# On homogeneity, or how I finally got past the people talking past each other part



## yarael (Sep 4, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Ok, here's why things feel "samey" to some.
> 
> You roll up a first level fighter. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily. You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy a weapon and some armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level fighter, ready to go.
> 
> ...




Admittedly I did not get past page 3 in the how to remove homogeneity from 4E thread, so I don't know if this ever got picked up on.  Also, I am a 4E fan who never understood what all this talk of homogeneity was about.  But this post helped me understand far better, and several posts after by the "other side" helped me understand how folks where talking past each other.

I will highlight the first moment of clarity for me.

"You roll up a first level fighter. You pick out 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily. You note down a couple of class specific abilities, choose 4 skills from your class list, buy a weapon and some armor, and fiddle with the math until you have a first level fighter, ready to go."

I read that, and thought, "THAT's an argument that 4E is homogeneous?!?  Gosh! look at all the choices!  I get to choose 2 out of 5 powers, 1 out of a different group of 8 or more powers, yet another 1 out of any more powers.  I get 4 skills to choose from!  I get at least 1 feat choice, a race choice with real mechanical relevance.   Choices from many different weapons with their own stat choices and feat progressions! Compare that to a 3X fighter.  If I'm lucky I get 3 feat choices, 3 skill choices, a much more diminished relevance for weapons, and a race choice that lets me get that 3rd feat."

As I continued to read Remathilis's great post it started to crystallize what this homogeneity was that he was talking about.  He wasn't talking about the lack of _variety_ of choices you get to make, but the lack of variety of the _types_ of choices you get to make.  

Later posts by "anti-homogeneity" folks helped me understand why this idea is hard to internalize.  We all look and say, gosh, there are so many choices to make, that nothing feels the same.  Some typical (but not actual) quotes.

"Each class plays differently"
"There are a huge variety of tactical choices"
"Obviously you have never played, as it plays differently"
"Each level has different choices to make"

While the "homogeneity" might say something along the lines of...

"Each class is built the same"
"Every round I am doing the same thing"
"Each class plays the same"
"Each level has the same choices to make"

"Each level has different choices to make" vs "Each level has the same choices to make" gets to the root of the talking past each other part.

An analogy.  Say I am a carpenter.  I love wood, different grains, species, color, warmth.  I design and build a kitchen/dining room.  I use cherry for the cabinets of the main part.  I use maple for my island.  I use a hard oak sealed for my countertops.  I have a lovely chestnut brown bamboo for my flooring.  I have a pine wainscoting that accepts a wonderful stain.  I revel in the variety of my wood, working with each to interweave the grains together, making a wonderful composition. 

Another person walks in and says, "Wow, that's a lot of wood!  This kitchen could have used some color!"

One person revels in the details of what they are doing.  In 4E they may love the tactical nature of combat, the battle for position.  They like predetermining their powers, paragon paths and feats, trying best to align them together in a cohesive whole.  They see the clear distinction between the 7th level encounter powers, and send considerable time deciding which best works, either from a tactical standpoint or thematically.  

The other likes the "big" choices to matter.  They want their wizard to do things differently, mechanically, from their fighter.  They want the visceral around the table play experience to "feel" different.  Roll different dice, use different rules, keep track of resources differently.  They still revel in the different choices, but the choices they make are less concerned with detail, and more about the "big picture" idea they have in their head.

(of course insert a better description of the latter player in here, as I am clearly not one of them.  I struggled mightily with that description.  )

I guess, looking back, 3.X clearly supported both kinds of player.  There were certainly enough fiddly choices to made to satisfy detail guy.  And there were enough mechanical differences that big picture guy was happy.  4E is probably more appealing to detail guy because he doesn't have to master many different systems to revel in the interweaving of complexity he likes.  4E is certainly less satisfying to big picture guy, cause there is only one system to dip into.  One choice in comparison to all the myriad of choices detail guy sees.

Another way to put it.  In 3.X you said, "I am playing a Fighter" and already choices had been made for you.  You have an extra feat and no spells.  That choice _mattered_.  In 4E you say, "I am playing a Fighter" and you still have exactly the same choices ahead of you as if you were playing a wizard.  You still have a class feature, the same number of at wills, encounter powers, etc... Your initial choice doesn't _matter_, in that you still have the same types of choices to make, even if your option for those choices are different.

At least that is what I have taken away from the discussion...


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 4, 2009)

I really don't get the argument.  Yes, you use the same mechanical structure to define each character.  This applies to pretty much every RPG ever, except D&D.  There's no real reason to define them differently, it makes the game work a lot better to have a common structure.

And no class-specific abilities?  _Every single at-will, encounter, utility, and daily is class specific!_ 

Not to deride anyone, but 'too homogeneous' I translate to mean essentially the same as 'video-game' 'anime' or 'MMO-like', which is "Its all newfangled and not like the stuff I already know".


----------



## hailstop (Sep 4, 2009)

That's a good clarification post.

I wasn't getting the whole 'it's homogeneous' arguement either but this makes sense.


----------



## yarael (Sep 4, 2009)

What I am trying to get at is that, in this discussion, there are two fundamentally different types of personalities.  Unless, or until, you try to get into the skin of the other, you _won't_ get their argument.  I was trying to help both sides try to do just this.

I just thought of another example from 3.x vs 4E in prestige classes vs paragon paths.

Detail guy sees just as much choice available to him (yes, even originally, because if you compare the prestige classes available in the first 3 books, as opposed to paragon paths in 4E, there were, if you were lucky, 4 to choose from for a given character concept) in 4E paragon paths as in 3.x prestige classes.  

Big picture guy sees his choices greatly diminished.  First off, it is already decided that he _will_ take a paragon path.  Then it is already decided at what level he _will_ take it.  It is already decided that he will _only_ take one.  So many choices taken away.  All that's left is to decide which one and go.  

One person sees so many choices available to them, each choice making them different from the charcters.  Another sees the fundamental choices already made for them, with nothing available to make them different from another character.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 4, 2009)

It also helps to note the the homogeneity people are arguing depends on the section of the rules referenced!

Guy 1: 4e characters are so alike because everyone uses the stat+1/2 level to determine attacks.
Guy 2: Yeah, well, all 3e warrior types are alike because all they can do is full-attack every round!

Guy 1 brings up a char-gen example, Guy 2 counters with a combat example. Both sides are guilty of this.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Sep 4, 2009)

I stayed out of that whole thread cuz it really didn't seem to apply to me.  The whole premise is that the homogeneity of 4E (that classes gets powers and abilities at the same rate) is actually a huge strength to me.  Every character class plays differently to me (granted I have only tried a barbarian and a paladin so far but I have also DMed most every other class) and this is enough differentiation for me.  I do appreciate that others want the up and down, good level/bad level thing of 3E and older editions but, for me, I just don't want that anymore.

edit - I just re-read this post and I really think I was trying to get across that this was just my opinion given how many times I say 'me'


----------



## ferratus (Sep 4, 2009)

Well my entire point was that the two editions were homogeneous depending on where you looked and on what bothered you.

I don't seem to have gotten any agreement on that sentiment.  I was just told 4e is more homogeneous as an ideal truth.


----------



## Woas (Sep 4, 2009)

Wait. I have some questions.

 Is this so called homogeneity considered good or bad? Or both/neither depending on who you ask?

Furthermore how does the same-ness of character mechanics diminish one's ability to mold their character in-play?


----------



## Rechan (Sep 4, 2009)

Woas said:


> Is this so called homogeneity considered good or bad?



The assumption is that it's bad. Sameness is bad because lots of choices are good. 

(Just a thought, but this drive for lots and lots of options might be a very American notion. If you walk into the grocery store in America, you can find an entire aisle of just cereal. 40-50 different kinds of cereal. Other countries simply do Not have that variety present.)



> Furthermore how does the same-ness of character mechanics diminish one's ability to mold their character in-play?



In play in what sense? Like, how their character acts? 

The issue is purely one of mechanics and what you're allowed to do.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 4, 2009)

IMHO some of the choice-restrictions that people dislike about 4e are deliberate, and are a result of the choice to silo certain things -- for example, in 4e you can't sell one of your skill choices to be slightly better at combat, so everyone has at least a decent minimum number of trained skills.

In contrast, 3.x put this choice front & center. Do you want this spell slot to be used for HEALING or for SMITING (or for utility magic)? One resource, many uses.

(4e's utility powers are a bit of a grey area for me. I'm not sure which silo they're supposed to be in.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Sep 4, 2009)

yarael said:


> An analogy.  Say I am a carpenter.  I love wood, different grains, species, color, warmth.  I design and build a kitchen/dining room.  I use cherry for the cabinets of the main part.  I use maple for my island.  I use a hard oak sealed for my countertops.  I have a lovely chestnut brown bamboo for my flooring.  I have a pine wainscoting that accepts a wonderful stain.  I revel in the variety of my wood, working with each to interweave the grains together, making a wonderful composition.
> 
> Another person walks in and says, "Wow, that's a lot of wood!  This kitchen could have used some color!"




If wood in your analogy means combat, than you have what some of us end up seeing as the real flaw with 4E. The game could have used _a lot_ of extra colors there, but the designers decided to spend almost all their time researching the richness of wood variety. I like wood, but other materials could also be put to good use.

Some say that being rules-light out of combat makes 4E a better narrative experience than 3E. In my opinion, that's absurd; they are, in the best of worlds, equal in this regard. There are various good RPGs out there with great narrative mechanics that could have inspired the D&D designers to create a game that was meaningful to all characters in different ways all the time.

But they were too worried with the wood... 

Cheers,


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 4, 2009)

That's not a bad analogy. I used the "3,000 copies of the same picture at a slightly different tint" vs. "3,000 different pictures" argument, but it's kind of the same thing: minor differences in detail vs. big differences in broad things.

For me, I get the homogeneity, and I do support the reasons for it's implementation (nixing accidental suck, allowing everyone to participate, etc.), but I think it also probably goes too far in unifying everything. Combined with 4e's narrow mechanical focus on tactical minis combat, you get a game that, to me, is very much one thing, instead of many things. 

This has good and bad effects. I think we can preserve the good effects and mitigate the bad effects within 4e's framework, but it does require a different vision of how the game can play.


----------



## Henry (Sep 5, 2009)

I feel sort of similar to Kamikaze Midget on the issue: I do enjoy the fact that the math works better than it has in a long time (IMO it hasn't worked this well since AD&D at low levels!) but it's true in that the utilities are where the classes seem to get most of their "class distinctiveness" and hence could have used more slightly more utilities, in my opinion, or maybe not more utilities, but give everyone the ability to switch out utilities more often than just at retraining.

From the DM's side, they won me over despite my initial feelings - I feel like I haven't had that much implied freedom since 2nd edition.


----------



## Stuntman (Sep 5, 2009)

Basically, the framework of abilities for the various classes are the same.  All classes generally get the same number of slots for power and feats.  I'm not exactly sure why there is such a big issue about the fact that the steps you go about in creating or levelling up a wizard is very similar to that of a fighter.  When you actually play them, they feel different.  They are specialised to do different things when you play and thus are different.

Why is it so important that building characters of different classes be different?  The main reason why you build characters is so that you can play them.  The amount of time you spend building a character is likely a fraction of the time you would spend playing it.  I figure the important part is that characters of different classes actually play differently.


----------



## Deverash (Sep 5, 2009)

Stuntman said:


> Basically, the framework of abilities for the various classes are the same.  All classes generally get the same number of slots for power and feats.  I'm not exactly sure why there is such a big issue about the fact that the steps you go about in creating or levelling up a wizard is very similar to that of a fighter.  When you actually play them, they feel different.  They are specialised to do different things when you play and thus are different.
> 
> Why is it so important that building characters of different classes be different?  The main reason why you build characters is so that you can play them.  The amount of time you spend building a character is likely a fraction of the time you would spend playing it.  I figure the important part is that characters of different classes actually play differently.




There are some people who enjoy the challenge of making an effective character.  For them, the game starts not when you all sit down to play your first session, but when they sit down with the rule books and start statting out a character.  From that point of view, the game is less.  My opinion that is more than compensated for by a much more balanced in-session experience doesn't subtract from their opinion that they lost more that was given up.


----------



## Stuntman (Sep 5, 2009)

Deverash said:


> There are some people who enjoy the challenge of making an effective character. For them, the game starts not when you all sit down to play your first session, but when they sit down with the rule books and start statting out a character. From that point of view, the game is less. My opinion that is more than compensated for by a much more balanced in-session experience doesn't subtract from their opinion that they lost more that was given up.




I agree that there are people who enjoy building a character.  In the end, the final product is a character that performs well when played.  Also, when building characters, you are still looking up different powers, feats and other abilities as well.  Those features you are researching generally do different things even though you may choose the same number of them at different levels.

I don't see building characters any different than the fact that casting spells in 4E is the same as attacking with a weapon.  In 4E, both use the same mechances, but in previous editions, they use different mechances.  The fact that 4E uses the same mechanics doesn't change the fact that a spell caster feels like he is casting spells and the fighter feels like he is swinging his weapon.

If anything, it seems that some people like the fact that certain classes in previous editions have way more options than in 4E.  Spellcasters had many, many pages of spells from a great many sources to choose from.  Nonspellcasters had much fewer options.  In 4E, by slicing the options pie equally amongst all of the classes instead of concentrating them in a few, players can no longer choose the classes with the "great many" options because they are all roughly equal in the number of options.


----------



## Ainamacar (Sep 5, 2009)

Stuntman said:


> Why is it so important that building characters of different classes be different?  The main reason why you build characters is so that you can play them.  The amount of time you spend building a character is likely a fraction of the time you would spend playing it.  I figure the important part is that characters of different classes actually play differently.




This isn't necessarily true.  I made many 3.5 characters solely for enjoyment, many of which I never played or even intended to play.  I would volunteer to make or assist making other PCs for players who didn't care for building or were new.  I made all sorts of NPCs for my DMs and even their friends who were DMing completely different games.  Point of fact, I got at least as much enjoyment from building characters as from actually playing them.

I'm not alone in this, I know at least one other individual who never played 3e at all, but bought books and made characters as a fun past-time.  (Mind you, I'm not claiming anything about how prevalent this behavior is, just that it is one way to enjoy D&D).

I like 4e for a whole host of reasons, although I have my grumblings with some of its parts.  I also don't make characters for fun anymore, in large part because they tend to build the same (with respect to my enjoyment at least).  Yes, characters do play differently for the most part, but that is only part of what I enjoy.

If I were to change one thing about 4e it would be to make the at-will/encounter/daily framework more general.  The number of "power slots" gained and when they are gained can remain fixed, but classes can use them much more freely.  I think 4e can support this change, and I wouldn't be surprised if this territory was explored quite fully later in the game's life (the psion is a start!).  For example, a class might only gain at-will powers, "encounter" slots might be spent to upgrade the at-will powers in various permanent ways, and "daily" slots might be special and powerful improvements to various at-will powers that only obtain under special circumstances fairly difficult to achieve (a prone and dazed bloodied enemy, for example).  Something like that would have fulfilled what feels most natural (to me) for martial characters or a 3.5-like sorcerer/warlock.

It would also make it easier to bring back a "starter character" class that can be really darn effective without the resource management currently needed.  Finally, and it's mostly just a pet-peeve, but I really hate the (not quite but almost mandatory) power swapping as level increases.  If a character wants to use the sleep spell all the way from level 1 to 30, and have it remain effective the whole time, I think that should be an option for at least some classes.  I value character continuity, and the power swapping rubs me the wrong way.  Mind you, I think retraining is a good idea and I'm glad it was codified into the game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 5, 2009)

> I figure the important part is that characters of different classes actually play differently.




Well, from where I'm standing, the big complaint is that they actually play largely the same. 

Build is a part of the argument, but I think it's a pretty minor part of the argument.


----------



## Thasmodious (Sep 5, 2009)

I really don't get how people feel that 4e characters all play the same.  My gaming experience has not even come close to that.  The characters play very distinctive and have room to be distinctive among members of the same class.

I love creating characters.  I strongly disliked building characters in 3e.  So much so, I usually farmed it out to some optimizing friends of mine.   Building a 3e character took forever.  You have to plan your build for 20 levels, figure all your feats and requirements for every prestige class you planned to take along the way, skill choices all the way up so you could hit minimums, none of that speaks of "choice" or "freedom" to me, just tedious mechanical tinkering.  

I like to create characters.  I like to spend an hour working on background, personality, personal style and all the touches that speak to me of character depth and define what I want to play and then crank out stats in 10 minutes.  I hate pouring through a dozen books looking for one of 3000 feats to fit my character or trying to find the right combination of base and prestige classes to give me permission to play my concept.  

A gripe I have now with 4e is the number of feats they already have, and it will only grow.  The CB mitigates a lot of this, as it filters invalid choices.  I would love to see the feat system in D&D take on the broadness of other elements of 4e.  Feats like weapon expertise are great, apply bonus to any weapon.  I dislike the more directed feats.  You can do some cool stuff with them, but I don't think the trade off of the tedium of pouring over massive lists of feats versus the small boost to customizing your frost wizard lasting frost gives you is worth it.  Give me a single feat that gives a +2 to damage by energy type and an effect bonus (save debuff, vulnerability, whatever) based on the energy type.  I'll flavor the hell out of it myself, thanks.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 5, 2009)

> I really don't get how people feel that 4e characters all play the same.




Like the OP says, when you're seeing room of dynamic variety, I'm just seeing a pile of wood. You find variety in the details, but you're looking at it very closely. Draw back your gaze, and you can see how everything is very similar broadly, even if it has specific differences.


----------



## Woas (Sep 5, 2009)

So, I really don't get where this idea is coming from or where this arugement is going. Every other RPG I've played or read is like pure homogeneous in terms of game-play mechanics compared to D&D, yet they are all well received and to my knowledge, successful with active fan-bases.

Is it just that people want 'games with a game' back for D&D?


----------



## Thasmodious (Sep 5, 2009)

> You find variety in the details, but you're looking at it very closely. Draw back your gaze, and you can see how everything is very similar broadly, even if it has specific differences.




Nope.  I like the broad strokes and don't see what you see, at all.


----------



## Stuntman (Sep 5, 2009)

Ainamacar said:


> I like 4e for a whole host of reasons, although I have my grumblings with some of its parts.  I also don't make characters for fun anymore, in large part because they tend to build the same (with respect to my enjoyment at least).  Yes, characters do play differently for the most part, but that is only part of what I enjoy.




Interesting.  I find that I build more characters for fun in 4E than I did in 3E.  Just because I make the same number of decisions when building a character at any given level, does not mean that those decisions are necessarily the same.  I find that with 4E, I always want to pick more things than I have slots for.  It forces me to make a decision on what to choose.  If I choose one option, I have to choose to give up a second or third good option.  I never feel that the character is done and look forward to choosing something more the next level.  In the end, even if I do not plan to play the character, I build them with the intention that they would play differently.



> If I were to change one thing about 4e it would be to make the at-will/encounter/daily framework more general.  The number of "power slots" gained and when they are gained can remain fixed, but classes can use them much more freely.  I think 4e can support this change, and I wouldn't be surprised if this territory was explored quite fully later in the game's life (the psion is a start!).  For example, a class might only gain at-will powers, "encounter" slots might be spent to upgrade the at-will powers in various permanent ways, and "daily" slots might be special and powerful improvements to various at-will powers that only obtain under special circumstances fairly difficult to achieve (a prone and dazed bloodied enemy, for example).  Something like that would have fulfilled what feels most natural (to me) for martial characters or a 3.5-like sorcerer/warlock.




Yeah.  This sounds a lot like the psion.

I personally got over the fact that non-casters use one mechanic for their abilities and casters use another.  I personally see no value in one character that has a lack of options and another character having an overwhelming amount of options.



> It would also make it easier to bring back a "starter character" class that can be really darn effective without the resource management currently needed.  Finally, and it's mostly just a pet-peeve, but I really hate the (not quite but almost mandatory) power swapping as level increases.  If a character wants to use the sleep spell all the way from level 1 to 30, and have it remain effective the whole time, I think that should be an option for at least some classes.  I value character continuity, and the power swapping rubs me the wrong way.  Mind you, I think retraining is a good idea and I'm glad it was codified into the game.




I'm not sure what your complaint is here.  If you want to keep your Sleep spell from level 1 to 30, you can.

As for the reason for the power swapping, I think that the intent is to not overwhelm the player with so many encounter and daily powers.  I find that a level 1 character already has a great many options in combat.  Adding 3 more encounters, 3 more dailies, plus a bunch of utility powers and feats would progressively increase the number of options and things to keep track of at higher levels.  Adding 4 more encounters and dailies may not really add much value when playing epic characters.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 5, 2009)

I like variety in the game world.

At the mechanical level I don't really care.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 5, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Like the OP says, when you're seeing room of dynamic variety, I'm just seeing a pile of wood. You find variety in the details, but you're looking at it very closely. Draw back your gaze, and you can see how everything is very similar broadly, even if it has specific differences.




Let me provide an example of this in comic book terms!

If you group the Green Latern with the Flash, the Question, and Black Canary, you find a diverse team full of people with different powers.  A guy with super speed would do things differently then a paranoid dectective; who is different from an expert martial artist with a sonic scream attack, and a Green Latern who can do all sorts of things!

Now what if you have a superhero group composed of four Green Laterns? One could think that they are very much alike.  After all, they all wear green and black costumes, they all have a power ring, and they all make green stuff appear to do things.  

However, each Green Latern is a unique being who uses the ring differently.  When John Stewart uses the ring, it reflects his architectural background.  You can see every nut and bolt and could mechainily recreate what John summons. Kyle Rayner recreates fictional characters.  Hal Jordan keeps it simple with the basic laser beams and force fields.


----------



## Wik (Sep 5, 2009)

First:  I agree with Henry, overall.  he summed it up, almost perfectly.  

Second:  For the first time I can recall, I fully agree with Thasmodius.    regarding character building, at least - I definitely prefer creating characters in 4e over 3e, and I wish there were fewer feats.  Too much choice is a bad thing!

Now, that out of the way.

People saying that all games are mechanically homogenous have never played, say, Shadowrun.  The rules and sub-rules for creating a decker were entirely different than that required to play a rigger.  Every character had to be built in a completely different way, and followed different rules systems... sure, while character creation followed the same rules, each "class" had a different emphasis in character creation.... Deckers and Riggers tended to require a lot of starting money (for cyberware and programs), while stealth-based characters required attributes, mages required a lot of spell points, and so on.  

Now, I have argued since this game came out that it is homogenous outside of combat - that a fighter isn't much different from a rogue outside of a fight in mechanical terms (yeah, they may have slightly different skill choices, but with backgrounds, even that isn't necessarily true).  Some say this is a good thing, some say it is a bad thing.  I'm not entirely sure either way, myself.  But that, to me, is a fact.  Unless you count in things like rituals and magical items (and what 1st level PC starts with magical items?  And how much player choice is involved in a PC's magical items depends on the individual GM).  Outside of a fight, our Halfling Rogue and our Drow Rogue are almost mechanically better.  The dragonborn paladin and the eladrin warlord.  And so on.  

