|
I'm having trouble processing this - am I correct that you're saying you've had two separate encounters that took 10 hours each? This is roughly ten times as long as your average 4e encounter should take, even at paragon tier and possibly even epic. I've heard of some long encounter times, but this is many times over longer.Your DM and the rest of your table should take steps to speed up your play - use power cards, plan your turns in advance, consider using a timer at the table for a little while to limit the lengths of players' turns. If any of your encounters are taking 10 hours, you have gone far beyond the point where you can blame the system.
4e combats are not quick, but when played properly they're supposed to be a lot of fun, and not at all boring. Still, they're not some peoples' thing.
Well, it's happened twice in 18 months, so I'd hardly call them average. They've both been in paragon tier. He's making up all monster stats on his own off of the Warhammer campaign he's running.
I know part of it is we get distracted. I generally think of myself as having a good attention span, but I find myself getting distracted after an hour or an hour and half. a lot of my fellow players get distracted a lot sooner. Turns take a while as people try to decide what to do. Also, we have 6 players. This undoubtedly adds some time to things.
Both of those extended fights involved large groups of high hit point, low damage monsters that had healing. Daily and Encounter powers are quickly expended, and you're left wialing away with at will (I get a maximum of 21 damage per hit with my swordmage, excepting crits. whee.) powers to chip away at hundreds of hit points. It gets very old very quickly.
So, they were long due to bad encounter design and a series of tangents? Good to know.
So, they were long due to bad encounter design and a series of tangents? Good to know.I really don't get the tone. I've been clear about both of these items in my previous posts on the subject within this very thread.
You know, I was going to say something about how I meant it as clarification for the viewers at home or something, but reading it again I just seem like an a&%@&+$. Only excuse I can give is that it's late and hot, but that's not much of an excuse. Sorry.
So, they were long due to bad encounter design and a series of tangents? Good to know.I really don't get the tone. I've been clear about both of these items in my previous posts on the subject within this very thread.
I can sorta see where the issue is, though. It sounds like you're comparing the two systems when really you're just comparing the particulars of two specific games that you're in.
I'd have a chat with your DM and encourage him to check out some of the advice that's been written on monster and encounter design. It really sounds like the way the encounters and monsters are put together is the root of the problem, and that other issues like the distraction and boredom stem from that.
Done right, 4e encounters are engaging the whole way through. Done wrong, they can get bogged down like you describe (though yours is the only case I've heard of where it takes that long).
|
To the OP. As you can see in a small space of time the "my game is better" sub-game get's underway.
If it helps, where you read PF insert DOG, and where you see 4e insert CAT. Makes the thread read a lot funnier to read yet still retains the core of "pointless argument" that 4e vs PF has.
There is nothing wrong with chosing PF over 4e because of the way the content reads - an RPG has to grab you (like any book). If 4e doesn't inspire you when you read the classes and PF does it more likely you will have a better roleplaying experience under PF - just because you will be more excited about your character. But remember just because you play PF doesn't ban you from trying/playing 4e.
S.
|
|
You know, I was going to say something about how I meant it as clarification for the viewers at home or something, but reading it again I just seem like an a%~&~!~. Only excuse I can give is that it's late and hot, but that's not much of an excuse. Sorry.So, they were long due to bad encounter design and a series of tangents? Good to know.I really don't get the tone. I've been clear about both of these items in my previous posts on the subject within this very thread.
sorry, maybe I'm being a little over-defensive. I like my DM - I like what he ran with 3.5, and I play 4E even with my issues with the game's system and flavor because I like the group i play with. I'm more than willing to admit that some of what is going on is specific to my group, yet it feels like everyone's sort of piling on my specific anecdote to say "You're playing it wrong!" This makes me defensive.
sorry, maybe I'm being a little over-defensive. I like my DM - I like what he ran with 3.5, and I play 4E even with my issues with the game's system and flavor because I like the group i play with. I'm more than willing to admit that some of what is going on is specific to my group, yet it feels like everyone's sort of piling on my specific anecdote to say "You're playing it wrong!" This makes me defensive.
I'm not saying he's doing it wrong, I'm just saying he's made some bad encounters. If you're still playing with him he has to be doing something right.
(Besides, a good group can make even a bad game good, just like a bad group could make a good game bad. You'd probably be able to have a good time if you were playing *bad game your choice*)
(Besides, a good group can make even a bad game good, just like a bad group could make a good game bad. You'd probably be able to have a good time if you were playing *bad game your choice*)
"a good group can make even a bad game good."
This.
A good group can play anything they like regardless of how bad, good, or holey a system is and have a blast doing it. There is NO best system. It's all a matter of group preferences.
Try this article at the WotC site. It is Epic Destinies in D&D 3.5.
Thanks, I had almost forgotten those. I guess I should look if I can use them as a template to convert my favourite epic destinies. Especially the Dark Wanderer from Martial Power. :D
D&D? I remember a quote about 'What D&D is' that was quite similar to an experience I had.
