|
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.
First, my comment had nothing to do with 4e. As I stated earlier in the thread, 4e has a different focus and I think it does it's focus quite well. For some incomprehensible reason, people keep comparing the two like apples to apples, but really it's a case of apples and oranges. Yes you can play the game outside it's focus, but it won't play as smoothly.
Ironically,you are complaining about my statement because it would require the GM to make a custom call, yet many folks like 4e because it's more open for them to make custom calls.
Besides, did it ever occur to you that there is a difference between being built into a system and simply being an option? A spell is neither rule nor law, and no player can learn said spell unless the GM says "Yes you learn the spell." 3.x was not made as a complete kit, it was made as a collection of options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The level of micromanagement required to make 3.5 workable at higher levels was something I found unpleasant as a DM. I love a great many elements of the system, and I agree that there are a variety of solutions to address those problems, including carefully examining and banning/allowing feats/classes/spells on a case-by-case basis. Yet, for me, that was a level of work I wasn't really a fan of, and not an ideal solution to the problem.
That's the eventual conclusion I reached, and ultimately drove me into the arms of 4E. Basically, molding the 3.X rules into the game that I wanted would have been so much work, I was better of designing my own system from the ground up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, my comment had nothing to do with 4e. As I stated earlier in the thread, 4e has a different focus and I think it does it's focus quite well. For some incomprehensible reason, people keep comparing the two like apples to apples, but really it's a case of apples and oranges. Yes you can play the game outside it's focus, but it won't play as smoothly.
You mean like your post on page one, where you say that 4e would make a great Heroclix game, and that you wish WotC had continued publishing 3.5e so that you could have an actual role playing game? If you have asberger's, maybe this really is just an innocent opinion, but if so let me drop you an FYI: this is classic edition warrior BS.
The different foci you attribute to 4e and 3.x are only your perception of the two. In reality, plenty of us have no problem role playing in 4e, and even find it easier for various reasons. Does that make one of them better for role playing? Maybe for individual gamers like you and me, but it's all subjective.
Ironically,you are complaining about my statement because it would require the GM to make a custom call, yet many folks like 4e because it's more open for them to make custom calls.
4e makes it easy to exercise DM fiat and make house rules, if I so choose. 3.x all but requires me to. It's an important difference.
Besides, did it ever occur to you that there is a difference between being built into a system and simply being an option? A spell is neither rule nor law, and no player can learn said spell unless the GM says "Yes you learn the spell." 3.x was not made as a complete kit, it was made as a collection of options.
How...condescending of you.
Of course it's occurred to me; I've been DMing this game for twenty years now. But like Sebastrd, I'd end up rewriting all of those 'options' into an entirely new game, just to get it to play the way I want it to. I was already in that process by the time 4e came out. (Ask anyone who's been around the Paizo boards for a while; I was famous/notorious for my house rules.)
Anyway, have a great day. This has overall been a positive thread, and I'd like to keep it that way, so I won't be replying to you again.
|
|
I am sorry you found me condescending, it was unintentional.
To note however (mostly for clarification for others), my judgement of a game's focus is objectively based on the games actual rules, ignoring fluff/trappings, not how I would use them.
I do however agree that 3.x requires GM fiat, that was the intent of the game, to be a base on which to build your own way of playing. How much work that requires is up to the GM however.
I like 4e, I just get something different from it then 3.x.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I feel just the opposite. The mechanics have to work right, before you can get into story and world. Part of that is my approach - I've never GMed a published setting until this month* So built in world and story are what happens at the table, but to make it come alive you need the right rules.
* Golarion actually, but I am running it using the HERO system. The group I game with is a HERO group.
I play pathfinder solo with the wife GMing, but not in Golarion - she hates the setting.
I found 4E to be mechanically superior to 3.5/Pathfinder. To me, it "feels" like D&D, and it manages to do so without the complexity that 3.5/pathfinder bring to the table. I just don't get the "you can't play the same type of game" with 4E opinion...at all. But I understand other people have different opinions on the matter.
