# Forked Thread: Rate WotC as a company: 4e Complete?



## JoeGKushner (Jul 21, 2008)

Forked from:  Rate WotC as a company 



			
				Darrin Drader said:
			
		

> Management change won't fix the real problem, which is the company that owns them.
> 
> My guess is that WotC wanted to have a a larger marketing campaign for 4E. Hasbro wouldn't give them the budget.
> 
> ...




I'm not say I disagree with everything here but having played 4e several times and run it, I can't say I find it anymore incomplete than say, Mutants and Masterminds or Castles and Crusades.

It doesn't have everything previous editions did but having the barbarian half-orc isn't a sign of a complete game to me.

Other opinions?


----------



## MerricB (Jul 21, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:


> I'm not say I disagree with everything here but having played 4e several times and run it, I can't say I find it anymore incomplete than say, Mutants and Masterminds or Castles and Crusades.
> 
> It doesn't have everything previous editions did but having the barbarian half-orc isn't a sign of a complete game to me.
> 
> Other opinions?




No, I quite agree. Indeed, given some of the material in the DMG, it's making the previous editions look incomplete in comparison.

Cheers!


----------



## charlesatan (Jul 21, 2008)

Oh no! The cynic and optimist are agreeing (again)!

But right now, I do think the game is complete and playable. It just doesn't look "complete" compared to the splatbooks released under the previous version.

As for the business structure, it's not any different than the other companies (i.e. Steve Jackson Games, Alderac--which is even releasing a "3.1 version" of their game, etc.).

Working for a publishing company myself, I can understand why WotC changed printers and how it's not always possible to go back to the previous printer.


----------



## Toben the Many (Jul 21, 2008)

Well, the thing is that the designers themselves declared that the game is "incomplete", and that they made it that way so that upcoming supplements won't be extra - they'll be core. 

They have explained time and time again that the PHB II, MM II, and DMG II will all be "core" books. Meaning that they won't have extraneous information in them. The information in those books will be just as vital and as important as the PHB I. 

I put "incomplete" in parentheses above because the designers didn't use that work exactly. Rather, they emphasized the core aspect of the PHB II, III, IV, etc. 

I think that the PHB I is complete...but only barely. There are only two Paragon Paths per class - not very many at all. And only four Epic Destinies. So there's not even an Epic Destiny for every class in the core book. 

All that said, I have no problem with WotC taking this approach to its brand management. It's long been known that a vast majority of people primarily buy the Core Books and then only buy one or two books after that. So, the idea behind this - to increase the number of Core Books - is a good idea, IMO.

in addition, I feel that I win as a customer as well. in 3e, the core books presented a complete and working system. All of the 3e splatbooks were add-ons that started to make the system become wonky and bloated. Just allowing one or two splatbooks into the game started making it do odd things. 

So with 4e, what they gave us instead was a system that works, but is stripped down to its bare minimum. So the upcoming products will (hopefully) allow the current stripped down system to become more robust and give it a longer lifespan before its inevitable bloat. 

There is the definite downside of not having certain sacred cow character classes in the books from the start. It's pretty lame and I'll have to think about how I feel about that.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about all of this, and perhaps 4e will get bloated as quickly as 3e did. We'll have to see.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 21, 2008)

charlesatan said:


> But right now, I do think the game is complete and playable. It just doesn't look "complete" compared to the splatbooks released under the previous version.




I think this is a very important point. When I think about 3e, I think about the tons of feats and prcs and mechanics I've been given over the 8 years I've played it. Heck...I remember back in the day when we didn't have swift actions!!

Its been so long since I played basic 3e that I don't know if 3e was any more "complete" starting out than 4e is.

Personally I think 4e just needs one good set of splatbooks. I just need another set of new powers, feats, and paragon paths and I think I'll be good to go. We should also start seeing new classes like the swordmage, that will allow people to play the true "blended" archetypes that the current multiclass does not really do well.


----------



## charlesatan (Jul 21, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> I put "incomplete" in parentheses above because the designers didn't use that work exactly. Rather, they emphasized the core aspect of the PHB II, III, IV, etc.




I don't think they really emphasized that. I mean 3.xx had numerous Monster Manuals as well as the PHB II and DMG II. In many ways, some of the splat books were more essential than the PHB II and DMG II.



Toben the Many said:


> I think that the PHB I is complete...but only barely. There are only two Paragon Paths per class - not very many at all. And only four Epic Destinies. So there's not even an Epic Destiny for every class in the core book.




3.0 had little Prestige Classes to begin with and 3.5 doesn't give you a Prestige Class for each class either.

While Paragon Paths are specific, Epic Destinies for me are general enough that any class can benefit from Demigod for example.



Toben the Many said:


> There is the definite downside of not having certain sacred cow character classes in the books from the start. It's pretty lame and I'll have to think about how I feel about that.




The problem with "sacred cow" classes (and races) are that not all of them are sacred cows to everyone. We'll all have our favorites and the reality is that not every one of them can fit in one book.

If we're just talking about sacred cow classes, for me they'd have to be the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue (and perhaps not even the Rogue so much). Anything beyond that is gravy.


----------



## DanChops (Jul 21, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> I think that the PHB I is complete...but only barely. There are only two Paragon Paths per class - not very many at all.




Minor nitpick - there are four Paragon Paths for each class (except the Warlock, which only has three.)


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jul 21, 2008)

I certainly feel that is in incomplete. It was obviously designed with the PHB 2 "expansion" in mind.

However, if I were a totally new player coming to the game, I wouldn't see it that way.


----------



## jadrax (Jul 21, 2008)

I could be miss-remembering, but wasn't the initial release of 3rd ed just the Players Guide, no DMG or MM?

If so that would be incomplete, whereas 4th ed seems to have everything you need to play a game of D&D available right now.

Indeed, even the 'missing' classes, (which are hardly essential,) can be approximated too with a simple process of renaming/redescribing powers.


----------



## DanChops (Jul 21, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> Well, the thing is that the designers themselves declared that the game is "incomplete", and that they made it that way so that upcoming supplements won't be extra - they'll be core.
> 
> They have explained time and time again that the PHB II, MM II, and DMG II will all be "core" books. Meaning that they won't have extraneous information in them. The information in those books will be just as vital and as important as the PHB I.
> 
> ...




More substantive response:

I think that there are two different aspects of "completeness" that are being discussed here.  One aspect has to do with the system itself - does the game provide the structure and rules necessary to play?  The answer to this is, to me at least, clearly yes.  You won't need to purchase later PHBs or DMGs in order to play the game; the three core books that we have now are sufficient to run an enjoyable game.

The other aspect has to do with options - are the options presented in the first three core books sufficient to run any sort of fantasy game that one would want?  Or even, are they sufficient to duplicate the fantasy game experience offered by previous editions of D&D?  The answer to this is, to me at least, clearly no.  There are a variety of fantasy experiences that the current 4E rules don't provide options for.  (A clear example of this is a nature-themed campaign.  We currently have two classes, the ranger and the feylock, that are at all nature themed.  It would take some serious re-fluffing of the other classes to make them really fit in to a nature-themed game.)

Now, in my view, this is a wonderful thing, for exactly the reasons that you suggest.  The system works great.  Sure, there are a few odd balls (skill challenges, I'm looking at you) but by and large the game is very playable and runs very smoothly.  This provides the game designers with the opportunity to add content to the future core books that provide additional options without, as you put it, making the game system wonky and bloated.  Hopefully, they succeed with this.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 21, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:


> Other opinions?




Darrin once wrote for WotC. I get the impression that many of his posts criticizing WotC belie a larger, more personal, resentment. Claims of D&D 4e being "incomplete" due to a missing classes and races that have not been considered core throughout the entire history of D&D are a good example*. 

*Though, in fairness, he's not the only one trying to establish a non-existant tradition of X and Y being 'core' aspects of D&D since the beginning. This fallacy has been offered up by quite a few posters.


----------



## portermj (Jul 21, 2008)

The way that things are presented in 4E definately pushes things into later books.  A style that results in thirteen pages of the Fighter Class and three pages on Orcs is going to force some cuts for the page count.  What is in the core books seems very complete, but also completely ignores things I expect in core books like Druids and Metallic dragons.

I don't think it is a matter of the design team sitting in a bunker somewhere deciding that not putting gnomes in the PHB is key to selling the PHB II.

I seems like their common response to not including something in the initial three is due to not being sure how to make them work in the new edition.  Of course that just sets up an expectation that things like the Half-Orc, Brass Dragon, and Monk will be much, much better when we finally see them in 4E.  Hopefully that won't result in some fan favorites/classics from being the RPG version of "Chinese Democracy".


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 21, 2008)

jdrakeh said:


> Darrin once wrote for WotC. I get the impression that many of his posts criticizing WotC belie a larger, more personal, resentment. Claims of D&D 4e being "incomplete" due to a missing classes and races that have not been considered core throughout the entire history of D&D are a good example*.
> 
> *Though, in fairness, he's not the only one trying to establish a non-existant tradition of X and Y being 'core' aspects of D&D since the beginning. This fallacy has been offered up by quite a few posters.




That would be an incorrect assumption. I'm proud of the work I did for them as a writer and as an employee. I think the people in R&D are talented, capable, and mostly wonderful. It just saddens me to see that they've taken the game in a direction that doesn't appeal to me and so many others, and that they've made so many decisions that have adversely affected their customers.

If I have any real beef with WotC, it's over the GSL, but that ground has already been well covered.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 21, 2008)

Although I agree that you can't really argue that it's an 'incomplete' game, you also have to concede that it is a very obvious marketing ploy not to include certain things in the first three books.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 21, 2008)

In all honesty, the _only_ thing that feels "incomplete" to me is the feat selection. Simply because there doesn't seem to be a lot of wiggle room. (But then, I thought 3e's PHB feats were a little skimp).

Otherwise, I do _not_ need a druid, a metallic dragon, a half-orc, or a frost giant to play D&D. It is complete as far as I am concerned.


----------



## charlesatan (Jul 21, 2008)

Kzach said:


> Although I agree that you can't really argue that it's an 'incomplete' game, you also have to concede that it is a very obvious marketing ploy not to include certain things in the first three books.




If WotC could sell us three 600-page books at $70.00 each, I'm sure they probably would.

But as it is, there's only so many pages you can include in a book without raising its price point, or allot development/playtesting time for various races/classes.

As it is, 4E is no different than 3E (which was splat-intensive).


----------



## Rechan (Jul 21, 2008)

Kzach said:


> Although I agree that you can't really argue that it's an 'incomplete' game, you also have to concede that it is a very obvious marketing ploy not to include certain things in the first three books.



Actually, I will question this.

How is putting Psionics in a book that isn't the first three any different than putting the Metallic dragons in a book that isn't the first three? 

Not everybody uses metallic dragons. Not everybody uses Psionics. If you want either, you can go pick up a book you Want, which caters to a minority.

I would argue that fighting metallic dragons is even rarer than having psionics in your game. And not putting them in the Core is a simple decision: "Is everyone going to use this? If not, is it worth 12 pages to the MM (the same amount devoted to the Chromatics)?"


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 21, 2008)

Rechan said:


> I would argue that fighting metallic dragons is even rarer than having psionics in your game. And not putting them in the Core is a simple decision: "Is everyone going to use this? If not, is it worth 12 pages to the MM (the same amount devoted to the Chromatics)?"




In almost 20 years of DM'ing, I have used the stats for 2 or 3 metallics, and I am pretty sure I am not alone here.

4e to me is complete. The game is vastly superior mechanically (even though there are some issues, everything is not perfect) to any other edition, and while there might be fewer options than in the last edition, those that are, are more viable, more balanced. 

Do not get me wrong, I would have loved a druid in the first PHB, but I rather have no druid, until I get a good balanced (as in non-broken) and playable druid. 

I mean, for Christ's sake. 3.x had more than 60 base classes, more than 3500 feats and than 700 PRC's at the end. So many options that I bet less than 1% of the players even had a clue about how many options he or she had. Rather than trying to catter to every single retarded combination that some random John Doe liked, WotC decided to do quality over quantity. To get things  right before they are released. And they have. So yeah, with regards to options, some might say 4e is less complete. I say it is better.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 21, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> In almost 20 years of DM'ing, I have used the stats for 2 or 3 metallics, and I am pretty sure I am not alone here.
> <rude rambling snipped>



I'm sure you're not alone. I wouldn't be surprised to find DMs that have never used any metallic dragons in their games at all.  You could probably find DMs that have never used pixies, lizardfolk, or if you search very hard, trolls.

I, however, have used the stats for all the metallic dragons at one time or another.  Usually as allies of the party or creatures to be rescued.  Hardly useless.  Especially not for the world building DMs out here.

Jack, what gets me is that you're constantly posting that your style of playing D&D is superior to mine.  Obviously I don't agree.  Why can't you understand that the current D&D situation is not an improvement for people that prefer a more old school/immersive/emulationist/simulationist/whatever they call it now days style of D&D?

Anyway, as to the topic of this thread.  Is 4e complete?  Yes.  It's playable.  It's fun if you meet it at least halfway and don't try to mangle it into something old school.  Is 4e complete if you want to use it to play like most people did back in 1982?  No.  Barely even usable in that case.

Sam


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 21, 2008)

Er, I should start off by saying, "I'm an actual former stockholder AND I've been to Hasbro stockholder meetings". I do think I might have a better insight about the WOTC& Hasbro relationship.

True, Imy last meeting I attended has been almost a decade ago, but I haven't heard anything change about Hasbro itself.

Hasbro is somewhat infamous in its hands-off approach to its subsidaries. I distinctly remember other fans of Hasbro's other subsidaries basically asking the same thing. Will Hasbro gut my favourite "company" after they acquire it? The answer was all the same. NO.

Hasbro doesn't look at SPECIFIC product lines but the overall revenue of its subsidaries.

Hasbro, most assuredly, probably doesn't even know exactly the profit to cost ratio of D&D and even if it did, it wouldnt care one iota as long as the overall WOTC division was successful.

Keep in mind that even with 4E's relative success, I seriously doubt the line was even as half as profitable to WOTC as M:TG (no-brainer) but also even the NOVELS department (really, I have a suspicion that even the novel department probably challenges M:TG. Really, profit to cost ratio for novels has to be much, MUCH larger than even M:TG)

Given how more and more "lines" seem to fall under WOTC (contrast the WOTC that Hasbro just bought to WOTC of today), Hasbro obviously seems to think WOTC is a very good subsidary. (Really, check out Hasbro's other subsidaries that have basically stayed the same size as before)

Personally, I think the BIGGEST issue that Hasbro might be looking at WOTC is the Dreamblade line that crashed and burned given how many resources WOTC put into it.

THAT, might actually cause Hasbro to take a look.

Similarly, the change in the M:TG release schedule I think was *influenced* by Hasbro (previously, M:TG had a release schedule where there were 3 releases per year and the next year, there would be 4 and then back to 3 and then to 4 etc. Two years ago, they went to 4)


----------



## delericho (Jul 21, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:


> It doesn't have everything previous editions did but having the barbarian half-orc isn't a sign of a complete game to me.
> 
> Other opinions?




I think I'm going to have to agree. 4e is a complete game.

However, while it is complete, it also has some shocking limitations and omissions. The near-complete absence of enchantment and illusion magic is one key example. The game is also rather short on low-level monsters (try building a 1st level adventure of any length that features neither Kobolds nor Goblins).


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 21, 2008)

delericho said:


> . The game is also rather short on low-level monsters (try building a 1st level adventure of any length that features neither Kobolds nor Goblins).



Thats a non starter for me, the DMG I think its in, has a guide to scale down monsters which works within 5 levels of scaling so you can use any monster up to level 5 possibly 6 scale it down to 1st, you could also scale down level 7/8 and use level 2&3 monsters


----------



## Fenes (Jul 21, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I mean, for Christ's sake. 3.x had more than 60 base classes, more than 3500 feats and than 700 PRC's at the end. So many options that I bet less than 1% of the players even had a clue about how many options he or she had. Rather than trying to catter to every single retarded combination that some random John Doe liked, WotC decided to do quality over quantity. To get things  right before they are released. And they have. So yeah, with regards to options, some might say 4e is less complete. I say it is better.




I don't care how many options a game has - just that it has all the options I want. 4E so far lacks enough options for my taste.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 21, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:


> I, however, have used the stats for all the metallic dragons at one time or another.  Usually as allies of the party or creatures to be rescued.  Hardly useless.  Especially not for the world building DMs out here.



 I never said they were useless. Using myself as an example, I was merely pointing out that at least some DM's rarely ever used the stats for metallic dragons. Yes, I also believe that to be the majority, but that is an all together other matter. My players have interacted plenty of times with metallic dragons. I just rarely needed the stats, as they are for combat (in my mind).


Samuel Leming said:


> Jack, what gets me is that you're constantly posting that your style of playing D&D is superior to mine.



 I do not believe that I have posted such a thing. I said that I think 4e is mechanically superior to 3.x. Is that what is bothering you? In fact, how do you even know that my playstyle is different from yours? Because I like 4e? I am sorry you feel that I have attacked your playstyle, because I haven't. Maybe if you point out to me where I am rude (your words) and attack your playstyle, I could help explaining what I meant? 







Samuel Leming said:


> Why can't you understand that the current D&D situation is not an improvement for people that prefer a more old school/immersive/emulationist/simulationist/whatever they call it now days style of D&D?
> Sam



 Oh, I understand that just fine. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with the "logic" they use to produce said statement. Especially since I consider myself pretty old-school and immersive, while preferring 4e.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 21, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I don't care how many options a game has - just that it has all the options I want. 4E so far lacks enough options for my taste.




That's fair enough. The number of options one feel a game should provide is a matter of personal taste. However, some people seem to not like 4e (or say it is a bad game) because it has less options at launch that 3.x had (at the end), which is a stance I find unreasonable.


----------



## delericho (Jul 21, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> Thats a non starter for me, the DMG I think its in, has a guide to scale down monsters which works within 5 levels of scaling so you can use any monster up to level 5 possibly 6 scale it down to 1st, you could also scale down level 7/8 and use level 2&3 monsters




I looked at this when it was mentioned before, and the list of available creatures is _still_ very small when doing this. I don't doubt that this will change, but for the moment the game is suffering for a lack of suitable creatures. IMO, of course.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 21, 2008)

delericho said:


> I looked at this when it was mentioned before, and the list of available creatures is _still_ very small when doing this. I don't doubt that this will change, but for the moment the game is suffering for a lack of suitable creatures. IMO, of course.




I had a bit of the same feeling, as a DM. Then last time (that we played), while eating, I asked my players how they felt about it. The general consensus was that even though many of the monsters were the same (as in same race) they felt very differently due to the many different powers/special abilities. They really felt that orcs were different to goblins who again were different to hobgoblins who again were different to the orcs they have met. And not just in roleplay, but also in roll-play.

But looking at the index, I agree, it does seem short.


----------



## charlesatan (Jul 21, 2008)

delericho said:


> I looked at this when it was mentioned before, and the list of available creatures is _still_ very small when doing this. I don't doubt that this will change, but for the moment the game is suffering for a lack of suitable creatures. IMO, of course.




As a GM, I do feel that the MM list is short. However, I also felt the same way about the 3.5 MM as well.

Also, 4E has to make encounters for 30 levels instead of 20 levels.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 21, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I mean, for Christ's sake. 3.x had more than 60 base classes, more than 3500 feats and than 700 PRC's at the end. So many options that I bet less than 1% of the players even had a clue about how many options he or she had.




Not only that but since 3e had "system mastery", most of those choices *sucked* from a mechanical standpoint.  Maybe half of those numbers, if that, were actually solid choices to pick.  The rest were fool's gold.

I don't want that with 4e.  I don't want there to be "fluff" paragon paths that are largely useless in light of another path.  Nor do I want classes that are barely effective, or feats which anyone can easily see is useless filler if you can't qualify for anything else.

4e feels complete to me.  Things like the Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, etc. aren't that big a deal to me.  I recall in 6 years playing 3.5 one person playing a sorcerer, two playing a druid (and not abusing it), and the one time I played a gnome bard for a one-shot I was nearly laughed off the table for playing such a "useless" choice.  I'd rather have WotC take the time to properly balance than rush things out to appease the notion of "It's always been in D&D" and end up with 3.x all over again.

System mastery is a worthless concept in a game, and should be left to rot.  4e is complete in the sense that they got rid of that and are willing to take their time with things in order to get them right the first time.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 21, 2008)

charlesatan said:


> But as it is, there's only so many pages you can include in a book without raising its price point, or allot development/playtesting time for various races/classes.



Definitely, but I think it's fairly obvious that it was a conscious decision to exclude the bard/barbarian/sorcerer/druid and put the warlord and warlock in their place.

It's somewhat disingenuous to say that they weren't aware that there would be a demand for those classes. Whether classic or not, the expectation that they would be included was obvious as they'd been a staple of D&D since 3.0, if not before.

I don't necessarily begrudge them that, however I also don't pretend that it's not a ploy to create a future revenue stream.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jul 21, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Samuel Leming said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You have.



Jack99 said:


> Rather than trying to catter to every single retarded combination that some random John Doe liked, WotC decided to do quality over quantity.




"Retarded combinations"? How could you think that that wouldn't come across as offensive?


----------



## Kzach (Jul 21, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> "Retarded combinations"? How could you think that that wouldn't come across as offensive?




Yeah, I agree.

Jack should've known that the truth hurts


----------



## charlesatan (Jul 21, 2008)

Kzach said:


> Definitely, but I think it's fairly obvious that it was a conscious decision to exclude the bard/barbarian/sorcerer/druid and put the warlord and warlock in their place.
> 
> It's somewhat disingenuous to say that they weren't aware that there would be a demand for those classes. Whether classic or not, the expectation that they would be included was obvious as they'd been a staple of D&D since 3.0, if not before.
> 
> I don't necessarily begrudge them that, however I also don't pretend that it's not a ploy to create a future revenue stream.




It's mentioned somewhere (sorry, no link) that they wanted to include the Warlord and Warlock because it adds something new to the base classes, just as the Sorcerer added something new to 3.0 when it first came out. It's a conscious decision, yes, but hardly what I'd call a straight-out ploy.

And let's say you did omit those two classes, which two classes would you replace them with? The Bard? The Barbarian? The Druid? The Sorcerer? Remember, you can only pick two. And fans of the other two that don't get chosen will similarly say that their decision was a ploy.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 21, 2008)

*incompleteness*

When I think of 4E being incomplete it isn't the classes. 

It's the lack of Enchantment spells
It's the lack of Illusion spells
It's the lack of Necromancy magic
It's the lack of Summoning magic

I am sure there are other things (for example, it seems to me that there are way fewer magic items in 4E than in 3E, though I admit I havent  counted).  But the omission of enchantment, illusion, necromancy, and summoning really gets me. To me these are elements that should be present in any fantasy RPG.

Ken


----------



## Imaro (Jul 21, 2008)

charlesatan said:


> It's mentioned somewhere (sorry, no link) that they wanted to include the Warlord and Warlock because it adds something new to the base classes, just as the Sorcerer added something new to 3.0 when it first came out. It's a conscious decision, yes, but hardly what I'd call a straight-out ploy.
> 
> And let's say you did omit those two classes, which two classes would you replace them with? The Bard? The Barbarian? The Druid? The Sorcerer? Remember, you can only pick two. And fans of the other two that don't get chosen will similarly say that their decision was a ploy.




A controller...Honestly this is one of those things that feels incomplete to me.  If two players want to play a "controller" type they will both have to play a wizard, on the other hand including the Warlock upped Strikers to 3 and the Warlord upped leaders to 2 (this one is fine IMHO, but 3 strikers vs. 1 controller isn't).  I just feel like at minimum there should have been 2 of each role in the 1st PHB.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I just feel like at minimum there should have been 2 of each role in the 1st PHB.




Now that I agree with.  Given that they knew they'd have 8 classes and 4 roles, they should have done this and had 2 classes per role.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jul 21, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> Now that I agree with.  Given that they knew they'd have 8 classes and 4 roles, they should have done this and had 2 classes per role.




But that would have been "needless symmetry."


----------



## Imaro (Jul 21, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> But that would have been "needless symmetry."




The problem is that roles have created "needed symmetry".  Without certain roles in play, particular challenges become harder.  Minions (one of the most touted features of 4e) are a much greater challenge when you don't have a controller.  Even Strikers don't deal with them in an optimal way.  

This is one of those things that the "balance" of the game has created.  It's similar to the CR system in that without certain roles vs. certain monsters the challenges can be much harder than what the level & XP cost would indicate.  In order to facilitate the most balanced play experience it seems prudent to give the most balanced options as opposed to specializing them when it comes to roles available to PC's.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 21, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:


> I can't say I find it anymore incomplete than say, Mutants and Masterminds... snip ... Other opinions?



Yes. Even though Mutants and Masterminds is a single book it's far more complete than either 3e or 4e, mainly because it takes a lower-level 'toolkit' approach. Also because it's a work of gaming-genius.  

Other than that, I agree. I don't find 4e incomplete at all, except in the areas where there's been a deliberate re-thinking of the core mechanical assumptions (ie, no summoning spells because of the recognition of the importance of the 'action economy'), which amount to features rather than oversights (marketing based or otherwise).


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 21, 2008)

I would say that the game is mechanically complete.  All the needed pc roles are available, and the monsters are themselves divided into roles that are also available as challenges at multiple levels of play.  So if you need a level 15 artillery monster, you can get it.

For monsters, a lot more can be done with fluff.  Need metallic dragons?  Use the stats for a chromatic dragon and add a coat of metallic paint, for now.

For other pc characters, one would counsel patience.  It took years for various base classes to come out in 3.x.  The other classes will come, so we are really only investigating the order.  Come to think of it, 3rd ed. is the only edition that had barbarians as a core class right off the bat.  With 1st ed. it came out in the Unearthed Arcana, with 2nd ed. it came out as a kit, and I don't think it was ever a pc option for BXCMI D&D.

But some of the magic was deliberately excluded to stop the pc from controllng 30 dudes and bogging down the game and to control action economy, or are otherwise troublesome (illusions and polymorph magic has always been problematic, so I can see them taking time to work these out).  I assume that the game designers are working on ways to incorporate other magics in a way that will work.

But work the bugs out they will.  Patience, young padwan.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 21, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> Thats a non starter for me, the DMG I think its in, has a guide to scale down monsters which works within 5 levels of scaling so you can use any monster up to level 5 possibly 6 scale it down to 1st, you could also scale down level 7/8 and use level 2&3 monsters



Yes. Not only that but you don't have to use 5*level 1 monsters in every encounter. You could use 3*level 5 for instance, which is only slightly more powerful (600xp total versus 500xp).

Combine that with the scaling technique you mention and you can be using monsters from level 1 to level 11 against a 1st level party, more than a third of the whole MM. This in fact is what I'll be doing for an upcoming campaign. So you're definitely not forced to use goblins and kobolds at level 1. You can put level 1 PCs up against scaled drow, trolls, gargoyles, minotaurs or wyverns.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 21, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> But that would have been "needless symmetry."



No, it would not. 

But symmetry or avoiding it is not the major concern here. They had to make decision what to design and develop for the initial release and what to be kept for later.


I suppose the Warlock started out as a Controller, but they found out that it worked better as a Striker, and didn't feel like having the time to go through the entire R&D process for the Sorcerer or other Controller-Class before the release.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 21, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> When I think of 4E being incomplete it isn't the classes.




You can't say the system is incomplete. It simply isn't. You can pick up the books currently on the market and if they never produced another book, you could happily play the system for years. There is nothing incomplete about it.

If you want to use the argument that incomplete constitutes not including certain classes/powers/feats/races/etc. then you have to allow that all systems are incomplete since none of them will ever cover every single possible variety of permutation that can exist.

Now if they had only published 1/3 of the PHB and said, "Mu hahahahaha! We're going to make you buy the other two halves separately!" then you could say it was incomplete.

Wait... didn't they do that with Basic?



charlesatan said:


> And let's say you did omit those two classes, which two classes would you replace them with? The Bard? The Barbarian? The Druid? The Sorcerer? Remember, you can only pick two. And fans of the other two that don't get chosen will similarly say that their decision was a ploy.



They could've included all four by excluding dragonborn and tieflings


----------



## Psion (Jul 21, 2008)

Kzach said:


> You can't say the system is incomplete.




Er, he didn't say that. He said what he did think was incomplete in his post. To wit: schools of magic.

What did you hope to gain by quoting out of context and excluding what he actually did think was missing, and insert a refutation to a point he wasn't making? Hoping nobody would scroll up so people could look at your post and nod along with you?

Not cool, man.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 21, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> Hasbro is somewhat infamous in its hands-off approach to its subsidaries.




This. Every person I know that works for Hasbro or a subsidiary talks about their hands-off approach, so it's always confusing to me when outsiders go on about the "Hasbro interference" that the employees say doesn't happen.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 21, 2008)

edit:  see my next post


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 21, 2008)

*incomplete*

I guess we have different definitions of what it is to be complete.  For 30 years, Dungeons and Dragons has had necromancy, summoning, Illusion, and enchantment.  Now it doesn't.  I think that's incomplete.

Your argument is like saying that the next edition of Traveller would be complete without rules for spaceship combat, because the game was quite fun when played on a single world.  

Certain elements of fantasy have come to define D&D over the last 30 years. They're gone now, because the current crop of designers couldn't reconcile them with their vision of the game.  Which, unfortunately, is very different from my own.

Ken



Kzach said:


> You can't say the system is incomplete. It simply isn't. You can pick up the books currently on the market and if they never produced another book, you could happily play the system for years. There is nothing incomplete about it.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> This. Every person I know that works for Hasbro or a subsidiary talks about their hands-off approach, so it's always confusing to me when outsiders go on about the "Hasbro interference" that the employees say doesn't happen.




That's why sometimes I think I'm talking to myself  

When people say that 4E D&D was HASBRO-mandated, I wonder WHERE they get this idea. It isn't hard to find out Hasbro's policy with regard to its subsidaries.

I've never heard of Hasbro looking at a *specific* product line for a division. Hasbro may well like to gobble up smaller companies but they don't actually DO anything with those comapnies such as restructuring etc.

Rumour has it that at most, being part of Hasbro means its easier to have lines move across companies and to do cross-merchandising.

Hasbro most assuredly WILL look if a subsidary is not doing well or not as good as last year. Even then, Hasbro doesn't seem to panic and will give a subsidary time to right its own ship.

I still say the only reason Hasbro is looking at WOTC might be because of the Dreamblade fiasco. THAT was a boondoggle and I'm willing to bet it caused serious reprecussions.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 21, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I guess we have different definitions of what it is to be complete.  For 30 years, Dungeons and Dragons has had necromancy, summoning, Illusion, and enchantment.  Now it doesn't.  I think that's incomplete.
> 
> Your argument is like saying that the next edition of Traveller would be complete without rules for spaceship combat, because the game was quite fun when played on a single world.




I find this a very strong argument, particularly when you look at 4e's pedigree. By taking the name 4th edition, it's implying a certain amount of continuity with the editions before it. Too much deviation from that, too much left out, and you run into issues of whether or not the game is complete either as the fans want it to be or as the designers intend it to be or in comparison with its predecessors.

I'd vote for it being incomplete. Playable, sure. But it's not as complete as any previous edition. The Monster Manual, in particular, feels very limited to me as it lacks a wide variety of mundane creatures much more available in previous editions.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 21, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I guess we have different definitions of what it is to be complete.  For 30 years, Dungeons and Dragons has had necromancy, summoning, Illusion, and enchantment.  Now it doesn't.  I think that's incomplete.




I agree, I think 4e is a great game-core, but it falls short on the variety aspect. It lacks shapechanging, animal companions/ familiars... Grapple will be available in an add-on later? Flying was too much trouble so it's gone...

Everything that didn't fit the grid or was too much trouble got bumped.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 21, 2008)

I can see you really do not want to be around, if I ever cared enough to get offensive. 



GnomeWorks said:


> You have.
> "Retarded combinations"? How could you think that that wouldn't come across as offensive?




Was that just an invisible strawman?

Just because I think some of the combinations possible with the enormous amount of options there was in 3.x are retarded, it doesn't mean that I think that anyone using/liking the many options of 3.x are retarded. Or that I find their way of gaming retarded. Towards the end, I owned just about every 3.5 book released by WotC. And all classes/PRCs were fair game in my last campaign(s), with very very few exceptions. So we used plenty of weird combinations of classes as well. Again, further proof that I am not attacking anyone's style of play. 

