# "Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)



## Mercule (Dec 22, 2008)

This is dangerous ground and I hope it doesn't devolve into an edition war.  Please keep the griping to a minimum.  3e and 4e are different systems, aimed at different play styles.  As games, neither is inherently "better" than the other, just more "appropriate" to your style.  Please approach the discussion with that assumption.

I just ended my 3.5 campaign and we're trying to decide what to do next (I posted a nWoD thread last week).  4e is up for discussion, but there are concerns.

Right after 4e came out, we ran a single session of KotS, using only the rules found there-in.  As DM, I thought it looked like D&D.  A couple of players really liked it.  The paladin had the worst dice I've seen for years, so she's not sure what to think.  

The wizard, though, had the most concern.  He's the most experienced player at the table (I've got more experience, but I tend to GM) and is somewhat geared for fiddling with numbers, but without the collector's desire for shelves of books.  He's also a big fan of arcanists/wizards.  He was extremely frustrated with the way the 4e wizard played and felt.  It felt extremely de-powered to him, and not having any rules for rituals (KotS rules, only) really killed the utility aspect of wizards.

He likes Vancian magic (at least, modded with the UA spell-points) and I can't fault his preference.  I've got something of the opposite opinion, though, so I can't really see it from his perspective.

Okay, enough background.  On to the point:

I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has been "forcibly" converted to 4e.  By that, I mean you were skeptical, but your group converted and you went along.

Does the move from Vancian magic (or other subsystem changes, like fighter powers) "grow" on you?  Do you still have the same issues you had when you started out?  Do you have different issues, especially any that surprised you?  How long did it take for your opinion to change/cement?  Did anyone else in your group have a change of heart (in either direction)?

Again, I'm not looking for a "x edition is better" comment so much as I'm looking for why it ended up working or not working for you and/or your group.  My group has certain play goals, and I'm trying to get information that is useful to them.  (For the record, I'm currently thinking that most of the players would benefit from the ease of play I perceive in 4e, but I'm concerned that one player would be frustrated by certain aspects.)


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Dec 22, 2008)

This doesn't directly answer your question, as I willingly went over to 4e and all. But, I was just wondering, how dead-set is your friend on being specifically a "Wizard". If it is more playing a arcane magic user could you perchance approach him with some of the other arcane classes (or perhaps other magic classed but reflavoured to be arcane) to see if these are more approachable for him?


----------



## justanobody (Dec 22, 2008)

"Does the move form Vancian grow on you?"

Not really when you feel that all the classes now use it in a way and the wizard must still choose between the power/spells he has from a bigger selection.

It is really getting boring that combat plays out the same way with little way to spice it up, and the status effects tracking is very annoying. we actually need someone to keep track of them so we don't drop out of game mode to have to think about them.

You should talk with your wizard player and se what he feels is missing the most, and try something other than KotS because it is not a good introductory adventure as it doesn't even follow the rules as they were not complete yet IIRC.

So at least tell him there are other things if you really want him to have respect for 4th, adn that KotS was a preview module and the game changed.

Other than that I can sympathize with the wizard feeling a bit off. Not that it is underpowered but the lack of freedom and utility it offered in the past outside of combat spells. I just don't like rituals either. They aren't something just for the wizard, so the wiard does lose a lot other than damage dealing in the way of flavor.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 22, 2008)

Well, as a 4e fan, player, and DM, I will say that he is right about the wizard. It is de-powered, but in my opinion, the wizard was overpowered before. I know thats small consolation.

So here are a couple of house rules you could implement that might bring your wizard player on board. Rules as written states the 4e wizard gets to pick two extra daily and two extra utility powers every time they get a new utility or daily when they level. And technically, the wizard character has to pick one of the two to memorize each day.

However, just say he doesn't have to choose in advance, he can choose on the fly as the situation demands. But once he picks one of the two powers for that level he is locked out of the other one until he takes an extended rest. This gives him much more flexibility without really giving him a big boost in power. He still only gets to use one 5th level daily in a day, he just doesn't have to pre-choose the one he memorizes. This also makes the Expanded Spellbook feat really good, but I think that's fine.

The other thing you can do that we implemented in my game, is you can allow him to sacrifice a higher level slot for a lower level one. For example, he wants to expend his 7th level encounter to re-use his first level encounter power? Sure, go ahead. Or he can expend a higher level daily for a lower level daily, even if he already used the lower level one.

This house rule does give a marginal boost in that the player can technically re-use powers optimized for a given encounter situation, but I think this is mitigated by having to trade out a higher level power for a lower level one.

So anyway, these rules do give an overall bit of a power boost to the wizard player, but I think thats ok. In my group we had a player who loved 3.5 wizards and was really reluctant to play a 4e wizard. We implemented these rules and he totally changed his mind about the 4e wizard. During play, he happily manages his huge stack of power cards like a little kid who just got legos for Christmas.


----------



## timbannock (Dec 22, 2008)

Those house rules sound pretty good, actually.

The player in my group that always goes Wizard was put off by 4e as well when we didn't use Rituals a lot right away.  I'd say that Rituals are THE KEY for 4E Wizards and making them versatile.  They are there for a reason; use them.

That said, we playtested using Kobold Hall.  Looking at the stats, Kobolds are good at Reflex saves.  The player chose all Int vs. Reflex spells, so...really, can you judge something based on that?  We're looking forward to some more 4E adventures to see how it sits after a few more games, but that player is definitely still on the fence.  Most of the other players are WAY more gung-ho about it.

Also note that the Wizard player is a serious min-maxer, too.  He LIKED the fact that 3E was totally broken if you looked in the right books.  I LOATHE that, so there's that divisiveness to consider as well.

To sum up: RITUALS are kewl.  Use 'em.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 22, 2008)

With the ability to choose between multiple Daily/Utility Powers from his spellbook, the wizard still has a bit of that vancian magic, but it's really very small compared to 3rd edition.

Rituals certainly do add a bit more to the versatility of the wizard class, though technically, everyone can learn those.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 22, 2008)

We are playing 4E now to give it a try and see how things go. Nobody is "forced" to play anything. I am playing the wizard right now and it does feel different. Rituals are touted as "teh awesome" of utility magic but I just don't see it. They are expensive and cannot be cast quickly enough for some of them to be useful. Need to teleport back to base because the building is about to collapse on you? Well, I hope you have at least 10 minutes to spare Its the same with the knock spell. The party is being chased and needs to get that gate open pronto!  ......" just hold em off for 100 rounds or so and I got this sucker"

If you have players who like simple fighters or simple anything then it will be quite an adjustment. Every class has about the same number of powers to manage.

Some of your players may love the changes and others might not. The best advice I have is to play with the full rules rather than speculate. Try a few sessions and let everyone play around with a few different classes. After everyone has had a chance to play and sample different things, discuss it as a group and decide if you want to continue.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 22, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Rituals are touted as "teh awesome" of utility magic but I just don't see it. They are expensive and cannot be cast quickly enough for some of them to be useful. Need to teleport back to base because the building is about to collapse on you? Well, I hope you have at least 10 minutes to spare Its the same with the knock spell. The party is being chased and needs to get that gate open pronto!  ......" just hold em off for 100 rounds or so and I got this sucker".




I solved that problem too:

*Ritual Casting*: *Standard action*


*Can only perform minor actions *– While using the Ritual Casting action, the only other actions a character can perform are Minor actions.

*Combat Advantage *– Until the beginning of your next turn, you grant combat advantage.

*Provoke Opportunity Attacks *– Ritual casting provokes opportunity attacks from adjacent enemies.

*Casting time *– The default time required to perform a ritual is outlined in the description of the ritual. This time can be reduced by performing skill checks.

*Skill check *– Make a Moderate difficulty skill check using the key skill specified in the ritual description. If you succeed, the Standard action you spent casting the ritual counts toward the time required to perform the ritual as if you had spent 1 minute performing the ritual. Every 5 points by which you exceed the DC counts as another minute. Once you begin performing a ritual you must continue to use the Ritual Casting action for multiple round until you fulfill the time requirement, at which time the ritual takes effect. Otherwise, the rules for interrupting a ritual apply normally.

*Final effect *– A completed ritual takes effect at the end of the turn you fulfilled all the time and other requirements. Follow the rules under the ritual description as normal. If a skill check is required to determine the effect, make that skill check separately from any skill checks made to reduce the time requirement.

*Aid Another *– Up to 4 others can assist you in performing the ritual per the Aid Another action. They do not need to know the ritual to assist you.


----------



## avin (Dec 22, 2008)

OP, you touched a central point of people avoiding 4E, Wizards.

A friend of mine use to say "4E? What 4E?"

Wizards now seem very underpowered, so I'm inclined to agree to Dragonblade it use to be an overpowered class.

Try to talk to your friend and explain that is a new game, like he's playing GURPS or something like that... maybe he want to try a Warlock...

If he wants to stay Wizard facilitate at maximum the use of Rituals for him.


----------



## fba827 (Dec 22, 2008)

Standard disclaimer: all said here is based on my own experience with my own group -- your experiences will of course vary.

I've noticed that those who approach the game with a favorite class in mind are going to feel like it is different because of trick A, B, or C that it (any class) that it used to be able to do in previous editions is no longer there.
(rangers no longer with animal companions, wizards with different spellcasting, druids can not longer heal as  a basic ability, fighters don't have powers keyed off ranged attacks, etc)

While those less "rigid" on system preference are the ones that are flexible in trying out different classes -- for them, the changes are easy since the power structure is the same across all classes they try in 4e.

The switch to the wizard spellcasting system does take a little getting used to, but something you may want to go out of your way to emphasize is the spellbook feature of the wizard -- they have more daily and utility spells and have to pick which ones at the start of the day.  That may help the player in question feel more at ease with the familiar idea of "he has X slots of daily spells and therefore must pick from his selection"
So make it a point at the start of each day to phrase it as *"what spells from your spellbook do you want to memorize for your 2 daily and 1 utility slots"* etc.

Another option to consider (if it's the "types" of spells for the wizard) is to take the druid or invoker preview (if you have access to them) and basically strip away all flavor text and power source and replace it all with "arcane" making them powers for the wizard.  Of course, this pretty much means you can't use the druid or invoker class for other players since they'll see their powers mimics by your wizard.

As a general comment, at the moment, there is not much variety or support for wizards, so it can feel a little frustrating when your used to a class that used to have a lot of variety options but currently is still "fresh" in this new edition  (as opposed to fighters and such that already have martial power released so they have more than a handful of other options for each of their levels to choose form)


----------



## Mercule (Dec 22, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:


> This doesn't directly answer your question, as I willingly went over to 4e and all. But, I was just wondering, how dead-set is your friend on being specifically a "Wizard".



I think he's as likely to play a rogue or fighter as a wizard.  It's just that the wizard will be the elephant in the corner in that case.  Someday, he'll want to play a wizard, and he's the sort where that potential would probably color his enjoyment of the game.  I can't really blame him -- this is likely to be more of a permanent move to a new edition, unless the system generally sinks for everyone, rather than just another option among many games.

Thanks, everyone, for the replies.  I've been reading them and am looking forward to more.


----------



## dm4hire (Dec 22, 2008)

One thought I've had for possible home rules is to throw out the rules concerning spellbooks and make them more like previous spellbooks.  In addition to this every spell a wizard gets can be swapped out each day to the maximum they can do.  So a wizard can swap out at wills, encounters, and dailies.  Have the character start off normally but as he/she finds spells for their spellbook they can start swapping out.  Might even rule that wizards can cast anything arcane as well to expand their list, but again they have to find the spell.  To keep them from just copying from other players, unless they're playing a wizard also, I'd rule that other classes that have spellbooks use a different inscribe method which makes them uncopiable and warlocks and such that are innate casters don't have spellbooks to copy from.  That leaves finding or buying the spells as before.   As for rituals some of the casting times seem too long in my opinion to the point they are in effective unless done during rest or down time.  Any ritual that might have a combat use I'd cut down to at least one round, maybe two rounds tops for casting time.  Oh, and make combat casting of rituals a wizard only ability.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Shadeydm (Dec 22, 2008)

My group also changed editions to 4E. I find that despite having components which I dislike good company and a sense of humor goes a long way towards an enjoyable evening regardless of edition.

I would agreee with the notion that the wizard in the new edition has fewer options, but I have seen one performs it's new role quite well (I think perhaps this is important to keep in mind that the system expectation for a wizard has changed significantly). IME the new paladin is pretty good, the new warlock seems more limited than it's previous incarnation. By far the most fun I have had has been playing a Swordmage.

Regarding growing on me I do not believe daily martial powers will ever grow on me. This does not stop me from having fun though. I think in a way everyone at the table recognizes the limitations of the new edition. Even the DM made a good 4E joke when the party was weaponless last week and ran into a couple orcs. The rogue tried to kick one of the orcs in the shin. When he hit the orc it went down due to being a minion. The best part was when the DM described it as the orc collapsing to ground clutching its knee while its lifeblood slowly drained away. Funny stuff, fun stuff!


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 22, 2008)

Mercule said:


> The wizard, though, had the most concern.  He's the most experienced player at the table (I've got more experience, but I tend to GM) and* is somewhat geared for fiddling with numbers, but without the collector's desire for shelves of books. * He's also a big fan of arcanists/wizards.  He was extremely frustrated with the way the 4e wizard played and felt.  It felt extremely de-powered to him, and not having any rules for rituals (KotS rules, only) really killed the utility aspect of wizards.
> 
> *He likes Vancian magic (at least, modded with the UA spell-points)* and I can't fault his preference.  I've got something of the opposite opinion, though, so I can't really see it from his perspective.




Well there's your problem!

4e is not a "fiddlers" system. Its quite the opposite. 3.5 made character generation almost a sub-game into itself (cough CharOp cough). while 4e tries to have meaningful choices, your choices ARE a lot more limited than 3.5's modular system. 

Specifically, he seems like the player who likes to tinker down to base element (IE squeezing every last useful spell out of his Spell Points). 4e is not the system for him.


----------



## Rel (Dec 22, 2008)

I've run only one session of 4e for my regular gaming group so far (a sort of "preview session" for what my upcoming campaign will be like) and they all seemed to be like, "Works for me."  So I don't feel like anybody is being dragged into it unwillingly.

However I can say that, at first, I wasn't a 4e fan.  When all the information was gradually leaking out about the game before release, my general feeling was, "It's not setting my world on fire but I'll not pass judgement until it is in my hands."

Then I got it in my hands.  Well the PHB anyway.  Unimpressive.  I browsed through it (I avoid using the word "read" hear because I don't think it's possible for me to "read" the PHB) and it seemed fairly crappy.  The organization was unfamiliar.  The way the classes are structured with their powers was very differnent.  I even posted privately in the moderator forum that it felt "Not like D&D".  Kind of despised using that trite bit of phrase but it was my impression.

However I'm a curious sort and I couldn't stand the idea of having wasted money on a book I wouldn't use without even trying it so I made up a couple characters and tried the game out with my wife and daughter.  Turned out that it felt VERY like D&D.  I mean the way the combats went felt so strikingly similar to 3.x that I found the small differences tripping me up.  The powers worked much more seamlessly than I'd have guessed and the players found them very intuitive.  The roleplaying aspects were, of course, system independant and fun as always.  It changed my whole perspective.

After that I started digging deeper into the system and seeing some elements that I really liked (Rituals - Love em'!).  I also started to see some things that I knew I didn't like and needed to change, but felt that these changes were all relatively small and easy.  The end result is a system, albeit one that I've houseruled a bit, that I'm very excited about running.

I will say that I'm not convinced that 4e has the "replayability" that 3.x did.  But who cares?  It'll keep us busy as a gaming group for the next couple years I'm fairly sure and that's about all I can ask from any system.


----------



## Wycen (Dec 22, 2008)

Maybe I can help.

Both of the 3.5 campaigns I was in died under circumstances that angered me and probably colored my perception of 4E.  The first ended during the last battle with the last bad guy, in the last session of our last 3.5 campaign.  That was how the DM billed it because he was going 4E (he owns a game store so he rightly would prefer to support the current game system).  It was a near Total Party Kill because of 2 players being _____ ____, blowing everyone up (fill in your favorite curse words).  1 character survived and thus we ended the game, with a hand wave as far as I was concerned.  I nearly got up and left the table but I didn't.

My other campaign was Savage Tide and it ended because one of the hosts wasn't having fun anymore and we'd already had to hand wave the bad results when he went berserk and randomly stabbed some NPCs.  He wasn't having fun because his 6 INT fighter wasn't any good for coming up with strategy.

Now, I'm also someone who likes the versatility of wizards and clerics.  Thus, when I started looking at my options in 4E, I was not impressed.

In my thinking, the 'at will' magic missile spell has essentially become the wizard's crossbow (I first read that comparison here at ENWorld).

Perhaps a house rule that you could spontaneously convert another use of a power into a Healing Word or something would make me like clerics better.  

I understand the want to balance classes so everyone has fun, or really nobody is left feeling useless.  Unfortunately, I really just see everyone as a -warrior- with powers that do different things and have different names.

Rituals don't impress me (Rope Trick is 12th level?!).

And I don't like 30 years of canon being thrown out.

However, for the time being, if I want to game with my friends, I have to play 4E.  So, what do I do?

Well, it is now a far more social event for me.  I show up to hang out with friends, share a beer, and swap memories.  Don't ask me to take notes, because if I do, they might be mistaken with notes I didn't erase from 2 sessions ago.  

I also think that 4E could be useful for casual gamers who don't learn important things like what their spells do and want to run complex characters like a 3E druid.  I use this specifically because in our Savage Tide game the other host (they were husband and wife) was playing DnD for the first time and she was a huge time sink, continually forgetting what her spells did, forgetting about her animal companion and other stuff.  She was the star of the party (druids in STAP rock), but her character was more like a communal entity we all shared responsibility for.

Not sure if I have anything else useful, but I need to do more Christmas shopping so I'll check the thread again later.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Dec 23, 2008)

If you find the Right Answer, I'll pay you for it.

I'm in two groups. One was a blessedly easy switch - everyone was ready and willing to try something new.

The other...the other group has some hold-outs. Er, actually, we're down to just one hold-out, as the other two guys have jumped onboard the 4e train.  But that last guy - he's a great gamer, a great friend, a consummate RPer...and he loves wizards. Loves 'em. 3e wizards.

He also loves spending copious amounts of time "building" his character to 20th level, may iterations of which never end up seeing the light of day. He feels limited, constrained, and underpowered in 4e (wherein he's trying to play a wizard).

I will give him this - he's doing his best. He has a good attitude, he shows up on time, he participates, etc. All of what you would expect from an adult, avid gamer.

But I can tell 4e isn't doing it for him. And that kills me.  I've been gaming with this guy since '86, and it's no fun knowing that there's a buddy around the table who'd rather be playing a different system.

Will he change? I don't know. He has put a lot of stock in the forthcoming _Arcane Power_ book and claims (perhaps justifiably) it should have been the first splat to hit the market. I suspect that will be a watershed event for him, and us, for better or worse.

Ultimately, I think he grins and bears it because gaming, and gaming with his friends, transcends the system - even if that system is not the one he would have chosen.

And I respect him for that. I don't know if I could do it half as well.

WP


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 23, 2008)

The way I see it, part of the simplification of the wizard is to bring the power down into a reasonable range, but part of it is to make wizard's simpler to play. The latter affects not only players who don't care for Vancian magic, but also GMs being able to whip out a high level wizard quickly. Since reduced GM prep is one of the big strengths of 4E, I don't think you throw that away without some thought. However, don't ask me how much is wizard nerf and how much is ease of play, because I have no idea. 

I do think that it is not terribly unbalancing to allow the wizard to put all of his powers into a spellbook (same as daily and utilities) now, and swap them out each day--perhaps with a greater cost (getting them into the spell book, no variations known at start on utility and daily, relatively hard to find new powers, whatever makes sense). You just don't want this to be the default. 

So add another feat, "Versatile Wizard," and make sure that the wizard can pick that feat up, along with Expanded Spellbook, reasonably early. Versatile wizards can learn any power, and can swap out each day. Adjust the cost of doing this, as the campaign progresses, to keep it fair. Throw in another feat for researching rituals, and come up with a few more. Heck, skip the "Versatile Wizard" feat, and make up some (cheap component cost) ritiuals that let the wizard swap out powers a lot.  (That seems like a fair trade to me.  Some wizards alternate between two choices in their dailies and utilities.  Others use a ritual to swap out any power, but can swap any power they know.)

Now this guy can fiddle to his heart's content, and the GM can still whip out a high level wizard in minutes, and another player can play his wizard like a 3E sorcerer and be happy.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 23, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> If you find the Right Answer, I'll pay you for it.
> 
> I'm in two groups. One was a blessedly easy switch - everyone was ready and willing to try something new.
> 
> ...




In my experience there are two types of people who like to play arcane casters in prior editions of D&D. Those who like casters because they have a plethora of options, a golf bag of spells for every occasion. And those who like wizards because they are the class with the most power, the class with the power to bend reality to their will, and potentially alter the course of a game in dramatic fashion in a way that no other class can match.

The first kind of wizard player is easily satisfied by adopting the house rules I wrote about earlier. Their problem with the 4e wizard stems from a perceived lack of flexibility and options. They went from a list of spells that easily took up 1/3 of the PHB (if not more) to one that takes up only 16 pages. Giving them more flexibility is the key to happiness.

The other type of player is just not going to be happy in 4e, and thats because arcane casters were just flat out broken in prior editions of the game. Wizards are now on par with other classes in the overall power department. In my opinion that is a good thing, but from the perspective of someone used to being able to whip out Disjunction, Fly, Teleport, Improved Invisibility, and so on, its going to be a severe cut back in power.

A well-played arcane caster in 3e is a one-man party. Who needs a Rogue when you have Knock? Need a scout? Improved Invisibility to the rescue! Need to get somewhere? Pick from Spider-climb, Dimension Door, Teleport, or Fly! Need to devastate the battlefield in a way no other class can touch? Well, there is Disintigrate, Fireball, Fire Brand, Meteor Swarm, etc. Worried about getting grappled? Ghostform or Mestil's Acid Sheath! Buffed enemies, or ongoing spell effects giving you trouble? Disjunction for the win! And finally, if you need to do something I didn't cover, there is always Wish!

The 3e caster was flat out broken and needed to be fixed. This is an indisputable fact.

If the 3e wizard fan is mature enough to recognize the 4e changes were made to be make the game more playable across more levels and to give other classes a share of the spotlight, then they should be fine after a while. But if they are not mature enough to handle that change, then they will never be happy with 4e. And frankly, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for them. Sorry, if that sounded harsh.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 23, 2008)

Dragonblade said:


> The 3e caster was flat out broken and needed to be fixed. This is an indisputable fact.
> 
> If the 3e wizard fan is mature enough to recognize the 4e changes were made to be make the game more playable across more levels and to give other classes a share of the spotlight, then they should be fine after a while. But if they are not mature enough to handle that change, then they will never be happy with 4e. And frankly, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for them. Sorry, if that sounded harsh.




Well, here is a new one for you. I don't like 4e. It doesn't have elements that I like my games to have in them. I played it for several months and the only reason I liked it is because of who I was playing it with. The rules themselves bored me.

My "maturity" had nothing to do with it, 4E simply does not excite me, and other games do. So I play them.


----------



## SHARK (Dec 23, 2008)

Greetings!

PREACH ON, BROTHER!!!

Totally. Dragonblade hit it right on the head. I know--from DMing so much--and dealing with uber-powered wizards and sorcerers--they weren't *invincible*--but just *ONE* of them required a Panzer Division*! to properly shut down, so that not only the rest of the party could actually *do something*--but more importantly, so that some sense of story framework could be supported and maintained.

Wizards/Sorcerers in previous editions were indeed over-powered, especially after say, lvl 16 and above. They needed to be brought down to earth, with the rest of the classes so as to better ensure a better long-term playability--for both the group of players, and the *DM*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

*Or, a regiment of lvl 40 Fire Giant Fighters, armed with a golf-bag of uber magic longbows, uber magic arrows, and other goodies.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 23, 2008)

The stumbling block I've seen personally with people I game with is power. I have a player who liked wielding immense power. Immense power like what the Wizard, Cleric and Druid used to throw around just doesn't exist in 4E. Even non-spellcaster things like an Ubercharger, TWF sneak attacker, or magic items like Ring of Invisibility just don't exist in 4E. 

Its all little chess moves, with nothing that lets you win in one shot.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 23, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Well, here is a new one for you. I don't like 4e. It doesn't have elements that I like my games to have in them. I played it for several months and the only reason I liked it is because of who I was playing it with. The rules themselves bored me.
> 
> My "maturity" had nothing to do with it, 4E simply does not excite me, and other games do. So I play them.




I think you missed what I was trying to say. There are lots of very good reasons why one would not like 4e. Its over-reliance on miniatures is one that immediately comes to mind.

I was specifically addressing the issue of wizard power in 4e as brought up by the OP and Wisdom Penalty.

What I am saying is that I think it is an immature position to hate the game because wizards aren't the uber gamebreaking class they once were.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2008)

Dragonblade said:


> I think you missed what I was trying to say. There are lots of very good reasons why one would not like 4e. Its over-reliance on miniatures is one that immediately comes to mind.
> 
> I was specifically addressing the issue of wizard power in 4e as brought up by the OP and Wisdom Penalty.
> 
> What I am saying is that I think it is an immature position to hate the game because wizards aren't the uber gamebreaking class they once were.




I don't think that everyone who dislikes the way 4E handles wizards does so because of a denial of game breaking power. Wizards didn't break the game for everyone. As a matter of fact 3E wizards were a bit weak when comparing them to spellcasters of earlier editions.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 23, 2008)

SHARK said:


> *Or, a regiment of lvl 40 Fire Giant Fighters, armed with a golf-bag of uber magic longbows, uber magic arrows, and other goodies.




Hehe. Yeah, I definitely knew how to "break" wizards with the Epic Level Handbook. But those Fire Giants were nasty! Though the Winter Wights were the worst. I still wake up in a cold sweat thinking about that squad of Winter Wights.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 23, 2008)

Dragonblade said:


> I think you missed what I was trying to say. There are lots of very good reasons why one would not like 4e. Its over-reliance on miniatures is one that immediately comes to mind.
> 
> I was specifically addressing the issue of wizard power in 4e as brought up by the OP and Wisdom Penalty.
> 
> What I am saying is that I think it is an immature position to hate the game because wizards aren't the uber gamebreaking class they once were.





Well, I am also of the "school", "thought", whatever you want to call it, where Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, Necromancers, etc... are the world rocking stars of the show, at high level. Still, ask my group what class rocks most after our non 4E (or 3E) game last night and it was the Fighter. In the 3E games where I DMed games up to 22nd level and played in one game that went to 48th, and another that went to 58th or 68th level, and the fighters were the stars in all those games.

So I guess a lot of it comes down to how the group plays and runs with the rules. Spell casters are capable of a lot, but when it came down to actual pain and destruction it was the fighter who was devastating. At least in the games I ran or played in, and I also know everyone was very game savvy.

So what made our experiences so different is something I would like to find out.


----------



## Oni (Dec 23, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The stumbling block I've seen personally with people I game with is power. I have a player who liked wielding immense power. Immense power like what the Wizard, Cleric and Druid used to throw around just doesn't exist in 4E. Even non-spellcaster things like an Ubercharger, TWF sneak attacker, or magic items like Ring of Invisibility just don't exist in 4E.
> 
> Its all little chess moves, with nothing that lets you win in one shot.




I dunno, go check out the Charop boards, it might not be as immediately obvious but there is certainly the potential to nova and really lay down the smack with the right sorts of builds.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 23, 2008)

Oni said:


> I dunno, go check out the Charop boards, it might not be as immediately obvious but there is certainly the potential to nova and really lay down the smack with the right sorts of builds.




And at the same time miss the subtler points. The most powerful thing in 4E is control, not laying down the smack. Or more specifically, control followed by or combined with the smack.

The Fighter class using all the stupid plus stacking to damage rolls 4E gives them while targeting bursts or making multiple attacks while marking all of the enemies with combat challenge and combat superiority comes to mind.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 23, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has been "forcibly" converted to 4e. By that, I mean you were skeptical, but your group converted and you went along.