More importantly, mechanics aren't the whole picture. For one thing, network externalities are now working in Pathfinder's favor (which I admit I never saw coming). For another, the content is better. Third, Paizo is A LOT more open and forthcoming, which I greatly appreciate.
|
|
I found 4E to be mechanically superior to 3.5/Pathfinder. To me, it "feels" like D&D, and it manages to do so without the complexity that 3.5/pathfinder bring to the table. I just don't get the "you can't play the same type of game" with 4E opinion...at all. But I understand other people have different opinions on the matter.
More importantly, mechanics aren't the whole picture. For one thing, network externalities are now working in Pathfinder's favor (which I admit I never saw coming). For another, the content is better. Third, Paizo is A LOT more open and forthcoming, which I greatly appreciate.
It is superior only in some ways, like balance, but by the very nature of it, it is also inferior in others, such as flexibility (in some ways, like character design. I can't make a true rog/sorc/monk, I am forced to pick one and dip using feats.) That's why "you can't play the same type of game". Or rather, 4e does what it does better than 3.x but 3.x does more different and flexible things then 4e.
If you like what 4e does (implicitly or explicitly) then you need never go back. You just have to realize some people want to do things that 4e is incapable of doing (it is just getting rarer for people to think in that fashion)
Also, what do you mean by network externalities?
|
I found 4E to be mechanically superior to 3.5/Pathfinder. To me, it "feels" like D&D, and it manages to do so without the complexity that 3.5/pathfinder bring to the table. I just don't get the "you can't play the same type of game" with 4E opinion...at all. But I understand other people have different opinions on the matter.
More importantly, mechanics aren't the whole picture. For one thing, network externalities are now working in Pathfinder's favor (which I admit I never saw coming). For another, the content is better. Third, Paizo is A LOT more open and forthcoming, which I greatly appreciate.
I am a knaves and kobolds/casters and simulations style player. I also prefer combat as war. 4E was designed to move away from those play-styles. I am not saying you cant have that type of game with 4E but often times you will be at odds with the system. Folks who like paladins and princess style games with combat as sport, really enjoy 4E because it pretty much answered the calls of that type of player. The type of player that had to fight 3E to get a game to play to their liking.
Supposedly next is being designed with modularity in mind to allow everyone to tailor the game to their tastes. I don't see that working out just yet. My magic 8 ball says cloudy try again later.
Also, what do you mean by network externalities?
Pathfinder is the current industry leader, and that leadership brings with it certain advantages: More people with whom to play, more product available, robust organized play, etc. Whether those advantages are beneficial will vary from person to person, of course, but they matter to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is superior only in some ways, like balance, but by the very nature of it, it is also inferior in others, such as flexibility (in some ways, like character design. I can't make a true rog/sorc/monk, I am forced to pick one and dip using feats.) That's why "you can't play the same type of game". Or rather, 4e does what it does better than 3.x but 3.x does more different and flexible things then 4e.?
As near as I can tell, your principal complaint with 4E here is that it isn't 3.5/Pathfinder. Of course you can't make a "true" rog/sorc/monk, if your definition of "true" is "like 3.5/pathfinder." You could absolutely build a character that is true to the concept in 4E, but the expression of that concept will differ. You prefer the expression in 3.5/Pathfinder -- and that's fine -- but it doesn't make the expression in 4E objectively inferior.
I think many of the folks that find the 4E approach limiting do so not because it is limited in the concepts they can build, but because they have those concepts too wedded to specific mechanical implementations.
Precisely.
|
|
I understand what you are saying but I only partially agree, then again I was always the one that found that 3.x couldn't make some of my concepts.
4e can do some of it but only if you twist the concepts into the system, you have to do that with any system, the concerning part is just how much twisting needs done.
For example my rog/sorc/mnk concept, is really just a scout character who sneaks everywhere and deals with traps, except learned martial arts mostly for defense but some atk too, so no need for armor, and learned a few spells to augment such as invisibility, plus a few atk spells.
Even bringing this into 3.x requires some twisting, but bringing it into 4e requires more twisting, and in both cases will inevitably result in gaining more ability that are not part of the original concept.
This is one reason I dislike classes of any form, but 3.x has a touch more flexibilty and feels more real, after all, if I just learned how to snk atk, why would it do as much dmg as the guy who has practicing his entire life? Good for balance yes, but it doesn't make much sense.
