|
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.
So you are saying 3e is superior because the spells are badly described (which they are - many spells have poor descriptions that are open-ended and very open to different interpretations)? While it can allow creativity (or, maybe, border-line munchkinism in the wrong hands, and those hands definitely exist) the fact that a DM needs to step in to just work out what the rules even are is not, in my view, much of an advantage. Illusions, for example, have so many different sub-sets (are they mind-affecting? are they quasi-real?) which have significant ramifications in play so that even when the rules are reasonably well-laid out (if not in the same place) people can make mistakes (I had a long and ultimately nasty argument here about whether you can use certain illusion spells to fool a golem, thereby determining whether it was worthy of its CR). Personally, I like to exert my creativity in determining plot and incident in the games I DM, not just to get the rule-set to work.
I will admit that the spells in particular make 3e and 4e very different games, and that they are much wider in scope in 3e. 3e are spells are lot more flavourful, whereas 4e powers (though not necessarily rituals, which people tend to forget a bit when talking about 4e) are pretty much variants on "you do x damage, inflict y condition, move the target z squares" (which is not all that much fun to read, but can be a lot of fun in actual play). Those differences are extremely important in differentiating between the games and consequently have a big impact on feel. If you don't like the changes, then 4e will likely not be for you.
As for computers - well, without wanting to sound too sarcastic, what did you just write to the world on? Would you be happier with a slate and chalk? I'm not a big fan of computers at the table, as decent applications don't exist as far as I am aware (which isn't very far). But printing out a character sheet isn't very radical. Again, the applications available with 4e are very, very useful time-savers. Computers are here to stay (unless the nano-apocalypse is upon us) and even a luddite like me can see the advantages of CharGen.
@Aubrey the Malformed: Iam just going to agree to disagree on the excellent open ended spell desciption of 3.5 and the close hand cuffing desciption of powers in 4th ed. ;) As I said just staiting opinion on what I like and dislike....but I think you hit the nail on the head on why I feel handcuffed as a DM and a player in 4th ed.
As to this strange magic box that allows to send my thought in strange rune to the world....bah MAGIC!!!!
Um...stateing a preference...like keeping my character in written form than some online character gen. And you really have not disproving my point in that...I can run 3.5 at any level without a computer...or play it at any level without one. (minus using the word processor for it...or even using pdfs for books though I also do neither)
I don't know anyone who can or does run 4th ed without a computer....it is no longer optional. You need the assistance of a computer to run your game.
It is that lost of a option that I dislike. Or am I wrong...you know people who don't use the online aids...or the cards...or etc? I mean if anybody says they can I'll take them a face value and my hats of to you as I don't think I could run core 4th ed without a computer.
I don't know anyone who can or does run 4th ed without a computer....it is no longer optional. You need the assistance of a computer to run your game.
It is that lost of a option that I dislike. Or am I wrong...you know people who don't use the online aids...or the cards...or etc? I mean if anybody says they can I'll take them a face value and my hats of to you as I don't think I could run core 4th ed without a computer.
FWIW, we ran 4th edition for a year or so before we discovered the character builder - not the online one, the old one you could (can?) download. Even non-core (ie allowing all the sourcebooks, which we do) isn't that bad although the character builder makes it easier to optimise, I guess.
There's not much difference really - I use Hero Lab for PF and the old character builder for 4th edition. Neither requires a computer though.
Are you seriously continuing to try and say that game aids do not help speed play?
No - your misreading my post if you think that. If you have an idnex card that is a carbon copy of the rules for Belt of Battle then that index card is the rules. However if a question arose then you'd need to find the index card and scrutinize the wording on it. Might be faster then actually looking it up - though mainly because you'd not have to remember what book Belt of Battle is in.
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.
There is a different line in the sand between Limited Wish and Miracle/Wish. Unless you have that line itself memorized you need to check out the wording to see where it falls unless what is being asked is clearly less impressive then something that has already been established.
The rules lawyering follows from the fact that, at this level, everything in a significant encounter is a big deal. As I've commented before - its magical thermonuclear war at this point. If I make a DMs call and two players die what then? Do you have a rule or culture at your table that keeps your players from double checking the rules?
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.
This just was not my experience with any spell casting or psionic class in particular. Its actually the old stuff (lower level spells) that become much less common - not the new top tier stuff. Magic items have this issue as well but to a lesser extent.
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).
Well here we agree. I never said high level play in 3.5 was particularly common - I simply contended that it was slower then 4E when it did come up. My feeling is that one of the reasons that we don't see a lot of 18th level adventures is, in part, because the 3.5 fan base itself feels that the game is far more complicated and a good deal slower.
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.
Well in 3.5 once you have a bunch of spells something is helpful. But your right with fighters and such. Once you've worked out how their attack works you don't really need much more.
This is the price of variety in the attacks. Some Essentials warrior types could easily get by without cards since they almost always use an at-will attack that operates the same way except with some stance applied and the different stances are very simple (another +1 to hit or you knock the enemy back 2 spaces - that sort of thing). This style of character is certianly not for me though - I like my variety.
My bigger issue with these Essentials characters however is its reintroducing true character optimization into the game.
|
I mean if anybody says they can I'll take them a face value and my hats of to you as I don't think I could run core 4th ed without a computer.
I'm another person who ran 4E without a computer for two years before tiring and switiching to something else. The most I used the computer with 4E was making characters or looking up occasional errata. Otherwise never used it and personally have been in 3 other games never saw anyone using a computer to run it either.
Unfortunaletly I do not think you will like to where this hobby maybe going. Less pen and paper and more digital imo.
In 4th ed....me as a DM...
What power are you using...with what magic item...and what racial...and what feat?!?!?
Barring the unfortunate situation where one of your players is a cheater (and, for some reason you can't kick them out of the game) you'd want to get out of the habit of asking all these questions - they are using a power, they are doing it correctly because the Character Builder won't let them do it incorrectly. Whatever feat they have or magic item they have is calculated into the power card, its abilities are included (some exceptions if they combo multiple powers, like using a magic item to make a zone larger).
Hence a couple of ways a player might announce their actions. They might be technical about it "I slide two and then attack; 32 versus reflex and everyone has combat advantage against the bugbear".
They might be narrative about it "I slide around the bugbear like I'm Micheal Jordan and stab him in the back; 32 versus reflex - oh and everyone has combat advantage against this guy until my next turn." I prefer this but player fatigue etc. sometimes causes people to revert to the more technical style.
Players will often announce the name of the power they are using - though I see that as optional and there are often eccentricities. If I make 'pew, pew' sounds like a video game then I'm using Lance of Faith and I'll follow with, '24 versus reflex'.
I mean if anybody says they can I'll take them a face value and my hats of to you as I don't think I could run core 4th ed without a computer.
I'm another person who ran 4E without a computer for two years before tiring and switiching to something else. The most I used the computer with 4E was making characters or looking up occasional errata. Otherwise never used it and personally have been in 3 other games never saw anyone using a computer to run it either.
Unfortunaletly I do not think you will like to where this hobby maybe going. Less pen and paper and more digital imo.
I think he's talking about character creation and printing out of character sheets.