As for IN a fight... I'd say yes and no.  I think the roles are mechanically similar - defenders are up close and take hits, for the most part.  Leaders heal their friends and grant bonuses.  Controllers dish out status effects.  Strikers deal damage.  They are fairly similar, though KM makes a good point that the last two roles are a bit more varied in their approach.

That being said, there are pretty big variances there, as well.  A Paladin is a very different defender from a fighter - I see it every monday when we game.  We have a dragonborn paladin and a minotaur fighter.  The minotaur often pins down one big guy by himself or pairs up with a rogue, taking the hits while the rogue deals out the damage... or he'll go for the super mobile guy and keep him pinned down in melee combat.  The Dragonborn, meanwhile, sticks with his allies, and marks an enemy while using powers that improve upon his allies' defences, or makes an area a better combat zone.  So, the dragonborn becomes a solid front line/centre of a shield wall, while the minotaur is much more of a skirmisher. 

My biggest issue with 4e is not homogeneity.  I can live with it, because I can create the characters I envision in my head (especially now that I can use hybrid rules!).  And the fact that things are homogenous make it easier to create adventures and encounters, which is a HUGE plus.  

My big problem with 4e is the economic system, the focus on gamism as opposed to simulation, treasure packets, and all that fun stuff.  Luckily, when DARK SUN comes along, I'm going through the trouble to get rid of all of that.  Then 4e will be almost perfect.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 5, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Like the OP says, when you're seeing room of dynamic variety, I'm just seeing a pile of wood. You find variety in the details, but you're looking at it very closely. Draw back your gaze, and you can see how everything is very similar broadly, even if it has specific differences.



I am not sure if I am stretching the analogy to far, but I also wonder if this is not also an issue wether people actually play the game regularly or not. If you play it a lot, you see all the tiny differences, all the variety and tactical choices. 
But if you don't play the game, or don't play it often, you miss most of the details. You see the "broad picture". 

Of course, now people will say that I only count opinions of people that play the game a lot. And they might be right. In the end, 4E is a game meant to be played. It is designed for that purpose primarily, with every design element seeming to facilitate the actual gameplay. All that comes at the cost of the stuff you do aside from the game table. 

We have a big thread on "story-telling is part of roleplaying games or not", some say it is something else, some say it is part of it. (I agree with the latter). Maybe another question is whether we count the "world-building", "book-reading" or "character-building" also as part of roleplaying or not? 

It is probably all a part of the RPG experience, but not every part is equally appealed to with a game, and it might not always be possible, either.


----------



## Primal (Sep 5, 2009)

There's also something else that enhances the image of homogeneity in 4E... all the powers are basically just X*[W] or X*Y [insert damage type here] and some "rider" effect (slide, push, grant +W to Z, daze, etcetera). Alternatively, the "rider" effect is replaced by just a bigger pool of damage dice. Furthermore, most Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies I've seen seem to have variations of the same ability, e.g. "When you use an Action Point, you...". They may play differently, but on paper it looks to me like they're just alternate class features for the same class.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 5, 2009)

Woas said:


> Every other RPG I've played or read is like pure homogeneous in terms of game-play mechanics compared to D&D...




Mayhaps you and I are playing different games, then.

White Wolf games?  In the original Word of Darkness games, there is some of the homogenity of structure at generation, but it is not maintained in the long term by a point-buy system, and the mechanical differences between characters at generation really don't leave one with a feel that all are the same.  

Shadowrun?  Certainly not!  There's three or four rather different rulesets wandering around in there.  Samurai are not deckers, and neither of those are mages.

I have seen no superhero system that comes anywhere near 4e's structures.

Even in something like GURPS Basic Set, where all characters are generated the same way, the breadth of choices means you aren't homogeneous.


----------



## Reigan (Sep 5, 2009)

I find these complaints too generalised too understand where they are coming from. 

If someone could post something along the lines "I play a fighter on a Tuesday and a wizard on a Thursday and I find they play the same because..." and be more specific I think it would help.

I'm probably wrong, but it just feels like a lot of people complaining are not actually playing 4e and are basing their opinions on having read the rulebooks which can easily create an impression of sameness.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 5, 2009)

Umbran said:


> White Wolf games?  In the original Word of Darkness games, there is some of the homogenity of structure at generation, but it is not maintained in the long term by a point-buy system, and the mechanical differences between characters at generation really don't leave one with a feel that all are the same.



 Exalted characters don't much feel the same either, thanks to their "power" system.

IMHO what stinks is: as the GM, the antagonists all use different sub-systems. Ugh. I wish there were more homogeneity behind the screen.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 5, 2009)

Thasmodius said:
			
		

> Nope. I like the broad strokes and don't see what you see, at all.




Then I'm afraid you're incapable of understanding a fairly common experience in 4e. Either it's not broad enough yet, or there's just some fundamental disconnect in you. Which is fine, it's not ruining your games, so keep on truckin', soldier.  Just accept that you don't understand where people who make the argument are coming from. 



			
				MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> Let me provide an example of this in comic book terms!




That's not too bad, either, though I don't know from comic books that well. 



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I am not sure if I am stretching the analogy to far, but I also wonder if this is not also an issue wether people actually play the game regularly or not. If you play it a lot, you see all the tiny differences, all the variety and tactical choices.
> But if you don't play the game, or don't play it often, you miss most of the details. You see the "broad picture".




Since I play nearly every week, I don't think that's the difference, either. It's not lack of experience with the system -- I'm not ignorant of the subtle differences I just think they're just that: subtle. Too subtle for me to get a different play experience out of the game.

I think this is mostly intentional: WotC wanted to deliver one solid play experience, to cull accidental suck and dominating player abilities, and this is the result: everything is the same because anything that stands out might lead to imbalance.

In the end, as a swordmage, I solve all my problems broadly the same way that a fighter does. It looks a little different when I do it, I do it in a slightly different way, but I still do the same thing. And, in the end, it's not all that different from how a cleric or a wizard or a rogue solves their problems, either.  3,000 variations on "kill things and have a secondary effect"....ech...not so different.

Some of this is unavoidable and even desirable, but 4e certainly has some wiggle room. The monk and the psion both show a loosening of the bonds, though it's mild and limited. There can be more.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 5, 2009)

> If you play it a lot, you see all the tiny differences, all the variety and tactical choices.



One reason I _don't_ play it a lot is that I see the differences as tiny, the variety and tactical choices as uninteresting.

No set of rules can have as much diversity as the range of situations in a D&D-style fantasy RPG. So, devoting more time and energy to rules tends by itself toward relative homogeneity. Devoting a lot of time and energy to manipulating relatively few rules with similar effects tends further. (Such relative measures as "a lot", "few" and "similar" are naturally pretty subjective.)

The wizard's four cantrips are marvelous, but the other 14 1st-level spells are just typical attack powers. Level 2 is all "utilities", 3 and 5 all attacks. That 2:1 ratio of attack levels to utility levels continues, and is about the same for other classes. The utilities themselves are often just more combat factors.

Yes, there are also rituals. My problem is that the combat powers seem to me generally pretty dull, _and that's where the focus is_.

Tossing a d20 to "hit" and a d6 (or whatever) for "damage" is not much more exciting in itself. The key is that it doesn't take half an hour or more to resolve a fight. When you're getting through 4 or more situations per hour, then that aspect is less homogeneous.

Even 3e was a bit sluggish for my taste, but there at least the idea was still to start with interesting situations and translate them into game terms. With 4e, it seems to me that *everything* is stereotyped and the exercise is in trying to find something interesting to do within those constraints.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 5, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In the end, as a swordmage, I solve all my problems broadly the same way that a fighter does. It looks a little different when I do it, I do it in a slightly different way, but I still do the same thing. And, in the end, it's not all that different from how a cleric or a wizard or a rogue solves their problems, either.  3,000 variations on "kill things and have a secondary effect"....ech...not so different.



 I found them not all that similar.

A Fighter stands in front of an Elite and says: "You ain't leaving until one of us is dead."

A Swordmage Marks an Elite and then goes somewhere else: "Ha ha, you're screwed, I'll be over here killing your minions."

Cheers, -- N


----------



## BryonD (Sep 5, 2009)

Way back in the very first week after 4E was announced, I found myself in several debates regarding whether the 4E skill system should look like the Saga skill system.  I was strongly opposed (and at the time naively certain WotC would never do such).

A frequently cited example of why this system was needed was the wall obstacle.  In 3E a rogue can *very easily* climb a wall that a typical wizard will find challenging.  It was explained to me that this was a terrible break down in the game because either the wall was a challenge to the rogue and thus hopelessly impossible for the wizard, or it was possible for the wizard and made the rogue's skill at climbing pointless.

Now climbing walls is certainly not the key function of a good RPG.  But it was a simple example of how the diversity in builds could be a problem.  This could apply to just about any skill.  And also applied, though generally not to the same extreme, to saves and attacks/AC.  

To me, this is a beautiful thing.

First and foremost because these are the archetypes I want.  The rogue can climb walls and the wizard can't.  The wizard can learn spider climb if he wants to.  Or you can build a wizard who *can* climb as well as a rogue if you are willing to focus on that.  But, in the default situation, the rogue is a hell of a lot better at climbing.

Second, this is fun at the table.  When they get to the wall that is a moderate challenge for the wizard, letting the rogue not even roll is a very brief nod to the rogue player.  Thirty real world seconds later the game has moved on, but the rogue player still has that little vicarious buzz of coolness from being told not to even bother.  Big deal?  No.  Fun?  Yeah.
When they get to the wall the wizard cannot climb, then it is a real challenge.  The solution may be a simple as burning a spider climb.  Ok, no big deal.  But it may be more complicated.  But it is a challenge for the players to creatively solve rather than being a predestined "math works" just gotta roll high enough obstacle.

Extrapolate that to hundreds or thousands of aspects of every encounter and you get how I see it.

4E is balanced.  I will READILY agree that 4E is better balanced than 3E.  
3E was built as a system to model characters.  And then it was made as balanced as possible.

The mantra we heard over and over from Mearls was "the math works".  4E was built to be very well balanced and then it was made to model characters as best as possible.  Does that mean it fails at modeling fantasy archetypes?  No.  Not at all.  It does a good job of it.  I'd even say it does a better job of modeling fantasy characters than 3E does of being balanced across the board.
But that balance brings with it a lot of homogeneity.  The climb ability of the rogue and wizard are not nearly as diverse as they are in 3E.  And so on for hundreds or thousands of other little things.

And that is critically important to me.

3E = Awesome at character building and good at balance.
4E = Awesome at balance and good+ at character building.  
If everything was equal, then 4E wins.
And if what is really important to you is a tactical combat mini game, then 4E wins in a blowout.  (And you can expand this to include non-combat mechanical resolution of conflict)  This is why a fair number of people say that 4E feels too much like a mini game to them.

But everything is not equal.  If creating a character you want to get into the skin of is the most important thing, then 3E wins.  Because character building and balance are not equal.  Balance is important.  It must be good.  And while not up to 4E, 3E is still easily “good” in this column for me.  But balance is an order of magnitude less important than character building.  Character building is a must have deal breaker.  

And for an RPG it is all about the modeling of the character that the mechanics provides.  See my sig.  RP is not between the covers of a book.  You can play a 100 point GURPS game and say that your character is Superman.  And you can roleplay superman to your hearts content.  A 100 point GURPS character does not model superman, so the net result is a poor overall experience, no matter how great you role play.  That is an absurd extreme example, but it illustrates the point and is on the correct axis.

If
3E = Awesome at character building and good at balance = A and
4E = Awesome at balance and good+ at character building = B.
Then A >> B.

So I pretty much agree with the wood analogy.
You’ve got all kinds of wood.  You have very diverse wood.  Your balsa is vastly different than your pine, oak, and cherry.  
But I want balsa, pine, oak, and cherry and I also want iron and clay and steel and glass and silver and paper.  And it is ok with me if paper needs to be really careful.  He is paper, it is part of his character.  Being 12th level does not give him the same +6 as steel.  And if you tell me that paper needs to at least have a fair chance at doing anything steel can do, then I will tell you that you have made paper and steel too homogeneous.


----------



## Jasperak (Sep 5, 2009)

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to BryonD again.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 5, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But if you don't play the game, or don't play it often, you miss most of the details.



Your scenario requires the presumption that an alternate opinion must result from "missing" something.

What if they are not missing anything and still come to a different conclusion? (much less "most" of something)


----------



## yarael (Sep 5, 2009)

Having taken a day to really consider this, I think I have pegged it for myself.  My room analogy, was, in retrospect, not the best constructed analogy, so I
 will try again.... 

In 4E, you are told to go design a living room.  You can choose wood, stone, brick, or plaster.  Regardless of that choice, you still have to pick a choice for the walls, ceiling, floor, and a furniture grouping.  Your choices in this regard are limited based on the material you choose.  You cannot used the furniture from the wood group in your living room if you choose stone as your material.  

In 3.X, you are told to design a room.  You must first decide what room you wish to design.  You have the choice of kitchen, bathroom, living room, and closet.  Based upon that choice your, you will still need to choose something for the ceiling, walls, and flooring.  Some of that may be the same as one of the other rooms.  But kitchen designers get to choose amongst appliances, which the other folks don't get to choose.  They also must choose a countertop, a back splash, and a sink.  The living room design just a furniture suite to choose.  The quantity of choices the kitchen designer gets to make is different then the living room guy, much less the closet guy.

In the first example, the initial choice is significant because it limits the palette you can choose from.  But the second example shows a _different_ kind of siginificance.  It may not limit your palette at all, but the _quantity_ of choices is different.

To 4E the 3.X character creation choices for a moment, making it somewhat abstract.  A 3.X fighter gets to choose a feat.  That is his class feature at first level.  Let's say that feat is roughly equivalent to an At-Will Power (power attack, expertise, two weapon fighting, whatever, most allowed the fighter to alter his basic attack into something another character couldn't do with his basic attack).  Now let's look at the wizard.  His first level class features where choose 4 spells, choose some cantrips, and choose a familiar.  So we will say he gets to choose 4 Daily Attack powers, 6(?) Daily Utility Powers, and a Class Feature.  Obviously the difference between those two choices is quite significant.

Now to a detail guy like me, I look at that dichotomy and I hated it.  Building a fighter was boring.  By choosing that option, the game was less fun.  But to another kind of guy, he looks at that and sees that his choice _Matters_, with a capital M.  In 4E I look at all the options each class has, and no matter which I class I choose, I still have roughly, if not exactly, the same amount of choices to make.  Cool.  And with in each choice I see a myriad of different choices, each one making my character unique.  But a Big Picture guy (maybe there is a better descriptor) looks at each of the choices as minor variations on a theme.  They all heal X, damage Y, to status effect Z.  Little in the choices he sees offer a clear dichotomy, a completely different choice.  If he chooses Fighter, the quantity and types of choices will be exactly the same as for a Wizard.  There is nothing unique there.

I use character creation in my examples because I think it is easier to see this difference.  But I my no means mean that it is limited to character creation.  I can now see it in other areas too.

Take combat.  Here the choices for any character in 4E.

Do I need/want to use my move action to improve my tactical situation?
Do I need/want to use my minor action to do my Role?
Do I need/want to spend my Standard action expend a Daily Resource, damage something, and utilize an interesting rider?
If not, which of my encounter/at-will powers to damage something and decide amongst which of my rider effects will garner me and/or my allies the best tactical situation.

There is a lot of options available in each of those choices.  For detail guy this plethora (yes, I even know what a plethora is) of choices represents the opposite of hegemony.

Take 3.X.  Here are some examples of choices...

Do I want/need to move to improve my tactical situation?
Do I want/need to take a 5' step to improve my tactical situation?
I am Fighter, I will pretend to consider other tactical choices, and then hit the monster several times, pausing between each to see if he goes down so I can move, and/or hit another monster.
I am a Cleric.  Do I use my standard action expend a Daily resource to heal someone?  Buff me or someone else?  Cast a damage spell?  Or do I save my Daily resources, and just hit something with my weapon.  
I am a Wizard.  Do I use my standard action to expend a Daily resource and damage something?  Buff myself or someone else?  Figure out some creative use for one of my Utility spells?  Or not expend a daily Resource and pretend to try to hit something with a weapon?  Use another move action to hide/get away?

Each of those have different quantity of choices, as well as different types of choices.  To the Big Picture guy, his original character class choice _Means _ something.

(Now there is still some of that in 4E, which the original quote I posted acknowledged, but sometimes is not.  The choice of Role -not Class- has a somewhat similar effect on combat.  But the order of magnitude is less then the Class choice in 3.X)

So to sum up.  Detail guy looks at 4E and sees significance in his choices because it limits his options.  He sees variety do the sheer number of choices he gets to make, as well as the plethora of options available for each choice.

Big Picture guy looks a 4E and sees no significance in his choices, because they do not affect the quantity and types of choices he makes.  He sees homogeneity in all his choices because none of them have the magnitude of significance upon later choices in character creation or game play that 3.X did.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 5, 2009)

It should be pretty rare that _anyone_ adventuring literally has to climb a wall as opposed, say, to climbing a knotted rope (DC 5 in 3.5, _without_ a wall against which to brace or DC 0 with one).


----------



## Reigan (Sep 5, 2009)

3e was an amazing character generating system with a lousy set of rpg rules tacked on the end. People wanted change because the rules let them down all the time. 3e had some serious flaws that shortened its lifespan as it couldn't sustain sales without bloating the system beyond playability.

Don't forget, earlier editions played just fine without hardly any choice at all.

4e has plenty of choices, you just have to dress them up with your own flavour and fluff. Thats what needs to be different, not the mechanics. A little imagination goes along way.


----------



## Derren (Sep 5, 2009)

Interesting statement, considering that the current splatbook release cycle isn't that much lower than the 3E one and that the 3E rules were "good enough" for many 3rd party products.


----------



## hailstop (Sep 5, 2009)

Reigan said:


> 3e was an amazing character generating system with a lousy set of rpg rules tacked on the end. People wanted change because the rules let them down all the time. 3e had some serious flaws that shortened its lifespan as it couldn't sustain sales without bloating the system beyond playability.




This is a good point.

I'm of the opinion that because of the skeleton that 4e is built on, they can gradually add new mechanics as they go along (ala power points for Psions, skill powers, etc).

That, with the dominating (eventual) online presence via Character Builder, Monster Builder and eventually the online game table, I can see 4e having a much longer lifespan...such that '5e' ends up being a minor tweak applying the new mechanics to old classes.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Sep 5, 2009)

Ainamacar said:


> This isn't necessarily true.  I made many 3.5 characters solely for enjoyment, many of which I never played or even intended to play.  I would volunteer to make or assist making other PCs for players who didn't care for building or were new.  I made all sorts of NPCs for my DMs and even their friends who were DMing completely different games.  Point of fact, I got at least as much enjoyment from building characters as from actually playing them.
> 
> I'm not alone in this, I know at least one other individual who never played 3e at all, but bought books and made characters as a fun past-time.  (Mind you, I'm not claiming anything about how prevalent this behavior is, just that it is one way to enjoy D&D).



Geez.... I wish I had this kind of time on my hands.  Between work, wife and child, family, friends and other non-D&D activities, I just don't have time to spend on this type of activity.

Since I am largely a DM, 4e has given me some freedom to work on the parts of my game I that previously lacked the time to work on.  There's a lot to be said about that....


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 5, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> Let me provide an example of this in comic book terms!
> 
> If you group the Green Lantern with the Flash, the Question, and Black Canary, you find a diverse team full of people with different powers.  A guy with super speed would do things differently then a paranoid detective; who is different from an expert martial artist with a sonic scream attack, and a Green Lantern who can do all sorts of things!
> 
> ...




Oh sure, the Green Lantern corps would be a wonderful mechanically-balanced team, but part of the problem is 4e makes EVERYONE Green-Lantern and thus removes all manner of other superheroes from the mix. Want to play Superman? Tough! Batman? Nope. Spiderman? Wolverine? Iron Man? Cyclops? Lobo? Spawn? No, no, no, and uh, no. Here is your Green Lantern ring, go join the legion!

Granted, there is some differences in power (balance) that needs to be adjusted; perhaps Supes is too power and Hawkgirl a bit underpowered, so lets up Hawkgirls power up a bit and tame Superman so that he doesn't travel though time anymore. The thing to NOT do is strip them all of their unique powers and origins and give them all Green Lantern rings!


----------



## BryonD (Sep 5, 2009)

Reigan said:


> 3e was an amazing character generating system with a lousy set of rpg rules tacked on the end. People wanted change because the rules let them down all the time. 3e had some serious flaws that shortened its lifespan as it couldn't sustain sales without bloating the system beyond playability.



For me it is like I said, role playing is not between the covers of a book.

As to short life, I don't see that at all.  I think the fact that a lot of quality 3PP stuff took up development space may have cut it down a little, but it lasted a very respectable time.

Sure, people wanted change after nearly a decade.  But now people want more than what WotC is offering.  "People" can be a tricky bunch.  And there are always a bunch of "other people" with the opposite view. 



> Don't forget, earlier editions played just fine without hardly any choice at all.



  Shrug.  Don't underrate the value of the "D&D" brand.  I was playing "better" games as soon as I discovered them.



> 4e has plenty of choices, you just have to dress them up with your own flavour and fluff. Thats what needs to be different, not the mechanics. A little imagination goes along way.



I have the same imagination whether I am playing 4E, 3E, GURPS, WoD, whatever....  That is a non-variable.

If you are playing a highly balanced mini battle game, then having an arrow and a magic bolt be nothing more than flavor text on the same mechanic is fine.  But if you want to simulate a difference, a game that mechanically supports that brings value.  

Clearly you are looking for a very different gaming experience than I am.
I want the best possible - on top of my imagination.


----------



## Ainamacar (Sep 5, 2009)

Stuntman said:


> Interesting.  I find that I build more characters for fun in 4E than I did in 3E.  Just because I make the same number of decisions when building a character at any given level, does not mean that those decisions are necessarily the same.  I find that with 4E, I always want to pick more things than I have slots for.  It forces me to make a decision on what to choose.  If I choose one option, I have to choose to give up a second or third good option.  I never feel that the character is done and look forward to choosing something more the next level.  In the end, even if I do not plan to play the character, I build them with the intention that they would play differently.




