Don't make it sound like we were happy to dislike 4th edition. That is beyond insulting. You don’t give up on your favorite hobby because it's convenient.
You know Im kind of used to this kind of "analysis" where because I don't like the game it means there is either something wrong with me or my group, we are playing the game wrong, or Im just here trolling like I never actually played the game or something.
If you read my blog (which is really a record of my gaming life in a sense) I have flipped flopped around in 4th edition, most noteably because I constantly find myself "wanting" to like 4th editioin and going back to it to give it yet another chance to try to find some of the qualities that many fans of it find.
I have tried a variety of campaign styles, approaches much of it from advice from people on this forum who are so eager to judge me and my gaming group based on our own analysis of the game. The end result is always the same, the game just doesn't play well. Its hard to pinpoint the problem really I mean my group enjoys everything from White-Wolfs Vampire both old and new, GURPS, various D20 systems we have even enjoyed quirky games like Ghostbusters, Rollmaster, the 7th sea... We enjoyed all those experiances and for the most part I'm hard pressed to think of a single game system I have played that I didn't actually like which I suppose why it bugs me so much that 4th edition D&D, the latest and greatest in what I think is one of the best franchises that has never in the past disapointed me (I love 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition as well as Pathfinder and many other D20 systems).
I really don't believe the opinion or analysis, whatever you want to call it, that somehow we are either not doing it right or don't know how to do it, or that there is something wrong with a group is accurate given our history. This game (this edition of the game) may very well be the first role-playing game (system) I actually can't get into and that is not just my personal opinion, its a definitive consensus among every gamer I know personally. I suppose its not strange that on the fan forums there are fans, but I just find the discussions hear so ... I don't know what the word is... kind of like the Twilight Zone where everything is oppossite compared to the world you know. Its been a rather sureal experiance with 4th edition because I just can't find the game people claim is there.
I've been a member of this community for over a decade, when 4th edition came out its the first time I found myself in the minority opinion here. Its a rather humbling and kind of odd experiance.
The DM is the moderator of the game and the behavior of the players and their characters. No ifs ands or buts.
Yeah, no. Power to the player, man. This is a collaborative endeavor, and the DM not allowing ifs and buts I would argue isn't respecting the players.
Any DM that expects to moderate the behavior of the players is no DM of mine.
Haha. You say it's a collaborative effort and say "Power to the player" in the same paragraph. I'll put you in the "my success is guaranteed, it's just a matter of time" camp.
Yeah, completely missing the point. Did I say "my success is guaranteed" anywhere? No. I don't expect it to be my way or I quit. "Power to the player" I mean only as in contrast to your "DM Is The Law" position. Neither DM nor player should expect to dictate to the rest of the table how things are going to go.
But good job taking the traditionalist "I'm the DM therefore I'm better than you" argument.
Sleeps, what you just described is running into a mob, attacking everyone in the mob, then taunting everyone in the mob, then running away from the mob. Seems crazy to me that someone could this in six seconds but I would say pg 42 covers it. Move action to move to the enemies. Sword burst power to attack them all followed by a minor action bluff attack vs will to mark each enemy. Now it gets tricky without an action point. I would say spend a healing surge to push your body beyond its limits and take an extra move action away from the mob. Of course you will provoke a lot of OAs but you succeeded at doing what you wanted all from page 42. Happy?
I like the OP, it's clear and simple. I'll post in the following the things I consider a feature, and where the opinions of the original poster and myself differ too much to be accomodated by the same system (hence, modularization). I'm not doing this to "counter" his arguments or whatever, just to state what I think about these issues and in this way help the designers to find the parts of the system that absolutely require caution. The things that require modularization, if you wish.
My first problem with 4th edition is that combat feels like a tactical board game. This is where the presentation failed; the fluff is separated from the mechanics and almost everything is codified. To make matters worse, combat feels like a board game because the grid is mandatory. And finally, some rules are fine in a board game but too difficult to believe in an RPG (AEDU for non-casters, square-shaped Fireballs and the simplified diagonal movement). If it feels like a board game then you are very tempted to play it like a board game. Nobody improvises when playing Monopoly or Bloodbowl; the rules are the rules, period. I think that’s why so many people assume that spells aren’t open-ended, that you can’t improvise and that if something isn’t in the rules, it’s because you can’t do it.
The combat system in 4E is one of the things I consider heavy improvements from the earlier editions. Combat is fun. It doesn't finish with the first spell cast, it doesn't have unwieldy numbers, it has meaningful choices for
everyone. Each character feels different and unique because of a combination of easy reflavoring (which flares up imagination and incites everyone to play his character, rather than what's in the book) and a good class system
which ensures all classes play differently during a fight (some exceptions, sure, but the general principle is that). The consequence is of course the fact that you don't default to full-attack / cast win button mode and actually play during a fight. It's fun, for once.
