Which is easily replicated with Spell Cards...take an empty power card template and write in the needed info...or hand write on a index card...etc...For 4e as well my PC use power cards and the CharGen character sheets, which provide all the details without recource (generally) to the books.I have to admit I do think the power cards are a good idea.
That is a good idea and it will save time but the real time killer, later in the campaign, is not so much the spells themselves but the spell interactions. Here you need the DM to have done all the spell cards for his baddies as well and you'll likely need the books marked to the relevant section of the rules. Finally, while having the text at hand will definitely help, you'll still spend a significant amount of time scrutinizing it for the exact wording and then reviewing the wording on the spells its interacting with.
The speed up in 4E is not just the cards but the fact that they generally are self contained. Even an interrupt (which are common) will generally be along the lines of 'stop right there - while I play out this power then continue what you where doing.
Generally there is a difference here in how mid to high level combats work between 3.5 and 4E. In 3.5 you usually counter what the enemy is trying to do while in 4E you mitigate what the enemy has done. Hence in 3.5 your spells are often going head to head with theirs while in 4E that is almost never the case.
|
My group tried 4e when one of the DMs in the group (we have a big group with several DMs) wanted to try it because he liked the simplicity of setting up a quest and the focus on balance and streamlining.
And it was streamlined. Which was the problem.
All the classes did similar things, just describing them somewhat differently. Skill checks had no meaning, as everyone could do them and they were such broad categories that they had no meaning.
It was easy to plan as a DM because there weren't many options, just different descriptions of the same actions. Your character felt pre-generated, your role felt inflexible. The progression felt like grinding out a WoW character. It felt like it was made to be a video game.
The problem is, I am at a table with my friends. My very creative, interesting, friends. My friends who constantly surprise me with new angles on how to explore the worlds we create and make their character stand out and be memorable.
And that wasn't in 4E.
We aren't inflexible as to format. While we generally stick to d20 systems, we've done mutants and masterminds, Aberrant, micro-lite, modern, etc...and we'll liked them and kept running extended campaigns in them, because there was something about them. You could feel the excitement in the designers ideas, even if you had to house rule like hell to make it work.
4E had no soul. It wanted you to stay within the lines, because the lines were your friends and would lead you to years and years of good consumerism for WoTC through the online tools and piles and piles of new books that you had to have to do the things that used to be OGL.
And this was before we read what they did to the realms...
4e is like walking on paved path. You stay within the lines and get around fine, but it isn't often a memorable experience as you pretty much know where you are going to end up and what you will be doing along the way.
3.5 and Pathfinder are like hiking through the woods. You have to prepare a little more, and there are bugs and places where you can get lost. But the trip is a lot more interesting.
@Jeremy Mac Donald:I understand all of that...but what I see still hold true in regards to my personl taste and experiences.
Combat in 3.5 is so much faster for my group. I know even at high levels combats just go quicker in 3.5 for us. Are much more interesting. And overall much more fun.
Also I did not say characters in 4th ed are complex. I said tedious and boring. All my characters are complex. I just don't see the same depth in a 4th ed character.
As to skills...1) I hate modules. As a matter of fact I can't wait to the day when modules go the way of the dinosaurs(though it seems things are moving in the opposite direction. So to me the fact modules did not contain skill tesats for higher levels is meaningless to me as a proof...because I when I ran used skills often...as to most of the DMs I play with. The reason you don't see them in modules is because of the very same reason I hate them...because they often fail to take into the fact PCs will be different...and as a DM it is easier to create your own stuff than to adapt a module to your group (well that and often the very linear approach to them but that is a different subject entirely).
2) I have been running things similair to skill challenges since 3.0 came out. And it is to me havinmg a higher range of skill separation is a much funner situration...as one the PCs have to work together...and two have to get creative.
Anyway most of this just opinion and have to do with play style. To eavh their own
|
That is a good idea and it will save time but the real time killer, later in the campaign, is not so much the spells themselves but the spell interactions. Here you need the DM to have done all the spell cards for his baddies as well and you'll likely need the books marked to the relevant section of the rules. Finally, while having the text at hand will definitely help, you'll still spend a significant amount of time scrutinizing it for the exact wording and then reviewing the wording on the spells its interacting with.
That will happen maybe the first time....but rarely after that. that is the sweet part about the power cards. You have the basics on the card. these basics are the most important part of the power/spell. Once you have played the power/spell a few times you know how it will interect in 99% of situations.
A DM that likes the idea will collect their "spell cards" as the campaign progresses. As his casters get higher and higher in level they will have added most spells commonly memorized until the point that they rarely need to write a card again. It is not an all at one time type of work. It is a dribs and drab work.
|
4E had no soul.
<Rolls eyes>
My group tried 4e when one of the DMs in the group (we have a big group with several DMs) wanted to try it because he liked the simplicity of setting up a quest and the focus on balance and streamlining.
And it was streamlined. Which was the problem.
All the classes did similar things, just describing them somewhat differently. Skill checks had no meaning, as everyone could do them and they were such broad categories that they had no meaning.
It was easy to plan as a DM because there weren't many options, just different descriptions of the same actions. Your character felt pre-generated, your role felt inflexible. The progression felt like grinding out a WoW character. It felt like it was made to be a video game.
The problem is, I am at a table with my friends. My very creative, interesting, friends. My friends who constantly surprise me with new angles on how to explore the worlds we create and make their character stand out and be memorable.
And that wasn't in 4E.
We aren't inflexible as to format. While we generally stick to d20 systems, we've done mutants and masterminds, Aberrant, micro-lite, modern, etc...and we'll liked them and kept running extended campaigns in them, because there was something about them. You could feel the excitement in the designers ideas, even if you had to house rule like hell to make it work.
4E had no soul. It wanted you to stay within the lines, because the lines were your friends and would lead you to years and years of good consumerism for WoTC through the online tools and piles and piles of new books that you had to have to do the things that used to be OGL.
And this was before we read what they did to the realms...
4e is like walking on paved path. You stay within the lines and get around fine, but it isn't often a memorable experience as you pretty much know where you are going to end up and what you will be doing along the way.
I have to say I disagree. As I've said (either here or in another thread) I find that 4e actually makes doing different things easier. The tables and framework provided makes it much easier to create different challenges, whereas 3e concentrated on laying down rules for this, that and the other and if it hadn't, there was nothing to assist you in making them up.
I will admit that a lot of character powers are relatively similar, but the flipside to that is that they are fairly explicitly balanced, both against each other and the environment. I will also happily admit that the basic three books (PHB, MM and DMG) are not, by themselves, massively well-written and (in the case of the DMG) contain errors that needed to be cleared in in subsequent publications. And the WotC published scenarios are not a patch on anything produced by Paizo, and don't even get me started on the abomination that is the Delve format.
But if you found you couldn't get creative with 4e, then that is much more an issue of play-style than it is 4e. I've had no probklems with it. In fact, I am contemplating a Steampunk PbP and I know it would be quite easy in 4e, but much harder to adapt to PF (even though I am doing the latter, because my players prefer PF) mainly because PF (and especially magic) is a cross-connection of many, many subsets of rules instead of a streamlined system of a few in which the interractions can be predicted mechanically.
3e is, in many ways, a beautiful, baroque system - lovely to look at, but unless you are careful tinkering can break it - a Bugatti of an RPG. 4e is relatively simpler but much more robust, a bit like a Ford. Both have their uses, but I personally find the Ford more useful for what I want to do.
My group tried 4e when one of the DMs in the group (we have a big group with several DMs) wanted to try it because he liked the simplicity of setting up a quest and the focus on balance and streamlining.
And it was streamlined. Which was the problem.
All the classes did similar things, just describing them somewhat differently.
I'd argue that your missing the differences. Looking at this objectively every single class in 4E starts out with a couple of pages that describe unique elements to the class. Clerics have divine powers, they work in specific ways. They have Gods and that gives you access to specific types of powers and feats, they have built in 'Cleric only' type abilities such as the ability to do healing better then any other class in the game as well as their different blend of hps and starting feats (ritual caster, armour up to chainmail, simple weapons). This two page spread of unique class specific abilities is comparable to any class one might find in 3.5. Fundamentally, up to this point, we have about the same amount of differentiation.
However in 4E there is a huge layer on top of this - the power lists, which are at the core of differentiation between the classes. 4E characters are basically something like sorcerers except that every single one of them has a 'spell list' that is absolutely unique to it and it alone. Not only is this list unique but at each decision step (that is each time your choosing a power at a new level) your making a choice from a list of between 5 and 15 different 'spells' each choice is unique though there are usually 3 or 4 different themes within the options depending upon which way you want to emphasize your character.
On top of this each race gives out unique special abilities and each race comes with a significant list of feats usable only by that race.
The differentiation between the classes is actually pretty astounding - so much so that it can sometimes be an issue, my homebrew has a society of matriarchal, jungle dwelling, gun totting women. Easy enough to plop a gun class into 3.5. Write a couple of pages, invent a few unique guns, steal liberally from rangers and I'm done. I've not yet managed to finish making the class in 4E because the homework of watching a crap load of gun-fu movies while taking notes so that I can steal the ideas and turn them into powers is, while enjoyable, also a lot of work.
In fact one of the most striking things I've noticed while playing 4E is just how hard it is to cover every 'base' that is desired. You need about 8 characters to do all that and since most parties are smaller then that you end up with a lot of trying to make do under less then ideal circumstances.
For example, in 4E, your squishies can be pretty squishy. We have to keep the baddies off the wizard. He has a trick or two up his sleeve but nothing like the layers of contingency spells and defensive buffs a 3.5 mage would have. In 3.5 the party is trying to cover the mage but mainly the mage takes care of himself. The downside of the enemy getting to the mage is more in that he'll then be using spells to save himself instead of terminating baddies. In 4E that just does not work - the party has to keep enemies off the mage...and in my group this breaks down just about every combat. Its a rare thing where I'm not yelling at the rest of the party that my cleric is a pinch hitter and they need to do something because I was never designed to go head to head with a Two-Headed Troll for three f##$ing rounds. Or we are flipping out because we have archers firing from two very different directions and our super mobile striker can only be in one place at a time.
|
|
3e is, in many ways, a beautiful, baroque system - lovely to look at, but unless you are careful tinkering can break it - a Bugatti of an RPG. 4e is relatively simpler but much more robust, a bit like a Ford. Both have their uses, but I personally find the Ford more useful for what I want to do.
Isn't saying one is a a Bugatti and one is a Ford functionally the same as what I said?
And I would describe it more as a 1980's Ford than a new one.
|
|
My group tried 4e when one of the DMs in the group (we have a big group with several DMs) wanted to try it because he liked the simplicity of setting up a quest and the focus on balance and streamlining.