I agree that once one is actually playing its basically unnecessary. I certianly don't use one when actually playing. Heck, I keep a copy of the conditions, Page 42 and a cheat sheet that includes character actions like grabbing or bull rush and don't even bother taking any of the rules books out of my room when we play.
Looking up rules are for adventure prep not actual play, IMO. Occasionally I have to go and get it if the adventure has gone off the rails and my players are bashing down doors I never expected them to be bashing but most sessions its not necessary. All that said I do extensive adventure prep - if there is a wall in the adventure that I expect them to climb my adventure prep includes the DC. If there is a portcullis that will fall and block the characters retreat in a fight I have its stats listed (I'm anal about including everything I need in adventure prep - I hate wasting actual game time).
I found since 3.5 and RPGXplorer, that running a game without a computer utility is difficult. Especially as a DM. There is just to much information provided in today's games, to keep flipping back to references, unless you have photographic memory. Any other aids I use to track initiative, or similar items, will be carried over to any other game I play that uses a similar mechanism (any version of D&D or pathfinder)
Computer generated utilities also offer a common source to validate characters, so there is some measure to determine all characters are generated equally, or at least you can give me a copy of the character to check. I realize this will not prevent dishonest people from cheating, but it is the only thing that gave me the confidence to start running open games at the local store, in addition to 4E being easy to play, but still being able to roleplay.
Therefore, I think it is misleading to state 4E is dependent upon game aids or cards. Other systems provide games aids as well ... shrug.
But John is right that it is much easier to create and maintain a character with a computer application in 4e. It doesn't make much difference (or even gets in the way) in 3e.
I don't know - it doesn't seem much different to me. The only real advantage of the computer in character generation that I can see is the fact the CB filters out all the unavailable choices and stops you having to hunt through lots of books if you're looking for 'the perfect feat'.
The power cards are nice, but we didn't struggle before we had them. (It's more like the difference between using 'real figures' and dice/coins in my mind).
I play and enjoy both games - and more besides!
Until last week when my 2e game went on hiatus I had one basically of 2e, 3e, PF, and 4e.
Fun loving master race imo.
|
|
But John is right that it is much easier to create and maintain a character with a computer application in 4e. It doesn't make much difference (or even gets in the way) in 3e.I don't know - it doesn't seem much different to me. The only real advantage of the computer in character generation that I can see is the fact the CB filters out all the unavailable choices and stops you having to hunt through lots of books if you're looking for 'the perfect feat'.
The power cards are nice, but we didn't struggle before we had them. (It's more like the difference between using 'real figures' and dice/coins in my mind).
For me, the application prints out the character sheet with all the powers there. A pencil and paper version can do that, but unless you want to refer to the book every time you do something (or have a really good memory), that's a lot of copying out. And it gets worse as character go up levels and accumulate powers. Some (most) are relatively simple, but some aren't. And a character will often have similar-ish powers too and differentiating them can also be a problem ("So, do I shift one or two spaces with this one?"). But it isn't necessary, but is pretty helpful.
|
|
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.
As someone who has been GMing a 4e campaign I can sympathise with this somewhat - there have been a few times when I wanted to trip a PC but technically because the NPC did not have an attack that did that I couldn't do so. It is one of the reasons I still prefer 3.5 (not sure about PF yet) - more combat manouevres that are available to everyone.
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.As someone who has been GMing a 4e campaign I can sympathise with this somewhat - there have been a few times when I wanted to trip a PC but technically because the NPC did not have an attack that did that I couldn't do so. It is one of the reasons I still prefer 3.5 (not sure about PF yet) - more combat manouevres that are available to everyone.
Page 42
Edit: I think for all I like 3e, it did something horrible, poisonous, and toxic to gamers - it made them think they need a rule for everything. You don't!
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.As someone who has been GMing a 4e campaign I can sympathise with this somewhat - there have been a few times when I wanted to trip a PC but technically because the NPC did not have an attack that did that I couldn't do so. It is one of the reasons I still prefer 3.5 (not sure about PF yet) - more combat manouevres that are available to everyone.Page 42
Edit: I think for all I like 3e, it did something horrible, poisonous, and toxic to gamers - it made them think they need a rule for everything. You don't!
I think that is about half of it. The other half is bad DM's. I trust some with a ruling a lot more than I trust others.
PS:I don't mind a rule being needed. The idea that the book could account for every possible situation, and rules can be extrapolated from it is more of an issue. I think the core book is only designed to cover basic things for the most part so when out of the box thinking occurs the DM should be trusted to make the right call. Whatever the DM decides is now the rule for that group anyway.
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.
Not really what I'm looking for in such a thread anyway. Much like arguing with other 4E players about Chandelier Swinging mechanics my real interest is more philosophy of gaming. Further more I 'win' if a few people change their opinions about 4E being 'just a miniatures game'. Does not matter if they still would prefer some other system or not.
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 find the statement a bit unusual. When we talk about 4Es intentions it seems to me that the designers of the game where very influenced by modern media. There are large elements of the system that where clearly inspired by an attempt to try and convey the type of atmosphere in Lord of the Rings, the movie and similar fare into the game.
This is part and parcel of the DM/player split in the rules. The DM is not playing the same game as the players and therefore there is no real need for the system to allow them to do the same sorts of things. A couple of examples are that there are no rules for Wish (that I am aware of) in 4E. Wish only needs rules if its your players that have access to one - then it needs to be codified so that they can't break the game. If the DMs NPC gets a wish that NPC always uses it to further the DMs story, so no rules necessary - wish is fundamentally as weak or as powerful as the DM wants it to be.
The DMs NPCs don't have class levels - they are not characters. Zandura of the Ironforge Clan is the greatest living blacksmith - so great that she, and probably only she, can reforge the great Elven Blade Alsuntheir. However she is not a level X anything she is an NPC with a role in the story. She only gets combat statistics if I envision a scene that will involve her in a fight. Otherwise she does not even have hps. She has a location, a point in my story, and enough of a personality for me to role play her when she finally features in my story (after the PCs get their hands on the broken pieces of Alsuntheir one suspects). If my players just arbitrary decide to kill her watch my game come to a crashing halt.
Even DM controlled adventurers don't have class levels (though I have heard of DMs who house rule this element in). Instead they have templates and they are handled differently from the players characters.
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.
Well I comment above that, if he is your NPC, he does not even have a class and there is certianly no requirement for him to 'be' 11th level or any other level. The exception here is if he is fighting with or against your PCs, then he needs to be stated out - then you would build him as something with a monster level in order to work out damage and attack bonuses and such. Still no class though - he might have a template of a Barbarian or some such if you deem that as a good way to envision this NPC but certianly no requirement of that. Its perfectly possible for you to have a Barbarian Chief without giving him the Barbarian Template - maybe another serves better or maybe you have a cool idea for him that is better conveyed by use of other powers.
