E.

[Snakey]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

Have you checked the errata recently? Usually anything really broken in 4E gets nerfed, Certainly I know that at least one very potent invoker power got nerfed in the last major update

Beyond that I think you just might be in for a rocky road ahead if your description is accurate. Its tough to break the 4E system but your players seem to have managed it - I strongly suspect that if you have players hellbent on busting the system they are going to find that Pathfinder is paradise for that style of play since your rewarded for specialization. As a rule 3.x characters are a lot more powerful then 4E characters and there are a lot fewer caps on power. If the goal is to make the most brokenly powerful character, that is just easier to do in 3.x and its derivatives then in 4E.

I'm guessing it was the power that got nerfed later, I have not checked the errata, but it was ridiculous. My players aren't power-gamers, they are role-players, the power itself must have been broken. That said, the goal is to create a concept for a character that has meaning and depth, that you can relate to and bring to life. So, in my opinion, more options is better.

What's wrong with specialization? In order to be exceptional at one thing, you risk being deficient at another. You may choose to be good at a couple of things in place of raw, one sided power, and gain more flexibility. If all classes could do everything equally well, then why would we need so many?

Strengths and weakness's represent hard-lined roleplaying criteria that represent a more realistic balance then the be-all, do-all, mish-mash that everyone seems to want. If I want to smash things better than everyone else, than yeah, I'll pay for it somewhere, most likely in versatility. The moral is, if you want to be the greatest at something, then you will always have to sacrifice something else.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Snakey wrote:

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

Have you checked the errata recently? Usually anything really broken in 4E gets nerfed, Certainly I know that at least one very potent invoker power got nerfed in the last major update

Beyond that I think you just might be in for a rocky road ahead if your description is accurate. Its tough to break the 4E system but your players seem to have managed it - I strongly suspect that if you have players hellbent on busting the system they are going to find that Pathfinder is paradise for that style of play since your rewarded for specialization. As a rule 3.x characters are a lot more powerful then 4E characters and there are a lot fewer caps on power. If the goal is to make the most brokenly powerful character, that is just easier to do in 3.x and its derivatives then in 4E.

I'm guessing it was the power that got nerfed later, I have not checked the errata, but it was ridiculous. My players aren't power-gamers, they are role-players, the power itself must have been broken. That said, the goal is to create a concept for a character that has meaning and depth, that you can relate to and bring to life. So, in my opinion, more options is better.

What's wrong with specialization? In order to be exceptional at one thing, you risk being deficient at another. You may choose to be good at a couple of things in place of raw, one sided power, and gain more flexibility. If all classes could do everything equally well, then why would we need so many?

Strengths and weakness's represent hard-lined roleplaying criteria that represent a more realistic balance then the be-all, do-all, mish-mash that everyone seems to want. If I want to smash things better than everyone else, than yeah, I'll pay for it somewhere, most likely in versatility. The moral is, if you want to be the greatest at something, then you will always have to sacrifice something else.

Nothing is inherently wrong with specialization. The problem comes if specialization seems to be making versatility untenable. This was where 3.x had issues. You could have a player that focused on making himself ever more awesome at combat and that eventually just trumped the player that choose a more diverse set of skills. This could become a real problem with trying to balance adventures. In 3.5 this can easily turn into an arms race between the players and the DM with some of the players not realizing quickly enough that they are in an arms race.

So nothing wrong with specialization - but the problem is what to do if some players want to be good at combat and others want to be more diverse. 4E deals with this by deciding that being good at combat should only be allowed to go so far and tries to cap things so that a player that takes non-combat feats and such does not get to far behind the combat gods mainly by limiting how specialized the combat gods can be.

In many ways we can fundamentally get this down to there being a d20 and no player should have more then X bonus on that d20 compared to another player (and the monsters) or things start to break down. X is a tricky number to pick but there is some number past which the system itself stops functioning optimally.

[Shane LeRose]

First, my credentials.

I ran a game store for 5 years. In that time I sold a ton of 4th edition books (I even had a hard time keeping the Pathfinder Beta on the shelf). Both 4E and Path resurrected Role Playing in the store for a time (poor economy and an impending divorce for my business partner took us out of the game).