And it was streamlined. Which was the problem.
All the classes did similar things, just describing them somewhat differently.
I'd argue that your missing the differences. Looking at this objectively every single class in 4E starts out with a couple of pages that describe unique elements to the class. Clerics have divine powers, they work in specific ways. They have Gods and that gives you access to specific types of powers and feats, they have built in 'Cleric only' type abilities such as the ability to do healing better then any other class in the game as well as their different blend of hps and starting feats (ritual caster, armour up to chainmail, simple weapons). This two page spread of unique class specific abilities is comparable to any class one might find in 3.5. Fundamentally, up to this point, we have about the same amount of differentiation.
However in 4E there is a huge layer on top of this - the power lists, which are at the core of differentiation between the classes. 4E characters are basically something like sorcerers except that every single one of them has a 'spell list' that is absolutely unique to it and it alone. Not only is this list unique but at each decision step (that is each time your choosing a power at a new level) your making a choice from a list of between 5 and 15 different 'spells' each choice is unique though there are usually 3 or 4 different themes within the options depending upon which way you want to emphasize your character.
Yes, but it a matter of "This is my version of the thing that does the same thing as your thing!" half the time.
A Wizard, a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Druid walk into a bar. In 3.5/Pathfinder. None of them will have the same skill set, let alone the watered down skill check set up. Each of them could fill several different party roles, depending on need, to varying degrees of success. And when they level, they won't be trained on paths like they are playing Diablo or WoW.
But to each there own.
|
|
Isn't saying one is a a Bugatti and one is a Ford functionally the same as what I said?
To some extent, but I'm more making the point that 3e is hampered by its complexity as it's easy to screw up if tinkered with. But you are saying that the Bugatti is more useful for hauling your wardrobe, and I disagree with that.
And I would describe it more as a 1980's Ford than a new one.
I disagree again. I'd see the Bugatti as the obsolete tech, frankly. 3e is of a time and place, and so is 4e. 3e's time and place was about fifteen years ago, 4e's more dealing with the market as it currently exists.
|
I debated posting in this but so far it is pretty civil. I played 4e when it first came out. So my experience is just with the 3 core books. My views are similar to the OP's not exact but in general.
Now I will say many of the things 4e try to "fix" I do agree needed work in 3e, the problem for me was. I didn't like the direction they went with most of the fixes. But my four biggest problems with 4e was.
1) The skill system, honestly I just disliked it and detested the skill challenges in how they was done.
2) The powers from class to class felt to similar. No they wasn't exactly the same but they felt similar, most did x dmg and then a special effect. I played a total of 4 different classes in 4 different campaigns and to me they didn't feel different enough.
3) Monster felt to similar. More or less same as my issue with powers.
4) But this was the big one, I found combat utterly boring. To be fair I see combat as a means to a end to get to the story or a necessary evil of RPG's. Honestly it was too tactical for my taste, it wasn't tactical like. Ok lets move over here and flank them and catch them in a cross fire with arrows and when they charge up the fighter rushes out and catches them from behind. But more abstract tactics if that makes sense. I use this power and slide the monster here, so the rogue can get more use of this power etc. The other part about combat that bored me was, you knew who was going to win about half way before the fight ended. It seemed pretty obvious who would win the fight long before it was over, then it just felt like going threw the motions.
Now with all that said, I think 4e is a fine game. What 4e is good at, where it's strengths lie is in places that don't appeal to me and where it is most weak is the area's I most care about. Cause no game is great in every area. Do I think it hurts RPing? No not really, but I found due to what I seen as faults that I personally had a much harder time to become invested in the game which made it harder for me to RP.
Now all I have said might have been changed with more books etc as they came out. That was just my experience with the first 3 core rule books only.
|
|
I disagree again. I'd see the Bugatti as the obsolete tech, frankly. 3e is of a time and place, and so is 4e. 3e's time and place was about fifteen years ago, 4e's more dealing with the market as it currently exists.
It's time has not left if , you know, look at how popular PF has made it again.
The other company is the Big Dog on the scene and can spam the market selling its product whether good or bad.
How many Core Rules books are there for 4e? 13ish
(PHB 1-3, DMG1-2, MM 1-3, MP 1-2, AP, DP, PP)
Add Essentials which "help fix and clarify" the preceding products. 3-4 more products.
So we have 17 Core Products. Some which obsolete earlier products, and introduce a new mechanic for game play.
17 product, 36 months(for simplicity sake, it is more like 32). 1 CORE book every 2 months.
this is not including the periphery books and materials...
This is also showing, to me, that the other company has not learned their lesson from the previous edition they published.
They spam the market with their dwindling quality product yet still get a decent share becasue of the name of the books.
4e is fast using up their 15 minutes. I have let them slip into the past.
Either youmissed Psionic Power or Primal Power ;)
3e is, in many ways, a beautiful, baroque system - lovely to look at, but unless you are careful tinkering can break it - a Bugatti of an RPG. 4e is relatively simpler but much more robust, a bit like a Ford. Both have their uses, but I personally find the Ford more useful for what I want to do.
I find is analogue slightly insulting and untrue and funny. But more from a car prespective. :)
You absolutely can't not tinker with newer cars now a day. Atleast not without a lot of money and know how that is often very model specfic. The cars now a day are sooo computer controled that if you even add a simple cold air intake(hopefuly it is a actualy cold air intake...) without reprograming the computer not only won't you see a improvement you'll probably see a decrease in your car performance as the computer is now running on false data.
Which actualy fit well...4th ed say it wants you to tinker with it(and hey it might even let you do simple things)...but it really does not...as you will than only need to buy the core books. Which is why cars are like that now...so you have to go back to the dealership.
Anyway sorry for the mostly off topic posts.
Back on topic...can pro 4th ed people accept the fact that there are people out there that don't have problems with 3.5? I mean combats run fast in my game at all levels...I can get the rules do what I want with not alot of effort....characters built in 3.5 are just more interesting to me...I can prepare even high level character in 3.5 with easy...etc.
I don't know why...maybe it is my mutant power. :)
|
|
Back on topic...can pro 4th ed people accept the fact that there are people out there that don't have problems with 3.5? I mean combats run fast in my game at all levels...I can get the rules do what I want with not alot of effort....characters built in 3.5 are just more interesting to me...I can prepare even high level character in 3.5 with easy...etc.
Take this thread to the WotC 4e boards and see the hate that will emerge.
Either youmissed Psionic Power or Primal Power ;)Psionic...I own Primal and thought there was a Psionic Power but erred on the side of caution in my numbers.
Heh one book more or less - who'd really care? Your point in that they've spewed more than just a few books was proven. Perhaps you can count both Adventurer's Vaults and there are 5 Essentials already (Compendium, 2 Heroes, DM kit and Monster Vault).
I think that 4E actually needed a ton of splat as the classes as presented really covered two or three themes and needed expansion to create more robust foundation.
Take this thread to the WotC 4e boards and see the hate that will emerge.
Back on topic...can pro 4th ed people accept the fact that there are people out there that don't have problems with 3.5? I mean combats run fast in my game at all levels...I can get the rules do what I want with not alot of effort....characters built in 3.5 are just more interesting to me...I can prepare even high level character in 3.5 with easy...etc.
I have twice...when it first came out and about a year ago...those people are really sensitive and very fanatical about it. I mean if you want to drive them crazy over there just post about 5th edition and how we'll see it in about a year.
That is why I started a private group and invited the few rational people over there that I get along with. But even that is drying up.
It is like a graveyard over there.
|
|
Either youmissed Psionic Power or Primal Power ;)Psionic...I own Primal and thought there was a Psionic Power but erred on the side of caution in my numbers.Heh one book more or less - who'd really care? Your point in that they've spewed more than just a few books was proven. Perhaps you can count both Adventurer's Vaults and there are 5 Essentials already (Compendium, 2 Heroes, DM kit and Monster Vault).
I think that 4E actually needed a ton of splat as the classes as presented really covered two or three themes and needed expansion to create more robust foundation.
Ya never even thought of the AV's and i left 4e when Essentials was gearing up to come out. MV was just released and I bought it to look through it and a week later I made my decision to drop playing 4e.
i found that the themes presented needed expansion and that was a part of the 4e plan. Release core class and expand in later books. Except that they have stopped expanding on the Core classes released...at least for the time being from what i see.
|
|
Take this thread to the WotC 4e boards and see the hate that will emerge.
Back on topic...can pro 4th ed people accept the fact that there are people out there that don't have problems with 3.5? I mean combats run fast in my game at all levels...I can get the rules do what I want with not alot of effort....characters built in 3.5 are just more interesting to me...I can prepare even high level character in 3.5 with easy...etc.
I have twice...when it first came out and about a year ago...those people are really sensitive and very fanatical about it. I mean if you want to drive them crazy over there just post about 5th edition and how we'll see it in about a year.
That is why I started a private group and invited the few rational people over there that I get along with. But even that is drying up.
It is like a graveyard over there.
I find that when a thread discussing PF or 3e comes up there are 3 types of posters that come up onthe pro 4e side.
Poster 1: Friendly and rational. These poster don't care about the Edition war. They really truly believe that you play with what you like and ignore the rest. Generally they play both 4e and 3e/PF and like both systems. they see the flaws in both systems with open eyes.
Poster 2: dismissive but rational. they believe that you play what you like but cannot understand how you can like PF/3e. They will say "Whatever floats your boat" as they roll their eyes at you. They see the flaws in 3e/PF and 4e but area little dismissive of the 4e flaws.
Poster 3: Ze4lot: Hate 3e and its derivatives with a passion and thinks you are crap on a stick becasue you like 3e/PF. they see no flaws in 4e and ignore those that point them out.
Thanksfully there are more #1s than #3s but a #2 in a bad mood is as bad as a #3 at times.
Heh, I picked-up the Essentials, but I intend to use them as 4E-lite and travel variant. The trouble to mix them is not worth the effort IMO.
About the poster types. 1's are more numerous? I think the most type 3s just don't find spaming this place worthwhile, just as many pro 3Es probably don't frequent WotC boards anymore.
|
|
3e is, in many ways, a beautiful, baroque system - lovely to look at, but unless you are careful tinkering can break it - a Bugatti of an RPG. 4e is relatively simpler but much more robust, a bit like a Ford. Both have their uses, but I personally find the Ford more useful for what I want to do.I find is analogue slightly insulting and untrue and funny. But more from a car prespective. :)
You absolutely cannot tinker with newer cars now a day. At least not without a lot of money and know how that is often very model specfic. The cars now a day are sooo computer controled that if you even add a simple cold air intake (hopefuly it is a actualy cold air intake...) without reprograming the computer not only won't you see a improvement you'll probably see a decrease in your car performance as the computer is now running on false data.