In fact the monster builder is totally designed this way (and the monster builder makes your stated NPCs too - not the character builder, that is for your players). If I'm building this chief I might be using the monster builder to try and find some inspiration for powers for this guy (presuming my NPCs will actually fight with or against him). Here I would literally be scrolling through a huge list of powers that include everything for every NPC in some official product probably within a level range roughly close to whatever level I will assign to this guy. So I'm quickly rejecting the double claw ability of dragons or bites of this or that slavering monster since I've quickly rejected the idea that he has hands 'like a dragons' (although that might be a pretty cool npc). Maybe I find a bounty hunter that was created for an adventure I've never read that could summon a magical bear as a power. Well that sounds cool - I click a few times and its now a power my shaman has. If the bear was made for a different level NPC it automatically adjusts - I'll go back and look at that in a minute. First lets reflavour this. I go into the power and change a bit - lets make it a cougar - but I want this not to be a magical summoned cougar - I want the spirit of the cougar totem to be this guys ally, so we'll make it an insubstantial cougar. Bear attacks and damage is probably a little off too - lets go back a reduce the damage a bit and maybe give it some more accuracy.
This is how you build a stated NPC in 4E. At its core its usually about the schtik you want your NPC to do.
I get this a lot when converting Age of Worms from 3.5, because Age of Worms has lots of bad guys that are classes. Depending on their role in the story I may hew toward giving or making up powers that somewhat emulate what they could do in 3.5 but more often I just give them some unique schtik and build an adversary that follows that unique schtik. So the big baddie might 'move like liquid, and he whips daggers - magic daggers; fire and cold...two a round'. The point of the build is to be unique.
None of this is to say that Pathfinder is not doing what it is you want it to do, but it is worth pointing out that media like Xena is where WotC is stealing its ideas. Combat itself is meant to convey this sort of thing - that is one of the reasons there are no derivative attacks - that insures that your never penalized for running around the battle field during combat. Players powers are meant to convey this as well - note that all their encounter powers are essentially different and, especially with strikers, often say 'move and then do X'. So you dodge around behind the baddies and then deliver your attack...well that's it for that encounter power, next round you need to pick something else.
Note that here is a common complaint leveled at 4E - if he can do X once why not over and over again and the answer is because this is a simulation of action fantasy movies, not a gritty simulation of reality. Xena never does the same thing for the whole combat and neither do 4E characters. If realistic and gritty are the goal I hear Warhammer Fantasy RPG is awesome for that, E6 is apparently pretty good to and would work well in Pathfinder but I don't recommend 4E - 'cause in 4E you have powers like 'Arrow Stair' where your non magical archer dude shoots arrows into a wall and then proceeds to run up them like a ladder to get to the high ground - that kind of thing has no basis in history, but it exists in fantasy action flicks.
OK I'm going to sign off here and go watch another Xena episode.
|
|
As someone who has been GMing a 4e campaign I can sympathise with this somewhat - there have been a few times when I wanted to trip a PC but technically because the NPC did not have an attack that did that I couldn't do so. It is one of the reasons I still prefer 3.5 (not sure about PF yet) - more combat manouevres that are available to everyone.Page 42
Edit: I think for all I like 3e, it did something horrible, poisonous, and toxic to gamers - it made them think they need a rule for everything. You don't!
I could use p42 but if in 4e there are rules for tripping, disarming etc but they are powers, and I feel that allowing a skill check to do something a player may have invested a power to do cheapens it somewhat.
E.g. If I allowed a level 2 monster to disarm a 3rd level PC with a skill check DC 15 (Hard for levels 1 to 3) I think it might cheapen the Exorcism of Steel level 17 Fighter encounter power. Admittedly the latter also does 2[w]+Str damage, but a PC needs to get to level 17 to get it.
As someone who has been GMing a 4e campaign I can sympathise with this somewhat - there have been a few times when I wanted to trip a PC but technically because the NPC did not have an attack that did that I couldn't do so. It is one of the reasons I still prefer 3.5 (not sure about PF yet) - more combat manouevres that are available to everyone.Page 42
Edit: I think for all I like 3e, it did something horrible, poisonous, and toxic to gamers - it made them think they need a rule for everything. You don't!
I could use p42 but if in 4e there are rules for tripping, disarming etc but they are powers, and I feel that allowing a skill check to do something a player may have invested a power to do cheapens it somewhat.
E.g. If I allowed a level 2 monster to disarm a 3rd level PC with a skill check DC 15 (Hard for levels 1 to 3) I think it might cheapen the Exorcism of Steel level 17 Fighter encounter power. Admittedly the latter also does 2[w]+Str damage, but a PC needs to get to level 17 to get it.
I sympathies with the sentiment but not the hard, fast, rule. You want the tripping scene if its that cool but it needs to be corner case. Once in a while adds to the scene and the game but certianly not all the time. If you keep it weaker then their at will this should accomplish your objectives. Call it a Medium or Hard DC, and then make it use a standard action, finally only allow the trip. This way its worse then their at wills while using up the same kind of action.
Now they really need to want to trip the baddie to use this action but it can come up when the conditions are right.
|
|
Now they really need to want to trip the baddie to use this action but it can come up when the conditions are right.
I was actually referring to me as GM wanting to trip a PC, and my other concern is that if I have a monster do it, it will set a precedent and a PC will want to do it - at which point I may wish to formalise a Trip or Disarm action just like Grab and set the DC equal to a defense score. E.g. a Strength Versus Reflex check, no damage but opponent is prone?
Now they really need to want to trip the baddie to use this action but it can come up when the conditions are right.I was actually referring to me as GM wanting to trip a PC, and my other concern is that if I have a monster do it, it will set a precedent and a PC will want to do it - at which point I may wish to formalise a Trip or Disarm action just like Grab and set the DC equal to a defense score. E.g. a Strength Versus Reflex check, no damage but opponent is prone?
I'm not sure strength is really the key component of tripping. I'd think dexterity is more important. Fort or reflex for the victim could both be argued, either better of the two or reflex if simplicity is desired. Probably add this one to my table anyway.
Disarm I'd be a lot more cautious about, it can be a lot more powerful then a trip. It can see problems here.
Here I just would not formalize the rules...formalized rules are something the players can depend on to work every time unless the DM has something up his sleeve. If you give my character and his party rules for disarm we'll be doing a trick where one of us disarms the big nasty 'tough as nails' bounty hunter and then another player runs up and steals his weapon before his next set of actions comes up. If that happens the scene where we are peeing ourselves 'cause the bounty hunter is after us** falls apart.
None of this is to say that a DM should totally banish the idea of disarms from the game (I could envision a scene where there is some X that everyone wants and everyone is trying to grab it and run off - that'd be fun and funny) but just that the DM should have all the power in such a scene. Here the DM should be setting the rules on an ad hoc basis according to the dictates of the story and the scene. He really should have all the marbles...its his job to make awesome - not let us get away with murder.
**
The bounty hunter thing crosses my mind from a fight we had about six months ago RL. We had made enemies with a powerful mercenary leader in some early adventure. But after doing so we kind of forget about it as its not part of the plot for later adventures. Two go by with nothing happening regarding this and then we start being interrupted in our actual adventures by random attacks by people that want to kill us but just are not otherwise connected to the adventure at hand.
It all comes to a head when we have been in some dungeon and pulled out for a rest. Well the wizard and our monk striker are taking a nap and my cleric and the fighter are on watch when out of nowhere this elf shows up. Before we even get a chance to act he throws a net over the fighter, wakes the wizard up by tossing a pepper bomb onto his face and then shoots me in the gut with a crossbow.