I've ran or played in a consistent group for nearly four years. I've "cameo-ed" in games at my old store or witnessed them first hand as others ran them right in front of my counter.

4E is akin to a card game. Specifically Magic the Gathering.

It feels like a card game, looks like a card game and to listen to a group play it, it sounds like a card game. It has mechanics, and keywords. That is what turned off prior edition players to the game, but it was what drew younger players or older card game players to the table.

Ironically, Pathfinder mimics 4E in many ways. One way is having more keywords and identifiable mechanics. The difference? I can still use all my books with Pathfinder. I cannot with 4E.

4E requires you to buy new books and these new books replace the old ones. Pathfinder actually does the same thing, but covertly. Some groups are core books only and that's great by Paizo, because it means you'll buy their books just like those 4E players bought Wizards books.

Converting 3.5, 2E Greyhawk and so forth to 4E is tricky. Mostly you use the source material as an inspiration and come up with something new. If it is too powerful or underpowered people catch on to that pretty quickly and it can be adjusted. Pathfinder offers an easier conversion. Sometimes you can even (heaven forbid!) write the changes directly into your old books. Game balance issues are a little more difficult to catch, but that's fine too. If no one notices, it doesn't exist.

So in summary, 4E is a better balanced game, but for some is too steamlined. It also came out and tried to replace the current D&D completely. This put a hook in many peoples craw. 3.x was 7 years old when 4E was announced at Gen Con (I'd like to point out no one cheered during the announcement). 7 years is a long time, 2E was around for 11 years, but was compatible with AD&D and 4E was more of a departure than 3rd was.

Are there people who would enjoy 4E, but refuse to play it for asinine reasons? Yes! Are there people who've only played 4E who would enjoy Path? I believe we have an example somewhere above me.

Ultimately this whole thread has gone completely off course. No one wants an unbalanced game and that's that. Designers who think game balance isn't that important are missing the point and risk reducing the fun for a portion of their audience. I used to be a hardcore 4E hater (actually playing the game made it worse), but have since matured after realizing why people play the games they do.

It's because their friends play them too.

Friends are what make a game balanced. If one player is overpowered and that bothers you then they probably aren't your friend.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Snakey wrote:

I don't think it's like that, I think that everyone who dislikes 3e* tends to exaggerate certain qualities, and it shows either a lack of experience with the system, or an unfair bias. 3e isn't crap, you either like it or you don't, but many, many, many people still play it and love it.

I think it is out of line to say that everyone who dislikes 3e is lying or uninformed about the system. I played and DMed it for its lifespan, I played in home games and the living campaign, and I enjoyed it for the majority of that time! But by the end of it, I did have elements that were bothering me or made running it difficult, and I was glad to see 4E address those!

This BS that you "either like it or you don't" - that's nonsense. It is perfectly possible to enjoy the game but feel it has room for improvement. And that's what many people feel.

For others, many of these problems never came up in their game - or they did, but weren't seen as problems. Or they felt that they were worth certain tradeoffs in return (more simulationism, unified monster/PC mechanics). Or they felt they needed to be fixed, but that they preferred how Pathfinder did so. Or that they were problems, but small enough there wasn't a need to toss out their books and get a new edition. Or that they were easy to house rule and fix.

Or countless other opinions and viewpoints, all of which are perfectly fine. But sitting here and telling me that my experiences with the game are incorrect, or are exaggerations, or are based on blind number crunching - sorry, NO. You're entitled to your opinion. You are free to prefer one edition over the other - different elements of them appeal to different people. But I would really appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge our viewpoint, rather than dismissing the bulk of this forum as misinformed or intentionally deceitful.

Snakey wrote:

The problem with this, though, is that while a very forgiving system, 4e lacks the depth of 3e's labyrinthine options and builds. In 3e you can really build a character EXACTLY how you want them, while in 4e you are really pigeon-holed with very limited options. Both good and bad, on the one hand, in 4e you nearly never have to worry about balance, on the other hand, you just don't have as much control of things. One axe- wielding fighter is pretty much the same as another mechanically.