It's when the rest of the party is down to their last hitpoints, the evil demon is laughing as it knows it has you beat and your paladin marches forward, possibly to his death and rolls that nat 20 and smites his foe low leaving only the mop up afterwards.
I had an experience like that on D&D game day with 4th edition.
I really don't like 4th edition.
But hey, in the end, even if you don't like the system, it's about sitting around a table with some cool people and having fun.
4e is D&D, but a different type that's not for everyone, it's not for me which is why I stick to Pathfinder. I don't make a lot of money and all those supplements are just a little overwhelming, not to mention I don't care much for what they did with some of the settings and in the end it's just a system I can't get into beyond a couple hours on D&D game day.
It comes down to preference and whether or not you have fun. I dislike 4e but I had fun playing it so it can't be all that bad even if it's not for me.
'Least that's my two cents.
|
|
I know the DM uses DDI to design his monsters.
[...]
Lowering the HP would take that 1000 HP creature with 500 HP healing down to an 800 HP creature with 400 HP healing.
I would be curious to see that monster.
This would need to be a Paragon or Epic level monster (2 or 3 healing surges available with each healing a quarter of max HP) with:
a) Powers that allow those surges to be used e.g. Bulette's Second Wind, but its Heroic level, or Death Knight Second Wind but its an encounter power so he would only get to use one healing surge by himself.
or
b)An ally with a power that allows it to use a healing surge, e.g. Rakshasa Dread Knight or Unicorn.
Basically, I would imagine your example, may not be typical of a 4e fight (though still a valid scenario).
EDIT: Its been clarified up thread that this does indeed seem to be the case. So not an indictment of 4e as a system, but rather of particular instances of encounter design and GMing. :)
|
|
PF has a slight edge... PF fits on my iPhone*, as a pdf of course
[...]
on the iPhone handles ANY size pdf very well. Once you know the rules I find the pdf version on my iPhone is all I need besides a pad, a pen and some dice to run a game.
Interesting, I bought the PF PDF and found it really hard to use, on my Eee PC it just wasn't rendering quickly enough to be useable at the game table and so I ended up caving in and buying a hardcopy. It can be slow even on my proper laptop and I wouldn't even try to use it on my HTC phone with Adobe Reader for Pocket PC (even with images disabled). Is GoodReader available for Linux, Windows and Windows for Pocket PC? Mind you having a seperate PDF reader just for PF is a bit overkill.
Conversely my 4e PDFs are really quick and I can read them on my phone, with images turned on! I just wish WotC would start releasing PDFs again.
PF has a slight edge... PF fits on my iPhone*, as a pdf of course
[...]
on the iPhone handles ANY size pdf very well. Once you know the rules I find the pdf version on my iPhone is all I need besides a pad, a pen and some dice to run a game.Interesting, I bought the PF PDF and found it really hard to use, on my Eee PC it just wasn't rendering quickly enough to be useable at the game table and so I ended up caving in and buying a hardcopy. It can be slow even on my proper laptop and I wouldn't even try to use it on my HTC phone with Adobe Reader for Pocket PC (even with images disabled). Is GoodReader available for Linux, Windows and Windows for Pocket PC? Mind you having a seperate PDF reader just for PF is a bit overkill.
Conversely my 4e PDFs are really quick and I can read them on my phone, with images turned on! I just wish WotC would start releasing PDFs again.
You mean the core books? I thought that they stoped to release PDFs after they put out the Draconomicon 1 or something like that...
|
|
You mean the core books? I thought that they stoped to release PDFs after they put out the Draconomicon 1 or something like that...
I managed to buy the 4e PHB, DMG and MM before WotC pulled the plug on PDFs. I would really like to get other books in PDF and I was put off 4e for ages because of it, but I caved in the end and bought hardcopy (mainly because I now get the train to and from work and so actually have time to read hardcopy now!)
The whole concept of 4e is screwed and speaks of bad design.
Bad design example 1:
4 Minions count as 1 standard monster. They have together 4 HP.
1 Solo counts as 5 standard monsters. It has several hundred HP. (from 200 for small dragons to 1,5k for super demons) So 1 Solo equates point-wise to 20 minions of the same level.So how can that be balanced? You have 20 Minions with together 20 HP and they have the SAME point-buy cost than 1 Solo with 200-1.500 HP?
No. What. No.
You can't add up all the minion hit points and compare them to a solo's hit points.
Despite having only 1 hit point, each minion takes a single attack to kill. That means 20 minions will take 20 successful attacks to kill. Solos take a comparable number of attacks to kill.
You can't come in and say "the whole concept of 4e is screwed and speaks of bad design" and then say something like the above. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the design and play of the game.
Bad design example 2:
First thing one of my players said after reading the 4e PG 2 years ago, was: "I guess the higher the levels the more tedious get the combat". And he was exactly right. Not increasing damage while increasing HP leads to just one thing: boring attrition combat. Even my player as a non-designer could see this by only reading the PG once.