I just prefer quality over quantity. I prefer a well-thought out product, with balanced (read as non-broken) classes, spells, powers or feats. No matter the edition. 

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 21, 2008)

billd91 said:


> I find this a very strong argument, particularly when you look at 4e's pedigree. By taking the name 4th edition, it's implying a certain amount of continuity with the editions before it.



The "continuity" comment is interesting. I am wondering about this.

Did many people expect 4E to go where it did? I know that one concern voiced among my group was that 4E would just be a 3.75, mostly a bug-fix release more like 3.5, and no major overhaul. 

I certainly didn't see it go where it went now, even if in hindsight, the signs where there. 

I think a lot have would expected an even loser class system (removal of multi-class restrictions, easer skill acquisition, more feats) more elaborate rules to create monsters, and a few fixes regarding magic item dependency. I am sure many hoped for a "fix of the math", though. 

And I wonder if the latter and the former could have even hoped to work...


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 21, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> Grapple will be available in an add-on later?




Grab is on page 290 of the PHB.



> Flying was too much trouble so it's gone...




Maybe you should look again.



> Everything that didn't fit the grid or was too much trouble got bumped.




Rituals and social encounters don't fit on the grid, yet they are present in the game.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 21, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:


> I'm sure you're not alone. I wouldn't be surprised to find DMs that have never used any metallic dragons in their games at all.  You could probably find DMs that have never used pixies, lizardfolk, or if you search very hard, trolls.
> 
> I, however, have used the stats for all the metallic dragons at one time or another.  Usually as allies of the party or creatures to be rescued.  Hardly useless.  Especially not for the world building DMs out here.



1) There is a difference between "Having Metallic dragons show up" and needing their combat stats.

2) Using them once or twice does not constitute "Do these need to be in the first core book/is it worth the 12 pages to devote to them". Especially when the response is "Over the last _20 years_ I've used them a few times." That doesn't sound like you're reaching for the Metallic Dragon entry all that pressingly that it needs to be in *The First MM*. 

3) Again, using them as allies or to be rescued doesn't sound like you need their combat stats all that pressingly. I don't need the stats of NPCs the players are talking to/saving.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 21, 2008)

re: Monsters

Here's a question. How many "monsters" does the kobold entry in the 4E MM constitute? They're all listed under kobold, but at the same time, there's MUCH more difference between the kobolds of 4E versus say the goblin, kobold and orc of previous editions.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 21, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> Jack99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pro-Tip: When someone makes an accusation, and the person accused says, "No, I haven't," It's a lot more constructive to give an example of the accuser doing what they have been accused of, instead of just saying "Yuh huh!" 

The onus of proof lies on the one making a claim, not someone defending against said claim.

"Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Did to" is useless, and makes you look bad.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 21, 2008)

Kzach said:


> They could've included all four by excluding dragonborn and tieflings



Each class gets 15 pages.

Each race gets what, 2? 

Math, it do not compute.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 21, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Pro-Tip: When someone makes an accusation, and the person accused says, "No, I haven't," It's a lot more constructive to give an example of the accuser doing what they have been accused of, instead of just saying "Yuh huh!"
> 
> The onus of proof lies on the one making a claim, not someone defending against said claim.
> 
> "Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Did to" is useless, and makes you look bad.





Didn't GnomeWorks post an example???  I'm just saying.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 21, 2008)

As for "Hasbro is Hands-Off", if this is the case, then that mean it was 4e's designers who intentionally crafted the GSL to torpedo 3PP and not the lawyers who made the GSL.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Grab is on page 290 of the PHB.



Grab is not grapple, it's been discussed before. From what I recall grapple will be presented on or before the monk.





> Maybe you should look again.



4e Flight is like 4e Featherfall, curbed to the extent of being thematically worthless in the setting.





> Rituals and social encounters don't fit on the grid, yet they are present in the game.




Rituals are decent, though some of the costs seem odd. They're a nice addition, and I like some of the mage stuff like prestigitation and such. Shame they didn't give clerics some also. An odd side effect is that mages will probably be the raise dead folks, since they get the ritual's.

Social Encounters are in the DMG, right? Haven't looked at them or their updates. If they're like Exalted's social combat, it's not a system I care for, but haven't seen it so can't comment.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Didn't GnomeWorks post an example???  I'm just saying.



No?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 21, 2008)

Rechan said:


> As for "Hasbro is Hands-Off", if this is the case, then that mean it was 4e's designers who intentionally crafted the GSL to torpedo 3PP and not the lawyers who made the GSL.




The faulty assumption there is that WotC wouldn't have it's own legal staff, or legal opinions outside of the Will Of Hasbro. In a corporate environment, where profit is the motivation, it doesn't mean Hasbro said "hey, you must curb the OGL!", they probably didn't even know what the OGL was.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 21, 2008)

Rechan said:


> No?




Uhm no...he/she didn't or no, you don't consider it proof.  One is objective...the other is subjective.  Whether you agree with it as proof or not doesn't change the fact that it was posted.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm no...he/she didn't or no, you don't consider it proof.  One is objective...the other is subjective.  Whether you agree with it as proof or not doesn't change the fact that it was posted.



He didn't because what he posted was addressing an entirely different point. 

Offensive vs. stating his taste in games is superior.

The post was:

Statement 1 on Topic A

Statement 2 on Topic B.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 21, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> Grab is not grapple, it's been discussed before. From what I recall grapple will be presented on or before the monk.




Oh, you mean no "I spend a couple of feats, and I can completely shut down characters with a basic ability" grapple.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.



> 4e Flight is like 4e Featherfall, curbed to the extent of being thematically worthless in the setting.




Oh, you mean no more "I hit 5th-level, and any melee-based monster is now worthless" flight.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

And that doesn't even address the fact that Flight is a mechanic that is handled by 4th Edition, so your claim that it is gone is false.



> Rituals are decent, though some of the costs seem odd. They're a nice addition, and I like some of the mage stuff like prestigitation and such. Shame they didn't give clerics some also. An odd side effect is that mages will probably be the raise dead folks, since they get the ritual's.




Yeah, it'd make sense for the Cleric to get Ritual Caster for free and be trained in Religion, since that'd be the most effective combination to use the Raise Dead ritual.

Huh, good thing they gave the Cleric Ritual Caster and skill training in Religion, eh?



> Social Encounters are in the DMG, right? Haven't looked at them or their updates. If they're like Exalted's social combat, it's not a system I care for, but haven't seen it so can't comment.




Not even close to Exalted's Social Combat.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 21, 2008)

Rechan said:


> As for "Hasbro is Hands-Off", if this is the case, then that mean it was 4e's designers who intentionally crafted the GSL to torpedo 3PP and not the lawyers who made the GSL.




Designer =/= Executive =/= Decision Maker


----------



## Rechan (Jul 21, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> The faulty assumption there is that WotC wouldn't have it's own legal staff, or legal opinions outside of the Will Of Hasbro. In a corporate environment, where profit is the motivation, it doesn't mean Hasbro said "hey, you must curb the OGL!", they probably didn't even know what the OGL was.






The Little Raven said:


> Designer =/= Executive =/= Decision Maker




I'm glad this is apparent. However, whenever discussion of "What WotC Does" comes up, especially with regards to 4e or the GSL, only two "People" are ever talked about.

4e Designers and Hasbro.

It would be nice if, in the discussion of "The EVils of the GSL" it was pointed at WotC lawyers or Executives who made the choices.


----------



## lutecius (Jul 21, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Actually, I will question this.
> 
> How is putting Psionics in a book that isn't the first three any different than putting the Metallic dragons in a book that isn't the first three?
> 
> ...



Actually, I will question this   I’ve seen many more golems, frost giants and metallic dragons in play than psionics. 
I don’t care much for dnd legacy, but metallic dragons are certainly more "iconic" and better fit the flavour of most dn*d* campaigns than psionics or many lame and obscure monsters in the new MM (banshrae, really?) 
Half of the MM looks more like some Far-Trek-Wars or Troopers-in-Black gallery than a fantasy bestiary.

Also, now that everything in the MM is supposed to be nasty, ugly and attacked on sight, metallic dragons surely required a less dramatic makeover than angels or dryads.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Oh, you mean no "I spend a couple of feats, and I can completely shut down characters with a basic ability" grapple.
> 
> Good riddance to bad rubbish.



Isn't that my point? That they removed something troublesome, but the fix isn't until later? 3.5 grapple was bleh, but it was mostly the extra's that made it unbearable. Again, grab isn't grapple, they've already said Grapple will come later.





> Oh, you mean no more "I hit 5th-level, and any melee-based monster is now worthless" flight.
> 
> Good riddance to bad rubbish.



A dismissive antagonistic tone does not mean something that is a staple of fantasy hasn't been curtailed. Flight was problematic, so they cut it way back.



> Yeah, it'd make sense for the Cleric to get Ritual Caster for free and be trained in Religion, since that'd be the most effective combination to use the Raise Dead ritual.
> 
> Huh, good thing they gave the Cleric Ritual Caster and skill training in Religion, eh?



Wizards get ritual casting, they get religion (if they want it) and they get FREE rituals as they gain levels. So, wizards have the edge, IMO. I'm not even sure why you're arguing with me since I said I liked rituals. 





> Not even close to Exalted's Social Combat.




Okie dokie.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 21, 2008)

lutecius said:


> Actually, I will question this   I’ve seen many more golems, frost giants and metallic dragons in play than psionics.
> I don’t care much for dnd legacy, but metallic dragons are certainly more "iconic" and better fit the flavour of most dn*d* campaigns than psionics or many lame and obscure monsters in the new MM (banshrae, really?)
> Half of the MM looks more like some Far-Trek-Wars or Troopers-in-Black gallery than a fantasy bestiary.
> 
> Also, now that everything in the MM is supposed to be nasty, ugly and attacked on sight, metallic dragons surely required a less dramatic makeover than angels or dryads.




You forgot Unicorns...because evrybody knows if there was an iconic monster that everyone fought it was those dang-blasted unicorns...I totally understand how they as well as a few others beat out metallic dragons...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 21, 2008)

The near mandatory 4e fans insulting and disregarded anyone else aside, 4e is complete as a pen and paper game, but feels incomplete as a D&D game, and is overall lacking in options and choices.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 22, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> Isn't that my point? That they removed something troublesome, but the fix isn't until later? 3.5 grapple was bleh, but it was mostly the extra's that made it unbearable. Again, grab isn't grapple, they've already said Grapple will come later.




Grab is the replacement for grapple, as there is no 4e core class that supports unarmed combat as one of it's shticks. It works just fine as a basic ability.



> A dismissive antagonistic tone does not mean something that is a staple of fantasy hasn't been curtailed. Flight was problematic, so they cut it way back.




Cut it back and made it gone are two entirely different things. Stick to the facts and I might be less dismissive.

Being able to invalidate a vast chunk of encounters due to one ability gained at level 5 is overpowered. This is a game, not a simulation, just as Gygax intended.



> I'm not even sure why you're arguing with me since I said I liked rituals.




I'm not sure why you decided to argue with me when you claimed that everything that doesn't fit on the grid was cut from the game, and I pointed out things that weren't on the grid and are still in the game.


----------



## Andor (Jul 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Oh, you mean no more "I hit 5th-level, and any melee-based monster is now worthless" flight.
> 
> *Good riddance to bad rubbish.*






The Little Raven said:


> And that doesn't even address the fact that Flight is a mechanic that is handled by 4th Edition, *so your claim that it is gone is false.*




I realize that rationality is not a hallmark of the 4e fanboi, but you can't both claim to be grateful that something is gone and then say it's still there anyway. Well, not and be sane anyway. 

As far as 'completeness' goes .... I think 4e has some real issues. 

It's a stock fantasy game but it lacks staples like good dragons and centaurs. It's heir to a gaming tradition that always held up the 'Knight in Shining armour' as an archtype, yet barely covers the concepts of mounts and mounted combat and somehow still offers two different ways of dealing with them and no particular guidence on which one to use.

The rules system is non-intuitive, abstract and poorly written. Furthermore the writing style denies insight into the designers intent which makes things harder than they need to be when a problem crops up. 

There is not even a nod to those aspect of the world that do not involve going into a labyrinth and killing things. The equipment list doesn't even include clothes for god's sake.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The near mandatory 4e fans insulting and disregarded anyone else aside, 4e is complete as a pen and paper game, but feels incomplete as a D&D game, and is overall lacking in options and choices.



It really depends on what you mean by "complete". Obviously the game can be played as it is without additional material needed.

Does it have as many options as 3.5 at the end of its run? Of course not.

Does it have as many options as 3.5 when it was first released? Probably.

Does it have the same options as 3.5 when it was first released? No, thankfully they avoided simply rehashing everything.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 22, 2008)

Andor said:


> I realize that rationality is not a hallmark of the 4e fanboi, but you can't both claim to be grateful that something is gone and then say it's still there anyway. Well, not and be sane anyway.




I know it may be taxing to the head-muscle and all, but using brainpower to apply context is a wondrous thing. Note the part where I point out that the ability to fly is in 4th Edition, which is in response to the claim that was made by Vocenoctum.

That is entirely separate from being grateful that it doesn't invalidate melee-based encounters at 5th-level.

And the amazing part? They aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Flight exists in 4e, and doesn't just invalidate an entire category of encounters by 5th level.



> It's a stock fantasy game but it lacks staples like good dragons and centaurs.




Because things you hardly ever fight need combat statistics?



> It's heir to a gaming tradition that always held up the 'Knight in Shining armour' as an archtype, yet barely covers the concepts of mounts and mounted combat and somehow still offers two different ways of dealing with them and no particular guidence on which one to use.




It covers mounted combat better, and offers far more variation based on mount type, than 3e ever did.



> The rules system is non-intuitive, abstract and poorly written. Furthermore the writing style denies insight into the designers intent which makes things harder than they need to be when a problem crops up.




To me, this is the single best rules system for D&D ever written. Way better than the tripe TSR was calling game design.



> There is not even a nod to those aspect of the world that do not involve going into a labyrinth and killing things. The equipment list doesn't even include clothes for god's sake.




Oh noes! Without clothes on an equipment list, how are intelligent, creative people supposed to know that their characters can buy and wear clothes?! How ever will we get by without a list of 10 different outfits that service no functional purpose in the game?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 22, 2008)

lutecius said:


> Actually, I will question this   I’ve seen many more golems, frost giants and metallic dragons in play than psionics.



And I've seen more psionics in play than metallics or golems. So...

I firmly stand by the notion that those that _need_ Metallic Dragon stats are in the minority, and therefore the metallics don't need to be in the first books.

As for your "Lame" monsters, those "lame" monsters are intended to fill the few, new planes. 12 pages of dragons vs. inhabitants in a plane you're likely to visit.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 22, 2008)

Andor said:


> The equipment list doesn't even include clothes for god's sake.



Thankfully, they decided not to include them, presumably to make more room for other more important things.

Your character wants clothes? He's got them. Just because they're not on the equipment list doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The near mandatory 4e fans insulting and disregarded anyone else aside






			
				Andor said:
			
		

> I realize that rationality is not a hallmark of the 4e fanboi



Cute strawman and, in the latter case an ad hominem, that adds nothing to the discussion.


----------



## lutecius (Jul 22, 2008)

Imaro said:


> You forgot Unicorns...because evrybody knows if there was an iconic monster that everyone fought it was those dang-blasted unicorns...I totally understand how they as well as a few others beat out metallic dragons...



Yeah, mean bastards them  Good catch. 

I'm surprised they didn't even get some nasty elemental form in 4e.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 22, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Cute strawman and, in the latter case an ad hominem, that adds nothing to the discussion.




Start proving me wrong?  Someone made a complete insult towards others' playstyles simply because they were different, they were called on it, and now you're pretending it never happened in the first place.  This happens in just about every thread.  Obligatory 4e fan insulting and dismissing others is obligatory.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 22, 2008)

lutecius said:


> Yeah, mean bastards them  Good catch.
> 
> I'm surprised they didn't even get some nasty elemental form in 4e.




No, but they are unaligned now.  And pheonixes are just rocs on fire.

...Actually, are there ANY animals or NPCs or monsters or what have you that are good or Lawful Good?


----------



## lutecius (Jul 22, 2008)

charlesatan said:


> But right now, I do think the game is complete and playable. It just doesn't look "complete" compared to the splatbooks released under the previous version. […]
> 
> The problem with "sacred cow" classes (and races) are that not all of them are sacred cows to everyone. We'll all have our favorites and the reality is that not every one of them can fit in one book. […]
> 
> ...



The thing is, even if you consider the new classes as a suitable replacement, the first 3e phb alone still had more classes, 10 of which were legacy classes. That’s more than any previous lineup, so the sorcerer didn’t really take another class’s place, he used the existing wizard spell list and provided a long overdue alternative to the vancian casting mechanic.

Thematically, the warlock isn’t that different from the wizard and there are 2 other strikers, so mechanically, he certainly doesn’t add anything to the game that justifies removing most of the summoning, charm or necromancy spells.

I would also argue that the dnd druid or "nature mage" is a classic fantasy archetype, not covered by any of the 8 phb classes (not even the fey-pact and certainly not by the laser-cleric) whereas "inspiring warrior" could easily have been folded into fighter or paladin.

But like I said in the other thread, I don’t buy the page count excuse. The 30 pages of magic item don’t belong in the phb. Putting them back in the dmg would make it a bit more useful and would make room for more classes. 
And it’s not like the 4e designers were taken by surprise and didn’t have the time to work all these things out before 4e was announced.




jadrax said:


> Indeed, even the 'missing' classes, (which are hardly essential,) can be approximated too with a simple process of renaming/redescribing powers.



So basically 4e is complete because you can still make things up? Or do you mean that 4e classes are really interchangeable? 




Jack99 said:


> I mean, for Christ's sake. 3.x had more than 60 base classes, more than 3500 feats and than 700 PRC's at the end. So many options that I bet less than 1% of the players even had a clue about how many options he or she had. Rather than trying to catter to every single retarded combination that some random John Doe liked, WotC decided to do quality over quantity. To get things  right before they are released. And they have. So yeah, with regards to options, some might say 4e is less complete. I say it is better.



What makes you think 4e will be different? With such narrow classes and limited multiclassing, I think 4e will end up with even more optional classes, paths and powers.



wayne62682 said:


> Not only that but since 3e had "system mastery", most of those choices *sucked* from a mechanical standpoint.  Maybe half of those numbers, if that, were actually solid choices to pick.  The rest were fool's gold. […] 4e feels complete to me.  Things like the Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, etc. aren't that big a deal to me.  I recall in 6 years playing 3.5 one person playing a sorcerer, two playing a druid (and not abusing it), and the one time I played a gnome bard for a one-shot I was nearly laughed off the table for playing such a "useless" choice.  I'd rather have WotC take the time to properly balance than rush things out to appease the notion of "It's always been in D&D" and end up with 3.x all over again.
> 
> System mastery is a worthless concept in a game, and should be left to rot.  4e is complete in the sense that they got rid of that and are willing to take their time with things in order to get them right the first time.



What a bizarre definition of "complete". If some choices were useless, I think the best solution would be to, you know, fix them, not sweep them under the rug.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Start proving me wrong?  Someone made a complete insult towards others' playstyles simply because they were different, they were called on it, and now you're pretending it never happened in the first place.  This happens in just about every thread.  Obligatory 4e fan insulting and dismissing others is obligatory.



If there are problematic posts, report them. "Obligatory 4e fan insulting" was an interesting choice of phrase. Ah, the ambiguities of English grammar.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 22, 2008)

lutecius said:


> If some choices were useless, I think the best solution would be to, you know, fix them, not sweep them under the rug.



I would argue that for an actually useless choice, sweeping it under the rug *is* fixing it. You might also be able to fix it in another way, but that's a legitimate fix for a truly crappy option.


----------



## lutecius (Jul 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I would argue that for an actually useless choice, sweeping it under the rug *is* fixing it. You might also be able to fix it in another way, but that's a legitimate fix for a truly crappy option.



But that won't make the game more complete. Especially if the concept was perfectly valid and only the implementation was underbalanced.


----------



## jadrax (Jul 22, 2008)

lutecius said:


> So basically 4e is complete because you can still make things up? Or do you mean that 4e classes are really interchangeable?




It terms of Background, yes classes have always been really interchangeable, its an abstract concept at best, which was weakened even further by so many classes fighting over so few clearly defined roles.

The Joy of 4th is classes finally have properly unique power sets, so you can have a Nature Fighter, Nature Paladin, nature Wizard who will all be nature themed, but diverse mechanically. (And that's without even multi-classing, which opens it up even more.)

I cannot think of a single character type you cannot currently play, that will not end up being effective under the basic rules. (Apart from arguably broken ones, like Summoner) Sure classes will come along to add more nuances to that, but the basic system is incredibly solid.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Grab is the replacement for grapple, as there is no 4e core class that supports unarmed combat as one of it's shticks. It works just fine as a basic ability.




No, it's not. They already said that Grapple will be added later, and you keep using grab as an example. Grab is not grapple, it's not a replacement for it, grapple will come later.





> Cut it back and made it gone are two entirely different things. Stick to the facts and I might be less dismissive.




You understand what I meant, as you use the more freeform Flight as an example of what you didn't like. You're saying your dismissive tone is because I didn't properly qualify the flight comment?

Flight in 4e is an encounter, rather than a method of traveling. It would still avoid encounters as much as before, but is now limited in how often. Rather than design a system that takes flight into account, they nerfed it.



> Being able to invalidate a vast chunk of encounters due to one ability gained at level 5 is overpowered. This is a game, not a simulation, just as Gygax intended.




So, your problem was the level you gained it at?




> I'm not sure why you decided to argue with me when you claimed that everything that doesn't fit on the grid was cut from the game, and I pointed out things that weren't on the grid and are still in the game.




Because I didn't properly qualify Fly, even though you knew the difference? Even though you think Grab is Grapple, even though Mearls said Grapple is coming?

My point was that D&D is a core of a game, and any situations/powers that don't fit on the grid are out. Freeform Flight was removed and replaced with a limited flight that fits into the grid, Fantasy be damned.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 22, 2008)

You know, I dislike lots about 4e and could not in any way be called a 4e fan, but complaining about the Fly change is just..._dumb_.  The 3.x version of Fly was insanely broken and flat out had to go.  It's not something you could balance around, because it was unbalancable.  It had to but axed.


----------



## Andor (Jul 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Because things you hardly ever fight need combat statistics?




Good point. Thank God they included Banshrea, Battlebriars and Sorrowsworn. They were certainly common encounters in earlier editions, not to mention their rich mythical background. 



The Little Raven said:


> It covers mounted combat better, and offers far more variation based on mount type, than 3e ever did.




Huh. 4e PHB. 1 feat for mounted Combat. No skill. No Equipment.
3.0 PHB. 3 Skills (with many different foci) and 5 feats for Mounted Combat. Saddles, bridles, tack, barding, feed, pack saddles and more covered in the equipment section. 

Yeah, you're right, 4e offers so much more.

As for the 4e MM covering more possible mount types than everything ridable ever printed in 3e.... I don't even know how to respond to such an absurb claim.

And melee encounters being invalid in 3e past 5th level. It's an false arguement and you know it. The only thing that happened at 5th level was that the wizard _might_ be able to fly his way out of melee range, if the battle was being fought outdoors. He couldn't fly the rest of the party and the Sorcerer and Warlock couldn't fly till 6th. 

And ignoring overland travel encounters is still there in 4e, it's built right into the system with the teleportation ritual rules starting at 8th level. And of course flying mounts will let you do it at any level, just like they have in all earlier editions of D&D. Any more strawman arguements you'd like to make in favor of 4e's flight rules over 3e?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 22, 2008)

> The rules system is non-intuitive, abstract and poorly written. Furthermore the writing style denies insight into the designers intent which makes things harder than they need to be when a problem crops up.




/me points to the 3e PHB, particularly the first printing.  Then points to the 1e DMG.  

If you want examples of arbitrary rules, written in opaque styles, one could do a HECK of a lot worse than the 4e core books.

On Continuity of Magic - 

Let's not forget that there is a magic system in place.  It's different, but, it is in place.  Honestly, it's a LOT closer to the B/E/C/M/I magic system, where school didn't matter.  Actually, when you think about it, school didn't matter in 1e either.  It wasn't until 2e that school made any difference.

So, really, the only loss is summoning and illusions.  Necromancy can be reproduced fairly easily (just not the pokespells).  I don't like that summoning is out, but, I can certainly see why they are.  The whole "economy of action" thinking.  I can certainly see the logic behind it.

But, axing summoning doesn't make an incomplete game.  An incomplete game would allow summoning but then not give any mechanics for resolution.  Or incomplete resolution rules.  There's a horde of games out there guilty of this.  Heck, D&D's illusion rules are guilty of this and have been for years.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Start proving me wrong?  Someone made a complete insult towards others' playstyles simply because they were different, they were called on it, and now you're pretending it never happened in the first place.  This happens in just about every thread.



What insult was that? That certain rules were "retarded"? That's not an insult of playstyle, that's an insult to the system. If I said "Pizza hut's pizza is utter garbage", that doesn't insult people who like Pizza Hut Pizza; that insults the quality of the product being produced. If you feel insulted, that's _your_ problem being either too sensitive or reading into it what isn't there. 

If you honestly think criticizing or insulting something insults those people who like it, then Enworld would have to be closed down; anyone saying anything negative about anything else would be an insult to anyone else who happens to like the thing receiving the negative comment. *Until someone says* "X sucks, *and you suck for liking it*," there is no insult directed at you.

More importantly, *You* claim people are insulting playstyles, that every thread has "Obligatory insults from 4e fans". The onus of responsibility is on _your_ shoulders to prove the statement. For instance, if I said "ProfessorCirno is looks at pictures of wet meat. PROVE ME WRONG", it would be unfair because you cannot prove that you don't do something. 

And since there is "obligatory insults from 4e fans", you should have an easy time finding some actual examples of 4e fans insulting 3e fans for their like of 3e.



> Obligatory 4e fan insulting and dismissing others is obligatory.



Then report it instead of whining about it. Because this board does not tolerate insults. 

Start proving yourself right. Otherwise, all I see is a persecution complex.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 22, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I guess we have different definitions of what it is to be complete.



There is only one definition. And no, I don't believe it's arrogant to say that.

The system as presented is complete.

Just because it doesn't include elements you like or see as fitting into a standard fantasy milieu does not make it an incomplete system.



Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Certain elements of fantasy have come to define D&D over the last 30 years. They're gone now, because the current crop of designers couldn't reconcile them with their vision of the game.  Which, unfortunately, is very different from my own.



This contradicts itself.

In the first sentence you essentially state that there is "one true fantasy concept". In the next you concede that there are multiple types of fantasy and that this system simply doesn't represent your own version.

If there really was one true version of fantasy, then you could argue that by not including certain elements of that version, that 4e is incomplete. But there simply isn't one true version.

By your definition, 1e was incomplete because it didn't include a bunch of classes until Unearthed Arcana. By your definition, 3.0 was incomplete because it had stuff-all prestige classes in the core books.

Your definition of what fantasy is, does not constitute a complete version of fantasy. 4e is a complete system, it's not really a disputable fact. That it doesn't include elements you feel should be included in standard fantasy fare, does not make it incomplete. It simply makes it not suited to your tastes (until a splatbook is presented which completes your version).


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 22, 2008)

Andor said:


> Huh. 4e PHB. 1 feat for mounted Combat. No skill. No Equipment.
> 3.0 PHB. 3 Skills (with many different foci) and 5 feats for Mounted Combat. Saddles, bridles, tack, barding, feed, pack saddles and more covered in the equipment section.
> 
> Yeah, you're right, 4e offers so much more.




I assumed the DMG had a lot more info in it? I only have the PHB to judge by so I didn't bother commenting. My gnome badger riding paladin didn't look likely either way...


----------



## Andor (Jul 22, 2008)

Kzach said:


> There is only one definition. And no, I don't believe it's arrogant to say that.
> 
> The system as presented is complete.




So... What is this definition? I'm curious.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 22, 2008)

lutecius said:


> But that won't make the game more complete. Especially if the concept was perfectly valid and only the implementation was underbalanced.



I don't think removing a truly useless option makes the game any *less* complete, either.

As to your second sentence, that's valid only if you define "complete" to mean "considers every possible option".


----------



## ki11erDM (Jul 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> This. Every person I know that works for Hasbro or a subsidiary talks about their hands-off approach, so it's always confusing to me when outsiders go on about the "Hasbro interference" that the employees say doesn't happen.





Your wrong and i have [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU"]proof[/ame]!

I am so going to get band for that.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 22, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Start proving me wrong?  Someone made a complete insult towards others' playstyles simply because they were different, they were called on it, and now you're pretending it never happened in the first place.  This happens in just about every thread.  Obligatory 4e fan insulting and dismissing others is obligatory.



I was going to explain it again, but it seems Rechan covered it just fine.



> What makes you think 4e will be different? With such narrow classes and limited multiclassing, I think 4e will end up with even more optional classes, paths and powers.



Well. Eventually, 4e will probably have quite a few options as well. However, 4e multi-classing being restricted to two classes really limits the number of options out of the gate. On top of that, Paragon Paths are (mostly) linked to a class, so that limits the options also. Of course, in 3.x PRCs had prereqs as well, but they were much less dependant on class. 



Fifth Element said:


> "Obligatory 4e fan insulting" was an interesting choice of phrase. Ah, the ambiguities of English grammar.




I am not a native speaker, but wouldn't that mean "the obligatory insulting of 4e fan(s)"?. If so, I agree with the OP. Seems to happen all the time.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 22, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> You understand what I meant, as you use the more freeform Flight as an example of what you didn't like.




No, I'm using Fly, the level 3 Wizard spell as an example of what I don't like.



> You're saying your dismissive tone is because I didn't properly qualify the flight comment?




My dismissive tone is because you, like so many other anti-4e people, tend to make blanket statements as if they were fact when they are far from it. You make a ridiculous claim like "flight is gone," then scramble afterwards to qualify it because you know it's a load of BS.



> Flight in 4e is an encounter, rather than a method of traveling. It would still avoid encounters as much as before, but is now limited in how often. Rather than design a system that takes flight into account, they nerfed it.




The system takes flight into account... by placing it in the higher tiers of power, where it belongs. Giving you an ability to invalidate whole swathes of encounters when you've only hit 1/4 of the entire level progression of the core game is ridiculously overpowered.

And it isn't a matter of avoiding encounters. Avoiding an encounter doesn't give you anything. It's the fact that if the encounter is against melee opponents, they become invalidated by the fact that they cannot hit you when you're flying and using ranged attacks.



> So, your problem was the level you gained it at?




Among other things.



> Because I didn't properly qualify Fly, even though you knew the difference? Even though you think Grab is Grapple, even though Mearls said Grapple is coming?




How many times do I have say "Grab is the replacement for Grapple." before you actually read it properly?



> My point was that D&D is a core of a game, and any situations/powers that don't fit on the grid are out.




And your point is wrong. I don't see how Picking Locks or Diplomacy or Gentle Repose fits onto the grid, yet they are still present within the game.

Stick to fact, instead of your exaggerated (and often false) hyperbole.



> Freeform Flight was removed and replaced with a limited flight that fits into the grid, Fantasy be damned.




The game was balanced, which requires a shifting of certain things. Yeah, no more "I can fly whenever, wherever" because it's broken. If you want a simulation of the world of make-believe, play something that is intended to be one, because D&D isn't and has never been.


----------



## radferth (Jul 22, 2008)

There are some things I'd like to be there that aren't (druids, barbarians, metallic dragons, animals, a second controller class), but nothing is as glaring as when the 2e monster-binder thing didn't bother to include DWARVES.  Now back to your regularly scheduled arguments over who said who had the burden of proof over who's assertion that something was left out.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 22, 2008)

Andor said:


> Good point. Thank God they included Banshrea, Battlebriars and Sorrowsworn. They were certainly common encounters in earlier editions, not to mention their rich mythical background.




Better than 14 pages of dragons that hardly ever get used as combat encounters, thus wasting 14 pages of a book that is supposed to be full of combat encounters.

And oh noes, they didn't stick with everything that has the tradition sticker stuck on it. God forbid anyone realize that "it's tradition" is the worst reason to keep something around.



> Huh. 4e PHB. 1 feat for mounted Combat. No skill. No Equipment.




