The Role Playing Public Radio Forums
General Category => RPGs => : malyss January 07, 2010, 03:33:28 PM
-
Yes, Ross, I know you love it.
Yes, there are things I like about it.
Yes, I do play 4th Ed.
I actually play 4th Ed. more than anything else. I run a Pathfinder game about once a month, and played 3rd and 3.5 for years. I also played 2nd. And 1st. And GURPS, Palladium spin-offs, Champions, etc. etc.
It just really bugs me that when I want to actually challenge players with something other than a fight or social situation, I have to basically use athletics or acrobatics as the catch-all.
Can't they just add one or two more skills to cover role-playing interests? The groups I play with like to have their characters have other talents (such as blacksmith, sailor, cook etc.) and there is just no real mechanism for measuring their talent in that area. If you say your character is the best blacksmith in the land, how could anyone challenge you? There is no measure of ability.
It also bugs me how un-special wizards are now. It does feel like the public school system now - no one is more special than anyone else... bleh.
Anyway, there is my little rant.
-
The lack of secondary skills is a problem in 4E - there are several homebrew solutions out there - you might give each PC a 'class skill' - i.e. a warlord has a warlord skill that covers anything a warlord might have to do - train soldiers, assess a battlefield, repair equipment, etc.
As for wizards not being special - do you think there should be character classes that are just inherently better than others? What do you say to the fighter PC who gets outclassed by the wizard - don't be a fighter?
-
I resolve things like that using ability checks and modifying them using collectively gathered "points". Basically I let my players gain ranks in new skills.
All my players survived an adventure in the Shadowfell, so I had them add "Shadowfell +1" under their class features. The wizard, however, spend alot of time talking to their guide and asked questions via roleplaying. She got "Shadowfell +2".
If a character is the greatest blacksmith in all the land, give them "Black Smith +10". That way when he uses his abilities to do blacksmithy things, he had 10 to whatever he rolls (in addition to half his level and the ability mod). Information about blacksmithing? Intellegence. Making a fine piece of iron? Dexterity. Making something unusually big? Strength. Making alot of things without stopping? Constitution.
Not the simplest system, just one I like to use.
-
All my players survived an adventure in the Shadowfell, so I had them add "Shadowfell +1" under their class features. The wizard, however, spend alot of time talking to their guide and asked questions via roleplaying. She got "Shadowfell +2".
And what would that shadowfel help with? history? I do agree that if your fighter wants to be a black smith let him add the skill. its all D20 checks, if he wants to drop skill points in it let him, just be sure you can set up challenges for him to use the skill. proving hes the best, repairing the partys gear, or helping a broken down wagon fix its wheel, what ever you want. As allways DnD is pretty easy to set up extra home rules, if its a skill challenge the standerd rule of 3 sucesses befor 2 fails.
p.s. welcome back tad. was starting to get worried you sacrficed your self to a dark god.
-
"Shadowfell" adds to attribute tests regarding the Shadowfell, as outlined above using blacksmith. If a player uses a skill, no bonus. The listing is designed to be used in places when there is not a fitting skill.
-
I will admit, rules as written, I find the skills in 4th to be the weakest part of the system. That said, I have the same feelings about pretty much all the d20 systems (Sage, Pathfinder, 3.5). Either way, all those system benefit heavily from a give and take from both DM and player.
Were wizards all that specialized in 3.5? Specialization meant you lose access to 1/8th of spells, most of which you'd never cast anyway.
I've found the separation of fluff from the mechanics in 4th ed more liberating, with more chances for reskinning. I'm playing a druid in a maptools game, and the best part of character creation was writting my own fluff for my powers.
-
Oh, god what would I do without reskinning? It is so simple to make any encounter thematically appropriate using the monster blocks in 4E. Maybe it was just as easy before, I don't know, but I can pick any level fitting monster and just say it looks like whatever I want while using the stats infront of me.
Hell, I made the characters fight an Ancient Gold Dragon's stats but the monster was a single, living city. It's a level 30 Solo encounter, that's what matters.
-
Iron Heroes had a great skill system - it took all 3E skills and classified them into groups - you could specialize in individual skills or just hte groups - characters had enough skill points to make competent characters who were well rounded
-
Iron Heroes had a great skill system - it took all 3E skills and classified them into groups - you could specialize in individual skills or just hte groups - characters had enough skill points to make competent characters who were well rounded
That sounds like the Shadowrun 4ed skill system. All the skills were placed in about 10 skills groups. You could purchase ranks in the group, up to rank 4, and since you were buying in bulk, you got a discount. If you purchased an individual skill, you could purchase it up to rank 7, but you could no longer buy the skill group or something. You could also buy a specialization for specific circumstances, so for the pilot skill, you could buy a bonus on cars, or for the melee weapon skill, axes.
It was an ok system.
-
By my count nearly a thirds of the skills in Shadowrun 4th Edition aren't in any skill group, granted the ones not included are more highly specialized skills. Shadowrun uses a WoD style system where your skill ranks adds to a dice pool which you use to try and get hits against a static target number. The number of six siders can get crazy with Shadowrun. I mean, I love being able to throw twelve dice down when I make a throw attack, or throwing fourteen for a knowledge check its just alot of dice.
-
Iron Heroes had a great skill system - it took all 3E skills and classified them into groups - you could specialize in individual skills or just hte groups - characters had enough skill points to make competent characters who were well rounded
I thought that IH was a great all around system for Conan-style cinematic melee combat. I understand how the magic lite characters turned people (i.e. Tom Church, I know you are reading this Tom, and I'm specifically calling you out) off of the game system.
-
As for wizards not being special - do you think there should be character classes that are just inherently better than others?
Yes thats exactly how it should be. In real life everything isnt fair and blanced so why should everything be like that in games?
-
As for wizards not being special - do you think there should be character classes that are just inherently better than others?
Yes thats exactly how it should be. In real life everything isnt fair and blanced so why should everything be like that in games?
Games are designed with the idea of rules in mind. Really the concept of a game is that it is an activity which has rules, or guidelines, even if they are very light in nature. Part of those rules, typically for player benefit and fairness, is a balance between classes (or other character options).
I've been trying to form a better, more thought out arguement and I can't seem to so I'll cut to my core point: That's fucking stupid.
Real life isn't fair or balanced so obviously the wizard should get to be awesome? Seriously, what the fuck? Your begging the question.
-
Well i cant exactly counter "its stupid". Hope you got something better then that. also I hope I'm just reading it and wrong and you arent implying that an unbalanced game means a rule-less game?
-
I'm saying that if a game is designed to be balanced, which most class based games are assumed to be, and the rules lead to the classes being unbalanced than they are bad rules and bad design because they do not achive their desired function.
-
Perhaps we shouldn't be making that assumption. Game developers aren't dumb and they do play test their games. Do you really think WoTC was ignorant to the fact that wizards get as powerful as they do? I for one don't think so. and even if they where it came out rather well, though perhaps it was that 1 in a million chance ;).
-
I think that by the time it became apparent just how much more powerful than other classes wizards had become it was too late to alter the system without completely changing the class, which would mean publishing totally altered base material.
I think that there was an effort to try and put martially focused classes on the same power curve, hince Book of Nine Swords.
I also think that they knew to correct it when given the proper chance, hince the alterations to class balance for 4th edition.
-
As for wizards not being special - do you think there should be character classes that are just inherently better than others? What do you say to the fighter PC who gets outclassed by the wizard - don't be a fighter?
In a word: yes.
In a lot more than one...
I guess I just really enjoyed the "not everyone is equal in all things" feel the old systems had.
If people are role-playing to be homogeneous, I think there is a problem. I always try to relate role-playing more closely to acting than to bookkeeping and strategy/tactical game-play. We turn to systems to offer structure, and so that we play on the same field. Rules should guide the results of actions, not enforce absolute equality among actors. When everyone must be just as powerful, it feels wrong to me.
Why was a fighter more powerful at first level and a wizard more powerful at 20th? It was a style of play choice and a story choice. Now it doesn't matter. I don't like that. I think it just continues to preach the "we are all equal" stuff that everyone carries on about. We are not. When stuff like this happens, it just becomes all about leveling the playing field, which is inherently wrong in a story. Heroes overcome.
This just feels like a marketing ploy that puts too-strict limits on creative expectation. When everyone is told they are equal in all things, they will expect it. Teach them that there are ebbs and flows and they will enjoy the ups and downs.
-
Oh, god what would I do without reskinning? It is so simple to make any encounter thematically appropriate using the monster blocks in 4E. Maybe it was just as easy before, I don't know, but I can pick any level fitting monster and just say it looks like whatever I want while using the stats infront of me.
Hell, I made the characters fight an Ancient Gold Dragon's stats but the monster was a single, living city. It's a level 30 Solo encounter, that's what matters.
I love the way 4E does monster roles and preparation. I have done similar re-skinning to what you do.
-
I think that by the time it became apparent just how much more powerful than other classes wizards had become it was too late to alter the system without completely changing the class, which would mean publishing totally altered base material.
I think that there was an effort to try and put martially focused classes on the same power curve, hince Book of Nine Swords.
I also think that they knew to correct it when given the proper chance, hince the alterations to class balance for 4th edition.
I find a lot of people argue how powerful wizards are. I also find that they are only making 20th level comparisons. 1st level fighter versus first level wizard: who wins? If you said fighter, you win a prize for being able to observe the obvious. There is no equality there, and yet no one complains as loudly about that. The reason no one complains is that wizards get to be more powerful... if they survive. Short term pain for long term gain.
I would say the designers at TSR/WotC knew what they were doing and they were doing what they intended. It was a style choice. What kind of character did you want to play? They had different styles of play for a reason.
I miss that. Which is why I still play Pathfinder as well as 4E (among other systems).
-
Well i cant exactly counter "its stupid". Hope you got something better then that. also I hope I'm just reading it and wrong and you arent implying that an unbalanced game means a rule-less game?
