....
I liked the ritual concept in 4e, except it seemed to be much too limited a selection and many spells were relegated to being rituals only even some I would have liked to have in combat.
The second 3PP book I bought was a big book of Rituals. The first of course was Ari Marmell's book with the Monk and other "missing" stuff.
Aehm... WotC already did that before there was any Pathfinder. With Unearthed Arcana for 3.5 they released Incantations which happen to be available and mostly compatible.
Aehm... WotC already did that before there was any Pathfinder. With Unearthed Arcana for 3.5 they released Incantations which happen to be available and mostly compatible.
Never liked that implementation. Now if it 200 incantations with it, I'd be seriously looking at it. :D
Well, the solutions with scrolls was certainly better ;)
Personally, I like how 4th edition at least partially returned to the 2nd edition idea that character concept is the background and personality of the character, as opposed to the 3.x notion that it's the huge pile of racial attributes, feats, prestige classes, and other crap designed to "synergize" to make the character as uber as possible. System Mastery is the worst idea 3.0 came up with, and it annoys me that Pathfinder has gone down the same route.
Hmmmmm... I have thought long and hard about this before posting.
The star pact warlock's flavour, and the fey pact mechanics in zipping around the battlefield.
Heroes of the Feywild.
That we finally got a picture of Lalali-Puy.
|
Personally, I like how 4th edition at least partially returned to the 2nd edition idea that character concept is the background and personality of the character, as opposed to the 3.x notion that it's the huge pile of racial attributes, feats, prestige classes, and other crap designed to "synergize" to make the character as uber as possible. System Mastery is the worst idea 3.0 came up with, and it annoys me that Pathfinder has gone down the same route.
While I agree with your sentiments on 3.x using too much stuff as character fluff, I don't like 4e's inability to express any character concept outside a narrow range of stereotypes.
I should be allowed to select abilities that reflect the character concept rather then relegating concept purely to background rp nor having background reflect mechanics choices. Thus I give a failing grade on this topic to both.
|
Personally, I like how 4th edition at least partially returned to the 2nd edition idea that character concept is the background and personality of the character, as opposed to the 3.x notion that it's the huge pile of racial attributes, feats, prestige classes, and other crap designed to "synergize" to make the character as uber as possible. System Mastery is the worst idea 3.0 came up with, and it annoys me that Pathfinder has gone down the same route.
Not really sure I can agree on any of that, honestly. That 2E couldn't be synergized to make uber characters, or that 3E either started it or made that somehow the norm. It was both very possible in 2E and not uncommon, and all 3E did was give more ways to do it, but didn't really emphasize it in the system itself. Players did that. Here's a quick example. Drizt is a perfect example, taking the 2E Ranger's racial requirements and maxing them with a Drow Elf, and two Scimitars for weapon proficiencies, getting all the Drow and the Elf and Ranger bonuses synergizing beyond what was intended in the system itself. The only thing that 4E really did is made the system do a lot of that for you.
Personally, I like how 4th edition at least partially returned to the 2nd edition idea that character concept is the background and personality of the character, as opposed to the 3.x notion that it's the huge pile of racial attributes, feats, prestige classes, and other crap designed to "synergize" to make the character as uber as possible. System Mastery is the worst idea 3.0 came up with, and it annoys me that Pathfinder has gone down the same route.Not really sure I can agree on any of that, honestly. That 2E couldn't be synergized to make uber characters, or that 3E either started it or made that somehow the norm. It was both very possible in 2E and not uncommon, and all 3E did was give more ways to do it, but didn't really emphasize it in the system itself. Players did that. Here's a quick example. Drizt is a perfect example, taking the 2E Ranger's racial requirements and maxing them with a Drow Elf, and two Scimitars for weapon proficiencies, getting all the Drow and the Elf and Ranger bonuses synergizing beyond what was intended in the system itself. The only thing that 4E really did is made the system do a lot of that for you.
Still once the system is doing that for you your no longer dealing with system mastery. Not to say that there is no system mastery in either 2E or 4E but its less prevalent...and mostly a lot weaker.
4e isn't perfect.
It isn't?!?!?
Maybe PF isn't either!?!?!
*burns all my current gaming stuff in a gigantic "imperfection bonfire," picks up a lantern and goes searching for the perfect game system, scorning all others*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hands ED-209 a shoddy copy of F.A.T.A.L., turns away from the droid and sticks her fingers in her ears.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4e isn't perfect.It isn't?!?!?
Maybe PF isn't either!?!?!
*burns all my current gaming stuff in a gigantic "imperfection bonfire," picks up a lantern and goes searching for the perfect game system, scorning all others*
Meta Quest
-Movie Announcer Voice
"In a world where no system is perfect, one man must seek the ultimate gaming experience. Heros will rise, and Empires will fall but will one critical failure sod the quest? Find out this summer."
- An adventure for 1st to 3rd level characters.