Yup, 1 feat and you're a badass in mounted combat, able to take advantage of special features provided by your mount.



> 3.0 PHB. 3 Skills (with many different foci) and 5 feats for Mounted Combat. Saddles, bridles, tack, barding, feed, pack saddles and more covered in the equipment section.




5 feats, 1 skill (Ride is the only skill used for Mounted Combat), and a bunch of gold spent on an option that is still relatively substandard.

Yeah, 3e's Mounted Combat is way better. 



> As for the 4e MM covering more possible mount types than everything ridable ever printed in 3e.... I don't even know how to respond to such an absurb claim.




Let's see... what bonus do I get for riding a griffon as opposed to a hippogriff in 3e? Nada. What bonus do I get for riding a griffon as opposed to a hippogriff in 4e? Extra +3 bonus to attack when charging, or a blanket +1 bonus to all Defense... real choices.



> And ignoring overland travel encounters is still there in 4e, it's built right into the system with the teleportation ritual rules starting at 8th level.




Avoiding encounters is not the same as invalidating encounters. Invalidating an encounter gives you the reward, but removes the challenge.



> Any more strawman arguements you'd like to make in favor of 4e's flight rules over 3e?




Any more points of mine you want to completely misinterpret?


----------



## Andor (Jul 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Better than 14 pages of dragons that hardly ever get used as combat encounters, thus wasting 14 pages of a book that is supposed to be full of combat encounters.




If you never used anything in the MM as as anything but a combat encounter you might have a point. Perhaps at your table that is true, my games have not been so limited.



The Little Raven said:


> And oh noes, they didn't stick with everything that has the tradition sticker stuck on it. God forbid anyone realize that "it's tradition" is the worst reason to keep something around.




"It's tradition" is far from the worst reason to keep something around. Consider Palladium as an example.



The Little Raven said:


> Let's see... what bonus do I get for riding a griffon as opposed to a hippogriff in 3e? Nada. What bonus do I get for riding a griffon as opposed to a hippogriff in 4e? Extra +3 bonus to attack when charging, or a blanket +1 bonus to all Defense... real choices.




In 3e Hippogriffs are faster, cheaper, and less likely to eat your horse. Griffons are tougher and have better attacks. Equally real choices, and they have they advantage of being organic to the creature, rather than being some utterly random thing a designer stuck in because it tickled his fancy.

I mentioned 3 skills in 3e btw because Animal Empathy could be used to aquire one of those monsterous mounts and Handle Animal was used to train them. In 4e you use.... um... apparently there is no training in 4e. Tough luck.

I forgot to mention Lances btw. 4e forgot those too. But hey, it's not like they are iconic weapons or anything.



The Little Raven said:


> Avoiding encounters is not the same as invalidating encounters. Invalidating an encounter gives you the reward, but removes the challenge.




Huh? The only time flight allowed you to remove the challange but get the reward is when the enemy A) Has no ranged attacks, B) Has no ability to retreat to cover, and C) Had some kind of monetary treasure. I don't know about you but I have never seen all 3 of those things come up at once while the party as a whole had flight in 29 years of gaming.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> No, I'm using Fly, the level 3 Wizard spell as an example of what I don't like.




So you recognize the difference between 3e flight and 4e flight.





> My dismissive tone is because you, like so many other anti-4e people, tend to make blanket statements as if they were fact when they are far from it. You make a ridiculous claim like "flight is gone," then scramble afterwards to qualify it because you know it's a load of BS.



I've since qualified it and you continue to argue against the original quick statement I made in the original post in between EN's crashing. I didn't make a list of debating points, just showed some of the fantasy elements that were cut from 4e because they were too much trouble. You ignore the other elements( shapechange and such) and focus on Flight which I didn't properly qualify. You then continue to be dismissive of everything I've written because it's easier than saying "yeah, freeform flight is gone, but I like it better without it" rather than bash someone who doesn't like some of 4e.





> The system takes flight into account... by placing it in the higher tiers of power, where it belongs. Giving you an ability to invalidate whole swathes of encounters when you've only hit 1/4 of the entire level progression of the core game is ridiculously overpowered.



It takes it into account by putting it on the grid.



> How many times do I have say "Grab is the replacement for Grapple." before you actually read it properly?



You can say it all you want, I see a huge difference in them. I don't even care about Grapple though, I just used it as an example of something cut from core to be added later. You can't wrestle until the new system is released. You seem to think Grab replaces Grapple, and yet you have no comment on the Grapple to come? Must be easier to argue that way.





> And your point is wrong. I don't see how Picking Locks or Diplomacy or Gentle Repose fits onto the grid, yet they are still present within the game.
> 
> Stick to fact, instead of your exaggerated (and often false) hyperbole.




I"m sticking to opinions, because that's what this thread is about. You don't get to set the rules of a discussion, and justifying your manner of talking to someone as their fault doesn't mean you're being polite.





> The game was balanced, which requires a shifting of certain things. Yeah, no more "I can fly whenever, wherever" because it's broken. If you want a simulation of the world of make-believe, play something that is intended to be one, because D&D isn't and has never been.




D&D is not meant to be an exact replication of a world, and 4e is the core of a system to play within such a world. I don't mind abstraction. Hit Points are abstraction. Removing Shapechanging because balancing the earlier system required too much work is overbalanced. I don't see how a Familiar would have unbalanced things, but they had to make room for a giant font.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 22, 2008)

Andor said:


> If you never used anything in the MM as as anything but a combat encounter you might have a point. Perhaps at your table that is true, my games have not been so limited.




I don't need combat statistics for things that aren't used in combat. Thus, I don't need a gold dragon combat stat block in order to put a gold dragon NPC that my players will never fight in my game.



> "It's tradition" is far from the worst reason to keep something around. Consider Palladium as an example.




That's a bad example, since Palladium's "Don't change it" policy is why I'd never buy a product by them. They need to learn to keep up with the times, not fixate themselves on "the olden days."



> I mentioned 3 skills in 3e btw because Animal Empathy could be used to aquire one of those monsterous mounts and Handle Animal was used to train them. In 4e you use.... um... apparently there is no training in 4e. Tough luck.




We're talking about Mounted Combat, which doesn't require Animal Empathy or Handle Animal... and Animal Empathy isn't a skill in 3.5, it's a Druid and Ranger only class feature.

And just because there aren't rules for training doesn't mean training isn't impossible. No edition of D&D has had detailed rules for procreation, but only an idiot would claim that reproduction is impossible and that's because D&D is not a simulation of a fantasy world. It's a game.



> I forgot to mention Lances btw. 4e forgot those too. But hey, it's not like they are iconic weapons or anything.




Lances are just spears.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 22, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> So you recognize the difference between 3e flight and 4e flight.




Yes. One is overpowered, the other is not.



> You ignore the other elements( shapechange and such) and focus on Flight which I didn't properly qualify.




Yeah, I ignore the stuff that is actually missing from player choices (like shapechanging), and focus on the thing you claim was missing, when in fact, it is not.



> You then continue to be dismissive of everything I've written because it's easier than saying "yeah, freeform flight is gone, but I like it better without it" rather than bash someone who doesn't like some of 4e.




The only thing I've dismissed is your offhand claim that particular things (flight, or anything that doesn't happen off the combat grid) are non-existent in 4e, because they're worth dismissing.



> It takes it into account by putting it on the grid.




So, it does take it into account... which is a complete 180 from what you were saying in your previous post.



> You can say it all you want, I see a huge difference in them.




I see a huge difference too: one was overpowered with a relatively minor cost, and the other is balanced.



> You seem to think Grab replaces Grapple, and yet you have no comment on the Grapple to come?




I'm not a speculator, that's why.



> I"m sticking to opinions, because that's what this thread is about.




Then stay away from facts, or the distortion thereof. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.



> You don't get to set the rules of a discussion, and justifying your manner of talking to someone as their fault doesn't mean you're being polite.




Since you're new, you probably don't know this: I'm not overly concerned with polite. I'm not here to win popularity contests or to make friends. I'm here to discuss and debate.



> D&D is not meant to be an exact replication of a world, and 4e is the core of a system to play within such a world. I don't mind abstraction. Hit Points are abstraction. Removing Shapechanging because balancing the earlier system required too much work is overbalanced. I don't see how a Familiar would have unbalanced things, but they had to make room for a giant font.




This attitude that if it was in the game before that it has to be in the core, immediately, is exactly why we had things like wild shape and polymorph being constantly revised throughout the entire lifespan of Third Edition: tradition is not a substitute for proper game design.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> So, it does take it into account... which is a complete 180 from what you were saying in your previous post.



It's not a 180, you just ignore everything that doesn't fit your arguement.




> I'm not a speculator, that's why.




Right, if the game designer says "Grapple is on the way", you should stick to "grab is the new grapple!" even though it's just you.





> Then stay away from facts, or the distortion thereof. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.



There are no facts, even what is considered "the grid" is a matter of debate.





> Since you're new, you probably don't know this: I'm not overly concerned with polite. I'm not here to win popularity contests or to make friends. I'm here to discuss and debate.



Since I've been here longer than you, I know that you must still be polite in discussion. I'm also aware that "discuss and debate" is meaningless when you just want to argue.





> This attitude that if it was in the game before that it has to be in the core, immediately, is exactly why we had things like wild shape and polymorph being constantly revised throughout the entire lifespan of Third Edition: tradition is not a substitute for proper game design.




We can separate a couple things here. "In the game" and "typical fantasy" are two different things. Shapechanging and illusion are staples of "typical fantasy" and their absence from 4e is noticeable. Shapechange and Illusion missing from this edition while being present in previous edition is a different topic. I may not like that gnomes are gone and green dragons are hideous, but that's a different "incomplete" than saying "hey, the game feels incomplete without shapechange".

And once again, you don't set the rules in the matter.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I don't need combat statistics for things that aren't used in combat. Thus, I don't need a gold dragon combat stat block in order to put a gold dragon NPC that my players will never fight in my game.




So did your players fight alot of Unicorns?  Because they made the cut.



The Little Raven said:


> That's a bad example, since Palladium's "Don't change it" policy is why I'd never buy a product by them. They need to learn to keep up with the times, not fixate themselves on "the olden days."




Hmm...I guess it all depends on what youe opinion of "the times" is.  This is quite the nebulous statement.





The Little Raven said:


> And just because there aren't rules for training doesn't mean training isn't impossible. No edition of D&D has had detailed rules for procreation, but only an idiot would claim that reproduction is impossible and that's because D&D is not a simulation of a fantasy world. It's a game.




Just because there aren't rules for training doesn't mean training *isn't impossible*...what?  I guess I should have saved the money on those books according to your philosophy, nothing needs rules...or at least that's what I think your trying to say.




The Little Raven said:


> Lances are just spears.




Yet we have Katars (just daggers)...Rapier (just a thin longsword)...Crossbow (just a mechanical bow)...Javelins (just shorter spears)...etc.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

> So did your players fight alot of Unicorns?  Because they made the cut.



Actually, there's a huge incentive to use Unicorns in 3e. A druid can spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally IV for a 4th level spell. That would summon a Unicorn. Its spell-like abilities (especially the healing) are very useful. 

In 4e, you bet your ass they'll be fighting unicorns. Because the unicorns make great allies/steeds, since they're Leaders, providing buffing and healing to allies. Also, instead of being farting-rainbow good, they're Unaligned.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jul 23, 2008)

Rudeness and crap like "Aha, we see that being irrational is the hallmark of the 4e fanboy" aside... the thread seems to boil down to 

"I define 'complete' as being a playable game without further purchases"
vs.
"I define 'complete' as having not left out X,Y,and Z which I think should have been kept"

I mean, I get where people are coming from, but it feels like they're talking past each other.

If you don't like 4e because Fly doesn't last a full hour or something like that, fine, I respect that, but you've got to realize that a lot of people don't consider "Fly lasts a full hour" to be a necessary condition for completeness.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 23, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Actually, there's a huge incentive to use Unicorns in 3e. A druid can spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally IV for a 4th level spell. That would summon a Unicorn. Its spell-like abilities (especially the healing) are very useful.
> 
> In 4e, you bet your ass they'll be fighting unicorns. Because the unicorns make great allies/steeds, since they're Leaders, providing buffing and healing to allies. Also, instead of being farting-rainbow good, they're Unaligned.




Yeah and they could have fought unaligned metallic dragons as well...so what does this have to do with the argument that the MM was populated with creatures that were commonly used as battle fodder?  Because unicorns sure weren't this in the past.

More likely WotC knows...Dragons sell books, thus why not keep them out in order to sell more books seems a more rational argument than...they couldn't be used by the majority of players for combat...especially considering the unicorn example and it's unaligned status.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 23, 2008)

Imaro said:


> So did your players fight alot of Unicorns?  Because they made the cut.




No, they didn't, but now that they aren't virgin-loving exemplars of animal goodness, I probably will use them.



> Hmm...I guess it all depends on what youe opinion of "the times" is.  This is quite the nebulous statement.




By "the times," I mean keeping up with the current state of game design. Palladium refuses to make much-needed changes to their system, because they don't want to invalidate previous books.



> Just because there aren't rules for training doesn't mean training *isn't impossible*...what?




So, you don't need to waste page count on things like that, just like crafting skills. It's a game, not a world simulation.

Plus, if you really needed it, you have the Nature skill, since knowledge of natural beasts should give you insight into training them. Train Beast: Nature check, DC 10 + 1/2 the level of the beast. 10 if a totally mundane animal.



> I guess I should have saved the money on those books according to your philosophy, nothing needs rules...or at least that's what I think your trying to say.




I'm saying rules aren't needed for everything, and the lack of a rule doesn't mean such a thing is impossible. Rules are not the physics of the game world.



> Yet we have Katars (just daggers)...Rapier (just a thin longsword)...Crossbow (just a mechanical bow)...Javelins (just shorter spears)...etc.




Except all of those things have distinct differences between them and their closest counterpart. A katar is used very differently than a dagger, nevermind the game mechanics that make it different (higher damage, high crit property). Same with the rapier (a light thrusting weapon) and the longsword (a heavy slashing weapon). The crossbow is hugely different from the longbow or short bow. And the key difference between the javelin and spear: javelins are ranged weapons, while spears are not.

A lance is just a spear. That's it.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

Doublepost.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Yeah and they could have fought unaligned metallic dragons as well...so what does this have to do with the argument that the MM was populated with creatures that were commonly used as battle fodder?  Because unicorns sure weren't this in the past.



THey could have, but are DMs going to USE them? Besides. WotC had to fill the Feywild with something. 



> More likely WotC knows...Dragons sell books, thus why not keep them out in order to sell more books seems a more rational argument than...they couldn't be used by the majority of players for combat...especially considering the unicorn example and it's unaligned status.



And fewer DMs are going to use Metallics than Chromatics. That minority that wants metallics to be used in combat is not enough to warrant it being in the book. 

As I said before, it's no different than putting psionics in its own book.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jul 23, 2008)

I have a couple of things to throw in here.

If the 4th edition books included all the same core classes and races as 3e, would people be disappointed in that? I would. I think the exclusion of some old classes and races for the inclusion of new ones is a good idea. I don't think it makes it incomplete.

I don't think naming the new PHB as PHB 2, 3, 4 etc. is doing anything other than giving players a little more leverage when dealing with unreasonable DMs (and how many times have we heard "core classes only!" from some uptight, grumpy DM on the message boards, if not at the table?) and sells on name recognition. It also can serve to make the line slimmer, selling more of one book than of 3 different books. For example, Stromwrack, Sandstorm, and Frostburn are probably my favorite 3e books. But they're all stretched out with spells and prestige classes that aren't all that good. If you took the rules from all three books, and most of the races, and about 1/4 of the prestige classes and spells... you'd have a pretty good book.

Lastly, I think Wizards has avoided putting out too many true "splatbooks." The 3e prestige books and arguable the updated "complete" line, but... Mongoose and Green Ronin put out what are really splatbooks, like the Advanced Race Codex line or the Slayers Guides. If 3e and 4e were splatbook based, the line would look more like White Wolf's, with a parade of "Classbook: Fighter" and "Racebook: Human" that are 90% setting-based, system-free and 10% power creep. This is something TSR did a lot that wizards cut back considerably, I think. The books that get called splatbooks from WotC at least have some utility to them, and add things like new races and classes. True splatbooks only deal with existing races and classes, without adding much to the game. Wizards, to their credits, gives a lot more content in their books than the splatbooks White Wolf, Green Ronin, and Mongoose put out.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 23, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> Thats a non starter for me, the DMG I think its in, has a guide to scale down monsters which works within 5 levels of scaling so you can use any monster up to level 5 possibly 6 scale it down to 1st, you could also scale down level 7/8 and use level 2&3 monsters



Bingo!  Modifying monsters is so easy with the guidelines in the DMG that any claim of "incompleteness" regarding the MM is laughable.  I've played in 4 sessions of 4e now, all using 1st level characters, and we've yet to see a Kobold or Goblin.  All of the monsters have been either straight out of the MM or slightly modified (sometimes renamed) from monsters in the MM.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 23, 2008)

I think there could be a bit more variety in the rituals, and I feel there were alot of sub-par new(ish) creatures subbed for some old classics I'd much rather have -However there is quite a bit of variety in many of the old standby monsters that I use most often (gnolls, goblins, trolls, orcs, etc) which kinda makes up for it. 

Monks I've never liked or had place for in my campaigns, so I'm glad to see them go, and I'm indifferent about gnomes, bards and barbarians. I would have liked to seen the Druid though in the PHB. They make great NPC foes or friends if nothing else.

I'm one of those core book only "unreasonable grumpy DMs"  and always have been, and I don't (as of yet) feel anything is so blatantly missing to make the game feel incomplete to me. In fact, 4E is likely the first edition to have me making additional corebook 2/3/4. etc purchases if something is useful to me. I like the simpler rules-set, and when I'm not feeling overwhelmed with needless complexity (whether it's 3.X or Rolemaster, or similar rules-heavy systems), I'm more open to adding new material.

The only thing I'm *really* feeling the need for product-wise is GOOD adventure material-The GSL is a joke. Hopefully Necro and & Goodman will come through.


----------



## lutecius (Jul 23, 2008)

jadrax said:


> It terms of Background, yes classes have always been really interchangeable, its an abstract concept at best, which was weakened even further by so many classes fighting over so few clearly defined roles.
> 
> The Joy of 4th is classes finally have properly unique power sets, so you can have a Nature Fighter, Nature Paladin, nature Wizard who will all be nature themed, but diverse mechanically. (And that's without even multi-classing, which opens it up even more.)
> 
> I cannot think of a single character type you cannot currently play, that will not end up being effective under the basic rules. (Apart from arguably broken ones, like Summoner) Sure classes will come along to add more nuances to that, but the basic system is incredibly solid.



Somehow I agree with what you’re saying, this actually one of the reasons I dislike 4e. The classes play too much alike for me and I just don’t believe in these roles. More generally I think fantasy concepts and archetypes should inspire the game mechanics, not the other way around.

But to get back on topic, either__class are really interchangeable and mechanics don’t fit a particular theme, which kind of defeats the point of power sources. But if not for the mechanics, I don’t think such strong archetypes as "inspiring fighter" or "jump around wizard" deserved to make the cut. A bard or enchanter could have been the other leader and a 2nd controller (druid) would have made more sense than a 3rd striker.

or__the mechanics do fit some themes better than others and the complaint that some class were left out still stands.


----------



## vazanar (Jul 23, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> That's fair enough. The number of options one feel a game should provide is a matter of personal taste. However, some people seem to not like 4e (or say it is a bad game) because it has less options at launch that 3.x had (at the end), which is a stance I find unreasonable.




I don't think summoning, famaliars, bards, animal companions and odd effect magic items were at the end of 3.x. To some people it will be incomplete unless some of those things are added. My group didnt really use splat books. I don't like that I feel I need to. (and yes I know companions and summoning were evil/broken to many groups)

Overall, I like 4e. Honestly animals and such can be added by the dm as they want. Warlord makes sense over Bard since the first splat is martial. However, the magic items are dull. My group was never huge into all the stat increasers so the neat magic items disapearing was a huge disapointment. I think most of those types of magic items need to be made by the DM now. The design of the new system doesn't really allow for them without breaking the balance of an official product.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 23, 2008)

Imaro said:


> So did your players fight alot of Unicorns?  Because they made the cut.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Imaro said:


> Yeah and they could have fought unaligned metallic dragons as well...so what does this have to do with the argument that the MM was populated with creatures that were commonly used as battle fodder?  Because unicorns sure weren't this in the past.
> 
> More likely WotC knows...Dragons sell books, thus why not keep them out in order to sell more books seems a more rational argument than...they couldn't be used by the majority of players for combat...especially considering the unicorn example and it's unaligned status.




Actually, unicorns made it into a number of Dungeon modules, so, they were used fairly often.  Also, since they were summonable, and metalic dragons were not, it would make them more common.

Also, you're comparing a single monster to five.  Five monsters that took up pages of pagecount in the monster manual vs the one it takes to write up the unicorn in 3e.  There's a significant difference in what you're comparing.

Cutting metalic dragons frees up about 10 pages in the monster manual.  Cutting unicorns frees up one.  Not too hard to see why metalics get the boot.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Cutting metalic dragons frees up about 10 pages in the monster manual.  Cutting unicorns frees up one.  Not too hard to see why metalics get the boot.




Chromatic dragons receive 12 pages. I can't imagine why Metallics wouldn't receive the same amount, since they would have the same age categories and have the same number of dragons.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jul 23, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I can see you really do not want to be around, if I ever cared enough to get offensive.




I don't care to deal with jerks, so you're probably right.



> Was that just an invisible strawman?




No?



> So we used plenty of weird combinations of classes as well. Again, further proof that I am not attacking anyone's style of play.




Poor wording, then, on your part.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Pro-Tip: When someone makes an accusation, and the person accused says, "No, I haven't," It's a lot more constructive to give an example of the accuser doing what they have been accused of, instead of just saying "Yuh huh!"
> 
> The onus of proof lies on the one making a claim, not someone defending against said claim.
> 
> "Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Did to" is useless, and makes you look bad.




Reading comprehension. Get some.

Did you read the whole of my post, or just flip out after the first line and decide to go off on me?

I said "yes, you did," then proceeded to quote what Jack had said that seemed to be in bad taste. He got it, when he responded; I'm not entirely sure how or why you did not.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

vazanar said:


> I don't think summoning, famaliars, bards, animal companions and odd effect magic items were at the end of 3.x.



Not the end, but a serious headache. 

In general anything that added extra attacks and a second character (animal companions, summoning, to a lesser extent familiars) meant slow-down at the table. This is increasingly true of upper level play, where even your _animal companion_ or whatever you summon has multiple attacks.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> Reading comprehension. Get some.
> 
> Did you read the whole of my post, or just flip out after the first line and decide to go off on me?



For someone accusing me of not having reading comprehension, you sure didn't look very close. Like, at the top of the *next page*.

Bad Taste and "Insulting playstyles" are two different things entirely. Jack was not accused of Bad Taste, he was accused of insulting people's playstyles. Jack was calling *rules* retarded, not people who like 4e. 

To avoid repeating myself I'll redirect you to my response to the Professor.

However, I was wrong. You had provided what you felt was evidence. I misinterpreted your response, assuming that you couldn't be confusing criticising 3e for criticising 3e Players. So, I apologize.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 23, 2008)

Andor said:


> Good point. Thank God they included Banshrea, Battlebriars and Sorrowsworn. They were certainly common encounters in earlier editions, not to mention their rich mythical background.



Interesting. 3E didn't have them, right? Is it an incomplete game for it? Because I definitely see people fighting Banshrea, Battlebriars and Sorrowsworn in 4E...


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 23, 2008)

vazanar said:


> I don't think summoning, familiars, bards, animal companions and odd effect magic items were at the end of 3.x. To some people it will be incomplete unless some of those things are added. My group didn't really use splat books. I don't like that I feel I need to. (and yes I know companions and summoning were evil/broken to many groups)




While I do not miss any of the features mentioned above, I fully understand why some people feel that it is something that should be included in the first core books. 

But, as Rechan explained quite well, there is a reason. And I prefer them to add these features as they figure out how to make them balanced, instead of breaking the game from the get-go, which they did in 3.x (IMO, ofc).

Cheers


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 23, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I never said they were useless. Using myself as an example, I was merely pointing out that at least some DM's rarely ever used the stats for metallic dragons. Yes, I also believe that to be the majority, but that is an all together other matter. My players have interacted plenty of times with metallic dragons. I just rarely needed the stats, as they are for combat (in my mind).



They can also be used for comparing one creature to another and judging how you'll use that creature in your world.



Jack99 said:


> I do not believe that I have posted such a thing.



It's most of what I've seen you post and certainly the post I originally responded to.



Jack99 said:


> I said that I think 4e is mechanically superior to 3.x. Is that what is bothering you?



It's that you're treating that as an absolute.  Like there's some kind of completely objective scale.  There's none such.  There are different tastes and different needs so different tools will achieve better results in different circumstances.

For the kind of D&D I currently enjoy, C&C is superior to 4e in almost every way. If I were to claim that C&C was absolutely a superior version of D&D it would raise a few eyebrows, and be almost the same as what I see you do around here.

Is 4e better for what you want out of the game?  Well, you'd know.  Is 4e better for everybody?  It looks like that's what you're claiming and the only way that could possibly be true is if all the people who don't like 4e are playing D&D wrong.



Jack99 said:


> In fact, how do you even know that my playstyle is different from yours? Because I like 4e?



I have to change the way I play to enjoy 4e and you don't.  Given that, how could our styles possibly be the same?



Jack99 said:


> I am sorry you feel that I have attacked your playstyle, because I haven't. Maybe if you point out to me where I am rude (your words) and attack your playstyle, I could help explaining what I meant?



Well, the post I originally responded to was rude.



Jack99 said:


> Oh, I understand that just fine. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with the "logic" they use to produce said statement. Especially since I consider myself pretty old-school and immersive, while preferring 4e.



You care about 'balance.'  That's not very old-school is it?

This isn't a matter of "logic."  It's a matter of taste.

Sam


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

THe 4E D&D doesn't offer enough options for me to play my (not so combat focused) D&D game.

It may be a good combat game, but it lacks a lot of the fun options we use far more often than fighting in our game - like performances, charm&illusion spells, and different prestige classes.

In that sense it really is incomplete. The Feywild sounds interesting, but why should I use it without illusions and charms available? Or should I take pride in telling players "and that too is limited to NPCs" all the time? I don't need a new space like the Feywild just to have battles in.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Not the end, but a serious headache.
> 
> In general anything that added extra attacks and a second character (animal companions, summoning, to a lesser extent familiars) meant slow-down at the table. This is increasingly true of upper level play, where even your _animal companion_ or whatever you summon has multiple attacks.




Only if one does play them out. I have had good experiences with simply stating "your henchmen fight their minions. Now, the Orc Leader and his shaman face you. Fighter, your turn is up. What do you do?"


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Only if one does play them out. I have had good experiences with simply stating "your henchmen fight their minions. Now, the Orc Leader and his shaman face you. Fighter, your turn is up. What do you do?"



And that pretty much makes having them pointless to many players. "They face their minions"? So that completely invalidates being able to roll their attacks and direct their movements. 

I've never seen a game where the DM directs the character's animal companion. *Never*. Hell, the last game I saw a druid in, the animal companion was his mount, and integral to his tactics in combat.

That's not even counting summoning. The last game I was in with a summoner, he was summoning 3 celestial badgers per fight (at 3rd level). Each badger gets three attacks on a full round action. So that's *9 attacks* in addition to the mage's. And they weren't "engaging minions", he'd intentionally summon them to flank a target. Not to mention the obvious benefit of summoning creatures to make use of their spell-like abilities.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 23, 2008)

The big trouble I had with the animal companion was that he was a better fighter than the fighter. Stupid grappling bear...

Cheers!


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 23, 2008)

My opinion is simple. If you were running a 3rd edition game with just the core books and then decided to switch to 4th edition, the new game isn't complete if you can't accommodate all of the characters in the campaign. If you happened to be running a half orc barbarian or a gnome bard, I guess you're out of luck.



> Dear Gimble and Krusk,
> 
> This is never an easy thing to do, but unfortunately we're going to have to let you go. Your contributions were invaluable over the past eight years, and we all owe our very lives to you several times over; however, the powers that be have made the decision that you no longer exist.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> My opinion is simple. If you were running a 3rd edition game with just the core books and then decided to switch to 4th edition, the new game isn't complete if you can't accommodate all of the characters in the campaign. If you happened to be running a half orc barbarian or a gnome bard, I guess you're out of luck.



You mean like if you were playing 1e, and you switched to 2e, your half-orc assassin or a monk were out of luck?

I guess 2e wasn't complete either.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 23, 2008)

Rechan said:


> You mean like if you were playing 1e, and you switched to 2e, your half-orc assassin or a monk were out of luck?
> 
> I guess 2e wasn't complete either.




no, it wasn't.

But as long as we're ripping on 2E, what happened to the arch-devils?  Why did they give goofy names to devils, demons, and daemons? 2E has plenty of areas in which it was deficient.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

Rechan said:


> And that pretty much makes having them pointless to many players. "They face their minions"? So that completely invalidates being able to roll their attacks and direct their movements.
> 
> I've never seen a game where the DM directs the character's animal companion. *Never*. Hell, the last game I saw a druid in, the animal companion was his mount, and integral to his tactics in combat.
> 
> That's not even counting summoning. The last game I was in with a summoner, he was summoning 3 celestial badgers per fight (at 3rd level). Each badger gets three attacks on a full round action. So that's *9 attacks* in addition to the mage's. And they weren't "engaging minions", he'd intentionally summon them to flank a target. Not to mention the obvious benefit of summoning creatures to make use of their spell-like abilities.




I guess I just see those creatures not as character powers, but as NPCs first and foremost. And as that, they are controlled by the DM. I mean, where's the fun if the familiar/mount/henchman/summoned creature is controlled by the player? Does he roleplay with himself when his character interacts with the creature? My game would lose some fun if the quips and exchanges between such couples would vanish.

So, I have never seen a game where the player controls anything but their character. The Player can order them around, but that's it. In the case of the paladin and her mount, the player could roll the attack, but if the mount was not being ridden, I controlled the actions.

I guess for me, as a player, it would be pointless to have a creature bound or summoned if I could not interact with it.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I guess I just see those creatures not as character powers, but as NPCs first and foremost.



And IMHO, you are in the minority in that regard. For instance, every person I have ever met who played or talked about having a mage with a familiar, it was always them describing what the familiar did, how the familiar interacted wtih themselves and everyone else. 

And in most cases, the familiar was forgotten by the player and only rarely brought out unless they were bored or needed something for it to do. 

Order of the Stick makes this very joke, and that joke was made because it's a common experience for gamers. 

Also, considering how summoned monsters lasted 1 round/level, there was very little "Interaction" going on. It was Speak Command and Monster Does Job. No conversation, no funny accent. It is a bag of hit points with a to-hit. A resource, like any other.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 23, 2008)

Is it complete in that you can pick up the core books and play the game and start a new campaign?
Yes, absolutely.

Is it complete in that you can pick up the core books and can start your first 4E game in the middle of a 3E (core rules only) campaign? Definitely not.

The former is far more important to me then the latter. I didn't get into 4E expecting I could just continue a previous campaign (though we did - with a lot of hand-waving, of course). But I got into it expecting to be able to run a new campaign, and that I can (and do.)


As a corollary:
If I played a 4E game, and for some reason wanted to convert to 3E, could I play it just using the core rules? Definitely not. (Where's my Dragonborn/Tiefling? What's with the Warlord?)

Could I pick up the 3E core rules and play the game? Yes.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> no, it wasn't.
> 
> But as long as we're ripping on 2E, what happened to the arch-devils?  Why did they give goofy names to devils, demons, and daemons? 2E has plenty of areas in which it was deficient.



By "goofy names", do you mean "Baazetu and Tan'nari"? 

Because of the "D&D is Devil Worship" scare in the 80s. Whether it seems silly or not, there was a serious witch hunt against D&D, and TSR did it as a PR move to shut up parents.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

Rechan said:


> And IMHO, you are in the minority in that regard. For instance, every person I have ever met who played or talked about having a mage with a familiar, it was always them describing what the familiar did, how the familiar interacted wtih themselves and everyone else.
> 
> And in most cases, the familiar was forgotten by the player and only rarely brought out unless they were bored or needed something for it to do.
> 
> ...