Which actualy fit well...4th ed say it wants you to tinker with it(and hey it might even let you do simple things)...but it really does not...as you will than only need to buy the core books. Which is why cars are like that now...so you have to go back to the dealership.
Anyway sorry for the mostly off topic posts.
Back on topic...can pro 4th ed people accept the fact that there are people out there that don't have problems with 3.5? I mean combats run fast in my game at all levels...I can get the rules do what I want with not alot of effort....characters built in 3.5 are just more interesting to me...I can prepare even high level character in 3.5 with easy...etc.
I don't know why...maybe it is my mutant power.
Point taken - it's a fairly crap metaphor.
As for the accepting you don't like it? God, yes! I'm not interested in converting anyone. I'm only really posting because a lot of people have expressed factual stuff of 4e which simply do not fit with my experiences, and I'm pointing out that their expeience is not universal.
What I'd quite like is if people who don't like it could accept that I and other people do like it, and respectfully request you keep off the 4e board here so we can, you know, discuss it amongst ourselves without having to justify liking it with every post on every thread. Which might sound an exaggeration but, for a while, it really was like that here (hence the sticky at the top of the board). This thread is a throwback, albeit - given the gap in time - with much less heat.
Yes, but it a matter of "This is my version of the thing that does the same thing as your thing!" half the time.
I can see a certain amount of truth to this at the lowest levels. When your 1st and you have 1 encounter power and then its at wills until the fight ends there is something to this statement. I'd argue that characters still are differentiated in their at wills, the wizard has bursts and the striker has accuracy or hits hard while the cleric has nothing exciting (clerics the weakest in straight combat).
This changes quite dramatically as one levels up however. As more powers are added there comes a point where at wills are either what happens when your fighting so many enemies that your just tapped out or your in a bad tactical situation (my cleric has melee combat powers but only a few, I'm a pinch hitter - if forced into melee for past three rounds I'm down to my at wills and trying to break contact so I can use my spells).
Beyond low levels I don't see the argument except in the broadest 'this is combat in RPG terms' type manner. There are something like 15 conditions in 4E plus you can push, pull or slide enemies, or slide yourself. You can blast magic out of yourself to all enemies around you or throw it for large bursts and any given power usually has two or three of these type effects. So I hit you and then move and hit some one else, I hit you and push you three spaces and everyone your beside falls down. I hit you, you go flying and I chase you. I hit you and now you, your blinds and on fire until you save, I hit everyone in this large burst and its now burning everyone in this large zone takes damage every turn, I hit your will and send you to an extra dimensional prison until you make a save, I hit your will and control your movement for a turn - and on and on. Its exceptionally varied and during any given combat every player is going to be using 5-15 (the upper end will be when the players are using daily's) different varieties of this.
In other words, once you move out of very low levels, combat is very diverse. The exception being a few of the essentials classes which seemed to be designed not to have that diversity - they just hit and do a little schtik.
A Wizard, a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Druid walk into a bar. In 3.5/Pathfinder. None of them will have the same skill set, let alone the watered down skill check set up. Each of them could fill several different party roles, depending on need, to varying degrees of success.
I've been over the skill system above but I'll add that there is a certian amount of different emphasis between the editions. In 3.5 the skill system, by higher levels, is essentially a spotlight moment. The DM rewards a character who has pumped their skills into X for 7 levels with something they, and only they can do (well the wizard can do it too with the right spell). In 4E its usually either a kind of obstacle or component of an encounter. While talent with the object in question varies everyone can do something.
Its the difference between a group focus and an individual focus. While I see the benefits of both I prefer the group focus due to a Gygaxian (see the thread in the 3.5 section) type of adventure design. In essence when I'm designing an adventure its not made for the my particular party. Its made to be true to itself and the players will just have to figure out how to handle it. When I use a module I don't want to change elements because it does not fit my group. My group will have to adapt to whatever is in there. A group focus means they always have a shot but it comes with a chance of failure. A spotlight moment means that the DM needs to reference what his characters have made themselves very good at - and usually should carry only an extremely low chance of failure (its super not fun to have made your character into the greatest lock picker ever and then you fail when you finally get that one chance in three adventures to show the kiddies how its done).
And when they level, they won't be trained on paths like they are playing Diablo or WoW.
I'm not sure what this means.
Point taken - it's a fairly crap metaphor.As for the accepting you don't like it? God, yes! I'm not interested in converting anyone. I'm only really posting because a lot of people have expressed factual stuff of 4e which simply do not fit with my experiences, and I'm pointing out that their expeience is not universal.
What I'd quite like is if people who don't like it could accept that I and other people do like it, and respectfully request you keep off the 4e board here so we can, you know, discuss it amongst ourselves without having to justify liking it with every post on every thread. Which might sound an exaggeration but, for a while, it really was like that here (hence the sticky at the top of the board). This thread is a throwback, albeit - given the gap in time - with much less heat.
Hey usualy I stay away from posting 4th ed boards...I usualy just lurk there. As I said before I love RPG design theory. So it is interesting to see what people are talking about....it is also why I am active on 3 other RPG message boards. I keep my posts to things that are really editionaless(like what a GM or Player should do in x)...and this threads when I hanging around 4th ed boards.
The thing is probably more of interesting study is why gamers have such different factual evidence in regards to the two different systems? This thread has been pretty much civil...though a little comments like 4th ed is souless(both are souless...their are after all just a pile of books it is up to you to bring the soul in...)...or the whole absolute statement that 3.5 combats take longer at high levels strains it just a tad. And people have discussed this in a civilized manner before even over at the WotC boards...though after a few pages enough trolls from both sides get involved to make it unpleasant.
Anyway...I am curious if you guys are tired of these threads...why post on them? I mean does it really matter if a 4th ed 'hater' gets the facts wrong about the game? I know why I rally to 3.5 defense when it is under attack...but why do you guys do it?
I debated posting in this but so far it is pretty civil. I played 4e when it first came out. So my experience is just with the 3 core books. My views are similar to the OP's not exact but in general.
Now I will say many of the things 4e try to "fix" I do agree needed work in 3e, the problem for me was. I didn't like the direction they went with most of the fixes. But my four biggest problems with 4e was.
1) The skill system, honestly I just disliked it and detested the skill challenges in how they was done.
Skill Challenges are the single hardest thing to master in 4E. Even with my group and some years of experience its a bit hit and miss. Advice on how to run them and even straight up mechanics have been much improved since the original DMG as well.
They usually help to add a lot of non-combat scenes to the game. What I mean is that you can get a lot of interesting scenes out of them with some interesting variance between success and failure. Last Wednesday my group ended up in a situation where the fortress city was under bombardment by an enemy army with huge siege engines firing flaming rocks (think Minas Tirth in the Lord of the Rings Movie). The scenes we played out for a little while focused on what this was doing to the poor civilians. For example we ended up trying to save some in a burning building (and screwed up badly enough that we were only partially successful - the city councilor who was our main target was burnt to a crisp by the time we got to her).
What I liked with these sorts of scenes was that they where able to add flavour - we saw what this horrible battle was doing to the civilians and we interacted with that. However it did not have to be the plot of the adventure, the building itself had no floor plans just some description on what was going on and the whole thing played out in about fifteen minutes. My experience previously was that this sort of thing was either pure background (descriptive text) or it was the plot itself (floor plans and an attempt to put the whole burning building into the rule system from the ground up). Technically both these elements exist in 4E but the Skill Challenges are in the middle ground where its neither pure background nor is it the whole three hour session.
It says something that we have this sort of thing in the module (one of the Scales of War adventures), because that was something that practically did not exist in previous editions. Hence, even when it feels strained its usually something that I was glad was added to the story and when it works its a beautiful thing that can really immerse the characters into the scene and the world.
2) The powers from class to class felt to similar. No they wasn't exactly the same but they felt similar, most did x dmg and then a special effect. I played a total of 4 different classes in 4 different campaigns and to me they didn't feel different enough.
I've made points in this regard at length above so I'll skip this - however see the spoiler.
3) Monster felt to similar. More or less same as my issue with powers.
An issue but one that was substantially fixed by the release of MM3 and all subsequent monster books. It really came down to a number of fixes.
* Making monsters more dangerous: Having your players generally fairly close too if not actually in a state of panic is a pretty important part of exciting combat. Its always boring if they are not a bit scared.
* Hps for the big solo's and larger lieutenants needed to be scaled back, though not by all that much.
* clearly figuring out how many powers monster X or Y needs to be a fun opponent. Minions need to be pretty simple. Load them down with complex powers and the combat is a nightmare. Standard enemies need a few good tricks up their sleeve but not to many. Lieutenant types need need some what more and they should come with not only diverse attacks but interesting defenses, and unusual ways to shift the around the battlefield or make the players do so. Bosses are like lieutenants but just a little more complex but also with some real 'holy s~&& - what the f%#+ just happened?' thrown in there.
The biggest problems with the monsters in this regard in MM1 in particular (but also a little in MM2) was that the bigger lieutenant and boss type monsters just had far to few powers and they tended to be very simple type ones. If the enemy can shift as an immediate interrupt that is interesting but if that is the only thing he can do besides hitting you in three different ways that gets boring fast. Essentially what one wants is for the standard mooks (not minions) to pull one or maybe two things out of their hats to surprise (and often confound) the players. Lieutenants should be able to do something new and interesting every round for 3-4 rounds and have around one 'bet you did not see this coming' type power. The boss baddies need to be doing interesting things for 4-5 rounds with a couple of real 'game changers' in there that force the players to adapt to how they are going to handle the encounter.
All of this is a guideline. Every monster does not need to fit this outline exactly but the monsters definitely improved when they added more powers to the bigger baddies, made those powers more complex and usually tactical in nature while making the monsters significantly more lethal but a tad easier to kill. These changes pretty much eliminated 'grind' from the game. You no longer have a situation where the players have seen the baddies every trick and are certain they will win - sometime in the next 6 rounds. There are a lot more 'desperate to the last round' type combats, or for the more preliminary ones, they are a little nastier and somewhat faster.
4) But this was the big one, I found combat utterly boring. To be fair I see combat as a means to a end to get to the story or a necessary evil of RPG's. Honestly it was too tactical for my taste, it wasn't tactical like. Ok lets move over here and flank them and catch them in a cross fire with arrows and when they charge up the fighter rushes out and catches them from behind. But more abstract tactics if that makes sense. I use this power and slide the monster here, so the rogue can get more use of this power etc. The other part about combat that bored me was, you knew who was going to win about half way before the fight ended. It seemed pretty obvious who would win the fight long before it was over, then it just felt like going threw the motions.
