General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
9th level in 1E AD&D was getting close to epic 4E by comparison. The number of normal playable levels has gone up so each "bracket" has more levels in 4E than 1E had but the power curve is similar. AD&D 1-4= heroic, 5-8= paragon, 9+= epic.
Interesting ... I think the coversion is more like add 4 levels to the above... wizards in 4e start out playably competant in feel. Fighters and rangers have attacks starting out like cleave that damage more than one enemy (but it doesnt cascade as fast). At epic level my swordmage will beable to attack everyone he sees.... atleast once ;-) Bring on that army of minions I really want to use that power.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
People complain that this or that isn't fun...stuff like losing a spell while it was cast in older editions.
One of best battles, and memories of D&D, was a huge, epic clash, at a mountain fortress, where we ended up defending (with our PC's bodies!!) the cleric trying to finish a 1 turn (10 rounds in 2e) casting of a scroll.
It was brilliant, with lots of true tactics (setting up trip wires, archers on the battlements, a shield wall (ala Gladiator), etc) and it was tons of fun.
It's sad that anything that requires a bit more of true tactics, skill or thought is considered unfun...
You could have the exact same play experience today by protecting the guy casting a ritual. The only problem with a sustained combat like that is you run out of encounter and daily powers eventually and fall back on repetitive at wills.
On the other hand, that's no different than the Fighter making a full attack every round.
One of best battles, and memories of D&D, was a huge, epic clash, at a mountain fortress, where we ended up defending (with our PC's bodies!!) the cleric trying to finish a 1 turn (10 rounds in 2e) casting of a scroll.
Sanjay
Sounds fun, I think there has been a lot of cool ideas around use of specialized rituals as plot devices and similar things in 4e. And it is exactly talking about ways to allow all the characters to be enablers and involved in the process of completing those rituals ...its about a we win philosophy.
Which is very much 4e in spades. Delaying the enemy, aquiring components(could involve bloodying them so you have a blood sample), doing research and making bargains to acquire a true name... then travelling to the right location and preventing interuption of the final special..and situationally useful magic... which wins the day... with a lot of help from your friends. Is very much something 4e can simulate very very well.
OK "very very" is an exageration and some of the mechanics for it seem to be in the forever adjusted category ;-). I mean a skill challenges flux a lot. (they probably werent play tested enough using newbies and havkers).
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
- Lazarus Long via Robert Heinlein.
Last edited by Garthanos; 4th November 2009 at 07:35 PM..
I have a minion costume in my closet for you...I always despised playing a peasant. I do NOT get the appeal of playing a character who dies at the drop of a coin.
The appeal for me is part challenge and part the satisfaction of earning special abilities rather than having them handed to you on a silver plate to begin with. I enjoy lots of different styles of character growth but that's why occasionally I enjoy to play that one. Variety...spice...life... and all that.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
I've often wondered about this - compared to AD&D casters, PCs can't attack multiple times in a round, fly for more than a few minutes, teleport more than 30 or 40 feet, or target anything more than about 50 feet away in most cases. They have to get in the mid-teens before they can even think about flying or teleporting more than 5 minutes away, whereas casters from 5th to 10th level in AD&D can do all these and more. They can toss fireballs half a football field away; some spell effects go the length of football fields even at 2nd and 3rd spell level. Heck, a 9th level caster can (rules as written) use teleport and summon monster as offensive weapons. I know it's just an opinion, but to me the power curve to me went WAAY down as opposed to up.
The power level starts out higher, but the slope of the curve is much shallower. I think the break-even point is around level 5. Below 5th, 4E characters are stronger than 1E-3E characters of the same level. Above 5th, they're weaker.
__________________ Have you ever known a person who always behaved exactly the way you expected? Real people don't stay in character.
Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I definitely found that 3rd Edition, and the emphasis on optimization - as well as the requirement of having different roles, rather than just the guidelines for it - had a far more video-game/super-hero feel to it, in my experience.
Are you saying 4e has guidelines for roles while 3e has requirements of different roles?
Could you explain that a little? I'm not seeing the basis for such a statement.
Are you saying 4e has guidelines for roles while 3e has requirements of different roles?
Could you explain that a little? I'm not seeing the basis for such a statement.
I can understand that. Basically, the rules of 3E really require that the team have at the very least a primary Divine caster such as a Cleric or Druid, and strongly recommends a Wizard (though a Sorcerer or Psion may suffice). This is not explicit, but your average group of players will have a very hard time going through the game using the rules as written without those specific classes. If the game is heavy on stealth and traps, than either a caster skilled with anti-trap utility spells or a Rogue is pretty necessary.
Really, the 3E designers have admitted several times that the game was basically entirely designed with a four person team of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric in mind. For example, designers spoke about how the rules in Savage Species were only written and tested based on how monster PCs would work using those four classes, and they didn't really examine how a Druid or Ranger monster PC would play out (even though those classes probably make more sense for the average monster PC than Rogue or Wizard). They just didn't bother to tell anyone that in the game books themselves. This had some messy repercussions regarding the design of most of the later classes, in my opinion. It is because of the problems caused by 3E's party assumption that 4E developed explicit class roles, which ultimately allows more flexibility in the class composition of the party.