I think many of the folks that find the 4E approach limiting do so not because it is limited in the concepts they can build, but because they have those concepts too wedded to specific mechanical implementations.
Similarly, many gamers who find the 3.x approach limiting feel that way because so many character concepts are too wedded to specific legacy quirks, and design ideas that no doubt seemed like a good idea in 1999, but lose a lot of sparkle in actual play.
Honestly, I love the idea of a la carte multiclassing; it's intuitive and provides lots of fun chargen widgets. And I was once optimistic that 4e would improve it. (I didn't pay much attention to the design process.) But 4e gave me a simpler, vastly more balanced, and [if you house rule out the feat taxes to swap class powers] a much more satisfying MC system overall.
I'd love to see an edition with a really good a la carte MC system in the future, though I think that 5e is going nowhere fast, so I doubt it'll be anytime soon. (I don't know if a la carte MCing is even on the 5e menu.)
5e's rules do not excite me. In my opinion, 4e is better than what 5e currently is.
4e imposed too many meta restrictions and constantly used meta words like "square" instead of "5 feet" or "encounter power". This prevented that suspension of disbelief many role-players need to enjoy the game.
Aside from the meta concepts and words, 4e is full of solid mechanics and sound design. It's the little role-playing inhibitors (and the lack of free rules online) that keep my group from even trying it out.
All the 4e hate has convinced WotC that everything about 4e was wrong-bad-fun/prevented-them-from-making-money. I think WotC could have done a lot better for itself by fixing 4e so that it had less immersion disrupting meta in it. (Like once per 5 minutes would be better than once per encounter)
I think many of the folks that find the 4E approach limiting do so not because it is limited in the concepts they can build, but because they have those concepts too wedded to specific mechanical implementations.Precisely.
To an extent I agree. If you are fine with effects based systems (such as Hero or M&M) often called re-skinning in other systems, you can have great flexibility. I love monks. There was no monk in 4E - so I talked to the GM. I made a two weapon ranger, each weapon was "Martial Arts" and did d6 base (IIRC) and he just had the level appropriate AC defined as dodging. All the powers were renamed/flavored as Ch'i abilities.
But because balance is so strict, and the game is designed for group play, if you move outside that it becomes difficult - I tend to play my D&D/Pathfinder solo, with my wife to GM me. I can throw together a gestalt character with a template or something and I can play a published module in PF or 3.5. That cannot easily be done in 4E. So much of the assumption is party play (which is how the game is played most of the time) that it didn't work for me.
The fact that I tend to prefer simulationist rules than a gamist one meant that by just design it had a strike against it for me.
But for the kind of gameplay it is designed for, it is one of the best at what it does.
Tequila Sunrise & DarkLightHitomi - I think you might like Legend from Rule of Cool. Their way of mixing classes looks fine. 13th also suggests swaping powers as agood way to customize.
|
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.
I don't think Pun-Pun is legit by RAW.
There is an interesting discussion here (note that this links to the Gaming Den, which is not to everybody's taste).
Also, is it any cheesier than 4th edition's Yogi Bear hat? (Also the Gaming Den.)
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.
You'll have to be careful to actually ban them however as spellcasting characters do get to pick spells. Wizards get two for the spell book per level and the rest of the classes simply 'know' the spells when they level up. You can't just say the merchant does not have this spell at this time - you need to be specific and say that this spell does not exist in your campaign world.
Also, is it any cheesier than 4th edition's Yogi Bear hat? (Also the Gaming Den.)
Is 'ultimate cosmic power beyond that of even the gods' cheesier than 'I can't die so long as my pet lives'?
Most certainly, YES.
Especially when put in context. Pun-Pun is a combination of obscure rules that were never meant to be used together that can produce ultimate cosmic power at any level of play, beginning at 1st. The Yogi Bear hat is an intentionally written option for epic characters, who are supposed to break out of the rules a bit.
|
|
@ Jeremy
The spells a wizard gets are assumed to have studied during little bits of down time, so you can say that haven't been found to study. Besides there are very few spells that actually present such problems and even fewer depending on what the GM is actually trying to do.
Besides, 90% of the time issues arise or are bypassed by how a GM uses what is available rather then what the GM uses.