Our wizard is blinded and dazed (save ends) and uses his one action to crawl at full speed and cower behind a boulder for a number of rounds. I'm like "who the f#@@ is this guy? Bobba Fett the elf? Take him down but don't kill him - I want some answers!"
The guy takes on all four of us and spends quite some time kicking our butt. When its all over we learn that we have a bounty on our head - which made perfect sense once we where reminded on that adventure way back when. We blew up some really valuable real estate - his magic golem making factory and then managed to escape. There was even a scene were we were runnig full tilt away from his men for a bunch of rounds but we had horses waiting and managed to leap on them and ride off in a shower of crossbow bolts.
We are too small potatoes for him to deal with us personally but the bounty makes sense. Turns out we are worth 10,000 gold a piece.
I always new Relgar the cleric would be a valuable member of society - I just never realized that the value would come with a decimal point.
Here the DM should be setting the rules on an ad hoc basis according to the dictates of the story and the scene.
This for many is the crutch of the difference between 3.x and 4E. If a particular trick works for one individual for one scene, than if someone else under the exact same circumstances tries it later, most people would expect them to have the same chance of success that the first person in the scene did. Saying that it fit the story the first time but was not appropriate the second time so the second person didn't have the ability to pull it off, despite all circumstances other than story being exactly the same, is a major turn off for a lot of people. It destroys whatever internal consistency the world may have had up to that point. This is not to say that story isn't important, but if you need to completely destroy internal consistency in order to maintain the "proper" storytelling environment, you need to learn how to tell stories better, because good stories adapt to the player's actions while maintaining at least some semblance of an consistent operation of how the world works.
|
|
I should add that on tripping and so on Jeremy's take is probably controversial - certainly, it isn't how I would handle it, and agree more with DigitalMage that this is the realm of individual powers for 4e, not generic rules, which would remove the continuity issue in this regard.
Certainly, very few people would even attempt a trip or disarm action without the relevant feat in 3e, and that makes it not very different from a power in 4e (into which certain feats, as well as spells, from 3e have been rolled). The only thing that vaguely is retained in 4e is the Bull Rush, which is toned down to prevent it overshadowing other move-the-enemy-type powers.
I should add that on tripping and so on Jeremy's take is probably controversial - certainly, it isn't how I would handle it, and agree more with DigitalMage that this is the realm of individual powers for 4e, not generic rules, which would remove the continuity issue in this regard.
Certainly, very few people would even attempt a trip or disarm action without the relevant feat in 3e, and that makes it not very different from a power in 4e (into which certain feats, as well as spells, from 3e have been rolled). The only thing that vaguely is retained in 4e is the Bull Rush, which is toned down to prevent it overshadowing other move-the-enemy-type powers.
Accept that in 3.x, these things could be done by everyone, even if practically it was done only by those who trained for it. Completely removing the option from those who belong to a class that don't get the associated power is something I, and many others, don't like. At least with the generic rules for the various maneuvers, not only could everyone attempt it as a last ditch effort, but everyone basically followed the same procedure to do so, with feats simply removing the aoos and adding some bonuses. Success or failure did not rely on the stunt being done at the "proper" time in the story or the character being of the "proper" class to pull it off.
I should add that on tripping and so on Jeremy's take is probably controversial - certainly, it isn't how I would handle it, and agree more with DigitalMage that this is the realm of individual powers for 4e, not generic rules, which would remove the continuity issue in this regard.
Certainly, very few people would even attempt a trip or disarm action without the relevant feat in 3e, and that makes it not very different from a power in 4e (into which certain feats, as well as spells, from 3e have been rolled). The only thing that vaguely is retained in 4e is the Bull Rush, which is toned down to prevent it overshadowing other move-the-enemy-type powers.
Certainly I'd agree that the idea of a formalized rule for tripping is a minority position. But I suspect that the idea that page 42 covers this is a majority one but not overwhelmingly so.
That said if I'm a player at your table we play by your rules (and that includes your vision of how the game should be played). If we sit down at Blazej's table then we play by how he envisions the game. Thing about 4E is there is a fair bit of scope for different styles within the overall frame work. One of the aspects of the rules are different between the players and the DM is that the DM has a ton of power to set the tone.
Your last point, Jeremy, is truly the biggest point of contention with 4E with many people. I tried playing LFR and it just didn't work for me. Never knowing what the DM will or will not allow to be done until the situation comes up and you are putting forth a proposed solution is not fun for me; I need to have at least some kind of idea of the general framework I am working in. Since the only time I would be playing 4E would be organized play, the uncertainty of what I could reasonably expect my character to be able to do is not worth it. If I were to find a more stable environment to play the system in, where I was playing the the same DM or two on a regular basis, and thus knew what to expect in terms of what would and would not be allowed, I could probably have just as much fun as if I was playing Pathfinder.
If you know the rules, then you know what to expect. In regards to monsters, or NPCS, or encounters in general, the most important thing is to have them pre-planned versus the DM making it up spontaneously. And only trust will give you the comfort to accept what the DM is doing, and not feel cheated. DMs are no different based on the system they play, as they can decide at any time to not follow the rules, or make things up. That is why all the dicussions are held on DM fiat.
What I would absolutely hate as a DM, is for a player to question a monster ability if it was something new, or they felt a character can not do the same thing, so a monster can not. They would have grounds for complaint if I abuse my power as a DM, or if I was not consistent in my rulings. But that goes back to having things pre-planned.
4E does have mechanisms for challenge ratings as general guidance, but does not restrict you to those. The same would apply to other systems as well. I do believe they could help flesh out monster development to make them more interesting, but I already do that as a DM.
For those who are willing to blindly trust that the DM is going to have the same version of fun as themselves, or have the advantage of playing the same DM all the time, relying on trusting the DM is great. However, many people don't have the luxury of playing with the same DM all of the time, and organized play DMs range from truly fantastic to truly horrible to simply not having the same expectations of the game as the players. Skill challenges and the freedom to be creative doesn't work in that environment for many since you never know what the bounds on your creativity are going to be until you actually sit down at a game. Some people don't mind this open endedness, but a lot of people like to know at least the common ground rules before sitting down. 4E doesn't have any of these, beyond the character's combat powers, so it leaves a lot of people feeling rather out in the cold.
4E has rules, so the way the game plays is predictable. If it is not the level of detail you expect from previous editions, then I understand your preference. But I have more problems when a DM and player can't discuss and come to an agreement on a specific rule. If both parties can't agree (have a mutual trust), then they shouldn't play with each other. I have had horrible experiences with organized play under previous editions, and see no difference with 4E.