Still once the system is doing that for you your no longer dealing with system mastery. Not to say that there is no system mastery in either 2E or 4E but its less prevalent...and mostly a lot weaker.Personally, I like how 4th edition at least partially returned to the 2nd edition idea that character concept is the background and personality of the character, as opposed to the 3.x notion that it's the huge pile of racial attributes, feats, prestige classes, and other crap designed to "synergize" to make the character as uber as possible. System Mastery is the worst idea 3.0 came up with, and it annoys me that Pathfinder has gone down the same route.Not really sure I can agree on any of that, honestly. That 2E couldn't be synergized to make uber characters, or that 3E either started it or made that somehow the norm. It was both very possible in 2E and not uncommon, and all 3E did was give more ways to do it, but didn't really emphasize it in the system itself. Players did that. Here's a quick example. Drizt is a perfect example, taking the 2E Ranger's racial requirements and maxing them with a Drow Elf, and two Scimitars for weapon proficiencies, getting all the Drow and the Elf and Ranger bonuses synergizing beyond what was intended in the system itself. The only thing that 4E really did is made the system do a lot of that for you.
Agreed.
I've never heard it put like Devil's Advocate puts it ("4e min/maxes for you"), but I guess there's merit to that way of thinking about it. And it's one of the things I like about 4e; to make a great archer, for example, you pick one of the archer builds and throw your two highest stats into its two suggested abilities, rather than playing some unintuitive cleric/prestige X multiclass build as you would in 3.x. The game synergizes for you, so as Jeremy says, there's a lot less system mastery.
|
|
The thing about that is, 4e only works well for players who like that kind of play. I don't think many players realize that kind of playing is a very different playstyle and I don't think 3.x was intended for it even though it could handle it. Unfortunatly for me it is becoming the dominant playstyle.
The thing about that is, 4e only works well for players who like that kind of play. I don't think many players realize that kind of playing is a very different playstyle and I don't think 3.x was intended for it even though it could handle it. Unfortunatly for me it is becoming the dominant playstyle.
Sorry not following you - which playstyle?
|
|
The playstyle of making semi/optimized for combat characters. I haven't found very many players who make a character concept and select mechanical choices to fit that concept, but rather almost all players I have been able to play with look first to the mechanics and what cool combat things that could be done and then build fluff from that. That doesn't always mean super optimizer but even just building characters from where skill points and feats are never wasted on anything that might never come up in game. How many players put lots of skill points and feats into what their characters previous nonadventuring job was? Very few that I've met or heard about, yet most everyone talks without ever distinguishing that way of playing. It's always issues of balance and avoiding OP or UP characters. The number of companion characters Ive played that were noticably subpar can be counted on my fingers. Yet I believe that was the intention behind dnd originally, to play without regard to party balance, after all the GM can oh so easily deal even severly unbalanced parties and it should be a nonissue if the APL is nowhere near the CR they can handle (cause thas is too simple to deal with) and such concepts as these are hardly discussed in favor of system balance issues.
4e is good for that playstyle where the players look to mechanics first and thus find balance important, but 3.x (I feel anyway) was still in the mind of minimal focus on party balance and mostly just trying to simply and standardize things to make playing easier.
4e is good for that playstyle where the players look to mechanics first and thus find balance important, but 3.x (I feel anyway) was still in the mind of minimal focus on party balance and mostly just trying to simply and standardize things to make playing easier.
I'm not going to say you're wrong, as far as your experience goes, but I'm definitely going to say that the whole CharOp thing came into its own during 3E.
Sure, there was optimization even before 3E. But there are also lots of people who play 4E without optimizing all their characters. What I am saying is its a continuum and 3E was as much an optimizer's dream and optimizer's playground as 4E.
As far as skill points, that example somewhat misses the mark because 4E handles skills differently from the 3x engine. 4E also gives certain classes more room to "play with" when it comes to "RP skill flavorizing," in a way. After all, if a 3E fighter wants to spend his few skill points on skills that don't come up in play, well, that's certainly a role-playing decision and I guess one could say it's then the DM's job to make his esoteric choices relevant. Again, I won't say that's a *wrong* attitude - I've never been a whip-cracker when it comes to skills, anyhow.
I just personally don't find that 3E was less of an optimizer's sandbox than 4E.
I will concede, though, that in many respects 4E made the mechanics aspect *more* noticeable (this can be good or bad; or both good and bad, depending). But even this was just along a trendline that started towards the end of 2E.
|
|
It is a continuum, but not all playstyles fall on that continuum.
I think computer games are responsible for the shift to most players jumping onto the continuum. The crpgs are far more arcade like than ttrpgs but get played far more and make optimizing important simply from the restrictions of playing against programming.
My point being that 3.e wasn't expressly designed for the optimizing spectrum which is why there are so many complaints about balance in that system. 4e was designed for the optimizing spectrum thus the radical shift in game mechanics.
It is a continuum, but not all playstyles fall on that continuum.
I think computer games are responsible for the shift to most players jumping onto the continuum.
I think there is something to that but then 4E was a response to that (which admittedly wasn't everyone's cup of tea), not the cause of it.
As you pointed out that envorinment existed in 3E which was a cause for a lot of balance complaints. 4E *tried* to make all classes more on par (this was not a complete success, shall we say. But it was a noble effort in that respect, IMO).