One problem with the lack of balance in 3E is that it is hidden imbalance - players are not told upfront that some classes (wizard, druid, cleric) are inherently better and more powerful than others (fighter, rogue, ranger) so players who play fighters will have less to do in the game and are less important and will not realize this for a while.
Look at this thread in rpg.net http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=453838
It focuses on a Level 14 fighter - designed by Paizo as an Iconic character - versus an Ice Devil a CR 13 monster. The fighter's Will save is +3! AT LEVEL 14. The fighter has virtually no chance to solo the Ice Devil while a level 14 wizard or cleric could.
The thread also has posts from the lead designer of Pathfinder so it's a fair discussion.
-
As for wizards not being special - do you think there should be character classes that are just inherently better than others?
Yes thats exactly how it should be. In real life everything isnt fair and blanced so why should everything be like that in games?
Simple answer: Games arn't real life, and shouldn't attempt to model it completely. Should the car in Monopoly get to roll 3 dice because in real life, a car is faster than a thimble?
-
As for wizards not being special - do you think there should be character classes that are just inherently better than others?
Yes thats exactly how it should be. In real life everything isnt fair and blanced so why should everything be like that in games?
Simple answer: Games arn't real life, and shouldn't attempt to model it completely. Should the car in Monopoly get to roll 3 dice because in real life, a car is faster than a thimble?
I must admit, that is one of the most humorous examples I can imagine.
-
As for wizards not being special - do you think there should be character classes that are just inherently better than others?
Yes thats exactly how it should be. In real life everything isnt fair and blanced so why should everything be like that in games?
Simple answer: Games arn't real life, and shouldn't attempt to model it completely. Should the car in Monopoly get to roll 3 dice because in real life, a car is faster than a thimble?
That's a gross exaggeration and I think you know that.
-
Well i cant exactly counter "its stupid". Hope you got something better then that. also I hope I'm just reading it and wrong and you arent implying that an unbalanced game means a rule-less game?
One problem with the lack of balance in 3E is that it is hidden imbalance - players are not told upfront that some classes (wizard, druid, cleric) are inherently better and more powerful than others (fighter, rogue, ranger) so players who play fighters will have less to do in the game and are less important and will not realize this for a while.
Look at this thread in rpg.net http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=453838
It focuses on a Level 14 fighter - designed by Paizo as an Iconic character - versus an Ice Devil a CR 13 monster. The fighter's Will save is +3! AT LEVEL 14. The fighter has virtually no chance to solo the Ice Devil while a level 14 wizard or cleric could.
The thread also has posts from the lead designer of Pathfinder so it's a fair discussion.
But the will save for all the classes are clearly displayed for all to see. Now if you are saying that even seeing that they still might not truly understand the value of said number then that I understand but that's how playing any game is for the first few times and once they play a while they will quickly understand that fighters have a low will save and what that means for them.
Also as some one pointed out in that forum its good to have a flaw and not be to good at everything.
-
Well, 4th ed classes aren't good at everything and do have flaws. Try to fight a boss with a controller, or endless minions with a striker. It's true that they're much closer to being all on the same level of abilities, but they all have their own level of expertise of sort. I, for one, am glad, you don't need fucktons of magic items to have an AC above 15 at high level.
-
It's not that huge of an exaggeration. It's certainly simplified. But I'll offer an example that actually happened. Our party consisting of a rogue, warrior, bard, cleric/ranger and a wizard, all around level 12 had just landed on an island. Our DM had planned on us encountering a group of ogres, or some level appropriate monstrous humanoids. The wizard said "I'll scout ahead" and took the skies. He rolled decent on his spot, so he saw the group of monsters. He then flew above arrow range, and proceeded cast fireballs and the like at the monsters at the safety of 400 feet or so, killing all the monsters. Then he flew back and the rest of the party felt disappointed.
So, in summary, the wizard was effectively a F14, I, the bard, could summon a tiny hut and perhapses speak to animals, and the fighter could swing his sword three times if he held still.
Look, 3.x was a a good game, but frankly, it had flaws, the greatest of which focused around balance. Knowing what to do at character creation shouldn't be part of a game Game design tends to get better with time, and quite frankly I'm glad they figured it out that its not fun when someone is a F14 while the other people get to sit in the tiny hut.
-
It's not that huge of an exaggeration. It's certainly simplified. But I'll offer an example that actually happened. Our party consisting of a rogue, warrior, bard, cleric/ranger and a wizard, all around level 12 had just landed on an island. Our DM had planned on us encountering a group of ogres, or some level appropriate monstrous humanoids. The wizard said "I'll scout ahead" and took the skies. He rolled decent on his spot, so he saw the group of monsters. He then flew above arrow range, and proceeded cast fireballs and the like at the monsters at the safety of 400 feet or so, killing all the monsters. Then he flew back and the rest of the party felt disappointed.
So, in summary, the wizard was effectively a F14, I, the bard, could summon a tiny hut and perhapses speak to animals, and the fighter could swing his sword three times if he held still.
Look, 3.x was a a good game, but frankly, it had flaws, the greatest of which focused around balance. Knowing what to do at character creation shouldn't be part of a game Game design tends to get better with time, and quite frankly I'm glad they figured it out that its not fun when someone is a F14 while the other people get to sit in the tiny hut.
I assume he was using the spell overland flight which I as a DM would just make a house rule that you cant fly and cast spells at the same time for this effect. To me this is an example of something that perhaps does need fixed but doesn't represent anything inherently wrong with the system.
As for knowing "what to do" at character creation sounds like you are just creating a character to be powerful and do everything. Not creating a character that you actually want to play and explore its persona and see it grow because of certain strengths and weakness.
-
Not really. He was using Fly, a third level spell. Sure, he only had 12 minutes, but thats over 600 combat rounds, and he could cast it several times.
-
Not really. He was using Fly, a third level spell. Sure, he only had 12 minutes, but thats over 600 combat rounds, and he could cast it several times.
yea any DM worth his weight would make a house rule that you cant cast while fly or have an encounter of all flying monsters that the lone wizard clealry cant handle, thus keeping him from abusing it. But I think we are clinging to much to a single glitch for lack of a better name. Im sure there are little "glitches" in 4e as well.
-
The DM did say "Hey stop that". The wizards wasn't a huge dickhole, so he did. Still, as the game progressed, the DM was pretty much forced to give the other players more and more powerful items just to keep pace with the wizard. Hypothetically though, was he supposed to include flying monster in every encounter? Ensure all fights occur indoors? Make sure there some "Fuck you wizard" guy in every fight? Wouldn't it be easier to say "Hey wizards, should be in line with everyone else?"?
There are glitches, but they arn't as huge, generally take two people to do with very specific builds, and so far, have been mostly errataed away. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to see "Hey fireball has a huge fucking range, and this same level spell lets me get really high up".
-
Glitch? In 4th Ed! Why never! It is the epitome of perfection!
-
Glitch? In 4th Ed! Why never! It is the epitome of perfection!
*cough PREERRATABATTLERAGEVIGOR cough*
-
Wouldn't it be easier to say "Hey wizards, should be in line with everyone else?"?
No because they shouldnt. A wizard is pulling a ball a fire and brimstone from another dimension and shooting it at you with magical energies, a fighter is a man of above average str and con that carriers a sword, which one do you think would win in a fight? Also wizards have to work to get their power in the form of sucking ass at lower levels where fighters dominate.
-
Wouldn't it be easier to say "Hey wizards, should be in line with everyone else?"?
No because they shouldnt. A wizard is pulling a ball a fire and brimstone from another dimension and shooting it at you with magical energies, a fighter is a man of above average str and con that carriers a sword, which one do you think would win in a fight? Also wizards have to work to get their power in the form of sucking ass at lower levels where fighters dominate.
The answer to to whom I think should win in a fight is, if were playing a game, should be we both have an even chance, and the person who has better tactics, and maybe the dice favor somewhat, should win. The answer shouldn't hinge on "Well are we below level 5?
Why can't everyone shine in all levels? If I'm playing a fighter, should I pack up my stuff and go home after level 6 or so, since from here on, I'm probably going to suck? Also, wizards don't suck at low levels. Maybe at level 1-3, they don't have the staying power of a fighter or the like, but they're still effective.
-
Wouldn't it be easier to say "Hey wizards, should be in line with everyone else?"?
No because they shouldnt. A wizard is pulling a ball a fire and brimstone from another dimension and shooting it at you with magical energies, a fighter is a man of above average str and con that carriers a sword, which one do you think would win in a fight? Also wizards have to work to get their power in the form of sucking ass at lower levels where fighters dominate.
What is funny is that your answer was to do what 4E already does - but in a case by case basis that is quite haphazard
What is telling is that in your solution in the F-14 wizard example was to weaken the wizard class thus bringing the classes into a closer balance with each other
The problem is that you will have to house rule dozens of spells in a campaign, especially at higher levels in order to keep them even somewhat balanced. Improved invisibility, summon monster spells, teleport and dimension door spells, charm and dominate spells, gate, spells with no saving throws, and on and on and on.
Any level 1 spellcaster would win a one on one fight most of the time against a level 1 fighter.
Wizards get color spray, sleep and charm person at level 1, which will stop a level 1 fighter dead in his tracks. Clerics can fight decently and heal themselves at level 1. So can druids, plus they get an animal companion.
Also, you might say but spellcasters only get so many spells a day - which is true. But what party continues on adventuring when the spellcasters are out of spell, unless they absolutely have to keep going? Most of the time, they will stop and rest and most of the time you will have to let them or that trick will get real old real fast.
-
hmmm you all raise some good points but what i suppose it all really boils down to is personal preference for how close we want classes to be balanced. I think a wizard being able to fly around casting fireballs at level 5 is more then a bit unreasonable and i also think fighters are bit to weak at higher levels depending on your choice of feats and a few other things. However i still think magic classes should be more powerful on average. So I guess I just feel 4e makes them to balanced and to me the less evil is the obvious unblance of 3.5. There are a few other problems i have with 4e but this is the biggest and i think we are just all gona haft to accept a Modus vivendi on this one.