I'm not surprised some find 4e better for building characters.  There are at least a few reasons I'm not that guy, with examples after I list them.  First, in 3e feats were more likely to be very meaningful or transformative to the character.  That is, you could base an entire concept around a set of feats, or even a single feat, that would completely change the way character was built, played, and in some cases _felt_.  Second, I really love the idea (even just the illusion) of subverting designer intent.  That led to both problems and awesome in 3e, but it was certainly much easier to do there.  Third, the different mechanical subsystems made building certain characters from the same blocks could lead to wildly different choices (and criterion for choices) while building as well as during play.  Fourth, the multiclassing system let me put all those elements together in unexpected fashions.  In short, building 3e characters was a minigame with a lot of freedom.  Freedom not necessarily defined as number of choices, but by what impact the choices made can have.

Examples:
1. Transformative feats: Arcane Manipulation, Arcane Strike, Knowledge Devotion, Spring Attack, to name but a few.  Each of these feats could form the basis of doing something unique with a character.  In retrospect, I like that 3e has fewer feats because each one could have greater relative significance than in 4e.  Yes, there are still more good feats I want in 4e than a character can afford to have, but they are less able to redefine a character than simply refine it.  This was intentional, to make sure class was central to character identity, but the designers went a little too far for my taste.
2. Subverting intent: Any trip to a charop board would demonstrate these.  I'm not advocating broken builds, but those which achieve something unexpected.  A non-optimal but resonant example for me is Wizard/Combat Medic.
3. Different mechanical subsystems: Sorcerer vs. Wizard, both of which choose from (almost) exactly the same spell lists but achieve different results.  I prefer sorcerer because I have to make careful choices once, and the character must stick with them to the end of his days.  When I add in the constraint of a theme (say storms) the challenge of truly exemplifying the theme while remaining mechanically up-to-snuff is intoxicating.
4. Mix and match: Third edition multiclassing is the glue that makes much of the above possible.  I mourn its loss in 4e, even as I celebrate some of the benefits that same loss brings to the table.

More concretely, let me describe one of the last 3.5 characters I built (for a friend) to see if that helps.  The initial theme was knowledge, and was basically non-negotiable.  This friend enjoys characters which smash things physically, and especially liked the idea of using knowledge specifically to smash things better.  This idea turned into a Con/Int based dual-wielding ranger with the Knowledge Devotion feat.  It traded spellcasting for a few bonus feats and otherwise depended on knowing everything about monsters for attacks and damage.  In concept and execution, I am fond of that build.  It was by no means uber (not lich-proof as it turned out), but it tanked at least as well as a decent fighter, had surprisingly good defenses, and met the knowledgeable character niche of the party in an interesting way.  Aside from not being multi-classed at all, I feel it exemplifies the ideas above.

I like a lot about 4e character building as well, just not enough on the balance.  I'm mostly happy that skill points are gone, the execution of racial feats is pretty solid, multiclassing does allow easier and effective dabbling, and the hybrid classes show promise (1st iteration was rough, second iteration not quite good enough but darn close IMHO).  Some of the newer feat options are also excellent (in play and from my perspective about building).  In particular, I really enjoy the elegant 4e implementation of familiars -- the active/passive mechanic is nearly perfect.




> I personally got over the fact that non-casters use one mechanic for their abilities and casters use another.  I personally see no value in one character that has a lack of options and another character having an overwhelming amount of options.




Spellcasters got way too much face-time in 3e.  That said, my problem isn't usually with the number of options available (numerically staggering even this early on in 4e...1300 feats!) but with what any given option can achieve.  A character has a limited and more-or-less fixed number of choices that can be made, and so the limit of character customization is not defined primarily by the 1300 feats, but by the 18 feats you can actually choose (unless there aren't at least 18 feats you want).  In my case, there are plenty of feats that I want for a given character, but very few resonate with me as being somehow key to the character.  I currently play a 4e monk (multiclass wizard) that is both an alchemist and ritual user.  That resonates with me thematically and mechanically, and it helps define the future course of the character.  I've just found building characters in this fashion in 4e to be much more difficult than in 3e.



> I'm not sure what your complaint is here.  If you want to keep your Sleep spell from level 1 to 30, you can.
> 
> As for the reason for the power swapping, I think that the intent is to not overwhelm the player with so many encounter and daily powers.  I find that a level 1 character already has a great many options in combat.  Adding 3 more encounters, 3 more dailies, plus a bunch of utility powers and feats would progressively increase the number of options and things to keep track of at higher levels.  Adding 4 more encounters and dailies may not really add much value when playing epic characters.




I think I didn't really state my problem clearly.  You are certainly correct that power swapping is designed to keep the player from becoming overwhelmed.  That is a good design intent, and the solution used is pretty clean.  But it does have this troublesome feature: It means the character (or player) must potentially choose between the thematically optimal choice or mechanically optimal choice _after _having already decided a particular power was appropriate for one reason or another.  Theme vs. mechanics is always a present tension, but please keep that out of character continuity unless it actually makes sense for the character.  Thus, I like that the option exists for a player to keep the sleep spell from level 1-30, even though it is suboptimal.  But, I dislike that the mechanical incentive to swap spells is so strong.  In 3e this was less a problem: You learned a spell, and even though it became less useful over time you still knew it and could probably find new spells along the same lines at higher levels (in part because so many spells existed).

What I would prefer is that 4e adopt a freer power system (as in my first post).  Some classes might not ever swap out powers (leading to greater resource management) and some players really love that style.  Others have very limited resource management (maybe only a few slowly improving at-will powers) because some players really love that style.  Or another class where the at-will/encounter/daily scheme is kept intact, but when you would normally swap a power you instead apply an "upgrade" to an existing power of the same type (my preferred solution for sleep, since I don't want a bazillion power cards).  For some classes the power swap idea gives me no pause but for others it does.  The overall number of options printed between classes could remain about the same, but the ways in which those options can be utilized is more diverse than standard 4e.



			
				yarael said:
			
		

> So to sum up. Detail guy looks at 4E and sees significance in his choices because it limits his options. He sees variety do the sheer number of choices he gets to make, as well as the plethora of options available for each choice.
> 
> Big Picture guy looks a 4E and sees no significance in his choices, because they do not affect the quantity and types of choices he makes. He sees homogeneity in all his choices because none of them have the magnitude of significance upon later choices in character creation or game play that 3.X did.




That was an excellent post, and I think sums up my thoughts better than I've yet thought them.   One small difference -- I'm definitely "big picture" guy in your analogy, but I do like choices that limit my options.  Key point: I like making those choices myself, and not having them made for me.  It's like poetry, sometimes the most constrained forms yield the most fascinating results, even though "free poetry" could strictly speaking contain any possible poem ever.  But I get to choose the form, and then make something wonderful with it.


----------



## Ainamacar (Sep 5, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Geez.... I wish I had this kind of time on my hands.  Between work, wife and child, family, friends and other non-D&D activities, I just don't have time to spend on this type of activity.
> 
> Since I am largely a DM, 4e has given me some freedom to work on the parts of my game I that previously lacked the time to work on.  There's a lot to be said about that....




I didn't say it was time wisely spent.   I'm a physics grad student, which keeps me plenty busy, but D&D has been one of my major outlets during that time.  That's not to downplay the amount of time you spend on the important things in your life which I don't have (namely wife and kids) but I merely point out that it's not the amount of time I have, just how I've spent what I do have.  I played 3.5 for about 4 years (all of it in grad school), and I happened to record as a template just about every build (PC, NPC, and just-for-fun) I ever made or strongly assisted.  The total is around 150 or ~3/month on average.  That's a lot, but I wouldn't characterize it as ridiculous.  (Perhaps you'll disagree, which is fine.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 5, 2009)

Remalthilis said:
			
		

> Oh sure, the Green Lantern corps would be a wonderful mechanically-balanced team, but part of the problem is 4e makes EVERYONE Green-Lantern and thus removes all manner of other superheroes from the mix. Want to play Superman? Tough! Batman? Nope. Spiderman? Wolverine? Iron Man? Cyclops? Lobo? Spawn? No, no, no, and uh, no. Here is your Green Lantern ring, go join the legion!
> 
> Granted, there is some differences in power (balance) that needs to be adjusted; perhaps Supes is too power and Hawkgirl a bit underpowered, so lets up Hawkgirls power up a bit and tame Superman so that he doesn't travel though time anymore. The thing to NOT do is strip them all of their unique powers and origins and give them all Green Lantern rings!




This thing. This is exactly it. Yes, yes, yes.

"Now, we can challenge them all with the color yellow! No one is left out!"


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 5, 2009)

I started off being displeased with 4e for several reasons, including that the characters looked like they'd all be much the same.

But I've played the game for over a year now, and it's actually got a lot of variety in play style. I can be a mobile, jumping-and-climbing sorcerer who scrapes through by the skin of his teeth as I try to balance hitting lots of enemies with not getting creamed myself. Or I can be a fanatical avenger who runs through lines of enemies in order to hit a single target. Or a cleric who nullifies everything the bad guys throw at us. Or a wizard who fills the battlefield with dangers to split up the enemies and let my allies take them down one by one.

So no, I don't complain about homogeneity of combat options. I do have a bit of a pet peeve that many of the rules widgets are arbitrarily limiting (magic item A can only be an axe for some reason, feat B only works for dragon magic sorcerers, 'hit monster with sword' power C can only be taken by a barbarian, not a fighter, even though he should also know how to hit things with swords). 

So there might be a lot of variety, but it's all V shaped (start with a class, then choose a sub-option of that class, then choose sub-options of feats for that class), instead of being a web where you can easily combine something cool for one class with a completely different class.


----------



## Wik (Sep 5, 2009)

One area I was thinking about today during a walk was the fact that while I believe there is more homogeneity throughout 4e, I find that classes are LESS homogenous within themselves.  In that, two fighters can play entirely differently from one another... ditto for rogues, warlords, and all the other martial classes.  Wizards and clerics even play a bit differently, just not to the same degree as the martials.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 5, 2009)

Somewhere in this thread, about the time people began talking about the power structure system and ended by talking about a superhero team repurposed to be all green lanterns, I totally lost track of who was talking about in game homogeneity and who was talking about mechanical homogeneity.  I kind of suspect that artsy stories about in game homogeneity are being used to emphasize unrelated points about mechanical homogeneity.


----------



## Reigan (Sep 6, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Clearly you are looking for a very different gaming experience than I am.
> I want the best possible - on top of my imagination.




To oversimplify things slightly, an rpg is made up of 3 things:

Character generation/level up.
In-game mechanics such as combat.
Roleplaying.

I played 3e from 2001 to 2009, in that time I played in four campaigns, two as dm, two as player. Effectively, I only got to play two characters, one for over 5 years. So all this character choice simply was not relevant to me.

What was important, considering I was stuck with the same character for many years was game play. When you do that the flaws in the rules are readily apparent, there is no getting away from them. Skill points invested in climb and swim made redundent by cheap magic, any viable combat options getting whittled down to "full attack" as nothing else works, uber spells that can completely overshadow anything you can do etc.

I think a lot of people who don't have the problems with 3e like I do were able to avoid its issue by changing characters. "It doesn't matter that fighters suck because next week I'm playing a wizard".

Roleplaying as very little bearing on game mechanics.

At the moment, 4e is the best possible for me. Maybe if I get stuck playing my current character for another 5 years I might not feel the same way!


----------



## BryonD (Sep 6, 2009)

Reigan said:


> I think a lot of people who don't have the problems with 3e like I do were able to avoid its issue by changing characters. "It doesn't matter that fighters suck because next week I'm playing a wizard".



I know a lot of people who still play 3E.  This is flat wrong.

I'm sorry your game sucked so bad.  But you are making a substantial mistake in presuming that your experience is representative of mine.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 6, 2009)

Reigan said:


> Roleplaying as very little bearing on game mechanics.



As I said, twice now in this very thread, role playing is not between the covers of a book.

However, given a choice between a rule set that CAN model the RP the player provides and a rule set that CAN NOT, I choose the former.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 6, 2009)

Generic food metaphor away!

I see the homogeneity in 4e as similar to the homogeneity you get in a restaurant which only serves four-course meals comprising a starter, a soup, a main course, and a dessert. To extend the metaphor further, it also serves four basic types of cuisine: French, Italian, Chinese, and Indian. In addition, almost every main course will include some form of carbohydrates. 

There is still quite a large variety in the type of meals you can get by mixing and matching your starter, soup, main course and dessert choices, but some people miss the flexibility of say, not ordering a soup and getting an extra dessert, or getting a starter from the French options and a main course from the Chinese options.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 6, 2009)

Primal said:


> There's also something else that enhances the image of homogeneity in 4E... all the powers are basically just X*[W] or X*Y [insert damage type here] and some "rider" effect (slide, push, grant +W to Z, daze, etcetera). Alternatively, the "rider" effect is replaced by just a bigger pool of damage dice. Furthermore, most Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies I've seen seem to have variations of the same ability, e.g. "When you use an Action Point, you...". They may play differently, but on paper it looks to me like they're just alternate class features for the same class.




I think this is an excellent point.  How many variations of this are possible?

Edit: And...I'm not sure how this works in 4e.  Are there still quirky "minor" abilities?  One of the mixed benefits of earlier D&D editions was the occasional "minor" ability, like better resistance to fey charms.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that in most campaigns, that one didn't get a lot of use.  Still, it was there as a nice little Easter Egg the DM could throw in every few levels.  In 4e, if all the character have the same number and "class" (daily/encounter/utility), where do the little extras fit in?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

Nellisir said:


> I think this is an excellent point.  How many variations of this are possible?
> 
> Edit: And...I'm not sure how this works in 4e.  Are there still quirky "minor" abilities?  One of the mixed benefits of earlier D&D editions was the occasional "minor" ability, like better resistance to fey charms.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that in most campaigns, that one didn't get a lot of use.  Still, it was there as a nice little Easter Egg the DM could throw in every few levels.  In 4e, if all the character have the same number and "class" (daily/encounter/utility), where do the little extras fit in?




More than anything else, quirky "minor" abilities tend to be found in magic items in 4E.


----------



## Wik (Sep 6, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Generic food metaphor away!
> 
> I see the homogeneity in 4e as similar to the homogeneity you get in a restaurant which only serves four-course meals comprising a starter, a soup, a main course, and a dessert. To extend the metaphor further, it also serves four basic types of cuisine: French, Italian, Chinese, and Indian. In addition, almost every main course will include some form of carbohydrates.
> 
> There is still quite a large variety in the type of meals you can get by mixing and matching your starter, soup, main course and dessert choices, but some people miss the flexibility of say, not ordering a soup and getting an extra dessert, or getting a starter from the French options and a main course from the Chinese options.




Dude, that is one messed up restaurant.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 6, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> More than anything else, quirky "minor" abilities tend to be found in magic items in 4E.



Minor and VERY specialized (not only by use, but class usefulness). 

That's one of my minor annoyances about 4e - there are few items that Anyone could really benefit from, compared to the class or build specific ones. Few items the party is going to quibble over when the treasure is diviied up. As opposed to ye olde ring of protection, for instance.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 6, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Generic food metaphor away!
> 
> I see the homogeneity in 4e as similar to the homogeneity you get in a restaurant which only serves four-course meals comprising a starter, a soup, a main course, and a dessert. To extend the metaphor further, it also serves four basic types of cuisine: French, Italian, Chinese, and Indian. In addition, almost every main course will include some form of carbohydrates.
> 
> There is still quite a large variety in the type of meals you can get by mixing and matching your starter, soup, main course and dessert choices, but some people miss the flexibility of say, not ordering a soup and getting an extra dessert, or getting a starter from the French options and a main course from the Chinese options.




Good, here's another try.

Say you go to a Sundae Shop and they have four types of Ice Cream (chocolate, Vanilla, Strawberry, or Mint) and four toppings (caramel, hot fudge, butterscotch, strawberry syrup). 

Lots of people will go in, see the options, and decide to order something. Maybe it will be a chocolate-caramel sundae, or a classic hot-fudge sundae, or perhaps a a double-strawberry sundae and be happy with such good, simple fair.

Others will come in and want a cookie-dough sundae. "Sorry," the owner says, "we don't carry cookie-dough ice cream. How bout some hot-fudge mint?"

Another will come in and want rocky road. Or peanut-butter fudge. Or cherry-cordial. Some will want sprinkles, or maple-butter. Some will want frozen yogurt, custard, or italian ice and leave dejected. The truly frustrated guy leaves after trying to order a banana split. 

While in theory the 4 ice creams and 4 topping create a large variety of sundaes, Its frustratingly limited when all you want is a freaking cookie-dough ice cream & hot fudge sundae!


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 6, 2009)

FireLance said:


> There is still quite a large variety in the type of meals you can get by mixing and matching your starter, soup, main course and dessert choices, but some people miss the flexibility of say, not ordering a soup and getting an extra dessert, or getting a starter from the French options and a main course from the Chinese options.



It's more like I miss the flexibility of skipping dinner altogether and going out to see a movie instead.  4E just makes too many assumptions about what it is I want to do in the first place.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Minor and VERY specialized (not only by use, but class usefulness).
> 
> That's one of my minor annoyances about 4e - there are few items that Anyone could really benefit from, compared to the class or build specific ones. Few items the party is going to quibble over when the treasure is diviied up. As opposed to ye olde ring of protection, for instance.




I've been building a list of these. We call them "Generic Items of Win". Obvious things like Vicious Weapons, Iron Armbands of Power and such, and somewhat less obvious things like Acrobat Boots(stand as minor action At-Will), Viper Belt(resist 5 poison is nice on a lv4 belt), Circlet of Second Chances(head slot: reroll a save), the new Gauntlets of Blood(+2/+4/+6 damage to bloodied enemies), and the list goes on. Just little things almost anyone can use, to fill up the empty slots.


----------



## Diamondeye (Sep 6, 2009)

I simply cannot get past - and that's cannot get past as in cannot even stand to read the 4e PHB for more than 10 minutes - the mechanical homogenaity of 4e.

For me, 4e's claim to balance is bad.  I do not want a balanced game.  That eliminates its main selling point.

Furthermore, I don't want to pick a "paragon path" at 10, or an epic destiny at 20.  (Even the terms are silly to me)  I don't want to be given a choice of 2 at-wills, 1 encounter and 1 daily at level 1.

I want different mechanics between classes.  If all classes have the same mechanics, they will all play the same to me even if their exact effects are somewhat different.  The 4e wizard is the most serious example of this; a wizard that has "powers" isn't a wizard to me at all.  It's.. well I don't know, but not a wizard.

I've even tried thinking "okay what houserules would I need to make 4e work?" and invariably it's essentially 3e.  The first thing I do is ban all paragon paths, epic destinies, and at-will abilities, and ALL powers for wizards and clerics (I haven't looked at classes outside the PHB).  Then I mandate they use the 3.5 spells in place of their powers and about that time it occurs to me it's simpler to just stay with 3.5.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 6, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> One reason I _don't_ play it a lot is that I see the differences as tiny, the variety and tactical choices as uninteresting.
> 
> .




This is I think the crux of the argument. I'll actually illustrate using an example  FROM the actual game (these restaurant/carpentry analogies are beyond me)

Take for example what Remalithis used in the other thread. Flame Strike versus Fireball. 

From what I gathered from Remathilis (correct me if I'm wrong) To many people, they're the exact same spell with what people consider a neglibile difference.

However, to me, there's huge tactical differences between the two. Even if you factor out the differences in range and area of effect, the spells perfectly encapsulate how 4e plays differently at the table.

With Flame Strike, you actually want to invest in resources that play with the saving throw mechanic so the rider lasts longer. Similarly, Flame Strike being able to hit ONLY enemies versus Fireball that hits ALL creatures playsa huge tactical decision point in battle.

In actual play, there's LOTS of times when Fireball is better than Flame Strike and the reverse is also true, and that's a prime example of how the actual choices matter at the tactical level.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 6, 2009)

In the other thread I picked on Shadowrun, but I feel like doing it again.

Namely I just picked up the book, and the million little subsystems just made my brain leak out of my ears. It's really overwhelming to a new person. The system is more skill based (and you pick which skills you use), but all the skills have tons of little subsystems (I'm looking at you, Magic and Technology).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> This is I think the crux of the argument. I'll actually illustrate using an example  FROM the actual game (these restaurant/carpentry analogies are beyond me)
> 
> Take for example what Remalithis used in the other thread. Flame Strike versus Fireball.
> 
> ...




It also differs in the context of the classes themselves. The two spells are big fire nukes that deal big damage. The Wizard power list is chock full of big nukes, as are the other Controllers for the most part. Fireball has a very large area of effect, and does somewhat unremarkable damage with no additional effect, and is a rather generic(and suboptimal) Wizard spell. They have better options. On the other hand, Flame Strike is pretty much the only big AoE nuke Clerics get around those levels, as most of their powers are single target buff/heal allies or debuff/make vulnerable powers against enemies. In addition, few of the other leaders get a Wizard style big nuke like this for the most part. 

For the Wizard, its a generic choice among a multitude. For Clerics/Leaders, its a standout change of pace power.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Sep 6, 2009)

Ainamacar said:


> I didn't say it was time wisely spent.   I'm a physics grad student, which keeps me plenty busy, but D&D has been one of my major outlets during that time.  That's not to downplay the amount of time you spend on the important things in your life which I don't have (namely wife and kids) but I merely point out that it's not the amount of time I have, just how I've spent what I do have.  I played 3.5 for about 4 years (all of it in grad school), and I happened to record as a template just about every build (PC, NPC, and just-for-fun) I ever made or strongly assisted.  The total is around 150 or ~3/month on average.  That's a lot, but I wouldn't characterize it as ridiculous.  (Perhaps you'll disagree, which is fine.)



Nah.... I don't think there's anything ridiculous about spending time doing what you like, especially if it is an outlet to beat back the grind of life.

And when you look back 20 years later, those old templates will give you a really nice wave of nostalgic wonder.    I get it when I look at all my 1e stuff: notes, DM snippets, NPC's that are not stat-blocks, but instead paragraphs of personality, old maps, old character sheets and adventure notes. Decadent city of Hoard, the City State of Polarticus, Anu Habiib, Ekol-son, the plains-wanderers of Taal.  Good stuff!


----------



## Rechan (Sep 6, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I've been building a list of these.



Your list contains my interests and I would like to sign up to your newsletter.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Sep 6, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Namely I just picked up the book, and the million little subsystems just made my brain leak out of my ears. It's really overwhelming to a new person. The system is more skill based (and you pick which skills you use), but all the skills have tons of little subsystems (I'm looking at you, Magic and Technology).



I get major brain leak from RIFTS.  That rule-set sends me into a tailspin.

But some people absolutely swear by it.  I have no idea why, but K.S. has his following, and they love his game system and publishing style.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Your list contains my interests and I would like to sign up to your newsletter.




Maybe I'll post it over on the 4E section. I have a list of items from levels 1-20 at this point. It'd actually be easy if I were to just post the list instead of explaining everything.

EDIT: I'm not quite done with Paragon tier just yet. Haven't done Wondrous Items, Tattoos and Rings yet.