That's kind of sad though. People miss out on a lot of fun that way.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 23, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Why did they give goofy names to devils, demons, and daemons?




Because D&D has a long and distinguished history of goofy names, and they didn't want the fiends to feel left out.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> That's kind of sad though. People miss out on a lot of fun that way.




I don't find it fun to pick a particular character shtick I want to play, then completely lose control of it to the whims of someone who already has their hands full running the game.

And as a DM, I don't want to handle someone else's minion. I've got my hands full as it is.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I don't find it fun to pick a particular character shtick I want to play, then completely lose control of it to the whims of someone who already has their hands full running the game.
> 
> And as a DM, I don't want to handle someone else's minion. I've got my hands full as it is.




My way avoids a lot of the "action economy" problem WotC mentioned, and it does it by adhering to the concept of "One character per player". As far as I am concerned, if someone wants to play more than one character, he can DM. My game is about the PCs, not the NPCs.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> My way avoids a lot of the "action economy" problem WotC mentioned, and it does it by adhering to the concept of "One character per player". As far as I am concerned, if someone wants to play more than one character, he can DM. My game is about the PCs, not the NPCs.




But your solution looks very similar to "no summoning". Your way would work in 4E, too - just claim people have "pets" and cohorts and they always fight some extraneous monsters and minions that the PCs then don't have to deal with. 

Maybe that's really the only working solution, in the end, anyway.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> My way avoids a lot of the "action economy" problem WotC mentioned, and it does it by adhering to the concept of "One character per player".




It just shifts the additional actions to the DM, giving him more work.



> As far as I am concerned, if someone wants to play more than one character, he can DM. My game is about the PCs, not the NPCs.




That's why I prefer them as character powers.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> It just shifts the additional actions to the DM, giving him more work.




Hence the "and your pets fight their minions... now, for the real fight..." solution.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 23, 2008)

There have been some rude/personal attack posts in this thread recently. Please don't do it again. Anyone doing so after this post will get booted.

Thanks


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But your solution looks very similar to "no summoning". Your way would work in 4E, too - just claim people have "pets" and cohorts and they always fight some extraneous monsters and minions that the PCs then don't have to deal with.
> 
> Maybe that's really the only working solution, in the end, anyway.




Well, as I said, I don't consider combat that important. For me, summoning would be focusing on out of combat more than in combat. Dealing with other planes of existance and their denizens, making pacts to summon those, interacting with the summoned, dealing with other summoners, the whole "are those slaves or partners?" aspect, picking the right creature for some situations, dealing with the problems of summoning, social and other, darker problems... a summoner can offer so much more than a source of additional attacks in combat.

(Of course, I'd probably either change the summon spell duration, or focus more on planar ally-type spells.)

So, I'd not say "no summoning".


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 23, 2008)

Rechan said:


> And IMHO, you are in the minority in that regard. For instance, every person I have ever met who played or talked about having a mage with a familiar, it was always them describing what the familiar did, how the familiar interacted wtih themselves and everyone else.
> 
> And in most cases, the familiar was forgotten by the player and only rarely brought out unless they were bored or needed something for it to do.
> 
> ...




I freely admin that I'm not in the majority here, but as a DM I've had great fun with both these aspects (with the same player too). He was a 3.0e sorcerer with a raven familar, and the familiar would often chat to him backchat to him, request the opportunity to seek out some 'tasty treats' (eyes of fallen victims) and such. When the raven died to a wail of the banshee trap, the player was gutted.

That same PC at one point summoned a Formorian worker to do something for him (other than fight). They are in a back alley in the town, the sorcerer summons him and gives him a command. The Formorian tilts its head slightly and says "click click chirrrr?". Sorcerer bangs his head on wall upon realising that he doesn't speak any language that his summoned buddy knows, so they just look at each other until the spell wears off.

Comedy gold it was


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Well, as I said, I don't consider combat that important. For me, summoning would be focusing on out of combat more than in combat. Dealing with other planes of existance and their denizens, making pacts to summon those, interacting with the summoned, dealing with other summoners, the whole "are those slaves or partners?" aspect, picking the right creature for some situations, dealing with the problems of summoning, social and other, darker problems... a summoner can offer so much more than a source of additional attacks in combat.
> 
> (Of course, I'd probably either change the summon spell duration, or focus more on planar ally-type spells.)
> 
> So, I'd not say "no summoning".




Sounds more like some kind of ritual (leading to quests, adventures, or skill challenges). And interesting, too.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Hence the "and your pets fight their minions... now, for the real fight..." solution.



The point of having a pets is so that they contribute. If "they just walk over there and play patty cake with a minion", that's not a real contribution. *Especially* when said pet is a balancing factor for the class from a mechanical standpoint.

However, your "And they stroll over there and contribute nothing to the exchange of hit points", as referenced, very 4e. Because hey, summoning, pets, etc can be included; they just contribute nothing to the exchange of hit points and status effects. 

4e is all about BSing the fluff text and hand-waving the minutia when it suits your story. NPCs don't have healing surges - unless you need them to, etc.

If you do not have the pets contribute to the action, then why should there be pages wasted on mentioning them? It's not "incomplete for animal companions and familiars" if they are merely cute NPC interaction.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Well, as I said, I don't consider combat that important.



I'm going to stop you right there.

With all due respect, D&D is a combat engine. 

That's why 95% of the rules revolve around combat, in every edition. That's why all the splatbooks are geared towards combat options. I do not believe there has ever been "1001 Outfits and Chamberpots to fill your castle" book. 

D&D came out of chainmail, which was a wargame. It has, and unfortunately, always will be shootin' fireballs at orcs. 

Regardless of how you play it, this is how it is treated by, I feel, the vast majority. People can put as much fancy decoration as they want, but the system's function is to facilitate combat. 

WotC designed 4e by using market research, and gaming data. They did a lot of research on how people played the games. They designed 4e to cater to how people played D&D, rather than how "they should" or "they might". It's practical application of "What do most people do when they sit down in front of their character sheet across from the DM screen". 

In my opinion, your playstyle doesn't really have anything to do with what edition, or even what system you're playing, because what you seem to care about is the story and the interaction of Character to NPC. So I don't think you should be concerned with what's in the Core 4e book or not, because it's not going to really be catering to your tastes in a game.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

Rechan said:


> The point of having a pets is so that they contribute. If "they just walk over there and play patty cake with a minion", that's not a real contribution. *Especially* when said pet is a balancing factor for the class.
> 
> However, your "And they stroll over there and contribute nothing to the exchange of hit points", as referenced, very 4e. Because hey, summoning, pets, etc can be included; they just contribute nothing to the exchange of hit points and status effects.
> 
> ...




Because for me, the game is more than "combat action". Pages dealing with differnt clothes, lots of gear, and monsters one would talk to more than fight them are not wasted for me. If judging by playtime, I spend a lot more time in out of combat scenes than in combat scenes.

I do not measure contributions by the "what good is it in combat" stick, but by the "what does it add to the game"-standard. And generally, I consider playtime/spotlight time to be the baseline one balances classes and characters after, not killing power. The two can overlap a lot in a combat heavy campaign, but do not have to.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

Rechan said:


> I'm going to stop you right there.
> 
> With all due respect, D&D is a combat engine.
> 
> ...




Of course it matters what edition I play. I've been playing D&D since over 15 years. When 3E came out, I switched after reading the PHB for 30 minutes - it was simply so much better than 2E for my playstyle for all the options it offered, and the flexibility. With 4E, the reaction wasn't the same, it feels more limiting for my playstyle.

So, regardless of what the majority does - for me, 3E catered to my playstyle. So far, 4E does not. Maybe once it has a bit more options than the PHB, and might introduce (more) rules that deal with non-combat stuff, it might fit my playstyle.

Until then, 4E feels incomplete to me, since it offers less than what 3E does, and - and this is important - les sof what I want out of a game.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Because for me, the game is more than "combat action". Pages dealing with differnt clothes, lots of gear, and monsters one would talk to more than fight them are not wasted for me. If judging by playtime, I spend a lot more time in out of combat scenes than in combat scenes.



Not wasteful _to you_ but at the cost of being discarded by far more than those who would use it. As a company, WotC cannot try to please everyone's play style. They have to appeal to the most people they possibly can with their product. That includes how most of their customers use that product. 

That's how a company runs a business. It would not have been as successful had it been Dialogue and Diplomacy.

For instance, the fact that the MM is bare bones with fluff has pleased _a lot of people_ here (to my dismay). It was a conscious choice that was made to strip fluff from the books. Probably because of the market research WotC got back from DMs said "Hey we make up our own monster fluff", I don't know. 



> And generally, I consider playtime/spotlight time to be the baseline one balances classes and characters after, not killing power.



And "How much spotlight time" is not quantifiable in a game system, because that is entirely dependent on who is playing, their preferences and campaign. Your entire game could focus on Farmer Brown and his boys. Does that mean that we should have a fully balanced CropGrower class with several pages on how many rounds it takes to plow a field? Or Boyish Scamp and using the Mischief skill to construct a slingshot?

The type of specialization that you are talking about are why expansion books were Invented. There wasn't room for discussing boats and castles in the PHB, that's why they made the Stronghold Builder's Guide. For the weapons buff, there wasn't room to cover every historical weapon or geegaw imaginable, ergo the Arms and Equipment guide.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Because for me, the game is more than "combat action". Pages dealing with differnt clothes, lots of gear, and monsters one would talk to more than fight them are not wasted for me. If judging by playtime, I spend a lot more time in out of combat scenes than in combat scenes.





Fenes said:


> Of course it matters what edition I play. I've been playing D&D since over 15 years. When 3E came out, I switched after reading the PHB for 30 minutes - it was simply so much better than 2E for my playstyle for all the options it offered, and the flexibility. With 4E, the reaction wasn't the same, it feels more limiting for my playstyle.



I'll have to admit I have trouble reconciling these two statements. I've always felt that 3E was a bit lacking in the fluff department which is why I went back to look at my 2E collection to get more background information.

What is your playstyle exactly? What was it that made 3E perfect for it while 2E and 4E aren't?


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

Jhaelen said:


> I'll have to admit I have trouble reconciling these two statements. I've always felt that 3E was a bit lacking in the fluff department which is why I went back to look at my 2E collection to get more background information.
> 
> What is your playstyle exactly? What was it that made 3E perfect for it while 2E and 4E aren't?




We're roleplay focused. 3E offered much better multiclassing, prestige classes to flesh out concepts and backgrounds, various skill points, a robust skill system compared to 2E, more classes, more customising options with feats, and a streamlined rules system (d20, roll high).

2E in comparision offered mostly kits, and not much flexibility. Fluff works for both anyway - I tend to tailor fluff to my campaign from various sources - but the 3E feels like the mechanics fit the fluff better.

4E in comparision feels limited. They cut down so many skills, especially perform. it also feels pigeonholing with regards to classes, and focused on rigid roles, and tactical combat - and draws those out.

That may change with time, but at the moment, 4E simply is not offering enough. If it was food, then 4E would be a possibly very good meal, planned by an expert system, with perfectly balanced main and side dish, and the right mix of carbs, protein and fiber. 
3E is a buffet stocked with food from all over the world (3PP). Sure, some combinations might not be tasty, and even unhealthy, but it has variety in spades, and if one meal doesn't taste right to someone, he might find something more to his taste (like Iron Heroes, Conan, or some optional adds to 3E).

I'd rather pick and choose for myself than eat what's on the table, day in and out.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 23, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> My opinion is simple. If you were running a 3rd edition game with just the core books and then decided to switch to 4th edition, the new game isn't complete if you can't accommodate all of the characters in the campaign. If you happened to be running a half orc barbarian or a gnome bard, I guess you're out of luck.




This is half nonsense to any decent group.  The Gnome is *still there*, just in a different book.  The Bard I admit would be a little difficult to make in 4E as it stands, although you could probably make a reasonable one with a Rogue/Wizard multiclass wit a lot of flavor reworking (musical instrument as Implement?).  Half-Orc barbarian could be done with rules for an Orc Fighter.  Rage is largely superfluous and could be flavor only (you'd obviously be taking the more heavy-hitting Fighter powers, so just say that you froth at the mouth and howl during those attacks), or if you really wanted to the DM could create some kind of ability to sub in.

Of course there's the whole "Oh that means it's broken, because it requires DM Fiat" argument (which is, again, nonsense) but it *could* be done.  It wouldn't be a total crossover, but I don't see how *anything* from 3E could be 100% transated to 4E just because the dynamics totally changed (for the better, I might add).

Saying "I can't play my Half-Orc Barbarian anymore thanks to 4E" is one thing.  Saying "I can't play my Half-Orc Barbarian because of 4E, and me and my group are unwilling to work out a temporary solution for me" is totally different.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> That may change with time, but at the moment, 4E simply is not offering enough. If it was food, then 4E would be a possibly very good meal, planned by an expert system, with perfectly balanced main and side dish, and the right mix of carbs, protein and fiber.
> 3E is a buffet stocked with food from all over the world (3PP). Sure, some combinations might not be tasty, and even unhealthy, but it has variety in spades, and if one meal doesn't taste right to someone, he might find something more to his taste (like Iron Heroes, Conan, or some optional adds to 3E).



In hongs day and age, generic food metaphors used ice cream and peanut butter, and they liked it! 

Your analogy is nice, but the original topic is not whether 3E offers you more at the moment, but whether 4E is complete as a game. (And Conan and Iron heroes cannot really count as "3E". If they can, then 4E could count as 3E, too! You're leaving the realm of 3E and entering the land of the d20 System.)

The meal you describe is pretty much complete. The buffet is nice, but - after all, I can only eat one meal at a time...


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> In hongs day and age, generic food metaphors used ice cream and peanut butter, and they liked it!
> 
> Your analogy is nice, but the original topic is not whether 3E offers you more at the moment, but whether 4E is complete as a game. (And Conan and Iron heroes cannot really count as "3E". If they can, then 4E could count as 3E, too! You're leaving the realm of 3E and entering the land of the d20 System.)
> 
> The meal you describe is pretty much complete. The buffet is nice, but - after all, I can only eat one meal at a time...




But a game I don't want to play for lack of options is not complete for me.

Also, d20 is 3E. Most of the sourcebooks can be easily used.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> This is half nonsense to any decent group.  The Gnome is *still there*, just in a different book.  The Bard I admit would be a little difficult to make in 4E as it stands, although you could probably make a reasonable one with a Rogue/Wizard multiclass wit a lot of flavor reworking (musical instrument as Implement?).  Half-Orc barbarian could be done with rules for an Orc Fighter.  Rage is largely superfluous and could be flavor only (you'd obviously be taking the more heavy-hitting Fighter powers, so just say that you froth at the mouth and howl during those attacks), or if you really wanted to the DM could create some kind of ability to sub in.
> 
> Of course there's the whole "Oh that means it's broken, because it requires DM Fiat" argument (which is, again, nonsense) but it *could* be done.  It wouldn't be a total crossover, but I don't see how *anything* from 3E could be 100% transated to 4E just because the dynamics totally changed (for the better, I might add).
> 
> Saying "I can't play my Half-Orc Barbarian anymore thanks to 4E" is one thing.  Saying "I can't play my Half-Orc Barbarian because of 4E, and me and my group are unwilling to work out a temporary solution for me" is totally different.




Saying "3E is not working since my group and me are unwilling to house rule it so it works better" is not different though. It's not that difficult to implement many of 4E's tricks into 3E (Minions, Skill challenges). And the dynamics changed a lot with ToB already.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 23, 2008)

Right.  Besides, would anyone really shift mid-campaign from 3.5 to 4E, knowing full well that things aren't compatible?  That whole argument seems like its bollocks due to that very reason.  Wouldn't anyone with some sense finish out the 3.5 campaign and then start a new one with 4E?  Then there's nothing to complain about:

Player:  I want a gnome bard for this campaign!
DM:  Gnome is okay since it's in the Monster Manual, but Bard isn't around yet.  It'll probably be released in a future book.  You'll have to play something else.
Player:  Hmm... okay let me read up on some things...

IMO if the player throws a hissy fit over not being able to play something, then either they're narrow minded and only play one thing, or they're just being a jerk and trying to come up with any and all excuses to show how 4E is badwrongfun.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> Right.  Besides, would anyone really shift mid-campaign from 3.5 to 4E, knowing full well that things aren't compatible?  That whole argument seems like its bollocks due to that very reason.  Wouldn't anyone with some sense finish out the 3.5 campaign and then start a new one with 4E?  Then there's nothing to complain about:




Wouldn't anyone with some sense not change the system when the game is working for them?

Even if I had a campaign ending right now, I'd not be starting a 4E campaign because it simply doesn't offer me what I am looking for in a D&D game. That may change, but so far, it's lacking a lot of options. And why should I spend time and energy on recreating those options when I could spend that time on working on a campaign instead?


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> IMO if the player throws a hissy fit over not being able to play something, then either they're narrow minded and only play one thing, or they're just being a jerk and trying to come up with any and all excuses to show how 4E is badwrongfun.




If the DM wants to force a game that doesn't cater to the player's preference down their throats, then he's the one being a jerk. If a player has the most fun playing a gnome bard, why try to force him to change?

Is this somehow badwrongfun, to prefer some character concpets to others? Is it badwrongfun to play something one likes, instead of something one likes less?


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 23, 2008)

I didn't think we were arguing switching to 4E, but rather the idea that 4E isn't complete because some options that were available in 3.5 but almost never used aren't available anymore without some tweaking.

Personally, I think if the group is unwilling to compromise then there's a bigger issue at hand, and BOTH DM and players are being jerks.



Fenes said:


> Is this somehow badwrongfun, to prefer some character concpets to others? Is it badwrongfun to play something one likes, instead of something one likes less?




No, but IMO it's not a good thing to *only* play one concept.  It's not "badwrongfun" (I've been guilty of it myself), but it certainly limits your perspective on things.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 23, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> I didn't think we were arguing switching to 4E, but rather the idea that 4E isn't complete because some options that were available in 3.5 but almost never used aren't available anymore without some tweaking.




If I cannot switch my campaign, then it means the game doesn't offer me what I am looking for, and is therefore, for my game, not complete. If 3E offers me the options I want, and 4E doesn't, then 4E offers less to me.



wayne62682 said:


> No, but IMO it's not a good thing to *only* play one concept.  It's not "badwrongfun" (I've been guilty of it myself), but it certainly limits your perspective on things.




So? Better to limit your perspective in a game than your fun.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 23, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> I didn't think we were arguing switching to 4E, but rather the idea that 4E isn't complete because some options that were available in 3.5 but almost never used aren't available anymore without some tweaking.
> 
> Personally, I think if the group is unwilling to compromise then there's a bigger issue at hand, and BOTH DM and players are being jerks.





Yeah, this is a bit of a tangent... however I wanted to comment on this statement.  I don't think the group or the DM not wanting to compromise is a sign of "bigger issues" or "being jerks".  I believe there are just too many factors involved in this, for it to be a blanket statement.

First regardless of what people argue as far as math, balance, etc.  The point of a game is to have fun.  If the DM or majority of the players are having fun playing 3.5, why are they "jerks" or have "issues" for not wanting to switch to 4e?

Second is investment.  If the majority of the group is happy playing in a 3.5 game and have made a significant investment (both in time learning rules and money) in it, why are they wrong for not wanting to invest in another edition?  I mean contrary to what most people claim here, RPG's are a good investment in fun vs. cost... if you actually enjoy and play the game.  Otherwise you just spent $100+ to have books take up space on a bookshelf.

Last I'd like to comment further on the whole, try it then judge it sentiment.  It's cool in theory, but how many posters here have tried every rpg game...I mean I'm willing to bet there are a significant number of posters here who only play D&D and have no interest in anything outside of it.  Personally I think they're missing out on some great games... but ultimately I respect their decision whether they've tried every game out there or not.  I don't consider them "jerks" for not wanting to try something before deciding it's not for them.  Personally I'm not a fan of hard sci-fi games and as such I don't buy them, my only sci-fi (more like sci-fantasy) games are Star Wars and Fading Suns.  I don't need to compromise and try a hard sci-fi game to know it's not my cup of tea.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 23, 2008)

I think the point is this:  Play what's good for you.  If you like 3.5 and don't care to switch to 4E, then play 3.5.  What 4E does isn't anymore concern to you because you're not going to switch (at least not any time soon).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Wouldn't anyone with some sense not change the system when the game is working for them?
> 
> Even if I had a campaign ending right now, I'd not be starting a 4E campaign because it simply doesn't offer me what I am looking for in a D&D game. That may change, but so far, it's lacking a lot of options.



I would say it is a complete game. You can play a campaign covering 30 levels with it and would not miss any rules to play the game successful.

Your point is that that's not enough - you want more options (and probably a few specific ones). 
But then, a lot of games suddenly become incomplete - even original 3E D&D (or OD&D), and that's why I 'disagree' with this definition. I could always use more stuff, and going back from 30 core classes and hundreds of PRCs and feats might be hard for some, but that doesn't make the game "incomplete". The game can be played without additional material.



> And why should I spend time and energy on recreating those options when I could spend that time on working on a campaign instead?



Snarky answer is because 4E is just the better system.  But obviously, that's not universally true for everyone.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 23, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:


> It's that you're treating that as an absolute.  Like there's some kind of completely objective scale.  There's none such.  There are different tastes and different needs so different tools will achieve better results in different circumstances.
> 
> For the kind of D&D I currently enjoy, C&C is superior to 4e in almost every way. If I were to claim that C&C was absolutely a superior version of D&D it would raise a few eyebrows, and be almost the same as what I see you do around here.
> 
> Is 4e better for what you want out of the game?  Well, you'd know.  Is 4e better for everybody?  It looks like that's what you're claiming and the only way that could possibly be true is if all the people who don't like 4e are playing D&D wrong.




I think you are reading way too much into my posts. My opinion of 4e's superiority in all aspects, is just that. My personal opinion. I am not trying to claim that it is better for everyone.

Cheers,


----------



## vazanar (Jul 23, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> While I do not miss any of the features mentioned above, I fully understand why some people feel that it is something that should be included in the first core books.
> 
> But, as Rechan explained quite well, there is a reason. And I prefer them to add these features as they figure out how to make them balanced, instead of breaking the game from the get-go, which they did in 3.x (IMO, ofc).
> 
> Cheers




I did mention plenty of groups saw it broken. I agree with the reasoning even if it wasn't a huge problem for my group.  As I said in the following paragraph it should be left to the dm. If a group can't handle it don't use it. 4e is a very balanced system. However, a lot of things in fantasy are not balanced which will always lead to problems. I wonder if a wand of wonder will ever appear?

To my oringial point, my group is currently converting a campaign over (we wanted to test high level 4e). Overall people are happy (even our Wizard and Cleric) and I let people keep familiars etc as npc's. However, the magic items, seem less magical. The main complaint is the lack of neat items (I don't so much mean weapons which were only truly special if they were unique or artifacts). I would have liked to see more in the dm about adding those type items in (pipes of sewers etc). Ones that dont have as straight forward a bonus to combat. Then again putting them in the players handbook could bring wierd rules and debalance the system, so maybe its better as a dm special design.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 23, 2008)

I think the idea that the game is incomplete is absolute nonsense and the claim doesn't even make any sense to me.  In terms of raw numbers of what's available to play, it compares very favorably to 3e when it first launched.

Granted, some of the options are different, so if you think playing a gnome bard is integral to the D&D experience, then chances are you're less than thrilled about the prospect of a dragonborn warlord or tiefling warlock.

Also, "complete" and "robust" are two different things.  3.5 was a very robust game, but it was largely robust because of the vast variety of splatbooks that were released over the course of its run.  4e will, naturally, eventually get to that point, but comparing late era 3.5 to early 4e is a nonsensical comparison.  Comparing 4e to 3e when it first launched is a sensical comparison, and I think they compare very well to each other in terms of "completeness."


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 23, 2008)

vazanar said:


> To my oringial point, my group is currently converting a campaign over (we wanted to test high level 4e). Overall people are happy (even our Wizard and Cleric) and I let people keep familiars etc as npc's. However, the magic items, seem less magical. The main complaint is the lack of neat items (I don't so much mean weapons which were only truly special if they were unique or artifacts). I would have liked to see more in the dm about adding those type items in (pipes of sewers etc). Ones that dont have as straight forward a bonus to combat. Then again putting them in the players handbook could bring wierd rules and debalance the system, so maybe its better as a dm special design.




Mearls mentioned that many of the items who were left out, were so on purpose, due to needing more time in order to make them right. They will be in the Tome of Treasures, or whatever the name is. I agree though, Magic items are probably the weakest link in 4e (in my opinion).


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 23, 2008)

*completeness*

I still maintain that a fantasy game without rules for necromancy, illusion, enchantment, or summoning is not complete. 

I don't care about the classes nearly as much.  I doubt that I would miss the bard -- I always thought singing in combat was silly.  And I'll be the first to agree that Barbarian can be rolled back into the fighter class without much loss, especially since the fighter class needed broadening.

But 4E doesn't provide the tools to simulate much of the magic that is common in myth and folklore, nor to allow spellcasting characters to do the sort of magical things that they could do in other FRPGs.

And the whole thing with economy of actions -- well, I grant the point, but there are other ways of solving it.  For example, one could say that it took all of a spellcaster's concetration to control a summoned monster. 

Instead, we got a gutted spellcasting system.  Sure, they'll probably put a lot of stuff back in the expansion books that come out in the future.  But that in no way makes what is currently out there 'complete'.

Ken


----------



## Obryn (Jul 23, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> My opinion is simple. If you were running a 3rd edition game with just the core books and then decided to switch to 4th edition, the new game isn't complete if you can't accommodate all of the characters in the campaign. If you happened to be running a half orc barbarian or a gnome bard, I guess you're out of luck.



Wait - so if 5e doesn't include Warlords and Tieflings, it will be incomplete?

-O


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> If I cannot switch my campaign, then it means the game doesn't offer me what I am looking for, and is therefore, for my game, not complete. If 3E offers me the options I want, and 4E doesn't, then 4E offers less to me.



Ergo, Mechwarrior is not a complete role playing game, because I can't use it to play a gnomish bard.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 23, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Wait - so if 5e doesn't include Warlords and Tieflings, it will be incomplete?
> 
> -O



I think that would be true for some people. There seems to be a logical conclusion that new edition means "everything we had before, but better (and then some more)" - it is a new game, it has to be better in every respect! (And more classes are always better then fewer, right?)

Of course, if reduced to this words, it becomes a little too obvious why this can't hold true forever.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I would say it is a complete game. You can play a campaign covering 30 levels with it and would not miss any rules to play the game successful.




I see three different kinds of "Complete";
1) A complete RPG (ready to play and have fun with):
4e fits here I'm sure.
2) A complete Fantasy RPG (ready to play with the fantasy tropes intact)
Here is where I think 4e fails. Lacking many of the elements that make high fantasy (and with such a plethora of magic, it's high...) what it is, necromancy, summoning, freeform flight, shapechanging...
3) The Complete D&D Experience (everything old is new again!)
Obviously 4e fails here, it lacks half orcs, barbarians, bards, gnomes, et cetera.

So, I'm mostly debating on #2, since I think most of us can agree on #1 and #3.

(I think 3e is probably the one that does the best job of #3 at launch really. It brought all kinds of stuff in.)


A note: With EN crashing so frequently, it's amazing that this thread jumped 2-3 pages since I could last read it


----------



## Ander00 (Jul 23, 2008)

The rules are fairly complete. However, it appears there wasn't time for a close, hard look at them after they were completed. A glaring example of that would be the chapter on skill challenges to be found in the errata document.


cheers


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 23, 2008)

Ander00 said:


> The rules are fairly complete. However, it appears there wasn't time for a close, hard look at them after they were completed. A glaring example of that would be the chapter on skill challenges to be found in the errata document.




For me, a lot of 4e feels like they didn't start serious design until they'd announced it, or somesuch. Lots of early sneakpeeks were invalidated, and a lot of systems didn't get done. While I'm sure some stuff was held back so they could make money on followup books, I think some stuff (like grapple) was just not ready in time or backburnered due to time constraints.

Or, as it were, they set the deadline and had to get the most complete D&D out they could within that deadline, rather than a more organic design.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 23, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> I see three different kinds of "Complete";
> 1) A complete RPG (ready to play and have fun with):
> 4e fits here I'm sure.
> 2) A complete Fantasy RPG (ready to play with the fantasy tropes intact)
> Here is where I think 4e fails. Lacking many of the elements that make high fantasy (and with such a plethora of magic, it's high...) what it is, necromancy, summoning, freeform flight, shapechanging...



So, is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay a complete game? 
Or Shadowrun (which doesn't have necromancy, and greatly limits shapechaning) 
(Mind you, Shadowrun is not a "pure" fantasy game, so I am fine with it not getting counted here.  )


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay a complete game?
> Or Shadowrun (which doesn't have necromancy, and greatly limits shapechaning)
> (Mind you, Shadowrun is not a "pure" fantasy game, so I am fine with it not getting counted here.  )




Never played Warhammer, Shadowrun had plenty of shapechanging. I've avoided FanPro stuff since they drove me away at the end of SR3, so can't judge current stuff.

Shadowrun was a good example for the debate though, since 2 & 3 lacked options in the core that had upgraded the previous editions (like magic initiation) and added them later. Core to core they were the same, but... different.


Also, that was sort of my point, that #1 and #3 we should all mostly agree on, and #2 is where the debate lies.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay a complete game?
> Or Shadowrun (which doesn't have necromancy, and greatly limits shapechaning)
> (Mind you, Shadowrun is not a "pure" fantasy game, so I am fine with it not getting counted here.  )




Does the current edition of Warhmmer Fantasy Roleplay cut out traditional elements of earlier editions?
Does the current edition of Shadowrun cut down on the scope of what Shadowrun's previous editions used to deliver?

Would a version of Call of Cthulhu be a complete version of Call of Cthulhu without some variety of insanity? Would Traveller be a complete version of Traveller without spaceship combat? Would Mechwarrior be a complete version of Mechwarrior without either scout or heavy mechs or house factions?

Probably not.

Games carve out their niches and get a chance to define what that niche is over time. How would you feel if that niche changed or, in this case, narrowed in focus or breadth? Would it feel as comprehensive as previous editions? Would it feel lacking, even if it were eminently playable?


----------



## teitan (Jul 23, 2008)

Toben the Many said:


> There are only two Paragon Paths per class - not very many at all. And only four Epic Destinies. So there's not even an Epic Destiny for every class in the core book.




But to be fair, there were only a few prestige classes in the 3e DMG, a similar number. As far as epic destinies go, I think the thought is that nobody will be level 21 by the time the next book comes out and much like the prestige classes from 3e, they are given as a guideline to follow how to approach the concept.

Personally, for me, it is definitely a case of 4e being a complete game, but in different ways than 3e was a complete game. 4e seems to give a lot of power back to the DM while at the same time making it so that the rules aren't overwhelming. 3e took most of the power away from the DM and at times the rules could be a bit overwhelming for the DM (NPC creation, exceptions, even different versions of the same spell in the different printings that could be so subtly different etc.). There wasn't a lot of room for improv on the part of the DM.

I think a lot of people missed that the DMG II, PHB II and the various Monster Manuals were all "CORE RULEBOOKS" in 3.5 so the arguement about the future PHB II etc. falls flat for me.


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 23, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> And the amazing part? They aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Flight exists in 4e, and doesn't just invalidate an entire category of encounters by 5th level.




You know this sounds about as justified as stating that because at 5th level a Wizard can cast Fireball in 3.X it made any encounter vs. a cold based creature invalid.

I think you are trying to validate your opinion with an extreme possiblity that is at best completely hypothetical in notion.  To which I say if a DM allowed such a spell to invalidate a combat in that matter so easily, then the DM needs lessions on how to run that combat.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 23, 2008)

VanRichten said:


> You know this sounds about as justified as stating that because at 5th level a Wizard can cast Fireball in 3.X it made any encounter vs. a cold based creature invalid.
> 
> I think you are trying to validate your opinion with an extreme possiblity that is at best completely hypothetical in notion.  To which I say if a DM allowed such a spell to invalidate a combat in that matter so easily, then the DM needs lessions on how to run that combat.




You mean, there always happens to be a monster with a fly potion, a dispel magic, some über ranged weapon or the like? Yeah it is quite easy, but it destroys the verisimilitude for some DM's. It's a balance, and in order to achieve some sort of resistance to the wizard's fly, some feel they have to give up the realism of their campaign.