-
Wouldn't it be easier to say "Hey wizards, should be in line with everyone else?"?
No because they shouldnt. A wizard is pulling a ball a fire and brimstone from another dimension and shooting it at you with magical energies, a fighter is a man of above average str and con that carriers a sword, which one do you think would win in a fight? Also wizards have to work to get their power in the form of sucking ass at lower levels where fighters dominate.
What is funny is that your answer was to do what 4E already does - but in a case by case basis that is quite haphazard
What is telling is that in your solution in the F-14 wizard example was to weaken the wizard class thus bringing the classes into a closer balance with each other
The problem is that you will have to house rule dozens of spells in a campaign, especially at higher levels in order to keep them even somewhat balanced. Improved invisibility, summon monster spells, teleport and dimension door spells, charm and dominate spells, gate, spells with no saving throws, and on and on and on.
Any level 1 spellcaster would win a one on one fight most of the time against a level 1 fighter.
Wizards get color spray, sleep and charm person at level 1, which will stop a level 1 fighter dead in his tracks. Clerics can fight decently and heal themselves at level 1. So can druids, plus they get an animal companion.
Also, you might say but spellcasters only get so many spells a day - which is true. But what party continues on adventuring when the spellcasters are out of spell, unless they absolutely have to keep going? Most of the time, they will stop and rest and most of the time you will have to let them or that trick will get real old real fast.
I agree pretty much exactly. There is pretty much too much to balance in 3.x. Thats just looking at whats "core". Adding splat books and 3rd party stuff is just suicide.
And for the record, even if wizards had a 90% death rate at levels 1-5, it still wouldn't be balanced. Its like saying rolling for stats is balanced because you could roll high or low. All that really matters is the end result.
-
hmmm you all raise some good points but what i suppose it all really boils down to is personal preference for how close we want classes to be balanced. I think a wizard being able to fly around casting fireballs at level 5 is more then a bit unreasonable and i also think fighters are bit to weak at higher levels depending on your choice of feats and a few other things. However i still think magic classes should be more powerful on average. So I guess I just feel 4e makes them to balanced and to me the less evil is the obvious unblance of 3.5. There are a few other problems i have with 4e but this is the biggest and i think we are just all gona haft to accept a Modus vivendi on this one.
Different strokes for different folks. I played and ran a lot of 3E and had a lot of fun with it so there's that. I'm sure in a campaign where everyone plays primary spellcasters, then it would be a fine game but the problem lies when someone takes fighter, thinking of King Arthur and Conan and then has to watch legions of F-14 wizards overhead bombing monsters, forever.
-
I love the smell of brimstone in the morning.
-
1ST LEVEL WIZARD VS. 14TH LEVEL ICONIC PATHFINDER FIGHTER: 1st level human wizard. 25 point-buy -- easy to get a 14 Dex and 18 Int (of course, this craps all over Con, but eh, this isn't for an actual character). Feats are Improved Initiative and Spell Focus (Enchantment). +6 Initiative, one more than the fighter. Sleep spell with a DC 16. The fighter fails on a 12 or lower. It's not quite winning 75% of the time, but it's definitely more than 50%.
from this thread http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=459558
-
1ST LEVEL WIZARD VS. 14TH LEVEL ICONIC PATHFINDER FIGHTER: 1st level human wizard. 25 point-buy -- easy to get a 14 Dex and 18 Int (of course, this craps all over Con, but eh, this isn't for an actual character). Feats are Improved Initiative and Spell Focus (Enchantment). +6 Initiative, one more than the fighter. Sleep spell with a DC 16. The fighter fails on a 12 or lower. It's not quite winning 75% of the time, but it's definitely more than 50%.
from this thread http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=459558
Pfft. Your sooooo wrong there Ross. You totally have to wait till 5th level to get Hold Person. Sleep has a 4 HD limit. (http://i29.tinypic.com/2qaspc7.jpg)
-
1ST LEVEL WIZARD VS. 14TH LEVEL ICONIC PATHFINDER FIGHTER: 1st level human wizard. 25 point-buy -- easy to get a 14 Dex and 18 Int (of course, this craps all over Con, but eh, this isn't for an actual character). Feats are Improved Initiative and Spell Focus (Enchantment). +6 Initiative, one more than the fighter. Sleep spell with a DC 16. The fighter fails on a 12 or lower. It's not quite winning 75% of the time, but it's definitely more than 50%.
from this thread http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=459558
except for the fact that sleep only effects 4hd worth, and the fighter would have at least 14hd
-
nevermind - sleep doesnt work against level 10 or better people.
-
Actually, 3rd level if your a cleric. Neat, gonna have to to try that.
-
A little late but I would've just said that a 1st level Wizard has a base speed of 30ft vs a 1st level Fighter's 20 ft (armor reduction) so he doesn't really have to fight him. He can Rincewind it.
-
Expeditious Retreat: It is not my sole spell, it is a lifestyle choice.
-
Expeditious Retreat: It is not my sole spell, it is a lifestyle choice.
Remember, dear friend, it is not where you run to, but what you run from.
-
It's not that huge of an exaggeration. It's certainly simplified. But I'll offer an example that actually happened. Our party consisting of a rogue, warrior, bard, cleric/ranger and a wizard, all around level 12 had just landed on an island. Our DM had planned on us encountering a group of ogres, or some level appropriate monstrous humanoids. The wizard said "I'll scout ahead" and took the skies. He rolled decent on his spot, so he saw the group of monsters. He then flew above arrow range, and proceeded cast fireballs and the like at the monsters at the safety of 400 feet or so, killing all the monsters. Then he flew back and the rest of the party felt disappointed.
So, in summary, the wizard was effectively a F14, I, the bard, could summon a tiny hut and perhapses speak to animals, and the fighter could swing his sword three times if he held still.
Look, 3.x was a a good game, but frankly, it had flaws, the greatest of which focused around balance. Knowing what to do at character creation shouldn't be part of a game Game design tends to get better with time, and quite frankly I'm glad they figured it out that its not fun when someone is a F14 while the other people get to sit in the tiny hut.
So he can cast fly (3rd) several times and I'm assuming he used some of his higher level spell slots for more fireballs (3+) and then what did he do for the other two or three encounters you had that day? (because if all you fought was some CR3 ogres, I want in...)
I am quite certain your fighter could have soloed the group as well. And your rogue probably if he was sneaky. The bard might be a bit more of a challenge, but they have a more general impact on the party as a whole.
Point is, that was a bad encounter to use as an example. Sure, it showed how a wizard could drop bombs, but how did the wizard fair against the demons with high SR? I played an encounter as a wizard and had every spell saved against or eaten by SR. Yeah, real helpful wizard there...
In 4E though, no one is useless in an encounter. Sometimes that can be a boon, but I find that it isn't paying off how it could. Sometimes the wizard should just sit down and sometimes the fighter should just sit down. 4E seems to have mostly gotten rid of that. Some may find that for the better, but I don't like having the choice removed. It is more work as a DM in that regard for me.
-
Actually, 3rd level if your a cleric. Neat, gonna have to to try that.
Hold person doesn't work against NPCs. Its been tried and true by my group for more than five years. I stopped memming the spell two years ago.
But PC's fail the save 85% of the time.
It's true.
I have years of mocking to prove it.
-
Expeditious Retreat: It is not my sole spell, it is a lifestyle choice.
Remember, dear friend, it is not where you run to, but what you run from.
It's better to have people say "There he goes" instead of "Here he lies"...
-
So he can cast fly (3rd) several times and I'm assuming he used some of his higher level spell slots for more fireballs (3+) and then what did he do for the other two or three encounters you had that day? (because if all you fought was some CR3 ogres, I want in...)
I am quite certain your fighter could have soloed the group as well. And your rogue probably if he was sneaky. The bard might be a bit more of a challenge, but they have a more general impact on the party as a whole.
Point is, that was a bad encounter to use as an example. Sure, it showed how a wizard could drop bombs, but how did the wizard fair against the demons with high SR? I played an encounter as a wizard and had every spell saved against or eaten by SR. Yeah, real helpful wizard there...
In 4E though, no one is useless in an encounter. Sometimes that can be a boon, but I find that it isn't paying off how it could. Sometimes the wizard should just sit down and sometimes the fighter should just sit down. 4E seems to have mostly gotten rid of that. Some may find that for the better, but I don't like having the choice removed. It is more work as a DM in that regard for me.
So you willingly want one of your players to stay on the bench and play with his dick while the others are fighting the great Gargalox? I don't see how that is less work.
Anytime I have a player not participating in a fight or event, I'll have something else for him to do. When it comes to a lot of D&D games, there isn't much beside fighting to look forward to, so what do you do with a wizard out of spell?
-
You ask them to manage their spells. Or get creative.
If you don't expect much from your gamers, they won't give you much. If you give in every time they try to solve every problem with a spell, that isn't role-playing; it's power-playing. It's like you are playing a card game instead of a role-playing game.
Why would a wizard every try to negotiate? Charm Person or Slay Living - their is their diplomacy. Why would a wizard even take skills? So what if I can't identify what he is casting; I just cast a bigger spell. That isn't role-playing. Go play a video game if that is all you want to do.
If everyone is filling the same role (lead killer, lead negotiator, lead healer etc.) what is the point? Should the only difference between a thief and a cleric be that one heals and one steals? Should a thief be just as effective against undead as a cleric?
Sometimes one player gets to shine more than others.
Remember, if everyone is special, no one is special.
Give them their time in the spotlight, and give the other players theirs.
-
When it comes to a lot of D&D games, there isn't much beside fighting to look forward to
Perhaps this is your problem. I don't know what kind of games you have been playing but the non-combat in mine is always more enertaining then the combat.
-
You ask them to manage their spells. Or get creative.
