# Farewell to thee D&D



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

This is completely my own opinion. And I do not invite argument as that will be a useless endeavor as all opinions are subjective. I post this only to clear my own mind on the matter of 4E and why I don’t like it. I also hope to commiserate with others that feel driven out of a game they have long loved due to a change in mechanics that ruins the entire feel of D&D for them. If that is not you, then I suggest ignoring this post as I don’t expect you to understand my feelings.

It has been a long marriage from which I have derived much pleasure. Yet D&D and I have reached a point of irreconcilable differences, and we must part. It is a sad day for me, though I know D&D is a horrible trollop that does what it must to appease the masses, and thus does not care whether one long-time lover leaves as he is easily replaced by another new lover. But alas, I feel great sorrow at this parting, but the new D&D I do not like and do not think I shall ever like it.

You are no longer that fantasy game that makes me feel as though I were a hero of legend with great power. Instead I feel like something fake, something without substance, as though you are a love that patronizes me for my heroics while at the same time knowing full well that I have not accomplished much nor developed much in power as I grew. 

What are my grievances? They are many. And I shall list them only to clear them from my mind as they create the sound of buzzing bees within that drive me to madness.

1. Encounter Powers: Are these supposed to be learned combat skills or spells? If they are, then why must I wait five minutes to use something I learned? When I use an encounter power, I feel as though I blew off my five minute cooldown power and I am now reduced to watching a timer tick down while I use my at will over and over again. 

Encounter powers do not feel like combat skills. They literally feel like game powers.

There has always been a fine line between what can be justified as a power with limited use such as spells and what is a skill that can be used over and over again because you spent the time to physically learn to execute the maneuver. The easy justification for divine and arcane power limitations is the reservoir of power you can channel in one day. A simple but very reasonable and easy to understand limitation on power that is plentiful in fantasy literature. Even such powers as barbarian rage are easy to understand as the physical fatigue associated with such an intense act can be fully understood and accepted. Less so perhaps is the monk stunning fist, but since that is somewhat tied to ki power even that can somewhat be understood.

But encounter powers are a purely artificial contrivance that I cannot wrap my head around. There is no rhyme or reason why once you use an encounter power, you suddenly are unable to execute that maneuver again until you rest for five minutes. It is an out and out contrivance that completely removes my suspension of disbelief. I use my encounter power, and I try to think about why I can’t use it again, and the only thing I can come up with is “game balance”. It flashes across my mind over and over again. I can’t get it out of there as it grinds on my fantasy mind like an alarm bell ringing “You are not in a fantasy world. You are not in a fantasy world. This is a game. This is a game.”

On top of that everyone uses every encounter power every encounter whether or not they need to. I have a Ranger player using Evasive Strike and shifting just to use it each encounter even when it is unnecessary. It used to be that people used their powers when they were needed, not just to blow them off because they can. 

A barbarian didn’t rage every battle because they wanted to be sure they had it available for hard fights. A wizard didn’t blow off every  spell or magic item because they wanted to save those magic items for when they might really need them.

Not so in 4E. They may wait on the dailies, but they blow every encounter power they can. If  they are handily winning the fight, they start blowing off encounter powers just to make sure they didn’t fail to use every encounter power every single fight just because they can. It’s a jarring effect to have a guy say “I use Serpent Strike” when there is one guy with half hit points left that doesn’t much require more than a few at will hits.

And for powers that are physical feats, why can’t I do them over and over again? Why can I tumble once per encounter and then suddenly I’m so gimp, I just can’t manage such a feat again. It is an absurd and artificial limitation.

2. I cannot run encounters as I like to run them. I was one of those DMs that liked to run a few simple encounters with one knockdown, dragout fight that would truly tax and drain resources including magic items. A non-stop edge of your seat, no rest, win or die battle against the big bad evil guys.

I now feel like if I don’t give the characters five minutes of rest between each encounter they will be unhappy and feel like I cheated them. I also feel that if they don’t have access to their encounter powers, you can’t possibly take on very tough encounters. Not to mention you will be out of healing. No more using healing for emergencies or to survive really long, tough encounters. Now it’s make sure to use your healing each encounter because you can’t save it up. Two shots of healing and if you can’t handle the encounter with two healing attempts and your second winds, well, you shouldn’t even be able to handle the encounter. 

Make sure not to fight anything too tough. You wouldn’t want to tax your ability to heal.

3. Dragons can’t decimate armies of creatures with one blast of their breath unless I make them very small armies. Breath weapons are very limited in range and damage. A dragon would be lucky to decimate a group of lvl 3 Hobgoblin soldiers with their weak breath weapon even at ancient levels.

4. Monster Recharge powers: What is up with this? If I run a vampire and I want it to use dominating gaze, I don’t want it to have to roll a six for it to recharge. I want it to be able to use it when it wants to and needs to use it in and out of combat.

Monster recharge powers are a joke. I ran a Hobgoblin Warcaster with Force Lure. It used force lure and dragged a player 3 squares so allied monsters could get at it. And that player used an encounter power to shift away. The Hobgoblin Warcaster didn’t roll a five or six for another 2 rounds. By that time it had no allies left for Force Lure to be useful. And when it misses, what then? Wait for recharge. 

Do you have any idea what it is like as a DM waiting for a monster power to recharge? I sit there thinking of what is running through the monster’s head. 

Goblin Warcaster, “Boy, I hope this thing recharges again.” It shakes its staff. “C’mon staff, work again. C’mon baby. Get lucky, let me have one more use of force lure against these players. Aw shucks, DM must have rolled less than a 5. I’m out of luck.”

Monster powers should work, period. They should work often and not be subject to a random recharge roll that might very well make it impotent for long enough that it has no chance of challenging a party. Was that the intent? It sure seems that way.

5. Immobilization: This is what replaced paralysis? The ghoul hit the fighter and immobilized him. I had to figure why exactly he couldn’t move considering he could swing his axe and dodge, but for some reason couldn’t move…even though he was dodging around and swinging his axe with full force. Then he saved at the end of his turn before the ghoul received his bite attack, and was just immobilized again. The one time I did stun him didn’t matter because the other players just continued to beat the hell out of the ghoul killing it well before it had a chance to take advantage of the stun.

So what good is immobilization when there are a party of five or six characters? What? The creature focuses its attack on the immobilized creature while the other four or five characters beat it to death?

6. Insubstantial creatures are a joke. So what if they take half damage, anyone can hit them. They have far fewer hit points than other creatures. They do very little damage and don’t level drain any longer. My party decimated spectures quickly and with little challenge. They don’t hit particularly well and aren’t particularly dangerous.

7. Spells and powers: My goodness. Spells and powers have become things that do a little damage with some minor effect that usually lasts at most a round or two. What happened to spells that work? Saves every round make spells work for a few rounds at the most. Rarely have I seen a spell extend beyond three rounds even with the wizard orb power. 

Where are the powerful effects? Slide something a few squares. Take a penalty until the end of your next turn. Take some ongoing damage. Give a power bonus. Make some difficult terrain. Is that the best they have?

Spells and powers seem homogenous save for the flavor text. They lack creativity because the base mechanics lack creativity. Thus they end up often emulating similar effects based on character type.

8. Wizards: I know this is a mixed bag for a lot of people. But personally I like my wizards to be feared. When a wizard steps on the battlefield, that wizard should command immediate respect and fear. He should be able to decimate armies (and not just pathetic minions). He should be able to level creatures and transport himself thousands of miles. 

D&D wizards may not have been a perfect fantasy archetype, but they sure did make you feel like you were that wizard in the story. You felt like Gandalf, Allanon, or Rand. You felt like you wielded arcane power that separated you in power from those around you. You felt like the kind of guy that a warrior would go see to help him on a heroic quest because having a wizard was essential to success. You felt like a wizard made a truly fearsome enemy that could be very dangerous to fight, thus you had to find your own wizard to help you. That’s the wizard feel I like.

If a 4E wizard were in a book, he would be laughed at if he tried that “mysterious, powerful arcanist” role you see in so many fantasy books. The defender would just laugh at the guy and say “Why you don’t scorching blast me friend. Yeah, go ahead and do it, you pathetic wizard. Real mysterious, real scary mister low hit points and low damage output. Why don’t you go kill some minions.”

Wizard, “But you need my rituals.”

Fighter, “I had a feat to blow. So I bought ritual casting. Sorry sucker. Like I said,  go kill some minions, chump.”

This is the most pathetic excuse for a powerful arcane wizard I have ever seen. Shame on the 4E design team for thinking this thing they call a wizard in the 4E player’s handbook is anything to hold up as a job well done.

I calculated the average damage of a Meteor Swarm with a +6 implement and the appropriate feat for extra damage, and a lvl 30 wizard casting meteor swarm would have trouble killing a group of lvl 3 Hobgoblin soldiers in one hit, and almost no chance of killing a pack of shadow hounds in one hit, and no chance of killing anything of higher level in one hit. High level AoE wizard spells are pittance damage, yet their at will scorching blast is just as good at killing minions so why bother wasting a daily on a pack of creatures that mostly can be killed with an at will scorching blast.

Which brings me to my next gripe…

9. Minions: Is there anything less satisfying (save perhaps a missed attack, especially a missed encounter power or daily) than killing a minion? This has to be one of the most unsatisfying combat acts in the game. 

It doesn’t matter if it is a human rabble, an ogre minion, a lvl 9 orc warrior minion, a demon minion, or any other kind of minion in the game, they die with one hit of anything.

Here’s what I see when I see a minion:

Wizard casts a scorching blast leveling five demon minions. Oh, he feels powerful.

Fighter cleaves with his +6 great axe and kills two demon minions. Boy, what a hit. He feels tough.

Rogue decides to punch a minion with his fist (just for kicks) and he kills a demon minion. That was some punch of the fist. Good job rogue. You just had the same effect as a +6 great axe and that uber wizard Scorching blast. 

Small boy picks up a rock and tosses it at a demon minion. He gets a lucky hit and kills the minion. Wow, he one upped even the rogue.

On top of that, it is more efficient, and I see no reason why the players wouldn’t eventually surmise this with wizards having a 20 intel and warlords being tactical masters on the battlefield, to have wizards drop at will AoE directly on top of defenders when wiping out minions as they get higher level. Scorching blast does pittance damage even with a powerful implement compared to the hit points a player will have as he levels. For that one scorching blast you eliminate a ton of potential damage as well as extra abilities based on the number of allies from the battlefield, and do minimal damage to your own ally. Heck, why not carry a +1 implement on you just to make sure you don’t hit your ally too hard. When it becomes a better option to drop that oh so powerful scorching blast directly on top of the defender to wipe out all those fearsome demon or ogre minions while doing pittance damage to your defender, that is just wrong.

I will never wrap my head around the idea of this. It makes wizard AoE look like a friggin joke. A pathetic joke with very little sting.

This is a class that used to be able to destroy armies of giants or demons, not soft one hit point minions, but fairly sizeable hit point giants and demons that were formidable in their own right. Minions are the ultimate trash mob. A total waste of time and barely any waste of resources other than a few rounds of weak, wizard at will AoE. 

I understand the concept of minions. I utterly hate the actual feel of them as a DM and feel ultimately unsatisfied killing them as a player.

10. First Aid: Who was the genius who thought this up? I can allow someone to use their Second Wind as a free action by standing next to them even with my hands full? I can stabilize the dying while still holding my weapon and shield? What do I do? Step on their wounds until they stop bleeding? How exactly does this work? There’s a fine line between simplification and ridiculous. That line was crossed on the wrong side for the First Aid skill.

11. Classes: They feel homogenous and leveling doesn’t feel empowering. On my third level paladin I chose a first level encounter power because all my encounter power choices were better at 1st level. 

Encounter powers for almost every class go from two dice to three or four dice. Basically an average increase of 7 to 9 points of base damage not including static modifiers for most powers that use d8 or d10. Creature hit points seem to rise much faster than that. It doesn’t make me feel very powerful at all. 

I used to learn nifty attacks that scaled like Power Attack that I could use all the time on top of getting multiple attacks that boosted my damage output substantially depending on the AC of the creature or Combat Expertise that let me boost my AC in combat when I needed to do it. Now my average per round damage increases by 7 to 9 points for base damage and some increase for stat modifiers, magic items, and feats. Overall, unless I score a crit I’m not denting high level monster hit points which seem to be substantially higher than mine and to rise at a much faster rate than my damage (except of course minions which I could kill with an improvised twig with slightly less ease than using my +6 weapon).

No big deal, because the high level monsters don’t feel particularly challenging anyway. Once they blow their recharge powers, they are lucky to get another shot at using them before they are dead. 

On top of that Rangers can’t track any better than anyone else with perception, paladins aren’t immune to fear or particularly special, clerics can channel divinity one time per encounter regardless if there is one undead or many, and rogues can sneak attack once per round regardless of whether they spend an action point to make another attack. Why? Why is this? The almighty game balance.

It makes one wonder why a rogue can sneak attack in the first place. Is it a skill? Is it a “magic” power that is for some reason expended? Why can’t he spend an action point to sneak attack again in that same round? What is the reason? Game balance. Nothing like knowing that something exists solely for game balance purposes to completely take me out of the fantasy of roleplaying. 

A lot of people may be fine with this, but I’m not. It is a jarring reality to know that things work a certain way not because the game designers thought about how a power or ability might work, but because it can only happen once a round to maintain the almighty game balance. A vastly overrated idea that I’m glad no writer thinks about before they put word to computer file (or paper if you prefer). 

I’ve always thought of RPGs as an exercise in cooperative story telling much as a director directs a movie with actors. And the job of a storyteller is to make each character feels like an important part of the story, something I did not have trouble doing even with disparate combat power levels. Even though one on one a wizard might be able to kill any class in the game save a priest, they still wouldn’t enter a dungeon without a fighter or rogue because they knew full well that their power was finite and they needed the combat prowess of the fighter to wade through the masses of enemies that populate a dungeon and a rogue to circumvent all the nasty traps as well as scout and aid the warrior on the front lines. And no one could dispute the power and advantage of bringing a worthy priest with the group. And this was all accomplished without distilling every class down to equal combat capabilities in terms of damage and attack options.

It may not have been a fantasy standard to have a priest along, but over the years I have come to realize that such a necessity served only to enhance the unique flavor of D&D. Now that a priest is unnecessary, and healing is greatly moderated, I find that I miss the unique story telling and mechanical dynamic that made a priest so essential to a good adventuring group. 

I’m well aware that opinions will differ on all that I posted above. I do not wish to start an argument as this is my subjective opinion and thus not something that a debate will change for me or for those who disagree with me.

I just wanted to release this pent up dislike I have for 4E as a 25 year player of D&D. A game I love.  A game I spent many years playing with friends, many of those friends I know because of this game. I have moved on with every incarnation of D&D until now.

I still recall not wanting to play 3E, but giving it the same try I gave 4E. But by the time I had played 3E for the same amount of time I had played 4E, I liked 3E. I liked what they had done. It still had the same D&D feel I loved, but had improved on quite a few mechanics. I snapped up all the books and have spent hundreds, if not a few thousand, dollars on 3E D&D. 

 4E had the exact opposite effect. The more I played it, the more I didn’t like it. I didn’t look forward to leveling. I didn’t look forward to feats or powers. I felt as though you used one power you used them all for a particular type of class. And feats weren’t progressive or particularly interesting. They are all so mind numbingly similar in effect that you barely need to read the words to understand what they do.

I’m sorry to finally close the door on D&D. It is a game I didn’t expect to leave this way in my lifetime. I know I won’t be buying anymore books as I won’t be playing 4E. I know Wizards won’t be missing the few hundred dollars from my pocket, but I do know for certain the game they made isn’t enticing enough to earn that money from me. I hope this Pathfinder might be more of what I was looking for in my D&D game. Something that keeps what I love about the current edition, while improving on some of the odd and unwieldy mechanics.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 25, 2008)

Why not just play the edition you liked, then?  You still have the books, right?


----------



## Dayspire (Aug 25, 2008)

> And I do not invite argument as that will be a useless endeavor as all opinions are subjective.




Wait, what..??  There are so many things wrong with this statement that I'm stunned.


----------



## Engilbrand (Aug 25, 2008)

You see D&D as a trollop. I see your relationship like this: you find a beautiful woman who was willing to be with you. She had a little bit of work done, looked even better, and you got scared and left her without really thinking about the work she had done. You then proceeded to trash talk her because you didn't understand her.

I stopped reading your post at the point that I realized that you hadn't actually understood the rules. There are a few comments that are recognized as valid annoyances to a lot of people, but some of your stuff (minions and dragons) don't actually make sense.

Go ahead and leave her. She needs someone who will actually love her, and you've shown that it isn't you.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Why not just play the edition you liked, then? You still have the books, right?




Exactly. I am playing some 4E right now because a buddy is curious about it and wants to run it for us. We have a good time gaming together no matter what the rules are. When I run a game again it will not be a 4E game. To the OP, if everyone in your group shares your dislike then play edition X and enjoy.


----------



## Grimstaff (Aug 25, 2008)

As Legal Counsel for 4E, I must inform you that she has accepted your petition for divorce, though she by no means accepts your criticisms as valid. She wishes you the best in your future relationships.

Alimony will be automatically deducted from your paychecks per State Law.


----------



## Dayspire (Aug 25, 2008)

Engilbrand said:


> (snip)I stopped reading your post at the point that I realized that you hadn't actually understood the rules. There are a few comments that are recognized as valid annoyances to a lot of people, but some of your stuff (minions and dragons) don't actually make sense.(snip)




_This._  I was thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

*re*



Morrus said:


> Why not just play the edition you liked, then?  You still have the books, right?




I will play older editions. It was more a matter of no more new books to buy and no more looking forward to new materials. That was a part of D&D to me.


----------



## Dykstrav (Aug 25, 2008)

There was a moratorium against edition war threads for a while. Every time I see a thread like this, it seems like it'd be a good idea to try to get a moratorium on dramatic, preachy "I'm a lifelong player and 4E killed D&D for me and all _real _D&D players, so I'm leaving forever" threads.

I mean, for crying out loud... If you don't like the game, don't play it. 4E isn't the only game in town, and companies are moving to meet the demands of players who prefer older editions.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 25, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> As Legal Counsel for 4E, I must inform you that she has accepted your petition for divorce, though she by no means accepts your criticisms as valid. She wishes you the best in your future relationships.
> 
> Alimony will be automatically deducted from your paychecks per State Law.



I wish to inform the court that, in my capacity as a representative of the Character Welfare Services, we wish to have all of the player's D&D characters for the last 25 years made wards of the state.

Uhh... except for the half-elf bards. You guys can keep those.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

Engilbrand said:


> You see D&D as a trollop. I see your relationship like this: you find a beautiful woman who was willing to be with you. She had a little bit of work done, looked even better, and you got scared and left her without really thinking about the work she had done. You then proceeded to trash talk her because you didn't understand her.
> 
> I stopped reading your post at the point that I realized that you hadn't actually understood the rules. There are a few comments that are recognized as valid annoyances to a lot of people, but some of your stuff (minions and dragons) don't actually make sense.
> 
> Go ahead and leave her. She needs someone who will actually love her, and you've shown that it isn't you.




I very much understood the rules. Which I why I posted what I posted. 

That is how the rules work. I fail to see how you can make 1 hit point minions seem any different than they are. They are one hit point whether a lvl 1 kobold or a lvl 20 demon minion. They die if struck by a Scorching Blast or if struck by a twig. That is how it works unless you can point to something else.

As I stated, I understand the concept behind the way they are made, but I do not like how the concept is executed. Which is entirely different from not understanding the rules.

And I have read every single dragon breath weapon. It seems to me it is you who are not doing the math in your head as far as whether a dragon breath weapon could kill outright a low level non-minion lvl 3 Hobgoblin soldier or a lvl 6 Skirmisher shadow hound with an average roll of damage.

Or do you think I missed the way I'm supposed to design an encounter using a ton of minions to simulate a large army of a particular type of creature? Do you think I'm not understanding that part of the rules.

I very much understand it. I was told by folks on this board to give 4E a try, so I would see the rules in play. I have played and run the game and very much do understand the rules. 

As I stated in the post, this is not an argument. This is my subjective opinion regarding 4E after playing it. It has nothing to do with not understanding the concept behind 4E rules, it has everything with not liking how the 4E rules model the concept.

That is a very different animal. I don't insult you for liking 4E, I would prefer not to be insulted or bothered for not liking it as appears some people are doing.

I am entitled to my opinion. I have played the game, so this is not coming from someone unfamiliar with it. I have test run the breath weapon of a dragon against the creatures I listed.

I did not say  dragon could not destroy an army fo hobgoblin soldiers. I said he could not destroy them with his breath weapon. And that is truth. A dragon's breath weapon is not as freely used nor as large as it was in previous editions. No idea why you are disputing this. If I had said that dragons couldn't kill an army of hobgoblin soldiers or a pack of wolf hounds, then your critcism of my rule statement would be valid. But since that isn't the case, I don't get what you're talking about. I can prove what I wrote. If you don't mind it conceptually, then that is your opinion. I like dragon breath weapons to be something that can decimate armies with continuous overhead passes that don't require recharge rerolls or the creature becoming bloodied. That's how I like it.


----------



## Griego (Aug 25, 2008)

Dayspire said:


> Wait, what..??  There are so many things wrong with this statement that I'm stunned.




Exactly. By posting on a forum you are, by definition, inviting discussion and yes, even argument. If you don't want that, start a blog.

Now, wrto the OP, back when my 1e group stopped playing, I got a chance to play with another group, who switched to 2e. I did not like a lot of things about 2e, but I went ahead and played anyway, and eventually got over any misgivings I had. Well, that kind of freed me, in a sense, and since then, even large changes in crunch don't bother me that much.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> A dragon's breath weapon is not as freely used nor as large as it was in previous editions. No idea why you are disputing this.



"Not as freely used" I will dispute with you.

3rd Editon: Every 1d4 rounds (effectively, there is a 1/3 chance each round you can use dragon breath).
4th Edition: A 5-6 roll recharges (effectively, there is a 1/3 chance each round you can use dragon breath).


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

Dykstrav said:


> There was a moratorium against edition war threads for a while. Every time I see a thread like this, it seems like it'd be a good idea to try to get a moratorium on dramatic, preachy "I'm a lifelong player and 4E killed D&D for me and all _real _D&D players, so I'm leaving forever" threads.
> 
> I mean, for crying out loud... If you don't like the game, don't play it. 4E isn't the only game in town, and companies are moving to meet the demands of players who prefer older editions.





I don't intend to play it. I didn't create this as an edition wars thread which is why I prefaced my comment with this is a subjective opinion. I wanted to commiserate with a few other folks who might feel as I do.

After you played a game as long as I have, it feels kind of strange to have that game become something you don't want to play. I'm sure some people felt that way when 3E came out as well. 

I generally looked forward to new books. Now I have no books to look forward too. And feel alienated from the game I enjoyed for so many years. This is one of the places I know of with D&D players in large numbers. So I came here to commiserate.

Did I force you to read this thread? Or reply to it? 

I prefaced my entire statement with you "if you like 4E, then you won't understand my complaints". I don't get how much clearer I can be as far as saying "this is my opinion. I'm not making a statement I believe will apply to people that like 4E".


----------



## Storminator (Aug 25, 2008)

Halivar said:


> "Not as freely used" I will dispute with you.
> 
> 3rd Editon: Every 1d4 rounds (effectively, there is a 1/3 chance each round you can use dragon breath).
> 4th Edition: A 5-6 roll recharges (effectively, there is a 1/3 chance each round you can use dragon breath).




1e: 3 times per day.

PS


----------



## Byronic (Aug 25, 2008)

Engilbrand said:


> You see D&D as a trollop. I see your relationship like this: you find a beautiful woman who was willing to be with you. She had a little bit of work done, looked even better, and you got scared and left her without really thinking about the work she had done. You then proceeded to trash talk her because you didn't understand her.
> 
> I stopped reading your post at the point that I realized that you hadn't actually understood the rules. There are a few comments that are recognized as valid annoyances to a lot of people, but some of your stuff (minions and dragons) don't actually make sense.
> 
> Go ahead and leave her. She needs someone who will actually love her, and you've shown that it isn't you.




I'm going to have to disagree with this. The OP made some comments, some of them I agree with, some of them I don't. Some of them were invalid (in the sense that they were based on a misunderstanding) But the OP was quite valid in disliking 4th edition.

You see, 4e is NOT the same beautiful woman 3e was. 4e is an entirely different woman. Different hair colour, different race, different interests. Some people liked the first one better, some of them liked the latter better. Some want to keep both. But they are different people.

The play style is different, I can think of a lot of fun I've had using spells and such outside of combat and are mechanically impossible with 4e. 

To give an easy example, rituals. Some people LIKED being able to summon up Tensor's Disk or some other little helpful thing with the flick of a wrist. Standing in the middle of town, summoning a horse with a single magical word and hopping on it is FUN, and it gave players a nice sense of fun and most importantly MAGIC. Spending 10 min drawing a magical circle and chanting to summon up a horse is NOT as much fun, and really it gets annoying to have townspeople coming up to you and asking wth you're doing (and thats WITHOUT the pitchforks). Coughing up 70 gold worth of material also takes a bit of fun out of it, makes it more of a transaction then an act of magic.

Also some people liked Fighters because they were one of the simplest classes. It was such a nice class to introduce people to, grap a weapon, smack people. the rest is all roleplaying. Now they're just as complex as other classes.

What I'm trying to say is that they are different and I could mention a dozen other ways why. But that should be clear by now, and some people just prefer one above the other.

That's the whole of it.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

Halivar said:


> "Not as freely used" I will dispute with you.
> 
> 3rd Editon: Every 1d4 rounds (effectively, there is a 1/3 chance each round you can use dragon breath).
> 4th Edition: A 5-6 roll recharges (effectively, there is a 1/3 chance each round you can use dragon breath).




*shrug* It roughly equates to the same if I don't get a bad series of rolls. So be it.

Like I said, I'm not looking for argument. I'm looking for some people who might feel as I do.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I very much understood the rules. Which I why I posted what I posted.
> 
> That is how the rules work. [snip]



I think you missed the point in which the rules are made for Creature or NPC against PC combat.  If you want the rules to be used for Creature against Creature or NPC, then it doesn't matter one bit what the rules say.

If you need that dragon to take a mile long breath against that minion army of Hobgoblins and do 500 HP of damage, then do it.  Because in the end it has absolutely no relevance to the players.  But if you want the Dragon to breath on the PC's then the breath will be X squares wide and do NdX + Y damage.

Once again because combat rules are designed for PC vs. Creature combat and not for Creature vs. Creature simulation.


----------



## Vayden (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> *shrug* It roughly equates to the same if I don't get a bad series of rolls. So be it.
> 
> Like I said, I'm not looking for argument. I'm looking for some people who might feel as I do.




I get where you're coming from Celt, and I'm sorry to lose you. None of the things you posted about bother me in the slightest, but I feel bad to lose you. Best of luck finding a non-4e game that can keep you having fun.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I will play older editions. It was more a matter of no more new books to buy and no more looking forward to new materials. That was a part of D&D to me.




DO you have all the 3.5 books?  There were an awful lot of them.  Plus there's hundreds more from third party publishers.  I reckon there's enough out there to keep you buying for years to come!


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Like I said, I'm not looking for argument. I'm looking for some people who might feel as I do.




It sounds like you should be doing a blog with comments moderated so you can only acknowledge the comments that agree with you, instead of posting on a discussion forum and saying you don't want people with dissenting opinions discussing your post.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I will play older editions. It was more a matter of no more new books to buy and no more looking forward to new materials. That was a part of D&D to me.




You own all the books for all the older editions?  Remember if you haven't read it: It's new to you!!


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

Morrus said:


> DO you have all the 3.5 books?  There were an awful lot of them.  Plus there's hundreds more from third party publishers.  I reckon there's enough out there to keep you buying for years to come!




Yes, I have all of them. I have some third party materials. 

I think one of my friends will stay with 3E or the new Pathfinder.

That is another thing. My group has moved to 4E. Most of them like it. I don't want to be a disruption to them since they don't like it. So I may have to find a new gaming group, something I haven't done for 10 years or more. It is going to be strange to see all my friends move onto the new edition while I try to get something going with the old one.

I appreciate you not being insulting. I wasn't looking for a war. I'm sure more than me understand what is like to do a hobby for 25 years and have that hobby change in such a dramatic fashion.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

D'karr said:


> I think you missed the point in which the rules are made for Creature or NPC against PC combat.  If you want the rules to be used for Creature against Creature or NPC, then it doesn't matter one bit what the rules say.
> 
> If you need that dragon to take a mile long breath against that minion army of Hobgoblins and do 500 HP of damage, then do it.  Because in the end it has absolutely no relevance to the players.  But if you want the Dragon to breath on the PC's then the breath will be X squares wide and do NdX + Y damage.
> 
> Once again because combat rules are designed for PC vs. Creature combat and not for Creature vs. Creature simulation.




You are correct. I understand this conceptually. I just don't like it. I understand that 4E wants you to handwave such sites as dragon decimating an army and only look at its stats in regard to player versus player creating encounters around challenging the players.

Alot of people don't mind the hand waving of such things, but I prefer the power be able to do what I tell the players it can do. If that means decimating a hobgoblin army, I want that breath weapon to be able to decimate all the hobgoblin grunts, soldiers, warchiefs, and whatever else travels with it. It's what I prefer.

I guess it comes down to whether you like a gamist philosophy versus a realistic simulation philsophy. I freely admit I fall on the side of realistic simuation insofar as that is possible in a fantasy RPG.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> It sounds like you should be doing a blog with comments moderated so you can only acknowledge the comments that agree with you, instead of posting on a discussion forum and saying you don't want people with dissenting opinions discussing your post.




Well, if you want to dissent in this post, feel free. I'm not going to argue my opinion with someone who disagrees. This post wasn't meant to make people turn away from 4E or argue the merits of it.

This is a post from a person who has done a hobby for 25 years that has now changed so much he no longer feels a part of that hobby, at least in terms of what is being put out by the main company that publishes the rulebooks. I have been coming to EN world since it was owned by Eric Noah, whose initials are the source of EN I believe. It is one of the only places I know where a ton of gamers hang out. I have read the stories here and here and there chatted with other gamers on the site. As far as D&D goes, this the main site I go to for news and gamer chat.

So I would rather post this where I might find a few people to commiserate with that have played as long as I have rather than some nameless Blog I start that no one knows about.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

Crothian said:


> You own all the books for all the older editions?  Remember if you haven't read it: It's new to you!!




Yep. I own all 3.5. I owned all the 2nd edition books and most of the boxed sets before I moved on to 3E.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Yes, I have all of them. I have some third party materials.
> 
> I think one of my friends will stay with 3E or the new Pathfinder.
> 
> ...




It´s always sad when a game you´ve been anticipating does not turn out to be your cup of tea. I do not understand most of your issues, but sure do accept that they are grave enough to stay away from 4e. Hopefully, you´ll find a new group that shares your playstyle. 

But yeah, the hobby has changed, and 4e reflected some of those changes. It´s really these day´s D&D. That´s the first thing i thought when i read the books.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 25, 2008)

Does that mean you'll never post something as long as this again?

Wow, what free time you must have.  Good luck with WOW.  I hope your fam,ily relationships survive it.  Oh, and don't argue with me, I forbid it.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> Good for you. Enjoy whatever gaming-or-nongaming activity you'd normally devote D&D time to. Learn a craft. Run for local office. Spend time with your friends or family.
> 
> Just don't sit on the internet throwing out the same tired "reasons" for why D&D isn't D&D and how Wizards killed your childhood.




You get off on being rude? You gotta be one of those immature posters that gets off on being rude. Why else waste time to post on a thread that doesn't matter to you and has no meaning? 

When someone posts an opinion, you are under no obligation to respond to it. I fail to see why you would take the time to save that you get off on being rude. Enjoy taking the shots. I don't care. This wasn't posted for guys like you, and I didn't even expect you to read it and respond. I don't understand why the first paragraph doesn't clearly delineate that this post isn't for or directed at people that like 4E. 

It has nothing to do with you. So why you posting?


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 25, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Does that mean you'll never post something as long as this again?
> 
> Wow, what free time you must have.  Good luck with WOW.  I hope your fam,ily relationships survive it.  Oh, and don't argue with me, I forbid it.




If I didn't care about D&D, I wouldn't have taken the time I did to write the post. And I imagine anyone who plays D&D has quite a bit of free time. It takes far longer to create and run an adventure than to write a post a few pages long.


----------



## Filcher (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian, 

I vehemently disagree with most (if not all) of your statements, but I respect your right to have and give voice to an opinion. Best of luck with whatever games you decide to play.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 25, 2008)

To the OP: I know exactly how you feel. I felt exactly the same.

About 1 year ago.

The woman I loved had become so high maintenance. She wanted endless hours of my time to create a challenge that was neither a calkwalk or a TPK. She went behind my back and told all my friends that their characters and my monsters deserved to be treated equally, even though all the effort only provided a few rounds of gratification. I thought about leaving her for good, when I started to hear about this new girl. I stuck with her through the end of a long divorce, which finally wrapped up just this past June. Now I couldn't be happier.


----------



## BronzeDragon (Aug 25, 2008)

D'karr said:


> If you need that dragon to take a mile long breath against that minion army of Hobgoblins and do 500 HP of damage, then do it.  Because in the end it has absolutely no relevance to the players.  But if you want the Dragon to breath on the PC's then the breath will be X squares wide and do NdX + Y damage.
> 
> Once again because combat rules are designed for PC vs. Creature combat and not for Creature vs. Creature simulation.




And you don't find that even a little bit grating to the suspension of disbelief?

I haven't played pure D&D in a while (I run A Conan D20 game once a month and a Call of Cthulhu BRP whenever I can) so perhaps I'm not in a position to argue for or against 4E. 

But I still disliked most of the things I read about, so I'll likely stay far, far away...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 25, 2008)

Whoever it was that mentioned third party products. . . hear hear! And, if you like new stuff to actually be well, _new_ (like, minty fresh) - hop onto the Pathfinder train, indeed!

Some of the 3pp is truly excellent, and worth looking into, if you want to expand 3e in some of the normal kinds of ways, or OTOH, take it in entirely different directions, the likes of which WotC could never - and _will_ never - have the requisite freedom to support.

Ah, OGL. Faithful for ever. 

Anyway, I hope you find what you're looking for - most importantly, _good people to game with_ (be they familiar or no.)

Best of luck!


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 25, 2008)

BronzeDragon said:


> And you don't find that even a little bit grating to the suspension of disbelief?




No more than sitting around a table rolling dice in order to represent the actions of my hero grates on my suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Yep. I own all 3.5. I owned all the 2nd edition books and most of the boxed sets before I moved on to 3E.




I imagine when you mean all you just mean all of Wizards books and not the 5000+ 3pp ones as well.  There is plenty out there even some like me hasn't seen.  

3ed is not dead you know.  I walked out of Gen Con with a few new books for it.  Heck, I walked out of that convention with three new 1e books as well.


----------



## BronzeDragon (Aug 25, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> No more than sitting around a table rolling dice in order to represent the actions of my hero grates on my suspension of disbelief.




Interesting.

In my mind it's a cumulative thing. I have to go through several steps to actually experience the fantasy worlds I create. First I have to read about it, then imagine things and people in it interacting, which is already a reach. After that comes the ritual of coming together with friends to, as you said, roll dice and represent the actions, which *does* affect suspension of disbelief.

But every time I must make up an excuse as to why this or that is different for the players it makes it even worse. I imagine the whole encounter powers thingy would likely make it even harder for me.

I'd rather not add steps to the already complicated process...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I think one of my friends will stay with 3E or the new Pathfinder.
> 
> That is another thing. My group has moved to 4E. Most of them like it. I don't want to be a disruption to them since they don't like it. So I may have to find a new gaming group, something I haven't done for 10 years or more. It is going to be strange to see all my friends move onto the new edition while I try to get something going with the old one.



I think this is the biggest cause of your frustration and not so much the lack of new material. You can't enjoy gaming with friends that you have been hanging out with for 10+ years because of a new ruleset? I'm not very happy with 4E myself but a friend is running it and I am playing. Ultimately its spending time with friends thats really important and not so much the rules. I won't run 4E but that doesn't stop me from playing. Do you hang out with your friends outside of the game?


----------



## D'karr (Aug 25, 2008)

BronzeDragon said:


> And you don't find that even a little bit grating to the suspension of disbelief?
> 
> I haven't played pure D&D in a while (I run A Conan D20 game once a month and a Call of Cthulhu BRP whenever I can) so perhaps I'm not in a position to argue for or against 4E.
> 
> But I still disliked most of the things I read about, so I'll likely stay far, far away...



Not one bit.  It makes no sense, to me, to go to an inordinate amount of work to represent the actions of Creature on Creature combat.  The players don't care about it as it does not affect them one bit.  So if the only reason to have it is to satisfy my sense of "simulation" I'd rather spend my time creating things that do matter and actually have consequence. So in the end, why bother?

4e has been a huge blessing in that respect.


----------



## BronzeDragon (Aug 25, 2008)

D'karr said:


> Not one bit.  It makes no sense, to me, to go to an inordinate amount of work to represent the actions of Creature on Creature combat.  The players don't care about it as it does not affect them one bit.  So if the only reason to have it is to satisfy my sense of "simulation" I'd rather spend my time creating things that do matter and actually have consequence. So in the end, why bother?
> 
> 4e has been a huge blessing in that respect.




So let me get this straight.

Your players don't care about anything that doesn't affect them directly?

Then your players truly are of a different breed than mine. And I guess that really makes a difference in the discussion.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Aug 25, 2008)

Wow.  Astonishing that, despite all the disclaimers, people still feel they have to let the OP know that they disagree.  Some of them in an insulting or dismissive way, even.  

News flash, folks--he doesn't like a game that you like.  That doesn't mean he thinks you're a bad person, or that he thinks you should agree with him, or that he thinks you should stop doing what *you* like.  Its not really about you at all.  Sheesh.


I, for one, have also been playing for twenty-some years, and would like to commiserate.  I really like some of the advances in 4e, but I think things like Encounter/ Daily martial powers and minions are just awful ideas, and run counter to what I want out of the game.  And its a little upsetting, but with all the 3.5 adventures out there that I haven't played, and especially with Pathfinder on the horizon, everything is aces.

Now I'm playing in a 3.5 game, a Pathfinder game, and yes, a 4e game, too.  3.5 is familiar and fun, and I love Pathfinder--they have the great depth and the huge range of options that just equal D&D to me.  And 4e--like I said, I like some of the rules, and the combats are fun and quick and dirty, (like playing D&D Lite).  I just grumble at the dearth of abilities, and the homogenous feel of the abilities/spells, and I grit my teeth when minions show up.  And I hope in time, with some added options, some 3pp support, and some (more) errata, it'll become a system that I really like.

Anyway, best of luck to you.  I hope you'll be back, eventually, when 4e ripens a bit.  But until then, maybe I'll run into you on the Paizo boards!


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 25, 2008)

Oh my, this is clearly another low point on these boards. This is almost _exactly_ like one of those fake daily 'talk shows' *shudder*

I'll just sneak out and use the neat 'ingore thread' feature Mustrum_Ridcully recently pointed out to me. Then I can pretend, I've never seen it


----------



## Kunimatyu (Aug 25, 2008)

You should listen to Mike Mearls' recent podcast.


----------



## Keith Robinson (Aug 25, 2008)

I must admit, I don't get it either.  Just because you don't like 4ed doesn't mean you should quit playing the version you do like.