I wasn't saying that 4E's structure was bad, just that it was different enough from 3.x's to appeal to different people. And while I agree that compromise and talking is key, that is not always something that can fit well with with set time slots. My experience with Living Greyhawk wasn't necessarily that much better than LFR, but at least with Living Greyhawk, the generic framework of how the world worked was much, much more clearly laid out. 4E can be much more than a combat simulation, but only with DM fiat and some people are more comfortable relying on that then others.
|
|
Accept that in 3.x, these things could be done by everyone, even if practically it was done only by those who trained for it. Completely removing the option from those who belong to a class that don't get the associated power is something I, and many others, don't like. At least with the generic rules for the various maneuvers, not only could everyone attempt it as a last ditch effort, but everyone basically followed the same procedure to do so, with feats simply removing the aoos and adding some bonuses. Success or failure did not rely on the stunt being done at the "proper" time in the story or the character being of the "proper" class to pull it off.I should add that on tripping and so on Jeremy's take is probably controversial - certainly, it isn't how I would handle it, and agree more with DigitalMage that this is the realm of individual powers for 4e, not generic rules, which would remove the continuity issue in this regard.
Certainly, very few people would even attempt a trip or disarm action without the relevant feat in 3e, and that makes it not very different from a power in 4e (into which certain feats, as well as spells, from 3e have been rolled). The only thing that vaguely is retained in 4e is the Bull Rush, which is toned down to prevent it overshadowing other move-the-enemy-type powers.
Well obviously I accept it - I played 3e before 4e (and in deed, still do). But I also accept that they are different games with different baselines as to what is and isn't in the rules. I would simply argue that they have changed the paradigm as to the way PCs manouevre their enemies about the battlefield.
Here the DM should be setting the rules on an ad hoc basis according to the dictates of the story and the scene.This for many is the crutch of the difference between 3.x and 4E. If a particular trick works for one individual for one scene, than if someone else under the exact same circumstances tries it later, most people would expect them to have the same chance of success that the first person in the scene did. Saying that it fit the story the first time but was not appropriate the second time so the second person didn't have the ability to pull it off, despite all circumstances other than story being exactly the same, is a major turn off for a lot of people. It destroys whatever internal consistency the world may have had up to that point. This is not to say that story isn't important, but if you need to completely destroy internal consistency in order to maintain the "proper" storytelling environment, you need to learn how to tell stories better, because good stories adapt to the player's actions while maintaining at least some semblance of an consistent operation of how the world works.
Internal consistency to what end? Neither tripping nor disarming are common moves in either a gritty version of history or fantasy, nor something that one finds often in Conan books or something that's common in the Lord of the Rings movies.
Its corner case and the result of trying to simulate it in 3.5 leads to trip builds or for all practical purposes just part of a player/DM arms race.
In 4E being tripped is much less detrimental. Since its a weak option and probably enough more common then disarming I'm willing to codify it into the actual rules.
Disarms are a much more serous instance. The game itself breaks down if it is to common.
Either:
A) Your players don't know how good it is or...
b) They do and they use it - you as the DM counter (my counter was a masterwork copy of the baddies main weapon, that put a stop to that - though the fact that all the baddies and all the players ran around with multiple copies of their main weapon made for some odd character portraits).
C) They do but they are 'being good' and they look to you as the DM to more or less signal when its appropriate.
Method A means its not in the game anyway. Method B means its in the game but the DM beat the players in the arms race by making it a sub optimal move so now its mainly out of the game. Method C is pretty much the same as the DM choosing how and when this is appropriate, except that now the DM is constrained by the simulation itself on how his little set piece will play out.
The only element I liked disarms in 3.5 was the concept that 'if your desperate here is an option'. Page 42 covers this in 4E.
Ultimately internal consistency for unusual moves like tripping and especially disarming results in having 3.5 simulate 3.5 basically. I'm trying to simulate (or play in) a cinematic epic adventure with fantasy action hero's and I'll stick with having the story dictate the terms of use - this also happens to be authentic to the genre I'm simulating.
I wasn't saying that 4E's structure was bad, just that it was different enough from 3.x's to appeal to different people. And while I agree that compromise and talking is key, that is not always something that can fit well with with set time slots. My experience with Living Greyhawk wasn't necessarily that much better than LFR, but at least with Living Greyhawk, the generic framework of how the world worked was much, much more clearly laid out. 4E can be much more than a combat simulation, but only with DM fiat and some people are more comfortable relying on that then others.
Well I don't disagree but I'd much rather play in a game where I trust my DM. Even if I'm going to sit down with a stranger for a DM I think I'll err on the side of trusting him or her to run a good game. I'd rather play in that style then attempt to have the rules force conformity on the assumption that the DM can't DM.
You can't always choose which DM you get but if you meet a good one you can try and get in on their home game and that is worth something IMO.
Internal consistency to what end? Neither tripping nor disarming are common moves in either a gritty version of history or fantasy, nor something that one finds often in Conan books or something that's common in the Lord of the Rings movies.
If I wanted to replay Lord of the Rings I would just pop in the DVDs and watch it. And I don't know where you are getting your historical data or what fantasy books you read...as I see it there are alot of tripping( which is a basic move with a quarter staff both eastern and western) or disarming( swashbuckling).
As to your options....I don't know what is wrong with the player deciding on when it is story appropriate to trip or disarm? Personaly I let my player do whatever they want. I don't have rails in my game....so instead of players having to say "DM may I" for very common and often used things like this I perfer there to be rules for them and also not have them limited to very precise things.
Also I used these maneuvers alot even without the feat...there are countless reason why. Now I am not saying 3.5 had the best rules ever...it is area where I think Pathfinder greatly improved on by the way... but atleast they were there that ?i could use as a framework.
As to the 'arms race' well you do know atleast with disarming they had gauntlket locks...there is also the simple string trick...there are ways to deal with it...mostly because these things were comonnly used in RL that people thought of counters to them and used them.
If I wanted to replay Lord of the Rings I would just pop in the DVDs and watch it.
I don't think this follows. I mean if I wanted to play comics then I'd just read them - thus there is no point to mutants and masterminds?
In the end they are two different mediums for telling stories and with mutants and masterminds the different comics you read, and the style inherent can have a big impact on the way and kind of story you tell. Maybe even to the point where Champions is a better answer for your story.
And I don't know where you are getting your historical data or what fantasy books you read...as I see it there are alot of tripping( which is a basic move with a quarter staff both eastern and western) or disarming( swashbuckling).
With the tripping I agree and its simulated with the right kind of build. That's true of 4E as well and a significant reason to consider using a weapon besides a sword. My issue here is that the trip builds in 3.5 don't look anything like this at all. It moved outside of tactics to gain an advantage in a fantasy combat and became something else, a way to gain an advantage at D&D in general, instead of a means to an end it became the end itself.
As to your options....I don't know what is wrong with the player deciding on when it is story appropriate to trip or disarm? Personaly I let my player do whatever they want. I don't have rails in my game....so instead of players having to say "DM may I" for very common and often used things like this I perfer there to be rules for them and also not have them limited to very precise things.
As Aubrey noted those with actual skill (in effect those that have taken the correct powers) can do this by using the powers. What we are really talking about is using this with no actual talent. My feeling is trip is something that one can just codify if one wants. Aubrey wants this dealt with straight through the powers and there are likely a majority of 4E DMs that say deal with it using page 42 which would be a middle ground between mine and Aubrey's position. In the end Page 42 is DM fiat with guidelines but any DM using this method has a game that is less about "DM may I?" and more about "DM what are my odds?".
Also I used these maneuvers alot even without the feat...there are countless reason why. Now I am not saying 3.5 had the best rules ever...it is area where I think Pathfinder greatly improved on by the way... but atleast they were there that ?i could use as a framework.