If you don't expect much from your gamers, they won't give you much. If you give in every time they try to solve every problem with a spell, that isn't role-playing; it's power-playing. It's like you are playing a card game instead of a role-playing game.
Why would a wizard every try to negotiate? Charm Person or Slay Living - their is their diplomacy. Why would a wizard even take skills? So what if I can't identify what he is casting; I just cast a bigger spell. That isn't role-playing. Go play a video game if that is all you want to do.
If everyone is filling the same role (lead killer, lead negotiator, lead healer etc.) what is the point? Should the only difference between a thief and a cleric be that one heals and one steals? Should a thief be just as effective against undead as a cleric?
Sometimes one player gets to shine more than others.
Remember, if everyone is special, no one is special.
Give them their time in the spotlight, and give the other players theirs.
Why are the wizards require to basically play a resource management game that no one else has to?
What party in 3E travels when their spellcasters are out of spells unless they absolutely have to?
Why does every solution you present to spellcasters being more powerful than nonspellcasters in 3E involve weakening the spellcasters?
4E does niche protection much better than 3E. Each class has an explicit role and a lot of tactics and abilities require teamwork - the leader heals and buffs the defender who marks and sets up a flank so the striker can flank and attack while the controller keeps the rest of the bad guys under control. In my experience running 30+ games of 4E, every player does get a chance to shine individually during the same fight.
Tom and Mike lock down tough enemies with marks, preventing them from fleeing or moving. Cassius the warlord takes care of any problems the fighters can't while Dan and Cody blast the enemies and control the battlefield with their tactics. It requires teamwork and individual specialization in order for them to win a fight.
-
When it comes to a lot of D&D games, there isn't much beside fighting to look forward to
Perhaps this is your problem. I don't know what kind of games you have been playing but the non-combat in mine is always more enertaining then the combat.
That's not the point, you're saying that sometimes, during combat, the wizard has to sit out, and sometimes the fighter should be sitting out, I just want you to tell me what YOU as a GM do with those players that are not part of the combat due to crippling flaws.
-
That's not the point, you're saying that sometimes, during combat, the wizard has to sit out, and sometimes the fighter should be sitting out, I just want you to tell me what YOU as a GM do with those players that are not part of the combat due to crippling flaws.
They are part of the fight. Sometimes just surviving is your role. There are some fights that the players shouldn't let their characters get into (3rd level party trying to fight the dragon instead of negotiating would be an example). Sometimes you try the fight, lose, and have to come back with another plan. With 3E, you could do that. I find with 4E it is the same plan, every time, over and over. It's routine and boring. I find the fights my least favourite part of 4E, and the lack of structure in the other areas is somewhat frustrating.
-
1) Why are the wizards require to basically play a resource management game that no one else has to?
2) What party in 3E travels when their spellcasters are out of spells unless they absolutely have to?
3) Why does every solution you present to spellcasters being more powerful than nonspellcasters in 3E involve weakening the spellcasters?
4) 4E does niche protection much better than 3E. Each class has an explicit role and a lot of tactics and abilities require teamwork - the leader heals and buffs the defender who marks and sets up a flank so the striker can flank and attack while the controller keeps the rest of the bad guys under control. In my experience running 30+ games of 4E, every player does get a chance to shine individually during the same fight.
5) Tom and Mike lock down tough enemies with marks, preventing them from fleeing or moving. Cassius the warlord takes care of any problems the fighters can't while Dan and Cody blast the enemies and control the battlefield with their tactics. It requires teamwork and individual specialization in order for them to win a fight.
I have numbered your points to make it clearer which I am addressing.
1) So now everyone has to play a resource management game? I don't see how that is an improvement.
2) Mine. Continuously. Because the party wasn't based around the spellcaster, but around the story. If the spellcaster always gets to burn through whatever spells they want as fast as they can, and the rest of the party just has to deal with it, then yeah, it isn't going to be much fun. If you want to teach your spellcaster to hold on to one of those fireballs, have the next encounter be one in which his wasting of the spell previously wasn't needed and now it would have been really beneficial. You can condition your players to play the game to the story, not to just the rules, provided the rules are flexible enough.
3) I don't feel that I am saying to weaken the spellcaster. I'm saying just because a car can go 200mph doesn't mean it should. I'm not advocating giving it a smaller engine, but instead educating the driver to follow the speed limit. And when they speed, give them a ticket.
4) Oh, don't get me wrong, 4E does benefit from the roles it gives, but you can have success with a party made of all one type as well. If you play the roles tactically, it requires everyone. But it isn't as rewarding in my opinion. I don't however see how they get a chance to shine. Maybe for one action, but anyone can do that with a crit. I haven't played 30 sessions yet, maybe only about 20+, but I have found that there are still powerclasses, and that they aren't as interesting as in 3E.
5) Enemies aren't locked down with marks. They suffer some negative effects for being marked, such as suffering Opportunity Attacks and penalties to hit, but with the discrepancies in AC/Def, the -2 is negligible. The healing is the primary role of the leader, but any class can take a feat to gain abilities from another class, which just means you wait for them to be able to use that ability again (like waiting for the wizard to rest). It requires teamwork and tactics to win the fight, but it doesn't take specialization. Specialization is a method, but not the only one. I won't even say it is the most effective one.
I can come up with as many examples of how 4E is broken as I can about how 3E is broken, but I prefer the way 3E is broken to the way 4E is broken. To go back to my driving/car analogy, now everyone has a porche. And it can only go 60mph. You might have different tires, and yours might be red, and mine blue, but the engine is the same and the brakes suck. And still no cup holder.
-
In general, I think all players in a game should be equal. What sets them apart are their individual choices and decisions. In 4E resource management is there for everyone equally and it's not as bad, since you have encounter and daily powers to think about.
Your party is obviously an exception to the 3E norm. The 15 minute adventuring day is so prominent in 3E that changing it became part of 4E's design goals http://rampantgames.com/blog/2008/04/rpg-design-fifteen-minute-adventuring.html
If you want to use a car analogy, think of a race. All drivers use the same rules when it comes to their cars. Certain drivers aren't singled out and told "well you have to use a fuel efficient hybrid - but that's okay because once these high performance gas guzzlers run out of fuel, you can catch up!" I
I think the problem is that you think a level playing field is the same as "if everyone is special then no one is special" when what separates players are their individual choices and decisions. Virtually every board and card game since chess and poker require equal resources for players.
Also fighters in 4E stop the enemy's movement when they hit them with a OA. That's how they lock them down.
Multi class abilities are dailies usually - you get a bit of healing with it but not that much.
-
I like that my 4th Edition wizard doesn't need to rest before he can cast most of his spells again. I've got three spells I can cast anytime I want, as many times as I want, not counting my four cantips. It's like using the Reserve Feats out of Complete Arcana (or Mage, I forget which book they came out in), but I don't need to keep a reserve spell.
The addition of encounter and at-will based abilities makes it less of a focus on how many times a day something can be used, which was the primarily limitation in 3rd Edition. A party without any daily attack powers can still put on a big show.
-
In general, I think all players in a game should be equal. What sets them apart are their individual choices and decisions. In 4E resource management is there for everyone equally and it's not as bad, since you have encounter and daily powers to think about.
Your party is obviously an exception to the 3E norm. The 15 minute adventuring day is so prominent in 3E that changing it became part of 4E's design goals http://rampantgames.com/blog/2008/04/rpg-design-fifteen-minute-adventuring.html
If you want to use a car analogy, think of a race. All drivers use the same rules when it comes to their cars. Certain drivers aren't singled out and told "well you have to use a fuel efficient hybrid - but that's okay because once these high performance gas guzzlers run out of fuel, you can catch up!" I
I think the problem is that you think a level playing field is the same as "if everyone is special then no one is special" when what separates players are their individual choices and decisions. Virtually every board and card game since chess and poker require equal resources for players.
Also fighters in 4E stop the enemy's movement when they hit them with a OA. That's how they lock them down.
Multi class abilities are dailies usually - you get a bit of healing with it but not that much.
I still don't like that everyone now has to manage resources. One friend of mine refuses to play 4E because he can't just be a basic fighter or rogue. He doesn't play spellcasters because he doesn't want to have to deal with more than just swinging, and maybe a charge or two. He finds it too complicated for him to enjoy at the table. Some amount of inequality might allow for more people to enjoy the game. Maybe it just isn't the system for them, but I have a hard time arguing it makes it better. More fair, yes, but not better. (I know that is simply opinion)
I think I have been very fortunate to have a great role-playing group. We have never seemed to fit the stereotype as much as others expect.
You make a good point with your analogy. But I think they have gone beyond that and made the game into NASCAR, where the limits are so strict as to try to remove the vehicle from the equation. What you can end up with in that situation is the one player that wins every race because they are just better at it. This is a hard point for me to articulate as I would like to, but I enjoy the fact that sometimes a weaker player (not character) can come out ahead by virtue of their class in some situations. I'm going to toot my own horn to an extent, but tactically I am much better than some of my friends and using powers and abilities to take advantage of openings in the game. I play the tactical game better, but I am not a better role-player just because of that. If anything, it gets in the way sometimes because I see a way to win that doesn't fit the story and have to remind myself that it isn't about winning.
Decisions do play a role, but I don't believe everyone needs to be presented with the exact same choices.
I once upon a time played Magic (card game) and found it anything but level. The player with the most cash had the best deck, and there was just no playing around it, no matter how skilled you were. Chess, absolutely, but not with the card games. Anyway, that is another point and somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. I am not really speaking of a competition, but a collaboration. In competition, I understand the need to balance things very precisely, but in collaboration, I think you get more benefit out of having a wider array of unequal choices.
Fighters, yes, but defenders as a role, not always.
My point with the multiclass abilities is that it is a restricted resource and if you needed to wait for the one character to recharge it, you would (based on the understanding that the party always waits - which isn't my point, but illustrates another way to use the new system in the same manner as the old one).