That's close to how I came to be DMing 4e right now, yeah. Another DM started a 4e game and became unable to keep it up, so I stepped up, giving it a go. I'm still very skeptical and critical, though they've become more specific.



> Does the move from Vancian magic (or other subsystem changes, like fighter powers) "grow" on you? Do you still have the same issues you had when you started out? Do you have different issues, especially any that surprised you? How long did it take for your opinion to change/cement? Did anyone else in your group have a change of heart (in either direction)?




One of my bigger pet peeves is the greater emphasis on minis. They haven't grown on me, they still seem artificial, I still have that issue, and 4e doesn't effectively address my major concern about it (that minis just aren't enjoyable for me). 

But it really depends on the issue and WHY I have that issue -- what I think is fun and what 4e does to deliver to me what is actually fun for me. 

In the case of your player, it seems like it's a case of "maths is fun" for him. Using his mastery and his knowledge to game the system and eke a little bit more out of his character was fun for him, and 4e has most definitely put the kibosh on that. You might encourage him to look for it in different places (character/team synergies, for instance) to get the same kind of rush, but it could be that 4e just won't provide the enjoyment that he's looking for. 

Then it's a question of, if 4e still does its job mostly okay, maybe finding a bone or two two to throw him, rather than finding a totally new system. If it's a few different problems with many players, then maybe a new game is in order, but it sounds more like this guy just kind of misses something. It's possible to maybe find something that's still as fiddly as before (4e does have fiddly bits), or reward him for gaming the numbers a little bit...it's all in the interest of fun, after all.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> In my experience there are two types of people who like to play arcane casters in prior editions of D&D. Those who like casters because they have a plethora of options, a golf bag of spells for every occasion. And those who like wizards because they are the class with the most power, the class with the power to bend reality to their will, and potentially alter the course of a game in dramatic fashion in a way that no other class can match.




The world is not that binary, and even if it was, gaining elements of this shouldn't be badwrongfun.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2008)

Dragonblade said:


> I think you missed what I was trying to say. There are lots of very good reasons why one would not like 4e. Its over-reliance on miniatures is one that immediately comes to mind.
> 
> I was specifically addressing the issue of wizard power in 4e as brought up by the OP and Wisdom Penalty.
> 
> What I am saying is that I think it is an immature position to hate the game because wizards aren't the uber gamebreaking class they once were.




Okay, before we start making sweeping generalizations about people's maturity levels based on their preference for how powerful Wizards in D&D are...maybe you should consider for a moment that the uber-realitybreaking  wizard is actually one of, if not the, archetype that is most familiar with people... that in fact when presented with the word wizard this is what most people (familiar with fantasy) think of.  I mean from Gandalf to Pug/Milamber, and Merlin... they all do reality bending uber magic that is not "balanced" on the abilities of everyone else around them. 

In other words it could easily be a preference..in the same way that some don't like playing High Fantasy or wuxia rpg's...but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "maturity".  This is like saying, not liking a fantasy game because there's no magic in it is immature...no, it's a preference.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 23, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The world is not that binary, and even if it was, gaining elements of this shouldn't be badwrongfun.




The only time when badwrongfun isn't bulls*** is when the fun starts to ruin everyone else at the table's fun. Some elements of 3E strayed into that territory IMO.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 23, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> The only time when badwrongfun isn't bulls*** is when the fun starts to ruin everyone else at the table's fun. Some elements of 3E strayed into that territory IMO.




It's a rare misanthrope who gains enjoyment from making others' games less fun.

Rather, I would think that the pursuit of one kind of enjoyment might accidentally hurt others' games.

In that latter case, compromise is possible, and might just require some redefinition. 

Sort of: It's OK to wring out an additional minor benefit for the wizard player if he games the numbers cleverly (in the form of a party combo or skillful research of their enemies, or whatever) because he has fun doing that. That is what is fun, so that should be pursued. That particular game should arrange itself under the assumption that seeking that sort of fun is OK, encouraged, and great to have.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 23, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The only time when badwrongfun isn't bulls*** is when the fun starts to ruin everyone else at the table's fun. Some elements of 3E strayed into that territory IMO.




But at that point it's the mentality of the player that's doing it NOT the rules. A player who does something like this just because they can without taking into consideration the fun of the other people at the table is just being a selfish dick. No amount of rules nerfing is going to change that, not even 4E.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 23, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's a rare misanthrope who gains enjoyment from making others' games less fun.
> 
> Rather, I would think that the pursuit of one kind of enjoyment might accidentally hurt others' games.
> 
> ...






ShinHakkaider said:


> But at that point it's the mentality of the player that's doing it NOT the rules. A player who does something like this just because they can without taking into consideration the fun of the other people at the table is just being a selfish dick. No amount of rules nerfing is going to change that, not even 4E.




A jerk player can certainly accomplish this, but the system was so out of wack in places that "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit" could happen unintentionally.


----------



## Henry (Dec 23, 2008)

We aren't playing 4E right now, in part because we have one player who just does not play when we are playing 4E; he tried to get into it, but the Wizard's situation, combined with the "simulation-breaking" game mechanics, just didn't do it for him. Things like healing surges, some of the push/pull powers that are vaguely worded as to why they work, etc. just took some of the fuzzt bits already present in 4E and expanded upon them to simply cross the whole system. So, long story short, we value our gaming time with him more than we value time playing 4E. We'll get back to 4E, likely, but for now we're having too much fun running Star Wars, 3.5e, and other systems that he WILL game with us, and quite frankly I have lots of people willing to play 4E, but not many willing to DM the game yet; I think the fear quotient is still pretty high on that part, despite me telling them I've had more fun DM'ing 4E than I've had DMing in YEARS.

Ultimately, any game system that causes a rift with friends, or loss of time with friends, ain't worth it, quite frankly, no matter how well designed it is.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 23, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:


> But at that point it's the mentality of the player that's doing it NOT the rules.




People abusing a system is a sign that something is wrong with that system.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> People abusing a system is a sign that something is wrong with that system.




Any and all systems can be abused (especially by the DM), so I guess that means something is wrong with all systems.  Or maybe...people need to show some maturity and responsibility for the environment they create in using the system of an rpg... and if they can't perhaps then they really do need to play games with more restrictions...sorta like training wheels on a bike, until they learn how to.


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 23, 2008)

If your player is really into the system math and optimization, then I would encourage him to sit down with the books and really delve into the minutae of the system.  I mean, we are talking about a system where a +1 bonus to hit or damage has a large in-game impact over time.  There's a lot of potential tinkering that the player could do and the best part from your and the other player's perspective is that it isn't likely to have a game-breaking effect.

As for the class issue, if your player feels that strongly about the 4e wizard and is willing to play another class, I'd encourage the player to not play the wizard.  I'd direct him towards another of the arcane classes, IMO, the warlock, artificer, and swordmage (in that order), or a wizard multi-class build (another good way for him to tinker).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 23, 2008)

Henry said:


> We aren't playing 4E right now, in part because we have one player who just does not play when we are playing 4E; he tried to get into it, but the Wizard's situation, combined with the "simulation-breaking" game mechanics, just didn't do it for him. Things like healing surges, some of the push/pull powers that are vaguely worded as to why they work, etc. just took some of the fuzzt bits already present in 4E and expanded upon them to simply cross the whole system. So, long story short, we value our gaming time with him more than we value time playing 4E. We'll get back to 4E, likely, but for now we're having too much fun running Star Wars, 3.5e, and other systems that he WILL game with us, and quite frankly I have lots of people willing to play 4E, but not many willing to DM the game yet; I think the fear quotient is still pretty high on that part, despite me telling them I've had more fun DM'ing 4E than I've had DMing in YEARS.
> 
> Ultimately, any game system that causes a rift with friends, or loss of time with friends, ain't worth it, quite frankly, no matter how well designed it is.




We have the opposite effect right now. We have at least two players who would outright walk out the door if we went back to 3.5E D&D at this point.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 23, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> People abusing a system is a sign that something is wrong with that system.




Especially when abusing a system can mean something as mundane as "plays a Druid".


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 23, 2008)

I'm not sure if I am an unwilling 4E player in my Fact to Face game, but I would prefer to be doing 3.5, despite its faults. I am still ok with 4E.

The reasons vary. First of all, even in 3.5 I was in love with tactical combat, and 4E has vastly improved that, plus the monsters, with their different abilities, all feel so much more real, and varied than ever before. In 3.5, monsters were differentiated mostly by resistances, SR, and cosmetic effects. In 4E, the monsters play very differently. 

But the suspension of disbelief is what is killing me in regards to 4E. Spells disappear from wizard's books, everyone finds EXACTLY what magic item they like, and the whole gmae is balanced on a knife's edge all the time. It is just a bit much for me to swallow. I'll play 4E as long as my friends want me to, and enjoy myself, but I don't se myself running a 4E game for he forseeable future.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 23, 2008)

I wish mages/druids were as powerful as some say. I threw whole groups of them at the party, even used some of the parties favorite tricks, and the party still won. Know why? The fighter types. Their high HP, high AC, hi attack values, high damage, etc... count for a lot more than people seem to realize.

Then throw in their magic items and they are even more powerful. Lets see, in 3E Ghost touch weapons and armor was popular. So was the ability to True See, or at least See Invisibility, something that increased their movement, belts of strength to up their attack and damage value, etc...

The only time I have ever seen spell casters over power a game is when the DM failed to give enough magic to the fighter types to balance things out.

Then as the game got higher level the opponents were immune or had SR 30 against everything dealing with fire, electricity, acid, etc... making mages nothing but buff and transportation machines, and even buffing was rarely needed since the fighter types likely already had an item that gave a better buff bonus, or just as good, since the caster probably made it for them.

Disjunction and Disintegration had two major problems, as do all other spells, the target had to fail for it to be of real use, and the caster had to get the spell off. Casters were target number one, so it was hard for them to do.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 23, 2008)

Imaro said:


> so I guess that means something is wrong with all systems.




Correct. This is why there is no One-System-To-Rule-Them-All.



> if they can't perhaps then they really do need to play games with more restrictions




Or maybe games can designed to not focus power into the hands of a single archetype to the extent that it is a long-running complaint through the 30 year lifespan of the game.



> Especially when abusing a system can mean something as mundane as "plays a Druid".




Exactly. When the solution is presented as "Well, don't do everything the book says you can do." it strikes me as a cop-out to excuse lopsided role distribution. It's like giving one of your three children a hundred more toys than the other two, then telling him that he can't play with all of them because it'll make the other two upset (and if he does, it's his fault for being a dick, not your fault for favoring one significantly over the others).


----------



## Imaro (Dec 23, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Correct. This is why there is no One-System-To-Rule-Them-All.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Eh, this is a simplistic view and again is a matter of preference and taste not fact.  For those who can, and want, to run a game where mages/wizards/casters start out weaker and grow more powerful than other classes it's not a problem, especially if they can handle it.  Because some can't may mean the game should change...or it might mean these people need a different game, only time will make apparent which one was the correct choice.

One of the things 4e has done in this quest for "balance" is distance some of  those who just want to roll some dice and clobber things.  My brother, who use to play with us occasionally in 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5 could grab a fighter or barbarian and jump in without knowing and understanding tactics, or the rules of the game, or what different powers do, etc....4e isn't like that anymore, especially since what you choose to do has an even more profound effect on everyone else now.  Just as a side note... the last time he played with us was the first time we tried 4e.  Different strokes for different folks I guess...But IMHO 3.5 catered to alot more styles of play than 4e does, whether that's good or bad remains to be seen...especially with the stricter nature of the GSL and less 3PP to cater to the other desires of D&D players.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Dec 23, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> ... and another that went to 58th or 68th level, and the fighters were the stars in all those games.




Treebore - you _rock_! 68th friggin' level? If we hit 18th (back in the 3E days) I was grasping for air at such altitudes. 

And about my player who prefers 3e wizards: He's not immature or power hungry. Far from it. And I feel badly if my post seemed to convey that. When we played 3e, he very much was willing to take a back seat and let other characters shine in the appropriate situations. He just...I don't know - he just liked (likes) the 3e spellcaster archetype. He likes metamagic. He likes a satchel filled with scrolls. He likes fly, teleport, scry, and unending buffs.

He pretty much likes everything I, as his DM, learned to loathe. 

I'm eternally grateful he hasn't done what one of Henry's players has done - slap down an ultimatum. I'm fearful that may happen at some point, and then I'm not sure what we'd do. If I catered to him and went back to 3E, I'd probably get served five other ultimatums telling me the other players will leave if we go _that_ route. Woe is me.

He's giving it the ol' college try. What more can anyone ask? He knows he's one guy of twelve that prefers an older edition. When faced with that reality, he's doing the best he can.

WP


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 23, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Eh, this is a simplistic view and again is a matter of preference and taste not fact.  For those who can, and want, to run a game where mages/wizards/casters start out weaker and grow more powerful than other classes it's not a problem, especially if they can handle it.  Because some can't may mean the game should change...or it might mean these people need a different game, only time will make apparent which one was the correct choice.




Except that it isn't entirely true. Druids and Clerics(only if you go all out) are A+ powerhouses starting at level 1. A 1st level Wizard can cast Color Spray twice per day(3x for illusionist). A 4th level Wizard has four Color Sprays and three Glitterdusts before specialization. A 1st level Sorcerer gets 4 Color Sprays, and a 4th level one gets 7 Color Sprays and 4 Glitterdusts. At these levels, these spells kill.




Imaro said:


> One of the things 4e has done in this quest for "balance" is distance some of  those who just want to roll some dice and clobber things.  My brother, who use to play with us occasionally in 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5 could grab a fighter or barbarian and jump in without knowing and understanding tactics, or the rules of the game, or what different powers do, etc....4e isn't like that anymore, especially since what you choose to do has an even more profound effect on everyone else now.  Just as a side note... the last time he played with us was the first time we tried 4e.  Different strokes for different folks I guess...But IMHO 3.5 catered to alot more styles of play than 4e does, whether that's good or bad remains to be seen...especially with the stricter nature of the GSL and less 3PP to cater to the other desires of D&D players.




4E still has newbie characters. You can play a Wand Wizard who goes full-on blaster and deals nothing but damage(and this concept works better than you'd think), a "Stand and Fight" Str-based Paladin, or a "Stand Back and Shoot" Ranger and these easily provide the newbie experience that the Barbarian class did for 3E. 

As for catering to more styles, I truly believe that 3.5E tried to cater to too many styles, and watered down the core D&D experience(which was very robust during the AD&D days) in doing so.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 23, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:


> Treebore - you _rock_! 68th friggin' level? If we hit 18th (back in the 3E days) I was grasping for air at such altitudes.
> 
> And about my player who prefers 3e wizards: He's not immature or power hungry. Far from it. And I feel badly if my post seemed to convey that. When we played 3e, he very much was willing to take a back seat and let other characters shine in the appropriate situations. He just...I don't know - he just liked (likes) the 3e spellcaster archetype. He likes metamagic. He likes a satchel filled with scrolls. He likes fly, teleport, scry, and unending buffs.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I was the fighter in that game too. My fighter definitely rocked and was god like.

I didn't play to a high level in 4E, only 3rd level, but it had none of the trappings I like in other games. I like mages being all about magic, creating magical stuff, from potions and scrolls to staves and other items.

I also like fighters with high HP's, High AC's and hitting often for lots of damage. I like the challenge of either getting custom made items or figuring out effective strategies with which to use randomly acquired items, etc...  I just didn't feel the same thing with 4E and its magic items.


----------



## Rel (Dec 23, 2008)

Treebore said:


> I didn't play to a high level in 4E, only 3rd level, but it had none of the trappings I like in other games. I like mages being all about magic, creating magical stuff, from potions and scrolls to staves and other items.




I find this to be a curious criticism of 4e as compared to 3.x.  Item creation seems even more easy than ever considering that you need only a couple Rituals rather hand several feats in order to make any item you want.  They no longer cost the Wizard any XP either.

And as for "mages being all about magic", most every 3.x game I played involving a Wizard saw them hanging back and not doing something "magical" during a lot of rounds because they were limited by their spells per day.  At low levels this was exemplified by a lot of crossbow use.

To me, the 4e Wizard feels more "magical" by virtue of being able to continuously use magical effects in every round of the combat.  And out of combat he's got free use of his cantrips to do all manner of minor magics that never ran out.  In 3.x if the Wizard was going to put on a magic show for the village children, it would last exactly 24 seconds before he was having to pull out scrolls.

I'm certainly not calling your preference for other systems wrong by any means.  This just strikes me as an odd point on which to base it.


----------



## Tuft (Dec 23, 2008)

Rel said:


> To me, the 4e Wizard feels more "magical" by virtue of being able to continuously use magical effects in every round of the combat.




Unfortunately, attacks that are indistinguishable from any other attacks (the same push-n-pull mash as everything else) just doesn't "feel very magical" (TM) to me. It's not about how much damage you deal, it's not about how frequently you do it, it's all about how "weird and wonderful" magic effects feel. 

I played a wizard in the Dragonstar universe (Fantasy Flight Games - fantasy/SF mix), where the fighter types ran around with laser guns and hand grenades that dwarfed my attack spells... and I absolutely loved it when I did not have to stock up on attack spells but could concentrate on the _fun_ spells.... 



> And out of combat he's got free use of his cantrips to do all manner of minor magics that never ran out.  In 3.x if the Wizard was going to put on a magic show for the village children, it would last exactly 24 seconds before he was having to pull out scrolls.




Um, the 3.5 cantrip Prestidigitation allowed you to do the effects you describe above for an hour, which is a bit more than 24 seconds....


----------



## Treebore (Dec 23, 2008)

Rel said:


> I find this to be a curious criticism of 4e as compared to 3.x.  Item creation seems even more easy than ever considering that you need only a couple Rituals rather hand several feats in order to make any item you want.  They no longer cost the Wizard any XP either.
> 
> And as for "mages being all about magic", most every 3.x game I played involving a Wizard saw them hanging back and not doing something "magical" during a lot of rounds because they were limited by their spells per day.  At low levels this was exemplified by a lot of crossbow use.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure. From a pure mechanics point of view 4E looks to be as solid as you could ask for. All I know is in the weeks I played I didn't get any of the "feel" I get while playing my normal game. Which I also find strange, since its C&C and is more 1E/2E like, which others have claimed 4E felt like. I didn't see that either. I just write that off to my actually having been playing with the old rules for the last 3 years and the others just going on distant memories. Thats because I thought I remembered 1E and especially 2E ( I did run 2E for over 10 years), but when I went back to actually playing it I found I had forgotten a lot of details, plus there are rules I used to dislike/ignore that I now like.

All I can say is that 4E did not get me excited. Even 3E managed to do that for a while. The only thing I even found worth stealing from 4E was the idea of casting a spell every round. I do it in my games as an "Eldritch Bolt", which is an magic attack they can do every other round, or each round with a check/save rolled successfully. They also need to roll a to hit against unarmored AC.

So all I can say is 4E felt flat to me.


----------



## avin (Dec 23, 2008)

Just for the sake of adding to topic: when 3E was launched do you know who were the players more resistant to it between my friends? 

Wizards. 

Most refused to play third edition at that time because it wasn't like it used to be.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 23, 2008)

Quite a few posts in the last page or so have veered way off topic. If you want to discuss the uberness (or otherwise) of various classes in 3e then please start another thread to do so.

I've not removed any of the really off-topic posts, but I might have to if it continues.

Thanks


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 23, 2008)

Dragonblade said:


> So here are a couple of house rules you could implement that might bring your wizard player on board. Rules as written states the 4e wizard gets to pick two extra daily and two extra utility powers every time they get a new utility or daily when they level. And technically, the wizard character has to pick one of the two to memorize each day.
> 
> However, just say he doesn't have to choose in advance, he can choose on the fly as the situation demands. But once he picks one of the two powers for that level he is locked out of the other one until he takes an extended rest. This gives him much more flexibility without really giving him a big boost in power. He still only gets to use one 5th level daily in a day, he just doesn't have to pre-choose the one he memorizes. This also makes the Expanded Spellbook feat really good, but I think that's fine.




I really like this idea - you could call it "Schrodinger's Spellbook" on the basis that each day the various slots are potentially either of the available powers, but it is only when the power is used that it is fixed for that day (important for the issue when at a given level the utility spell might be either encounter or daily  (e.g. shield vs expeditious retreat at utility 2)

I might run this past my group and see what they think of it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 23, 2008)

neuronphaser said:


> The player in my group that always goes Wizard was put off by 4e as well when we didn't use Rituals a lot right away.  I'd say that Rituals are THE KEY for 4E Wizards and making them versatile.  They are there for a reason; use them.




I agree that Rituals are key to making the wizard versatile and useful. The problem is that there are not nearly enough of them in the PHB. Not nearly enough. Also the rate of getting them seems strange - why 2 every 5 levels? Why not 1 every other level, since ritual levels go across the whole range?

There is a desperate need for a wider range of rituals (plus the opportunity for a wizard to find or buy new rituals, and add them to his ritual spellbook, expanding his options).

I think there is also good grounds for introducing 'attack' rituals - if you want to assault a castle you want your 10d6 fireball, but it is a 10 minute ritual to cast such powerful spells.  Carefully chosen, allowing a wizard to develop a big collection of rituals (far beyond the paltry few in the PHB) is key to making it a distinct and interesting class for people having concerns about migrating from 3e wizards to 4e wizards.

n.b. I think the 4e house rules forum had a long post with someone converting 3e spells to 4e rituals - might be worth looking for that.

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 23, 2008)

I've found two examples

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...236804-converting-old-spells-new-rituals.html

and 

hastur.net

(I've not checked these out to verify whether I think they are well done enough to use in my games yet, but offer the links for consideration!)

Cheers


----------



## Tuft (Dec 23, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Rituals (4E - Hastur)



Lost the last paranthesis there, Plane: Rituals (4E) - Hastur


----------



## Rel (Dec 23, 2008)

Tuft said:


> Um, the 3.5 cantrip Prestidigitation allowed you to do the effects you describe above for an hour, which is a bit more than 24 seconds....




Good point.  I'd forgotten about the 1 hour duration on that.


----------



## Pbartender (Dec 23, 2008)

Mercule said:


> Right after 4e came out, we ran a single session of KotS, using only the rules found there-in....
> 
> ...He was extremely frustrated with the way the 4e wizard played and felt.  It felt extremely de-powered to him, and not having any rules for rituals (KotS rules, only) really killed the utility aspect of wizards.




Okay, there's your first problem.  The rules presented in Keep on the Shadowfell, while giving a reasonable approximation of 4E play, leave out a few critical rules and aspects...  especially in regards to Wizards.

The pre-generated Wizard character, for example, only has half the number of Cantrips that should be available to him. They left out Prestidigitation and Mage Hand, arguably the two most versatile and useful of the Cantrips, if you have an inventive Wizard.  

Also, Wizards are allowed to choose two powers at each level (three, if they take a feat) and after each extended rest they get to choose which of the two powers they want to use for the day -- it's a pseudo-Vancian method.  

Lastly, while the list of Rituals presented in the book is disappointingly short, they do provide quite a bit of variety and flexibility outside of combat not just to Wizards, but to anyone willing to take the Ritual Casting feat.  In addition, it gives me, the DM, an opportunity for a little more variety in the treasure they find...  Finding a new ritual or valuable components for rituals makes my Wizard's eye's light up.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> You might encourage him to look for it in different places (character/team synergies, for instance) to get the same kind of rush, but it could be that 4e just won't provide the enjoyment that he's looking for.




This is very, very important, and a big distinction between 3E and 4E.  3E was mainly based around building a group powerful characters that make up a group of adventurers. Whereas 4E is more about building a group of characters that make up a powerful group.

Much of the fiddling in 4E comes from group tactics.  Instead of finding powerful combos within the scope of a single character, you have to look for powerful combos that span the abilities of the entire adventuring party.

I've also found that my players have shifted their class preferences from 3E...  Players that couldn't stand playing spellcasters previously are picking Clerics and Wizards, and those that up until now detested sword-bashing are choosing Fighters and Rogues.  Your player may enjoy playing another class better.  As someone who has similar sensibilities about arcane spellcasters as he does, I might suggest the Warlord and also to take another look at the Wizard, once you've got a copy of the PHB with the full rules.



Otherwise, you can always go back to playing 3E.  There's nothing wrong with that, so long as none of the players mind.


----------



## Pbartender (Dec 23, 2008)

Tuft said:


> Unfortunately, attacks that are indistinguishable from any other attacks (the same push-n-pull mash as everything else) just doesn't "feel very magical" (TM) to me. It's not about how much damage you deal, it's not about how frequently you do it, it's all about how "weird and wonderful" magic effects feel.




Of course, the wierd and wonderful feel is all in how you describe the effects...

I remember once when I was playing a 3E game, the players encountered an orc shaman casting wizard spells.  Instead of flat out saying, "he casts Magic Missile", I described it as the orc standing 80 feet away and slashing his ceremonial dagger through the air...  the party fighter could feel long cuts open up on his chest, beneath his armor which was left untouched, with each slash of the dagger.  The players marveled at a spell with such long range that could deal damage without an attack roll and without a saving throw.  The party Wizard drooled at the prospect of adding it to his spellbook.

Imagine his dissappointment when I revealed that he already had it in his spellbook.


Now, the main magicalness of spellcaster's powers in 4E is the fact the there IS NO EASY WAY TO PREVENT SPELLCASTERS FROM CASTING THEIR SPELLS. Taking away their implements or spellbooks doesn't not prevent any spellcaster from casting spells...  They always have them available.

Whereas, a Ranger or Fighter is orders of magnitude less useful without their armor and weapons.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 23, 2008)

Tuft said:


> Lost the last paranthesis there, Plane: Rituals (4E) - Hastur




Thanks - it was a glitch in the automatic conversion of url to link in vBulletin.

Cheers


----------



## balard (Dec 23, 2008)

There is an staff in AV that allows you switch a wizard power as a minor action. Its a low level staff(2nd IIRC), and can be used as a basis to wizard-swapping rules. Let me say that if I would roll a wizard(thing I will never do, I only DM since OD&D), I would aways have some of then with me. Specially at higher levels.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 23, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> The Little Raven said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No complex system is immune to abuse. Not all druid players were automatically system abusers. A system should, ideally, not be so precariously balanced that it can't handle a certain degree of abuse without falling apart. 3e, for all that I love it, certainly has the possibility of falling apart with a little bit of abuse. 4e tries its best to be abuse-proof, but it's not, either

But abuse isn't what is fun anyway. What is fun is the fiddly bits that maximize your potential. In 4e, that has more to do with sliding and pushing and pulling and positioning and flanking and combat advantage than it did in previous editions. Pbartender's point about group synergies is pretty important -- 4e is still very fiddly, it's just fiddly in a different way.

If the OP's wizard can be encouraged to look for fiddly bits in other places, maybe he'll be happier with 4e. 

I'm "stuck" DMing 4e, and I do everything I can to ignore the system whenever I can while still giving the people in the group who ADORE 4e (and there's one of them, I think..) their due. 

Can't wait until I can get them into FFZ again.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 23, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> No complex system is immune to abuse. Not all druid players were automatically system abusers.





Yep. A buddy of mine played a half orc druid in one of my campaigns ( 3.0) He had a 20 STR in his normal form and could only shapechange into animals weaker than he was.


----------



## Altalazar (Dec 24, 2008)

I have two regular groups.  My main regular group wasn't thrilled about 4E, but they were willing to give it a try.  At first, I was upset when it came out, then I heard things about it I liked, and finally, I decided to try it out.  

I ran the Keep to the end.  It fell flat.  Every combat was a slag, taking a long time.  But that really wasn't it.  I was actually at first looking forward to lots of exciting, but balanced combats.  

What really sealed it was no one was spending any time with their characters between games.  No one cared.  I think everyone I play with (including me) are tweakers - we like to fiddle and plan and exploit the rules for interesting character concepts.  We like to try all sorts of strange and interesting things - we've been playing a long time now - almost 20 years.  And it just doesn't seem like you can do that in 4E - you are on the rails and you can't get off.  