Damage does increase as you level - ability score increases, feats, weapons/implements, the level 21 bump, striker class features, and new power selections all contribute significantly to increased damage. At epic tier I do many more times as much damage as I dealt at heroic tier with my warlock, and they're generally considered one of the weakest strikers in terms of damage output.
Bad design example 3:
Skill challenges. Not getting to much into this, but even a major revamp some months after release of the numbers dont made this subsystem any better.
Skill challenges work great run right. There is a whole series of articles the WotC site on making them dynamic and engaging, which you should read.
Bad design example 4:
Adventures. They are really anti-roleplaying. 90% of the pages in a module is only standartized combat encounters with each 2-page. The 10% space which describes interaction with NPCs are story-wise at the niveau of a Mickey Mouse comic (sorry Mickey :))
No. Even the most heavily criticized adventure they've published (Keep on the Shadowfell) has a 70%/30% split. And exactly how does this make them "anti-roleplaying"? WotC understands that roleplaying is something that happens at the table and varies wildly from group to group. No, their stories aren't as sophisticated as Paizo, but that's because not everyone wants adventures with so many threads of plot running through them to worry about. WotC adventures are easy to pick up and run, and easy to tailor specifically to your table.
Even if someone is making his own homebrew adventures and dont care about the official modules, dont be fooled, these official adventures are how WotC thinks their new 4th edition should be played.
I can't even begin to fathom what you think this means.
In the future, let's not trash game systems we don't care about, play with, or really understand, hm?
|
|
The whole concept of 4e is screwed and speaks of bad design.
I don't think the instances of bad design you pointed out can be evidence of "the whole concept" of 4e being screwed, if so then the same could be said of 3.5 and PF by citing some specific design flaws.
Bad design example 1:
[...]So how can that be balanced? You have 20 Minions with together 20 HP and they have the SAME point-buy cost than 1 Solo with 200-1.500 HP?
Its not all about HP, its about the amount of actions the foes can take, and how quickly the PCs can take the foes down.
20 minions get 20 Standard action compared to the Solos 1 each turn, therefore while 20 minions might be easier to defeat they may deal out more damage to a larger number of people before they go down than the solo might do in the same time. Also lots of minions mean PCs may be hampered in movement and getting into tactical position while at the same time the Minions are more likely to get flanking etc.
I am not saying its perfectly balanced (I haven't played 4e enough) but I recognise that you can't just do a Hit Point comparison, ignoring all other aspects, and cry "Bad Design".
Bad design example 2:
"I guess the higher the levels the more tedious get the combat". And he was exactly right. Not increasing damage while increasing HP leads to just one thing: boring attrition combat.
There may be some truth in this, and it seems that WotC have recognised this (as was mentioend up thread).
One thing I would say though is that damage does increase to some degree as you level:
Magic items can add bonuses to Damage and as you increase in level, the level of Magic Items you can use can increase with an associated increase in bonus.
At epic tier At Will powers get double base damage.
At 13th, 17th, 23rd, and 27th levels you can replace lower level Encounter powers with higher level ones - and these high level powers usually do greater damage. The same goes for Daily powers at 15th, 19th, 25th, and 29th levels.
So a 13th level fighter could replace Covering Attack doing 2[W] + Strength modifier damage plus effects (a 1st level Encounter Attack Power) with Chains of Sorrow doing 3[W] + Strength modifier damage plus effects (a 13th level power).
Whether these are enough to keepup with the escalating Hit POints I don't know - possibly not, but it does show that damage output does increase to some degree with level.
Bad design example 3:
Skill challenges. Not getting to much into this, but even a major revamp some months after release of the numbers dont made this subsystem any better.
I read the info from the link someone mentioned above and while being annoying vulgar in tone it does make some interesting points. WotC did feel the need to bring in errata, so teh specifics were potentially broken, but overall I think the concept and framework is still valid and the DMG does mention time limits as that poster felt were missing, although WotC expands it to other limits (having to pay for each "go" in monetary terms etc).
Besides, it only takes up 9 pages in the DMG so its not a massive loss if you just want to forego Skill Challenges, but it can at least provide some inspiration. You can even use Skill Challenges in PF - does the fact that I could use Skill Challenges in PF mean the PF concept is screwed? If not then all that is really lost is 9 pages of content in the 4e DMG (i.e. ignore it and do what you do in PF).
Bad design example 4:
Adventures. They are really anti-roleplaying. 90% of the pages in a module is only standartized combat encounters with each 2-page.
This is probably a valid statement from what I have heard (as stated I haven't read any 4e scenarios other than Dungeon Delves so I cannot comment). But it does just mean it bad adventure design, rather than bad design of 4e.
Even if someone is making his own homebrew adventures and dont care about the official modules, dont be fooled, these official adventures are how WotC thinks their new 4th edition should be played.
