That it does. As does Everquest (and even Everquest 2) in TTRPG format.
But, does that mean that the TTRPG's based on the MMO properties are MMO-inspired, any more or less so than the game that's being debated?
Specifically, once you remove the subject matter (the WoW "Campaign Setting" if you will), are there rules in that RPG designed to mimic concepts or evoke the feel of the MMO as has been argued transpired with 4E?
Eh.....sorta, kinda, but then not really. I'm looking through THIS product that I bought and there are some stark changes they make in regards to classes such as adding the Healer and Tinker and removing some classes or made them PrCs. It also goes on to list a host of WoW-specific spells and feats as well as Firearm rules for a lot of different weapons. I've stolen a few jems for my own v3.5 campaigns, but I doubt I'd go so far as to actually make base a campaign on it.
Aside from that, there very little differences from the actual RPG of WoW and the normal d20 mechanics you find in the OGL/SRD. There aren't feats or alternative class features that make the classes do stuff normally found in WoW MMOs. There's still vancian spellcasting, BAB, 3 saving throws, and all the usual mechanics found in v3.5 D&D.
I actually had the opposite experience with my games, my players would look at all the stuff they could do on their character sheet and assume that was ALL they could do. Despite repeated reminders that I actually liked improvisational play, my players, many of whom are self professed improvisational role-player, just couldn't see past that list and always picked off that list.
While I'm on the subject- they often picked poorly, because as it turns out my players 1- couldn't be bothered to try and learn to work together under the new rules or 2- be bothered to learn what their actual power selections did.
At first I thought the problems that led to the games discontinuation was their fault (and honestly I still think they're partly to blame- they did spend about as much time complaining about the new edition as they actually did playing it), but I've come to realize the problem was largely one of presentation on 4e's part. The system was so transparent they just couldn't suspend their disbelief and get into character.
Despite much of what happened from game to game being functionally the same, 4e broke the fourth wall in a very drastic way with it's presentation, and my players just didn't like it (which is fine, and understandable really, I just didn't need the fifty dozen rationalizations of why the system didn't encourage role-playing).
Also- the change from a game with a light veneer of tactics, to a game with some serious tactical elements was WAY more abrupt than they were prepared for. Instead of seeing additional ways for expressing their character's personality in combat situations, they just saw a game that was all combat.
Just my personal experiences, hardly universal I'm sure.
My group had the same time grasping the transulcent aspect of 4E's rules, until I went ahead and opened their eyes. Pretty much, when I made a DMPC use Scorching Burst (Wizard 1 at-will spell) melt and break through a wall of ice that was covering the door. They looked at me and said "Um, how can he do that with that spell? The spell specifically says 'Target: Creatures in Burst'." and I looked at them and said "It's a fire spell, fire melts ice. It can also probably start campfires and set things like dry tinder, hay, and other flammable objects on fire too." They were shocked that I used a very codified power in such a loose, non-combat way.
My personal feeling is that a buch of what 4E tried to break away from was every bit 3E's fault. For a time, my players expected the rules to tell them all of the be-all and end-all aspects of what they can do or accomplish. That each situation MUST have a rule or follow some formula that dictates how to go about their actions; pretty much a task resolution for EVERYTHING. So yes, at first they needed (DCs) for things like making a weapon, dancing to impress a crowd, and (this is my favorite) Working a part-time job for X-amount of days. Really, the game doesn't need hard-coded rules for these aspects. OR if a group really feels the need to have them, they shouldn't be hard-wired into character options or development that takes away from more important things like adventuring (yes, I strongly feel adventuring is FAR more important than making a weapon where rules are concerned).
So as they gradually understood that everything isn't codified into "Do this with Y check, beat Z DC" then they started to get a LOT more into immersion of their characters. The cleric purified a set of holy gauntlets, the Assassin made Black Eggs, the paladin resumed this position as head of the guard a a temple dedicated to his deity (and got paid for it too!) ALL without hard-coded rules. Now, the Assassin did have the Alchemy Theme or something like that and I gave them all 1 free feat at 1st level, but it had to be something flavorful (the Wizardess took the Familiar feat for example).
P.S. here was his final product of a Black Egg, made as an alchemical item! Enjoy
BLACK EGG
This egg has been injected with steel shavings and powdered glass and then covered in tar. With a quick toss into an enemy's face the egg breaks causing momentary blindness and instant pain.
Lvl +3 30 gp; Lvl 18 3,400 gp
Lvl +8 125 gp; Lvl 23 17,000 gp
Lvl +13 650 gp; Lvl 28 85,000 gp
Alchemical Item
Power (Consumable): Standard Action. Make a ranged attack 5/10: One creature within range; +4 vs. Reflex; on a hit, the target takes 1d6 damage and is blinded until the beginning of the target's next turn. Creatures that do not rely on sight to detect other creatures are immune to this effect.