The last part, about grind I answer above. The first part is a perfectly valid point.
If one argues that 4E 'is just a miniatures game' I'll argue against that point vehemently. I feel its a well balanced system that does a great job of making skills the centre piece for non combat encounters through out the levels and insures that all the players are important in such scenes without allowing there to be a pure 'face' character that dominates such scenes or allowing the magic system to short circuit them. Its even 'gamist' in this regards so that there is no way for the players to just ask a God questions to answer the riddles of the plot nor can you easily get to 'there' from here. Such magic is always under the DMs control - if your supposed to ask a God then there is a scroll that allows that or an NPC oracle with that ability, if your supposed to fly to a distant island then you need to find the magic portal or befriend the wild Pegasi.
All of that said I agree that, once in combat, its very tactical in nature. The players are always trying to figure out how to knock the baddies into the wizards burning zone of death, demanding that some one help get this slavering beast off of them or arguing about what to do regarding the damn archers that are peppering the mage. Its an excellent tactical miniatures game, designed to be very interdependent on the group as a whole and I can see how one might not want that in their RPG. If battle is meant to be more of a short interlude between plot points other systems may be better.
OK for the final part of this essay...err post. I wanted to address the 'characters are all the same' element but not from so much what they can do mechanically angle which I've argued above. More from a character story hour angle. Now one of the things about 4E, compared to 3.5 is that, at the lowest levels, characters are a lot less defined in their concept. Its possible to make a character and decide what she will be like 10 levels from now in 4E but its neither mechanically all that rewarding or particularly encouraged. Characters tend to 'grow' into what they eventually become and a lot of that occurs as a direct result of their journey during the course of the campaign.
Hence my character started out as a Cleric, I chose the Raven Queen as my Goddess. I made some choices in regards to character design here - so I choose to spread my stats so that I could both fight in melee and do range spells but at the price of not being as good at either, I'm unaligned as befits a worshiper of the Raven Queen, this sort of thing. Notice though that I've really just talked mostly about mechanics here.
When I began this I had a bit of a personality idea, much of that dictated by my stats, but nothing too detailed. What followed was a journey where I learned about my character, some of it through the experiences my character went through, some because of choices I made along the way, some because the combination above got me excited and I filled in back story details. The real point is that the story of my character was not so much what I had created before I began to play but what was 'revealed' to me during the course of the two years I have spent with my character one night a week.
This is an ongoing story, one that started with me knowing that I was a cleric of the Raven Queen, evolved by around 8th into my character being something of a Prophet of Death and then grew beyond that. I know what my character is now but am not yet sure what he will become.
What follows is character story hour...you have been warned.
My name in Relgar Storm Runner. I am 22 years old and I will be that age forever.
I have been told that I was born to the apprentice of a hedge Witch. The story I have been told is that my very pregnant mother died during an outbreak of the scarlet fever. When the priests of the Raven Queen came to collect the bodies they where surprised to see a kick in my dead mothers womb and they cut me from her body. I once believed that this was luck - I understand fate and death lot better now[1].
I am an Immortal, chosen by the Queen of Fate to enact her will, through me, on the mortal world. I have no wings but I am an Angel of Fate and Death[2].
I am an initiate into the secrets of life and death, both a Harbringer of Rebirth and a Disciple of Death. Those who are dying in my presence tend to make a miraculous recovery[3]. If you strike me down I simply stand up again for my mistress is death herself and she has not called for me yet[4].
I wield a sledge hammer named Fate and through it I can shape destiny - yours, mine, anyones[5].
Mannerisms: Relgar views death and dying as essentially a good thing. He believes his message among the living is one of embracing death for death is not something to fear. He can become excited, happy and animated on the topic. Such youth and enthusiasm often premiates his activities until he remembers that he is an Angel of Fate and Death and some decorum regarding that station should be striven for. He tries for a dark and brooding Grim Reaper type persona but it keeps slipping away - replaced by his natural exuberance.
He is the leader (actually Shrike the party wizard is more the power behind the throne if you will) of Relgar's Irregulars. Whose current activities revolve around a feud the group has with a powerful Fey mercenary leader (and whatever dark power is paying him) and defending the city of Outlook.
[1] This is just background material. I wrote a much more detailed description as character background about the point when my character was 8th and I had begin to think of my character as a kind of prophet of fate. There is more involving a terrifying tarot reading of my mothers and the bargain she struck with fate but I'm trying to keep it to highlights here.
[2] Mechanically this comes about because of my Paragon Path - I chose to be an Emissary of a God which changed my type from Natural to Immortal. That I am an Angel of Fate and Death follows from the fact that my Goddess is the Raven Queen.
[3] Through the Raven Queen I get access to fate based religious feats. I chose Harbringer of Rebirth which means that anyone (except myself) who is dying in my presence gets a large bonus to death saves, most should with the bonus, eventually get a 20 which revives them.
[4] Mechanically this is a combination of two abilities. Through the Raven Queen I get access to death based religious feats. I chose Disciple of Death. This is like Harbringer of Rebirth except that it applies to me - granting me a significant bonus on death saves. However I have combo'd this with a power called Heroic Effort which I can use to grant a major bonus to death saves. Every round that I am bleeding out I have a straight up 50% chance of of getting access to a healing surge and simply standing up again.
The only way I can really die is if my companions are all dead and either a group of enemies stand around my body and hack it to pieces or, alternatively, if I face a kind of comic scene where I keep standing back up and a Dragon or some such smacks me back down. After around the sixth time I stood up I'd have run out of surges - even then I'd stabilize but with there being 6 hours of unconsciousness before I get more surges I'd presumably end up a tasty dragon snack.
[5] There is a lot in this sentence. I have a sledge hammer from the use of a superior weapon feat. Its magical and, among other things it acts as my holy symbol (hence 'through it'). A large percentage of my powers are essentially fate based. This includes things like Warp the Weave - which allows me to remove myself from anything that effects me and at least one other person. Thus if a tower falls over and is set to hit me and another character I'll twist fate so it lands just in front of me, a mages rain of fire just happens to miss me etc.
I have something called a Divine Boon - its a magic item that 'is you' instead of being a distinct object. Mine is called Raven Queen's Shroud and it allows me to essentially lay a curse on an enemy so that fate itself is out to get them - which is to say they get a penalty on all their rolls.
I've built a kind of combo into Relgar allowing me to use and reuse the cleric Channel Divinity power Divine Fortune multiple times in a combat (this is done through both a power on my Sledge Hammer Fate and another power on my holy symbol and have spent a feat to make its benefit abnormally good.
Here another complaint I had....though this might be solveable so I'll post it here.
When I made my character (a ranger though I think focused on two weapon fighter took the powers that could be archery or two weapon fighting...) looking at the Paragon Paths none really fitted my character concept(not the whole being good at both 2weapon fighting and archery but in general). I really can't say any of the Paragon Paths that came out fit any better...
So what do you guys do with players who can't decide on a Paragon Path?
Or for that matter Epic destinies....?
|
|
Jeremy yeah as I said things like the monsters may have been fixed later. When I played we just had the PHB 1, DMG 1, and MM 1. and no DDI or other books, so my whole experience is based on the first printing of those three books. Just saying that was my experience with them.
I don't think 4e is just a tactical mini's game, but I do think it is a more abstract tactical game. Which is neither good nor bad, just different and something that didn't appeal to me.
I mostly posted cause I find this discussions interesting on the rare times they stay civil. I personally don't think any game is better or worse that any other game. They all do something things better and some things worse than each other and the one people like tend to be the ones that have rules that best support their style of play.
That is a good idea and it will save time but the real time killer, later in the campaign, is not so much the spells themselves but the spell interactions. Here you need the DM to have done all the spell cards for his baddies as well and you'll likely need the books marked to the relevant section of the rules. Finally, while having the text at hand will definitely help, you'll still spend a significant amount of time scrutinizing it for the exact wording and then reviewing the wording on the spells its interacting with.That will happen maybe the first time....but rarely after that. that is the sweet part about the power cards. You have the basics on the card. these basics are the most important part of the power/spell. Once you have played the power/spell a few times you know how it will interect in 99% of situations.
A DM that likes the idea will collect their "spell cards" as the campaign progresses. As his casters get higher and higher in level they will have added most spells commonly memorized until the point that they rarely need to write a card again. It is not an all at one time type of work. It is a dribs and drab work.
I guess what I'm saying is that I found that the situation with unique spell interactions came up far more often then 1% of the time. Further answering the question in one case did not mean that the answer applied, particularly, to other spells. It generally always was something that could be resolved but circumstances usually required careful reading of the spells in question. Arguing about spells and how they worked was pretty much one of the mainstays of the message boards back in the day as I recall.
As an example of what I mean: In the last fight I did to wind up my final 3.5 campaign the players are battling against a pair of fiendish sisters (they look and talk like 16 year olds to boot - lots of fun). One is a wilder and the other a sorceress. Anyway from experience I know that I need to deny the Paladin the ability to make a full attack - he gets one of those off and it'll be all over. So I hammer him with Blasphemy.
This is where the fun begins - The Psion player uses an immediate interrupt power that gives him a move and uses that move to activate a Belt of Battle he then uses the actions gained from the Belt of Battle to move and use a kind of Psionic plane shift to pull himself and the Paladin into a pocket dimension where the Paladin will be safe from the Blasphemy.
OK so immediately upon doing this the questions start up - this psion power that allows one to move. Its obvious intention was for actual movement but the player wants to use the move action to activate a magic item. Whether that is legal or not is going to depend in the wording in the power - does this give you a move action or just movement? Does it say you need to move with the move action (if it gives you one) or does it leave your use of that action open to doing other things? Next we need to at least glance at Belt of Battle. If you have a move action everything should be hunky dory but we do have the odd case where its been activated as an interrupt and we need to make sure that this is not some how precluded.
After glancing over the ruling it was felt everything should work fine though we hit a bit of a hole in the rules for the Fiend as she was going to do something (cast Blasphemy) but before she could her target left to an extra dimensional plane. I make a call that she can instead choose a new spell and stopped to review her options - though her potential targets where all now out of line of sight.
The slow down, besides for hold ups where circumstances change and whole spell lists need to be reviewed, is really in the actual wording itself. Every spell is a unique instance and the ways it interacts with other spells is dependent on the actual words used in the spell. Sometimes keywords will tell you what is what but usually they, when they even are the point at issue, are often just the starting point.
Further more the issue tends to grow along with the power of the spells and magical items in question. It required that the players be reasonably high level just for them to have the resources to use a power that activated a magic item that allowed one of them to move and then use another power to escape to an extra dimensional refuge with an endangered companion. Hence, when they win the fight and get the 100,000 gold pieces treasure they will spend that to pick up even more spectacular gear with, often, increasingly complex and awesome powers. Meanwhile the spell casters gain ever more impressive spells and many of the spells are not particularly straight forward.