The frame work in 3.5 was clearly a failure - both 4E and Pathfinder went to town on it. It was such a failure that it probably did more harm then good to the system. I'd certianly rather have DM fiat with guidelines then the kind of havoc these two core rules wracked on 3.5. One might argue that a better rules system would not have that problem and then they could be core rules outside of the scope of the DM, I'll agree its possible and maybe Pathfinder did it. I'm not familiar enough to say.
As to the 'arms race' well you do know atleast with disarming they had gauntlket locks...there is also the simple string trick...there are ways to deal with it...mostly because these things were comonnly used in RL that people thought of counters to them and used them.
Well the string idea brings a smile. If I set up a scene with disarmament as a clear way forward I'll have to consider having a string attached to the weapon. A tug of war over the weapon of penultimate doom sounds like a great scene and a lot of fun.
In any case an arms race is an arms race - nor are gauntlet locks really central to how most people envision their character. Its a tool for medieval battlefields and it surrenders actual skill with the weapon for certainty that you won't loose it. Any culture that actually emphasized skill with blades (Samurai's, Italian Duelists etc.) don't use them as it limits what one can do with your hand or the blade.
The reality with disarm remains that whatever rule set is being used the actual effectiveness with such a move needs to be very limited , in terms of the players having access to it, because its otherwise far to powerful. In history or fiction disarmament is often the final scene after which the bad guy surrenders or is run through. In fiction it can be, instead, part of a scene where the hero runs around using various objects as weapons or resorting to fisticuffs and kung fu moves - but its not used that way by players.
In effect the DM having disarmament is not such a problem because, usually, in such a scene, there are more players and the scene is better with the hero's running around using improvised weapons or leaping around the furniture trying to get away then it is with the big baddie disarmed and the players piling on for the easy kill. The real problem is the dangers of players having easy access to such abilities - they will always game the system (disarm constantly at the beginning - give up if its not worked and the baddie is now significantly damaged). In any case one way or another this needs to be kept in check - 4E uses limited access to such abilities (both in rarity of the powers and also in the fact that you can't spam them) and possibly DM fiat, probably coupled with scenes where such actions are emphasized (the enemy you can't kill for whatever reason).
It'd not surprise me if both systems use a different method for getting to the same place. Make it a sub optimal move and suddenly its a matter of the story dictating when it comes up either because the players feel they have no choice but to use mechanics that are in place but are considered worse then what is normally available or because the DM has gone to 4Es default of 'use your skills' to handle the scene.
It may also be that we are just looking for different things from the game. The dice themselves will keep this variable. You emphasize that your players are not on rails. I see the appeal - but personally I'll trust my DM to make it a great scene.
|
|
I wasn't saying that 4E's structure was bad, just that it was different enough from 3.x's to appeal to different people.
Exactly this, there is no right or wrong, just preferences.
I am not saying 4e is bad for not including a general trip and disarm mechanic that anyone can try, or that 4e GMs who allow this using p42 are doing anything wrong, just that for me because I know there are powers out there that do that sort of thing I am uncomfortable adding in ad hoc rules to do such stuff. And therefore this is one of the reasons why I prefer 3.5 (and I guess PF) over 4e (but I still enjoy 4e and prefer some things about that than 3.5 & PF).
I wasn't saying that 4E's structure was bad, just that it was different enough from 3.x's to appeal to different people.Exactly this, there is no right or wrong, just preferences.
I am not saying 4e is bad for not including a general trip and disarm mechanic that anyone can try, or that 4e GMs who allow this using p42 are doing anything wrong, just that for me because I know there are powers out there that do that sort of thing I am uncomfortable adding in ad hoc rules to do such stuff. And therefore this is one of the reasons why I prefer 3.5 (and I guess PF) over 4e (but I still enjoy 4e and prefer some things about that than 3.5 & PF).
Seems I'm always complaining about how your version effects the story - and I'm going to do so again here.
My issue with this is that you literally can't do a scene where the players face an enemy that they are not allowed to kill (but who wants to kill them) unless you happen to have a player with a power that disarms. Such powers are rare and usually high level. This is a pretty classic fantasy trope. I can't really understand why you'd limit the system to make doing this sort of thing impossible.
|
|
My issue with this is that you literally can't do a scene where the players face an enemy that they are not allowed to kill (but who wants to kill them) unless you happen to have a player with a power that disarms. Such powers are rare and usually high level. This is a pretty classic fantasy trope. I can't really understand why you'd limit the system to make doing this sort of thing impossible.
Nah, that is actually really easy to do in 4e. WHen you take a foe down to zero HP (or below) you have the option to knock them unconscious rather than kill them.
When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it.
Until it regains hit points, the creature is unconscious but not dying. Any healing makes the creature conscious.
If the creature doesn’t receive any healing, it is restored to 1 hit point and becomes conscious after a short rest.
Also, if you take a character to Bloodied, a successful Intimidate check can force them to surrender (admittedly the DC is high but hopefully you have circumstance bonuses in your favour).
Finally, there was a Dragon or Dungeon article that gave other options for when you take a foe down to zero HP, including maiming them etc. So if you need to defeat a foe but not kill them, there are plenty of options even if you don't have a power that disarms them.
Nah, that is actually really easy to do in 4e. WHen you take a foe down to zero HP (or below) you have the option to knock them unconscious rather than kill them.
While I know of both this and the intimidate element, because we use them rather regularly (dead enemies can't tell you who sent them), this is not really what I mean. I'm thinking more along the lines of dramatic fantasy tropes.
Something like mistaken identity - so maybe the princess thinks your assassins and your not. In this case cutting her up to within an inch of death kind of misses the point (although the role playing scene after where you try to explain that your actually here to protect her ought to be interesting).
Alternatively the actually invulnerable enemy, one that can't be beaten through hp loss - an Achilles type where you need to disarm him, maybe as part of stalling tactic, awaiting the arrival of the rogue with the all important McGuffin.
|
|
Something like mistaken identity - so maybe the princess thinks your assassins and your not. In this case cutting her up to within an inch of death kind of misses the point (although the role playing scene after where you try to explain that your actually here to protect her ought to be interesting).
Yes, I guess in that case it may not work so well, though a character could lose all their HP and not actually have taken any physical damage, e.g. suffering from a bard Viscious MOckery etc. By sapping their HP you sap their ability to fight.
Alternatively the actually invulnerable enemy, one that can't be beaten through hp loss - an Achilles type where you need to disarm him, maybe as part of stalling tactic, awaiting the arrival of the rogue with the all important McGuffin.
Yeah, again in that case not so good. And that's why I like 3.5 :)
Something like mistaken identity - so maybe the princess thinks your assassins and your not. In this case cutting her up to within an inch of death kind of misses the point (although the role playing scene after where you try to explain that your actually here to protect her ought to be interesting).Yes, I guess in that case it may not work so well, though a character could lose all their HP and not actually have taken any physical damage, e.g. suffering from a bard Viscious MOckery etc. By sapping their HP you sap their ability to fight.