----------



## Andor (Jul 23, 2008)

Completeness is an odd topic for discussion. I'm not sure what an incomplete RPG would be. Missing a resolution mechanic? No advancement rules? Forgot to include rules for something referenced through the rules? 

Is 4e incomplete by that standard? No. 

What 4e seems, to me, is unfinished. Or perhaps unpolished is a better way to put it. Leaving aside mechanical issues like the skill challanges the rules are poorly described and have badly chosen examples. View the pages and pages of debate about keyword inheritance as the most glaring example. It's a central facet of the system and is never fully and clearly described. There are only two examples and one is incomplete, the other fails to illustrate inheritance and uses an obsolete version of the rules. Yay team. 

I doubt there is anyone on the 4e team that will tell you the PHB that went to the printers is exactly what they wanted, that the work was finished and the vision fulfilled. And I think that's a damm shame. 

_cut out the generic insults - PS_


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 23, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Lances are just spears.





SPEAR:    
A *spear* is a pole weapon used for hunting and war, consisting of a shaft, usually of wood, with a sharpened head. The head may be simply the sharpened end of the shaft itself, as is the case with bamboo spears, or it may be of another material fastened to the shaft, such as obsidian or bronze. The most common design is of a metal spearhead, shaped like a triangle or a leaf.

LANCE:  While it could still be generally classified as a spear, the lance tends to be larger - usually both longer and stouter and thus also considerably heavier, and unsuited for throwing, or for the rapid thrusting, as with an infantry spear. Lances did not have spear tips that (intentionally) broke off or bent, unlike many throwing weapons of the spear/javelin family, and were adapted for mounted combat. They were often equipped with a vamplate, a small circular plate to prevent the hand sliding up the shaft upon impact.

I would argue they are not the same.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> We're roleplay focused. 3E offered much better multiclassing, prestige classes to flesh out concepts and backgrounds, various skill points, a robust skill system compared to 2E, more classes, more customising options with feats, and a streamlined rules system (d20, roll high).
> 
> 2E in comparision offered mostly kits, and not much flexibility. Fluff works for both anyway - I tend to tailor fluff to my campaign from various sources - but the 3E feels like the mechanics fit the fluff better.



Thanks for the explanation. I think I know where my confusion came from. It's the definition of what roleplaying is.
In our area when we refer to roleplaying we're not talking about anything having to do with game mechanics. Roleplaying is interacting with each other and the environment. It's not rolling dice, though things like skill checks may be used to direct or support roleplaying.

2E kits were mostly just fluff. It was an exception rather than the rule to get any mechanical benefits for taking a kit. They offered everything required to streamline character concepts, though.
In theory 3E prestige classes could have been an improvement since they always granted mechanical benefits. But they quickly became nothing but a means to get more powerful or realize 'builds' that couldn't be created in a competitive way using just the core classes and multi-classing. They became in short an excuse for power-creep and a fix for badly designed rules. I've always found it difficult to believe how a character could end up having levels in three different base classes and just as many prestige classes.

So, from my viewpoint the 2E kits were a lot better in their support for roleplaying.



Fenes said:


> 4E in comparision feels limited. They cut down so many skills, especially perform. it also feels pigeonholing with regards to classes, and focused on rigid roles, and tactical combat - and draws those out.
> 
> That may change with time, but at the moment, 4E simply is not offering enough.



Well, using our definition of roleplaying not having a perform skill isn't really a disadvantage. If you'd like your character to be proficient with an instrument or good at singing it becomes fact by simply stating it in your background. If you want checks to measure how good your performance is, ability checks are absolutely sufficient.

It's true the 4E PHB doesn't have as many classes as the 3E PHB had. But the difference isn't as great as many make it sound. All 4E classes come with two basic builds, something only the 3E ranger class had. There are about 80 powers for every class which compares favorably to the very small number of class features you got in 3E. The 3E sorcerer and wizard were really just a single class, different only in their spell casting mechanics.

I also don't see why so many people insist that the roles are more rigid in 4E. They aren't. It's just the first time the roles that have been defining the game since it's inception are actually spelled out.

Combat has always been tactical. There's only a slight shift from static, individual tactics to dynamic, team tactics. Myself, I prefer that shift.

Still, with so many supplements to look back on, of course 4E seems lacking by comparison. But that's really only a question of time. When the 4E PHB2 has been released all of the 3E core character concepts will have been covered. It will also close any perceived 'holes' like shapechanging, summoning, or unarmed combat.

So, I'm pretty sure, you'll eventually find everything you're currently missing in 4E.

The thing I'm missing most right now are psionic classes. For me D&D isn't complete without psionics. What triggered my switch to 3E was the release of the Psionics Handbook. It'll probably be the same for 4E, unless our 3E campaign dies prematurely because high-level has become so tedious.


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 23, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> You mean, there always happens to be a monster with a fly potion, a dispel magic, some über ranged weapon or the like? Yeah it is quite easy, but it destroys the verisimilitude for some DM's. It's a balance, and in order to achieve some sort of resistance to the wizard's fly, some feel they have to give up the realism of their campaign.




Or possibly just a light crossbow or maybe a sling.  Or for that matter a rock.  Are you telling me that a mostly melee based fightter can't fight his way out of this wet paper bag?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 23, 2008)

VanRichten said:


> Or possibly just a light crossbow or maybe a sling.  Or for that matter a rock.  Are you telling me that a mostly melee based fightter can't fight his way out of this wet paper bag?




If by wet paper bag you actually mean a flying dragon (or a wizard with a fly spell) with a CR appropriate to his level, I think he's telling you exactly that.


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 23, 2008)

Ourph said:


> Bingo! Modifying monsters is so easy with the guidelines in the DMG that any claim of "incompleteness" regarding the MM is laughable. I've played in 4 sessions of 4e now, all using 1st level characters, and we've yet to see a Kobold or Goblin. All of the monsters have been either straight out of the MM or slightly modified (sometimes renamed) from monsters in the MM.




Is this anything like Gryphon, Gryffon, and Griffon from Everquest?  Same model different mob?


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If by wet paper bag you actually mean a flying dragon with a CR appropriate to his level, I think he's telling you exactly that.




No I am referring to an Ogre who can't pick up a rock and throw it at the wizard.  Or for that matter throw another PC.


----------



## Lackhand (Jul 23, 2008)

VanRichten said:


> SPEAR:
> A *spear* is a pole weapon used for hunting and war, consisting of a shaft, usually of wood, with a sharpened head. The head may be simply the sharpened end of the shaft itself, as is the case with bamboo spears, or it may be of another material fastened to the shaft, such as obsidian or bronze. The most common design is of a metal spearhead, shaped like a triangle or a leaf.
> 
> LANCE:  While it could still be generally classified as a spear, the lance tends to be larger - usually both longer and stouter and thus also considerably heavier, and unsuited for throwing, or for the rapid thrusting, as with an infantry spear. Lances did not have spear tips that (intentionally) broke off or bent, unlike many throwing weapons of the spear/javelin family, and were adapted for mounted combat. They were often equipped with a vamplate, a small circular plate to prevent the hand sliding up the shaft upon impact.
> ...




A bamboo spear (as above) and a bamboo lance would be the same thing, except that the lance would "often" have a vamplate.


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 23, 2008)

Lackhand said:


> A bamboo spear (as above) and a bamboo lance would be the same thing, except that the lance would "often" have a vamplate.




You argument would lead me to believe that a short sword and a longsword are exactly the same only the difference is length.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 23, 2008)

VanRichten said:


> No I am referring to an Ogre who can't pick up a rock and throw it at the wizard.  Or for that matter throw another PC.




Sure, he can do that*. And deal pathetic damage - if he hits at all, considering that his strength score is a little higher then his dexterity score. (Of course, in 4E this wouldn't be such a big problem, since there are thrown weapons that allow you to use strength _and_ still have quite some range, something not so true for a thrown rock or PC.)


*) Well, the rock part. Improvised weapon (-4 to penalty, range increment probably 2 squares10 feet . Throwing a PC? Didn't see rules for that, except maybe in Iron Heroes...


The trick for the PCs is to be smart enough to only engage that Ogre at range, even if this means the Wizard has to stay aloft for 5 minutes and fire all crossbow bolts and arrows owned by the PCs - assuming he doesn't have any spells that could do the same job... A Warlock would love this.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 23, 2008)

VanRichten said:


> No I am referring to an Ogre who can't pick up a rock and throw it at the wizard.  Or for that matter throw another PC.




protectionfromnormalmissiles!


----------



## CountPopeula (Jul 23, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Does the current edition of Warhmmer Fantasy Roleplay cut out traditional elements of earlier editions?
> Does the current edition of Shadowrun cut down on the scope of what Shadowrun's previous editions used to deliver?
> 
> Would a version of Call of Cthulhu be a complete version of Call of Cthulhu without some variety of insanity? Would Traveller be a complete version of Traveller without spaceship combat? Would Mechwarrior be a complete version of Mechwarrior without either scout or heavy mechs or house factions?
> ...




You know, the new Neon Genesis Evangelion manga doesn't have giant robots. The previous manga didn't have giant robots or angels. The TV show they're based on was about giant robots fighting angels.

I believe the word is re-invention. 2e and 3e were essentially continuations of the same game. 4e is essentially a new game. This may upset people who wanted 4e to be a continuation of 3e, and I know the inevitable reply will be "then it's not D&D" or some other such nonsense, but D&D 4e is basically an entirely new game, and saying it's incomplete because it has less options than a game with 8+ years of support is silly.

Saying it's incomplete because it doesn't have the exact same classes and races as the previous edition is sillier.


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 23, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Sure, he can do that*. And deal pathetic damage - if he hits at all, considering that his strength score is a little higher then his dexterity score. (Of course, in 4E this wouldn't be such a big problem, since there are thrown weapons that allow you to use strength _and_ still have quite some range, something not so true for a thrown rock or PC.)





*) Well, the rock part. Improvised weapon (-4 to penalty, range increment probably 2 squares10 feet . Throwing a PC? Didn't see rules for that, except maybe in Iron Heroes...

Do tell me this pathetic damage thing? Last I checked a large sized creature could pick up what would be considered a rock to him, one about 12 to 18 inches in diameter and throw it. Now granted he might not be very good at it. But then again I seem to remember that Ogres carry with them Huge Sized Clubs. Clubs if you check in the PHB can be thrown.

Lets not forgot that a rock of that size would at least do 1d8 damage plus the bonus of the Ogre's 24 strength at minimum. Now if we were to consider the club since it is 1d6 medium sized, that puts it about 2d10 huge sized plus the 24 strength mod (+7). I hardley consider either to be pathetic.

As for throwing another character this only takes a little creativity. We could look at a "body" as a approximately the same size as the club the ogre uses. So we throw in the -4 penalty for lack of proficiency in "body" but we consider the damage about the same. Yes the ogre must make a grapple check to do this but considering size and strength I can see this happening. Like picking up the cleric and throwing it at the wizard.

And you could argue the weight of the cleric in this matter. If you wish I would offer a standard 10ft range increment as for throwing anything not made to be thrown.



Jack99 said:


> protectionfromnormalmissiles!




This does not work against the boulder's thrown by giants last I checked. And ogres are classified as giants for that purpose. It wouldn't work against a PC being thrown at the wizard either.

I would like to reiterate that this is all done with a standard CR ogre right out of MM 1 3.5ed.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jul 23, 2008)

VanRichten said:


> Things.



Ogres carry Greatclubs, noticeably the worst of the 2H Martial Weapons.  The weapons are large, not huge, and deal 2d8 base weapon damage.  They cannot be thrown.  A regular club would deal 1d8 damage.

Ogres don't have rock throwing.  They do come with a javelin though.  +1 attack, d8+5 damage.  Wizards tend to have around +2 AC from Dexterity and +4 from Mage Armor, putting our PC at AC 16 at level 1, making him relatively safe even then.

Protection from Arrows grants DR 10/magic versus all ranged weapons, preventing a total of 10*CL damage (100 max).

What you have put forth is not a stock ogre from the MM.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 23, 2008)

VanRichten said:


> *) Well, the rock part. Improvised weapon (-4 to penalty, range increment probably 2 squares10 feet . Throwing a PC? Didn't see rules for that, except maybe in Iron Heroes...
> 
> Do tell me this pathetic damage thing? Last I checked a large sized creature could pick up what would be considered a rock to him, one about 12 to 18 inches in diameter and throw it. Now granted he might not be very good at it. But then again I seem to remember that Ogres carry with them Huge Sized Clubs. Clubs if you check in the PHB can be thrown.
> 
> ...




I am not quite sure where to start.

A normal Ogre has a BAB of +3. Since throwing something is dex-based (in 3.5), an Ogre has +2 to hit (8 dex) with a ranged weapon. Now, if it is a improvised range weapon, as you suggest, it would make a total of -2 to hit. Sure, the Ogre might do decent damage if he hits, but what are the odds. From +8 normal melee to hit, to -2. I doubt he will threaten the flying wizard much. Sure, its a funny idea (which I think I did in one of my campaigns, but hardly effective, if you follow the rules. Quite pathetic actually. Especially since no matter what, it won't be able to throw a body at the range a wizard can fly and cast spells.

As for protection from normal missiles, I believe thats the 2e name. Since we are talking 3e, it's protection from Arrows, and it gives you DR/10 against ranged weapon. I am not aware of an official ruling concerning giants' stones, so I do not see why it shouldn't work. A stone is an improvised weapon afaik.

Cheers


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 23, 2008)

VanRichten said:


> You argument would lead me to believe that a short sword and a longsword are exactly the same only the difference is length.




Um... no.

A lance is just a spear. Look it up. In fact, the word lance comes from the same root as "launch," because lances were originally throwing spears like javelins. It wasn't until later in history that they became associated with horsemanship (and even then, they were still used by footman).

A short sword and a longsword are used differently, as a short sword is a thrusting weapon and the longsword is a slashing weapon.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 23, 2008)

The ogre example highlights why Fly is problematic in 3E but wasn't in earlier editions.

If you look at the MM1, notice how many stock creatures are actually unable to deal with *FLIGHT* especially at CR lower than 15. At best, they're like the ogre or they have much smaller range than the wizard.

This was because 3.x basically copied the monsters from 1E/2E but didn't take into account that Flight in 1E/2E was much less common among wizards (the rules for knowing the spell) AND much less commonly cast (again, with no easy ability to bypass spell slots, few 5th level mages would actually HAVE the Fly spell memorized in 1e/2e)


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 23, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Instead, we got a gutted spellcasting system. Sure, they'll probably put a lot of stuff back in the expansion books that come out in the future. But that in no way makes what is currently out there 'complete'.
> 
> Ken




Er, I have to disagree about the actual system. The 4E spellcasting system (the RITUAL system and the at-will/encounter system) is MUCH, MUCH closer to your typical fantasy novel than any other editions.

It might not have as many "EFFECTS" but the actual system itself, that's the closest any edition of D&D has come to resembling how much magic works in most works of fiction.

Seriously, even though it doesn't have summoning, the stock 4E magic system MUCH more easily duplicates say Conan or the Leiberverse than earlier editions.

True, as a 4E fanboy, I'm biased but I'll take having a much more robust system that can be easily added to instead of just the Vancian method of casting.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 23, 2008)

> In our area when we refer to roleplaying we're not talking about anything having to do with game mechanics. Roleplaying is interacting with each other and the environment. It's not rolling dice, though things like skill checks may be used to direct or support roleplaying.



This. 

I ran a campaign that was 80% roleplay. The players were all con men and gypsies. Mechanically, it was awful. The sorcerer/rogue (played by someone who didn't understand spell casting rules) coudln't do what the player wanted. The swashbuckler at level three had a +12 to Bluff and Diplomacy, making him win almost always at any instance when he could roll. The barbarian had to spend feats _just_ so he could bluff like the entire party so he wouldn't stand there and look stupid during 80% of the game time. And the roguish cleric had woeful options to emphasize her God of Thievery schtick. 

I rarely used mechanics to reflect the roleplay. If I did, it was just a BSed skill roll. Because the party had fun. I honestly could have done it if there had been _no rules whatsoever_, and it was just us sitting around a table doing free-form RP. 

There are several systems I would much more happily run that have a robust social interaction system. I would certainly reach for them before I ever picked up D&D for non-combat social interaction mechanics. Deciding to use D&D to reflect social games is like picking Rock Paper Scissors as a combat resolution system.

As to the whole topic of "Fly" and such, I see no difference between 4e's recalibration of Fly and 3.5's recalibration of Haste, Harm, and the never-ending errata on Polymorph from 3.0. By the end of 3.5, Polymorph was just 'Spell X can only turn you into Monster X. To turn into Monster Y, see Polymorph Into Y'. Fly in 3e was broken, and needed to be fixed. 4e did that.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 24, 2008)

Kzach said:


> They could've included all four by excluding dragonborn and tieflings




Yeah -4 pages +52 pages.  Real easy swap there


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2008)

> Does the current edition of Shadowrun cut down on the scope of what Shadowrun's previous editions used to deliver?




Ask the decker.


----------



## Andor (Jul 24, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Um... no.
> 
> A lance is just a spear. Look it up. In fact, the word lance comes from the same root as "launch," because lances were originally throwing spears like javelins. It wasn't until later in history that they became associated with horsemanship (and even then, they were still used by footman).




Yeah, you've been saying that repeatedly, but that doesn't make it true.

I did look it up. I found what I'm guessing was the same wikipedia article you used since it has that same bit about the etymology of the word almost verbatim. It also says:



			
				Article on Lances said:
			
		

> While it could still be generally classified as a spear, the lance tends to be larger - usually both longer and stouter and thus also considerably heavier, and unsuited for throwing, or for the rapid thrusting, as with an infantry spear. Lances did not have spear tips that (intentionally) broke off or bent, unlike many throwing weapons of the spear/javelin family, and were adapted for mounted combat. They were often equipped with a vamplate, a small circular plate to prevent the hand sliding up the shaft upon impact. Though perhaps most known as one of the foremost military and sporting weapons used by European knights, the use of lances was spread throughout the Old World wherever mounts were available. As a secondary weapon, lancers of the period also bore swords, maces or something else suited to close quarter battle, since the lance was often a one-use-per-engagement weapon; after the initial charge, the weapon was far too long, heavy and slow to be effectively used against opponents in a melee.




Sounds like a bunch of differences to me. 

There is far less difference between a katar and a short sword than there is between a cavalry lance and a spear.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 24, 2008)

We've got this spiffy new feature called "fork to new thread" precisely for discussions like this.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 24, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> I believe the word is re-invention. 2e and 3e were essentially continuations of the same game. 4e is essentially a new game. This may upset people who wanted 4e to be a continuation of 3e, and I know the inevitable reply will be "then it's not D&D" or some other such nonsense, but D&D 4e is basically an entirely new game, and saying it's incomplete because it has less options than a game with 8+ years of support is silly.




And I have no problem seeing it as reasonably complete... as a new game carving out its own niche. But not D&D.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 24, 2008)

Jhaelen said:


> 2E kits were mostly just fluff. It was an exception rather than the rule to get any mechanical benefits for taking a kit.




Wait, what? 

Sorry- kits were the poster child for the "lesson learned" that you shouldn't try to balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying drawbacks.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 24, 2008)

I prefer a more robust system, where people's choices matter. For perform, for example, I do not think the "just roll ability checks" method is enough. It falls short whenever one goes into the realms of song/dance contests, when it matters how good a bard someone is, or if one manages to placate the NPC that has a fondness for performances.


----------



## rounser (Jul 24, 2008)

> Sorry- kits were the poster child for the "lesson learned" that you shouldn't try to balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying drawbacks.



Big whoop.  That just means that the implementation was shoddy - all that needed to be fixed was to balance mechanical with mechanical.  Kits are, with little doubt, much superior a level of intervention than the heavyhanded approach that prestige classes take, IMO, but the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

There's nothing wrong with the concept - just a flavourish tweak to a strong core class concept.  

It's superior to what's going to be the 4E approach as well, with a class for every day of the year, based on the flimsiest of flim flam concepts, more thematically void rubbish which we saw a preview of with 3E.  "Classes" with no real theme or concept beyond it's crunch - like the warlord but worse.  That's gonna suck.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 24, 2008)

rounser said:


> It's superior to what's going to be the 4E approach as well, with a class for every day of the year, based on the flimsiest of flim flam concepts, more thematically void rubbish which we saw a preview of with 3E.  "Classes" with no real theme or concept beyond it's crunch - like the warlord but worse.  That's gonna suck.




Now, tells us how you really feel about 4e. Don't hold back. Let it all out.


----------



## rounser (Jul 24, 2008)

> Now, tells us how you really feel about 4e. Don't hold back. Let it all out.



I'm just giving you the heads-up on where the design direction is obviously headed.  But don't let that rain on your parade, you probably _love_ hexblades and warblades and mystic theurges, so it'll probably be right up your alley.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 24, 2008)

rounser said:


> I'm just giving you the heads-up on where the design direction is obviously headed.  But don't let that rain on your parade, you probably _love_ hexblades and warblades and mystic theurges, so it'll probably be right up your alley.




Wrong on all 3 accounts. I have never played, nor wanted to play anything non-core.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 24, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Wrong on all 3 accounts. I have never played, nor wanted to play anything non-core.




Too bad. Tome of Battle is very good, and has some similarities to 4E.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jul 24, 2008)

billd91 said:


> And I have no problem seeing it as reasonably complete... as a new game carving out its own niche. But not D&D.




This, I think, is the problem people are having with 4e. The whole "It's not complete" is more "it's different."

4e does feel a lot more like a new system with the D&D name than a continuation of D&D. But that happens, and I think the system should be judged on its merit. Rules evolve and games change. NFL Football is far different than the game Harvard and Yale played in the late 19th century, but it is still football.

Interestingly, football fans have a similar reaction to rules changes as D&D fans. Google "horse-collar tackle" if you don't believe me. And older fans generally talk about how the game isn't the same as it was when they were younger.

But the NFL Red Grange played in is still the same NFL today, even with the restructuring, the AFL merger, the addition of the Super Bowl, helmets and shoulder pads, the forward pass, instant replay challenges and the two-point conversion.

The advantage to having a huge IP like D&D is that you can sell a lot of copies on the name. A LOT of copies. The disadvantage is that people have an idea in their head of what the game "is" already.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 24, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Too bad. Tome of Battle is very good, and has some similarities to 4E.




I know, I own(ed) most books made by WotC. I used ToB for my NPC's, but my players never made a character from it, nor did I ever play one myself. 

Cheers


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 24, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> Ogres carry Greatclubs, noticeably the worst of the 2H Martial Weapons. The weapons are large, not huge, and deal 2d8 base weapon damage. They cannot be thrown. A regular club would deal 1d8 damage.
> 
> Ogres don't have rock throwing. They do come with a javelin though. +1 attack, d8+5 damage. Wizards tend to have around +2 AC from Dexterity and +4 from Mage Armor, putting our PC at AC 16 at level 1, making him relatively safe even then.




First I would like to thank you for joining in on this debate. I find 4E fans to be quite funny. I offer them a concept of something they could have done in 3E and they utterly tout it as impossible. Yet supposedly in the 4E system it is possible.

I particarly liked "They cannot be thrown.". Please do tell where it says they cannot. Are we to say they cannot possibly throw it?

I even enjoyed "Ogres don't have rock throwing". Please tell me where this matters. Are you saying an Ogre cannot pick up a rock and throw it?

Guys I understand that you might no longer be fans of 3E and are now huge fans of 4E. However I give you this much. As much as you refer to us 3E fans not knowing enough about 4E I think you should look at yourself in reference to 3E for the same. 

We all argue that between both systems. In essence they both have goods and bads. Just because I don't like 4E as a D&D system does not make it a bad system.

But do me a favor to all the guys who want to argue on that level. If you want to fight, then do your research. Without it is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Yeah you may be armed, but not well.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 24, 2008)

VanRichten said:


> Merlin the Tuna said:
> 
> 
> > Ogres carry Greatclubs, noticeably the worst of the 2H Martial Weapons. The weapons are large, not huge, and deal 2d8 base weapon damage. They cannot be thrown. A regular club would deal 1d8 damage.
> ...




Er, I think you might want to read the rest of the thread. Seriously, improvised weapons are NOT a viable option.

Like I said, 3E uses the same spells as 1e/2e, but the underlying assumptions in 1e/2e give vastly different results. 

Fly in 1e/2e - Not broken
Fly in 3.x - Definitely broken.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 24, 2008)

In the average dungeon or building, flight doesn't help much - unless the DM is fond of having lots of very high ceilings. That alone covers most of the situations where flight may be overpowered.

And outdoor encounters? If they are not ready for flight, so what? You still have 5 levels where you can hassle the players with overland "random encounters".


----------



## billd91 (Jul 24, 2008)

CountPopeula said:


> This, I think, is the problem people are having with 4e. The whole "It's not complete" is more "it's different."




At the risk of repeating myself too much, the differences make it incomplete as D&D in my book. Just like a BLT could still be a decent sandwich worth eating without the tomato, it would be an incomplete sandwich if it was passing itself off as a BLT.

And then, of course, the question comes up whether it's worth waiting for it to be completed. I'll have an answer after I play it a few more times.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 24, 2008)

billd91 said:


> At the risk of repeating myself too much, the differences make it incomplete as D&D in my book. Just like a BLT could still be a decent sandwich worth eating without the tomato, it would be an incomplete sandwich if it was passing itself off as a BLT.
> 
> And then, of course, the question comes up whether it's worth waiting for it to be completed. I'll have an answer after I play it a few more times.



What's a BLT? I only remember BTL (Better than Life), but that's not a sandwich. [/clueless alien]

And by this "logic", each D&D edition would need bigger and bigger rulebooks, since you have to cover everything that previous rulebooks did contain. And that you just can't do! You have to cut down on something that makes the core books playing on its own. 

And elsewise, food analogies... suck. Is D&D a "BLT"? Or is it a Sandwich, and D&D 3 was the BLT? How important is it for any kind of Sandich to be a BLT? Even for those that like BLT? What if the new sandwich created is far better then the BLT, without the after-taste you didn't quite like?


----------



## Fenes (Jul 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What's a BLT? I only remember BTL (Better than Life), but that's not a sandwich. [/clueless alien]
> 
> And by this "logic", each D&D edition would need bigger and bigger rulebooks, since you have to cover everything that previous rulebooks did contain. And that you just can't do! You have to cut down on something that makes the core books playing on its own.
> 
> And elsewise, food analogies... suck. Is D&D a "BLT"? Or is it a Sandwich, and D&D 3 was the BLT? How important is it for any kind of Sandich to be a BLT? Even for those that like BLT? What if the new sandwich created is far better then the BLT, without the after-taste you didn't quite like?




It's very important that a BLT tastes like a BLT. If I want to eat a BLT, I won't order something that's called a BLT, but actually doesn't have Bacon, Lettuce or Tomato.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 24, 2008)

Fenes said:


> It's very important that a BLT tastes like a BLT. If I want to eat a BLT, I won't order something that's called a BLT, but actually doesn't have Bacon, Lettuce or Tomato.



Ah thanks. 

First I try to claim my family's home has an escalator instead of stairs, and now I prove my total cluelessness with not knowing what a BLT is  ... What a day..  

---

Well, maybe i just didn't order the RPG equivalent of a BLT when I wanted to see a "new D&D". Maybe I just ordered a very good sandwich.  And others ordered a sandwich assuming that "good sandwich = BLT". 

Did I say that I don't like food metaphors. Where's hong when I need him?


----------



## Imaro (Jul 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Ah thanks.
> 
> First I try to claim my family's home has an escalator instead of stairs, and now I prove my total cluelessness with not knowing what a BLT is  ... What a day..
> 
> ...




I think in the BLT analogy...rpg's in general are sandwiches, while specific roleplaying games are specific sandwiches.  To say I just wanted a very good sandwich is to say I just wanted a good rpg. This could, depending on one's tastes include Exalted, WoD, D&D 4e, Runequest, Warhammer FRPG, True20 or Pathfinder. 

 Now if you want D&D in particular, then you are buying it because you expect (from past experiences) certain things from said game.  I wouldn't buy Exalted 3e and expect it to have become the grim and grity game of sub-par mortals fighting just to survive, and I wouldn't buy a new edition of Warhammer FRPG and expect it to be the game of reborn demi-gods who once ruled creation...even though, arguably, these games are both about "killing things and taking their stuff" and I like both games.  It's the tropes and flavor that set these two games apart.

D&D 4e feels incomplete because it has removed many of the previous editions tropes...both fluff and mechanical...and replaced them with less.  Some people like you went in wanting just a good fantasy game with the name D&D on it, Others expected an evolution, but not lessening, of the things that are familiar to them in D&D.  The latter category plays D&D for a particular feel and style that they feel isn't represented well by D&D 4e, often because it has cut instead of expanding from the previous edition.


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 24, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> Er, I think you might want to read the rest of the thread. Seriously, improvised weapons are NOT a viable option.
> 
> Like I said, 3E uses the same spells as 1e/2e, but the underlying assumptions in 1e/2e give vastly different results.
> 
> ...




Define to me what you mean by "Not a viable option".

Also please define to me how Fly as you and others have stated was not broken in 1e/2e but was in 3.x.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And by this "logic", each D&D edition would need bigger and bigger rulebooks, since you have to cover everything that previous rulebooks did contain. And that you just can't do! You have to cut down on something that makes the core books playing on its own.




Not true. You can still, and should, compare the games when they were released, the point the publisher said "They're done. Go have your fun". And at this point, 4e just doesn't measure up to 3e or even 2e at the same point in the publishing process - the publication of the PH, DMG, and MM. 
4e has a few miles to go to even get to that point as a D&D game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 24, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Not true. You can still, and should, compare the games when they were released, the point the publisher said "They're done. Go have your fun".



Well, I think they are done. The game works, and I am already having fun with it.

Was 3E "done" when they were already planning to create stuff like the Psionics? When there were still tons of Prestige Classes waiting to be made? If they deliberately put out the OGL to have others be able to expand the book?

Though I agree there is a difference between 3E and 4E. WotC tells us: "You know, these are the core rulebooks. They are done and you can have fun with them. But there is still more coming, and it's also core." Maybe that causes the impression that D&D 4 is "incomplete". The designers and the marketing tells us openly: There is more to come. If you're happy now, you will possibly be blown away soon. If you're not happy yet, maybe the next few books will have you love the game. 

That's something new. 

And maybe this makes the game incomplete - we know there is more to come. We know the system can do more. We know the designers can do more. Heck, lots of it is already in the works and already announced!

I am not aware that the 3E designers ever said about 3e "There's stuff we had to cut or didn't have time to get right on time. Tons of spells and feats, a few classes, more Prestige Classes, rules for play beyond level 20."


----------



## Rechan (Jul 24, 2008)

VanRichten said:


> Define to me what you mean by "Not a viable option".



How is it that you completely ignored when it was fully explained to you?

Ogre. BAB +3. Throwing is a ranged attack, thus he uses his (8) dex. The attack is a +2. Because he is not proficient with Rocks, he receives a -4. So his attack is at -2. 

Compared to his +8 with that great club, I really do not understand how you can argue that an attack at a -2 is a viable option. Would you encourage your PCs to use attacks at -2?


----------



## billd91 (Jul 24, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Compared to his +8 with that great club, I really do not understand how you can argue that an attack at a -2 is a viable option. Would you encourage your PCs to use attacks at -2?




Yes. If that's what the character would reasonably do, knowing what they know in-character.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 24, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Yes. If that's what the character would reasonably do, knowing what they know in-character.



There's a difference between a viable option and a reasonable one. 

A viable option is one that simply will not succeed the vast majority of the time.

In fact, the Definition of Viable (at Merriam-Webster): capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately.

I wouldn't call -2 "adequately". I'd call it "Idiotic". Or "Wasting your turn".


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 24, 2008)

I will happily admit that I was unhappy with the Fly spell in 3.X.  In my own game, I house ruled it to be a Personal range 4th level spell, that granted a fly speed of 30 feet.  My PCs still took it.

People who say that Fly was less broken in 1E because the wizard had fewer slots and fewer non-slot ways of casting are correct.  If a wizard had Fly memorized in 1E, it was a much bigger part of his 'sctick'.