Level 8: +9 vs. Reflex
Level 13: +14 vs. Reflex
Level 18: +19 vs. Reflex
Level 23: +24 vs. Reflex
Level 28: +29 vs. Reflex
The impression I get is that certain people (clearly not you, Josh) have the following thought process.
1. Tabletop RPGs and video games are separate things.
2. Tabletop RPGs are inviolate, and any mixing with video games degrades them.
3. 4e (and 3e before it, and presumably 5e after it) is more like a video game than 3e (or 2e, or 4e, or whatever).
4. Therefore, 4e is a poor RPG.
1. Yes but they are linked by system and lore similarities.
2. No and no. The Everquest RPG was based off of the MMO and was a very good RPG. My issue stems with taking things from an independently successful RPG and applying them to a TTRPG which laid the ground work for the MMOs creation.
3. Not necessarily. The shift towards MMOs is only apparent to me in 4E.
4. Again no. 4E is a great RPG and probably the most balanced ever. It is just not a very good edition of DND in what I believe DND has been and is suppose to be.
My group had the same time grasping the transulcent aspect of 4E's rules, until I went ahead and opened their eyes. Pretty much, when I made a DMPC use Scorching Burst (Wizard 1 at-will spell) melt and break through a wall of ice that was covering the door. They looked at me and said "Um, how can he do that with that spell? The spell specifically says 'Target: Creatures in Burst'." and I looked at them and said "It's a fire spell, fire melts ice. It can also probably start campfires and set things like dry tinder, hay, and other flammable objects on fire too." They were shocked that I used a very codified power in such a loose, non-combat way.
Question for you and other 4E veterans: if a player chose to use, say, a daily power to create an effect like the one you describe above in a non-combat situation, would you then revoke that player's usage of that ability for the day in the context of combat?
Also, conceptually speaking, is it right to assume that if I know how to create a wall of fire that represents a big expenditure of my power, I could create a smaller burst of said fire as a negligible expenditure? Or is that the sort of situation that should require a PC to have access to a ritual that creates such an effect?
Note that I'm not talking about RAW here - I'm asking what people are actually doing in practice.
My personal feeling is that a buch of what 4E tried to break away from was every bit 3E's fault. For a time, my players expected the rules to tell them all of the be-all and end-all aspects of what they can do or accomplish. That each situation MUST have a rule or follow some formula that dictates how to go about their actions; pretty much a task resolution for EVERYTHING.
I agree with this statement in principle.
I do believe you are right in this aspect, Diffan. A lot of what 4E did was to contrast it from 3E.
I think if executed correctly, 5E may clear some of this up.
You don't need a system for everything, but some people prefer to have systems for things to give balance or maintain balance in some cases.
I like the idea of a system in place for work, performance, and the like. Do you need a system to check and see if you gain enough nourishment from a normal meal? Walking down the street? Breathing? No.
For me a system in place gives me something to go off of as a DM when someone does something that requires skill. How well did they dance? If they've done exceptionally well at crafting the masterwork bastard sword, next time I'll probably lower the DC because of the crafting real world experience he has gained.
How do I know when a character is having a bad day? Who am I as the DM to dictate that in a normal everyday scenerio if I am telling a story WITH the players? I'm guiding the story and abitrating the events... I'm not God.
I hated those DMs. These systems gave depth to those other things that were left up to the DM to decide. If you are trying to do something that the DM doesn't agree with, you still have a chance. It may take a 20 on a d20 to accomplish but you still stand a chance.
The skill system was a breath of fresh air for me. Did I get in the mind set of I have to roll for almost everything? Yes, but after someone crafted 25 masterwork pieces, it was understood that he was a fairly skilled armorer and could make mundane things with ease. I allowed him to make masterwork without rolling also. Sure he'd roll every now and then... or if he were on a time constraint... but once they aquired the skills, proved they could execute with the knowledge they gained and do it consistently, there wasn't a need to roll every single time.
With 5Es modular rules system hopefully we will get more than a black and white answer ie... if you use the system the roll is the deciding factor and if you don't the DM is God.
At the same time I don't want to give the idea that players can just railroad the DM by system manipulation. I had a player create a fireball gattling gun. Six rotating fireball staves and some other things. Eventually it got tiresome and I had to get creative with lightning bolts and a rip in the fabric of the Weave leading to a shift from the material plane.
The point is if a player said to me that he wanted to create a fireball gattling gun, as a DM I would have had to ask how but in the end probably wouldn't have allowed it to be created because of the headache it eventually caused. The player invested in the character the right things to do what he wanted to do and I let him craft it because mechanically... he could. He presented a logical arguement which adhered to the system in place and he won. After a while it got old and all the players realized it. I didn't just go boom and blow it up and hurt the characters... in essence punishing the player for doing something that he wanted to do. He had a right to impact the story and he did.