And, in my experience, you *can* play other playstyles in 4E, less optimization-focused.
Another thing I will concede though is it's harder to play 4E without a battlemat, grid, than other systems (though even in 3E & PF it's much better to have one than not). That certainly contributes to the sense of tactical-ness, which in turn can contribute to an atmosphere of mechanics.
But it's probably the case that we've just had different experiences, and a lot of people certainly did get the same impression you did from it.
Most of you are probably too young to remember the original Traveller RPG game from the late 70's - early 80's. Terrible game mechanics but a immensely fun game to play as it had character and an immersive campaign setting.
The mechanics of the game are not as important as the game itself...all systems have their pros and cons but you just have to enjoy playing in the world and the story and just use the mechanics to move the story along.
Most of you are probably too young to remember the original Traveller RPG game from the late 70's - early 80's. Terrible game mechanics but a immensely fun game to play as it had character and an immersive campaign setting.
Who, me?
We played the hell out of that game. Fun fact: the mechanics of creating your character also generated many background hooks (and generating characters could be a "game session" in and of itself, and not a dull one either, as players rolled their careers and discussed how to interpret them/background them).
For better or worse our games often devolved into piracy and then the stats of the ships often outweighed our own skills (well, except of course for a critical few skills).
Plus, designing ships (and, later, vehicles, even robots) was great fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How dare you suggest that Traveller was anything less that perfection itself!! :) Seriously, Traveller actually turned me off of the system when my first character died before I ever had a chance to play him. Only now, years later and with the release of the Mongoose edition did I give it a second chance (and love it).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point being that 3.e wasn't expressly designed for the optimizing spectrum which is why there are so many complaints about balance in that system. 4e was designed for the optimizing spectrum thus the radical shift in game mechanics.
Honestly, I've had trouble understanding many of your posts, DLH -- I'm not sure whether it's your grammar, or whether you're just coming at the game from a completely different PoV. Probably a little of both.
Anyway, I agree with the part I quoted. The 3.x team put some effort into balance-by-design, but it's still largely a revamp of 2e with the intent to make the rules more consistent. (Which is why I wonder to this day why Turn Undead isn't a simple save vs. DC effect.) As a result, 4e is simply better balanced, even at the extremes. For example, the worst 4e cheese is stun-locking and infinite damage loops. (Though errata has made both harder.) The worst 3.x cheese is Pun-Pun, a kobold who is more uber than even the gods!
I've always gamed with players who cover a wide range of the optimization spectrum -- some are story-only players who can't be bothered to take even obvious advantages if it conflicts with their character concept, while others read the CharOp forums and always build characters mechanics-first. DMing for such diverse groups is notably different using 3.x and 4e:
In 3.x, the difference between the story-PC and the CharOp-PC is huge, and I do not find it easy or enjoyable to balance the story-fighter with the CharOp-wizard. I've seen this problem affect real life relationships, when one player feels completely obviated in game by the other's PC.
In 4e, the difference between the story-PC and the CharOp-PC is small, so I don't have to worry about balancing even the story-paladin with the CharOp-ranger. As a result, my role as DM is easier and more fun, and none of my players have reason to feel like sidekicks to the Real Heroes. (I've never met a story-player whose character concept involves 'sidekick.')
This is a HUGE advantage for me.
The playstyle of making semi/optimized for combat characters. I haven't found very many players who make a character concept and select mechanical choices to fit that concept, but rather almost all players I have been able to play with look first to the mechanics and what cool combat things that could be done and then build fluff from that. That doesn't always mean super optimizer but even just building characters from where skill points and feats are never wasted on anything that might never come up in game. How many players put lots of skill points and feats into what their characters previous nonadventuring job was? Very few that I've met or heard about, yet most everyone talks without ever distinguishing that way of playing. It's always issues of balance and avoiding OP or UP characters. The number of companion characters Ive played that were noticably subpar can be counted on my fingers. Yet I believe that was the intention behind dnd originally, to play without regard to party balance, after all the GM can oh so easily deal even severly unbalanced parties and it should be a nonissue if the APL is nowhere near the CR they can handle (cause thas is too simple to deal with) and such concepts as these are hardly discussed in favor of system balance issues.
4e is good for that playstyle where the players look to mechanics first and thus find balance important, but 3.x (I feel anyway) was still in the mind of minimal focus on party balance and mostly just trying to simply and standardize things to make playing easier.
Well I think your right that players, in general, look at mechanics first most of the time these days. Still I think you might be surprised at how good 4E is at coping with this in terms of play balance.
Last 4E campaign we ran I was a player not the DM and I made a cleric who worshiped the Raven Queen - so I made a themed cleric - everything about the cleric was about fate and death. I had powers that stole the soul from enemies or twisted fate to my advantage and the like. I was not the best character at the table - the pure optimizers where better then me because I built my character without reference to the optimization forums. Thing is they where not much better then me. Being built according to optimization specs meant about a 10% increase in power over 'built to fit a theme'. A small enough range that I never felt I had to play optimized to be an important contributor to the party even in a group of optimizers.