This really isn't true. When the PHB first came out, yes, options were pretty limited compared to the plethora of options available after years of 3rd Edition supplements. And even outside of that, I will concede that even comparing the core books, the multiclassing in 3rd Edition probably allows for more overall customization - though I'd say that 4E makes up for it, in many ways, with the ability to use feats (rather than multiclassing) to acquire new skills, as well as elements that were formerly class abilities (Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, etc.)

By now, though, there are plenty of additional sourcebooks allowing for an absolutely astounding range of characters, and an incredible amount of customization within each character itself. I definitely haven't experienced the sort of pigeon-holing you are talking about. I'm not going to claim you haven't had that own experience yourself, of course - but I'd be glad to show some examples of what I feel is the strength of the system. What specific builds have you run into problems customizing? Just the axe-wielding fighter? Or were there other character elements that you felt constricted by?

Snakey wrote:

4e, great game that plays well with little effort right out of the box, but lacks that familiar depth of D&D. 3e, great game that keeps the tradition alive with tons of options, and complex mechanics that make for a believable and in-depth experience.

For what it's worth, I don't think most people play 4E in order to play a 'balanced game without any depth'. I think most people who enjoy playing 4E find that it has plenty of depth, and plenty of options, and carries on the D&D traditions just fine. You might not have that experience - that's fine. I think, though, that you are refusing to accept that others have not had the same experience, and even the possibility that the game might work for them in providing the same sort of enjoyment you have found with 3rd Edition.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Snakey wrote:

This type of disparity NEVER will happen. Your example is way too extreme.

It's extreme, but it can well happen - I've seen it, particularly in Living Greyhawk, where you can have a seriously min/maxed powergamer alongside someone who has built a perfectly ordinary jack of all trades.

But it can also happen entirely unintentionally, as well. I've used this example before, but I still find it a good one:

So you have two characters. One of them decides he wants to play, basically, Batman. So he of course has a pretty even spread of stats, since he can't have any bad ability scores. And he finds the best way is to have some levels of Rogues, letting him have all sorts of investigative and acrobatic skills, as well as some levels of Monk for his unarmed combat. And then he sees there is a Vigilante Prestige Class, which is just perfect for him! And along the way he acquires all sorts of trinkets and magic items with relatively minor (but interesting) effects - his utility belt.

Meanwhile, his friend has just seen some movie with awesome arabian swordsman, and wants to be a desert nomad. So he builds a character designed to be a nice powerful warrior with good strength - maybe with some levels of barbarian and fighter, as he balances an inner rage with his disciplined mastery of the sword. And for him, of course, the ideal Prestige Class is the Dervish. And he has a nice potent magic sword, his most cherished possession.

And the two of them are in a party, and in combat. And Batman - as a character with several classes that don't get full BAB, and only average ability scores, and feats not focused on combat, and only some minor bonuses from magic items... has an attack bonus of around +13 at level 15. (Less, if he flurries.) While the Nomad, with good Strength, full BAB, combat feats and items and class abilities... has around +30 to hit, at level 15.

Batman's player finds his character just... useless, in combat. He might have some decent skills out of combat - though maybe not, with them spread out to dabble in so many different skills. But even if they were, he didn't plan to build a character who was just terrible at punching things in combat. He just made a lot of small choices that subtracted from his bonuses, and they all added up.

And obviously this level of difference isn't common - but disparity on a smaller scale was all too possible. Even with just a few of those things - poor BAB and average stats just can't keep up, many times.

Did this happen all the time? No. Did this happen in every game? Of course not. Could a good DM restrict certain options or adjust encounters for specific characters or do any number of other things to compensate? Certainly!

But many players and DMs did run into this as a problem, and were glad to see 4E address it. You might not feel the specific fixes were worth the trade-off, but it was an issue, and one that certainly existed - both in small doses, and in the extreme.

Snakey wrote:

What do you do when the party includes an Invoker who can lock all enemies into uselessness? How do challenge the group? How do you challenge a group of players that you can't ever kill?

Seriously, I found it very hard to challenge my players in 4e. They nearly never died, and throwing really tough monsters at them just meant the battles took extra long, which they already do anyway. I had to make the Invoker player switch classes, because he could shut-down anything, making it useless, I had them fight a much higher level dragon, and he just shut it down, and the dragon just shut them down, and the thing ended in a drawn-out stalemate that was exhausting.

