Mike Mearls on the Red Box


4th Edition

101 to 119 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Again, note that eventually that was the very conclusion I came to. My complaints haven't been that I find the structure restrictive while accepting its boundary over me - it was that it took me so long to realize that it was indeed ok to go beyond those boundaries. The quote above was an example of the type of thinking that took time and experience to move past.

It seemed the intent, in 3rd Edition, for the DM to be tied down by the rules as equally as the player's were. At least, more so than was the case in 2nd Edition, and more than is the case now in 4E. Eventually I realized that even if that was the goal, it wasn't an unbreakable one, and was more designed to inform the system than to limit the DM.

I can see that and I am content with this. My issue was not with the idea that people might want to use the rules around them in all circumstances, but the idea that, by not using them, that the core of 3rd edition rebelled when a GM said, "alright, my zombie lord commands an army of undead because I feel like it."


cibet44 wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

I don't really get that logic.

By level 15 your barbarian has been out and about, adventuring and killing monsters and fighting demons for a long time. Of course he'd have better knowledge of the Abyss by that time. It's not by virtue of him just being level 15, it's by virtue of him gaining 15 levels. Level gain doesn't happen in a vacuum, he's been out adventuring, defeating baddies,...

I think the logic is pretty straight forward.

Not every 15th level Barbarian has fought a demon and not every 15th level Wizard can climb a wall (with no magic assistance). If 4E flattens out the DCs as described above that would seem to be quite a stretch, but I'm sure that's not the case. Why would the game assume all classes can do all the same tasks just because they are the same level? What would be the point of choosing a specific character class? I doubt 4E made such a drastic change to the skill system.

4e skill system works as following:

Skill check = ability modifier + half your level + 5 if trained + 5 if skill focuse.

So every other level, your ability with all your skills increases by one. Training in that skill gives you +5 (the equivilant of ten levels, which is big). Having skill focus in that skill gives you another +5. Backgrounds can give +2, and races typically gain +2 to two or so skills.

Also, leveling doesn't happen in a vacuum. I hate to repeat myself so often ;p. By level 15, you've done a lot of adventuring. You've been to fantastic and bizarre places of myth and legend. You've fought strange creatures from the world of the fey and the world of shadows. The barbarian is going to pick up a few knacks in things. The wizard is going to be a bit better at athletics.


cibet44 wrote:


Would an epic wizard be able to skillfully fire a bow? Would an epic fighter be able to cast a magic missile? Sure you can flavor text it to anything but man that seems to destroy the point of leveling and choosing a class. A common jail cell should not be a problem for an epic charter because of his epic abilities not just because he is "epic". An epic barbarian would break the bars with pure strength, an an epic wizard would use a spell or magic ability.

Does 4E really flatten out DCs like this? From what I read it didn't seem to but I've never played. It seems very odd to me. Maybe I'll borrow the essentials stuff from someone who has it and read the rules. I'm not sure how the game would work like this. Once you hit 20th level suddenly you can bend any kind of bars? Weird but I guess it works for some.

There is not an exact answer to this question most of the time - which is why we are having an argument. There are static DCs which is what your used to in 3.5 but there are also non-static DCs which essentially rise right along with the skill level of the player. Meaning that a medium difficulty challenge is roughly just as difficult for a 1st level character as it is for a 15th. Now its not quite that simple as higher level characters have resources like magic items and feats with which they can make a few of their skills really good so, for some characters in some things they just get better at higher levels but on average if the DM says a challenge is medium difficulty its about as hard at 15th level as it was at 1st.

That said what things are medium difficulty is not something that is defined. Thats part of the art of encounter design - i.e. DM decides. So ProffessorCimo and myself are now having an argument about the art of such design.


Whimsy Chris wrote:
But I also agree with Jeremy that just because someone has achieved a certain level, they shouldn't gain extra ability with jumping over chasms when they are studious, not very athletic wizards.