The designers' opinions on how the 4e game should be played don't have to have any effect on how a GM uses it, it only matters if the designers imprinted those opinions on the game mechanics. For me at least, 4e still provides the bits and bobs to allow me to do adventures where combat isn't the focus, just like 3.5 (8and I guess PF) - you have Skills, Feats, Utility Powers & Rituals (equivalent of some of the 3.5 spells) and of course the players' ability to make human decisions and act in-character.
The fact that some of Paizo's adventure paths are getting converted to 4e with what seems like a measure of success indicates that you can still run the same type of adventures you did with 3.5 & PF.
I am not saying 4e is perfect, but then neither is 3.5 and PF. Nor do I think 4e superior to 3.5 or PF - in some areas it is improved, but in others it IMHO isn't (just like some people feel PF improves on 3.5 in some areas and becomes worse in others).
The fact that I still want to run and play 3.5 as well as 4e is to me an indication that both games offer different things, and that I can appreciate both.
EDIT: Damnit! Ninja'ed by Scott Betts (23 minutes ago - jeez did I really spend that long putting my post together????????!!!!!!)
|
I like 4E about as much as I like being lit on fire, but even I wouldn't say it's full of bad design decisions, just design decisions I don't like.
To the OP. As you can see in a small space of time the "my game is better" sub-game get's underway.
If it helps, where you read PF insert DOG, and where you see 4e insert CAT. Makes the thread read a lot funnier to read yet still retains the core of "pointless argument" that 4e vs PF has.
Of course it's a stupid argument, Dogs are obviously better in every way shape and form and easily outrank Cats in every category except for those that involve "annoyance".
;-)
The ingredients of a good game are:
Joint 1) Good DM.
Joint 1) Good players.
3) Good game.
I don't know, I have 4e had PF and sold it off because they waited too long to bring out a Bestiary. I was ready to run it but got tired of the wait so sold the PF book on ebay. Well then 2 months later they bring out the PF Bestiary, figures.... I still play 4e and have not re-invested into PF, instead I picked up a copy of Fantasy Craft and I have to say, its far better than both combined, I think FC has hit the mark, oh and all the monsters are in the book plus a monster design feature and conversion rules from standard d20, its an all in one game. They also fixed the bloody Armor rules, armor has a DR now, no bonus to AC which has always been a thorn in my side in any version of D&D. IMO I say dump PF & 4e and go FC!
There really isnt a reason for the edition wars. The idea that 4E is bad design is nonsense. Every system has strengths and weaknesses and that includes pathfinder.
If you want to discuss the differences to try to help people make a choice for the right game for them thats one thing. But to openly attack a game system just makes you look like a troll.
The edition wars are over, we all won. Pathfinder exists and is going strong. 4E exists and will be supported by wizards of the coast for a long time coming. Its over, leave the hostility at home.
I wish one or the other would come out with a modern rule set, to bring the wars, ahem ... I mean choices to another genre. That way we can discuss aliens, and leave the dogs and cats at home.
I will take a look a fantasy craft though, to see what direction it has taken.
I would never DM cat again while dog is my game of DMing choice. On the other hand, I find playing cat more interesting than playing dog just because combat feels a little more roleplaying-injected. Cool combat-- that, now that I think about it, I can relate to a fighting game super and ultra move system more than a roleplaying game. On the other hand, I like the possibility, magic, magic items, etcetera and everything about dog more than cat.
|
I would never DM cat again while dog is my game of DMing choice. On the other hand, I find playing cat more interesting than playing dog just because combat feels a little more roleplaying-injected. Cool combat-- that, now that I think about it, I can relate to a fighting game super and ultra move system more than a roleplaying game. On the other hand, I like the possibility, magic, magic items, etcetera and everything about dog more than cat.
No you got cat and dog backwards I tell you. :)
There really isnt a reason for the edition wars. The idea that 4E is bad design is nonsense. Every system has strengths and weaknesses and that includes pathfinder.
This is very true. The only reason for the hostility, it seems, was that the game that came out was different to the one we wanted and expected.
It feels like a few of the arguments seem to be comprised of extreme inaccurate criticisms that don't seem to take into account actual reality (Dogs will trash your house and ruin every single thing that you own) and responses that seem to swing the pendulum the other way by trying to establish that the problem never will exist ever because the thing is perfect (Dogs will never ever damage a single thing of yours. If your dog did, it must have been your fault).
I'm pretty sure that I would like the arguers to both come closer the reality in the middle, because right now, it seems everyone is a bit crazy about this subject.
|
|
Is GoodReader available for Linux, Windows and Windows for Pocket PC? Mind you having a seperate PDF reader just for PF is a bit overkill.
