|
My group (LG players) moved to pathfinder for a number of reasons:
- changing the living campaign setting from Greyhawk to Forgotten Realms at the same time as a new edition was seen as "too much" by many players
Out of interest, was Living Greyhawk the primary way you played D&D 3.5? I was just wondering, because if a living campaign is the main way to play I can understand a move to PFS may be less of a change despite the change of setting as the rules are more similar to 3.5 than 4e was (and of course PFS Season Zero used D&D3.5 rules).
Honestly, while there are a lot of niggling things here and there, most of the reason I never got on board with 4th edition was because of the focus on tactical combat. That's not the way I like to play, and nothing in 4th edition ever indicated to me that the game was going to be something where I was the target audience.
4e: good game, not for me.
Out of interest, was Living Greyhawk the primary way you played D&D 3.5? I was just wondering, because if a living campaign is the main way to play I can understand a move to PFS may be less of a change despite the change of setting as the rules are more similar to 3.5 than 4e was (and of course PFS Season Zero used D&D3.5 rules).My group (LG players) moved to pathfinder for a number of reasons:
- changing the living campaign setting from Greyhawk to Forgotten Realms at the same time as a new edition was seen as "too much" by many players
LG was the primary D&D involvement of my group. Many of us were master level GMs , module writers and play testers. Most were traveling over 1000 km several times a year to play at major events.
It is probable if the new 4th Ed had remained in Greyhawk more of our players would have stayed with it. There was something like 6 or 8 years of player generated Region development lost. I am sure many would have been happy to restart their characters and meta-orgs in a new game format if they could avoid losing that background.
Instead most existing players moved to Pathfinder.
Now the new 4th Ed. LFR living campaign was semi-successful in several regional centers but except for a few core LG players who basically ran everything the new campaign in our region consisted of new younger first time players. I gather most of these new players did not stay long and numbers dropped.
I have no idea if our local story is typical. It's entirely possible that LFR globally is actually more successful than LG and has huge numbers or maybe the ongoing churn of younger players trying and quitting keeps everything viable. I no longer have any connection with Wizards/Hasbro living campaigns at all and actually no longer know anyone that still plays LFR or 4th Ed..
|
|
LG was the primary D&D involvement of my group. Many of us were master level GMs , module writers and play testers. Most were traveling over 1000 km several times a year to play at major events.
I can see then how a change of edition and living setting would have turned you off, and how even with a change of setting a move to PFS may have been more to your likely due to the similar rules (especially if you lot were writing material for LG and wanted to do that for PF).
I have no idea if our local story is typical. It's entirely possible that LFR globally is actually more successful than LG
I am not sure how popular LG was in the UK, I got into it late and so had trouble getting tables with my low level sorcerer so I only played a couple of scenarios (I played more Living Force).
However LFR hasn't really taken off it seems - I played a couple of scenarios one at a con and one run by a friend who is now a complete PF convert. I am not a big fan of FR so I was never that enthused about it, but it also didn't help that there wasn't a device like the Pathfinder Society to explain why our characters were adventuring together (if it had been Eberron we could at least all have worked for the Wayfinder Foundation :)
PFS is the really popular living campaign now and that is why I play it (and also therefore why I play Pathfinder).
Page 42 of the 4E DMG allows you to do anything. Wizards and Demons can pick up rocks and throw them...
Yeah, I'm not sure that someone who doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the rules on page 42 qualifies as a "rules-oriented player".
Page 42 of the 4E DMG allows you to do anything. Wizards and Demons can pick up rocks and throw them...
One has to wonder with the rule on Page 42....Why have powers at all?
|
|
Page 42 of the 4E DMG allows you to do anything. Wizards and Demons can pick up rocks and throw them...
By now you have probably seen both my reply and that of Tequila Sunrise that show Gorbacz's example is just plain wrong, even without the need for page 42.
Page 42 of the 4E DMG allows you to do anything. Wizards and Demons can pick up rocks and throw them...One has to wonder with the rule on Page 42....Why have powers at all?
Because then you can't fill a seemingly unending number of books with new ones to sell.
Savage Worlds has a similar mechanic which applies universally, without the need for rules bloat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 42 of the 4E DMG allows you to do anything. Wizards and Demons can pick up rocks and throw them...One has to wonder with the rule on Page 42....Why have powers at all?
Because the powers provide inspiration, clearer guidelines on what can be done by whom, as well as abilities that are not dependent upon die rolls to succeed.
That's like asking, "If you have a sewing machine, why go clothes shopping?"
Page 42 of the 4E DMG allows you to do anything. Wizards and Demons can pick up rocks and throw them...One has to wonder with the rule on Page 42....Why have powers at all?Because the powers provide inspiration, clearer guidelines on what can be done by whom, as well as abilities that are not dependent upon die rolls to succeed.
That's like asking, "If you have a sewing machine, why go clothes shopping?"
So the rule on page 42 does not allow you to anything...if there is a power for it than you would need to power...I guess you could do some watered down version of it...though is that really worth it considering you have powers of your own?
And of course with every new book of powers there is less and less you can do with that rule. Now trip is a rogue power...and disarm is a fighter power...etc.
And you guys wonder why nobody seems to remember this rule exists? The deisners themselves don't know it is there.
And of course with every new book of powers there is less and less you can do with that rule. Now trip is a rogue power...and disarm is a fighter power...etc.
"Someone made a knife designed specifically to cut tomatoes? I guess it must be illegal to cut tomatoes with my chef's knife now!"