If this were the case, I don't think that it is successfully emulated by 4th edition's skill system because (unless the Essentials or other products altered this) jumping is something that has a static DC for a set distance and the bonuses gained from leveling allowed every character to have additional ability to leap over chasms.

To me, the increasing bonuses indicate that a character is getting better at those skills and that the character should find the challenges they faced at lower levels easier as well as being able to overcome the challenges that they once thought impossible.

If the party is facing a similar cliff throughout their career, I do not believe the DC should be dependent on the level of the person making the attempt. If the DC is higher, than I believe that describing the cliff has harder to climb than those previous is preferable to having the same cliff be just as hard to climb as it was twenty levels ago.


cibet44 wrote:
Would an epic wizard be able to skillfully fire a bow? Would an epic fighter be able to cast a magic missile?

To the first: Yes, against a level 1 target. Because it's a level one target.

Certainly against a target of the appropriate level the wizard won't be doing much with that bow, but taking potshots at kobolds? Damn right hec an do it. An epic wizard at that point is a setting-altering force. That's exactly how skill DCs go up, too. At level 30, a wizard can smack a kobold with a bow, or a barbarian club a new guard at a relatively unguarded warehouse without being noticed, because this is level 1 stuff. The wizard could most likely not skillfully hit a balor with a bow, and the barbarian could not sneak into the treasure of the angel lord ApostrophyName. That stuff is of their appropriate level - and thus, appropriately, they have to play to their strengths.

Quote:
Sure you can flavor text it to anything but man that seems to destroy the point of leveling and choosing a class. A common jail cell should not be a problem for an epic charter because of his epic abilities not just because he is "epic". An epic barbarian would break the bars with pure strength, an an epic wizard would use a spell or magic ability.

I see it the opposite. If you never get better at things, why even bother having leveling in there? If the barbarian can smash through the crappy bronze cell in a podunk village at level one, why should he struggle to do the same thing twenty levels later?

Quote:
Does 4E really flatten out DCs like this? From what I read it didn't seem to but I've never played. It seems very odd to me. Maybe I'll borrow the essentials stuff from someone who has it and read the rules. I'm not sure how the game would work like this. Once you hit 20th level suddenly you can bend any kind of bars? Weird but I guess it works for some.

You don't just suddenly bend bars, but as others have been saying, it's a bit of an art. You the DM figure out what constitutes as Hard, Medium, Easy difficulty, or simply "Your team is good enough to do this without worry" At level 12 - paragon levels - your rogue could have a thievery skill of 16, without skill focus, without backgrounds, without racial bonus. He fails level 1 HARD skill checks on a 2. But by the same token, at that point, he should no longer be sneaking behind new guards in a relatively unguarded warehouse. At level 12 he should be trying to sneak past the guards in the fairy king's citadel.

And at epic levels, things should be epic. Things should be mythological. The epic thief should be sneaking through the lands of the gods to steal the Fire to bring back to the world, the epic barbarian should be wrestling with a god (albiet unknowingly), the epic warlord should be leading his hordes in a conquering wave across an entire continent, and the epic fighter should be able to hold off that entire army at a single bridge.

And all of them can get past a single wooden wall.


ProfessorCirno wrote:


Also, leveling doesn't happen in a vacuum. I hate to repeat myself so often ;p. By level 15, you've done a lot of adventuring. You've been to fantastic and bizarre places of myth and legend. You've fought strange creatures from the world of the fey and the world of shadows. The barbarian is going to pick up a few knacks in things. The wizard is going to be a bit better at athletics.

This is really the root of our disagreement in some sense. From whence do the players get their abilities?

Put another way are they James Bond or are they Spiderman? If they are James bond then even something as trivial as being handcuffed to a post is bad friggen news. James Bond can't just snap the handcuffs off because he is bad ass. His being Badass translates into he has some sweet ass moves, he's really quick and he's pretty smart - but he is fundamentally human.