The Ogre example is interesting.  Sure, the Ogre is at -2 to hit the flying wizard.  But, what is the Wizard's AC?  Probably 14 or 15, if he is like the 5th-6th level wizards I have seen in my campaigns.  So the Ogre still has a decent chance of hitting the wizard, even when he's flying. 

Nevertheless, I think that nerfing Fly was one of the things 4E got right.  That doesn't change my basic point, which is that removing Summoning, Enchantment, Illusion and Necromancy from the game left 4E feeling incomplete.

Ken



Rechan said:


> How is it that you completely ignored when it was fully explained to you?
> 
> Ogre. BAB +3. Throwing is a ranged attack, thus he uses his (8) dex. The attack is a +2. Because he is not proficient with Rocks, he receives a -4. So his attack is at -2.
> 
> Compared to his +8 with that great club, I really do not understand how you can argue that an attack at a -2 is a viable option. Would you encourage your PCs to use attacks at -2?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 24, 2008)

> The Ogre example is interesting. Sure, the Ogre is at -2 to hit the flying wizard. But, what is the Wizard's AC? Probably 14 or 15, if he is like the 5th-6th level wizards I have seen in my campaigns. So the Ogre still has a decent chance of hitting the wizard, even when he's flying.



If the Wizard has an AC of 15, the Ogre has to roll 17 or above to hit him. 3 out of 20 is not "Decent chance".

I feel like we're speaking entirely different languages. If we can't even agree with what words mean, I see this discussion as pointless.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 24, 2008)

Rechan said:


> I'd call it "Idiotic". Or "Wasting your turn".




The same might be said of trying to win an internet argument... yet it's not like people around here don't persist.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 24, 2008)

billd91 said:


> The same might be said of trying to win an internet argument... yet it's not like people around here don't persist.




Well, I do have little better to do. As opposed to being attacked by a party of adventurers. With _Fly_.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 24, 2008)

This thread is getting pretty close to being closed.

Please attempt to neither give nor take offence.

Thanks


----------



## billd91 (Jul 24, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Well, I do have little better to do. As opposed to being attacked by a party of adventurers. With _Fly_.




Which is why the question should be mooted by the ogre getting under cover.

But anyone griping about fly being unbalanced in 3e but not 1e and 2e obviously never saw it used extensively in either of the previous editions. The spell's very similar though spell-casting speed is a little lower in 2e (which I have the spell description for now) being 30 feet rather than 60, the non-combat speed is much higher in 2e, and the duration is 10x as long in 2e as well. The number of 3rd level spells is virtually the same minus maybe 1 bonus spell for most casters and that will get adjusted for once the 2e wizard gets 5 spells to cast at 3rd level compared to the 3e wizard's 4.


----------



## Andor (Jul 24, 2008)

Could someone explain to me why Fly was broken in 3e, but not in 4e, when in combat there is no bloody difference that I can see?

All that 4e lacks is overland flight, which it hardly needs because now you can just use your handy dandy teleportals to avoid the overland encounters. 

Yes flight comes later in 4e, but it's an expanded level scale, and Wizards get levitate at 6th level anyway. So what difference is there, save that 4e makes flying useless _outside_ of combat?


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 25, 2008)

Rechan said:


> If the Wizard has an AC of 15, the Ogre has to roll 17 or above to hit him. 3 out of 20 is not "Decent chance".
> 
> I feel like we're speaking entirely different languages. If we can't even agree with what words mean, I see this discussion as pointless.




You're right; I did the math wrong in my head and was thinking the Ogre needed a 13 to hit, not a 17.

That said, the chance of rolling a 17 on a d20 is actually 4 out of 20, or 20%.  So we're both a bit math impaired this evening!

Ken


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 25, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Which is why the question should be mooted by the ogre getting under cover.
> 
> But anyone griping about fly being unbalanced in 3e but not 1e and 2e obviously never saw it used extensively in either of the previous editions. The spell's very similar though spell-casting speed is a little lower in 2e (which I have the spell description for now) being 30 feet rather than 60, the non-combat speed is much higher in 2e, and the duration is 10x as long in 2e as well. The number of 3rd level spells is virtually the same minus maybe 1 bonus spell for most casters and that will get adjusted for once the 2e wizard gets 5 spells to cast at 3rd level compared to the 3e wizard's 4.




There's a major difference in 3E:  3E wizards can put all of their Utility spells on scrolls.  In 1E/2E, having access to a utility spell pretty much meant giving up a Fireball.  In 3E, a wizard can load up with combat spells and keep his noncombat stuff on scrolls and in wands.

Ken


----------



## Fenes (Jul 25, 2008)

I still don't get why Fly was considered broken in a game that was going "back to the dungeon".

Did you mostly fight in big halls or out in the open, where you could fly up out of reach? And people out in the open never had any defense against flying foes?


----------



## jadrax (Jul 25, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I still don't get why Fly was considered broken in a game that was going "back to the dungeon".




There are loads of Dungeon hazards that are bypassed by flight, Chasms to jump over, icy floors and ledges, caltrops, rivers of lava... all the environmental stuff that 4E wants to emphasise.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 25, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> There's a major difference in 3E: 3E wizards can put all of their Utility spells on scrolls. In 1E/2E, having access to a utility spell pretty much meant giving up a Fireball. In 3E, a wizard can load up with combat spells and keep his noncombat stuff on scrolls and in wands.
> 
> Ken




Let's not forget that having the Fly spell was no sure thing. Spell acquisition for Fly was totally under the control of the DM.

As for the problem with Fly in outdoor settings, like the ogre example listed, the 3e MM basically took the previous editions MM as its source, but those editions, Fly was much less prevalent which was reflected in the creatures.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 25, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I still don't get why Fly was considered broken in a game that was going "back to the dungeon".
> 
> Did you mostly fight in big halls or out in the open, where you could fly up out of reach? And people out in the open never had any defense against flying foes?




The way I see it, if it was a major problem, 3.5 would have "fixed" it, rather than adding the warlock with permaflight. Compare it to the Warforged.

A vocal portion felt that Warforged immunities removed such hindrances also. You couldn't starve a party anymore! You couldn't have an chasm in a flying party or they'd just bypass it!

In either case it comes down to playstyle, I wouldn't want a game that micromanaged food or that had a chasm that could only be bypassed by "player intuition" (which is codeword for "the players have to guess the one solution the DM dreamt up") or a random die roll. Other game groups, these are valid challenges that the players and DM enjoyed.

4e has a more "consistent" view to the rules system I think. It seems like there wasn't as much diversity of design, so we have a core system that is internally consistent, but conforms to what that design team imagined.

That can be good or it can be bad.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jul 25, 2008)

I think i figured it out. And I can use a food metaphor. I ordered peas, and you brought me carrots. I like carrots, but not when I ordered peas.

I can understand that. It's kind of the reason I didn't like G Gundam or Gundam Wing. Still had giant robots, but didn't have the same deep, political discourse on the morality of war and the blurring of the lines of right and wrong.

That said, I believe the term is "impasse." If we can't agree on what defines "complete," then i don't think anyone can say that 4th Edition is or is not complete.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 25, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I think in the BLT analogy...rpg's in general are sandwiches, while specific roleplaying games are specific sandwiches.  To say I just wanted a very good sandwich is to say I just wanted a good rpg. This could, depending on one's tastes include Exalted, WoD, D&D 4e, Runequest, Warhammer FRPG, True20 or Pathfinder.



The problem with Generic Food Metaphors is that they're so hard to evaluate! How do I know that RPGs as a whole are not like tasty light lunches, and D&D is a sandwich, and only a particular way of playing D&D (a type I don't like, given I'm a vegetarian) is a BLT?



Imaro said:


> Now if you want D&D in particular, then you are buying it because you expect (from past experiences) certain things from said game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> D&D 4e feels incomplete because it has removed many of the previous editions tropes...both fluff and mechanical...and replaced them with less.



Which is interesting. Because I am looking at 4e and seeing the first version of D&D I can imagine running and playing in a serious campaign since 1st ed and Moldvay/Cook. Now I'm not one of those who thinks that 4e is retro - for a mainstream RPG its design is pretty cutting edge - but I do think that it evokes the tropes of classic D&D: the goblins and kobolds look right to me (on paper, at least - our game won't start until a couple of existing campaigns come to an end over the next month or so), the PCs are exciting and the mechanics seem evocative of a fantasy world without being either backwards or tedious.

At the moment I'm working on a conversion of B10 - Night's Dark Terror, an old 2-4 level module from the Menzer era of D&D. This seems very well suited to 4e - plenty of minion-heavy combats, skill challenges (of course they weren't called that in the original module, but I think that they can fairly easily be reconfigured), points of light, ancient empires, haunted places of darkness (ie Shadowfell) and faerie (ie Feywild), etc.

For me one of the least inspiring things about 3E was the general trend in WoTC adventures towards dungeon-heavy, story-light grinds. IMO the Demonweb Pits and Greyhawk hardbacks really exemplify this, as do many of the 3E-era online and Dungeon adventures. (When I say that these are story-light I don't mean that they lack backstory for the benefit of the GM - I mean that they are virtually railroads, which offer little chance for the players to meaningfully interact with or shape the story). I feel that these adventures have the burdensome weight of the old 1st ed dungeons (C-series, S-series, etc) without the trade-off of the comparative lightness-of-touch of the 1st ed mechanics.

Given that 4e seems very apt to facilitate a less grinding approach to play than 3E (with quests, skill challenges, and other complex reward mechanics, interacting with complex and multi-layered action currencies) I'm hoping that 4e adventures will reflect that (classic D&D modules that I'd put into this category are B10, X2, and the interlude-y aspects of D1, D2 and D3, but not the Shrine or the Fane in the latter two modules). On a quick skim of the Dungeon modules to date Heathen looks promising to me, Sleeper so-so and Rescue very dungeon-grindish.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 25, 2008)

I guess since my group doesn't have many fights, usually just sticking to the "main fight" in a plot, and we don't really fret over pit traps and chasms (which can be bypassed by dimensional door as well, and cheaper for the whole party) I don't see fly as that overpowered.

Not appropriate for some campaigns, but that's more a matter of taste and verisimilitude.


----------



## delericho (Jul 25, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> There's a major difference in 3E:  3E wizards can put all of their Utility spells on scrolls.




Yeah, that's the problem there. Once the party can invest in a _wand of fly_, they can basically have everyone flying as much of the time as is useful. This does indeed bypass a great many encounters.

Obviously, this is somewhat different from the case where the 5th level Wizard has the ability to cast it once, meaning that one member of the party can be flying in one of the encounters in the day.

I don't think the _fly_ spell is actually unbalancing at 5th level, though - those scrolls will quickly add up to a significant cost, a wand represents a huge investment for the party, and the Wizard can still only cast it occasionally (and the Sorcerer not at all). However, just a few levels further in, it definately becomes a problem in the hands of a skilled party.

Despite this, 'fixing' the 3e _fly_ is a relatively simple matter: the suggestion of making it a personal-range 4th level spell would seem to do it. But given the scope of the changes from 3e to 4e, what they've done to flight is not particularly shocking, to me at least.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 25, 2008)

I always found sorcerers with fly to be more of a 'problem' in terms of the flying party issue.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 25, 2008)

pemerton said:


> The problem with Generic Food Metaphors is that they're so hard to evaluate! How do I know that RPGs as a whole are not like tasty light lunches, and D&D is a sandwich, and only a particular way of playing D&D (a type I don't like, given I'm a vegetarian) is a BLT?




I can see your point, but it doesn't seem that hard to me.  In the end D&D being a specific game...as opposed to a grouping of a particular type of roleplaying game (i.e fantasy genre) is one step above the most specific one can get in a metaphor.  In otherwords, I view the playstyles and specific campaigns as modifications to a singular item, like the ingredients which can be switched out or put in to modify the basic BLT that is D&D.



pemerton said:


> Which is interesting. Because I am looking at 4e and seeing the first version of D&D I can imagine running and playing in a serious campaign since 1st ed and Moldvay/Cook. Now I'm not one of those who thinks that 4e is retro - for a mainstream RPG its design is pretty cutting edge - but I do think that it evokes the tropes of classic D&D: the goblins and kobolds look right to me (on paper, at least - our game won't start until a couple of existing campaigns come to an end over the next month or so), the PCs are exciting and the mechanics seem evocative of a fantasy world without being either backwards or tedious.




See for me previous versions, evoked these tropes just as well, if not better than 4e.  I feel that all versions of D&D up to 4e feel like evolutionary steps in the game's progression (which is not to say 4e is bad, it just doesn't, IMHO, feel like an evolutionary step so much as an offshoot).



pemerton said:


> At the moment I'm working on a conversion of B10 - Night's Dark Terror, an old 2-4 level module from the Menzer era of D&D. This seems very well suited to 4e - plenty of minion-heavy combats, skill challenges (of course they weren't called that in the original module, but I think that they can fairly easily be reconfigured), points of light, ancient empires, haunted places of darkness (ie Shadowfell) and faerie (ie Feywild), etc.




All of these things were in D&D before...points of light isn't new to D&D, and unless you were playing in a world specifically designed for a different playstyle, was always the default.  I would argue D&D has been flexible enough to accomodate various setting tropes and, with 4e, still is.  Ancient Empires...FR, GH, Dark Sun, Planescape... all of these incorporated ancient empires, so I don't see that as a "new" trope for 4e.  Haunted places of darkness...you had Ravenloft since 2e and before that I think before 4e it wasn't necessary to devote an entire plane to this concept, there were enough of these places in the "real world".  Faerie...now you may have a point here, but again I think that instead of basing an entire plane on faerie, it was assumed that there were pockets in the real world that embodied this concept...certainly with just the corebooks, this concept is as fleshed out as much as it has ever been in D&D.  Planescape certainly gave DM's the freedoom to create an entire plane of "faerie" if he so desired.



pemerton said:


> For me one of the least inspiring things about 3E was the general trend in WoTC adventures towards dungeon-heavy, story-light grinds. IMO the Demonweb Pits and Greyhawk hardbacks really exemplify this, as do many of the 3E-era online and Dungeon adventures. (When I say that these are story-light I don't mean that they lack backstory for the benefit of the GM - I mean that they are virtually railroads, which offer little chance for the players to meaningfully interact with or shape the story). I feel that these adventures have the burdensome weight of the old 1st ed dungeons (C-series, S-series, etc) without the trade-off of the comparative lightness-of-touch of the 1st ed mechanics.
> 
> Given that 4e seems very apt to facilitate a less grinding approach to play than 3E (with quests, skill challenges, and other complex reward mechanics, interacting with complex and multi-layered action currencies) I'm hoping that 4e adventures will reflect that (classic D&D modules that I'd put into this category are B10, X2, and the interlude-y aspects of D1, D2 and D3, but not the Shrine or the Fane in the latter two modules). On a quick skim of the Dungeon modules to date Heathen looks promising to me, Sleeper so-so and Rescue very dungeon-grindish.




Again, I don't know if I agree here.  First you're making a judgment based on "the future of D&D 4e".  Secondly even in the small amount of time it's been out, 4e has produced quite a few rail-roady dungeon crawls.  The adventure in the DMG, H1:Keep on the Shadowfell, Rescue, Sleeper is a dungeon crawl with (I believe) one skill challenge, etc.  (I haven't looked over Heathen or H2 so I won't comment on those).  But I don't see WotC necessarily breaking the dungeon crawl trend anytime soon...It's just easier to write these types of adventures.


----------



## Andor (Jul 25, 2008)

pemerton said:


> For me one of the least inspiring things about 3E was the general trend in WoTC adventures towards dungeon-heavy, story-light grinds. IMO the Demonweb Pits and Greyhawk hardbacks really exemplify this, as do many of the 3E-era online and Dungeon adventures. (When I say that these are story-light I don't mean that they lack backstory for the benefit of the GM - I mean that they are virtually railroads, which offer little chance for the players to meaningfully interact with or shape the story). I feel that these adventures have the burdensome weight of the old 1st ed dungeons (C-series, S-series, etc) without the trade-off of the comparative lightness-of-touch of the 1st ed mechanics.
> 
> Given that 4e seems very apt to facilitate a less grinding approach to play than 3E (with quests, skill challenges, and other complex reward mechanics, interacting with complex and multi-layered action currencies) I'm hoping that 4e adventures will reflect that (classic D&D modules that I'd put into this category are B10, X2, and the interlude-y aspects of D1, D2 and D3, but not the Shrine or the Fane in the latter two modules). On a quick skim of the Dungeon modules to date Heathen looks promising to me, Sleeper so-so and Rescue very dungeon-grindish.




I wouldn't bet on it. Any time a published module has a set-piece encounter the module design either has to railroad the PCs into it, or trust the GM to get them there. It's a rare writer who extends the GM that trust, and the general tone of 4e gives me little hope that will change. 

Besides it much easier to write up a dungeon crawl than it is to write up a city adventure that presents a half-dozen factions, lists their plots and says 'Go for it'.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 25, 2008)

Imaro said:


> But I don't see WotC necessarily breaking the dungeon crawl trend anytime soon...It's just easier to write these types of adventures.




They also sell much better than non-dungeon crawl adventures, at least traditionally, which probably is one reason why WotC hangs on to the format.

/M


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 25, 2008)

delericho said:


> Yeah, that's the problem there. Once the party can invest in a _wand of fly_, they can basically have everyone flying as much of the time as is useful. This does indeed bypass a great many encounters.




I guess the thing for me is, it bypasses a great many sucky encounters.

So you're 5th level and managed to avoid the ogre encounter....fine. Who wanted to fight ogre's anyway? Oh, okay, the plot says the ogre's have satchels that contain rare herbs you need. Wait, the ogre's live in caves? Well fudge. At least you can fly over puddles, so your cool new robes don't get wet.

Okay, fine, now you've gotten your ogre weed, but have to fight your way into the castle to reach the altar at the top of the stairs.... oh wait, you have flight! You can bypass the castle full of archers and ballistae and those fel beasts...


Wait, is that it? Flight had to be banned because Gandalf didn't cast it on frodo? 


Seriously, it's easy enough to pull Fly out of 3e if you don't want the high fantasy elements. For me it's more fun to stick to things that a 5th level wizard would want to do anyway. They talked about gameplay being more fun in the midlevels, well throwing your magical might around was part of that.

The DM knows the party has flight. The D&D WORLD knows mage's have Flight. It's high fantasy and I prefer it that way.

ETA: Most of this is just from my perspective of not having seen any flying abuse in my games.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jul 25, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> t just saddens me to see that they've taken the game in a direction that doesn't appeal to me and so many others, and that they've made so many decisions that have adversely affected their customers.





There's always someone (actually, a number of someones) who makes this exact point... every time a new edition is released.  It says more about the person saying it than it does the game.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jul 25, 2008)

I agree the adventures so far for 4e have been very railroady.  The game seems almost designed with railroading in mind, because of how everything must be planned and balanced beforehand based on the party's level, etc.  I do not, however, agree that making dungeon-based adventures leads to railroading.  Dungeons are probably the most non-linear, non-railroady type of thing you can play in D&D, provided you understand the concept and use them properly. The major problem is: most current gamers don't.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jul 25, 2008)

Jack Colby said:


> Dungeons are probably the most non-linear, non-railroady type of thing you can play in D&D, provided you understand the concept and use them properly. The major problem is: most current gamers don't.



Care to enlighten the us, the humble plebs?


----------



## Andor (Jul 25, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> ETA: Most of this is just from my perspective of not having seen any flying abuse in my games.




*snicker* I once had a GM ban me from flying. In any way. With any character. In any system. 

On topic I'm still waiting on a definition of 'complete' as applied to RPGs...


----------



## delericho (Jul 25, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> I guess the thing for me is, it bypasses a great many sucky encounters.




Undoubtedly. Unfortunately, it also bypasses a lot of interesting encounters, and probably does so a little too early in the campaign. (Please bear in mind that I'm a pro-3e kind of guy, but I do see some flaws in the system. I do think the easy access to _fly_ in 3e is a weakness, although not a massive one.)



> So you're 5th level and managed to avoid the ogre encounter....fine. Who wanted to fight ogre's anyway? Oh, okay, the plot says the ogre's have satchels that contain rare herbs you need.




I think that's the crux of it. _Fly_ allows the PCs to skip some encounters, but it doesn't allow them to simply bypass the DM's entire plot - if there's something they need from a specific encounter, then they're going to have to find a way to deal with that encounter (and if they choose to sneak in and steal the herbs, rather than fight the Ogres directly, well good for them. That can be fun too).

There's a much bigger problem with scry-buff-teleport, but that really comes about at much higher levels, and anyway the game features a whole bunch of defences that the bad guys really should be using to prevent it.



> Seriously, it's easy enough to pull Fly out of 3e if you don't want the high fantasy elements. For me it's more fun to stick to things that a 5th level wizard would want to do anyway. They talked about gameplay being more fun in the midlevels, well throwing your magical might around was part of that.




Agreed, mostly. I would prefer _fly_ to either be a more limited resource, or to only be readily available at slightly higher levels. YMMV, of course.


----------



## delericho (Jul 25, 2008)

Andor said:


> On topic I'm still waiting on a definition of 'complete' as applied to RPGs...




Well, clearly it must be a complete game, in that you can pick it up and play without any additional (rules) components, and in that there are no gaping holes in the rules (D&D 4e meets this criterion). It must also allow the PCs to adopt roles - I would argue that it should support a variety of roles, rather than just one, but I suppose that isn't strictly necessary (either way, D&D 4e meets this criterion).

Finally, if the game is expected to emulate a particular setting or genre, then it should include all of the key elements of that setting or genre (a Harry Potter RPG couldn't be complete without some sort of system for Quiddich, for example). Here, arguably, D&D 4e hits a problem, because while D&D has only ever really emulated D&D, there are certain key things that make up D&D, some of which are missing in 4e - specifically enchantment, summoning and illusion magic. (While the naming of the schools was added later, many of the spells existed even as far back as OD&D - _audible glamer_, _phantasmal forces_, _monster summoning 1_ and _suggestion_ are all present in my copy of OD&D (1978, 2nd edition, reprint).)

Still, as I said in my first post in this thread, in my opinion, 4e is a complete game. It has some significant limitations, which will no doubt be filled in time, but I don't equate _limitations_ with _incompleteness_ necessarily.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 25, 2008)

Andor said:


> *snicker* I once had a GM ban me from flying. In any way. With any character. In any system.
> 
> On topic I'm still waiting on a definition of 'complete' as applied to RPGs...




I gave my definitions earlier, so not sure what you're waiting on? Are you expecting the internet to agree on something? Because... it may be a while...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 25, 2008)

I'm sorry, but it _still_ blows my mind that people are defending the 3e fly.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 26, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I'm sorry, but it _still_ blows my mind that people are defending the 3e fly.






Do... do we actually agree on something?

...amazing.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 26, 2008)

Yes, and with the age-old, and very untruthful 'A Good DM can design games around it.'

Some things break the game, no matter how many backflips the players expect the DM to do.


----------



## rounser (Jul 26, 2008)

> Do... do we actually agree on something?
> 
> ...amazing.



Not really.  I agree with him too.  I like a lot of 4E from crunch and metagame perspectives, and agree that this is another thing they got right.


----------



## Greylock (Jul 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I always found sorcerers with fly to be more of a 'problem' in terms of the flying party issue.




The problem I've always had has been with Sorcerers who have Fly, and Invisibility, and Fireball or Lightning Bolt - And a level of Rogue. Oddly enough, I've never seen a player character built like that, but I have seen a couple of NPCs like that, from two different DMs.

hth


----------



## pemerton (Jul 26, 2008)

delericho said:


> arguably, D&D 4e hits a problem, because while D&D has only ever really emulated D&D, there are certain key things that make up D&D, some of which are missing in 4e - specifically enchantment, summoning and illusion magic. (While the naming of the schools was added later, many of the spells existed even as far back as OD&D - _audible glamer_, _phantasmal forces_, _monster summoning 1_ and _suggestion_ are all present in my copy of OD&D (1978, 2nd edition, reprint).)



Without opening my copy of the PHB, I can bring to my mind a ghost sound at will, which I think is better than AG was in 1st ed AD&D, 2 or 3 illusion rituals (item, creature, wall I think), a summoning ritual in which the caster has to bargain for information from an other-worldly being, a number of summoning/conjuring cleric powers, and a confusion spell for wizards. It's hardly as if there's no summoning, illusion or enchantment.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 26, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I'm sorry, but it _still_ blows my mind that people are defending the 3e fly.



Agreed. I don't think it's really a huge problem, but it's big enough to worry about.

In my current campaign I just bumped it to 5th level. The wizard player complained loudly. I tried to explain, but he never really accepted it. Then when he hit 9th level, he didn't take fly, explaining that he never wanted it anyway. So this guy basically deals with life as if it were the internet. (I don't really care about this, but I'm gonna bitch about it anyway!)


----------



## Rechan (Jul 26, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Do... do we actually agree on something?
> 
> ...amazing.



I know. It's shocking.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jul 26, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I still don't get why Fly was considered broken in a game that was going "back to the dungeon".
> 
> Did you mostly fight in big halls or out in the open, where you could fly up out of reach? And people out in the open never had any defense against flying foes?




I can say that in the campaigns I played in and DMed for, fly wasn't about gaining altitude and staying out of melee range (much), it was primarily to eliminate movement penalties from heavy armor or size.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 26, 2008)

Dice4Hire said:


> Yes, and with the age-old, and very untruthful 'A Good DM can design games around it.'
> 
> Some things break the game, no matter how many backflips the players expect the DM to do.




If the players are breaking the game and the DM can't control it to the point of saying "hey, we're removing Fly", then there are much bigger problems than any game can fix.

I mean, seriously, you guys that had repeated problems with Fly being abused... did the DM just complain about it and the players ignore?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 26, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Again, I don't know if I agree here.  First you're making a judgment based on "the future of D&D 4e".  Secondly even in the small amount of time it's been out, 4e has produced quite a few rail-roady dungeon crawls.  The adventure in the DMG, H1:Keep on the Shadowfell, Rescue, Sleeper is a dungeon crawl with (I believe) one skill challenge, etc.  (I haven't looked over Heathen or H2 so I won't comment on those).  But I don't see WotC necessarily breaking the dungeon crawl trend anytime soon...It's just easier to write these types of adventures.



I did express it as a hope, not a prediction. After I posted I read through Heathen more closely and I think it's not bad for a WoTC adventure. H1 I haven't seen but reviews suggest it is a dungeon crawl of the sort I don't really like. Sleeper I want to look at more closely but I'm sure you're right. H2 I don't know.



Andor said:


> Any time a published module has a set-piece encounter the module design either has to railroad the PCs into it, or trust the GM to get them there. It's a rare writer who extends the GM that trust, and the general tone of 4e gives me little hope that will change.



I'm not sure I share your notion of non-railroading. I'm not talking about sandbox play. I'm talking about an adventure when the players get to choose how they respond to the climax (eg get to decide who to oppose and who to support, and what thematic attitude to take towards the whole affair).

This sort of adventure does require a pre-planned set-piece encounter (sandbox play tends not to produce dramatic climaxes). But it requires the players to be free to choose how their PCs deal with that climax. This generally requires a degree of flexibility in the lead up also, as the players learn more about the different parties to the situation, what is at stake, and therefore what possible responses their PCs might have.

Of d20 modules, the main ones I know that support this approach to play are the Penumbra adventures (especially Maiden Voyage, Belly of the Beast and Ebon Mirror, and to an extent Last Dance, Three Days to Kill and Hallowed Hall). What Evil Lurks, from Necromancer, also does to an extent. So does Heathen, although the adventure author squibs on the most challenging option the PCs might take.

Dungeon crawls generlly don't support this sort of adventure, as they have too many thematicaly extraneous encounters. Most 3E WoTC adventures that I know are very bad for this sort of play, because the adventure only gets off the ground if the players can be relied upon to agree with the GM as to the moral evaluation of the whole situation.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jul 26, 2008)

Dice4Hire said:


> Yes, and with the age-old, and very untruthful 'A Good DM can design games around it.'
> 
> Some things break the game, no matter how many backflips the players expect the DM to do.




I remember from 10th level on, every space the bad guys occupied was "Hallowed" with prevention from teleport.  

Honestly, I don't see 4E as incomplete.  Instead, I see several of the roles better delineated.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 26, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> If the players are breaking the game and the DM can't control it to the point of saying "hey, we're removing Fly", then there are much bigger problems than any game can fix.
> 
> I mean, seriously, you guys that had repeated problems with Fly being abused... did the DM just complain about it and the players ignore?



This comment assumes that the GM has a degree of power in the gaming group that is not true for all groups (and is not always healthy in those groups for which it is the case). At least some players, when they sign on to a game of D&D playing a 5th level Wizard, are signing onto a game in which Fly is available.

I think its better for the game itself to be designed so as to be functional out of the box.

(D&D is not the only game that has trouble with low-level fly - in my experience, it's also a big problem in Rolemaster and HARP.)


----------



## jadrax (Jul 26, 2008)

pemerton said:


> (D&D is not the only game that has trouble with low-level fly - in my experience, it's also a big problem in Rolemaster and HARP.)




Placing limits on Fly spells in a Rolemaster game that revolved around aerial supremacy still stands out as one of the most bitched at moves I have ever made as a GM.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 26, 2008)

jadrax said:


> Placing limits on Fly spells in a Rolemaster game that revolved around aerial supremacy still stands out as one of the most bitched at moves I have ever made as a GM.



My current RM game (27th level and coming to its climax) has a flying Warrior-Mage as one of the PCs. At about 12th level, when it became obvious that Fly was going to become the tactically most important feature of play, we canvassed toning it down but the player of that PC wanted to leave it in place. At 27th level it's even more important.

In future I'd certainly change it a bit!


----------



## Andor (Jul 26, 2008)

Again I'll ask. How did 4e fix fly?

It's still there. Levitate is not only still there but it has horizontal movement now.

4e did exactly bupkis to change Flyings role in combat, they merely ganked any non-combat utility the spell had. 

Yay.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 26, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> If the players are breaking the game and the DM can't control it to the point of saying "hey, we're removing Fly", then there are much bigger problems than any game can fix.
> 
> I mean, seriously, you guys that had repeated problems with Fly being abused... did the DM just complain about it and the players ignore?




The problem with Fly is that the only way to remove the issues with it is to basically say "Yeah, you can't get Fly.  It doesn't exist in this setting."

There are times when flying works.  Like when you're in a flying _machine_ in Eberron.  But when you can cast fly - and easily - then there's an issue.


----------



## delericho (Jul 26, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with Fly is that the only way to remove the issues with it is to basically say "Yeah, you can't get Fly.  It doesn't exist in this setting."




That's simply not true. Changing it to a Personal-range spell removes the problems almost completely - the Wizard can no longer cast it on the whole party, and so they can't use it to bypass encounters completely (and if the encounter is such that a single flying Wizard defeats it without breaking a sweat, then that's at least as much a problem with the encounter as with the spell).

If that's still deemed too powerful, raise the level of the spell to 4th. This firstly delays any problems caused by the spell, and also vastly increases the cost of a wand containing the spell, which further minimises any damage that that might cause.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jul 26, 2008)

delericho said:


> That's simply not true. Changing it to a Personal-range spell removes the problems almost completely - the Wizard can no longer cast it on the whole party, and so they can't use it to bypass encounters completely (and if the encounter is such that a single flying Wizard defeats it without breaking a sweat, then I'm sorry, but that's a bad encounter).




I'm glad that my encounter design for a group that uses Swords & Sorcery that is defeated by Superheros was merely my own (many) terrible mistakes.



> If that's still deemed too powerful, raise the level of the spell to 4th. This firstly delays any problems caused by the spell, and also vastly increases the cost of a wand containing the spell, which further minimises any damage that that might cause.




"Put it off for later" only works when the campaign ends directly after its use.


----------



## delericho (Jul 26, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> I'm glad that my encounter design for a group that uses Swords & Sorcery that is defeated by Superheros was merely my own (many) terrible mistakes.




You're right, that was offensive. I'm sorry.


----------



## delericho (Jul 26, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> ...my encounter design for a group that uses Swords & Sorcery that is defeated by Superheros...




If you're playing a "Swords & Sorcery" style game, rather than 3e's default high-fantasy assumptions, then presumably you know you're going to need to make some changes to the game to make it work. In the particular case of _fly_, this should include things like equipping your Ogres with missile weapons and the feats to use them effectively (I recommend swapping those greatclubs for either spears or tridents and shields, and swapping out the weapon focus likewise), providing enemy spellcasters with sorceries of their own, and ensuring that your foes make use of available terrain to ensure they're not fighting in locations where the PC Wizard can just take to the air and blast away with impunity.