Yeah, again in that case not so good. And that's why I like 3.5 :)Alternatively the actually invulnerable enemy, one that can't be beaten through hp loss - an Achilles type where you need to disarm him, maybe as part of stalling tactic, awaiting the arrival of the rogue with the all important McGuffin.
I suppose that is one way of considering this - although my real point was the value of using page 42 to handle story elements.
Another method for the Princess encounter would be an actual skill challenge with both a social component - where your trying to convince her that your here to protect her, and a physical component meant to represent dodging and parrying her blows (here some kind of forced checks probably need to be included and failure also causes hp or surge damage). Here though you need to consider the issue of a failure of the skill challenge carefully - I'd probably just have it that there is an automatic forced check to avoid damage with the third failure and every subsequent one there after and presume they eventually succeed - but story considerations play a part. If the plot continues if she actually chases them off then that is a better option.
Alternatively split the difference - embed a social skill challenge into the combat itself. Leave it to your players to run around the map trying to avoid her attacks (as opposed to allowing a disarm option) while giving them a single skill check every round.
Now I'm not to keen on the idea of disallowing any chance of using skills to pull off a disarm, but I suppose if your adamant on that point then you may be able to find a different method to handle the scene with a little creativity.
Not to be a grouch but you can totally do all that in 4e.
Like I said, 3e did something no other edition did - it stated that you need rules for everything.
Go on back to 2e or before, and the emphasis is rather clear - rules are guidelines, use as you want. Heck, I think 2e had more optional rules then it had real ones.
Princess for example - that doesn't have to be straight combat. Athletics to grab her then tie her up, or <social skill> to make her believe/convince her that you aren't assassins. Or use a power and describe it as not actually stabbing her in the stomach. 4e is if anything better at this then 3e is.
As for a baddie that can't be killed out of HP damage, how would you do that in 3e? You'd make up some property that meant "Cannot be killed from HP damage." Nothing stopping you from doing the same in 4e ;p
When it comes down to it, here's my problem.
Here are the visually distinctive elements of a Balor: HELL SWORD! HELL WHIP! FLAME HUGS!
Here is how you run a 3E wizard, wait no dragon, wait no pit fiend, wait no Balor in a mechanically optimal fashion: summon minions to harass the party, continually teleport out of range of them, spam various save-or-HA-HA! unlimited-use spell-like abilities.
Here is how you run a 4E Balor in a mechanically optimal fashion: HELL SWORD! HELL WHIP! FLAME HUGS!
|
|
Stuff I agree with
The idea of players doing an interactive skill challenge appeals as a DM rather than the Disarm Fighter stepping up and simply disarming. One solves the problem via pure game mechanics and the other using mechanics to add a memorable RPing experience backed by mechanics. It's been said many times before but 4e sits well with DM's who grew up with 1e/2e.
S.
|
|
Not to be a grouch but you can totally do all that in 4e.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that those particular scenarios couldn't be played out in 4e, but rather that a specific tactic to be used in those scenarios may be debatable as to whether it could be used. And the debate stems from the fact that 4e does have rules for disarming - its just that they are tied up in high level powers.
As I suggested there are several ways to handle the princess scenario, and I also like Jeremy Mac Donald's suggestion of overlaying a skill challenge to convince the princess that the PCs are not assassins (if the skill challenge fails the PCs must bloody her and Intimidate her to surrender or reduce her to zero HP and announce they have KOed her).
Because 4e does have rules for tripping and disarming in the shape of powers I wish they had maybe given a generic option that everyone could attempt just like Grab and Bullrush. I mean, there are powers that push a foe, so why also spell out the generic Bullrush manouevre?
Perhaps making the generic attempts just do the trip or disarm and not do any damage would make them balanced against the attack powers that do both but require a high level PC to learn? Maybe that would work, but in the end its a GM call.
I've run extensive 3E and 4E games at all levels. My preference is definitely 4E, though I'm sure I could have fun playing 3E again under the right circumstances.
Usually I am the dm, and I fully agree with an earlier post by Jeremy regarding the effects of the 3E magic system on game play at higher levels. 3E magic provides PCs access to tactics that can make a dms job a real nightmare. For example a typical high level 3E tactic is to scry or use some other form of magic to scout out the situation. The PCs then buff up with the appropriate spells (which can take a long time at high level), next they teleport, wreak havoc and teleport out again. Obviously, this isn't always the way it goes down, but such tactics are very common. The only real way to counter such tactics is when the enemies have access to comparable magic, and as a dm you don't always want to deal with that.
I remember when I still fairly new to running 3E, I spent a great deal of time creating a big frost giant lair for 11th level PCs. They pretty much did what I described above. Used magic to scout the place out, buffed up, teleported in to the main hall with improved invisibility etc.. then unloaded enough fire magic on their enemies in the first round to weaken them enough so that the invisible fighters could finish the rest off in the second and third round. I think as players they found it kind of fun, but it certainly wasn't fun for me as a dm.
Magic is more limited in 4E, and you will not see that kind of thing happen. IMO this is a good thing that makes the game more fun for dm and player because at high level I can still run a fight with a band of giants and it can be a challenge to the players. I don't need my giants accompanied by a high level wizard with a disjunction scroll to make the game challenging. I'm also not going to have to wait around for 30 minutes before a fight while the PCs discuss which spells they are going to buff on which character and adjust their stats accordingly (This didn't happen with ever combat, but it was common in important ones, and at high level most of them are important. If they aren't the party just avoids them- again with magic). 4E still has buffs, but you usually have to make an attack to activate them, so they happen in combat, and for the most part they are fairly simple and easy to tract.
The above is my first major beef with 3e. The second is the following.
I found that in 3E there was a lot more difference in play balance between PCs. It was much easier to make a really broken build in 3E that would outshine other players. It was also easy to build a really gimpy character if you didn't know what you were doing.
My experience with 4E is that this can still happen to some extent, but not in near as dramatic a way. A "normal" player can easily build an effective and fun character to run that won't be totally overshadowed by the group's power gamer players. 3E is a power gamers wet dream. 4E still gives such players a chance to tinker and have fun, but without making the game unfun for the non power gamers (usually).
Between beef number #1 and #2, I was easily converted.
Another thing to keep in mind about 3E and 4E that I think some people don't understand. Is that one of the big differences in design philosophy is relativity vrs objectivity.
In 3E a stat block for a creature is basically that stat block for the creature. It defines the creature, and it is objective.
In 4E a stat block really only defines the creature relative to the PCs at their current level in a combat situation.
For example: a hobgoblin soldier might be a level 8 standard monster to 8th level heroes. However if that same hobgoblin were fighting 15th level heroes it might be rebuilt as a 12th level minion. Or if it were fighting 2nd level heroes it might be an 4th level elite monster.
This differences takes a bit of getting used to, but in the end I find it gives me a lot of freedom when building encounters.
I also like that monsters don't have the same design structure as characters. I can pretty much give them whatever power or ability I want within reason, and I don't have players crying foul about their abilities because it is accepted that monsters have a different design structure. I don't need to bother reading through metamagic feats and spell descriptions when I'm trying to throw together a villainous wizard. I know about what appropriate damage and effects are, so I just create something fun and flavorful for the character and go. I've found this to be a fairly fast process.