If they are Spider Man then they snap the handcuffs and laugh at the very idea that such a mundane restraint could slow them down.

My feeling is that 4E supports a view that the characters are basically James Bond at least until Epic. In 3.5 if I'm faced with a large wooden wall then I either have the skill points to climb it or I have spells that will teleport me to the top or I use a magic item to summon an angel and the angel carries me to the top. These kinds of abilities are rare in 4E.

My cleric at 9th level in 4E has, as his plan to escape a bad fight, to run away. I'm thinking of getting a magic item to make him run an extra square because he is kind of slow in all that armour or if I can't get that magic item (its about to become impossible to just buy) I can take a feat that will let me move an extra two squares if I'm taking a run action.

At 9th level in 3.5 when a fight went wrong with my players the wizard cast mass flight and the whole party just leaped into the air and flew away. If that was no working they each had magic items that basically said we exit the scene and regroup at the rendezvous point. DMs monsters, baring super intelligen and devious BBEGs had no chance of catching them.

In 4E I pretty much am down to my wits - if I'm chased I'll need to find a way to block up a passage behind me or maybe an ally can slow the bad guy for a round or something.

Same deal with exploring. In 3.5 you turn into air and you explore the land as an invisible gust of wind. In 4E I suggest you buy a good horse. If you have good insight I bet you can pick a really good horse...make sure to check its teeth - thats what they do in the movies.


Why would any wizard bother becoming a better climber, though? Sure, they advance because leveling doesn't happen in a vacuum but they advance in their own manner. I don't see a wizard bothering to increase his skill in climbing when he's already increasing his abilities to bypass the wall in a different way. The whole point of a wizard not being as skilled in climbing, say, as opposed to a barbarian is that the wizard is focused on different things. He's not going to be bothering with advancing his abilities to climb or jump or bend bars because he's too busy finding other ways around such things.

By that same nature, the Barbarian isn't going to go around reading books about the planes. He knows what he experiences but it's not like that's going to automatically spur him to study these places more carefully than he did before.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
My feeling is that 4E supports a view that the characters are basically James Bond at least until Epic. In 3.5 ...

You seem to really like to bring up 3rd edition in discussions about 4th edition.


cibet44 wrote:
Does 4E really flatten out DCs like this? From what I read it didn't seem to but I've never played. It seems very odd to me. Maybe I'll borrow the essentials stuff from someone who has it and read the rules. I'm not sure how the game would work like this. Once you hit 20th level suddenly you can bend any kind of bars? Weird but I guess it works for some.

4E has static DCs, but also has presented a new set of guidelines for more easily just scaling DCs to the appropriate level.

Note that this isn't less, "My PC is level 25, so I roll against the level 25 DC", and more about, "This is a level 25 door, so I roll against the level 25 DC."

Basically, its assumed that at level 25, you won't be kicking in a wooden door, but instead one made of Hellforged Infernium and covered in soul-drinking spikes. Or whatever. And rather than come up with the stats for that to present an appropriate challenge, you can just use the DC to fit the door of that level. If the level 25 fighter went back home and kicked in a wooden door, you could go ahead and use the level 1 DC for that without any problem.

Or, if you want to, you could still figure out what the DC is based on material, thickness, etc... I'm pretty sure they still have the formula for that somewhere. This isn't intended to make it obsolete, just to present a new method for those who want it.

Now, all of this is seperate from the fact that 4E characters get to add +1/2 level to all skill checks. So the epic wizard has gotten better at firing a bow.

The question is, though... how much better? A level 1 Fighter might have a +8 bonus to hit with a longsword. A level 16 wizard - a wizard approaching epic levels - could pick up a longsword and maybe have about the same chance at landing a blow as that level 1 Fighter. Which won't do him much good against enemies at that level, though if he wants to go home and stab some kobolds, he can probably do so. For relatively small amounts of damage. And without any of the fancy fighter tricks that let them knock enemies around, smash them to the ground, etc.