I'll be playing 3.5 for a good while yet, and so will many other people.  Just because we're not moving over to a new edition doesn't mean we should all just throw in the towel and quit.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 25, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I think this is the biggest cause of your frustration and not so much the lack of new material. You can't enjoy gaming with friends that you have been hanging out with for 10+ years because of a new ruleset? I'm not very happy with 4E myself but a friend is running it and I am playing. Ultimately its spending time with friends thats really important and not so much the rules. I won't run 4E but that doesn't stop me from playing. Do you hang out with your friends outside of the game?




It may be that spending time with friends is more important, but why would you want to spend time with friends doing something you don't like to do? There are games I'm not interested in playing (WoD) and not playing them doesn't affect my friendships.
But it would be a tremendous drag to have the game night you have participated in for years shift to games you don't like.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 25, 2008)

MrGrenadine said:


> Astonishing that, despite all the disclaimers, people still feel they have to let the OP know that they disagree.




I find it more astonishing that someone would come onto a discussion forum and post yet another "I feel the need to tell you all that I'm parting ways with D&D because of 4e" thread with the disclaimer that he only wants yes-men responding to it. The internet is a horrible place to post your opinion when you want no dissenting responses, and a discussion forum is the absolute worst place to do that.

I also find it astonishing that people think that saying "I've been playing D&D for X years" means something significant. The amount of time you've spent in a hobby does nothing to make your opinions any more or less valid than anyone else. It strikes me as pretentious, just like those music fans that claim they're so much cooler because they only listen to a band's poorly produced garage demos, y'know from before they sold out.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 25, 2008)

I'd like to say how amazed I am that a very long, intelligent post got nothing but flames and insults in response.  Or how surprised I am.  How shocking it is.

But all of those would be a lie.

This thread is why edition wars started; NOT because of the OP, but because of the string of people that came along to say "You don't like 4e?  _Your opinion wrong, and you should leave the forums_."  No matter how many other intelligent posts he's had - and he's had a lot - no matter how long he's been here - a fairly long while - and no matter how much he did to TRY and enjoy 4e...because he didn't like it, he's told that he's no longer welcomed at these forums.

I CAN honestly say how amazed, shocked, and surprised I am at how utterly disgusting this thread has become.


----------



## BlackMoria (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian:  I understand fully.  I too feel, much as you do.  As do most of my group.  You are not alone in your feelings.  I feel that 4E took the game in a different direction than what I prefer.

Do take an opportunity to check out Paizo's Pathfinder line of products.  You may find it more to your liking.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> *shrug* It roughly equates to the same if I don't get a bad series of rolls. So be it.
> 
> Like I said, I'm not looking for argument. I'm looking for some people who might feel as I do.




I get where you're coming from.  As a long-time player of D&D (somewhere around 25 years) I have ALWAYS looked forward to the next iteration of the game, waiting to see what advancements would be made and how the game would be improved.

This time around I was saddened to see a game release that didn't "do it" for me.  I've played it a few times but have no love for it.  That's a first for me and it really bummed me out.

Luckily I have _Castles and Crusades_ and _3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons_ to tide me over until the next version of D&D comes along.  Whether that happens to be Pathfinder or not remains to be seen...

Game on!


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 25, 2008)

btw, if you want POWERFUL high level wizards, I strongly recommend Castles and Crusades.  The saving throws against their spells are based on wizard level (as opposed to spell level) and there are no damage caps on spells).  Plus, high level PC and monster hit points are lower than in 3e.  So a 20th level wizard casting that fireball means . . . yeah.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 25, 2008)

There's a whole passel of people who think that just because this person is posting a negative overall impression of 4e, that this automatically qualifies as an "edition war" thread.  That is not the case.

And there is absolutely no excuse for the poor treatment many of you have given the OP, and the thread in general.  EN World is supposed to be a place where people express their thoughts and opinions about games.  Many of you have posted very contrary to that mission- several are about to get banned from this thread, and their posts removed.

The next person who is anything less than perfectly polite can expect a week-long vacation from the site.  Edition wars require two sides, people - if you really don't like what a person says, you can keep it from being a war by not engaging.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 25, 2008)

BronzeDragon said:


> So let me get this straight.
> 
> Your players don't care about anything that doesn't affect them directly?
> 
> Then your players truly are of a different breed than mine. And I guess that really makes a difference in the discussion.



I think his point was that he doesn't need rules to determine what happens when NPCs are fighting NPCs.  I'd assume his characters care about what goes on outside of their party just like yours do.  But, for instance, if I need a dragon to mow down an army of Orcs and the PCs aren't taking any part in it...  Well, I can just say it happens.

-O


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 25, 2008)

Halivar said:


> "Not as freely used" I will dispute with you.
> 
> 3rd Editon: Every 1d4 rounds (effectively, there is a 1/3 chance each round you can use dragon breath).
> 4th Edition: A 5-6 roll recharges (effectively, there is a 1/3 chance each round you can use dragon breath).





In AD&D a dragon can breathe every round for 3 rounds straight.
In 3e, a dragon  can breathe at minimum every 5 rounds.
In 4e, a dragon could theoretically breathe once every 72 millenia.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 25, 2008)

Celt, you're wasting your breath, on ENworld it has become quite the fashion to disparage all criticism of 4e, yet OD&D seems to be fair game and 3e is quickly becoming the same.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 25, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I think his point was that he doesn't need rules to determine what happens when NPCs are fighting NPCs.  I'd assume his characters care about what goes on outside of their party just like yours do.  But, for instance, if I need a dragon to mow down an army of Orcs and the PCs aren't taking any part in it...  Well, I can just say it happens.
> 
> -O




Exactly, and that does not require me to take any additional steps in the narrative.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 25, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> In 4e, a dragon could theoretically breathe once every 72 millenia.



A statistical improbability. Meanwhile, there is a 1-in-27 chance the dragon will breathe every round for three consecutive rounds. This happened in a game I ran last week.

EDIT: I don't have the math (mostly because I'm not motivated enough to do it), but I think a 4E dragon will, on average, use its breath weapon more often than a 3E dragon per combat for this reason alone: the dragons last longer. Unlike 3E, it is not possible to "one-shot" a dragon by any contortions of the rules I know of.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 25, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Celt, you're wasting your breath, on ENworld it has become quite the fashion to disparage all criticism of 4e, yet OD&D seems to be fair game and 3e is quickly becoming the same.




That is so not true.  Threads were people talked badly about 3ed got this insane and insulting posts.  It is just those threads and the the threads that talk negatively about the older editions are a lot more rare.  It also does matter in the way that it is presented.

Started a thread telling people not to argue with you is a sure fire way to get them to argue with you.  A thread started has no control over who or in what way people will respond to his/her post and should not be trying to control that.


----------



## Barastrondo (Aug 25, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> In 4e, a dragon could theoretically breathe once every 72 millenia.




Well, technically a short rest also recharges any such encounter power, so said dragon would have to be in the same encounter for 72 millennia. Which really puts the idea of "locked in eternal combat" into an impressive state. 

Celtavian, do you run games or just play? I've often found that players can be really receptive to a game they wouldn't ordinarily try if they trust the guy running it to show them a good time regardless of system.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 25, 2008)

Crothian said:


> That is so not true.  Threads were people talked badly about 3ed got this insane and insulting posts.  It is just those threads and the the threads that talk negatively about the older editions are a lot more rare.  It also does matter in the way that it is presented.
> 
> Started a thread telling people not to argue with you is a sure fire way to get them to argue with you.  A thread started has no control over who or in what way people will respond to his/her post and should not be trying to control that.




The thing is, I don't think the OP ever meant to say "DO NOT ARGUE WITH ME, EVER, YOU FOOLS"

He was saying "You aren't going to convince me.  Don't bother arguing, it will accomplish nothing.  I've played the game.  I've looked at all sides.  I've made up my mind."


----------



## Khairn (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Like I said, I'm not looking for argument. I'm looking for some people who might feel as I do.




Hey Celtavian!  I understand where your comments are coming from, and even though I don't agree with all your examples, I do share your overall opinion in the latest edition.  

I really wish that the overall response to your opinion wasn't as vitriolic as it has been, but that's the type of site EN World is fast becoming, despite the efforts of some of the mods.


----------



## Hjorimir (Aug 25, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Celt, you're wasting your breath, on ENworld it has become quite the fashion to disparage all criticism of 4e, yet OD&D seems to be fair game and 3e is quickly becoming the same.




It's funny, becuase it feels like criticizing 4e is all the rage here on ENWorld...I wonder how much of these perceptions stem from our individual tastes.


----------



## zen_hydra (Aug 25, 2008)

The atmosphere of EN World has taken a turn for the worse since the release of 4E.  

It saddens me that threads like this one are far from isolated events.  

The community used to be much friendlier here, but it seems to me that EN World is almost as hostile as rpg.net nowadays.  

I am starting to not enjoy coming here anymore.  

My condolences to the OP.


----------



## knightofround (Aug 25, 2008)

You know, one thing I've noticed is that the people who hate 4E the most are typically people whose favorite archaetype is mage. II think you have a good point with blaming the "balanced" nature of 4E for turning alot of people off. By giving fighter/rogue types abilities they can use in combat, it has cut off much of the wizard/cleric "specialness".

The people who like fighter/rogue/cleric types tend to enjoy it though.  Oh, theres a few rogues who will grumble about the new skill system, but for the most part they're happy to have more "cool stuff to do" rather than "I try to flank the nearest enemy and poke it with my pointy thingy. Until everything is dead". Interestingly, it seems like people who really like clerics don't seem to get too upset with 4E because healing surges finally let a cleric do more stuff than, you know, cure X wounds all the time.

One gripe I do hear alot is the arbitrary distinction between encounter powers and daily powers. I think thats a genuine gripe, as its yet another abstract concept crammed into D&D. (Much like hitpoints, initiative, and the d20) But I think it is more exciting to be doing cool stuff every round rather than doing the fighter "fullround attack, yawn, fullround attack, yawn" or the "waa my wizard's out of spells so we have to stop for the day". 

I just think of encounter powers being like limited, but re-usably hero points.

Although yeah it is kinda bizzare that you can only shield bash 1/combat, thats why when I DM 4E I'll probably houserule it that you can use powers multiple times up to the limit. The "five minute stopwatch to refresh encounter powers" doesn't seem more metagame-y than initiative (cmon, real combat doesn't have turns) or that all spells conviently take only 6 seconds to cast.

My personal gripe with 4E is how magical items changed. The pricing is especially ridiculous. Why would anyone bother making a Frost +4 weapon for 85k gc when you could make two +4 weapons for the same price; or ten +3 weapons.

But no edition is perfect. :: shrug :: there's alot of stuff I never liked about 2E/3E either.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 25, 2008)

To the OP:

I know how you feel, although I stepped off the "current edition bandwagon"  quite a while ago (long before 4E's release).  

My take on it is that it isn't a big deal, even if it feels like a big deal to you, right now.  I think that will pass.  You can still play D&D and be part of the D&D community without playing the current edition.  And there are new products, gamer communities, and even magazines supporting the older editions.  Heck, I run TSR-era D&D, and there is a suprising amount of support and new product out there for that.  I expect 3E will have just as much, if not more.

Play what you like and enjoy it.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian, I appreciate your concerns about 4e on a theoretical level after having read the rules.

I strongly encourage you to play the game (a few times) before assuming that the game plays as you imagine it will play having read the rules.

While opinions of course vary, one comment that comes up with great frequency from first time players of 4e is that it plays better, and more fun, than they anticipated having purely read the rules.  And there are things that, when combined with each other, end up working better than the individual parts seemed to work when reading them.

Put aside for a moment D&D itself.  I am sure in your life that you have encountered things that you thought would work out one way based on your knowledge of the people and facts in question, but which actually turned out fairly different than you predicted.  D&D 4e, for a lot of people, tends to work out like that.

Give the game a try a few times before concluding it's not for you.  You may be pleasantly surprised.

If not, I wish you luck in finding a different gaming group that does better meet your tastes.  I have heard a lot of good things about Pathfinder, for example.


----------



## tankschmidt (Aug 25, 2008)

I hear you, buddy.  Back in 2000, I felt exactly like do now.  Keep playing your game, and you'll be surprised to find how many people are publishing new products for it.  The only downside to playing an OOP game is that it's harder to find players.  A lot of times, you just have to decide whether you'd rather keep playing with your favorite group or with your favorite rules.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 25, 2008)

MrGrenadine said:


> Wow.  Astonishing that, despite all the disclaimers, people still feel they have to let the OP know that they disagree.  Some of them in an insulting or dismissive way, even.
> 
> News flash, folks--he doesn't like a game that you like.  That doesn't mean he thinks you're a bad person, or that he thinks you should agree with him, or that he thinks you should stop doing what *you* like.  Its not really about you at all.  Sheesh.




He has posted his opinion publically on a discussion forum.  He doesn't get to forbid conversation of his public post, nor to only have people who agree with him post; that would be a personal blog, not a discussion forum.

Some people have been a little overzealous in their disagreement, true, and that's not a good thing.  But posting publically on a discussion board and not expecting contrary opinion?  Not gonna happen, and nor should it.

I'm sure if the OP REALLY felt he wanted to prevent discussion of his post, he'd have put it in a blog somewhere where he can moderate the replies to suit him. 

Were you just expecting silence, and the occasional "me too"?  Now _that_ would be a waste of my bandwith!


----------



## National Acrobat (Aug 25, 2008)

Halivar said:


> "Not as freely used" I will dispute with you.
> 
> 3rd Editon: Every 1d4 rounds (effectively, there is a 1/3 chance each round you can use dragon breath).
> 4th Edition: A 5-6 roll recharges (effectively, there is a 1/3 chance each round you can use dragon breath).




C'mon, I can't be the only person running DnD that threw this rule out of the window and had dragons be the big time bad guys that they are supposed to be, and let them breath whenever they felt like it? I've never understood limiting this. I've never played with a gm who did either.

I also agree with many of the posters here. Play the old versions. My group tried 4E and couldn't stand it, so we merely started a new 1E campaign last week using the Harn Setting, and are having a blast.


----------



## EATherrian (Aug 25, 2008)

knightofround said:


> You know, one thing I've noticed is that the people who hate 4E the most are typically people whose favorite archaetype is mage. II think you have a good point with blaming the "balanced" nature of 4E for turning alot of people off. By giving fighter/rogue types abilities they can use in combat, it has cut off much of the wizard/cleric "specialness".




Personally when I did play I would choose the fighter because I didn't want to think much.  I mostly DM, and when I played I wanted simplicity.  One of my problems with 4E is that now all of the classes are the mage.  They all have powers and power management, and that turns me off.  I haven't played enough to get a total picture of the game, but that is one thing that really irritates me.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 25, 2008)

I've posted my thoughts on this issue here. I will refer to that post at future occasions, which I predict will happen with some regularity.


----------



## Semah G Noj (Aug 25, 2008)

dykstrav said:


> there was a moratorium against edition war threads for a while. Every time i see a thread like this, it seems like it'd be a good idea to try to get a moratorium on dramatic, preachy "i'm a lifelong player and 4e killed d&d for me and all _real _d&d players, so i'm leaving forever" threads.
> 
> I mean, for crying out loud... If you don't like the game, don't play it. 4e isn't the only game in town, and companies are moving to meet the demands of players who prefer older editions.





qft


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Aug 25, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I CAN honestly say how amazed, shocked, and surprised I am at how utterly disgusting this thread has become.



I too am amazed. I am not shocked however, nor am I suprised.

Having recently been on the recieving end of a violent flamage for saying something percieved as negative about 4e's play, I am not suprised at all. (Ironic because I still DM the game, I'm just not crazy about certain aspects.)

What did suprise me is the names of specific people who have flamed in this thread. Some of those suprised me very much. It's a sad thing to lose a bit of respect for certain people. 

OP, I agree with nearly every point you made, though appearantly I don't feel as strongly as you do. I have yet to make a final decision about 4e. Which is telling in it's own way, I suppose...

Good luck with whatever system you decide to play in the future.						
Wolf


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 25, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> In AD&D a dragon can breathe every round for 3 rounds straight.
> In 3e, a dragon  can breathe at minimum every 5 rounds.
> In 4e, a dragon could theoretically breathe once every 72 millenia.




In theory, my body could spontaneously jump to the right by one yard via quantum mechanical teleportation, but that's not exactly very likely, either.

Meanwhile, I have no trouble with believing that a dragon has a nasty cold if he has problems using his breath weapon during a fight. It all depends on how you look at things.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 25, 2008)

zen_hydra said:


> The atmosphere of EN World has taken a turn for the worse since the release of 4E.
> 
> It saddens me that threads like this one are far from isolated events.




Give it time. It will die down - it always does.

Anyone remember the 3.5 edition wars?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 25, 2008)

> Personally when I did play I would choose the fighter because I didn't want to think much. I mostly DM, and when I played I wanted simplicity. One of my problems with 4E is that now all of the classes are the mage. They all have powers and power management, and that turns me off. I haven't played enough to get a total picture of the game, but that is one thing that really irritates me.



I can totally get _that_. I liked playing 3E Fighters for the same reason, and 3E Wizards for the opposite reason. (At higher levels though, Fighters did became a little more complex, once you'd account for buffs and debuffs... But that's nothin compared to managing a high level spell list)
But I somehow feel as if the complexity of 4E is in my "comfort zone" of complexity that I might be willing to enjoy a lot more than the more extreme spectrums of 3E. But of course, I have played 3E for 8 years, and 4E only a few months. 

The OPs post, not so much.. not anymore. it is too much rehashing points(probably unintentionally) that I've heard way too often by now, and stuff I know how to deal with, even keeping my disbelief suspenders on. 

And Minions are one of the best inventions additions to the game. Every encounter gets better with Minions. (But then, I've seen Minions dropped like flies, and seen a horde of Minions taking down a Paladin, Minions that survived several attacks from the Wizard, and Minions that were dropped just because a Warlock looked funny at them...) I really love them.
Wading through hordes never worked better. 

Dragons still kill entire hordes en masse. Just remember that "en masse" means Minions with some few lucky regular or elite guys that survive just as well as the occasionally missed Minion standing after the first wave. How often do we really see hordes dying with no survivor?

When I am thinking of a combat encounter, I like to think of it like a battle depicted in a movie. Encounter powers, Daily powers, all these stuff make perfect in a game. Of course the signature killing blow of the hero is only used only rarely (maybe more then once per 5 minutes, but I can narrate or visualize my actual game mechanical kills however I like, and when I want to use the signature killing blow image, I'll do that!)
Of course the Wizard doesn't cast his most powerful spells all day! 

But be aware: I am a liker. After leaving Dark Knight, I found the movie just great. I couldn't name a single thing that bothered me. The friend I was watching it with pointed out the flaws first, and then went on to the praise. (Though I think he didn't have the reaction after "Das Parfum" (The Perfume?", the movie from Tom Twyker based on a book from Patrick Süßkind, so maybe there is stuff that can even blow his mind away  )


----------



## Wonka (Aug 25, 2008)

Am I the only one here who does not feel that these alleged "angry and disgusting" posts are that? Maybe I'm hardened, and used to other forums where if people were being disagreeable, they got down right nasty, but reading over these responses I dont see anything worth getting upset about. As I said, maybe I'm just so used to less moderated forums, and that's a testament to the job the mods do here, but its my personal opinion that a lot of you are overreacting. Take that for what its worth ( which is pretty much nothing  ). Also, expecting there to be nothing but support, with no objecting post is just down right silly. Last time I checked this was the internet


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 25, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I find it more astonishing that someone would come onto a discussion forum and post yet another "I feel the need to tell you all that I'm parting ways with D&D because of 4e" thread with the disclaimer that he only wants yes-men responding to it.




That's not what he posted. He posted "Hi, I've decided I'd like to vent my frustrations" and said that he's not looking for someone to convince him to like the new edition. In no way did he say he only wanted people to just agree with him, just that his mind was already made up and it would be futile to debate. 



> The internet is a horrible place to post your opinion when you want no dissenting responses, and a discussion forum is the absolute worst place to do that.




Actually, I think it's the perfect place. No one on a forum reads what is actually written, and no opinion stated will ever sway someone else. So, if you don't want to discuss something, ENWorld is the perfect place for it. 



> I also find it astonishing that people think that saying "I've been playing D&D for X years" means something significant. The amount of time you've spent in a hobby does nothing to make your opinions any more or less valid than anyone else. It strikes me as pretentious, just like those music fans that claim they're so much cooler because they only listen to a band's poorly produced garage demos, y'know from before they sold out.




It should strike you as "the hobby has changed in a direction I don't like". Anything else and you're just reading into what the person has said. He's just giving background.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 25, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> Give the game a try a few times before concluding it's not for you.  You may be pleasantly surprised.



If I am not mistaking him with an other Celtavian (or someone with a very similar name) on this board, he did play the game. And I also remember his tone changing a lot for a while (and to be honest, he seemed to become a little aggressive in 'promoting' 4E for a while then), and now he is suddenly back. 
*shrugs*
I am not sure what changed again, but well, maybe is nice to know that some people can actually _change_ their opinions on the message boards.


----------



## Psion (Aug 25, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I don't intend to play it. I didn't create this as an edition wars thread which is why I prefaced my comment with this is a subjective opinion. I wanted to commiserate with a few other folks who might feel as I do.
> 
> After you played a game as long as I have, it feels kind of strange to have that game become something you don't want to play. I'm sure some people felt that way when 3E came out as well.
> 
> I generally looked forward to new books. Now I have no books to look forward too. And feel alienated from the game I enjoyed for so many years. This is one of the places I know of with D&D players in large numbers. So I came here to commiserate.




I know how you feel. Your complaints aren't the same as mine (though you do make some good points), but I do know what it's like to look at the game and say "I know what it is I like about the D&D experience, and it ain't in there."

Keep the faith. Offer to run games. Keep rolling new ideas through your head. 
Due to the brilliance of the OGL, 3e is a game that can live on in a way that no other edition has. But it needs players to keep it alive.

And if, perchance, we cross paths, give me a call and we'll hook up and play a game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 25, 2008)

Wonka said:


> Am I the only one here who does not feel that these alleged "angry and disgusting" posts are that? Maybe I'm hardened, and used to other forums where if people were being disagreeable, they got down right nasty, but reading over these responses I dont see anything worth getting upset about. As I said, maybe I'm just so used to less moderated forums, and that's a testament to the job the mods do here, but its my personal opinion that a lot of you are overreacting. Take that for what its worth ( which is pretty much nothing  ). Also, expecting there to be nothing but support, with no objecting post is just down right silly. Last time I checked this was the internet



Maybe EN Worlders just have gone soft and are not accustomed to having their opinion being criticized and dissected, or in these days, people prefer to see what they want to see. 

Or


			
				Vonectum said:
			
		

> Actually, I think it's the perfect place. No one on a forum reads what is actually written, and no opinion stated will ever sway someone else. So, if you don't want to discuss something, ENWorld is the perfect place for it.



Vonectum might have a point here.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 25, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> I've posted my thoughts on this issue here. I will refer to that post at future occasions, which I predict will happen with some regularity.




I found your post to be very good and worth reading.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If I am not mistaking him with an other Celtavian (or someone with a very similar name) on this board, he did play the game. And I also remember his tone changing a lot for a while (and to be honest, he seemed to become a little aggressive in 'promoting' 4E for a while then), and now he is suddenly back.
> *shrugs*
> I am not sure what changed again, but well, maybe is nice to know that some people can actually _change_ their opinions on the message boards.




I am SO GLAD I'm not the only one that thinks it was Celtavian that did that!

Yeah, he wasn't too into 4e for awhile, until he played and said he really enjoyed it (though even then he said there were things that were really niggling at him).  I guess those things eventually got too irksome.


----------



## Imp (Aug 25, 2008)

FWIW, I like the 4e monster system in general, but I do miss a bit of simulationism, because it helps give a yardstick to the PCs achievements, and also because sometimes I like an NPC or a monster to fight on the party's side.

It is nice that you can make a dragon's breath wipe out an army just because, but it cheapens the party's victory over the dragon if the dragon can't unleash his full, demonstrated power "just because" (as opposed to the PCs strategizing).

Fiat can be nice but it helps if it's not transparent.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Aug 25, 2008)

The OP obviously wanted some catharsis by making the post, so that is done.

Ultimately, the way to vote is with your time and your wallet.

I've just been listening to the latest _2d6 Feet_ podcast where they make note of a (obviously commentable) number of people heading back and trying out 1E again. Has anyone else noticed such a trend? Goodman Games brought out 1E adventures at Gen Con this year???

Curious as to the jump from 4E to 1E f this is the case.


----------



## Negflar2099 (Aug 25, 2008)

Byronic said:


> ITo give an easy example, rituals. Some people LIKED being able to summon up Tensor's Disk or some other little helpful thing with the flick of a wrist. Standing in the middle of town, summoning a horse with a single magical word and hopping on it is FUN, and it gave players a nice sense of fun and most importantly MAGIC. Spending 10 min drawing a magical circle and chanting to summon up a horse is NOT as much fun, and really it gets annoying to have townspeople coming up to you and asking wth you're doing (and thats WITHOUT the pitchforks). Coughing up 70 gold worth of material also takes a bit of fun out of it, makes it more of a transaction then an act of magic.




See to me casting a ritual using incense, circles drawn in chalk and mystic runes in order to summon a demon (or yes even magically summon a mystic disk) is very fun for me. It screams magic and behaves just like magic I've seen in movies and tv for years. The flick of the wrist magic stuff is one type of magic (and 4e still has that) but there is a whole other kind. You may not find the second magic fun but don't discount it for the rest of us.


----------



## Mark (Aug 25, 2008)

Seems like one of the flash points in these threads is when one side describes the other side as "Haters" rather than just allowing them to have opinions.  Maybe EN World can ban the word "hate" or have it replaced by "dislike" or a bunch of smileys.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 25, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> In theory, my body could spontaneously jump to the right by one yard via quantum mechanical teleportation, but that's not exactly very likely, either.



...unless you take Ritual Casting and learn Linked Portal, of course.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 25, 2008)

I hear you Celtavian. 4e has all the substance and staying power of a 90s boy band. If you can't find people in your area willing to play 3e then you should consider gaming online/by e-mail. I've done it and I enjoyed it.


----------



## SkidAce (Aug 25, 2008)

Yeah, I have been trying to enjoy 4th, but it does seem to be taking longer than adjusting to 3rd did.

Don't agree with all your points OP, but I do feel the need to step in and say I have the same overall feeling of discontent.

However, I may end up remarrying my old wife so who knows...


----------



## SkidAce (Aug 25, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Give it time. It will die down - it always does.
> 
> Anyone remember the 3.5 edition wars?




Gee thanks for reminding me!


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Aug 25, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I find it more astonishing that someone would come onto a discussion forum and post yet another "I feel the need to tell you all that I'm parting ways with D&D because of 4e" thread with the disclaimer that he only wants yes-men responding to it. The internet is a horrible place to post your opinion when you want no dissenting responses, and a discussion forum is the absolute worst place to do that.
> 
> I also find it astonishing that people think that saying "I've been playing D&D for X years" means something significant. The amount of time you've spent in a hobby does nothing to make your opinions any more or less valid than anyone else. It strikes me as pretentious, just like those music fans that claim they're so much cooler because they only listen to a band's poorly produced garage demos, y'know from before they sold out.




This isn't difficult. He posted his opinion and said he was not interested in arguing about it. He did not write that dissenters were not welcome to post in the thread.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 25, 2008)

Mark said:


> Maybe EN World can ban the word "hate" or have it replaced by "dislike" or a bunch of smileys.




I think that opinion is Fair and though it differes from  my own it deserves a hug. and the one who posted it is just swell.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 25, 2008)

PaulofCthulhu said:


> I've just been listening to the latest _2d6 Feet_ podcast where they make note of a (obviously commentable) number of people heading back and trying out 1E again. Has anyone else noticed such a trend?



Yeah, I've noticed more new people showing up in the old school forums (e.g. Dragonsfoot, et cetera).  I think there's been a small resurgence of interest in the TSR editions.  Traffic on my site has definitely increased, and there are a lot more blogs and old-school forums than there used to be (e.g. Grognardia).  There is also more publishing activity.  Labyrinth Lord is going into retail distribution.  There's an old school magazine (Fight On!) available, and another one (_Knockspell_) on its way.  The Original D&D Discussion Forums have taken off pretty solidly.  There are 1e modules available from companies like Pied Piper Publishing, Expeditious Retreat Press, and Goodman Games.  In addition to 1e (OSRIC) and B/X (Labyrinth Lord), there'll soon be a 0e/white box clone, too: _Swords & Wizardy: White Box_ is in the works.  There's a pretty cool _Chainmail_ + 0e variant ruleset out called Spellcraft & Swordplay (it uses _Chainmail_ style combat with 6-siders).  I've seen more discussion of 1e and TSR-era D&D on sites like rpg.net, too.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 25, 2008)

I found this prior post from the OP that I found interesting in retrospect:



Celtavian said:


> Well ladies and gents,
> 
> I'm out of this thread. Thank you for the nice discussion. I'm giving 4th edition a try with some friends that like it. It isn't my idea version of DnD (or should I say a fantasy role-playing game), but if it can be fun to do with my buddies, it will serve its purpose. It at least got them all to read the books, whereas they were too put off by the numerous of books of 3.5 to read them. Made my time gaming with them a bit of a bore as I had to answer all their rule questions. Now I can sit back and play.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 25, 2008)

Negflar2099 said:


> See to me casting a ritual using incense, circles drawn in chalk and mystic runes in order to summon a demon (or yes even magically summon a mystic disk) is very fun for me. It screams magic and behaves just like magic I've seen in movies and tv for years. The flick of the wrist magic stuff is one type of magic (and 4e still has that) but there is a whole other kind. You may not find the second magic fun but don't discount it for the rest of us.




I like rituals, but some of the costs and times are a bit off kilter, Tensers Disc seems a bit pricey, and taking ten minutes to craft it from the ether seems a bit much. Gates, Ressurection, Demon Summoning, all those I can see costs/ times being higher.


----------



## Aristotle (Aug 25, 2008)

I get it. I mean, I love 4e and I can't be one of the folks who commiserates with you regarding that whole deal, but I get that something you liked changed and your unhappy with the result. As someone who has advised those who condemn before they try to give it a shot; I would like to thank you for at least giving it a fair shake.

It's a shame that you are so morally against it that you can't find a way to have fun with it for the sake of keeping your group intact. But it would be an equal shame in my eyes if they all spent their precious game time playing something other than 4e just to make you happy. There is no winning in that situations.

I do hope that you find the experience you are looking for. It sounds like some publishers intend to keep publishing 3.5e compatible (or based) products. Some very talented freelancers have voiced they intend to continue developing for the previous edition. I would have to think that, if your intent is to not make the switch, you'll have product and a community of gamers at your disposal.

It makes me sad that we won't all be gaming together, or that my game won't benefit from the talent that has decided not to come to the new edition... but so long as everyone is playing games they enjoy, I guess we all get what we want so long as we acknowledge that sacrifices were made on all sides.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Aug 26, 2008)

Morrus said:


> DO you have all the 3.5 books? There were an awful lot of them. Plus there's hundreds more from third party publishers. I reckon there's enough out there to keep you buying for years to come!



 ...
>.>
<.<
I do


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 26, 2008)

*Don't abandon the old girl*

D&D is truly a painted harlot that reeks of cheap perfume and the stench of one too many lovers. She has plied her trade for many years and shows the signs of a life ill spent. Now, crisscrossed with the lines of age, bone sore from the ministrations of one too many suitors she dresses herself as though a new woman even though she is an old whore. Standing on the corner, she attempts to compete with the flashy young strumpets even going so far as to turn aside those who once sought her services. She cannot compete with the buxom young things in their sheer dress and gaudy jewely and in doing so fails to play to her strength becoming instead a parody of herself.



Seriously though, to the OP, if you love D&D 3.5e go to paizo.com and download the new Pathfinder RPG Beta. Pathfinder is going to be the successor of 3.5e for those of us who still love the old girl.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## BronzeDragon (Aug 26, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I think his point was that he doesn't need rules to determine what happens when NPCs are fighting NPCs.  I'd assume his characters care about what goes on outside of their party just like yours do.  But, for instance, if I need a dragon to mow down an army of Orcs and the PCs aren't taking any part in it...  Well, I can just say it happens.
> 
> -O




And my point was that consistency is what makes a good game world good.

If my players witness a dragon breathing on an army of orcs or humans it will have the exact same breath attack as the one that was used on the players.

Immersion feeds a lot from these small, and apparently insignificant, consistencies that a DM has to present his players with. If the game world is as loose as "anything goes" then this makes it more difficult for me to enjoy it and my players lose some sense of what is "real" or not, which in turn makes it more difficult for them to properly focus on representing their characters.

It's the same reason why Einstein was miffed by Quantum Mechanics. It messed up his sense of what the Cosmos was like, and interfered indirectly with his science.

Just to clarify another point, I usually make very arbitrary decisions regarding my game worlds, specifically dealing with magic (when I played D&D). But they tend to be consistent and as such tend to improve immersion.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 26, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Pathfinder is going to be the successor of 3.5e for those of us who still love the old girl.




Pathfinder is like her twin sister who moves in and might seem to act nicer in quantifiable ways, she doesn't remember how you liek your eggs and its freaking creepy she's replacing her twin sister and wearing all her clothes and assuming her identity.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 26, 2008)

BronzeDragon said:


> Immersion feeds a lot from these small, and apparently insignificant, consistencies that a DM has to present his players with.




I find immersion in this manner to be a hopeless cause.  The rules will always find some proud nail that will poke at the "world physics"  This will break any detail based immersion.  I prefer to simply accept the handwaving at the high level, make one SoD and get on with the show.


----------



## BronzeDragon (Aug 26, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> I find immersion in this manner to be a hopeless cause.  The rules will always find some proud nail that will poke at the "world physics"  This will break any detail based immersion.  I prefer to simply accept the handwaving at the high level, make one SoD and get on with the show.




In a way I do agree with you. Maybe that's one of the reasons why I moved to a very low-magic system (Conan).

I always found magic to be one thing that was hard to mesh with a consistent world. Especially stuff like raising the dead or divinations and teleporting.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> *shrug* It roughly equates to the same if I don't get a bad series of rolls. So be it.
> 
> Like I said, I'm not looking for argument. I'm looking for some people who might feel as I do.




/whoops, never post before seeing the red text.  

I really do have to wonder though, what is the point of posting a lengthy list of complaints if you have already made up your mind?


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 26, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Pathfinder is like her twin sister who moves in and might seem to act nicer in quantifiable ways, she doesn't remember how you liek your eggs and its freaking creepy she's replacing her twin sister and wearing all her clothes and assuming her identity.




Maybe, but if she knows all her sister's moves and even tosses in some new tricks to sauce things up a bit I don't need her to know how I like my eggs....that's what houserules are for.  


Wyrmshadows


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 26, 2008)

D&D may be a harlot, but she still knows how to attract young men 

A friend of mine has a teenaged son almost ready for college. While D&D/d20/3E was not his parent's cup of tea, he and his friends preferred it. They played the heck out of 3E. They are right now on the cusp of going away to college - they are *the* target demographic for D&D; if you will, they're the 'important ones', the always-connected generation that WoTC has probably set it's hopes on.

They were skeptical of 4E. Then they tried it. I got this from her the other day:

_Anyway... they were all skeptical "What no Druid?", "Wait a minute, I'm a first level wizard with 23 hit points and I have two spells to cast as many times as I want in a day? That's weird."

Time passed. Eyebrows raised... "Oh really! These Warlocks ROCK!"

When they left two of them had a standing order for a 2-day mailing core set from Amazon, a third is probably going to get one as well, but he has to check finances.

They are changing over everything they are playing to 4E._


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> /whoops, never post before seeing the red text.
> 
> I really do have to wonder though, what is the point of posting a lengthy list of complaints if you have already made up your mind?




Mostly to get it out of my system. That's why I stated it didn't seem worthwhile to argue it. It was a very personal view of the system that I know wasn't going to be acknowledged as valid by those who like 4E, and I knew wasn't going to change for me were it argued. Those complaints are things I personally don't like because the mechanics take me out of the game.

Same as the complication of 3E mechanics took alot of people out of the game or turned them off to 3E. You can't make someone like something they just don't like.

I felt like it would be unfair to say "I hate 4E" and give no reason. I wanted to make sure those who questioned why I didn't like 4E had very specific reasons why I did not like the game. Last time I posted my dislike of 4E, I had not played the game and did not feel qualified to question it.

Now I have played 4E. I do not like it and I know exactly why I do not like it and can support my reasons better than when I was just a player reading about 4E. Some of my earlier criticisms were correct and some were not, but other critcisms I did not even know would bother me raised their head like minions and encounter powers. So I wanted to ensure that those who had told me to give 4E a try and thought it was great know that this time when I say "I do not like it, the reasons are manifold and come from experience both as a DM and player. 

I played two times a week including one very long weekend session since 4E hit the shelves. I ran one campaign to see if I liked DMing and played in the other. Both times I burned out on the game and grew weary of it for many of the reasons I stated and a few more beyond. 

I would have found a post stating "I hate 4E" without cause easier to attack as I have often seen done. But a post that is clear and concise as to the reasons and coming from a position of experience with the system easier to accept as it is an opinion of the mechanics rather than an attempt to paint 4E as bad for everyone. I understand different strokes for different folks. So I would have preferred just commiserate with those that find the game as dissatisfying as I do versus arguing with those that like 4E who won't see my complaints about it as valid.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 26, 2008)

Hjorimir said:


> It's funny, becuase it feels like criticizing 4e is all the rage here on ENWorld...I wonder how much of these perceptions stem from our individual tastes.




It pretty much is all indvidual tastes. That's why I don't think it is an arguable subject. It's just something that is. Some people will not like 4E and some will love it. 

I didn't post this viewpoint to join the "I hate 4E fanclub". I did that argument a while back and decided to give the game a try after being convinced to do so by a few posters on here like Mustrum Ridicully. I thought the argument that I should give 4E a shot before I decided it wasn't any good a worthwhile argument. So I gave it a shot. 

I thought I liked it at first. But the more I played it, the less I liked it. Since that didn't happen with 3E, I can only surmise that my personal tastes as far as games go don't jibe with 4E. 4E isn't an unplayable system or anything of the kind, it just isn't a system I want to play. So I agree with your assessment, it is all about individual tastes.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 26, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> Celtavian, I appreciate your concerns about 4e on a theoretical level after having read the rules.
> 
> I strongly encourage you to play the game (a few times) before assuming that the game plays as you imagine it will play having read the rules.
> 
> ...





The above opinion comes after both playing the game and running it. I already had the discussion about the theory of the game versus actual experience playing it. I chose to try 4E and have been playing it two, sometimes three times a week for fairly lengthy sessions. The above is what I experience and what I didn't like about the experience.

The breath weapon of small dragons is fairly insignificant. I don't see the breath weapons of larger dragons being anymore significant given the great amount of hit points creatures have. That is where that criticism comes from. 

But I did play the game. I gave it a try. I wanted to give it a fair shot to sweep me up like I did with 3E when it was coming out. I didn't get swept up. Instead I was turned off by it. I'm kind of disappointed as I was hoping to like 4E as I've played every new edition of D&D since it has come out.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 26, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> I've posted my thoughts on this issue here. I will refer to that post at future occasions, which I predict will happen with some regularity.




