I'm surprised how little AEDU gets brought up in these topics. There have been D&Ds where out of combat rules were near non-existent, where rolling up NPCs was simplified or a mirror of the players, where skills and character building were more or less involved. But giving warriors multiple daily powers and removing the vancian system is a radical change from the player perspective of every D&D. Fighters and Wizards used to not only do different things (roles) but do them extremely differently, with fighters basically stuck with at-wills (even as 3E expanded combat options), and Wizards focused on huge daily spell lists. 4E annhilated that huge mechanical gap and turned near every class into a variant on tome of battle, and furthermore architectually the *same* variant with the same number and types of powers at every level. This did bridge the ever-complained-about Caster-Martial Disparity but at a cost that made the in-combat decisions for the core classes completely differently from any other edition, and the classes in one aspect remarkably similar to each other. That might have gone poorly for the different types of players that enjoyed the variety of different extremes in earlier D&Ds, or really not for any reason of like/dislike but just that it felt so completely unlike their expectation of D&D.
AEDU also had a huge impact on many other aspects of the system; the concept of the encounter as a resource limiter, and therefore clear differentiation between discrete encounter and non-encounter; the introduction of rituals to deal with non-encounter magic; turning power lists into mostly class-exclusives; move towards precise jargon and stat blocks away from english descriptions; seperation of fluff from mechanics (starting with martials vs arcane needing unique explanations for why they work the same way.) AEDU doesn't necessarily force all these changes itself, but they stem from the way Wizards interpreted AEDU.
If nothing else I expect that 5E will not lock every core class into the same AEDU mode. If they really take the modular thing far enough, we might even see AEDU, vancian, and basic attack versions of the same class. But supporting something that looks like the latter two options is IMO essential for grabbing lapsed players of every edition.
Technically, any time that a PC enters a situation where a scene is being played out, it's an encounter. It's just not always combat encounter. Think of encounters less like combat, and more like story scenes, with all that entails.
IIRC the last time we had a discussion to this effect we learned that the two DMGs seem to be suffering a bit of schizophrenia about what exactly is an encounter, with DMG2 saying that in some cases you could consider any scene in the adventure, much like a scene in a story, to be an encounter, while the former DMG claims that it has to be a scene with a risk of failure.
I mean I guess that putting your clothes on in the morning has a risk of failure but I doubt I'd consider it an encounter despite being a (very brief) scene!
When in doubt, I take the word of the DMG2 over the DMG. I know this is a personal methodology, but it is one I do hope will spread.
I can easily do any of the bolded in 4th edition. The first two would probably be skill challenges, the third would be several encounters mushed together combined with skill challenges (now fight the guys swinging over on ropes! Now fire the cannons!), the fourth would be a large scale change of terrain, unless the disaster in question had no bearing on battle, in which case it could again be skill challenge based (can you collect enough supplies/dodge the ____/otherwise survive, or do you loose healing surges and days worth of traveling time?). Now that's mechanically. I'm not talking about doing things by roleplay.
You miss my point. I can *also* do all of the above in 4th Ed. I can do anything I please in any edition of D&D (and any edition of any RPG, for that matter); I'm the DM, that's what I do. However, in 4th Ed it is literally more awkward, more challenging, and less balanced to do so via the encounter-based paradigm used. Skill challenges are great, but available in any previous system with support for Skills, however, where is my rules support for alter self, suggestion, dominate, and various presenses that characters and creatures can use to their advantage. It's one thing to Slight of Hand a mind-altering powder into a drink, it's another thing for that mind-altering powder to have a *rules-derived* effect under the encounter-based system. There are literally more resources, and more built-in support, in other systems for accomplishing these kinds of things.
I'm not saying I *can't* -- I'm saying there is a lack of support natively built into the class powers/feats/abilities by default for handling non-encounter situations. And because of that, there is an almost total lack of incentive for a player to *choose* a power that does have a non-encounter based effect.