Now I could not take this to extremes - if I used my main attack stat as my dump stat I would have been in trouble for example but you can 'theme it' and get by well in 4E even if others are more mechanics focused. This is the legacy of WotC putting out constant errata to insure that the really broken stuff was nerfed and the really weak stuff tended to get boosts.
Put another way WotC was very mechanics focused and balanced focused in 4E - that has meant the DM and the players don't have to be nearly so mechanics or balanced focused. In some sense the 4e optimization forums are 'if you follow my instructions I'll let you claw out that 10% edge you so desire'.
|
|
@Jeremy That was kinda my point about 4e being designed for it.
@Tequila I have Aspbergers syndrome, an autistic spectrum disorder which means that I better then normal people at logic at the cost of being worse than normal people at communication and understanding general human irrationality. Game mechanics by their nature are built on logic thus I have an advantage in analyzing a game's designed functionality (aided further by my emotional detachment).
That said, the ability to balance players really depends alot on everyone involved (my initial statement was refering to players of the same or similar style) if players of very different styles to play their own styles, then one of two results occur, one, some players end up vastly superior to others, or two, everyone plays a system that severely cuts into some players desired options.
This is why I don't play 4e very often, I have always found classes in any system to be very difficult to create what I wanted and sometimes even if a similar concept was used for a class there would still be some unworkable stuff with it (for example a fighter mage, I found a class for that once but the spell list had absolutly no spells I wanted) and oftentimes collecting what I wanted from various classes weakened my character and granted me a multitude of abilities I wasn't looking for. 4e becomes less appealing for me because it severly enhances this effect, despite being easier to balance wildly differing styles (which actually relies on this effect).
Now if everyone is playing similar styles then it becomes easier to balance play (for most GMs, some GMs can't GM without a book or a plan telling them every tiny step, those GMs might have difficulty)
|
|
I will admit that 4E has room for role-playing over roll-playing, BUT... it is not conducive to such. The focus is on tactics, and it plays like a video game at the table. Miniatures have become almost a necessity (try to play 4E without using miniatures sometime). I remember the days when we needed nothing more than a pencil, character sheet, and dice to play the game. Miniatures were an option, not a chance to make more money by selling essentials.
New players (and even a few veterans) get so caught up in the mechanics that role-playing tends to suffer. People think that they can't do anything that isn't on the cards. I was so proud of one of my players when he first used his Timely Distraction ability and shouted, "Look! An owlbear!" Only later did I realize that such was exactly what was typed on the card.
Can you roleplay with 4E? Sure. Does 4E promote role-playing? No, I'm sorry, but it does not.
This is why I don't play 4e very often, I have always found classes in any system to be very difficult to create what I wanted and sometimes even if a similar concept was used for a class there would still be some unworkable stuff with it (for example a fighter mage, I found a class for that once but the spell list had absolutly no spells I wanted) and oftentimes collecting what I wanted from various classes weakened my character and granted me a multitude of abilities I wasn't looking for. 4e becomes less appealing for me because it severly enhances this effect, despite being easier to balance wildly differing styles (which actually relies on this effect).
Ah, I see. I've had this experience as well! My favorite character concept is the all-mage; the caster who can potentially call upon any spell. But because of traditional D&D's weird arcane/divine divide, I was never really satisfied with the limited means to play such a character. (The archivist comes with rather specific fluff and class abilities that I don't really want, while the various dual-caster PrCs are UP unless cheesed out to OP-degrees. And all are sadly MAD.)
I figure if D&D is going to make various concepts difficult-to-impossible to play for no good reason, I may as well play a version where I don't have to worry about balance!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will admit that 4E has room for role-playing over roll-playing, BUT... it is not conducive to such. The focus is on tactics, and it plays like a video game at the table. Miniatures have become almost a necessity (try to play 4E without using miniatures sometime). I remember the days when we needed nothing more than a pencil, character sheet, and dice to play the game. Miniatures were an option, not a chance to make more money by selling essentials.
New players (and even a few veterans) get so caught up in the mechanics that role-playing tends to suffer. People think that they can't do anything that isn't on the cards. I was so proud of one of my players when he first used his Timely Distraction ability and shouted, "Look! An owlbear!" Only later did I realize that such was exactly what was typed on the card.
Can you roleplay with 4E? Sure. Does 4E promote role-playing? No, I'm sorry, but it does not.
Might not be in the paint job but there are some elements under the hood that can make it very good for roleplaying. Basically speaking if your running another version of D&D consider who much role playing your players did from levels 1-5 and then compare that to later levels. What I think you'll find is that at levels 1-5 your players did a lot of interesting role playing - well at least if the adventures you ran them through supported it.
If your players needed to find something they had to start talking with NPCs because it would be the NPCs that had the info.
If your players had to get somewhere then they take a horse and they bump into all the flavour the DM can devise on their journey.
If they encounter obstacles they use their skill system.
Its no accident that 3rd edition adventures like Shut In, Murder in Oakbridge and The Andurian Job are low level adventures. Make them much higher and each of these adventures will be resolved by the mage and the cleric players getting together in their room at the Inn and focusing on their spell lists - magic could actually solve all of these adventures with a little intelligent use. The problem of course is intelligent use of ones spell resources is not really roleplaying per se.