I do enjoy many things about 4E, but I don't think it is superior. Different, more fair, but not superior.
-
To put my two cents in, I think that if done right, both are "equally good" (extrapolating 4E's potential of course to the 8 or whatever years 3.0-3.5 was out). The two are fairly different, and I think would be just as good as each other given a thorough understanding of the mechanics and a well-written/run/played game/session/campaign. What it ultimately comes down to (in my opinion, reading all of this as well as my experience) is that it is much easier to write/run/play 4E because it is more standardized and "balanced" (I won't necessesarily say simplified because I don't know if it really is). This may be a result of it being new, but I think the development had this in mind, especially the way levels work consistently in this version. A 5th level character can use a 5th level item and fight a 5th level monster with reasonable balance, and the same for any other level (as opposed to 3 where you had to deal with CR and tables to find experience). I think the standardization makes it much easier to run a good or great game with the same knowledge, experience, and time it would have taken to do a decent or okay game in the previous.
So that's pretty much the conclusion I've drawn. I wish there was more variety in the spells (reflecting back, I liked a lot of the random crazy spells like talk with animals, morph stone, or whatever else), and maybe a simplification of fighters, but hey, maybe that's something to homebrew, it certainly seems like it wouldn't be too tough. An idea I had recently to create more of a 3.0-3.5 feel is to boost the power of the at-will Martial powers a little, or allow 1-2 more, and remove the encounter abilities. Granted it would take some work and testing, but hey, maybe that would fix things up for people who don't like having so many powers to choose from.
-
Multi-classing is a limited resource only because it's not inherient to the class. 4E design is such that a character with only their most basic powers is capable of doing their job. A Fighter with no feats and no dailies or encounters can still mark and use Combat Superiority. His feats, powers, and magic items can only enhance and diversify him.
Likewise a wizard with no dailies and encounters can still effect many targets at range and inflict conditions upon them. A warlock or ranger can always use their damage bonus mechanics. Healers, like Clerics and Warlords, eventually hit a limit to how much they can use healing in a given fight, that is true. They never run out of small boosting abilities.
ADDITION-
For the modification to make somebody more of a "3rd Edition" type, I'd suggest that you allow your player to exchange encounters and dailies for addititional feats. This would improve the character's over all power without giving them totally new options they would have to track during the adventure.
-
Multi-classing is a limited resource only because it's not inherient to the class. 4E design is such that a character with only their most basic powers is capable of doing their job. A Fighter with no feats and no dailies or encounters can still mark and use Combat Superiority. His feats, powers, and magic items can only enhance and diversify him.
Likewise a wizard with no dailies and encounters can still effect many targets at range and inflict conditions upon them. A warlock or ranger can always use their damage bonus mechanics. Healers, like Clerics and Warlords, eventually hit a limit to how much they can use healing in a given fight, that is true. They never run out of small boosting abilities.
ADDITION-
For the modification to make somebody more of a "3rd Edition" type, I'd suggest that you allow your player to exchange encounters and dailies for addititional feats. This would improve the character's over all power without giving them totally new options they would have to track during the adventure.
I really like your last idea. Do you have a suggestion for enhancing the diversity that used to be present in the wizard class without making it more 'powerful?'
-
I really like your last idea. Do you have a suggestion for enhancing the diversity that used to be present in the wizard class without making it more 'powerful?'
Sure. One of the more recent additions to 4th Edition has been Skill Powers. These are primarily Utility abilities which expand from trained skills. They make for good guidelines to less combat focus abilities.
If you want to expand the role of a wizard, or any character for that matter, you could consider allowing them to exchange daily use powers for abilities which replicate Rituals. Many former wizard spells have been changed into Rituals anyway so they can be fairly easily back shifted. Since this is an individual issue you, as GM, should be able to judge a level of exchange which fits your campaign.
This system of exchange has the potential to make characters much less powerful in combat. However, in my experience, a character often does not use all of his daily powers during the course of a "day", within the game.
The most straight forward method would be to allow a character to make more extensive use of Rituals. Reduce their casting time and remove some (or all) of their casting cost. Infact, you might make it as simple as allowing a character to take a Feat which reduces Ritual time and cost by a set amount or a percentage.
I used Dragon Marks in my Eberron game as a method to encourage Ritual use by giving players chips which allowed them to cast rituals instantly or without cost a certain amount of times per day.
-
/rant on
Skills:
One of the biggest complaints I see against 4e (in terms of mechanics) is the way skills are simplified. But here's the thing: the 3e skill system was just as bad, AND more complicated. 2, 4, 6, or 8 +int mod skill points per level, 2 points needed for a "cross-class" skill, and no way to effectively role-play skills if they weren't purchased. Your fighter with 4 (if that) total skill points per level (16 at level 1)has to play a resource management game just to build a character he wants to play.
Craft (Weaponsmithing and Armorsmithing) or, if your GM is understanding, Profession (Blacksmith) just to do regular maintenance on your gear.
Some combination of Jump, Climb, Balance, and Tumble unless you just want to stand in the same spot all combat long and hope that your terrain out of combat has no distracting conditions.
Oh, your fighter was some type of noble? Well, Diplomacy, Gather Info, and Knowledge (Nobility) are on your "to know" list also
Street thug? Intimidate, Bluff, maybe some forgery.
Noble turned street thug? Oh GOD DAMMIT.
And we're not even considering the dungeon-crawling basics: Search, Spot, Listen, Survival
And if you think upping yourself to a higher-skill point class will help: You'll either get twice as many skills that you "Need," or you have more skills that are cross-class (lookin' at you Monk).
d20, 3.X or 4, is not a game that is about the skill system, especially if it is not for combat-related things. You want to be the best blacksmith? Str check for the effort required (Or Athletics), Con check for if you can work for hours/days on end (Or Endurance), Wisdom/Dex to check if the item if it is properly balanced if necessary (Perception?), and hell, throw in an Int check to see if you made the item to traditional expectations (History?). Ta Da. Now you can measure how well you made a particular item in comparison to another blacksmith with a simple skill challenge. Yeah, he may have finished first, but you managed to pattern the filigree to the King's liking, so you are named the winner. Requirement to participate in this challenge? You and your DM discussed how you were a blacksmith before you got recruited/drafted to become a Fighty McFighterson, Rougy McStabberguy, Ranger McShootstoomuch, Heals McLeaderhosen, or Nukes O'Arcana.
Or another example from the NW campaign: Kuthin wants to start circulating anti-crown propaganda, IIRC, Ross had me roll some combination of Bluff, Diplomacy, and Thievery (Since that's where Forgery hides these days). If the system isn't giving you obvious tools, find out where they are hiding, and be consistent with them.
Resource Management:
I don't get how the "resource management" of 4e is that straining. You have 2 basic attacks (at wills), 4 encounters (probably similar to your at wills, but better), 4 Dailies, and 6 Utilities (not all of which will be useful in combat). At most 16 "spells," approx the same amount of choices for a caster capable of 3rd or 4th level spells, and you don't have to ensure you have the correct ones ready for each day.
I guess you also have to keep track of magic items, but wait, you just grab a generic + level/5 item for Weapon, body, and neck slot and you're on par with the attack/def curve. The longest part of making a 3.X character post level 1 is buying magic items, another resource management, which requires more effort and finesse from non-casters just to be effective.
Along those lines: Money. You do not believe how HAPPY I was as a GM when I read that you can't sell mundane items, and magic items always sell for 1/5th of the market cost. Balancing the books in accordance with WBL is now causally manageable. Heroes want to do silly appraise/barter scams? Shave the gains out of a treasure parcel. Another party of equal level would have been using the time Killing more monsters and completing more quests in the same amount of time during that level.
Class Roles/Balance:
Well-min/maxed wizards, clerics, druids, and artificers are overpowered in comparison to other classes. A Cleric becomes a fighter with spells once they have access to Divine Power (and before that they can get close). Druids get an animal companion and wild shape (Hello 3 dumpable stats!). Just google up the Wizard's Guide to being Batman, I dare you. And the Artificer gets access to all Save or Suck and Save or Die spells via scrolls, and becomes a walking artillery when he metamagics a wand and is able to take 10 on UMD, (not to mention he also gets to use most of TWGtBB). Rangers, Fighters, Rogues, and even Monks with the same amount (or more) of effort maximizing do not even approach that level of utility at any level, much less mid to higher levels.
Yeah, it's nice when a classes' sheer power allows a mediocre tactician to be acceptable, but that's not necessarily a good design philosophy. Even if you do talk to your Wizard or CoDzilla about how to not be a dick, you still have to consider what they can do when you design encounters. If you make a challenging encounter for your weaker characters, what are you going to do when the wizard finally makes the decision to trivialize the encounter to avoid a TPK? You have just reinforced to the party that your Wizard can do it all without you when he has to, you are just here to take care of the gruntwork.
I would not expect Kuthin or Locke to solo any equal-level, full-party encounter like a 3rd ed wizard. Now don't get me wrong, we would get close, but then Ross would let it run away with 1hp, but that's not the point :P. But when you hear any AP fan discuss what they like about either character (Moreso Locke/Cody, but whatever), it has less to do how much damage was done and more with how they interact with other players and NPCs, and we don't have the option of just firing off Charm Person to avoid a potentially challenging social situation. In combat, we need the other players to support us in order to shine, just like we need each other out of combat to keep the colony, natives, or Pontifex from outright killing us in our sleep, but the two of us walk around like the baddest motherfuckas in the known universe at every available opportunity.
Even if you remove the reality aspect of "Life is not always fair," You can't escape the reality of "There's always someone bigger and badder than you, and yes, he will kick the shit out of you for your stale crackers just because he can." Unless, you are a well-prepared 3rd ed wizard, then you can have everyone's stale crackers, ever.