Sorry dude I have no idea. I was looking for software to allow me to put a PDF on my iPhone (oh thanks Steve Jobs for deciding for me what I should be allowed to run on my iPhone - Flash is SO yesterday...). The site that had "iPhone Explorer" (free btw) had reference to GoodReader for the iPhone from iTunes. It was only a few dollars and it's quick enough for my needs and handles the 77MB Core Rules file no problems. I wouldn't try to use this method of running a game unless you already know the rules well and what you are looking for when you are looking for something. Not as satistifying as the feel of the real books of course - but when stuck in an airport for 8 hours it's a life/sanity saver. I carry my iPhone with me (have a dice roller on it too...)so a "spontaneous" PF game can break out in a moments notice!
S.
PS: And I quote "Dogs have owners. Cats have staff"
Two friends of mine discussed this at length.
Friend #1: "Cats are not superior life forms, they did not evolve opposable thumbs."
Friend #2: "No, they evolved humans for that."
Friend #1: "OK, they are superior life forms."
As a fan of 4E. I can agree on most of these points. Minions are worth way too much xp. I think damage that PCs dish out does increase pretty significantly as the game moves up in levels; the damage for monsters tends to scale up as well, but in IMO not enough. As a dm I tweak this when I think the damage is too low. It's been easy to do and has kept the game interesting. Sometimes I look at a high level monster and see the damage on some power and think, "WTF, it only does that much damage?" I fix that before any monster sees play. Fortunately, it's very easy to fix.
I don't have a big problem with skill challenges, but I'm not a huge fan of them either. I don't really use them that much.
The complaint you have about the modules I can get on board with. I haven't really run to much in the way of 4E modules. I ran Last Breaths of Anshenport and it was pretty decent. I'm going to give King of Trollhaunt Warrens a shot, but I'm a little skeptical, I'm afraid it mighty get grindy and boring because (even though it seeems like a pretty neat dungeon) it is still pretty much just one combat after another. For my current campaign I've just doing homebrew. My first and previous 4E game was Second Darkness, which I found pretty easy to convert (It would have been about the same amount of work if I had run it in 3E because I always need to upgrade and modify 3E adventures to keep up with the tricks my players come up with when they run 3E characters).
The whole concept of 4e is screwed and speaks of bad design.
Bad design example 1:
4 Minions count as 1 standard monster. They have together 4 HP.
1 Solo counts as 5 standard monsters. It has several hundred HP. (from 200 for small dragons to 1,5k for super demons) So 1 Solo equates point-wise to 20 minions of the same level.So how can that be balanced? You have 20 Minions with together 20 HP and they have the SAME point-buy cost than 1 Solo with 200-1.500 HP?
Bad design example 2:
First thing one of my players said after reading the 4e PG 2 years ago, was: "I guess the higher the levels the more tedious get the combat". And he was exactly right. Not increasing damage while increasing HP leads to just one thing: boring attrition combat. Even my player as a non-designer could see this by only reading the PG once.Bad design example 3:
Skill challenges. Not getting to much into this, but even a major revamp some months after release of the numbers dont made this subsystem any better.Bad design example 4:
Adventures. They are really anti-roleplaying. 90% of the pages in a module is only standartized combat encounters with each 2-page. The 10% space which describes interaction with NPCs are story-wise at the niveau of a Mickey Mouse comic (sorry Mickey :))Even if someone is making his own homebrew adventures and dont care about the official modules, dont be fooled, these official adventures are how WotC thinks their new 4th edition should be played.
Why didn't you just use the 3E monster manual? The changes between it an the PF monsters aren't really that significant in most cases.
I don't know, I have 4e had PF and sold it off because they waited too long to bring out a Bestiary. I was ready to run it but got tired of the wait so sold the PF book on ebay. Well then 2 months later they bring out the PF Bestiary, figures.... I still play 4e and have not re-invested into PF, instead I picked up a copy of Fantasy Craft and I have to say, its far better than both combined, I think FC has hit the mark, oh and all the monsters are in the book plus a monster design feature and conversion rules from standard d20, its an all in one game. They also fixed the bloody Armor rules, armor has a DR now, no bonus to AC which has always been a thorn in my side in any version of D&D. IMO I say dump PF & 4e and go FC!
Thanks for the link! :) Do they have any other stuff for 3.5 like that?There's one thing I like about the 4th edition. That's the epic destinies. Some of them could really be great when converted to Pathfinder.Try this article at the WotC site. It is Epic Destinies in D&D 3.5.
They had a couple for integrating 4e stuff into 3.5e during the lead up to the release. This was the best one to me. I am determined that it is the way I would do Epic in my Pathfinder game, if it ever gets that far, lol. I can't remember any of the other articles.
Edition arguments are plain dumb. Fantasy Craft is based off of Spycraft 2e, which I really can't get in to. Not saying it is bad, just it isn't for me. I know a guy that swears Rolemaster is really quick to run. We played a game & it took forever to create a character. When we ran a combat, he had to reference multiple charts & tables. The combat took the same amount of time as any D&D game. I really think it was because he just plain likes the system. Point is, whatever you & your group likes is the 'right' system.