What 4E pretty much id was extend out the feel of levels 1-5. My 10th level 3rd edition characters never talked with the locals because they teleported everywhere. My 10th level 4E characters recently spent an adventure riding all over the south of the Empire looking for clues to a person of interest and I devised interesting scenes with the locals through out that journey. Some where serous, some where meant to be high magic fantastic in the sense of a travel brochure some where done for laughs and in a few I forced my players to sit while I droned on for 6 minutes to cover some element of interest in my homebrew (likely more of interest to me then to them). The point is they are getting up there in levels but they still need to use mostly mundane means of travel so they encounter the local flora and fauna during the journey.
As my player pass 11th level they are going to be in a couple of adventures in which they are, defacto, counter intelligence working against a foreign operative who has her hooks in everything in the capital city (their home base for the entire campaign). They need to analyze the clues and talk to NPCs through out this adventure to eventually narrow things down and figure out who she is.
In 3rd you don't do an adventure like this - see your players have a contract with you and that contract says that when they are 10th level they won't use their wide access to 4th and 5th level spells to prove to you that they can break your game...'cause if they put their mind to it they can. The magic system is awesomely powerful in the hands of intelligent players. You in turn don't put them into adventures, like the above, where they are going to be inclined to break that contract.
In 4E they don't have this kind of game breaking magic - they need to go out and talk to the NPCs and figure out the clues.
So it may not have been advertized and WotC, for reasons I could never fathom, may not have made these types of adventures but I do. In 3rd this actually blew up in my face and I learned not to do this style of game - keep them in the dungeon or on the lost island where the system worked. In 4E I can continue to play with mysteries and intrigue well past 1-5th level because the system supports it.
Not that high level divinations don't have their counters and foils.
Not that high level divinations don't have their counters and foils.
Even this is is essentially countered by magic. First off knowing that the target has access to high level magic that is being used to foil the divination tells you a ton - it immediately eliminates 99% of the suspect list in a city since only the rich and powerful have access to the kind of high level magic that can counter a divination.
Secondly once you know that the target itself is protected by counter divination you can start on asking things around the target - is the building the target is in protected by high level magic - if yes then narrow down which buildings have such wards (using low level detect magic) etc. In the end magic is the answer.
In reality though its the limitation that the target of the mystery must be a potent magic using entity that is the real problem. I note that my players recently wandered the south of the Empire looking for a person of interest. That person happens to actually be dead but what Mr. Corpse was looking into was what was significant. There is no reason a corpse would be warded so if they had spells they would have cast them found where the corpse was located and teleported to the vicinity...adventure over.
My high level foreign operative needs to interact with people to do her infiltrating. Some of them are dupes (they don't know that she is a foreign agent) the dupes are not protected by warding magic, so the PCs use magic on them to get to her.
All three of the adventures I listed, Shut In, Murder In Oakbridge and The Andurian Job probably fail in higher level 3rd. In Shut In the Culprit is a batty old lady that the PCs initially think they are protecting. In higher level 3rd she has to be an arch mage so she can cast spells to try and counter the PCs spells Which gives everything away when the PCs quickly figure out that she and her house are heavily warded in magic. In Murder in Oakbridge the culprit is a shapeshifter out for revenge from a poor background. Again she needs to become an archmage to defend herself with spells. In The Andurian Job (well my version anyway) the first part of the adventure is figuring out if you have the right building...but of course if the building you suspect is warded against all your magic then its the right one by default. The wards give the game away. In the original most of the inhabitants are on the up and up - there is no reason the PCs could not wind walk their way through 95% of the adventure.
In my version the PCs noted that the weak link in the building was a common living area with families - they nixed going in via that route because 'what do we do if some kid walks out to go pee in the middle of the night...we gonna shoot him dead to keep him quite'? The thought that they might be discovered by innocents was a major factor in planning. in 3rd they'd use magic - no 0 level NPC would have had a chance at detecting them. In my 4E campaign they bribed a sewer worker which got them in via the sewers - and provided good RPing to both locate and then interact with the shady sewer worker.
In the end magic is still the solution - it bypasses anything without powerful magic interdiction of its own and knowing which targets are warded pretty much tells the PCs where to look for the answers.
|
|
The worst 3.x cheese is Pun-Pun, a kobold who is more uber than even the gods!
Most people don't understand that the hole Pun-Pun thing was really dependent on a DM allowing the player to do a few things that they (by RAW) shouldn't. It was built around primarily a misunderstanding of how a few rules and systems actually work, assuming things incorrectly, (like that Pun-Pun could just get a Divine Rank, even of 0, which is not the same thing as not having a Divine Rank). Actually using the rules, Pun-Pun does not work. The DM also has to house rule a few things for Pun-Pun's favor, particularly when they probably wouldn't do so for any other character in different circumstances.
I've always gamed with players who cover a wide range of the optimization spectrum -- some are story-only players who can't be bothered to take even obvious advantages if it conflicts with their character concept, while others read the CharOp forums and always build characters mechanics-first. DMing for such diverse groups is notably different using 3.x and 4e:
In 3.x, the difference between the story-PC and the CharOp-PC is huge, and I do not find it easy or enjoyable to balance the story-fighter with the CharOp-wizard. I've seen this problem affect real life relationships, when one player feels completely obviated in game by the other's PC.