I would add more, but this is plenty for now and I have work in the morning
/rant off
-
/rant on
Skills:
1) One of the biggest complaints I see against 4e (in terms of mechanics) is the way skills are simplified. But here's the thing: the 3e skill system was just as bad, AND more complicated. 2, 4, 6, or 8 +int mod skill points per level, 2 points needed for a "cross-class" skill, and no way to effectively role-play skills if they weren't purchased. Your fighter with 4 (if that) total skill points per level (16 at level 1)has to play a resource management game just to build a character he wants to play.
2) Craft (Weaponsmithing and Armorsmithing) or, if your GM is understanding, Profession (Blacksmith) just to do regular maintenance on your gear.
3) Some combination of Jump, Climb, Balance, and Tumble unless you just want to stand in the same spot all combat long and hope that your terrain out of combat has no distracting conditions.
Oh, your fighter was some type of noble? Well, Diplomacy, Gather Info, and Knowledge (Nobility) are on your "to know" list also
Street thug? Intimidate, Bluff, maybe some forgery.
Noble turned street thug? Oh GOD DAMMIT.
4) And we're not even considering the dungeon-crawling basics: Search, Spot, Listen, Survival
And if you think upping yourself to a higher-skill point class will help: You'll either get twice as many skills that you "Need," or you have more skills that are cross-class (lookin' at you Monk).
5) d20, 3.X or 4, is not a game that is about the skill system, especially if it is not for combat-related things. You want to be the best blacksmith? Str check for the effort required (Or Athletics), Con check for if you can work for hours/days on end (Or Endurance), Wisdom/Dex to check if the item if it is properly balanced if necessary (Perception?), and hell, throw in an Int check to see if you made the item to traditional expectations (History?). Ta Da. Now you can measure how well you made a particular item in comparison to another blacksmith with a simple skill challenge. Yeah, he may have finished first, but you managed to pattern the filigree to the King's liking, so you are named the winner. Requirement to participate in this challenge? You and your DM discussed how you were a blacksmith before you got recruited/drafted to become a Fighty McFighterson, Rougy McStabberguy, Ranger McShootstoomuch, Heals McLeaderhosen, or Nukes O'Arcana.
6) Or another example from the NW campaign: Kuthin wants to start circulating anti-crown propaganda, IIRC, Ross had me roll some combination of Bluff, Diplomacy, and Thievery (Since that's where Forgery hides these days). If the system isn't giving you obvious tools, find out where they are hiding, and be consistent with them.
Resource Management:
7) I don't get how the "resource management" of 4e is that straining. You have 2 basic attacks (at wills), 4 encounters (probably similar to your at wills, but better), 4 Dailies, and 6 Utilities (not all of which will be useful in combat). At most 16 "spells," approx the same amount of choices for a caster capable of 3rd or 4th level spells, and you don't have to ensure you have the correct ones ready for each day.
8) I guess you also have to keep track of magic items, but wait, you just grab a generic + level/5 item for Weapon, body, and neck slot and you're on par with the attack/def curve. The longest part of making a 3.X character post level 1 is buying magic items, another resource management, which requires more effort and finesse from non-casters just to be effective.
9) Along those lines: Money. You do not believe how HAPPY I was as a GM when I read that you can't sell mundane items, and magic items always sell for 1/5th of the market cost. Balancing the books in accordance with WBL is now causally manageable. Heroes want to do silly appraise/barter scams? Shave the gains out of a treasure parcel. Another party of equal level would have been using the time Killing more monsters and completing more quests in the same amount of time during that level.
Class Roles/Balance:
10) Well-min/maxed wizards, clerics, druids, and artificers are overpowered in comparison to other classes. A Cleric becomes a fighter with spells once they have access to Divine Power (and before that they can get close). Druids get an animal companion and wild shape (Hello 3 dumpable stats!). Just google up the Wizard's Guide to being Batman, I dare you. And the Artificer gets access to all Save or Suck and Save or Die spells via scrolls, and becomes a walking artillery when he metamagics a wand and is able to take 10 on UMD, (not to mention he also gets to use most of TWGtBB). Rangers, Fighters, Rogues, and even Monks with the same amount (or more) of effort maximizing do not even approach that level of utility at any level, much less mid to higher levels.
11) Yeah, it's nice when a classes' sheer power allows a mediocre tactician to be acceptable, but that's not necessarily a good design philosophy. Even if you do talk to your Wizard or CoDzilla about how to not be a dick, you still have to consider what they can do when you design encounters. If you make a challenging encounter for your weaker characters, what are you going to do when the wizard finally makes the decision to trivialize the encounter to avoid a TPK? You have just reinforced to the party that your Wizard can do it all without you when he has to, you are just here to take care of the gruntwork.
12) I would not expect Kuthin or Locke to solo any equal-level, full-party encounter like a 3rd ed wizard. Now don't get me wrong, we would get close, but then Ross would let it run away with 1hp, but that's not the point :P. But when you hear any AP fan discuss what they like about either character (Moreso Locke/Cody, but whatever), it has less to do how much damage was done and more with how they interact with other players and NPCs, and we don't have the option of just firing off Charm Person to avoid a potentially challenging social situation. In combat, we need the other players to support us in order to shine, just like we need each other out of combat to keep the colony, natives, or Pontifex from outright killing us in our sleep, but the two of us walk around like the baddest motherfuckas in the known universe at every available opportunity.
13) Even if you remove the reality aspect of "Life is not always fair," You can't escape the reality of "There's always someone bigger and badder than you, and yes, he will kick the shit out of you for your stale crackers just because he can." Unless, you are a well-prepared 3rd ed wizard, then you can have everyone's stale crackers, ever.
14) I would add more, but this is plenty for now and I have work in the morning
/rant off
Yeah, I'm doing it again - I inserted numbers to track my thoughts. And there is seriously something wrong with me when I need a word document to organize my thoughts... I must be getting old.
1) I don't feel that 3 was more complicated than 4. Yes, there were more choices, but that doesn't mean it is more complicated. An example I would use incorporates your example from my numbered point 5. You have effectively taken what was 1 skill and now require a back-story and 4 skill-checks to accomplish. By reducing the number of unique skills, but increasing dramatically the combination of skills to achieve the same result, you have effectively made it more complicated and harder to understand. Also, everyone had to play resource management with skills - it wasn't limited to just one class. Some classes were designed to have more skill flexibility by the nature of the role they were intended to play. Yes, you could use those points in a way that may not have been in the design, but it was still a choice. And you still have to manage your resources. Fighters still aren't diplomatic.
2) Don't make your players do regular maintenance. It wasn't a requirement of the system that you maintain your weapons. Having proficiency with the weapon came with the understanding that you needed to oil blades and string bows. No roll required. The skill was to create and repair (when actually sundered etc.) instead of maintain.
3) Pathfinder addressed this to some extent, but also terrain impacts different characters in different ways - as it is supposed to. Not everyone is athletic, and that is still the case in 4e. And if you want your fighter to play a noble, act like one, just not a very proficient one. At least you could put a couple of points in the skill to reflect tutelage to some extent. You may not be the same as every level 5 fighter, but you are unique in your choices. How is that better in 4e? You still have to choose, but now everyone just has the base 1/2 level plus attribute choice. And who makes a charismatic fighter in 4e? It's still a dump stat mostly. A street 'thug' wouldn't be a forger - you are just digging for skills on this one. And at least a noble turned thug could pick up a little bit of thievery, and not be instantly masterful at it. In 4e, it's either all or none. And it takes a feat.
4) 3.x - take a few skill points if you think that is your role. 4e - if you have perception, you don't have intimidate - there will always be some trade off, but 3.x allowed for more gradation in ability. Pathfinder also addressed the whole cross-class. Take a look - you might find it the improvement to 3.x that 4e should have been in my opinion. Still not totally perfect, but a big step up from 3.5.
5) You have found a complicated way to address a simple problem. Broad skills like Profession and Craft that have many applicable sub-categories but a single method of resolution addresses this nicely I feel.
6) Ross' solution was eloquent and would likely have been handled similarly in 3.x.
7) Exactly - now everyone is a caster of 4th level. How does this address the problem my fighter friend had? He used to cast one spell - slay with sword - and now he has 16? Not seeing the improvement.
8) The attack/defense curve is another thing that bugs me. Now you MUST have that item to be on par, but it doesn't stop there - you also MUST have the armour, and you MUST have the cloak, and you MUST have the belt, and you MUST have vest etc. I'm not saying you weren't going to have several items to boost your stats and pluses in 3.x, but it was possible to run into things in 3.x that fell outside of the curve in some category. The reduction to a simple chart of level+item+main stat increases = monster difficulty means that if you fall short in one area, you likely can't do anything against it. And I'm not talking just the epic monsters from 3.x like dragons etc that even high level characters needed to roll well to defeat. Now a simple orc has an AC that doesn't reflect what you can see it has. The consistency that was offered by chainmail = +5 to AC has gone out the window. It just so much feels like you are calculating your DPS versus building your character.
9) I hate the way they handle money now. The logarithmic scale of wealth is annoying. Oh, sure, it is simple, but it is obnoxious. I mean, if my PC had that kind of wealth, he would just hire a bunch of NPCs and equip them reasonably well and they could form an army at anytime to challenge anything. Sure, the DM should prevent that, but the game system specifically makes that available (see your point in 11 and see the similarities). If you don't follow the guide on how to distribute items and wealth to your players, you can easily make it hard for them to keep up with the required stats. An example: If you randomly give your players items, instead of the ones they want as the book suggests, then they sell for 1/5th versus the benefit from something you actually want, it can take forever for them to get an actually useful item. And since the money is calculated based on players getting items they actually want, if you do that one little thing, the monsters start to out-perform the PCs at the same level.