I had to think for a while on how I was going to do it so it didn't seem like a punishment but still removed a system breaking item from the campaign and deter him from repeating the process.
For me, its not that 4E prohibits or encourages it. It's that 3X emplaced a system that allowed it to be possible and gave guidlines for failure and success. It may have its issues but it worked for me and my circle and it was something that we had unknowingly been looking for.
Lastly, 99.9% of the "non-adventuring" was done solo with just me and the player(s) involved and not during a session. That was just a rule we always had after there was a 2 hour segment dedicated to a rogue... the training of a monkey named Ooty... and the design of a stronghold in the likeness of said monkey.
Question for you and other 4E veterans: if a player chose to use, say, a daily power to create an effect like the one you describe above in a non-combat situation, would you then revoke that player's usage of that ability for the day in the context of combat?
It depends on the power, but most times the answer is "yes."
Question for you and other 4E veterans: if a player chose to use, say, a daily power to create an effect like the one you describe above in a non-combat situation, would you then revoke that player's usage of that ability for the day in the context of combat?
Also, conceptually speaking, is it right to assume that if I know how to create a wall of fire that represents a big expenditure of my power, I could create a smaller burst of said fire as a negligible expenditure? Or is that the sort of situation that should require a PC to have access to a ritual that creates such an effect?
Note that I'm not talking about RAW here - I'm asking what people are actually doing in practice.
For me, it depends. In the example I had, the wizard's at-will spell could be used continuously, so therefore the task resolution (needing to hit the wall with an attack roll) was low and any missed attack would've only done 1/2 fire damage. Had the character used a daily attack spell (such as Fireball or some Summon Fire monster) to break down the door, I'd still say that it was used for the day, but the effecet would've been much greater such as creatures in the next room being burnt by fire damage, awarding the PCs a suprise round, and/or the monsters being hit with the doors as they exploded in-ward.
I think of it as I did in 3E, where a wizard might have Fireball prepared. Even if they don't use the fireball to blow up enemies and instead, use it to burn through a door or floor or melt ice to make water or set a barn on fire, it's still an expenditure of power. But the fact that they're using a powerful, daily resource often has more potent effects aside from the one it was used for. I'd also suggest to the PC that if they have a more re-usable resources such as At-Will or Encounter powers that do similiar things, it'd be better to do that than expend a daily resource. Of course, the decision is up to them.
You don't need a system for everything, but some people prefer to have systems for things to give balance or maintain balance in some cases.
I like the idea of a system in place for work, performance, and the like. Do you need a system to check and see if you gain enough nourishment from a normal meal? Walking down the street? Breathing? No.
For me a system in place gives me something to go off of as a DM when someone does something that requires skill. How well did they dance? If they've done exceptionally well at crafting the masterwork bastard sword, next time I'll probably lower the DC because of the crafting real world experience he has gained.
How do I know when a character is having a bad day? Who am I as the DM to dictate that in a normal everyday scenerio if I am telling a story WITH the players? I'm guiding the story and abitrating the events... I'm not God.
I hated those DMs. These systems gave depth to those other things that were left up to the DM to decide. If you are trying to do something that the DM doesn't agree with, you still have a chance. It may take a 20 on a d20 to accomplish but you still stand a chance.
The skill system was a breath of fresh air for me. Did I get in the mind set of I have to roll for almost everything? Yes, but after someone crafted 25 masterwork pieces, it was understood that he was a fairly skilled armorer and could make mundane things with ease. I allowed him to make masterwork without rolling also. Sure he'd roll every now and then... or if he were on a time constraint... but once they aquired the skills, proved they could execute with the knowledge they gained and do it consistently, there wasn't a need to roll every single time.
With 5Es modular rules system hopefully we will get more than a black and white answer ie... if you use the system the roll is the deciding factor and if you don't the DM is God.
At the same time I don't want to give the idea that players can just railroad the DM by system manipulation. I had a player create a fireball gattling gun. Six rotating fireball staves and some other things. Eventually it got tiresome and I had to get creative with lightning bolts and a rip in the fabric of the Weave leading to a shift from the material plane.
The point is if a player said to me that he wanted to create a fireball gattling gun, as a DM I would have had to ask how but in the end probably wouldn't have allowed it to be created because of the headache it eventually caused. The player invested in the character the right things to do what he wanted to do and I let him craft it because mechanically... he could. He presented a logical arguement which adhered to the system in place and he won. After a while it got old and all the players realized it. I didn't just go boom and blow it up and hurt the characters... in essence punishing the player for doing something that he wanted to do. He had a right to impact the story and he did.
I had to think for a while on how I was going to do it so it didn't seem like a punishment but still removed a system breaking item from the campaign and deter him from repeating the process.