So... yes, you get some skill in all areas as you level up. But generally not enough to cause any real oddities in actual play.


ProfessorCirno wrote:


4e skill system works as following:

Skill check = ability modifier + half your level + 5 if trained + 5 if skill focuse.

I see. So in 4E a character at 10th level would always be better at climbing then he was a 1st level. While in 3E the player would need to determine if the character where any better in climbing by assigning skill points, or ability points, or feats, etc, otherwise the character would not improve in climbing at all.

Seems like this would remove a bit of level based "bookkeeping" from the player but add a bit of "genric-ness" to the character.

ProfessorCirno wrote:


By level 15, you've done a lot of adventuring. You've been to fantastic and bizarre places of myth and legend. You've fought strange creatures from the world of the fey and the world of shadows. The barbarian is going to pick up a few knacks in things. The wizard is going to be a bit better at athletics.

I understand what you are saying here but I am used to the player determining this incrementally at each level for the character. Not every 15th level character has fought strange creatures from the world of the fey or shadows and even if they did they may not have done much jumping or climbing to do it.

It sounds like in 4E the assumption is that the characters are improving in every way when they level. Getting stronger, faster, smarter all the time plus some new powers. While in 3E (and before) the player had to determine where and how much the character grew when leveling.

To me, this is quite a fascinating shift in philosophy. In 4E, with each level you are getting closer and closer to super human god like power in every way. You are always stronger or smarter then you were before and you will be even stronger and smarter in the future. While in 3E (and post) you are getting closer and closer to super human god like power in only a few areas that you chose to specialize in throughout your career and stagnate in everything else.

With no magic involved, a 20th level 4E wizard could swim across a river that at 1st level he would drown in. A 20th level 3E wizard might still drown in that river unless he specifically chose to "practice" swimming at some point in his career.


Blazej wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
My feeling is that 4E supports a view that the characters are basically James Bond at least until Epic. In 3.5 ...
You seem to really like to bring up 3rd edition in discussions about 4th edition.

Well there is a 3rd Ed player in the discussion but I'm also doing compare and contrast to make my point that 4E characters really just are straight up weaker then their 3rd edition brethren.

Maybe I could have made the point more succinct by stating that this 'art' debate we are involved in does not really exist in 3.5 because the players will have ways of circumnavigating such obstacles as part of the party package. 4E characters don't get that as part of the party package so we end up with DMs debating the issue.


Blazej wrote:
Whimsy Chris wrote:
But I also agree with Jeremy that just because someone has achieved a certain level, they shouldn't gain extra ability with jumping over chasms when they are studious, not very athletic wizards.
If this were the case, I don't think that it is successfully emulated by 4th edition's skill system because (unless the Essentials or other products altered this) jumping is something that has a static DC for a set distance and the bonuses gained from leveling allowed every character to have additional ability to leap over chasms.

You are correct here. Thus, a paragon Wizard has the athletic ability of a trained athlete ten levels lower.

Items, according to Essentials, that do scale based on character level are:

Knowledge checks (History, Dungeoneering, Religion, etc)
Balance checks
Diplomacy checks
Insight checks
Several kinds of Perception checks
Streetwise checks

As well, a host of "improvised checks" are given as examples based on Easy, Moderate, and Hard. For example, building a shelter against harsh weather is considered a Moderate DC regardless of level.

Several things depend on the target's abilities. For example, understanding a magic trap, Stealthing past someone's perception, understanding a monster, and so on all depend on the other creature's or item's defenses, DC's, or levels.

I think a lot of it is really an art depending on the DM. For example, I would rule as a DM that basic survival in the wilderness is a given for epic level characters. However, surviving on a particular Astral plane may depend on the DC level. I think no matter what, DCs depend on the DM's common sense and style of play.


cibet44 wrote:
To me, this is quite a fascinating shift in philosophy. In 4E, with each level you are getting closer and closer to super human god like power in every way. You are always stronger or smarter then you were before and you will be even stronger and smarter in the future. While in 3E (and post) you are getting closer and closer to super human god like power in only a few areas that you chose to specialize in throughout your career and stagnate in everything else.