I like the 4E presentation, especially the separation of fluff from mechanics: it's easier to play that way in my experience. We've debated long enough on this point and suffice to say I'm willing (and I think most of those who think like me will be willing too) to suffer from a "bad" presentation with flavor and mechanics heavily entwined as long as there is the option to just ignore the fluff. A short paragraph detailing only what is part of the mechanics, perhaps, or bolding the key parts so that we know what we can ignore safely, or even a detailed chapter in the DMG that allows us to break apart the mechanics from the flavor. I just want to be able to reflavor freely and easily, one way or the other. I think we can safely remove the grid if you manage to provide an interesting combat system regardless of the grid, and by presenting two standards for most rules (like diagonal movement and square-shaped fireballs) we can find a solution to the simplicity vs simulationism problem.
The second problem is that (almost) everything is “deal X damage and apply Y condition”. In the earlier editions, spells would either “deal X damage” either “apply Y condition”. These conditions would typically last multiple rounds (and not one or two rounds). Melees always dealt X damage. In late 3.5, melees stopped being lame “deal X damage” and started getting cool attacks that “deal X damage and apply Y condition for 1 round” (Tome of Battle maneuvers and sneak attack feats such as Staggering Strike). So even with the more advanced 3.5 rules, casters could cast dramatic effects that last multiple rounds but deal no damage and melees could spam “deal X damage and apply Y condition for 1 round” attacks. Both were cool and fun but in very different ways. The only two problems were that rogues still didn’t have enough cool moves and some spells were still vastly superior to all other options. Note that AEDU has nothing to do with this. If casters had Web or Wall of Fire as a low level daily power, as a mid-level encounter power, and as a high level at-will power, the game would still have been loads of fun.
This one is a tough one. I mentioned that I like 4E's combat system. I agree that some abilities can safely be "hit for effect X" instead of "hit for damage and effect X", and that the game can be balanced towards that. However, I shall note two problems: standardized conditions and long durations. I absolutely love standardized conditions. They are quick, easy, can be balanced without much effort and render the game much smoother. I don't feel the need for a different condition for every spell. In fact, I believe that would be very detrimental. This is one thing I'm sure some people won't agree with. The long durations are another problem: I don't personally want them. Having them means that abilities that inflict conditions are much more resolutive and powerful than other abilities (unless the conditions are useless which hopefully won't be the case). To make the point clearer, I believe Wizards in 4E are slightly overpowered compared to most other classes due to exaggeratingly powerful dailies. I mean, Bigby's Hands can shut down an entire encounter the hard way if used properly. The Invoker's Silent Malediction is an excellent way to win an otherwise difficult encounter with little resource waste. Those things are too powerful to be enticed, I don't want to go back to a combat system where a single spell could win an entire encounter. I should note that this comes from the fact that in my gamestyle, encounters are serious business. I know there's people who play lots of encounters a session, even 50 quick encounters (Kaldric). I don't like that game style - personal preference - and generally have one or two encounters in each session and I like it that way because I like my encounters as meaningful, enjoyable, plot-advancing moments. If a spell destroys one half of a session, that spell is broken and unfun.
I believe a Tactical Combat module will be available from the start. That is good. However, there is one other thing to consider, which is the power of spells. I want to have the option to run meaningful encounters without being required to neuter the wizard. It's really a question of quantity: the nature of time-based recharges (such as Vancian) is a restrictive one. Shutting down Vancian and offering an alternative could be a good way to handle it.
The third problem is the lack of utility magic. Charm Person, Sleep that lasts more than a couple of rounds, Invisibility, Silence, Fly, etc… Even if you managed to get them, they weren’t available enough to make a difference (at most once per day). You also had to wait much longer to get these spells (level 6 for Invisibility vs. level 3 for instance; level 16 for Fly vs. level 5). After a couple of months of playing, our PCs weren’t even close to having the out-of-combat magical capabilities of the former editions. We tried playing at higher levels but it didn’t feel the same either. Out-of-combat magic is simply too limited both in effects and availability. I know this is considered a feature by a lot of you guys that hated the “Wizard Toolbox”.