In short, where 3E basically forces you to have a Wizard and Cleric and assumes you also have a Rogue and Fighter, 4E only requires a Leader and Defender at minimum, with a balanced team of all four roles being recommended.
Of course, because of things like healing surges and rituals, a 4E party really doesn't need to have any class in particular, or even a particular role, in order to get by.
The power level starts out higher, but the slope of the curve is much shallower. I think the break-even point is around level 5. Below 5th, 4E characters are stronger than 1E-3E characters of the same level. Above 5th, they're weaker.
I don't know about 4e characters being more powerful at low levels. I don't recall seeing many 3e characters have trouble besting equal numbers of kobolds in relatively even ground. 4e characters are on the whole more durable, especially at low levels, but their standard opponents are similarly tougher and tend to have better damage.
__________________ "I'd like to shake the hand of the genius who invented that - just the hand, after it's been cut off from the now screaming man."
People complain that this or that isn't fun...stuff like losing a spell while it was cast in older editions.
One of best battles, and memories of D&D, was a huge, epic clash, at a mountain fortress, where we ended up defending (with our PC's bodies!!) the cleric trying to finish a 1 turn (10 rounds in 2e) casting of a scroll.
It was brilliant, with lots of true tactics (setting up trip wires, archers on the battlements, a shield wall (ala Gladiator), etc) and it was tons of fun.
It's sad that anything that requires a bit more of true tactics, skill or thought is considered unfun...
Sanjay
How much of that tactical activity was the cleric involved in? Not counting table talk.
I think your example is probably unrepresentative. By this logic being in a coma could be a fun and exciting game mechanic, as long as all the players who weren't in a coma were doing something awesome.
I don't know about 4e characters being more powerful at low levels. I don't recall seeing many 3e characters have trouble besting equal numbers of kobolds in relatively even ground. 4e characters are on the whole more durable, especially at low levels, but their standard opponents are similarly tougher and tend to have better damage.
There standard opponents now include minions.. which slews the entire concept of a comparison. It can definitely make 4e characters feel mightier. Depending on how the DM uses them (a few too many at low levels and they are nastier than they seem)
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
The appeal for me is part challenge and part the satisfaction of earning special abilities rather than having them handed to you on a silver plate to begin with.
Ah instead of my arrogant why would I want to be a peasant you... get but I earned my power! somebody just gave you yours... heh thats cool.
Apprentices were children in medival environments... at age 18 a medeival had been an adult 4 to 6 years. The begining AD&D character felt like both a minion and competance wise mostly like an apprentice.... and was sometimes in there thirties.
Minions can be high level (they just arent blessed with heroic luck).
And going down as easily as you did in D&D who would want to invest any well actual thinking/energy towards what the character is supposed to be like? Mechanical simplicity does not intrinsically mean character simplicity obviously but.. fragility and ease of mechanical reproduction were an active discouragement sometimes even if you didnt like cardboard characters.
Any of the above could ofcourse be a peasant or not ;-)...
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
No, a wizard is mundane because he can't turn someone into a toad. The idea that complaints about the wizard are based only on inter-PC envy is mistaken and frankly insulting. Rather than psychologizing our fellow players, how about we talk about what is different about the class?
That lack of "feel" is one thing that disappointed me about Wizards in 4E. Now, admittedly, I had some issues with spell changes made in 3.5.....but I say that as a DM that never had issues with players abusing spells that some other DMs had problems with (Polymorph et al).
Everything seems limited to "blow this up", "move this there", etc. It just doesn't scratch my itch the way magic did in earlier editions.
I want magic to feel magic...4E doesn't do it for me....but no, it's not about one person being "better".....I always found in 3E that fighters were some of the most lethal characters in the game, and never understood the idea that they sucked compared to wizards. Maybe my players just weren't optimizers...I don't know. I do know that the fighters were the ones who with a few good hits, or a critical, could kill off an important enemy in one round, and could take a beating and keep going. They *were* vulnerable to charms, but that was fine...they had to have a weakness....but even with spells like Stoneskin, fighters were turning wizards into hamburger rather easily. The only time that wizards excelled was when they had 10 rounds more than everyone else to set up a whole bunch of buffs....but my players rarely did that....usually buffing began on the fly, in combat.....so by the time the wizard had his third or fourth buff spell active, the fighters had chopped up most of the opposition.
It doesn't mean anyone's wrong....they're very different games. This one just doesn't appeal to everyone.
And why? In fantasy literature, it's usually Wizards who do that.....whereas druid spellcasters are far less frequently discussed at all....let alone turning people into toads.
And why? In fantasy literature, it's usually Wizards who do that.....whereas druid spellcasters are far less frequently discussed at all....let alone turning people into toads.