In many ways, I think it is an extrapolation of other areas of the system to be more all-inclusive. Thinking of all the ways this was always the case - attack bonus scales with level, hitpoints scale with level. Saving throws continue to go up. All they really did was extend that class-based growth to skills as well.

But the growth isn't enough to make specialization irrelevant. It is more about tightening the growth between characters. But just because the wizard has a scaling attack bonus, he can't pick up a sword and show the same skill as a fighter - the fighter is proficient with the weapon, is incredibly strong, and knows all sorts of fancy maneuvers the wizard can't even dream of. Sure, the epic wizard might be able to stab some kobolds as well as some heroic adventurers, but that's about all.

Now, some do find it a little hard to explain how a wizard might get better at swimming just by leveling. But I don't think that is really any more unreasonable than him having gotten better with a sword, or being inherently harder to kill, just because of levelling. They are abstractions for a level of experience that represents the character becoming more heroic, more epic, etc.

You can use flavor-text to justify it - the epic level can jump as well as a Heroic level fighter because the epic wizard uses arcane power to boost his jump. The epic fighter wasn't trained like the low level cleric, yet still knows stuff about low-level demons... but is isn't trained literature so much as tidpits picked up from years of battle and battleside stories. Or you can just assume that experience in certain areas and time alongside other experienced adventurer's helps make a character slightly better in all sorts of ways.

It's a bit more of an abstraction than usual, but how many abstractions do we already accept because that's just how it has always been done? My high-level wizard may have spent the bulk of his career in the back of the party avoiding danger at all costs... yet somehow, I can walk into a low-level bar and let ruffians stab me in the chest for a while, and I'm ok. I've never picked up a sword, but I've gotten better at swinging one anyway. Weird, but a core enough element that by now, no one really even thinks about it.


cibet44 wrote:
With no magic involved, a 20th level 4E wizard could swim across a river that at 1st level he would drown in.

Yes, sort of, although I do think 4e encourages you to develop the flavor of an encounter regardless of the mechanics involved. So it depends on the DM's style. A DM could rule that as people advance in level they become more and more superhero like. Another DM could rule (although this is a little outside the official rules) that the difficulty of swimming across the river scales based on level (in other words, the DC is higher for that 20th level Wizard than a 1st level Wizard). Alternatively, the DM could rule that a wizard at 20th level can magically walk on water - thus the swim check reflects that idea. In other words, the mechanics are a skeleton that a DM and players can flavor how they desire. Getting across the river could be magic, mundane, or whatever.

An example of this in a game I DMed is when one of the players, a cleric, had an ungodly high Intimidate result. I described the scene as one in which the cleric's own god made an kind of divine visit to put the fear of divine retribution into the target. Thus the target gave up information that he normally wouldn't have under regular circumstances or torture. I believe that 4e encourages the players to think of their powers and skills in this kind of imaginative manner.


cibet44 wrote:

I see. So in 4E a character at 10th level would always be better at climbing then he was a 1st level. While in 3E the player would need to determine if the character where any better in climbing by assigning skill points, or ability points, or feats, etc, otherwise the character would not improve in climbing at all.

Seems like this would remove a bit of level based "bookkeeping" from the player but add a bit of "genric-ness" to the character.

I don't really see it adding "Generic-ness." Let's face it, 9/10 times in 3.x, you always put your skill points in the same skills each level, unless you were trying to reach some unfathomably rank for a prestige class or something equally dumb that made you plan out your character from level 1.

Quote:
I understand what you are saying here but I am used to the player determining this incrementally at each level for the character. Not every 15th level character has fought strange creatures from the world of the fey or shadows and even if they did they may not have done much jumping or climbing to do it.