Ah Scott...I find your blind devotion to the system amusing.
|
Player: "My Wizard wants to throw this magical rock at the demon"
1E,2E,3E/PF:
GM: "Sure, roll your ranged attack/thaco/whatever, AC is xxx, deal 1d4+1+STR damage"
4E:
GM: "Wait, let me figure it out ... should you do a skill check first ... no ... I don't think so ... so it's just going to be an attack ... should it be Dexterity vs. AC, or Dexterity vs. Reflex, or perhaps Intelligence vs. Charisma ... and the damage ... you're 5th level ... which of the three damage expressions should I use ... and while we're at it, why is a rock thrown by a level 1 PC supposed to do less damage than one thrown by a level 20 PC ... hey, why are you sneezing, guys?"
Eh? You can do exactly the same in 4E as you do in 1E - just make up something which fits. That's why I like it. I know you like poking fun at 4E, but that dialogue doesn't even make sense.
3E is the one with all the modifiers and actual "rock-throwing rules" to look up.
Ah Scott...I find your blind devotion to the system amusing.I find your attempts to portray 4e in a bad light by twisting the rules to imply something they don't also amusing. 4e has enough faults that your shouldn't feel the need to make up stuff to disparage it.
Sorry what? I found the volumes upon volums of power to be a fault in the system(it also why it has had the shortest run of any edition of the game). I also find the rule of page 40 whatever to be laughable...yet people keep bringing it up as a some sort of proof of something.
Read my post carefuly. You might realize the problem with that rule is.
How many time do you think that rule actualy is used in any given 4th ed game? I think none(or maybe 1%) because your Powers are always 100% better to do.
Second if you allow somebody to use the rule to trip...than the guy at the table who Invested a power to be able to Trip...either gets screwed...or the GM as to depower the unpowered trip to the point it is a waste of action. Which you could be using a power to get a 100% better result.
I am sorry but the power and that rule are a rather large and very real(In my veiw) fault with the system.
Also try to get Scott to admit to any fault in the system...that is kinda of trying to squeeze. water from rocks
Eh? You can do exactly the same in 4E as you do in 1E - just make up something which fits. That's why I like it. I know you like poking fun at 4E, but that dialogue doesn't even make sense.
3E is the one with all the modifiers and actual "rock-throwing rules" to look up.
While I agree Gorbacz is rather overstating it....
3e/Pf...throw rocks...mmm no rules on that. You could just have be a normal attack roll...or if you feel like I gues you could immpose the Improv. weapon penalty...which would be -4.
So where is the 'looking up'? Also I count ONE possible mod.
Also...sigh you know you can just make something up that fits as well in 3rd.
Eh? You can do exactly the same in 4E as you do in 1E - just make up something which fits. That's why I like it. I know you like poking fun at 4E, but that dialogue doesn't even make sense.
3E is the one with all the modifiers and actual "rock-throwing rules" to look up.
While I agree Gorbacz is rather overstating it....
3e/Pf...throw rocks...mmm no rules on that. You could just have be a normal attack roll...or if you feel like I gues you could immpose the Improv. weapon penalty...which would be -4.
So where is the 'looking up'? Also I count ONE possible mod.
Also...sigh you know you can just make something up that fits as well in 3rd.
Yeah, that's how I do it in 3E, too. I'm not very good at third edition though (I'd have to look up all those things you listed).
The thing is, I'd go looking for rules, because 3E has rules for so much.
Before I get carried away on a edition war...let me add this.
Every RPG system has 'faults' and 'strengths'. What is a fault and what is a strength is somewhat subjective...as to what is the degree of tolerence for a fault.
I know PF has a faults...but those will be different than what you might consider to be faults in the system. I also can either tolerate them or houserule them.
The faults I find with 4th ed were too great for me to tolerate and far outweighed the strengths of the system.
Most of that I'll admit is personal preference.
If you enjoy the game than more power to you...but please don't bandy it as the perfect system...or as a previous poster saying 'it was too good' for the name D&D load of nonsense. It had glaring weaknesses...just because you can ignore them, tolerate the, or house rule to cover them up does not mean they did not exist.
|
|
Player: "My Wizard wants to throw this magical rock at the demon"
1E,2E,3E/PF:
GM: "Sure, roll your ranged attack/thaco/whatever, AC is xxx, deal 1d4+1+STR damage"
4E:
GM: "Wait, let me figure it out ... should you do a skill check first ... no ... I don't think so ... so it's just going to be an attack ... should it be Dexterity vs. AC, or Dexterity vs. Reflex, or perhaps Intelligence vs. Charisma ... and the damage ... you're 5th level ... which of the three damage expressions should I use
Seriously? This again? Did you not read my post from earlier this year, or are you willfully ignoring it?
An improvised weapon in 4e, such as a rock, is just a weapon like any other and can be used with any Power with the Weapon keyword, or even with just a Ranged Basic attack. You don't need to use DMG p42 if you don't want to (though of course you can).
So basically it would go exactly the same other than in 4e the player has the option to use a Weapon keyword power too.
Player: "My Wizard wants to throw this magical rock at the demon"
1E,2E,3E/PF:
GM: "Sure, roll your ranged attack/thaco/whatever, AC is xxx, deal 1d4+1+STR damage"
4E:
GM: "Sure, roll your ranged basic attack, or use a Ranged Weapon attack power, AC is xxx, deal 1d4+1+STR damage"
So please, if you are going to criticise 4e at least do so about something that is true. I personally don't like the fact that in 4e PCs heal all their hit points overnight - but at least that is a fact about the system.
and while we're at it, why is a rock thrown by a level 1 PC supposed to do less damage than one thrown by a level 20 PC ...
Firstly, if you're using the rules for improvised weapons rather than DMG p42, a level 20 PC would do the same damage as a level 1 PC assuming they use the same power and their abilities are the same. Its only at 21st level that most powers (including Basic attacks) allow you to roll twice the number of weapon damage dice.