I don't disagree with your assertion about powers. I very much think they were written with the idea you stated in mind.

But I hope you don't mind me disagreeing that the drama rather loses it impact when people are blowing off their encounter powers not because it would be a dramatic point in the story, but rather because they can. That is what I experienced. Every single encounter, encounter powers are used whether or not they are needed. 

You can say that is not as it should be. But as I said, I found with 4E as it should be is the farthest thing from a 4E players mind as they would rather use every power they can every time they can use it.

And though you seem to have accepted the theory of 4E (which I agree with), versus the actual use of encounter powers, which seems to be the farthest thing from dramatic I've ever seen in a game. 

Encounter powers are used every encounter. As I said I have players blowing every encounter power whether it would be dramatic or not. Why? Because 4E encourages them to do so. It encourages the use of encounter powers every encounter. Not just when it would be dramatically interesting to do so, but every single encounter. 

Encounter powers are like watching the same action sequence every five minutes. I don't quiet understand how that is good for dramatic tension. I tried to picture it in my head, but after the 10th or so time the fighter had used Serpent Strike or my rogue had used Torturous Strike, the dramatic tension left me. 

Now I used to get that sense of drama you are talking about when a wizard had to go from occasionally blasting off a single spell to unloading whole arsenal and a few magic items to turn the tide of a battle. When a priest had to cast a _heal_ spell to keep the fighter from getting crushed because they knew if he went down the whole party was going to fall like dominoes. Or when the fighter's damage shot up because he just landed an insane crit or cleaved down five enemies on one powerful swing of his sword. Now the the rogue had trouble with dramatic tension and needed some work. So I'll not try to comment the rogue.

But the other classes had moments of drama that were truly special. Not encounter powers that get used every encounter regardless of whether or not they are necessary, which for me kills the drama of the powers. Which is why my beef is specifically with encounter powers and not dailies or at wills. Dailies do provide a drama boost from my experience as they are used when things go bad and at wills are just a replacement for swinging the sword. But encounter powers, those are drama killers that get used every five minutes. I can't stomach encounter powers.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Aug 26, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I also find it astonishing that people think that saying "I've been playing D&D for X years" means something significant. The amount of time you've spent in a hobby does nothing to make your opinions any more or less valid than anyone else. It strikes me as pretentious, just like those music fans that claim they're so much cooler because they only listen to a band's poorly produced garage demos, y'know from before they sold out.




Actually, it does mean something to many of us. I never want to hear my surgeon say, "This'll be my second one!" I don't want my accountant saying, "Wow, I was a dentist for 20 years all this new math is exciting!" We live in a meritorious society but a great deal of merit comes from time served. Experience does mean something, even when you have none.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 26, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I also find it astonishing that people think that saying "I've been playing D&D for X years" means something significant. The amount of time you've spent in a hobby does nothing to make your opinions any more or less valid than anyone else. It strikes me as pretentious, just like those music fans that claim they're so much cooler because they only listen to a band's poorly produced garage demos, y'know from before they sold out.




Sorry but I am far, far more likely to take adventure building, rule arbitration, and NPC personality development advice from a DM of 20+yrs than someone who just cracked open the DMs guide. I am far more inclined to take character development advice from someone who has been playing for years as opposed to a relatively new player.

Here is why...

Writers who have been writing a long time are better writers.
Painters who have been painting a long time are better painters.
Atheletes who have been athletic for a long time are better atheletes.

...and so on and so on.

Sure there are the odd prodigies who break the mold but a true prodigy is extremely rare. I don't know about you, but most of us mortals actually have improved as DMs/gamemasters/players/etc. through experience. I doubt I would want to play with either a DM or player who claimed to have been involved in gaming for over 10yrs and hasn't improved at all. 


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Harr (Aug 26, 2008)

Gotta give kudos to Celtavian for the calm, rational and even-handed way with which he has answered the snarkers and flamers and those who were trying to drag him or bait him into lashing out. I may or may not agree with all or part of what you wrote, but you sir are a class act, which is more than I can say for some other people in this thread ("Wow what free time you must have", indeed).


----------



## jokamachi (Aug 26, 2008)

Much of the OP's thoughts ring true. As a 29 year veteran of the game, I too have come to the end of a long and glorious road. Let the young ones with their encounter powers grab for that brass ring. I need a break. A very long, 4e-free sabbatical.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 26, 2008)

knightofround said:


> You know, one thing I've noticed is that the people who hate 4E the most are typically people whose favorite archaetype is mage. II think you have a good point with blaming the "balanced" nature of 4E for turning alot of people off. By giving fighter/rogue types abilities they can use in combat, it has cut off much of the wizard/cleric "specialness".
> 
> The people who like fighter/rogue/cleric types tend to enjoy it though.  Oh, theres a few rogues who will grumble about the new skill system, but for the most part they're happy to have more "cool stuff to do" rather than "I try to flank the nearest enemy and poke it with my pointy thingy. Until everything is dead". Interestingly, it seems like people who really like clerics don't seem to get too upset with 4E because healing surges finally let a cleric do more stuff than, you know, cure X wounds all the time.




Oh, believe me, speaking on behalf of those who identify Rogue as their archetype and hate 4E, the skill system changes are more than a minor annoyance.

And while I'm no cleric-lover, I'd venture to guess any one of them who thought that in 3E they had to blow all their spell slots on curing never had parties that pitched in to buy wands, and those that complained about wasting combat actions to heal never had access to any splatbooks or other party members with UMD to shore up healing responsibilities.


----------



## serow (Aug 26, 2008)

OK too bad byebye.
My group prefers 4E over previous editions, we find it fun and easier to roleplay in.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 26, 2008)

SkidAce said:


> Gee thanks for reminding me!




I also remember the sheer amount of Usenet rage surrounding the change from AD&D2E to D&D 3E. I've had an awful amount of Deja Vu this year...


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 26, 2008)

Celt, I'm going to agree and disagree with you on some points.

First off, if you post an opinionated view on a subject, you are going to get argument. If you want to just vent, you can write that on a piece of paper and put it on a shelf. Further, when you reply to those same people arguing with you, voicing further points you in fact continue the argument. I personally don't have a problem with people submitting a thread stating why they dislike 4e. Afterall, the boards are here to get viewpoints. But if your going to give your reasons you have to stand with them, and take all the heat that brings.

Alright, now that I've jumped off my soapbox, let's get down to your points.

I think you have some valid points with the wizard. Personally my biggest beef right there is that some rituals take too long and cost way too much. If a wizard wants to cast a floating disk, then have it take a 20 seconds, not 10 minutes. That's still plenty of time to ensure it doesn't have some quick broken combat use, but the wizard still looks cool as opposed to busting out the big book and singing kumbiya for 10 minutes. I think if rituals become a little more useful and more plentiful, that will give the wizard more "wizardly" flavor.

While yes other classes can do rituals, they don't have the innate arcane training, nor the high int, nor the free rituals. They will never be what the wizard is.

To your point on game balance hindering on immersion, I can also agree a little here. Balance to me is actually a very very important concept, I kneel down to the altar of game balance. However, I recognize there are many ways to do that, and some have more game immersion than others. For example, my own personal hatred on this subject is focused on the rogue's weapon restrictions. It really bugs me that rogue's have to use light blades and handcrossbows to use any of their powers. If a rogue spends a feat to get a better weapon, he should be able to use it. And the fact you can't sneak attack with a bow but you can with a crossbow? Come on!!

However, I think you contradict yourself when you talk about encounter powers...and then monster recharges. You said yourself that you think its stupid that a fighter uses a power than has to rest 5 minutes to get it back.

Yet that's exactly what the recharge rules push against!! It allows a monster to use a big move, and then after a few seconds of recovery can use it again. If you used that with a fighter, it would be the equivalent of the fighter pulling out his big attack, and then needed a few seconds of breathing room to use it again...which makes perfect flavor sense to me.

Overall I'm still positive about 4e, but I definitely think it has its flaws (see my threads about skill challenges if you don't believe me).

To me right now 4e is about a new framework, and what the potential for that holds. 3e has had a good run, but has shown some wear over the years. It has problems you can't solve with a quick fix. 4e has problems, the question becomes whether those problems can be solved with subtle additions as the game goes on, or if larger cracks will be found in the end.

Time will tell.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 26, 2008)

BronzeDragon said:


> And my point was that consistency is what makes a good game world good.




Not necessarily - it all depends on how you see the player characters. If you embrace the notion that they are _special_ and that the game rules apply differently to them than to NPCs, then D&D4E works just fine. After all, they are the only characters for which complex game rules are truly _needed_, since most people at the game table have only to bother with controlling a single PC and thus can deal with a greater complexity.

NPCs, on the other hand, need to be created and used in large numbers by the DM, and thus use simplified rules. Which is also arguably appropriate, since the DM just doesn't have the same amount of time to spend creating individual NPCs as the players can spend on their PCs.

Incidentally, this was my single biggest problem with D&D 3.X - the huge amount of time it took to create NPCs, especially high-level ones - and this is almost sufficient reason to switch to 4E alone, even if a lot of other problems hadn't been addressed. Building a 20th level NPC spellcaster now takes little more time than a 1st level spellcaster - and in which previous edition of D&D could one honestly claim _that_?



> If my players witness a dragon breathing on an army of orcs or humans it will have the exact same breath attack as the one that was used on the players.
> 
> Immersion feeds a lot from these small, and apparently insignificant, consistencies that a DM has to present his players with. If the game world is as loose as "anything goes" then this makes it more difficult for me to enjoy it and my players lose some sense of what is "real" or not, which in turn makes it more difficult for them to properly focus on representing their characters.




If you worry about that, I recommend playing GURPS, as I've argued in my previous blog post. GURPS is _perfect_ for this style of play.

D&D 4E requires some more suspension of disbelief, sure - but in my opinion and experience, not more than the typical action movie.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 26, 2008)

A few stray thoughts on reading through this thread:

1. Minions.  Agree with the OP they're a good idea badly done.  They work much better if you spend the effort to roll the damage they do and give them a few hit points so they can survive a 1-point hit.

2. A dragon meets an legion of Hobgoblins and mows them down with a single blast of fire breath.  Fine.  The same dragon meets another identical legion the next day but because there happens to be a PC travelling with the legion the dragon's breath weapon suddenly becomes nigh-useless?  Not fine.  Not fine at all.

3. Having varying degrees of complexity within the classes has, to me, always been useful; give an unsure new player a simple class (Fighter, or in   1e Cavalier, Ranger, or similar) to start with and see how it goes.  From what I can tell, 4e's made 'em all kinda complex.

4.  Also from what I can tell, 4e is a playable game and probably has as much potential to be lots of fun as any prior edition.  I say this from the perspective of having read the rules but not played, and from hearing from those who have played.  I'm not surprised to hear rave reviews coming out of GenCon attendees, as 4e by design would probably play better in a tournament or one-off setting than any other edition to date.  However, what we don't know yet (and obviously can't know for a few years at least) is how well it stands in for the long haul.

5. Goodman had 1e adventures at GenCon?  On paper, not pdf?  Where do I get 'em?!

Lanefan


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 26, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I don't disagree with your assertion about powers. I very much think they were written with the idea you stated in mind.
> 
> But I hope you don't mind me disagreeing that the drama rather loses it impact when people are blowing off their encounter powers not because it would be a dramatic point in the story, but rather because they can. That is what I experienced. Every single encounter, encounter powers are used whether or not they are needed.




To me, encounter powers represent "moves more impressive than an ordinary sword swing or magic missile". The powers that are _really_ impressive are the dailies.



> You can say that is not as it should be. But as I said, I found with 4E as it should be is the farthest thing from a 4E players mind as they would rather use every power they can every time they can use it.




Well, I tested 4E for the first time last Sunday, and my experience was different - the players thought really hard about when it would be best to use a specific power. Since we were all fairly new to the game, there were a lot of arguments about it, but we all had lots of fun and agreed that this game was an improvement over the previous edition.



> And though you seem to have accepted the theory of 4E (which I agree with), versus the actual use of encounter powers, which seems to be the farthest thing from dramatic I've ever seen in a game.
> 
> Encounter powers are used every encounter. As I said I have players blowing every encounter power whether it would be dramatic or not. Why? Because 4E encourages them to do so. It encourages the use of encounter powers every encounter. Not just when it would be dramatically interesting to do so, but every single encounter.
> 
> Encounter powers are like watching the same action sequence every five minutes. I don't quiet understand how that is good for dramatic tension. I tried to picture it in my head, but after the 10th or so time the fighter had used Serpent Strike or my rogue had used Torturous Strike, the dramatic tension left me.




Encounter powers exist so that the PCs don't get bored with using at-will powers all the time.



> Now I used to get that sense of drama you are talking about when a wizard had to go from occasionally blasting off a single spell to unloading whole arsenal and a few magic items to turn the tide of a battle. When a priest had to cast a _heal_ spell to keep the fighter from getting crushed because they knew if he went down the whole party was going to fall like dominoes. Or when the fighter's damage shot up because he just landed an insane crit or cleaved down five enemies on one powerful swing of his sword.




I've actually seen similar dramatic situations in last Sunday's game:

- When the wizard cast a well-placed spell that managed to drop minions like flies (minions are another of my 4E favorites).
- When the paladin and the warlord hurried towards a downed comrade to keep him from dying (we've had two occasions where a PC had already failed two death saving throws...).
- When the paladin shielded the rest of the party by marking and binding the toughest enemies, and permitting the rogue to set up a flanking situation without much fear of reprisal.

From all my experiences, combat in 4E has become a lot more dynamic and interesting than in previous edition.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 26, 2008)

Is it Tuesday again already?


----------



## Jack Colby (Aug 26, 2008)

D&D has been a trollop for a long time now.  How did you not notice?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 26, 2008)

I too wasn't too impressed by the look of 4e, so I went back to 3.5e but added in the things I learned from running C&C.  Basically the players use the PHB classes and I use Mentzer Red Box classes & monsters, appropriately CR'd.  Works great for me.  I expect I will play 4e eventually and I don't particularly begrudge the £40 I spent on the 4e books; I knew there was a risk I wouldn't like the game.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 26, 2008)

All the best.

Although a bit of advice: dont shrug off your old group, if you have the time you should  continue to play in their 4e game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 26, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I don't disagree with your assertion about powers. I very much think they were written with the idea you stated in mind.
> 
> But I hope you don't mind me disagreeing that the drama rather loses it impact when people are blowing off their encounter powers not because it would be a dramatic point in the story, but rather because they can. That is what I experienced. Every single encounter, encounter powers are used whether or not they are needed.



That is just because every single encounter needs a dramatic moment! 
Every fight scene in a movie will have a few dramatic moments - unless the movie is bad, of course. 
Every combat encounter ain an RPG should have a few dramatic moments. And that's what Encounters and Dailies will provide.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 26, 2008)

I don't see the encounter powers, not even the daily powers, as that dramatic. Just not enough power.

Compared to martial attacks such as Swooping Dragon Strike, or similar moves, and spells like Meteor Swarm, their 4E "analogs" just seem weak. The paladin using spirited charge with a lance and smite evil, and doing a critical, that was dramatic (or when the blackguard charged the party's barbarian on a nightmare with smite good). The Barbarian's pouncing charge reducing one demon to a red stain on the floor. The blade dancer's Desert Wind technique reducing three attackers to ash.

Killing minions simply is not the same. In the back of my head, I always know that anything would have killed them as long as it did 1 dmg. Minions are great for showing off how powerful a party is, for those "cut through the guards" moments, but they do not really add as much drama for me as a good high-damage spell or move.

I guess I just don't handle combat that strictly, that detailed to be impressed by all those shifts and moves and such, but piddly damage. Give me impromptu intimidate checks, big nasty blows and spells, and let me handle combat by the seat of my pants.


----------



## mrswing (Aug 26, 2008)

Hey Celtavian,

I have exactly the same emotional response to 4e as you, except in the Mearls podcast thread I described it as breaking up with a good friend who has changed his lifestyle in a way you can't agree with. 

I totally understand your need to vent, and as I said in the other thread, no longer being part of the new developments of the game makes one sad, even though it's totally irrational because of the huge amount of material available and the fact that you can generate new material yourself ad infinitum. Frankly, it's an addiction, and being forced to go cold turkey is no fun at all.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 26, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Killing minions simply is not the same. In the back of my head, I always know that anything would have killed them as long as it did 1 dmg. Minions are great for showing off how powerful a party is, for those "cut through the guards" moments, but they do not really add as much drama for me as a good high-damage spell or move.



Actually, for DMs that don't like the idea of basic attacks killing 1 hp minions and aren't too concerned about the additional bookkeeping, I wonder if the following house rule would work:
*HP:* A minion has hp equal to 1/4 Constitution score + 2 x (Level + 1); see also _minion weakness_

*Minion Weakness*
A minion that is hit by a power higher than its level is reduced to 0 hp instantly.​This gives minions basic hit points equal to one quarter that of a standard monster, and requires the PCs to use higher-level powers to instantly kill them. It does shift the balance of minions slightly, but not game-breakingly so, I think.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 26, 2008)

FireLance said:


> Actually, for DMs that don't like the idea of basic attacks killing 1 hp minions and aren't too concerned about the additional bookkeeping, I wonder if the following house rule would work:
> *HP:* A minion has hp equal to 1/4 Constitution score + 2 x (Level + 1); see also _minion weakness_
> 
> *Minion Weakness*
> A minion that is hit by a power higher than its level is reduced to 0 hp instantly.​This gives minions basic hit points equal to one quarter that of a standard monster, and requires the PCs to use higher-level powers to instantly kill them. It does shift the balance of minions slightly, but not game-breakingly so, I think.




You miss my point - I dislike that the powers are so weak. I miss powers that are on par with the spells and techniques of 3E. I miss the "loads of dice" damage, the crits that take away half an enemie's hitpoint in one blow - at high level. You'd have to make a rule that allows massive damage on PCs and foes.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 26, 2008)

Fenes said:


> You miss my point - I dislike that the powers are so weak. I miss powers that are on par with the spells and techniques of 3E. I miss the "loads of dice" damage, the crits that take away half an enemie's hitpoint in one blow - at high level. You'd have to make a rule that allows massive damage on PCs and foes.




I was a little surprised that daily powers did not turn into that. I understand why it doesn't. It makes them too powerful, to important, and returns you back to all your "15 minute adventuring and save and sit" days woes they wanted to avoid with the new resource management system. 

For tactical gameplay, "big guns" like that tend to break the game. Instead of outmaneuvering your foes and getting into advantageous situations, you just shoot your biggest gun and hope it hits.

But I get that people miss that.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 26, 2008)

Fenes said:


> You miss my point - I dislike that the powers are so weak. I miss powers that are on par with the spells and techniques of 3E. I miss the "loads of dice" damage, the crits that take away half an enemie's hitpoint in one blow - at high level. You'd have to make a rule that allows massive damage on PCs and foes.



I think the key problem is that there are few high-level standard monsters. At the high epic levels, I think most monsters in the MM are elites and solos that have twice and five times the hit points of a standard monster respectively.

Most monsters get hit points equal to Constitution score + (Level + 1) x 8. If I remember correctly, Brutes get (Level + 1) x 10 instead, and Artillery and Controllers get (Level + 1) x 6. So, a standard 30th-level monster with a Constitution of 22 would get 22 + 31 x 8 = 270 hit points.

A character optimized for damage and criticals (using a vicious greataxe, for example) can deal on average over 150 points of damage on a critical with a 29th-level 7[W] daily power. The basic damage roll is something like 84 + 9d12 + feats + enhancement + ability. That's more than half of what a standard 30th-level monster's hit points would be, if there were any, that is!


----------



## cwhs01 (Aug 26, 2008)

And i disliked that it meant combats could be over in one or two rounds if you were lucky/unlucky. Both as a gm and as a player. As a gm i would be sorely disapointed to see all my careful planning of an encounter wasted by a few dice rolls, regardless of wether it was me doing a tpk or the players nuking my npc's.

3e combats could get very anticlimactic.





Fenes said:


> You miss my point - I dislike that the powers are so weak. I miss powers that are on par with the spells and techniques of 3E. I miss the "loads of dice" damage, the crits that take away half an enemie's hitpoint in one blow - at high level. You'd have to make a rule that allows massive damage on PCs and foes.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I was a little surprised that daily powers did not turn into that. I understand why it doesn't. It makes them too powerful, to important, and returns you back to all your "15 minute adventuring and save and sit" days woes they wanted to avoid with the new resource management system.
> 
> For tactical gameplay, "big guns" like that tend to break the game. Instead of outmaneuvering your foes and getting into advantageous situations, you just shoot your biggest gun and hope it hits.
> 
> But I get that people miss that.




Well, for me the problem is made worse because I do not have lots of combat anyway, not being into Dungeon Crawling. One, maybe two combats per day or session. More often none. So, I do not really have any need to battle the 15 minute adventuring day - my adventures usually only have one big, important battle, the rest is small fry that doesn't do much, and may even be handwaved.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 26, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Well, for me the problem is made worse because I do not have lots of combat anyway, not being into Dungeon Crawling. One, maybe two combats per day or session. More often none. So, I do not really have any need to battle the 15 minute adventuring day - my adventures usually only have one big, important battle, the rest is small fry that doesn't do much, and may even be handwaved.



I understand. If you were using 4E, which I probably wouldn't recommend anyway based on your priorities (but you made your decision anyway, right?), I'd probably focus on mixing a lot of Minions with a few regular or elite monsters. With bigger encounter areas, you can cover a large battle space and have what might be 3-4 encounters (you'd never play) in 3E be a single encounter in 4E. So you can have more battle for the same price, basically.


----------



## cwhs01 (Aug 26, 2008)

A question thats been bothering me a little. Why all the drama? Yes, someone made a new edition of some fantasy roleplaying game. No, it may not have been all what you hoped it would be. And importantly, No, it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to dislike the new edition and play something else, while borrowing the few things you like.

Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and tearing hair out? There are lots of alternatives out there still. Even older editions of the same game. 
Why do people get so emotional about this?


----------



## Fenes (Aug 26, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> A question thats been bothering me a little. Why all the drama? Yes, someone made a new edition of some fantasy roleplaying game. No, it may not have been all what you hoped it would be. And importantly, No, it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to dislike the new edition and play something else, while borrowing the few things you like.
> 
> Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and tearing hair out? There are lots of alternatives out there still. Even older editions of the same game.
> Why do people get so emotional about this?




Many are convinced that the game they like is the game for everyone, and the rest would see that if told often enough, and be happier for it.

Others can't take the idea that their idea of fun is not shared by everyone else, and take offense at others not playing the same game.

And many may fear that their own game may end or suffer if not enough people play it.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 26, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> A question thats been bothering me a little. Why all the drama?




The Internet thrives on drama.

Besides, if we don't get all worked up about unimportant stuff - like games - we would have to get worked up about important stuff and politics. And while we cannot really individually change how our countries are run, we _can_ choose which games we play.


----------



## Badapple (Aug 26, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> That is another thing. My group has moved to 4E. Most of them like it. I don't want to be a disruption to them since they don't like it. So I may have to find a new gaming group, something I haven't done for 10 years or more. It is going to be strange to see all my friends move onto the new edition while I try to get something going with the old one.
> 
> I appreciate you not being insulting. I wasn't looking for a war. I'm sure more than me understand what is like to do a hobby for 25 years and have that hobby change in such a dramatic fashion.




I can emphathize with you, though we are on different sides of the fence.  I'm in a gaming group that has been around for 15+ years, and we have recently converted to 4e.  As one of the main DMs I love the new edition and have absolutely zero plans on ever going back and running 3.5 games.  The other DM ended his 3.5 campaign and plans on running 4e the next time he runs a game.  Most of the players in the group either don't care what we play, or like the new edition.

One player hates the new edition, for reasons that are his own, and are definately not worth getting into.  He's played 4e for six weeks so far, and I can say that he's given it a try, but at this point it is unlikely he will change his mind.

He's hinted he will soon drop out of the gaming group.  I think he's still somewhat in denial, or hoping we'll all "see the light" or maybe alternate games or something, but honestly it looks like it's all 4e for us from now on.  Whether he feels hanging with his regular gaming group and his longtime friends is worth playing a game he dislikes is ultimately up to him, but he's not happy, and it makes me very sad, and empathetic to his (and the OP's) position.


----------



## guivre (Aug 26, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> 5. Goodman had 1e adventures at GenCon?  On paper, not pdf?  Where do I get 'em?!
> 
> Lanefan



You don't. They were Gencon exclusives. You might be able to find someone here or there with a few extra copies, other than that you're probably going to be restricted to Ebay.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 26, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> A question thats been bothering me a little. Why all the drama? Yes, someone made a new edition of some fantasy roleplaying game. No, it may not have been all what you hoped it would be. And importantly, No, it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to dislike the new edition and play something else, while borrowing the few things you like.
> 
> Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and tearing hair out? There are lots of alternatives out there still. Even older editions of the same game.
> Why do people get so emotional about this?




+1

Not just re: the OP of this thread, but ALL of the threads that start like this. I don't mean just here either- I see it on the Necro boards and Dragonsfoot.
I understand having favorites and dislikes, I have them too- but much of this emotional attachment people are spewing on the internet re: a set of rules for a game of make-believe is just creepy. 

I also wonder how many gamers showing so much attachment in web posts, would do the same in person (with the same vigor), speaking with other gamers? I'd wager very few... and I'd definitely keep my distance from said few


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 26, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> And i disliked that it meant combats could be over in one or two rounds if you were lucky/unlucky. Both as a gm and as a player. As a gm i would be sorely disapointed to see all my careful planning of an encounter wasted by a few dice rolls, regardless of wether it was me doing a tpk or the players nuking my npc's.
> 
> 3e combats could get very anticlimactic.




This.

I think 3E started its downward spiral in my eyes when playing a certain Adventure Path installment starring Dragotha. Dragotha had alot of nostalgic reverernce to me and the older players in my group.

Two rounds later he was a pathetic pile of ash on a cavern floor surrounded by a barely-scratched party of adventurers.

This was an epic (not literally) battle 20 years in the making and 

Epic failure and it just went downhill from there.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That is just because every single encounter needs a dramatic moment!
> Every fight scene in a movie will have a few dramatic moments - unless the movie is bad, of course.
> Every combat encounter ain an RPG should have a few dramatic moments. And that's what Encounters and Dailies will provide.




Mustrum,

I do not know if you are a writer or not. I write scripts and stories in the hope of one day making it a profession. I understand storytelling very well.
Encounter powers are lacking drama because they are both overused and underused at the same time. They overused because they are used every encounter, which as I said is like playing the same action sequence every battle as though I would write the same thing over and over again. Which is in essence a bad movie, so encounter powers are an example of a very bad movie. And underused because there is no good, viable reason even from a story standpoint why a character would not be able to execute a learned combat maneuver over and over again as he does with a feat.

As I stated in this thread and the other thread, I run encounters that start what I call a domino encounter. A non-stop series of fights that leaves no time for rest to recover encounter powers. This used to work very well in 3E because the player decided when to use his reservoir of power in the case of casters and fighters were skilled combatants who fighting prowess was always available because it was a physically learned skill. So when I ran a cineematic encounter of a continuous fight, there was no need to explain the recovery of encounter powers.

If you want to discuss film battles, they rarely have rest periods. Usually it is a series of short, easy encounters that don't require much in terms of what the character can do, with one long drawn out fight scene that is a knockdown drag out fight where maneuvers are tried over and over again.

For example, how do you simulate Jackie Chan movie in 4E? Jackie Chan is constantly tumbling and using wild maneuvers. He isn't resting for five minutes to regain his encounter powers. He is always tumbling, doing flying kicks, roundhouse kicks, strange punches, amusing feints, and the like.

When you watch Excalibur the movie, that battle at the end is one long, drawn out fight with the guys just swinging away. No time to rest for encounter powers. Fight until you are dead or have won the battle.

I have difficulty simulating these types of battles with 4E because the player constantly needing at least five minutes of rest. 

Sorry man. Your trite explanation for enconter powers is unsatisfying and extremely limiting for a storyteller. Any 4E storyteller will be forced into using the exact same explanations in every encounter for the repetitious encounter powers that seem "special", while at the same time being forced to arbitrarily end encounters to give the players time to rest five minutes to "recover" their learned skills. It doesn't work for me. If it works for you, then enjoy.

But the bad action film is 4E encounter powers. The same action sequence over and over and over and over again. The very definition of a bad action film, cliche, repetitious, and uninteresting.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 26, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> And i disliked that it meant combats could be over in one or two rounds if you were lucky/unlucky. Both as a gm and as a player. As a gm i would be sorely disapointed to see all my careful planning of an encounter wasted by a few dice rolls, regardless of wether it was me doing a tpk or the players nuking my npc's.
> 
> 3e combats could get very anticlimactic.




I concur with this. It did happen. Some encounters were anti-climatic because of a lucky crit or missed save. 

But I've also seen that 4E combats can be overlong, tedious, and boring, especially if you miss with your encounter powers and have to wait until the encounter is over to do anything interesting. With all the hit points the monsters have, you can spend a huge number of rounds engaged in a boring, tedious exercise in bookkeeping minor damage, moving around to no great effect, and just having an very dissatisfying and unchallenging encounter that just took time and very few resrouces.

4E fights don't feel particularly dramatic to me. A friend of mine crit with this daily and still didn't killed the guy he hit. That just feels pathetic.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 26, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Well, for me the problem is made worse because I do not have lots of combat anyway, not being into Dungeon Crawling. One, maybe two combats per day or session. More often none. So, I do not really have any need to battle the 15 minute adventuring day - my adventures usually only have one big, important battle, the rest is small fry that doesn't do much, and may even be handwaved.




That's how I tell stories too Fenes. A few minor build up battles with one big, all out battles. That's how the stories I most enjoy happen. 

You don't see a huge number of small combats in _Lord of the Rings_. You see a few small combats and then a few epic, knockdown, dragout fights where no one has time to rest five minutes for encounter powers. It's everything you got, right now, for all the marbles, no time to rest or wait on some arbitary power.

Monster powers work, player powers work, and they are fight to the death. That's how I like my stories to be told.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 26, 2008)

Double Post


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 26, 2008)

*re*

Well, I just like to say that lucky for me I have some pretty good friends that decided to compromise with me. I've decided to stick around for the main 4E D&D group. And a couple of buddies who like both 4E and 3E said they will try _Pathfinder_. So I can still enjoy the casters and melees I like to play and tell stories with, and they can enjoy both games with our group of friends. So all is not lost.

I'm just happy to have buddies that can empathize with my dislike of 4E. Truly, I am a wizard at heart. I love playing a wizard that emulate the wizards I love from literature, not so much their powers as the feel of the mysterious, powerful wielder of arcane might that goes along quietly until it hits the fan and then goes off to help the party survive.

That type of wizard does not exist in 4E as everyone in the game is on equal footing. I know that appeals to quite a few people, so I can't fault it. But I like my casters to be able to nova and save the day. Same as some people like their fighters to be able to crit and level a giant in one mighty blow.

I'm just glad I was able to work out with my group a compromise. I didn't truly want to stop playing. But at the same time I didn't want to feel trapped playing 4E since I don't like it. Thanks to all those that empathised with my situation. A 25 year hobby is a hard thing to give up, and hard to do quietly and lightly. 

You feel alot of passion for a game like D&D that only a fellow lover of the game understands. That passion runs hot. So I can understand the intensity of discussion both for and against 4E. I'm just glad myself that I won't be trapped playing a game I dislike. No way I could sit at a table and play 4E if I knew it were the only game I would have anyone to play with. I won't have it forced on me. But I can stomach playing 4E for a day a week in the company of friends knowing they will reciprocate and give me a chance to enjoy the game system I prefer.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 26, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> If you want to discuss film battles, they rarely have rest periods. Usually it is a series of short, easy encounters that don't require much in terms of what the character can do, with one long drawn out fight scene that is a knockdown drag out fight where maneuvers are tried over and over again.
> 
> For example, how do you simulate Jackie Chan movie in 4E? Jackie Chan is constantly tumbling and using wild maneuvers. He isn't resting for five minutes to regain his encounter powers. He is always tumbling, doing flying kicks, roundhouse kicks, strange punches, amusing feints, and the like.
> 
> ...




But Jackie Chan is not a first or second level character and that fight in Excalibur is definitely not between low level characters either.  So your complaint that these movies don't have a "rest period" is not valid in the context of the game because paragon and epic level character also do not need a rest.  They just get more powers that do nifty things.  If your fights are repetitive at levels higher than 5 I'd say the problem is the player's lack of creativity.  I've seen some pretty interesting fights as low as 3rd level with hardly any repetition of powers.  And even when the players are using their at will powers they usually find an interesting way to describe them to not make it seem repetitive.

Sorry, but I think that your complaint is valid *for your game* and as such I'm not going to judge it.  But saying that the explanation given by MR is trite seems rather contrived.


----------



## cwhs01 (Aug 26, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> But the bad action film is 4E encounter powers. The same action sequence over and over and over and over again. The very definition of a bad action film, cliche, repetitious, and uninteresting.




Change a little in the above statement, and you have my sentiments about 3e.
Especially for non-casters. They usually had few choices beyond what target to hit and when to run away. Special attacks such as trip, grapple, power attack etc. where only ever useful if you had a pc dedicated to the tactic. They would then use this trick over and over again. And ofcourse, these options excist in 4e as well (in principle anyway)...

4e tries to give every class more options, which include encounter, daily and at-will powers. Though i haven't really played 4e as much as 3e yet (ofcourse), it seems to work fine, at low level, for giving varied combats. When you run out of encounter powers and dailies, you still have a choice of at least two different at-wills + the stunt system (page 42?).

imx it seems to be enough.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 26, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Mustrum,
> 
> I do not know if you are a writer or not.



I write code, not fiction.  I am more a consumer kind of guy. 


> Encounter powers are lacking drama because they are both overused and underused at the same time. They overused because they are used every encounter, which as I said is like playing the same action sequence every battle as though I would write the same thing over and over again. Which is in essence a bad movie, so encounter powers are an example of a very bad movie. And underused because there is no good, viable reason even from a story standpoint why a character would not be able to execute a learned combat maneuver over and over again as he does with a feat.



(1) The problem in D&D (and most others RPGs) tends to be that there are way more combat encounters then in a typical story, from a story-telling point perspective. I mean, think about how many real battles we have in LotR - that would never be enough for the span of a typical D&D campaign.



> As I stated in this thread and the other thread, I run encounters that start what I call a domino encounter. A non-stop series of fights that leaves no time for rest to recover encounter powers. This used to work very well in 3E because the player decided when to use his reservoir of power in the case of casters and fighters were skilled combatants who fighting prowess was always available because it was a physically learned skill. So when I ran a cineematic encounter of a continuous fight, there was no need to explain the recovery of encounter powers.
> 
> If you want to discuss film battles, they rarely have rest periods. Usually it is a series of short, easy encounters that don't require much in terms of what the character can do, with one long drawn out fight scene that is a knockdown drag out fight where maneuvers are tried over and over again.



Long-Drawn out fights are perfectly possible using a mix of lots of Minions and powerful individual foes, possibly attacking in waves - but all within one encounter. 



> For example, how do you simulate Jackie Chan movie in 4E? Jackie Chan is constantly tumbling and using wild maneuvers. He isn't resting for five minutes to regain his encounter powers. He is always tumbling, doing flying kicks, roundhouse kicks, strange punches, amusing feints, and the like.



Jackie Chain is constantly using tumbling, flying kicks, roundhouse kicks and so on because - like most movie characters - he is fighting Minions - if he hits, he gets to do all kinds of cool stuff. And of course, Jackie Chan has probably a DM that uses DMG p.42 a lot more then me or you (or your DM?).



> When you watch Excalibur the movie, that battle at the end is one long, drawn out fight with the guys just swinging away. No time to rest for encounter powers. Fight until you are dead or have won the battle.
> 
> I have difficulty simulating these types of battles with 4E because the player constantly needing at least five minutes of rest.



Did you ever try this in 3E? Sure, the Fighter manages to do that (if someone keeps him up with some healing spells), but the Wizard? He's out of useful spells quickly, and then (unlike maybe the Wizard-That's-not-really-a-wizard-as-we-all-known, Gandalf) he can't get out his sword and staff to kick ass. 



> Sorry man. Your trite explanation for enconter powers is unsatisfying and extremely limiting for a storyteller. Any 4E storyteller will be forced into using the exact same explanations in every encounter for the repetitious encounter powers that seem "special", while at the same time being forced to arbitrarily end encounters to give the players time to rest five minutes to "recover" their learned skills. It doesn't work for me. If it works for you, then enjoy.



You are not forced to re-use flavor text if you don't like it. Just because you use the same mechanical representation for a certain task, doesn't mean you use the same narrative. And vice versa, of course...

But that's not something everybody seems to be capable (or at least enjoying) to do... *shrugs* 

Ultimately, everyone has to make his pick according to preferences. Though I still don't get why you'd give up D&D entirely, but well, there are a lot of other games out there that also deserve a fair chance to be tested and played...


----------



## billd91 (Aug 26, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> A question thats been bothering me a little. Why all the drama? Yes, someone made a new edition of some fantasy roleplaying game. No, it may not have been all what you hoped it would be. And importantly, No, it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to dislike the new edition and play something else, while borrowing the few things you like.
> 
> Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and tearing hair out? There are lots of alternatives out there still. Even older editions of the same game.
> Why do people get so emotional about this?




Because we love, man. We love_too much._

Seriously, what do you expect about a hobbyist and his/her passions? We wouldn't be nearly as invested in our gaming, spending time on gaming messageboards, if we weren't quite passionate about it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 26, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> Change a little in the above statement, and you have my sentiments about 3e.
> Especially for non-casters. They usually had few choices beyond what target to hit and when to run away. Special attacks such as trip, grapple, power attack etc. where only ever useful if you had a pc dedicated to the tactic. They would then use this trick over and over again.



Assuming that they even fought monsters against whom this tactic would work. Most combat maneuvers plain suck against larger foes, which become more and more common at high level.

Of course, if you use a lot of humanoid NPCs, these tactics are pretty nice. (But that usually means a lot of work for your DM...)


----------



## el-remmen (Aug 26, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> I've posted my thoughts on this issue here. I will refer to that post at future occasions, which I predict will happen with some regularity.




While that is a decent explanation, it does not help those of us who do not play D&D to simulate an action movie. 

While I may sometimes seek to emulate an action movie in certain scenes, adventures, tropes - I don't seek to simulate anything in D&D save for what happens to happen to particular characters interacting with a particular setting.

But unlike the OP, I don't need to bid D&D farewell, because to me D&D is whatever rules you have happen to be playing with.


----------



## cwhs01 (Aug 26, 2008)

Cool if you could make it work in 3e That's what i think most of us actually want regardless of edition. 




Celtavian said:


> That's how I tell stories too Fenes. A few minor build up battles with one big, all out battles. That's how the stories I most enjoy happen.
> 
> Monster powers work, player powers work, and they are fight to the death. That's how I like my stories to be told.


----------



## Greylock (Aug 26, 2008)

The Kyngdoms said:


> I must admit, I don't get it either.  Just because you don't like 4ed doesn't mean you should quit playing the version you do like.




When all the other players in your group are playing  and liking the new edition, like the OP says, what are you supposed to do? Suck it up and play a game you can't stand? Create your own game in your preferred edition and sit alone at the table every Saturday night?



cwhs01 said:


> Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and tearing hair out? There are lots of alternatives out there still. Even older editions of the same game. Why do people get so emotional about this?