Yes. They have.

Level 15 is a big deal. I really don't understand your complaint here. At level 15, fighters are swordmasters and giantslayers. Rogues are shadow assassins and guildmasters. Level 15 isn't just two days after killing a few kobolds.

Quote:

It sounds like in 4E the assumption is that the characters are improving in every way when they level. Getting stronger, faster, smarter all the time plus some new powers. While in 3E (and before) the player had to determine where and how much the character grew when leveling.

To me, this is quite a fascinating shift in philosophy. In 4E, with each level you are getting closer and closer to super human god like power in every way. You are always stronger or smarter then you were before and you will be even stronger and smarter in the future. While in 3E (and post) you are getting closer and closer to super human god like power in only a few areas that you chose to specialize in throughout your career and stagnate in everything else.

Yes...and no.

Certainly, all classes in 3e got stronger as they leveled. Saving throws and BAB went up constantly.

So, how do things improve in 4e?

Well, the flat rate improvement is 1/2 your level to most rolls. This represents that as an adventurer - and later, as a hero - you ARE getting better at most everything as you go. It stands to reason, too - most adventurers, while specialized, would get a bit better on most things as they go. The idea of a wizard who can literally do nothing other then cast spells is fairly absurd. I may not be in peak physical condition, but I can still climb a dang tree. They also gain +1 to all attributes when they enter paragon, and when they enter epic - this is more of a thematic thing, since by entering the new tier, you typically are literally transcending to a different level. Fighters are no longer simple warriors, they're giant slayers and sword masters and iron hearted defenders.

Specialized improvements come from skills (which ones you choose as trained), attributes (Every four levels raise two), feats, and powers. There's also which equipment you get or choose.

So yes, characters do get a bit better in everything, but then again, that's honestly how things should be. These are adventurers and heroes, people who constantly place their life on the line. They're not average schmoes.

Quote:
With no magic involved, a 20th level 4E wizard could swim across a river that at 1st level he would drown in. A 20th level 3E wizard might still drown in that river unless he specifically chose to "practice" swimming at some point in his career.

Right, and that this would happen in 3e is kinda dumb. I've never offically trained myself in swimming, yet I'm still fairly decent at it - and I gurantee I'm better now then I was in middle school.


Incidentally, regarding James Bond, handcuffs aren't a problem. The Hulk would smash through them, James Bond uses his wits and charm to get someone to unlock them, another character maneuvers his hands just right to snake out of the handcuffs.

Nobody would read the story of The Hero That Was Handcuffed And, Welp, That's The End.


cibet44 wrote:


To me, this is quite a fascinating shift in philosophy. In 4E, with each level you are getting closer and closer to super human god like power in every way. You are always stronger or smarter then you were before and you will be even stronger and smarter in the future. While in 3E (and post) you are getting closer and closer to super human god like power in only a few areas that you chose to specialize in throughout your career and stagnate in everything else.

I don't feel its really like this. Its art...three DMs can have three different interpretations and they are all correct by the rules.

So...

The players have encountered a 'raging' river at 15th level and they have to cross. Note that when I describe the river as 'raging' I'm moving it out of static DCs as there is no static DC for swimming a 'raging' river - we are down to DM interpretation of the difficulty involved.

------

In ProfessorCimo's Game the scene might be...

Player A: Can we cross?

ProfessorCimo: Shouldn't be to difficult, at least if Theldrick takes off his armour.

Player A: What do we need to roll?

ProfessorCimo: You don't, your 15th level.

Player A: Well we had to roll that one time at 10th.

ProfessorCimo: That was some time back your a lot better at adventuring now.

Player A: OK Theldric strips down to his skivvies and we cross then.

ProfessorCimo: OK your halfway across and thats when the Dragon attacks!

Player A: Oh crap...Theldrick has no armour on!