It's a good question. A very good question, I must admit, since I'm about to take over my friend's campaign just as the party is on the verge of hitting epic level. And I do find myself planning out how to build encounters that will remain exciting and challenging, even with the party having various potent abilities - especially things like stun.

I will say that 4E has gotten better about this - a lot of the big 'game winners' are in the first PHB, and other overwhelming ones (like some of the broken Invoker powers) have been fixed in errata.

My general tactic with the party has to been to make sure to keep them moving through several encounters, rather than letting them regularly extended rest and burn through all their biggest powers each fight. Including lots of encounters with artillery, skirmishers, and enemies designed to be easy to kill, but to deal damage to the party in the process. Making sure central boss enemies are not as vulnerable to stuns and similar effects. I'll see how it goes. I've had some success so far, running at Paragon level, and I'm hoping it will extend into Epic.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Snakey wrote:

What's wrong with specialization? In order to be exceptional at one thing, you risk being deficient at another. You may choose to be good at a couple of things in place of raw, one sided power, and gain more flexibility. If all classes could do everything equally well, then why would we need so many?

Just to interject again, I think this remains a misrepresentation of the goal of balance. It isn't to make everyone able to do everything equally well - it is simply to keep them in the same playing field. You can build a really defensive character, or one good at certain skills, or that is better at worse at various things. But you can rarely build one so good that they are playing a completely different game than the rest of the party.

You can specialize and have a character with very high AC - you can't build one with double the AC of other party members. I am absolutely fine with that. You can still completely realize your unique character concept without undermining the core systems of the game. Why is that a problem?

[Charles Evans 25]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

... In many ways we can fundamentally get this down to there being a d20 and no player should have more then X bonus on that d20 compared to another player (and the monsters) or things start to break down. X is a tricky number to pick but there is some number past which the system itself stops functioning optimally.

I wish there was a way to flag this thought in particular as a very interesting observation. Although I would add that it seems to me that what is 'optimal' functioning for a system may vary from person to person depending on what they are looking for in the system.

[Stefan Hill]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

... In many ways we can fundamentally get this down to there being a d20 and no player should have more then X bonus on that d20 compared to another player (and the monsters) or things start to break down. X is a tricky number to pick but there is some number past which the system itself stops functioning optimally.

I wish there was a way to flag this thought in particular as a very interesting observation. Although I would add that it seems to me that what is 'optimal' functioning for a system may vary from person to person depending on what they are looking for in the system.

That "X" is dependent on what the challenge is. Meaning at character level Y what should the chances of hitting critter Z be? Every plus more means more of a cake walk and every minus means a harder encounter. So what was the "base" that WotC were using in either 3.5e or 4e? I agree that from that base there should have been limits placed on the -ve's or +ve's that any PC could end up with during character generation and development.

Stats are now really quite meaningless as numbers as a PC can have any number. What was wrong with having racial limits on stats for example? How can a Halfling have the same strength potential as a human or half-orc?

S.

[Snakey]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Lots of stuff, some of it a little hostile.

Nothing I said was meant as an attack on anyone. I did not say anything that attacked you personally, or was overtly offensive. Nowhere did I say 4e is crap, on the contrary I made some points for and against. Or at least that was my intent. If you feel I said something personal, than I apologize, but asking me not to attack you or 4e, by attacking me and quoting me out of context is hypocritical.

If you don't understand where I'm coming from, then read some of my earlier posts in this thread, you'll notice that I am in no way targeting people who play 4e, and in no way trying to put anyone down. I played 4e faithfully for a full year, that is 1-2 times a week, about 6 hours to a session, when it first came out. I am just trying to make a point on balance, which 4e has in spades, then I offered my opinion, which no one should ever feel threatened by.

So, please cool it a little.

PS: If I could go back and edit my last post to remove generalizations and things that could be misinterpreted, I would.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Snakey wrote:

Nothing I said was meant as an attack on anyone. I did not say anything that attacked you personally, or was overtly offensive. Nowhere did I say 4e is crap, on the contrary I made some points for and against. Or at least that was my intent. If you feel I said something personal, than I apologize, but asking me not to attack you or 4e, by attacking me and quoting me out of context is hypocritical.