I do not object to this point. I would like more stuff for out-of-combat situations too. However, there are three conditions. First, spells should not be more powerful than what people can do without spells. This seems harsh but the truth is that I believe stronger spells will unbalance the game one way or another. This is again tied to Vancian casting - I really loathe it. This conflicts with the low-level availability the original poster wants if coupled with the desire for low-level martial characters to be tied to reality. If a Wizard can turn invisible at level 6, I want the rogue to have a skill trick that turns him invisible at level 6. Second, I want out-of-combat magic to be fallible, just like all the other out-of-combat abilities. I don't want Knock to be able to open all locks, I want no absolutes. This includes high-DC Charm Person (if the average guy fails his save on a 19, then Charm Person might as well be 100% effective) and most divinations. Seriously, I find divination rituals game-breaking in 4E too. Third, the resource pools need to be separate. I don't want to have to choose between Open Portal and Burning Hands. It is detrimental to the game. I want to have access to both, and the same goes for all classes, spellcasters, rogues and especially fighters. I feel the need to note that 4E's skill system allows most of the above listed effects without much trouble, if your DM applies the DMG guidelines and allows you to use your magical powers in out-of-combat situations. I found the rules enticed that kind of behavior, but as noted the presentation turned off many people.
More balance and thoughtfulness in the creation of out-of-combat mechanics will provide us with a system that we can both call nice, I believe. I just hope the ease of adjudication and freedom provided by 4E's skill system is retained by the new edition.
So If Say we were to make the rogue's ability to Sneak 3/day but it was invisibility, Or Open locks work perfectly Every time 2/day but You could not attempt it any other time after those two were spent you would be fine with that. The reason Ivisibility, CHarm, DIvinations are where they are Is because they are Highly Limited And If the GM is not Deliberately Mesing with Mage who uses these too frequently Then they Need to go back and rethink their ENcounters. Divination FOr example Is an easy one, So many spells and Abilities mess this up, Every spell has a reverse that can be cast, Most permenancied If appropriate to keep the Curious mage out. If the mage is Divining You through every encounter then the DM is letting him. Personally As A DM I love Diviners, they are so fun to mess with in about a Dozen ways.
As far as knock goes, Yeah You can Knock, But did you read the part where it springs ALL the traps as well when you do? Nothing like poisoning a wizard to scare the hell out of them. Cause their fortsave is horrible. And Charm. Well again the enterprising enchanter is in for loads of RP no fun, especially when his new friends become protective, or possessive as per what their nature is. Having an obsessed villager kidnap the mage has happened, and Having the town guard sent out because the barmaid thatMr slick enchanted is the captains daughter. Stop looking at it as god mode and Look at it as More opportunities to play with the mind of at least one PC who is asking for every type of trouble Imaginable.
As for DUplicating the Effects, Bluff Diplomacy Gather information, All rogu Class skills, No real counters, and You can bump their base so that ridiculous DCs were almost Auto makes by the time you were fifth level. Spot can find Invisible players just like it can stealth. Same rules govern them both. And it boils down to concealment from there. Seriously I would rather take gather information over half the divination spells any way as I can control it, Same with bluff and diplomacy, Thanks But I would rather not Have bertha the Ogre Madly in love with me, Because I cast some spell when I could just convince her with the Skills that I am her friend, and that we don't want to hurt her or her tribe over some silly misunderstanding. A lot of people Bring up playing out the spells beneficial side effects, But by turn the Negative ones can be just as much fun and Are just as much a part of them as Any benefit. Catch th party in Web while falling, and Now they are stuck in the web too after all. ANd believe me Most of them are going to be pretty miserable and rather upset if they could have just survived the fall for your invitation to come play in your adhesive jungle gym.
God casters were not just a thing of high levels. Not were they the result of supreme optimization. Take sleep for example. In a recent castles and crusades campaign the party wizard knew the sleep spell and could cast it three times per day. This lead to three outcomes. 1, the wizard casts sleep and all enemies fall asleep so she effectively ends the fight. 2, the wizard casts sleep and half the enemies fall asleep. In this scenario the party has a good fight, but if the wizard had not cast sleep our group would have been slaughtered. 3, the wizard doesn't cast sleep and the fight is more than our group can handle. There is very little a DM can do to balance around such a powerful effect. Sleep turns the ride of battle one way or another. Another example is 3e summon spells. When a level 3 Druid summons a hippogriph things get real. Their damage puts an equal level fighters to shame and there are few foes who can survive being dropped from 100 feet. Sure these casters can only do those tricks 3 times a day, but when their trick can end fights single handedly things get boring quick. I loved our party sorcerer because he took magic missile, scorching ray, and fireball. Those spells are balanced (somewhat). The Druid and wizard, had charm person, summon monster, entangle, grease, sleep, and a variety of other spells that "seemed cool" but could do the rest of the party's job for us. Now I know I am biased in my opinion here. I played an un optimized fighter and our DM was stingy with magic items. But I definitely felt that even at low levels casters were the real players. They brought out the big guns when things were too much for us small fries. That method of game design does not encourage cooperative gameplay.