ALSO ALSO EDIT: I've been doing this at work with just the books, not the compendium/builder, so the list is just from PHB1, PHB2, AV1, and AV2, which is 90% of the items in the game but there are some omissions.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 6, 2009)

So noted. You're also welcome to pmail them to me.


----------



## dontmazemebro (Sep 6, 2009)

These criticisms of 4E are just baffling to me.

I can only speak for myself, and I seem to have a minority opinion, but 4E actually brought my group back to the game. 3E rules were overly convoluted, grossly unbalanced, and borderline nonsensical. 4E made the game fun again. In 4E everyone is valuable. In 4E everyone is part of a team and can contribute.

The "homogenous" argument is particularly perplexing to me.  Would you consider a kicker, wide receiver, and linebacker "homogenous" because they all play on a football field and adhere to the same laws of physics? Heck no.  Even though they are playing the same game, the experience is totally different for each player.  Just like 4E.  A shielding swordmage plays nothing like a tactical warlord who in turn plays nothing like a chaos sorcerer who are all playing on the same battlemap.

4E turned D&D from a game of auto-attacking melees and kitchen-sink casters to an actual team effort where everyone abides by the same laws of physics.

D&D has always had a great mystique and "feel" to it, thanks to its iconic monsters and fantastic settings.  The ruleset that has always been the Achilles' Heel of D&D.  To this day, I still shudder when I think back to the arbitrary nature of 2E saving throw tables and multi/dual classing rules. Or the broken nature of 3E level progressions (e.g. Ur-priests).  With 4E, for the first time in D&D's history, the rules make sense... the rules are f****** awesome now... and people are complaining... it's just plain bizarre to me.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So noted. You're also welcome to pmail them to me.




Its done.


----------



## Dalzig (Sep 6, 2009)

dontmazemebro said:


> With 4E, for the first time in D&D's history, the rules make sense... the rules are f****** awesome now... and people are complaining... it's just plain bizarre to me.




A form of Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps?

I understand both sides of this homogeneity discussion, and actually agree with both of them.  4e does have many tiny details that make characters play out so differently, while still having characters that are 90% the same on paper.  3.5 did have a lot of options that made _every_ character unique, if you worked the system right.

However, for me, 3.5 was simply an atrocious system to _play the game_ with.  It was amazing at creating unique characters.  It brought stunning life to narratives that used D&D as a basis.  But it simply did not facilitate a fun play experience.  There were too many glaring problems with game play for it to work out.  4e fixed this, probably with the homogeneity being part of the solution.

Now, if only Wizards could take 3.5 and 4e and shove them together to create balanced, unique, and easy-to-create characters while still keeping the ease of 4e DM'ing... Perhaps when 5e rolls around.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 6, 2009)

Dalzig said:


> Now, if only Wizards could take 3.5 and 4e and shove them together to create balanced, unique, and easy-to-create characters while still keeping the ease of 4e DM'ing... Perhaps when 5e rolls around.



Isn't having a system with millions of options and subsystems _the opposite_ of "easy-to-create" characters?

You can't have lots of skill point allocations, hundreds of feats, classes that vary widely in their very mechanics and a smorgusboard of spells if you want "easy to create".


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

Dalzig said:


> A form of Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps?
> 
> I understand both sides of this homogeneity discussion, and actually agree with both of them. 4e does have many tiny details that make characters play out so differently, while still having characters that are 90% the same on paper.



Your assesment of the rules is just not accurate. 

4e doesn't have tiny details, it has huge, great honking exception based rules. Thse take up most of the chracter sheet, from the class powers list, to rituals, to item powers.

That's not even adding in exceptions like psionic characters who don't even have encounter powers.

You don't understand both sides of the debate, because you're buying into the claims made by one side of it, even though they're simply not accurate.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

dontmazemebro said:


> These criticisms of 4E are just baffling to me.
> 
> I can only speak for myself, and I seem to have a minority opinion, but 4E actually brought my group back to the game.



You don't have a minority opinion, it's just a minority opinion on threads where people endlessly complain about 4e and make up reasons to criticise it because they don't want to admit that their hostility to it isn't really based on 4e at all, but rather their attachement to 3e and their anger at it no longer being pre-eminent.

I don't doubt that some people have genuine preference issues, whereby 3e fits them better than 4e. But that's not what happens most often. What happens most often is that people make what are clearly highly contrived criticisms, and other people defend these criticisms and give them far more credit than they deserve.

4e is not bad at roleplaying, 4e is not homogenous, 4e does not violate the monomyth, these criticisms are caused by people who are reaching for excuses rather than admitting that it's just not their thing.

These criticisms are usually not expressing genuine preference, they are made by people who are deliberatly muddying and confusing the discussion of design and preference in order to rationalise their nerd rage. And then there's a bunch of people encouraging that, thinking they're beign reasonable, but actually often making it impossible to discuss real issues. 

I'm not saying some people aren't expressing genuine preferences, but this constant tug of war is not useful for anyone, it's mostly just a way for people to try and legitimise their hostility to 4e. You want to be hostile to 4e, go ahead, but don't pretend it's because the lack of craft skills make it impossible to roleplay. 

It would be great to talk about some of the real contrasts and preference issues, but that won't be possible until people recognise that a lot of the 4e haters are just blowing hot air. Trying to work through all these wierd criticisms isn't going to improve the discussion, it's going to make it worse, more confusing, more frustrating, and ultimatly much more toxic.

I think this is a perfect example of that. We can't talk about real variety or specialisation, because people insist that 'variety' be defined as 'character sheets for different classes look different'.


----------



## Reigan (Sep 6, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I know a lot of people who still play 3E. This is flat wrong.
> 
> I'm sorry your game sucked so bad. But you are making a substantial mistake in presuming that your experience is representative of mine.




Thanks for implying my games sucked bad are my fault. They sucked bad because the rules sucked bad. Extensive character choices helps cover this up, but if you don't get to play a lot of different characters this doesn't help. Charge/Attack/Full attack is the only game in town, and it gets really tedious after a while. There were other options like tripping or stunning but the resolution of these slowed the game down with very little chance of success.

I'm glad you had such a positive experience but a lot of other people didn't, they complained and rules weren't just tweaked, they were completely redesigned.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> A whole lot of stuff




Seriously, it needs to be a bannable offense to say "NOTHING IS WRONG WITH <edition>, YOU'RE ALL JUST IRRATIONAL HATERS.  

Actually, In all seriousness, <edition> hater really SHOULD be a bannable offense for the connotations it has.

Because that's what fosters good communication and discussion.  Telling the other side that they're always wrong, and that your game is 100% flawless.

Behead those who insult <edition>, eh?


----------



## MarkB (Sep 6, 2009)

I've played a _lot_ of 4e since it came out - at least three major campaigns, several one-offs and loads of LFR - and at first, you couldn't have found a more enthusiastic supporter of the system than me. I just loved it, went through characters of various roles and classes, had a blast with both the role-playing and the combat.

But after about six months or so, it began to pall. Yes, there are diverse choices, yes each class has some unique features, but there _is_ an overall sameiness to the general system mechanic that gradually begins to overwhelm it all.

Every single combat, I'm starting out with some nifty encounter powers, maybe risking a daily if things get really hairy, burning through the other handful of encounter powers, then slogging away with the at-wills if we didn't wrap things up soon enough.

And every single combat, we're facing the same small variety of enemies. Oh, not that we fight the same critters all the time - but that's practically irrelevant. In 4e, the monster roles are far more powerful determinants of what sort of challenge you'll face than their species.

In 3.xe, you'd have a huge variety of creature types - dragons, goblins, pixies, giants, demons, zombies, etc. - each with a few variants of build and advancement.

In 4e, however, you get just a handful of types - solo, elite, controller, skirmisher, solider, lurker, minion - each of which has dozens of tiny variants, in the form of their actual species.

Ultimately, combat does boil down to a set of practised choices in response to a very limited set of opponent roles, with the actual opposing creature _race_ in question having only a limited impact on the tactical landscape.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

MarkB, I can't imagine your DM is giving you as much variety as you think. The monster roles are extremly versatile, especially if you use them in different ways. I've been running a 4e game for over a year and while there have certainly been samey' fights, I find that it's easy enough to get out of the rut if you're willing to put thought into encounter design. It's still a lot better than the kind of 'options' 3e gave me.

Additionally, if everyone is slogging away with at-wills it's a good sign that the fights are going too long- and that's one of the keys to making good 4e fights. 4e fights should not go too many rounds, or they end up being at-will slogfests.

And there's certainly some weakpoints in 4e monster design- solos are the obvious example. I would go so far as to say that you should not bother using most MM1 solos at all, and that solos should not be used in a vaccum- even more than other fights, it's important to bolster a solo with terrain, special events, even light support like minions or a single 'support' monster like a lurker or controller.

That said, I think you're sounding like a pretty typical case of burnout, and the normal sort of advice applies, so playing a different system or type of game is probably a good idea! It might also be a good idea to take a break from gaming, maybe even do something different with your group. 

A lot of people who get burnt out after playing a lot or for a long time, find that taking a break or changing systems can make a world of difference, but either way throttling back a bit is often a really positive step.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Seriously, it needs to be a bannable offense to say "NOTHING IS WRONG WITH <edition>, YOU'RE ALL JUST IRRATIONAL HATERS.
> 
> Actually, In all seriousness, <edition> hater really SHOULD be a bannable offense for the connotations it has.
> 
> ...



How predictable. I didn't say anything of the sort. 

But there's nothing constructive about pretending an argument is valid when it's not. I understand that you'd rather everyone spend pages and pages bowing and scraping to every fabricated criticism of 4e, but that's not going to make for good, useful discussion.


----------



## Tallifer (Sep 6, 2009)

MarkB said:


> And every single combat, we're facing the same small variety of enemies. Oh, not that we fight the same critters all the time - but that's practically irrelevant. In 4e, the monster roles are far more powerful determinants of what sort of challenge you'll face than their species.
> 
> In 3.xe, you'd have a huge variety of creature types - dragons, goblins, pixies, giants, demons, zombies, etc. - each with a few variants of build and advancement.
> 
> ...




I have no idea what game you are describing here, because there are dragons, goblins, pixies, giants, demons and zombies in 4th edition. (hmm ... maybe no pixies, but I simply created one anyways for my forest adventure.)

Furthermore, the special abilities of monsters make a huge difference in the flavour of a battle.

Insubstantiality or resistance make for stubborn foes.

Grabbing (and subsequent damage bonuses) or swallowing whole.

Draining healing surges is weaker than draining levels, but it still throws a wrench in the works.

Attacks that deny the use of daily powers. Attacks that petrify. That turn you into a werewolf. That make you flee in the wrong direction. Domination.

Auras of poison against you, or healing for the monsters.

And the most devilish yet: a creature that teleports away every time he is successfully hit.

And so far our party was successfully duped on two different occasions, by shapechanged succubus and then by a shapechanged hag. (Doh!)


----------



## Derren (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> How predictable. I didn't say anything of the sort.




Right....



catastrophic said:


> You don't have a minority opinion, it's just a minority opinion on threads where people endlessly complain about 4e and *make up reasons to criticise it because they don't want to admit that their hostility to it isn't really based on 4e at all, but rather their attachement to 3e and their anger at it no longer being pre-eminent*.
> 
> I don't doubt that some people have genuine preference issues, whereby 3e fits them better than 4e. But that's not what happens most often. *What happens most often is that people make what are clearly highly contrived criticisms, and other people defend these criticisms and give them far more credit than they deserve*.
> 
> ...




I see that the Avengers are alive and well.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

The thing is, it would be great to talk about combat and 4e because I do think there are issues with it, but the problem is that the real issues have very little to do with the issues people make up when they're ranting.

The same goes for the broader role of combat in 4e: I do suspect that combat is being over-represented in 4e, but it's certainly not due to most of the dodgy reasons people present, especially since most of the people criticising it don't even play and many of them clearly haven't even read the rules. While people are forced to endlessly debate and indulge the fake issues, the real issues are neglected and distorted.

I'm not down on markb here, obviously he's not happy with his 4e gaming, but I really doubt the problem is 4e homogeneity. I think he's probably seen a LOT of 4e fights in a relativly small time, and his DMs are not progressing and mastering the making of encounters well enough to make them distinctive enough for him after so much gaming. 

In 4e it can be kind of easy as a DM to phone in a fight- in no small part because, by default, fights are much more manageable and entertaining. It is really easy in 4e, early on, to toss down a bunch of monsters and have a decently fun fight which goes well beyond a simple slog through walking bags of hit points. The same cannot be said for 3e, no matter what it's proponents may claim.

But over time that can result in a DM becoming complacent, and repeating the same template too much- toss in a couple of brutes and a soldier, hang a lurker around the back, sprinkle on minions, and serve. That's fine to a point, but I think more DMs should push forward a bit more, and make more use of terrain and other special conditions.

They also need to be more aware of the problems the system may have. Soldiers can be very frustrating to some players, and if there's always a solider up front in your encounters, that frustration can build over time. As noted solos can often go into 'overtime' and early solos tend to be too tough, and not daangerous enough- they last too long and don't really do much while they're there.

Minions are often neglected, and many dms apparently don't use them at all, but they also need to be managed, and used in moderation- if every fight has a minion horde, it's going to get old, fast.

There's a lot of good discussion that can be had about fourth edition and D&d in general, when people aren't distracted by dodgy issues invented to stir up the edition war.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

Derren said:


> Right....
> I see that the Avengers are alive and well.



Again, predictable. 
I didn't say what he claimed, and quoting my post doesn't change that. 
I never said 4e was flawless or anything similar, in fact the post you were replying to _mentioned one of the flaws in 4e_.


----------



## Derren (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> Again, predictable.
> I didn't say what he claimed, and quoting my post doesn't change that.
> I never said 4e was flawless or anything similar, in fact the post you were replying to _mentioned one of the flaws in 4e_.




Except that Cirno didn't talk only about saying that your edition is flawless, but about dismissing any criticism of that edition as made up and flat out wrong. And your post is full of that.

And its interesting that you talk about edition wars, especially as there wasn't one until you stated to post. dontmazemebro came close, but your posts sparked it in the end.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

I'm not going to cop the blame for calling this thread, and these arguments, what they so obviously are. It also doesn't surpise me that you mark out somebody else as an 'edition warrior' because they too, refuse to give these criticisms more credit than they deserve.

Some of people make valid criticisms of 4e, but unfortunatly, other people who post a lot more make invalid contrived criticisms because they don't want to admit that their hostility to the new system doesn't really have anything to do with how it actually plays.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 6, 2009)

Reigan said:


> Thanks for implying my games sucked bad are my fault. They sucked bad because the rules sucked bad. /snip





I believe I said this to BryonD and I'll repeat it for you.  Stating your opinion as fact does not make it so.  The rules "sucked" for you.  Other people may feel that the rules do not, in fact, suck.  

Why not rephrase your criticism in such a way as to foster discussion rather than simply bombing absolutes?  "I found that the ruleset got in the way for my group and we couldn't make it work, despite trying several different methods.  I do find that Ruleset Y fits my tastes better, because of X, Y and Z."

Again, it helps things go so much more smoothly when we try to couch criticisms in terms that are not absolute.


----------



## Jasperak (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> You don't have a minority opinion, it's just a minority opinion on threads where people endlessly complain about 4e and make up reasons to criticise it because they don't want to admit that their hostility to it isn't really based on 4e at all, but rather their attachement to 3e and their anger at it no longer being pre-eminent.
> 
> I don't doubt that some people have genuine preference issues, whereby 3e fits them better than 4e. But that's not what happens most often. What happens most often is that people make what are clearly highly contrived criticisms, and other people defend these criticisms and give them far more credit than they deserve.
> 
> ...




Reported for ignorance in the face of a reasonable discussion on why some believe 4e is too homogeneous.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> The thing is, it would be great to talk about combat and 4e because I do think there are issues with it, but the problem is that the real issues have very little to do with the issues people make up when they're ranting.



There may be other issues that I have missed.  But I pretty much limit myself to actual problems from my own personal preference.
You are welcome to stick your head in the sand and pretend that different points of view don't exist.  It makes no difference to me.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

Jasperak said:


> Reported for ignorance in the face of a reasonable discussion on why some believe 4e is too homogeneous.



Of course, the only reasonable discussion is one where nobody is allowed to disagree with you- everyone has to not only tolerate your opinion, but accept your argument as gospel. 

Well, maybe from now on i'm going to argue that 3rd edition is too Communist, and me and a few other people will make endless huge posts arguing that point, and ignore any argument to the contrary. And if anyone dares to suggest that we're being unreasonable, we'll report them.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 6, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I believe I said this to BryonD and I'll repeat it for you.  Stating your opinion as fact does not make it so.  The rules "sucked" for you.  Other people may feel that the rules do not, in fact, suck. .



To be clear, I very much agree with this.  I don't think I have EVER claimed that a game sucks for someone else just because it sucks for me.
I have most absolutely stated that certain rules suck for one play style or another.  There is a very big difference.
Seriously, I go out of my way on a regular basis to point out that 4E is probably a great game for people with very different game styles than mine.

But Reigan, I did not intend to imply anything.  I was simply stating a fact.  It may be as simple as your mistake was playing a game that harshly grated against your personal play style.  But if you strayed with a game that for that long, even though it sucked, you have no one to blame but yourself.  
The vast numbers of people who had (and continue to have) great experiences disprove your myopic proclamation of it being the rules fault.

But just go back up in this very thread and you will see where I clearly stated that 4E is preferable for certain games styles.  It seems absurd to dispute that.  And yet you are the one making that absurd claim toward 3E.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 6, 2009)

don'tmazemebro said:
			
		

> The "homogenous" argument is particularly perplexing to me. Would you consider a kicker, wide receiver, and linebacker "homogenous" because they all play on a football field and adhere to the same laws of physics? Heck no. Even though they are playing the same game, the experience is totally different for each player. Just like 4E. A shielding swordmage plays nothing like a tactical warlord who in turn plays nothing like a chaos sorcerer who are all playing on the same battlemap.




I actually would call them homogenous when I'm looking for a team made up of a linebacker, a shortstop, a golf pro, and a world-class swimmer. Earlier editions gave me more freedom to represent extremely different powers and abilities usefully in the game. 4e limits these all to football, but what if I don't particularly want to play football? 3e was able (with some difficulty, in some areas) to rise to the occasion, why can't 4e?



> 4E turned D&D from a game of auto-attacking melees and kitchen-sink casters to an actual team effort where everyone abides by the same laws of physics.




Your experience with earlier editions is different then mine, but combat has always been just one pillar of my gameplay experience, so *shrug*.




> D&D has always had a great mystique and "feel" to it, thanks to its iconic monsters and fantastic settings. The ruleset that has always been the Achilles' Heel of D&D. To this day, I still shudder when I think back to the arbitrary nature of 2E saving throw tables and multi/dual classing rules. Or the broken nature of 3E level progressions (e.g. Ur-priests). With 4E, for the first time in D&D's history, the rules make sense... the rules are f****** awesome now... and people are complaining... it's just plain bizarre to me.




Not everyone agrees with your assessment of 4e rules, man. I happen to think cherry pie is effin' awesome, but some folks are allergic to cherries, and some folks don't like cherries, and some folks are bored with cherries, and some people have a phobia about pies...these aren't bizarre to me, they're just different. It doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy my pie, and maybe, if I'm making desert for everyone, I should find out what they do like.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> Well, maybe from now on i'm going to argue that 3rd edition is too Communist



 Political discussion will get you banned.

I suggest you proceed with your plan.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## BryonD (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> Of course, the only reasonable discussion is one where nobody is allowed to disagree with you- everyone has to not only tolerate your opinion, but accept your argument as gospel.
> 
> Well, maybe from now on i'm going to argue that 3rd edition is too Communist, and me and a few other people will make endless huge posts arguing that point, and ignore any argument to the contrary. And if anyone dares to suggest that we're being unreasonable, we'll report them.



enjoy yourself
If the mods don't mind, I certainly don't mind.
It may make amusing reading.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

BryonD said:


> There may be other issues that I have missed. But I pretty much limit myself to actual problems from my own personal preference.
> You are welcome to stick your head in the sand and pretend that different points of view don't exist. It makes no difference to me.



Coming from you that is astoundingly ironic. You are exactly what i'm talking about. This is a planetary-scale irony event. For real, somebody get the EU on the line, I think Cern just exploded from all the irony.

You can hide behind this ridiculous line about respecting points of view, but this isn't about different points of view. This is about people hating 4e and reaching to the point of absurdity in order to rationalise and legitimise their hostility. And once they do that, they post over and over and over again and, don't pretend that those debates ever go anywhere. Yes, they gratify you, I get that, but otherwise they're toxic and destructive and pointless.

You're not respecting different points of view when you endlessly bludgeon everyone with your posts on these threads for page after page after page. Don't pretend you have any respect for people's points of view, you certainly don't show any respect for the people who try and reason with you.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> I'm not going to cop the blame for calling this thread, and these arguments, what they so obviously are. It also doesn't surpise me that you mark out somebody else as an 'edition warrior' because they too, refuse to give these criticisms more credit than they deserve.
> 
> Some of people make valid criticisms of 4e, but unfortunatly, other people who post a lot more make invalid contrived criticisms because they don't want to admit that their hostility to the new system doesn't really have anything to do with how it actually plays.




Well it's a good thing we have an established expert like catastrophic to let everyone know what is or isn't a "credible", "valid" or "invalid" criticism of 4e (is that a paying gig or just volunteer work).

  I mean where would we be if he hadn't come in here and told everyone who believes 4e has a certain amount of homogeneity, as well as those interested in presenting an opposing viewpoint that they in fact shouldn't be discussing it at all (according to him).

Dude really, nothing forces you to click on a thread and post in it multiple times, if you don't like the discussion going on then ignore it... but running in here and trying to "defend" 4e against the evils of others opinions is well just threadcrapping.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 6, 2009)

> This is about people hating 4e and reaching to the point of absurdity in order to rationalise and legitimise their hostility.




Not really. I just had a 4e game yesterday. I hardly hate the system. That don't mean it's perfect.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> Coming from you that is astoundingly ironic. You are exactly what i'm talking about. This is a planetary-scale irony event. For real, somebody get the EU on the line, I think Cern just exploded from all the irony.
> 
> You can hide behind this ridiculous line about respecting points of view, but this isn't about different points of view. This is about people hating 4e and reaching to the point of absurdity in order to rationalise and legitimise their hostility. And once they do that, they post over and over and over again and, don't pretend that those debates ever go anywhere. Yes, they gratify you, I get that, but otherwise they're toxic and destructive and pointless.
> 
> You're not respecting different points of view when you endlessly bludgeon everyone with your posts on these threads for page after page after page. Don't pretend you have any respect for people's points of view, you certainly don't show any respect for the people who try and reason with you.




4e killed my dog.

Happy now?


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Well it's a good thing we have an established expert like catastrophic to let everyone know what is or isn't a "credible", "valid" or "invalid" criticism of 4e (is that a paying gig or just volunteer work).