I have. In our main 4E game, the Elf Wizard started to quickly overshadow almost everyone else, between easy access to basically all Rituals, easy to adapt to basically all play styles, seemed to have the best Defenses of everyone, and just able to contribute a great deal to almost any type of encounter. They where also the least experienced player, which may or may not have had anything to do with it.
|
|
@Jeremy
First, if an entire group of people are mid to high level, the such level characters are not rare and thus most middle class can access magic (consider who is buying all the excess loot) the idea of only the rich and powerful having wards and such is for the truly gygaxian world where humans even at mid level are no longer adventurers but are the leaders, the rich and powerful themselves, where players make new characters at level 1 because their characters don't have time for adventuring because they have kingdoms or societies to run.
This is no longer generally how mid to high lvl characters are viewed.
Besides, just give such "gamebreaking" spells really expensive componants or allow them for crafting only (thus allowing teleportation rings but not wizards teleporting anywhere they want) or just remove them, and then you retain the need to travel and to gather info from people.
For those who can keep track of everything, it's a tactics DREAM.
This is why a CRPG based on D&D 4th Edition would have been awesome. You get to enjoy all the tactical elements of the game while the computer keeps track of everything for you. Seriously, the fact that the D&D franchise is only used to produce MMORPGs these days drives me mad. Four published CRPGs use the ruleset of D&D 3rd Edition (NWN, NWN 2, PoR:RoMD and ToEE), five if you count IWD 2, but this one was more a hybrid of the 2nd and 3rd editions. Chaos Chronicles, a game still in development, will use the ruleset of the D&D 3rd Edition OGL. How many CRPG are based on the 4th Edition ruleset? Zero, and this number is not going to go up with D&D Next just around the corner.
Obscure object is lvl 1 spell for bards or lvl 2 for wizards and makes auto-fail on all divinations for 8 hours.
Nondetection can hide person unless you suceed with CL check. There it would depend on what failed spells look like. Does it fail to show anything, or they also show some nonsential location...
Detect Scrying could even turn this divination Session to scry and fry counterattack by potentially stronger enemy.
Locate creature can be fooled by running water and polymorph among other things, so if a city has open canalisation it could turn using this spell to a nightmare. Druid killing in beast foem could also be a foil, just as a wererat perhaps.
Scrying can be repelled by a will save , unless you know well on whom to scry and can be fooled by False Vision as well.
Contact Other Plane is not exactly reliable, especially if you don't show the rolls.
Invisibility can be made permanent on an object, so it may stay hidden from prying eyes and such...
Undetectable alignment neatly blends you in the crowd in case your heroes use the spell to search for people above lvl 5.
Discern Lies can be fooled or resisted.
Divination offers only hints, Commune perhaps confirms already suspected things.
Detect spells are also usually fooled by lead, metal or stone walls.
A good mundane disguise can also go a long way. The problem in higher level games if the creature is divined correctly could also be how to prove them guilty.
The worst 3.x cheese is Pun-Pun, a kobold who is more uber than even the gods!Most people don't understand that the hole Pun-Pun thing was really dependent on a DM allowing the player to do a few things that they (by RAW) shouldn't. It was built around primarily a misunderstanding of how a few rules and systems actually work, assuming things incorrectly, (like that Pun-Pun could just get a Divine Rank, even of 0, which is not the same thing as not having a Divine Rank). Actually using the rules, Pun-Pun does not work. The DM also has to house rule a few things for Pun-Pun's favor, particularly when they probably wouldn't do so for any other character in different circumstances.
Yes, actually playing Pun-Pun would require a comatose DM and a player saying "I'll just take your silence as approval..." But Pun-Pun is 100% legit by strict RAW.
Even if you disagree, and I'm not sure if you really do or if you're just living up to your screen name, my point stands. 3.x cheese is far stinkier than 4e cheese.
I have. In our main 4E game, the Elf Wizard started to quickly overshadow almost everyone else, between easy access to basically all Rituals, easy to adapt to basically all play styles, seemed to have the best Defenses of everyone, and just able to contribute a great deal to almost any type of encounter. They where also the least experienced player, which may or may not have had anything to do with it.I've always gamed with players who cover a wide range of the optimization spectrum -- some are story-only players who can't be bothered to take even obvious advantages if it conflicts with their character concept, while others read the CharOp forums and always build characters mechanics-first. DMing for such diverse groups is notably different using 3.x and 4e:
In 3.x, the difference between the story-PC and the CharOp-PC is huge, and I do not find it easy or enjoyable to balance the story-fighter with the CharOp-wizard. I've seen this problem affect real life relationships, when one player feels completely obviated in game by the other's PC.