Hence we'll be back to looking at the specific wording when a character uses an out of sequence power to do something like an instant summons to figure out if its intentional (oops - not intentional, I know its not really intentional...is it RAW) for the newly summoned creature to get its actions when its not actually the casters turn.
|
|
Hey usualy I stay away from posting 4th ed boards...I usualy just lurk there. As I said before I love RPG design theory. So it is interesting to see what people are talking about....it is also why I am active on 3 other RPG message boards. I keep my posts to things that are really editionaless (like what a GM or Player should do in x)...and this threads when I hanging around 4th ed boards.
The thing is probably more of interesting study is why gamers have such different factual evidence in regards to the two different systems? This thread has been pretty much civil...though a little comments like 4th ed is souless(both are souless...their are after all just a pile of books it is up to you to bring the soul in...)...or the whole absolute statement that 3.5 combats take longer at high levels strains it just a tad. And people have discussed this in a civilized manner before even over at the WotC boards...though after a few pages enough trolls from both sides get involved to make it unpleasant.
That's fair enough.
Anyway...I am curious if you guys are tired of these threads...why post on them? I mean does it really matter if a 4th ed 'hater' gets the facts wrong about the game? I know why I rally to 3.5 defense when it is under attack...but why do you guys do it?
You get drawn into a conversation. And unless it is outright unpleasant, you carry on as it's impolite not to reply. But there is nothing much new in this.
Here another complaint I had....though this might be solveable so I'll post it here.
When I made my character (a ranger though I think focused on two weapon fighter took the powers that could be archery or two weapon fighting...) looking at the Paragon Paths none really fitted my character concept(not the whole being good at both 2weapon fighting and archery but in general). I really can't say any of the Paragon Paths that came out fit any better...
So what do you guys do with players who can't decide on a Paragon Path?
I've not been through them all but I'm a bit surprised. According to the Compendium there are 34 different Paragon Paths a Ranger may take. Some are also keyed to race so we'd need to know that as well. Also the archery type stuff. Was that a bow are where you hurling javelins and the like?
A quick glance over the Paragon Paths and I see that the Wayfinder, Darkstrider and Horizon Walker all have powers that can be ranged or melee. There are probably more as well - I did not look at all the options.
Here another complaint I had....though this might be solveable so I'll post it here.
When I made my character (a ranger though I think focused on two weapon fighter took the powers that could be archery or two weapon fighting...) looking at the Paragon Paths none really fitted my character concept(not the whole being good at both 2weapon fighting and archery but in general). I really can't say any of the Paragon Paths that came out fit any better...
So what do you guys do with players who can't decide on a Paragon Path?
I've not been through them all but I'm a bit surprised. According to the Compendium there are 34 different Paragon Paths a Ranger may take. Some are also keyed to race so we'd need to know that as well. Also the archery type stuff. Was that a bow are where you hurling javelins and the like?
A quick glance over the Paragon Paths and I see that the Wayfinder, Darkstrider and Horizon Walker all have powers that can be ranged or melee. There are probably more as well - I did not look at all the options.
As I said...the whole ranged and melee was not that important to the question. I admitt I have not seen all 32 of them....(wow talk about class bloat...sorry). Lets just say for the sake of the question none really fit with my concept. I am 10th level about to kick to 11th level and I just can't seem to find a Paragon Path that fits...What do you do? Tell the player stop being a sooo nit picky and pick one...(well maybe much more politer but even typing this might see it as nit picking...) or do you make one? Or maybe 'reskin'( I hate that word...,) one to fit concept better or is there a way to be just a 11th level base class minus the paragon paths. It is more of a general question...replace ranger with a class that just came out so it might have 2 or 3 if it makes it easier.
Another question...one of things that make mildly interested in playing 4th ed are the duel classing rules(pretty much actualy multi- classing rules for 4th ed...for those who don't keep up.) What is your opinion on them? I have not seen much use in my area...heck no one even really talks about them anymore. The rules seemed interesting to me. Any experience with them that you can share would be of most interest to me.
Isn't saying one is a a Bugatti and one is a Ford functionally the same as what I said?To some extent, but I'm more making the point that 3e is hampered by its complexity as it's easy to screw up if tinkered with. But you are saying that the Bugatti is more useful for hauling your wardrobe, and I disagree with that.
And I would describe it more as a 1980's Ford than a new one.I disagree again. I'd see the Bugatti as the obsolete tech, frankly. 3e is of a time and place, and so is 4e. 3e's time and place was about fifteen years ago, 4e's more dealing with the market as it currently exists.
You rolled eyes earlier at a similarly broad comment from somebody else, but I will refrain.
However, bringing in the supposed concerns of "the current market" basically changes this to a matter of who is better: Madonna or Lady Ga-Ga. Personally, the ages-long record of the general public proving they will choose crap over greatness would steer me away from ever bringing that up. Thankfully, tabletop RPGers are not the general public, so I'm sure we can return to discussing this in a way that is a little more on-topic.
You said earlier that 3.5 was easily broken by the slightest tinkering. And if I'm not mistaken you also said in another post that the system didn't offer means of facilitating said tinkering. I would argue the opposite on both counts and for the same reasons.
3.5 was a tinkering wonderland. Oodles of rules were broken down to their basics to facilitate the creation of everything from new monsters to magic items, in exacting detail. Moreover, there was a rule for practically everything, setting a precedent for any rule you might have to make up to handle the rare situations not covered. I found (and still find) would-be sticky places to be no problem at all. I just quickly adapt something similar, which is always easily at hand.
And personally, the only tinkering situation I ever found game breaking (aside from the first version of the poorly-tested half-ogre PC), was when a player was actively cheating. 3.x called the +2 the DM's Best Friend, specifically, I think, because you could tinker on the fly with a bonus or penalty of +2 - +4 and find the game amenable (and not at all broken) to it.
Here another complaint I had....though this might be solveable so I'll post it here.
When I made my character (a ranger though I think focused on two weapon fighter took the powers that could be archery or two weapon fighting...) looking at the Paragon Paths none really fitted my character concept(not the whole being good at both 2weapon fighting and archery but in general). I really can't say any of the Paragon Paths that came out fit any better...
So what do you guys do with players who can't decide on a Paragon Path?
I've not been through them all but I'm a bit surprised. According to the Compendium there are 34 different Paragon Paths a Ranger may take. Some are also keyed to race so we'd need to know that as well. Also the archery type stuff. Was that a bow are where you hurling javelins and the like?
A quick glance over the Paragon Paths and I see that the Wayfinder, Darkstrider and Horizon Walker all have powers that can be ranged or melee. There are probably more as well - I did not look at all the options.
As I said...the whole ranged and melee was not that important to the question. I admitt I have not seen all 32 of them....(wow talk about class bloat...sorry). Lets just say for the sake of the question none really fit with my concept. I am 10th level about to kick to 11th level and I just can't seem to find a Paragon Path that fits...What do you do? Tell the player stop being a sooo nit picky and pick one...(well maybe much more politer but even typing this might see it as nit picking...) or do you make one? Or maybe 'reskin'( I hate that word...,) one to fit concept better or is there a way to be just a 11th level base class minus the paragon paths. It is more of a general question...replace ranger with a class that just came out so it might have 2 or 3 if it makes it easier.
Another question...one of things that make mildly interested in playing 4th ed are the duel classing rules
Sorry - I thought your sentence was meant to specify that the class actually had to be both competent in melee AND good at range as opposed to those not being necessary.
I've never really encountered 'I can't find an idea that excites me'. I mean these are not word accurate for every character - they are a general idea. Of the above three we have a nomad like character that takes him where ever fate leads (Horizon Walker), An expert who understands the value of money or alternatively values civilization and is either for hire, already working for some organization or would like to be working for some organization and a ranger focused on the Under Dark. These are just three examples. While things like 'must be equally good at bow and melee' can limit things and some of them require that your a specific race there is still a pretty wide range.
Alternatively one can use a Paragon Path to more fully multi-class, essentially becoming a 'build your own' Hybrid. If that appealed to the player I might let them respec to go down this route and I could see myself working with the fluff that a player offered and trying to layer that on top of one of the closer options.
stuffWas it your first day using the Belt or the Psionic power?
No, but it was the first time they had been used in conjunction. It was also the first time they had been used, at least in this manner, outside of their obvious intention. We new that a belt of battle could give actions - we were not certain it could do so when it was not your turn. We new that the psionic power allowed the psion to run away as an interrupt but were not sure if it gave him a move action to do with as he pleased.
Note also that I was pretty sure that the Belt of Battle would work if there was an action to activate it. The issue however had become that the effects where so devastating that being pretty sure was no longer cutting it. I needed something that approached certainty.
In part just in the interests of fairness - if I had said "don't bother with the Belt of Battle, it works." My players would certianly have let that slide, the ruling is in their favour. On the other hand if the shoe had been on the other foot and I had used a Belt of Battle in this manner for my bad guy to avoid their Wizards thermo nuke they'd be grabbing the books to double check that I really could slip out of their grasp.
In some sense, at this point, to be fair to my monsters I had to hold them to the same level exactness they where now holding me. The stakes where just to high to avoid this. At this level the first side to make their thermo nuke 'stick' probably wins.
I am 10th level about to kick to 11th level and I just can't seem to find a Paragon Path that fits...What do you do? Tell the player stop being a sooo nit picky and pick one...(well maybe much more politer but even typing this might see it as nit picking...) or do you make one? Or maybe 'reskin'( I hate that word...,) one to fit concept better or is there a way to be just a 11th level base class minus the paragon paths. It is more of a general question...replace ranger with a class that just came out so it might have 2 or 3 if it makes it easier.
Stupid message board timed out on an edit so my first reply was not exactly what I wanted. Anyway my answer would be reskin - even the most corner case class, these days, has 10 options so one should more or less get at least into the ballpark of what is desired.
I'm not really sure what is being asked regarding Hybrids. I will say that our party's warlord is actually a Hybrid Warlord/Artificer. Since an Artificer is kind of like a magic based Warlord the two synergize.
One reason you may not see this in use as much any more is because most of the options don't work all that well together. You really want two that are in some sense doing the same thing. If your a fighter/psion your kind of not really anything - your a fighter with less melee attacks that can be sticky but does not really have the hps to actually work as a defender...and worse yet your psuedo defender wants to stop being one part way through the fight so it can run backward and use psion powers. Your party members will be unhappy - they want you to choose some role and cover it. Defenders are useful, Psions (which I think are controllers) are useful and we can work with either but a character that is not really either is not worth much as a team player and 4E is all about interacting as a team.