So what you're saying is that nobody is allowed to say anything is valid or invalid, or credible? Ok so where does that leave the discussion? Or do you tolerate certain experts, IE people you agree with?



> I mean where would we be if he hadn't come in here and told everyone who believes 4e has a certain amount of homogeneity, as well as those interested in presenting an opposing viewpoint that they in fact shouldn't be discussing it at all (according to him).



Well if you'd taken my advice you could be having a much more constructive discussion, but please, by all means, keep fumbling around in your bizzare limbo-zone where everythining is just, like, your opinion, _man_, and nobody is allowed to actually SAY anything. I'm sure that will be a very fruitful discussion. 

I suspect at the end of this discussion you'll be very similar to where you began, and in another day or two another very important conversation will begin about why 4e allows fewer angels to dance on the head of a pin.



> Dude really, nothing forces you to click on a thread and post in it multiple times, if you don't like the discussion going on then ignore it... but running in here and trying to "defend" 4e against the evils of others opinions is well just threadcrapping.



If people weren't crapping all over the forum with this garbage it would not be an issue, but this cycle of nonsense is endless, and I have as much right to comment on that as you have to post a thread about how 4e is too Unitarian for you.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> Coming from you that is astoundingly ironic. You are exactly what i'm talking about. This is a planetary-scale irony event. For real, somebody get the EU on the line, I think Cern just exploded from all the irony.
> 
> You can hide behind this ridiculous line about respecting points of view, but this isn't about different points of view. This is about people hating 4e and reaching to the point of absurdity in order to rationalise and legitimise their hostility. And once they do that, they post over and over and over again and, don't pretend that those debates ever go anywhere. Yes, they gratify you, I get that, but otherwise they're toxic and destructive and pointless.
> 
> You're not respecting different points of view when you endlessly bludgeon everyone with your posts on these threads for page after page after page. Don't pretend you have any respect for people's points of view, you certainly don't show any respect for the people who try and reason with you.



I honestly wonder if you are delusional.
I figure you are just being intentionally absurd.  But I wonder....

*Admin here, breaking into the post. If anyone reading this series of responses is thinking "wow, is this sort of post okay?" the answer would be a flat-out "no". Please see my warning on page 8 before you're even tempted to respond, and please take these posts as an example of how not to carry on a discussion where emotions run high.  ~ PCat*


----------



## Imaro (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> So what you're saying is that nobody is allowed to say anything is valid or invalid, or credible? Ok so where does that leave the discussion? Or do you tolerate certain experts, IE people you agree with?




Nope, what I'm saying is no one voted you "King of the Hill" to make that type of decision... so how about you state your opinion about the actual topic, like everyone else, and leave the defending of 4e's honor to someone else.  You're not discussing anything you're trying to shut discussion down and or rile up an edition war (probably again to get the thread closed).



catastrophic said:


> Well if you'd taken my advice you could be having a much more constructive discussion, but please, by all means, keep fumbling around in your bizzare limbo-zone where everythining is just, like, your opinion, _man_, and nobody is allowed to actually SAY anything. I'm sure that will be a very fruitful discussion.




Soo why don't you go start your own thread about what you wish to discuss... yeah, amazing but forums actually work like that, instead of threadcrapping in someone else's?

As far as fruitful... were discussing a game about pretending to be elves... not discussing world hunger... really, some perspective would be good.



catastrophic said:


> I suspect at the end of this discussion you'll be very similar to where you began, and in another day or two another very important conversation will begin about why 4e allows fewer angels to dance on the head of a pin.




And?  If you don't like where the thread is headed... do us all a favor and stay out of it.



catastrophic said:


> If people weren't crapping all over the forum with this garbage it would not be an issue, but this cycle of nonsense is endless, and I have as much right to comment on that as you have to post a thread about how 4e is too Unitarian for you.




Hey when did you become the "Forum police"... I thought that's why we had mods.  I don't object to you stating your opinion, but how about you go do it in your own thread so the rest of us can threadcrap in it read your important and oh-so-cliched-rants while still continuing to enjoy this topic.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

There is truth to the statement that actual criticism and discussion of 4E's issues get drowned out by people who are trying to justify their preference for 3E over 4E. If the topic is what is wrong with 4E, "3E did it this way" or "I prefer 3E" don't really add much to things aside from stating the poster's preference. Its sad, and detracts from what is likely an interesting discussion, but I'm not sure it deserves a crusade. This is coming from someone who has called people(in general) out on this in the past.



Back to the thread...

Kamikaze Midget brought up an interesting point about combat being only part of the puzzle. I would agree with that statement, but add that throughout the history of D&D, from a system standpoint, it has always been the biggest part. A lot of Roleplaying happens independent of the system, so it doesn't really challenge combat here even if it consumes the same amount of play time or more. Combat has always been central(generally speaking) to D&D, and the major focus of the rules. 3E's lack of balance really detracted from things in light of the games combat focus IMO.


----------



## Imperialus (Sep 6, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I actually would call them homogenous when I'm looking for a team made up of a linebacker, a shortstop, a golf pro, and a world-class swimmer. Earlier editions gave me more freedom to represent extremely different powers and abilities usefully in the game. 4e limits these all to football, but what if I don't particularly want to play football? 3e was able (with some difficulty, in some areas) to rise to the occasion, why can't 4e?




The downside to this is that only one of them is going to be having much fun at a given time.  When they start out playing football the poor golfpro is going to have his face ground into the astroturf again and again.  What happens if the shortstop can't swim when they start doing laps in a pool?  The swimmer is going to spend all his time sitting in a bunker hitting sand during the golf game, and the linebacker ends up sitting in the outfield picking his nose while they're playing baseball.

A team full of football players may have less variety, but at least they'll all have something to do during a football game.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 6, 2009)

Imperialus said:


> The downside to this is that only one of them is going to be having much fun at a given time.  When they start out playing football the poor golfpro is going to have his face ground into the astroturf again and again.  What happens if the shortstop can't swim when they start doing laps in a pool?  The swimmer is going to spend all his time sitting in a bunker hitting sand during the golf game, and the linebacker ends up sitting in the outfield picking his nose while they're playing baseball.
> 
> A team full of football players may have less variety, but at least they'll all have something to do during a football game.



So you agree there is less variety?  Because that is the crux of the debate.

Arguing that yes, there is less variety *but that is a good thing* is completely different than arguing that there is not less variety.

I can completely understand why the kind of game you describe would not be fun.

In my games the swimmer and the golf pro and the football player are all very engaged in seeing everyone get across the pool.  Great fun.  I described this type situation in my first post in this thread.  

But with me having that point of view, 4E takes a "problem" I don't have (golfer can not swim) and imposes a lack of variety (no golfers on the football team) as a solution.  It is lose/lose for me.  

It comes down to how you want to play the game.  But, if you want to play ti the way I do (and many others) then homogeneous elements are a detraction and there are better options out there.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 6, 2009)

"Not having something to do" is a problem I have encountered only in 4e, and only due to the combination of the Powers system with an inflexible DM.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Nope, what I'm saying is no one voted you "King of the Hill" to make that type of decision... so how about you state your opinion about the actual topic, like everyone else, and leave the defending of 4e's honor to someone else. You're not discussing anything you're trying to shut discussion down and or rile up an edition war (probably again to get the thread closed).



I did state my opinion of the topic: the topic is absurd, and until people recognise that, this issue can't be resolved. 

Even if there is something constructive to be achievd here, it won't be achieved while all the 4e-haters are treated like superior beings who must not be challenged. The history of threads like this prove that people are not willing to make progress- and if progress is made, they just wander off and come back next week with a new argument, and the whole thing repeats itself.



> Soo why don't you go start your own thread about what you wish to discuss... yeah, amazing but forums actually work like that, instead of threadcrapping in someone else's?



Because as I said, this garbage infects an endless number of threads, many of which could be worthwhile if they weren't torn down into 60+ pages of the likes of byrond going around and around and around while pretending to be reasonable.

And if anybody tried to, say, make a thread about real problems with 4e, the 4e-hate brigade would ruin it with endless reams of garbage about how 4e isn't good at roleplaying because it doesn't not have enough un-rules about it.



> As far as fruitful... were discussing a game about pretending to be elves... not discussing world hunger... really, some perspective would be good.



Well obviously we should all stop posting then. You first.



> And? If you don't like where the thread is headed... do us all a favor and stay out of it.



I don't like where the forum and the broader comunity is headed, and i'll post about it wherever it's pertinent. This is actually damaging the hobby, and that is a real problem, no matter how much people pat themselves on the back about how reasonable everyone is being.



> Hey when did you become the "Forum police"... I thought that's why we had mods. I don't object to you stating your opinion, but how about you go do it in your own thread so the rest of us can threadcrap in it read your important and oh-so-cliched-rants while still continuing to enjoy this topic.



Right, you don't object to me stating my opinion, you just.  . . . object to me stating my opinion.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 6, 2009)

Imperialus said:


> The downside to this is that only one of them is going to be having much fun at a given time.



This is another tenet of 4E that I don't subscribe to: the idea that I should never have to take a back seat to another player, or be out of the spotlight for even a moment.

I don't want to be all "get off my lawn," but is it a generational thing?  I mean, to me, part of _teamwork_ is the assist.  So maybe I'm not the best football player on the team (maybe I'm the best tennis player on the team), but today we're playing football.  That's okay.  I'll do the best I can, and I can still help the best football player on the team score a touchdown.  It just doesn't bother me.

I've played the wizard who runs out of spells and has to shoot things with his crossbow, I've played the rogue who can't do diddly-squat to undead, and I've played the fighter who can't reach flying opponents...and it has never bothered me.  I find other ways for those characters to contribute to the team.

I understand other people feel differently, and for them, 4E is a godsend.  I just can't _relate_ to that, and for me, 4E's "solution" (homogeneity) to a problem that doesn't exist (for me) is unnecessary and undesirable.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

Imperialus said:


> A team full of football players may have less variety, but at least they'll all have something to do during a football game.



There is not less variety. It's more like-

Well first let me say, sport metaphors are such a great idea. I mean, really.

That said, it's more accurate to say that in 4e, everyone has a pretty clear role as a footballer(combat), but when playing cricket (non-combat), everone is an all-rounder.

Everyone has a clear role in combat, and in non-combat, there's a more of less level playing field, but strategies and options vary a great deal depending on the context and resources. 

And unlike 3e, everyone actually gets to have an impact- and frankly, that synchronised swimmer(bad build) that somebody is playing? They're never really going to matter. Maybe they have a skill nobody else has? 

Maybe they get to be party leader, or roleplay a lot? That's not design. That's just as viable in 4e.

3e is not more versatile, becasuse many of it's choices don't really lead anywhere. Choice without consequence is no choice at all. Opting to suck is not a real or exciting choice. It's just a booby prize you get if you don't play a spellcaster.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> And unlike 3e, everyone actually gets to have an impact- and frankly, that synchronised swimmer(bad build) that somebody is playing? They're never really going to matter. Maybe they have a skill nobody else has?
> 
> Maybe they get to be party leader, or roleplay a lot? That's not design. That's just as viable in 4e.
> 
> 3e is not more versatile, becasuse many of it's choices don't really lead anywhere. Choice without consequence is no choice at all. Opting to suck is not a real or exciting choice. It's just a booby prize you get if you don't play a spellcaster.



This position is absurd and until you recognize that, nothing can be resolved.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> This is another tenet of 4E that I don't subscribe to: the idea that I should never have to take a back seat to another player, or be out of the spotlight for even a moment.
> 
> I don't want to be all "get off my lawn," but is it a generational thing? I mean, to me, part of _teamwork_ is the assist. So maybe I'm not the best football player on the team (maybe I'm the best tennis player on the team), but today we're playing football. That's okay. I'll do the best I can, and I can still help the best football player on the team score a touchdown. It just doesn't bother me.
> 
> ...




4e isn't homogenous, that's something you've invented. 4e is just as versatile as 3e. But moving on from that.

It's all well and good to talk about different players taking a spotlight. That happens in 4e as well. Ritualists, people with the right skill, the toughest character in a hard fight, there are all sorts of situations where somebody is in the spotlight and running with the ball. 

The problem is that in 3e, you're not really getting to take the lead. A fighter past 11th level never really gets the ball unless the other players pass it to him out of pity. Put simply, you're never going to really play tennis. You're going to play football (combat), or golf (skills), or badminton (roleplaying), but at no point is your tennis pro or curling expert actually going to be useful in the game, unless the GM contrives it that he is.

A skill-based character may be useful, but in 4e, everyone gets to be skill based if they want, and there's enough diversity that different pc's skills will matter more or less in different scenes- in fact one of the things I don't like about skill challenges is how often they favour certain skills, I feel that all skills should be aplicable to all challenges. That is not the case, and most skill challenges focus on a small subset of skills. 

Hence, an athletic fighter won't have much to do in a social skill challenge. An intimidating rogue can actually blow a skill challenge by trying to threaten the wrong person. Different people have to take the lead in different situations.

Regardless of 4e, 3e's varety is not genuine, because mostly it just leads to bad builds. They're not different, they're just not going to DO anything, and if they do, it's skill rolls and roleplaying, and you can do that in 4e until the cows come home.

I guess maybe you like the idea of the party fighter past 11th level being mind-controlled or terrified in every other fight but. . . . what does a fighter get to do at that level? Suck up damage? That's it? That's not a choice, that's a consolation prize.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

BryonD said:


> This position is absurd and until you recognize that, nothing can be resolved.



So again, everything is just a matter of opinion, everything is relative, nothing can ever really been determined or discussed. I get why you like that idea, because it allows you to just endlessly post and argue and ignore any rebuttal, but it's not actually constructive or useful. The fact is that some arguments are absurd. Some positions are not valid. It does happen. People are often unreasonable, and it's doubly unreasonable to insist that nobody is ever allowed to say that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 6, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> 4e killed my dog.
> 
> Happy now?



I am sorry for your loss. But are you sure it was really 4E? I mean, if you looked closely, wasn't it the 3E PHB and DMG that was stacked on it that contributed to the deadly weight, and if it had just been 4E, the dog might have been fine?

I mean, I am not bashing 3E or anything, I am just saying the 3E books are a little... heavy.


----------



## Diamondeye (Sep 6, 2009)

It really never ceases to amaze me how loudly people will insist that someone else's opinion isn't _really_ their opinion.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 6, 2009)

I can see potential problems with class balance in 3e, but they really derive from the very process of making classes more similar that 4e continues. The magician was made more of a warrior, and had both survival rate (especially at low levels) and ease of access to desired magical effects boosted -- while still getting tremendous powers at high levels.

Being _both_ magician _and_ as capable a warrior as a non-magician is clearly an advantage. With 4e, the choice was to cut back on, and spread around, the magician aspect.


----------



## Primal (Sep 6, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am sorry for your loss. But are you sure it was really 4E? I mean, if you looked closely, wasn't it the 3E PHB and DMG that was stacked on it that contributed to the deadly weight, and if it had just been 4E, the dog might have been fine?
> 
> I mean, I am not bashing 3E or anything, I am just saying the 3E books are a little... heavy.




Nah, 3E or 4E books are not even heavy... you could kill a grown-up with a copy of PF RPG! 

(I know, 'cuz I tried it on my neighbor!)


----------



## Roland55 (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> I did state my opinion of the topic: the topic is absurd, and until people recognise that, this issue can't be resolved.
> 
> Even if there is something constructive to be achievd here, it won't be achieved while all the 4e-haters are treated like superior beings who must not be challenged. The history of threads like this prove that people are not willing to make progress- and if progress is made, they just wander off and come back next week with a new argument, and the whole thing repeats itself.
> 
> ...




Please ... relax ... take a deep breath ... stop being so emotional.

It's a game.  Not everyone sees it the same way, of course.  How could we, being so different ourselves?

Other people can have different opinions without being bad ... without being out to get your favorite game.

This Thread was interesting.  And then people began to get over-emotional.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

Diamondeye said:


> It really never ceases to amaze me how loudly people will insist that someone else's opinion isn't _really_ their opinion.




Yes and no.

Not liking specific aspects of 4E or the game itself is a perfectly valid thing. Disliking 4E doesn't really explain the level of negativity that gets thrown at the game though, and it isn't enough on its own to cause the Edition Wars we've been seeing since the release. Being displeased at the loss of 3E/OGL as the preeminent game in RPGdom and official and supported bearer of the D&D name does explain the anger.

In other words, your opinion is perfectly good and valid, it just doesn't explain why these arguments go the way they go.


----------



## Primal (Sep 6, 2009)

Catastrophic, I think people are trying to point out that while everyone here usually remembers to add 'I think...', 'in my opinion...', 'I may be wrong, but...' etcetera to their opinions, you present yours (and dismiss those of others) as if there would be no question or doubt to their absolute truthfulness. And I'll readily admit that this is one of things that really irritate me in forum discussion. 

If you honestly want to have a decent, respectful and constructive discussion about a subject, remember to respect the other posters and their opinions.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 6, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> Not liking specific aspects of 4E or the game itself is a perfectly valid thing. Disliking 4E doesn't really explain the level of negativity that gets thrown at the game though, and it isn't enough on its own to cause the Edition Wars we've been seeing since the release. Being displeased at the loss of 3E/OGL as the preeminent game in RPGdom and official and supported bearer of the D&D name does explain the anger.
> 
> In other words, your opinion is perfectly good and valid, it just doesn't explain why these arguments go the way they go.




I find your phrasing a little odd... as if only those who don't like 4e can cause edition wars.  This thread was pretty peaceful and interesting (and I found the views of both sides interesting) until a 4e fan came charging in all _taking no prisoners_ and _ready for a fight_.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I find your phrasing a little odd... as if only those who don't like 4e can cause edition wars.  This thread was pretty peaceful and interesting (and I found the views of both sides interesting) until a 4e fan came charging in all _taking no prisoners_ and _ready for a fight_.




It goes both ways. The 4E side of the edition war I don't think would exist in the absence of the 3E side. If people weren't complaining, why would there be any reason to do anything besides happily play and discuss 4E? 4E fans didn't start the Edition War, and neither did anti-4E people. WotC started it by dumping 3E and releasing 4E. When people throw mud at 4E/WotC on forums, 4E/WotC doesn't get hit. 4E fans get hit. It basically stems from reacting to all negativity no matter what the validity with the same violence because of being sick of all the crap that gets thrown at a game we like. Some 4E claims are valid, some are not, and some are people venting because the game they preferred has been lessened. The invalid claims and venting have just gotten to the point were all of it gets lumped in the same boat.

I think catastrophic is way out of line here making a crusade out of this, but he has a point all the same.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 6, 2009)

thecausaloblivon said:
			
		

> When people throw mud at 4E/WotC on forums, 4E/WotC doesn't get hit. 4E fans get hit.




Why? I mean, why do certain fans (of any edition) take it like a personal slight when people have problems with the edition? If I say 4e is too homogeneous (implied "for me, in my experience, relative to other stuff I've played and the ways I've played that other stuff"), that's nothing against 4e fans. As someone who does enjoy his 4e games, I don't feel like I'm insulting myself by pointing out areas where 4e struggles. I feel like I'm exposing weaknesses to make a better game. If the Coasties don't hear it, it doesn't matter, because it helps me to make my game a better game by finding areas where players aren't having a tremendous amount of fun and letting them have more fun. 

Now, if I say "4e is great if you're a mental midget with all the creativity of an ironing board who likes getting spoon-fed gruel and being told it's duck l'orange" that IS a slight against 4e fans, and I'm wrong to say that.

Just like saying "Anyone who has a problem with 4e is obviously concealing their true hatred of change!" is wrong. 



> If people weren't complaining, why would there be any reason to do anything besides happily play and discuss 4E?




I'm of a mind that discussions of substance cannot occur unless there's a _problem to be solved_. If someone makes a new 4e class, for instance, the implication is that 4e has a flaw in that it didn't already have the class (and maybe it's just a flaw for the person who made the class). 

If people weren't "complaining" (which is a pretty derogatory way to put it), then there would be no discussion of any relevance. Post after post of "I LOVE 4E AND IT IS BETTER THAN SEX" is not a discussion, it's just a dogma, a mantra. 

If people weren't complaining, it would also be because nobody cared, which would be a dang tragedy for the game as a whole.

No, people try to correct problems with things they care about, and want to see get better. Problems always exist -- no edition is perfection -- so there are always things to work on, discuss, and maybe fix. 



> Some 4E claims are valid, some are not, and some are people venting because the game they preferred has been lessened.




I'm a pretty regular poster here at ENWorld, and I haven't seen an invalid 4e claim in _months_, if not years (same thing with invalid 3e claims). The edition wars here aren't really fiery anymore -- simmering flames with people picking up the games they like and going off to play and discuss them. 

To come in 5 pages into a constructive thread and spew venom about how everyone who is a critic is ignorant and mean-spirited, is, well, ignorant and mean-spirited. 

Anyone who reacts like that is at best jumping at shadows, at worst, trolling.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 6, 2009)

EDITION WARS:

They're Not Just for 2008 Anymore!

-O


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why? I mean, why do certain fans (of any edition) take it like a personal slight when people have problems with the edition? If I say 4e is too homogeneous (implied "for me, in my experience, relative to other stuff I've played and the ways I've played that other stuff"), that's nothing against 4e fans. As someone who does enjoy his 4e games, I don't feel like I'm insulting myself by pointing out areas where 4e struggles. I feel like I'm exposing weaknesses to make a better game. If the Coasties don't hear it, it doesn't matter, because it helps me to make my game a better game by finding areas where players aren't having a tremendous amount of fun and letting them have more fun.




Its a difference of tone. Simply stating a preference isn't an issue. A lot of the times, stating a preference in opposition to 4E takes on the tone of a political crusade. Its the political crusade that draws people to fire back, not the opinion. The political crusade got to be big enough that it became inseparatable from the opinions, and people who have simple opinions are being jumped by 4E fans responding to the political crusades.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now, if I say "4e is great if you're a mental midget with all the creativity of an ironing board who likes getting spoon-fed gruel and being told it's duck l'orange" that IS a slight against 4e fans, and I'm wrong to say that.
> 
> Just like saying "Anyone who has a problem with 4e is obviously concealing their true hatred of change!" is wrong.




Again, this got so bitter that its difficult to separate things, and has been this way from almost the beginning and it hasn't healed.





Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm of a mind that discussions of substance cannot occur unless there's a _problem to be solved_. If someone makes a new 4e class, for instance, the implication is that 4e has a flaw in that it didn't already have the class (and maybe it's just a flaw for the person who made the class).
> 
> If people weren't "complaining" (which is a pretty derogatory way to put it), then there would be no discussion of any relevance. Post after post of "I LOVE 4E AND IT IS BETTER THAN SEX" is not a discussion, it's just a dogma, a mantra.
> 
> ...