Because they can't play the game they want to play. Simple. Say you like 4th Edition, and it gets yanked away, how will you feel?

And folks KEEP talking about going and finding a new game, as if you can shop for a new group like going to the grocery store, or pick editions like picking apples off a tree. I'm lucky right now to have a 3.x game. If that game ended and every one walked away? I'd have no choice but to be in a 4.0 game with a bunch of kids, or have no game at all. What's so hard to understand about someone being upset about that?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 26, 2008)

Greylock said:


> When all the other players in your group are playing  and liking the new edition, like the OP says, what are you supposed to do? Suck it up and play a game you can't stand? Create your own game in your preferred edition and sit alone at the table every Saturday night
> 
> 
> Because they can't play the game they want to play. Simple. Say you like 4th Edition, and it gets yanked away, how will you feel?
> ...




I get all these points (especially from the point of view: "What if no one but me likes 4E?"), but I think it's still an irrational fear. 
How likely is it really that all the friends you have played together for so long suddenly turn out to be that different in your game style and prefer a vastly different game than you? Does this mean that actually, you were the only one really enjoying the game? Or doesn't this mean you might end up enjoying the new game just as much as before?

How likely is it that your game will break up, leaving you with no one to create a new one?


----------



## DM_Jeff (Aug 26, 2008)

Jack Colby said:


> D&D has been a trollop for a long time now.  How did you not notice?




Yeah, but up till new its been my type of trollop! 

To the original poster: I understand your need to get it out, really, that alone is a big part of the deep breath before getting on with your games. Previous editions are still here with us and games like Pathfinder will help guide us into the future of our campaigns. Keep the faith, good sir!

-DM Jeff


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 26, 2008)

You know, as I think about it, I can't think of an RPG that I wouldn't play, if I liked my fellow players and (most importantly) the GM.

I much prefer 4E to 3.X.  But if I were in a gaming group that was set on 3.X, I'd whip up a 3.X character.  I think RIFTS is a horrific freakshow of a game system, but with a good GM and fellow players, I'd play it.

Now, I don't think I would _run_ an RPG whose mechanics I couldn't stand.  At this point, you'd have to talk pretty damn fast to persuade me to DM a 3.X game, and if I did, I'd house-rule it till it cried.  But play?  Sure.


----------



## cwhs01 (Aug 26, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> You know, as I think about it, I can't think of an RPG that I wouldn't play, if I liked my fellow players and (most importantly) the GM.




This.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2008)

Greylock said:


> When all the other players in your group are playing  and liking the new edition, like the OP says, what are you supposed to do? Suck it up and play a game you can't stand? Create your own game in your preferred edition and sit alone at the table every Saturday night?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is the 21st century.  There are many, many options available to you.  OpenRPG, MapTools, RPGTonight, just to name three off hand.  Yes, it's VTT, but, complaints that you absolutely cannot find a group are pretty easy to get around.

So, yes, finding a new group is like going to a grocery store.  It really is that easy.



			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> You know, as I think about it, I can't think of an RPG that I wouldn't play, if I liked my fellow players and (most importantly) the GM.




Cinnabar?


----------



## Fenes (Aug 26, 2008)

Another problem is that not many posters seem to be able to praise their own game system without putting down others. Even without the "compared to X, Y is sooooo much better" posts, opinions of new players are influenced by word of mouth. So, there is a fear that the more one system is hyped, the less people will play other games. 
That may be a new experience for pure D&D users, but there was some strong hostility towards d20 at its heyday from players of otehr systems, and on one message board, D&D ius referred to as "that game that causes cancer".


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 26, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> You know, as I think about it, I can't think of an RPG that I wouldn't play, if I liked my fellow players and (most importantly) the GM.




Well, I _can_. But on the other hand, I can't really imagine that I'd liked the kind of people who would even consider playing F.A.T.A.L. or RaHoWa...


----------



## Starbuck_II (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> T
> 
> 
> Cinnabar?



 He could mean FATAL. I mean that one is pretty bad.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Aug 26, 2008)

Stop thinking, just enjoy.
Jeesh!
"Taking one's self too serious" is what REALLY kills D&D.


----------



## kibbitz (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> This is the 21st century.  There are many, many options available to you.  OpenRPG, MapTools, RPGTonight, just to name three off hand.  Yes, it's VTT, but, complaints that you absolutely cannot find a group are pretty easy to get around.
> 
> So, yes, finding a new group is like going to a grocery store.  It really is that easy.
> 
> ...




Did you mean World of Synnibar? I still don't know what to do with it... it cost so much that I'm not willing to throw it away, but every time I read it again, it hurts so much...


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2008)

Crap.  Now that's embarrassing.  Totally spelled that wrong.  Yup, Synnibar.   That's what I meant.  

Now there was a joke that flopped like a dead fish.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Aug 26, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> *shrug* It roughly equates to the same if I don't get a bad series of rolls. So be it.
> 
> Like I said, I'm not looking for argument. I'm looking for some people who might feel as I do.




(Raises hand)  Right here, buddy.  #1 and #7 are a particular problem to me.  They pull my head right out of the gameworld.   

I started playing WoW about a month ago (level 46 now   ) and I now understand what people were saying.  4E is WoW.  If that's fun for you great.  Not for me.  Actual WoW does it better, so I have no reason to go to 4E for my WoW fix.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 26, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Another problem is that not many posters seem to be able to praise their own game system without putting down others. Even without the "compared to X, Y is sooooo much better" posts, opinions of new players are influenced by word of mouth. So, there is a fear that the more one system is hyped, the less people will play other games.
> That may be a new experience for pure D&D users, but there was some strong hostility towards d20 at its heyday from players of otehr systems, and on one message board, D&D ius referred to as "that game that causes cancer".




Well, if that is the case it seems that D&D did rather well even if it caused cancer so I don't see the problem with people hyping what they like.



Hussar said:


> Crap.  Now that's embarrassing.  Totally spelled that wrong.  Yup, Synnibar.   That's what I meant.
> 
> Now there was a joke that flopped like a dead fish.




Hey I like Cinnabar...  As a matter of fact I love it.  They make these awesome cinnamon buns and when they are fresh out of the oven they are just heavenly.


----------



## darkadelphia (Aug 26, 2008)

It sounds to me like your ideas of a good edition of D&D are very prescriptive.  Your post suggests to me that third edition was the best because it was third edition.  Sorry, the wizard's not arbitrarily the best anymore.

If you like third edition, play third edition--nothing more irritating than the "I will bash something everyone on this board likes, please don't argue or disagree" parting shot.  I played AD&D through the entire run of 3.x, and never once did I darken the door of a 3.x forum to tell them why I didn't play their version.  It's a waste of time.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 26, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Well, I just like to say that lucky for me I have some pretty good friends that decided to compromise with me. I've decided to stick around for the main 4E D&D group. And a couple of buddies who like both 4E and 3E said they will try _Pathfinder_. So I can still enjoy the casters and melees I like to play and tell stories with, and they can enjoy both games with our group of friends. So all is not lost.
> 
> I'm just happy to have buddies that can empathize with my dislike of 4E. Truly, I am a wizard at heart. I love playing a wizard that emulate the wizards I love from literature, not so much their powers as the feel of the mysterious, powerful wielder of arcane might that goes along quietly until it hits the fan and then goes off to help the party survive.
> 
> ...




I am glad you were able to work things out.

Now if only we can put this thread to bed


----------



## billd91 (Aug 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> This is the 21st century.  There are many, many options available to you.  OpenRPG, MapTools, RPGTonight, just to name three off hand.  Yes, it's VTT, but, complaints that you absolutely cannot find a group are pretty easy to get around.
> 
> So, yes, finding a new group is like going to a grocery store.  It really is that easy.




You seriously think this is the same as finding a face to face gaming group? I've done plenty of on-line playing and it is not at all the same. It's like drinking Bud Lite because you can't find a decent beer. It'll get an addict through, but the experience in no way compares.


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 26, 2008)

A side note-

Here's why the wizard changed:

Damage per attack equals damage per target hit times number of targets hit.

Most characters hit one target at a time.  But a wizard often hits multiple targets.

3e balanced the game on the assumption that a wizard would "spike" at times, and deal very high damage, while dealing lower damage at other times.  This meant that the wizard was sort of an "ace in the hole" for the party- he was sub par at combat most fights, but could rock one or two per day.  So that equation wasn't very important in 3e- if a wizard blasted ten foes with an attack even more powerful than the one launched by a fighter against a single foe, that was ok because the wizard couldn't do it very often, and the fighter could attack all the time.

That approach had positives and negatives.  Positives were that it was fun to be the ace in the hole guy when it was time to blow stuff up.  Negatives were that this sort of power balance was fragile and vulnerable to a lot of manipulation.

4e doesn't balance on a "balance across the course of a day" regime.  Its balance is more round by round.

This means that a wizard who blasts multiple foes has to do lower damage per target than a fighter, or else he exponentially surpasses the fighter's damage as the number of targets increases.

The wizard's damage is still high, overall.  Just recently our party wizard launched her first fireball- it did 17 damage per hit (3d6+7, rolled a 10, as close to average as you can roll without rolling a 3.5).  But it hit three enemies and missed a fourth, for a net total of 59 damage.  This was the most damaging single attack launched by any character in our entire campaign, and it didn't involve critical hits or high rolls.

If you're desire is for wizards who use mighty spells to devastate armies, well, you probably want 3.5s power distribution.  On an aesthetic level, this one is very different.  But if your overall concern is for whether wizards are powerful and can do lots of damage, believe me, they can.  The math is on their side.


----------



## guivre (Aug 26, 2008)

Greylock said:


> When all the other players in your group are playing  and liking the new edition, like the OP says, what are you supposed to do? Suck it up and play a game you can't stand? Create your own game in your preferred edition and sit alone at the table every Saturday night?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a player problem, not a game problem. More importantly that's a social problem with that person not having the same goals as the rest of the players.


----------



## guivre (Aug 26, 2008)

Mishihari Lord said:


> 4E is WoW.  If that's fun for you great.  Not for me.  Actual WoW does it better, so I have no reason to go to 4E for my WoW fix.





i no rite. last night I ran 4e and the one player showed up early and he was like omg wtf

so he wandered around my house yelling "LFG" but then every1 else showed

so they went out of the town and grinded on bears for awhile because they had that quest to kill 10 plus they were saving up for their mount 

it wuz ez 2 dm I  just kept putting the same minis on the board all night

at the end they were very close so decided to go /dance in ironwind for 20 min then we ended it, it was a gud game

it wuz funny cuz on the way to town they got stuck and couldn't jump then there was lowbie horde on the road so they ganked them



.....

Seriously, how clueless do you have to be to compare a game mastered RPG to a MMO?


----------



## Obryn (Aug 26, 2008)

guivre said:


> roofles




OK, this was hilarious.

-O


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 26, 2008)

guivre said:


> i no rite. last night I ran 4e and the one player showed up early and he was like omg wtf
> 
> so he wandered around my house yelling "LFG" but then every1 else showed
> 
> ...




You win.


----------



## Goumindong (Aug 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Jackie Chain is constantly using tumbling, flying kicks, roundhouse kicks and so on because - like most movie characters - he is fighting Minions - if he hits, he gets to do all kinds of cool stuff. And of course, Jackie Chan has probably a DM that uses DMG p.42 a lot more then me or you (or your DM?).



Jackie also uses a lot of props, which, if they aren't present, limit the "do all kinds of cool things" that you can do with page 42.



Celtavian said:


> I'm just happy to have buddies that can empathize with my dislike of 4E. Truly, I am a wizard at heart. I love playing a wizard that emulate the wizards I love from literature, not so much their powers as the feel of the mysterious, powerful wielder of arcane might that goes along quietly until it hits the fan and then goes off to help the party survive.
> 
> That type of wizard does not exist in 4E as everyone in the game is on equal footing. I know that appeals to quite a few people, so I can't fault it. But I like my casters to be able to nova and save the day. Same as some people like their fighters to be able to crit and level a giant in one mighty blow.




Well, there is your problem. You don't want to play a game with your friends, you want to play a game with your friends incidentally in the room. 

Remove your expectations that you must be the most powerful character in the room and the game will play a lot better.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Aug 27, 2008)

guivre said:


> Seriously, how clueless do you have to be to compare a game mastered RPG to a MMO?




If you don't get it, then there's not much that can help you.  It's pretty obvious.  In mechanics it's way closer to WoW than D&D.  Oh, and you can knock off the ad hominems.  You get a by because you're so new, but that's pretty frowned on on these boards.  Maybe that's it.  If 4E is your first game then it will look a lot different than WoW.  I'd suggest trying a variety of games to get some perspective.


----------



## Greylock (Aug 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> How likely is it that your game will break up, leaving you with no one to create a new one?




It happened to me three years ago. First, one player unexpectedly got a scholarship to a school out-of-state. One month he was here, the next, gone. Then the DM's wife lost her job, and almost immediately found a new one out-of-state. Just like that, DM and player gone. Next player had been having a hard time making games because he had a new girlfriend who lived a city away, and he liked seeing her on weekends. He decided to call it quits. In the space of a little over one month, we lost three players plus the DM, and next thing you know me and Beale Knight are struggling to find players to start anew.

Here's the story hour - note the abrupt end:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=102537



Hussar said:


> This is the 21st century.  There are many, many options available to you.  OpenRPG, MapTools, RPGTonight, just to name three off hand.  Yes, it's VTT, but, complaints that you absolutely cannot find a group are pretty easy to get around.
> 
> So, yes, finding a new group is like going to a grocery store.  It really is that easy.




That is not D&D to me anymore than watching television is like being in a play.


----------



## Sunderstone (Aug 27, 2008)

I pretty much stopped reading after page 1. The initial responses to him were expected of course. Too much "omg, he doesnt like 4E, off with his head" for me to keep reading further.

To Celtavian, Im with you but treat it as the end of an era, and not just the end. There are entirely too many deal breakers in fluff as well as crunch for me to have courted that 4E Harlot! 
All joking aside, Im happy 4E is what it is and Im glad in a way things have come to this. My gaming roads now all lead to Paizo and I couldnt be happier. 
The only thing I will miss is the actual name "D&D", but Im fine with "playing Pathfinder" (new and improved name with even less stigma!) 

To the rest, glad you are enjoying D&D's latest edition. Happy Gaming!


----------



## apoptosis (Aug 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Jackie also uses a lot of props, which, if they aren't present, limit the "do all kinds of cool things" that you can do with page 42.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




i do not think that is a fair characterization of what he is saying.

I think he wants characters that have different power distributions throughout a story. In 4E the distribution is the same with approx the same efficacy from all classes in most all situations (which is not to say they play the same).

He wants classes where he might be less effective in parts of the story and incredibly potent in specific instances.

I both understand and agree with that sentiment.

I also understand that others might want something else from the game.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 27, 2008)

Mishihari Lord said:


> If you don't get it, then there's not much that can help you.  It's pretty obvious.  Oh, and you can knock off the ad hominems.  You get a by because you're so new, but that's pretty frowned on on these boards.  Maybe that's it.  If 4E is your first game then it will look a lot different than WoW.  I'd suggest trying a variety of games to get some perspective.



Just because you perceive something doesn't mean it's there. I play WOW, and I play 4E. The two games, as I play them, have absolutely _zero_ similarities. If your 4E game is a series of grinding quests and lame narration, with the exhilirating feeling of crushing another player in PvP as its only redeeming value, then I would posit that it is not 4E that sucks; it's your DM.

PS: You made a lot of weak assumptions on the person you replied to based on post count. That's not safe.


----------



## guivre (Aug 27, 2008)

Mishihari Lord said:


> If you don't get it, then there's not much that can help you.  It's pretty obvious.  In mechanics it's way closer to WoW than D&D.  Oh, and you can knock off the ad hominems.  You get a by because you're so new, but that's pretty frowned on on these boards.  Maybe that's it.  If 4E is your first game then it will look a lot different than WoW.  I'd suggest trying a variety of games to get some perspective.



Sorry, I've been playing D&D since '82. 4e isn't my first game by a long shot.

 That wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was an honest question. It takes a great amount of willful ignorance to make claims like 4e = WoW and I find the people that make them fascinating... in a "wow, I can't believe anyone would actually believe that" kinda way.

Of course there's always the chance that I'm wrong, and you've played with some sorry assed DMs to come away with such a shallow opinion.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 27, 2008)

guivre said:


> Seriously, how clueless do you have to be to compare a game mastered RPG to a MMO?





Irony can be pretty ironic - you'd have to be about at clueless as someone who posts in a snarky tone after a moderator has already warned folks to be polite.

Be respectful, folks, or don't post.  Those are your choices.  It shouldn't be difficult.


----------



## jensun (Aug 27, 2008)

> I love playing a wizard that emulate the wizards I love from literature



I am not touching the rest of this thread but I dont get this at all.

Unless you are reading bad D&D fiction very few wizards in literature do anything that comes even close to what magic does in D&D.  Hell, its not even that close to magic in Jack Vances stuff.


----------



## Goumindong (Aug 27, 2008)

Greylock said:


> That is not D&D to me anymore than watching television is like being in a play.




What? What makes the experience different? You all get together, talk to each other, and have adventures. 

The only difference between an online game and an offline game is that when I play an offline game i wish i had a VTT to automize functions that eat up time unnecessarily.

I ran a game last night. My players got through three combat encounter and three skill challenges in 3 hours. It was probably half and half combat/roleplay. And its all due to things that speed up the game.

Frankly that even if i do end up in a game with a guy with a cheeto orange neckbeard, i won't ever have to see the guy and if people don't show, i can simply go and get more instead of having a game fall apart because one guy wants to take his stuff and go home, is a big plus. 



apoptosis said:


> i do not think that is a fair characterization of what he is saying.
> 
> I think he wants characters that have different power distributions throughout a story. In 4E the distribution is the same with approx the same efficacy from all classes in most all situations (which is not to say they play the same).
> 
> ...




No, its a fair characterization. Such "power distributions" do not exist. There is only "Wizards" and "everyone else aspiring to be a wizard" and it occurs slightly after the game starts. And every single time someone comes in complaining how the game now sucks, they end up saying "yea, i'm playing a wizard". There is a reason for this. And its because wizards were terribly overpowered and now, when players are being told that they can't be better than everyone else at the table. 

Is it any wonder people don't come in and say "I like playing a fighter, and 4e is terrible. I loved taking a back seat to my friends and standing in front of them while they killed the monsters and won the day, now i am actually useful and it sucks!"?

In 4e characters are valuable in different situations doing different things. Roles explain where this is. It offers you more flexibility in your character fluff and direction, it offers all players to be valuable in different ways in different instances. 

All of the objections end up boiling down to "I like playing a wizard and am disappointed that i cannot fill all roles in a party now" and the answer needs to be the same every time. "I am sorry, but other people are important too."

This of course isn't even getting into the point that Jensun bring up. That wizards in literature generally play like NPCs.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Aug 27, 2008)

jensun said:


> Unless you are reading bad D&D fiction very few wizards in literature do anything that comes even close to what magic does in D&D.  Hell, its not even that close to magic in Jack Vances stuff.



I suspect it has to do with the way that magic is a codified deus ex machina for most fantasy fiction. When things look blackest for Our Heroes,  it's the magic-user who saves their bacon. They do this because the author has no earthly hope of pulling it off any other way. To paraphrase another poster, the wizard may be a slack-jawed cretin apprentice who can't light a candle without setting his hair on fire, but throw the protagonists into crisis and he turns into Merlin Jesus.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 27, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> If you like third edition, play third edition--nothing more irritating than the "I will bash something everyone on this board likes, please don't argue or disagree" parting shot.  I played AD&D through the entire run of 3.x, and never once did I darken the door of a 3.x forum to tell them why I didn't play their version.  It's a waste of time.




If I could choose one post in the history of every post I've ever read on these forums as to why edition wars are started, this is the post I would choose.  Not only did you take "I don't like 4e" to suddenly became "I will bash it," you also took the next step to denounce him JUST for disliking it, claiming that the entire board is behind you in loving everything about 4e.  And if that wasn't enough, you went on to state that the General RPG Discussion is for 4e only.

Seriously, I almost want to thank you for that post - now, whenever anyone asks why there are edition wars, I have something to point to.


----------



## Treebore (Aug 27, 2008)

Halivar said:


> Just because you perceive something doesn't mean it's there. I play WOW, and I play 4E. The two games, as I play them, have absolutely _zero_ similarities. If your 4E game is a series of grinding quests and lame narration, with the exhilirating feeling of crushing another player in PvP as its only redeeming value, then I would posit that it is not 4E that sucks; it's your DM.
> 
> PS: You made a lot of weak assumptions on the person you replied to based on post count. That's not safe.





You see zero similarities? Interesting. I see similarities between WOW and 4E, 3E, L5R, GURPS, Paladium, etc...

As to the OP I am glad you took the time to explain why you don't like 4E in such a thorough and well worded way. I feel much the same way you do on many points, however we will be playing 4E for a few more weeks yet before we quit.

I wish others could be so well spoken and not have taken the "How dare you not like my game" stance.

Gamers create divisions, not games.


----------



## Griego (Aug 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> What? What makes the experience different? You all get together, talk to each other, and have adventures.
> 
> The only difference between an online game and an offline game is that when I play an offline game i wish i had a VTT to automize functions that eat up time unnecessarily.




My group plays online (one player is 200 miles away and another 5000 miles away), but the one time we were able to play together in person, we just used laptops and played LAN party style.  I for one will never again bother with tracking situational modifiers, buffs, debuffs, etc. when my VTT software will do it for me.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2008)

billd91 said:


> You seriously think this is the same as finding a face to face gaming group? I've done plenty of on-line playing and it is not at all the same. It's like drinking Bud Lite because you can't find a decent beer. It'll get an addict through, but the experience in no way compares.




If that's your experience with Virtual Tabletops, I feel sad for you.

I've been using VTT's for about 5 years now.  Yes, the experience is different, but, it is in no way inferior to tabletop play.



Greylock said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> That is not D&D to me anymore than watching television is like being in a play.




Again, if this is your experience, I would blame the person running it, not the medium.  Having played regularly over OpenRPG for years, I can honestly say that there are numerous ways in which VTT play is superior to tabletop.

But, my point still stands.  Anyone who complains that they cannot play D&D because they cannot find a group, while posting on an internet website, is ignoring the HUGE number of options there are out there.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2008)

Halivar said:


> *Just because you perceive something doesn't mean it's there.* I play WOW, and I play 4E. The two games, as I play them, have absolutely _zero_ similarities. If your 4E game is a series of grinding quests and lame narration, with the exhilirating feeling of crushing another player in PvP as its only redeeming value, then I would posit that it is not 4E that sucks; it's your DM.
> 
> PS: You made a lot of weak assumptions on the person you replied to based on post count. That's not safe.




Emphasis: Doesn't that apply equally to both sides of the argument?

I mean really...

Grinding Quests: Funny how "D&D is at it's heart a game about killing things and taking there stuff" when anyone mentions the non-combat abilities that have been removed from 4e... but when compared to WoW suddenly it's not...ok.

Lame Narration:  Ever read some of the modules for D&D?

PvP:  This too can happen in a D&D game.

From your post above I'm just not seeing that far of a stretch.



Goumindong said:


> No, its a fair characterization. Such "power distributions" do not exist. There is only "Wizards" and "everyone else aspiring to be a wizard" and it occurs slightly after the game starts. And every single time someone comes in complaining how the game now sucks, they end up saying "yea, i'm playing a wizard". There is a reason for this. And its because wizards were terribly overpowered and now, when players are being told that they can't be better than everyone else at the table.
> 
> Is it any wonder people don't come in and say "I like playing a fighter, and 4e is terrible. I loved taking a back seat to my friends and standing in front of them while they killed the monsters and won the day, now i am actually useful and it sucks!"?
> 
> ...





I thought the Cleric or Druid was the most powerful class in D&D 3.x... what's up with that?  

On a more serious note, is the Wizard like this at low or mid-levels?  If not then I don't think it's always... the WIzard and everybody else.  Is he the most powerful if he doesn't have the right spell in the right situation?  Or if he runs out of spells in the wrong place at the wrong time?  Just saying.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 27, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Gamers create divisions, not games.




This, along with ProfessorCirno, are the best, most sane things said in this thread. Thank you guys.


----------



## Greylock (Aug 27, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Anyone who complains that they cannot play D&D because they cannot find a group, while posting on an internet website, is ignoring the HUGE number of options there are out there.




Say what? 

Posting on the internet isn't a "real" conversation, like the ones I had this afternoon when I went by the hobby shop for two hours and talked to my real life friends. It's real, it's communication, but it's not a real conversation.

I played D&D for years, then I quit. Then I rediscovered roleplaying through computer games. Then late one night, I decided that while I liked my internet friends [and still keep up with folks I used to game online with], I wanted to sit at a table with real people, having real interactions, shoulder to shoulder looking each other in the eye, hearing the inflections, etc. Or for that matter, getting together on a NON-game day and having a beer and hot dog. I quit online gaming, and hooked up with some great folks [see story hour in my prior post].

Playing online, while nice, is NOT some magical modern day equivalent to a real live gaming group, and frankly, I'm sick of the snide suggestions that I, the one who insists on getting together socially in real life, am the one that has some gaming ability malfunction. I've gamed online. It's not the same.

hth


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 27, 2008)

Greylock said:


> Say what?




I don't think Hussar was speaking strictly about online gaming, but he can speak for himself when he gets back online.  For myself I would say, if you found ENWorld, and post here, you can find local people in your area from this site and many other sites on the internet.  WoTC has a limited game finder, Meetup.com has game meetups, and that's just scratching the surface.  A couple minute google search could find even more.  If someone can't find a group, with all of the assets of the internet, then they are either in a remote area that literally has no games, or can't find a group that suits them.  That is very much not "there are no groups".


----------



## Goumindong (Aug 27, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I thought the Cleric or Druid was the most powerful class in D&D 3.x... what's up with that?
> 
> On a more serious note, is the Wizard like this at low or mid-levels?  If not then I don't think it's always... the WIzard and everybody else.  Is he the most powerful if he doesn't have the right spell in the right situation?  Or if he runs out of spells in the wrong place at the wrong time?  Just saying.




Pretty much yes, the wizard starts declaring "I win" with first level spells.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2008)

Greylock - when you say, "I played games online" what do you mean?  Do you mean MMO's or other video games or do you mean Play by Post or do you mean using a Virtual Tabletop?

Because all three of those are VERY different experiences.

While I did mean that playing online was a perfectly valid choice, but, El Mahdi makes a good point too.  Considering the number of "gamers looking for gamers" type sites, including En World, it's pretty hard to believe that you can not find ANY face to face gamers in your area.  Possible.  I certainly can't.  But then, I live in a small town in Japan.  Language is a serious issue.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 27, 2008)

Treebore said:


> You see zero similarities? Interesting. I see similarities between WOW and 4E, 3E, L5R, GURPS, Paladium, etc...



If I put this list as a multiple-choice answer to the question "which of these things is not like the other ones; which of these things does not belong?" the answer would not be 4E.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Aug 27, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I've been using VTT's for about 5 years now.  Yes, the experience is different, but, it is in no way inferior to tabletop play.



It's inferior for me.  The people aren't with me; I can't share my pizza with them.  Bummer, man.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2008)

Halivar said:


> If I put this list as a multiple-choice answer to the question "which of these things is not like the other ones; which of these things does not belong?" the answer would not be 4E.




No, it'd be Gurps...because all the other games use a class system instead of point-buy....


----------



## Henry (Aug 27, 2008)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> It's inferior for me.  The people aren't with me; I can't share my pizza with them.  Bummer, man.




Count me in with the "ain't nothing like live tabletop" group, too - it's why I continue to go to local gamedays and to Gencon - I genuinely like gaming with a lot of the people I meet on ENWorld and other forums. But I agree, if someone can't find local gamers and hasn't yet tried some of the gamer meetup resources on Wizards, RPGnet, Enworld, etc. they're definitely worth trying. A lot of gamers on ENWorld having found their current groups through it is testament to it.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 27, 2008)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> It's inferior for me.  The people aren't with me; I can't share my pizza with them.  Bummer, man.




I enjoy VTT games.
I would rather play FTF any day of the week.
VTT has enabled me to game with different people and that is very cool.
FTF gaming with them would be even better.  By a lot.
So I strongly agree that it is inferior, with a caveat that there is a lot of space in "inferior" for "still quite fun".


----------



## BronzeDragon (Aug 27, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Not necessarily - it all depends on how you see the player characters. If you embrace the notion that they are _special_ and that the game rules apply differently to them than to NPCs, then D&D4E works just fine. After all, they are the only characters for which complex game rules are truly _needed_, since most people at the game table have only to bother with controlling a single PC and thus can deal with a greater complexity.
> 
> NPCs, on the other hand, need to be created and used in large numbers by the DM, and thus use simplified rules. Which is also arguably appropriate, since the DM just doesn't have the same amount of time to spend creating individual NPCs as the players can spend on their PCs.
> 
> Incidentally, this was my single biggest problem with D&D 3.X - the huge amount of time it took to create NPCs, especially high-level ones - and this is almost sufficient reason to switch to 4E alone, even if a lot of other problems hadn't been addressed. Building a 20th level NPC spellcaster now takes little more time than a 1st level spellcaster - and in which previous edition of D&D could one honestly claim _that_?




I do have a problem with the creation of NPCs, mainly because I DM all the time, but I still think the rules should be consistent.

To me the players are special not because they are different from the rest of the world, but because they are the _focus_ of the game. A 20th level Paladin protecting X-town from an invasion by an Orc horde is as important as the player's 20th level Paladin doing the same thing. He won't get the same attention because he's not the focus (after all it is I who play him, not one of the players and I have to play _loads_ of characters).

And yes, spellcasters usually are the issue, and that's why I mentioned that I moved to a very low-magic system. I don't even allow players to take a look at the Scholar class, much less play one. And it really helps a lot.



Jürgen Hubert said:


> If you worry about that, I recommend playing GURPS, as I've argued in my previous blog post. GURPS is _perfect_ for this style of play.
> 
> D&D 4E requires some more suspension of disbelief, sure - but in my opinion and experience, not more than the typical action movie.




I have played GURPS and DM'ed it. I found GURPS fantasy to be absolutely clumsy and immersion-killing, but I grant that GURPS is a marvelous system for modern games. My players greatly enjoyed my GURPS World War 2 campaign.

And I don't really *worry* about these things. I just assume that if a dragon breathes on a group of villagers, it does the same average damage it would do to a group of PCs. I see no reason to make up excuses to justify a greater (or lesser) effect of a creature's abilities on a PC.


----------



## BronzeDragon (Aug 27, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Well, for me the problem is made worse because I do not have lots of combat anyway, not being into Dungeon Crawling. One, maybe two combats per day or session. More often none. So, I do not really have any need to battle the 15 minute adventuring day - my adventures usually only have one big, important battle, the rest is small fry that doesn't do much, and may even be handwaved.




This is mostly what happens at my table too.

Playing Conan actually boosted the number of combats in my game since they tend to be more dramatic than mowing down orcs endlessly, but I'm still at 2-3 fights per game session *at most*.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2008)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> It's inferior for me.  The people aren't with me; I can't share my pizza with them.  Bummer, man.




Well, YMMV and all that.  

Yes, you lose out on the extra social stuff, like sharing pizza.  That's 100% true.

OTOH, I find that people are much more willing to maintain immersion in VTT games.  Calling each other by their character names, staying in character, WAY less table talk and what table talk there is is usually limited to whispers where it doesn't disturb other players.

In the end, I think the experience is different.  I do not, however, think that it's inferior.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 27, 2008)

jensun said:


> I am not touching the rest of this thread but I dont get this at all.
> 
> Unless you are reading bad D&D fiction very few wizards in literature do anything that comes even close to what magic does in D&D.  Hell, its not even that close to magic in Jack Vances stuff.





Did you read the rest of the quote you snipped a piece from and misinterpreted? Go back and read the rest because your criticism is built upon a false supposition on your part.

I acknowledge that most fantasy wizards are not like D&D wizards. Most fantasy wizards are not like each other at all. A wizard from a Conan book is nothing like Gandalf who is nothing like Allanon.

But one thing they do all have in common: They are the most powerful people in their world. They are not unbeatable, but they deal in arcane forces that other people cannot emulate or equal in power. They are mysterious and considered dangerous to toy with due to that arcane power. They have a particularly feel that 4E does not capture.

The 4E wizard would be laughed at if it tried to rule a kingdom with his weak hit points and limited arcane magic. He is nothing like the wizards I listed.

D&D wizards used to have that kind of feel. A D&D wizard was clearly a very powerful and mysterious figure in D&D. You were never sure what they could do. You knew that fighting one as a fighter was going to be extremely difficult and you had better come prepared with your own group of friends and/or items.

So it is not the exact literary wizard was I looking for. I was looking for the literary feel of wizards. I have not read many books where wizards are not accounted the most powerful force in a given world where wizards are even included whether it be _Lord of the Rings_ having Gandalf and The Witchking of Angmar, Allanon in _The Shannara Series_, the wizards in the Harry Dresden series, or the wizards in Guy Gavriel Kay's _Tigana_.

The 4E wizard is nothing close to those wizards. He would rarely be feared for his power, much less the fact that any Tom, Dick, and Harry in the campaign world has access to Ritual Casting.

So please go reread the entire quote you just tried misrepresent. 4E wizards may represent a different type of wizard, but tey represent no wizard I have ever read about in literature. For those of us who like being like Rand, Gandalf, Allanon as far as characrers go as well as having wizards be main villains in a story that are powerful enough to level armies and challenge parties without needing a ton of hit points, the 4E wizard is not our cup of tea.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> What? What makes the experience different? You all get together, talk to each other, and have adventures.
> 
> The only difference between an online game and an offline game is that when I play an offline game i wish i had a VTT to automize functions that eat up time unnecessarily.
> 
> ...




Didn't work that way in my group. Your assumption that it did just shows a bias on your part which makes your point hard to take seriously.

Wizards do not do adventures alone. I have never seen that happen unless it was an adventure designed for a solo character.

I have yet to see a wizard able to do everything by himself. Too many creatures that can see through invisibility, fly, and do any number of attacks that can annhiliate a wizard once they get ahold of him.

Folks like you that make ludicrous and false claims about the wizard class either don't have much experience playing a wizard or with one. Because I know that wizards can't do everything alone. I have yet to play in a party where the wizard did not need and appreciate a good rogue and warrior.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Did you read the rest of the quote you snipped a piece from and misinterpreted? Go back and read the rest because your criticism is built upon a false supposition on your part.
> 
> I acknowledge that most fantasy wizards are not like D&D wizards. Most fantasy wizards are not like each other at all. A wizard from a Conan book is nothing like Gandalf who is nothing like Allanon.
> 
> ...



While I'm not familiar with Harry Dresden and Tigana, I believe that most literary wizards tended to be mentors or antagonists. Hence, in order to credibly advise the protagonist(s), or to pose a credible threat, they had to be presented as more capable, at least initially. To me, it has nothing to do with class and everything to do with level.

If the idea that a high-level fighter can rule a kingdom is not laughable, then neither should be the idea that a high-level wizard can do the same. Essentially, you don't fear a wizard simply because he is a wizard. You fear a wizard because his level is much higher than yours and he is thus much more powerful than you are. Yes, that mean that a high-level wizard doesn't command any more respect than a high-level fighter, but it also means that he doesn't command any less respect, too.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2008)

> So please go reread the entire quote you just tried misrepresent. 4E wizards may represent a different type of wizard, but tey represent no wizard I have ever read about in literature. For those of us who like being like Rand, Gandalf, Allanon as far as characrers go as well as having wizards be main villains in a story that are powerful enough to level armies and challenge parties without needing a ton of hit points, the 4E wizard is not our cup of tea.




So, you wanted to play wizards so you could be the most powerful person in the world?  And you don't understand why other players might have a problem with this?

I remember a half jokey thread a while back where it was posited that an 18th level lich could take out a million 5th level NPC's.  The worst part was, there were ways that it could actually happen.  It was actually possible for the lich to win on his own.

Meanwhile, the poor non-caster classed got toasted in a hail of arrows.

As far as emulating literary wizards - I would point to books like Harry Potter where wizards are not world besting individuals.  Wizards in Conan were not terribly powerful either - it took hours to cast spells.  The God Wizard, a la David Eddings, is only one archetype, hardly the only one.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 27, 2008)

The thing I seem to see is that you can't have a subjective opinion that is your own and not meant to be looked at as an opinion that everyone should share without being attacked for it. When I wrote the original post, it was all my own opinion. It was my scream at what I thought was wrong with 4E for myself.

There are probably people who have entirely different things about 4E they don't like and ton of people who dislike plenty about 3E that they have stated over the years. But for some reason some 4E supporters chose to jump on my argument as though I were saying "This is what is bad about 4E". 

It didn't seem to matter that I clearly stated "This is my subjective opinion. There is no way to change it. This is my feeling after playing the game. I do not need you to share that opinion for me to know that all that I have written I feel to be true for my own tastes." 

Some people like 4E. Who am I to tell them why they shouldn't like 4E? Just like who are they to tell me that the reasons I don't like it are invalid? I feel they are valid and they don't mesh right in my head. Just because they mesh right in other people's head, doesn't mean that suits us all.

For example, I see a ton of people complain about the 3E wizard being the "I win" guy. I never experienced that. 

In my experience, the 3E wizard was the guy who enabled the entire party to win. When I talk about the wizard stepping up when the light is darkest, I don't mean stepping up and winning alone. I mean he was the guy who cast _Haste_ making the party stronger. He was the guy who cast fly on the fighter so he could actually fight the dragon or flying demon. He was the guy who cast resist energy on the party so they could withstand the hail of energy blasts being rained down on them. He was the guy who stepped into to render the enemy wizard inert so the rest of the party could wade through the minions to kill that big bad guy.

We played with a wizard player who tried to do things alone in terms of landing big, tough killing blows. All he ended up doing was getting the party massacred. In the high level game the bad guys such as dragons and major demons were strong enough to withstand a wizard's attacks and kill a wizard quick. So either a wizard learned how and where to apply his attacks or he got ripped apart. So I've never played in a game where the wizard was supreme.

The wizard just never had enough spells at his disposal. And we never played the game with the 15 minute adventuring day I hear people speak of. Just like we don't let people play 4E with the 15 minute adventuring day so they don't always have access to their dailies. 

We play 4E the way it was intended to be played waiting for healing surges to dry up before we rest. We play 3E the same way by responsibly using power to get the most done in one day rather than letting everyone blow off their daily abilities each fight and expect to rest. 

It all comes down to how you play. Some DMs couldn't handle the wizard and some players didn't like playing with a guy allowed to use every spell and ability in the game. Since that didn't happen in our group because we use oversight to catch overpowered powers and didn't the wizard rest after he launched his spell repertorie, we didn't have the same troubles. 

You know what? I do the same thing in 4E. If I see an overpowered combo, that is hammered as early as it is caught. _Blade Cascade_ wasn't going to see the light of day in our campaign as it was written. _Seal of Binding_ combined with Demigod regeneration isn't going to see the light of day. Just like _Avasculate_ isn't allowed in our 3E campaigns.

Everything in a game can be handled if you take the time to evaluate how a power or spell works. But a game that is mechanically very different cannot be changed dramatically without breaking it. When it comes down to it the mechanics of 4E will suit some people and they will not suit others. I prefer the mechancs of 3E. I find they suit my fantasy tastes better than 4E for a variety of reasons that mostly have to do with uniqueness and flavor.