For me, its not that 4E prohibits or encourages it. It's that 3X emplaced a system that allowed it to be possible and gave guidlines for failure and success. It may have its issues but it worked for me and my circle and it was something that we had unknowingly been looking for.
I think my main problem stems from the fact that if you want your character to be able to do that stuff, they have to expend limited resources for those options to be viable. This is at the expense of being good with skills that have life or death implications. Had 3E broken up the skill points into Combat and Non-combat or Combat/Exploration/Worldy tiers where you get a set pool for each of them, I'd be much happier in throwing ranks into Craft (armorsmithing) or Perform (Sing) even if had no representation in combat. But because I had to choose between being able to spot an enemy coming up from behind us and ambushing our party that might get us killed OR being a better blacksmith in our down time, chances are I'm going to pick the one that'll keep us alive.
Perhaps it's because we didn't do much downtime for our characters where we had the options to use those skills in meaningful ways. Our long-running campaign is episodic in nature, meaning that there isn't an overall plot we're attempting to overcome but just living and breathing in the Forgotten Realms campaign. When we're not doing that campaign, it's generally accepted that our characters are still doing "stuff" in and around the Waterdeep area, just not actively adventuring. So for my Knight, he's working as the captain of the guard in the Halls of Justice, the cleric is a big-time Evangelist at the Temple of Dawn (dedicated to Amaunator), and the Wizardess is a full-time teacher in Blackstaff tower. When we were using these characters in 3.5 I had them roll Profession checks 3 times to simulate how much GP they would earn in 1 month (they go by tendays in Faerûn). But as we switched over to 4E, I just had them roll and add in 1/2 level. If they beat a simple DC it meant they got standard fare in GP. A moderate DC saw them a raise for the month with possible titles and/or awards. A difficult DC rewarded them a promotion and boons. A natural 1, well they did something wrong and [u]insert plot hook[/u] to make it better.
After that, I came to the conclusion that they didn't need specific character aspects to define what they did outside of combat, the system itself can easily do that with a simple roll and the 1/2 level modifier, adjusting the DC to the level or whatever the DM desired. Instead with 3.5, we had a codified mechanic that was a bit.....boring IMO and the players could easily see what they got in terms of what they rolled. Sure, I could've adjusted it to whatever I wanted but then they KNEW I was going "off the rails" so to speak even if was to reward them. If there wasn't somthing specifically marked down to what they get in terms of prizes or punishments, it was easier to handwave it without them noticing.
Question for you and other 4E veterans: if a player chose to use, say, a daily power to create an effect like the one you describe above in a non-combat situation, would you then revoke that player's usage of that ability for the day in the context of combat?
Absolutely. As Diffan suggests, each encounter and daily power is a drain on a character's magic mojo battery. Use such a power, and it doesn't come back until you rest for 5 minutes, or 6 hours, respectively.
Also, conceptually speaking, is it right to assume that if I know how to create a wall of fire that represents a big expenditure of my power, I could create a smaller burst of said fire as a negligible expenditure? Or is that the sort of situation that should require a PC to have access to a ritual that creates such an effect?
Eh...I'd say no. You want access to fire 24/7, take a fiery at-will or something.
|
But removes an extra step from the math. If very little in the game, mechanically, happens at distances of less than 5 five but greater than 0, it makes good mathematical sense to reduce the units for ease of presentation. I daresay the number of times people have had to divide feet by 5 to figure out how many squares away someone's at is far greater than the number of times people have had to multiply squares by 5 to figure out how many feet away something is.I'm not saying that one is necessarily a better unit for the game than the other, but clearly there are advantages to using squares that were being glossed over.
Agreed. To clarify, I'm good at math and don't play very often with miniatures. The few times I have to divide by 5 to find squares I can do so quickly. I hate doing the reverse. Entirely personal taste, I'm obviously arguing from a simulationist perspective.
It's not a worthless lesson, though. The truth of the matter is that the complexity and learning curve of becoming an adequate DM was high in previous editions of the game. You didn't just need to learn the rules. You needed to learn the exact same arbitrary set of play-it-by-ear guidelines you mentioned above, and for many people that took years. I can't tell you how many less-than-awesome DMs I've played with because they didn't know how to manage those calls. 3e and 4e codified things so that DMs had explicit guidelines for how to handle certain scenarios. Have five PCs? Here's what you can throw at them and expect them to overcome. 6th level character? Here's a DC he can probably beat. These are good tools, because they remove some of the paralyzing (and sometimes game-souring) guesswork from the DM's job.
I completely agree - I hope they learn this lesson for 5e. I'd like to see a system that allows for flexibility, but explains how to achieve that fairly for novices.
Unfortunately they had an unintended side-effect of arming many players with the knowledge of what was expected of them at particular points in the game, and with it the ability to catch on when things stretch outside those guidelines. I think the benefit outweighs the downside, and I think there are ways to mitigate the latter anyway.