I think I see what you mean, here, and let me retort: Using Disguise Self before a skill check begins (in which being another person would be useful) would, by the reading of the utility power, give the PC in question a +5 to their Bluff checks to convince the NPC they are who they look like they are; the mechanical implications of how this effects a skill challenge or a simple interaction is totally and completly up to the DM (as it should be). Does it give a bonus to diplomacy when acting as that person? Bluff? Intimidation? Is it an automatic success for one skill roll in the challenge? That needs to be left up to each individual DM as per the needs of their story. Most other utilities, be they class specific or skill specific, or whatever, seem to slant that way; mechanical effect, but usage out of combat is left up to the DM. Do you see this as a problem? Note, any questions I ask are asked in an attempt to understand what your position is on things, and is asked honestly and without malice.
What about the poison example? Adventurer's Vault, page 28, Goodnight Tincture. You put it in "adjacent" food or drink (adjacent in the case of out of combat being up to DM discretion), and a creature that eats it is subject to an attack "after 1 minute", an attack that attacks fortitude, and if it succeeds the target is knocked out for an hour unless attacked or subject to violent motion. there's a whole page of poisons in the DMG to use or model your own poison after, and mentions how to apply it to food or drink. Carrion Crawler Juice slowly can paralyze a victim, Ground Thassil Root knocks a person unconscious. It'd be simple to derive your own poison from these that had an effect on the will defense of a victim, or gave them a penalty to Insight checks, or whatever you wanted. The system is very very open. Do you want it to be more constrained, or would you just like to see more poisons, more examples of out-of-combat effects for illusory powers, etc? I personally find the system totally bendable to my will as DM, and yet easy to use, and not needing a cudgel to make work. Like I said, I find it easy to do. Not just doable, but easy.
Also, rituals were made for the reason that they were meant to be strictly utility options. I think the only real problem to this is the cost inherent in rituals; largely, one can excise or award the costs in terms of extra treasure. Hopefully, rituals in the future will be more of a default for classes, and that certain classes will get even more of them (I could see doubling the amount of rituals the wizard gets, and giving clerics, druids, psions, etc. rituals at certain levels instead of making them buy them all).
Technically, any time that a PC enters a situation where a scene is being played out, it's an encounter. It's just not always combat encounter. Think of encounters less like combat, and more like story scenes, with all that entails.
Yes, I already do (when playing 4th Ed). I dislike it. It's exactly that which I am saying is not how previous D&D systems felt. I'm saying that it's better to have designed a system that supports combat not being encounters than non-combat being encounters.
I'm not so sure what you mean here. Are you looking for a system that treats combat as the abberation, as something normally not done? Or are you looking for in-combat and out-of-combat to coexist peacefully? I assume the latter would require an "everything encounter" type of system, so one can balance the game based on encounters. But that is just my personal thoughts on that.
If you have not really poked at the system since first blush, I really suggest taking a look at it again. What with the panoply of new books, the Essentials philosophy, DMG2 mechanics for DMs and more, I think you might be surprised at how good 4th edition can be at emulating what came before.
Not that I would have any clue, seeing as how this is my first edition. But I hear that it's gaining more.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
This has been something that I have been working on as well. One of my players absolutely hates 4E; he only playes it because he really wants to play. Most of my players have no issue with it. I think something feels off, so I ask this question from time to time.
The chief thing one of my players complains about is how HP is the only way to end a fight. He says "all attacks are x stat vs. y defense for z hp damage". I agree that this is true, but I don't agree that this is a problem; it creates better balance. He also doesn't like that they changed the different rates at which wizards and fighters grow, but I don't even dignify that part.
My own chief complaint about 4E is that I don't enjoy reading the class entries. I don't need to see the powers when I'm reading over a class and getting an idea of how they work. I would have rather seen a simple list of powers and what they do with each class, and then have the power cards listed separately. Essentials took a step to make the Cleric and Wizard more interesting, and I am looking at applying that change to all of the casters.
The chief thing one of my players complains about is how HP is the only way to end a fight. He says "all attacks are x stat vs. y defense for z hp damage". I agree that this is true, but I don't agree that this is a problem; it creates better balance.