But if we're talking about DMG p42 damage expressions...
Why does a level 20 PC have more hit points than a level 1 PC?
Escalating hit points are part of the game - not just 4e, but 3.x, PF and I imagine earlier editions too (I am not familiar with them). And with escalating hit points you ideally need to inflict escalating damage.
If you need an in-game explanation make up one that works for you - why does a rogue's Sneak attack get greater? Because they can more accurately strike and exploit a foe's weak or vulnerable spots? Cool! Then that can be your explanation for why a level 20 PC does greater damage with a DMG p42 attack than a Level 1 PC.
Or alternatively, maybe the types of tricks and exploits the level 20 PC can pull off can inflict greater damage, but they require much greater effort or skill too (i.e. level 20 DCs). If a level 1 PC could pull off that same move (and hit that much higher DC) then maybe the GM could allow them to inflict the same level of damage?
For example, maybe a level 1 PC hitting a Hard DC (15) can deal high normal damage (2d6 + 3) which is almost the equivalent of a level 20 PC hitting an Easy DC (14) and dealing low normal damage (2d6 + 7).
Such explanations may not work for everyone, but then if that is the case I would recommend playing a game other than D&D / PF because escalating Hit Points are likely to cause the same issues, maybe something like RuneQuest would likely better suit their tastes.
Eh? You can do exactly the same in 4E as you do in 1E - just make up something which fits. That's why I like it. I know you like poking fun at 4E, but that dialogue doesn't even make sense.
3E is the one with all the modifiers and actual "rock-throwing rules" to look up.
While I agree Gorbacz is rather overstating it....
3e/Pf...throw rocks...mmm no rules on that. You could just have be a normal attack roll...or if you feel like I gues you could immpose the Improv. weapon penalty...which would be -4.
So where is the 'looking up'? Also I count ONE possible mod.
Also...sigh you know you can just make something up that fits as well in 3rd.
Yeah, that's how I do it in 3E, too. I'm not very good at third edition though (I'd have to look up all those things you listed).
The thing is, I'd go looking for rules, because 3E has rules for so much.
Yeah I'll admitt I am good with 3rd ed/PF rules...it is my useless mutant power ;)
I think a hundred pages is about my perfect length for RPG rules (not counting monsters). I just don't care enough about mechanics to learn more than that.
|
|
Sorry what? I found the volumes upon volums of power to be a fault in the system(it also why it has had the shortest run of any edition of the game). I also find the rule of page 40 whatever to be laughable...yet people keep bringing it up as a some sort of proof of something.
First off you seemed to be implying that with DMG p42 there should be no need of powers, then you appeared to be stating that if a power exists in 4e you cannot do something similar using DMG p42. Both are simply not true - both p42 and powers serve a purpose.
Whilst p42 should not be used to invalidate any powers, there is nothing stopping the GM using it to allow something similar but perhaps a little harder to pull off, or maybe with a drawback.
Second if you allow somebody to use the rule to trip...than the guy at the table who Invested a power to be able to Trip...either gets screwed...or the GM as to depower the unpowered trip to the point it is a waste of action. Which you could be using a power to get a 100% better result.
Okay, so in Pathfinder do you feel that having the Trip combat manouevre available to everyone is a mistake? Surely allowing anyone to attempt a Trip screws over the player at the table who invested in the Improved Trip feat?
Personally I don't think it does screw that player over because without the feat you provoke an AoO and finder it a bit harder (you don't get the +2 to your CMB check). But then, is that what you would consider depowering the "non-feat" trip to the point it is a waste of action? Surely someone without Improved Trip would get a 100% better result with an attack?
So yeah, a GM can allow a PC to do something similar to what a published power does, but they should ensure it doesn't invalidate that power by making it harder and / or less effective - and yes, in most circumstances that will mean it is a suboptimal choice.
However in some situations, it becomes a more optimal choice - maybe the foe is moving around too much to keep up with, so when you do finally get a chance to hit them knocking them prone may be worth the risk because if you're successful your allies can then pile on the damage.
Similarly in PF, most people without Improved Trip will not try to trip, but if a thief has just picked your pocket and looks to be going to run off, maybe a trip is worth it, especially if the thief has no weapon in hand and so cannot execute the AoO you would provoke?
First off you seemed to be implying that with DMG p42 there should be no need of powers, then you appeared to be stating that if a power exists in 4e you cannot do something similar using DMG p42. Both are simply not true - both p42 and powers serve a purpose.
Whilst p42 should not be used to invalidate any powers, there is nothing stopping the GM using it to allow something similar but perhaps a little harder to pull off, or maybe with a drawback.
That was just me being a little snarky...as that rule does not in fact let you do anything. And as more powers are created it lets you do even less.
Okay, so in Pathfinder do you feel that having the Trip combat manouevre available to everyone is a mistake? Surely allowing anyone to attempt a Trip screws over the player at the table who invested in the Improved Trip feat?
Um not at all. Let put it this way...
In PF when you try to trip somebody they will end up prone. The feat makes it easier to pull off...by adding a bonus and avioding the AoO(which helps in success as you are not adding the damage to your targets CMD). But the same successful attempt results in the same condition. That means anybody can try to trip and get the same amount effivency. Till people futher invest in training.
In 4th Ed...if you have the power you get the result of somebody going prone and damage I believe.
If you don't have the power I have seen GMs rule the target is only immobilized(I believe that is the condition) for a round saying you only knock the person off balance. Now not only do I have powers that are more likely to succeed ( as yopu said you would make it harder) I have to do make do with some drawback( like lessening the condition).