Definitely, except that I think there are players who fail to "catch on" as you said, and fight on assuming everything will be okay.
|
|
I actually had the opposite experience with my games, my players would look at all the stuff they could do on their character sheet and assume that was ALL they could do. Despite repeated reminders that I actually liked improvisational play, my players, many of whom are self professed improvisational role-player, just couldn't see past that list and always picked off that list.
Ugh. This is my biggest peeve of 3rd Edition.
"Hey group, feel free to come up with your own feats or spells! Here are some guidelines! Here are some samples!"
>Blank stares<
At first I thought the problems that led to the games discontinuation was their fault (and honestly I still think they're partly to blame- they did spend about as much time complaining about the new edition as they actually did playing it), but I've come to realize the problem was largely one of presentation on 4e's part. The system was so transparent they just couldn't suspend their disbelief and get into character.Despite much of what happened from game to game being functionally the same, 4e broke the fourth wall in a very drastic way with it's presentation, and my players just didn't like it (which is fine, and understandable really, I just didn't need the fifty dozen rationalizations of why the system didn't encourage role-playing).
Also- the change from a game with a light veneer of tactics, to a game with some serious tactical elements was WAY more abrupt than they were prepared for. Instead of seeing additional ways for expressing their character's personality in combat situations, they just saw a game that was all combat.
Just my personal experiences, hardly universal I'm sure.
I felt exactly the same way playing 4th Edition. At every turn, I was always thinking tactically instead of in-character, because I knew if I didn't the system was designed to punish you.
Looks like Monte quit:
http://montecook.livejournal.com/251404.html
Yeah, it just hit Facebook and ENWorld. This really doesn't bode well to my mind, although "differences of opinion with the company" can mean a lot of things, and may not really have anything at all to do with how the new game is being handled internally.
I felt exactly the same way playing 4th Edition. At every turn, I was always thinking tactically instead of in-character, because I knew if I didn't the system was designed to punish you.
While I agree that the 4e system by default does tend to punish looking outside one's character sheet, I'm curious why you think 4e is unique in this regard. Because IME, D&D has always been this way.
Take this scene, for example: say Aragorn knows in character that wraiths are vulnerable to fire. In any edition, giving up his magic sword's pluses and possible additional goodies to attack with a torch is stupid, even against a foe vulnerable to fire. Even at 1st level, he's likely giving up several points of raw damage for a couple points of extra fire damage. Having a DM who understands the game's math and who takes measures to reward in-character thinking changes things of course, but that's an edition-neutral factor.
Anyway, just curious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very glad he's being classy about it, but I'm really not that sorry he's leaving. From his L&L articles, he wasn't saying things that I was happy to hear and if that means (in some way or aspect) that those design choices weren't with the companies vision, I can understand boths sids parting. Lets hope that, despite this (unfortunate?) turn of evens, D&D:Next will still be a great game.
I'm a fan of Monte's work myself, though I realize his involvement was troubling to 4E fans who worried that D&D Next would become a 3.X clone as a result of his influence.
If he was working on a contract basis, this could be as simple as it just being time to renegotiate the agreement and he and Wizards not being able to come to terms. *shrug* We'll likely never know - at least, not until his NDA expires.
Bruce Cordell's involvement does still give me hope for D&D Next... but I don't think this is going to be a net positive for the public perception of the game in the slightest.
|
While I have faith in the design skills and intentions of Bruce and Robert, Monte's leaving is a major blow to my interest level in the game. This could also be something like Monte got a look at the proposed new "OGL" license for the system and decided "oh crap does that suck" but then, we don't know.
|
WotC may not be the environment where D&D should sit? TSR 'handed' off to WotC, may be it is time for Hasbro do the right thing by D&D and look at selling off the brand? Perhaps if the smart people (meaing Bruce & Robert et al) did a 'Paizo' and took control of D&D something as good as 'Paizo' could be created? Irony would be if TSR as a trademark is open to take...
|
|
Or...
Go with what they started. Drop 5th ed, and focus on reviving 1e... Leave the overly complicated-PhD required to play, hug-a-tree racial/class equality type 'D&D' to Paizo with their Pathfinder RPG. With a little push and some smart advertising the release of the 'new' 1e AD&D books could be the 'new' D&D. All the blah, blah, blah about 5e being a game that everyone can play with whatever style was 1e AD&D - only we called it house-rules. There are so many companies doing retro stuff that the market is there and the 'original AD&D' will hurt their core book sales, but campaign setting/adventures would be a huge market.
I would also bring back the D&D Cyclopedia also - that reprinted is money in the bank for WotC.
Bring back 1e - er, which they have...
WotC may not be the environment where D&D should sit? TSR 'handed' off to WotC, may be it is time for Hasbro do the right thing by D&D and look at selling off the brand? Perhaps if the smart people (meaing Bruce & Robert et al) did a 'Paizo' and took control of D&D something as good as 'Paizo' could be created? Irony would be if TSR as a trademark is open to take...