Well, Dragon 396 had an Unearthed Arcana Article on ending fights in ways other than reducing all enemies to 0 HP. Not sure if it was any good, but there is an option for it out there.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
4th Ed does have its problems to overcome, too. I find it to be extremely DM-unfriendly, making it annoying or frustrating to provide unique and balanced situations for my players.
I cant make sense of that statement.... in what sense do you mean balanced.
I mean balanced in the sense of numerically balanced. I once proved to one of my players that a monster he chose to fight on his own provided a mechanically even chance of success by integrating the assumed guassian even distribution of die rolls within the damage equations (Edit: removed my gaussian slip ). He had accused me of presenting him with a lopsided situation (after he won), when really I purposefully developed that situation as a high risk decision, but not arbitrarily improbably. My education and professional training are in physics, psychology, and critical thinking. I mean *balanced,* which, while no edition has been balanced, previous editions were easier to adjust and generally more flexible.
In addition to what I said earlier, the biggest thing I miss from the DMG is the charts of prebuilt (stats-wise) characters for every class at every level (and the 5 non-PC classes). The players aren't just interacting with monsters all day, and I don't want to have to hand-develop stats for townfulls of people.
There was a request on here where somebody wanted to know what stats were needed for a lock smith.. My response was why do I need stats for a locksmith?I thought about it a while and then I came up with things I might want to know about him...like what his attitudes were about magic making locksmiths second class citizens and including that his child that interupts the meeting with the players is adopted and has blue eyes to his brown and that he is quick to anger over any intimations about the quality of his work and that his cousin across town a rival and if you mention him you might finagle a discount price... I gave a description of the smell of clean oils and metal from the shop... the whole point of it was that there was many elements I could think of that I would like to include this character in the story.. .and oops oh he happened to be an ex military man... flip to the monster manual and pick the stats for a minion unless ofcourse his daughter was threatened.
So your desire for "combat" numbers on a page ... shrug neither impresses me as useful nor does it imply that your game is more story oriented.
Not only do I not desire only the "combat" numbers, but also the feat, skill, and generally ability choices provided for default characters, so they can interact in a mass-NPC environment quickly and easily. My games aren't more story oriented than they combat oriented, but neither are they the reverse. The oriented-ness of the game relies on the decisions of the players. Having a series of well-developed numbers for sections of story allows me to finely tune grand settings and environments, without relying on subjectiveness or randomization. I can avoid making significant numbers of dice rolls of my own when I know how things will develop based on player choice. It's my goal to provide settings of hundreds or thousands of individually balanced and rules-supported interactable objects and NPCs within individual scenes in order to better provide a more flexible world. This is how I develop the sessions that get played; when I actually play the session, the game plays itself flexibly from player choice, allowing me to focus on the changing emotional and social dynamics within the group. I built towns in 3e with specific binomial distributions of NPC classes and levels based on population, region, and culture. Why? Because I could. I can still do so in 4e, it just doesn't have the same resources to do so easily.
Also, I'm sorry my desire for a few pages of those tables isn't impressive to you. The topic of the thread is about ways that 4e no longer feels like prior D&D editions to people. Had I known it was just a trap to have my feedback treated dismissively, I wouldn't have posted.
Lastly, I'll bring up airship combat again. Did you know that if you use 11 rounds per minute in high-velocity environments instead of 10 rounds per minute, then you can seemlessly transition in and out of the round structure? This is because Miles Per Hour translates into Squares Per Round with no approximation if the rounds are 1/11 of a minute long. Let's say a powerful Invisibility spell utilized as a type of cloaking device lasts for 1 minute per caster level -- I can make (or have an Excel sheet with built in functions make) on the fly decisions based on that without having to deal with making the call as to whether something like "Encounter Powers" are going to reset or not. Why? Because abilities in previous editions of D&D *also* seemlessly transition between varying structures of the turn-based game. That is, it provides balanced and harmonious rules support, something 4e does not. I can provide an airship encounter in 4e; other people can provide airship encounters in 4e that I'm not here to dismiss. What I am saying is that 4e doesn't provide the same harmony and flexibility to develop things that retain integrity with the rest of the rules base.