Just like some people like that 4E is more egalitarian and balanced, I prefer 3E because it is more differentiated and imbalanced. It is even that way when it comes to monster races. I love what they did in 3E with monster templates. Those 3E monster design tools gave you a real understanding of what an undead was, a planar creature, or an elemental. You felt like you were reading about different creatures in the same way you feel like you are reading about different species in an encyclopedia. I like that feel.

Some of 4E I like what they did with monster powers. I don't like the base design templates, but I might steel some of the monster powers to use with my 3E monsters like Hobgoblin Phalanx. After reading the DMs guide and monster manual, 4E monsters felt hollow and artificial. Alot of hand waving and monster design based on game balance versus pseudorealistic racial or species representation. I prefer the latter to the former. I like feeling like my monster races are based on concrete ideas of what a creature of that type would be like.

4E had some good ideas that I like. I just think it would be easier for me to take some of the good ideas from 4E and modify 3E to get the overall feel I like in a fantasy game than try to export 3E things I like into 4E. I like the 3E base mechanics better and some of the 4E designs for certain monsters abilities and a few 4E mechanics like healing and disease. I might incorporate 4E healing and disease mechanics into my 3E game as well, but I'm going to have work on that.

I know I'm definitely going to import the idea that 3E characters heal up to full after one day. I like that they are good to go after a day rather than expending a wand of healing to top them all off. Just some good old fashion rest. But I like healing surges. I think healing surges could work in 3E just fine and allow me to limit the number of healing items needed to survive adventures. Which was one of my major problems with 3E suspension of disbelief.

It will be interesting to try to combine the games. I definitely want the 3E feel for casters. I like my casters powerful. I want them to feel like they wield arcane and divine powers that awe people and can level armies. 

And yeah, I don't need someone to tell me I can get that same effect with a bunch of Ogre or humanoid minions while the wizard uses Scorching Blast. I want my wizards to be able to level armies of real ogres, giants, or demons that Mr. Farmer with a pitchfork couldn't kill with one lucky blow. So let's not have that discussion again. No one will ever convince me the minion mechanic is cool. I'm not saying it doesn't work as far as appearances go, but I am saying it will never be as satisfying as killing a group of creatures that you know are strong enough not to die to one measly hit of any kind by anyone. 

To sum it up, 3E is a game more suited to my tastes. I plan to take from 4Eisms into 3E and see how they work. The healing and disease systems being the most prominent 4Eisms I want to rob as well as some of the fighting styles of humanoid monsters. I may even incorporate some of the melee powers as dailies for melee types. I like that melee types can do more in the game. I didn't mind that in the slightest. I just didn't why they had to neuter wizards and priests to make melee types better. It will be interesting mixing and matching.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 27, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> A side note-
> 
> Here's why the wizard changed:
> 
> ...




That's a good understanding of the game. Yep, it is the aesthetic that I want. If an RPG does not give you the aesthetic you are looking for, then it becomes a game of numbers. 

I play for the aesthetic. Which basically amounts to the feeling I get when I imagine the battle on the battlefield or the adventure as it progresses. I want things to look and act a certain way that jives with what I have read in fantasy books. I don't pretend that 3E is perfect, just that it is closer to what I am looking for.

Yep, the 4E wizard deals alot of aggregate damage. But the thing is that 17 points per target used to kill a group of lvl 3 hobgoblins. Now 17 points per target ends up taking about a third of their hit points and not 20% of a lvl 6 skirmishers hit points. So though it may in the aggregate do alot of damage, it sure doesn't feel very powerful when the party still has to spend numerous rounds finishing the kill. 

A fireball is a daily. I'd rather have a daily that finished the job than a daily that did good aggregate damage. I want my fireball to leave people dead even if they start at full hit points. That is the aesthetic I am looking for.

Just like I want a crit from my warrior to level someone. Not just be a maximum damage hit that I could roll regardless of whether I crit or not. So it is not just the aesthetic for casters I am looking to get back. I want that powerful hit aesthetic back for my melees as well. For my own tastes, a crit should be a tremendous hit that levels an opponent of roughly the same level as you.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I acknowledge that most fantasy wizards are not like D&D wizards. Most fantasy wizards are not like each other at all. A wizard from a Conan book is nothing like Gandalf who is nothing like Allanon.
> 
> But one thing they do all have in common: They are the most powerful people in their world. They are not unbeatable, but they deal in arcane forces that other people cannot emulate or equal in power. They are mysterious and considered dangerous to toy with due to that arcane power. They have a particularly feel that 4E does not capture.
> 
> The 4E wizard would be laughed at if it tried to rule a kingdom with his weak hit points and limited arcane magic. He is nothing like the wizards I listed.



So in brief, the fact that 3e wizards were vastly more powerful than 3e non-spellcasters is a crucial point for your satisfaction? And there's no reasonable way a wizard can aspire to a leadership position due to powers that are... now exactly the same scale as every other class? These positions may be held in good faith, but I think you're going to be pretty lonely in holding them.

If I wanted to play a game where wizards were Just Better, I'd play Ars Magica. I think WotC is being very reasonable in targeting the game towards sharing the Awesome out among all the character class, and not bestowing special power upon the PC who decides that his Awesome comes from the "Totally Impossible" power source rather than the "Highly Implausible" power source. You can still write perfectly good fights with Unstoppable Wizard Antagonists just by following the DMG guidelines for ginning up solo monsters. Once a wizard sips from the chalice of NPCdom, he gains assorted hideous powers hinging on his eventual unspeakable fate. It's a thin fantasy world that can't support the concept of wizards who make sacrifices totally unacceptable to any PC in exchange for unheard-of personal power.

In terms of leadership, I can't understand why wizards-as-powerful-as-everyone-else makes it impossible for a wizard to be a ruler now. A cursory review of real-life history strongly suggests that people totally incapable of hewing down even five ordinary men in a single blow still manage to run countries. Possession of godlike powers of reality-shaping is strictly optional, and it's not as if other classes now possess unique degrees of might unapproachable by a lowly spellslinger.

Ultimately, if you really must have wizards be grossly more powerful than mere warriors, give all wizards five or six bonus levels. That's essentially what you're asking for from the game- wizards as intrinsically and naturally superior to noncasters. I really don't think you're going to get it in any modern game not devoted to the conceit.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Jackie also uses a lot of props, which, if they aren't present, limit the "do all kinds of cool things" that you can do with page 42.




My point is that Jackie Chan doesn't use Tumble once per encounter. No, don't even try to argue because he doesn't.





> Well, there is your problem. You don't want to play a game with your friends, you want to play a game with your friends incidentally in the room.
> 
> Remove your expectations that you must be the most powerful character in the room and the game will play a lot better.




This is nothing but a worthless response meant to invalidate my concerns. I'm glad I don't have friends who believe the tripe you posted above. Neither of those assumptions is true and is nothing more than a backhanded insult meant to make you feel superior. I'm not buying into it.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 27, 2008)

cwhs01 said:


> Change a little in the above statement, and you have my sentiments about 3e.
> Especially for non-casters. They usually had few choices beyond what target to hit and when to run away. Special attacks such as trip, grapple, power attack etc. where only ever useful if you had a pc dedicated to the tactic. They would then use this trick over and over again. And ofcourse, these options excist in 4e as well (in principle anyway)...
> 
> 4e tries to give every class more options, which include encounter, daily and at-will powers. Though i haven't really played 4e as much as 3e yet (ofcourse), it seems to work fine, at low level, for giving varied combats. When you run out of encounter powers and dailies, you still have a choice of at least two different at-wills + the stunt system (page 42?).
> ...




What you say is true. I liked what they did for melees in 4E. I'm going to try to import some dailies to 4E. I feel dailies better allow me to run things as I like to run them and will give the melees some better options. 

I won't be importing encounter powers though. I like that a simple sword or axe swing will work the majority of the time. That is real fighting to me. I like when my melee characters fight using a particular fighting style rather than blowing off one shot powers that they can't repeat for an artificial amount of time.

If I were a 4E designer, I would have worked on improving fighting style options. Not making everyone into the equivalent of a spellcaster with abilities that once used cannot be used again for an arbitrary amount of time.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Aug 27, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I remember a half jokey thread a while back where it was posited that an 18th level lich could take out a million 5th level NPC's. The worst part was, there were ways that it could actually happen. It was actually possible for the lich to win on his own.
> 
> Meanwhile, the poor non-caster classed got toasted in a hail of arrows.



I'm confused.  Why are you bringing _liches_ into a comparison of wizards vs. non-casters?  Wizard != lich.

I mean, I assume the only reason the lich didn't also get "toasted in a hail of arrows" is its DR...which has nothing to do with it being a wizard.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> (1) The problem in D&D (and most others RPGs) tends to be that there are way more combat encounters then in a typical story, from a story-telling point perspective. I mean, think about how many real battles we have in LotR - that would never be enough for the span of a typical D&D campaign.




That's what I'm getting at.I reduced the number of encounters. I agree with you. There are alot less in movies and books. So I worked to reduce the number of encounters into single, big block encounters.




> Long-Drawn out fights are perfectly possible using a mix of lots of Minions and powerful individual foes, possibly attacking in waves - but all within one encounter.




I've tried what you say. It doesn't work in 4E. You run out of healing, you run out of hit points, you run out of encounter powers, and you can't get your AC high enough to stand up to a long fight.

I could with work capture what I'm talking about in 4E by reducing the attack roll of the minions or monsters. But I can do exactly the same thing in 3E.




> Jackie Chain is constantly using tumbling, flying kicks, roundhouse kicks and so on because - like most movie characters - he is fighting Minions - if he hits, he gets to do all kinds of cool stuff. And of course, Jackie Chan has probably a DM that uses DMG p.42 a lot more then me or you (or your DM?).




No. If it were 4E, he could roundhouse kick once per encounter. Otherwise, he would be reduced to regular kicks. He could tumble once per encounter, otherwise he would be reduced to walking. He could flying kick maybe one time a day, then he would be reduced to normal kicks.

When they name something tumble, don't you think they mean it in 4E? Tumble is an encounter power. Why can I in your mind suddenly tumble as a standard form of movement?

That is exactly what I'm getting at. You do alot of handwaving and assumption completely ignoring the names of powers. So what do you do when a guy uses a Roundhouse Kick encounter power? And then tells you he is using a Roundhosue kick as his standard attack? What do you do when the guy does different damage for each effect?

I gather that you don't worry about it. It isn't important to you.

So what do you do if it is important to you to have that internal consistency? What do you do then?




> Did you ever try this in 3E? Sure, the Fighter manages to do that (if someone keeps him up with some healing spells), but the Wizard? He's out of useful spells quickly, and then (unlike maybe the Wizard-That's-not-really-a-wizard-as-we-all-known, Gandalf) he can't get out his sword and staff to kick ass.




Well, yes I have. The wizard generally has wands and other items that allow him to slog through the regular minions. Heck, that is what the fighter is there for.

You have to remember how minions work in 3E. They vary in level according to what the DM wants to do with them. They can die in one hit or be a real nuisance. They wear gear that matters.

They have a larger variance than minions in 3E. I like being able to vary minion level creatures. As I said, it comes down to what we want. I don't want to know that a lucky hit by little boy with a rock can kill a creature that my fighter with his +6 Greatsword can kill.

All games are in essence about the feel of the game. In 4E a minion is a creature that can be killed in one hit by anyone. In 3E a minion is a creature that can be killed in one hit by a high level skilled fighter. A little boy with a rock has no chance against him nor a farmer with a pitchfork nor a low level guard.

In 4E it doesn't matter if it is a demon, an ogre, or a human rabble, a lucky 20 by that little boy with the rock kills that minion. I don't care how lucky a little boy with a rock is he isn't going to kill a 3E lvl 9 orc warrior minion, but that lvl 13 human warrior with his +3 greatsword just might kill that lvl 9 orc warrior in service to the orc warlord.

That's the feel I want for my demon and ogre or lvl 9 orc warrior minions. I want them to be a force that can't be killed by regular townsfolk so that they actually need the warrior to show up. If I want some minion level creatures that townsfolk can kill, I'll throw in some lvl 1 regular orcs. I especially don't want demon minions feeling like they can be killed in one swift easy hit by anyone. 

That 20th lvl fighter with a +5 weapon can skill a Vrock or something in one hit because he is a bad to the bone lvl 20 fighter that can rock you hard if you go toe to toe with him.



> You are not forced to re-use flavor text if you don't like it. Just because you use the same mechanical representation for a certain task, doesn't mean you use the same narrative. And vice versa, of course...




I can't much disagree with this. It's true. 

I do like internal consistency. That's just my preference.



> Ultimately, everyone has to make his pick according to preferences. Though I still don't get why you'd give up D&D entirely, but well, there are a lot of other games out there that also deserve a fair chance to be tested and played...





This is true. Which I why my post is subjective. What you find ok, I don't. And vice versa. It isn't an either or scenario.

But I'm sure if D&D had designed a game you didn't enjoy that you felt like was driving you out of the game, you wouldn't be too happy either. This game feels so unlike D&D, so unlike the fantasy books that I have read and enjoyed, that I feel driven out of a game I've played for 25 years.

I don't care which side of the fence you are on, 4E is a vastly different form of D&D that has an entirely different design goal and design inspiration than 3E or an previous version of D&D.

Those different mechanics lead to an entirely different feel and thus apperance to the game. For example, when a wizard launches an Aoe Spell and levels a group of minions, it looks the same as when he did it in 3E. But when a 3E wizard launched a fireball to level a group of orcs, he generally would not drop it on the heads of his party comrades because he did significant damage to them as well. But in 4E if the party wizard drops a Scorching Blast on top of the fighter killing a ton of orc minions surrounding that fighter, he does pittance damage in general to that fighter and may in fact do not damage if he misses them completely. That is an entirely different feel from previous editions.

As in that 3E fireball was equally dangerous to the monsters and the party.

But a 4E scorching blast is far less dangerous to the party and far more dangerous to minion level monsters. And becomes less dangerous to the party and remains equally dangerous to minions as you level.

Whereas 3E Aoe attacks become more dangerous to the party, more dangerous to minion level creatures, and just all around more dangerous.

Seriously, you need a _Meteor Swarm_ or _Horrid Wilting_ to kill high level minions. But that same 1st lvl Scorching Blast that killed lvl 1 human rabble will kill a lvl 9 orc warrior minion and will kill a lvl 20 demon minion. So will the rogue's fist or the lucky 20 hit roll with a rock from the little boy.

To me a big old "fake power, fake power, fake power" ringing bell goes off in my head when a wizard uses a scorching blast on lvl 9 orc minions that he used to kill lvl 2 human rabble. 

That is a difficult thing for someone like me to reconcile. I'm glad you are able to reconcile it fine so you can enjoy the game. But it bothers me immensely as it makes a class I greatly enjoyed seem like a fake. Like he may look powerful when he levels those minions, but really it is only because someone artificially made minions have 1 hit point each. Against real monsters, he would do pittance damage. That just bothers the heck out of me.

I'm glad you extended your reply. That wink of yours, man that just seems like patronization.

I know we already discussed this in a previous thread. And we will probably never agree. But you've always been polite. I understand you like 4E and it is more to your preference. I can accept that. We don't wall look for the same things in a fantasy game. My original post is suitable to me.

I can't do like you do. If a character can tumble as part of his fighting style, I want him to be able to do it all time the time when condition allow. When he does a roundhouse or flying kick, same thing. I don't want it to be an encounter power with an arbitrary limitation I can't explain in real terms. That's just my personal preference.

I understand conceptually I can do the same things in 4E if I handwaye the idea of realism and consistency. But I don't want to have to do that. I don't like to do that. I'm a guy who likes a sense of realism. Not so much that I cant buy into magic and fantasy, but enough that things seem somewhat to work as they might work in the real world. 4E doesn't give me enough of what I prefer.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 27, 2008)

In this thread, SHUT UP CELTAVIAN, STOP HAVING THE WRONG OPINION.  THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.  BAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW.

Honestly Celtavian, my advice is to just stop responding.  We all know it won't get you anywhere.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> My point is that Jackie Chan doesn't use Tumble once per encounter. No, don't even try to argue because he doesn't.



When did he take opportunity attacks? 
You're getting lost in details.

The Rogues Artful Dodger ability represents his tumbling just as much as the Tumble encounter power. The encounter power is just a particularly awesome display of Tumble...



> I've tried what you say. It doesn't work in 4E. You run out of healing, you run out of hit points, you run out of encounter powers, and you can't get your AC high enough to stand up to a long fight.



Well, than you might be doing it wrong.  
Use Minions, use monsters with a levels slightly lower than the PCs, and than go to an encounter budget that's higher than the PCs level (they are supposed to take that). 



> No. If it were 4E, he could roundhouse kick once per encounter. Otherwise, he would be reduced to regular kicks.



See that Minion over there - I'll try a round-house kick to death. Basic Attack, if I hit, it dies in any spectacular display I like.
See that Elite over there - I'll try a round-house kick to death - Basic Attack. Oops, I hit, but the opponent isn't dead - apparently, he dodged out of the way at the last moment... 



> That is exactly what I'm getting at. You do alot of handwaving and assumption completely ignoring the names of powers.



Yes, I do. That's the fun of it. Think of it as deciding that I want to describe my spells in a non-standard way, like my Necromancer throwing skulls instead of missiles when casting magic missile. This is the type of stuff some roleplayers do all the time. I am glad I eventually started with that, too.



> So what do you do if it is important to you to have that internal consistency? What do you do then?



Hmm. Whine on message boards?
I don't care about this type of consistency. I really don't.
And what is inconsistent about Jackie Chan using round-house kicks when it pleases him, but not always succeeding in a particularly effective way? 

The only inconsistency arises if you assume that there is a 1:1 mapping between game terms and "fictional world" elements. But that's not the case. Hit Points aren't part of the fiction world. Levels are not part of the fictional world. Even the skills don't map entirely to the fictional world. (or are you telling me there only exist people that know something on every part of history, which is why there is just one "Knowledge (History)" skill, not a Knowledge (History of the Stone Ages) and Knowledge (History of the Roman Empire)?)



> All games are in essence about the feel of the game. In 4E a minion is a creature that can be killed in one hit by anyone. In 3E a minion is a creature that can be killed in one hit by a high level skilled fighter. A little boy with a rock has no chance against him nor a farmer with a pitchfork nor a low level guard.



Your 3E Minion (barring house rules) will most likely be unable to affect the Fighter at all if the Fighter can really kill him in one blow. That's why the Minion mechanics for 4E have changed - to ensure that they still matter, but also don't require me any book-keeping on hit points.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> This is true. Which I why my post is subjective. What you find ok, I don't. And vice versa. It isn't an either or scenario.



Certainly. But you'll still invite people to explain how they see things, if you post your view on it.



> But I'm sure if D&D had designed a game you didn't enjoy that you felt like was driving you out of the game, you wouldn't be too happy either. This game feels so unlike D&D, so unlike the fantasy books that I have read and enjoyed, that I feel driven out of a game I've played for 25 years.



Sure, I wouldn't be. Though I am not sure if I would worry that much about it. I am not married to D&D, even if we play it a lot. If D&D 4E was not to my taste, I'd keep playing 3E, Iron Heroes, or would finally run some Star Wars or Shadowrun again. 



> I don't care which side of the fence you are on, 4E is a vastly different form of D&D that has an entirely different design goal and design inspiration than 3E or an previous version of D&D.



I know, everything people post on the internet is implicitly "IMO", but stating it like this doesn't make it as if you feel like its true. The game we played last saturday felt very much like D&D as I expect it to feel. I have obviously different associations with D&D than you, but 4E definitely definitely fires my D&D neurons. 



> Those different mechanics lead to an entirely different feel and thus apperance to the game. For example, when a wizard launches an Aoe Spell and levels a group of minions, it looks the same as when he did it in 3E. But when a 3E wizard launched a fireball to level a group of orcs, he generally would not drop it on the heads of his party comrades because he did significant damage to them as well. But in 4E if the party wizard drops a Scorching Blast on top of the fighter killing a ton of orc minions surrounding that fighter, he does pittance damage in general to that fighter and may in fact do not damage if he misses them completely. That is an entirely different feel from previous editions.
> 
> As in that 3E fireball was equally dangerous to the monsters and the party.



You never threw a fireball at your own parties fighter or Rogue? Pah, we did that a few times. Sometimes relying on Evasion/Improved Evasion, other times relying on Resist Energy, but we certainly did that a few times. 



> But a 4E scorching blast is far less dangerous to the party and far more dangerous to minion level monsters. And becomes less dangerous to the party and remains equally dangerous to minions as you level.
> 
> Whereas 3E Aoe attacks become more dangerous to the party, more dangerous to minion level creatures, and just all around more dangerous.






> Seriously, you need a _Meteor Swarm_ or _Horrid Wilting_ to kill high level minions. But that same 1st lvl Scorching Blast that killed lvl 1 human rabble will kill a lvl 9 orc warrior minion and will kill a lvl 20 demon minion. So will the rogue's fist or the lucky 20 hit roll with a rock from the little boy.



(1) It is the same spell, but not the same character. The character shooting scorching blasts at Human Rabble with have a lower level than the character shooting Scorcing Blast at demon minions (or rather devil minions - I think there are no demon minions so far)
(2) If you want to keep your senses, don't ever run level 20 minions against level 1 characters. Stay in a reasonable level range. You wouldn't run a 5th level party against a Pit Fiend, either. 
(3) Damage in 3E does scale with level, especially for wizards. You keep using a 3rd level spell against 5th level monsters and against 10th level monsters, and the impact would be about the same.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 27, 2008)

Book of Nine Swords solved the "Wizards win" problem, if there ever was one. And they did it by ramping up melee classes.


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Aug 27, 2008)

The Kyngdoms said:


> I must admit, I don't get it either.  Just because you don't like 4ed doesn't mean you should quit playing the version you do like.
> 
> I'll be playing 3.5 for a good while yet, and so will many other people.  Just because we're not moving over to a new edition doesn't mean we should all just throw in the towel and quit.




Because 4E communities threaten the right to exist of 3.5 communities and the future of 3E is still uncertain.  Historically, there has only been ONE version of the game in active company-supported production.  Someone on this forum literally said that 4E is the "new hotness" and that if we are not playing the latest version then we are essentially obsolete.  That is a very unwelcoming statement.  

See if you can find an active 1E or 2E community?  There are none.  That will be us in a few years.  We will have been made to go underground, with the chances of finding players for our version of the game rapidly diminishing with each passing minute.  This is what Celtavian cannot reconcile.  We are being slowly banished.  The only hope for us is that for the first time in history there may actually be TWO popular versions of D&D, except that the second will be called something else.  Still, again for the first time in D&D history, we will be a house divided.

Unlike Celtavian, I feel somewhat differently, in that the aliens will have to pry the version of D&D I play from my cold dead hands after the nuclear holocost before I stop playing. So a little thing like being banished by fellow travelers won't stop me.


----------



## Jack Colby (Aug 27, 2008)

AWizardInDallas said:


> Because 4E communities threaten the right to exist of 3.5 communities and the future of 3E is still uncertain.  Historically, there has only been ONE version of the game in active company-supported production.  Someone on this forum literally said that 4E is the "new hotness" and that if we are not playing the latest version then we are essentially obsolete.  That is a very unwelcoming statement.




That's what happened when 3E came out as well.  The only difference now is that the previous edition is open and other companies may continue to support it _if_ the players are there and remain loyal.



AWizardInDallas said:


> See if you can find an active 1E or 2E community?  There are none.




Absolutely false.  You must not have looked very hard for such communities.


----------



## jensun (Aug 27, 2008)

AWizardInDallas said:


> See if you can find an active 1E or 2E community?  There are none.



Then you arent really looking hard enough.  Dragonsfoot, the OD&D board to say nothing of the various recent old school releases, Labyrinth Lord etc.


----------



## Goumindong (Aug 27, 2008)

BronzeDragon said:


> To me the players are special not because they are different from the rest of the world, but because they are the _focus_ of the game. A 20th level Paladin protecting X-town from an invasion by an Orc horde is as important as the player's 20th level Paladin doing the same thing. He won't get the same attention because he's not the focus (after all it is I who play him, not one of the players and I have to play _loads_ of characters).




O.K. Here is where you are failing and failing utterly. First off, lets get semantics out of the way.

1. A 20th level NPC paladin cannot be as important as a players 20th level Paladin doing the same thing. He cannot be because he is not the focus of the game.

2. *There is no such thing as a 20th level paladin*. Class and level only serve as mechanical constructs by which NPCs and Monsters interact in combat with PCs. It is nothing else. If you want a guy who is a powerful Paladin, then you make him a powerful paladin. And all the time he is doing his thing with only NPC/NPC interaction, he is a powerful paladin doing exactly what you want him to do 

The other day, i ran an adventure, and the orcs kicked a guys face in. I didn't need to roll to have the orcs kick a guys face in, because that is retarded, they're NPCs, they all do what I want when i want why i want because I said so. Now, when they interact with players they may or may not be minions, may or may not be elite, or solo or whatever. All of that is just a construct to inform the interaction with the players.

Your players never know the paladins attack bonus, backstory unless you tell them, AC, his powers. They don't need to. All they need to know is that he is strong, and he kicks ass for the Lord Moradin



Celtavian said:


> But one thing they do all have in common: They are the most powerful people in their world. They are not unbeatable, but they deal in arcane forces that other people cannot emulate or equal in power. They are mysterious and considered dangerous to toy with due to that arcane power. They have a particularly feel that 4E does not capture.




So literally, the problem is that the class that you play is not the most powerful entity on the entire world. Well then, i see we have gotten to the heart of the matter.



> In my experience, the 3E wizard was the guy who enabled the entire party to win. When I talk about the wizard stepping up when the light is darkest, I don't mean stepping up and winning alone. I mean he was the guy who cast _Haste_ making the party stronger. He was the guy who cast fly on the fighter so he could actually fight the dragon or flying demon. He was the guy who cast resist energy on the party so they could withstand the hail of energy blasts being rained down on them. He was the guy who stepped into to render the enemy wizard inert so the rest of the party could wade through the minions to kill that big bad guy.




Ahh yes. In your experience the 3E wizard was the guy who won the fight, and the rest of them were just there to clean up after you won the fight. I  would think we're getting closer to the heart of the issue, but we totally pegged it ages ago.



> The 4E wizard would be laughed at if it tried to rule a kingdom with his weak hit points and limited arcane magic. He is nothing like the wizards I listed.




Of course he would, what right minded DM is going to let a player rule a Kingdom when there are worlds to be saving?

If you have other problems its because you are failing to realize that outside of the players there is no such thing as a wizard. If you want to give a wizard a bunch of wild ass crazy abilities you are free to do so. Because what makes an NPC vivid to the players is not its stat block



Celtavian said:


> I have yet to see a wizard able to do everything by himself. Too many creatures that can see through invisibility, fly, and do any number of attacks that can annhiliate a wizard once they get ahold of him.




 And those same monsters do the same thing to a fighter. Except faster, with a lower likelihood of being stopped by a save or die, detected before they are in range, or even damaged at all by the fighter. 



> Folks like you that make ludicrous and false claims about the wizard class either don't have much experience playing a wizard or with one. Because I know that wizards can't do everything alone. I have yet to play in a party where the wizard did not need and appreciate a good rogue and warrior.




 Well that's great, because i have played wizards and sorcerers and bards nearly exclusively throughout the entire 3e lifespan and i never once felt that i "needed" the other party members. Not certainly in the slightest did i need them to be anything but wizards, sorcerers, druids, or clerics. 

 I like the 4e Wizard even more than previous incarnations. Because now, i can be very powerful and "controllery", but i don't make the fighter, rogue, or ranger obsolete. Because i can, by default, use powerful arcane techniques and alter the very world around me. But at the same time, if i want to be a wizard that is so awesome he kicks people in the face instead of bothering with arcane words of power, i can be a fighter, and take "ritual caster"

 I ran a level 20 playtest adventure of my own design recently and most of the time, the result was "Oh man, what the wizard did really defined that fight". Because that is what wizards do now, they define fights, they don't win them.



Celtavian said:


> The thing I seem to see is that you can't have a subjective opinion that is your own and not meant to be looked at as an opinion that everyone should share without being attacked for it. When I wrote the original post, it was all my own opinion. It was my scream at what I thought was wrong with 4E for myself.




  No, you can have all the subjective opinion that you want, just as we can have all the subjective opinion to call your subjective opinion stupid. 



> A bunch of misconceptions about what 4e is




  O.K. here is the real problem. You don't understand roleplaying games. Roleplaying games are not to be read, they are to be played. That stats of an ogre minion do not define i literal creature that walks around in the world that has 1 hit point, it defines how that creature interacts with the player.

  A NPC farmer could stab it as many times as it wanted, and if the DM doesn't want it to die, it doesn't die. Minions are just a framework to make it easier to deal with situations where you want a creature that is going to bite it as soon as the players thwack it. 

  Trust me, your players, or you will feel mighty powerful when you cleave through a horde of minions. And they will feel threatened at the same time (the last time i had a player who didn't feel threatened by minions he ate 70 damage in a single round and nearly died. Later, that same player, in a different game, jumped out of a window rather than be surrounded by minions)



Celtavian said:


> That's a good understanding of the game. Yep, it is the aesthetic that I want. If an RPG does not give you the aesthetic you are looking for, then it becomes a game of numbers.
> 
> I play for the aesthetic. Which basically amounts to the feeling I get when I imagine the battle on the battlefield or the adventure as it progresses. I want things to look and act a certain way that jives with what I have read in fantasy books. I don't pretend that 3E is perfect, just that it is closer to what I am looking for.




   Aesthetic is something you and your DM create. Aesthetic is not inherent in the system. That is another reason why you are getting told off. Because you are whining about your own inadequacies to find the Aesthetic in a system you like.



> Just like I want a crit from my warrior to level someone. Not just be a maximum damage hit that I could roll regardless of whether I crit or not. So it is not just the aesthetic for casters I am looking to get back. I want that powerful hit aesthetic back for my melees as well. For my own tastes, a crit should be a tremendous hit that levels an opponent of roughly the same level as you.





   A crit from a brutal rogue using a +1 shortsword is likely to do 33.5 average damage with an at will[mundane is 4.5 less].  With an encounter power, you're looking at upwards of 42.5 damage with a Daily, 45.5.

   A level 3 Soldier has about 45 hit points... You're going to be downing that target with a crit from your brutal rogue. Your ranger might not on just the crit, but he has more attacks coming to do more damage. 

   A fighter can do upwards of 44.5 damage on a crit with a daily and +1 weapon(rogues have a pretty hefty DPR advantage on at-will powers)



Celtavian said:


> I could with work capture what I'm talking about in 4E by reducing the attack roll of the minions or monsters. But I can do exactly the same thing in 3E.




So you're willing to spend a lot of time making sure wizards are not overpowered by extending encounter length(which actually makes the more powerful, not less, but i digress), flat out banning things which would otherwise be legal(which must include about half of the wizard repertoire). But you are not willing to spend less time to do the same for 4th?



> My point is that Jackie Chan doesn't use Tumble once per encounter. No, don't even try to argue because he doesn't.




I wasn't aware that players could only use acrobatic stunts once per encounter or that rule 42 doesn't have rules for adjudicating "doing cool things with the environment" all the damn time.

Oh wait, that is because players can use acrobatic stunts as many times as they want and the DMG has rules for adjudicating doing cool things with the environment all the damn time.


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Aug 27, 2008)

Jack Colby said:


> Absolutely false.  You must not have looked very hard for such communities.






jensun said:


> Then you arent really looking hard enough.  Dragonsfoot, the OD&D board to say nothing of the various recent old school releases, Labyrinth Lord etc.




Yeah I've been to Dragonsfoot.  Never heard of Labyrinth Lord.  Anyway the keyword is 'active' there's not a lot going on there.


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Aug 27, 2008)

Thanks for the tip about Labyrinth Lord.  Hadn't seen that.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Aug 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> O.K. Here is where you are failing and failing utterly. First off, lets get semantics out of the way.




Okay, let's get this out of the way: _One True Way_-ism is idiotic.



> 1. A 20th level NPC paladin cannot be as important as a players 20th level Paladin doing the same thing. He cannot be because he is not the focus of the game.




Says you. Others would not say so. The PC paladin is important in the sense that he is whose story is being followed at the moment; that does not, from an in-world perspective, make him more important than the NPC paladin.



> 2. *There is no such thing as a 20th level paladin*.




Clearly level has an impact on the game world itself, as a character with a higher level is capable of more, is more resistant to damage in general, and has a better chance of performing tasks. As such, level does exist, though not necessarily in a readily-determined fashion.



> Of course he would, what right minded DM is going to let a player rule a Kingdom when there are worlds to be saving?




Ah, of course, D&D is all about killing things and taking their stuff. I see that you have a very sophisticated approach to gaming.

Cut the One True Way crap. It's stupid and childish.



> No, you can have all the subjective opinion that you want, just as we can have all the subjective opinion to call your subjective opinion stupid.




That opinion is just *awesome*, really. It's why I'm posting this response, even!



> O.K. here is the real problem. You don't understand roleplaying games. Roleplaying games are not to be read, they are to be played. That stats of an ogre minion do not define i literal creature that walks around in the world that has 1 hit point, it defines how that creature interacts with the player.




No, good sir, you simply seem incapable of comprehending the idea that someone out there might not interpret the game exactly the same way you do. Not everyone plays D&D as a game of "kill things and take their stuff." Some people want something somewhat more immersive and complicated and simulationist. If you don't, that's fine, but don't tell people they don't understand RPGs when they don't see gaming in the exact same light that you do.


----------



## racoffin (Aug 27, 2008)

AWizardInDallas said:


> Because 4E communities threaten the right to exist of 3.5 communities and the future of 3E is still uncertain.  Historically, there has only been ONE version of the game in active company-supported production.  Someone on this forum literally said that 4E is the "new hotness" and that if we are not playing the latest version then we are essentially obsolete.  That is a very unwelcoming statement.
> 
> See if you can find an active 1E or 2E community?  There are none.  That will be us in a few years.  We will have been made to go underground, with the chances of finding players for our version of the game rapidly diminishing with each passing minute.  This is what Celtavian cannot reconcile.  We are being slowly banished.  The only hope for us is that for the first time in history there may actually be TWO popular versions of D&D, except that the second will be called something else.  Still, again for the first time in D&D history, we will be a house divided.
> 
> Unlike Celtavian, I feel somewhat differently, in that the aliens will have to pry the version of D&D I play from my cold dead hands after the nuclear holocost before I stop playing. So a little thing like being banished by fellow travelers won't stop me.




You know, there is a great deal of discussion about 3E/3.5E here, and not even about Pathfinder. Sadly, most of the talk is focused in the threads where people are screaming at each other about how whichever edition is better or worse than the other. If people are *really* interested in their edition, they might spend that energy being creative and discussing various ideas regarding their edition instead of tearing down the other one or trying to defend their own. I mean, is someone's mind being changed by the 100th iteration of "Your edition sucks!" "NO! YOUR edition sucks!"


----------



## Maggan (Aug 27, 2008)

AWizardInDallas said:


> See if you can find an active 1E or 2E community?  There are none.




Why would you disqualify a site such as Drgonsfoot  as an active community?

EDIT: there had been a few replies as I was typing this, sp never mind! 

/M


----------



## cwhs01 (Aug 27, 2008)

I think i'll stop posting here, as the discussion seems to be heading towards something a little to confrontational and agressive.

I'll just repeat myself (i hope i've said it before anyways), that i think it's cool that celtavian actually takes time to discuss and explain what is his entirely legitimate opinion about 4e.

But ofcourse i do hope you learn to enjoy 4e as much as any other edition of the game


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2008)

racoffin said:


> You know, there is a great deal of discussion about 3E/3.5E here, and not even about Pathfinder. Sadly, most of the talk is focused in the threads where people are screaming at each other about how whichever edition is better or worse than the other. If people are *really* interested in their edition, they might spend that energy being creative and discussing various ideas regarding their edition instead of tearing down the other one or trying to defend their own. I mean, is someone's mind being changed by the 100th iteration of "Your edition sucks!" "NO! YOUR edition sucks!"



Exactly. I urge everyone to drop by the 4e Fan Creations and House Rules forum or the 3rd Edition House Rules forum instead.


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Aug 27, 2008)

racoffin said:


> You know, there is a great deal of discussion about 3E/3.5E here, and not even about Pathfinder. Sadly, most of the talk is focused in the threads where people are screaming at each other about how whichever edition is better or worse than the other. If people are *really* interested in their edition, they might spend that energy being creative and discussing various ideas regarding their edition instead of tearing down the other one or trying to defend their own. I mean, is someone's mind being changed by the 100th iteration of "Your edition sucks!" "NO! YOUR edition sucks!"




I was replying to someone else who didn't understand Celtavian's position.  I didn't tear anything down or scream nor did I try to persuade anyone about editions.


----------



## racoffin (Aug 27, 2008)

AWizardInDallas said:


> I was replying to someone else who didn't understand Celtavian's position.  I didn't tear anything down or scream nor did I try to persuade anyone about editions.




I apologize if it seemed I was pointing at you directly. I used the term "people" to indicate the myriad of posters that have littered the various posts engaging in the behavior I mentioned. 

Again, apologies for any implied criticism.


----------



## Goumindong (Aug 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> Okay, let's get this out of the way: _One True Way_-ism is idiotic.




Its a good thing i am not advocating a "one true way", simply explaining the way it is.



> Says you. Others would not say so. The PC paladin is important in the sense that he is whose story is being followed at the moment; that does not, from an in-world perspective, make him more important than the NPC paladin.



True, but its irrelevant. Because there is no "in world perspective" there is only a DM and a DMs players when you play DnD. No one else exists. The "20th level paladin" is created entirely so that the players can interact with him/her and/or aspire to be like him/her and/or have some other effect on the players. 



> Clearly level has an impact on the game world itself, as a character with a higher level is capable of more, is more resistant to damage in general, and has a better chance of performing tasks. As such, level does exist, though not necessarily in a readily-determined fashion.



No, level does not exist, you are misunderstanding the way the game is set up.

"Level" is a construct that NPCs and Monsters have to make it easier for DMs to find appropriate challenges for their players. It is nothing more. When you want a harder challenge you use a higher level. If you want something that will kill them, an even higher level. If you want a cake walk, you use a lower level. If you want lots of guys that go down fast but still a threat, you use minions. If you want a few guys who are really strong, you use elites. If you want one guy who is amazingly strong, you use a solo.

Outside of the combat with your players, these creatures have no stats, have no roles, and are only what the DM wants. They do what the DM wants when the DM wants because of the effect that the DM wants them to have on the players. 

When you're playing, you won't know that a guy is a "20th level paladin". You will know what he looks like, how strong he is, and will know about how much ass he kicks when he kicks some ass or others talk about how much he kicks ass. His strength, abilities, items, stats, powers etc are all amorphous until he comes in contact with the players and shows them off(unless the players get some rumor like, "I heard he enthralled an entire group of orcs with his word alone, then knocked them over with a wave of his hand!" which might describe some of the "powers" the guy has)

All that work defining the paladin is worthless if you aren't using him in combat against the PCs. Because outside of combat with the PCs he acts exactly as you need him to act when you need him to act for the reasons you need him to act because you, the DM, said so.