Banshee
How many fantasy literature makes a distinction between wizards and druids? Unless the setting is distinctly celtic in origin, one rarely sees the caster described as a druid. Even if the caster is a nature oriented one, they would just fall under the umbrella term of wizard or witch.
For example, the main protagonist sorcerers in the Belgariad would all be classified as druids in D&D.
Last edited by nightwyrm; 5th November 2009 at 01:58 AM..
There standard opponents now include minions.. which slews the entire concept of a comparison. It can definitely make 4e characters feel mightier. Depending on how the DM uses them (a few too many at low levels and they are nastier than they seem)
Well, that's why I said STANDARD enemy, to exclude minions, elites, solos, etc. But 4 or 5 HP isn't all that different from 1 (especially for attacks that include an attribute bonus to damage), so it's more like ALL the (unadvanced, unleveled) kobolds and goblins were minions before, dying two at time to cleave.
__________________ "I'd like to shake the hand of the genius who invented that - just the hand, after it's been cut off from the now screaming man."
I can understand that. Basically, the rules of 3E really require that the team have at the very least a primary Divine caster such as a Cleric or Druid, and strongly recommends a Wizard (though a Sorcerer or Psion may suffice). This is not explicit, but your average group of players will have a very hard time going through the game using the rules as written without those specific classes. If the game is heavy on stealth and traps, than either a caster skilled with anti-trap utility spells or a Rogue is pretty necessary.
Really, the 3E designers have admitted several times that the game was basically entirely designed with a four person team of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric in mind. For example, designers spoke about how the rules in Savage Species were only written and tested based on how monster PCs would work using those four classes, and they didn't really examine how a Druid or Ranger monster PC would play out (even though those classes probably make more sense for the average monster PC than Rogue or Wizard). They just didn't bother to tell anyone that in the game books themselves. This had some messy repercussions regarding the design of most of the later classes, in my opinion. It is because of the problems caused by 3E's party assumption that 4E developed explicit class roles, which ultimately allows more flexibility in the class composition of the party.
In short, where 3E basically forces you to have a Wizard and Cleric and assumes you also have a Rogue and Fighter, 4E only requires a Leader and Defender at minimum, with a balanced team of all four roles being recommended.
Of course, because of things like healing surges and rituals, a 4E party really doesn't need to have any class in particular, or even a particular role, in order to get by.
I'm not seeing this difference of guideline versus requirement between the editions.
The basic roles have not really changed between the editions, 4e is just explicit about labeling some roles.
In 3e if you don't have a cleric or druid as a healer then you have a paladin, ranger, bard, or UMD rogue with wands of cure light wounds with only minor healing in combat or you use potions and pull back after fights to heal up.
I've played in a group where as a ranger with a wand I was the only healer for multiple levels of play and it went fine.
In 4e if you don't have a leader you are limited to second wind in combat and then have to survive until out of combat. I like surges as they make wands unnecessary. They are an improvement in not needing a healer.
In 3e if you don't have a trapfinding rogue you use certain magics to get around traps (fly over pits, neutralize poison to get around poison, heal the damage taken, clerical find traps will not help you) or you take the effects of the traps and soldier on (the barbarian trap finder method).
In 4e if you don't have a rogue or someone with thievery do you have more options than in 3e?
You said defenders are required in 4e, but it feels just like 3e to me, heavy combatants are useful but if you don't have someone in that role it can work it will just be different style of combat engagement without a tough shield wall hacking into the opposition.
In 3e UMD allows use of low level utility magics, sorcerers can use arcane items to fill out their needs for spells they don't know, cleric and druid magic does many things a wizard's does (divination, buffing, combat magic, terrain control), archer characters can provide the ranged artillery. Winged boots replace the need for a fly spell with other magic items serving similar functions for most any character. Wizards are useful and powerful but I don't see them as required in 3e but only guidelines for them in 4e.
Isn't the joke that the optimal party in 3e that can handle anything is all clerics or druids?
I like the 4e DMG analysis of different party compositions based on different missing roles, but I think it applies to 3e as well.
Significant differences:
4e healing surges allow less need of a healer role.
4e thievery can be mastered with a single feat. In 3e trapfinding tough traps is limited to a Rogue class feature combined with skills.
4e anybody can do utility magic with a feat and appropriate skill. In 3e magic is fairly class specific with some overlap between spell lists plus at higher levels you can fake it with UMD skill, mitigated a little with easy multiclassing for weak magic use.
How many fantasy literature makes a distinction between wizards and druids? Unless the setting is distinctly celtic in origin, one rarely sees the caster described as a druid. Even if the caster is a nature oriented one, they would just fall under the umbrella term of wizard or witch.
For example, the main protagonist sorcerers in the Belgariad would all be classified as druids in D&D.
Whereas the only spellcasting druids in literature I can think of would be Merlin, of the Arthurian saga, and the druids in the Shannara books, who are associated with the magic-user/wizard archetype in D&D.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