10) You make assumptions of unlimited wealth here and disregard the fact that wizards have limited ability to cast in many encounters. Sure, if you can go absolutely prepared into every encounter, and always fight on a battlefield of your choosing, you can accomplish some pretty fantastic results. Sure, take a round to cast your spell cleric, and hope it isn't disrupted, and that you actually could spare the round or rounds to get prepared. Druids were pretty buff, but still not the equal of an equivalent fighter in that arena unless extremely specialized (which removes some of the versatility that you equate). A fighter needs to draw his weapon. And his AC is likely higher. And his BaB is higher. And he is still likely stronger than the wild-shaping druid or buffed cleric (who chose wisdom and charisma as a higher priority than strength). And he also has feats that make him more effective with his weapon. And he actually has the magic weapon instead of spending his money on a wand or scrolls. So yes, there is utility; but I don't see how that always makes them better at everything.
11) You're right - it isn't necessarily a good design philosophy. Ross already made that point and I agree in some ways. You always need to consider your players when you design encounters, even for generic encounters. There is always some combination that is more effective, and there likely always will be. I know 4e addresses this generic encounter design better than 3.x. I still don't prefer it. An example would be that we had a party with one character who was a spiked-chain trip-monkey. Nothing that wasn't large and had four legs could get within 15 feet of him without being tripped and whacked. You can design generic encounters that he will be able to beat most of the time, or you can take his tripping out of the equation. In 4e, I made an avenger that has about 5 different teleport options. The DM tried to make an encounter with basically difficult terrain everywhere that the enemies could move through but we couldn't (nature thing). No problem for my character, but everyone else was bogged down. If I wasn't playing my teleporter, the encounter would have gone down very differently. Nothing works every time. If you make a system that does, it will be dull and lifeless. As for making an encounter that is challenging for the weaker characters, but that the wizard can't just win outright, throw in creatures with spell resistance or immunity (golems, demons, devils etc). Good luck to your wizard there. Because unless they were prepared with a whole whack of anti-demon spells, their generic mix is likely not going to be that effective. It can make for a challenging campaign when most of your opponents are magic resistant. I had my wizard change from dealing damage to buffing and staying alive. She helped out where she could, but certainly didn't own any encounter. And if she decided to prepare for a demon fight, and we ended up fighting normal creatures? Well, dimensional anchor doesn't do anything unless the target tries to teleport... and dismissal doesn't work on trolls... Yeah, you can handle anything, but the fighter always has their sword, and it is always reliable. Everyone always uses the 'perfectly prepared wizard' in all of their examples. It isn't realistic in the game unless your DM always tells you what you are fighting next.
12) You are talking about role-playing, and not the system. I never argued that good role-playing is the point to either version of the game.
13) There's that well-prepared example again. Just because the wizard in the storybooks always has the right spells, doesn't mean the class inherently always has the right spells ready. One of the main points I always made was that I liked the fact that the wizard could shine when they were prepared - I don't think that is wrong, because the downside is that when they aren't, they usually just get in the way.
14) I'm at work :P (don't tell my boss and thank god they haven't blocked RPPR access...)
-
14) I'm at work :P (don't tell my boss and thank god they haven't blocked RPPR access...)
Internet work users of the world unite!... just, keep it quiet, my supervisor is one cube over.
-
14) I'm at work :P (don't tell my boss and thank god they haven't blocked RPPR access...)
Internet work users of the world unite!... just, keep it quiet, my supervisor is one cube over.
"Technically" I'm at work (of course I live at my workplace/work at my living space)...
-
4E RULES!!!!!
-
4E RULES!!!!!
Succinct.
-
I don't have the depth of experience some of you have, but one of the ways I always felt that fighters were easier to play than wizards, or many classes that had to work alot harder. I don't mean simply organizing their spells, but as a GM I wouldn't just let players take spells from the book, or buy magik items willy nilly. You want something special you had to go get it, or prove to your mentor that you desirved the privaledge. Almost everything the fighter needs is basic items, sure they might want some magic gear, but maybe they aren't as picky about what it is. Where wizards need spells and magic items alot more.
I would run my games the same way in either system. In 4.0 it would be alot harder I think to explain to the wizard, you have to quest for that daily ability, but the fighter doesnt... I didn't think that one through...
-
What? Fighter's depend on magic items for their very existance. I do like to see characters work for what they gain. The system you describe doesn't seem to really balance the classes unless you literally give the players one to one magic items to spells, IE Fighter gets one magic sword, Wizard gets one spell. Now that would limit spell casters.
Even under your system, once the Wizard has earned that spell (which is as easy as copying it off of a scroll and into his spellbook, after he finds said scroll), he can continue to use that spell FOREVER! Regardless of it's continued usefulness he never has to let go of that spell.
The Fighter who gains a new suit of magical armor gains its benefits until such time as he gains another suit of magical armor, at which point he must choose between the two.
-
... I don't mean simply organizing their spells, but as a GM I wouldn't just let players take spells from the book, or buy magik items willy nilly. You want something special you had to go get it, or prove to your mentor that you desirved the privaledge...
This is one of the things I miss most about my original playing group ( back in the AD&D days ). I never figured out how I actually got a wizard up to 15th level. Our DM made me go through hell to find every new spell. I would level up and then not get a new spell because I didn't have one of that level. And if I did have some, they were probably crappy. I would do anything for a gently used spellbook or scroll ( I was young and needed the parchment ). I would gaze lovingly at all those spells in the PHB and just wish ( crap that is 9th level! ) for some shiny new ones. I was killed at about 6th level and LUCKY to be reincarnated as a centaur. There were lots of worse things in that damn chart to become reincarnated as. Ahhh!!! and my wand of wonder, which i could and would pull out when the shit truly hit the fan. Never will figure out how I survived, I guess my DM was nicer to us than I thought!
That is what I miss about older versions and the unbalancedness. But 4e is a much better game to play. If I was starting out now, I am sure I would have the same memories of death defying and death cheating events. Hardships unknown by any other fantasy character ....
-
I would run my games the same way in either system. In 4.0 it would be alot harder I think to explain to the wizard, you have to quest for that daily ability, but the fighter doesnt... I didn't think that one through...
Isn't a troupe of the martial arts genre (e.g. Drunken Master, Karate Kid, hell, Dragon Ball Z even) that the fighty guy has to go on a quest to find a mentor or teacher to teach him that new ultimate technique? I'd think 4th ed would make this style of play even easier.
-
Isn't a troupe of the martial arts genre (e.g. Drunken Master, Karate Kid, hell, Dragon Ball Z even) that the fighty guy has to go on a quest to find a mentor or teacher to teach him that new ultimate technique? I'd think 4th ed would make this style of play even easier.
I guess that is a good way to think about it...
How would you determine which abilities they would have to quest over? You could just make up something, like you could have a new at will that does X... but isn't all the ones in the book balanced (I think) already and thus you should have no need to do this?
-
You didn't "need" to do it in 3rd Edition either.
-
I could see this working in a campaign if it was handled this way (remeber steal from the best, leave the rest). Let everyone have there normal power progression. At some point they're off adventuering and they hear rumors of something evil. They return home to find the temple/the school/the town/the frat house destroyed. They hunger for revenge (hopefully), but a wise old NPC tells them they arn't ready yet and they should seek training at this far away location.
Basically give them the normal power progression, but after they complete their training, allow them to create a new daily power all their own. Perhapse pick a level and say nothing more powerful than any of these.
Basically, I'm saying it not a good idea to take stuff away from PCs that they expect to have. You'll have better results from making them work harder to get better than normal
-
I think a lot of the balancing complaints about thrid edition got fixed and fleshed out not by a change in errata and splat book classes and feats but by the increasing wealth of monsters to fight. This allowed a GM far more options in what to throw at their party with a little bit of work. However what 4th edition has done well is make monsters an incredible malleable resource of the dungeon master. They have also made damage significantly more uniform. What this means is that it is far more easy to make encounters more balanced even if the character classes aren't. I think a DM that puts a lot of effort into their encounters in 3.X could achieve this same result but it would require a lot of reading to know the full ability of each little spell-like ability etc.
I have to say that I am not a fan of 4th. Ed. I think the combat heavy focus in the books (compare player handbooks of 3.5 and this and tell me how many pages have a combat dedication) just leads new DMs down a dark path to rail-roading. Now this may seem like a bit of a leap but let me explain. You need to plan encounters thoroughly in 4th ed. There is no escaping this fact because of the greater amount of 'tactics' and wargaming involved in how the combat mechanic works. This means a DM has already invested an awful lot of time into something that, with a good story and an intelligent party, could be avoided completely. However, in my experience, what ends up happening is that these new DMs find they can make the exact combat encounter they want time after time...so they want every single one to be played. Ultimately this will cut into the story and player options.
This isn't to say that I don't think a good party, led by a good DM could easily overcome this problem. I'm trying to approach the 'problem' from the point of view of someone new to the game, which could simply be someone used to playing other systems because they never 'got' D&D or someone new to role-playing all together.
As an analogy. Many podcasts back Tom read a letter written by his mate about a new guy that joined a hopeless pirate campaign. A kid had in his spare time wrote up a nautical druid. This kid then in battle with another ship poly-morphed into a dolphin, swam over to the enemy ship and then proceeded to cast wood warping spells at the hull. Now the fate of this player is a sad one and shows a 3.5 flaw. However you show me how you could show that ingenious turn of logic in 4th ed. The only ritual cast in the 30+ New World campaign games is the water ritual which was plot centric. These rituals were supposed to do what the wizard (etc.) bag full of tricks would do in 3.5 but they never get used. The reason for this is obvious, they are dreadfully implemented.
Well of this went on longer than expected, this I guess is my gripe with 4th Ed.
-
Nice post Dog.
I love what they have done with monsters in 4e in a lot of ways. I actually use their method in my pathfinder games (stat block? what's a stat block? This monster has +5 to hit, does d10 damage and has 20 hitpoints - deal with it - I don't care what his con is - that just slows me down!)
I do like 4e. I don't think it is the second coming or anything though. At any rate, there is room for both games in my life, and I take from one and give to the other to suit my players and my stories.
It's kind of like your kids - you love'em both, but they are different and good in their own ways, and whiny and shouty in others...