This doesn't work near as well in 3E. Take a look at the Rise of the Runelords AP. At the end of the AP you have this big fight with the boss wizard (forget his name). The designers knew they wanted to have a "solo" fight, but because he is built like a PC it is hard to make him tough enough to stand up to 4 or 5 on 1 beating. They knew his lack of hp would allow a party to crush him in about a round, even though he is a 20th level wizard (which according to 3E encounter guidelines should be a tough fight for a group of 15th-16th level characters, but so isn't). As a result, they are forced to come up with some kind of gimmick (ioun stones that grant an extra 20 hp a piece-if I remember correctly) to justify why he has so many hp. They also need to create a huge stat block listing every spell and feat, as well as deck him out with a ton of magic items in order to make him effective.
In 4E you could easily build him as a solo monster and give him whatever nasty powers you want to make him badass, without having to worry about conforming to the rules of how a 20th level PC wizard is built. When you are trying to justify his hp and how hard he is to kill, you can flavor it by describing various (purely fluff) magical effects absorbing damage or even by merely saying that he's a f@~%ing runelord, suck it. Alternatively, you can build him like a PC wizard and then just double or quadruple his hp. If you tried this in 3E you'd have the players down your throats about how this wizard was able to take so much damage.
I remember when 4E was first being released that James Jacob posted a comment about paizo staying with 3E because 4E would allow them to tell the stories they wanted. He said something to the effect that it would have been hard for them to do Crimson Throne in 4E because at the time there was no barbarian class, and Crimson Throne featured an adventure that had a lot NPC barbarians. I was left thinking, he doesn't get it. You don't need a barbarian class to make NPC barbarians because the build structure of NPCs is separate from PCs. If you want to give them a barbarian feel, describe them that way, and then give them a power that allows for a bonus to hit and damage that simulates a rage. Because of this structure, in many ways you have more freedom to tell the stories you want to tell. If I want to tell a story about a really nasty evil villain that can mop the floor with an entire party, I can do that with 4E mechanics with much more ease than I can in a 3E game.
For many people the fact that monsters use different rules is what kills immersion. Why does the monster goblin have ability X, while the PC goblin does not? How that monster learn how to, and nobody else can? I never liked the minion idea either. IIRC only the ranger can go TWF.
I do understand the trouble a DM can have in 3.x, but if you have the time to learn the rules it rewards you well.
I do agree with James, but I see your point. You can't tell the story you want without compromise sometimes in either system, but with 4E seems it becomes harder if immersion is important for you, IMHO.
As for the Runelord itself just say they underwent a ritual that made them really powerful. The fluff then justifies the hit points.
Not to be a grouch but you can totally do all that in 4e.
Like I said, 3e did something no other edition did - it stated that you need rules for everything.
Go on back to 2e or before, and the emphasis is rather clear - rules are guidelines, use as you want. Heck, I think 2e had more optional rules then it had real ones.
Princess for example - that doesn't have to be straight combat. Athletics to grab her then tie her up, or <social skill> to make her believe/convince her that you aren't assassins. Or use a power and describe it as not actually stabbing her in the stomach. 4e is if anything better at this then 3e is.
As for a baddie that can't be killed out of HP damage, how would you do that in 3e? You'd make up some property that meant "Cannot be killed from HP damage." Nothing stopping you from doing the same in 4e ;p
When it comes down to it, here's my problem.
Here are the visually distinctive elements of a Balor: HELL SWORD! HELL WHIP! FLAME HUGS!
Here is how you run a 3E wizard, wait no dragon, wait no pit fiend, wait no Balor in a mechanically optimal fashion: summon minions to harass the party, continually teleport out of range of them, spam various save-or-HA-HA! unlimited-use spell-like abilities.
Here is how you run a 4E Balor in a mechanically optimal fashion: HELL SWORD! HELL WHIP! FLAME HUGS!
I disagree.
1) 3E did not have rules for everthing...I know my players did alot that was not covered in the rules.
2) I disagree with your way of seeing the balor...
Balor: a powerful demon who is intelligent and tactic. Fighting one is hard due to the flexability of it's powers and leathal as it can kill you in one shot.
Balor in 4th ed...cheap one trick ponies that use...as you say HELL SWORD! HELL WHIP! FLAME HUGS!...yawn...it can get boring during the initial fight as it just spam those....I don't know how anyone can fight the same creature twice out of the book(sure you can mod them easier in 4th ed...I guess never had issues with moding them in 3rd either)...but using the monster out of the book straight is faster either way.
Also my other problem is that if the GM does not fight the monsters as tacticaly stupid the system slows down to a screech. I mean maybe that is why combats in 4th ed takes long because use of tactic. Shrug.
I disagree.
1) 3E did not have rules for everthing...I know my players did alot that was not covered in the rules.
2) I disagree with your way of seeing the balor...
Balor: a powerful demon who is intelligent and tactic. Fighting one is hard due to the flexability of it's powers and leathal as it can kill you in one shot.
And who will never use the lightning sword, flame whip or burning aura that he is traditionally represented as having, because none of those are optimal choices. When I see a picture of a balor, I imagine Gandalf's encounter with the balrog at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm. If I encounter a balor, I want to go toe-to-toe with that whip and sword and test my mettle. I don't want to spend the combat hacking through his summoned minions while he pelts us from afar with spells like Insanity and Power Word Stun.
Fighting a Balor is hard in 3.5. It's also hard fighting a Balor in 4e. The only difference is, in 4e you feel like you're fighting a Balor, rather than a sorcerer-on-steroids dressed up as a Balor.
Balor in 4th ed...cheap one trick ponies that use...as you say HELL SWORD! HELL WHIP! FLAME HUGS!...yawn...it can get boring during the initial fight as it just spam those....I don't know how anyone can fight the same creature twice out of the book(sure you can mod them easier in 4th ed...I guess never had issues with moding them in 3rd either)...but using the monster out of the book straight is faster either way.
Because fights in 4e aren't made interesting by the presence of a single monster alone. They are made interesting by the effective combination of an assortment of monsters of varying roles (primary and secondary), terrain features that offer both new options and hindrances, traps that demand the party's attention, etc. It doesn't get boring fighting a Balor because you're not just fighting a Balor.
Also my other problem is that if the GM does not fight the monsters as tacticaly stupid the system slows down to a screech. I mean maybe that is why combats in 4th ed takes long because use of tactic. Shrug.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you mean by this. Are you saying that fights take longer if the DM chooses the tactically optimal action over the thematically appropriate one? Because, really, I've got news for you: that's true of 3.5 and 4e both, except that in 4e it's far more common that the tactically optimal action is the thematically appropriate one.
When it comes down to it, here's my problem.
Here are the visually distinctive elements of a Balor: HELL SWORD! HELL WHIP! FLAME HUGS!
Here is how you run a 3E wizard, wait no dragon, wait no pit fiend, wait no Balor in a mechanically optimal fashion: summon minions to harass the party, continually teleport out of range of them, spam various save-or-HA-HA! unlimited-use spell-like abilities.
Here is how you run a 4E Balor in a mechanically optimal fashion: HELL SWORD! HELL WHIP! FLAME HUGS!
And I realize this is a little late to the party, but the above might just be my favorite post of all time.