The issue here is that some problems can't be solved. If you prefer 3E to 4E whole cloth, than there is nothing that can be done to 4E to fix it for you. When people who prefer 3E whole cloth start posting in complaint threads, it leads to mudslinging because of a divide that cannot be bridged. 





Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm a pretty regular poster here at ENWorld, and I haven't seen an invalid 4e claim in _months_, if not years (same thing with invalid 3e claims). The edition wars here aren't really fiery anymore -- simmering flames with people picking up the games they like and going off to play and discuss them.
> 
> To come in 5 pages into a constructive thread and spew venom about how everyone who is a critic is ignorant and mean-spirited, is, well, ignorant and mean-spirited.
> 
> Anyone who reacts like that is at best jumping at shadows, at worst, trolling.




It might be running cold, but its still there. I should know, as I generally only show up for the edition wars. They're interesting, more interesting than the polite discussions. That doesn't reflect well on me, but I try to think of myself as one who doesn't start fires where none exist, but shows up to play with fires when they break out. 


This flamed into an edition war, but I gave the guy XP(before the war started I might add) for pointing out that a lot of anti-4e attacks aren't motivated by a simple dislike of the system, but dissatisfaction from having a favored game being replaced by an edition a person doesn't like *without saying such*. Its hard to discuss simple opinions when the real issue is something unsaid in the post.


4E fans can be just as bad, as we have a tendency to respond to the edition war and not to the poster.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 6, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 3E's lack of balance really detracted from things in light of the games combat focus IMO.



Yes.  This is a fair statement.

I'll admit that my 1/2 second knee-jerk reaction is to express surprise, because I find 3E to be quite reasonably balanced.

But, if balance were the most important factor to me and I was moving from 4E to 3E, I would likely be appalled by the amount of balance I was giving up.  That is not to say that 3E has no balance.  Again, I find it more than sufficient.  But, why would I as a 4E fan even consider playing 3E when I can have such a better game experience sitting right there?  When there is a much better option sitting there that meets my standard of excellent balance, the difference between "more than sufficient" and "nowhere near good enough" becomes negligible.  They are both settling for less.


And I can see how the reaction of 4E fans could be dismay when some claims that 4E does not offer enough diversity.  But the same reasoning applies.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

The phrase "talking past each other" is listed in this thread's title.

A lot of the trouble comes from people who are unhappy with the edition change posting simple opinions while subconsciously including their unhappiness in the form of passive agressive hostility, and 4E fans responding aggressively to the undercurrent of hostility and the past history of the "Edition War" instead of responding to the simple opinion.

In other words, "talking past each other".


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 6, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why? I mean, why do certain fans (of any edition) take it like a personal slight when people have problems with the edition?




I can answer this.

People take it personally because criticism of an edition by someone who emphatically does not like it is often phrased in a way to be insulting to the intelligence or tastes of the people who like it.

People have  suggested that 4e fans are attention-starved immature kids who can't handle complex rules. In one fell swoop, they've attacked my maturity, attention span, and intelligence.

Now, most people who have problems with 4e have either moved away from incendiary rhetoric to make their points, or they've been banned (like Razz), so you don't see it as often, but it does still happen sometimes.



> If I say 4e is too homogeneous (implied "for me, in my experience, relative to other stuff I've played and the ways I've played that other stuff"), that's nothing against 4e fans.




No, but when its phrased in a way that suggests we are unable to perceive the truth about the game we like, or its suggested we're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome (like someone did earlier in this thread), that is something definitely against the fans. That's intentionally offensive, and it will provoke a reaction... and not a pleasant one.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 6, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why? I mean, why do certain fans (of any edition) take it like a personal slight when people have problems with the edition?



When people say "4e is not D&D" or "4e ruined D&D", then that's insulting _my_ game. It's telling me "You're not a D&D player because you play 4e". 

Quite a number of people say that. And quite a number who _do not_ still say it with the _tone_. There's a difference between saying "I don't like it" or "I prefer 3e" or "It's too similar" than "It's just WoW with Dice". 

Again saying "It's WoW with Dice" insults _me_ because it's implying it's dumbed down and I'm dumbed down for liking it. 

And when someone says "You just CAN'T roleplay with 4e", and I roleplay with 4e, what does that say about my game? If you can't roleplay with 4e, then what I'm doing isn't roleplaying, is it? 

To put it back in the sports analogy, it's the difference between saying "Baseball is boring - it's slow, takes a long time to resolve, and the moments of excitement are brief spikes in between the dullness" and "Baseball is a wuss's game". And quite frankly, KM, I see more of the latter than the former around the internet.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 6, 2009)

Great. I understand all of those reasons.

Now I'm wondering why this thread -- which had none of that -- turned into what it did.

Oh, right. One poster with an axe to grind.

I suppose it was fun while it lasted.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 6, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> No, people try to correct problems with things they care about, and want to see get better. Problems always exist -- no edition is perfection -- so there are always things to work on, discuss, and maybe fix.



Now, hold a moment, KM. 

Some people will make a criticism about 4e because they want to houserule the game. Like the "Let's make the classes less homogenous". If that's what you're talking about, then For instance, "I don't like the saving mechanic - it's a pure 50/50 thing for every person, no matter the condition or what it targeted. It doesn't relate to the character's strengths/weaknesses at all." Valid criticism, easy to fix. If that's what you're trying to say, sure.

I rarely see this. 

What I _see_ the majority of the time is this: 3e fans who do not like or want to play 4e, and who want to register their complaints because they don't like the direction that D&D has taken. And they don't want WotC to make 5e anything like 4e. If WotC sees the unhappiness with their product, they will halt the direction they are going, and swing back in the direction of 3e. *I've seen many posters say this is their intention for complaining about 4e here.*

Then the posters start listing all the things wrong with 4e. Which is going to cause friction when one person sees X as a bug, and the next sees it as a feature. You may say it's a "problem" you want to "correct", and I see it as an "innovation" I want to "stay".

I think that the poster with the axe to grind went way out of line. On the other hand, one can't also dismiss that for some posters, there is more going on behind the posts than face value and a desire for discussion. For instance, apparently the way the 4e designers previewed 4e _really insulted_ some people, and they are _still_ sensitive about it. That's going to have some influence, intentional or not, on their discussion of the topic.


----------



## Wik (Sep 6, 2009)

I especially liked the part where we said bad things about 4e.  That was fun!


----------



## jasin (Sep 7, 2009)

Stuntman said:


> Basically, the framework of abilities for the various classes are the same.  All classes generally get the same number of slots for power and feats.  I'm not exactly sure why there is such a big issue about the fact that the steps you go about in creating or levelling up a wizard is very similar to that of a fighter.



One downside comes to mind: the threshold for perceived imbalance is much lower.

In 3E, a 7th-level wizard is casting 1 or 2 4th-level spells. A 7th-level sorcerer is casting 5 3rd-level spells. The wizard needs to pick in advance, the sorcerer can choose spontaneously as needed. But the wizard can expand his repertoire if needed, whilte the sorcerer is locked into his until next level. Which one is better?

I'd say the wizard, but that's almost 10 years of 3E experience speaking. It's also taste speaking; I like versatility. But many people will find enough subjective pleasure in the sorcerer's capacity that they'll prefer the sorcerer, even if there is a consensus that the wizard is more powerful in some objective sense.

Now look at the 7th-level fighter; his top trick might be Whirlwind Attack, whenever he can. The consensus is even stronger that he's weak compared to the wizard, but some people will enjoy the way the fighter works more than the way the wizard works, so much so that they'll prefer the fighter, even if the wizard is certainly more powerful objectively.

In 4E, on the other hand, there's a 1st-level warlock daily which deals 3d6+Cha damage and imposes a penalty. There's also a 1st-level sorcerer daily which deals 6d6+Cha damage and imposes a penalty (I don't have the exact spell names, but the point I trying to make is more general than these two exact powers). They're immediately, obviously comparable, and the warlock daily suffers in that comparison.

Even if you go further afield and look at different roles and power sources, you can still compare powers with an exact 1-to-1 mapping. Paladins get an encounter power at 7th level just like warlocks, and even though different roles and different class features make a lot of difference, 3[W]+Str is still much more readily comparable to 3d8+Cha than Whirlwind Attack at will is to enervation 2/day.

In 4E's unified framework, it's much easier to see imbalances, and taste accounts for less. Whether you enjoy consistency, or a single big bang, or careful preparation, or versatility, the structure of your repertoire of powers and the way the function is always the same, and it's much easier to slip into comparing numbers, and the numbers can only be (to be generous) imperfectly balanced.

To be fair, it should be noted that new classes are changing that in smaller (avenger) or larger (psion, monk) ways.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 7, 2009)

Primal said:


> Nah, 3E or 4E books are not even heavy... you could kill a grown-up with a copy of PF RPG!
> 
> (I know, 'cuz I tried it on my neighbor!)




  But can it stop bayonets and black-powder firearms?  We have documented evidence that _real_ rulebooks can.  



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I actually would call them homogenous when I'm looking for a team made up of a linebacker, a shortstop, a golf pro, and a world-class swimmer. Earlier editions gave me more freedom to represent extremely different powers and abilities usefully in the game. 4e limits these all to football, but what if I don't particularly want to play football? 3e was able (with some difficulty, in some areas) to rise to the occasion, why can't 4e?




  I thought this was obvious. 4E is all about breaking the game down and rebuilding it to do one thing--fantasy adventuring--very well. That means that some things that previous editions did _per accidens_ got downplayed or left by the wayside. For some folks, this reduces clutter and distractions; for others, it takes away tools they could use to do things outside the assumed norm.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Sep 7, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The assumption is that it's bad. Sameness is bad because lots of choices are good.
> 
> (Just a thought, but this drive for lots and lots of options might be a very American notion. If you walk into the grocery store in America, you can find an entire aisle of just cereal. 40-50 different kinds of cereal. Other countries simply do Not have that variety present.)



People interested in reading about this may wish to start with _The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less_ by Barry Schwartz.

Ted Talk here: Barry Schwartz on the paradox of choice | Video on TED.com


----------



## Rechan (Sep 7, 2009)

Kwalish Kid said:


> People interested in reading about this may wish to start with _The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less_ by Barry Schwartz.
> 
> Ted Talk here: Barry Schwartz on the paradox of choice | Video on TED.com



THanks for that.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 7, 2009)

Rechan said:


> What I _see_ the majority of the time is this: 3e fans who do not like or want to play 4e, and who want to register their complaints because they don't like the direction that D&D has taken. And they don't want WotC to make 5e anything like 4e. If WotC sees the unhappiness with their product, they will halt the direction they are going, and swing back in the direction of 3e. *I've seen many posters say this is their intention for complaining about 4e here.*
> 
> Then the posters start listing all the things wrong with 4e. Which is going to cause friction when one person sees X as a bug, and the next sees it as a feature. You may say it's a "problem" you want to "correct", and I see it as an "innovation" I want to "stay".



I can see that such criticisms will create friction. What I can't see is how that makes the criticisms _invalid._

I post here for many different reasons.  One of them is that I hope what I have to say will take root in other people's minds and influence their future decisions.  Nothing would make me happier than to have 5E turn out very differently than 4E did because of something critical I said about 4E here.  *And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.*


----------



## BryonD (Sep 7, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> No, but when its phrased in a way that suggests we are unable to perceive the truth about the game we like, or its suggested we're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome (like someone did earlier in this thread), that is something definitely against the fans. That's intentionally offensive, and it will provoke a reaction... and not a pleasant one.



Well, I think exactly the opposite can be claimed as well.
I don't mean that in an "I can point my finger at your harder than you can at me" way.  I just mean there are plenty of claims such as: there are no honest reasons to prefer 3E and it is just "hatred" of change or whatever.  

There are very fair reasons to greatly prefer each edition.  A non-gamer may see them as nearly the same, but to a heavy gamer, the differences are quite deep and fundamental.  

Simplistic attacks fly in both directions and neither are productive. 

So as to avoid a totally non-partisan post:   
...  While the negative blasts flow both ways, the agreement that 3E has its redeeming points seems to be much fewer are farther between from the pro-4E side than the other way around.  Noise to signal may drown out the difference, but I virtually never see 4E fans saying anything good about 3E.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 7, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> What I can't see is how that makes the criticisms _invalid._



The validity of the criticism depends on the criticism, not by the virtue of it just being an opinion or a criticism. 



> I post here for many different reasons.  One of them is that I hope what I have to say will take root in other people's minds and influence their future decisions.  Nothing would make me happier than to have 5E turn out very differently than 4E did because of something critical I said about 4E here.  *And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.*



It's wrong when motives and intentions are concealed behind invalid criticisms and used as an excuse to insult others. 

KM is saying that people post criticisms because they want to improve it. They don't, they hate it and want to get rid of it. If that's the case, _make that clear_ and at the same time _don't be rude about it_.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 7, 2009)

BryonD said:


> So as to avoid a totally non-partisan post:
> ...  While the negative blasts flow both ways, the agreement that 3E has its redeeming points seems to be much fewer are farther between from the pro-4E side than the other way around.  Noise to signal may drown out the difference, but I virtually never see 4E fans saying anything good about 3E.




There is a simple answer to this: 3E is not the elephant in the room. To somebody playing 4E, 3E isn't important anymore. 4E is doing well, RPGA events are being held, its easy to find players, and we're getting new books. To a 3E player though, 4E is the elephant in the room, and being such enters the discussion.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 7, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> There is a simple answer to this: 3E is not the elephant in the room. To somebody playing 4E, 3E isn't important anymore. 4E is doing well, RPGA events are being held, its easy to find players, and we're getting new books. To a 3E player though, 4E is the elephant in the room, and being such enters the discussion.



I will say that it's the elephant in the room when you have a player in your group who always says "I liked it better in 3e with..." or "I just can't stand how they did..." 

Recently I sat in on a 3.5 game where one of the players took every opportunity to whine about how "Well in 2e we did it THIS way" and how 3e dumbed this or that down. It was an utter drag on the entire experience.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 7, 2009)

BryonD said:


> ...  While the negative blasts flow both ways, the agreement that 3E has its redeeming points seems to be much fewer are farther between from the pro-4E side than the other way around.  Noise to signal may drown out the difference, but I virtually never see 4E fans saying anything good about 3E.



In all honesty, in my experience it's the opposite. The majority of 4E players used to play and enjoy 3E. I loved my time with 3E and may very well play it again in the future.

3E is *awesome*! Just like 4E.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 7, 2009)

Vegepygmy said:


> This is another tenet of 4E that I don't subscribe to: the idea that I should never have to take a back seat to another player, or be out of the spotlight for even a moment.



This is not a tenet of 4E. It is an exaggeration of a tenet of 4E.

It's also an example of the type of post that is worded in a way to rile up fans of 4E. It's like a 4E fan posting "I don't agree with 3E's tenet that fighters are supposed to suck compared to wizards." It's a gross exaggeration, and isn't helpful.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 7, 2009)

*I'm annoyed enough at some of the posts in this thread that I'm really tempted just to close it, but let's try this: Enough, guys. You're adults. Act like it, and that means not insulting people and taking cheap shots. It seems like a number of folks chose this thread to regress in, and that makes me cranky.

So please - deep breaths, polite responses, and leave the gritted teeth for another time. *


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 7, 2009)

BryonD said:


> ...  While the negative blasts flow both ways, the agreement that 3E has its redeeming points seems to be much fewer are farther between from the pro-4E side than the other way around.  Noise to signal may drown out the difference, but I virtually never see 4E fans saying anything good about 3E.




3E was awesome when it came out.  I loved everything about it.  It was an improvement in nearly every way over 2E.  It allowed more customization, there were a lot of cool new powers, there were real rules for grappling people, spells weren't so stupidly powerful, fighters had some real options instead of just attacking over and over again, BAB made way more sense than THACO, there were rules about how many magic items people had instead of guessing how many to hand out.  It was all good.

After a while, the seams in the system just started to show.  The same thing will happen with 4e and will cause me to want a 5e and so on.  The more you use something, the more you see the flaws in it.  My cracking point was with 3e was about the time I was running a 17th level wizard with a 16th level fighter against a group of 15th level characters.  They were able to kill the fighter in round one before he acted and grappled the wizard in the same round so he was completely unable to cast spells(not a single spell prepared without somatic components).  Then they slowly beat him him to death with their fists.  It was about as dramatic and heroic as dirt.

Once that happened, I couldn't help but see the imbalances between the different PCs in the group, the differences in power level between the PCs and NPCs, the problems with the CR system, the differences between DCs and skill ranks, and so on.

Nearly everyone in the group was something like a 1 Barbarian/4 Fighter/10 Frenzied Berzerker or a Dark Template(I think that's what it's called) Human Warlock/Something/Something/Something(all wizard PrCs) who could hide in plain sight at will with such a huge bonus that he couldn't be seen by anything.

All I could see every time I played was that it was way too easy for some people to succeed in rolls and way too hard for others.  You were constantly getting into situations where one PC had an automatic success and another one couldn't make it except on a 20.  This applies to saving throws, skill checks, attack rolls, grapple checks, trip checks.  Pretty much everything in the game had so much variation in it that most checks became a "yes or no" rather than a chance to succeed.  There might be a person with a -2 in a skill in the same group as someone with a +60.  There might be someone who had a +5 to hit in a group with someone who had a +35.

It was pretty much then that I saw the entire game needed an overhaul to fix those issues.  From the bottom up.  No stone left unturned.

And the key things that needed to be changed were anything that let players get too far off the baseline.  Multiclassing, PrC, Feats, Buffing spells, Rolling for random stats, skill ranks, and the like were the main culprits.

And it appears that the people at WOTC noticed the same things.  It was the number of options that were actually causing the game to have issues.  So, when I see claims that 4e is too homogeneous, my response is always the same.  Yep.  And that's a good thing compared to the alternative.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I find your phrasing a little odd... as if only those who don't like 4e can cause edition wars.  This thread was pretty peaceful and interesting (and I found the views of both sides interesting) until a 4e fan came charging in all _taking no prisoners_ and _ready for a fight_.




Yep, pretty much.

There is no need to defend 4E vigorously. It's really an awesome game and doesn't need it. Not everyone likes its kind of awesomeness, and it would be nice to understand why not and what kind of awesomeness they prefer. Maybe there can be found compromises, maybe it gives ideas for future editions - or even entirely different game systems.


----------



## jasin (Sep 7, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> 3e is not more versatile, becasuse many of it's choices don't really lead anywhere. Choice without consequence is no choice at all. Opting to suck is not a real or exciting choice.



Isn't this also very present in 4E? Perhaps not as present as in 3E, but enough to be an issue?

Opting for a shield fighter vs. a (pre-errata) battle rager fighter? Opting for warlock vs. a sorcerer? Opting to have any bracer slot item that's not iron armbands of power vs. iron armbands of power? Any weapon that is not bloodclaw vs. a bloodclaw? Numerous powers which get passed again and again vs. those that get picked again and again?

This is my experience, and while it's not the issue originally under question, it's very much interconnected. Most people want both variety and equality, and are willing to trade one off against the other, only in different amounts. I like the difference in structure between the 3E fighter and the 3E wizard, but I hate the fact that wizard is awesome and the fighter not so much. I'd be willing to sacrifice that bit of variety if it meant that everyone is awesome, but that is decidedly not my experience in 4E.

To extend the sports analogy, 3E has the golfer and the footballer. It kind of sucks that each mostly sits out the other guy's game, and it really sucks that they're mostly playing football, rugby and wrestling with just a bit of golf. But 4E has the pro quarterback and the amateur league tackle. No-one is as stuck as the golfer, but they're still not getting anywhere near equal spotlight time, and all they ever do is play football.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 7, 2009)

jasin said:


> Opting for a shield fighter vs. a (pre-errata) battle rager fighter? Opting for warlock vs. a sorcerer? Opting to have any bracer slot item that's not iron armbands of power vs. iron armbands of power? Any weapon that is not bloodclaw vs. a bloodclaw? Numerous powers which get passed again and again vs. those that get picked again and again?



Out of everything in 4e, there are probably only 6 things that I've ever thought were considerably more powerful than all other options.  They are pre-errata battlerage vigor fighter, iron armbands of power, bloodclaw, rain of blows(pre-errata), veteran's armor(pre-errata), and the warlord power that allowed you to switch initiatives with other people(pre-errata).  All but 2 of these have been errata'd.  And Iron Armbands are kind of iffy.  They are still close to being balanced.

So, if you remove that entire list as choices, I think you'd be hard pressed to find something else that was as overwhelming as you say.



jasin said:


> I'd be willing to sacrifice that bit of variety if it meant that everyone is awesome, but that is decidedly not my experience in 4E.



Wow.  Even the difference between the weakest option and best option in 4e is still closer to the difference between two fighters in 3e rather than the difference between a fighter and a wizard.

I'm willing to admit that the 14 Cha Warlock who takes all non-combat feats va the 20 Cha Sorcerer and 16 Dex who takes all of them and has a +1 weapon is not fair balance.  It'll suck to play that Warlock.  On the other hand, the difference between them is:
Warlock: +2 to hit for 1d6+2 damage
Sorcerer: +7 to hit for 1d10+9 damage
At 30th level, as long as they both keep putting all their points into their primary and secondary stats and get appropriate magic items(no matter which ones they pick), the difference isn't going to grow that much:
Warlock: +27 to hit for 1d6+12
Sorcerer: +34 to hit for 1d10+24

Which is a pretty big difference.  But the Warlock still gets a bunch of secondary effects from their powers.  They are immobilizing people, giving them minuses, and some other effects that the Sorcerer isn't doing.  Some of their powers do half damage on a miss or have an effect on a miss.  When targeting a weak defense, the Warlock hits a level 30 solo on a 15.

It is, however, nowhere near the difference in 3.5e between the Fighter who put a 14 into their Str at level 1, chooses all non-combat feats, and multiclasses for role playing reasons into things like bard and rogue and the Wizard who put a 20 into their Int at first level and chooses all combat oriented feats, and optimizes their multiclassing into useful PrC.

I can't even estimate the exact numbers due to the number of variables involved.  But it's fair to say that the fighter involved would need 15s to hit most enemies at level 20.  The Wizard either doesn't require attack rolls or hits on everything but a 1.  The Fighter would do approximately 1d6+9 points of damage on an attack.  The Wizard would be doing about 20d6, twice a round, while flying, invisible, and nearly immune to attacks.  That is, assuming he doesn't just kill the enemy outright with his first spell.

To even compare the two is nearly incomprehensible to me.  There is enough variety in characters to have a difference between the best and worst characters in 4e without making the difference so great as to completely eliminate the worst person from the combat.


----------



## jasin (Sep 7, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> So, if you remove that entire list as choices, I think you'd be hard pressed to find something else that was as overwhelming as you say.