Ya I can relate to that, it definitly was a problem in 3rd edition. Hard fights could often be turned into super easy fights with a single spell. The trick was group management, as a GM within 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition you really had to focus on limiting the players in many ways. It was harder to find a balance. I often only allowed 1 or 2 mage class characters, I often asked people to specialize in a particular school and I often created scenarios where mages would become the weaker members of the group relying on the fighters just to name a few ways you really had to kind of trim the fat. It was hard and it took practice but when you got it down and you created a balanced group with great backgrounds, it was a really an amazing experiance.
4th edition on the other hand does the balancing for you, which is a fine aproach as well, its less work, allows you to focus on other things but in the end as a whole the experiance was never amazing. There wasn't much dynamics, or reliance on each other, players where never really worried about the scenarios (does the mage have sleep ? oh he used it already.. now what are we going to do?). It was very much a kick down the door and fearlessly take on any challenge. It got dull quick, wasn't particularly inspiring and ultimatly the game ended up on the shelf.
I don't really know what that means and I'm not sure how you would fix it, but thats been the experiance.
God casters were a resuly of Poor DM play, Or poor Build choice on the part of other classes. Here's a snip of Combat from A 17th Fighter vs a 17th wizard In my last 3.5 game
Characters Ftr 17 Str 26+8 Dmg dex 23 +6 AC con 18 +4 HP Wis 14 +2 Will saves Feats: 2 weapon fighting, Over sized 2 weapon fighting, improved 2 weapon fighting, greater 2 weapon fighting, weapon focus bastard sword, weapon spec bastard sword, Imp Initiave Lightning reflexes, great fortitude, Iron will, 2 weapon rend, Improved critical, Dodge, mobility, spring attack, Toughness, Imp Iron will power attack 2 Weapon Defense, Imp 2 Weapon Defense, Exotic Weapon Proficiency Saves F +19, R +16,W+14 Attacks +28/+28/+28/+28/+23/+23/+18/+18/+13 Crit 17-20x2 Gear of note, Boots of Speed, Leather Armor +2 2x Bastard sword +5 Shock, Shocking burst, Holy, Belt of Giants Str +6 Amuleyof Con +4, Bracers of Dex +4, Cloak of resist +3, Ring of prot +3 Leather Armor +3All other Gear negligable for this encounter. HP 242, Damage /Attack 1d10+3d6 +8+ Per tick 2d10+6d6+16+1d4 +10+power attack x6 (first 3 Get Power attack last 2 no)(Rend)x4 +1d10+3d6 +8 +power attack AC 26 init+13
Wizard 17 dex 21 +5 AC, Con 16 +3 HP, Int 28 +8 Save DC, wis 20 +5 Will save Feats Lightning reflexes, Imp initiave , Spell focous (Evo) Gr spell focous (Evo) Maximize Spell Quicken spell, Great FOrt, EMpower Spell, Weapon focus Ranged touch
Gear Staff of power, Robes of the Arch magus, Ring of Prot +5 AMulet of natural ar +3 Ring of Wizardry 3, Wand of Fireball, Hat of Int +6 Bracers of Dex +4, Cloak of Wis +6 Cloak od resist +5
Saves F +15, R+17, W +20 HP 119, AC 27 Init +9
ROund 1 Init, roll ftr (F) 27, Wizard (W) 29 Advantage Enemy, Wiz casts Meteor Swarm (24d6) for 82 pts of damage F Health 160 Casts Quickened mirror Image 9 Images
F Activates Haste boots Moves 30 to mage, 9 Power attacks on Hits 1,2 -10, 3, 4 -5 5,6 -0 Hit AC 29, 30, 26, 32, 22, 25, 35 (C), 30, 28, 37(C) COnfirms 2 28, 31 2 crits Hits 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 hit Images Damage Rolls 4, 8+12+18, 5 4+13 +13 7+10+13x2 +8 136 Damage to W -30 Stone Skin (No weapons are adamantine May have had a custom spell) =106 Mage hP 13. Rnd 2 Mage casts Dimension Door Moves 80 ft Casts Quickened Magic Missile 5d4 14 Pts F HP 148 Ftr Runs Move x3 towards mage stopping at adjacent Square, Triple move action no attack.