If your a fighter/cleric that is better - now your a defender that can heal and clerics can be designed to be melee combatants so that lines up...course why not just be a Paladin...there is a defender that can heal as well. This is sort of the problem. There is already probably a base class that does what your hybrid is sort of doing. A swordmage is, more or less, a fighter/mage - except its powers are designed from the ground up to support what the class is trying to do.
The result is that there must be more then a hundred possible combinations but in reality there are only maybe two dozen that synergize well enough to be viable.
|
|
stuffWas it your first day using the Belt or the Psionic power?No, but it was the first time they had been used in conjunction. It was also the first time they had been used, at least in this manner, outside of their obvious intention. We new that a belt of battle could give actions - we were not certain it could do so when it was not your turn. We new that the psionic power allowed the psion to run away as an interrupt but were not sure if it gave him a move action to do with as he pleased.
Note also that I was pretty sure that the Belt of Battle would work if there was an action to activate it. The issue however had become that the effects where so devastating that being pretty sure was no longer cutting it. I needed something that approached certainty.
In part just in the interests of fairness - if I had said "don't bother with the Belt of Battle, it works." My players would certianly have let that slide, the ruling is in their favour. On the other hand if the shoe had been on the other foot and I had used a Belt of Battle in this manner for my bad guy to avoid their Wizards thermo nuke they'd be grabbing the books to double check that I really could slip out of their grasp.
In some sense, at this point, to be fair to my monsters I had to hold them to the same level exactness they where now holding me. The stakes where just to high to avoid this. At this level the first side to make their thermo nuke 'stick' probably wins.
And from then on there would have been no book searching. You knew what the belt and the power were capable of. Having a card as a reminder for the power and the item are all you would need from then on. Don't you think? Even if there is a different interaction with another item or power or spell etc...you should not need to dive into the books again. The write up on the card and previous experience in a ruling would be all you need.
|
|
Isn't saying one is a a Bugatti and one is a Ford functionally the same as what I said?To some extent, but I'm more making the point that 3e is hampered by its complexity as it's easy to screw up if tinkered with. But you are saying that the Bugatti is more useful for hauling your wardrobe, and I disagree with that.
And I would describe it more as a 1980's Ford than a new one.I disagree again. I'd see the Bugatti as the obsolete tech, frankly. 3e is of a time and place, and so is 4e. 3e's time and place was about fifteen years ago, 4e's more dealing with the market as it currently exists.
You rolled eyes earlier at a similarly broad comment from somebody else, but I will refrain.
Except, of course, you haven't. But yeah, my metaphor frankly looks shakier and shakier the more it is examined.
However, bringing in the supposed concerns of "the current market" basically changes this to a matter of who is better: Madonna or Lady Ga-Ga. Personally, the ages-long record of the general public proving they will choose crap over greatness would steer me away from ever bringing that up. Thankfully, tabletop RPGers are not the general public, so I'm sure we can return to discussing this in a way that is a little more on-topic.
By comment was more that 3.5 was addressing other RPGs (many of which were going to the wall at the time anyway) and the gorrilla in the room these days are computer games - hence the differing influences. And my response was more a smart-alec response to the smart-alec response I received about 4e being a 1980s vehicle, whereas it seems to me that 4e is addressing more contemporary aspects in the "gamer experience" (embracing table-top, computers, films, books, and so on) rather than being out of date or rickety. PF is doing well, I'll admit it, but it is rebore of an old system which very much shows the influences of the previous editions - 4e is by far a more radical version of D&D compared with 3e. Doesn't mean anyone has to like it more, of course, though obviously I do.
You said earlier that 3.5 was easily broken by the slightest tinkering. And if I'm not mistaken you also said in another post that the system didn't offer means of facilitating said tinkering. I would argue the opposite on both counts and for the same reasons.
3.5 was a tinkering wonderland. Oodles of rules were broken down to their basics to facilitate the creation of everything from new monsters to magic items, in exacting detail. Moreover, there was a rule for practically everything, setting a precedent for any rule you might have to make up to handle the rare situations not covered. I found (and still find) would-be sticky places to be no problem at all. I just quickly adapt something similar, which is always easily at hand.
And personally, the only tinkering situation I ever found game...
I think that's a fair comment, and on second thoughts I'm reconsidering some of my comments above. However, for general play (as opposed to major rejig) I think 4e is easier to handle if a new rule needs to be made up. Jeremy makes a good point about powers above, and the difficulty in rejigging those in 4e, which I hadn't taken into consideration. However, while your experience says one thing, and amongst friends anything "abusive" could be handwaved or ignored on the basis that good roleplayers wouldn't necessarily exploit them, that's different to creating new rules which stand much scrutiny.
That said, it's actually pretty easy to do much of what you describe in 4e - easier, if anything, given that the rules are much simpler and they haven't co-opted character creation rules for monster creation, for example. What is hard in 4e is to create a balanced suite of powers, but then it would be hard to rewrite the spells section too. Harder, given that 3e spells do not stick to any obvious power grading.
|
|
So Digital, here's a brief list that we can discuss about the reasons I switched back to 3E based systems, after trying to switch to 4E and then feeling like I wasn't playing an RPG (or at least not the RPG).
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my query and apologies for taking so long to respond - I was out of action for a day due to food poisoning and then I have been away for a long weekend helping run a freeform larp. Anyway, on to your points...
1) Too much like a tactical miniatures game. There were very specific mechanics that had no justification or explanation, such as rangers being the only people who can dual wield (holding two weapons doesn't count), all harmful effects just inflicting various amounts of HP damage, and stuff like that.
I don't have an issue with only Rangers being able to dual wield - 4e is a class based system which inevitably try to enforce some niche protection. 3.x/PF seems to have similar restrictions as well - e.g. why can only Fighters get the Disruptive Feat to make it harder for adjacent casters to cast defensively? Surely the Magus would be the perfect class to be able to learn how to do this (being melee fighters who also know magic). With this sort of stuff I just shrug my shoulders and accept it as something that comes hand in hand with playing a class based system.
In terms of harmful effects only doing HP damage, many powers have other effects (being Slowed, Stunned, Deafened, Weakened, Dazed, Blinded etc) so I am not quite sure to what you are referring - could you give some examples? I know level drain has gone, as has ability damage, but I just see this as part of the design decisions to simplify and stream line some things - while you may not like that reduction in the number of ways to describe adverse effects I wouldn't say it necessarily makes 4e more of a tactical miniatures game.
2) It's not internally consistent in the least, which continuously was breaking verisimilitude for my group and I. Stuff like fluctuating DCs/Damage based on level (chandeliers falling on you at 3rd level and chandeliers falling on you at 8th level mean different things, swinging from a rope at 1st level is easier DC-wise than doing so at 5th level, etc).
I think this has been discussed heavily in the original FR thread this spawned off from. Basically I see the DC and Damage by level table to be used to set appropriate challenges. Its basically saying a level X challenge should be a DC Y to overcome and do damage of Z - at least that is how I read it.
So lets use that table on p42 of the DMG to set a Difficulty for Shiera the 8th-level rogue to swing on a chandelier and kick an ogre into a brazier of burning coals behind it (i.e. the example in the book). The GM selects DC 14 (Moderate for level 7 to 9) doing damage of 2d8 + 5 (High Normal Damage), cool.
Later in the campaign when Shiera has attained 22nd level she finds herself fighting a demon in the same chandeliered room, still with the same braziers (unlikely I know, but lets go with it). Now, theoretically she could just try the exact same stunt again and the DC and resulting damage would likely be the same. However, as now her At Will attack power with a dagger does 2d4 + 5 (Dex) + 5 (Magic) damage (an average of 15 points) then 2d8+5 damage (average of 14) does not seem so attractive, therefore perhaps Shiera needs to try a more outlandish (and more difficult) stunt to do more damage.
Sheira's player asks to swing off the chandelier but not just push the demon into the brazier but actually kick it forcefully into it to the point it is likely stuck for a few moments ensuring a good ong searing! And she also wants to sever the cords holding the chandelier up and bring it down on top of the demon doing it some extra damage as well. The DM sets a DC of 24 (Moderate for level 19 to 21) and the total damage of 4d6 + 8 (High Normal Damage).
That shows that although the DCs and Damage has changed, the description of what is actually done has changed too. Bascially the DCs and Damage relate to appropriate challenges and dangers the characters will face. Perhaps it could have done with more words in the DMG to convey this though, I would agree with that.
3) It lacks interesting monsters. Creatures were severely dumbed down. There's not really much difference between a level 1 kobold skirmisher and a level 1 orc skirmisher, for example. In my 3E-based games, dealing with goblins is a vastly different experience than dealing with Orcs, or wild dogs for example, even though they're all the same level of encounter.
I can't really comment on this as I have only actually read the 4e MM but still haven't actually got round to reading the 3.5 MM (because it was never available in PDF), however for 4e I can sort of agree that the stats seem less important in terms of differentiating one monster from another - a GM can easily re-skin the stats; I have used hobgoblin stats for goblins for example.
However, the stats do still make a difference and there is a nice tie in between the stats, the roles and the roleplaying I put into them - goblins are sneaky and shrill, uttering humiliating curses and insults, whilst orcs would be fierce and proud shouting war cries as they charge head on. I would tend to use skirmishers and lurkers for the goblins, soldiers and brutes for the orcs, and while I may use a Cavern Choker (Lurker) and describe it as a Goblin assassin quite ably, the special abilities given to the actual goblins still make them distinctive and an interesting fight for the PCs (e.g. shifting away 5 feet when missed by an attack).
4) WotC said most monsters only matter as far as they are in combat, and they're only in combat a few rounds, so they need few abilities. Monsters now have fewer abilities but combats are longer thanks to inflated Hp. This led to a lot of repeated actions over and over again.
I think having specific abilities (NPCs) and powers (PCs) can sometimes lead to players and GMs actually thinking they are their only options, and I must admit I found that myself when I started GMing 4e. But there are still options such as BullRush, Grab, Aid Another etc so options can be more varied. I do think the high hitpoints can be an issue - and I think in later MMs WotC toned that down, but for me I just tend to use a good mix of minions and full monsters so overall the combat doesn't drag.
5) Can't replicate the kind of fantasy I want from my D&D games. I want enchanters, necromancers, evocation (as in the binding of outsiders, not blasty D&D evocation), powerful curses, evil creatures lurking in the shadows who can drain your life away. Not "it deals 3 damage and grants combat advantage to its allies".
There are pretty much no enchantment effects in 4E, nor necromancy, nor illusions; at least not in the core rulebooks. When WotC released illusion magic on a web enhancement, it turned out to just be a different kind of attack spell.