Well, it's anecdotal, but a common experience for me and the people I play with is looking at a list of available options (powers at a given level, magic items at a given level) and 



> Wow.  Even the difference between the weakest option and best option in 4e is still closer to the difference between two fighters in 3e rather than the difference between a fighter and a wizard.



I've played a 25th-level swordmage alongside a 25th-level sorcerer which was only hit on 15+ by attacks that hit the sorcerer on 5+. In my experience, that was large enough to cause frustration for both the DM and the sorcerer player, and that's what counts: if there is annoyance, a diminishment of enjoyment, it doesn't really matter if it's a 30-point gap or a 15-point gap.



> I'm willing to admit that the 14 Cha Warlock who takes all non-combat feats va the 20 Cha Sorcerer and 16 Dex who takes all of them and has a +1 weapon is not fair balance.



How about a warlock built by a reasonably talented player without extensive experience, and a sorcerer built by the same player?

A tiefling infernal warlock. Tieflings, devils, warlocks, should work, right? And a drow chaos sorcerer. Drow, chaos... again, fits, right? So Con 16 and 1d6 curse vs. Cha 18 and Dex 16. The most basic, obvious At-Will is 1d10+3+1d6 against one monster after spending a minor action for the warlock; and 1d10+7 in a close blast 3 for the sorcerer.

Isn't dealing slightly more damage in an area a huge difference from slightly less damage against one target with an addition action requirement?

Not as huge as between a gimped 3.5 fighter and a completely twinked out 3.5 wizard, but in practice, people don't play gimped fighters alongside twinked out wizards, they play reasonable fighters alongsider reasonable wizards, and reasonable warlocks alongside reasonable sorcerers. And the difference between the members of each pair is noticeable enough to diminish the fun of the player with the weaker character.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 7, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> 3E is *awesome*! Just like 4E.






			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> 3E was awesome when it came out.



I apologize to each of you, as well as to the great number of other readers who don't get into these back and forth debates.  It was not my intent to include everyone in my statement, but I certainly did not say it well.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 7, 2009)

jasin said:


> To extend the sports analogy, 3E has the golfer and the footballer. It kind of sucks that each mostly sits out the other guy's game, and it really sucks that they're mostly playing football, rugby and wrestling with just a bit of golf.



For your game it may have been this way.
Can you accept that this does not describe my game?

In my games it is awesome when the golfer plays a role in making the football player even more a star at football and really awesome when they combine their skills to find a way to overcome some completely different challenge.

Your "sucks" and "really sucks" is my "awesome" and "really awesome".  Clearly we play differently and thus want different games.  

Which brings it all back to the very start of this debate. If WotC wants to start getting my money again, they simply need to start making a game that appeals to me.  That doesn't mean they need to stop making a game that appeals to you.  And it doesn't mean they are obligated to try to appeal to me.  It just means they need to sell something I want if they want me to buy.  Just like every other company out there.


----------



## jasin (Sep 7, 2009)

BryonD said:


> For your game it may have been this way.
> Can you accept that this does not describe my game?



No, not really. I cannot accept that a high-level fighter can contribute equally as a high-level wizard unless there's some serious hoop-jumping going on, or that it's desirable that he cannot contribute equally.



> In my games it is awesome when the golfer plays a role in making the football player even more a star at football and really awesome when they combine their skills to find a way to overcome some completely different challenge.



It's a very rare golfer that finds it more awesome to be helping out in football than to be playing golf.

However, you need to read more carefully. I was advocating 3E in my post, despite pointing out its flaws.


----------



## Reigan (Sep 7, 2009)

Class design is already moving away slightly from those presented in PHB 1 & 2. I imagine as time goes on they will push the envelope even further. Will they go far enough to satisfy the people who prefer the way things were done in 3e? Probably not. There is only so far they can go without upsetting the people who like unified class mechanics who don’t want fiddly class based subsystems and the inevitable class balance issues that come with it.
  These differences are irreconcilable; some people will be left behind and they are quite entitled to complain about it. That’s the world I’m afraid.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 7, 2009)

jasin said:


> No, not really. I cannot accept that a high-level fighter can contribute equally as a high-level wizard unless there's some serious hoop-jumping going on, or that it's desirable that he cannot contribute equally.



Ok.  Your experience is in conflict with mine.  



> It's a very rare golfer that finds it more awesome to be helping out in football than to be playing golf.



If the game was constantly football, this would be a problem.



> However, you need to read more carefully. I was advocating 3E in my post, despite pointing out its flaws.



I got that.  I was still presenting my responses to the flaws as you see them.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 7, 2009)

Reigan said:


> Class design is already moving away slightly from those presented in PHB 1 & 2. I imagine as time goes on they will push the envelope even further. Will they go far enough to satisfy the people who prefer the way things were done in 3e? Probably not. There is only so far they can go without upsetting the people who like unified class mechanics who don’t want fiddly class based subsystems and the inevitable class balance issues that come with it.
> These differences are irreconcilable; some people will be left behind and they are quite entitled to complain about it. That’s the world I’m afraid.



I agree with you completely, except I think the phrase "left behind" is very poorly chosen.


----------



## Reigan (Sep 7, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I agree with you completely, except I think the phrase "left behind" is very poorly chosen.




Ok, apologies for any offence. How would you define it?

I think we all have to realise when something we like changes anyone of us could dislike those changes. Its pot luck, maybe next time round I’ll be one of the ones feeling somewhat let down and disappointed with the new rules. I’ll try to keep this in mind when I post.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 7, 2009)

Reigan said:


> Ok, apologies for any offence. How would you define it?
> 
> I think we all have to realise when something we like changes anyone of us could dislike those changes. Its pot luck, maybe next time round I’ll be one of the ones feeling somewhat let down and disappointed with the new rules. I’ll try to keep this in mind when I post.



No offense taken.  

You seem to presume that there is something special about Dungeons and Dragons.  I happily left 2E when I found better games.  In no remote way was I "left behind" because I was not playing D&D.  If anything, I had left D&D behind and was moving on to greener pastures.

And now, from my point of view, I have moved forward again, a small amount, with the advent of Pathfinder.  While at the same time I see D&D as having regressed to something less than what it once was.  (I suppose one could say I have been "left behind" on the high ground.)   
But I most absolutely would not say that anyone who likes 4E has been left behind or regressed.  Because every bit of that is completely tied to what I personally want in my gaming sessions.  For you, you have moved forward, just on a different path.

I guess you could say I am disappointed in the sense that I can't help but imagine what further progress could have been made in some alternate universe where 4E had been something I would consider progressive.  But I'm not disappointed in the changes themselves, as they have no impact on me.  At least not beyond me sending my gaming budget to a different company these days.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 7, 2009)

I am going to assume that homogeneity exists in 4E.  



BryonD said:


> In my games it is awesome when the golfer plays a role in making the football player even more a star at football and really awesome when they combine their skills to find a way to overcome some completely different challenge.




What is "golf" and what is "football"?
What rules in 3x do this for you?
What rules in 4E limit this?

Earlier you mentioned creating characters.

What do you mean by creating characters?
What rules in 3x allow you to create the characters you want?
What rules in 4E are keeping you from creating the character you want?


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 8, 2009)

BryonD said:


> For your game it may have been this way.
> Can you accept that this does not describe my game?
> 
> In my games it is awesome when the golfer plays a role in making the football player even more a star at football and really awesome when they combine their skills to find a way to overcome some completely different challenge.
> ...




Gonna stop you there.

There are ways to make people shine without making four completely different games for them. 

For example, I think its perfectly acceptable that the rogue in 4e (and beginning in 3e) has taken on a combat role. I think the idea that to be good at combat means you must lack in outside of combat skills is ludicrous at best. Similarly, I think the fighter should have a bit more skill choice (perception skills, for example) for dealing with out-of-combat areas. This is not the same as saying "Every class should be a competent warrior AND skill user"; I'm fine with the rogue having lower hp (and thus less staying power) than a warrior, and a fighter having waaay less total skills than a rogue. 

I think the better middle-ground (only now being explored in some OGL games) is the "Anyone can do X, but Y class does it better." method. Anyone can fight, but fighters excel at it. Anyone can sneak, but rogues are superior at stealth. Anyone can heal another (nonmagically) but clerics excel because of magical healing; etc. It breaks the niche-protection ingrained in the system (only thieves find traps, only clerics heal) but it doesn't go as far as 4e does (or worse, what some people THINK 4e does)!



BryonD said:


> Which brings it all back to the very start of this debate. If WotC wants to start getting my money again, they simply need to start making a game that appeals to me.  That doesn't mean they need to stop making a game that appeals to you.  And it doesn't mean they are obligated to try to appeal to me.  It just means they need to sell something I want if they want me to buy.  Just like every other company out there.




110% with you here. 4e (after many tries) failed to ignite the spark in me. I won't play a game I don't like, and WotC makes a game I no longer enjoy.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Gonna stop you there.



Ok, I'm just run around you then.




> There are ways to make people shine without making four completely different games for them.
> 
> For example, I think its perfectly acceptable that the rogue in 4e (and beginning in 3e) has taken on a combat role. I think the idea that to be good at combat means you must lack in outside of combat skills is ludicrous at best. Similarly, I think the fighter should have a bit more skill choice (perception skills, for example) for dealing with out-of-combat areas. This is not the same as saying "Every class should be a competent warrior AND skill user"; I'm fine with the rogue having lower hp (and thus less staying power) than a warrior, and a fighter having waaay less total skills than a rogue.
> 
> I think the better middle-ground (only now being explored in some OGL games) is the "Anyone can do X, but Y class does it better." method. Anyone can fight, but fighters excel at it. Anyone can sneak, but rogues are superior at stealth. Anyone can heal another (nonmagically) but clerics excel because of magical healing; etc. It breaks the niche-protection ingrained in the system (only thieves find traps, only clerics heal) but it doesn't go as far as 4e does (or worse, what some people THINK 4e does)!



Huh?  I think you've gotten lost in the analogy somewhere.  Because, honestly, I don't see how this contradicts anything I'm saying.

Obviously there is a lot of overlap.  But you can get into very specific instances where the overlap doesn't reach.  I think both pieces are a good thing.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2009)

nevermind


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I find your phrasing a little odd... as if only those who don't like 4e can cause edition wars.  This thread was pretty peaceful and interesting (and I found the views of both sides interesting) until a 4e fan came charging in all _taking no prisoners_ and _ready for a fight_.




Meh, it happens on both sides of the street.  I mean, look at the OP of the thread that started this one.  It assumes at the outset that 4e is homogenous, that everyone agrees with that point of view and that we must do something to "fix" this problem since WOTC won't allow other people to fix it.  Shock and surprise, people take a bit of offense to that.  




			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> ... While the negative blasts flow both ways, the agreement that 3E has its redeeming points seems to be much fewer are farther between from the pro-4E side than the other way around. Noise to signal may drown out the difference, but I virtually never see 4E fans saying anything good about 3E.




That's because you almost never see 4e fans saying ANYTHING about 3e.  Why would they?  They don't play the game.  Almost any commentary you do see from 4e fans regarding 3e are inresponse to 3e fans telling 4e fans how 3e does things so much better.

To put it another way, how many 3e fans did you see waxing poetic about how 1e or 2e did things?


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> That's because you almost never see 4e fans saying ANYTHING about 3e.  Why would they?  They don't play the game.  Almost any commentary you do see from 4e fans regarding 3e are inresponse to 3e fans telling 4e fans how 3e does things so much better.



*snerk* As a moderator, allow me to disagree with you. We have an abundance of 4e fans who seem to believe that they'll enjoy their game more if they harshly criticize what's come before it. I don't entirely understand this attitude - I like every edition of D&D I've played - but it certainly occurs, and almost as much online as 3e fans criticizing 4e.

So, BryonD, allow me to buck the trend: I'm a fan of 4e, and I think there's an huge number of things 3e does as well or better. It's a fun game!


----------



## Imaro (Sep 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Meh, it happens on both sides of the street.  I mean, look at the OP of the thread that started this one.  It assumes at the outset that 4e is homogenous, that everyone agrees with that point of view and that we must do something to "fix" this problem since WOTC won't allow other people to fix it.  Shock and surprise, people take a bit of offense to that.




I didn't get that at all from the OP... he was commenting on how he had come to understand another's point in a different thread.  He even states it's what he (as in him and no other) took away from the other post...

Ex. "At least that is what I have taken away from the discussion..." 

How do you come to the conclusion he's doing anything other than stating his own opinions and thoughts.



Hussar said:


> That's because you almost never see 4e fans saying ANYTHING about 3e.  Why would they?  They don't play the game.  Almost any commentary you do see from 4e fans regarding 3e are inresponse to 3e fans telling 4e fans how 3e does things so much better.
> 
> To put it another way, how many 3e fans did you see waxing poetic about how 1e or 2e did things?




Are you kidding? Before the Pathfinder separation I saw more than a fair share of trolling and attacking by 4e fans on PF/3.5 fans and their preferred game.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2009)

Imaro - perhaps that explains it.  I had no interest in Pathfinder, so never went into those threads.

Y'know, I wonder if that explains a lot of things.  I don't go into threads for things I am not interested in or am not interested in playing.  That would likely account for my skewed views.

Never mind, back to your original conversation.


----------



## Reigan (Sep 8, 2009)

It seems to me that there has been an uplift of anti-4e postings on EN-World over the last few days. I thought the introduction on the PF subforum would have reduced them.

As anti-4e people won't listen when you point out the merits of 4e, 4e fans are going to turn their attention to their perceived flaws in 3e. Other things may well have been better in 3e but they usually had a knock-on effect of damaging the game elsewhere. Endless player choice may have been great but it damaged in-game play with class balance issues etc.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 8, 2009)

Reigan said:


> It seems to me that there has been an uplift of anti-4e postings on EN-World over the last few days. I thought the introduction on the PF subforum would have reduced them.
> 
> As anti-4e people won't listen when you point out the merits of 4e, 4e fans are going to turn their attention to their perceived flaws in 3e. Other things may well have been better in 3e but they usually had a knock-on effect of damaging the game elsewhere. Endless player choice may have been great but it damaged in-game play with class balance issues etc.




The fact that you're clearly drawing a relationship between "anti-4e people" being these sinister trolls and "4e fans" just attempting to strike back for justice into the heart of the horribly flawed 3e, as well as maintaining an outlook that disliking 4e makes you a blind fool...

...On top of your "make love not edition war" sig...

...is _hilarious_.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 8, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The fact that you're clearly drawing a relationship between "anti-4e people" being these sinister trolls and "4e fans" just attempting to strike back for justice into the heart of the horribly flawed 3e, as well as maintaining an outlook that disliking 4e makes you a blind fool...



A more charitable reading of the post..."4e fans are going to turn their attention to their perceived flaws in 3e"...is simply that the 4E fans will do this (as part of human nature), not that they are justified or right in doing so.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 8, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The fact that you're clearly drawing a relationship between "anti-4e people" being these sinister trolls and "4e fans" just attempting to strike back for justice into the heart of the horribly flawed 3e, as well as maintaining an outlook that disliking 4e makes you a blind fool...
> 
> ...On top of your "make love not edition war" sig...
> 
> ...is _hilarious_.



*Enough. Don't put words in other people's mouths.*


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 8, 2009)

Reigan said:


> It seems to me that there has been an uplift of anti-4e postings on EN-World over the last few days. I thought the introduction on the PF subforum would have reduced them.




You assume all anti-4e people are Pathfinder fans. I can count a number of them here that dislike 4e and yet wouldn't be caught playing "d02"-era D&D (or any offshoot thereof". Some of these are the most vocal critics of BOTH games, IMHO.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 8, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> You assume all anti-4e people are Pathfinder fans. I can count a number of them here that dislike 4e and yet wouldn't be caught playing "d02"-era D&D (or any offshoot thereof". Some of these are the most vocal critics of BOTH games, IMHO.




   QFT. There are days, I admit, when it feels like these boards are divided into Paizo/PF/3E, 4E, and "old school" (which in practice means OD&D/1E/Moldvay-Cook BE) camps, and those of us who have yet to find a satisfactory alternative and are sympathetic to other models of play have to keep our heads down to avoid getting caught in the crossfire or shot as traitors to real D&D.  

   Personally, I'm looking for something with a 2E or later BECM/RC 'feel' but streamlined and more flexible mechanics, or what 3E could have been without the miniatures focus, the 'back to the dungeon'/neo-1E push, and the cultural emphasis on char-op and RAW. If C&C ever gets the CKG out to give a bit more crunch, that might be what I need . . .


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> That's because you almost never see 4e fans saying ANYTHING about 3e.  Why would they?  They don't play the game.



I'm sorry, but I just boggle at that. 
I get decried as someone who mocks 4E players, and yet if you really look you will see that all of that comes from me pointing out the implications of what *some* 4E fans say about 3E.

Edit: to clarify: I'm certain you accurately describe the great majority of 4E fans.  But that does not change the point.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 8, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> So, BryonD, allow me to buck the trend: I'm a fan of 4e, and I think there's an huge number of things 3e does as well or better. It's a fun game!



By all means, buck away!!!

I'll tell you a secret.  I stole a house rule from 4E for my 3E game.  But don't tell anyone.  I have a reputation to protect.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 8, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Personally, I'm looking for something with a 2E or later BECM/RC 'feel' but streamlined and more flexible mechanics, or what 3E could have been without the miniatures focus, the 'back to the dungeon'/neo-1E push, and the cultural emphasis on char-op and RAW. If C&C ever gets the CKG out to give a bit more crunch, that might be what I need . . .




Myself, I am looking for something 
a) between 3e and 4e mechanically;
b) with 2e feel 
c) 2e Handbook splat format (as opposed to 3e Complete Handbooks or 4e power format) and
d) 2e settings (Al Quadim, Dark Sun,  Ravenloft);

3e with Unearthed Arcana and some third party products can get me close, but not quite there.  A 4e Unearthed Arcana might get also get me close, but I would still need a DDI subscription or to purchase several books).


----------



## C_M2008 (Sep 8, 2009)

I'm not sure where/how to jump in here so I'm just going to state some criticisms and likes I have about 4e(and a bit about 3e), I generally like 4e if that's relevant at all.


Criticisms:
50/50 save mechanic-seems arbitrary. Sustain standard effects and until end of next turn or start of next turn effects would have worked just as well IMO.

combat is way too slow (both 3e & 4e).

messy multiclassing (both: one is too little, the other is too much).

Temp HP - annoying to track and being reusable at will can make some PCs too hard to take down.

Character creation is very samey:same process for each character even if you focus on different minutia.

lack of non-combat powers: I realize utilities are meant to fill this gap, but too many levels contain necessary combat orientated ones that you can't afford to grab the juicy non-combat ones. Ideally powers that can be used either way or do two things-Maybe "Ardourous Fire" does some ok fire damage to a single target if used that way but can be also used to "ignite the fires of passion" within someone and give you a bonus to RP(diplomacy?) with that person as an example.

Skill challenges: they don't work and feel like a mini-game, but I didn't like diplomacy/talky dice rolls in 3e either.

Too many powers (spells in 3e, 2e): I don't want to keep track of 10+ powers and abilities every fight (or RP), yes managing them can be a fun mini-game, but storing cards and referencing books and the table space it consumes aren't worth it. A few different powers with various add-ons to change or manipulate them to do different things (a single target attack spell could have various range, extra target and keyword modifications available). Ideally the only powers would be at-will and you'd come up with cool uses, obviously a different resource metric would be required. (3e power point/psionics system might work  for this)

Not enough static conditional abilities: the action surge triggers for paragon paths are awesome and add nice flavour and definition to several classes/PPs. More situational abilities(triggering on things other than APs - conditions, positioning, situations would work)

Likes:
Balanced, leveled playing field

Death saves/negative HP/death mechanic - has *increased* lethality of games to what I consider the "sweet spot".

Healing surges/second wind - every class being able to heal a little bit makes walking band-aids (the boringist job in D&D) less necessary and makes being a "leader" more enjoyable

Variety of cool moves for melee combat classes - long overdue

Loss of save or die/suck - arbitrarily being killed based on one die roll is not fun(it may be "realistic", but it sucks).

Unified AC/defense/to hit system (well done in 3e and ported nicely to 4e)

Conditions - Like the implementation, easy to follow and use

Diseases - simple but flavourful mechanic

Action Points(3e & 4e): I liked the 3e version (which is now the deva racial power) and also like the 4e version of extra actions. 

As stated above conditional abilities are cool.

Quick DM prep time: more time for stories and intrique less for preping combats.

Page 42: many people were doing this already, but still a useful tool.

Fixes:
I think I'm basically throwing 3e, 4e and Hero system in a blender at this point........not sure how to get what I want.........

Any advice or comments would be awesome.


----------



## Wik (Sep 8, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> QFT. There are days, I admit, when it feels like these boards are divided into Paizo/PF/3E, 4E, and "old school" (which in practice means OD&D/1E/Moldvay-Cook BE) camps, and those of us who have yet to find a satisfactory alternative and are sympathetic to other models of play have to keep our heads down to avoid getting caught in the crossfire or shot as traitors to real D&D.
> 
> Personally, I'm looking for something with a 2E or later BECM/RC 'feel' but streamlined and more flexible mechanics, or what 3E could have been without the miniatures focus, the 'back to the dungeon'/neo-1E push, and the cultural emphasis on char-op and RAW. If C&C ever gets the CKG out to give a bit more crunch, that might be what I need . . .




This.

We our gaming soulmates, my friend.   

I'm looking at d6 Fantasy right now, to see if it'd capture that sort of "Feel".  one of these days, I might just go back to a modded BECMI.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 8, 2009)

While I prefer 4e, I find that 3e did many things better, and I would be happy to play another 3e game with the right group.

First, I found character creation more interesting in 3e.  I'd sit around with a huge stack of books, and piece together builds up to the mid-high levels.  It would take days, weeks even, to get things right in my mind.  It literally took months to work out my gnome illusionist shadowcaster in 3e, and I loved doing it, even though I knew the odds were against my ever playing the gnome.  And while I can still do that somewhat in 4e (I just did with a Paladin I have no intention of ever actually playing), it definitely isn't a process of joy that can last weeks or months.  I was done in a couple of reads of the relevant sources (though it was also fun).

Second, I found there was more opportunity for crazy magic things to happen in 3e, which was fun.  A spellcaster would find some creative new way to use Rope Trick or Silent Image in combat.  That still happens a bit in 4e with Wizard cantrips for example, but not as often.

Third, I found the books on average were more interesting to read in 3e.  Now again, there are great books to read in 4e, like Open Grave.  But on average, if I picked up a random 3e book and turned to a random page, odds are the text on that page would be more interesting to read (and read again) than the same activity with a random 4e book.

Those are just a few things off the top of my head.  Of course, I could list other things I like more about 4e, but this isn't the post for that. I loved 3e.  Some of the best game sessions I ever played were with 3e.  I am happy 3e continues to live on through Pathfinder, and I'd love to play a game of 3e / Pathfinder again some day. 