I.E. 20th level paladins don't exist. In fact, if you were to fight the guy as a "challenge" he, as a 20th level Paladin could not even be statted as a 20th level paladin NPC or PC. Because if he was, it would be impossible for him to be a proper fight for your party(either his attacks/defenses will be too high because he will be way above your level, or he will be a push-over). He would have to be statted as a lower level solo NPC/PC.

edit: And similarly, if you came across this guy later in your career where he was weak compared to you, and he and his 20 paladin buddies came to stop your nefarious plan, you would not be able to stat him as a level 20 paladin, because your party at level 30 wouldn't even be bothered by him and his friends wiffing 19/20 attacks against you. You would have to stat them as a level 30 minion for that fight, or 5-10 level 26-30 normals. Because otherwise the fight would be boring, pointless and would suck. And no one likes boring pointless fights that suck.

edit2: To put it even simpler, "Paladin" is a construct that players use to define their powers and how they advance through the game. Nothing more, and nothing less. I have a player who is playing a monk. With daggers and shruikens on an unaltered rogue class because that is how he wanted his monk to play. And the only thing his rogue class determines is how he resolves conflicts with the various encounters and challenges that face he and the rest of the party. 

So yea, you and he are wrong, have no clue what you are talking about and don't have a grasp on how games are supposed to be played and not read. 



> Ah, of course, D&D is all about killing things and taking their stuff. I see that you have a very sophisticated approach to gaming.
> 
> Cut the One True Way crap. It's stupid and childish.



If you want to have a game where players rule kingdoms it will not be DnD. It will not be any edition of DnD. Because DnD is not that game. I suppose you could indeed play DnD with only skill challenges as 5 players and a DM sit and each do individual challenges while the others sit and wait.

No, DnD is, has, and will always be a game about a bunch of heroes getting together and solving problems at the same time. A bunch of heroes getting together and solving problems while they are all not anywhere near each other is not fun. It leaves people sitting idle while others do stuff. It works for books because there are no actual players involved(E.G. if you had to define who was a "player" in LotR the only players would be Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas [and maybe Merry and Pippin, statted up after Boromir bit it] since they are the only characters that do not spend significant time doing other things away from everyone else)

As someone else said. DnD is not Merchants and Mavens, you can make it be like that well enough, but its not that game. Its not Kings and Fiefdoms either. Its Dungeons and Dragons, its about a bunch of heroes who get together and solve problems together. 




> No, good sir, you simply seem incapable of comprehending the idea that someone out there might not interpret the game exactly the same way you do. Not everyone plays D&D as a game of "kill things and take their stuff." Some people want something somewhat more immersive and complicated and simulationist. If you don't, that's fine, but don't tell people they don't understand RPGs when they don't see gaming in the exact same light that you do.



It has nothing to do with "killing things and taking their stuff" it has to do with a fundamental misunderstanding that DnD is a game where 4-6 people sit down and play a game where one of them talks about the world they are in and the other 3-5 interact with it and they all flesh it out together. The person I am responding to seems to think that DnD is a game where the world is run through a computer simluation and the DM simply is there to be a computer for his friends, to design a plot then input it into the formula, calculate the statistics and wait for the players to solve it or die trying.

That is fundamentally not what DnD is, its a game played between people where they are collectively crafting a story. The only parts of that story that are contested are what happens when the players will conflicts with the DM's will and so these are the only rules that exist. Because you don't need rules when players and DM are in agreement, you don't need rules to define the world until the players and DM are in conflict about that part of the world.

Celtavian thinks you do, and he is objectively wrong in his belief that said rules are important. He is reading the RPG for the sake of reading it, and not reading it for the sake of playing it.




> That opinion is just *awesome*, really. It's why I'm posting this response, even!



You're definitely entitled to your stupid opinion


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

FireLance said:


> Exactly. I urge everyone to drop by the 4e Fan Creations and House Rules forum or the 3rd Edition House Rules forum instead.




If you promise to post to some of my (very few) House Rule threads, I might go there again!


----------



## Fenes (Aug 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> If you want to have a game where players rule kingdoms it will not be DnD. It will not be any edition of DnD. Because DnD is not that game. I suppose you could indeed play DnD with only skill challenges as 5 players and a DM sit and each do individual challenges while the others sit and wait.




So, I guess Birthright was not D&D. Please tell all its players to correct their assumptions. And all that "and you get a keep" in 1E was halway to "Not D&D" already.



Goumindong said:


> No, DnD is, has, and will always be a game about a bunch of heroes getting together and solving problems at the same time. A bunch of heroes getting together and solving problems while they are all not anywhere near each other is not fun. It leaves people sitting idle while others do stuff. It works for books because there are no actual players involved(E.G. if you had to define who was a "player" in LotR the only players would be Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas [and maybe Merry and Pippin, statted up after Boromir bit it] since they are the only characters that do not spend significant time doing other things away from everyone else).




Not fun for you. Others might have - shocking, I know - different tastes.



Goumindong said:


> As someone else said. DnD is not Merchants and Mavens, you can make it be like that well enough, but its not that game. Its not Kings and Fiefdoms either. Its Dungeons and Dragons, its about a bunch of heroes who get together and solve problems together.




It's more than that.



Goumindong said:


> It has nothing to do with "killing things and taking their stuff" it has to do with a fundamental misunderstanding that DnD is a game where 4-6 people sit down and play a game where one of them talks about the world they are in and the other 3-5 interact with it and they all flesh it out together. The person I am responding to seems to think that DnD is a game where the world is run through a computer simluation and the DM simply is there to be a computer for his friends, to design a plot then input it into the formula, calculate the statistics and wait for the players to solve it or die trying.
> 
> That is fundamentally not what DnD is, its a game played between people where they are collectively crafting a story. The only parts of that story that are contested are what happens when the players will conflicts with the DM's will and so these are the only rules that exist. Because you don't need rules when players and DM are in agreement, you don't need rules to define the world until the players and DM are in conflict about that part of the world.




I think a number of people would say that this storytelling you mention is less D&D, and more like other games. I certainly do not recall "crafting a story" as being the generally agreed-upon baseline of D&D.




Goumindong said:


> Celtavian thinks you do, and he is objectively wrong in his belief that said rules are important. He is reading the RPG for the sake of reading it, and not reading it for the sake of playing it.
> 
> You're definitely entitled to your stupid opinion




It's always sad to see people deluding themselves into knowing what others play RPGs for, and into believing they know best.


----------



## BronzeDragon (Aug 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> O.K. Here is where you are failing and failing utterly. First off, lets get semantics out of the way.
> 
> 1. A 20th level NPC paladin cannot be as important as a players 20th level Paladin doing the same thing. He cannot be because he is not the focus of the game.




Yeah...



Goumindong said:


> 2. *There is no such thing as a 20th level paladin*. Class and level only serve as mechanical constructs by which NPCs and Monsters interact in combat with PCs. It is nothing else. If you want a guy who is a powerful Paladin, then you make him a powerful paladin. And all the time he is doing his thing with only NPC/NPC interaction, he is a powerful paladin doing exactly what you want him to do
> 
> The other day, i ran an adventure, and the orcs kicked a guys face in. I didn't need to roll to have the orcs kick a guys face in, because that is retarded, they're NPCs, they all do what I want when i want why i want because I said so. Now, when they interact with players they may or may not be minions, may or may not be elite, or solo or whatever. All of that is just a construct to inform the interaction with the players.
> 
> Your players never know the paladins attack bonus, backstory unless you tell them, AC, his powers. They don't need to. All they need to know is that he is strong, and he kicks ass for the Lord Moradin




You seem to be thinking under the misconception that I actually roll every die of every attack between every NPC. My main style being role-playing this would be extremely disruptive to my games.

What I meant by what I said, and you seem to have misunderstood, is that I apply the same rules to the NPCs as I do to the PCs. If I need the NPC Paladin to defend the village against orcs, I will make him high-level enough to do it.

Your approach that the stats are only relevant when the PCs actually directly interact with the NPCs would be fine if the DM himself had a crystal ball that allowed him to predict before the game which NPCs the players would actually directly interact with.

Failing that, you'd better be damn good at coming up with the stats on the fly if your PCs decide to, god forbid, attack the NPC paladin.

I don't focus on them, as you said, because they are not the players, but I give them the same abilities as the players. If they fight alongside the aforementioned paladin, they will find the rules consistent. I won't have to say "the paladin just kills everything".


----------



## Goumindong (Aug 27, 2008)

BronzeDragon said:


> You seem to be thinking under the misconception that I actually roll every die of every attack between every NPC. My main style being role-playing this would be extremely disruptive to my games.
> 
> What I meant by what I said, and you seem to have misunderstood, is that I apply the same rules to the NPCs as I do to the PCs. If I need the NPC Paladin to defend the village against orcs, I will make him high-level enough to do it.
> 
> ...





You don't need to roll every attack for an NPC to fall into the trap that you fell into. You only need to believe that the NPC must be statted to deal with whatever he is supposed to have done and not statted to deal with the Players when they engage him.

E.G. if i wanted to have an "invulnverable NPC" i would "stat" him as a really high level normal monster so that the players could never prevail against him(i wouldn't stat him at all, the players would just only hit on a 20 and he would always hit them except on a 1). But, when the time came to fight that NPC and it would have to be a tough fight, i would stat him as a level appropriate solo. 

And the DM roughly does have a crystal ball. Because they know

1. What things that are around the PC's can win against
2. What things that are around the PC's will flatten
3. what things that are around that the PC's can't hope to handle.

2 and 3 you don't need to worry about, you just handwave it. 1 you do need to worry about.

You are worrying about 2 and 3 for no good reason, making you take up your precious time when you could be doing something productive and gaining literally no benefit out of it.



> I don't focus on them, as you said, because they are not the players, but I give them the same abilities as the players. If they fight alongside the aforementioned paladin, they will find the rules consistent. I won't have to say "the paladin just kills everything".



Why would an NPC paladin have the same powers as a player Paladin? There is no reason to have these rules consistent. What only needs to be consistent is how the NPC feels. 

If you want the paladin to kill everything, you can make him do so. If you want him to have to put up a fight, you can make him do so. But he isn't a "level 20 paladin". He is an NPC that is at whatever strength he needs to be for the purpose of whatever encounter you are running.(for instance, its a lot better to stat "big strong NPCs" as lower level solo creatures to show how awesome they are rather than to stat them as higher level normal creatures. Since once you break the +4-5 barrier they become a handwave)



Fenes said:


> So, I guess Birthright was not D&D. Please tell all its players to correct their assumptions. And all that "and you get a keep" in 1E was halway to "Not D&D" already.




Birthright fundamentally changed the core mechanic of play. And "and you get a keep" has nothing to do with changing the core mechanic of play. 



> Not fun for you. Others might have - shocking, I know - different tastes.



You _like_ sitting around and doing nothing?




> It's more than that.




At its heart of what it does, it is not. Characters get together and solve problems whatever those problems may be.




> I think a number of people would say that this storytelling you mention is less D&D, and more like other games. I certainly do not recall "crafting a story" as being the generally agreed-upon baseline of D&D.




The only thing that differs is the depth and level of involvement in the story. What matters is that what the worlds stats are don't matter until that part of the world comes into conflict with the players.




> It's always sad to see people deluding themselves into knowing what others play RPGs for, and into believing they know best.




He said it. He is the one complaining that "NPC Farmers can kill ogres in a lucky hit".


----------



## GnomeWorks (Aug 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> Its a good thing i am not advocating a "one true way", simply explaining the way it is.
> 
> ...
> 
> So yea, you and he are wrong, have no clue what you are talking about and don't have a grasp on how games are supposed to be played and not read.




How's that myopia working out for you?


----------



## Goumindong (Aug 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> How's that myopia working out for you?




Pretty well, the glasses help. How is that acute lack of context working out for you?


----------



## Samuel Leming (Aug 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> How's that myopia working out for you?



I mean, really, just report him and move on.

Sam


----------



## AWizardInDallas (Aug 27, 2008)

racoffin said:


> I apologize if it seemed I was pointing at you directly. I used the term "people" to indicate the myriad of posters that have littered the various posts engaging in the behavior I mentioned.
> 
> Again, apologies for any implied criticism.




Ah, I understand.  Accepted and thanks for your courtesy.


----------



## dougmander (Aug 27, 2008)

The OP's criticisms of 4e resonated with me. My group has switched over to RISUS and we're having more fun playing (and I'm definitely having more fun DMing) than we've had in years. No rules lookups, no grid, no min/maxing, just characters, story, and action. I actually want to thank WotC for making 4e so far from my idea of a good time that it forced me to jump ship entirely.


----------



## sukael (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> And I do not invite argument



But you did happen to post this on a forum meant for open discussion...



Celtavian said:


> 1. Encounter Powers: Are these supposed to be learned combat skills or spells? If they are, then why must I wait five minutes to use something I learned? When I use an encounter power, I feel as though I blew off my five minute cooldown power and I am now reduced to watching a timer tick down while I use my at will over and over again.




For a non-spellcaster, encounter and daily powers aren't reserves of energy only useable for one purpose or something - they're forms of narrative control. A 29th-level Fighter doesn't think "oh, I will now use _no mercy_" - rather, once per day in the _narrative_ of the game he takes advantage of an opportunity to strike an enemy's weak point with all his might.



Celtavian said:


> And for powers that are physical feats, why can’t I do them over and over again? Why can I tumble once per encounter and then suddenly I’m so gimp, I just can’t manage such a feat again. It is an absurd and artificial limitation.




To take a look at _tumble_ - "You can shift a number of squares equal to one-half your speed.", as a move action. It's not as though you can't accomplish something very analogous - just taking a move action. It's just that the chance to take advantage of your enemies to dart from Here to There without them realizing until seconds later only _comes up_ very rarely... and once you've done it, they certainly won't leave you the opportunity to do it again.



Celtavian said:


> 2. I cannot run encounters as I like to run them. I was one of those DMs that liked to run a few simple encounters with one knockdown, dragout fight that would truly tax and drain resources including magic items. A non-stop edge of your seat, no rest, win or die battle against the big bad evil guys.




Simple - take a single encounter a few levels above the PCs (to make it quite challenging), and then split it however many parts you like, with each "wave" showing up after the previous.



Celtavian said:


> 3. Dragons can’t decimate armies of creatures with one blast of their breath unless I make them very small armies. Breath weapons are very limited in range and damage. A dragon would be lucky to decimate a group of lvl 3 Hobgoblin soldiers with their weak breath weapon even at ancient levels.




There's nothing to keep the dragon from simply using its breath weapon repeatedly... and if the level difference is _that_ dramatic, it would be literally impossible to hit by anything other than criticals, making it extremely easy for the dragon to decimate massed forces using its breath weapon, double attack, and tail strike abilities. And that's not even counting its inferno aura...



Celtavian said:


> 4. Monster Recharge powers: What is up with this? If I run a vampire and I want it to use dominating gaze, I don’t want it to have to roll a six for it to recharge. I want it to be able to use it when it wants to and needs to use it in and out of combat.




Recharge powers are basically the same narrative construct as non-magical encounter and daily powers... albiet somewhat simplified, because working through a handful of even more powers for an entire encounter at once would be a bit too much of a hassle for most DMs.



Celtavian said:


> So what good is immobilization when there are a party of five or six characters? What? The creature focuses its attack on the immobilized creature while the other four or five characters beat it to death?




This is why 4e encounters are meant to be built with more than one monster. If the players focus on a single ghoul, that gives the other ghouls time to jump in and immobilize all of them, too.



Celtavian said:


> If a 4E wizard were in a book, he would be laughed at if he tried that “mysterious, powerful arcanist” role you see in so many fantasy books.




That "mysterious, powerful arcanist" is, quite simply, much higher level than anyone else around him.

The Star Wars Saga RPG offers a simple but elegant codification of this. A professional criminal might be 1st or 2nd level, but a professional "mysterious, powerful Jedi" is 7th level, at the very least - because anything lower than that is a padawan, no more than a trainee and apprentice.



Celtavian said:


> Small boy picks up a rock and tosses it at a demon minion. He gets a lucky hit and kills the minion. Wow, he one upped even the rogue.




Minions are minions _to the PCs_. A rock thrown by a small boy, or any comparable situation, should do nothing - it is simply not appreciable damage.



Celtavian said:


> And the job of a storyteller is to make each character feels like an important part of the story, something I did not have trouble doing even with disparate combat power levels.




Unfortunately, not all people can manage that as easily... and the fact that you _have_ to do something about it, no matter how easy it might be to you, points to bad things about the game itself. I'd say it's much easier to work a cohesive whole from something basically well-balanced but with incredulous points than to do it in the opposite direction.


----------



## green slime (Aug 27, 2008)

I agree with the OP. 4e just isn't my cup of tea. I tried, but it just doesn't cut the grain with me at all.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> How's that myopia working out for you?






Goumindong said:


> Pretty well, the glasses help. How is that acute lack of context working out for you?




Another couple like this, and I'll be asking, "how's the vacation from the thread working out for ya?"

Keep it civil, folks, and don't make it personal.  Those are simple rules to live by.

Kid Charlemagne, ENWorld Mod


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Hmm. Whine on message boards?




That was rude.


Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The only inconsistency arises if you assume that there is a 1:1 mapping between game terms and "fictional world" elements. But that's not the case. Hit Points aren't part of the fiction world. Levels are not part of the fictional world. Even the skills don't map entirely to the fictional world. (or are you telling me there only exist people that know something on every part of history, which is why there is just one "Knowledge (History)" skill, not a Knowledge (History of the Stone Ages) and Knowledge (History of the Roman Empire)?)




For my games that mapping is important IF the element in question is observable to the inhabitants of the world. Exact meanings of levels and hit points are in fact not really mapped this way, I agree. The balloon properties of minions, the artificial cooldowns on ability use for martial powers, and the chronic amnesia that afflicts every adventurer who "retrains" are in fact observable effects in the world. Handwaving away these eyesores of inconsistency are quite possible to do, but not everyone wants to. I don't want to, for games that I DM. In my opinion such painful intruding gamist rules are the result of either lazy or rushed game design. If a rule or mechanic cannot pass my "Jaws IV" plausibility meter test then I usually will not use it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> That was rude.



No, I fear that's what I might do.  



> For my games that mapping is important IF the element in question is observable to the inhabitants of the world. Exact meanings of levels and hit points are in fact not really mapped this way, I agree. The balloon properties of minions, the artificial cooldowns on ability use for martial powers, and the chronic amnesia that afflicts every adventurer who "retrains" are in fact observable effects in the world. Handwaving away these eyesores of inconsistency are quite possible to do, but not everyone wants to. I don't want to, for games that I DM. In my opinion such painful intruding gamist rules are the result of either lazy or rushed game design. If a rule or mechanic cannot pass my "Jaws IV" plausibility meter test then I usually will not use it.



But your creating the problem for yourself. If you say: "The only time I someone can make a bone-breaking blow is when he is using _Brute Strike_", then your creating a 1:1 mapping between game system and real world. But the game system doesn't require you to do so - A _Brute Strike_ might be guaranteed to be a bone-breaking blow if it lands, but any other attack might achieve the same. And that makes the entire thing unobservable.
A _Sweeping Strike_ might knock a foe prone, but any other strike might do something similar - except that only in Sweeping Strikes case, the foe cannot stand up as part of his general movement during combat. But unless turns and rounds are observable concepts in your game, no one can really observe this particular effect.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 27, 2008)

sukael said:


> But you did happen to post this on a forum meant for open discussion...




I didn't invite because everything you post isn't going to change my mind one little bit. All the reasoning you posted suits you, but does not satisfy me at all. Your explanations may be true, but that truth isn't something I want in the D&D I like to play.





> For a non-spellcaster, encounter and daily powers aren't reserves of energy only useable for one purpose or something - they're forms of narrative control. A 29th-level Fighter doesn't think "oh, I will now use _no mercy_" - rather, once per day in the _narrative_ of the game he takes advantage of an opportunity to strike an enemy's weak point with all his might.




Already knew this. I don't like this form of mechanical  _narrative_ control . I want the characters to feel like theirs powers work as though they learned them and can use them just like a trained gymnast can flip whenever he feels like it.

What 4E did was make metagaming the standard form of play, disregarding anything close to realistic simualation. The above example you mentioned is metagaming.

It isn't actually the DM saying "You see a weak point you can strike." It is the player saying "I use my power regardless of whether the enemy is weak or not." The player just decides a random time to use his power. The DM must fit it in regardless of the circumstances of necessity.

It is the player controlling the narrative, not the DM. I don't like that. A player should have powers and a DM should control the narrative as to when those powers can be used.

The DM still has that powers for dailies. But he has completley lost that power for encounter powers. The narrative control is completely up to the player with encounter powers. Something I do not like since encounter powers are not learned skills, but repetitious narrative control by the player.





> To take a look at _tumble_ - "You can shift a number of squares equal to one-half your speed.", as a move action. It's not as though you can't accomplish something very analogous - just taking a move action. It's just that the chance to take advantage of your enemies to dart from Here to There without them realizing until seconds later only _comes up_ very rarely... and once you've done it, they certainly won't leave you the opportunity to do it again.




They won't leave you to do that in the first place, thus the reason they have opportunity attacks. If this is how you justify tumble, then so be it. 

Me, if you can do it, there shouldn't be any reason you can't do it again. It isn't like enemies have the means to stop you from tumbling again other than an arbitary narrative means like you describe.

In essence, you are coming up with excuses why a power works. That arbitrary DMing has worked in every edition of the game. 



> Simple - take a single encounter a few levels above the PCs (to make it quite challenging), and then split it however many parts you like, with each "wave" showing up after the previous.




This is what you're not understanding. Yes, I can do that. But it is artificial.

Me, I immerse myself in DMing. I think of the enemy as intelligent and I think of them as acting in an intelligent group of creatures. That means giving the players no rest once the fight is set off.

I don't get all these recommendations just to handwave or create artificial encounters that "simulate" what I want to do. 

This is in essence the problem I have with 4E. That everything is simulated, artificial, and a bunch of handwaving. It takes me out of the game.

Telling me to design an encounter from a metagame standpoint to simulate what I want to do isn't going to make me feel better. Why do you think that it is? 

My biggest problem with 4E is all the handwaving and assumption you are talking about. Did I not convey well enough that I want things to work and work all the time?

For example, let's say I have a recurring villain who has fought the character before in the same adventure. In your example for Tumble, then why wouldn't he be able to stop me from tumbling again since he knows I will do it? But he can't because I can do it once per encounter regardless of what the other characters do. 

So why wouldn't I be able to do it all the time? what about against a stupid undead zombie who wouldn't have the intelligence to stop me from tumbling all around. Do I need contrive a different excuse for such dumb creatures as to why I can't tumble more than once every five minutes?

So I need an endless box of excuses for the endless number of times that each character can use his encounter power every five minutes? Seriously, I've heard this argument a ton. All it amounts to is me having to think up endless justifications for encounter powers. Something that ruins my immersion in the game.





> There's nothing to keep the dragon from simply using its breath weapon repeatedly... and if the level difference is _that_ dramatic, it would be literally impossible to hit by anything other than criticals, making it extremely easy for the dragon to decimate massed forces using its breath weapon, double attack, and tail strike abilities. And that's not even counting its inferno aura...




Recharge rolls would prevent it. So would the fact that dragon breat weapons are so small. Did you notice that an ancient blue dragon can only hit three targets with that line of lightning?

A dragon waiting for a recharge roll for its breath weapon is yet another thing that takes me out of the game. If it doesn't you, that is you. It takes me out of the game and not a single explanation from you will change that viewpoint.

Recharge rolls for dragon breath weapons are bunk. I like a dragon that knows his breath weapon well enough that he will be able to use it every 1 to 4 rounds, not sweating whether he gets a six over the course of a combat.

I get into my monsters. The recharge rolls take me out of the game.





> Recharge powers are basically the same narrative construct as non-magical encounter and daily powers... albiet somewhat simplified, because working through a handful of even more powers for an entire encounter at once would be a bit too much of a hassle for most DMs.




Once again, artificial and as I stated makes the monster for me feel like he is waiting for the dice machine to come up with his number before he can use his power. 

As a DM that truly likes to immerse myself into the monsters I play to the point where I alter my voice around the table and think about the personality of the creature, that recharge roll is a big old immersion destroyer. Not to mention a series of unlucky recharge rolls renders a monster much weaker than he would be if the power worked. Since I experienced that a few times why running the game, I was rather put off by it. 

The fact that a monster won't do his job as controller or leader because he was unlucky on the recharge roll doesn't sit well with me. Never will.





> This is why 4e encounters are meant to be built with more than one monster. If the players focus on a single ghoul, that gives the other ghouls time to jump in and immobilize all of them, too.




I had to double and triple some encounters to make them challenging. I put four ghouls in one encounter and all my players did was trap them in a hallway and kill them two a a time making for a long, tedious battle.

The ghoul is underwhelming. He hits, immobilizes, hopes the player doesn't make his save and that he is able to hit a few more times to stun them. They get one attack per round, thus can immobilize one character which doesn't take that character out of the game. And must keep on hitting the same character.

Sure the other ghouls can go after someone else, that still leaves three other players to beat them down. Then with two minor words from the leader, a second wind from everyone, and temporary hit points from encounter powers for the entire group, let's just say that ghouls were a rather underwhelming fight.




> That "mysterious, powerful arcanist" is, quite simply, much higher level than anyone else around him.




I was told to use this excuse for 3E as well.

I could use it. And it would be funny as heck to run a lvl 30 Archmage wizard and wonder why he couldn't level lvl 6 Skirmishers with his "awsome" power.

Even a high level wizard only gets 2d6 for his scorching blast. Levels may make a significant different for defenses, but damage is so depressed in 4E that his damage boost wouldn't be all that much save perhaps when he critted.



> The Star Wars Saga RPG offers a simple but elegant codification of this. A professional criminal might be 1st or 2nd level, but a professional "mysterious, powerful Jedi" is 7th level, at the very least - because anything lower than that is a padawan, no more than a trainee and apprentice.




If a Jedi doesn't play like a Jedi, I wouldn't like that game either. Jedi are the strongest in the game bar none, whether it is a 30 lvl jedi versus a 30 lvl smuggler. If the game doesn't have that feel, I wouldn't play. Thus why I never played Star Wars the MMORPG or RPG. I want my games to feel like storybooks, not egalitarian environments where we can all be equal.





> Minions are minions _to the PCs_. A rock thrown by a small boy, or any comparable situation, should do nothing - it is simply not appreciable damage.




Once again you are bringing up the artificial nature of 4E. That is what I was getting at. It is all artificial, a bunch of smoke and mirrors. That lvl 20 demon minion you are fighting isn't really powerful, he just a puffed up smoke and mirror creature for the DM to throw at you.

You want to know what phrase comes up in my mind for 4E over and over again, one that keeps getting confirmed arguments like the one you used above.

"All style, no substance."

That is 4E in a nutshell. It looks great on the suface, but dig a little deeper and you find fluffy cotton in your monsters and balloons filled with air that pop when when you hit with them a +6 greatsword or poke with a finger.




> Unfortunately, not all people can manage that as easily... and the fact that you _have_ to do something about it, no matter how easy it might be to you, points to bad things about the game itself. I'd say it's much easier to work a cohesive whole from something basically well-balanced but with incredulous points than to do it in the opposite direction.




True enough. But no, I don't think there is anything wrong with games that aren't perfectly balanced.

It may be easier to work with a well-balanced whole. But as with things that generally easier, they are less satisfying as a whole. It may take more work to make a 3E adventure, but by did I used to feel satisfied when I beat the Big Bad Evil Guy. I didn't feel like he was an artificial bag of hit points with some marginally dangerous powers aimed at creating the illusion of challenge verus being an actual challenge.

And that is how I feel in 4E. I've fought a few solos. TAll those nice hit points don't amount to a hill of beans with one attack per round while five or six people are blowing encounter powers on him and probably dailies as well as using second wind and minor words.

The entire game is balanced in such a way as to make sure the players always win. And so that they don't have to work too hard to do so. 

Thanks for continuing to confirm my initial feeling that 4E is all style and no substance. Handwaving and artifice that takes me right out of the game and rings the "this is a game" bell in my head.

I'm not going to convince you to dislike 4E. But don't think for a second you're going to convince me my views are incorrect. I very much understand the intent of 4E mechanics used to simualate narrative events.

I just prefer the mechanics 3E used to simulate those same narrative events. They feel more real for me and do a better job immersing me in the story. If 4E does that better for you, then I'm happy that the new version makes you happy. I certainly wish I could say the same.


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> What you say is true. I liked what they did for melees in 4E. I'm going to try to import some dailies to 4E. I feel dailies better allow me to run things as I like to run them and will give the melees some better options.
> 
> I won't be importing encounter powers though. I like that a simple sword or axe swing will work the majority of the time. That is real fighting to me. I like when my melee characters fight using a particular fighting style rather than blowing off one shot powers that they can't repeat for an artificial amount of time.
> 
> If I were a 4E designer, I would have worked on improving fighting style options. Not making everyone into the equivalent of a spellcaster with abilities that once used cannot be used again for an arbitrary amount of time.




Hey Celtavian, I think I might have a workable solution for you that my group has messed around with in 4e.  Like you, not being able to use encounter powers again in an encounter bugged a couple of my players, and I prefer to run a few tough fights rather than 3-4 smaller ones during a given adventuring day.

So we started a side-campaign from 1st level exploring 2 additions to the rules about how powers are used.

1) Any character can expend two healing surges to gain one encounter power use back.  This can be done multiple times per combat if desired.  We explain this as drawing on innner resolve and adrenaline to power martial maneuvers, and channeling magical or divine power through the caster's body for arcane or divine power.  In any case, the effort leaves the character tired, sore, and somewhat drained.

2) I think you were the one who mentioned that spells don't seem to do enough damage in comparison to older editions.  One of my players who likes wizards a lot had the same problem, although he loves the rest of 4e.  Our solution was to allow a character to burn one healing surge to increase the damage by 1W die.  All Heroic level characters can burn 1 healing surge this way on a single attack (for +1W), Paragon can burn two (for +2W), and Epic three healing surges (+3W).  Wizards can burn twice this number of surges per attack, and gain higher damage (+2W, +4W, or +6W).  However, if the attack misses, the healing surges are still burned away, so its a chancey propasition for most casters.

We've played to 3rd level using these rules, and so far they seem to work.  Since we prefer fewer encounters per day, we had found most PCs ended the day with 2-6 unusued healing surges.  Using these rules, the PCs have to be a little more careful with their surges, and there is a chance that the character might exert himself too much/strain or damage muscles/channel too much energy and not be able to heal any for the next day (no more healing surges left).  We haven't found that burning surges for extra encounter powers really affects combat balance much, but burning surges for extra damage can be very dramatic and fun.  I don't know how it will play at higher levels yet, but so far its made the wizard lover happy, and given all the PCs an extra way to manage resources that they seem to enjoy.

Would this fix help any with your problems?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> No, I fear that's what I might do.
> 
> 
> > That was misinterpreted then, my apologies.
> ...


----------



## Treebore (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian,

Just ignore this thread. You stated your opinion in a nice well reasoned manner, obviously people are going to justify their rude reactionary behaviour any way they can rather then just admit they went over board and apologize.

Just let it go and move on, then everyone else will as well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> They won't leave you to do that in the first place, thus the reason they have opportunity attacks. If this is how you justify tumble, then so be it.



And very often they miss those attack, thanks to stuff like Artful Dodgers AC bonus vs OAs, or Mobility. Or just because you are that damn dextrous. (What do you think you get that Dex bonus to AC for? Standing still?) 

I know, you don't like it, but there are many ways to achieve the same result. A Rogue that doesn't want to be hit thanks to his tumbling will have Tumble, be an Artful Dodger, and enjoy his Dex Bonus to AC. All 3 achieve the same in-game result - the enemy has a hard time hitting the Rogue.



> This is what you're not understanding. Yes, I can do that. But it is artificial.
> 
> Me, I immerse myself in DMing. I think of the enemy as intelligent and I think of them as acting in an intelligent group of creatures. That means giving the players no rest once the fight is set off.
> 
> ...






> For example, let's say I have a recurring villain who has fought the character before in the same adventure. In your example for Tumble, then why wouldn't he be able to stop me from tumbling again since he knows I will do it? But he can't because I can do it once per encounter regardless of what the other characters do.



Just because you met someone before doesn't mean you can negate all his combat tricks. The Villain in question might adapt differently-  he will not rely on hitting you OAs (assuming he had a in-gameworld concept of it). He might instead catch you with a net or immobilize you with magic, knowing that this negates a lot of your abilities. 



> So why wouldn't I be able to do it all the time? what about against a stupid undead zombie who wouldn't have the intelligence to stop me from tumbling all around. Do I need contrive a different excuse for such dumb creatures as to why I can't tumble more than once every five minutes?



Sometimes it's not enough to trick the monster. You can't break the world record on 100m every time. 



> As a DM that truly likes to immerse myself into the monsters I play to the point where I alter my voice around the table and think about the personality of the creature, that recharge roll is a big old immersion destroyer.



More so then counting the seconds (rounds) between recharges? Think about what's different here - 1d4+1 x 6 seconds is a very specific way to describe a "recharge" time. How do you calculate this into your role-playing or immersing yourself into the Dragon? Does he count these rounds in his head? Does he know beforehand that he will be able to breath in that time?



> The fact that a monster won't do his job as controller or leader because he was unlucky on the recharge roll doesn't sit well with me. Never will.



What if he is unable to do his job as controller or leader because he keeps rolling bad on his attacks? 




> I was told to use this excuse for 3E as well.
> 
> I could use it. And it would be funny as heck to run a lvl 30 Archmage wizard and wonder why he couldn't level lvl 6 Skirmishers with his "awsome" power.
> 
> Even a high level wizard only gets 2d6 for his scorching blast. Levels may make a significant different for defenses, but damage is so depressed in 4E that his damage boost wouldn't be all that much save perhaps when he critted.



But your DM wouldn't send you level 6 Skirmishers. They are not appropriate challenges for you. He would send you level 26 Minions. And you'd kill them easily. 




> If a Jedi doesn't play like a Jedi, I wouldn't like that game either. Jedi are the strongest in the game bar none, whether it is a 30 lvl jedi versus a 30 lvl smuggler. If the game doesn't have that feel, I wouldn't play. Thus why I never played Star Wars the MMORPG or RPG. I want my games to feel like storybooks, not egalitarian environments where we can all be equal.



I always hated those Starwars Games (basically every SW game before Saga) that made Jedi uber. 



> Once again you are bringing up the artificial nature of 4E. That is what I was getting at. It is all artificial, a bunch of smoke and mirrors. That lvl 20 demon minion you are fighting isn't really powerful, he just a puffed up smoke and mirror creature for the DM to throw at you.
> 
> You want to know what phrase comes up in my mind for 4E over and over again, one that keeps getting confirmed arguments like the one you used above.
> 
> ...



It is always all smokes and mirrors. There is neither real magic, nor do d20 resolution rolls, levels or hit points represent anything meaningful in the real world. Sure, we say there are "abstractions", but we can say that about every game element! 
The "simulating" smokes of mirrors appeal to some, but they are still smokes and mirrors. And sometimes, they are also hoops you have to jump through to get to the point where you have fun or the actual game experience you want. 
But I don't want to repeat myself: 
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?p=4442798&postcount=48

Ultimately, yes, I know what you are talking about. But I think there are also some serious flaws to the simulation approach, and if you focus on it too much, you lessen the game experience. 

Especially once we are discussing about stuff like "suspension of disbelief". Is suspending my disbelief to let those smokes and mirrors work on me mentally harder for me to do then consistently going through all the tedious work of the simulation that bogs down game speed, that keeps me thinking about game math instead of story, or sometimes needs fudging to get to the real story I wanted to tell or experience?

Isn't it more sensible to just tighten (or loosen?) your 'disbelief suspenders' and go with the smokes and mirrors? 
Or does that make me a lesser person, a lazy role-player, no longer true to the cause of RPGs? 
I get meaningful character choices. I can tell and experience a story line. I kill monsters and take their stuff. I get exciting combat. What am I _really_ missing with the smokes and mirrors? 



> True enough. But no, I don't think there is anything wrong with games that aren't perfectly balanced.



I think that there is something wrong with such *games*. Imbalance means inherent unfairness, and I do not think that is a feature of games, it's a bug. I _might_ accept imbalances if the game system tells me: "You can play a Fighter, which can be fun, but the Wizard will eventually be far more powerful than you". but that alone isn't really enough. It needs to give me more. Maybe if I, as the player, get more narrative control - maybe I am allowed to not only play a Fighter, but also two of his allies, or I can make up some NPCs that help the party, then it might get "fairer" in some sense. 
But ultimiately, that's still just striving for balance, and it is a very unstable kind of balance...


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 27, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:


> So in brief, the fact that 3e wizards were vastly more powerful than 3e non-spellcasters is a crucial point for your satisfaction?




Now you're misquoting. Vastly more powerful? I doubt that unless there was a substantial level difference. Vastly more more verstilte I agree with, vastly more powerful I do not.

The warriors and priests were far more durable and could hold their own in any dungeon. Why there is this perception that warriors were weaker when they did truckloads of damage easily equal to or greater than a wizard on a round by round basis is a gross falsehood.



> And there's no reasonable way a wizard can aspire to a leadership position due to powers that are... now exactly the same scale as every other class? These positions may be held in good faith, but I think you're going to be pretty lonely in holding them.




You could not have a wizard take over a realm by himself or mind control the king or what not. No, that is not possible in 4E.

There are not permanent powers in 4E. Everything is a round by round or a sustained spell. Everything in 4E is temporary thus weakening the wizard even further.



> If I wanted to play a game where wizards were Just Better, I'd play Ars Magica. I think WotC is being very reasonable in targeting the game towards sharing the Awesome out among all the character class, and not bestowing special power upon the PC who decides that his Awesome comes from the "Totally Impossible" power source rather than the "Highly Implausible" power source. You can still write perfectly good fights with Unstoppable Wizard Antagonists just by following the DMG guidelines for ginning up solo monsters. Once a wizard sips from the chalice of NPCdom, he gains assorted hideous powers hinging on his eventual unspeakable fate. It's a thin fantasy world that can't support the concept of wizards who make sacrifices totally unacceptable to any PC in exchange for unheard-of personal power.




You hit another nail on the head. I cannot stand the fact that the enemy wizard is so much more powerful than my own wizard as to make me, the party wizard, look like a joke. 

As I said, if you made a 3E wizard enemy, he was still a wizard. He and the party wizard could go toe to toe and see who won. Now with the new solo and elite rules, if I ever did like I used to do in 3E, having the party wizard square off with the enemy wizard at the end of the dungeon, the party would be scraping him up off the ground.

You used to have to devise a balanced party to challenge a PC party. The enemy wizard needed a solid spell list to challenge the mage in 3E. Now you design artificial powers that your party wizard can't access when creating NPC wizards.

I can't even have the party fighter stand toe to toe with a fighter of legend. He'll get beat down if I design the NPC as an elite or solo. The elite and solo bad guys are designed to be a challenge for a whole party. I don't know about you, but imagining a party of six guys having trouble beating on one guy is not my idea of honorable or cool combat. 

That may work fine for giants and demon lords. But I hate it for NPC wizards and fighters. Forget that bunk. The party wizard and fighter is every bit as good as any fighter their level in all the land and better than most. They can go toe to toe with the main end level encounter fighter mob. And that's how it should be.

You didn't see Launcelot, Arthur, Gawaine, and all the Knights of the Round Table beating on one guy at once. I don't want some endgame fighter being so tough he could paste any characer in solo combat unless he is vastly higher level. And I don't mean artificially inflated to be an appropriate encounter level, rather than just equal level.