There are just too many fantasy staples that are either completely missing, or are not allowed to the PCs. Undead are abound through the monster manual, and there's plenty of times where they say they're created with "dark magic rituals", but these rituals do not exist. A player cannot slay the wizard that controls the undead ('cause I say they control 'em, as the GM) and grab his spells and learn his secrets (no secrets to learn).
I could try and add all this stuff back in, but I don't wanna patch it just so it's playable.
I think this (and point 7) is probably the biggest and most interesting point here. D&D 4e has become a much more focused game than perhaps D&D had become with 3.x. 4e goes with the assumption that the PCs are the good guys, the heroes who will be fighting the undead rather than raising them. The PCs are the ones who will be gifted with the Shrieking sword of Hassrall by those that have forged it in the ice fires of Kordal Vale, rather than the ones who actually forge it themselves. The evil wizard will ensorcel peasant NPCs to lead the PCs into a trap but the PCs will only be dominated by the evil wizard in battle, and not for long as thei great will shrugs it off.
With that in mind the game really doesn't need rules for raising skeletons, animating zombies, crafting magic swords or long term domination or charm spells, it all comes down to GM fiat - it is assumed the evil necromancer used magical rituals to summons his undead hordes, but as that will have all happened off screen no mechanics are needed.
I can understand that you may feel this much more focused game is not the same sort of game as D&D3.5 or Pathfinder, and you would be right in respect to the above aspects, but a more narrow focus does not make 4e any less of an RPG.
6) Not enough character options. [...] 4E has no multiclassing. Sorry, but I don't consider spending a feat to get an at-will ability of another class 1/day a multiclassing system. Just doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. [...] To make matters worse, there's pretty much only 2 ways to build a character in core 4E.
I haven't had enough experience with trying to make enough characters to really comment on this, likewise I haven't in 3.x either tbh. So far 4e has enough options for what characters I have created, with the very open nature of the Skill Training feat meaning some of the need to multi class has gone (e.g. I created an Wizard with Thievery as a trained skill, bought a thieves kit and it was a very able burglar as well as wizard.
Also I am happy to re-skin classes and the addition of what multi-classing 4e does have helps to create something that does the job - for example a Bard War Poet in 3.5 became a 4e Warlord with a multiclassed teleport skill to mimic a Dragon Mark of Passage.
7) Lack of skills and/or out of combat abilities. Maybe my group is just the minority, but y'know, my group is all over skills (even crafting stuff; though we did house rule crafting to be x10 faster), but 4E really has nothing outside of purely adventuring skills; which made it feel very empty, and in play we found ourselves missing a lot of things; including preform and the like.
This goes back to 4e being a more focused game, it just may not meet your groups expectation in that respect. Of what 3.5 and PF I have played I didn't see Craft used much if at all, and skills such as Profession were just a waste of skill points as I found such rolls were never called for unless I actually brought it to the GMs attention.
Now with 4e I feel freed from the Profession skills and players can describe any background for their character without either a) having it at odds with a lack of skill in that profession, or b) wasting 2 skill ranks in Profession (Farmer) because that was his background (I did this with a Cleric of mine).
And after about 20 odd session last week was the first time I may have asked for a Perform roll, but I realised that actually the performance was being used to reveal information to prompt a response and the skill check was really Insight to notice that response (the performance could have been crap and it would still have provoked the response).
So whilst I occassionally may lament the lack of an odd skill, I really haven't found 4e suffers because of it - but I know my game and my current group aren't archetypal and so you and your group may have issues with this.
Rituals take way too long and cost too much.
I haven't seen much Ritual use myself but they don't seem overly expensive to cast (perhaps to learn) and 10 minutes or an hour isn't long to wait to use a ritual, and if it is it puts that pressure of time on the PCs. My LFR wizard has used Tenser's Floating Disc several times and in my last campaign session Comprehend Languages was used to great effect. Maybe if I played 4e more I may notice an issue, but for now it hasn't even occured to me that cost and time may be issues.
Skill challenges don't work as written.
I know WotC have played around with DCs a lot, but the Skill Challenge rules as found in the Deluxe DMG (i.e. including first errata) have been very successful for me, being used to track a courier who went to ground and also investigating the theft of a Night Hag's Heartstone. I also used them for big negotiations that would really last days or weeks. Maybe I have been lucky but the rules and advice have worked fine for me.
Most class features are measured in rounds or only have combat utility.
This I can agree with. I wish more powers used the "Sustained" duration rather than Save Ends. For example Invisibility can be used indefinately so it has great use outside of combat, however Sleep has a duration of Save Ends and so has little use outside of combat.
It all falls down to improvisation at this point ("Hey, I found out our enemy Korlen will be at the Duke's ball this weekend [...]
In such cases I usually use common sense and review the character background and roleplaying to date. If a character was described as having grown up amongst travelling ministrels, or being tutored on the classics including a musical instrument, then I may simply allow it to work with a Bluff check and any performances may be a Charisma ability check (which includes half level) perhaps with a +2 or +5 bonus (the latter being the same as being skilled) if the background suggests the PC should be capable.
I really think if D&D 4e had codified such advice in the way Savage Worlds did with Common Knowledge checks, then it wouldn't get so much stick for lack of such skills.
Lava is Lava, no matter what level you're playing at.
I agree that it would be nice to have such hazards codified in terms of damage, and I think that 4e is lacking in this (falling damage is there and cave ins are codified as traps with specific damage, but lava is missing), however I don't think there is anything explicitly stating that it isn't internally consistent. Page 42 is a framework for generating hazards that area challenge, the fluff provided by the GM shoudl indicate why the damage is so great etc.
4E doesn't even have any sort of system similar to object hardness. In the time it takes you to cast a knock ritual, you could have just punched the damn door down with your hand, since 100 rounds later, you're dealing like 250 average damage for it (with a d4), and it didn't cost you a copper piece; so it's obvious they really didn't put much thought into environments, exploration, or anything like that.
4e does have Resistance that could work for this, it just isn't applied, so yep I agree with this completely. Rather than HP multipliers for different materials I think adding a Resistance (All) of 5 or 10 would have been better.
Summary
It felt like my group and I were just improvising on a game of chess.
I think that if you and your group still want the broad open game that is 3.x then, yes, trying to use 4e for it may require you to improvise more and so 4e obviously isn't for you. And I think this is perhaps the first time I understand why some people say 4e just isn't D&D anymore - to me it is, but that may be because I always focused on the bits that 4e still focuses on
You're only allowed to use magic items x/day, even if it's a different magic item.
This I just see as a purely metagame mechanic to provide some narrative pacing (similar to the At Will / Encounter / Daily non magic powers) - it isn't realistic perhaps, but lends itself to creating a good story.
In short, it didn't/doesn't feel like an RPG to me. Felt like a tabletop miniatures game, as I said.
Fair enough, if that is how it feels to you I cannot argue with that, but I think it might be worth playing under some different GMs and with an acceptance of what 4e is focused on (and what it isn't)
----
Anyway, my next task it to read the rest of the posts to this thread :)
And from then on there would have been no book searching. You knew what the belt and the power were capable of. Having a card as a reminder for the power and the item are all you would need from then on. Don't you think? Even if there is a different interaction with another item or power or spell etc...you should not need to dive into the books again. The write up on the card and previous experience in a ruling would be all you need.
For the interaction between these two powers sure but I disagree about other interactions being so straight forward. If a player tries to use Limited Wish to simulate a Belt of Battle or recharge a Belt of Battle my previous experience does not really apply - we'd have to look at Limited Wish and maybe Belt of Battle again. If a player uses some kind of Echo spell meant to double the effects of a Belt of Battle we'd be back to scrutinizing the text to figure out how this works. That was the thing about high level play - corner case situations where surprisingly common. Coupled with the new and ever more potent magic constantly being introduced and the effect does not really stop.
If it happened to be determined that Limited Wish could not recharge a Belt of Battle we would probably still have to look again when the clerics spell Miracle came on line.
I really think discussing 4e/3.x has become a religious issue. At the heart of the matter in the Edition Wars is deeply personal. Everyone has their own personal view on how the world works, and a Roleplaying Game, such as D&D vs. any other out there; represents an individual's or many individuals' own personal biases on how the world would work.
When it comes to Edition Wars, this is a deeply personal thing for everyone involved. For some games, its really tough to find players (e.g. Rolemaster and Feng Shui). Your hunting down your players.
For others, it's easy to find a fisherman's net. But when it comes down to discussing D&D as to which is best, you aren't going to find any winners or losers in a discussion like this.
Roleplaying Games and which is BEST are deeply personal to each gamer. Look at Digital Mage's retorts to the OP. He is saying nothing different I haven't heard from other people who like 4e.
In my own personal experience, I had a fight with a player my very first game DMing 4e. The fight has deeply scarred my impressions on this game and really, there's no love for the system there. Any discussion would pretty much have me yelling at the top of my lungs: "4E PIDGEON-HOLES THE DM!" Which was my experience.
I borrow heavily from T.V. for my play style. The more I make my campaigns like a T.V. series, the more satisfied I am. 4e just . . . takes away . . . that intention. In other words, it makes it more frustrating to do that sort of style.
I can't do Hercules: the Legendary Journeys with 4e. Hercules would have to be level 11 starting out according to 4e (he already had a reputation, and that was gained from 4 movies). That, and the fact that a player fought with me over the whole thing has really turned me off. 4e isn't the best system for me.
Now, Digital Mage, you go ahead and you affirm this. IF you do, then you prove the Hypothesis that there can be no one Objective solution to the Edition Wars and everyone will know that this whole Pathfinder vs. 4e thing is deeply emotional.
But then, what are rules? Really. Do we really need them to run a Roleplaying game?
@Elton: What you are really talking about here...almost has nothing to do with a Edition war. Heck when I read you wanted your game just like a TV show...I could see some body pro Pathfinder/3.5 say..."wow 4th ed should be perfect for that kinda of shallow RPing."
There has and always will be clashes over play styles.
A edition war...is probably overdramtic...is a little different.
Either way...just because it is a emtional issue for some does not mean people can't discuss it...heck personaly I think these are the kind of things we do need to talk about...as long as you can keep it civil. You have to explore differences to understand them...just my opinion.
On a side note I have to ask you....not trying to insult you really...I would think run Hercules would be great in 4th edition...even at first level you are pretty much a larger than life type hero.