I don't think I took anything out of context. Here's the quote again: "I think that everyone who dislikes 3e* tends to exaggerate certain qualities, and it shows either a lack of experience with the system, or an unfair bias."

I admit, I was susprised by it, since everything you had said up to that point - and even after it - has been civil and well-reasoned. But I see no way to read that other than as an insult. If you didn't intend it as such, I'm perfectly willing to leave it at that, but I don't think my response was out of line given your post.

[Snakey]

Snakey wrote:

I don't think it's like that, I think that sometimes, people who dislike 3e* tend to exaggerate certain qualities, and it shows either a lack of experience with the system, or an unfair bias. 3e isn't crap, you either like it or you don't, but many, many, many people still play it and love it. Alot of the complaints about balance, just aren't true, especially in play, and I think tend to come from misunderstanding, or vacuous number crunching.

Is that better?

[Matthew Koelbl]

Snakey wrote:

Snakey wrote:

I don't think it's like that, I think that sometimes, people who dislike 3e* tend to exaggerate certain qualities, and it shows either a lack of experience with the system, or an unfair bias. 3e isn't crap, you either like it or you don't, but many, many, many people still play it and love it. Alot of the complaints about balance, just aren't true, especially in play, and I think tend to come from misunderstanding, or vacuous number crunching.

Is that better?

Well... in the end, I guess it just comes down to an irreconcilable difference of opinion. You believe the complaints being lobbied don't have any foundation in reality, and are the product of incorrect assumptions or number-crunching divorced from actual play. Those of us with the complaints are basing them on our legitimate experiences with the system.

I'm willing to accept that your experiences with 4E haven't been the same as mine - you don't seem willing to believe that other's experiences with 3rd Edition haven't been the same as yours. And... I mean, that's not a bad thing - it means you have enjoyed the game without running into problems and have a system you are happy with. But as long as you aren't able to accept that our experiences with the system aren't made up, or the result of misplaying the game, I don't think any common ground can be found in this discussion.

I genuinely don't think you are trying to stir up trouble or anything. But if your view of 3rd Edition is literally that you can only love it or hate it - that there is no view in between for enjoying the game but feeling certain areas need improvement - then I honestly don't think we'll be able to come to any sort of agreement.

[Snakey]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Well... in the end, I guess it just comes down to an irreconcilable difference of opinion. You believe the complaints being lobbied don't have any foundation in reality, and are the product of incorrect assumptions or number-crunching divorced from actual play. Those of us with the complaints are basing them on our legitimate experiences with the system.

I'm willing to accept that your experiences with 4E haven't been the same as mine - you don't seem willing to believe that other's experiences with 3rd Edition haven't been the same as yours. And... I mean, that's not a bad thing - it means you have enjoyed the game without running into problems and have a system you are happy with. But as long as you aren't able to accept that our experiences with the system aren't made up, or the result of misplaying the game, I don't think any common ground can be found in this discussion.

I genuinely don't think you are trying to stir up trouble or anything. But if your view of 3rd Edition is literally that you can only love it or hate it - that there is no view in between for enjoying the game but feeling certain areas need improvement - then I honestly don't think we'll be able to come to any sort of agreement.

Well for one, intent and tone is notoriously hard to convey in plain text. I think part of the problem is that you are taking what I said too literal, I am in no way attempting to discredit anyone's opinions or experiences, nor am I meaning to polarize, or create an argument.

I actually enjoyed playing 4e, and understand the draw to it, and why people play it. I respect that choice, and if Pathfinder didn't come along, I may possibly be playing 4e right now. As for game balance though, I just don't think it is the most important thing in my system, which is why 3e works fine for me and my group.

I was simply trying to state earlier, that often people make assumptions about 3e which simply seem exaggerated, or unfounded. I wasn't accusing anyone here of this, specifically. I know that if I were to generalize, or to accuse your favorite system of being "broken" or "not-balanced", you too would also have a similar reaction. By "You either love-it, or hate-it", I meant to say, weather you like a particular system or not is not important to the discussion of game balance.

This is my concluding statement on this argument.