PF has a slight edge... PF fits on my iPhone*, as a pdf of course
[...]
on the iPhone handles ANY size pdf very well. Once you know the rules I find the pdf version on my iPhone is all I need besides a pad, a pen and some dice to run a game.Interesting, I bought the PF PDF and found it really hard to use, on my Eee PC it just wasn't rendering quickly enough to be useable at the game table and so I ended up caving in and buying a hardcopy. It can be slow even on my proper laptop and I wouldn't even try to use it on my HTC phone with Adobe Reader for Pocket PC (even with images disabled). Is GoodReader available for Linux, Windows and Windows for Pocket PC? Mind you having a seperate PDF reader just for PF is a bit overkill.
Conversely my 4e PDFs are really quick and I can read them on my phone, with images turned on! I just wish WotC would start releasing PDFs again.
That's a matter of the art on the pages (and the size of the books). The 4e pages don't have background art and have, compared to PF, from what I remember less art on the pages.
At the game table, I often use the online resources:
The Pathfinder PRD: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
and this nice database which combines OGL items with the PRD into one cross-linked, easily referenced whole: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
It does have a little fan content on it, but it clearly marks it.
The d20pfsrd has some lite PRD pdfs that might be friendlier for your lower powered computers, all collections of OGL items.
Point is, whatever you & your group likes is the 'right' system.Stop throwing your logic around, it has not place on the interweb. ;p
There is a method to my madness. I will get everyone wondering my angle, then I will produce the next great game system. Muuuahhahhaaahh...:cough: :cough: :cough: :cough: :cough: :cough:
Man got to wait until I am fully recovered from my allergies before I do my Evil Madman Laugh.
I haven't found any system that I don't find flaws with. I'm just currently finding the 4E system easier to run and more to my liking than 3E. That being said, there is still a room for improvement in the 4E game.
My problem with Pathfinder is that I don't think think they made enough changes. Sure they made some tweaks to the game and generally made the core classes a little more interesting, but most of the big problems that I have with the 3E game, particularly the higher levels of play are still there. I respect the designers at WotC for having the guts to take a really good look at the system and give it a total overhall- obviously they didn't please everyone, but that's what happens anytime you make real changes to something. I'd much rather that then them put a new game that is just a repackaging of the previous edition (there are plenty of publishers that have done that in the rpg industry).
I just wish they'd work on making their adventures more on par with paizo's. I don't think it's the system holding them back, it's more to do with their general philosophy on adventure design. A lot of the problem stems from the fact that they've really tied themselves to their delve format encounter layout, which although I'm sure it's handy for the dm when running encounters, it detracts from the sense of the adventure as a story, and doesn't allow for very fleshed out villains. It also leaves no room for art work. I hate looking at page after page of little battle maps. I much prefer the format paizo uses for adventure design, though even that isn't ideal for me. I wish that the publishers could find some sort of happy medium- get in the level of story detail and art that paizo has, but still have some of the user friendliness that the WotC adventures have in terms laying out combat encounters.
Well I am glad that at least one of the answers are coming from someone which made his Spirit-roll with a raise. Thanks PH Dungeon for your good post and honesty.As a fan of 4E. I can agree on most of these points. Minions are worth way too much xp. I think damage that PCs dish out does increase pretty significantly as the game moves up in levels; the damage for monsters tends to scale up as well, but in IMO not enough. As a dm I tweak this when I think the damage is too low. It's been easy to do and has kept the game interesting. Sometimes I look at a high level monster and see the damage on some power and think, "WTF, it only does that much damage?" I fix that before any monster sees play. Fortunately, it's very easy to fix.
I don't have a big problem with skill challenges, but I'm not a huge fan of them either. I don't really use them that much.
The complaint you have about the modules I can get on board with. I haven't really run to much in the way of 4E modules. I ran Last Breaths of Anshenport and it was pretty decent. I'm going to give King of Trollhaunt Warrens a shot, but I'm a little skeptical, I'm afraid it mighty get grindy and boring because (even though it seeems like a pretty neat dungeon) it is still pretty much just one combat after another. For my current campaign I've just doing homebrew. My first and previous 4E game was Second Darkness, which I found pretty easy to convert (It would have been about the same amount of work if I had run it in 3E because I always need to upgrade and modify 3E adventures to keep up with the tricks my players come up with when they run 3E characters).
My problem with Pathfinder is that I don't think think they made enough changes. Sure they made some tweaks to the game and generally made the core classes a little more interesting, but most of the big problems that I have with the 3E game, particularly the higher levels of play are still there. I respect the designers at WotC for having the guts to take a really good look at the system and give it a total overhall- obviously they didn't please everyone, but that's what happens anytime you make real changes to something. I'd much rather that then them put a new game that is just a repackaging of the previous edition (there are plenty of publishers that have done that in the rpg industry).