Goblins for example can be a nearly impossible encounter lasting for days in game, or the exact same goblins can be overly easy to defeat, all depending on how the GM uses them. Complaining about encouters being too easy doesn't mean bigger monsters are needed, it means the GM has to get off his/her lazy butt and actually do something other then rush in BDI ( blind, deaf, and idiotic.)
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.
Well I do somewhat understand your idea of it being an organization backed by a Demon Lord (who is directly involved) or some such to keep the players in check.
In fact I think there is an argument for - "high level murder mysteries don't exist" because by 6th or so the players are beyond this style of play.
In essence there is a huge power difference between the editions and this is especially apparent in the class system. From 1-5th 3rd edition characters are 'normal humnans' in some sense but by 6th they are part of some tiny minority of super humans. Those that are beyond the realms of mere mortals and already a kind of young Hercules or some such. Its pretty clear that once people start having access to 4th level spells the game world itself is in jeopardy. I'd say one of the problems here is a mismatch in the DMs perspective and also the campaign designs. In essence if the DM and the game world recognize that by 6th level the players are really superhuman and by 8th they should be able to tell the Emperor what for then the system is internally consistent. The issue here seems to be that things like APs don't really seem to recognize that the players have already moved beyond the ken of mere mortals and DMs are resistant to allow their players to behave in this way.
4E keeps the power level much more like 1-5 for far longer. In fact I'd generally say the moment my 4E players get their 16th level Paragon Path power is really the moment they take their first steps on being well beyond mere mortals (that power is almost always something really outrageous) and its more like this moment when they can start to tell Emperors and such to stick their head where the sun don't shine.
In the end this is a subjective thing but I happen to like a lot of the elements of low level play and enjoy murder mysteries and political intrigue so I like the fact that 4E characters are just much weaker and don't have access to the real unique game breaking stuff until much higher level.
@ Jeremy
The spells a wizard gets are assumed to have studied during little bits of down time, so you can say that haven't been found to study. Besides there are very few spells that actually present such problems and even fewer depending on what the GM is actually trying to do.Besides, 90% of the time issues arise or are bypassed by how a GM uses what is available rather then what the GM uses.
Goblins for example can be a nearly impossible encounter lasting for days in game, or the exact same goblins can be overly easy to defeat, all depending on how the GM uses them. Complaining about encouters being too easy doesn't mean bigger monsters are needed, it means the GM has to get off his/her lazy butt and actually do something other then rush in BDI ( blind, deaf, and idiotic.)
I don't think this is really true in 3rd though it was true of 1st and 2nd. Pretty quickly in 3rd the players and even the mage will have taken steps to make their AC such that short of a natural 20 the goblins can't hit. 4th has the same issue but it takes significantly longer because its much more difficult for the PCs to raise their ACs and the vulnerable PCs like clerics have an especially difficult time.
There is actually good example of this on these forums. The 3rd Chapter of Age of Worms, Encounter at Blackwall Keep, starts with the PCs coming upon a force of 60 some odd Lizardfolk laying siege to Blackwall Keep. The adventure writers even, humorously, put in a warning that this was an overpowered encounter for the PCs who are 6th level at this stage. Check out the comments for that adventure in the Age of Worms forum - again and again DMs that played the adventure found that their PCs mercilessly slaughtered the Lizard Folk with almost no danger to themselves.
That in itself is not actually a problem - what I think the problem was is that DMs actually are not ready for their 6th level characters to physically show them what has become true by this level - they are legendary heros who can, on their own, slaughter armies (as happens in this adventure). By 6th level maybe Dukes should be kneeling to the players not the other way around but I don't think DMs are ready for that yet which leads to a mismatch of expectations.
I actually think this is another reason for some of the DM love for 4E. Your players are perfectly fine if by 6th level they can tell off the mouthy Duke NPC. Its the DM who is looking to ease into this much more slowly.
|
|
@Jeremy
If you would like, I'll run a combat of 60 lizardfolk against a group of 6 6th lvl pcs. They won't survive, then perhaps you'll understand what I mean by not running in BDI.
@matthew
I somewhat agree, but not entirely. In point one it really depends on what you want from the character and what limits you are willing to accept.