I know the reason for this - it is all about game balance.  Yes, 3E and earlier editions had balance issues, particularly at higher levels.  But at the same time, that was part of the charm, seeing just what you could do.  I once made a character with godly jump and climb skills and had all sorts of fun with that.  You simply can't do that in 4E.  Every character in every class is on the rails.  Same number of powers per level.  No prestige classes.  No real multiclassing.  No real options but what is on the rails.  

4E was sure easier to run as DM.  And at the same time, even I as DM was ultimately bored and just wanted to get it over with, though we played it out to the end anyway, to give it a chance.  This was despite being excited to try it out and see how it went.  The balance is so tight it feels like a straight jacket.  It makes me think of the move The Incredibles - if everybody is special, then no one is.  No one can shine.  No one can get off the rails.  

It also just did not "feel" like D&D anymore, perhaps because it was so tightly balanced and D&D never really was.  That modularity, that freedom, that feeling you can do anything, just is lacking.  

So in a sense, we all were "forced" to try it - by ourselves.  And we did not even need to discuss it by the time we ran the last session.  Without saying anything, we all knew the next game we ran would be 3.5E, and that we'd not be returning to 4E.  I cancelled my preorders of 4E books on amazon.  I've been in the habit of just preordering everything to be releasd every six months - I'm a book whore, I admit it.  But no more.   I also will not be going to D&D online because that is all for 4E and I simply won't be playing it.  Wizards has probably lost me as a customer for any of their new material forever.  Though I still will probably get minis if I like them (I have a lot) for use in my game, since obviously those are usable with any system.  But if they start tailoring them with new monsters that are only in 4E books, I'll stop buying them as well.  

I was sad when Dragon and Dungeon ended.  Now I'm sad that it feels like D&D has ended as far as anything "new".


----------



## Treebore (Dec 24, 2008)

Altalazar said:


> I have two regular groups.  My main regular group wasn't thrilled about 4E, but they were willing to give it a try.  At first, I was upset when it came out, then I heard things about it I liked, and finally, I decided to try it out.
> 
> I ran the Keep to the end.  It fell flat.  Every combat was a slag, taking a long time.  But that really wasn't it.  I was actually at first looking forward to lots of exciting, but balanced combats.
> 
> ...




Were you my DM?  

Actually, my group felt much the same. We still had fun, but that was far more because we are simply a good fun group. We could play "Go Fish" and have a good time. We even role played, and had fun doing that. 

4E is a good set of rules, it just doesn't give me/us the whole package like our current RPG does. So we left 4E too. We went back to our RPG, but it isn't 3E.

So similar, but not identical.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 24, 2008)

Please remember everyone - no edition bashing in this thread.

Thanks


----------



## Mercule (Dec 24, 2008)

Altalazar said:


> It also just did not "feel" like D&D anymore, perhaps because it was so tightly balanced and D&D never really was.  That modularity, that freedom, that feeling you can do anything, just is lacking.



Thanks for the input, Altalazar.  I thought it was a good expression of displeasure with 4e without being a bash -- you had reasons and related them to your group's preferences.

I've got to say the bit I quoted is relevant to me.  One of the reasons I grew to dislike 3e was because everything was so interdependent, I felt like I couldn't deviate from the formula without really screwing something up.  I played 1e and 2e very ad hoc, with many characters having no magic until 5th level, then getting a +4 weapon.  It was a lot of fun and I was able to manage the rest of the game so that things were not unbalanced, just "special".  3e didn't allow me to do that with any confidence.

I look at 4e and see less mechanical dependencies (in a way), but more balance dependencies.  The magic items are sterile feeling, but the rest of the system looks workable.  It also looks more like 1e where I could blatantly ignore the reward guidelines and have an enjoyable game.

Still, what you say speaks to my own concerns w/ 4e, if not my player's.  

Actually, I suspect that his concerns are pretty similar, at the core.  A wizard should have some just plain bizarre capabilities.  At one time, I would have labeled him as a power-gamer who was objecting to the loss of the potential trumping a wizard has always been able to pull off.  I don't think that's the case, though.  He's also very fond of sneaks.  I think the real concern is that wizards should be surprising and need the ability to make people say, "Well, I didn't see that coming."  If that stays in place in 4e, I really don't see the power shift being an issue.


----------



## Pbartender (Dec 24, 2008)

Mercule said:


> A wizard should have some just plain bizarre capabilities.




Bizarre as in gives special benefits with regards to game rules?  Or bizarre as is something that simply looks weird and magical?

In 4E, every class does the former to one degree or another.  Wizards, and especially Warlocks still do the latter, and can take to any extreme, given a DM who is willing to take some latitude with fluffy special effects description.

Of course, that's really nothing new to 4E.



Mercule said:


> I think the real concern is that wizards should be surprising and need the ability to make people say, "Well, I didn't see that coming."  If that stays in place in 4e, I really don't see the power shift being an issue.




Wizards can still do that.  Just the other week, my party's Wizard caught me off guard during a fight with a half dozen pterodactyls (shadowhunter bats) that took place on a rope bridge over a thousand foot deep gorge...  He readied an action to smack several of them with Icy Terrain in mid-air (he described it as a miniature blizzard).  He hit two of them, knocking them prone and causing them to fall -- in effect killing them in a single shot when they hit bottom.

The difference I'm finding with 4E is that now the other classes have the opportunity to do the same.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 24, 2008)

Pbartender said:


> Bizarre as in gives special benefits with regards to game rules?  Or bizarre as is something that simply looks weird and magical?



Bizarre as in "that's... different" or "unexpected".  I think we both really like the creative image of magic.  Even though I prefer to play martial characters and view them more as the "main characters" of the story, I still like to see wizards have more tricks up their sleeves than others.  I think my player is similar, though I know he tilts further toward the arcanists being the "primaries".

Looking at the rest of your post, maybe the answer is to allow wizards (and warlocks, etc.) a bit more leeway with their fluff.  We've both played a lot of Hero and Mage: the Ascension, so the idea of an underlying mechanic being overlayed with creative fluff isn't new.  I could see where that would add the "magic" back to wizards, depending on exactly how re-fluffable the mechanics are in play.

That could also bring back one of the funnest things of 1e/2e play, which was the off-the-wall uses and combos of spells and abilities.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 24, 2008)

I've sort of progressed from, "What have they done to D&D???" to thinking of 4e as just another D&D-inspired fantasy game that doesn't do it for me, like HARP or Earthdawn or whatever. It's even remotely possible I could be badgered into playing it. I have a very similar feeling about it that I had about AD&D 2e in my college days... I considered the design goals a strange mix of the antique and the contrary, and I had mostly moved from AD&D at that point. Of course there are plenty of people who love 2e or who love 4e and that's great, but it's clear to me it's not a game designed with my interests in mind.

I'm still enjoying 3.5, but I've been feeling the twitch you get when a system becomes familiar enough to you that its problems become irritations rather than just obstacles. Pathfinder is probably not designed with me in mind, either, but as long as it remains close to 3.5 in most respects it's at least an avenue for publication. 

So in conclusion, I would not be eager to play 4e, but if it was the only game in town I would make the most of it. I would probably purposefully avoid wizards and their spellbooks and anything else I felt was sort of suspension-of-disbelief-breaking and try to find something in the new system I found appealing on its own merits. Trying to recreate older character concepts, even fairly archetypal ones, seems like a recipe for heartbreak. So I might try a dwarf fighter and take a look at what weapons seemed optimal for strategies I enjoy, or maybe try a tiefling rogue and go with what seems to be supported for that in the new edition. I have a soft spot for Eldritch Wizards but I haven't seen anything in 4e that really matches up with what was appealing about them; maybe a Swordmage with Wizard multiclassing who used a lot of rituals, but that's really just too much work to recreate a character who just basically doesn't exist in 4e the same way, just as 3e did away with the skills-based rogue who did not fight on the front lines unless forced to, and might spend several rounds in hiding waiting for an opportunity to backstab, and just as AD&D did away with a cleric who started off as a toned down fighter who could turn undead and only started casting spells at 2nd level. Trying to play an AD&D bard in AD&D 2e would be an exercise in frustration, as they went from a dual-classed druid variant with special abilities at higher levels to a rogue sub-class. In 3e, bards remained arcane spellcasters and did not make a return to their original form until someone sneaked in the Fochlucan lyricist.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 24, 2008)

I'm in pretty much the same position as pawsplay.  While I can respect 4Ed in and of itself, its not D&D to me- its just another FRPG.  I might play it, especially if asked to by friends, but I'll never run it.

For me, the major issues that so many people have with 3.X have simply never been more than an irritant to me.


----------



## Zustiur (Dec 25, 2008)

_Does the move from Vancian magic (or other subsystem changes, like fighter powers) "grow" on you?_
No.
_Do you still have the same issues you had when you started out?  _
Mostly. I won't list them as I don't want to invite edition war talk.
_Do you have different issues, especially any that surprised you?  _
Yes, combat is longer and slower than before, and that irks me, but I did not expect it.
_How long did it take for your opinion to change/cement?  _
To be honest it was pretty quick, but I'm still trying to like the system. It is a good game, taken on its own merit. But it's not the game I want to play. Unfortunately I'm stuck with it for the time being. I probably count as one of those being 'forced' to play 4E. My advice is to run a few more test games (Do NOT use KOTS!) and then see how your players feel. Sticking with 4E when player's aren't happy with it is not a good move for the group.
_Did anyone else in your group have a change of heart (in either direction)?_
Not that I've noticed no. We're all (except 1) trying to be open minded about it, and still playing and trying to make it feel better, but we're not making headway.

Again, my advice is to run some more test games, but not to force the issue. I suggest running games that do NOT use pre-written adventures. Write up a quick and simple adventure and use that to test. Absolutely avoid using KOTS, because I suspect a major part of my gripe with 4E is that I'm stuck in KOTS with no forseeable end to the drudgery.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 25, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> _Does the move from Vancian magic (or other subsystem changes, like fighter powers) "grow" on you?_
> *No.*
> _Do you still have the same issues you had when you started out?  _
> *Mostly. I won't list them as I don't want to invite edition war talk.*
> ...




This post, too, closely resembles my feelings about 4Ed.

It _IS_ a good game.  Its just not for me, nor does it seem to work for most of my buddies.  Instead of being forced to play 4Ed, the problem we have the opposite.

I bought the Core 3, went through it, didn't care for it, and then let others peruse them.  A couple of guys were curious about the game, but _nobody_ was willing to run it.


----------



## Zustiur (Dec 25, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I bought the Core 3, went through it, didn't care for it, and then let others peruse them.  A couple of guys were curious about the game, but _nobody_ was willing to run it.



I find this interesting. For a system that so many DMs love, I find the idea of DMing in 4E utterly repulsive. I'll play it because that's what the current DM is willing to run, but there's no way I'd run it. In fact I'm looking at starting a 3.5 or 3.P game in the next month or two, in spite of the fact it would be 'easier' to run in 4E. 
I've seen plenty of player talk on here suggesting they prefer 3.x, but from anecdotal evidence it appears DMs prefer 4E. I'm glad to see I'm not the only DM who feels 3.x is a better choice.

I've been planning to run a game for some time now, but I have to admit to myself that I am hoping my current DM will take the hint and begin to see the flaws in 4E. Sadly at this stage he seems to be one of the people blinded by the 'new flashy' and can't see why anyone else would prefer any other system.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 25, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> I've seen plenty of player talk on here suggesting they prefer 3.x, but from anecdotal evidence it appears DMs prefer 4E. I'm glad to see I'm not the only DM who feels 3.x is a better choice.




You can add me to the list of DMs that feel 3.x (despite its flaws) is a better choice.  Also, out of a dozen of so DMs that I know, only two are willing to run 4e. Of the two, one was doing a test of 4e and not sure he was going to stay with it while the other, whom had left rpgs during 2e, just happened to get interested in rpgs again as 4e was being released.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 25, 2008)

Greg K said:


> You can add me to the list of DMs that feel 3.x (despite its flaws) is a better choice.  Also, out of a dozen of so DMs that I know, only two are willing to run 4e. Of the two, one was doing a test of 4e and not sure he was going to stay with it while the other, whom had left rpgs during 2e, just happened to get interested in rpgs again as 4e was being released.




Its interesting how groups have different experiences. We have 5 different DMs in my immediate circle of friends who game. Not one will ever DM 3e again.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 25, 2008)

All things being equal, 4E is a far better game from a DMs standpoint.

1. If you don't like 4E from a personal taste standpoint, you likely aren't going to want to DM it.

2. If you are a heavy simulationist DM, or are a DM who likes crafting things down to the last detail, 4E likely isn't for you.

For most everyone else, 4E DMing is where its at.


----------



## Phaezen (Dec 25, 2008)

Dragonblade said:


> Its interesting how groups have different experiences. We have 5 different DMs in my immediate circle of friends who game. Not one will ever DM 3e again.




I am the main DM for one group, and I will never willingly DM 3e again when our current campaign finishes.  The other group I play with , the DM has decided to stay with 3.x/pathfinder due to the amount he has invested (both wotc and 3rd party) in the system.

Phaezen


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 25, 2008)

Phaezen said:


> I am the main DM for one group, and I will never willingly DM 3e again when our current campaign finishes.  The other group I play with , the DM has decided to stay with 3.x/pathfinder due to the amount he has invested (both wotc and 3rd party) in the system.
> 
> Phaezen




I forgot about that sort of DM, the one who has so much invested in a system he/she doesn't want to leave it behind. That DM type would be #3.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 25, 2008)

Dragonblade said:


> Its interesting how groups have different experiences.




Yes, that is what makes the world an interesting place.


----------



## Dragonblade (Dec 25, 2008)

Greg K said:


> Yes, that is what makes the world an interesting place.




Indeed it does.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 26, 2008)

> I'm glad to see I'm not the only DM who feels 3.x is a better choice.




Every time I DM 4e, it's like beating myself over the head with a halibut. Filled with nonsense. 



			
				thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> All things being equal, 4E is a far better game from a DMs standpoint.




What is a better game to DM is always subjective. Nothing is ever equal. This idea of 4e being the Holy Grail of DMing Majesty has more "truthiness" than veracity.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 26, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> All things being equal, 4E is a far better game from a DMs standpoint.
> 
> For most everyone else, 4E DMing is where its at.




"Better?"  How about the less judgement-loaded term, "different."

I understand that the game may be easier to set up and run for the DM, but I don't like the compromises and design decisions that make that possible.

Simply put, the things I don't like as a player, I also don't like from a DMing standpoint.

IOW, not "better," just different.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 26, 2008)

I said that 4E is generally a better DM experience than 3E for most people who don't specifically dislike 4E. 

People who dislike 4E are most likely going to dislike running it.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I said that 4E is generally a better DM experience than 3E for most people who don't specifically dislike 4E.
> 
> People who dislike 4E are most likely going to dislike running it.




3E is generally a better DM experience than 4E for most people who don't specifically dislike 3E.

People who dislike 3E are most likely going to dislike running it...

Won't this apply to any game you substitute??


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 26, 2008)

> I said that 4E is generally a better DM experience than 3E for most people who don't specifically dislike 4E.




You're getting your motives a bit mixed, methinks.

Someone might not like 4e because it is a worse DM experience for them.

I don't think anyone who thinks 4e makes a worse DM experience would like 4e.

The reasons 4e doesn't make a good DM experience for them isn't because they don't like 4e, but rather, the other way around.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 26, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 3E is generally a better DM experience than 4E for most people who don't specifically dislike 3E.
> 
> People who dislike 3E are most likely going to dislike running it...
> 
> Won't this apply to any game you substitute??




I don't dislike 3E. I was a bit frustrated with it towards the end, but I happily played nothing else for years. One doesn't have to dislike 3E to prefer 4E. 

I much prefer running 4E.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 26, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> One doesn't have to dislike 3E to prefer 4E.




Similarly, one doesn't have to dislike 4Ed to prefer 3.X.

I don't dislike 4Ed- I think there are some really good things in it and I'd happily play it.  If it were from another company and had a different name, I might be singing its praises.

I dislike 4Ed _as a replacement for 3.X._  (IOW, its the New Coke problem.)


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 26, 2008)

This may sound silly but did anyone here ever play by the rules a 1e/2e wizard?

You couldn't create magic items until 9th/10th level. The creation itself of even a minor magical trinket was an adventure in of itself. (see what it takes to create the Wand of Fire - 3E equivalent being the Staff of Fire).

Unless you were playing a specialist, you didn't really get to choose your spells and you had limited slots with no easy scroll creation to get around it.

Seriously, of the loss of the power of spellcasting in 4e versus 3e, it should never be forgotten that the 3E spellcasters SIGNIFICANTLY got a power-up from the transition from 2E to 3E.

Magic in pre 3E was NEVER as powerful in the hands of the PCs as it became in 3e.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 26, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> This may sound silly but did anyone here ever play by the rules a 1e/2e wizard?
> 
> You couldn't create magic items until 9th/10th level. The creation itself of even a minor magical trinket was an adventure in of itself. (see what it takes to create the Wand of Fire - 3E equivalent being the Staff of Fire).
> 
> ...




Truth

Add in to this:

1. 1E/2E games rarely went far past level 9
2. Combat took less time at the table, hence you tended to fight in a greater number of battles. Your spells per day had to go farther.
3. Wizards did not get bonus spells for high Int.
4. Save or Die type spells tended to dramatically decrease in power as you leveled up thanks to how saving throws worked.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 26, 2008)

There's a reason why Fireball was KING in 1e. 

Of course, this assumes you actually would get fireball as don't forget that not only were spells under DM control, spell acquisition was NOT a certainity. 

Having a 16 INT meant you only could know 11 spells per level AND only a 85% chance to learn a spell. Being a wizard in 2e vertainly wasn't the swiss army knife that people attribute it to being now....


----------



## BryonD (Dec 26, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "Better?"  How about the less judgement-loaded term, "different."



If I may be picky, I think the key term here is "equal", not "better".  

I personally find 4e to be greatly inferior.  But 4E had a different target audience than me in mind.  All things are most decidedly not equal.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 26, 2008)

BryonD said:


> All things are most decidedly not equal.




Things rarely are.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 26, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> All things being equal, 4E is a far better game from a DMs standpoint.
> 
> 1. If you don't like 4E from a personal taste standpoint, you likely aren't going to want to DM it.
> 
> ...




No more comments like this please. Making blanket statements like this are almost by definition false, because it is your opinion and it will differ from other peoples opinion.

Worse, it is in danger of being an opening salvo in an edition war.

Thanks


----------



## kigmatzomat (Dec 27, 2008)

I'm not fond of 4e.  I played 1e, 2e and 3e.  I see how 4e evolved and why it was designed the way it was.  For the goals they had, they did a good job.  I just don't have the same values.

I don't value balance above all.  I don't like rigid class frameworks.  I don't believe high level characters should be good at everything.  

I understand the issues with high level play but as a DM, that's the "big leagues."  If you can keep your setting coherent, rational, and functional without constantly nerfing the spells you are an 18th level DM.  Have a cookie while doing your game prep.  

Part of it is the realization I couldn't re-run my recently finished 3e campaign under 4e without a near total rewrite.  (A godswar had restricted all magic to <=2nd level and dragons took over because without magic the races of man couldn't pose a real threat).  In 4e what does the loss of magic mean?  Okay, I've kicked wizards, clerics, and warlocks in the vitals.  Fighters, rangers, rogues & warlords are now able to do dragon-killing attacks and will heal up on their own just fine.  That or I have to majorly overhaul the entire game system.  Double blarg.  

There's nothing like realizing a campaign you ran for ~7 years and 24 levels is almost conceptually incompatible with a rules system to make those rules unappealing.  

I must confess that part of my 4e dislike stems from the terms of the GSL, the timing of the GSL release, the way HasbrWotC dropped PCGen support, a lack of printed Dragon and Dungeon magazine, and the utterly less than impressive Gleemax/DDI.   It was like they looked at every ancillary aspect of 3e that I used and eliminated it.   (For the record my 3.x game shelf is ~90% WotC)


----------



## Herschel (Dec 27, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Well, here is a new one for you. I don't like 4e. It doesn't have elements that I like my games to have in them. I played it for several months and the only reason I liked it is because of who I was playing it with. The rules themselves bored me.




I feel the same way about 3rd Edition. He made an interesting but short-sighted point, I'll give you that, but wizards have never been a 'balanced' class. One thing I loved about early (first and second) editions was how hard they were to keep alive to get to that power level and how relatively useless they were until they got a couple of levels on them. It made someone playing a wizard want to play the whole thing, not just the really powerful incarnations. In my experience, some of the best RPing/strategizing came from beginning wizards because they didn't have unlimited burts or whatever. They also made good use of cantrips.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 27, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 3E is generally a better DM experience than 4E for most people who don't specifically dislike 3E.
> 
> People who dislike 3E are most likely going to dislike running it...
> 
> Won't this apply to any game you substitute??





No. 

3rd Edition is far more labor-intensive and less "flexible" than any other edition to run. There are rules for EVERYTHING. If you like that, it's all good, but you have to admit it's quicker and easier to run a game in another edition with all else being equal.

Admittedly all else is rarely equal. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 27, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I dislike 4Ed _as a replacement for 3.X._ (IOW, its the New Coke problem.)





Coke "Classic" tastes like a combination of battery acid and dish soap. Grognards ruined what could have been a great change. 

/smart-alecy comment to mood lighten


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 28, 2008)

To really experience "battery acid" Coke, you need to try it in Germany.  They like theirs extra carbonated over there.  You can fill your glass and let it sit an hour and it will still be bubbling like crazy.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 28, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To really experience "battery acid" Coke, you need to try it in Germany.  They like theirs extra carbonated over there.  You can fill your glass and let it sit an hour and it will still be bubbling like crazy.



Oh, another reason to go to Germany.  I can't even stand to pour American Coke into a glass because it loses too much fizz.


----------



## Zil (Dec 28, 2008)

Our group started out as being somewhat skeptical about 4E when we started playing, but a couple of players were really gung-ho so we gave it a try.  After playing for a while and gaining a few levels the majority of the players decided we preferred to play 3.5 so we've gone back there.  That doesn't mean we'd refuse to play 4E ever again, just that for now we're playing around with Pathfinder.  

I played the wizard character in the 4E campaign.  At first, I quite enjoyed myself and I actually felt a bit overpowered at 1st level compared to a 3.5 wizard.  Eventually though things got to be a bit too repetitive somehow.   I also did miss the Vancian magic and found that the somewhat sterile rituals didn't really make the grade for what I was expecting for D&D magic.


----------



## Lars Porsenna (Dec 29, 2008)

Despite reading the PHB, and all the stuff I read pre-release, I went ahead and played in a campaign for several months with 4e. Our group was trying to give it a 'fair shake," and despite not liking what I was reading, decided to give it a go. Like any game with a good group of friends, we had our fun, but it wasn't long before I grew bored of playing my character (fighter), grinding through a combat, and end up using the same at-will ability over and over again (of course that's after whiffing my daily and/or encounter powers), not having any glory since all the other players can for the most part do more damage (except perhaps the "leaders").

The real downer to this is that 4e came very close to breaking up the group, with several flat out refusing to play 4e anymore counterbalanced by those that really like the rules (only a couple). We compromised and are playing SWSE for now, but what happens when we want to do fantasy again? Play Pathfinder (my choice)? Stick with 3e? Convert to 4e? All these options are fraught with landmines...

Damon.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 29, 2008)

Lars Porsenna said:


> The real downer to this is that 4e came very close to breaking up the group, with several flat out refusing to play 4e anymore counterbalanced by those that really like the rules (only a couple). We compromised and are playing SWSE for now, but what happens when we want to do fantasy again? Play Pathfinder (my choice)? Stick with 3e? Convert to 4e? All these options are fraught with landmines...



Unfortunately, I see shades of this in my group.  I've come to hate 3.x -- even before 4e was announced, I was looking for an exit to the campaign I was running.  I think I could handle running purely canned, short-run modules or playing non-casters, but Vancian magic has annoyed me since the early 1980s and has aged like rotting fish.  I also don't have any interest in managing the rules required to prep adventures at levels 10+.

On the other end of things is the player I'm concerned about with 4e.  I don't know that he's necessarily of the opinion that 3e is without its flaws, but he's quite uncomfortable with how 4e looks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 29, 2008)

Lars Porsenna said:


> We compromised and are playing SWSE for now, but what happens when we want to do fantasy again? Play Pathfinder (my choice)? Stick with 3e? Convert to 4e? All these options are fraught with landmines...
> 
> Damon.




Solomon-like, I suggest you "split the baby," with some people running 3.X PCs, and others running 4Ed PCs in the same campaign, until one side or the other relents.

OK, maybe that won't work.  But constantly butting heads over 3.X vs 4Ed falls under that popular definition of insanity- doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

Instead of continuing to argue about those games, try playing fantasy in another system.

Personally, given the different tastes, I'd choose HERO (using Fantasy HERO) as my next choice, but M&M would do just about as well.  Green Ronin is going to be releasing a FRPG based on its game, too.



Pramas said:


> Here's the info for Warriors & Warlocks. We'll be talking more about it on mutantsandmasterminds.com as we get closer to release.
> 
> *Warriors & Warlocks*
> _A Mutants & Masterminds Sourcebook_
> ...





Why should you try Fantasy HERO or Warriors and Warlocks?

Because with either of those systems, by using some creative PC design, you actually *could *structure your PCs to run like 3.X or 4Ed PCs as was your preference.

That's right- you could have full Vancian 3.X style spellcasters adventuring beside Fighters who mark and use healing surges, daily, encounter and at-will powers.  Or whatever.

Its not _quite_ splitting the baby, but its close.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 29, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> You couldn't create magic items until 9th/10th level. The creation itself of even a minor magical trinket was an adventure in of itself. (see what it takes to create the Wand of Fire - 3E equivalent being the Staff of Fire).




This is known as a GOOD thing. Easily churned out magical items become less magical and more like mundane equipment. Once magical items become standard gear, whats special or magical about them?



AllisterH said:


> Magic in pre 3E was NEVER as powerful in the hands of the PCs as it became in 3e.




I don't know about that. You might be confusing powerful with ubiquitous here. 3E characters had more access to magic in various forms than characters from earlier editions, but was that magic more powerful?


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 29, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't know about that. You might be confusing powerful with ubiquitous here. 3E characters had more access to magic in various forms than characters from earlier editions, but was that magic more powerful?




The spells themselves became more powerful in most cases. This was mostly due to a few reasons.

1. The save system. By the time a mage got to the Save or Die/Suck spells at levels 6 and higher, the PCs themselves didn't have "weak" saves. Even without gear, many character classes could simply expect a better than average chance of flat out ignoring any spell. Throw in the lack of ways for spellcasters to apply penalties to the saves/bonuses to the spell a la Spell Focus and the faster progression of non-wizard characters, you're looking at an underlying system than favours the non-wizard player.

2. Spells were simply not that strong. Contrast Shapechange pre 3E with the problems people had with it in. Similarly, other spells like Permanency, Wish had major drawbacks in their use for the caster. Really, by and large, while the damage dealing spells lost effectiveness in the change, the really problematic spells actually became more powerful and useful.

3. Higher level spells tended to be weaker in combat due to the "every round roll initiative and apply casting/weapon speed" rule. IIRC,  a longsword had a Wpn Spd of 4 thus any spell higher than level 4 was less likely to suceed. Remember, there were no rules for concentration/withstanding damage and thus, if a mage used a level 8 spell in combat, from the beginning of the round to the time in the initiative order, the mage couldn't move or take any damage or the spell would be lost.

So yes, magic was much less powerful pre-3E. It's why I find the arguments that 3E's magic is "the same thing like 1e/2e" to be so not true...


----------



## Lars Porsenna (Dec 31, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Instead of continuing to argue about those games, try playing fantasy in another system.




Easier said than done. I'd love to play FREX WHFRPG, or GURPS. The problem (as I see it) is we play a World of Greyhawk campaign, and unless it has that D&D feel, well...

Plus then you'd have to convert all the monsters, and that can be a lot of work. 

We tried M&M and some people liked it, others did not. The Fans of 4e were very much in the "I don't want to play complex games!" crowd, and yes we almost lost someone when we were talking about playing a short M&M (if 3xe is complex...). 