-
4e is for me.
I ran 3e for awhile and I didn't quite get it for some reason. 4e streamlined things and while the focus may seem to be on combat, I think that is just because combat is so easy it makes it seem like the game is geared toward it. I couldn't disagree more, however.
New World has plenty of sessions that are all role-playing sessions with ZERO combat. This might be because we aren't rookie players, but I like to think because the system is so well-built, we are able to get into it more.
-
4e is for me.
I ran 3e for awhile and I didn't quite get it for some reason. 4e streamlined things and while the focus may seem to be on combat, I think that is just because combat is so easy it makes it seem like the game is geared toward it. I couldn't disagree more, however.
New World has plenty of sessions that are all role-playing sessions with ZERO combat. This might be because we aren't rookie players, but I like to think because the system is so well-built, we are able to get into it more.
There were a number of good role playing opportunities in 3e, but the skills were overbalanced especially at high levels.
-
To be fair, I'm not satisfied with the skills in 3.x or 4th, or any D20 system for that matter. My preference tends to lean to those systems that abstract it a bit more. I don't think I've found a mechanic heavy skill system I've been satisfied with.
-
To be fair, I'm not satisfied with the skills in 3.x or 4th, or any D20 system for that matter. My preference tends to lean to those systems that abstract it a bit more. I don't think I've found a mechanic heavy skill system I've been satisfied with.
Have you tried one of the systems build entirely around skills? Shadowrun and World of Darkness both put their skill pools at the creamy center of their systems.
Combat skills are handled, by and large, the same as every other skill.
-
To be fair, I'm not satisfied with the skills in 3.x or 4th, or any D20 system for that matter. My preference tends to lean to those systems that abstract it a bit more. I don't think I've found a mechanic heavy skill system I've been satisfied with.
Have you tried one of the systems build entirely around skills? Shadowrun and World of Darkness both put their skill pools at the creamy center of their systems.
Combat skills are handled, by and large, the same as every other skill.
I think Tadanori is making a very astute observation here: D&D (all forms) segregates combat from adventure. The storyteller system is more integrated in this aspect, and from when I played it, treating combat just like a skill was actually a very natural extension. The character creation is also very open to specialization or generalization.
Good insight... makes me want to try a medieval storyteller game in the tone of d&d. Ack, that sounds like work is involved - skip.
-
I have to say that I am not a fan of 4th. Ed. I think the combat heavy focus in the books (compare player handbooks of 3.5 and this and tell me how many pages have a combat dedication) just leads new DMs down a dark path to rail-roading. Now this may seem like a bit of a leap but let me explain. You need to plan encounters thoroughly in 4th ed. There is no escaping this fact because of the greater amount of 'tactics' and wargaming involved in how the combat mechanic works. This means a DM has already invested an awful lot of time into something that, with a good story and an intelligent party, could be avoided completely. However, in my experience, what ends up happening is that these new DMs find they can make the exact combat encounter they want time after time...so they want every single one to be played. Ultimately this will cut into the story and player options.
Plan? Encounters? Although I might agree that WoTC's approach to D&D is far from most gamers' ideals, I don't think planning encounters is an issue, you just pick monsters in the XP range of the players and have at it. I don't even look it up in advance.
Like malyss, I quite like the fact of not having to spend half an hour putting stat on monster. Most of them were created by wizards anyway, why would they be bound by the rules that apply to humanoids?
I think what makes it 4E good, can also be one of its main problem. Encounters are usually fun and quick to make, but in a story-oriented game, they need meaning.
I'm playing two 4E games right now, both of them I'm both player and DM as we alternate. In one, we're empty shells of characters who fight monsters after monsters. It was what we agreed to do from from the get-go and we're having fun seeing how unkillable our characters are.
In the other, all our characters have backgrounds with various relationship and we have our personal goals. It's quite fun when we further along our own goals or the others, but then you have one of the DM go: "A dwarf arrives in the room (interrupting our RP), he's quite beaten up. He needs help fighting some monsters that appeared in ruins about a day from here!"
-
To be fair, I'm not satisfied with the skills in 3.x or 4th, or any D20 system for that matter. My preference tends to lean to those systems that abstract it a bit more. I don't think I've found a mechanic heavy skill system I've been satisfied with.
Have you tried one of the systems build entirely around skills? Shadowrun and World of Darkness both put their skill pools at the creamy center of their systems.
Combat skills are handled, by and large, the same as every other skill.
I actually take the opposite view here. Combat and skills should have nothing to do with each other mechanically. I played in a long running Shadowrun campaign, and while the dice pools were a nice way to smooth out the rolls statistically, I don't think combat and skills should be connected at all. Basically you force the player to make a choice between being optimized in either combat, or outside of it. Mostly likely, someone is going to optimize one way or the other, so taking the middle ground is the quick road to irrelevance in either situation. For example, in the Shadowrun game, our street samurai troll pretty much handled combat with the help of the mage. Then when a social situation came up, the face did all the rolling, and when we had a hacking issue, the hacker did all the rolling.
Shadowrun is really a good example of bad balance.
That said, a 4th ed game with Shadowrun type skills tacked on for the skill system might be neat
-
Shadowrun takes a ballistic approach to class balance because it doesn't have classes. Nitch protection of in game roles is in massive force between the real world, the Matrix, and the Astral world. Without a mage, you can't work Astrally. Without a hacker or a Technomancer (or a Desker, depending on your edition), you can't work in the Matrix. I'm not defending that approach in the least. I just love shotting guns.
But what's you're describing as the goal is the d20 skill system: virtually disconnected from combat mechanics. Is it just that the specific skills don't appeal to you, or is it the implimentation of their subsystem that you don't like?
-
Shadowrun takes a ballistic approach to class balance because it doesn't have classes. Nitch protection of in game roles is in massive force between the real world, the Matrix, and the Astral world. Without a mage, you can't work Astrally. Without a hacker or a Technomancer (or a Desker, depending on your edition), you can't work in the Matrix. I'm not defending that approach in the least. I just love shotting guns.
But what's you're describing as the goal is the d20 skill system: virtually disconnected from combat mechanics. Is it just that the specific skills don't appeal to you, or is it the implimentation of their subsystem that you don't like?
I dislike the implementation, basically, because the system doesn't really support degrees of success or failure easily, and in a few levels, a task that is an automatic win for one PC is an auto failure for another. I also really dislike armor check penalties I know they're "realistic" but this is a fantasy game. You never see the heroic knight stop and take off his armor to climb a rope in a movie. He just does it.
-
I agree with that assessment. What your describing sounds like Shadowrun's divided worlds. Not exactly the same. I present the follow:
If combat and skills are completely seperate systems, like they are in d20, and the skills are detailed enough to model degrees and other details, than you likely end up with two separate "games", which people will or will not play depending on their character. Shadowrun, for example, has seperate rules for Astral play (including Astral Combat) and Maxtrix play (including Matrix combat). It is, effectivally, three seperate games.
It's not a perfect example since each of the Shadowrun rules functions physically different, ergo combat and basic interaction rules are also very different, but I use it in a vague sense to make my point.
-
Plan? Encounters? Although I might agree that WoTC's approach to D&D is far from most gamers' ideals, I don't think planning encounters is an issue, you just pick monsters in the XP range of the players and have at it. 1 I don't even look it up in advance.
I'm playing two 4E games right now, both of them I'm both player and DM as we alternate. In one, we're empty shells of characters who fight monsters after monsters. It was what we agreed to do from from the get-go and we're having fun seeing how unkillable our characters are.
2
but then you have one of the DM go: "A dwarf arrives in the room (interrupting our RP), he's quite beaten up. He needs help fighting some monsters that appeared in ruins about a day from here!" 3
1. I think it was possible to have a sandbox type game and still have a little mental list of possible encounters that the players may stumble into. However because I've found 4E sucks hard without miniatures and a battle board I would say that generating an encounter full stop is much more of a pain than 3.5. However I think that making a specific encounter is much better implemented in the early monster manual/dungeon masters guides in 4th in comparison to 3.5. This is just my experience in attempting to run it via maptools, playing face to face when the DM remembers and forgets his battle 'mat' or miniatures.
2. I dropped out of the 4th ed. game I had been in since last September this week. The reason being, among other things, the GM could run a good encounter and make it entertaining 9/10 times but he couldn't handle the story points well and tended to railroad us players. The thing is whenever that 1/10 encounter that no-one was enjoying came up it was absolutely boring and quite frustrating. Which led me to wondering why I bothered going to the game when I could have the same entertainment at the pub with mates or playing videogames with friends round at my/their house.
3. I bet he did this because he had planned an encounter and was set on running it. Which was the main focus of my gripe, it is very bad for starting GMs that can handle story elements a little hamfistedly but will be able to very easily make entertaining encounters time and time again...so they will and only with a lot of encouragement get out of that rut.
-
1. I think it was possible to have a sandbox type game and still have a little mental list of possible encounters that the players may stumble into. However because I've found 4E sucks hard without miniatures and a battle board I would say that generating an encounter full stop is much more of a pain than 3.5. However I think that making a specific encounter is much better implemented in the early monster manual/dungeon masters guides in 4th in comparison to 3.5. This is just my experience in attempting to run it via maptools, playing face to face when the DM remembers and forgets his battle 'mat' or miniatures.
I don't follow you well on that. When I ran 3.5 we always had a grid handy. Things where written in feet and the game assumed everything was in five foot squares. Detail at close range required having a map.
-
1. I agree you need a battle board if you're going to play 4E but you can simply use tokens. For that combat oriented game we use beer caps, shitty beer for monsters and the better beer caps for our characters. With the manual in hand, it takes 2 minutes to come up with an encounter on the spot.
2. I have no idea how that relates to the quoted paragraph, haha.
3. Yeah, it was a pre-made adventure but he's not a starting DM. It's completely impersonal and is best suited for a make-shift party willing to go an adventure for the sake of money/fame/boredom.