As for point two, I am very objective with such things, in dealing with rpgs I run the idea with what I know of reality then see how each game compares. For example sneak attack, it is rather easy to find weak spots when you know what to look for, however a less practiced individual is more likely to strike a quarter inch to left dealing greivous but not quite as bad damage as the master. However when you can see such weak points, you will strike for them at every available opportunity regardless of your actual accuracy. Thus 3.x is more realistic because you can use snk atk at every opportunity and damage depends on your skill.
@Jeremy
If you would like, I'll run a combat of 60 lizardfolk against a group of 6 6th lvl pcs. They won't survive, then perhaps you'll understand what I mean by not running in BDI.
I suspect I know what you mean. Essentially Tucker's Kobolds or the theme behind say The Dragon of Firetop Mountain or Tallow's Deep.
Nonetheless I suspect your Lizard Folk would either like access to manufactured substances they likely don't have (stuff with splash damage so you don't have to try and hit the impossible to hit AC) and would like to bit be trying to surround a fort. Both of which put a crimp on their style. In any case a big part of my point was that if the PCs hit the enemy army in a meeting engagement - where its difficult for the baddies to get beyond what your calling BDI then the PCs can beat armies at this level.
Beyond this playing defensively with traps and such can up the potential of the little buggers but it is remarkable the difference between 3rd and 1st and 2nd in this regards. Dragon of Firetop Mountain, despite the title, is really about kobolds and its meant for 2nd edition parties of 10th level. Now it takes playing smart, great defensive positions, lots of traps and war of attrition to the nth degree to make 10th level players truly fear for their hides in 2nd. In 3rd there simply is no way the DM can manage this...not and have anything that feels like kobolds anyway. The PCs synergies are just too phenomenal, I liked the adventure a lot and I like doing conversions but just could never see a way to make the adventure work in 3rd.
Does not work in 4E either, for one 10th is still to high, ACs will be in the natural 20 range. That problem could be gotten around using Orcs which in 4E are roughly 4th level but it'd still suck because war of attrition is not good gaming in 4E. Fewer more epic feeling combats work best.
|
|
Matthew, there is a difference netween being more realistic/plausable and being completely realistic. And given that I do have training in combat, and melee combat with fists, swords, and staves, I automatically know what a character should be capable of, no effort required, thus when things don't follow what experience says they should be, then it shatters the mood beyond recovery.
Besides much of your arguement is based on ignorence or is moot. A warrior skilled enough to have great accuracy already knows about and targets weak points, some warriors won't worry about weak points but those warriors wont have any accuracy instead relying on strength to break through enough to kill. Bluffing can't fool someone against a weak point (unless it is an unusual weak point such as a recent injury) because the weak points are based on the armor and physical body characteristics, thus it is an attackers skill at striking accuratly vs a defenders skill at deflecting/blocking.
As for atks, ini, fluctuating dmg, and hp, these elements are unchanged between the two systems and thus have no bearing on whether one system is more or less realistic, and have no real life counterpart anyway. In real life the first connecting strike wins 90% of time, resulting in the loser being dead or otherwise in no condition to continue, this is true even more for swords then guns.
Well, since DM provides the resul of the divinations he can always offer hints rather than solutions.
Agree. Divi nations are a great way to add Maggufins for other potential plot lines too.
The DM is in total control of this.
In service,
As for atks, ini, fluctuating dmg, and hp, these elements are unchanged between the two systems and thus have no bearing on whether one system is more or less realistic, and have no real life counterpart anyway. In real life the first connecting strike wins 90% of time, resulting in the loser being dead or otherwise in no condition to continue, this is true even more for swords then guns.
So, your saying that combat in D&D is completely unrealistic due to hit points, but one edition's multi-classing system is more realistic due to the hit point damage potential?
|
|
Not at all.
Both systems use basically the same hp system, thus this has no impact on which one is more realistic.
However in 4e, if a dabble in something and learn a power, then I am just as effective with that power as someone who has been using it all their lives. That is less realistic then the dabbler learning a new power at novice level and needing to train and sudy with it just as long as the master did in order to become a master at it.