Perhaps the best compromise is to ditch D&D altogther and just play SW for a long while (we plan on doing this till at least August when PF comes out, for our playtest), but then abandoning a continuous campaign that has lasted 12+ years and 2 editions isn't attractive either...

Damon.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2008)

Lars Porsenna said:


> Easier said than done. I'd love to play FREX WHFRPG, or GURPS. The problem (as I see it) is we play a World of Greyhawk campaign, and unless it has that D&D feel, well...
> 
> Plus then you'd have to convert all the monsters, and that can be a lot of work.
> 
> ...




Well, I can't help the M&M love/hate thing, but, when it comes to different systems...

You don't have to convert ALL the monsters, just a few KEY ones.  The ones that matter most to your campaign.

Other games will have other monsters- ones with which your players will be unfamiliar.  That will bring back a bit of the mystery and caution that came with early gaming experiences.  And some critters are nearly universal to FRPGs.

Besides, you can bet that someone else has probably already converted the best of the best to any given system- all you need to do is ask on the right board.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 31, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> This may sound silly but did anyone here ever play by the rules a 1e/2e wizard?
> 
> You couldn't create magic items until 9th/10th level. The creation itself of even a minor magical trinket was an adventure in of itself. (see what it takes to create the Wand of Fire - 3E equivalent being the Staff of Fire).
> 
> ...




I found the 1e/2e wizards less powerful and more magical.  I'm tempted to run a 2e game or maybe hackmaster because i loved the feel of magic in the earlier editions. 

Its kind of funny when I was playing 2e I complained about how worthless the save or die spells were because the odds of a failed save and or magic resistance tests were so high you could not risk wasting  a round casting them.  I wanted something like my level or stats to matter for saves and magic resistance.  I got what I wanted, and boy did it taste bad.  Save or dies went from don't cast, to super powerful always cast spells that turned fights into 1 round wonders.  

As a DM it even felt worse, because before I could have a caster or monster pull out a low success chance but awesomely powerful save or die and not have to worry, in 3e i was worried about it being  a TPK.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 31, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> I found the 1e/2e wizards less powerful and more magical. I'm tempted to run a 2e game or maybe hackmaster because i loved the feel of magic in the earlier editions.
> 
> Its kind of funny when I was playing 2e I complained about how worthless the save or die spells were because the odds of a failed save and or magic resistance tests were so high you could not risk wasting a round casting them. I wanted something like my level or stats to matter for saves and magic resistance. I got what I wanted, and boy did it taste bad. Save or dies went from don't cast, to super powerful always cast spells that turned fights into 1 round wonders.
> 
> As a DM it even felt worse, because before I could have a caster or monster pull out a low success chance but awesomely powerful save or die and not have to worry, in 3e i was worried about it being a TPK.




In Hindisght, I think spells were designed under the simple basis of a) Rarity and b) Their low chance of success.

It is somewhat _balanced_ that spells could do anything and trump mundane skills since the PCs, thanks to the rules, couldn't abuse the spells in applying the perfect spell for every situation.....

Once 3E actually made spells that had a decent chance of success AND that PCs could reasonably expect to get them (contrast what a 10th level mage spellbook would have pre 3e in terms of number of spells), the spells themselves needed to be toned down.....

But of course, other than damaging deal spells, the self same spells became more powerful in 3E.

I can see why even though the 1e/2e wizard was less powerful but more magical since the world itself ran under the assumption that it was mundane.....I mean, pre-3E, did shopkeepers et al have to design their houses around the KNOCK spell or did castle designers really have to worry about people flying over via FLY or using PASSWALL? I wold argue no because the use of said spells would be so rare that it wasn't worth considering thus the world should resemble a basically mundane world thus any magic that is used would stand out more so from the background....

Can you justify though it in a 3E world where KNOCK is going to be a STANDARD spell and pretty much any mage even with a 13 INT is going to know that spell?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2008)

> did castle designers really have to worry about people flying over via FLY or using PASSWALL? I wold argue no because the use of said spells would be so rare that it wasn't worth considering thus the world should resemble a basically mundane world thus any magic that is used would stand out more so from the background....




I would argue yes.  Not so much because of the spells, but because of the hostile creatures whose abilities the spells mimic.  IOW, its not just the spellcasters, its all of the other supernatural creatures out there.

No, its not reflected in the art, but if you REALLY think about it, regardless of RPG, if you have flying dragons, djinn, harpies, etc., you HAVE to design your castles with flying creatures in mind.

In a world where there are incorporeal creatures, astral or ethereal jaunters, etc., you HAVE to train your men-at-arms some kind of techniques to deal with them, even if its just *"Call the Wizard!"*

And not to put too fine a point on it...if you think RW miners and sappers were a pain, think about maintaining wall integrity in a world with bulettes, ankhegs, xorn and earth elementals.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 31, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I would argue yes. Not so much because of the spells, but because of the hostile creatures whose abilities the spells mimic. IOW, its not just the spellcasters, its all of the other supernatural creatures out there.
> 
> No, its not reflected in the art, but if you REALLY think about it, regardless of RPG, if you have flying dragons, djinn, harpies, etc., you HAVE to design your castles with flying creatures in mind.
> 
> ...




But this gets back to the "how fantastic is the background of the world" argument. Sure, if you;re a masonry worker in a Ravenloft domain, part of your standard mortar mixture probably contains natural ingredients to prevent ghosts and other incorporeal creatures from simply ghosting through...

I would argue though that someone from say Cerilia and even Krynn wouldn't face those issues. Krynn has dragons and there really is no way to dragonproof a castle but conversely, 99% of the typical Krynn adventure is with mundane humanoids.

Same thing goes for what I consider the baseline D&D world, namely Greyhawk. Sure, there are wandering monsters but that's just it, there wandering monsters that you encounter in the wilderness. Take a look at the typical wandering monster table by location in the 1e DMG. 

You don't really encounter "fantastic" monsters until you hit the wilderness.


----------



## Pbartender (Dec 31, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, its not reflected in the art, but if you REALLY think about it, regardless of RPG, if you have flying dragons, djinn, harpies, etc., you HAVE to design your castles with flying creatures in mind.
> 
> In a world where there are incorporeal creatures, astral or ethereal jaunters, etc., you HAVE to train your men-at-arms some kind of techniques to deal with them, even if its just *"Call the Wizard!"*
> 
> And not to put too fine a point on it...if you think RW miners and sappers were a pain, think about maintaining wall integrity in a world with bulettes, ankhegs, xorn and earth elementals.




Which is why in D&D worlds A) there are so many underground "dungeons" around, and B) local lords have so so much use for professional Adventurers who have the specialized skills to deal with such threats.  In areas where such creatures are a constant threat, these tactics will emerge.  In areas where they are rare, they won't, and they'll resort to "Call in the Wizard!"

Of course, a standard fortified keep (even without a wall), is still pretty good proof against flying creatures as an enclosed stone building.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 31, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> But this gets back to the "how fantastic is the background of the world" argument._<snip>_
> 
> You don't really encounter "fantastic" monsters until you hit the wilderness.




Except when it comes to castles.

Make no mistake- castles are military installations that require all kinds of materials, and they're going to attract attention.

Some of those materials are going to require people go into fairly remote areas to collect them...which is where the rarest and most dangerous beasties are likely to reside.

And if you're a sentient critter like a dragon and you see someone building a fortress in your area, you're going to consider your future very carefully.

Assuming the materials get to the site and the castle gets built, if it doesn't take into account hostile flying critters at the very least, a castle will fail.  Read some of those monster descriptions- many of them are not afraid to raid human communities for food, be it cattle or serfs.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 1, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> If the 3e wizard fan is mature enough to recognize the 4e changes were made to be make the game more playable across more levels and to give other classes a share of the spotlight, then they should be fine after a while. But if they are not mature enough to handle that change, then they will never be happy with 4e.




If someone doesn't like what you like that means they're immature?

ROFL.

I don't think the word "mature" means what you think it means.

4th Edition is a fundamentally different game than previous editions of D&D. It doesn't scratch many of the same itches. It doesn't even try to. If those particular itches weren't important to you, then 4th Edition may be preferable. But if those itches are important, then 4th Edition isn't going to work.

In the case of the player who prefers 3rd Edition wizards, the itch he's looking for is character customization. Pre-3rd Edition, wizards were basically the customizable classes. 3rd Edition opened up the customization of other classes, but lots of old school wizard players just kept right on playing wizards (which remained the most customizable class -- particularly in terms of their ability to customize to different situations on different days).

In 4th Edition, customization has been drastically curtailed. There are fewer options and the options are all very similar to each other. This is theoretically great for balance (although in practice 4th Edition appears to be just as broken and unbalanced as 3rd Edition was), but if you play roleplaying games because you enjoy tinkering with your characters... Well, the game you enjoy playing has been severely castrated.

One of my personal bugaboos is the relationship between the game world and the game rules. My preference is for all action to be born out of the game world. I "translate" that action into the system and use the system to resolve the action. I want the mechanical aspects of the system to be smooth, effective, accurate, and fun -- but I still consider them to be in service to the world and not vice versa.

4th Edition not only turns that on its head, it frequently says, " the game world. The game world doesn't matter. The mechanics do what the mechanics do."

And, again: If these things weren't important to you, you probably don't miss them. You probably don't even understand the problem.

Here's an analogy: You take someone who loves football and you tell them they have to play baseball instead. They object.

"What are you talking about?" you say. "It's still a sport! It's still played with a ball! There are still teams! You still keep score! The team with the most points at the end of the game still wins! It's played in a stadium! The players wear uniforms! It's still broadcast on television! There are still play-by-play announcers! Concessions are still sold in the stands!"

That's all true. But baseball isn't football.

And, for me, 4th Edition isn't D&D. I don't care what name is printed on the front cover. It isn't the game I've been playing since 1989.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 1, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> In the case of the player who prefers 3rd Edition wizards, the itch he's looking for is character customization. Pre-3rd Edition, wizards were basically the customizable classes. 3rd Edition opened up the customization of other classes, but lots of old school wizard players just kept right on playing wizards (which remained the most customizable class -- particularly in terms of their ability to customize to different situations on different days).
> 
> 
> .




But this wasn't true in pre 3E at all. Not if you were playing by the rules anyway....

It was printed in big bold letters that spell acquisition was firmly under the control of the DM. Furthermore, generalist wizards got to choose a new spell only once every time they gained a new spell level and spell research was long and expensive....

Time for research = 2 wks per spell level
Cost of Research = 1d10x100gp per spell level
Success chance = 10% + 1% per ability score + 1% per xp level - (2 x spell level)

That doesn't even take into account that you were supposed to have a laboratory/library which gets into the thousands of gp.

Your best shot was by capturing spellbooks, but if you look at any official adventure, they rarely gave out that many captuired spellbooks. I'm not sure where this infinte customization idea come from unless you houseruled extensively.


----------



## EroGaki (Jan 1, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> If someone doesn't like what you like that means they're immature?
> 
> ROFL.
> 
> ...





That is how I feel, in a nutshell, about 4th Ed. I couldn't have said it better myself. I much prefer football


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 1, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> But this wasn't true in pre 3E at all. Not if you were playing by the rules anyway....
> 
> It was printed in big bold letters that spell acquisition was firmly under the control of the DM. Furthermore, generalist wizards got to choose a new spell only once every time they gained a new spell level and spell research was long and expensive....
> 
> ...




First of all, you can capture a spellbook from virtually any other wizard you defeat. You defeat Bargle the Magic-User? You now have Bargle's complete, 6th level spell book. 

Second, you you can attempt to convert scrolls, far less arduous than performing research. 

Third, earlier editions often assumed a fair amount of downtime. If you had a few hundred or thousand gp, you could and would research just about anything you wanted. 

Fourth, although the DMG discouraged selling spells, NPCs are not completely impervious to bribery.


----------



## Ahglock (Jan 1, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> First of all, you can capture a spellbook from virtually any other wizard you defeat. You defeat Bargle the Magic-User? You now have Bargle's complete, 6th level spell book.
> 
> Second, you you can attempt to convert scrolls, far less arduous than performing research.
> 
> ...




In my experience past the low-mid levels most spell books and scrolls from adventures looked a lot a like.  While you did in fact have a decent chance at a fairly hefty spell book of your own, I rarely got much past a certain common list from scrolls and spell books.  

I had no where near the same level of spell options actually known by my wizards in 2e as compared to a similar level 3e character.  Which is kind of weird considering how many more adventures I had to go on in order to reach mid levels in 2e.  

The 4 things in 3e that I felt really advantaged wizards more than previous editions, was freer access to spells, the new save system, the concentration skill, and charged items.(I came to hate wands of knock and similar toe stepping items)

In 2e, I had less spells known, due to the save system I primarily used damaging spells, any damage interrupted my spells if it hit me in the round before I got it off, and if I used a spell like knock or other spell that might step on toes it really cut into my daily resources.  

While at the time I did not like spell interruption in core 2e, I much preferred it to the almost guaranteed casting of spells in 3e.  I wanted protection from scratches when casting spells, I think spells and magic had an option for this where you could ignore like 2 points of damage when trying to get a spell off.  Another isntance of me getting what I asked for and regretting it.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 1, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> First of all, you can capture a spellbook from virtually any other wizard you defeat. You defeat Bargle the Magic-User? You now have Bargle's complete, 6th level spell book. .




Ah but how often did this occur? Even the published adventures, while being free with the magical items including scrolls, the poor wizard would have to wait a few levels.


pawsplay said:


> Second, you you can attempt to convert scrolls, far less arduous than performing research.
> .




True, but don't forget that it required the caster to pass their spell learn roll. Even with a 17 INT, a generalist only had a 75% chance of learning a spell and the scroll was used up even in failure Thus, there was a big incentive NOT to transcribe it from a scroll into your spellbook. 

(As a side question, did anyone ever actually play with a 15 INT or lower INT wizard?)



pawsplay said:


> Third, earlier editions often assumed a fair amount of downtime. If you had a few hundred or thousand gp, you could and would research just about anything you wanted. .




THIS is a change I didn't note from 1e/2e to 3E. This though was still pretty extensive...Did people really handwave away the months (seriously, any decent spell research/item was taking months of gameworld time)


pawsplay said:


> Fourth, although the DMG discouraged selling spells, NPCs are not completely impervious to bribery.




I'm not sure that's a valid point as you yourself note, the DMG strongly recommends against this method of spell acquisition.

Still, given the other things like the initative system, the actual other subsystems with regard to magic and the sheer few ways to abuse spells, are you honestly saying that a 1e/2e mage is ANYWHERE close in power or versatility to his 3E counterpart?

I think another reason why magic became so overpowering was conversely that CHOICE that magic gave to players in 3e. Previously, the DMG STRONGLY recommended that spells only be introduced into the PC hands via the DM choice....

As such, a smart DM could potentially catch any effective/cheesy combination of spells and thus nip it in the bud even beforehand. The 3E designers basically assumed I think that players wouldn't try to maximize the spell choices/combine spells in ways they didn't see...

E.g. In all the years I was playing/DM 1e/2e I never once saw the obvious combination of Wall of Force and Stinking Cloud. The mages back then certainly HAD the spells at their disposal but the actual use of those two spells together at the same time?

Nope.

In 3e, this must be the 1st thing they teach apprentice mages because practically everyone knows that trick....


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 2, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> But this wasn't true in pre 3E at all. Not if you were playing by the rules anyway.... It was printed in big bold letters that spell acquisition was firmly under the control of the DM.




That's like saying you don't have the ability to customize characters in 3rd Edition if the DM says "core rulebooks only".



> Time for research = 2 wks per spell level
> Cost of Research = 1d10x100gp per spell level
> Success chance = 10% + 1% per ability score + 1% per xp level - (2 x spell level)




I played previous editions for years. I think I can count the number of times spells were researched on one hand. Possibly on one finger.

Wizards got their spells from leveling up and from looting spellbooks. If your DM was castrating your spell options, then your DM was castrating your spell options. I'm not sure what relevance that has on the actual qualities of the game system. And even if it is true, unless they were _severely_ limiting your spell selection, the wizard class was still the most customizable class in previous editions.



> Your best shot was by capturing spellbooks, but if you look at any official adventure, they rarely gave out that many captuired spellbooks. I'm not sure where this infinte customization idea come from unless you houseruled extensively.




And I'm not sure where you pulled the word "infinite" out of. I'm assuming your ass.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 2, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Ah but how often did this occur? Even the published adventures, while being free with the magical items including scrolls, the poor wizard would have to wait a few levels.




Module A2 p.34-35 -Markessa's spellbooks
Module I1 p.16- The spellbooks of Kwairno & Horan
Module U1 p. p. 12 Sanbalet's spellbook
                  p. 22 Punketah's spellbook

Module L2 p. 28 Arrness' spellbook
Module I2  p.30 Sekatha's spellbook
               p. 22 Gormundel's spellbook

Module L1  p. 10 Telvar's spellbook


I would say pretty often on average.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 2, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> And I'm not sure where you pulled the word "infinite" out of. I'm assuming your ass.





Well then, please tell me how much customization a 1e/2e wizard actually had under their control? You acknowledged that in your own game spell research wasn't where it was at, thus the customization wasn't under the control of the player, thus I'm wondering HOW you define the term customization.

Silly me, I always saw the term customization angle as something that the players control and not subject to the whims of a DM.

re: Spell books

Modules did have spellbooks but it was really weird at times how they decided what was in them....

e.g. sometimes the spellbook would simply have X number of spell levels limited to a level of spells or would actually list the spells yet in the same module there would be spellbooks with the same spells.

re: Power of magic
To all those arguing with me, are you simply stating that magic in 1e/2e was even CLOSE to the power of the 3E wizard? I'm curious to see how much resistance there is to that idea...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2009)

Well, one thing that Wizards in earlier editions had over their cousins in subsequent editions is that few of the spells actually had damage caps.

IOW, a spell that did 1d6/caster level simply got more and more powerful as the caster improved.  In some cases, those spells also improved their areas and range the same way.  Now translate that into an "epic" level game...

A 30th level 1Ed mage is slinging 30d6 fireballs and lightning bolts from those 3rd level slots.  The mages from later editions have those slots capped at 10d6.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 2, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, one thing that Wizards in earlier editions had over their cousins in subsequent editions is that few of the spells actually had damage caps.
> 
> IOW, a spell that did 1d6/caster level simply got more and more powerful as the caster improved. In some cases, those spells also improved their areas and range the same way. Now translate that into an "epic" level game...
> 
> A 30th level 1Ed mage is slinging 30d6 fireballs and lightning bolts from those 3rd level slots. The mages from later editions have those slots capped at 10d6.




Now that's one area where spellcasters actually got screwed (technically, 2e wizards had damage caps though). Here's something contradictory from me given my rants on the powering up of the 3e wizard, evocation spells need a SIGNIFICANT bump in power.

I actually think the evocation spells got nerfed really badly in the transition to 3E. 2 reasons for this mainly.

Not only did both monsters and PCs get bonus HP from CON (and let's face it, the addition of CON could almost double the HP gained from just HD) but Healing became much more available to both the PCs and the opposition.

With the crack pipe that is the Wand of Cure Light Wounds, nobody enters battle in 3E at less than full HP past 5th level IME. Thus, what I remember from previous editions of players having to adventure with only half or even quarter HP made evocation spells even MORE effective. 

Remember when the cleric only had so many slots left for healing and it didn't make sense to blow a slot on healing if you had at least half your HP left?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2009)

> With the crack pipe that is the Wand of Cure Light Wounds, nobody enters battle in 3E at less than full HP past 5th level IME.




I cannot recall a single campaign in which anyone had one of those with more than a few charges.

As the saying goes, your mileage may vary.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 2, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Well then, please tell me how much customization a 1e/2e wizard actually had under their control? You acknowledged that in your own game spell research wasn't where it was at, thus the customization wasn't under the control of the player, thus I'm wondering HOW you define the term customization.




What the heck are you talking about?

(1) Even in the most restricted game, the player still gets to choose at least one spell at every level. That's far more options than the fighter had in pre-3rd edition rulesets.

(2) The number of spells a wizard had in their spellbook was always, IME, significantly larger than the number of spells they could cast per day. This meant that, on any given day, the wizard was able to customize their spell selection.

Here's what this conversation looks like to me:

Me: Here's a big box of Legos. Build whatever you want to.
AllisterH: I have no control over what I can build!
Me: What?
AllisterH: You gave me the box of Legos, therefore I have no control over what I can build!

AFAICT, the definition of "customization" you're using is so incredibly narrow that no edition of D&D has ever featured it for the PCs.



> To all those arguing with me, are you simply stating that magic in 1e/2e was even CLOSE to the power of the 3E wizard?




No. The 3rd Edition wizard is significantly less powerful, IME. 3rd Edition nerfed a lot of spells.


----------



## jasin (Jan 2, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I cannot recall a single campaign in which anyone had one of those with more than a few charges.



Why? Were magic items impossible to buy or make?


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 2, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I cannot recall a single campaign in which anyone had one of those with more than a few charges.
> 
> As the saying goes, your mileage may vary.




Why don't they have them? They're really inexpensive and are great for after-battle healing....

re: power of the 3e wizard

I'm a little bit surprised that BotE thinks the 3e wizard actually got nerfed. Other than evocation that got nerfed horribly, the 3e wizard made out like a bandit.

From not needing a spells learn roll %, to the change in the initiative system, to the fact that many of the spells now favour the wizard (contrast shapechange for example or any save or die/suck spell) to the easy addition of spell slots in the form of magical items like wands and scrolls, the 3e wizard has it all over the 1e/2e wizard.

As an aside, the pre 3e generalist wizard didn't get one spell per level. They got one spell per SPELL level and this wasn't their choice depending on DM whim. SPECIALIST got one specialist spell of their choice every level.

As well, unless you were rolling straight 17s and 18s, you only knew 9 spells per level and with no hotswapping of spells for level, good luck having the best spell for every situation.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 2, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I'm a little bit surprised that BotE thinks the 3e wizard actually got nerfed.




What I actually said is that 3rd Edition nerfed a lot of spells. Which is true.



> Other than evocation that got nerfed horribly, the 3e wizard made out like a bandit.




When did _stone shape_ or _wish_ become evocation spells? (To name two off the top of my head.)

But, sure. Other than all the ways in which their powers were nerfed, wizards weren't nerfed. You've formed a beautiful tautology there. 



> As well, unless you were rolling straight 17s and 18s, you only knew 9 spells per level




You have an interesting definition of the word "only". How many abilities of the 2nd Edition fighter were customizable? How many of those could be re-customized each day?

And yet you claim that the wizard wasn't the class people played when they wanted to customize their character.


----------



## Zustiur (Jan 2, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> In the case of the player who prefers 3rd Edition wizards, the itch he's looking for is character customization. Pre-3rd Edition, wizards were basically the customizable classes. 3rd Edition opened up the customization of other classes, but lots of old school wizard players just kept right on playing wizards (which remained the most customizable class -- particularly in terms of their ability to customize to different situations on different days).



Quoted for those who've run off at a tangent. At no point did BotE say that the customization was in choosing what spells you learned. The wizard/mage was the customizable class, _when compared with other classes of the same edition._



			
				Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> One of my personal bugaboos is the relationship between the game world and the game rules. My preference is for all action to be born out of the game world. I "translate" that action into the system and use the system to resolve the action. I want the mechanical aspects of the system to be smooth, effective, accurate, and fun -- but I still consider them to be in service to the world and not vice versa.
> 
> 4th Edition not only turns that on its head, it frequently says, " the game world. The game world doesn't matter. The mechanics do what the mechanics do."



XP for BotE there. This sums up exactly how I feel about the rules. DnD is essentially about telling stories. The rules are there to help tell the story. Not to over-ride the story. 4E gets this very wrong. This is one of the points where 'board gamey' or 'computer gamey' comes in, because the rules are more important than the story, just as in any board game.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 2, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> What I actually said is that 3rd Edition nerfed a lot of spells. Which is true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How did Wish get nerfed in 3E? The 1e/2e version was only castable by humans and had serious drawbacks of namely requiring bed rest for the better part of a week and aged you permanently 5 years. The 3e version only loses 5000xp which can be presumably gotten back by adventuring....

 Similarly, the Stone Shape spell in 2e had a 1 round casting time (is a std action in 3e), was a 5th level spell for wizards (became 4th level for wizards in 3e) and affected only 9 cu ft +1 cu ft/level (the 3.x version starts at 10 cu ft + 1 cu ft/level)

How is that spell nerfed in 3e 


Beginning of the End said:


> You have an interesting definition of the word "only". How many abilities of the 2nd Edition fighter were customizable? How many of those could be re-customized each day?
> 
> And yet you claim that the wizard wasn't the class people played when they wanted to customize their character.




Compared to the 3e version? I thought the argument was that the 2e version was as customizable as the swiss army knife version that the 3E wizard was.

This I disagree with. A wizard in previous editions would rarely have the best spells for the job and even if they did have them memorized, they would think long and hard about using them. (with no wand of Knock, are you really going to use up your 2nd level slots for that spell or are you going to let the thief handle it?)

re: Zustiur

I simply take issue with the idea that the 3e wizard is simply the evolution of the 1e/2e wizard. I think it's an entirely new class along the lines of the warlord since every subsystem that kept it in check was done away.

Many of the arguments against the 4e wizard DO come down to simply it not being as powerful/versatile as the 3E wizard. My point, which I think you ignored, is that the 3E wizard itself was an entirely new class to the game when compared to its predecessors.


----------



## Thistonius (Jan 2, 2009)

Wouldn't it be better to just say that some people prefer 4th ed than 3rd ed without going into how a class is compared to other classes of an earlier version?

To me, the OP was starting a fire-lighter topic which would set this off as an Edition war disguised as one of their plsyer's feelings to his class.

Both editions have their fans whilst having their haters as well.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 2, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> What the heck are you talking about?
> 
> (1) Even in the most restricted game, the player still gets to choose at least one spell at every level. That's far more options than the fighter had in pre-3rd edition rulesets.
> 
> (2) The number of spells a wizard had in their spellbook was always, IME, significantly larger than the number of spells they could cast per day. This meant that, on any given day, the wizard was able to customize their spell selection.



Technically, in 1e, you do all of the following as a 1st-level Wizard:

(1) Look up your Intelligence score.  Find your % to Know chance.

(2) Go through the entire list of 1st-level spells, starting wherever you'd like.  If you succeed, you _may_ know this spell.  If you fail, can never know this spell, unless (IIRC) your Intelligence increases or you do your own spell research.

(3) If you've hit your Max # of Spells per Level, stop.  You're done, until your Intelligence increases.  Those are the spells you can learn.  If you are lucky enough to find scrolls with these spells, you can add them to your spellbook.

(4) If you have finished the entire list and have not hit your Minimum # of Spells Per Level, go back through and re-check spells until you reach the Minimum #.

Repeat this every time you attain a new level of spells.  Or, just go through the whole spell list up to level 9 when you make the character.  It'll work out the same, either way.

Now, with that said, very few people _actually did this._  I know I'm not, in my own 1e game.  It's one of those many cases where the 1e rules are fundamentally different from the way 1e was played.  But, that might be what AllisterH was referring to.

-O


----------



## Rel (Jan 2, 2009)

Zustiur said:


> DnD is essentially about telling stories. The rules are there to help tell the story. Not to over-ride the story. 4E gets this very wrong. This is one of the points where 'board gamey' or 'computer gamey' comes in, because the rules are more important than the story, just as in any board game.




Can you explain this to me?  I don't get it.

I'm planning a new campaign for 4e and I don't feel my storytelling options are reduced in any way from previous editions.  What am I missing?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 2, 2009)

jasin said:


> Why? Were magic items impossible to buy or make?




1) Almost nobody in our group bothers with the Item Crafting Feats.  Those that did weren't making wands.

2) Magic shops exist, but they don't have everything.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 2, 2009)

Zustiur said:


> DnD is essentially about telling stories. The rules are there to help tell the story. Not to over-ride the story. *3E* gets this very wrong. This is one of the points where 'board gamey' or 'computer gamey' comes in, because the rules are more important than the story, just as in any board game.