Liking 3e, and liking 4e, are not mutually exclusive things.  And, you can like one more than you like the other, without disliking either of them.


----------



## Betote (Sep 9, 2009)

You'll forgive me for talking about how to remove 4e's homogeneity on this thread, I hope 

First of all, there's nothing wrong with a power-based system. That's not the problem; the problem is that everyone seems to access and recharge those powers in the same way. Let's look at past editions' spells: they were the same "system" (fire and forget, levels, and so on), but each class added their flavor on top of that:
* Wizards had their spellbooks, and then decided in advance which spells they prepared each day. They could specialize in one or another school, and that changed the kind of spells they could choose from.
* Clerics had access to all the spells of the class, and they decided in advance which ones they prepared each day. They also had domains which added some more available spells.
* Sorcerers had a limited range of spells known, but they didn't need to prepare them in advance, and had more quantity of lower-level spells than wizards.

I don't see why something like that couldn't be ported into 4e. Wizards could be able to choose their at-wills and encounter powers (not just dailies) each day, Fighters could burn healing surges to recharge their powers, Sorcerers could spend a daily to recharge their encounters, Rangers could recharge when killing their quarry, and so on.

And I don't think it's all written on stone, either. If PHB2 could "update" the way some PHB1 things worked, there's no obstacle for PHB3 to include a chapter on "Power recharge by source/role/class".

I think something like this would remove part of the perceived sameness of 4e. It might work for me, at least. And that's an important thing, because I'm aching to play in the new Forgotten Realms or the next iteration of Dark Sun


----------



## Rechan (Sep 9, 2009)

Unlike it seems a lot of 4e players in this thread, I didn't like 3e one bit. There are perhaps three things I could say about it that's nice. 

But, I don't make a habit of _talking_ about why I don't like 3e, or what made me unhappy, etc etc. Because it accomplishes nothing but being negative. I have something I like now, and I want to focus on enjoying that. 

And I'm glad that those who like 3e have something they can enjoy and focus on.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 9, 2009)

Betote said:


> I don't see why something like that couldn't be ported into 4e. Wizards could be able to choose their at-wills and encounter powers (not just dailies) each day, Fighters could burn healing surges to recharge their powers, Sorcerers could spend a daily to recharge their encounters, Rangers could recharge when killing their quarry, and so on.



The problem you're going to run into with this is the issue of _balance_. 

Take an example, the ranger recharging his encounter powers when he kills his quarry. Well, if you have multiple opponents, the ranger could recharge his encounter power several times in the same encounter. Then if he's using it several times, it shouldn't be as powerful as the encounter power of someone who can't recharge their powers.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 9, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The problem you're going to run into with this is the issue of _balance_.



 Yep. And look at the other extreme: that "recharge ranger" in a fight against a Solo. Suddenly, his recharge mechanism is worthless.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Sep 9, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> First, I found character creation more interesting in 3e.  I'd sit around with a huge stack of books, and piece together builds up to the mid-high levels.  It would take days, weeks even, to get things right in my mind.  It literally took months to work out my gnome illusionist shadowcaster in 3e, and I loved doing it, even though I knew the odds were against my ever playing the gnome.  And while I can still do that somewhat in 4e (I just did with a Paladin I have no intention of ever actually playing), it definitely isn't a process of joy that can last weeks or months.  I was done in a couple of reads of the relevant sources (though it was also fun).



 To be fair, 4e hasn't been out very long relative to 3.x, so there are just plain fewer source books.

Right now Bards have the monopoly on unlimited multiclassing (and therefore very high complexity), but I don't expect that monopoly to hold forever.

Of course, the fact that I as the DM had to design monsters using basically the same hours of effort *sucked*. Especially when they died due to a single failed saving throw (because that's how high-level combat went back then).



Mistwell said:


> Second, I found there was more opportunity for crazy magic things to happen in 3e, which was fun.



 True dat.

Having two Wizards in the party didn't help.



Mistwell said:


> Liking 3e, and liking 4e, are not mutually exclusive things.  And, you can like one more than you like the other, without disliking either of them.



 Yep. (Or in my case, I can like and dislike different parts of *both*, because neither is perfect.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Rechan (Sep 9, 2009)

One hope is that as soon as PHB3 comes out, the ironed out Hybrid rules will be a real shot in the arm for the people who want serious multiclassing.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 9, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The problem you're going to run into with this is the issue of _balance_.
> 
> Take an example, the ranger recharging his encounter powers when he kills his quarry. Well, if you have multiple opponents, the ranger could recharge his encounter power several times in the same encounter. Then if he's using it several times, it shouldn't be as powerful as the encounter power of someone who can't recharge their powers.




It's off-the-cuff "throw-it-out-there", concept/draft, not a finished and playtested rule writ in stone.  Sheesh.  We -know- there are problems with it.  The question is, can you find -solutions-?


----------



## Betote (Sep 9, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The problem you're going to run into with this is the issue of _balance_.




I know. In some places, it's a question of how much we love our Balance goddess and what are we willing to sacrifice at her altar. On one hand, we have 1e or Rifts. On the other hand, we have everyone playing the exact same character. Where do we find our middle ground?

Of course, the answer will be different for each person. And that's why we have so many different games out there.



> Take an example, the ranger recharging his encounter powers when he kills his quarry. Well, if you have multiple opponents, the ranger could recharge his encounter power several times in the same encounter. Then if he's using it several times, it shouldn't be as powerful as the encounter power of someone who can't recharge their powers.




OK, first of all, I'll expect from the staff of professional RPG rules writers of WotC a little bit more effort and work than my made up examples 

And secondly, it's a "balance altar" thing. We already have roles which perform differently depending on the situation: strikers are better against solos, controllers are better against hordes of minions, leaders are better in some party compositions, and so on. You can't really make every character perform equally well in every encounter, and you can't have variation without certain amount of imbalance.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Sep 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now, if I say "4e is great if you're a mental midget with all the creativity of an ironing board who likes getting spoon-fed gruel and being told it's duck l'orange" that IS a slight against 4e fans, and I'm wrong to say that.



Be careful KM!  

Someone might take a piece of that and ummm......Quote it, Sig it, Attrib it.  And you would be On The Hook(tm). 

[Wait... I haven't read past this post yet and there's a ton more pages to go....  I am sure I have been ninja'd already.  Dammit!]


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 9, 2009)

Betote said:


> I know. In some places, it's a question of how much we love our Balance goddess and what are we willing to sacrifice at her altar. On one hand, we have 1e or Rifts. On the other hand, we have everyone playing the exact same character. Where do we find our middle ground?




The thing is, balance is what 4E does. Its one of the big selling points, and the entire game is built around it. I'm really not sure you can casually mess with or remove 4E's balance without changing things so fundamentally that it doesn't seem like 4E anymore.

Its like the spellcasters vs. nonspellcasters or high level problems of 3E. They were so fundamental to the system that they couldn't be fixed without the game ceasing to be 3E.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I'm sorry, but I just boggle at that.
> I get decried as someone who mocks 4E players, and yet if you really look you will see that all of that comes from me pointing out the implications of what *some* 4E fans say about 3E.
> 
> Edit: to clarify: I'm certain you accurately describe the great majority of 4E fans.  But that does not change the point.




Yeah, I'll cop to that.  Sorry, my bad.  Been removing my blinders a bit lately and I'll totally back away from my original statement.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 9, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The thing is, balance is what 4E does. Its one of the big selling points, and the entire game is built around it. I'm really not sure you can casually mess with or remove 4E's balance without changing things so fundamentally that it doesn't seem like 4E anymore.
> 
> Its like the spellcasters vs. nonspellcasters or high level problems of 3E. They were so fundamental to the system that they couldn't be fixed without the game ceasing to be 3E.



If you make a small tweak, I think it will still remain pretty much 4e, but with the balance dialed back slightly.

For example, one criticism that might be levelled at 4e is that memorable moments are few and far between. One way to address this might be some mechanism for escalating critical hits, e.g. every time you roll a critical hit, you roll the d20 again and if the result is another critical hit, you gain another benefit and roll the d20 again, etc. until you stop rolling critical hits.

Sample benefits might include:
1. Deal critical bonus damage again
2. A condition imposed by the attack that lasts until the end of your next turn becomes a save ends condition instead
3. The target takes a -5 penalty to its next saving throw against an effect imposed by the attack

This way, each critical hit has the potential to become something devastating and memorable.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 9, 2009)

I tried using Paizo's critical hit deck, substituting 4e conditions for the effect described on the card (1d2 points of strength damage is weakened till save etc).  It worked out very well except for the magic cards, which had a wild surge effect instead of a critical effect on spells.   There is no reason why magic missile should petrify someone for example.

So I think I'll make up a chart of 4e conditions that should always work no matter what the power is, and stack that on top of max damage.  Elites and Solo NPCs will have access to the chart too.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 9, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The thing is, balance is what 4E does. Its one of the big selling points, and the entire game is built around it. I'm really not sure you can casually mess with or remove 4E's balance without changing things so fundamentally that it doesn't seem like 4E anymore.



See that?  We can agree on some things after all.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 9, 2009)

BryonD said:


> ...  While the negative blasts flow both ways, the agreement that 3E has its redeeming points seems to be much fewer are farther between from the pro-4E side than the other way around.  Noise to signal may drown out the difference, but I virtually never see 4E fans saying anything good about 3E.




I'll admit I have very little good to say about 3E, but then, I'm pretty happy with 4E.  The things that annoyed me most about 3E were things that were minimized (Alignment) or removed (Vancian magic).  Is 4E a toolbox for doing everything?  No, but they also didn't try for it to be.  I do think that the flexibility and openness of the OGL paired w/the 3.x ruleset allowed for a lot of games that would have never seen the light of day, but it was also part of why we had a horrible glut of terrible, terrible gaming books.  

I'm a big fan of the things that I felt were well done (pretty much everything from Malhavoc Press, M&M, etc) and enjoy them, but I think that the 4E system fits my desires for gaming more directly.

I do have negative things to say about 3E, but I try and keep them in a constructive fashion and not just trash 3E to trash it.  3E was a huge step toward making the underlying mechanics of the game more clear and it came at a time when we needed something better.  3E was definitely better than 2E and it saved the game we love when it was looking like it might go away forever, but at the same time, I think it was a step and a transitional edition.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2009)

How to make criticals fun:

Exploding dice.  EVERYTHING is more fun with exploding dice.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 10, 2009)

The thing about criticals is they always hit PCs harder than monsters. Monsters have a life expectancy of one encounter. PCs are ideally going to survive a campaign. Any increased chance of random death is going to hit PCs harder. Randomness favors the short term over the long term.

Its interesting that 4E made PC criticals so much more powerful than monster crits.


----------



## gbonehead (Sep 16, 2009)

As someone who's been playing since I got my blue box set in 1979, I think I've given all editions of D&D a fair shake, including 3e, 3.5e and 4e.

However, I'll be up front here, and say that I prefer 3.5e over 4e, just to get that out of the way right off.  I'm not a 4e hater, it's just not my thing.

I've played many enjoyable games of 4e, but for me it's just missing something.  I'm not going to bother trying to figure out what, as it's irrelevant - the living campaign we run at local cons is 4e, and it's clearly here to stay, so my preference for 3.5e is trumped by popular demand, though my epic home campaign is 3.5e for the long haul.

There are some things, however, that I having trouble dealing with, and that's the reason I'm posting here.  These are not criticisms per se, they're things I really truly need to deal with in order to effectively run games.

1. How the heck do you make a character?  As the number of splat books for 4e grows at an amazing pace (and note that the 4e splat books are *mandatory* due to the incredible volume of feats and powers), I'm finding myself completely unable to keep up in any effective way with the hundreds and hundreds of new feats and powers added to the system.

2. How do I differentiate skills?  I've always run games where non-combat stuff is as important as combat stuff, and in 4e once you reach moderate levels, the differences between characters as far as skills go are overshadowed by the + 1/2 level skill modifier and the lack of per-level skill advancement (other than the + 1/2 level).

3. How do I introduce new players to the game?  Time was, I'd say "okay, here, play this human fighter, it's dirt simple."  Now, near as I can tell there's *no* dirt simple class for newbies - every class is equivalently complex, with a bevy of at-will/encounter/daily powers, racial abilities, and class features.  I really do miss that plain 'ol fighter for new players 

These are the kind of things that give me trouble running a 4e game, and given that I'll be doing it for the forseeable future, any assistance would be grand 

P.S. If the only answer to #1 is "Subscribe to D&D Insider and use the online tools" then that will make me sad.  Building characters shouldn't require (cash to WoTC) + (Online tools).


----------



## MerricB (Sep 16, 2009)

gbonehead said:


> 2. How do I differentiate skills?  I've always run games where non-combat stuff is as important as combat stuff, and in 4e once you reach moderate levels, the differences between characters as far as skills go are overshadowed by the + 1/2 level skill modifier and the lack of per-level skill advancement (other than the + 1/2 level).




At moderate levels, you should be looking at differences of between 5 and 10 for key skills; that seems quite enough to really differentiate them. (Note that the points of differentiation are "trained or not trained", "focused or not focused" and "ability scores".



> 3. How do I introduce new players to the game?  Time was, I'd say "okay, here, play this human fighter, it's dirt simple."  Now, near as I can tell there's *no* dirt simple class for newbies - every class is equivalently complex, with a bevy of at-will/encounter/daily powers, racial abilities, and class features.  I really do miss that plain 'ol fighter for new players




Give them the ranger. It now fulfills that role.

Cheers!


----------



## drothgery (Sep 17, 2009)

gbonehead said:


> 1. How the heck do you make a character?  As the number of splat books for 4e grows at an amazing pace (and note that the 4e splat books are *mandatory* due to the incredible volume of feats and powers), I'm finding myself completely unable to keep up in any effective way with the hundreds and hundreds of new feats and powers added to the system.




Eh. Any individual player can make a character with 95% of the character options available for it with PH1 + [book the class he wants to play is in, if it's not PH1] + [book the race he wants to play is in, if it's not PH1] + [approriate splatbook] + [book for the setting, if you're playing in a WotC setting with a 4e Player's Guide]. Five books, max, and there's almost certainly some overlap there; I mean, your player could be playing a gnome swordmage in Eberron, but he's probably not.

The vast majority of powers and feats are class and/or race specific; you can easily ignore the ones of no relevance to your character.


----------



## Betote (Sep 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Eh. Any individual player can make a character with 95% of the character options available for it with PH1 + [book the class he wants to play is in, if it's not PH1] + [book the race he wants to play is in, if it's not PH1] + [approriate splatbook] + [book for the setting, if you're playing in a WotC setting with a 4e Player's Guide]. Five books, max, and there's almost certainly some overlap there; I mean, your player could be playing a gnome swordmage in Eberron, but he's probably not.




I really, really hope you were trying to be sarcastic there


----------



## drothgery (Sep 17, 2009)

Betote said:


> I really, really hope you were trying to be sarcastic there




It wasn't intended to be. It's the exact same way things were in 3.5, except that the non-PH1 classes largely showed up in the splatbooks (which were oddly set up, in that CWar and CAdv were by what became 4e roles, while CArc and CDiv were set up by what became 4e power sources).


----------



## Betote (Sep 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> It wasn't intended to be. It's the exact same way things were in 3.5, except that the non-PH1 classes largely showed up in the splatbooks (which were oddly set up, in that CWar and CAdv were by what became 4e roles, while CArc and CDiv were set up by what became 4e power sources).




So you really think 5 books for making a PC is not overkill. Wow.

And when I played 3.x, the only book I used part from the PHB was PHB2, just for the Fighter feats. That's a big difference. In 3.x, splatbooks were largely optional, whereas in 4e they're pretty much needed for very basic concepts (as familiars or animal companions).

In 4e I feel as if I had to choose a class first, then a concept, whereas in most other RPGs and D&D incarnations it's always been for me more a first concept, then game details approach. And paying 10$ a month for something that should be in the first core book is not acceptable for me.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 17, 2009)

gbonehead said:


> There are some things, however, that I having trouble dealing with, and that's the reason I'm posting here.  These are not criticisms per se, they're things I really truly need to deal with in order to effectively run games.
> 
> 1. How the heck do you make a character?  As the number of splat books for 4e grows at an amazing pace (and note that the 4e splat books are *mandatory* due to the incredible volume of feats and powers), I'm finding myself completely unable to keep up in any effective way with the hundreds and hundreds of new feats and powers added to the system.




Not sure I understand the point. Why do you believe it is mandatory to use all the books? You _CAN_ build a PHB-only fighter that is as effective as a fighter that uses all the sourcebooks. There hasn't been that noticeable power creep (certain items in AV1 are a problem) but generally speaking the options in PHB I are as good as those in the latest splatbook.

The only classes I think that benefit immensely by their splatbook are the wizard and warlock via Arcane Power AND the paladin via Divine Power. Mainly because they get more options and they were slightly hurting for some using just the PHB1.


gbonehead said:


> 2. How do I differentiate skills?  I've always run games where non-combat stuff is as important as combat stuff, and in 4e once you reach moderate levels, the differences between characters as far as skills go are overshadowed by the + 1/2 level skill modifier and the lack of per-level skill advancement (other than the + 1/2 level).




Assuming characters have the same ability score, there are actually 4 breakpoints in terms of effectiveness of skills.

Untrained (+0)
Jack of all Trades (+2)
Skill Trained (+5)
Skill Focused (+8)

Keep in mind though that 4e intentionally doesn't want the skill range between characters to be unbounded. Kind of makes it difficult to make skill challenges for the entire party if one guy has a skill of 20 and another has a skill of 0 and they're only at level 11.



gbonehead said:


> 3. How do I introduce new players to the game?  Time was, I'd say "okay, here, play this human fighter, it's dirt simple."  Now, near as I can tell there's *no* dirt simple class for newbies - every class is equivalently complex, with a bevy of at-will/encounter/daily powers, racial abilities, and class features.  I really do miss that plain 'ol fighter for new players
> 
> .




Assuming you start at level 1, it's actually pretty simple for new players I found. You are starting at level 1 right? If not, a suggestion would be to make the new player a companion character instead of a pc and thus they won't be as intimidated. The DMG2 rules are pretty good for this IMO.

I mean, giving a newbie player a level 9 fighter to make in either 3e or 4e is going to be a serious anti-newbie friendly move. 

Seriously, the 3.x fighter is NOT an easy beginning class. Definitely rather the cleric or druid for newbie players IMO.

Ironicaly, I sayt he best newbie class would be the ranger, specifically the archer ranger build. Twin Strike all the time


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 17, 2009)

Betote said:


> ).
> 
> In 4e I feel as if I had to choose a class first, then a concept, whereas in most other RPGs and D&D incarnations it's always been for me more a first concept, then game details approach. And paying 10$ a month for something that should be in the first core book is not acceptable for me.




So download it once and you get all the options PLUS. You _DO_ realize that the character builder doesn't go away with your subscription, right?


----------



## drothgery (Sep 17, 2009)

Betote said:


> So you really think 5 books for making a PC is not overkill. Wow.




5 books if your class, race, and campaign setting are all in different, non-PH1 books is not overkill. And if you don't care about splatbook material or campaign-setting specific stuff (which is hardly necessary), you're down to three. My Eberron characters are very likely to have a Dragonmark or be an Eberron race or otherwise have some mechanical indications of being from Eberron, but a plain human fighter works just fine.



Betote said:


> And when I played 3.x, the only book I used part from the PHB was PHB2, just for the Fighter feats. That's a big difference. In 3.x, splatbooks were largely optional, whereas in 4e they're pretty much needed for very basic concepts (as familiars or animal companions).




Before the Spell Compendium collected most of the splatbook spells in one place, it was hardly uncommon for my casters to have spells from three or four different sources.

Mid to high level bards needed feats from Complete Adventurer, prestige classes from Complete Arcane, and feats from the Eberron Campaign Setting to be viable. You needed a DMG for access to magic items and the core prestige classes. You needed an MM for stats for mounts, animal companions, familiars, and summoned monsters.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 17, 2009)

> Mid to high level bards needed feats from Complete Adventurer, prestige classes from Complete Arcane, and feats from the Eberron Campaign Setting to be viable.




It is entirely likely that your definition of "viable" here isn't a universal one.

Not that bards were any great shakes, just that "able to be played on a regular basis" is not a very hard criteria to meet, especially with an observant DM.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 17, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It is entirely likely that your definition of "viable" here isn't a universal one.




Okay, 'effective' would have been a better word choice than viable. How about "contribute enough in combat that you're alive for some reason other than the monster didn't think you worth eating"?


----------



## Betote (Sep 17, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> So download it once and you get all the options PLUS. You _DO_ realize that the character builder doesn't go away with your subscription, right?




I can download the character builder and watch it take up space in my hard disk because I'm not a Windows user.

That, and that ANY amount I HAD TO pay in addition to the core rules is too much, if we compare it to what any other game or D&D iteration does: give you the core rules in the core book, not scattered among a pile of supplements.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 17, 2009)

Betote said:


> I can download the character builder and watch it take up space in my hard disk because I'm not a Windows user.
> 
> That, and that ANY amount I HAD TO pay in addition to the core rules is too much, if we compare it to what any other game or D&D iteration does: give you the core rules in the core book, not scattered among a pile of supplements.




1. There _ARE_ MAC users that are using the character builder. Virtual PC users says it works but yes, if you don't want Windows on your PC, then you're out of luck.

2. Really? You thought the non-spellcasters were viable past lmid level WITHOUT supplements? Especially the monk and the fighter? Even the Rangers and paladins that did get spells kind of benefit immensely from Complete Warrior and PHB 2. Same goes for the barbarian and rogue (rogue especially once you start running into a lot of "immune to sneak attack" critters).

3. The 4e PHB provides as many classes as either 1e or 2e. Are you insisting those aren't D&D?


----------



## mudbunny (Sep 17, 2009)

gbonehead said:


> 1. How the heck do you make a character?  As the number of splat books for 4e grows at an amazing pace (and note that the 4e splat books are *mandatory* due to the incredible volume of feats and powers), I'm finding myself completely unable to keep up in any effective way with the hundreds and hundreds of new feats and powers added to the system.




The reliance upon splatbooks is, for me, no different than in 3.5. There is no need, in either system, to use splatbooks to make your PC. All the splatbooks do is increase the number of options available to your PC. If you were comfortable buying splatbooks and digging through them in 3.5, you should be equally comfortable doing so in 4E.


----------



## green slime (Sep 21, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Okay, 'effective' would have been a better word choice than viable. How about "contribute enough in combat that you're alive for some reason other than the monster didn't think you worth eating"?




In one of the early "Games of Death", held here on these boards, a certain player (whose name eludes me now) demonstrated the power of the bard. No one participating in that game would have called the bard underpowered, after his opening few rounds. We were pretty much WoTC 3.0 (I remember there being OA, and Manual of the Planes involved).


----------