> In terms of leadership, I can't understand why wizards-as-powerful-as-everyone-else makes it impossible for a wizard to be a ruler now. A cursory review of real-life history strongly suggests that people totally incapable of hewing down even five ordinary men in a single blow still manage to run countries. Possession of godlike powers of reality-shaping is strictly optional, and it's not as if other classes now possess unique degrees of might unapproachable by a lowly spellslinger.




That's a matter of taste then. I liked the feel of Saruman being able to mind control King Theoden, and needing to bring Gandalf to challenge Saruman. I liked the feel of Rand blowing away armies while the guys who travled with him were just regular skilled swordsman. I like the feel of that.

If I want to work something in and handwave it like 4E does, then I'll do that in 3E. But otherwise I want the players to feel as strong and powerful as their NPC counterparts. I want an NPC fighter or wizard to have exactly the same access to the same power as a PC and vice versa.



> Ultimately, if you really must have wizards be grossly more powerful than mere warriors, give all wizards five or six bonus levels. That's essentially what you're asking for from the game- wizards as intrinsically and naturally superior to noncasters. I really don't think you're going to get it in any modern game not devoted to the conceit.




If I believed that wizards were grossly more powerful than fighters, then I would buy into what you're saying. Since fighters seem to dish considerable damage and they themeselves are very dangerous, I don't think I'll need to. 

But I do prefer a game that requires wizards to be there to provide that versatility and edge against NPC wizards. In 3E wizards knew why they needed fighters, and fighters knew why they needed wizards. I like that dynamic.

I have yet to see a book where the wizard blew off his power willy, nilly as 4E wizards do. I prefer the 3E model where the wizard sat on his power until it was needed and that is why he was the "turn the tide of battle" guy. Not because he could annhiliate everything alone while the poor fighter sat there on the sidelines wondering why he was there. That never happened in 3E, no idea why you perceive it as so.

It is your opinion is that wizards are "grossly" overpowered. My opinion is that wizards are more powerful in terms of versatility and magical defense, which will ultimately lead to a victory for them in a one on one fight against a warrior or rogue, but probably not a priest. And even though a wizard's increased power that comes with magical versatility makes them potent one on one, it still doesn't obviate the role of fighters. Who themselves have tremendous hit points and do amazing damage with their melee attacks to multiple real opponents, not 1hp minions that pop like baloons.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Mustrum_Ridcully said:
> 
> 
> > No, I fear that's what I might do.
> ...



No need for an apology. It wasn't obvious, and there was certainly a part in me that might also be that mean 



> With a hit point wound system, I wouldn't bother about bone breaking injury at all. Brute strike is an extra hard hit that takes more out of an opponent.
> 
> The sweeping strike example is more of a problem. Prone is an actual condition that is both obvious to the world's inhabitants and carries mechanical consequences for those in that position. Once a combatant is prone, they must get up (barring the use of some ability that allows instant stand). In the example you gave, are you saying that a regular strike can score a knockdown but allows the target to stand up without spending movement? If that is the case do other foes get combat advantage against this guy(because he is prone) until his turn when he can stand up as a free action? These are the types of things that affect the flow of combat as they occur and are not only observable, but are able to be acted upon by the observers.
> 
> This is the reason why I think the whole, save vs knockdown only when it would cause additional effect is BS.



For me, Knockdown is a condition that tells you the creature is "knocked down" long and strong enough to make a (mechanical) difference. You might use a purely narrated knockdown to explain why another hit (or flurry of blows) landed, but it didn't gain the mechanical representation of it as Combat Advantage. It was represented by the fact that your dice came up high enough to hit. 
If you want, every type of narration that is not represented in mechanical bonus, penalties or conditions is represented by the dice rolls. (Though of course, your interpretation of the dice rolls combined with the mechanical ements _and_ your desired theme or feel of a scene result in the game world narration.)


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Hmm. Whine on message boards?




Now you're just taking shots.

No one forced you to post in this thread.

So why exactly do you need to answer my posts with your own whiny counterarguments? Because I don't like something, I am a whiner.

And you feel just as compelled to argue my points even though I said they were my opinions? You're not changing my mind at all. All you're doing is proving what I said to begin with. That it is all artificial handwaving that you don't mind.

That you don't care about consistency and you don't care about the things that matter to me.

Yet you feel the need the need to argue them with me and take shots? I love that. I'm the whiner, but I'm not posting in a thread you started? And I'm not looking to start up with people in other threads of people proclaiming their love of 4E?

Yet I'm the whiner? No one is forcing you to respond to my posts. So if you view them as a whine, then move on. Geez, do you really have to go taking shots like that in a thread you didn't even have to come into?



> I don't care about this type of consistency.




I do. End of discussion. We will never see eye to eye. I like internal consisency. You don't mind the lack of it. 



> Your 3E Minion (barring house rules) will most likely be unable to affect the Fighter at all if the Fighter can really kill him in one blow. That's why the Minion mechanics for 4E have changed - to ensure that they still matter, but also don't require me any book-keeping on hit points.





And the 4E minion will do pittance damage and die in two or three rounds regardless of what type of minion he is. I haven't found a minion that mattered in 4E or did significant damage.

I can design plenty of higher level minions that can harm the fighter and still be a challenge. And my party wizard will need more than scorching blast to kill them. And that his how I like it.

No need to continue discussing it with you. I'm a whiner in your eyes. So be it. Next time just pass on my threads Mustrum if all they are to you is whines with no validity.


----------



## Zil (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I don't intend to play it. I didn't create this as an edition wars thread which is why I prefaced my comment with this is a subjective opinion. I wanted to commiserate with a few other folks who might feel as I do.
> 
> After you played a game as long as I have, it feels kind of strange to have that game become something you don't want to play. I'm sure some people felt that way when 3E came out as well.
> 
> I generally looked forward to new books. Now I have no books to look forward too. And feel alienated from the game I enjoyed for so many years. This is one of the places I know of with D&D players in large numbers. So I came here to commiserate.




You should consider looking into what Paizo is putting out these days if you want some OGL/3.5 things to look forward to on a regular basis.  I've been really impressed with their output over the past year.  They've completely supplanted the old anticipation I used to have for the latest and greatest WoTC D&D product.  I think you mentioned Pathfinder RPG a bit farther sown this thread, but you should take a look at some of their other products too.   

As for the original post, I tend to agree with a lot of what you said.  I've also been playing this game for well over 25 years and 4E just isn't what I'm personally looking for when running or playing a long term D&D game.  Sure, when someone wants to run a 4E game, I'll play it.  It's fun in a limited sort of way.  However, it just doesn't work for me as an immersive fantasy RPG.     That brings me back to Paizo and Pathfinder; there are still cool things coming out for 3.x like games.   There is no reason to leave the hobby just because WoTC went in a direction you don't like.   You do have options!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

> That's a matter of taste then. I liked the feel of Saruman being able to mind control King Theoden, and needing to bring Gandalf to challenge Saruman. I liked the feel of Rand blowing away armies while the guys who travled with him were just regular skilled swordsman. I like the feel of that.



The entire magic in LotR (at least how it was presented in the movies) seemed very subtle in many regards. 
Probably won't appeal to you, but anyway: 
I could see a Wizard trying to dominate a king represented differently from ordinary magic - instead of using a Dominate Person like spell, he'd might just use Diplomacy, and the "player" flavors his 1/2 level bonus to Diplomacy as the wizards magic manipulating the king...


----------



## apoptosis (Aug 27, 2008)

Post deleted


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Now you're just taking shots.



Take that as you want. But I might just know that I am not as good as I want to be. 



> And the 4E minion will do pittance damage and die in two or three rounds regardless of what type of minion he is. I haven't found a minion that mattered in 4E or did significant damage.



I remember a Paladin being overwhelmed by a horde of Minions. It was interesting to see and it shapes my perception on Minions to this day. But it wasn't the last time I saw that happen. I remember a group of Decrepit Skeleton Archers seriously hammering a Wizard - I suppose he was pretty glad that he could take down a few of them with his area effects...

A single Minion is negligible. A group of Minions focusing their fire on a single party member is a terrible threat. 



> No need to continue discussing it with you. I'm a whiner in your eyes. So be it. Next time just pass on my threads Mustrum if all they are to you is whines with no validity.



Well, I didn't really see you as a whiner, but I wonder if I should revise that thought.
...
No. I won't. You just felt attacked...


----------



## Rel (Aug 27, 2008)

Let me underscore KC's admonition to avoid rudeness in this thread.  This has gotten much more heated than is tolerable.  In fact, let's everybody be EXTRA polite for the remainder of the thread.
Also, Gothmog, those are some pretty interesting ideas you've got there.  I might snap those up.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 27, 2008)

Goumindong said:


> O.K. Here is where you are failing and failing utterly.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




The real problem is that you seem to have forgotten the basics of participating in ENworld. How on earth do you think it is acceptable to say the things I've highlighted above?

You're banned for 7 days, and if you behave like this again it will be longer.


----------



## La Bete (Aug 27, 2008)

Rel said:


> Also, Gothmog, those are some pretty interesting ideas you've got there.  I might snap those up.




Like he said. Thanks Gothmog - those are some really interesting ideas!

Cheers


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 27, 2008)

> But one thing they do all have in common: They are the most powerful people in their world.




Actually, that is not true of the characters you specified, and even some literary characters "proven" to be all-powerful are often defeated and cast down by "lesser" beings.

Gandalf is not the most powerful being in Middle-Earth, as evidenced by the fact that he cannot directly confront Sauron (the most powerful) ever, and can only confront Saruman after his resurrection as Gandalf the White.

Allanon is definitely not the most powerful person in the Four Lands, since he can't face Brona without a Swordbearer, he can't defeat the Demons without the Ellcrys (and nearly kills himself fighting the Dagda Mor in that dogfight), and can't defeat the jachyra, nor does he believe he can defeat the Mord Wraiths (as only a bearer of the Wishsong has such power). Other Druids in the series are depicted as equally limited, and those who are shown to be even more powerful are often subject to a great weakness: truth will destroy them.


----------



## apoptosis (Aug 27, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Actually, that is not true of the characters you specified, and even some literary characters "proven" to be all-powerful are often defeated and cast down by "lesser" beings.
> 
> Gandalf is not the most powerful being in Middle-Earth, as evidenced by the fact that he cannot directly confront Sauron (the most powerful) ever, and can only confront Saruman after his resurrection as Gandalf the White.
> 
> Allanon is definitely not the most powerful person in the Four Lands, since he can't face Brona without a Swordbearer, he can't defeat the Demons without the Ellcrys (and nearly kills himself fighting the Dagda Mor in that dogfight), and can't defeat the jachyra, nor does he believe he can defeat the Mord Wraiths (as only a bearer of the Wishsong has such power). Other Druids in the series are depicted as equally limited, and those who are shown to be even more powerful are often subject to a great weakness: truth will destroy them.




What you say has a lot of truth in it and at the same time still does not really impact the underlying point that Celt has.

The above all have limitations so that the story would not be Gandalf does everything easily...the End.

The real questions is. People (including me) want an aesthetic where the scope of a magic-users ability can exceed the scope of a mundanes ability in specific instances.

What is the best mechanic to do this? 

4E does not do this very well and frankly it was not trying to; that is the antithesis of the game design goal they had (and i am not real familiar with the rules but they do seem to be very good at approaching their goals). 4Es solution was to make the scope of all classes the same throughout the story. This of course does homogenize things a bit (which is not to say that classes play the same but that the variable distribution throughout the story has been ameliorated somewhat).

3E does do this but with some potential drawbacks that have been mentioned and for some people is way too extreme.

I thought 1E did a good job but of course there were some similar issues that 3E had though probably not as severe.

Now I think most people who are in this camp are not talking about the wizard character stealing all the spotlight throughout the story but about being able to have an impact in certain instances that far exceeds other characters. I think most people are happy to have the wizard as a lesser figure during other parts of the story. 

This was the 1E model (how successful that was is open to debate). Where they had few spells but their spells would completely change the face of the encounter, but they had to hoard their spells carefully.

A broader question. How would others handle this issue. How would you make rules such that you can have wizards capable of extreme feats go adventuring with non-magic users and still have all players have a good time and share in the narrative with some equality.

Do some people think this is even possible with any version of D&D?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> For me, Knockdown is a condition that tells you the creature is "knocked down" long and strong enough to make a (mechanical) difference. You might use a purely narrated knockdown to explain why another hit (or flurry of blows) landed, but it didn't gain the mechanical representation of it as Combat Advantage. It was represented by the fact that your dice came up high enough to hit.
> If you want, every type of narration that is not represented in mechanical bonus, penalties or conditions is represented by the dice rolls. (Though of course, your interpretation of the dice rolls combined with the mechanical ements _and_ your desired theme or feel of a scene result in the game world narration.)




I am totally cool with narrating regular attacks with cool descriptions. The problem in 4E is that so many actions and conditions are "keywords" that have mechanical meaning beyond the narrative. The real problem I keep bumping up against with 4E is that the SYSTEM and the GAME THEORY seem to be at odds with one another. 

The DMG gives great advice on running a game the way YOU want with lots of great suggestions on making stuff up to suit your tastes.

The PHB is a huge clumsy collection of mechanics that is at odds with the DMG. Its a monster made of text that takes over 350 pages to tell you what you can and can't do.

As a whole the system is confused about what it wants to be. I like games where story is the important element and rules don't have to make sense but It helps if the game is RULES LITE (Basic D&D for example).

If a game is going to have involved complex rules then I expect those rules to make sense and for the system to have overall internal consistency. (GURPS for example)

Good old Basic D&D. Its easy to make things up, monster and NPC design is a snap, and the rules are simple and stay out of the way.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 27, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> A broader question. How would others handle this issue. How would you make rules such that you can have wizards capable of extreme feats go adventuring with non-magic users and still have all players have a good time and share in the narrative with some equality.
> 
> Do some people think this is even possible with any version of D&D?



I think 4e does a great job of this with the combination of combat magic and rituals (which can never really be used in combat).  It may not be a perfect solution but it's at least as elegant as any other system I've experimented with that tries to achieve the same goal, including a number of my own house rules.


----------



## apoptosis (Aug 27, 2008)

Ourph said:


> I think 4e does a great job of this with the combination of combat magic and rituals (which can never really be used in combat).  It may not be a perfect solution but it's at least as elegant as any other system I've experimented with that tries to achieve the same goal, including a number of my own house rules.




I guess in some ways it does depending on how you look at it.

From my perspective it completely does not do this and is one of the worst of systems for this. The wizard has pretty stable power distribution throughout the story and it is very very similar to every other class (this is of course by design).

Rituals do change this a bit i imagine but there is also the added issue that rituals are not specific to wizards (or clerics) but are pretty much available to all. 

So I would have to definitely disagree that 4E does this, my feeling was that the design was to specifically not do this.

Edit

I didnt mean to shoot down you comment like that. Maybe i am seeing the 4E approach from a specific viewpoint. If you think of a better angle to look at this issue from a 4E viewpoint i would like to hear it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> A broader question. How would others handle this issue. How would you make rules such that you can have wizards capable of extreme feats go adventuring with non-magic users and still have all players have a good time and share in the narrative with some equality.
> 
> Do some people think this is even possible with any version of D&D?




Well, it hasn't been done that, instead we seem to be jumping from one "extreme" to the other. So maybe it is impossible, or the designers just weren't smart enough to figure it out (for now). 

But in the end this might come down to the idea of creating the "perfect" game system. But that is a goal we try to achieve, but it's not something we really can achieve. I don't think you can appeal to every player. You just can appeal well to a large enough set of players. And it doesn't matter which edition of D&D we're talking about, each of them did that at their time. 

For example: One attempt to reach your goal might be to give players on non-wizards more "narrative" control (but not the character). Torg did something like that for superheroes and some races. You got improved mechanical abilities (superpowers, racial attribute bonuses), and in exchange had to pay an adventure cost in possiblities, the game meta-game resource for all kinds of stuff. You used possibilities to improve character skills, or to improve die rolls, or to reduce damage taken. 

Such a system can work nicely for spellcasters. Imagine every character had a resource, let's call it "Control Points" (I am just remember the d20 Farscape game, that had some good ideas, but was mostly a failure in design and balancing IMO). A wizard might either gets less, or needs to spend them on his magical abilities. He can eventually spend his conrol points to create a large fireball that deals terrifying damage to everyone inside. But non-spellcasters might be able to use this control points to reduce the damage they take, or get a reroll, or make up a connection that can help them out, or initiate a skill challenge that lets them seduce an NPC.
This could certainly achieve a measure of narrative balance between the spellcaster.

But then - what do these control points represent in the game world? Do they have an equivalent? You might make a point that control points for wizards describe mana, but what are they for mundane characters? Divine Luck? What if my setting doesn't have gods, or I am playing an atheist in a world were the gods hate atheist? 

And so, you end up alienating a subset of players that don't like such "meta-game" mechanics, that want everything to have an equivalent in the game world. (Torg circumvents this by making possibilities a reality of the world - some people actually know about the existence of possibility energy and how to use them, and that's the reason for the break-out of the Reality War on Earth. But if you wanted to use the system outside this context, you do no longer simulate anything)

And there are also other design considerations. If you're running a lot of combats and not a lot of seduction or skill challenge scenarios, being able to spend lots of control points to deal massive damage to a large area is still way superior to the ability to swing a sword, even if the mage can do it only once per day why you had enough points to reroll your attacks for 10 combats. You will probably end up doing what the wizards wants to do (in D&D, this was resting), if that is what can recharge his control points. The powers of the wizard are just to useful to not use them if you have a choice. 
The other option is removing that choice, but then you end up with a wizard that is inactive for a long time. 

You can't make everyone happy all the time. You have to pick your priorities.
I suppose the 4E design team might have been lead by marketing and has made design decisions as they seem to appeal to the largest market marketing could identify and categorize. Or they just did what they personally preferred. Or it's a mix of both, or a coincidence of both...


----------



## Ourph (Aug 27, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> Rituals do change this a bit i imagine but there is also the added issue that rituals are not specific to wizards (or clerics) but are pretty much available to all.



I think that depends on how you view characters who cast rituals.  Is a character who started out as a Fighter, then trained in Arcana and learned to cast Rituals still a "Fighter" in his own eyes and the eyes of the other characters or is he something else?  In my opinion, a character who trains in an area that is normally outside his specific "career" and then gains magic powers related to that knowledge has transcended he boundaries of his original class and become "wizard-like" or "cleric-like" enough to count as a member of those groups, even if the sum of his abilities isn't exactly the same as a normal member of that class.  In fact, if your point of view is that being capable of "extreme feats" that alter the very fabric of the world through magic is the defining feature of a Wizard (or Cleric) then that's even further justification for considering anyone who acquires that power to be part of that group.  From that perspective, rituals are still only available to Wizards and Clerics, some of those character just come to be Wizards and Clerics through non-standard routes.


----------



## apoptosis (Aug 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, it hasn't been done that, instead we seem to be jumping from one "extreme" to the other. So maybe it is impossible, or the designers just weren't smart enough to figure it out (for now).
> 
> But in the end this might come down to the idea of creating the "perfect" game system. But that is a goal we try to achieve, but it's not something we really can achieve. I don't think you can appeal to every player. You just can appeal well to a large enough set of players. And it doesn't matter which edition of D&D we're talking about, each of them did that at their time.
> 
> For example: One attempt to reach your goal might be to give players on non-wizards more "narrative" control (but not the character). Torg did something like that for superheroes and some races. You got improved mechanical abilities (superpowers, racial attribute bonuses), and in exchange had to pay an adventure cost in possiblities, the game meta-game resource for all kinds of stuff. You used possibilities to improve character skills, or to improve die rolls, or to reduce damage taken.




Great Post.

I actually really like the idea of narrative control as a way to equalize players and have thought about using that in several systems. But I agree that many might not appreciate such a system.

But mostly wanted to chime in that i really like your overall thoughts on the matter.


----------



## apoptosis (Aug 27, 2008)

Ourph said:


> I think that depends on how you view characters who cast rituals.  Is a character who started out as a Fighter, then trained in Arcana and learned to cast Rituals still a "Fighter" in his own eyes and the eyes of the other characters or is he something else?  In my opinion, a character who trains in an area that is normally outside his specific "career" and then gains magic powers related to that knowledge has transcended he boundaries of his original class and become "wizard-like" or "cleric-like" enough to count as a member of those groups, even if the sum of his abilities isn't exactly the same as a normal member of that class.  In fact, if your point of view is that being capable of "extreme feats" that alter the very fabric of the world through magic is the defining feature of a Wizard (or Cleric) then that's even further justification for considering anyone who acquires that power to be part of that group.  From that perspective, rituals are still only available to Wizards and Clerics, some of those character just come to be Wizards and Clerics through non-standard routes.




That is a good way look at it. 

I overall honestly dont like the general direction of it for my own version of a FRPG, but at the same time I think that your idea is definitely a great way to approach 4E. it does not do much for the wizard unleashing potent powers during a battle but it does address some of the other issues in a nice manner.

It does render the class names somewhat irrelevant 

Basically it means that Wizards (class) just practiced combat magic while everyone (generally i believe most everyone would) practices magic.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I am totally cool with narrating regular attacks with cool descriptions. The problem in 4E is that so many actions and conditions are "keywords" that have mechanical meaning beyond the narrative. The real problem I keep bumping up against with 4E is that the SYSTEM and the GAME THEORY seem to be at odds with one another.
> 
> The DMG gives great advice on running a game the way YOU want with lots of great suggestions on making stuff up to suit your tastes.
> 
> ...



Isn't this dichotomy between abstraction and concrete concept (hit points vs. Craft (Basketweaving), perhaps) something that has always been in D&D?

I question whether the "purity" of the game to lean to one concept at the expense of another is actually such a great idea. 
What I see in 4E is mostly an attempt at "utility". The system does what we like or want systems to do, even if it mixes concepts that we usually don't associate. It's goal is not purity of design, but combing ease of use with interesting use. 
Resource Management is interesting, hence we get a power subsystem that requires resource management. But we also like to rule stuff that's not explicitly part of the game system, so we get the stunt rules and skill challenges.
Maybe it's all an example of what "exception based" design means. You define a lot of common game terms, but then use more vague guidelines how to have them interact with each other. Individual powers might seen like pretty hard-detailed concepts, but the framework that allows us creating them only uses some basic building blocks and a few guidelines on how to create them.



apoptosis said:


> I guess in some ways it does depending on how you look at it.
> 
> From my perspective it completely does not do this and is one of the worst of systems for this. The wizard has pretty stable power distribution throughout the story and it is very very similar to every other class (this is of course by design).
> 
> Rituals do change this a bit i imagine but there is also the added issue that rituals are not specific to wizards (or clerics) but are pretty much available to all.



Well, 3E and 4E both have multiclassing. Just because Ritual Spellcasting is not labeled as multiclassing, it is still a form of multiclassing. You even need to learn Arcana to get access to Rituals as a Non-Cleric or Non-Wizard, and is a fighter or paladin versed in knowledge of magic really a mere fighter or paladin anymore?


----------



## BronzeDragon (Aug 27, 2008)

My players tend to be a little more unpredictable than yours it seems, and that's fine. I have to prepare for them and you have to prepare for yours...

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with you Guomindong. You seem to have a very different view of what the game is and you also seem to think your way is much better, so more power to you.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> Basically it means that Wizards (class) just practiced combat magic while everyone (generally i believe most everyone would) practices magic.



In many respects, this is certainly true. In a way, your power source and combat role just define your "fighting style". (Similar to Iron Heroes classes, in that regard). 

Though there are some things that go a little beyond that. There are class features that go beyond that, but they aren't as obvious as the rest. The Rogue for example is always trained in Thievery. That tells us nothing about his combat style or role, but a lot about his role in the world or the party.

I suppose they could (and maybe should) have done more in that regard. Personally, I'd like to see a "non-combat" equivalent to the entire power system made by the 4E designers. Though it might not appeal too many - I don't know.


----------



## Ourph (Aug 27, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> Basically it means that Wizards (class) just practiced combat magic while everyone (generally i believe most everyone would) practices magic.



It's fairly "expensive" resource-wise to gain the ability to cast rituals if you don't at least start the game with the Arcana or Religion skill.  So far, I have not seen a great desire on the part of players of those classes (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue for example) to invest in getting the ability to cast rituals.  I can see someone doing it if they had a specific character concept in mind (especially if they were already multiclassing as a Wizard or Cleric) but I disagree that "most everyone" will take the opportunity to gain the ability to cast rituals.  I think it will actually be quite a rare occurence for martial-type characters.


----------



## Kitirat (Aug 27, 2008)

Interesting thread, I found most of it actually pretty civil and the rudeness calls a bit over zealous.  People will respond to "I dis-like posts" with debate and discussion, especially when their view points are not as the OP's.  I think the post itself was better focused as a blog entry if no differing opinion posts were desired.

But to the point, I think your analysis is well thought out and a very good description of why simulationist may not like 4th.  For myself, so far it has been a blast and I've DMed or played in over 30 sessions.  However your correct IMO with the assumption that it is perception which determines your like and dislike of 4th.  Gothmog BTW had awesome suggestions on how to make any 4th ed you have to play in the future more enjoyable for those whom have difficulty with relative threat.  I think this is where much of the dislike for 4th comes from.  For example, minions out of context are a bit silly.  A 4 year old with a slingshot getting lucky and taking down a 20th level devil is horrid conceptually.  However, when you take it in the context for relative threat (a 20th level devil is better described by another stat block to that low a level threat) it works well even for simulationists.  In a fight against 20th level characters, the devils do not pose that big a threat and can be dispatched by focusing on them.  They have different stat blocks not for complication but for simplification.  When the party deals with them they will almost always be high enough level to make the devils seem like minions for their relative difficulty.  

Your issues on dragon breath size is reasonable IMO, mostly for the blue dragon as most othe others have moderate sized greath and a "feat" of enlarged breath will likely come out in the drancomion to deal with that.

From my experience 3.5 is a wonderful system up till about 11th level, then it starts to decay horridly and after 15th gets overly burdened with up to 15 "buffs" per individual, etc.

4th is fun, its new, and I'm still looking into it more.  I wish ya the best and am sorry for your group loss.  In time I hope ya find a way to be more flexible in your relatvie threat thinking, but many folks have difficulty with it forever.

Wish ya well,
Kitirat


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Isn't this dichotomy between abstraction and concrete concept (hit points vs. Craft (Basketweaving), perhaps) something that has always been in D&D?
> 
> I question whether the "purity" of the game to lean to one concept at the expense of another is actually such a great idea.
> What I see in 4E is mostly an attempt at "utility". The system does what we like or want systems to do, even if it mixes concepts that we usually don't associate. It's goal is not purity of design, but combing ease of use with interesting use.
> ...




An interesting point. Abstraction vs detail has always been an important factor in every edition. To me, Exception based design still seems like a copout to explain lazy or rushed mechanics. I just don't see the point of complication when there is a huge handwave at the end. I don't see 4E being a very successful attempt at utility. The system is more complex than it needs to be for what it sets out to accomplish. 

Resource management has always been a part of play but some players actually liked the freedom of only having to manage hit points for a fighter and keep things simple. Others loved managing spell lists and played casters. In 4E equal complexity is forced upon all classes. I don't enjoy that kind of force fed complexity.

The stunt rules are a great idea. Skill challenges were a good idea that was poorly implemented. 

As far as the system doing what we like systems to do, well thats very subjective. I like a system to handle basic resolution without it being so painfully obvious about doing its job. 

As far as game balance goes, 4E has yet to do battle with the almighty splatbook.


----------



## apoptosis (Aug 27, 2008)

Ourph said:


> It's fairly "expensive" resource-wise to gain the ability to cast rituals if you don't at least start the game with the Arcana or Religion skill.  So far, I have not seen a great desire on the part of players of those classes (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue for example) to invest in getting the ability to cast rituals.  I can see someone doing it if they had a specific character concept in mind (especially if they were already multiclassing as a Wizard or Cleric) but I disagree that "most everyone" will take the opportunity to gain the ability to cast rituals.  I think it will actually be quite a rare occurence for martial-type characters.




i did not really convey what i meant well. I was jumping from a game perspective to a world-building perspective when I started talking about most players gathering rituals.

Though, I think since rituals are where a lot of power is (could be WAY wrong on this), many people probably will grab it at higher levels. But since I don't play 4E, others are way more competent to answer this question than I (which you actually chimed in on which so far is my only data point).


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 27, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I guess it comes down to whether you like a gamist philosophy versus a realistic simulation philsophy. I freely admit I fall on the side of realistic simuation insofar as that is possible in a fantasy RPG.




I think you're a little confused here. AD&D 1&2E, whilst more simulationist than 4E (and to a lesser extent the somewhat confused 3E), are not exactly "simulationist" games. They're distantly wargame derived FRPGs which incorporate a mixture of game-oriented and simulationist concepts in a wierd and slightly random mix.

Saying that 3E, for example, advocates a "realistic simulation philsophy", to me, borders on the actually delusional. I have no doubt that Monte Cook and other 3E designers absolutely would not agree that that was what they were doing (esp. given intentional "newbie traps" etc.). Nor do I think Gary Gygax would have suggested that AD&D 1E was really going for "realistic simulation".

I mean, when Gary DID go for "realistic simulation" in the utterly simulationist Dangerous Journeys (which amazingly, I own), it could hardly have been further from AD&D, in most ways. Rolemaster would be a much more comparable game. Or GURPS, even. Those are games which go for a "realistic simulationist" approach, as do a couple of d20-based games, but D&D? Pfffft.

So, whilst I agree that you're completely reasonable to dislike 4E, and I can even say that I "feel you" on your criticisms, as they're problems I had with 4E at one time, too, I can't say that claiming you like "realistic simulation" as the reason you dislike 4E, seems even remotely reasonable. 3E was a good game with certain strengths, and clearly MORE simulationist than 4E. However, so is virtually every game on the market, that doesn't make them "realistic simulations".

Perhaps a more reasonable position would be for you to claim that you liked the peculiar mix of gamist and simulationist elements found in previous editions of D&D, and feel that by almost entirely stripping simulationist elements from D&D, 4E has also stripped D&D of it's heart and soul for you.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 27, 2008)

In looking at this thread, I am really surprised at the number of people who don't seem to understand the OP's opinion at all. Coming to this discussion as someone who likes a lot of what 4E has to offer, I also realize that a lot of what it is doing is *fundamentally different* from what D&D has done before.

I absolutely love the new "narrative control" aspects to 4E, and I realize that this is nothing new to gaming as a whole, but it is all something very new to D&D. Shared narrative control is fundamentally different from what D&D has been about, at least historically. In addition to that, the metagaming levels that are a part of the game have also risen dramatically. Frankly that's also something I *enjoy*, as I find it fun to switch between immersive roleplay and the more "gamist" aspects of the system, because I like to compartmentalize the different parts of the game. But that is just *me*.

When I recently ran a Spirit of the Century campaign with more traditional gamers, about half of the group loved the control and jumped in head first, while the other half *absolutely loathed the game*. I haven't had such a strong and diametrically opposed reaction to a game in years (if ever).

What all this is intended to mean is that the core audience for earlier editions of D&D is in no way guaranteed to like the changes that have come with the new edition, and we shouldn't be surprised or angry that they're talking about it. The OP has been playing D&D for a long time, and has certain expectations for what D&D is to him. This new edition challenges many of those expectations. I would expect that if you asked Mike Mearls if he expected that some of the old timers would have this reaction, he would tell you that it was expected.

--Steve


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 27, 2008)

Look, SteveD, i know you think you´re pretty clever and all. But this is a thread for snark and counter-snark. For "look what Celtavian said about my game" and "look what they said to Celtavian!" And then you come in, saying what i was thinking all along, making reasonable statements and that. 
I mean, seriously.
Was that necessary?
Everybody was already so worked up. The usual people had alread told the other side that they are acting pretty disgusting & vice versa. And then this. 
I give up.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 27, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Resource management has always been a part of play but some players actually liked the freedom of only having to manage hit points for a fighter and keep things simple. Others loved managing spell lists and played casters. In 4E equal complexity is forced upon all classes. I don't enjoy that kind of force fed complexity.



I wonder how true this really is. I've played all core classes (plus Warlock) in 3E at some point, and I enjoyed them all in some ways, but I always found some short-comings. Going through my spell list as a wizard could become pretty tedious. No less so for a Cleric (A class I honestly don't seem to get the hang off, even in 4E). So I went for Fighter, and there I found it was too much of the same - same tactics every encounter (Trip foes, hit them hard until they die) - despite me trying to make a character pretty effective at a variety of maneuvers. When I played a Warlock, I loved the flavor and some of the effects, but ultimiately, just shooting eldritch blasts with tiny variations all the time and know concept of real resources beyond hit points and the self-healing ability of the Warlock, it seemed to lack something. So I was always jumping back and forth between classes, because I got tired of their mechanical complexity. One is to simple and boring, the other to complex and tedious. 

So maybe gunning for a middle ground for _all_ classes was the right choice to make? I don't really know. Celtavian seems to prefer Wizards above all - maybe this is not true for him. But I think it might be true for a lot of other people. I know one player that is pretty much a power-gamer/munchkin type of player who rarely played wizards in 3E - I don't know if it's because he also likes to "physically" kick but with his PCs (and thus tends to Fighters and Barbarians), or if it wasn't the actual way more complex resource management. In 4E, he happily plays a Wizard.
But that's all anecdotal. Maybe Wizards market research revealed trends, or it was just a gut feeling of the designers (and either could still turn out to be wrong.)




> As far as game balance goes, 4E has yet to do battle with the almighty splatbook.



Oh yes, it does. I say: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst...


----------



## Seagrave1750 (Aug 27, 2008)

*wait, what?*

"Monster recharge powers are a joke. I ran a Hobgoblin Warcaster with Force Lure. It used force lure and dragged a player 3 squares so allied monsters could get at it. And that player used an encounter power to shift away."

The DM can use a Delay action on the Warcaster, or Ready actions on its allies to ensure that they work in concert.  If the Warcaster is ready before his allies, the Warcaster Delays his Force Lure until the initiative count just before his allies take their turn.  That way the PC cannot escape. If the allies are ready first or at differing times, they can Ready attacks for when a PC appears within range, courtesy of the Warcaster's Force Lure.  The PC should shift away good and battered, but he could also be surrounded in either case (through Delay or by allies readying Move actions to surround him).


The Ready and Delay actions are as old as 3e (were they prior as well?  in the Skills & Powers books?)  and are still part of the ruleset.  OP claims to understand the rules, claims to have 25? years gaming experience, claims to have all the books, how could he miss this?

I suspect troll activity.  But if what we have been told is true, then he is right to leave the game and we shouldn't try to stop him.  I recommend the LOTR version of Monopoly instead.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 28, 2008)

> Simulation





> Simulationist





> Gamist



Did I take a wrong step and end up in that horrifying mess of The Forge?


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Aug 28, 2008)

Cute, but The Forge closed that theory area of their forums in, like, 2006, so your jokes are a bit dated.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Aug 28, 2008)

*The Narrative Interpretation*

Just wanted to chime in on about the "narrative" interpretation of Encounter and Daily powers, and say I understand and appreciate the attempt to create a framework for a Tumble that can only be made once an encounter, (for example), but I've gotten so used to being in control of my character's narrative, nothing else will do. 

This is in some ways related to the opinion that fighters in 3.5 were only good for tripping and hitting until the target was dead.  I've been playing a strong but slow Heavy Flail fighter in a weekly 3.5 game for about a year, and combats are never boring.  On any given turn, I can move to flank, or to assist and ally, or to attack, I can Power Attack anywhere from 2 to 10 (if the target's AC is low enough), use caltrops to control enemies moving past me, activate a magic item (my Boots of Speed are a big help for a fella with an 8 Dex), Trip if the target is on two legs and has a particularly high AC and low strength (or is surrounded by my allies--love those OAs when the sucker tries to stand), grapple, flee, or a dozen other things.  And every turn, all of my options change because each of my allies and all of our enemies will have done something since the last time I could act.  

So while other folks defuse traps, sling spells, heal or whatever it is that they do, I'm right there on the front line, in the flow of battle, using the terrain, my weapons, and my wits to out-maneuver and crush our enemies, and its a blast.

Getting back to my point--even if, given all of those choices, the best play is to stand my ground and trade blows until I or the target goes down, then thats what I'll do.  And if at some point a sunder or a trip is called for, then thats what I'll do.  I get to choose.  The problem with the narrative interpretation for powers is that the rules get to choose the narrative--not me.  Yes, I can choose once, but after that, its out of my hands, and thats no fun at all.

Thats why I'd love to see a mechanic built in to 4th that allows me to use any Encounter or Daily power whenever I want, but at an increasing penalty each time.  For instance, I could use an Encounter power once during an encounter at no penalty, and then again at -2, and again at -4, etc etc.  Dailies should perhaps have a higher penalty, but the effect is the same:  I retain control of my character and the character's narrative, (while retaining the "specialness" of the Encounter and Daily powers themselves).

--MrG.




Also:


Seagrave1750 said:


> I recommend the LOTR version of Monopoly instead.




If this truly is your first post on ENWorld, its a pretty poor way to present yourself, unless you were joking.  I'll assume you're joking, but if not, please try to be civil.  Fact is, the OP doesn't like the same rules edition of a game that you do.  This is hardly grounds for rudeness.  Just saying.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 28, 2008)

MrGrenadine said:


> Thats why I'd love to see a mechanic built in to 4th that allows me to use any Encounter or Daily power whenever I want, but at an increasing penalty each time. For instance, I could use an Encounter power once during an encounter at no penalty, and then again at -2, and again at -4, etc etc. Dailies should perhaps have a higher penalty, but the effect is the same: I retain control of my character and the character's narrative, (while retaining the "specialness" of the Encounter and Daily powers themselves).




Thats a really good idea. Too bad WOTC went with the binary design. A power is either active or on cooldown.


----------



## ruemere (Aug 28, 2008)

I'm late to arrive to this thread so I'm going to limit myself to:

Your concerns, Celtavian, echo mine. Thank you for taking time to voice yours so coherently.

And this:

My personal style of gamemastering relies on working inner logic of the world. The lights coming up upon the PCs entering the room illuminate beings with history, complete set of statistics and some script guidelines. When the PCs exit, the world will not stop turning for those left behind.

That's the first issue I have encountered upon learning about 4E - that the world revolves around heroes entering and leaving the stage.

Another reason for my indifference to 4E is the way the mechanics are working. It's, of course, again a matter of personal preference, however, when you swing a chair in a bar room brawl, the mechanics are for letting me judge how effective was the swing and whether there was any significant change to landscape. 
However, in 4E it is not a mere swing of a chair - it is some special power employed. The mechanic overshadows game reality, since the power may also come with additional effect (like sudden change of position) and suddenly, instead of swinging a chair, the protagonist is using a power.

It's a total change of style - instead of trying to pretend you're part of the world, instead you are there using powers to get effects. To me, it's wrong - not wrong as in "you cannot roleplay because of this" but wrong as in "you should be swinging a chair (and wait for GM to let you know what happened later), not using Swing Mightily Improvised Weapon, Hit: Push Away One Square".