Fixed that for you. 3E was FAR more rules-intensive than 4E and virtually everything had a roll based on specific skills or tables.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 2, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) Almost nobody in our group bothers with the Item Crafting Feats. Those that did weren't making wands.
> 
> 2) Magic shops exist, but they don't have everything.




Not even the scrolls? Surely the players realized how cost-effective/cheap magical items could be especially given the spells that exist at a low level but are useful across all levels?

Not (ab)using the item creation system cuts down the power of a 3e wizard in a significant manner...Explains partly why your wizards might not have been as overpowering.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 2, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> How did Wish get nerfed in 3E? The 1e/2e version was only castable by humans and had serious drawbacks of namely requiring bed rest for the better part of a week and aged you permanently 5 years. The 3e version only loses 5000xp which can be presumably gotten back by adventuring....




Yeah, but look at the actual power of the spell: In 3rd Edition the scope of a _wish_ spell is severely limited. In 2nd Edition, a _wish_ could literally do anything (albeit with the risk of DM word-twisting).

Many of the things that a 3rd Edition _wish_ spell can do (requiring 5000 XP) can actually be done with a 2nd Edition _wish_ spell with no penalty at all. 2nd Edition PHB, pg. 197: "If it is used to alter reality with respect to damage sustained by a party, or to bring a dead creature to life, or to escape from a difficult situation by lifting the spellcaster (and his party) from one place to another, it will not cause the wizard any disability."

And 2nd Edition _wish_ and _limited wish_ spells had no casting time. It was the equivalent of a free action.






> Similarly, the Stone Shape spell in 2e had a 1 round casting time (is a std action in 3e), was a 5th level spell for wizards (became 4th level for wizards in 3e) and affected only 9 cu ft +1 cu ft/level (the 3.x version starts at 10 cu ft + 1 cu ft/level)



This is somewhat my fault. I meant to top _stoneskin_, but apparently my fingers had other ideas. 



> Compared to the 3e version? I thought the argument was that the 2e version was as customizable as the swiss army knife version that the 3E wizard was.



Which is odd, because that's not what I said. In fact, I've made a point of reiterating what I said several times and you're still getting it wrong.

You've misread and misrepresented other people's posts several times in this thread now. I think it would behoove you to actually slow down and read the posts you're trying to respond to. Your penchant for miscommunication is not serving you or the discussion.



> (with no wand of Knock, are you really going to use up your 2nd level slots for that spell or are you going to let the thief handle it?)



Wands are not cheap. The XP cost if you're creating scrolls and wands for yourself actually becomes significant very quickly. (I've got a wizard in my current campaign who does it. It helps a lot... but it also means that he's already a full level behind the other PCs. That's a meaningful trade-off.)

I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark here and guess that your 3rd Edition campaigns got rid of the XP penalty for crafting magic items. I know that's popular, but it does have a rather huge impact on game balance.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 2, 2009)

Rel said:


> Can you explain this to me?  I don't get it.
> 
> I'm planning a new campaign for 4e and I don't feel my storytelling options are reduced in any way from previous editions.  What am I missing?




If you don't get it after I've explained it to you, then you're probably not going to get it.

4th Edition dissociates the game mechanics from the game world. For those of us who believe that character and story arise from the game world, this dissociation is poisonous.

I became particularly aware of the distinction when I tried DMing 4th Edition for players who had never played roleplaying games before. These new players, like many I'd played with in other games before, really glommed onto the concept of roleplaying -- they didn't have much mastery of the rules, but they knew what they wanted their characters to do.

It was easy to DM for these types of players in 3rd Edition: They told you what they wanted to do in real world terms, you used your mastery of the game system to translate that into mechanical terms and told them how to resolve it, and play continued.

But with 4th Edition, this glitched up. And it glitched up for a couple of reasons: First, the mechanics of 4th Edition frequently don't model the game world -- so translating what they want to do into game mechanics is either difficult or impossible. Second, the system is mechanically balanced in a way that has little to do with the game world. If you don't play the _mechanics_ in an optimized way your character will be significantly disadvantaged.

Example: The difference between a fighter's cleave and reaping strike abilities. The advantages and disadvantages of these abilities have nothing to do with the reality of the game world and everything to do with the game mechanics.

The distinction is significant if you care about it. (And, for me, it's basically the entire reason I play roleplaying games. So it's pretty frickin' significant.) If you don't care about it, it's apparently very easy to not even understand what we're talking about.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 2, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> 4th Edition dissociates the game mechanics from the game world. For those of us who believe that character and story arise from the game world, this dissociation is poisonous.




I think that is one interpretation of how to run the game, sure.  I don't think it's the only one.  

My interpretation is like this:  I set DCs based on how hard the task is in the game world, just like I did in 3e.  4e provides me with information to figure out what the DCs should be for certain tasks*; I figure out how hard it would be and use that DC.  It also tells me what kind of difficulties the PCs should be facing based on their level.  I reverse-engineer that to figure out what gameworld things they should be going up against.

* - DCs by level.  Something a normal guy could do?  Low heroic tier.  Something only a well-trained guy could do?  Medium heroic tier.  Something only the most elite could do?  High heroic-low paragon.  etc.

My point is that you don't have to dissociate the rules from the gameworld if it's important to you.



Beginning of the End said:


> But with 4th Edition, this glitched up. And it glitched up for a couple of reasons: First, the mechanics of 4th Edition frequently don't model the game world -- so translating what they want to do into game mechanics is either difficult or impossible. Second, the system is mechanically balanced in a way that has little to do with the game world. If you don't play the _mechanics_ in an optimized way your character will be significantly disadvantaged.
> 
> Example: The difference between a fighter's cleave and reaping strike abilities. The advantages and disadvantages of these abilities have nothing to do with the reality of the game world and everything to do with the game mechanics.




First: I don't think it's too hard to translate what they want to do into game mechanics.  I think it's really easy, actually!

Second: I think that's true for any game.

Your Example: I don't know why you think there isn't any game world difference between these two mechanics.


----------



## Zustiur (Jan 3, 2009)

Rel said:


> Can you explain this to me?  I don't get it.
> 
> I'm planning a new campaign for 4e and I don't feel my storytelling options are reduced in any way from previous editions.  What am I missing?



Your storytelling options are not reduced in any way. What you're missing is the point of my post, because I didn't explain very well. I will try again.

To me (and of course your opinion may differ), DnD is about telling interesting stories, that I and the players will recount for years to come. I find that the best type of rules to have for this, are the type that are there to model, or simulate the action. That is, you/wotc describe what you're trying to do, and then pick a mechanic that models this to a reasonable level of accuracy, and believability, while maintaining a reasonable level of game balance.

4E does not do this. 4E focuses on balance and smooth scaling across levels. The rules are not there to model the action, the rules are there to be 'fair', and to ensure that the numbers are always about the same. i.e. always having a ~50-60% chance to hit is a 4E-ism. 

An example of how rules are made:
Character 'Bob' wants to jump across a pit. 
3E references the real world (albeit not with a great level of accuracy) to determine a suitable mechanic for jumping.
4E says, your chance of reaching the other side should be x%, and will use the same mechanic as every other challenge.

_Yes I know jumping is a bad example. The important part of this example is NOT JUMP. The important part is the method by which the resulting rules are determined._

A better example, again, focusing on the different method used to determine the mechanic:
Fred wants to pick the lock on the treasure chest.
3E says the lock is a good lock. Good locks are hard to pick (IRL). Mechanically it would be about _this_ hard to pick (DC). Roll a lock pick attempt against that DC.

4E says you should succeed x% of the time. Roll against that %. Oh incidentally this is a good lock, but because you're Y level, the numbers have been adjusted to ensure you still need x%.

I find the 3E method superior, as it lends itself to a greater level of real life simulation, which makes the game easier to believe. A game that is easier to believe is better at suspending my disbelief. Of course it is important to maintain a level of balance so that everyone gets a roughly equal share of the fun. Balance comes more or less as an afterthought.

I dislike the 4E method because it enforces balance as the be all and end all. The design philosophy appears to be that a game is only fun if it is perfectly balanced. This is the basic premise behind board games. Everyone must have exactly the same chance of winning in a board game or a card game, therefore balance is everything. (And skill kicks in at that point).
Computer games generally follow this same ideal - either because their based on board games, or because they're played competitively (usually online) and in competitive play balance is highly important.

Do you see where I'm going with this?
DnD is about telling stories. The rules should assist in the story telling.
Board/computer games are about winning. The rules should be balanced.
DnD is not about winning. Balance is nice, but it is less important than helping to make a good story.



			
				Herschel said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you. 3E was FAR more rules-intensive than 4E and virtually everything had a roll based on specific skills or tables.



No, you broke it. 3E was far more rules-intensive. I agree with you on that. That was not the point I was talking about. Again, I didn't explain terribly well (and I should really learn not to post when I'm that tired!)
3E rules are there to model the story. 4E rules are there to enforce balance. 
I've been playing 4E for about 8 sessions. In nearly every session I've had to remind someone that "It's 4E, it doesn't have to make sense". I never had this issue in 3E because the rules always complemented the action - they always made sense, because they were modeled on a believable level of reality first, and balanced second.
Of course there were more rules in 3E, that was the design philosophy of 3E in particular. A rule for everything. Plus it's older, and has many more books to contain those rules. 4E will look a lot more complex in a few years!

Having a rules for everything wasn't necessarily a great solution, but it worked better for people like me than 4E does. It shouldn't be necessary for us to dig into the examples of tripping gelatinous cubes, or the so called Schroedinger's wounding to make people see what I'm getting at here. The rules of 4E do not attempt to model (fantasy) reality at all. They are rules of a balanced game, not guidelines for telling stories. The balance consistently trumps logic and believability, and this makes 4E a terrible game, FOR ME.

You can tell a story without any rules at all. But you can't play a game without rules. 4E has turned DnD into _more_ of a game, and thus moved away from the story telling experience.

Let me summarize this:
Assuming you know what Hero Quest is, which game rules are closer to hero quest? 3E? or 4E?

You could tell just as much of a story in Hero Quest as in 3E, if you really wanted to. But that is not what the rules were designed for. I'm sure it's possible to tell a story using the rules of poker or backgammon if you tried hard enough, but I'd still find it easier to use 3E.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 3, 2009)

Zustiur said:


> A better example, again, focusing on the different method used to determine the mechanic:
> Fred wants to pick the lock on the treasure chest.
> 3E says the lock is a good lock. Good locks are hard to pick (IRL). Mechanically it would be about _this_ hard to pick (DC). Roll a lock pick attempt against that DC.
> 
> 4E says you should succeed x% of the time. Roll against that %. Oh incidentally this is a good lock, but because you're Y level, the numbers have been adjusted to ensure you still need x%.




I think the idea is that when you're high level you'll be working with different locks.

When you're level 1, it's a crappy goblin lock.
When you're level 5, it's a well-made steel lock.
When you're level 10, it's the work of a master locksmith.
When you're level 15, it's the work of a legendary locksmith.
When you're level 20, it's a lock that no one could ever possibly open.
When you're level 25, it's a lock made by Vecna.
When you're level 30, it's a lock made out of Vecna's bones and embued with his power and will to protect secrets.

4E gives you the DC but it doesn't give you the colour.  (It gives a nod to the colour when it describes the tiers.)  Use that however you want.



Zustiur said:


> It shouldn't be necessary for us to dig into the examples of tripping gelatinous cubes, or the so called Schroedinger's wounding to make people see what I'm getting at here. The rules of 4E do not attempt to model (fantasy) reality at all. They are rules of a balanced game, not guidelines for telling stories. The balance consistently trumps logic and believability, and this makes 4E a terrible game, FOR ME.




The thing about tripping cubes is that _you_ are the one saying that the cube has been tripped.  What the rules are saying is that it has the Condition Prone, which means it needs to take a Move action to move normally again.

If you want to describe the cube being tripped, even if that description bothers you, that's cool.  4e's not for you.  I will describe the cube shuddering, groaning, its locomotion all messed up, and happily say that it's Prone.


Also: I think that the fact that 4E has Quests means that it is _far_ better system for telling stories than 3E.

edit: Here's the way I see things.  4E models the (heroic fantasy) world just fine.  What it doesn't do is reinforce the feeling that the player is the character (what is commonly called Immersion).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2009)

> I think the idea is that when you're high level you'll be working with different locks.




Why?

If my players choose where to go and what to do, and the world doesn't reshape itself to them, why wouldn't they encounter locks that are wildly inappropriate for their levels in appropriate places? Why wouldn't my level 5 party encounter a lock made by Vecna? Or my level 30 party encounter goblin locks? Shouldn't that depend more on if they're fighting goblins or Vecna-priests than their level? Why shouldn't my epic-level party be fighting the Goblin King? Why shouldn't my level 3 party be thwarting Vecna's plans?

"Well made locks are DC 20" allows me to stick well-made locks in wherever they would make sense and rely on the PC's to figure out how they're going to beat that DC 20 if they want what's in there.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 3, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why?




Because when you're level 30, strolling through goblin warrens is gauche?  Just think of how the other adventurers back at the inn are going to talk smack about you, grubbing around for loot in _goblin_ warrens.  

Then again, you're level 30, so you could probably beat them down, but still.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> "Well made locks are DC 20" allows me to stick well-made locks in wherever they would make sense and rely on the PC's to figure out how they're going to beat that DC 20 if they want what's in there.




I think you missed my point.  That's what 4E does.

I think it could have been more clear about it, but the rules of the game support exactly what you're talking about.  No, they don't give you a catalogue of DCs; they give you a loose framework for the DM to hang things off of.

That framework is: 1-10 Heroic, 11-20 Paragon, 21-30 Epic.

Maybe that just doesn't cut it for you.  That's cool.  I'm the other way; too many set DCs in the books and I get stupid, looking all of them up.  I'd rather play fast and loose with a simple framework and run from there.


----------



## Blizzardb (Jan 3, 2009)

Hate to throw myself in the middle of what might turn into an edition war, but I would just like to point out the passage on page 23 in the DMG that states that if two wooden doors are exactly the same, they should also have the same break DC.

The suggested DC per level just suggests what kind of door you may decide to use at this level. This doesn't mean however, that wooden doors will suddenly cease to exist at high levels - players just get through them with ease.

Edit: To clarify, my point is that you shouldn't take the suggested DC (for doors, locks or anything else) as mandatory, just as what it is - a suggestion for a challenge appropriate for the level of the party (just as the CR in 3.0/3.5 is a suggestion of a monster appropriate for a certain level). There should be harder and easier challenges, even so hard that the players have no chance of succeeding and so easy that they are not challenges at all. If a DM uses only the suggested difficulties for the respective level, he is the one to blame, not the system.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 3, 2009)

Blizzardb said:


> Hate to throw myself in the middle of what might turn into an edition war, but I would just like to point out the passage on page 23 in the DMG that states that if two wooden doors are exactly the same, they should also have the same break DC.
> 
> The suggested DC per level just suggests what kind of door you may decide to use at this level. This doesn't mean however, that wooden doors will suddenly cease to exist at high levels - players just get through them with ease.
> 
> Edit: To clarify, my point is that you shouldn't take the suggested DC (for doors, locks or anything else) as mandatory, just as what it is - a suggestion for a challenge appropriate for the level of the party (just as the CR in 3.0/3.5 is a suggestion of a monster appropriate for a certain level). There should be harder and easier challenges, even so hard that the players have no chance of succeeding and so easy that they are not challenges at all. If a DM uses only the suggested difficulties for the respective level, he is the one to blame, not the system.




Please do not bring logic and actual rules into this discussion. Some people might realise that some of their problems with 4e derive from a lack of understanding of the rules, instead of something else.


----------



## Zustiur (Jan 3, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I think the idea is that when you're high level you'll be working with different locks.



While you're right, it doesn't read/feel that way. It reads as:

When you're level 1, it's a DC 15 lock.
When you're level 5, it's a DC 19 lock.
When you're level 10, it's a DC 24 lock.
And so on.



> 4E gives you the DC but it doesn't give you the colour.  (It gives a nod to the colour when it describes the tiers.)  Use that however you want.



Yes exactly. I argue that colour should be coming first, and rules last. Rules to fit the colour, not colour to fit the rules.



> The thing about tripping cubes is that _you_ are the one saying that the cube has been tripped.  What the rules are saying is that it has the Condition Prone, which means it needs to take a Move action to move normally again.



True again, I have a problem with "Trip" not meaning "trip". Just like I have a problem with calling "cheese", "eggs".
[edit]Also, being prone counts for a lot more than needing to take a move action to move normally again. For reference: *Prone*
* combat advantage (fair enough)
* +2 defenses (huh? it's a cube...)
* You're lying on the ground (huh??? it's a cube!)
* you take -2 penalty on attack rolls (fair enough)
* You may go prone voluntarily as a minor action.

How do you explain the +2 defense bonus for a 'staggered' cube? How do you interpret "You are lying on the ground"? Those are technically rules, associated with prone, not with trip, ergo trip isn't the problem. Having a cube go prone IS the problem, because it doesn't make sense. Yes, you can do all sorts of things to work-around the issue. _But that doesn't stop it being an issue in the first place._[/edit]


> Also: I think that the fact that 4E has Quests means that it is _far_ better system for telling stories than 3E.



WHAT? I fail to see how quests didn't exist in any previous edition of DnD. It's a story mechanic, it's just been given a little more text in 4E.



> edit: Here's the way I see things.  4E models the (heroic fantasy) world just fine.  What it doesn't do is reinforce the feeling that the player is the character (what is commonly called Immersion).



I agree with your final sentence.



LostSoul said:


> Because when you're level 30, strolling through goblin warrens is gauche?



... *looks up gauche*. Is it? Surely the merit of strolling through goblin warrens is based on WHY you are there. Not on the fact it's a goblin warren. Take dragon mountain as an example. You can put high level characters up against the lowest level critters, and still have it be highly exciting, and worthy of tavern tales. Compare the tavern brutes who think beating up a handful of goblins is trivial... to the party who just waltzed through an entire warren containing several _thousand_ goblins. I hardly see how the idea of fighting goblins at level 30 automatically lacks grace. Heck, wiping out that entire system of goblins may have been the plot of the whole campaign.



> Maybe that just doesn't cut it for you.  That's cool.  I'm the other way; too many set DCs in the books and I get stupid, looking all of them up.  I'd rather play fast and loose with a simple framework and run from there.



It certainly doesn't cut it for me. I want my example DCs because it allows me to draw comparison to the real world, in order to structure my imagination of the fantasy. This lock is a DC 12 lock because it was made by goblins... what does that mean? It means it's a really poorly made lock that you can open with a hair clip. Okay, NOW I know what it is. Without the real-world comparison, there's nothing to base my imagination on.
Much like if you had the following:
"You enter the room, there are 4 goblins in the room". What is a goblin? <insert description of goblin here> Okay, NOW I know what it is.
You and I already know what a goblin is because we've been playing this for years, but without that initial real world comparison (short orange skinned evil humanoid), we'd still have no idea. Without some examples of what a goblin/poor lock IS, we have no comparison with which to draw the mental image.



Blizzardb said:


> The suggested DC per level just suggests what kind of door you may decide to use at this level. This doesn't mean however, that wooden doors will suddenly cease to exist at high levels - players just get through them with ease.



Indeed. Now tell that to module designers.
"Hmm, we're writing this as a level 30 adventure. I guess we better make the door to the inn out of adamantine". *sigh*

p.s. Please note that all examples given other than dragon mountain have been pulled out of thin air.


----------



## Zustiur (Jan 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Please do not bring logic and actual rules into this discussion. Some people might realise that some of their problems with 4e derive from a lack of understanding of the rules, instead of something else.



Or indeed, people might begin to recognize that there _are_ problems with the rules. Problems which (going back to the OP) might have caused a person a change of heart about the rules (for better or worse).

While this has gotten way too close to edition war territory (and I am one of the culprits!), highlighting our problems with any given edition can and will help people in the situation presented by the OP. That is, "We're trying to work out which edition to play to best suit our group".


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 3, 2009)

Zustiur said:


> 4E does not do this. 4E focuses on balance and smooth scaling across levels. The rules are not there to model the action, the rules are there to be 'fair', and to ensure that the numbers are always about the same. i.e. always having a ~50-60% chance to hit is a 4E-ism.
> 
> An example of how rules are made:
> Character 'Bob' wants to jump across a pit.
> ...



I've said it before and I'll say it again- some people are simply not psychologically prepared to understand game design.

I don't mean this as an insult!

Let me try to explain.

Every game sets things like task difficulty by determining how likely it is that a character should succeed, and then adjusting the difficulty to match.  3e did it, 4e does it, non D&D game systems do it, its how game design works.

After all, its not a coincidence that an easy lock in 3e is a DC 20, and an amazing lock is a DC 40, giving you almost exactly the same chance of success at level 1 on a level 1 appropriate lock as you will have at level 20 on a level 20 appropriate lock.  Or that a generic CR 1 trap has a Disable Device DC in the early 20s, and a generic CR 10 trap has a Disable Device DC in the early 30s.

Those are NOT coincidences.  You are seriously crazy if you think these things are coincidences.

Its game design.  The designers worked out how hard they wanted a "good challenge" to be.  Then they calibrated the game to match.

4e did the same thing.  It made ONLY ONE CHANGE: it made explicit the assumptions that went into this calibration process.

Some people are not psychologically prepared to handle that.

D&D is a game about fantasy.  One of the things that you have to do, and some people have to do more than others, is have a sense of verisimilitude to the game.

Things work the way they do because some guys in business casual clothing decided to calibrate the difficulty of the game against a baseline spreadsheet of numbers representing the expected skill level of player characters at each level of the game.  For some people, knowing this absolutely destroys any hope of verisimilitude they might have had.

I don't know what to tell you if this is how you are, except that there's no shame in deciding that you're better off not knowing the nuts and bolts of how a game is designed.  JAWS wouldn't be as cool of a movie if you watched the DVD "The Making of JAWS" extra before you watched the actual movie for the first time, right?  Knowing how the animatronics were created and why the author chose each victim and how the director tweaked your adrenal glands would probably reduce the effect.  

That's fine and all.  Just avoid the sort of information that will ruin your fun.  And when you do encounter it, try to ignore it.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 3, 2009)

Zustiur said:


> Or indeed, people might begin to recognize that there _are_ problems with the rules. Problems which (going back to the OP) might have caused a person a change of heart about the rules (for better or worse).
> 
> While this has gotten way too close to edition war territory (and I am one of the culprits!), highlighting our problems with any given edition can and will help people in the situation presented by the OP. That is, "We're trying to work out which edition to play to best suit our group".






Zustiur said:


> Indeed. Now tell that to module designers.
> "Hmm, we're writing this as a level 30 adventure. I guess we better make the door to the inn out of adamantine". *sigh*



Trying really hard not to be snarky here, so please take the following as honestly curiosity of me not understand some of the points you are making.

You just agreed with blizzardb that the DMG indeed says what he quoted. Which totally goes against one of the problems you have with 4e. Does this mean that if you haven't read whatever module you are referring to, and instead just the core books, you wouldn't have this problem with 4e? Or does this mean that because some of the modules have problems, the system is flawed?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 3, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> My interpretation is like this:  I set DCs based on how hard the task is in the game world, just like I did in 3e.  4e provides me with information to figure out what the DCs should be for certain tasks* (...)
> 
> My point is that you don't have to dissociate the rules from the gameworld if it's important to you.




Skill DCs are certainly one of the easier things to house rule in 4th Edition (as you have done). But the dissociated mechanics hardly end there. Redesigning class powers and re-statting large swaths of the monsters is hardly a trivial undertaking.



> Your Example: I don't know why you think there isn't any game world difference between these two mechanics.




That is not what I said.

It's really quite frustrating that people in this thread apparently find it impossible to actually read the messages they're responding to. 



LostSoul said:


> I think the idea is that when you're high level you'll be working with different locks.




Which is hugely problematic. Can you imagine if the real world actually worked like that? Muhammed Ali never wins more than X% of his fights because his opponents are always balanced against his current abilities. An expert locksmith never succeeds at opening more locks than he did as a novice because, for some reason, he's always called to service locks exactly matching his level of skill.

And so forth.

If the PCs go to the backdoor of the local tavern at 30th level, there's absolutely no reason to assume that the local barkeep has locks forged out Vecna's bones. In fact, it's pretty silly to assume that.

I mean, I get it. There are people who like the Oblivion method of "all the goblins in the world level up when you do". 4th Edition just takes that principle and expands it to every single aspect of the game world.

For me, though, I find the whole 4th Edition method of doing things silly. If you're that obsessed with everything having that X% chance of success, just grab the percentile dice and roll it. Why go through all the extra rigamorale?

And, more importantly, it renders achievement meaningless. Your characters never really become more powerful in any meaningful sense of the term -- the numbers just get bigger.



> Also: I think that the fact that 4E has Quests means that it is _far_ better system for telling stories than 3E.




People keep talking about Quests as if they were some sort of revolutionary mechanic. But to me they look virtually indistinguishable from Story Awards in 3rd Edition. And similar mechanics were found in 2nd Edition, too.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 3, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again- some people are simply not psychologically prepared to understand game design.




See, here's the thing: Zustiur and I have both pointed out that we're aware of the differences in perception and that we simply have a different set of tastes.

You, OTOH, call us "psychologically unprepared" and "crazy" while strongly implying that we're just too stupid to understand game design.

Despite the fact that we have long since already discussed in detail everything you're talking about in your post.



> I don't mean this as an insult!



I find it difficult to believe that.

I wish I could figure out why 4th Edition supporters find it so difficult to accept that some people don't like dissociated mechanics. I find it fairly trivial to understand what you like in the game. Why do you find it so difficult to understand any POV except your own?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Trying really hard not to be snarky here, so please take the following as honestly curiosity of me not understand some of the points you are making.




I'm going to succumb to my snarkiness and point that while page 23 says: "Sometimes realism is a matter of very small details. If two wooden doors appear to be exactly the same, but one requires a DC 16 Strength check to break through and the other one requires a DC 20 check, the world feels arbitrary and inconsistent."

Page 42 tells the DM to do exactly the opposite.

From which one would be forced to conclude that, if you play according to the rules, 4th Edition is indicting itself as arbitrary, inconsistent, and unrealistic.

Ya know, if we're being snarky. And logical.


----------



## Zustiur (Jan 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Trying really hard not to be snarky here, so please take the following as honestly curiosity of me not understand some of the points you are making.
> 
> You just agreed with blizzardb that the DMG indeed says what he quoted. Which totally goes against one of the problems you have with 4e. Does this mean that if you haven't read whatever module you are referring to, and instead just the core books, you wouldn't have this problem with 4e? Or does this mean that because some of the modules have problems, the system is flawed?




No snarkiness detected. Well done 
In point of fact, I have not read any modules. This is a perception I have picked up almost totally without basis. I believe the system encourages modules to be written in a certain way. It is my opinion that that certain way is to encourage the use of level appropriate challenges at all times. (be it combat or locks)
The extrapolated example might be one where the bedroom doors at the inn are made of adamantine because the characters are participating in a level 30 adventure.

As with any extrapolation, it is subject to great skepticism, but it does well when understood  as being a pure example of what is possible.

I haven't ever run published adventures, so it is somewhat of a moot point with me personally. However, I am an unwilling convert participating in a 4E game, in a published adventure (KotS). My experience thus far (with 4E and with published adventures) has not in any way improved my disposition towards the new system.

While I would be hard pressed to present examples from KotS (due to not having owned/read the adventure) I have certainly felt like every potentially challenging event has fallen within the level appropriate range, regardless of whether that makes for a good story or not.


To answer your question more directly. Flaws in the system exacerbate the problems that I have with published adventures in general. In this particular example, the flaw is one of emphasis, not of hard and fast rules or of wrong design intent. My preferred style of play dictates that level appropriate challenges should not be as frequent as the DMG indicates.

My not being already aware of the point raised by blizzardb is caused by a separate flaw of the system. Namely, that I find the books unpleasant to read, and therefore haven't read them as much as I should.
I read the 2E and 3.0E books extensively when I got them, but found I was unable to do so with 4E. This seems to be a common problem judging by the number of people who, as you put it, "do not realize that some of their problems with 4e derive from a lack of understanding of the rules, instead of something else."

