My Gripe with 4th Ed.

[Akiira]

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 .

[Tadanori Oyama]

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.

[malyss]

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.

[malyss]

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.

[malyss]

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).

[clockworkjoe]

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.

[Murph]

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?

[Mckma]

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.

[Akiira]

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.

[Akiira]

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.

[Maze]

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.

[Murph]

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.

[Akiira]

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.

[Murph]

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.

[Akiira]

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.