Why that is all in heaven would even bother in 4th ed to try to trip somebody when I can use a power that will be 100% more likely to succeed and be that much more effective?
At least in PF I know I'll get the best possible result if I succeed.
It reminds of a question somebody once asked me rather I grapple in PF or 4th ed...my answear was PF, because it is actualy worth doing it.
I just don't find doing things that is not a power 4th edition not worth doing.
|
|
Eh? You can do exactly the same in 4E as you do in 1E - just make up something which fits. That's why I like it. I know you like poking fun at 4E, but that dialogue doesn't even make sense.
3E is the one with all the modifiers and actual "rock-throwing rules" to look up.
And that's something I like about 3E. And 1E/2E were far more consistent in their "just have GM wing it" principle, whereas 4E is incredibly rigid in some areas ("No, illusions don't work like they did in previous eds. They just give you +2 bonus against that enemy.") while in other areas it says "well you have page 42, make that up!". I'm sure some people are all over such paradigm, but I'm not one of them :)
Ah Scott...I find your blind devotion to the system amusing.I find your attempts to portray 4e in a bad light by twisting the rules to imply something they don't also amusing. 4e has enough faults that your shouldn't feel the need to make up stuff to disparage it.Sorry what? I found the volumes upon volums of power to be a fault in the system(it also why it has had the shortest run of any edition of the game). I also find the rule of page 40 whatever to be laughable...yet people keep bringing it up as a some sort of proof of something.
Read my post carefuly. You might realize the problem with that rule is.
How many time do you think that rule actualy is used in any given 4th ed game? I think none(or maybe 1%) because your Powers are always 100% better to do.
Second if you allow somebody to use the rule to trip...than the guy at the table who Invested a power to be able to Trip...either gets screwed...or the GM as to depower the unpowered trip to the point it is a waste of action. Which you could be using a power to get a 100% better result.
Well as Digital Mage has pointed out - if its a sizable rock being used as a weapon its covered by improvised weapons and basic or ranged basic attacks. On the other hand if its something a little more unusual, for example a player saying "wait we are on a beach right? I throw sand in his face" then that would be covered by page 42.
As you and Gorbacz note (and as been mentioned up thread) use of Page 42 is often something that works best with a DM versed in the system and generally experienced because you are adjudicating the situation on the fly at this point and that can be very overwhelming for a less experienced DM. Certainly one of the things the DM wants to insure is that page 42 is not in fact better then the powers. The DM would be making a mistake if throwing sand in the opponents face was to easy and caused blindness since blindness is a powerful condition and usually reserved for daily powers until well into the Paragon tier.
So yeah - page 42 will allow a good DM to adjudicate something off the wall if needed but most of the time the players should be using their powers. They picked them out after all.
In my campaign I much more often use page 42 as the building blocks for a scene that I design before hand - so part and parcel of how the PCs are navigating a burning building where flaming timbers are falling from the roof and the like. A lot of DMs also use it as a kind of Easter egg system where they stick something like a boulder into the encounter and reward players who think to push the boulders down onto the attacking enemies. Personally I'm more likely to simply design an Easter Egg power for such a scenario but one that might well require a skill check such as Athletics to initially activate and here page 42 provides the guide for picking out what DC I'm going to set this Athletics check at.
And that's something I like about 3E. And 1E/2E were far more consistent in their "just have GM wing it" principle, whereas 4E is incredibly rigid in some areas ("No, illusions don't work like they did in previous eds. They just give you +2 bonus against that enemy.") while in other areas it says "well you have page 42, make that up!". I'm sure some people are all over such paradigm, but I'm not one of them :)Eh? You can do exactly the same in 4E as you do in 1E - just make up something which fits. That's why I like it. I know you like poking fun at 4E, but that dialogue doesn't even make sense.
3E is the one with all the modifiers and actual "rock-throwing rules" to look up.
Sure. You haven't been shy about expressing your dislike.
Im not trying to tell you what to like. its just that your little play didn't make sense. When it comes to undefined rock throwing, 4E is much more like 1E than PF is.
|
|
Player: "My Wizard wants to throw this magical rock at the demon"
1E,2E,3E/PF:
GM: "Sure, roll your ranged attack/thaco/whatever, AC is xxx, deal 1d4+1+STR damage"
4E:
GM: "Wait, let me figure it out ... should you do a skill check first ... no ... I don't think so ... so it's just going to be an attack ... should it be Dexterity vs. AC, or Dexterity vs. Reflex, or perhaps Intelligence vs. Charisma ... and the damage ... you're 5th level ... which of the three damage expressions should I use
Seriously? This again? Did you not read my post from earlier this year, or are you willfully ignoring it?
An improvised weapon in 4e, such as a rock, is just a weapon like any other and can be used with any Power with the Weapon keyword, or even with just a Ranged Basic attack. You don't need to use DMG p42 if you don't want to (though of course you can).
So basically it would go exactly the same other than in 4e the player has the option to use a Weapon keyword power too.
Player: "My Wizard wants to throw this magical rock at the demon"
1E,2E,3E/PF:
GM: "Sure, roll your ranged attack/thaco/whatever, AC is xxx, deal 1d4+1+STR damage"
4E:
GM: "Sure, roll your ranged basic attack, or use a Ranged Weapon attack power, AC is xxx, deal 1d4+1+STR damage"
So please, if you are going to criticise 4e at least do so about something that is true. I personally don't like the fact that in 4e PCs heal all their hit points overnight - but at least that is a fact about the system.
and while we're at it, why is a rock thrown by a level 1 PC supposed to do less damage than one thrown by a level 20 PC ...Firstly, if you're using the rules for improvised weapons rather than DMG p42, a level 20 PC would do the same damage as a level 1 PC assuming they use the same power and their abilities are the same. Its only at 21st level that most powers (including Basic attacks) allow you...