It just so happens that one measures the effectiveness of snk atk by dmg of HP, but really it wasn't the dmg, it was the effectiveness that really stands out as a difference between the two systems. 4e my effectiveness in all powers depends on my overall level, while in 3.x my effectiveness in a power depends on my level in that catagory of powers. 4e is better balanced, 3.x is closer to realistic.
Really, I think it important to understand such differences when dicussing such topics.
Not at all.
Both systems use basically the same hp system, thus this has no impact on which one is more realistic.
However in 4e, if a dabble in something and learn a power, then I am just as effective with that power as someone who has been using it all their lives. That is less realistic then the dabbler learning a new power at novice level and needing to train and sudy with it just as long as the master did in order to become a master at it.
It just so happens that one measures the effectiveness of snk atk by dmg of HP, but really it wasn't the dmg, it was the effectiveness that really stands out as a difference between the two systems. 4e my effectiveness in all powers depends on my overall level, while in 3.x my effectiveness in a power depends on my level in that catagory of powers. 4e is better balanced, 3.x is closer to realistic.
Really, I think it important to understand such differences when dicussing such topics.
You said it yourself, "4e my effectiveness in all powers depends on my overall level, while in 3.x my effectiveness in a power depends on my level in that catagory of powers." Neither is realistic, because realistically a dagger in the neck kills you. The difference is in how the system determines effectiveness. Neither comes closer to reality because neither combat system comes close to representing reality.
Doing more damage based on actual level, or based on how long you've had an abiltity are both an abstraction. Thus both can be hand waved in any way you choose. Either, my experienced rogue does more damage when he shatters your kneecap, or anybody trained to shatter kneecaps does the same damage.
|
|
Real people may die easier then the game, but there is still plenty of real difference in how much damage is dealt. Thus yeah, my effectiveness as measured is relatable to real life (think the difference between spraining an ankle and breaking one. A newbie is more likely to produce the wrong result from what they were trying for.)
Not everyone trying to shatter a kneecap is going to get the same result and someone who is well practiced can do far more damage then a newbie, even in real life, So no, doing equal damage is not equally realistic.
|
|
The spelss they get don't depend on the book, they get two free spells they don't have to pay for nor need to roll spellcraft rolls, and it assumed they were spells that were studied in downtime. No reason to allow willie nilly any spell choice. Can easily have players roll to see if they find the spells they want. Or atl least dicuss with them what spells they want and what they can find.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
However in 4e, if a dabble in something and learn a power, then I am just as effective with that power as someone who has been using it all their lives. That is less realistic then the dabbler learning a new power at novice level and needing to train and sudy with it just as long as the master did in order to become a master at it.
For me whether or not it is more or less realistic is less important then a different element. If you go back to your grade 10 English class one of the things your teacher probably taught you is that in good literature the characters in the story are changed and grow based on the events that take place over the course of the book (or other story telling medium). In my opinion Dungeons and Dragons is essentially a story telling game so I personally feel this element is an important one.
3.x's system means that there are a lot of trap choices and some options that would be good are straight out bad if taken later on. So if I'm just learning to be a monk then I get monk powers but they are very weak. That might be fine if my party and I are all still very low levels but clearly there is a point past which choosing monk levels are effectively off the table. If we are now 10th level its simply to late to go monk become a spell caster etc. because what one gets is so weak that it might as well be irrelevant. In character build terms these choices are inflicting brutal opportunity costs. Hence 3.X emphasizes planning out your character build. Its best to sit down very early in your characters development and plan out everything your character will take out to whatever level the campaign will go to.
In 4E your not punished for making the choices later because their effectiveness is scaled to your level. What this means is you don't have to decide what direction your character is going beforehand but instead you can do it as the story of the campaign develops. In effect 3.x's system encourages characters to be 'immune' to the story that is developing in the campaign itself because the PCs effectiveness is dependent on following the plan the player worked out right near the beginning. 4E PCs can be planned out from day 1 - I have a player who does this but its not required and even he has commented that 'this is his build unless...'