> "Put it off for later" only works when the campaign ends directly after its use.




Have you tried altering _fly_ to make it a Personal-range 4th level spell? If not, I suggest you do, because you may well find the combination of the two changes fixes, rather than just delays, the problems you have been seeing - it does restrict the party to only the one flying 'superhero', and it also makes even that a much more costly investment.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 26, 2008)

delericho said:


> equipping your Ogres with missile weapons and the feats to use them effectively (I recommend swapping those greatclubs for either spears or tridents and shields, and swapping out the weapon focus likewise),



Totally off topic, but _holy crap_ this made me think of Ogre Spartans.

Also, a single use of _Dispel Magic_ on the Flying mage would make them feather-fall downwards. Perfect targets for Ogres playing whack-a-wizard. Or worse yet, give the ogres a Harpy leader, who dispels and then tears into the mage. 

Totally not useful in all (or most) circumstances, but just sayin'. Fun thoughts.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 26, 2008)

delericho said:


> In the particular case of _fly_, this should include things like equipping your Ogres with missile weapons and the feats to use them effectively




I know ogre's are the running example, but they're not CR5 monsters, so I think the simple solution is "use appropriate monsters". I think a 5th level group should be able to dominate against ogre's, but that's just me. Give the ogre's a pet dragon, or a catapult or something if you want to... or an Ogre Mage...

Granted, folks using ogre's in groups to make a suitable challenge, fine. Then make sure that group of ogre's is prepared to fight a flying enemy.





> Have you tried altering _fly_ to make it a Personal-range 4th level spell? If not, I suggest you do, because you may well find the combination of the two changes fixes, rather than just delays, the problems you have been seeing - it does restrict the party to only the one flying 'superhero', and it also makes even that a much more costly investment.




4e coulda handled it fine by making it a sustained spell (standard action) and removing the 5 minute limit. Sure you can fly over chasms, and you can spend an action point or two for combat, but eventually you'll have to land if you want to fight.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jul 26, 2008)

delericho said:


> If you're playing a "Swords & Sorcery" style game, rather than 3e's default high-fantasy assumptions, then presumably you know you're going to need to make some changes to the game to make it work.




I have never read a high fantasy (Lord of the Rings, C.S. Lewis) that included the Rocketeer or his medieval counterpart.  High Magic =/= High Fantasy.



> In the particular case of _fly_, this should include things like equipping your Ogres with missile weapons and the feats to use them effectively (I recommend swapping those greatclubs for either spears or tridents and shields, and swapping out the weapon focus likewise), providing enemy spellcasters with sorceries of their own, and ensuring that your foes make use of available terrain to ensure they're not fighting in locations where the PC Wizard can just take to the air and blast away with impunity.




If I design my encounter with egregious amounts of metagaming to handle something, at some point between "use terrain" and "everyone has dispel magic" I am not playing a game with friends but kludging a magic engine into a usable shape.

Why would any player choose fly if, at the moment it is selected, every monster comes armed with Anti-Fly?  At that point it only exists in the metagame to force the DM to keep it in mind while he is making a rounded encounter for everyone.



> Have you tried altering _fly_ to make it a Personal-range 4th level spell? If not, I suggest you do, because you may well find the combination of the two changes fixes, rather than just delays, the problems you have been seeing - it does restrict the party to only the one flying 'superhero', and it also makes even that a much more costly investment.




I tried playing 3.5E, and then dumped the entire magic system and played Spycraft.  I couldn't find any reason to pull out the shield to play Spellslots & Spellslots.


----------



## Branduil (Jul 26, 2008)

Yeah I'm also having trouble thinking of a fantasy story where people can just fly around without andything helping them. Most fantasy stories you can only fly if you have a magical mount or a broom or something like that. That's one reason I was never a big fan of fly in previous editions of D&D.


----------



## delericho (Jul 27, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> I have never read a high fantasy (Lord of the Rings, C.S. Lewis) that included the Rocketeer or his medieval counterpart.  High Magic =/= High Fantasy.




Nonetheless, the default assumptions of _D&D 3e_ is high-magic. If you're not going to play in that style, then you're going to have to make some alterations.



> If I design my encounter with egregious amounts of metagaming to handle something, at some point between "use terrain" and "everyone has dispel magic" I am not playing a game with friends but kludging a magic engine into a usable shape.
> 
> Why would any player choose fly if, at the moment it is selected, every monster comes armed with Anti-Fly?  At that point it only exists in the metagame to force the DM to keep it in mind while he is making a rounded encounter for everyone.




Alternately, you could simply use the full range of encounter types and environments provided by the rules. So, the Wizard with _fly_ can handle the wandering Ogres without difficulty. That's okay, because this uber-tactic doesn't work against the dragons, NPC spellcasters, golems and similar that the game also provides. There is a huge range of encounters available, and _fly_ negates at most a very very small percentage of them.

Once again, if you elect to play in a Swords & Sorcery style that constrains you to use only a specific subset of encounters, then that's your prerogative, but you will need to adapt the game to meet your revised requirements, and it is not a failure of the game if you fail to do so. Otherwise, it's like running a Mac, refusing to use emulation software, and then complaining that it doesn't run Windows applications.


----------



## delericho (Jul 27, 2008)

Branduil said:


> Yeah I'm also having trouble thinking of a fantasy story where people can just fly around without andything helping them.




Peter Pan. Pixie dust is a material component.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jul 27, 2008)

delericho said:


> Nonetheless, the default assumptions of _D&D 3e_ is high-magic. If you're not going to play in that style, then you're going to have to make some alterations.




You couldn't define High Magic without at least 5 references and a sheet of caveats.  D&D is functional magic, workman's magic, but "high" is a wishy-washy term with little bearing.  Any magic is "high" compared to none, and all the matters of degree are lines in the sand.

Meanwhile, a once-a-week spell that did 200d20 fire damage is also suitably "high" in the same way that producing a bog-standard Fireball is; yet game breaking is game breaking no matter what the genre is.



> Alternately, you could simply use the full range of encounter types and environments provided by the rules. So, the Wizard with _fly_ can handle the wandering Ogres without difficulty. That's okay, because this uber-tactic doesn't work against the dragons, NPC spellcasters, golems and similar that the game also provides. There is a huge range of encounters available, and _fly_ negates at most a very very small percentage of them.




The full range of encounters that are built to metagame a certain player from having fun by using his power set aren't the tools I should be forced to use as a DM.

If I have a player that builds a character that can go invisible, and then ensure that every important encounter includes True Sight or some variation, I am not allowing that player to participate.  I've had arguments at the table to the effect that "if you're going to nerf an option whenever it was useful, don't include it at all!"


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 27, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> The full range of encounters that are built to metagame a certain player from having fun by using his power set aren't the tools I should be forced to use as a DM.
> 
> If I have a player that builds a character that can go invisible, and then ensure that every important encounter includes True Sight or some variation, I am not allowing that player to participate.  I've had arguments at the table to the effect that "if you're going to nerf an option whenever it was useful, don't include it at all!"




In the same way that a rogue not being able to sneak attack undead/ constructs meant not that you never used them, but also not that you used them all the time. Sometimes fly lets a mage dominate an encounter, other times the group is inside and flying to the top of the 10' room is meaningless. Sometimes invisibility is great, othertimes there's a guard standing in the doorway and you can't slink between his legs...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 27, 2008)

delericho said:


> Peter Pan. Pixie dust is a material component.




Yeah, but those ability score penalties for playing children are a real pain. And then there's the whole cannons thing...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 27, 2008)

delericho said:


> There is a huge range of encounters available, and _fly_ negates at most a very very small percentage of them.



The majority, I'd say.


----------



## ironvyper (Jul 27, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> The full range of encounters that are built to metagame a certain player from having fun by using his power set aren't the tools I should be forced to use as a DM.
> 
> If I have a player that builds a character that can go invisible, and then ensure that every important encounter includes True Sight or some variation, I am not allowing that player to participate.  I've had arguments at the table to the effect that "if you're going to nerf an option whenever it was useful, don't include it at all!"




  I'm probably not the only one wondering this... but it sounds like your complaining that the spell is too powerful against ground based, too dumb to use the terrain to thier advantage or carry missile weapons or have thier own spellcasters enemies.

   While at the same time insisting that those are the only enemies your willing to use, because having an enemy with anything over animal intelligence that actually acts like it by being aware of the fact they may desire or even need to be able to engage at range is somehow unfair to the player because he doesnt have an "i win" button anymore. And these are somehow flaws with the game.

  Let me know if i interpreted that properly, ya know just for my own curiosity.


----------



## portermj (Jul 27, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> In the same way that a rogue not being able to sneak attack undead/ constructs meant not that you never used them, but also not that you used them all the time. Sometimes fly lets a mage dominate an encounter, other times the group is inside and flying to the top of the 10' room is meaningless. Sometimes invisibility is great, othertimes there's a guard standing in the doorway and you can't slink between his legs...




What if you want to run an undead heavy campaign?  What if you want to have a lot of outdoor encounters?

4th Edition does a better job of making it easy to set up adventures and campaigns without having to do things like worry whether a character will get their time in the spotlight or if a character will be a glorified torchbearer if too many of a type of monster are included.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 27, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> Sometimes fly lets a mage *dominate *an encounter



Is this what we want from a system? Encounters being turned into non-encounters.

This is the problem with previous editions of D&D, everything was much too binary. You're either wtf pwning or being slaughtered, there's not enough interesting middle ground. A rogue is virtually useless against a non-sneak attackable foe. Magic Jar is invincible, unless Prot Evil is up which renders it useless. Same with a vampire's dominating gaze. Lots of effects are crippling if you don't have a cleric, but at worst a matter of waiting a day if you do. Fly makes the tarrasque, supposedly one of the strongest monsters in the game, into a joke. The knight, perhaps the most iconic image in fantasy, is likewise rendered impotent. This is a system that isn't doing its job. It's putting too much work on the shoulders of the DM.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 27, 2008)

portermj said:


> What if you want to run an undead heavy campaign?  What if you want to have a lot of outdoor encounters?




Then the DM and players should have a conversation about what kind of campaign and capabilities are there. If I as DM want to run a campaign centered around a drow city's intrigue, and one of the players comes up with a druid afraid of cities, then maybe I didn't explain stuff well enough.



portermj said:


> 4th Edition does a better job of making it easy to set up adventures and campaigns without having to do things like worry whether a character will get their time in the spotlight or if a character will be a glorified torchbearer if too many of a type of monster are included.






Doug McCrae said:


> Is this what we want from a system? Encounters being turned into non-encounters.




This was addressed elsewhere. Some folks want all the characters to be equal in each encounter, others are fine with having moments in the spotlight that may vary somewhat. It's a design choice that some will prefer and others not.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 27, 2008)

ironvyper said:


> I'm probably not the only one wondering this... but it sounds like your complaining that the spell is too powerful against ground based, too dumb to use the terrain to thier advantage or carry missile weapons or have thier own spellcasters enemies.
> 
> While at the same time insisting that those are the only enemies your willing to use, because having an enemy with anything over animal intelligence that actually acts like it by being aware of the fact they may desire or even need to be able to engage at range is somehow unfair to the player because he doesnt have an "i win" button anymore. And these are somehow flaws with the game.
> 
> Let me know if i interpreted that properly, ya know just for my own curiosity.




It would certainly help if the MM (you know, the book that you're supposed to assume will provide good encounters) seemed to assume the flying/invisible wizard was a common feature.

Seriously, if Fly becomes available at level 5, count how many creatures at CR 5 and above can actually deal with a flying wizard. Hell, to make it even better, throw in Improved Invisibility and take a look at the CR of creatures.

The MM obviously didn't assume that flying, invisible wizards would be standard until the early teens at the earliest.

So why blame DMs when the books themselves don't seem to factor it in.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 28, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:


> The majority, I'd say.




The majority of encounters in dungeons are not affected at all by Fly.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 28, 2008)

Fenes said:


> The majority of encounters in dungeons are not affected at all by Fly.



Because we know that the habitats of creatures larger than medium always take place in rooms with 10' ceilings.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 28, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Because we know that the habitats of creatures larger than medium always take place in rooms with 10' ceilings.




Larger creatures have larger reach. Really - how many encounters in Dungeons did you have where Fly would have helped a lot?

People do not tend to excavate double to triple the amount just so their enemies can fly around.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jul 28, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> In the same way that a rogue not being able to sneak attack undead/ constructs meant not that you never used them, but also not that you used them all the time.




Sneak Attack isn't really an equivalent comparison here.  A rogue using Sneak Attack still has a bucket-full of risks to deal with, while without it he is Skill Monkey the Useless.  Meanwhile, a wizard in the preferred fly environment has only a handful of inherent risks, while without he is still a Wizard.

Flying is a Superhero ability that isn't suited and accounted for in the base-level genre conventions of High Fantasy (p.s. Peter Pan is a fairy tale).  It isn't a power needed to play a Swords and Sorcery game.



			
				ironvyper said:
			
		

> Let me know if i interpreted that properly, ya know just for my own curiosity.




No, but try and tell me what I was saying again and we'll see if you get closer.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 28, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> Sneak Attack isn't really an equivalent comparison here.  A rogue using Sneak Attack still has a bucket-full of risks to deal with, while without it he is Skill Monkey the Useless.  Meanwhile, a wizard in the preferred fly environment has only a handful of inherent risks, while without he is still a Wizard.
> 
> Flying is a Superhero ability that isn't suited and accounted for in the base-level genre conventions of High Fantasy (p.s. Peter Pan is a fairy tale).  It isn't a power needed to play a Swords and Sorcery game.




I guess flying carpets always had a 5' max height? Magic brooms? The fly spell is not the only method of flight.

Like I said, for my games it has not been a problem. It was used at higher levels for quick movement and that served to advance the storyline more than slogging through forests trying to figure out how we fight the ogre's on the other side of a crevice.

If the default assumption of 4e is that there were a lot of wilderness encounters defeated through flight, then it's just another assumption that deviates from my game.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 28, 2008)

Until I house ruled Fly, it was a constant problem with my 3.5 games.  I really don't like it when D&D becomes a superheroes game.  

The other big problem was scry/buff/teleport.  This was in 3.0;  they introduced spells in 3.5 that helped to a certain extent (but only when the bad guys were spellcasters).

I think 4E did a great job of nerfing scry/buff/teleport, by the way.  Of course it introduced PC races that can teleport at 1st level, albeit only for short distances, which I really don't like.

Ken


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> a once-a-week spell that did 200d20 fire damage is also suitably "high" in the same way that producing a bog-standard Fireball is; yet game breaking is game breaking no matter what the genre is.



At least one person following this thread agrees with you! I think this is an excellent rhetorical point which has not really been addressed by the defenders of fly.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 28, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Larger creatures have larger reach. Really - how many encounters in Dungeons did you have where Fly would have helped a lot?



Any time that the place isn't a constructed dungeon, thus a natural thing. Underground caverns et al are pretty populated. 

Also, with regards to "Larger reach"; a diagnial square counts as two squares in 3.5. So unless the flying wizard is right above them, the reach isn't as useful.


----------



## ironvyper (Jul 28, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> It would certainly help if the MM (you know, the book that you're supposed to assume will provide good encounters) seemed to assume the flying/invisible wizard was a common feature.
> 
> Seriously, if Fly becomes available at level 5, count how many creatures at CR 5 and above can actually deal with a flying wizard. Hell, to make it even better, throw in Improved Invisibility and take a look at the CR of creatures.
> 
> ...





 Its not the monster manuals job to give a DM world advice or tactical advice or to assume the DM is too stupid to design a decent encounter. Its the MMs job to provide examples of possibilities for the PCs to face in combat. Many campaign worlds have many different levels of default magic and items. Previous MMs correctly left it up to the DM to make his own world, with his own houserules to support his story without forcing a default scenario upon the DM. They correctly left it up to the DM to read his own book and decide what was right for his adventures within the rules framework. Furthermore the MM doesnt need to assume flying is an option because the PHB tells you its an option and gives you plenty of missile weapons to deal with flyers. Nowhere in the MM does it say that monsters are restricted to any particular items, it only gives suggested items. So clearly any DM can look and see that any creature capable of throwing things would at the bare minimum have a few spears to chuck before a fight, and probably a lot more given that according to most default settings wizards who can cast a 3rd level spell and flying enemies are very common.  

  Your question about CR5 enemies is pointless misleading as well. 3e was designed around monsters being able to have classes. So intelligent monsters in a well laid out world should have had divine and arcane spellcasters for every large group and most small groups, just like the good guys did. So fly is less of an issue becaue the bad guys have dispel magic at the same level, and swarms of magic missiles to pummel a wizard with on the way down. Basic invisibility isnt even a consideration because it sucks and improved invisibility isnt available yet, so thats a strawman argument. Even if it was available though, see invisibility is low level, and one can assume reasonably common in a magic rich world.  And again most of  those enemies are fought inside their lair, and even if they are faced outdoors unless you happen to fight them in wide open plain, then forest trees or city buildings provide plenty of cover to force a flyer very low to the ground in order to attack. So again you just need to play the enemies like they have a brain in thier head. I mean if prairie dogs can scurry under trees when an eagle shows up i think an orc can manage the same against a high flying wizard.


----------



## ironvyper (Jul 28, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> =No, but try and tell me what I was saying again and we'll see if you get closer.




Well you did such a crappy job saying what you meant that someone had to try and clear it up. 

  But how about this, why dont you explain the actual point behind your rambling diatribe about players with good powers, monsters that can counter those powers and your absolute refusal to even occasionally use them, or even to acknowledge they exist even though they are all over the books we all bought about a decade ago? And happily used until WoTC just recently told us we were all wrong and these problems we surmounted for years were actually insurmountable and we didnt actually deal with them at all. It was just a dream i guess.


----------



## ironvyper (Jul 28, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Any time that the place isn't a constructed dungeon, thus a natural thing. Underground caverns et al are pretty populated.
> 
> Also, with regards to "Larger reach"; a diagnial square counts as two squares in 3.5. So unless the flying wizard is right above them, the reach isn't as useful.




wow, in tennesee no less. where you have several cave complexes within easy drive. I would have thought you might have done some research. Natural caves are usually very small and round. Only big enough for the water that formed them to have forced a hole through enough weaker rock to make way. The majority of natural caves are so small they have to be explored by spelunking along your stomach through many tunnels and few of even the larger chambers are over a mans height tall. Depending on how you play it fly might be a help in a natural dungeon by reducing the drag and letting you float through the tiny sections faster then you could belly crawl but that would be about it. Large natural caverns hundreds of feet high and across might have populated the Jules Verne book that seems to have inspired D&D dungeons, but they are so rare as to be practically non existant in actual natural caverns.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2008)

ironvyper said:


> wow, in tennesee no less. where you have several cave complexes within easy drive. I would have thought you might have done some research. Natural caves are usually very small and round. Only big enough for the water that formed them to have forced a hole through enough weaker rock to make way. The majority of natural caves are so small they have to be explored by spelunking along your stomach through many tunnels and few of even the larger chambers are over a mans height tall. Depending on how you play it fly might be a help in a natural dungeon by reducing the drag and letting you float through the tiny sections faster then you could belly crawl but that would be about it. Large natural caverns hundreds of feet high and across might have populated the Jules Verne book that seems to have inspired D&D dungeons, but they are so rare as to be practically non existant in actual natural caverns.




I take it you haven't spent much time in volcanic areas.  Try looking up lava tubes and you'll see some very large caverns.


----------



## ironvyper (Jul 28, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I take it you haven't spent much time in volcanic areas.  Try looking up lava tubes and you'll see some very large caverns.




  Lava tubes are not common, or the default dungeon setting. However a quick search revealed that few have a cross section larger then 10 meters. Which is by no means outside of missile for any weapon in the book. So fly still isnt encounter breaking if the enemies you built had half a brain and brought some bows, or even throwing spears.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2008)

ironvyper said:


> Lava tubes are not common, or the default dungeon setting. However a quick search revealed that few have a cross section larger then 10 meters. Which is by no means outside of missile for any weapon in the book. So fly still isnt encounter breaking if the enemies you built had half a brain and brought some bows, or even throwing spears.




So, in order to counter a 3rd level wizard spell, I can no longer use 3/4 of the monster types in the game?  I mean, sure, humanoids, giants and a couple of other types can use bows, but, everyone else is screwed.  

I think I'd rather do away with the spell, or move it up to the point where the majority of creatures have built in ways of countering it, rather than forcing every dungeon to be a tower of orcs.


----------



## Andor (Jul 28, 2008)

Andor said:


> Could someone explain to me why Fly was broken in 3e, but not in 4e, when in combat there is no bloody difference that I can see?
> 
> All that 4e lacks is overland flight, which it hardly needs because now you can just use your handy dandy teleportals to avoid the overland encounters.
> 
> Yes flight comes later in 4e, but it's an expanded level scale, and Wizards get levitate at 6th level anyway. So what difference is there, save that 4e makes flying useless _outside_ of combat?




3 pages later, no one has tounched this one yet.

Wizards can fly in combat 3e. Wizards can fly in combat 4e.

So how exactly did they fix flight?


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jul 28, 2008)

Andor said:


> 3 pages later, no one has tounched this one yet.
> 
> Wizards can fly in combat 3e. Wizards can fly in combat 4e.
> 
> So how exactly did they fix flight?




At level 4, a wizard can levitate and then move 1 square/turn for one encounter,  once per day.

At level 16, he can do that plus fly 8 squares/turn for one encounter, once per day.

In 3rd, _fly_ lasted longer, and if you wanted to memorize enough copies to keep the entire group aloft, you could do as many as you had 3rd+ lvl spell slots.

It is *slightly* different.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 28, 2008)

SweeneyTodd said:


> It is *slightly* different.




3e: Fly learned at level 5, lasts 1 minute per level (minimum of 5 minutes when you learn it), gives a fly speed of 12 squares with no restrictions on positioning.

4e: Levitate (not Fly) learned at level 6, lasts until end of encounter or five minutes (if sustained, at the cost of a move action each round), sorta gives a fly speed of 1 square (if sustained) and requires you to be 4 squares (or less) above the ground, gives you a -2 penalty to AC and Reflex.

4e: Fly learned at level 16, lasts until the end of your next turn (unless sustained, at the cost of a minor action each round, in which case it lasts until the end of the encounter or five minutes), and gives you a fly speed of 8 squares with no restrictions on positioning.

It's a bit more than slight differences.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 28, 2008)

pemerton said:


> At least one person following this thread agrees with you! I think this is an excellent rhetorical point which has not really been addressed by the defenders of fly.




Because the points have been addressed over and over. A combat spell with different levels of damage is a decision of equilizing the power of the spell for it's level. A 1d10 fireball and a 10d10 fireball are both fine, but one is higher level.

Flight was removed in favor of a tactical version of flight. It is a once per day affair and is not useful for long distance flying. It's not just the Fly spell, a flying carpet can only hover slightly above the ground. Teleport is the travel option now, which of course eliminates all the encounters in between, rather than just bypassing some.

Part of the problem also, is the rule against having more than 1 of the same power memorized for a Wizard. If I'm walking around Sharn, I can still only keep one Feather Fall on me at a time.


As for points that are not addressed by "the opposition", I haven't seen much discussion about the teleport answer to flight's "problem", just as everyone glossed over the 3.5e design decision of ADDING flight in tons of places.

If freeform flight was such a problem for 3e, then why give the warlock unending flight? Sure the entire party isn't flying, but then the combat advantage really only applies to a caster/ missile attack guy.

(I had a dragon riding gnome in 3.5, charging and meleeing meant flight's advantage was reduced. It still gave me some advantages of course, but since things aren't free, that power came from somewhere.)


----------



## Imaro (Jul 28, 2008)

Just a quick note...

Actually the whole party can fly in 4e...Cloud Chariot is a cleric power.  It functions until dismissed or an extended rest is taken. So the whole party can fly all day long with this power.

The Cleric also has a flight power he can use on others called Angel of the Eleven Winds.

I think the flight problem arises because a DM is not taking into consideration the abilities a group has.  This has nothing to do with it existing in a game or not.  In the Ogre example... modify them to have ranged attacks that are effective or choose a new monster. This is like saying Golems, Purple Worms, and other monsters (that are all viable challenges level wise for a party with flight abilities) suck, because the party can fly over it... well yeah so how is this an edition specific problem, and how did 4e in any way solve it?

Edit: Sorrowsworn and Gorgons can fly..my bad.  So I chose a new example.


----------



## Xath (Jul 28, 2008)

Ironvyper, when you return from your vacation, I encourage you to read the rules of ENworld.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> Teleport is the travel option now, which of course eliminates all the encounters in between, rather than just bypassing some.



Which is fine. The problem with cheap low-level fly is not the travel issue, but the tactical advantage it gives in combat and in physical challenges.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 29, 2008)

I was under the impression that you could only transport to predefined areas with Teleport in 4E, and that it was not generally possible to teleport into a 'seen once' type of place.

Am I wrong?  I hope not;  I think 3E teleportation needed some serious reigning in.

And the cleric chariot power...well if true, I am really disappointed.  

Ken


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 29, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I was under the impression that you could only transport to predefined areas with Teleport in 4E, and that it was not generally possible to teleport into a 'seen once' type of place.
> 
> Am I wrong? I hope not; I think 3E teleportation needed some serious reigning in.
> 
> ...




You can teleport somewhat blind, but that requires the True Portal ritual which is a LEVEL 28 ritual. Furthermore, the whole "it's hazy" concealment angle pretty much puts the kibosh on the teleport in and kill the BBEG tactic.

As for Chariot Power, again, this is a level 22 power (big difference between a level 22 power and a level 5 power) and basically has the same limitations as your classic Chariot of Sustarre.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 29, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> As for Chariot Power, again, this is a level 22 power (big difference between a level 22 power and a level 5 power) and basically has the same limitations as your classic Chariot of Sustarre.




Didn't people say bumping up the Fly level just delays the problem?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 29, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Didn't people say bumping up the Fly level just delays the problem?



The higher the level, the less likely monsters and other challenges can be bypassed easily by flying, since said monsters and challenges are higher level as well.

But yes, I think that's true to some extent.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 29, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Didn't people say bumping up the Fly level just delays the problem?




Which helps somewhat AND the more important factor that Chariot power doesn't have the same problems as Fly did.

I can deal with Chariot easily, Fly not so much.


----------



## Andor (Jul 29, 2008)

Plus of course the one that everyone seems to be missing is this: 

All day overland flight costs the same as a level 5 magic item. 

Huh?

MM pg 146. Hippogriff and Griffons cost 1000 gp. The same as a standard 5th level magic item. What level was everyone complaining about all day flying at? *drum roll* 5th!

Ta-da!

Oh well, at least it can't be abused because not everyone has Ride as a class skill. Wait. What? There is no more ride skill? Everyone is automatically fully proficient at riding everything from Steelback Chihuahuas to Needlenosed Landsharks? 

Well, they are hard to train, right? D'oh! No more training rules! 

Wow I sure am glad 4e cleared that problem up!


----------



## portermj (Jul 29, 2008)

Andor said:


> Plus of course the one that everyone seems to be missing is this:
> 
> All day overland flight costs the same as a level 5 magic item.
> 
> ...




I didn't know eggs could fly.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 29, 2008)

I realy can't believe people don't see the difference between "superhero" flight and riding a pegasus/griffon?


----------



## billd91 (Jul 29, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I realy can't believe people don't see the difference between "superhero" flight and riding a pegasus/griffon?




Ask the Black Knight and Valkyrie from Marvel comics. They _might_ be able to explain the difference... if they weren't superheroes.


----------



## ironvyper (Jul 29, 2008)

Hussar said:


> So, in order to counter a 3rd level wizard spell, I can no longer use 3/4 of the monster types in the game?  I mean, sure, humanoids, giants and a couple of other types can use bows, but, everyone else is screwed.
> 
> I think I'd rather do away with the spell, or move it up to the point where the majority of creatures have built in ways of countering it, rather than forcing every dungeon to be a tower of orcs.




I think 3/4 is a just a bit of an exageration dont you? Considering we were talking about flight in a dungeon any creature in the book with hands to use missle weapons, a climp speed to just run up the walls or ceilings and get to the wizard anyway, a breath weapon the reach him or any sort of ranged spell like, extraordinary, or psionic ablity was on fairly equal footing. I havent counted but i really doubt that 3/4 of  the monsters in 3e dont have any of those abilities. 

   As for the ones that ones that dont? Oh well, the wizard got a good spell in that made him alone pretty much immune to most of the vermin and basic animals in the book. I dont really think that its so terrible that a couple of big bugs and some animals arent a threat to a 5th level guy anymore.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I realy can't believe people don't see the difference between "superhero" flight and riding a pegasus/griffon?



I can.

Although I think the Griffon egg should be priced as a 7th level item rather than a 5th level one (just the same as a warhorse is priced as a 3rd level item, being a 3rd level mount).


----------



## Hussar (Jul 29, 2008)

ironvyper said:


> I think 3/4 is a just a bit of an exageration dont you? Considering we were talking about flight in a dungeon any creature in the book with hands to use missle weapons, a climp speed to just run up the walls or ceilings and get to the wizard anyway, a breath weapon the reach him or any sort of ranged spell like, extraordinary, or psionic ablity was on fairly equal footing. I havent counted but i really doubt that 3/4 of  the monsters in 3e dont have any of those abilities.
> 
> As for the ones that ones that dont? Oh well, the wizard got a good spell in that made him alone pretty much immune to most of the vermin and basic animals in the book. I dont really think that its so terrible that a couple of big bugs and some animals arent a threat to a 5th level guy anymore.




No, I don't consider it to be an exaggeration at all.

Hands assumes humanoids or giants.  So, they can be used.

Climb speed?  Well, sort of.  But, the flier simply has to keep some space between him and the climber and he's golden.  Climb simply won't really work.

Psionics?  Mind Flayer is CR 8.  AFAIK, nothing else has anything close.  

How many CR 5 or lower creatures actually have a ranged attack?  Not too many.  Some do.  Some fly as well.  But, the vast majority don't.  

Sure, if you ensure that all dungeons have ceiling height of Monster +3 feet, then fly isn't a problem.  So long as you never adventure outside, or in large areas.

In other words, the existence of this spell limits what we can create.  We HAVE to take this into account when designing adventures.  Because if we ignore it, then it can easily overpower encounters - either by completely negating them by bypassing, or making them ridiculously easy because the monster cannot reach the party.

That's why fly is a problem.  It forces, in a way that most other spells don't, DM's to specifically take it into account when designing adventures.

Now, on to Andor.

Yes, you can buy flying mounts.  But, that becomes difficult.  The mounts have to be fed, can be killed, and certainly don't give you perfect maneuverability like fly does.  You cannot, for example, use a mount to constantly overcome terrain difficulties like you could with an Overland Flight spell.


----------



## ironvyper (Jul 29, 2008)

Hussar said:


> No, I don't consider it to be an exaggeration at all.
> 
> Hands assumes humanoids or giants.  So, they can be used.




  Humanoids are a large group of monsters, and are especially common at lower levels. 





Hussar said:


> Climb speed?  Well, sort of.  But, the flier simply has to keep some space between him and the climber and he's golden.  Climb simply won't really work.




   Climb works fine, fly doesnt make your speed that fast, and i forgot the several beasties that have a jump ability. 



Hussar said:


> Psionics?  Mind Flayer is CR 8.  AFAIK, nothing else has anything close.




   You cut out the part about the supernatural, spell-like and extraordinary abilities which are more common and taken as a whole covers many  more creatures. 



Hussar said:


> How many CR 5 or lower creatures actually have a ranged attack?  Not too many.  Some do.  Some fly as well.  But, the vast majority don't.




  Out of just the MM1 i will start at CR 1. no need to do the half CR's, aquatics or humanoids, so this will just be the non humanoids who qualify as having ranged attacks of some form, a fly speed, a fast enough climb to catch a flyer indoors, or burrow to just avoid and nerf the wizard. 

dark mantle, Giant Bee, nixie, psuedodragon, monstrous spiders, lantern archon, bat swarm, imps, hippogriff, quasit demon, thoqqua (can just burrow till fly wears off), allip, arrowhawk, ankheg (burrowing again), giant eagles, medium or large air or earth elementals can both deal with flyers in different ways, ettercap, Gaint wasp, locaust swarm, mephits, pegasus, shadows, wights, xorn, arraneas, gargoyles, griffon, harpy, pixie, zombie wyvern, cloakers, genies, green hag (spell resistance and invisibility), hieacosphinx, manticores, rasts and ravids, spider eater, and wraith.