Rnd 3 W 5 foot Cast polar ray hits touch 23 Hit Dmg 25 d6 for 94 prt F HP 54
F move 10 ft, Full auto attack no Power attack attacks 1-4 Auto hit, 5 hits ac 33, 6 AC 35, 7 AC 28, 8 AC 25, 9 AC 20 no crits 2 Misses, Dmg 1 27, 2 26, 3 28, 4 30, 5 22, 6 24, 7 34 Total 191 Dr 70 =121 DMG W Hp = -102 The combat works out the same against any other caster as well,Usually close, but A fighter damage build will normally take a caster down provided that they arew in a typical dungeon setting, where room size is limited. In this example the great hal was 120 by 80 Givng the wizard plenty of room to cast. So no the god caster example is indeed a myth as I did not even roll rend damage into this encounter. adding that the mage would have been at -10 after hit 2
Obviously For get this In 4th You simply can't make this sort of Fighter DPS build at all, And even the DPS classes are hard pressed at Upper paragon to drop a Lvl 1 Non elite in 1 Turn, Let alone solo a Hybrid Controller Damage dealer and dispose of a substantal threat alone in 3 Rounds As much as 4th Nerfed Casters to the point of non recognition, the real pain is the lost are of Melee damage now religated to the ranger who is better off with a bow.
Unfortunately your example is lopsided. All the wizard has to do is cast improved invisibility move away (move silently check), then cast fly or levitate, then cast stoneskin, then just blast away with their wand of fireballs. At that point it just comes down to who gets initiative first... So yes unbalanced spells... go to startpage.com and search for "codzilla" if you have any questions...
Either way it is left to the DM to figure it out. Thats the problem. On one side you say, "no the DM shouldn't have the ability to determine the capabilities and actions of my character(because alignment and alignment based mechanics make no sense)", and on the other side you say, "the DM should be able to determine the capabilities and actions of my character (because the house ruling guidelines of page 42 are godlike)".
Care to quote me on that bolded part? Or is it just a piece of imagined bull you put forward to artificially weaken the argument I brought forward?
The intamacy of the DM fiat makes no difference. Either way it is totally DM fiat.
Heavily disagree. The intimacy of a decision makes all the difference. If I try and pull off a crazy stunt and the DM decides that this would be impossible, I can live with it. If the DM tries to tell me that my character is ruined and looses all of his capabilities because we disagree on the interpretation of good and evil, something so highly subjective that thousands of years of discussion have not solved this topic, I will stand up and walk away that instant. There is a very significant discrepancy between the two situations - one is about trying something crazy / awesome / whatever, while the other is about the very personality and ethos of my character, something in which the DM has no say, no matter the powertrip he is on. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs.
Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!
I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
Yeah, completely missing the point. Did I say "my success is guaranteed" anywhere? No. I don't expect it to be my way or I quit. "Power to the player" I mean only as in contrast to your "DM Is The Law" position. Neither DM nor player should expect to dictate to the rest of the table how things are going to go.
But good job taking the traditionalist "I'm the DM therefore I'm better than you" argument.
The DM runs the game and world and should have the power and authority to do so. This does not mean that the DM should be a dictator says "My way or the highway." If a DM abuses his power, the players will simply walk away leaving him to play with himself. However, the DM should not be obligated to alter his world or game simply because the players want something to happen.
And the Player should not be obligated to completely toss his character concept because the DM demands his "ARTISTIC VISION!" to be all-encompassing and perfect. Both the world and the player characters should be worked out together, with respect for one another and both parties at least trying to come to a good understanding compromise.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs.
Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!
I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
And the Player should not be obligated to completely toss his character concept because the DM demands his "ARTISTIC VISION!" to be all-encompassing and perfect. Both the world and the player characters should be worked out together, with respect for one another and both parties at least trying to come to a good understanding compromise.
I agree. I just feel that the final word on an unresolvable conflict of opinions resides with the DM.
Yeah, completely missing the point. Did I say "my success is guaranteed" anywhere? No. I don't expect it to be my way or I quit. "Power to the player" I mean only as in contrast to your "DM Is The Law" position. Neither DM nor player should expect to dictate to the rest of the table how things are going to go.
But good job taking the traditionalist "I'm the DM therefore I'm better than you" argument.
The DM runs the game and world and should have the power and authority to do so. This does not mean that the DM should be a dictator says "My way or the highway." If a DM abuses his power, the players will simply walk away leaving him to play with himself. However, the DM should not be obligated to alter his world or game simply because the players want something to happen.
Very much so. I've Dm'd and played long enough to have made mistakes and also run fantastic sessions. I have never DM'd 3.x edition and I felt badly for our DM who did. The poor guy was just abused by the end of the campaign. It was almost impossible for him to balance anything and provide suitable challenges for the party.