OK, the rock example was indeed a fumble on my side, because I forgot about 4E having rules for improvised weapons. Apologies! Of course, this leads to another question - what happens if the GM says that some stunt is an improvised weapon attack, while the player says "I think it's a page 42 thing, dude?".
Also, the justification of why everything should scale with level is silly. You reach absurdities as situations where a level 5 PC, a level 10 PC and a level 20 PC all stand before the same locked iron door, and the DC for picking its' lock is different for each of them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's something I like about 3E. And 1E/2E were far more consistent in their "just have GM wing it" principle, whereas 4E is incredibly rigid in some areas ("No, illusions don't work like they did in previous eds. They just give you +2 bonus against that enemy.") while in other areas it says "well you have page 42, make that up!". I'm sure some people are all over such paradigm, but I'm not one of them :)Eh? You can do exactly the same in 4E as you do in 1E - just make up something which fits. That's why I like it. I know you like poking fun at 4E, but that dialogue doesn't even make sense.
3E is the one with all the modifiers and actual "rock-throwing rules" to look up.
Sure. You haven't been shy about expressing your dislike.
Im not trying to tell you what to like. its just that your little play didn't make sense. When it comes to undefined rock throwing, 4E is much more like 1E than PF is.
There are several things I like about the ideas in 4E. Page 42, skill challenges, rituals... it's just that the implementation took the wrong turn in Albuquerque.
And that's something I like about 3E. And 1E/2E were far more consistent in their "just have GM wing it" principle, whereas 4E is incredibly rigid in some areas ("No, illusions don't work like they did in previous eds. They just give you +2 bonus against that enemy.") while in other areas it says "well you have page 42, make that up!". I'm sure some people are all over such paradigm, but I'm not one of them :)Eh? You can do exactly the same in 4E as you do in 1E - just make up something which fits. That's why I like it. I know you like poking fun at 4E, but that dialogue doesn't even make sense.
3E is the one with all the modifiers and actual "rock-throwing rules" to look up.
This is true though if you look a little more carefully you'll see that the divide between rigid and malleable is generally along the lines of the system being rigid in regards to how characters work and malleable in regards to how adventures work. Players want to know what they can do with their powers and such - so any given PC power with the illusion keyword will explain exactly what it is that this power does...possibly that is a +2 to attacks.
In the hands of the DM...well then these particular illusions do whatever it is the DM has decided he wants them to do. Presumably the DM is sticking the illusion(s) into the adventure for some kind of purpose and he'll design them in order to accomplish that purpose. One example might be that a Demon is using an illusion to disguise itself as a cranky old man. Depending on the adventure it may be easy for the PCs to see through the illusion or maybe its possible but not all that likely...or its straight out impossible. In essence the illusion conforms to fit the DMs plot needs.
In game theory terms the point of the divide is to give both the players and the DM what it is they want from the system. The players want to know how their characters work and pick cool stuff when they level up. The DM wants to tell a good yarn that entertains his players. So players get rigid rules that allow them to make choices for their characters while DMs get malleable rules that allow them to design their story.
There are several things I like about the ideas in 4E. Page 42, skill challenges, rituals... it's just that the implementation took the wrong turn in Albuquerque.And that's something I like about 3E. And 1E/2E were far more consistent in their "just have GM wing it" principle, whereas 4E is incredibly rigid in some areas ("No, illusions don't work like they did in previous eds. They just give you +2 bonus against that enemy.") while in other areas it says "well you have page 42, make that up!". I'm sure some people are all over such paradigm, but I'm not one of them :)Eh? You can do exactly the same in 4E as you do in 1E - just make up something which fits. That's why I like it. I know you like poking fun at 4E, but that dialogue doesn't even make sense.
3E is the one with all the modifiers and actual "rock-throwing rules" to look up.
Sure. You haven't been shy about expressing your dislike.
Im not trying to tell you what to like. its just that your little play didn't make sense. When it comes to undefined rock throwing, 4E is much more like 1E than PF is.
We don't disagree about that, really.
|
|
then you appeared to be stating that if a power exists in 4e you cannot do something similar using DMG p42. Both are simply not true
That was just me being a little snarky...as that rule does not in fact let you do anything. And as more powers are created it lets you do even less.
I sort of have to apologise here, I have gone back and checked my DMG p42 and the section is titled "Actions the Rules Don’t Cover" which by RAW would indicate that if a Power does exist to do something, that p42 shouldn't be used to cover that (as the Power is the rule that covers it). So yeah, you do have a point here.
Mind you, the example they give on p42 is of Shiera swinging on a chandelier and kicking an ogre in the chest on her way down to the ground, hoping to push the ogre into the brazier of burning coals behind it.
And yet pushing a foe back is covered under Bull Rush (and the improvised check is effectively the Bull Rush rule) but the damage is from the chart. So I guess that is where I got the idea that you p42 can cover attempts to do stuff that is covered in a similar way by other rules, but not exactly as the player wants to do it.
In 4th Ed...if you have the power you get the result of somebody going prone and damage I believe.
If you don't have the power I have seen GMs rule the target is only immobilized(I believe that is the condition) for a round saying you only knock the person off balance.
I guess this is where DMG p42 may not be to everyone's liking, basically because the results can vary by GM and why some people therefore prefer PF or 3.x where everything is spelt out.
Also, I can see that with your trip example, you would prefer to have the same end result but the untrained person to not have as greater chance and perhaps to incur some consequence. I.e. the foe ends of prone whether Tripped by someone with Improved Trip or not, but the person without Improved Trip will have a harder time doing it and may take some damage.