What an unusual experience! 4e wizards have gotten a lot of love, and I hear they can passably fill non-controller roles if built properly. But the power gamers I've known have always looked to other classes to make my life difficult.
|
|
Things might have changed a lot since the game originally came out. We played for maybe half a year+, starting with me running the game from memory from the preview intro scenario a few weeks before release, to the rules lite prerelease material, to the official release and few adventures, and then finally a home game. It was the last two that we really started to notice this.
Something else I noticed was that in my groups, the people that liked to play either CCGs or MMOs really liked 4E a lot longer than those who did not, as well as those that where very new to RPGs in general, but not fantasy/sci-fi. For the last one, I presume it was much more to do with the fact that, at the time, everyone was starting off at a much more level playing field, everyone was learning the new system and they didn't feel particularly disadvantaged from not playing older editions.
As for the CCG/MMO link, it's hard for me to tell if that is because the system itself was so related, or if because that was one of the largest universal complaints/comparisons of the game at the time that most people subconsciously made the system play that way.
I also remember pretty well that the way the WotC and a lot of the hardline 4E fans bashed older editions made it a very unfriendly environment for a lot of the potential players that did have experience in the older editions, but this wasn't something that came up directly in any of my groups.
@Jeremy
First, if an entire group of people are mid to high level, the such level characters are not rare and thus most middle class can access magic (consider who is buying all the excess loot) the idea of only the rich and powerful having wards and such is for the truly gygaxian world where humans even at mid level are no longer adventurers but are the leaders, the rich and powerful themselves, where players make new characters at level 1 because their characters don't have time for adventuring because they have kingdoms or societies to run.
This is no longer generally how mid to high lvl characters are viewed.
I actually think it is still how most of this is viewed. Take Golarion, Now I've read the first six or seven APs for Pathfinder (excellent products and I still occasionally buy one) and I can't think of a single one that lists off all the countermeasures that one might reasonably take if tons of powerful magic was common place. In fact none of the cities seem to operate as if such magic is everywhere.
I recall reading a post by Kirth at one point where he outlined the DM/Player contract in running these APs which pretty much says 'you the players will not wreck the last two parts of the APs when you get to 10th or 11th level through totally blowing everything wide open through extensive spell casting to discern the plot and all its connotations'.
I mean do we really see any of the big end boss villains in any of these APs taking adequate counter measures to protect themselves, all their minions and all the locations they are a part of from concerted efforts by the players to use the magic system to crack the adventures? In reality of course we don't - it'd take half the word count just to list off all the defenses needed and its exceptionally difficult to figure out beforehand all the devious ways the players might use their spells.
Besides, just give such "gamebreaking" spells really expensive componants or allow them for crafting only (thus allowing teleportation rings but not wizards teleporting anywhere they want) or just remove them, and then you retain the need to travel and to gather info from people.
I suppose I could try and 4E-ize the spell list but its a serous lot of work and I found with 3rd that if you messed with the system via house rules about half the time it came back to bite you in the butt. I'd fear knock on effects. With 4E the system was built from the ground up to be more weak magic (in a global sense) style of play. 4E characters simply cannot bend the laws of reality using magic to anything like the degree that is possible in other versions of D&D. They use magic all the time but its much weaker magic and its specifically designed to deny them stuff that gets around adventure plots.
Obscure object is lvl 1 spell for bards or lvl 2 for wizards and makes auto-fail on all divinations for 8 hours.
Nondetection can hide person unless you suceed with CL check. There it would depend on what failed spells look like. Does it fail to show anything, or they also show some nonsential location...
Detect Scrying could even turn this divination Session to scry and fry counterattack by potentially stronger enemy.
Locate creature can be fooled by running water and polymorph among other things, so if a city has open canalisation it could turn using this spell to a nightmare. Druid killing in beast foem could also be a foil, just as a wererat perhaps.
Scrying can be repelled by a will save , unless you know well on whom to scry and can be fooled by False Vision as well.
Contact Other Plane is not exactly reliable, especially if you don't show the rolls.
Invisibility can be made permanent on an object, so it may stay hidden from prying eyes and such...
Undetectable alignment neatly blends you in the crowd in case your heroes use the spell to search for people above lvl 5.
Discern Lies can be fooled or resisted.
Divination offers only hints, Commune perhaps confirms already suspected things.
Detect spells are also usually fooled by lead, metal or stone walls.
A good mundane disguise can also go a long way. The problem in higher level games if the creature is divined correctly could also be how to prove them guilty.
...and the villain needs to be getting lucky on saves and DC checks as well as taking all these counter measures just to avoid the players cracking the plot using magic.
Furthermore the DM needs to have thought out every tricky way the players might utilize their magic power before hand. A tall order players are tricky and often think of things the DM never anticipated.
In the end your villain needs to be a powerful mage or something similar with potent magic just to possibly keep their nefarious schemes hidden from the players.
In reality though you as the DM have now spent a lot of time and efforts - likely a few dozen hours carefully putting together your high level murder mystery and keeping the players from not cracking it is going to come down to you being lucky and they not getting some good rolls. If they do your adventure breaks before your eyes...no DM is likely to even try - well not more then once anyway.