As the DM, I find it my responsibility to provide worlds that retain seemless and balanced transitions based on player decisions. I have a very high standard for doing that, which I find 4e to be lacking the resources to make that happen in several cases. Perhaps I need to "buy more 4e books" where I'll find everything I need. I would find that an unacceptable solution. I already don't see the DMG 1 as providing a high amount of quality information, especially when compared to prior editions. I don't plan on purchasing additional product that has a low signal-to-noise ratio.
When in doubt, I take the word of the DMG2 over the DMG. I know this is a personal methodology, but it is one I do hope will spread.
*snip*
What with the panoply of new books, the Essentials philosophy, DMG2 mechanics for DMs and more, I think you might be surprised at how good 4th edition can be at emulating what came before.
Not that I would have any clue, seeing as how this is my first edition. But I hear that it's gaining more.
Although -- not intending to disavow anything I said at the end of my last post -- given your prodding, I may just look through the DMG2 the next time I am at the game store.
I'm not so sure what you mean here. Are you looking for a system that treats combat as the abberation, as something normally not done? Or are you looking for in-combat and out-of-combat to coexist peacefully? I assume the latter would require an "everything encounter" type of system, so one can balance the game based on encounters.
It can be a bit difficult to describe through forums, but I am looking for the latter. If all powers and abilities are designed based around a system of elementary measurements (time, distance, etc), then both combat and non-combat situations can flex around that design. The abilities the characters have should be designed independent of the structure of play (structure being "encounter," "rounds," "turn-based," etc). The mechanics of those abilities should be described as independently as possible to the structure of play -- when the structure of play is designed first, then other rules are designed to fit that structure (and only described within the terminology of that structure) it makes it much more difficult to escape to a different structure of play and still transition rules support to do so.
4e very clearly designed the play structure (Encounters) prior to designing the supporting rules. Even if not consciously done so, 3e (and earlier editions in *some* aspects) did not have the same issue. Nor do several other game systems. It feels extremely limiting. Not that certain situations are impossible within those limits, just that it becomes more difficult.
I see that you, FirstTurnKill, used the education argument...
Please do not start this elitist trend.
D&D is a game, not an educational tool.
I wasn't using my education as an argument, nor did I say it with the intent to throw the thread into an unrelated topic. I used it to provide context to my response to the question I was asked. No more, no less. I recognize my answer to that question isn't the only valid answer, my background was provided to explain my answer.
D&D is a game and an educational tool. It can also be a weapon, hardback books can do some damage, and d4's are bloody caltrops at 2 AM. But that, also, is discussion for a different thread. I meant no more by my comments.
When in doubt, I take the word of the DMG2 over the DMG. I know this is a personal methodology, but it is one I do hope will spread.
*snip*
What with the panoply of new books, the Essentials philosophy, DMG2 mechanics for DMs and more, I think you might be surprised at how good 4th edition can be at emulating what came before.
Not that I would have any clue, seeing as how this is my first edition. But I hear that it's gaining more.
Although -- not intending to disavow anything I said at the end of my last post -- given your prodding, I may just look through the DMG2 the next time I am at the game store.
I'm not so sure what you mean here. Are you looking for a system that treats combat as the abberation, as something normally not done? Or are you looking for in-combat and out-of-combat to coexist peacefully? I assume the latter would require an "everything encounter" type of system, so one can balance the game based on encounters.
It can be a bit difficult to describe through forums, but I am looking for the latter. If all powers and abilities are designed based around a system of elementary measurements (time, distance, etc), then both combat and non-combat situations can flex around that design. The abilities the characters have should be designed independent of the structure of play (structure being "encounter," "rounds," "turn-based," etc). The mechanics of those abilities should be described as independently as possible to the structure of play -- when the structure of play is designed first, then other rules are designed to fit that structure (and only described within the terminology of that structure) it makes it much more difficult to escape to a different structure of play and still transition rules support to do so.