And so I can guess that you may not like p42 rulings that make something as easy to accomplish as the trained person, but where you don't get the same results.
Its preference I guess, the level 1 Fighter Encounter power Spinning Sweep is a Strength + Weapon Proficiency check vs AC doing 1[W] + Strength modifier damage & knocking the opponent prone (pretty much a Basic Attack with the extra benefit of knocking the opponent prone).
Without the Power would you prefer:
1) a Strength check vs AC, doing 1[W] + Strength modifier damage & knocking the opponent prone (i.e. less chance of success but same result),
or
2) Strength + Weapon Proficiency check vs AC and the result of just knocking the foe Prone (i.e. same chance of success but less of an effect)?
There is no right or wrong answers, you would seem to prefer 1) whilst others may prefer 2).
|
|
OK, the rock example was indeed a fumble on my side, because I forgot about 4E having rules for improvised weapons. Apologies!
No worries, my original post was over 6 months ago :)
Of course, this leads to another question - what happens if the GM says that some stunt is an improvised weapon attack, while the player says "I think it's a page 42 thing, dude?".
I guess it comes down to hopefully a brief polite conversation and the GM making the final call and maybe having a longer discussion afterwards. Mostly though, if a PC is picking something up and using it like they would any other weapon, e.g. bashing like a club, thrusting like a dagger or hurled like a thrown weapon, then it would come under improvised weapon. If its something like pushing a boulder down an incline to bowl over a group of foes that would be a DMG p42 thing.
Also, the justification of why everything should scale with level is silly. You reach absurdities as situations where a level 5 PC, a level 10 PC and a level 20 PC all stand before the same locked iron door, and the DC for picking its' lock is different for each of them.
Whilst I can see that the wording isn't the best "Use the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table (page 42) to set a DC appropriate to the character’s level." I read "appropriate" as "relevent" or "a challenge". I.e. I read it as suggesting using the table to set a DC for a task so that it is not too trivial or absolutely impossible for the party of PCs.
It the the same way that PFS Scenarios change DCs for the same task based upon the sub-tier.
However, the DC to pick a door lock shouldn't change based on who attempts it within the scenario, if you're playing an Heroic Tier adventure the DC should be 20.
Mind you Essentials is guilty of what you are saying, i.e. the DC changing based upon the person trying the exact same task, and its one of the reasons I hate it.
So yeah, you are right to some extent, but I tend to think it was a case of RAW being poorly worded and not reflecting RAI.
Anyway, 4e is an okay system, but I do much prefer 3.5 for many of the same reasons you do (rules to cover what in 4e would be ambiguous areas etc).
It is hard to argue in favor of 4E, when WOTC has moved on to 5E. That will always be thrown in your face, regardless of the innovations 4E made. Basically, WOTC lost its way in regards to what makes D&D successful, and the rules is only one part. Where they failed with 4E, is not playtesting it, or releasing a steady stream of adventures, versus splat books with more options. In addition, they tried to change the direction of 4E with essentials, and fragmented their own player base. And there are areas in 4E that were begging for attention to close some of the rifts like rituals and martial practices, but they failed to deliver on a concept that had merit if executed properly.
I guess this is where DMG p42 may not be to everyone's liking, basically because the results can vary by GM and why some people therefore prefer PF or 3.x where everything is spelt out.
Also, I can see that with your trip example, you would prefer to have the same end result but the untrained person to not have as greater chance and perhaps to incur some consequence. I.e. the foe ends of prone whether Tripped by someone with Improved Trip or not, but the person without Improved Trip will have a harder time doing it and may take some damage.
And so I can guess that you may not like p42 rulings that make something as easy to accomplish as the trained person, but where you don't get the same results.
Its preference I guess, the level 1 Fighter Encounter power Spinning Sweep is a Strength + Weapon Proficiency check vs AC doing 1[W] + Strength modifier damage & knocking the opponent prone (pretty much a Basic Attack with the extra benefit of knocking the opponent prone).
Without the Power would you prefer:
1) a Strength check vs AC, doing 1[W] + Strength modifier damage & knocking the opponent prone (i.e. less chance of success but same result),
or
2) Strength + Weapon Proficiency check vs AC and the result of just knocking the foe Prone (i.e. same chance of success but less of an effect)?
There is no right or wrong answers, you would seem to prefer 1) whilst others may prefer 2).
As a starting point I'd lean to your option #2 personally but I absolutely would not codify it. If you codify it you've created an at will power that everyone can use...and abuse. This is the sort of thing that comes back to bite the DM in the rear end. Worked great for levels 1-4 and then...
What I would do is ask myself what are they trying to trip and then work the rules from there. If its some normal humanoid - about the PCs mass and around the same level as them then maye its not such a big deal but if they are trying to trip an Iron Golem well that is a whole different kettle of fish. Things get even more interesting when we stat dealing with say my 15th level psionic super ninja solo. She wants to escape the encounter and the PCs are none to keen on that...well now I'm not going to be making it impossible to trip her but she's a super ninja...she can jump around like you would not believe - since she is built to be able to handle a party of 5 all by herself. At this point I'm probably locking at opposed checks along the lines of PCs athletics versus her Acrobatics...and her Acrobatics is sky high.
RAW the difference between a page 42 action and a power is that you use a skill check vs. a DC or a defense (AC, fort, ref, or will) to succeed. This means that you could have a really hard time because you don't get all the bonuses from your weapon, implement, or other magic items and are using only 1/2 level + ability mod +5 if trained. Which is much lower than a +3 to +5 from magic items. On top of that you generally only deal damage or have an effect. So someone that is tripping and dealing damage is using a power, and someone that is doing the other is using an improvised action.