My dislike for the rules, and my lack of understanding the rules are two separate issues. Neither is _caused_ by the other, but one may indeed be contributing to the other. The two are separate problems, but together they present a problem which is greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## Blizzardb (Jan 3, 2009)

On the matter of "pleasantness to read" - to each his own, I guess. For example, I loved playing 3.0/3.5, but for some reason never liked the way the DMG was written. 4E DMG appeals to me much, much more.

On the other hand the 4E PHB feels a little bland (just the basics, nothing more) and could use 50-60 pages more, in my opinion (though I am sure many people will disagree with me here).

By the way, I am really happy that the discussion here (even if a little off-topic) hasn't escalated into a flame war... yet.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 3, 2009)

Thanks for a very good answer. I do have a few comments.


Zustiur said:


> In point of fact, I have not read any modules. This is a perception I have picked up almost totally without basis. I believe the system encourages modules to be written in a certain way. It is my opinion that that certain way is to encourage the use of level appropriate challenges at all times. (be it combat or locks)



 I agree with that. But how is that different from any other version of D&D? Published modules usually included only (or at least mostly) encounters that are more or less level-appropriate. That's is, IMO, just the nature of the published modules. Some like it, some do not. 



> The extrapolated example might be one where the bedroom doors at the inn are made of adamantine because the characters are participating in a level 30 adventure.



And it's a funny one, but bears on a misconception. The table doesn't tell you that all locks are of said DC. It merely gives examples of level-appropriate locks. Anyway, Cadfan explained it much better a couple of posts above.



> As with any extrapolation, it is subject to great skepticism, but it does well when understood  as being a pure example of what is possible.



Anything is possible. In a prior edition, you could slam a DC50 lock on a toilet door if you wanted. 



> I haven't ever run published adventures, so it is somewhat of a moot point with me personally. However, I am an unwilling convert participating in a 4E game, in a published adventure (KotS). My experience thus far (with 4E and with published adventures) has not in any way improved my disposition towards the new system.



While KotS should have been made great, since it's the introduction-adventure, it is sadly the worst published for 4e by WotC. I can only say that judging 4e by that is a mistake. I am not saying you would like it if you were playing another module (or some homebrew for that matter) but that KotS is far from the best 4e has to offer.



> While I would be hard pressed to present examples from KotS (due to not having owned/read the adventure) I have certainly felt like every potentially challenging event has fallen within the level appropriate range, regardless of whether that makes for a good story or not.






> To answer your question more directly. Flaws in the system exacerbate the problems that I have with published adventures in general. In this particular example, the flaw is one of emphasis, not of hard and fast rules or of wrong design intent. My preferred style of play dictates that level appropriate challenges should not be as frequent as the DMG indicates.



Yes and I totally agree with you in that challenges should vary much more. But again, when has modules not been like that?



> My not being already aware of the point raised by blizzardb is caused by a separate flaw of the system. Namely, that I find the books unpleasant to read, and therefore haven't read them as much as I should.



Parts of them (powers especially), read like a text manual, so I can understand why you feel that way.



> I read the 2E and 3.0E books extensively when I got them, but found I was unable to do so with 4E. This seems to be a common problem judging by the number of people who, as you put it, "do not realize that some of their problems with 4e derive from a lack of understanding of the rules, instead of something else."



It might.  Or maybe it's my crappy English that makes me misunderstand the rules.

In summation: Things are more or less as they always has been. It's still just as easy to climb a ladder, no matter your level. You can still find a lock that is way too hard to open, just as you can find one that opens with ridiculous ease. 4e doesn't tell you that you can't use non-level-appropriate encounters or challenges, but instead focuses on the level-appropriate stuff. Which is fair, since one could easily argue that most challenges used in various campaigns are probably more or less level appropriate. 

Now, I can see how page 42 can be a tad "weird" for some. But that's a debate for another interesting thread.

Cheers


----------



## BryonD (Jan 3, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Some people are not psychologically prepared to handle that.
> 
> D&D is a game about fantasy.



To some people it is also a game about creation and engagement.
I guess some people, like perhaps you, may be psychologically prepared to handle the calibration changes to the pure in the moment fantasy elements of the game, but are not psychologically prepared to handle implications that this has on other aspects of the enjoyment the process can offer.

(And I agree with you completely, there is nothing insulting in that, you can't handle it, that's cool)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 3, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is known as a GOOD thing. Easily churned out magical items become less magical and more like mundane equipment. Once magical items become standard gear, whats special or magical about them?




Highly campaign dependent.

If the whole party wants to wander around with the wizard/sorcerer to get components/special areas enchantments, etc..., it's "okay" but at that polint it's "follow the wizard" and not perfect for all campaigns.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 3, 2009)

3E did introduce Challenge Ratings for monsters. 
4E basically expanded on this for monsters, but also expanded it to cover other types of challenges, most notably skills.

But just like 3E CR rules didn't demand of you to only ever use equal level enemies (quite the contrary), the 4E rules don't demand you to only ever use equal level challenges for your PCs.

The difference for skill DCs is just that they are now presented in a similar manner to monsters, while 3E still used "static" DCs. You had to figure out yourself that it would probably be a bad idea to demand all characters to jump over a 20 ft wide and 1,000 ft deep chasm at 1st level. (IIRC; requiring you to succeed at a DC 20 Jump check or suffer 20d6 falling damage.) If you created a similar situation in 4E, you might get the idea that this is a little too tough, since a DC of 20 would be an appropriate challenge for a 20th level group.

The "trick" is understanding that this doesn't mean that 4E characters never encounter such difficulties. It just means they are not appropriate challenges, so you should not expect them to "beat the odds". Don't base your adventure around the idea that the PCs face this challenge and succeed. A 1st level game might include this chasm, and the players would know. "No, we need to find another route." Or "We will have to come back later when we are better prepared or higher level to go on here". (For example, if they had a grappling hook and a rope, things look a lot easier. Climbing along the Rope is probably a level-appropriate challenge, and with proper securing, you wouldn't have to take the full 20d10 falling damage either)

Maybe it is the fault of the DMG that it doesn't explain this in detail. Maybe it's too technical and focuses to much on "challenges" and to little on "color". (Jumping the chasm would only exist for "color" - It is an option the PCs can discuss, but you don't expect them to take it.)

But ultimiately, no, you don't have to live in an "auto-scaling" world in your game. You can use the rules to create a internally consistent game world, where goblin locks might sometimes be encountered by 20 level heroes or PCs are stuck without a rope in front of a 20 ft wide chasm or meet but not fight (with hope of success) an Ancient Red Wyrm. 

The game gives you two tools in one package: 
- The ability to create an adventure for your player characters that contains all "fair" challenges.
- The ability to determine the difficulty of a scenario you have created and the changes for the PCs to "beat" it.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 3, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> Yeah, but look at the actual power of the spell: In 3rd Edition the scope of a _wish_ spell is severely limited. In 2nd Edition, a _wish_ could literally do anything (albeit with the risk of DM word-twisting).
> 
> Many of the things that a 3rd Edition _wish_ spell can do (requiring 5000 XP) can actually be done with a 2nd Edition _wish_ spell with no penalty at all. 2nd Edition PHB, pg. 197: "If it is used to alter reality with respect to damage sustained by a party, or to bring a dead creature to life, or to escape from a difficult situation by lifting the spellcaster (and his party) from one place to another, it will not cause the wizard any disability.".




Er, I think you need to reread the spell description again. The disability it refers to is the fact that any other use of the spell causes the caster to weaken (-3 to STR) and require 2d4 days of bed rest. The 5 year ageing feature happens NO MATTER WHAT. Teleporting the caster home would still cause the 5 year age increase. The spell in 3e is much easier on casters...



Beginning of the End said:


> This is somewhat my fault. I meant to top _stoneskin_, but apparently my fingers had other ideas. .




Now this is a spell that simply is vastly different that before. The 2e version wasn't powerful at all (HELLO DART SPECIALISTS - what else was a fighter going to use those excess WPN slots after he got one in Longsword?) while the 3rd edition version is useless as well (10 pts of damage reduction? Please....)

Neither spell was good IMO. Still, I'll actually give you this one but I'm still disputing your claim that 3e spells are more powerful even though the subsystems such as the initiative system and the save system made ALL spells much more effective than before. For example, geneally speaking all  of the spells from levels 4 aon up are more powerful thanks to the loss of the initiative system and the loss of wpn speed vs casting time and the addition of the Concentration skill



Beginning of the End said:


> Wands are not cheap. The XP cost if you're creating scrolls and wands for yourself actually becomes significant very quickly. (I've got a wizard in my current campaign who does it. It helps a lot... but it also means that he's already a full level behind the other PCs. That's a meaningful trade-off.)
> 
> I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark here and guess that your 3rd Edition campaigns got rid of the XP penalty for crafting magic items. I know that's popular, but it does have a rather huge impact on game balance.




Er, no. He doesn't stay a level behind the party because a lower level character needs less CP to progress than a higher level character and catches up very quickly. Your implication is that the wizard is stuck behind the party but if you do the math, you'll realize the wizard catches up very quickly.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 3, 2009)

I find that I largely agree with Zustiur's observations about some of 4E's shortcomings, and must admit I had to laughed at the adamantine inn door. Very well done.

Its nice to see the c4bal is still stalking the boards ready to subject anyone who would dare to disagree with elements of 4E to the inquisition.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 3, 2009)

Shadeydm said:


> I find that I largely agree with Zustiur's observations about some of 4E's shortcomings, and must admit I had to laughed at the adamantine inn door. Very well done.
> 
> Its nice to see the c4bal is still stalking the boards ready to subject anyone who would dare to disagree with elements of 4E to the inquisition.




So because we do not share your view of 4e and try to explain we understand it, we are now the Inquisition? 

Or is it just that you have no good arguments left and must thus resort to insults?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> So because we do not share your view of 4e and try to explain we understand it, we are now the Inquisition?
> 
> Or is it just that you have no good arguments left and must thus resort to insults?




In all fairness, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A"]No One Expects the Inquisition[/ame]


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 3, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> I wish I could figure out why 4th Edition supporters find it so difficult to accept that some people don't like dissociated mechanics. I find it fairly trivial to understand what you like in the game. Why do you find it so difficult to understand any POV except your own?



Because that's not what you don't like.

Obviously you like that challenges get harder as characters level.  You know it, I know it, that's how it is.  I'm 100% sure that if you DM, when you want a "challenging" combat for your characters, you don't put your high level PCs against pathetic mooks they can slaughter at ease, because you know that's not a challeng.  You put them against level appropriate foes.  When you want a lock that is "challenging" to pick, you put them against a lock that is of a difficulty that creates a skill check DC that has a chance of failure.  I know that these things are true because that's how D&D works.  Sure, your game world HAS pathetic mooks while the PCs are at high level, and the PCs can beat them up if they want, but that's not what you do for a challenging fight.  And sure, your game world has locks that are impossibly difficult for low level characters while your characters are at low levels, but you don't require the PCs to pick those locks while they're at low levels because they can't.

Every RPG out there works like this.  There are easy and hard challenges, and their intended for characters of varying skill levels.  3e works like this even more so than most non WOTC games.  Obviously you can't have a problem with a game where there are locks of various degrees of difficulty, players get better at picking locks over time, and players, when they encounter lock-related challenges, can expect to challenge locks of difficulty levels roughly appropriate for their character's level.  You can't have a problem with this because if you did you would hate every RPG ever made, and 3e and 4e in particular as the sort of twin objects of your loathing.

The only thing that changed between 3e and 4e is that alongside the old school style of doing the math for you and putting it into the skill tables, the game designers gave the dungeon master a chart.  And that chart tells the DM "this is how we did it.  If you need to assign difficulties the way we did, this is the guideline we used."

That IS a change.

And some people hate it.

You can tell because they complain that 4e is too calibrated for "balance."  They want a game where difficulties are "based in reality" instead of "some notion of balance."  And they think that 3e represents that game.

It doesn't.  It represents that game exactly as much as 4e does.  Which is not at all.

I feel for these people, because they're sort of like someone going to a movie and hearing someone else blurt out the surprise ending while they're in line.  Or someone going to a seance hoping to be spooked and having someone else tell them that the "ghost rapping" is really a device hooked to the bottom of the table.

Not knowing how the DCs were calculated had provided them with a veil of illusionism that made suspension of disbelief easier for them.  4e took that away.  Or more specifically, the 4e DMG took that away.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2009)

> Its game design. The designers worked out how hard they wanted a "good challenge" to be. Then they calibrated the game to match.
> 
> 4e did the same thing. It made ONLY ONE CHANGE: it made explicit the assumptions that went into this calibration process.
> 
> Some people are not psychologically prepared to handle that.




That's _immensely_ condescending, you know. And it makes you seem tremendously arrogant to boot.

And you're missing one little bugaboo from the change: it did make it more explicit. It also made it more important. Getting that calibration process right is *everything* to 4e.

And I don't really play games to calibrate.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Please do not bring logic and actual rules into this discussion. Some people might realise that some of their problems with 4e derive from a lack of understanding of the rules, instead of something else.




Have you ever thought, that maybe (contrary to the popular belief that 4e has the best DMG evah) that it is in fact the sloppy nature of how this subject is written about in the 4e DMG and PHB that creates differing perceptions on how it should be handled...as opposed to peoples "LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES"?

Here's some examples...

On page 37 we have DC's for listening through a door, done exactly how they were in 3.5 ( and the 4e PHB), with descriptions and set DC's... contrast this with 

Page 41 where we have the DC's  for searching a room...now these don't have set DC's (instead a Dm is told to use "easy to hard" from the table on page 42.  But check under the perception skill section in the PHB and we again have set DC's that are not based on level...

Barely Hidden...DC 10
Well Hidden...DC 25
More than 10 squares away +2

So which one is what people should be using during play?  By the chart above a very hard search is perhaps DC 25+2 (more than 10 squares away)+2 (DM difficulty adjustment) = 29

While using the chart we can get way lower numbers for characters below level 13 and way higher numbers for characters above 19th level...and this applies to many of the skills in the PHB.

So which is correct?  Which method are you suppose to use?  Especially when you have the whole section on page 42 that outlines exactly how to set difficulties and tells you to ... "Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard or somewhere in between."

There is nothing here about determining the DC by the logic of the world, so that one sentence on 23 is totally discarded here.  Furthermore the PHB has set DC's not based on level for certain actions, thus setting up an expectation that an action can be accomplished at a certain difficulty....plain and simple.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 3, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Have you ever thought, that maybe (contrary to the popular belief that 4e has the best DMG evah) that it is in fact the sloppy nature of how this subject is written about in the 4e DMG and PHB that creates differing perceptions on how it should be handled...as opposed to peoples "LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES"?
> 
> Here's some examples...
> 
> ...




Please do not bring logic or actual rules into the discussion, some people might take off thier rose colored glasses and find that 4E is not the pinnacle of DnD they keep telling everyone it is


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Because that's not what you don't like.
> 
> Obviously you like that challenges get harder as characters level.  You know it, I know it, that's how it is.  I'm 100% sure that if you DM, when you want a "challenging" combat for your characters, you don't put your high level PCs against pathetic mooks they can slaughter at ease, because you know that's not a challeng.  You put them against level appropriate foes.  When you want a lock that is "challenging" to pick, you put them against a lock that is of a difficulty that creates a skill check DC that has a chance of failure.  I know that these things are true because that's how D&D works.  Sure, your game world HAS pathetic mooks while the PCs are at high level, and the PCs can beat them up if they want, but that's not what you do for a challenging fight.  And sure, your game world has locks that are impossibly difficult for low level characters while your characters are at low levels, but you don't require the PCs to pick those locks while they're at low levels because they can't.




Wow alot of assumptions here...and well we know what happens when you assume...how about you take into consideration a sandbox style game...or does D&D not "work like that."  I don't 'require" my PC's do anything, I create my world and they explore it...I create the challenges and where they are located using the logic of my campaign setting... but then I must not be playing D&D because you have apparently decided how D&D works... 



Cadfan said:


> Every RPG out there works like this.  There are easy and hard challenges, and their intended for characters of varying skill levels.  3e works like this even more so than most non WOTC games.  Obviously you can't have a problem with a game where there are locks of various degrees of difficulty, players get better at picking locks over time, and players, when they encounter lock-related challenges, can expect to challenge locks of difficulty levels roughly appropriate for their character's level.  You can't have a problem with this because if you did you would hate every RPG ever made, and 3e and 4e in particular as the sort of twin objects of your loathing.




Uhm no every rpg  doesn't work like this...check out some indie rpg's once in awhile. 

There are locks of varying degrees and you can stumble upon any of them depending on what you choose to do as a player in my campaign world.  Perhaps you run into a lock that you can't pick at 3rd level, but you can come back later and try it when you feel up to it...perhaps you will find a super easy lock at level 15, and whatever is protected by it will be equal with it's quality.  You on the other hand seem to create a very artificial world an assume everyone else does.  Besides what's so great about getting stronger...if everything else always gets harder...you're basically still at 1st level throughout your whole career... yeah that sounds like fun...not.



Cadfan said:


> The only thing that changed between 3e and 4e is that alongside the old school style of doing the math for you and putting it into the skill tables, the game designers gave the dungeon master a chart.  And that chart tells the DM "this is how we did it.  If you need to assign difficulties the way we did, this is the guideline we used."
> 
> That IS a change.
> 
> And some people hate it.





Then why don't the chart and the examples coordinate in the corebooks... Why do the numbers from the chart and the sample DC's not line up at certain levels...when they did in 3e/3.5?



Cadfan said:


> You can tell because they complain that 4e is too calibrated for "balance."  They want a game where difficulties are "based in reality" instead of "some notion of balance."  And they think that 3e represents that game.
> 
> It doesn't.  It represents that game exactly as much as 4e does.  Which is not at all.




Uhm see above...3.5 did not change how difficult it was to search for an item in a room...based upon your level, depending on which of the contradicting ways to determine DC's one chooses from 4e...it does.



Cadfan said:


> I feel for these people, because they're sort of like someone going to a movie and hearing someone else blurt out the surprise ending while they're in line.  Or someone going to a seance hoping to be spooked and having someone else tell them that the "ghost rapping" is really a device hooked to the bottom of the table.
> 
> Not knowing how the DCs were calculated had provided them with a veil of illusionism that made suspension of disbelief easier for them.  4e took that away.  Or more specifically, the 4e DMG took that away.




I feel for people who believe in one-wayism...it's like discussing something with a brick wall...or trying to discuss a painting with them when they have only seen a corner of it.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 3, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Have you ever thought, that maybe (contrary to the popular belief that 4e has the best DMG evah) that it is in fact the sloppy nature of how this subject is written about in the 4e DMG and PHB that creates differing perceptions on how it should be handled...as opposed to peoples "LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES"?



Sure, it's possible. It's not like I am saying that because you (not you, it's a general "you") do not understand 4e, you are a moron. I hope you didn't take it that way. I am merely saying that while some claims hold merit, some definitely do not, when people explain why they do not like 4e. Besides, while I do think the 4e DMG is great, I do not think I really anyone saying it was flawless. Because let's be honest, it hardly takes a flawless book to improve on what was before.



> Here's some examples...
> 
> On page 37 we have DC's for listening through a door, done exactly how they were in 3.5 ( and the 4e PHB), with descriptions and set DC's... contrast this with






> Page 41 where we have the DC's  for searching a room...now these don't have set DC's (instead a Dm is told to use "easy to hard" from the table on page 42.  But check under the perception skill section in the PHB and we again have set DC's that are not based on level...
> Barely Hidden...DC 10
> Well Hidden...DC 25
> More than 10 squares away +2



Aye, this one is confusing and makes little sense. However, if you consider that the rest of the core rules operate under the assumption of fixed checks for skills covered in the rules, wouldn't it be fairly easy to assume that someone screwed up? I mean, if you have say 20 pages of rules saying one thing, and a small paragraph saying something else, wouldn't it be logical to assume that the last one is there by mistake?



> So which is correct?  Which method are you suppose to use?  Especially when you have the whole section on page 42 that outlines exactly how to set difficulties and tells you to ... "Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard or somewhere in between."



Page 42 is explicitly for things otherwise not covered in the rules. Meaning, things like listening through doors, climbing up ladders and whatever else is covered in the PHB are not superseded by this.



> There is nothing here about determining the DC by the logic of the world, so that one sentence on 23 is totally discarded here.  Furthermore the PHB has set DC's not based on level for certain actions, thus setting up an expectation that an action can be accomplished at a certain difficulty....plain and simple.



As I have said before, I do understand why some might have issues with page 42. But I think it's a debate for it's own thread. 

But the short version is that while the static DC's from the PHB are skill checks that relate to non-sentient things. Like a ledge doesn't get harder to balance on, just because you become more powerful. Page 42 is however not for those things, since they are covered in the PHB. 

Page 42 is for the weird stunts, the things that are hard to cover unless you want to have 30 pages of lists to wade through. Now, the stunts work under the assumption that even though you get better as you level, the fact that these stunts interact with enemies of (more or less) equal level, the stunts themselves become harder to make. Basically, the premise in 4e is that if it's hard for a rogue to make a tumbling move through the legs of say an orc, it should also be hard for the same rogue in 20 levels to do the same against whatever level-appropriate foe he is facing. Sure, he got like +15 more to his skills, but the monster he is facing is also more apt and quick. 

I personally like this approach. It means that epic level characters will shine supreme at common stuff, like running quick over a narrow pole, jumping over a chasm, beating down a wooden door etc, but still not always succeed at wacky stuff in combat, because the foes they face are equally good.

I hope that made some sense.

Cheers


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 3, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's _immensely_ condescending, you know. And it makes you seem tremendously arrogant to boot.



Eh, but I'm right.

1. Some people like the illusion of realism.

2. Some people find that illusion disrupted by looking at the nuts and bolts of a game system.

3. The 4e DMG makes most of the nuts and bolts explicit, as do many of the design diaries over the past year.

4. Therefore, some people have a problem with that.  

5. And occasionally they come online and tell other people that they can't stand the nuts and bolts, and want a game without them, and prefer to play a different game where you and I know darn well the same nuts and bolts exist, but the designers chose to hide them a bit.

Its like watching sausage get made.  The best I can tell someone is not to look.  If you love sausage but can't stand blood and gore, then when someone offers you a tour of their brand new sausage factory, don't go.  Just enjoy eating the brand new sausage.

If you DID look, I don't know what to tell you.  I guess you can just eat your old brand of sausage and pretend that it wasn't made in a similar factory.  But don't expect a lot of sympathy out of fans of the new sausage when you tell them that YOUR sausage brand is made from love and rainbows, unlike theirs which is made of horrifically ground up cattle scraps.  Particularly not if you tell people this on a forum filled with individuals who are knowledgeable in the trade of sausage processing.

Generic food metaphor FTW!


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 3, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 3E did introduce Challenge Ratings for monsters.
> 4E basically expanded on this for monsters, but also expanded it to cover other types of challenges, most notably skills.




I used to refer to monsters as "this is a level X monster" in 1e/Basic D&D.  The difference (maybe a big one) was that level X was the dungeon level.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 3, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> Skill DCs are certainly one of the easier things to house rule in 4th Edition (as you have done). But the dissociated mechanics hardly end there. Redesigning class powers and re-statting large swaths of the monsters is hardly a trivial undertaking.




I wouldn't call that a house rule (except in Skill Challenges! oh, forgot about that).  I'm not sure what you mean about dissociated mechanics in powers and monsters, though.

Is it the hit points/oozes falling prone/come and get it stuff?



Beginning of the End said:


> That is not what I said.
> 
> It's really quite frustrating that people in this thread apparently find it impossible to actually read the messages they're responding to.




Sorry about that, I guess I just didn't understand.  Can you clarify what you meant for me?



Beginning of the End said:


> Which is hugely problematic. Can you imagine if the real world actually worked like that? Muhammed Ali never wins more than X% of his fights because his opponents are always balanced against his current abilities. An expert locksmith never succeeds at opening more locks than he did as a novice because, for some reason, he's always called to service locks exactly matching his level of skill.




The real world does work that way, to a point!  Ali doesn't fight amateur boxers.  He doesn't fight featherweights.  He fights heavyweights, and contenders at that.

I'm not saying that 4E DMs should always use level-appropriate DCs; I think that they should use varying levels of DCs based on whatever opposition they are facing.  However, if you want the PCs to be challenged, you as a DM should set the opposition based on the ability of the PCs.  The DMG has already worked out the numbers for you!  Now you just have to provide the meaning.

This also helps storytelling because a protagonist who doesn't face fit opposition doesn't have to go through anything to get what he wants.




Beginning of the End said:


> If the PCs go to the backdoor of the local tavern at 30th level, there's absolutely no reason to assume that the local barkeep has locks forged out Vecna's bones. In fact, it's pretty silly to assume that.




Exactly that.  They are 30th level; the PCs should be in the City of Brass, trying to break into the Efreet's palace treasury, where the lock is made out of Vecna's bones.  (The local tavern in the City of Brass might have locks made out of some kind of elemental steel - I picture a golden snake, hissing, shifting itself to foil anyone who tries to pick it, biting those who fail badly.)



Beginning of the End said:


> I mean, I get it. There are people who like the Oblivion method of "all the goblins in the world level up when you do". 4th Edition just takes that principle and expands it to every single aspect of the game world.
> 
> For me, though, I find the whole 4th Edition method of doing things silly. If you're that obsessed with everything having that X% chance of success, just grab the percentile dice and roll it. Why go through all the extra rigamorale?
> 
> And, more importantly, it renders achievement meaningless. Your characters never really become more powerful in any meaningful sense of the term -- the numbers just get bigger.




I'm not saying that the goblins should get tougher as you level up.  I think that's stupid for the reasons you do.

What I'm saying is that you don't need to do this.



Beginning of the End said:


> People keep talking about Quests as if they were some sort of revolutionary mechanic. But to me they look virtually indistinguishable from Story Awards in 3rd Edition. And similar mechanics were found in 2nd Edition, too.




I think it's because the XP awards for Quests are pretty big.  I think there's also some kind of text about players making up their own Quests.  Those minor changes go a long way.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 3, 2009)

Zustiur said:


> While you're right, it doesn't read/feel that way. It reads as:
> 
> When you're level 1, it's a DC 15 lock.
> When you're level 5, it's a DC 19 lock.
> ...




They could have been better about that, I agree.  It does read like the lock doesn't change but the DC does, based on level.  (There's one passage in the DMG - Realism under the Narration subchapter - that says differently, but the impression is still there.)

I don't _really_ agree that colour should come first.  Colour should come first at the table or in prep; the game rules should not be broken, and that's what the designers should work on.  Colour is easy enough to change.



Zustiur said:


> Having a cube go prone IS the problem, because it doesn't make sense. Yes, you can do all sorts of things to work-around the issue. _But that doesn't stop it being an issue in the first place._




I think it's an interesting trade-off that they decided to make.  The DM now has to figure out how a cube can be Prone, and all that means (given the +2 to defenses vs. ranged attacks, I'd say it "pancakes out" so it's flatter).  I think they want everything to suffer the various conditions in combat because it allows for more choices in combat.



Zustiur said:


> WHAT? I fail to see how quests didn't exist in any previous edition of DnD. It's a story mechanic, it's just been given a little more text in 4E.




Playing story games, the best mechanic that helps generate story that I've found is the Flag - when the player has something on his sheet that tells the DM what his PC wants to do.

It's even better when it's tied into the reward mechanics (as Quests do).

It gets even better when the PC has two mutually-conflicting Flags - then there is going to be internal character conflict.

Quests have existed in all prior editions, I guess, but I feel the implementation is much better in 4E.



Zustiur said:


> ... *looks up gauche*. Is it? Surely the merit of strolling through goblin warrens is based on WHY you are there.




I was just joking around.



Zustiur said:


> It certainly doesn't cut it for me. I want my example DCs because it allows me to draw comparison to the real world, in order to structure my imagination of the fantasy.




Like I've said, splitting the levels up into Tiers (and providing colour for the meaning of those Tiers) does that for me.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 3, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Have you ever thought, that maybe (contrary to the popular belief that 4e has the best DMG evah) that it is in fact the sloppy nature of how this subject is written about in the 4e DMG and PHB that creates differing perceptions on how it should be handled...as opposed to peoples "LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES"?