4e very clearly designed the play structure (Encounters) prior to designing the supporting rules. Even if not consciously done so, 3e (and earlier editions in *some* aspects) did not have the same issue. Nor do several other game systems. It feels extremely limiting. Not that certain situations are impossible within those limits, just that it becomes more difficult.
First, a few notes: I am glad to get even one more person to look at the DMG 2. Yes, what was in it should have been smooshed into the original 4th ed DMG. Still, the book is awesome. Also, My point of view is coming from a major in fine art, and a minor in english (mainly from literature classes) and nearly a life time of making art and playing games. I do not pretend to understand physics, and am at best an armchair psychologist. Also, I have no idea what critical thinking means. That said, on I go. . .
How does a system balanced around encounters not allow character abilities to be balanced for any situation? Are we speaking instead of balancing them around time? They have to have some structure to build upon; mechanics shouldn't exist without thought to the structure of play. Are you saying that the structure of play is combat encounters, and that is what hinders the design? If that is the case, though I cannot agree, I can at least understand where you are coming from.
I will say that as a creative type, artist, storyteller and all-around artisan of craft and artistic works, 4th edition feels like so much paint and brushes, with me making the decisions on almost everything but the initial hues of red, blue, yellow, black and white. I feel like it has everything I need, and am dismayed when others do not find what they are looking for.
That said, I have difficulty understanding how tables of basic NPCs helps to build a town any better than using "Easy, Medium, Hard" DCs of, for example, 8, 12 and 19 (if I remember the revised numbers right) for a first level character when they try to socially interact with an NPC. If they try and fight them, I'd most likely use the stats for the Human Rabble or the Human Lackey "monster" in the original Monster Manual. Most NPCs will be minion type monsters, not trained, not able to even fight back, and dying in a single hit. Permutations of the Human Guards, or other racial equivalents work just as well if the player decides to take a swing, and throwing an encounter of X level [race] guards against something is as simple as using a humanoid stat block with the appropriate racial power subbed in or tacked on to another monster block. All in all, five minutes max to whip up an encounter. And I do have a few random encounters saved on my computer just in case. So, why the "binomial (not even sure what that means)" cities? Is this a math versus art thing? An improvisation versus prepared mathematical computation? Or is it something else? Again, asking to understand, not to insult. Some people will say you are horrible, I just don't understand and am trying to. I'm glad you like what you like.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
What I miss is a nearly complete lack of rules support for skills/feats/abilities/powers/etc to function in a non-"encounter" situation.
Non-adventuring, sure. Skill Challenges are equivalent to encounters, though, and can cover just about anything.
For example, this past Saturday, I had my players involved in open warfare of the 1500 vs. 1500 sized armies type. This is not something that fits well in the "encounter" paradigm (making it work provided serious balancing challenges). Neither do treaty negotions, an audience with a King, airship/galleon combat, environmental disasters, and loads of other "Not-Five-Orcs" events.
Several of those things have been done as Skill Challenges, one is a sample in the DMG (audience with a Duke, rather than a King, IIRC).
The main difference is that there actually /is/ structured support for such things. It's a new aproach, though, and though it's improved with each update, it's still far from ideal.
The loss of spell schools was also an unfortunate flavor hit, imho, that made it feel a bit less like the D&D I became accustomed to (I felt spell schools were an excellent addition to flavor development; pulling them was a bad idea).
I liked schools, too. This is going to sound silly, but they made magic seem more arcane, if less mystical - more like book-learn'n magic. Of course, there back, so you can rejoice in that.
I know this is a personal methodology, but it is one I do hope will spread. 
). He had accused me of presenting him with a lopsided situation (after he won), when really I purposefully developed that situation as a high risk decision, but not arbitrarily improbably. My education and professional training are in physics, psychology, and critical thinking. I mean *balanced,* which, while no edition has been balanced, previous editions were easier to adjust and generally more flexible.