Well this won't happen Hasbro doesn't sell IPs.
No Monte Cook... *sigh* Looks like I'll have to do indepth reading before I purchase now.
|
|
WotC may not be the environment where D&D should sit? TSR 'handed' off to WotC, may be it is time for Hasbro do the right thing by D&D and look at selling off the brand? Perhaps if the smart people (meaing Bruce & Robert et al) did a 'Paizo' and took control of D&D something as good as 'Paizo' could be created? Irony would be if TSR as a trademark is open to take...Well this won't happen Hasbro doesn't sell IPs.
The problem - big brother has brand control. Look at Paizo, Lisa is top dog and passionate about RP games - the outcome, well we all know the outcome. D&D is a side line niche product for Hasbro - if it fails after a few board meetings no one will care. D&D needs a 'Lisa' if it is to not end up a foot note in RP game history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh well, maybe I'll buy a Player's Handbook.
|
How bittersweet Monte leaves and the Next Playtest is announced. What a run of luck the last thing DD:N needed was something like this. The team which, I am sure are all great guys, leaves me lacking in confidence. Ill have to keep up on the blogs and see if the boys can keep this ship on course of the goal without crashing it onto the rocks.
What can 5e accomplish that I can't do with houserules for 3.5, a system with which I have a high degree of mastery and experience, and have literally hundreds of pages of notes for homebrew "rules modules" in addition to an entire bookshelf full of published material?
I hope it can easily downplay the default high fantasy default and complexity level of the ruleset, which isn't easy to do in 3.5 or Pathfinder without grave implications on the system.
It's easy to add or hourseule an element of 3.5/Pathfinder (that's one of the system great strengths), but the system is so tightly weave that it tends to rip when you try to remove a tread (be it magic level, economy, iterative attacks, stat boosts etc).
'findel
Looks like Monte quit:
http://montecook.livejournal.com/251404.html
Wow, didn't see that coming. Can't see how it bodes well, either.
|
|
They looked at me and said "Um, how can he do that with that spell? The spell specifically says 'Target: Creatures in Burst'."
Did you also point to page 57 of the PHB where it states:
"At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object, whether or not the power identifies an object as a potential target."?
They looked at me and said "Um, how can he do that with that spell? The spell specifically says 'Target: Creatures in Burst'."Did you also point to page 57 of the PHB where it states:
"At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object, whether or not the power identifies an object as a potential target."?
hehe, no I didn't. Didn't read that bit of info until quite a few months after we started playing 4E.
|
|
One thing that I did like hearing about 5th was thier take on clerics. The cleric of a god of shadows should probably be sneaky, the cleric of a god of storms should be able to call down more than one lightning bolt per day, and so on.
Its this reason why I like the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana option for Spontaneous Domain Casting - so a cleric with the Domain of Weather able to cast 3rd level spells could cast Call Lightning as many times a day as they can cast 3rd+ level spells.
|
|
While I agree that the 4e system by default does tend to punish looking outside one's character sheet, I'm curious why you think 4e is unique in this regard. Because IME, D&D has always been this way.Take this scene, for example: say Aragorn knows in character that wraiths are vulnerable to fire. In any edition, giving up his magic sword's pluses and possible additional goodies to attack with a torch is stupid, even against a foe vulnerable to fire. Even at 1st level, he's likely giving up several points of raw damage for a couple points of extra fire damage. Having a DM who understands the game's math and who takes measures to reward in-character thinking changes things of course, but that's an edition-neutral factor.
Anyway, just curious.
Before 4th edition (and 3.5) pretty much anything was worthwhile in combat. Monsters and characters had very low hit points, and weapon damage was useful in any context. With 4th Edition balancing and progressing everything, the game forced characters into taking certain actions. I say 3.5 because the game did this as well without letting players in on the change, but it was still not to quite the same degree as there were a ton of ways to build a character that could avoid combat.
I don't think the Aragorn example really applies. If I stated up the ringwraiths in D&D, I would allow them to be "turned" by fire, and also completely immune to normal weapon damage (in descending edition order DR 20/magic and cold iron; DR 30/+3; +3 weapons or better).
Before 4th edition (and 3.5) pretty much anything was worthwhile in combat. Monsters and characters had very low hit points, and weapon damage was useful in any context. With 4th Edition balancing and progressing everything, the game forced characters into taking certain actions. I say 3.5 because the game did this as well without letting players in on the change, but it was still not to quite the same degree as there were a ton of ways to build a character that could avoid combat.