For me, I think Paizo got Pathfinder about right. It's close enough to 3.5 for you to port over characters and have the fundamentals of those characters unchanged. It's different enbough to have some significant improvements.
4e, to me, got some points wrong. Instead of grappling with the issues of 3.5, they sidestepped them. I know that may sound strange, so let me explain my logic:
The benefit of the character class system is that each class can use a different mechanic, and this makes for great variety which I love. The problem with the class system is making all the different mechanics balanced, which is a pain.
What 4e did was balance the classes by making all the class mechanics the same; to me, that was throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than find a way of balancing the different mechanics, they just made them all the same ... which I saw as a cop-out.
What I want is the variety; removing the pain is preferable but not essential. There are other things I am not fond of in 4e, but this kind of highlights my general problems with it. It may be a great game, but it loses the features I loved about 3.x in order to fix problems that I could live with.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by making the class mechanics the same. If you mean that each character gets x at-will powers, and x encounter powers and x daily powers, then I guess you are right, but each class has quite different class features and the powers they have are quite different in terms of what they do and how they feel (at least when you actually see them in play). I don't find the classes feel that similar in play. Playing a wizard is still way different than playing a fighter, rogue or cleric.
But their classes' mechanics are different. They're all just based on the same basic system for once, instead of just sticking with linear fighters and quadratic wizards like, well, every other edition of D&D.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by making the class mechanics the same. If you mean that each character gets x at-will powers, and x encounter powers and x daily powers, then I guess you are right, but each class has quite different class features and the powers they have are quite different in terms of what they do and how they feel (at least when you actually see them in play). I don't find the classes feel that similar in play. Playing a wizard is still way different than playing a fighter, rogue or cleric.
Maybe to you, but for me the experience was sameness. I felt that all of them were the same. All 1st level powers did the same damage. It is understandable, but when everybody uses the same mechanic, the names don't differentiate the feeling of the game enough. It doesn't help with a personal disconnect necessary to visualize the game.
This is not hating the system. It is just stating how it feels to us. You may feel different, and rightly so. If it works for you & your group, the like I said before, it is the 'right' system for you.
The best way to illustrate this is taking a game like Shadowrun. I LOVE the setting. I don't like the native game system. There are plenty of people that play it who would disagree with me. The sad thing is I don't disagree with them. I just don't like the system for personal tastes. It probably runs the setting just fine. I love Battletech, too. Again, I wish the system was a little different. Would love to try it using the Omni System. I haven't played the Omni system, but it looks really interesting to me.
I went through every edition so far: 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, then skidded to a halt and backtracked to PFRPG. I had the first few months of 4e materials and fully expected to love it after I heard SW Saga was a testbed for the 4e rules. I prepared like crazy for the adventure, and I wasn't sure I liked it, but I pushed on. We decided to run a battle adventure to get the feel for the rules. I still wasn't too keen about it, but the battle was reasonable fun, just not up to the standards I was used to. Two of the four players really liked it.
Anyway, we played again and I felt about the same. I was actually a little confused why I wasn't loving the game. One player was still keen to continue 4e. After our third adventure, the one player was still a 4e fan, but everyone else was ready to go back to 3e, and me in particular. DM always wins.
The interesting thing about 4e was that the player who liked wargames loved it. The player who thought it was OK enjoyed wargames from time to time, but not when roleplaying, which was why he stopped liking 4e for our ongoing game. I really think 4e is geared toward people who like the battlemap and miniatures wargames. The characters really did play like units on a battlemap.
My $0.02
|
|
The characters really did play like units on a battlemap.
My $0.02
One number and one word...
5' step
Correct me if I'm wrong but of the AD&D family 2e was the only one that didn't recommend the use of "wargaming" figures (i.e. miniatures).
I think it's fairer to say that 4e streamlined the battle-mat mentality that 3.5e cemented into my beloved game.
S.
The characters really did play like units on a battlemap.
My $0.02
One number and one word...
5' step
Correct me if I'm wrong but of the AD&D family 2e was the only one that didn't recommend the use of "wargaming" figures (i.e. miniatures).
I think it's fairer to say that 4e streamlined the battle-mat mentality that 3.5e cemented into my beloved game.
S.
1e had a strong minis involvement, so did 2e, BUT they also had it pretty well set-up so that aspect could readily be ignored.
3e brought it back, but there still was the ability to just ignore that aspect. Seems not with the proliferation of the minis game & the start of big time Virtual Tabletops during this time. None the less, you could do without minis. I know because I ran the game for nearly 10 years without using them.
Now enter 4e, where it is almost impossible to ignore the visual. It was designed with a VT in mind (though it has since disappeared from the realms). It is wargame like because that is the easiest to get to feel like MMOs that are out. It was written to attract the WoW type crowd as new blood for our hobbie. It feels the way it does by design. I don't care for the system, but it does do what it was meant to do.
The characters really did play like units on a battlemap.
My $0.02
One number and one word...