Also....why did you let one player being a jerk turn you off of 4th ed? I mean that seemed to me atleast a little close minded. Not trying to be overly criticle here...but it just seems you are a pretty open minded guy, it just seems odd.
|
|
And from then on there would have been no book searching. You knew what the belt and the power were capable of. Having a card as a reminder for the power and the item are all you would need from then on. Don't you think? Even if there is a different interaction with another item or power or spell etc...you should not need to dive into the books again. The write up on the card and previous experience in a ruling would be all you need.For the interaction between these two powers sure but I disagree about other interactions being so straight forward. If a player tries to use Limited Wish to simulate a Belt of Battle or recharge a Belt of Battle my previous experience does not really apply - we'd have to look at Limited Wish and maybe Belt of Battle again. If a player uses some kind of Echo spell meant to double the effects of a Belt of Battle we'd be back to scrutinizing the text to figure out how this works. That was the thing about high level play - corner case situations where surprisingly common. Coupled with the new and ever more potent magic constantly being introduced and the effect does not really stop.
If it happened to be determined that Limited Wish could not recharge a Belt of Battle we would probably still have to look again when the clerics spell Miracle came on line.
Are you seriously continuing to try and say that game aids do not help speed play?
It seems to me that you just like slowing your game down by rule lawyering in the books during a game.
Every one of your situations are a One and Done situation. Limited Wish/Wish/Miracle work virtually the same. When you now had been through one you had done them all.
All the while you have Belt of Battle main mechanics on a card, in front of you, all the time.
And corner case situations are not common in any level of play. That is why they are corner case situations. Like most things to do with High Level Play (talking about 13th+ specifically), these are the end piece of campaigns. Thus, the interactions of the things you have been doing for the previous 12ish levels have been the cornerstone of your character, and have been ironed out long ago. Not to mention that the higher in level you go the less likely that you are going to play that level (look at most APs...they are ending at about level 15 most of the time...higher level game play is almost a corner case in and of itself since the majority of your play is at lower levels).
So if your players main tactics are going to include casting Limited Wish to activate a Belt of Battle to trigger a Maze spell and you have to look it all up the first time. that means that every other time you have that tactic coming you know how it works and thus do not have to look it up any more. AND you can deduce how to work it when your player gets Miracle or Wish...or even if he wants to trigger another spell.
|
|
Look at Digital Mage's retorts to the OP. He is saying nothing different I haven't heard from other people who like 4e.
However, hopefully other people may read my words and maybe realise that there is more to 4e than the tactical miniatures aspect - there are still people out there who seem to use that label whilst not expecting that same label to be used for 3.5 or PF (or Savage Worlds etc).
Also, as part of my thinking in creating my post I may have had a bit of an epiphany in understanding what people may mean when they say 4e "doesn't feel like D&D" - so this thread and my post has been useful to me at least.
Now, Digital Mage, you go ahead and you affirm this. IF you do, then you prove the Hypothesis that there can be no one Objective solution to the Edition Wars and everyone will know that this whole Pathfinder vs. 4e thing is deeply emotional.
I am not quite sure what you are asking me to affirm or not, could you clarify please?
As for being no objective solution to the Edition Wars - if you mean in terms of an answer as to which system is better I agree completely - they are two different games (enough so that I play both). However, I do like discussions that might reveal why someone thinks 4e is just a tactical minis game because I really cannot see what it lacks that PF has that could give that impression.
But then, what are rules? Really. Do we really need them to run a Roleplaying game?
I like rules, sometimes I like to play a game and crunch numbers and make characters and pull off cool stuff using knowledge of the rules - when I do I go to 3.5, PF and 4e. Other times I like very rules light stuff, focusing on the social stuff and play freeforms. And other times still I like something in between and play stuff like Doctor Who, FATE and World of Darkness. Its all good, and they all scratch different itches :)
I think powers and effects is the core issue of 4E (whether you like or hate it), as there is only so many ways to describe a power. It is like developing 20 different spell casting classes in 3.5, and trying to keep them unique and flavorful. I think 4E does a good job, but they have already established an uphill battle. As to powers being the same, in regards to damage or similar affects, that is good thing (with the variety 4E has established). I also appreciate the simplicity of the system.
So if I were to change the system, the first step would be to introduce more at-will or encounter powers as you level, and take a serious look at each class to implement powers that make sense. I would also allow powers to be more broad, as to not limit them to specific implements or weapons (except for melee versus ranged). If you did want to use implements like wands, orbs, etc. then give them an added benefit that is evident in classes like the wizard. The same would apply to melee classes, where most powers can be used with any weapon, but a special weapon (or combination) has an additional bonus. Some powers as written can only be used with certain weapons.
I prefer daily powers as ongoing effects like stances, rages, forms, etc. As encounters powers sufficed for damage.
Each class should have a mix of melee and ranged attack powers, versus just a melee basic and/or range attack power to cover what is missing.
And finally, they need to re-vamp rituals to have a variety of times, e.g. 1, 5, 10, 20 minutes or more. This area is sorely neglected, and needs more attention.
Here is another issue I had with 4th ed. Game aids(power cards etc...)
When I am running(or playing) a 3.5/Pathfinder game I don't need a stack of cards or a computer to create a character. The use of them might help out and be a aid...but you certainly don't need them.
In 4th ed I don't see how you can run the game without the power cards or use the computer to creat and level your character. At that point they stop being game aids and become part of the game.
|
|
Here is another issue I had with 4th ed. Game aids(power cards etc...)
When I am running(or playing) a 3.5/Pathfinder game I don't need a stack of cards or a computer to create a character. The use of them might help out and be a aid...but you certainly don't need them.
In 4th ed I don't see how you can run the game without the power cards or use the computer to creat and level your character. At that point they stop being game aids and become part of the game.
It's part of the nature of the game and how if differs from 3e - I don't think it is a strength or a weakness, just a facet of the PC powers system. If you like powers, you can put up with cards. If you don't, well....
That said, 3e had plenty of reference back to rulebooks, if not cards, especially with spell descriptions. At least in my game, where none of us had memorised the precise wording of hundreds of pages of spell descriptions. So it's not all that different - and powers are generally less complicated and much easier to adjudicate. Depends if you like powers, really...
Here is another issue I had with 4th ed. Game aids(power cards etc...)
When I am running(or playing) a 3.5/Pathfinder game I don't need a stack of cards or a computer to create a character. The use of them might help out and be a aid...but you certainly don't need them.
In 4th ed I don't see how you can run the game without the power cards or use the computer to creat and level your character. At that point they stop being game aids and become part of the game.
It's part of the nature of the game and how if differs from 3e - I don't think it is a strength or a weakness, just a facet of the PC powers system. If you like powers, you can put up with cards. If you don't, well....
That said, 3e had plenty of reference back to rulebooks, if not cards, especially with spell descriptions. At least in my game, where none of us had memorised the precise wording of hundreds of pages of spell descriptions. So it's not all that different - and powers are generally less complicated and much easier to adjudicate. Depends if you like powers, really...
As I said previously never encounter the problem you had with the spells or magic items you had. I mean real quick...
Belt of Battle is a swift action to activate...so it can be done anytime in the round.
Rather or not limited wish can restore charges to the Belt of Battle is not the question really...it is rather or not a Limited wish can restore charges to any magic item's charges that are used up per day. My ruling is no...yes with miracle and/ or wish. I believe it is beyond the scope of limited wish.
No looking in rule book...and I made that ruling on the spot in about 2 minutes without looking up Limited wish. My game move on in 3.5.
In 4th ed....me as a DM...
What power are you using...with what magic item...and what racial...and what feat?!?!?
There are soo many more thing in 4th ed it is impossible to keep track of with out cards. Sure spells in 3.5 can get complicated...but most of it is up to DM ruling that you can just make a ruling on and decide afterwards. Heck that is the only rule I really have at my table as a DM is that if I make a ruling...that is how it works for now...later after the game we'll rtesearch it and debate if neccessary.
Please note this just personal preference...and I won't get into the new D&D cards...shudder.
Also....why did you let one player being a jerk turn you off of 4th ed? I mean that seemed to me atleast a little close minded. Not trying to be overly criticle here...but it just seems you are a pretty open minded guy, it just seems odd.
Actually, the oddest part about it was my reaction. It was pretty late (about 2 AM), and I felt like I was the one being constrained by the Rules in 4th Edition.
The players were actually having fun.
I wasn't.
When we fought over every little thing that Sampson (an NPC) did, I wasn't being pretty much my best self. I bought Pathfinder soon after and my head was being filled with some great ideas.
However, infinite value can be added to the Dungeons and Dragons Brand if Wizards of the Coast dropped the GSL and copyhearted [ http://copyheart.org/ ] the game, which is the next logical step to the OGL.
|
|
In 4th ed....me as a DM...
What power are you using...with what magic item...and what racial...and what feat?!?!?There are soo many more thing in 4th ed it is impossible to keep track of with out cards. Sure spells in 3.5 can get complicated...but most of it is up to DM ruling that you can just make a ruling on and decide afterwards. Heck that is the only rule I really have at my table as a DM is that if I make a ruling...that is how it works for now...later after the game we'll rtesearch it and debate if neccessary.
Please note this just personal preference...and I won't get into the new D&D cards...shudder.
Actually, that's a pretty weak "advantage" of 3e - you can just ignore the rules when they get complicated and move on after a bit of hand-waving. That's hardly unique to 3e, I can do it in 4e just as easily. And it's not very satisfactory if you have to do it in the first place. (Not that I haven't done it, of course, myself in either edition. But it's nothing I feel terribly proud of.)
Cards are no big deal. And you don't need to buy them or anything if you have CharGen - they are simply printed in that form on your character sheet. All it is is that you have the spell description printed on the character sheet so you don't need to look them up - nothing wrong with that, is there? All seems quite convenient.
Actually, that's a pretty weak "advantage" of 3e - you can just ignore the rules when they get complicated and move on after a bit of hand-waving. That's hardly unique to 3e, I can do it in 4e just as easily. And it's not very satisfactory if you have to do it in the first place. (Not that I haven't done it, of course, myself in either edition. But it's nothing I feel terribly proud of.)
Whoa...hold up here...what rule did I ignored? What hand did I waved? The rules for this are not covered under limited wish at all...so it is a effect that is within line of power as the other effects. So it is up to the DM completely by the rules themselves. And in my opinion that is beyons the scope of limited with...but not wish/miracle. It is called being the DM. Sure I don't need to look up Limited wish or wish to know what they said.
The other thing is when it comes to making a call on the rules...my sucess ratio is probably around 99% with things that have rules...3.5 has always been intuitive for me.
Cards are no big deal. And you don't need to buy them or anything if you have CharGen - they are simply printed in that form on your character sheet. All it is is that you have the spell description printed on the character sheet so you don't need to look them up - nothing wrong with that, is there? All seems quite convenient.
That still needing a computer...I don't need that for 3.5/Pathfinder.
Also I think what they did with charm and illusions spells by making them easier to adjucate...also removed a large part of the creativity to them.