While I agree that the 4e system by default does tend to punish looking outside one's character sheet, I'm curious why you think 4e is unique in this regard. Because IME, D&D has always been this way.Take this scene, for example: say Aragorn knows in character that wraiths are vulnerable to fire. In any edition, giving up his magic sword's pluses and possible additional goodies to attack with a torch is stupid, even against a foe vulnerable to fire. Even at 1st level, he's likely giving up several points of raw damage for a couple points of extra fire damage. Having a DM who understands the game's math and who takes measures to reward in-character thinking changes things of course, but that's an edition-neutral factor.
Anyway, just curious.
You've completely lost me. Low level PCs and monsters have low HPs, but what does that have to do with building pacifist PCs? And I'm especially confused that you would say that "anything is worthwhile in combat" and "4e forces certain actions." Due to system mastery, a particular issue in 3.x, combat actions are not created equal. IME the range of possibilities range from "end the fight on turn 1" to "I may as well be twiddling my thumbs." Most confusing is your comment about "forced actions." In all my years gaming, I've never been forced to do anything.
I don't think the Aragorn example really applies. If I stated up the ringwraiths in D&D, I would allow them to be "turned" by fire, and also completely immune to normal weapon damage (in descending edition order DR 20/magic and cold iron; DR 30/+3; +3 weapons or better).
Admittedly, the Aragorn example was a poor choice. (It was really just an excuse to link a DM of the Rings panel. :) ) So instead of Aragorn vs. the wraiths, imagine Joe Fighter vs. a white dragon. I think my point stands.
Not to mention that in the example, Aragorn didn't have a sword (it was broken, remember?) :)
In the movie, he has a +1 long sword until Narsil gets reforged. ;)
|
|
You've completely lost me. Low level PCs and monsters have low HPs, but what does that have to do with building pacifist PCs?
If the combat doesn't seem to be possible, it doesn't mean the character is useless.
And I'm especially confused that you would say that "anything is worthwhile in combat" and "4e forces certain actions." Due to system mastery, a particular issue in 3.x, combat actions are not created equal. IME the range of possibilities range from "end the fight on turn 1" to "I may as well be twiddling my thumbs."
What I mean is that everything turns into a function of your class features, rather than allowing players to experiment.
Most confusing is your comment about "forced actions." In all my years gaming, I've never been forced to do anything.
I mean the exact type of thing you mentioned above - if you aren't taking the "correct" action, you're wasting your time. And in 4th Edition the "correct" actions are all spelled out on your character sheet. Move away from that, and you're probably dead.
I mean the exact type of thing you mentioned above - if you aren't taking the "correct" action, you're wasting your time. And in 4th Edition the "correct" actions are all spelled out on your character sheet. Move away from that, and you're probably dead.
I don't buy it. The correct action is always dictated by the encounter, and in this respect 4e is no different than 3e, 2e, or 1e. In any of those editions, 9 times out of 10 the "correct" action (by which we mean optimal action) is spelled out somewhere on your character sheet. The rest of the time, it's an atypical action dictated by the specific and non-standard circumstances of the encounter. This is a common thread through all of D&D.
|
|
I mean the exact type of thing you mentioned above - if you aren't taking the "correct" action, you're wasting your time. And in 4th Edition the "correct" actions are all spelled out on your character sheet. Move away from that, and you're probably dead.I don't buy it. The correct action is always dictated by the encounter, and in this respect 4e is no different than 3e, 2e, or 1e. In any of those editions, 9 times out of 10 the "correct" action (by which we mean optimal action) is spelled out somewhere on your character sheet. The rest of the time, it's an atypical action dictated by the specific and non-standard circumstances of the encounter. This is a common thread through all of D&D.
Let's say there is a hostage tied up, taking X rounds of actions to free. At the same time, the party is engaging a monster of level Y. Previous editions were flexible enough to allow for a party member to disengage and rescue the hostage, or avoid using AoE spells to not injure the innocent. 4th Edition (and 3.5) will punish you more than any edition for doing so, because it assumes you will do a certain amount of average damage per round, and are always using your best class features.
To reiterate, 3.5 was the significant shift away from this, not 4e.
I've never seen such a thing in 3.5.
Then you weren't paying attention.
I mean the exact type of thing you mentioned above - if you aren't taking the "correct" action, you're wasting your time. And in 4th Edition the "correct" actions are all spelled out on your character sheet. Move away from that, and you're probably dead.I don't buy it. The correct action is always dictated by the encounter, and in this respect 4e is no different than 3e, 2e, or 1e. In any of those editions, 9 times out of 10 the "correct" action (by which we mean optimal action) is spelled out somewhere on your character sheet. The rest of the time, it's an atypical action dictated by the specific and non-standard circumstances of the encounter. This is a common thread through all of D&D.Let's say there is a hostage tied up, taking X rounds of actions to free. At the same time, the party is engaging a monster of level Y. Previous editions were flexible enough to allow for a party member to disengage and rescue the hostage, or avoid using AoE spells to not injure the innocent. 4th Edition (and 3.5) will punish you more than any edition for doing so, because it assumes you will do a certain amount of average damage per round, and are always using your best class features.