5' step
Correct me if I'm wrong but of the AD&D family 2e was the only one that didn't recommend the use of "wargaming" figures (i.e. miniatures).
I think it's fairer to say that 4e streamlined the battle-mat mentality that 3.5e cemented into my beloved game.
S.
I do seem to recall people complaining that 3e relied too much on minis. But I found the game played just fine without the minis. I guess WotC felt that 'that' part of their game had the greatest appeal. So they expanded on it and included the battlemat/minis in everything from the core system all the way through individual powers and items.
I really, truly feel you here. My mistake with 4e was worse though. I had been playing with 3.5 quite regularly and had the beautiful set of core books. Well, thinking that I needed to change with the times, before learning anything about the changes in 4e, I traded in my 3.5 books towards the purchase of the new edition. I'm STILL regretting this decision!
Needless to say I'm now deep into Pathfinder and the 4th Edition books didn't last a month on my shelf.
|
|
For me, I think Paizo got Pathfinder about right. It's close enough to 3.5 for you to port over characters and have the fundamentals of those characters unchanged. It's different enbough to have some significant improvements.
I think you and I show how different people can feel completely differently about the same stuff, and that is why some people like one game and other people like another - there is no objectively worse game because how good a game is, is often a subjective assessment.
I personally feel Pathfinder didn't change enough to make it worth investing my time and effort in, but changed enough that it didn't accomplish what I had hoped it would - be completely backwards compatible and keep 3.5 alive (i.e. if a group is playing a 3.5 campaign and a new player without a PHB comes to join, you can't just suggest they buy Pathfinder).
The benefit of the character class system is that each class can use a different mechanic, and this makes for great variety which I love.
[...]
What 4e did was balance the classes by making all the class mechanics the same; to me, that was throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Now you see, I see a unified mechanic and structure to classes to be a great thing, having little mini systems and individual rules for each class increases the effort needed to become familiar with the rules and how each class plays.
Using Shadowrun as an example (as someone already brought it up) - in previous editions (prior to 4th ed) each character type had different sub-systems - deckers had rules for decking and cybercombat that didn't resemble rules for regular combat, mages summoned Elementals in a different way to Shamen summoning nature spirits etc. People would complain about decking being too hard, but that was because no one became familiar with the rules unless both the GM and the player read that specific "class" ruleset.
4th ed Shadowrun changed all that and and used unified mechanics and structure for things - the flavour comes from the descriptors and the skills used, for example a Technomancer programming a Sprite on the fly uses exactly the same rule structure as a mage summoning an elemental and a shamen summoning a nature spirit. Cybercombat uses the same structure as physical combat as astral combat.
Similarly, in M&M I love the fact that it is an effects based system. I.e. you buy a power that has an effect - you can fly, you make ranged attacks, you go unnoticed - and then you add descriptors to explain how you do that (jetpack versus super powered flight, guns versus magic missile, invisibility versis clouding men's minds etc).
So for me, 4e using a similar structure for all classes - At Will, Encounter and Daily powers - is great and helps people to play a new class easily. The descriptors - Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, Psionic etc - are what distinguishes the powers in terms of flavour (along with the actual specifics of each power as well of course).
And I think that is why some people hate 4e and some people love it - people want different things.
Me? I can enjoy games for differing reasons - I like both 3.5 and 4e:
I like how streamlined 4e is but I also like all the options as a player I get in 3.5
I like the way 3.5 tries to have some internal worlds consistency with NPCs and PCs being built the same way, but I also love how 4e NPC stat blocks are so simple and easy to create (and I feel less like I am cheating if as a GM I just pull numbers out of the air for an NPC).
I love the minis used in combat (both 3.5 and 4e) but I also love the in-character dialogues (and I can handle combat in more abstract games from FATE with its Zones to Don't Rest Your Head where conflicts are resolved with a single dice contest).
What annoys me slightly and why I may be seen as a 4e defender sometimes, is when people try to make objective statements about how bad 4e (or 3.5 or PF) is when the basis for those statements are wrong - either due to a misunderstanding or in-experience with the rules (knowing you can swap powers out at higher levels as a means to increase damage with levels), or not taking all the factors into account (e.g. comparing balance based purely on number of Hit Points).
I like 3.5, I want to play more of it and I would like to run it more.
I like 4e, I want to play more of it and I would like to run it more.
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive! :)
But their classes' mechanics are different. They're all just based on the same basic system for once, instead of just sticking with linear fighters and quadratic wizards like, well, every other edition of D&D.
Class one: Does X points of damage with their free power every round, by pointing their finger and saying 'pew!'
Class two: Does the same, but by a golden mist appearing above the target and raining fairy dust on them.Class three: Does the same, but by swearing fluently at the target.
Class four .... hang on, is there a pattern here?
Edit: Digital mage, I see where you are comming from. Unified mechanics make great sense in classless systems. Combined with a class system and you get the worst of both worlds IMHO.