I agree, the DMG is pretty sloppy about this.

If it weren't, I wouldn't be coming here to post things like, "You _can_ run it that way, but you don't _have_ to run it that way."


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Aye, this one is confusing and makes little sense. However, if you consider that the rest of the core rules operate under the assumption of fixed checks for skills covered in the rules, wouldn't it be fairly easy to assume that someone screwed up? I mean, if you have say 20 pages of rules saying one thing, and a small paragraph saying something else, wouldn't it be logical to assume that the last one is there by mistake?




 First it's a hefty amount detailing the whole process, examples, etc....pg. 42... second it has, surprise, surprise, become the defacto answer for most 4e fans when a question arises...in fact I would argue in the reality of the game, pg. 42 has garnered much more weight than the other "20 pages of rules".  But the most important thing to my mind is... the question: why is making a choice necessary? 



Jack99 said:


> Page 42 is explicitly for things otherwise not covered in the rules. Meaning, things like listening through doors, climbing up ladders and whatever else is covered in the PHB are not superseded by this.




Ok, let's assume this is correct... then we run into other problems...



Jack99 said:


> As I have said before, I do understand why some might have issues with page 42. But I think it's a debate for it's own thread.
> 
> But the short version is that while the static DC's from the PHB are skill checks that relate to non-sentient things. Like a ledge doesn't get harder to balance on, just because you become more powerful. Page 42 is however not for those things, since they are covered in the PHB.




And yet there is no way to cover all actions (even just with non-sentient things) in the PHB, thus the chart will be used for those types of actions...as an example, let's say my Rogue wants to run up a wall and somersault over and to the top of a pit, using Acrobatics...the chart will be used at this point.  Now again we run into contradictory info, the Acrobatics skill says start with a base of 15 and modify for difficulty...yet on page 42 there is an actual example of an Acrobatic stunt (The rogue and the chandelier) that instead uses the chart??  Again this is sloppy and confusing.



Jack99 said:


> Page 42 is for the weird stunts, the things that are hard to cover unless you want to have 30 pages of lists to wade through. Now, the stunts work under the assumption that even though you get better as you level, the fact that these stunts interact with enemies of (more or less) equal level, the stunts themselves become harder to make. Basically, the premise in 4e is that if it's hard for a rogue to make a tumbling move through the legs of say an orc, it should also be hard for the same rogue in 20 levels to do the same against whatever level-appropriate foe he is facing. Sure, he got like +15 more to his skills, but the monster he is facing is also more apt and quick.
> 
> I personally like this approach. It means that epic level characters will shine supreme at common stuff, like running quick over a narrow pole, jumping over a chasm, beating down a wooden door etc, but still not always succeed at wacky stuff in combat, because the foes they face are equally good.
> 
> ...




Yes, and yet what you are claiming is contradicted by the example given on page 42...read the description for the Rogue grabbing the Chandelier... this isn't against a sentient opponent and yet here we see the chart used, not a set DC.  

I would argue furthermore that the type of action you speak of should be covered by a check against a defense...or an opposing skill (as suggested by most of the skills descriptions in the PHB)... so I think there's a pretty big fallacy in your assumptions being the correct way to interpret how the rules should be used, and in fact still assert that they are confusing and sloppily written/explained.

Side Note: Something I've noticed with 4e is that it's fans are often quick to interpret many of it's ambiguous and/or unclear rules and then act as if that is the only way they could possibly be understood or interpreted... when the answer is more likely th rules really weren't explained or written well.  And even further this is often held up as a strength of 4e.  Now I agree freedom to make rulings is a benefit, but not when the basis to make those rulings on is poorly written and/or explained.


EDIT:  Also in the Acrobatics example...stunts actually get harder as you go up in level, not easier.  So the somersault to the top of the pit trick starts out with a DC that's roughly the same as balancing on a ledge...yet as you get better and higher level it becomes harder to pull off, yet balancing on the ledge stays the same...This is where that disconnect takes place for me...NOT because I see the nuts and bolts, but because the nuts and bolts don't make sense.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 3, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Uhm see above...3.5 did not change how difficult it was to search for an item in a room...based upon your level, depending on which of the contradicting ways to determine DC's one chooses from 4e...it does.




Thats because, like with most things in 3e, the skill system was poorly designed and just plain broken. 4e changes the DCs because the 4e designers realized that static skill DCs break beyond a certain level. This argument also destroys the absurd notion that 3e is somehow more "realistic" than 4e. Pretty much anyone at or beyond 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3e.

I took this from the WotC boards a long time ago. I'm not sure who wrote it, and I'd love to give credit to the original author but it does a good job of illustrating the ridiculousness of the 3e skill system:



> 9th level Bard. He has 12 ranks of Perform, started with 16 Cha and
> increased it twice to 18 (+4). He also has a masterwork instrument
> (+2) and a Circlet of Persuasion (+3). His Perform modifier is now
> 12+4+2+3=+21. This means that, by taking ten, he nails a 31 every
> ...


----------



## Ahglock (Jan 3, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 3E did introduce Challenge Ratings for monsters.
> 4E basically expanded on this for monsters, but also expanded it to cover other types of challenges, most notably skills.
> 
> But just like 3E CR rules didn't demand of you to only ever use equal level enemies (quite the contrary), the 4E rules don't demand you to only ever use equal level challenges for your PCs.




It was not demanded no, heck I can't think of anything that is demanded in an RPG.  But I think 4e pushes you towards it more than any previous edition.  

While we are still having fun, but I think the reduction in simulationist gaming will probably effect the replayability or long term enjoyment of the game for us.


----------



## Gothmog (Jan 3, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> Thats because, like with most things in 3e, the skill system was poorly designed and just plain broken. 4e changes the DCs because the 4e designers realized that static skill DCs break beyond a certain level. This argument also destroys the absurd notion that 3e is somehow more "realistic" than 4e. Pretty much anyone at or beyond 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3e.
> 
> I took this from the WotC boards a long time ago. I'm not sure who wrote it, and I'd love to give credit to the original author but it does a good job of illustrating the ridiculousness of the 3e skill system:




You sir, have won the thread. 

Wow, I hadn't ever really thought about how broken the 3e skill system was until I saw those examples and checked them with my 3e PHB.  The 3e skill system worked pretty well up until about 5th or 6th level, but past that things got silly very quickly with static skill DCs (and doubly so with synergies and magic item bonuses).  While there is a lot to be said for realism and consistency in the game, I think people also need to realize that without chance or risk of failure, the game simply isn't fun.  So while sliding DCs for skills dependent on level may not be the absolute best answer (I tend more towards the simulationist side of things myself), they are better than what we had before, and I appreciate what the designers were trying to do with them.  The game is perfectly playable and doesn't break down with the sliding DCs, even playing it from my more old-school, simulationist perspective.

I can justify the relative consistency of chances to hit in 4e combat a lot easier than I can the sliding DCs for skill use.  As you get more skilled, it stands to reason your opponents will get tougher and more skilled as well.  Sure, a level 20 fighter might run into a dozen level 5 orcs- and he'll have an easy time hitting them and mopping the floor with them- but how is that different than any other version of D&D?  What is different is that the level 20 fighter meeting an equivalent level opponent won't auto-hit on his attacks (at least the first two iterative attacks) like he would in 3e.  Thats a feature, not a bug.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 3, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> Thats because, like with most things in 3e, the skill system was poorly designed and just plain broken. 4e changes the DCs because the 4e designers realized that static skill DCs break beyond a certain level. This argument also destroys the absurd notion that 3e is somehow more "realistic" than 4e. Pretty much anyone at or beyond 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3e.



And yet 11th level in 4E being by game definition "paragon" is ok?

I mean, it is perfectly fine to me, but to embrace that and complain about this is absurd.
The whole thing gets back to this stupid "I have my one narrow minded view of 'realistic'" and *to me* this cherry picked example disproves it, therefore your enjoyment of the game must be wrong."  

It is resoundingly ignorant.

If you can not grasp the distinction between superhuman and the in game concept of "realism" then you have no business being in the conversation.  And since you posted this foolishness, you either can't grasp it, or you are simply being intentionally dishonest.

I think calling the 3E system broken is laughable.  I don't think the 4E system is broken either.  Sadly constrained, yes, but not broken.


----------



## Ahglock (Jan 3, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> Thats because, like with most things in 3e, the skill system was poorly designed and just plain broken. 4e changes the DCs because the 4e designers realized that static skill DCs break beyond a certain level. This argument also destroys the absurd notion that 3e is somehow more "realistic" than 4e. Pretty much anyone at or beyond 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3e.




I don't see how that destroys any realism arguments from the 3e proponents.  Realism is supposed to be realism in a Fantasy world where you somehow can kill a 20 foot animate slab of iron with a sword, or kill giant flying lizards with weapons proportionally smaller than a toothpick to us, or survive falls form orbit.  The "realism" isn't real world realism, its realism for a high fantasy game where you do become super human.  While the 3e skill system had its flaws(IMO the social skills like diplomacy some of the biggest problems) it did help fit the realism being talked about in a high fantasy game like D&D.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 3, 2009)

Imaro said:


> EDIT:  Also in the Acrobatics example...stunts actually get harder as you go up in level, not easier.  So the somersault to the top of the pit trick starts out with a DC that's roughly the same as balancing on a ledge...yet as you get better and higher level it becomes harder to pull off, yet balancing on the ledge stays the same...This is where that disconnect takes place for me...NOT because I see the nuts and bolts, but because the nuts and bolts don't make sense.




Yeah.  This is where I think the DMG is sloppy and often contradictory.  The DC should not change based on the PC's level.  What should change is the environment, and those changes should change the DCs.

The DC by level tables should reflect an easy/standard/hard check for _gameworld challenges that fit that level._  They should not be used for everything just because the PCs have hit that level.  What's hard at level 1 should be an auto-success at level 30.

What's more, I think it should have put more emphasis on using Defenses as the DCs.  Defenses as DCs works awesome because it's fixed at the monster's level.  Tumbling through an orc's space could use the Orc's Ref defense.  (Or you could use a level 4 skill DC - level 4 because the Orc is level 4.  The Orc Berserker's Ref 13 is only 1 point higher than the Moderate level 4 DC, and if you use his Fort of 17 it's the same as a Hard check.)

Anyways.  I agree that the DMG is muddled on this, but I think that the framework is really good for getting the right DC for a challenge of a specific difficulty, so if you want to base the DCs on the gameworld there are a lot of tools in 4E that you can use.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jan 3, 2009)

Disclaimer: I am here to discuss ideas, not to "win" anybody over.  This post is not in response to any person in particular.

First, it's possible to overstate the _mechanical_ differences between the 3E treatment of skills and the 4E treatment of skills.   Suppose I'm a DM, and my story involves a PC running down steep stairs.  If I turn to 3.5E DMG page 31, I see that this task is one of the examples for a DC 10 skill check, appropriate for a 1st-level rogue.  If I turn to 4E DMG page 42, I see a table listing easy, moderate, and hard DCs by level.  If my PCs are 1st level, I might conclude that running down the stairs is a moderate task (DC 10 with errata).  If they are 10th level, I might conclude that it is easy (DC 10 with errata).  If they are 20th level, I might conclude that it is trivial and not bother checking the table.  My advice to unwilling converts stuck playing 4E is to pretend that the table includes two more columns, one for trivial (epic heroes at the tavern's back door) and one for impossible (rookies finding Vecna's lock).  *Page 42 says to choose the DC depending on the attempted action's difficulty.  Nowhere does it say to determine the obstacle depending on a presumed probability of success.*

That said, it's possible to understate the _philosophical_ differences between the 3E and 4E treatments.  The 3.5E DMG page 31 lists concrete examples, their DC, and for whom the example is an appropriate challenge.  The 4E DMG page 42 lists DCs by level for abstract (relativized) difficulties: easy, moderate, and hard.  The former is a "world-centric" approach; the latter is a "PC-centric" approach.  It's clearly possible to be more comfortable with one over the other.

Personally, I am a big fan of 4E.  That said, I do find that it's simplistic to say that 4E is "easier to DM."  I would say that it's more freeform.  For people who are good at making judgement calls without much guidance, such as so-and-so task would be "easy" or "hard" for a character of X level, perhaps it's liberating.  As a new DM who is still learning how to improvise, I sometimes crave more structure.  Okay, sure, I should litter my battlefield with terrain that involves level-appropriate skill checks to foster an engaging encounter.  So what terrain would that be?

Finally, I can certainly sympathize with a fan of 3E who worries that their DM is taking an extreme approach to page 42 and is making every skill check they encounter a 50-50 shot, instead of devising their own story and using to the rules to run it.  I would agree that page 42 could be more clear.  I suspect it fails to communicate the designers' intent, in much the same way that we know that the original presentation of skill challenges deviates from the designers' intent.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 3, 2009)

Interesting discussion.

If youre playing in the City of Brass, how do you know what the DC for a lock is? I always found the "fixed DCs" somewhat not correspondent with what the PCs were capable of....


What exactly makes a lock "hard"?

re: Given that the PHB has "fixed" DCs and the DMG flexible DCs, isnt this because the DM and the players need to know two different things? 

The players see a crevasse and ask the DM, "how wide is it, can I jump it?", the DM can answer "It's 10 metres wide"

But doesn't the DM need to know, "ok, do I want a crevasse? If so, do I want the PCs to auto-pass it, auto-fail it or have some sort of chance"

Given the above, the DM needs to know the DC BEFORE he knows the width since the DM already knows there's going to be a crevasse....It's the same reason why monsters have a CR rating, to help a DM choose an appropriate monster


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 3, 2009)

Imaro said:


> First it's a hefty amount detailing the whole process, examples, etc....pg. 42... second it has, surprise, surprise, become the defacto answer for most 4e fans when a question arises...in fact I would argue in the reality of the game, pg. 42 has garnered much more weight than the other "20 pages of rules".  But the most important thing to my mind is... the question: why is making a choice necessary?



 Unless you can dig out a quote where I say that page 42 is Alpha and Omega in 4e, I suggest that you do not expect to argue for that. Regarding the choice, you are right. There should be none, the paragraph on page 23 should never have been in there.


> Ok, let's assume this is correct... then we run into other problems...



No need to assume. The first few lines clearly state that page 42 is for rules not covered in the DMG.


			
				4e DMG page 42 said:
			
		

> A few combat situations come up rarely enough that the rules for them *intentionally aren’t covered in the Player’s Handbook*—in particular, mounted combat and combat underwater.
> *Actions the Rules Don’t Cover*
> Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them. *Snip*






> And yet there is no way to cover all actions (even just with non-sentient things) in the PHB, thus the chart will be used for those types of actions...as an example, let's say my Rogue wants to run up a wall and somersault over and to the top of a pit, using Acrobatics...the chart will be used at this point.  Now again we run into contradictory info, the Acrobatics skill says start with a base of 15 and modify for difficulty...yet on page 42 there is an actual example of an Acrobatic stunt (The rogue and the chandelier) that instead uses the chart??  Again this is sloppy and confusing.



 See below


> Yes, and yet what you are claiming is contradicted by the example given on page 42...read the description for the Rogue grabbing the Chandelier... this isn't against a sentient opponent and yet here we see the chart used, not a set DC.




Not really. The example has an Ogre in it. Last I checked, an Ogre is pretty sentient.



			
				 DMG page 42 said:
			
		

> Example: Shiera the 8th-level rogue wants to try the classic swashbuckling move of swinging on a chandelier and kicking an ogre in the chest on her
> way down to the ground, hoping to push the ogre into the brazier of burning coals behind it. An Acrobatics check seems reasonable.
> This sort of action is exactly the kind of thinking you want to encourage, so you pick an easy DC: The table says DC 15, but it’s a skill check, so make it DC 20. If she makes that check, she gets a hold on the chandelier and swings to the ogre.
> Then comes the kicking. She’s more interested in the push than in dealing any damage with the kick itself, so have her make a Strength attack against the ogre’s Fortitude. If she pulls it off, let her push the ogre 1 square and into the brazier, and find an appropriate damage number.






> I would argue furthermore that the type of action you speak of should be covered by a check against a defense...or an opposing skill (as suggested by most of the skills descriptions in the PHB)... so I think there's a pretty big fallacy in your assumptions being the correct way to interpret how the rules should be used, and in fact still assert that they are confusing and sloppily written/explained.



You mean a skill check vs a defense?



> Side Note: Something I've noticed with 4e is that it's fans are often quick to interpret many of it's ambiguous and/or unclear rules and then act as if that is the only way they could possibly be understood or interpreted... when the answer is more likely the rules really weren't explained or written well.  And even further this is often held up as a strength of 4e.  Now I agree freedom to make rulings is a benefit, but not when the basis to make those rulings on is poorly written and/or explained.



I think this is just human nature. If you like something, you will have a tendency to look at it more favorably and in a better light than something you do not like. Again, I never claimed 4e to be perfect. I merely find it (flaws and all) vastly better for me than any of the previous editions.



> EDIT:  Also in the Acrobatics example...stunts actually get harder as you go up in level, not easier.  So the somersault to the top of the pit trick starts out with a DC that's roughly the same as balancing on a ledge...yet as you get better and higher level it becomes harder to pull off, yet balancing on the ledge stays the same...This is where that disconnect takes place for me...NOT because I see the nuts and bolts, but because the nuts and bolts don't make sense.



I am sorry. Where in the PHB does it say that under Acrobatic Stunts? I can't seem to find the paragraph in question.

Cheers


----------



## Truename (Jan 3, 2009)

> I'm going to succumb to my snarkiness and point that while page 23 says: "Sometimes realism is a matter of very small details. If two wooden doors appear to be exactly the same, but one requires a DC 16 Strength check to break through and the other one requires a DC 20 check, the world feels arbitrary and inconsistent."
> 
> Page 42 tells the DM to do exactly the opposite.




Hmm.  I read it differently.  I think of page 42 as being about the level of the _challenge_, not the level of the _party_.  So your inn door might be level  3 (and thus have a DC of 5, 10, or 15 depending on its quality).  The door guarding Vecna's treasure room will probably be level 30, though.

It took me a while to wrap my head around this, because I'm used to only PCs having levels. But this idea that everything has levels is prevalent throughout 4e.  Diseases have levels, poisons have levels, monsters have levels, skill challenges have levels... and I quite like it, because it makes it easy for me to compare the PCs level to the difficulty of the challenge.

Now, that said, I don't think p.42 actually says that it's about the level of the challenge. But I've chosen to interpret it that way so my need for verisimilitude is satisfied. I also wish there were more examples of how skill levels & DCs map to real-world objects.

_ninja'd by LostSoul..._


> Yeah. This is where I think the DMG is sloppy and often contradictory. The DC should not change based on the PC's level. What should change is the environment, and those changes should change the DCs.




This.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> Thats because, like with most things in 3e, the skill system was poorly designed and just plain broken. 4e changes the DCs because the 4e designers realized that static skill DCs break beyond a certain level. This argument also destroys the absurd notion that 3e is somehow more "realistic" than 4e. Pretty much anyone at or beyond 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3e.
> 
> I took this from the WotC boards a long time ago. I'm not sure who wrote it, and I'd love to give credit to the original author but it does a good job of illustrating the ridiculousness of the 3e skill system:




Was the 3e skill system broke? Because nothing you posted proves that.  It's world assumptions aren't the same as ours, and I don't think anyone is arguing that they are (though I can in no way speak for everyone).  I know personally I'm arguing for a "realistic" skill system, in the sense that it is a logical one (there's a big difference here.) based upon the assumptions of the world.  

You know NOT one where I try an acrobatic trick at first level, and 15 levels and tons of experience later, it's actually become harder for me to pull off in comparison to the other things I was capable of at first level.  IMHO that's definitely a type of realism that 3e had and 4e doesn't (or is so muddled in it's presentation of ... that it's become confusing and irritating to many.), perhaps you aren't grasping what people mean when they use the word realism.  Hopefully that helps.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Unless you can dig out a quote where I say that page 42 is Alpha and Omega in 4e, I suggest that you do not expect to argue for that. Regarding the choice, you are right. There should be none, the paragraph on page 23 should never have been in there.




Fair enough, though I never said you personally and there are numerous threads here where it's quite apparent.



Jack99 said:


> No need to assume. The first few lines clearly state that page 42 is for rules not covered in the DMG.




I'm talking about assuming it's only to be used vs. sentient creatures...is there a line that states that or is that Jack99's interpretation/houserule ...and has nothing to do with what's actually written in the rules?

EDIT: This was my fault for responding to the wrong part of the quote...however your assumption is contradicted earlier on with the "Search the Rooms" DC's on page 41.



Jack99 said:


> See below
> 
> 
> Not really. The example has an Ogre in it. Last I checked, an Ogre is pretty sentient.




And so grabbing a chandelier (not actually swinging into the Ogre or pushing him, or etc.) becomes harder and uses the chart because the Ogre is present in the room...huh?  The Ogre has no effect on if you grab a chandelier or not.  Now later when the Ogre is actually acted upon, we see his defenses used as the DC's or to hit numbers...but what does he have to do with how hard it is for a rogue to actually grab a chandelier?





Jack99 said:


> You mean a skill check vs a defense?





could be an attack vs. defense...or a skill check vs. a defense or skill check vs. opposing skill (you know like stealth and perception) or even an ability check vs. defense.  You know like the Strength attack vs. the Ogre's Fort defense in the example.  In fact with the new easier errata I'm not really seeing how skills vs. defenses are unbalancing in use.  Especially if the DM applies the +2 modifier.



Jack99 said:


> I think this is just human nature. If you like something, you will have a tendency to look at it more favorably and in a better light than something you do not like. Again, I never claimed 4e to be perfect. I merely find it (flaws and all) vastly better for me than any of the previous editions.




Yes, but I think it becomes a blinder when you begin to think that when people don't view it the same way as you those people are suddenly not comprehending things as opposed to not interpreting them the way you choose to.  especially with again the way and manner inwhich the books have been written is not clear or concise on the matter.




Jack99 said:


> I am sorry. Where in the PHB does it say that under Acrobatic Stunts? I can't seem to find the paragraph in question.




wasn't talking about the PHB I was comparing the ad hoc Acrobatics rules in the PHB which always start with a base DC of 15 and the way it is resolved in the example on page 42...which chooses to use the chart, sorry if I was unclear.  But it was again an example of ambiguous application of rules...unless of course everyone chooses to interpret that skill DC's should change dependent upon the type/level/whatever of sentient creatures and their proximity to you while attempting something, even if they should have no direct interaction with your chances to succeed at something.

Cheers[/quote]


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 3, 2009)

Hey Imaro;

How would you re-write page 42?

I know what I would do.


Base the DC on the level of the _challenge,_ not the PC.  This includes monsters and environment.  Crossing ice without slipping might be a Moderate Level 1-3 check; crossing ice in the Feywild under an echantement of a powerful Eladrin witch might be a Moderate check of the Eladrin's level.
As often as possible, use a stat vs. a Defense.  Apply the +2 modifier to the roll unless the task seems difficult; only apply the -2 modifier if it's extremely difficult.
Don't worry about using Limited damage expressions.  PCs have a lot of firepower at their discretion; damage on par with an encounter power is fine.
That said, try to base the damage on the gameworld.  Normal fire should deal Level 1 damage.  Fire from the elemental chaos should deal paragon level damage.  If the PC is using his own abilities (a Wizard using Mage Hand to manipulate the fire or a Fighter shoving an Ogre's face in the fire), use the PC's level.
If the PC wants to inflict a Condition, let him, though keep in mind some Conditions are more "powerful" than others.  Don't worry about Prone, Daze, Slow, or Immobilized.  Watch out for Restrained.  Stun and Blind should be handled with care.  The others shouldn't be used.
If the PC wants to inflict a Condition with an attack, it's okay to deal low damage.  1[W] is fine, so is the low normal damage for the PC's level.
When designing adventures/encounters, try to make the gameworld environment match the PC's level.  The game works best when the PCs are in an environment appropirate to their level; the DCs and damage are balanced, so make good use of it!  It will help to highlight the PC's growth.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 3, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Hey Imaro;
> 
> How would you re-write page 42?
> 
> ...





Good question, I don't profess to be a game designer...but give me a little bit to think about it and I'll get back to you.


----------



## Gothmog (Jan 3, 2009)

Truename said:


> Hmm.  I read it differently.  I think of page 42 as being about the level of the _challenge_, not the level of the _party_.  So your inn door might be level  3 (and thus have a DC of 5, 10, or 15 depending on its quality).  The door guarding Vecna's treasure room will probably be level 30, though.
> 
> It took me a while to wrap my head around this, because I'm used to only PCs having levels. But this idea that everything has levels is prevalent throughout 4e.  Diseases have levels, poisons have levels, monsters have levels, skill challenges have levels... and I quite like it, because it makes it easy for me to compare the PCs level to the difficulty of the challenge.
> 
> Now, that said, I don't think p.42 actually says that it's about the level of the challenge. But I've chosen to interpret it that way so my need for verisimilitude is satisfied. I also wish there were more examples of how skill levels & DCs map to real-world objects.




You know, this is a GREAT point, and something I hadn't considered before.  While the table seems to be written in reference to character level, it makes more sense to read it from the perspective of the hazard or obstacle, since traps, diseases, curses, etc all are given levels in 4e.

So, for example, trying to climb up a crumbling brick wall with some handholds, but covered in slime and moss might be a moderate level 7 hazard.  Add 5 to the DC for a skill check from page 42, and you have a final DC of 19.  While a 1st level character might have some trouble with this (say a trained Athletics of +7), a 7th level character would find it MUCH easier (Athletics +10), and a 15th level character would find it trivial (Athletics +14).  If the character has optimal climbing conditions (rested, good lighting, climbing gear, etc) it could be an easy challenge (DC 13).  If the character were climbing in rain, was bloodied, or while dodging arrows while climbing, make it a hard challenge (DC 24).  Wow, thats cool!

Hmm, something to consider.  I really like this- it gets around the cumbersome aspect of reading the table from the PC's point of view, and instead from the level of the challenge.  Plus, it also is a little easier to extrapolate challenges above and below the level of the PCs, and makes the simulationist side of me happy!


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 3, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Yes, but I think it becomes a blinder when you begin to think that when people don't view it the same way as you those people are suddenly not comprehending things as opposed to not interpreting them the way you choose to.  especially with again the way and manner inwhich the books have been written is not clear or concise on the matter.




I might have been a little harsh with my initial comments. Sorry. 

There does seem to be more inconsistencies than I had noticed before. This might have something to do with the fact that I pretty much prefer static DC's for such things, meaning that if jumping up a chandelier is DC 15 at level 1, it's still DC 15 at level 10. The only time that I use the 4e scaling is when the player's character directly interacts with a sentient being, as mentioned above. Maybe I just convinced myself that because it is how I (would) do things, that this is what they meant and ignored the parts that didn't fit my playstyle/thinking. I do use page 42 for guideline for damage for such attacks, scaling or not.

So far, it works great I think. But I can easily see now that if you are not already partial to 4e, such inconsistencies would be viewed very disfavorably. 

Cheers


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 3, 2009)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> how broken




Man, it's wierd.

One man's broken is another mans (my) "Frickin' awesome hard-wired adventure and challenge hooks."

Gimble attracted the attention of a genie? Awesome. Maybe it's an efreet from the City of Brass who won't take "no" for an answer. How will Gimble and his friends get out of this one?!

A rogue who can walk across a one-inch-wide beam? Sign me up for an impossible cat burglary high on the webs that crisscross a city that was once home to mortals, and now is only home to crafty giant spiders!

A barbarian who climbs 40 feet every 6 seconds? Sounds like a pretext for a race to the top of the Highest Mountain in the World, where the Gods are supposed to live...and the gods don't take too kindly to this mortal sport of climbing their mountain! Dodging lightning bolts while climbing in a rainstorm against others who are doing it? Awesome.

A swashbuckler who can leap 35 feet? Sounds like an amazing idea for an expansive combat where you are leaping between fragile stone pillars, duelling flying enemies that swoop by you!

A beguiler disguising himself as a woman's husband? Sounds like an AWESOME kind of villain, not to mention a pretty hilarious homecoming scene!