Basically you have these options:
1. DM's best friend (+/-2)
2. Make them make a melee/ranged basic attack. (losing out on power based bonuses like the Sorcerers +dex or +cha to damage).
3. Ability Check against Defense (AC, fort, ref, or will).
4. Opposed Check.
5. Skill Check (at this point you look up the DC based on levels)Not being an attack a trip attempt would fall squarely into the Skill Check or Opposed Check categories. If they attempted to cause damage at the same time then it would be two rolls one an attack roll and one an opposed or skill check roll.
So you could try to replicate an attack that dealt damage and proned a target, but you would end up dealing improvised damage (which is lower than power damage of the same level) and you would have to make two checks one for the damage and one for the prone condition according to RAW...
While I'm inclined to generally agree with you in this specific case I'm not nearly so sure I'd follow along in all cases. If my players use some kind of a skill check to cause an avalanche does that just cause a condition or is it possible for an avalanche to both cause a condition (restrained maybe?) and cause damage? It would seem from the example given (swing from a chandelier in order to push an enemy into a fire) that one can both cause effects - in this case a push, and damage.
Beyond this I'm leery about tossing RAW around to much with 4E. Doing so fails to play to 4Es strengths since 4E runs so much on DM fiat. Furthermore its such a modular system that it makes sense for the DM to utilize it in order to get the look and feel that is desired.
That does not mean that the DM should never respect the rules but he should not let them control him or his group in fact very much the reverse the rules are there to serve the group not the other way around. If one wants a system where RAW is going to be the go to answer for any question the DM or players have then Pathfinder is the game for you - it'll have a rule for everything.
Personally I run by pretty strict RAW when it comes to the players and their powers - for my group this is what is expected and what works. It sometimes means some weird stuff comes up - a the fighter tripping a Dragon for example but, usually, I can think up some kind of a narrative way to explain how that happened. I've encountered groups where there was some kind of a 'power veto' house rule in play where the DM had the right to say 'nope can't trip a dragon...its to big'. I'd not say such a group was doing it wrong, they are just not doing it how my group does.
You note in a list above that in the case of the players trying to pull off a trip the DM has five possible ways of handling this...there may even be more that are not listed. In general I would argue that the best way to handle the situation in 4E is to have it so that the DM is picking from the available options on a scene by scene basis depending on whatever effects seem most appropriate for the current circumstances. In essence when the players went with a non-standard option they strayed out of the area of the rules that are bound by something like RAW, their feats, power etc. which define clearly what their characters can do, and into territory that is the purview of the DM, the story, the campaign, the adventure. Once we are into the parts of the rules which are the purview of the DM everything is really just a guideline to be used or discarded depending on what makes for the best gaming experience.
Ah Scott...I find your blind devotion to the system amusing.
And I find your tired insistence on repeatedly and deliberately failing to understand the basics of the system disappointing.
The difference is, of course, that I use the system regularly and it works great, so I'm actually speaking from a place of some level of experience.
Without the Power would you prefer:
1) a Strength check vs AC, doing 1[W] + Strength modifier damage & knocking the opponent prone (i.e. less chance of success but same result),
or
2) Strength + Weapon Proficiency check vs AC and the result of just knocking the foe Prone (i.e. same chance of success but less of an effect)?
There is no right or wrong answers, you would seem to prefer 1) whilst others may prefer 2).
Either would be good...it is the third option I see most GMs use that I don't like.
3) Str vs AC(or whatever)...target is stumbled or immobile(the effect that keeps a target from moving) for one round.
I would even be ok with that if there was some degrees of sucess...but usualy you don't see that. (admittly that has been lacking from all edition of the game unless the GM put them in.)
Now you are right it is all about preference.
What is not opinion is WotC dropped the ball majorly with the design of the powers. I really think at the heart 4th ed would be a great tool box system. By that it great if the powers where not listed but instead they gavced you ways to design your own. If you are familair with Hero system than you know what I mean. Though hopefuly much more simpler than Hero system.
Anyway instead you have these greatly inflexable power system they came up. The limition of such a system is...
1) I think there are about a handful of character concepts I could have built in 3.5/PF that would be impoosible to build with all the souce books 4th ed churned out. So it gives you a illusion of choice that you had in 3.5/PF...without delivering it.
2) The power system made multi classing almost impossible...when they finally gave rules for it it came with large warnings: "This may break your game." Which again cuts deeply into character flexabilty...goner are the Wizard/Rogues and Fighter/wizards...probably replaced with new classes...but those came with even more Powers...also driving up the complexity needlessly.
3) Almost every concept need Powers made to make that concept workable...again this is highly ineffective and complicated...as you need to look though how many books? Even looking though DDI could be tough. And if they did not have powers to cover your concept...well than you have to either hope your GM has the time and ability to make them..or will allow you to do so.
4) And than you had the endless power books...what at one time two a month...so you having powers made at agreat speed...chances are they will mess up...which was the reason why there was endless errata.
Now I don't think they went with the full Tool Box system where their ideas would work because of a couple of reasons...
1) With tool box system once you sell the main book...you really have nothing to sale except campaign flavor and adventure...which at the time(and may still be) the weakest area of WotC. So it would not make them money.
2) I also think they did not know how to do so coming from D&D 3.5 system. It was like they wanted to change it...but went down the same path they knew...and I don't the hybrid system they came up with worked well.
Ah Scott...I find your blind devotion to the system amusing.
And I find your tired insistence on repeatedly and deliberately failing to understand the basics of the system disappointing.