[Tharen the Damned]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

Hence the changes in 4E, far from taking a step back from non-combat aspects of the game, are in fact an attempt to make the system work really well for those non-combat aspects.

Sadly WoC forgot to showcase any of this in their adventures...

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

Murder Mystery and Political intrigue are types of adventures that can be designed and you won't hit the kind of scary road blocks you'd find in 3.5 where you'd have to deal with 'what if my players have a psion with the dominate power?' - can they just dominate the king or the guards or whoever they need?

This is still doable but a bigger challenge for the DM

[Paul Worthen]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

How do you challenge a group where one player can hit on a 2+ what everyone else needs 20s to hit? Or where one character isn't threatened except by spells that would wipe out the rest of the party?

Snakey wrote:

This type of disparity NEVER will happen. Your example is way too extreme.

I never saw that disparity in any of my 3rd ed. games, but I saw the opposite one far, far too many times. A group in which 4 characters were really awesome, and one character was downright useless. And it wasn't much fun for the useless guy. The very first 3rd edition campaign I ran, we had one player who thought it would be fun to play a multiclassed rogue/bard. While the rest of the party would beat up on monsters during fights, he'd generally be forced to hide in the back and sing his buff-song, because he couldn't hit anything, couldn't damage anything, and didn't have enough spells to make a difference anywhere.

We ran into a similar situation when I ran Savage Tide. We had one player, a guy who was somewhat new to the game, who decided to play a druid. He didn't really understand how to optimize his feats very well, and wasn't really interested in the complexity of a prestige class, so in the end, his character just ended up weaker than everyone else. Because of that, the other party members didn't bother healing him during battles ("why would I heal the useless druid when I can heal the Warblade instead?") Thus, he died over and over and over again.

[Snakey]

Paul Worthen wrote:

I never saw that disparity in any of my 3rd ed. games, but I saw the opposite one far, far too many times. A group in which 4 characters were really awesome, and one character was downright useless. And it wasn't much fun for the useless guy. The very first 3rd edition campaign I ran, we had one player who thought it would be fun to play a multiclassed rogue/bard. While the rest of the party would beat up on monsters during fights, he'd generally be forced to hide in the back and sing his buff-song, because he couldn't hit anything, couldn't damage anything, and didn't have enough spells to make a difference anywhere.

We ran into a similar situation when I ran Savage Tide. We had one player, a guy who was somewhat new to the game, who decided to play a druid. He didn't really understand how to optimize his feats very well, and wasn't really interested in the complexity of a prestige class, so in the end, his character just ended up weaker than everyone else. Because of that, the other party members didn't bother healing him during battles ("why would I heal the useless druid when I can heal the Warblade instead?") Thus, he died over and over and over again.

I agree that the learning curve for 3e/PF is a little steep, and new players need to be helped-out alot at first. If you wanted to pull-off a combo like rogue/bard, you have to know what you're doing. It's funny that the Druid was the weak-link in the party, being arguably the most powerful class around. PF did knock the Druid more in line with everything else.

[Stefan Hill]

Snakey wrote:

I agree that the learning curve for 3e/PF is a little steep, and new players need to be helped-out alot at first. If you wanted to pull-off a combo like rogue/bard, you have to know what you're doing. It's funny that the Druid was the weak-link in the party, being arguably the most powerful class around.

These are good examples of reason why 4e is an easier starting point for getting people into D&D-style RPGing. New players shouldn't have to compromise their character concept due to game mechanics or need to absorb the entire contents of a rule set to make a PC that can contribute to the group as a whole. PF has alleviated this somewhat, but still multi-classing is a exercise in cherry picking rather than character concept.

Bringing this into line with the thread on game balance. In 3e+ the real power of a character was hidden away in feats (and feat combos) and to some extent multi-classing and prestige classes. This is a type of balance, but one that requires a more in-depth knowledge of the system. 4e I wouldn't term is "more" balanced, just that the balancing factors are more in your face and obvious. I'm sure that if I get a "build optimiser" to make me a "balanced" party in 3e+ all the PC's would be as functional as each other during a game. In 4e (at least at the moment) it seems that you don't require a guru to end up with the same balanced (meaning everyone contributes) group.

S.