A tough fight ensues starting in the river and moving to land as the players exit the river. The party's challenge is made more difficult because their Defender has no armour and they'll need to use good tactics to win.

Mechanically there was no check for the river. It was about making a more interesting combat.

---------

Whimsy Chris might play it out as follows...

Player A: Can we cross?

Whimsy Chris: Probably, though I'd not try it with Theldric in all that armour.

Player A: I think its not to tough to pull this off guys.

Player B: [counts squares] Maybe for you but Arnoff the Wizard is not really great at Athletics. At half speed I'll need to make 4 checks. I could easily be swept downriver.

Player A: Look if Theldrick takes off his armour he has an Athletics thats phenominal. Even carrying his armour and adding your weight he should not be too encumbered. We'll tie off Arnoff to Theldrick.

Player B [To Whimsy Chris]: Will that work?

Whimsy Chris: Definitly make things a bit tougher for Theldrick.

Player A: Theldrick can handle it.

The party crosses the river and continues with the adventure.

Mechanically the river was an Easy skill check. It was a bit of an obstacle in the players path, overcome with no real danger if the players put some thought into it.

---------

At my table it might be....

Player A: Can we cross?

Jeremy Mac Donald: Theldrick probably should have no problem if he takes off his armour. Might be tougher for Arnoff - thats white water out there.

Player A: Well should we go for it?

Player B: [Counting squares] Thats four checks, there is no way. I'll get my head bashed in on the rocks.

Player A: Hmm...well this blows, we are loosing time here and the trail is growing cold. We need a log or a boat or something.

Player B: Where the hell are we anyway? I think we are just south of Redhill.

Player A: Yeah we could go get a boat there, or maybe the water will be calmer upstream.

The party heads upstream looking for a solution.

Mechanically the check was of Medium difficulty. With a river this wide thats just to dangerous for the not athletic characters unless they are willing to actually gamble. The stakes where apperently not high enough for that and they choose to search for an alternate means of crossing.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

Incidentally, regarding James Bond, handcuffs aren't a problem. The Hulk would smash through them, James Bond uses his wits and charm to get someone to unlock them, another character maneuvers his hands just right to snake out of the handcuffs.

Nobody would read the story of The Hero That Was Handcuffed And, Welp, That's The End.

Of course not! Its James Bond! The challenge is how your going to escape the handcuffs.

The question revolves around whether that is a reasonable challenge to face players with or not?


cibet44 wrote:
It sounds like in 4E the assumption is that the characters are improving in every way when they level. Getting stronger, faster, smarter all the time plus some new powers. While in 3E (and before) the player had to determine where and how much the character grew when leveling.

Because you seem to like bringing up 3rd edition in 4th edition discussions as well... this is not a new thing as in 3rd edition hit points, base attack bonus, and saving throws went up without the player really decided how they were distributed. That epic wizard is going to be skillful with a bow in either 3rd or 4th edition whether or not the character actually touched a bow during those levels.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

Well there is a 3rd Ed player in the discussion but I'm also doing compare and contrast to make my point that 4E characters really just are straight up weaker then their 3rd edition brethren.

Maybe I could have made the point more succinct by stating that this 'art' debate we are involved in does not really exist in 3.5 because the players will have ways of circumnavigating such obstacles as part of the party package. 4E characters don't get that as part of the party package so we end up with DMs debating the issue.

Even then I would have to ask why you were bringing up 3.5 in the first place. I disagree that the "debate we are involved in does not really exist in 3.5," but, even if it did, I don't see how that really adds to the discussion aside from just introducing 3rd edition to the mix. It honestly looks to me like you are just bringing up to describe things you don't like in 3rd edition. If this were a discussion about the differences between 3rd and 4th, I would understand better, but I would say that you shifted the discussion from talking about "the increasing or static DCs of 4th edition challenges" to "how 3rd edition doesn't allow for those challenges."

101 to 119 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Mike Mearls on the Red Box All Messageboards

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