The difference is, of course, that I use the system regularly and it works great, so I'm actually speaking from a place of some level of experience.
Scott, you have spent a great time using the system because you are a fan. It is ok...but fans often can't look at things without emotion.
You are a fanboy...so you will ignore all the problems...or have learned to work around them.
But if you want to talk experience...well I have been playing RPGs for over twenty years...in that time I have played every edition of D&D, I have played probably 20 systems...and have read and learned about 10 others. There is really nothing new about D&D 4th ed...it has been done before.
And I saw the rather large problem that the Powers system will cause for the game right when I read the rule book.
They have come up with a new system not because of some unreachable sales figures that can't be reached set by their evil overlords from Hasbro...if that was true I doubt we will be seeing D&D Next. It is being replaced because they have ran out of ideas to sell books...because it was built on a faulty fondation of the Power system.
Hey it is ok that you love the game with all the warts and all. Just because something is faulty does not mean it can't be fun...especialy if you work with it. I love playing Rifts despite all the problems with the system(which I will gladly admitt 4th ed is a better system).
It is hard to argue in favor of 4E, when WOTC has moved on to 5E. That will always be thrown in your face, regardless of the innovations 4E made. Basically, WOTC lost its way in regards to what makes D&D successful, and the rules is only one part. Where they failed with 4E, is not playtesting it, or releasing a steady stream of adventures, versus splat books with more options. In addition, they tried to change the direction of 4E with essentials, and fragmented their own player base. And there are areas in 4E that were begging for attention to close some of the rifts like rituals and martial practices, but they failed to deliver on a concept that had merit if executed properly.All evidence to date indicates that 4E was unsuccessful not because it wasn't popular, but rather that it didn't reach unreasonable sales goals. The same goals that Pathfinder, and 3E never reached. The same goals that no edition of D&D have ever reached. In fact you would have to have 99% of the pencil and paper RPG market to reach those goals.
So after a few years of 5E, they will be in the same predicament. Not reaching unrealistic sales goals.
4E was very successful. It was successful at the beginning, it had a little dip where Pathfinder just barely beat it out, then it went on to dominate the market again, and that's before counting DDi sales, and PDF sales from Pathfinder. So really, without providing some inside sales reports from all parties, you can't really say that 4E was any less successful than other editions or Pathfinder, especially when it had several books on best seller lists...
4E was both successful, and not, at the same time. Compared with the rest of the market at the time, it certainly did well enough, but compared to previous editions, it failed in a lot of key areas, and created the first major splinter within the D&D world. Earlier editions had competition from other systems and companies, and even a handful of reasonably successful spinoffs from earlier editions, but not even the OGL of the 3.5 era was able to produce a competitor within the d20 ruleset that seriously challenged WotC's dominance and control of the rules and ideas normally associated with D&D. 4E was the first to make a lot of people even consider the idea that there realistically could be two different active versions of the same basic lineage produced by two different companies at the same time, and from WotC's perspective, that had to be a major failure of 4E. As several have stated above, the ideas were really good, and found a lot of support, but the implementation failed, and failed bad. For the first time, evoking the D&D feel could realistically be done without evoking the official brand. Only time will tell to see how well Next does.
Scott, you have spent a great time using the system because you are a fan. It is ok...but fans often can't look at things without emotion.
You are a fanboy...so you will ignore all the problems...or have learned to work around them.
While I am a fan of the system, I am not ignorant of its shortcomings. I feel, for instance, that rituals are underutilized, that skill challenges could stand to be tightened up and made more robust, that holes in class design need to be patched, that DDI (valuable as it is) is underdeveloped, and that it lacks the first-party adventure content that makes Pathfinder (and other worlds) compelling on an ongoing basis. And those are just a few. But I don't harp on them, because the system does what I want a tabletop gaming system to do better than any other system I've seen. That's all I can ask for.
But if you want to talk experience...well I have been playing RPGs for over twenty years...in that time I have played every edition of D&D, I have played probably 20 systems...and have read and learned about 10 others. There is really nothing new about D&D 4th ed...it has been done before.
There is plenty new about 4e, not the least of which is the way it has combined the disparate elements you mention above. I have a similar length and breadth of experience with RPGs, and I would be very surprised if the depth of my experience with RPGs is not greater than yours. So your experience is not nearly enough to invalidate mine, and since we're talking about a system that I am thoroughly familiar with, and that you have relatively little familiarity with, I am comfortable in the knowledge that my understanding of 4e is likely to be correct (see: your confusion with the place that page 42 occupies in the power-action paradigm). Beyond that, measuring our respective nerd packages isn't really worthwhile.
And I saw the rather large problem that the Powers system will cause for the game right when I read the rule book.
They have come up with a new system not because of some unreachable sales figures that can't be reached set by their evil overlords from Hasbro...if that was true I doubt we will be seeing D&D Next. It is being replaced because they have ran out of ideas to sell books...because it was built on a faulty fondation of the Power system.
This is doing an incredible disservice to the level of talent working on 4e. Those guys could write new content - mechanical or otherwise - forever. They are the best in the business (or, certainly, are nearly equal of any who might be considered the best).
The power system is very, very solid. And there is acres of design space that could be covered for years. But they've learned things over the past five years, and they are confident that they can make a better game. And, frankly, I think there's a good chance they could pull it off. They're clearly willing to try fairly radical approaches. We'll see.
As others have said, there are plenty of legitimate areas to criticize 4e. Try those (though, actually, criticism for its own sake is kind of an ugly business, so even if it's more acceptable that doesn't mean it's a great idea). But don't pick one of 4e's most valuable tools (page 42) and act like it's made invalid by the very system it's designed to complement.