The other issue is your game world does not really take into account what really happens in a world with this kind of powerful magic in common usage. It'd actually be this really unrecognizable world...sort of Eberron on super steroids. Just trying to handle the adventure brings this sort of thing into sharp focus. In reality its not just the evil villain that needs all these defenses up all the time - everyone needs them and more to defend themselves from powerful practitioners of magic.
A good example is - you know the place where your players sell all their magical loot and buy what it is that they really want...have your players ever considered robbing that store? Probably they have - if it ever came up the DM nixed that right there...your not allowed to rob the magic store.
In the end higher level murder mystery type adventures strain the system well past its breaking point in terms of the villain, the rest of the NPCs in the world and the nature of the societies in the world itself.
Well, if there is a murder mystery, that players of this level want to solve, it's quite likely that both the target and the killer were probably of those that could afford this. At this level we're already on duke's men level and the PCs are quite capable, as their opposition should be with protected forts and stuff. The potential killers could be from multiple cities, or even summoned from another plane, so the percentage of capable NPCs in one city could be low, but the number of potential killers remains big enough thanks larger potential area you need to take into account. Don't forget that high level bastards also have far reaching plans AND the means of transport to cover a large area.
I mean do we really see any of the big end boss villains in any of these APs taking adequate counter measures to protect themselves, all their minions and all the locations they are a part of from concerted efforts by the players to use the magic system to crack the adventures? In reality of course we don't - it'd take half the word count just to list off all the defenses needed and its exceptionally difficult to figure out beforehand all the devious ways the players might use their spells.
It's also counter to a design philosophy I've often seen expressed by Paizo staffers around the place: it's not cool to give players' characters cool abilities and then stymie any effort to actually use them. The approach they seem to take is that, if the PCs can read minds, design your adventure with that capability in mind, rather than declaring mindreading is impossible when it would be useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is frankly dumb. The times I have seen that advice, don't stymie their abilities, the point was that you should not ALWAYS do so. Every so often, fine, nothing works every time, but don't make having the ability meaningless, at least not their most powerful abilities. To have any chance of keeping up verisimilitude, opponents will find ways they think are sufficient to protect themselves in what they do. If not, it is unlikely they would try whatever it is. They may be wrong, of course, due to lack of knowledge, recklessness or circumstances, but none of them would ignore it. Plus, "let's ask the gods who is responsible, then scry and die him while mega buffed" is not much fun the tenth time around. To change that, you WILL have to stymie their abilities from time to time.
I was very slow to come around to 4e, but the main things it has going for it are:
1- it is relatively easy to learn
2- the on-line WotC tools make creating combat encounters very easy including tailoring and making new creatures
3- the online WotC tools make character management very easy (and the format makes it easy to understand and read during play) including generating, modifying/tailoring, evening, etc.
4- the quality (durability, readability) of the products is very high and they are lavishly illustrated that is very helpful for suspending disbelief.
We have been doing a D&D 4.0 campaign for 2.5 years now and still going strong.
WWW page is here Bold Beginnings WWW Site
In service,
Rich
PS Come see my seminars at GENCON 2013!
Staats GENCON Site
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also remember pretty well that the way the WotC and a lot of the hardline 4E fans bashed older editions made it a very unfriendly environment for a lot of the potential players that did have experience in the older editions, but this wasn't something that came up directly in any of my groups.
Yeah, this is a problem, and I've seen it go both ways. Thankfully not often in real life, but fans can get real defensive in a bad way about their favorite edition. Which is sad, 'cause there are gamers who look down on all D&D editions -- because even 4e isn't all that different from everything that's come before, when you look at the big picture.
...3.x plot solving magic...
Others have pointed out solutions to this issue, but I think that just the fact that it is a debatable issue makes it a problem that 4e has mostly solved. As a 3.x DM, do I ask my players to honor a gentleman's agreement where nobody uses spells cunningly? Do I assume they will, and instead go through a painstaking process of giving villains all the essential magical protections they need (non-caster villains be damned)? Do I go through every spell in the game and nerf/ban the problematic ones?
Or, I can simply DM 4e.
|
|
Frankly, that seems a rather dumb reason to play a different system of any sort. I mean really, who says that the wizard gets easy access to those spells? Just because it's in the book doesn't mean the wizard can just drop gold and have it at any merchant caravan, in fact you could extend an adventure by having the pcs go hunt down the plot breaking spell.
It isn't a burden on the DM except to not be lazy and grant "anything in the book at anytime so long as they got gold."
The book is intended as a gamingtoolbox, it was never like a boardgame where all pieces are always available.
Frankly, that seems a rather dumb reason to play a different system of any sort.
Let me ask you honestly, DLH: Do you have a chip on your shoulder over 4e? Because you seem intent on turning this thread into an edition war.
If you're confused as to why I say this, let me turn your statement around:
I think that being forced to figure out and implement a solution to a significant problem that has been built into the game (such as plot-breaking magic) is a dumb reason to play a game of any sort. Maybe you enjoy the extra prep work, but I'd rather play a more transparent game that requires less micromanagement.
Well, since DM provides the resul of the divinations he can always offer hints rather than solutions.
Nerfing divinations is just another possible solution for a DM to consider, and another thing for him/her to think about during the game. The dilemma is still there.