That's all.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Ah wait, there is one more gripe. Some powers require serious translation as to why the effects work that way. All sliding, regaining hitpoints through motivation and similar stuff... I know that everything got a bit more abstract (even called it "introduction of abstraction layer into DnD"), but it does not sit well with me.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2008)

ruemere said:


> My personal style of gamemastering relies on working inner logic of the world. The lights coming up upon the PCs entering the room illuminate beings with history, complete set of statistics and some script guidelines. When the PCs exit, the world will not stop turning for those left behind.
> 
> That's the first issue I have encountered upon learning about 4E - that the world revolves around heroes entering and leaving the stage.



I'm just going to ask, being somewhat naive in this...

(1) Why are the specific rules important when you're working with stuff that's more or less off-screen?

(2) While I understand that the "world" exists when everyone is sitting down and playing D&D, I don't understand how it exists when you're not playing D&D.  At least, it's no more existing then, than it is for a novel-writer.

Novel writers don't, generally, need RPG rules.  Why should a game world need RPG rules during times in which you're not using it to play a game?

-O


----------



## Umbran (Aug 28, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So maybe gunning for a middle ground for _all_ classes was the right choice to make? I don't really know.




There's an easy way to answer this question - by answering another question.  Is it reasonable to expect that the designers could please _everybody_ with one design?  If not, it is difficult to argue that there is any one "the right choice".  All choices are right in some ways, and wrong in some ways.


----------



## Halivar (Aug 28, 2008)

Umbran said:


> There's an easy way to answer this question - by answering another question.  Is it reasonable to expect that the designers could please _everybody_ with one design?  If not, it is difficult to argue that there is any one "the right choice".  All choices are right in some ways, and wrong in some ways.



QFT. 4E "fixed" the wizard so that I actually want to play it. It "broke" the wizard so that one of my fellow players does not. After hashing out our differences, we realized that we both clearly understood the changes the same way, but had strongly opposing aesthetic reactions to them. The greater the change, the more extreme the reation. As a software developer, I actually have to agonize over these same issues (iwth regards to customers) every time I work on an upgrade. I may "fix" an issue for 9 customers, but that 10th will flame me like hell, and on our company's web forum, to boot.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 28, 2008)

Umbran said:


> There's an easy way to answer this question - by answering another question.  Is it reasonable to expect that the designers could please _everybody_ with one design?  If not, it is difficult to argue that there is any one "the right choice".  All choices are right in some ways, and wrong in some ways.




This seems like a lazy, facile way to answer that question to me, actually. I guess as facile and easy are somewhat synonyms, that's unsurprising. Perhaps the easy way to answer the question isn't always the best way to answer it, neh?

It's true that no design, even sticking to the extant design, would please "everyone", but I think it's a pretty sure thing that they attempted to please as many people as humanly possible with their design. I personally think they may have succeeded. Certainly they seem to have pleased players who were somewhat less "into" D&D before this, in my anecdotal experience.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 28, 2008)

/edit

Whoa, really late post.  Not worth it.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Aug 28, 2008)

To Celtavian,

I can relate to a lot of your issues with 4E. Speaking for myself most of the problems I had with 4E were grounded in my expectations, and my expectations were grounded in this game being branded 4E D&D. I've tried to disassociate 4E from D&D and free myself from the expectations I was bringing to the table and I've since found 4E a lot easier to accept. It's a game with many fine qualities but they are not the same qualities that I became accustomed to with previous editions. As a result I've been able to have some fun playing in 4E games when the alternative may have been not playing anything. I still get my D&D fix from playing older editions so I haven't so much lost the game I like to play as I have gained a new game to play.

I wish you good luck with your group and your future gaming. I hope things work out for you.

Also I wanted to thank some of the posters earlier in the thread who put up some links for online references and communities for gaming with older editions of the game. Much appreciated.


----------



## ruemere (Aug 28, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I'm just going to ask, being somewhat naive in this...
> 
> (1) Why are the specific rules important when you're working with stuff that's more or less off-screen?



Because Game Master is a fallible human being - the rules somehow mitigate this by limiting the scope of his imagination. Ensuring believability of offscreen changes is one of key rules for me - and I strive to achieve that in such a way that every creature, be it a PC or NPC, works in the same way.



> (2) While I understand that the "world" exists when everyone is sitting down and playing D&D, I don't understand how it exists when you're not playing D&D.  At least, it's no more existing then, than it is for a novel-writer.



Players have characters to roleplay. I have the whole world for the same purpose. They use xp to advance their fighters and mages, while I use their actions to advance my setting while following side stories of NPCs.

It's handy to look at statblock of NPC brother to PC priestess and find out how he is doing during archeological expedition he is managing. His statblock tells me what I can expect of him and limits the results of his action to believable frame (he is out of his depth trying to deal with natives - his interpersonal skills may be decent, but his elven heritage prevents him from fully acknowledging his local partners as fully trustworthy allies - or, in game terms, he may have some Diplomacy ranks, but average Charisma and racial prejudices led him to somewhat aloof attitude... which does not help to make progress).

Meanwhile, sister of the ambassador is racing against time to save her brother since, unknowable to him (and partly to her - well, he knows and he suspects but tries not to worry her) he is suffering from slow degradation of his vessel (body) due to incompleteness of the process involved in the restoration of his health in his youth. Again, her stats determine her chances of success and again, they limit my imagination (i.e. prevent the use of Deus Ex Machina).

What is going to happen to those two NPCs? Will they succeed? Will they fail? Time will tell, and their paths finally cross the paths of the party, they will have long stories to tell.



> Novel writers don't, generally, need RPG rules.  Why should a game world need RPG rules during times in which you're not using it to play a game?



Ah, but I do play. It's just that it is not as detailed as RPG session. It's a roll-a-week, look at the stats and then think what would they do and how they would react given the development.

Right now I have several key NPCs, each one of them controls portion of game world and, by actions of such NPCs the rest the world progresses. Their progress is tracked by gazetteers I write from time to time to record changes.
Finally, I am also, using two-three random tables, add completely random stuff (like a minor tectonic tremor, outbreak of small-scale disease, particularly successful crops) to further breath more life into the world.

It is not much work but it requires consistency and consequence. That's why unified system works best for me (and why Profession and Craft skills are a boon to me).

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## pemerton (Aug 28, 2008)

apoptosis said:


> i do not think that is a fair characterization of what he is saying.
> 
> I think he wants characters that have different power distributions throughout a story. In 4E the distribution is the same with approx the same efficacy from all classes in most all situations (which is not to say they play the same).
> 
> He wants classes where he might be less effective in parts of the story and incredibly potent in specific instances.





apoptosis said:


> The real questions is. People (including me) want an aesthetic where the scope of a magic-users ability can exceed the scope of a mundanes ability in specific instances.
> 
> What is the best mechanic to do this?
> 
> ...



Mustrum's idea of providing for varying distributions of narrative control is one idea (I put forward a similar suggestion for HARP in the Guild Companion last year.)

Other ideas are being put forward by Lost Soul in his very excellent "Emergent features of KoTS" thread.

Thinking about the issue in general terms: in AD&D a wizard is, in a functional sense, forced to hoard a particular resource (namely, turns in combat in which the wizard makes little or no contribution) in return for being able to spend the hoarded resources all at once (by occasionally casting very powerful spells). The most common complaint about this mechanic is that it is boring (all that sitting around doing nothing between spells) and unreliable (because the GM can always fail to provide you with the encounters that would make your spells worthwhile).

The solutions would then be to get rid of the boredom - by giving the player something active to do in the course of hoarding the resource - and to get rid of the unreliability - by shifting the metagame control from GM to player.

In 4e, some monsters have hints of this sort of design - their first attack does comparatively little but it sets up their second attack to be a killer - but I haven't especially noticed it in the wizard power lists. But Warlocks seem to have something like it with their curses and pact boons - little actions performed round by round build up to a sort of crescendo of power. It is possible to envisage other versions of this (and maybe they are there but I haven't noticed them yet).

Skill challenges can also perhaps support something like this - the wizard player can use Hard Arcana checks to aid another, thus contributing +2 bonuses to his/her allies, increasing the number of successes, and then (with the permission of the other players) narrate the success as resulting from the culmination of the wizard's magical power.

The main challenge to this sort of design, I think, is to keep play interesting for the resource-hoarder. If this breaks down, then nova-ing, imbalance of narrative control between players, and/or the 15-minute day, are all lurking dangers.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 28, 2008)

Mishihari Lord said:


> In mechanics it's way closer to WoW than D&D.



In mechanics it's also as close to HeroWars (skill challenges, healing surges) as it is to OD&D (some legacy terminology and basic framework for class roles and combat mechanics). But I don't see anyone going around saying that D&D has become HeroWars. 4e is its own game - but its designers have paid attention to what is good design in other games also.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 28, 2008)

ruemere said:


> Players have characters to roleplay. I have the whole world for the same purpose. They use xp to advance their fighters and mages, while I use their actions to advance my setting while following side stories of NPCs.
> 
> It's handy to look at statblock of NPC brother to PC priestess and find out how he is doing during archeological expedition he is managing. His statblock tells me what I can expect of him and limits the results of his action to believable frame (he is out of his depth trying to deal with natives - his interpersonal skills may be decent, but his elven heritage prevents him from fully acknowledging his local partners as fully trustworthy allies - or, in game terms, he may have some Diplomacy ranks, but average Charisma and racial prejudices led him to somewhat aloof attitude... which does not help to make progress).
> 
> ...



It is always important to define the "theme" and personality of the NPCs, and then translate them to rules representation that also fit the PCs. 

I think in many cases where you don't know what the outcome of an off-screen NPC interaction is, you can just flip a coin. If you think a certain thing is more likely, you can use dice. But do you need actual statistics? 
For your example of the archaeological expedition or the attempt to heal the weakening brother, wouldn't you need to set both the NPCs skill values and their DCs? Doesn't this mean you actually already decided the likely results beforehand? 

Of course, sometimes NPCs might just "accidentally" stumble into a situation where they need a skill you haven't thought of yet. But a fallible DM could _really_ have forgotten that skill (it happened to me even as a player sometimes), and it would have made sense for the NPC to have it, but he doesn't! Of course, if you didn't make this mistake, will it still turn out to give you the results that will benefit the story? 

Of course, the latter thing is probably narrative thinking. From a simulation perspective, things don't have to go according to a "story". They just happen how they would happen in a fictional world. 

My complaint about that approach is that it risks too much. The chance of ending up with a less interesting story-line is not outweighed with something beneficial for me as a player or as a DM.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 28, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Thats a really good idea. Too bad WOTC went with the binary design. A power is either active or on cooldown.




Actually, it's not a good idea at all balance wise.  If a power gave you -2 for each additional time you used it then those who have a higher bonus to hit get even MORE benefit from a single stat than from anything else.  Not only does it give them a higher chance to hit, but more uses of it.

In a system like this, it means that there is a "point of no return" where a power is useless.  If you have 2 encounter powers and one gives you -4 to hit and the other one doesn't but they do about the same damage, it is almost a universally bad idea to use the first one.  If you use 4e exactly as written but apply a -2 for each successive use of an encounter power, after a single use of most powers, it is a better idea to use an at-will attack(or a different encounter power)).  This makes the powers usable by most people once per encounter anyways while giving anyone who is bad at math a "bad" option to pick from as well.

The other option is you make the penalty different, affecting you less somehow, which encourages the opposite: Using the same power over and over again.  Which causes battles to degrade back to the 3e: I swing.  You swing.  Which was the reason to create encounter powers in the first place.

The mechanics were designed to encourage a certain type of play that people wanted to see(a variety of different options usable each round as any class, easy to understand choices, quick turns, no bad choices).


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 28, 2008)

ruemere said:


> and I strive to achieve that in such a way that every creature, be it a PC or NPC, works in the same way.




Whats stopping you from stating out your NPC fully in 4e? 

I think the default that WotC choose is correct, most DMs want a quick resolution to those questions. But there are class templates for NPCs in the DMG and, if it is a really important to you, just follow the PC rules.

The rules in the DMG are just tools that a DM can pick up and use, what tools you use is completely dependant on your playstyle. If you have more fun with completely, correctly PC stat-ed NPC then more power to you, but 4e does not preclude it.


----------



## BeauNiddle (Aug 28, 2008)

ruemere said:


> It's handy to look at statblock of NPC brother to PC priestess and find out how he is doing during archeological expedition he is managing. His statblock tells me what I can expect of him and limits the results of his action to believable frame.




But you wrote the character sheet / statblock.

I understand the rules are a nice support structure but fundamentally it breaks down to:

1) DM comes up with a character concept
2) DM codifies the concept with the rules
3) DM uses said concept to achieve what he thinks is appropriate.


The arguement 4th ed makes is that step 2 isn't all that necessary. It's useful to make sure within the right power area but completely codifing the concept doesn't achieve anything.


As to an earlier poster saying the world revolves around the players - it doesn't. The RULES revolve around the players - the world revolves around the DMs imagination as it has always done.


----------



## ruemere (Aug 28, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It is always important to define the "theme" and personality of the NPCs, and then translate them to rules representation that also fit the PCs.



Basically, in my game, you may opt to gain additional points to allocate if you do something of the following:
- provide background story for the character - it works best if its sketchy but tells about all important turning points of character career. For example, you have an exceptional Wisdom score - how did you develop it? How did it change the way you live? Did it come into play significantly - if so, when and how, if not, why?
- provide names, class levels, professions and attitudes of all family members
- promise to write diary (laconic and regular entries are best - I don't need hundreds of pages, I just want detailed record of character experiences for future usage)

Something similar happens to NPCs. Their initial descriptions are sketchy (class levels and some skills). Through interactions with PCs and game world and if they gain importance, they will gain more details. Otherwise, they rely on certain standards for less important NPCs (basically, base stats, total score of 2-3 key skills and some defining notes).



> I think in many cases where you don't know what the outcome of an off-screen NPC interaction is, you can just flip a coin. If you think a certain thing is more likely, you can use dice. But do you need actual statistics?



Coin flip does not acknowledge circumstances, NPC defining traits and does not contain hints as to NPCs further decisions. 



> For your example of the archaeological expedition or the attempt to heal the weakening brother, wouldn't you need to set both the NPCs skill values and their DCs? Doesn't this mean you actually already decided the likely results beforehand?



Digression: he is not actually weakening. He is developing aggressive separate personality, whose driving goal is to destroy the vessel. Right now, the intruder is somewhat limited to seldom acts leading to grievious body harm since intruders perception of surroundings is lacking. In game terms, think about psychological version of side effects of Clone spell, where the perceived enemy is the host's personality and host's body.

I know skills and DCs (at least for the next bout of rolls). The results will allow me to decide on both future course of actions and future DCs. These are ongoing side plots of which development is done at certain time intervals.

So, no, I haven't decided anything yet. They may or may not succeed. We'll see about that later.



> Of course, sometimes NPCs might just "accidentally" stumble into a situation where they need a skill you haven't thought of yet. But a fallible DM could _really_ have forgotten that skill (it happened to me even as a player sometimes), and it would have made sense for the NPC to have it, but he doesn't! Of course, if you didn't make this mistake, will it still turn out to give you the results that will benefit the story?



Who knows? There is a good chance it will benefit the story (that's why it is being developed).
The stats are at my fingertips. There is not much chance that I will forget something.



> Of course, the latter thing is probably narrative thinking. From a simulation perspective, things don't have to go according to a "story". They just happen how they would happen in a fictional world.
> 
> My complaint about that approach is that it risks too much. The chance of ending up with a less interesting story-line is not outweighed with something beneficial for me as a player or as a DM.




Usually, the most developed stories are those which are happening in PC's vicinity. The others are usually decided with a simple, less detailed roll.

The risk is acceptable to me for the following reasons:
- I have several stories, so the probability of some of them ending up usable is very high,
- new stories are often spawned by PCs actions,
- even failed stories sometimes make it to players knowledge through discovery of diaries or via witness accounts,
- sometimes, at the end of a story arc, the stories which finished off stage or those which became immaterial and are considered closed, will be related by me in a form of series of epilogues.

For example, once upon a time I ran a few campaigns in KULT. This game relies on deception and lies, so chances of players learning actual data is slim. And so, at the end of each story, there was something I call "warm afterglow" moment, where everyone was sitting comfortably, and everyone was asking questions (not just me, many players had their own stories to tell, the secret backgrounds, the side trips with GM to another room).

Since then I have been using this method to enlighten players, thus making the world more believable and PCs more involved. An example of early such event in Scarred Lands campaign:
- a Dirty-Dozen hero, Alif, took an opportunity to sell a horse (property of city of Mithril), an expensive one at that, to not-entirely-honest merchant.
- the crime was discovered by stable hands, but it would be hard for PR to announce that one of the famous Mithril Heroes has succumbed to plain greed.
- during official award giving ceremony one of the gifts presented to our heroes, the one presented to Alif, was a very well preserved (mummified) hand of a human male.
- Alif, being rather freaked out by this gift, understood the hint and never stole from the city coffers later. He also never asked questions.
- The players, of course, wanted to know what actually happened. The horse sold by Alif was worth much more than the thief thought it to be - it was groomed to become a real paladin warhorse, its just that it's owner died. And, as means of elevating the status, it was presented to the Heroes of Mithril.

The outrage at selling one was considerable. However, for political reasons, it was to be kept quiet. So, the merchant had been visited by two paladins and cleric, told explicitly about his crime and informed about three possible options - years of sentence aboard a ship or at forges, gallows or yielding his right hand (and his head if he does not behave himself). In the end, merchant being the family man, have decided to yield his hand. 

The players were suitably terrified at this harsh sentence, but at the same time, they were taught an important lesson about crime and punishment in the city rule by people who feel it is their divine right to rule (and who can find out guilty parties fast). They have been also informed, that the merchant received tax exempt for one year to alleviate the stress of hiring one more scribe to write.

The story took place in the background, the merchant made his rolls (during purchase of the horse and later, during interrogation) and so the side story ended.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Disclaimer: Paladins of Mithril in my campaign are good and nice guys. Just don't cross them since they are not very good at forgiving.


----------



## Adlon (Aug 28, 2008)

Celt:
I can't agree more with your dislikes for 4e. Not my cup of tea, won't try to house rule it, nothing. Got the 3 core books, and FRCS on 'loan'. Read all tediously. For me, you hit the nail on the head at about every point....

Except the farewell to D&D.

Speaking for myself, 3.5 is fine and dandy. I've tons of stuff for it. As I do for 1e, and 2e....The issues others find with 3.xe simply are not a problem for me, seems they aren't with you either.

Plenty of material to run a game for eons. If an eventual 5e is released, and does it for me, then I'll hop on board. Otherwise, I will game, it will be D&D, and it will be the system that 'does it' for me.

There is SO much stuff out there where you can game for years in one version of D&D. Make sure you obtain an extra copy of your screen, DMG, and a couple of copies of the PHB, even if you scan your own copy to PDF....

.. this way you have rulebooks for future players.

Then, start your own game, get your own players. This is the ruleset I'm using, you need buy NOTHING, and I deliver good game, are you in or out.

Just about any one regional splat book from any one campaign setting can provide literally years of campaign ideas, much lass a vast library as I have, so a middling sized library can still deliver D&D thru social security.


Ruemere:
Must keep sig fit.... ahem... page load error, must fix, wanna check in on SLCS......


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Aug 28, 2008)

<quick off-topic threadjack>
Adlon, lots of people still miss _Mortality Radio_. Just to say thanks for all the good listening times.
</quick off-topic threadjack>


----------



## Mephistopheles (Aug 29, 2008)

PaulofCthulhu said:


> <quick off-topic threadjack>
> Adlon, lots of people still miss _Mortality Radio_. Just to say thanks for all the good listening times.
> </quick off-topic threadjack>




Hear, hear!


----------



## Roland55 (Aug 29, 2008)

Devyn said:


> Hey Celtavian!  I understand where your comments are coming from, and even though I don't agree with all your examples, I do share your overall opinion in the latest edition.
> 
> I really wish that the overall response to your opinion wasn't as vitriolic as it has been, but that's the type of site EN World is fast becoming, despite the efforts of some of the mods.




That's ... very sad. 

It has little or nothing to do with the Mods.  There's only so much they can do without throwing the Ban-Hammer around like Thor on PCP.  It's us.  Each and every one of us.  

The following comments are not directed at Celtavian.  If you see yourself in these words ... ask yourself why.

If you don't agree with someone, do you have to attack them to get your point across?  Do you have to be rude, insulting, demeaning, nasty ... snarky?  Even when the poster freely admits he's just expressing his own, personal opinion?

No one is changing anyone's opinions any more ... if they ever did.  It's over now.  Some like 3.X, some like 4E, and some truly odd-balls like both.  There is no more point in acting like a self-important, self-indulgent child -- just get over it.  And play whatever game or games you like.

It's beginning to look like this transition left more gamers behind than the previous ones.  I think that's unfortunate -- feel perfectly free to disagree with me, but (as an exercise for the student) see if you can do it politely.

If you can't control your behavior, if you can't genuinely be polite to others even here on the Internet -- maybe you need to "get a life" before posting again.  And grow up.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Sep 2, 2008)

I feel the same way as the OP and I haven't even read the books or played the game. I bought the three books the first day they were out and I still haven't finished reading them.

I'm just not feeling it. The "style" has changed. It feels like a different game dressed up with just enough of the familiar to try to get me to ignore all the differences.

Add to that the fact that every single person I've talked to who has played 4E no longer likes it. Some liked it at first but eventually abandoned it. Others didn't like it at all.

I dunno, I just feel sad about 4E. I just have little to no desire to learn the system. I'd rather keep playing 3.5 and that's probably what I'll do.

D&D has a big problem on its hands.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Sep 2, 2008)

Roland55 said:


> snip




Just a friendly comment: "please be polite" and "get a life and grow up" don´t actually have much in common. Neither does "self-important, self-indulgent child". 
See, flames on internet messageboards are created because people are "disgusted by the other side" and think they have a right to "shoot back." You´ve exemplified that point perfectly.


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 9, 2008)

Umbran said:


> There's an easy way to answer this question - by answering another question.  Is it reasonable to expect that the designers could please _everybody_ with one design?  If not, it is difficult to argue that there is any one "the right choice".  All choices are right in some ways, and wrong in some ways.




I've been resisting up until now, but I have to chime in here. 
Is it reasonable to expect that the designers will aim to keep the game similar enough that the existing fans will stay on?
I speak as one who has seen the death of a game series due to the developers working to harness a new audience instead of starting with the intent of retaining their existing audience.

I agree with every single point that Celtavian has made throughout this thread, and commend him for keeping his cool despite the verbal sticks and stones thrown his way.

I take issue with the argument that 'this isn't the same game so get over it'. If it's labeled D&D it damned well should be the same game. I can walk into any edition from 0 to 3.5 or 3.p and expect to have a fair idea of what each character can do and how the system works. 4e has totally departed from that situation.
Fighters went from damage dealing nuts to meat-shields and moveable walls.
Wizards went from glass hammers to bizarre ... well recharging wands basically.
Clerics went from dedicated support personnel to secondary fighters.
Rogues went from sneaky opportunists to prime damage dealers.
Critical hits went from something worth cheering about to something I yawn over.

What on earth is going on here?

Like Celtavian I can see the point of minions. I can see the point of lots of rules in 4E, but that doesn't mean that those rules are fun for me (us). Two nights ago I spent an hour and a half fighting a small bunch of kobolds. We blew all our dailies and encounter powers on one battle... why? Not because we were in a terrible amount of danger of dying, but simply because they were so damn tough that we needed the extra damage to take them down. Where are my low hit point opponents? 

To put this all another, simpler way. I want my 'sacred cows' back.
All this round by round balance between classes makes me feel like I'm playing Hero Quest rather than D&D. My experience of D&D has always shown that lack of weight in combat was made up for out of combat. That doesn't seem to exist in my (currently limited) experience of 4E. All this fairness and equality in the short term has taken away from the flavour that each class used to have. There's a lack of divergence in what each class can do.

As best as I can tell Celtavian started this thread as a way of contacting those who agree with him. The intent of this thread was most definitely not about arguing over which is the better system. Some people don't seem to be able to understand that. 



			
				Adlon said:
			
		

> Except the farewell to D&D.
> 
> Speaking for myself, 3.5 is fine and dandy.
> <snip>
> Then, start your own game, get your own players.



Indeed. I agree with you... now if only I could actually find enough steady players near where I live. I've never had any success in finding other gamers around here via the internet. Mind you, after talking with half the players from my current game... I get the distinct feeling that I'm NOT the only one who has problems with 4E in my group. Just a pity (for me) that the current DM is so pro-4E.

Strangely as a DM myself, I find 4E even more problematic in terms of preparation than 3E. Virtually NONE of the example monsters in the MM are written in a form that would make me use them. This means every creature has to be customized, which is something I did not find in earlier editions. In 3E I only had to customize the special ones, not the mooks. Now we've got hundreds of example special ones... which may or may not be the appropriate level to work with their counterparts, and very few basic grunts that take hits and die in the traditional D&D manner.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> I can walk into any edition from 0 to 3.5 or 3.p and expect to have a fair idea of what each character can do and how the system works.



I'm not trying to convince you to like 4e, or any edition/game for that matter, but the statement I quoted seems really... odd. OD&D, AD&D, and 3.x are completely different game systems that share some common terminology. The differences between 2e and 3e alone are significant. They play differently, and perhaps more importantly, the encourage very different types of play.


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 9, 2008)

Mallus said:


> I'm not trying to convince you to like 4e, or any edition/game for that matter, but the statement I quoted seems really... odd. OD&D, AD&D, and 3.x are completely different game systems that share some common terminology. The differences between 2e and 3e alone are significant. They play differently, and perhaps more importantly, the encourage very different types of play.




Oh certainly. I see 4th ed as being the first time the fundamental mechanics of combat have changed. In 0-3.p characters rolled a d20 to hit (str vs ac), then rolled the appropriate damage die, and that was about all there was to it. In 4E they have to determine one of 5 or so different attacks to make, roll to hit... which may not be str vs ac, then roll a varying number of damage dice.

Put another way, in all editions I know exactly how to play a fighter, because they're fundamentally the same. Yes they gained more options over time, but the standard walk up and swing your sword action was always a viable option. Now you never do that as you always have at-will powers with funky abilities to use. And those powers are hands down better than the basic attack. Using alternate actions such as disarm or power attack always came with negatives to balance them out against the basic attack (e.g. not dealing any damage). Few of these powers have such negatives.

Maybe this is just me, but the sheer concept of non-spellcasters having powers the way they do now just doesn't feel right. It's a sacred cow to me, although it's one I've only just identified. Like fireball should have a large area of effect, a fighter should be a valuable member of the party by walking around swinging his sword, with the mundane everyday 'basic attack'.
The option to make a basic attack is present in 4E, but I've yet to see it used with any non ranged weapon. I'd feel much more at home if the at-will attacks were removed, leaving just the encounters and dailies (wizards being the exception).

Even though the maths has changed over time, the mechanic really hasn't. THAC0 becoming the current AC system made perfect sense. They're the same mechanic, just turned upside down. Having numerous combat moves with fancy names is a new mechanic.

I can easily follow a ranger using two weapons in any edition, but now everything has weird names that throw me off. Twin strike - sure that one is obvious. Dire wolverine strike? What the hell does that do? Other players should not need to read out the text of their actions for it to be obvious what they're doing. Power names NEED to be clear descriptions of what the move is.
Freezing cloud? Got it.
Sleep? Got it.
Fireball? Got it.
Hammer and anvil? What the?
Reaping strike? What?
Steel serpent strike? What the heck is a steel serpent, and what does it look like when a character tries to mimic one?

I also rail against pointless names for abilities. If an ability isn't something you _use_ it does not generally need a name. Why waste space and mental power saying 'Dwarven Resilience' when you can just have a dot point that says Dwarves can use second wind as a minor action instead of a standard action?

To be fair to the system itself; a lot of my complaints revolve around a mentality that the developers have employed, where everything has to sound cool and look exciting rather than just being written plainly and simply. I'm damned if I'm going to learn names for rules that don't need names, and I'm damned if I'm ever going to remember 50 different powers for every class, a quarter of which have names that don't describe the action.

I don't have much experience with the system, I'll admit that. I've only played twice so far, but I'm already sick of saying "I use priests shield" instead of "I swing my mace". As the OP put it, saying things like this takes me out of the suspension of disbelief. I feel like I'm watching power rangers, or dragonball Z instead of Conan or LotR. Everything feels flashy and overstated. Too many things exist in this edition that serve very little purpose, or no purpose at all.

"Oh good, my team-mate gets +1AC for one round. I sure hope something attacks him so that I didn't waste my time saying priests shield instead of basic attack".

The rogues' sly flourish could just as easily have been written this way:


> When using a basic attack with a viable weapon, the rogue adds her charisma bonus to the damage in addition to the normal dice and modifiers. This bonus does not apply when using special attacks. Viable weapons are: light blades, cross bow, sling.



 The effect is the same, but the player no longer has to repeat the words 'sly flourish' every round.


Maybe that's it. I should stop using my at wills for a while to see if it actually makes any difference to the outcome of the action.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 9, 2008)

Although I'm a solid believer in 4E, I'm with Zustiur on the terminology for at-will attacks.  Encounter and daily powers can have flashy names, but at-wills (which PCs will be using over and over) ought to be simple and unpretentious.  "Cleave" is good.  "Reaping Strike," not so much.  WotC has always sucked at naming things, though.

Another thing I recently realized is that I actually agree with the people who say 4E doesn't feel like D&D any more.  To me, after 20 years of BECMI, AD&D, and 3.X, I have a pretty well-worn groove for what D&D feels like, and 4E is way out of that groove.  The difference is that I find 4E to be a much better game than the D&D I grew up with, so it doesn't bother me.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiar- that change makes it impossible to have multiple at will powers.


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 10, 2008)

Suits me!
Less almost identical powers to sift through sounds like a clear improvement to me. But then I was also suggesting getting rid of them altogether.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 10, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> Suits me!
> Less almost identical powers to sift through sounds like a clear improvement to me. But then I was also suggesting getting rid of them altogether.




The at-wills are for all effects and purposes, the basic attack. I see no point in having the basic attack.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 10, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The at-wills are for all effects and purposes, the basic attack. I see no point in having the basic attack.




My experience has been that Basic Attack only gets used if for some reason you can't do your at-wills; not having the required weapon for some reason, for example.


----------



## Kishin (Sep 10, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> My experience has been that Basic Attack only gets used if for some reason you can't do your at-wills; not having the required weapon for some reason, for example.




Several powers also give you the opportunity to make an immediate basic attack. There's always opportunity attacks, as well.

Zustiur, I really don't understand your 'If its D&D, it damn well be the same game.' None of the editions of D&D play very much like the previous (1E and 2E may be the closest).

It really is a different game. Just as it was with 3E and 2E.


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 10, 2008)

*re*

It's good to see that some people understood the point of the thread. The comment about not arguing was aimed at not making this into another edition war. But some people just can't resist attempting to argue their pro-4E point at every turn in every thread even if the person they are arguing with has already experienced the game system and did not like what he experienced.

I love the "whiner" shots from people that couldn't just ignore the thread. That was rich. I wonder if they even realized how hypocritical they were with their  own "whining" that I was wrong and carrying on their whine for however many pages when they were told that I wasn't planning to change my mind. Personally, I always wish I could meet such people face to face so they could see who they were calling a whiner. One thing about Internet forums and long-distance communication, civility is left at the door and people that would normally know well enough to keep their mouths in line are allowed to prattle off whatever drivel they feel their clever, rude minds can conjure up. 

I also loved the number of people that brought up moot points and prime examples of what I was talking about like "powers that don't actually mean what they say they mean because you can just say the person is doing the same thing even when they aren't using a power with that given name". It was a fine example of what I was talking about with 4E being all style and no substance. 

4E is like watching a movie of a movie being made rather than watching the movie after it is done. You can see all the cameras and special effects. 

I've even noticed the change with my players. They claim they love 4E. And at the same time they play the game with the mechanics in mind first rather than reacting as a character would react in a story. They are constantly looking at what their powers do rather than being fully immersed in the game and story. They love to shoot their powers off rather than waste time role playing.

It is to the point where the DM I run with just said "I'm not going to focus on story too much. This game is designed almost completely with combat in mind. Everyone just likes to blow off their powers. So I'm just going to focus on combat."

It's all a pretty sad change IMO. I was looking forward to a new version of D&D. Just not this thing they put out. Too focused on mechanics, powers, and balance. They lost alot of the flavor of the game for me. I know some people are fine with the changes, but I don't like it.

In previous editions, I liked that people respected the fighter because he was  good fighter that could bring the pain if ignored, not because he has Combat Challenge or Divine Challenge. Every round I'm switching tokens from Combat Challenge to Divine Challenge. The monster must attack the fighter or paladin because otherwise he takes added damage. And then the rogue just bashed him for a ton of damage anyway. Most solos and elites have no chance at all in such a fight. 

Whenver I hear someone had a hard time with a solo or elite, I wonder what game they're playing. Because all you need is a defender holding that aggro with a cleric or warlord unloading powers to boost everyone's damage and a few strikers and that supposedly tough solo is basically fighting a solo with 5 plus attacks per round depending on how many characters have action points. It's pretty pathetic.

I personally think the veneer of 4E is going to wear off faster than any edition as people get higher level and get a taste for the game. I've been playing 4E two times a week since a week after it came out. It didn't take long for the luster to wear off. 

I'ved DMed a long time over multiple game systems whether they be versions of D&D or GURPS (a game system I love, but is just too hard to play for too many people), I've yet to play a game system as heavily favored towards the characters as 4E. Even my friend who for the most part likes 4E is making house rules to boost the lethality of the game. He can barely stand that undead went from scary suck your life away creatures to easily killed do a little necrotic damage lamers. 

I hope Necromancer Games gets to do some 4E material soon. My friend likes Necromancer Games modules and monster books. Maybe they'll boost the lethality of the game like they did with 3E. They have some creative folks over there that know how to make a module that can challenge D&D players of any variety be they power gamers or otherwise.


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 11, 2008)

Kishin said:


> Zustiur, I really don't understand your 'If its D&D, it damn well be the same game.' None of the editions of D&D play very much like the previous (1E and 2E may be the closest).
> 
> It really is a different game. Just as it was with 3E and 2E.




It's a gray area. Not a black and white switch.
You could change it in many hundreds of ways and still title it 'Dungeons and Dragons', but in the end it has to FEEL like Dungeons and Dragons. If the feeling isn't right, then it's not the same game anymore, and then it should have a different name.
All the previous editions have felt right. 4E has not settled with me, but so far it does not feel right.
To be blunt, it feels like I'm playing Magic or some similar CCG system. The fact the DM has printed out cards for all of our powers isn't helping to get past that feeling, but the point remains. This strikes me as a game written for the Pokemon/MtG generation. Everything has to sound cool, even if it's the most minor power in the game. Nothing can be plain or simple because that just doesn't sound cool enough.
That's what I was getting at when I suggested removing at-wills. Without those, you'd return to DnD's previous standard of everyone using a _normal_ attack the majority of the time, with the remaining powers being for special situations. In all previous editions, the mage was the only one who could even consider using powers every turn. Everyone else just rolled to hit and damage as per the current 'basic attack'. Somehow that change has put me off.

The benefit of many at-will attacks is so negligible that I'd be much happier just removing them altogether. As mentioned earlier, I'd allow the wizard and maybe the warlock to keep theirs, which would go a long way towards differentiating them from the other classes.

Put it another way, turn at wills into feats. Maybe place some restriction on which ones you can buy so that you only ever have two from your class, but get rid of the playing card mentality.

But to get back to your point, "It's not the same game so get over it" doesn't wash with me, because I remember that argument being used when Vivendi and Irrational games were making Tribes Vengeance. The fan community pointed out hundreds of things that were changing the feel of the game for the worse. The companies just said their making their own game, not the clone of the previous two games in the Tribes franchise. In the end the whole franchise died. Hardly anyone new wanted to play the game, and the previous community was so alienated by the changes that they stopped playing.

I'm afraid of that happening to DnD, because I have many of the same misgivings about changes that have been made.
If a company wants to make something new, that's fine. But don't make something new, and claim that it's something related to the old game of the same name.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I've even noticed the change with my players. They claim they love 4E. And at the same time they play the game with the mechanics in mind first rather than reacting as a character would react in a story. They are constantly looking at what their powers do rather than being fully immersed in the game and story. They love to shoot their powers off rather than waste time role playing.



So, they are having fun, but you do not? That's certainly _subopotimal_, to use one of my favorite euphemism. 



> In previous editions, I liked that people respected the fighter because he was  good fighter that could bring the pain if ignored, not because he has Combat Challenge or Divine Challenge. Every round I'm switching tokens from Combat Challenge to Divine Challenge. The monster must attack the fighter or paladin because otherwise he takes added damage. And then the rogue just bashed him for a ton of damage anyway. Most solos and elites have no chance at all in such a fight.
> 
> Whenver I hear someone had a hard time with a solo or elite, I wonder what game they're playing. Because all you need is a defender holding that aggro with a cleric or warlord unloading powers to boost everyone's damage and a few strikers and that supposedly tough solo is basically fighting a solo with 5 plus attacks per round depending on how many characters have action points. It's pretty pathetic.



Well, ever looked at how often the Defender has been bloodied or even reduced to 0 hit points? Or are you always using equal level challenges? 

Of course, as far as I have seen, Solos need some interesting environment to be played. I also like the encounter template that uses a lower level Solo with several Minions or regular monsters. Fighting a single monster was never particularly interesting, regardless of edition or game. (Heck, the last time it happened - and ended with a TPK - was in Torg. The fight against the 50 Shock Troopers before that one was a lot more interesting...)



> I personally think the veneer of 4E is going to wear off faster than any edition as people get higher level and get a taste for the game. I've been playing 4E two times a week since a week after it came out. It didn't take long for the luster to wear off.
> 
> I'ved DMed a long time over multiple game systems whether they be versions of D&D or GURPS (a game system I love, but is just too hard to play for too many people), I've yet to play a game system as heavily favored towards the characters as 4E. Even my friend who for the most part likes 4E is making house rules to boost the lethality of the game. He can barely stand that undead went from scary suck your life away creatures to easily killed do a little necrotic damage lamers.
> 
> I hope Necromancer Games gets to do some 4E material soon. My friend likes Necromancer Games modules and monster books. Maybe they'll boost the lethality of the game like they did with 3E. They have some creative folks over there that know how to make a module that can challenge D&D players of any variety be they power gamers or otherwise.



Still waiting for GSL news that were announced like - two, three, four weeks ago?


----------



## vagabundo (Sep 11, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> I'ved DMed a long time over multiple game systems whether they be versions of D&D or GURPS (a game system I love, but is just too hard to play for too many people), I've yet to play a game system as heavily favored towards the characters as 4E. Even my friend who for the most part likes 4E is making house rules to boost the lethality of the game. He can barely stand that undead went from scary suck your life away creatures to easily killed do a little necrotic damage lamers.




That's funny, it is the complete opposite of my experience. I find 4e combat more balanced than 3e, but I would not have to try very hard to kill my PC, if I put my mind to it - I like to challenge them, not kill them. I've had a few PC deaths.

3e, in my experience, turned into a save or die game with very little the player could do about it or a 2 round mob the leader and mop up session. 3e combat was lacklustre. 

On your point about the players focusing on their powers and ignoring the story - they are obviously enjoying that part of the game more than the stoytelling. Maybe that is their preferred playstyle and 4e gives them an outlet for thatit, it can be unsatisfying if there is a disconnect between the playstyle of the DM and the playstyle of the players.

Addendum: My favourite parts of of 4e are the streamlined d20 core (combat chapter and skill systems mostly) and rituals.


----------