A monk who can tell if someone's been charmed just at a glance? Perfect. Saves me the hassle of dropping more subtle hints. Go now, fight the person with the town in their sway! 

A bard who is a master of languages? Sounds awesome. What kind of obscure species will he have to translate and diplomacize next?

A ranger who can track a suspicious toad over bare rock in the rain? Awesome. I wonder how long I can have them on the trail of the prisoner who escaped to complete the blood ritual?

All of that sounds AWESOME, and doesn't break verisimilitude at all.

It's not the "real world," but it shouldn't be. It is "internally consistent," which is something 4e has some problems with.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jan 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> There does seem to be more inconsistencies than I had noticed before. This might have something to do with the fact that I pretty much prefer static DC's for such things, meaning that if jumping up a chandelier is DC 15 at level 1, it's still DC 15 at level 10. The only time that I use the 4e scaling is when the player's character directly interacts with a sentient being, as mentioned above. Maybe I just convinced myself that because it is how I (would) do things, that this is what they meant and ignored the parts that didn't fit my playstyle/thinking.



I believe the problem with page 42 really is its ambiguity.  Clearly, different readers have taken wildly different interpretations of its contents.

Literally, it says to first decide whether the given task is easy, medium, or hard for a character of a given level.  Then it gives you the DC to use.  It explains how to create DCs from the narrative, but it doesn't explain how the narrative depends on the DC.

For example, you say that you prefer a particular stunt involving a chandelier to have the same DC regardless of the PC's level.  Is this preference the same as preferring the act of breaking down a door to have the same DC, regardless of PC level?  Of course, DMs are accustomed to thinking that they can adjust the DC of the door by changing its construction (wood versus iron, etc.).  Isn't the same true of chandeliers?  One chandelier may be higher than another, or more slippery than another, or less prone to swinging than another.

So if a room contains a chandelier, the DM is free to make it non-interactive: a DC too high for the PCs to use.  Or he can make it over-the-top hollywood magic: the PCs can use it to perform arbitrary stunts and achieve arbitrary effects.  I believe the implicit advice of page 42 is to assume that the chandelier happens to be of just the right placement, construction, etc. such that the player's idea to use it in a stunt is reasonable: neither foolish nor automatic.

I think the attitude of 4E, for better or for worse, is that why not put the chandelier in play?  You may have intended it as static decoration, with an acrobatics DC too high to be useful, but why not say that okay, the chandelier is within reach or comes loose from its chain in just the right way so that you can swing down from it to knock over the brazier at the bottom of the staircase onto the adjacent ogre?  Why not say, "yes, roll for it," and actually give the player a reasonable chance of success?  (Clearly, if the lock is the lock of Vecna and meant to be a major plot point, you can just say sorry, you weren't even close.  If it's just the back door of the tavern, you can look at your player funny and just say that his level 25 fighter brushes the door aside without effort.)

Note that I'm not saying that this attitude is the only way to play D&D.  It's just the one that I perceive in reading the 4E DMG.  I don't think it's inconsistent with other aspects of 4E, but it may not be for everyone.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jan 3, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> All of that sounds AWESOME, and doesn't break verisimilitude at all.
> 
> It's not the "real world," but it shouldn't be. It is "internally consistent," which is something 4e has some problems with.



I'm a proponent of 4E, and I agree that those "broken" examples are just demonstrations of how awesome 9th-level characters are.  At this level, 3E wizards are teleporting around the world and clerics are raising the dead.  The barbarian can climb 40 feet in six seconds?  Oh nos!

Also, I think it's true that 4E gives DMs less help with being internally consistent, but it's part and parcel of its more freeform attitude.  If you have a story in mind, 4E lets you tell it without worrying about being consistent with a bunch of "official" DCs.  But if you need to describe what a DC 25 obstacle looks like in-game, it doesn't remind you what one looked like last time.


----------



## Gothmog (Jan 4, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Man, it's wierd.
> 
> One man's broken is another mans (my) "Frickin' awesome hard-wired adventure and challenge hooks."
> 
> ...




I agree, the examples you gave sound like interesting plot hooks.

Here is where the stumbling block (and its a huge one) is for me.... those characters are 9th level!  Characters not even halfway through their careers are performing deeds worthy of Hercules, Gilgamesh, and mythical beings at the pinnacle of their abilities!

That's where the problem lies- not that PCs can do those things, but that they do those things at such a low level and with relative ease.  Hell, in those examples they are even taking 10!!!  These same things wouldn't be a problem if done by 15th+ level characters for me.  I wouldn't even have a problem with 9th level characters doing those things on a roll of 20, or some other way to score a critical on a skill check.  And let's not forget that many 3e adventures were populated with DOZENS of beings who had similar capabilities.  All of a sudden it gets a bit more ludicrous and out of proportion.  Thats where the internal consistency and simuationism of 3e failed for me- if static DCs exist for performing those tasks and skill modifiers are that high, then logically (and per the DMG)there will be thousands of such individuals in the world who will be doing those things.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 4, 2009)

> Here is where the stumbling block (and its a huge one) is for me.... those characters are 9th level! Characters not even halfway through their careers are performing deeds worthy of Hercules, Gilgamesh, and mythical beings at the pinnacle of their abilities!




_That's_ a pretty big exaggeration.

I'd be genuinely surprised to see a 9th level warrior type single-handedly redirecting a river to clean out the Augean stables without using serious magic...something Herc wouldn't need.

And for many powerful magical effects that you see in literature, nothing less than a 7th level spell would do, and an 8th or 9th would probably be more likely to do the deed successfully.

I'd be surprised if a 15th level ranger could duplicate the shot Odysseus made to announce his return to his home, and I'd be surprised if a non-epic PC could do some of the archery described in the _Vedas._


----------



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

> Here is where the stumbling block (and its a huge one) is for me.... those characters are 9th level! Characters not even halfway through their careers are performing deeds worthy of Hercules, Gilgamesh, and mythical beings at the pinnacle of their abilities!




Well, for the first "only 9th level" seems a bit of a strange phrase to me. In 3e, it was said that most human beings are generally covered in the 1-3 level range, even if they've had some combat experience. That's why E6 ends at level six, to a certain degree: by that point, you're clearly above the mortals, but you're still in the ballpark of the "real world." 

By 9th level (what 4e would dub about 14th level), I *should* be head and shoulders beyond what most humans can do, entering the realms of myth and legend.

I'm OK with 4e raising the bar a bit, but given the 4e skill system's own quirks (every character by level 14 has a +7 bonus in every skill, giving them a Take 10 result of 17, so even our sickly wizard can climb every cave wall he comes across, jump 15 feet, swim in rough water, and not eat for 3 days), being up in arms about how well 3e's system reflects the Real World seems a bit odd. 



> Thats where the internal consistency and simuationism of 3e failed for me- if static DCs exist for performing those tasks and skill modifiers are that high, then logically (and per the DMG)there will be thousands of such individuals in the world who will be doing those things.




"Thousands" is a pretty big exaggeration, too. There were other adventurers, but given the demographic info the 3e DMG gave us, the would still be pretty rare. It's kind of like the division of billionaires vs. "regular people" in the real world. There are billionaires out there, and they do things that you hear about sometimes, and you're sure there's more than two of them, and you might even meet one if you go to a big enough city, but they're still pretty legendary. 

The people that post mentions are heroes -- they have high stats, they have lots of feats, they have *nine frickin' levels* which isn't low-level at all. 

Most people, at best, would have a skill modifier of +4 for something that they've trained for. Everyone else would have a +0 (because 10 was the default stat, and it's not exactly like commoners, 90% of the world's population according to 3e, got the Climb skill).

The internal logic held for me, because 9th level was reinforced, every step of the way, to be ALREADY well above the capacity for most human beings. By 6th level, you're mighty. By 16th level, you're fighting demon-kings. By 20th, gods. (in 4e, by 24th level, you are indeed fighting demon lords; by 30th, gods).


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 4, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Base the DC on the level of the _challenge,_ not the PC.  This includes monsters and environment.  Crossing ice without slipping might be a Moderate Level 1-3 check; crossing ice in the Feywild under an echantement of a powerful Eladrin witch might be a Moderate check of the Eladrin's level.






  FWIW, the STAR WARS equivalent of "Page 42" (_Scum and Villainy_, page 78) includes DCs cross-indexed by difficulties (Easy, Medium, Moderate, Hard, Heroic) and Adventure Challenge Level.


----------



## Zustiur (Jan 5, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I agree with that. But how is that different from any other version of D&D?



Purely in emphasis. I am convinced that 4E emphasizes this 'balance' too much.




> Anything is possible. In a prior edition, you could slam a DC50 lock on a toilet door if you wanted.



Indeed, and it would be just as bad for suspension of disbelief as some of the things that I have encountered. For sake of example: the cost of a raise dead ritual knocks me straight out of role play into game play mode. [In my opinion] when 1st level parties can afford to raise their dead companions there is something highly wrong with the system! Death needs to hold a greater significance than that else there's little reason to take precautions in game. You end up with events as per Baldur's Gate (1 or 2, or possibly Neverwinter nights.. I'm fairly certain it was BG2) where a child's pet dies, and the child says "Oh well, I'll just get daddy to raise it again".
When things like that happen ... it's just not my DnD anymore.



> While KotS should have been made great, since it's the introduction-adventure, it is sadly the worst published for 4e by WotC. I can only say that judging 4e by that is a mistake. I am not saying you would like it if you were playing another module (or some homebrew for that matter) but that KotS is far from the best 4e has to offer.



I'm aware of that from having read complaint after complaint about it in threads such as this. Sadly it seems I have no control over our use of modules (other than quitting the group) because the pro-4E DM has bought the entire series and intends to run every single bit of it, as written, regardless of how badly it plays.



> Yes and I totally agree with you in that challenges should vary much more. But again, when has modules not been like that?



I do not have the experience to answer that question. However, from hearsay, I'd point at any module written for early DnD or AD&D. Keep on the Borderlands perhaps? I keep hearing tales of people running into extremely varied encounters in those days.



> Parts of them (powers especially), read like a text manual, so I can understand why you feel that way.



Only parts? There's so little flavour in the books that they all read like that. The DMG is the saving grace of the collection, but it's still tainted by edition it belongs to.



> 4e doesn't tell you that you can't use non-level-appropriate encounters or challenges, but instead focuses on the level-appropriate stuff. Which is fair, since one could easily argue that most challenges used in various campaigns are probably more or less level appropriate.



And:


Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But just like 3E CR rules didn't demand of you to only ever use equal level enemies (quite the contrary), the 4E rules don't demand you to only ever use equal level challenges for your PCs.



Agreed. It does not say, "you can only use balanced encounters". I still say that 4E emphasizes balance too much.


----------



## Zustiur (Jan 5, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Side Note: Something I've noticed with 4e is that it's fans are often quick to interpret many of it's ambiguous and/or unclear rules and then act as if that is the only way they could possibly be understood or interpreted... when the answer is more likely th rules really weren't explained or written well.  And even further this is often held up as a strength of 4e.  Now I agree freedom to make rulings is a benefit, but not when the basis to make those rulings on is poorly written and/or explained.



This isn't specific to 4E fans. We all do it, for our favoured edition. I'm as guilty as any other.



Dragonblade said:


> Thats because, like with most things in 3e, the skill system was poorly designed and just plain broken. 4e changes the DCs because the 4e designers realized that static skill DCs break beyond a certain level. This argument also destroys the absurd notion that 3e is somehow more "realistic" than 4e. Pretty much anyone at or beyond 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3e.



Yes, that's right. 9th level is effectively a superhuman in 3E. That's intentional. As others have already pointed out, 1-3 is the level range of nearly the entire populace. To give some vague real-world comparisons we had mention of money. Billionaires are lvl 15-20. Multi-Millionaires are say 8-14th level. And so on. But where's the majority of everyone? 1-3.
Some of those skill examples are extreme, I agree, but they're heroes by right. Reaching 9th level in the first place trumps all of those listed cases.
World war 1 pilots were considered Aces if they took down a mere 5 enemy planes. 5! Compare that to the number of monsters a character must have slain to reach 2nd level!

One of my issues with 4E is the assumption that characters are heroes at level 1. This has been a theme in some of the 4E defenses - "X is okay because they're heroes". Well, yes, okay it's true. X IS okay if we're dealing with heroes. But in such comments against 3E, the equivalent problems with 4E are often ignored.
Stretch out 3E's 20 levels to 30. Level 9 becomes about level 14. Run those same sorts of examples through 4E and see what happens.

The level 14 bard doesn't get to perform at all because perform doesn't exist. Wow, that's a great fix.

The level 14 rogue started with 16 dex, and now has 20 due to level increases. That's +5. He's trained in acrobatics, that's another +5. And he's level 14, for a +7. So we have +17 vs a DC 25 check. Taking 10 that's an automatic 27. You only get to move at half speed when balancing in 4E, it doesn't even provide an option for _trying_ to move faster. Otherwise, there is no change. 

The level 14 barbarian now has 20 strength (+5) training in athletics (+5) and is level 14 (+7), for a total of +17 vs DC 25 up most mountains in the rain. Again, we only climb at half speed... but wait, in 3E you only climbed at 1/4 your speed, so I suspect the distance given in the 3E example may be wrong (sarcastic gasp!). I'm not certain of the figures because the 3E examples did not go into full detail about where the DCs came from.

The beguiler cannot trick anyone as there is no disguise. Another great fix. Perhaps we can fix all of DnD's problems at once by removing all the rules?

I cannot find track from flicking through the skills in 4E, so I suspect the ranger is out of luck too.

So what do we have in summary? 
No change for those skills which didn't get canned, and for those that did - well that's up to each DM's interpretation of the highly suspect page 42.
Can someone from the '3E skills are broken, 4E fixed it' please explain how 4E is NOT broken in exactly the same manner?

Perhaps when 5E rolls around someone will dare to make a skill system the relies on diminishing returns. Where doing menial tasks becomes exceedingly easy at high level, but where truly astounding heroics never becomes a take 10 issue.
Or there again, perhaps those who find either system broken could just house rule that if there's a significant penalty for failure (falling off the ledge) you cannot take 10?

Equated roughly, there tiers are as follows

```
Tier     3E lvl      4E lvl
Heroic    4-6       1-10
Paragon  7-12     11-20
Epic       13+       21-30
```
4E cuts out level 1-3, or there-abouts. There is no point where PCs are roughly on par with NPC commoners and such. I take objection to this, as I suspect would the E6 players.

There's another thing... but I'd better stop myself before I make this post any longer.


----------



## Zustiur (Jan 5, 2009)

Here is the next factor I alluded to. Please forgive the self-indulgence of making this post which is essentially off topic.

I work in the information technology industry. I've recently noticed that one of the 'tools' we use applies to DnD and the edition wars.
In IT we use a weird and wonderful standard called ITIL. This is used to provide clear definition of certain words so that we can all communicate a little more clearly. The part that is relevant to DnD can be summarized as follows:

Any single occurrence that hinders work is call and incident.
The impact of that incident is a combined factor of the number of people affected, and how badly they are affected (ie, can they still work?)
Repeated incidents indicate an underlying cause. This cause is called a problem.
Our goal when dealing with incidents is therefore twofold. 

1) We seek a work around as quickly as possible so that the affected users can continue working.
2) We try to identify the underlying cause (problem) so that we can actually fix it and thereby prevent further incidents of the same type.

To translate this to DnD:
An incident is a single instance of a gaming group finding something in the rules that doesn't make sense, or is not fun.
The impact is the number of groups affected, combined with the amount of damage the incident caused to their game (i.e. did they shrug and keep playing, or did it turn into an argument?)
A problem, is the underlying fault in the rules that caused the incident.

There are problems in every system. This is a given fact which I hope we can all agree on. I'll be picking on 4E as the example here, simply because it is the current system. Here's how the ITIL model relates to the edition wars.

Issues that arise in gaming groups equate to incidents - one group trips a cube and complains that it makes no sense, that's an incident. A work around is provided by the community (use a different description instead of trip). That group continues on, they can keep working (playing), but the underlying problem has not been looked at.
Another group plays the game... and lo and behold, they trip a cube and find this unsatisfying. They report the issue...
And what happens? The community that supports 4E a little too vigorously claims that the group is naive or stupid for not using the work around that was provided to the first group.

How was the group to know? The argument is that a work around has been found, so the problem has been solved. But this is not the fact of the matter. The _problem_ still exists, it has not been altered in any way. Only a work around was implemented. People will continue to take issue with this until the actual problem (underlying cause) is fixed.


In IT, if a problem is reported enough times we seek the solution to prevent it occurring. This is often rolled out in a patch so that no one is affected again. This can usually be done out of office hours so as to cause as little interruption to work as possible.

In DnD... we only have two ways to do this. 
1) Errata and new print runs
2) New editions

I bring this whole comparison up specifically because in all edition camps, there are those who argue that X isn't a problem, when in fact it is. A work around (we call them house rules) is not a solution (official rule correction). The community would be well served to learn the distinction between problems and incidents.

What can we do about it?
Well, I doubt we can do much to make WotC update their errata more often, or release 5E sooner, so it's up the community to make their own errata.
If we (EN World) want to end edition wars once and for all, we need to host community errata, so that groups encountering such problems have somewhere to turn, without flooding the forum itself.

This is the closest I can think of to rolling out a patch.



Regarding new editions of any product, I believe the producer needs to have two simple goals.
1) Increase the number of features
2) Reduce the number of problems

This applies to all products, from computer software, to whitegoods, to RPGs.
Without increasing features, no one will see be happy about making the switch because they'll wonder where the benefits went.
If the number of problems increases too much, people won't be able to enjoy the new features because they'll be too busy hating the problems.

For me personally, 4E failed both goals. I have more problems with 4E than I had with 3E, and many of the features I loved have been cut out of the game entirely.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 5, 2009)

I STRONGLY disagree that feature creep is a good thing for ANY TTRPG.

I can see where increased features/options are a good thing for a computer program or a car because frankly, the computer and car themselves have become more powerful and are able to handle more and more things.

A TTRPG though, thats run by a human and there's a hard limit to how much a DM can handle. This is one of the reasons why I love 4E. It actually remembers that there's a human that supposed to be running the game.

re: Flavour
*HEH*, again, I would like to point out that there was MAJOR complaints about the use of flavour text intertwined in with functional text when the first previews of 4e came out.

You guys that argue that 4e is too dry should have made your beliefs more forceful given that I believe the somewhat dry reading of the 4e books can be pointed directly to how much people complained about the flavour text.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 5, 2009)

Zustiur said:


> The level 14 bard doesn't get to perform at all because perform doesn't exist. Wow, that's a great fix.






Zustiur said:


> The beguiler cannot trick anyone as there is no disguise. Another great fix. Perhaps we can fix all of DnD's problems at once by removing all the rules?






Zustiur said:


> I cannot find track from flicking through the skills in 4E, so I suspect the ranger is out of luck too.




Hrm...

I'm going to use these tidbits as examples of a completely different problem that I've seen with many players, and it's a problem that I, at least, had never seen before 3E. It's a trap I've fallen into in the past (probably a large portion of my fixation with finding specific DCs, as I mention above).  Mainly, I suspect it had to do with how feats, class abilities and skills were finally presented in 3E.

Many, many players and DMs have gotten into the habit of looking at the rulebooks as saying "If it doesn't say I can do it, it can't be done." Few people any more look at the rules and instead say, "I doesn't say I can't do it, let's figure out a way to do it."

For example, a "bard" in 4E (that is to say, anyone who mentions a musical or artistic history in their character background) can perform.  In most situations, they simply succeed, because there is no reason for them not to. In situations where it is important, it becomes a skill challenge, and the players can help decide which skills and ability checks are most appropriate...  An History check to sing of an epic battle or a legendary king, a Diplomacy check to flatter the audience, a Bluff check for dramatic acting, an Insight check to gauge the mood of the audience and adjust the performance, even a Thievery check (sleight of hand) to add an impressive flourish to your lute playing.  The DM may even decide to grant a +5 "training" bonus to ability checks to represent the bard's musical talents.

As for the other two...

The Beguiler can still disguise himself in 4E because you can "make a Bluff check to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, gamble, *pass off a disguise* or fake documentation, and otherwise tell lies." (p 183, _PHB_)

4E Rangers can still explicitly track using Perception (p 187, _PHB_)...  For that matter, in 4E anyone can find and follow tracks, not just Rangers or those with a feat.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 5, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I STRONGLY disagree that feature creep is a good thing for ANY TTRPG.
> 
> I can see where increased features/options are a good thing for a computer program or a car because frankly, the computer and car themselves have become more powerful and are able to handle more and more things.
> 
> A TTRPG though, thats run by a human and there's a hard limit to how much a DM can handle. This is one of the reasons why I love 4E. It actually remembers that there's a human that supposed to be running the game.




You know what I don't understand... how one minute fans of 4e claim you can't compare the options available in 4e now with those created throughout the lifespan of 3.5, but then make statements like the one above where they are comparing the complexity, over the lifespan of 3.5 with the complexity of a game that hasn't been out half as long...I mean which one is it?

I also find it funny that people tend to overlook what I call the complexity shift in 4e, where you tend to deal with more changing numbers, conditions, saves, marks, recharges, etc. per round than 3.5... also I wonder for those who claim that running 4e monsters are easier than 3.5, I find the complexity to be about the same...especially since in 3.5 I could run less monsters for a challenge against the PC's and thus on a round per round basis actually had to keep track of less.  In other words for me it's become one stat block with numerous powers or numerous stat blocks with fewer powers each but still a bunch total. Personally I don't think one approach is simpler than the other, what I believe is that different people process  information in different ways  and for some 4e's complexity is easier while for others 3e/3.5's is.



AllisterH said:


> re: Flavour
> *HEH*, again, I would like to point out that there was MAJOR complaints about the use of flavour text intertwined in with functional text when the first previews of 4e came out.
> 
> You guys that argue that 4e is too dry should have made your beliefs more forceful given that I believe the somewhat dry reading of the 4e books can be pointed directly to how much people complained about the flavour text.




You ever thought those people just wanted their traditional D&D flavor instead of Golden Wyvern Shine Adepts and Emerald Orb Oz Wizards?   I really believe this is what people were saying... don't go creating stuff with no former precedent that I probably have to remove and change for my D&D world... keep it broad and confined to what has come before, maybe with some tweaks and I know what I do and don't have to change as well as how much work I have to put into it.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 5, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I wonder for those who claim that running 4e monsters are easier than 3.5, I find the complexity to be about the same...especially since in 3.5 I could run less monsters for a challenge against the PC's and thus on a round per round basis actually had to keep track of less.  In other words for me it's become one stat block with numerous powers or numerous stat blocks with fewer powers each but still a bunch total. Personally I don't think one approach is simpler than the other, what I believe is that different people process  information in different ways  and for some 4e's complexity is easier while for others 3e/3.5's is.




Yep I'd agree with that...  For me, the reason 4E creatures are easier to run is because all their abilities are contained in a single stat block.  I don't have to go looking up the details of spells and feats and abilities in a another section of the same book, or another book altogether.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 5, 2009)

Zustiur said:


> Issues that arise in gaming groups equate to incidents - one group trips a cube and complains that it makes no sense, that's an incident. A work around is provided by the community (use a different description instead of trip).
> 
> ...
> 
> I bring this whole comparison up specifically because in all edition camps, there are those who argue that X isn't a problem, when in fact it is. A work around (we call them house rules) is not a solution (official rule correction). The community would be well served to learn the distinction between problems and incidents.




So how the DM chooses to describe something is now a house rule?


----------



## Ifni (Jan 5, 2009)

Imaro said:


> You know what I don't understand... how one minute fans of 4e claim you can't compare the options available in 4e now with those created throughout the lifespan of 3.5, but then make statements like the one above where they are comparing the complexity, over the lifespan of 3.5 with the complexity of a game that hasn't been out half as long...I mean which one is it?




Something to keep in mind is just because some fans of (insert edition here) say A and some say B, it doesn't mean that any particular fan of (insert edition here) believes both A and B. Two different people can criticize the same thing for completely different (even opposite) reasons. It's a fallacy to accuse people of inconsistency because their arguments contradict those of other people who happen to like the same edition.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 5, 2009)

Imaro said:


> You know what I don't understand... how one minute fans of 4e claim you can't compare the options available in 4e now with those created throughout the lifespan of 3.5, but then make statements like the one above where they are comparing the complexity, over the lifespan of 3.5 with the complexity of a game that hasn't been out half as long...I mean which one is it?



You don't understand because... because 4e fans are a hive mind, right?  Its the same reason I get to blame you for everything Derren's ever said on this forum, right?

A more serious response that probably isn't deserved- they're totally different things.  

Feature creep deals with things like the finicky-ness of the rules.  Like if one edition of a game has disarm and trip, and the next edition has disarm, trip, sunder, and new rules that specify exactly who can be tripped and how different modifiers should be applied based on the trippee's form of locomotion, whether it be bipedal, quadripedal, or serpentine.  

Options-across-lifespan has to do with whether its fair to complain that 3e had Shadowcasters and 4e doesn't.  And the answer to that is yes and no- if playing a Shadowcaster is what makes you happy, and making a fake Shadowcaster out of a 4e wizard isn't enough for you, then 4e obviously doesn't have what you want.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that 4e or WOTC are blameworthy for not having a relatively late-era esoteric option available at initial release.  Its possible to both want something (like I want a shadowcaster) and to acknowledge that its logical that you haven't been given it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 5, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again- some people are simply not psychologically prepared to understand game design.
> 
> I don't mean this as an insult!




If you didn't mean it as an insult you would have been better not saying it.

You quoted someone and essentially said that they are not psychologically prepared to understand game design?

Perhaps you are not psychologically suited to understand the rules of behaviour we want to see on ENworld, all the more in flammable threads?

You're banned for 3 days.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 5, 2009)

Ifni said:


> Something to keep in mind is just because some fans of (insert edition here) say A and some say B, it doesn't mean that any particular fan of (insert edition here) believes both A and B. Two different people can criticize the same thing for completely different (even opposite) reasons. It's a fallacy to accuse people of inconsistency because their arguments contradict those of other people who happen to like the same edition.




Hey Ifni, that's a good point... I guess I assume if you're on this board you're reading through alot of these posts and absorbing alot of what's talked about... but that could definitley be an assumption I shouldn't make.  So again, good point.



Cadfan said:


> You don't understand because... because 4e fans are a hive mind, right?  Its the same reason I get to blame you for everything Derren's ever said on this forum, right?




Where did I say or make that claim... 



Cadfan said:


> A more serious response that probably isn't deserved- they're totally different things.




Then please by all means... stay quiet, and let the poster I responded to answer my question and explain what he meant.



Cadfan said:


> Feature creep deals with things like the finicky-ness of the rules.  Like if one edition of a game has disarm and trip, and the next edition has disarm, trip, sunder, and new rules that specify exactly who can be tripped and how different modifiers should be applied based on the trippee's form of locomotion, whether it be bipedal, quadripedal, or serpentine.




So are you saying that over the lifetime of a game these types of options don't increase?  Because in 3.5 they did, and if that's true... then I  have to ask... what was your point in posting this definition, as far as it is related to my statement?



Cadfan said:


> Options-across-lifespan has to do with whether its fair to complain that 3e had Shadowcasters and 4e doesn't.  And the answer to that is yes and no- if playing a Shadowcaster is what makes you happy, and making a fake Shadowcaster out of a 4e wizard isn't enough for you, then 4e obviously doesn't have what you want.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that 4e or WOTC are blameworthy for not having a relatively late-era esoteric option available at initial release.  Its possible to both want something (like I want a shadowcaster) and to acknowledge that its logical that you haven't been given it.




Uhm...okay you make a point that they are different types of options...( at least I guess that's your point)... but that has no bearing on whether or not the options increase over the lifespan of a game or not.  So is it that feature creep can in fact grow over the lifespan of a game and thus it is options-across-lifespan... or are you trying to argue this never happens and thus it is totally different from options-across-lifespan?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 5, 2009)

I've just read the last few pages of this thread, and I think its done now.

There has been some interesting discussion along the way, but too much edition warring and people talking at one another rather than with one another.

Clunk.


----------