To reiterate, 3.5 was the significant shift away from this, not 4e.
How were previous editions 'flexible enough'? How does 3.5 or 4e 'punish you'? Is it a matter of taking extra damage because you didn't kill the enemies two rounds earlier?
I don't understand, no matter what edition of Dnd or Pathfinder if I come across an encounter where there are hostages there are several ways to accomplish the task. Let's assume sneaking in to rescue he hostage isn't an option or hasn't worked and we've been discovered by the enemy... The rest of the group turn and fight the monsters while one member continues to free the hostage but the monsters are overwhelming the group so the last guy turns and fights to and the hostage waits till the monsters are destroyed before they are freed... Or is the hostage descending into a fat of acid or some such? In this case it is a part of the encounter and perhaps the Gm should already have accounted for the missing pc in the fight?
I've played and run encounters in 4e where there was some task that needed accomplishing other than combat and it always worked out ok (by this I mean there was no accidental PC death) they make for interesting encounters IMO
|
|
The fact that 4E is ending speaks loudly to its merits or lack thereof. If the general gaming community had supported it more highly, and its parent corporation were making money off of it hand over fist, do you think 5E would be coming out now? Who knows what the final 5E will look like; but as far as I am concerned it will have a long way to go to beat out Pathfinder.
I seem perpetually bound to comment on the only Solution. The Fifth Edition needs to be divided into two types:
1. The Homeplay D&D Game Manual and Campaign Development Set which needs simple and functional rules covering everything from Campaign Development to Play. This allows the Dungeon Master and Players to develop their own Home Play setting where they own the Intellectual Property Rights to what they create. This is how it was for Gygax's Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms by that other dude.
2. The ONLINE TOURNAMENT CAMPAIGNS. This is a commitment by WOTC to its own Intellectual Properties in an Online Environment where Online Game-play in the Campaign Settings progresses those settings. This means Players create/Progress the Story. The Story can then be turned into Fiction. If Balboa the Barbarian gets the Drop on Mordenkainen then that would be carried over into the Fiction. This means that WOTC can reactivate Mystara and develop the hell out of its outer world and hollow world and Subterranea in between - and given Synn the Night Dragon discovered the Radiance - make changes to the world on a Cataclysm level.
|
|
The fact that 4E is ending speaks loudly to its merits or lack thereof. If the general gaming community had supported it more highly, and its parent corporation were making money off of it hand over fist, do you think 5E would be coming out now? Who knows what the final 5E will look like; but as far as I am concerned it will have a long way to go to beat out Pathfinder.
I seem perpetually bound to comment on the only Solution. The Fifth Edition needs to be divided into two types:
1. The Homeplay D&D Game Manual and Campaign Development Set which needs simple and functional rules covering everything from Campaign Development to Play. This allows the Dungeon Master and Players to develop their own Home Play setting where they own the Intellectual Property Rights to what they create. This is how it was for Gygax's Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms by Ed Greenwood.
2. The ONLINE TOURNAMENT CAMPAIGNS. This is a commitment by WOTC to its own Intellectual Properties in an Online Environment where Online Game-play in the Campaign Settings progresses those settings. This means Players create/Progress the Story. The Story can then be turned into Fiction. If Balboa the Barbarian gets the Drop on Mordenkainen then that would be carried over into the Fiction. This means that WOTC can reactivate Mystara and develop the hell out of its outer world and hollow world and Subterranea in between - and given Synn the Night Dragon discovered the Radiance - make changes to the world on a Cataclysm level.
I mean the exact type of thing you mentioned above - if you aren't taking the "correct" action, you're wasting your time. And in 4th Edition the "correct" actions are all spelled out on your character sheet. Move away from that, and you're probably dead.I don't buy it. The correct action is always dictated by the encounter, and in this respect 4e is no different than 3e, 2e, or 1e. In any of those editions, 9 times out of 10 the "correct" action (by which we mean optimal action) is spelled out somewhere on your character sheet. The rest of the time, it's an atypical action dictated by the specific and non-standard circumstances of the encounter. This is a common thread through all of D&D.Let's say there is a hostage tied up, taking X rounds of actions to free. At the same time, the party is engaging a monster of level Y. Previous editions were flexible enough to allow for a party member to disengage and rescue the hostage, or avoid using AoE spells to not injure the innocent. 4th Edition (and 3.5) will punish you more than any edition for doing so, because it assumes you will do a certain amount of average damage per round, and are always using your best class features.
To reiterate, 3.5 was the significant shift away from this, not 4e.
The very first RPGA adventure I ever ran in 4e involved fighting off a number of monsters while helping to safely deliver a baby, and it worked great. I still don't buy it.