The unless part is because, in my campaign, sometimes dramatic events take place and characters change or grow because of what took place in the story. So one of my players was a psion and it came to pass, during the campaign, that he had a 'Fall from Grace' during a very dramatic scene in the temple of an evil Goddess. The PCs where trapped and defending a bunch of townsfolk but were being overwhelmed. It soon became apparent that the PCs faced two choices. They have the speed and survivability to flee this scene but the townsfolk do not and would therefore die however our Evil Goddess has had her attention attracted to the events unfolding in her temple and she has hatched a dark scheme. She offers one of the players another alternative...pure unadulterated power...enough power to win this battle and there is just a small price...ritual human sacrifice of one of the townsfolk...well and she'll forever have her talons in the PC that performs the human sacrifice because she has plans for an individual of his rising stature. Its just one little townsperson to save all the others. Surely here the ends justify the means? So the player decides to go for the pure power option and after a powerful scene with that townsfolk pleading and begging for his life before being ritualistically murdered the PC in question acquires enough power to win the battle. These events dramatically changed two of the PCs at the table. One of the characters had now become a pawn of an evil Goddess while another PC, the only one who witnessed the sacrifice, went from being an unaligned rogue to devoting his life to the causes of good in order to 'pay for not stopping what my character had witnessed'.
From this point forward both characters where know going down different paths then the ones their players had thought they would take when the campaign had started. The 'Witness' player was maybe more attached to his 'build' and he would change alignment and spend about the next two levels doing some mechanical dabbling in elements that supported his characters new ethos as a paragon of good. Mechanically this player was a rogue who had become an Exalted Champion and picked up some of the powers associated with moving in that direction.
For the player that 'Fell from Grace' though this was a complete game changer - he was no longer just a psion he became a cleric in the service of this evil Goddess and began to pick up cleric powers. As a DM I supported this change by giving him boons (essentially magic items that are inherent to the character).
The important thing here for me is that deviating from the PC 'build' did not really harm the characters involved. They did not need to follow a per-ordained blueprint or significantly loose effectiveness. Neither player was now 'optimized' to the same degree but the powers they picked up are good at the level of play their characters operate at since 4E tries to make all options good.
In 3.x I doubt my players would have allowed something as minor as committing human sacrifice to effect their 'build' since it is simply to punishing to suddenly, later in a characters career, start down a new route, especially a cleric (because mixing spell casters and non spell casters without a ton of careful planning right from the start is a big mistake).
In reality I'd never have even put this sort of option on the table in 3.x because I think its bad DMing in that system. If a player makes this dramatic character defining story choice and allows these significant events to actually change his character then from this point forward the character looses tons of effectiveness and the player won't have as much fun when we are exploring the dungeon or getting into a rumble going forward. Far from being good storytelling its actually kind of a dick move by the DM since you've laid this trap for the story orientated player to fall into.
Hence, for me, the fact that 4Es system better supports character growth and evolution based on the story unfolding over two or four real life years or however long the campaign goes is a big deal. This is really important to me as a player and maybe especially as a DM.
|
Well I guess to each their own. I personally never planned a build and never plan too, though I am one of the few that severly dislikes that nonsense. Balance is completely useless concept in RP, don't ask me why people care about it.
Because there is also a combat system and the more out of balance a party the greater the chance of character death.
It puts more work on the DM to fine tune each encounter to a party like that. You have the 'Strong' characters bored from lack of challenge or the 'weak' characters not holding their own in battle.
It's doable sure, but it's just another thing to get in the way of fun.
For me whether or not it is more or less realistic is less important then a different element. If you go back to your grade 10 English class one of the things your teacher probably taught you is that in good literature the characters in the story are changed and grow based on the events that take place over the course of the book (or other story telling medium). In my opinion Dungeons and Dragons is essentially a story telling game so I personally feel this element is an important one.
However in 4e, if a dabble in something and learn a power, then I am just as effective with that power as someone who has been using it all their lives. That is less realistic then the dabbler learning a new power at novice level and needing to train and sudy with it just as long as the master did in order to become a master at it.
Good points.
But the paragraphs I quoted are, I think, the biggest divide from players of the two systems* and while I hate to use forge-speak it is applicable here.
Simulation vs Narrative.
On one side believes that it doesn't simulate skill/training use because someone who has done it for years doesn't make sense - and on the other, having that happen means that story can take more interesting directions because of built restrictions.
Not much else to add, but I've felt that way about the 3.xPF/4E split for a long time, and those two paragraphs just illustrated it so well.
*The other is LFQW.