   And thats just the MM1, assuming only CR5 encounters, even though the big fights are supposed to be above the players CR by 2 or 3 levels i think this list along with all the humanoids i left out show theres is plenty of ability just with the MM1 to challenge a flying wizard. 



Hussar said:


> Sure, if you ensure that all dungeons have ceiling height of Monster +3 feet, then fly isn't a problem.  So long as you never adventure outside, or in large areas.




   Dungeons are constructed in many cases, so theres really no reason for anyone to go to the hassle of hewing out huge chambers that go way above thier heads. In the modern world a 10 ft ceiling in a room is considered vaulted and a luxury in homes and apartments. 

  Adventuring outside is easy, anything with thick foresting, like forests or jungles has a natural "ceiling" of boughs that would entangle any flying character trying to buzz about wherever they want below it and provide good cover from anyone flying above it. Of course urban areas are full of buildings a character could easily duck into for cover against a flyer. Flying is really only uber on an open plain, desserts or mountains. 



Hussar said:


> In other words, the existence of this spell limits what we can create.  We HAVE to take this into account when designing adventures.  Because if we ignore it, then it can easily overpower encounters - either by completely negating them by bypassing, or making them ridiculously easy because the monster cannot reach the party.




  Theres nothing wrong with factor that you have to consider in encounters. Thats part of having any magic user in the party. Just like you have to take into account the clerics buff spells that can  push a party way out line with their assumed power according to CR, or you have to take into account that players are gonna blow all their resources early and want to hole up and rest every few encounters and if you dont give them the chance then their assumed power by CR is going to be lower then expected. 

  Thats just part of designing encounters and adventures. And if the wizard can occasionally whip out his fly spell and kick some butt, oh well. Is that really so terrible that sometimes you let him be super and sometimes you throw enemies at him that make his favorite tactic useless or even makes him an easier target?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 29, 2008)

pemerton said:


> Which is fine. The problem with cheap low-level fly is not the travel issue, but the tactical advantage it gives in combat and in physical challenges.




But, 4e HAS flight in combat. It's once per day (per power), and perhaps that ties into the other thread about the 15 min adventuring day, but...

From what I gather, folks had a problem with Fly because folks would buy a wand of fly (5X3X750, 11,250gp. 225gp a charge) and then spam it all the time to always be flying. This was such a problem that 4e made flight a once a day thing and moved any actual travel power to higher level.

This was NOT a problem that the design team recognized in 3.5, since the Warlock has non-stop flight.

So, it can avoid encounters (unless those encounters are important) and it can avoid terrain (but not in dungeons so much). In combat it's the same, but now you can only "dominate" combat 1/day rather than paying a gp fee.

Like I said, never having had this problem, it feels to me like the "I hate warforged because they don't eat, and sometimes I want to starve my players" type of deal.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 29, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> But, 4e HAS flight in combat. It's once per day (per power), and perhaps that ties into the other thread about the 15 min adventuring day, but...



My quick search through the PHB found a Paladin encounter at 13 (fly Wis mod squares as part of a charge), a cleric Paragon Path daily at level 20 and a Warlock daily at 10 (both give fly 6, the Warlock one removes standard actions, the cleric one gives hover), a Warlock encounter at 15 (no attack), a Warlock 22 encounter (fly at own speed), a Wizard daily at 16 (fly 8, minor to sustain) and then the Mass version of that as a Wizard daily at 22. Wizards also have Levitate at 6 with Sustain Move for quite limited horizontal movement, a vertical cap of 4 squares and an AC/Ref penalty. And there's the chariot as a 22nd level Cleric daily that can carry up to 5 targets. Only the cleric gets the ability to hover (so the others - except Levitate - have to move or else they crash, and they lose Opportunity Attacks).

I don't have the play experience with 4e to confirm this hypothesis, but to me at least that looks like Fly being less frequent, higher level, and (except for the Cleric Paragon Path 20th power) less powerful, and these (presumably deliberate) changes give me more confidence that the design team has better taken account of the availability of fly as a balancing factor for encounter mix and monster abilities.

The fact that they've abandoned the old Manoeuvrability Classes, inherited from the 1st ed DMG, also makes me more confident they've had a serious look at flying as a factor contributing to encounter balance.



Vocenoctum said:


> From what I gather, folks had a problem with Fly because folks would buy a wand of fly (5X3X750, 11,250gp. 225gp a charge) and then spam it all the time to always be flying. This was such a problem that 4e made flight a once a day thing and moved any actual travel power to higher level.



I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here. But non-constant flying seems to be a deliberate design choice in 4e. Again, the fact that deliberate decisions have been made about flying makes me more confident that the balance issues have been taken into consideration in monster design and encounter-mix suggestions.



Vocenoctum said:


> This was NOT a problem that the design team recognized in 3.5, since the Warlock has non-stop flight.



I don't know the 3.5 Warlock very well, but I'm sure you're right. In which case I'd have to conlcude - from my own long experience GMing a fly-heavy campaign - that the 3.5 design team made an error.



Vocenoctum said:


> So, it can avoid encounters (unless those encounters are important) and it can avoid terrain (but not in dungeons so much). In combat it's the same, but now you can only "dominate" combat 1/day rather than paying a gp fee.



Well this is the issue. Deliberate changes to fly of the sort I've mentioned above make me more confident (as I've also mentioned above) that fly won't lead to domination, because I infer that it has concsiously been accounted for in the overall design of the game.



Vocenoctum said:


> Like I said, never having had this problem, it feels to me like the "I hate warforged because they don't eat, and sometimes I want to starve my players" type of deal.



Having had the problem, I see it as completely different. It's not just an issue of overall tenable storyline (and, as I said above, I don't really care about the overland travel aspect at all - like Warforged starvation, that goes to overall campaign flavour but not to encounter design), it's an issue of tenable encounter design. As a GM I'm happy to work on campaign flavour, but I want the game mechanics to provide me with a bunch of (more-or-less) playable encounters out of the box. That means that monsters have to be balanced to take fly into account. I've stated above what I take to be the evidence (absent sufficient actual play experience) that 4e has done this.


----------



## Andor (Jul 29, 2008)

portermj said:


> I didn't know eggs could fly.




Watch more Mork and Mindy.

...

You know, in my experience flight enable far more adventures than it forstalls.

GM: Oh noes! I can't threaten my party with ants if they fly! No more flight for you!
Players: Uh, okay, but weren't we supposed to check out the abandoned cloud castle next week?
GM: ... D'oh!


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 29, 2008)

Andor said:


> Plus of course the one that everyone seems to be missing is this:
> 
> All day overland flight costs the same as a level 5 magic item.
> 
> ...




Ummm....you do realize ANYBODY in 3e could ride any kind of mount as well?  The ride skill was only applicable when you tried to perform some trick with the mount, like attack off it, make it jump over an obstacle, etc.  Plus, both 3e and 4e have the Mounted Combat feat, which is what a rider really needs in order to use a mount effectively in combat.

As for training, look at 4e's Nature skill, and you see it covers teaching an animal new tricks or training.  The nature of the trick or training is left up to the DM and player, but its there.  Again, your arguement holds no water.  

Flying mounts are also not the freebie a flight spell is.  First, there is the matter of procuring food, stabling, etc for it- and as most are carnivorous, that can be a problem (where do you get 50 lbs of meat per day to feed a griffin?).  Flying mounts can also be killed, which means you blew your 1000 gp.  You can't "kill" a fly spell, and magic items that provide flight are more difficult to destroy than killing a mount.  Mounts also are not perfectly maneuverable, and weather conditions can more easily affect them.  Hmmm....looks to me like 4e did make a distinction between its flight and the munchy 3e flight.

As for how flight isn't as uber in 4 combat, look at the monsters a level 5 character in 3e faces compared to the monsters a level 22 character in 4e faces.  Very few of the 3e monsters have any inherent way to deal with flying characters.  In contrast, almost ALL of the 4e monsters have some way to deal with the flying characters (innate ranged attacks, powers, hindering flying opponents, buffing flying/ranged allies, flight, or teleport of their own.  

Using the example given earlier in the thread of ranged ogres, they will have exactly a rat's @ss chance in hell of hitting a flying wizard, since they have crap Dex and their attacks with missile weapons (which would probably be thrown weapons to gain their Str bonus damage) will have crap range (javelin for example has range increment 30 feet).  So for example, the 3 ogre with a javelin hurling it at a flying wizard 120 feet away would have a +3 BAB -1 Dex - 6 for 4 range increments, for a whopping grand total of -4 to the attack roll.  This example is even being nice to the ogres, assuming the wizard stays 120 feet away- fireball has a 400 ft + 40 ft per level range!!!  The 3e wizard can just bop out to a safe range, and repeatedly fireball them or use whatever AOE spell he wishes to destroy them with a few token resistance spears hurled his direction.

In 4e, those same ogres, are a MUCH greater threat to a flying wizard.  If they are using javelins (range 10/20 in 4e), they can hit a wizard ANYWHERE he would be in relation to them, as most wizard spells have range 10, with a few at range 20.  Now, our little squishy wizard can't be a chicken and stay way out or range and blast with impugnity.  The ogres get +13 to attack with javelins, for 1d8+4 damage, or a +11 at 20 square range.  And if you notice, ogres are NOT a level suitable challenge for a level 22 character (an ogre skirmisher with javelins is a level 8 enemy).  Ratchet that up to a level 22 enemy (a Death Giant for example, or an efreet fireblade or cinderlord) and our wizard is going to be toast pretty quick.

So, I think I've clearly shown that the 4e designers DID think about the implecations of ranged and flying combat much moreso than 3e (heck they thought about EVERYTHING much moreso than 3e), and took steps to avoid the same pitfalls, or at least give opponents viable choices to counter flying/ranged threats.  I don't necessarily agree with everything they did in 4e, but overall as a system it holds together much better than 3e IME and IMO.  While 3e had some great innovations, it was at its core badly designed, and didn't scale well with character powers and abilities.  If folks would give 4e a shot rather than ranting about misinformed opinions regarding the ruleset and actually PLAY the darn thing, we wouldn't have so many flamebait threads with people trying to pick fights.


----------



## Toras (Jul 29, 2008)

You know what would have made 4e complete?  Rules for making new things, and balancing them appropriately.   I'm not just talking about crafting rules, I suppose I can live without those.  

But rules for creating/balancing new powers, feats, monsters, classes, the list goes sodding on.  Frankly, if it had included that we could have made what we missed and frankly perhaps ours would have turned out better.  This is what I feel is missing from this and many other games.  Guidelines for further sodding development.  Oh, and a lack of Rogue's being able to build traps sucks too.  (Along with a decrease in wards and other prepared protectives.)

And while I'm here, losing Metallic Dragons sucks if you aren't playing as a Good campaign.  If you are using Blackguards and other such, fighting good dragons and other good creatures of purity and light becomes reliavent.  I for one resent the anti-evil bias.   Also, just because someone or something is good doesn't mean it can't be mislead or disagree with the parties intentions.  Such things can lead to conflict.

Other things to be missed do included illusions, enchantments, necromancy, unique transmutations,etc.  Not required for a game, but things to miss for genre if nothing else.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 29, 2008)

Toras said:


> You know what would have made 4e complete?  Rules for making new things, and balancing them appropriately.   I'm not just talking about crafting rules, I suppose I can live without those.
> 
> But rules for creating/balancing new powers, feats, monsters, classes, the list goes sodding on.  Frankly, if it had included that we could have made what we missed and frankly perhaps ours would have turned out better.  This is what I feel is missing from this and many other games.  Guidelines for further sodding development.  Oh, and a lack of Rogue's being able to build traps sucks too.  (Along with a decrease in wards and other prepared protectives.)
> 
> Other things to be missed do included illusions, enchantments, necromancy, unique transmutations,etc.  Not required for a game, but things to miss for genre if nothing else.




Yeah, I definitely agree with this.  I'd love some guidelines for power creation would be a godsend.  Illusions, necromancy, enchantments, etc are coming (in fact, a recent Dragon article put level 1-10 illusions back in) but I do miss them.


----------



## Andor (Jul 29, 2008)

Gothmog said:


> we wouldn't have so many flamebait threads with people trying to pick fights.




You mean like yours?

You guys really need to pick a reason flight is broken and stick with it. So far in this thread I've seen:

A) It lets you skip filler encounters during overland travel.
B) It's tactically broken in 3e yet somehow not in 4e.
C) "Superman" flight is not heroic.

We've also established that 4e still lets you skip filler encounters with flying mounts and low-level teleportal travel.

Flying is flying. If your ogres are dumb enough to stand there and let a wizard drop fireballs on them in 3e, then they will stand there and let a wizard _drop rocks_ on them in 4e. Running for cover is running for cover in either edition.

4e still has superman flight. It also has flying chariots, sprouting wings, and whistling up an angel to carry you around like a holy rickshaw driver.

Will just one 4e fanboi explain to me why it's impossible for you to like 4e without hating and attacking 3e?

4e is disappointing to me, but I don't hate it. If I was offered a slot in a game I would play it, although I would prefer 3e.

Why do 4e fans have to act like 3e killed their child and raped their dice?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 29, 2008)

Andor said:


> A) It lets you skip filler encounters during overland travel.




This was not my complaint. My complaint that it invalidates (not avoids) a ground-based challenge when you have 1/minute per level flight and combat encounters last a few rounds at the most. You're able to avoid a real threat from a good chunk of the most basic MM encounters at 5th level, because they can't fly or have limited ranged capabilities. And 3e's fly was really bad, since it effectively doubled your speed (most characters had a speed of 6 squares; fly gives 12). So, one spell allows you to move faster than everyone as well as avoid terrain, obstacles, and stay out of the range of melee.

I know the immediate response is "Well, use ranged/flying creatures," but that means by 5th level, a very large chunk of my Monster Manuals become effectively worthless.



> B) It's tactically broken in 3e yet somehow not in 4e.




Yeah, because it's incredibly limited, and actually factors into the economy of actions to maintain. No more popping fly then being able to fly faster than everyone else can move for the encounter's duration with little restriction (good maneuverability) and no further costs. Now, it costs actions to maintain and isn't available in the early levels.



> Flying is flying. If your ogres are dumb enough to stand there and let a wizard drop fireballs on them in 3e, then they will stand there and let a wizard _drop rocks_ on them in 4e. Running for cover is running for cover in either edition.




1. Not all cover protects you from aerial attacks.
2. Hard to outrun someone that moves roughly twice as fast as you and is not hampered by terrain or spacing.
3. Fireball has a crazy range and isn't the most difficult to get behind an obstacle.



> It also has flying chariots, sprouting wings, and whistling up an angel to carry you around like a holy rickshaw driver.




In the paragon and epic tiers.

If you can't see the huge difference between nearly unrestricted flight by 5th level, and restricted flight at 22nd level (or incredibly restricted flight at lower levels), then there's no point in discussing this with you at all.


----------



## Andor (Jul 29, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I know the immediate response is "Well, use ranged/flying creatures," but that means by 5th level, a very large chunk of my Monster Manuals become effectively worthless.




Actually my immediate response is 'use terrain.' A dense forest, a cave, a building, the morning fog, any of these negate flight as a useful way to assault the monster de jour without risk.

Additionally you always have the option of useing flying monsters as a threat to mobile but squishy casters. If they are in the mountains then there are plenty of wyverns and griffons around who will be happy to eat flying squishies. They don't have to be part of the encounter, just visibly flying off in the middle distance. One encounter with territorial wyverns defending their nest during breeding season and your mages will be less eager to break out the flight.

I can't think of a polite way to put it, but if you really don't have the imagination to deal with flight, perhaps you should reconsider GMing.



The Little Raven said:


> Yeah, because it's incredibly limited, and actually factors into the economy of actions to maintain. No more popping fly then being able to fly faster than everyone else can move for the encounter's duration with little restriction (good maneuverability) and no further costs. Now, it costs actions to maintain and isn't available in the early levels.
> 
> In the paragon and epic tiers.
> 
> If you can't see the huge difference between nearly unrestricted flight by 5th level, and restricted flight at 22nd level (or incredibly restricted flight at lower levels), then there's no point in discussing this with you at all.




Which means the problem is delayed, not removed. Why is it a problem at level 5 but not level 16? 

And frankly 'minor action to maintain' to not much of a limit, except for warlocks who need that minor action to apply their curses. Oh, guess what? The warlock flight spell doesn't require an action to maintain. And of course both spells can be used through wands.

Again, if you like 4e, terrific. But why the need to make these pathetic assaults upon 3e to justify your love?

Yes flight was easy to aquire in 3e. And of course, since class levels were available to monsters, it was then just as easy for the monsters to have it. This is a feature, not a bug. It allows the investigation of the cloud castle, or the arial chase through the towers of sharn, or the drow stalgtite city. 

D&D is a fantasy game. If there is a more primal fantasy than flight I don't know what it is.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 29, 2008)

Andor said:


> Which means the problem is delayed, not removed. Why is it a problem at level 5 but not level 16?





What I saw in my 3e games, was that fly became available so early, you never had a chance to experience fun adventures revolving around somewhat mundane concepts. How do we get into the castle? We could climb, but it's risky.. oooohhhh... There's a clif we have to scale down to continue... It'll be a dangerous climb, but we're up for it. ooooh.

It all becomes invalidated by a simple fly spell/ability that came about too soon.

In and of itself flying is not a bad thing.


----------



## Toras (Jul 29, 2008)

While I can understand people using Flight to avoid being squished as a caster on an open plane, everything about that screams to me that someone a couple hundred feet up is pretty easy to spot by anything with vision based on movement or scouts.  

If stealth, even the most minor concession of sticking to the forest, should be a concern.  Especially in a point of light setting, where who knows what might exist out there in the deep forests or high mountains.

Moreover, unless the wizard is digging deep for the wealth to buy wands or scrolls of it, there is a distinct limit to the number of 3rd level spells he can cast a day.  1 Fly is one less fireball or lightning bolt.  It means that even if he is flying, the rest of the party likely isn't.  And unless the wizards a dick, he cares enough about the party to be close enough to support them.  

Really flight only became a problem when it was possible to reliable do mass fly, which was a great deal higher.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 29, 2008)

Andor said:


> Actually my immediate response is 'use terrain.' A dense forest, a cave, a building, the morning fog, any of these negate flight as a useful way to assault the monster de jour without risk.




So, put the onus of compensating for an overpowered ability on the DM, instead of correcting the game design that created the problem? Nah.



> I can't think of a polite way to put it, but if you really don't have the imagination to deal with flight, perhaps you should reconsider GMing.




Having to compensate for a level 5 power that has the ability to break an encounter completely is a sign of poor design. Maybe the people that designed it should reconsider their line of work.



> Which means the problem is delayed, not removed. Why is it a problem at level 5 but not level 16?




Scale of adventure?



> And frankly 'minor action to maintain' to not much of a limit, except for warlocks who need that minor action to apply their curses. Oh, guess what?




Some of them require other kinds of actions to maintain, and it can factor into the tactical nature of the economy of actions. You might say it's not much of a factor, but have you actually played the game much, and actually had to decide between sustaining an ongoing effect or performing another action instead, both of which are tactically viable for you?



> The warlock flight spell doesn't require an action to maintain. And of course both spells can be used through wands.




The warlock flight spell being Shadow Form, right? The spell that prevents you from performing a standard action while under it's effect, which pretty much means no attacks. Or Cloak of Shadows, which allows you to fly for one turn and specifically prevents you from affecting any creature or object for two turns. Or Wings of the Fiend, which is an *epic level* ability to fly for an encounter (which feeds into the warlock being a mobile class).



> But why the need to make these pathetic assaults upon 3e to justify your love?




Pathetic assault? Now you're just getting desperate and silly. A number of us have pointed out that we didn't like 3e's handling of flight, which spurs a bunch of you 3e-lovers to rush in and tell us that it's exactly the same as in 4e (which it isn't), and when we spell out the exact differences and why we didn't like it, you throw a tantrum about how we're bashing 3e.



> Yes flight was easy to aquire in 3e.




And that's the problem.



> And of course, since class levels were available to monsters, it was then just as easy for the monsters to have it. This is a feature, not a bug.




Requiring the DM to compensate for bad design choices is not a feature, it's a bug. And a bad one.



> It allows the investigation of the cloud castle, or the arial chase through the towers of sharn, or the drow stalgtite city.




4e flight (through mounts, flying carpets, etc) allows this without invalidating tactical encounters or piling loads of extra guess-work on the DM to compensate for it.



> If there is a more primal fantasy than flight I don't know what it is.




Immortality.


----------



## jadrax (Jul 29, 2008)

Andor said:


> You guys really need to pick a reason flight is broken and stick with it.




This might have more weight if you did not seem to somewhat schizophrenically be arguing both that Flight is not a problem in 3rd Ed simultaneous with Flight is a problem in 3rd Ed and 4th Ed hasn't fixed it.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 29, 2008)

Andor said:


> Which means the problem is delayed, not removed. Why is it a problem at level 5 but not level 16?



(1) At higher levels of combat, more stuff flies and more stuff has ranged attacks.

(2) IIRC, any caster's max range with just about anything is 20 squares/100'.  Most spells have a range of 10 sq./50'.  Missile weapons' long ranges go out to a maximum of 30 squares/150'.  It's much tougher for a caster to stay out of range when they can't pelt spells well beyond missile weapons' maximum ranges.  If anything, 4e should worry about flying longbow-rangers.

(3) Long range with a missile weapon is only -2 to the attack roll, not -10 or higher.  Against lowish-AC casters, this is less of a big deal in 4e.

(4) Worst case scenario, 4e has the "heavy ranged" weapon category, which uses Strength as the attack characteristic.  So, beefy bad guys aren't nearly as crippled at range.

-O


----------



## Andor (Jul 29, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Having to compensate for a level 5 power that has the ability to break an encounter completely is a sign of poor design. Maybe the people that designed it should reconsider their line of work.




The only way an encounter can be 'completely broken' is if the PCs manage to claim the reward for the encounter without expenditure of resources or effort.

The reward in this case has to be either monetary or plot related since of course the PCs don't earn XP for an encounter which doesn't actually challenge them.

If the creatures lack both the intelligence to use cover, and the hands to wield ranged weapons what monetary reward follows their defeat? Valuable hides? Too bad the mage fireballed them eh? Most creature of even animal intelligence will run from a flying threat btw. That's why they can herd wild animals with helicopters.

If the encounter is important for plot reasons and does not involve intelligent creatures, time pressure, terrain, or a fragile prize to be rescued them I fail to see how non-flying PCs were to be challenged either since they could just sit 300 yards away with a long bow and plink the stupid thing to death, whatever it was. 

In all earnest, give me this encounter that 1 flying PC ruins at level 5. I'm curious to see what it is, and why it's so central to your games.



			
				jadrax said:
			
		

> This might have more weight if you did not seem to somewhat schizophrenically be arguing both that Flight is not a problem in 3rd Ed simultaneous with Flight is a problem in 3rd Ed and 4th Ed hasn't fixed it.




Heh. I'm saying that if flight troubles you, 4e only delays your woes slightly, if at all, since flying mounts are available starting at about 5th level. Personally I am untroubled by flight, and am rather puzzled why some are.

Yes, the existance of flight changes the game, but flying PCs have been around for about 30 years now and if the GMs of the past could cope the GMs of the future will do likewise.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 29, 2008)

Andor.  I am pretty freaking far from being a 4e fan and supporter.  Seriously, you aren't doing yourself any favors here.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 29, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Pathetic assault? Now you're just getting desperate and silly. A number of us have pointed out that we didn't like 3e's handling of flight, which spurs a bunch of you 3e-lovers to rush in and tell us that it's exactly the same as in 4e (which it isn't), and when we spell out the exact differences and why we didn't like it, you throw a tantrum about how we're bashing 3e.




Is that how you remember it?
I thought I mentioned Flight was missing, then you pounced on me, then I clarified that I meant Freeform flight, then you ignored that for a while, then the arguement about how flight was a problem (for some people) went in.

So to clarify my original point, 4e removed freeform flight because it didn't fit on the grid (and by that I mean the mini/ grid based combat encounter). You agree, but find that to be a good thing.

So we have two camps:
1) Folks that never had a problem with flight
2) Folks that had a problem with flight.

The rules were the same, only the groups were different. We can maybe agree that the rules were "open to abuse" and that a DM could plan around them, but some don't think they should have to.

Sound about right? Or did I miss something?


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 29, 2008)

Andor said:


> You mean like yours?
> 
> You guys really need to pick a reason flight is broken and stick with it. So far in this thread I've seen:
> 
> ...




This is bordering on the surreal/absurd now.  I'm not personally trying to bait or antagonize anyone on the boards, and while I like 4e and enjoy playing it, I'm not a 4e fanboi.  For example, I'm not a fan of the 4e town portal/teleportal travel at low levels.  Sure, at high level, thats ok- make it a ritual, but low level to me should be about trekking through the wilderness and having some random encounters, discovering some haunted ruins, etc.  What some folks consider set piece encounters or trivial because they didn't relate directly to the adventure at hand, I see as potential chances for character growth.  4e has some issues and problems, but nothing near the level of what 3e had.  

So, I'm not a big fan of flight- never have been.  But as to your points:

A) Yep, flight can let you skip overland travel encounters, which isn't my thing.  Thing is, this occurs later in 4e, which means the PCs don't have the ability to circumnavigate encounters as easily up until that point.

B) Flight is pretty definitively broken in 3e, or at least highly abusable at the least- and I posted an exhaustive example why, the numbers involved, and how each situation could play out with ranges in each edition, etc.  I'm not sure if you're even trying to debate that 3e monsters and characters had fewer effective options to deal with this- because its really not debatable when you look at the evidence.  Hurling a javelin with a -4 in 3e vs a +11 in 4e is a HUGE difference in effectiveness and likelihood of success.  And yes, your point that the ogres or targets could use cover is valid, and something they absolutely should do.  But 3e wizards had more spells per day and more ways to neutralize the terrain or cover advantage, and/or make their own terrain to block their enemies in and just blast at their leisure (wall of fire, wall of force, and other terrain mod spells).  And once those ogres get to cover, they are still in deep- they still have no effective way to deal with the wizard while he drops spell after spell on them.  In short, 3e wizards and spellcasters in general were too freaking powerful in comparison to monsters and non-spellcasters.

C) Superman flight isn't heroic- its superheroic.  Flying at will from prolonged periods rarely, if ever shows up in myths and fantasy literature.  It clearly is the province of superheroes- and I don't want a superheroic fantasy game.  If I did, I'd play Exalted.

Yes, 4e has a flying chariot for overland travel, AT 22nd LEVEL!  Yes, you can grant flight 8 to another character AT 22nd LEVEL!  Flight in 3e is a 3rd level spell, and wands with flight can easily abused creating th F-16 fireball shooting wizard of death (and I saw this multiple times during the 3e era).  Flight in and of itself in the game isn't wrong, and some folks like it.  But when the wizard is dominating every fight and keeping other players from having fun using the same tactics over and over ad nauseum every fight (something that was common not only with wizards, but clerics and druids as well in 3e), and the designers didn't consider that possibility, the game is suffering from poor design.  The point of the game is to have fun, and when the game becomes unfun for the other players, there is a problem.  Yes, you can houserule away the problems to some degree, but that doesn't change the fact the game is flawed.  This is just one of the ways 3e was flawed and poorly considered, and while 3e made some great strides forward in streamlined mechanics, much of the core design and assumptions used seems rushed and poorly considered to me if the goal is a game that is fun for all players and the DM.

I don't hate 3e.  I don't like it, because it can't do much of what I want out of a fantasy RPG without a ton of work and modding, but its not worth my time to hate a game.  I do think the designers of 4e looked at people's complaints about 3e long and hard, and tried their best to make a game that makes sense, is fun for all players involved, and solves a lot of the game-breakers of previous editions by slaughtering some sacred cows.  For me, 4e simply is a superior game to 3e in every regard.

So don't take people criticizing 3e (or 4e) so personally.  Its not like any of us here wrote the rules for the game.  No game is perfect.  3e was a decent system for its time, and had some great innovations, but it had flaws, and clapping your hands over your ears and singing "LALALALALA" doesn't make it not so.  4e isn't perfect either, but its a damn sight better designed and more thought out than what has come before.


----------



## VanRichten (Jul 29, 2008)

Rechan said:


> Also, with regards to "Larger reach"; a diagnial square counts as two squares in 3.5. So unless the flying wizard is right above them, the reach isn't as useful.




Actually the RAW states that the diagonal rule only applies to movement not to attacks.  You can find this information in the PHB, under the combat section.  I would quote the pages but I don't have the book in front of me.



Hussar said:


> Yes, you can buy flying mounts. But, that becomes difficult. The mounts have to be fed, can be killed, and certainly don't give you perfect maneuverability like fly does. You cannot, for example, use a mount to constantly overcome terrain difficulties like you could with an Overland Flight spell.




Flight did not give you perfect maneuverability in 3.5E.  If I am correct it gave you average.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the "ways of dealing with flight" problem.  Most don't consider that a simple Hold Person spell will stop the wizard.  And that is a very low level spell.  

This was asked a while back in a dragon magazine (issue unknown).  The questioner asked if a wizard were flying and he were to fall under the effects of a Hold Person spell would he float in mid air or would he just fall to the ground.

The answer given was that he would just float in mid air.  The reason sited was that Fly is used mentally. The wizard is mentally deciding where he wishes to go with the power of the spell.  And since Hold Person halts all physical action by way of a "mental freezing", the character cannot will himself to move.  Just as he cannot will his legs to move.

Now I can imagine many of you are going to state that you as a DM has to now put in a character to fit this problem.  But let me remind you that it is easily possible to find someone in a CR 5 setting who can cast such a low level spell.


----------



## racoffin (Jul 29, 2008)

Toras said:


> Moreover, unless the wizard is digging deep for the wealth to buy wands or scrolls of it, there is a distinct limit to the number of 3rd level spells he can cast a day.  1 Fly is one less fireball or lightning bolt.  It means that even if he is flying, the rest of the party likely isn't.  And unless the wizards a dick, he cares enough about the party to be close enough to support them.




I gotta go with Toras on this. While I can understand that some people _might_ abuse Fly and thus it could be a problem in some games, I'm less convinced that whichever version of D&D is broken with regards to Fly. It is one of those problems I hear about here, but I haven't seen firsthand (I daresay like many of the problems I've heard about with the various versions of the game.) 

I don't think this is a 3e or 4e problem. I think this is a gamer problem/incident. I'll pause here as I'll need to fork this off to pull in a few other problems from other threads and try to tie my thoughts together coherantly.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 30, 2008)

Andor said:


> Which means the problem is delayed, not removed. Why is it a problem at level 5 but not level 16?



As I said in my last post, and as others have posted, because at 16th level monsters can handle it. Especially in light of other changes (to speed, range etc) in 4e.



VanRichten said:


> Flight did not give you perfect maneuverability in 3.5E.  If I am correct it gave you average.



No. It gives Good, which allows hovering.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 30, 2008)

I think that's the biggest difference with regard to the spellcasting system in 3E compared to 2E (note, I'm not speaking with regard to 4e).

3E more or less used the same SPELLS as 1e/2e did but the underlying assumptions (Save or Die gets weaker at higher levels in 1e/2e, spells could not be easily combined since wizards did not automatically get spells, you couldn't bypass the number of spells per day limit etc...) were all changed.

Scry-Buff-Teleport for example, simply did not exist in 1e/2e unless the DM purposely gave you those options.

Knock in 1e/2e for example is balanced/fair. Knock in 3E is way too good, even though the spell descriptions are almost exactly the same.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 30, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I think that's the biggest difference with regard to the spellcasting system in 3E compared to 2E (note, I'm not speaking with regard to 4e).
> 
> 3E more or less used the same SPELLS as 1e/2e did but the underlying assumptions (Save or Die gets weaker at higher levels in 1e/2e, spells could not be easily combined since wizards did not automatically get spells, you couldn't bypass the number of spells per day limit etc...) were all changed.



I think you said this in an earliler post, didn't you?

It was true the first time, it's still true. 3E and 1st ed AD&D are completely different games, and the assumption that the same spells would work in them has been shown to be false.


----------

