Okay people, a little wake up call.

[hong]

It seems I phrased it wrong, ok let me try again then. Instead of Rogue let me say, renaissance man. I want the third son of a Baron who's quite learned in different things (Rogue gives enough skill points for this) and fights with a light blade style. Rogue in third edition fits this perfectly and it's not an uncommon concept. Yet while you can get the fighting style right in 4.0 (perhaps even better) the mental part of doesn't quite fit. Sure you can simply say that it's part of his background. But that doesn't mean it's supported by the system. And yes you can house rule it, but that's not part of the system either.

The mental part fits perfectly well. In fact, the central complaint among method actors is that you can no longer play someone who's deliberately incompetent at certain skills, since you get an automatic level-based bonus.

Oh, you want to be EXTRA good at lots of skills? Well, take Skill Training several times. You have more feats in 4E than 3E, and feats are significantly powered down compared to before, so you're not even gimping yourself much in terms of combat prowess.

Oh, you want EVERYONE ELSE to be bad at skills you're extra good at? Well, in that case, you're out of luck.

It just needs a bit of unlearning the 3E paradigm.

 

[Harshax]

The mental part fits perfectly well. In fact, the central complaint among method actors is that you can no longer play someone who's deliberately incompetent at certain skills, since you get an automatic level-based bonus.

I have no issue with creating a feat that subtracts 1/2 of half-your level from a specified skill to satisfy the method actors.

Better yet, I'll let method actors Take 1, on skill checks.

 

[smathis]

As for the second part, I'm not saying that they have BadWrongFun. I'm saying that some simply don't have as much fun.

I don't see those statements as being all that different. The latter is just a slightly less judgmental rewording of the former.

I'm thinking you might have meant to say something else there that just didn't come across. Maybe you can clarify?

Some people consider it the most fun if the game from one battle to another. Perhaps loosely connected with a story and a goal or two. 4.0 is perfect for these people. It's build for tactics, balanced fighting etc. If they made the renaissance character I mentioned earlier they would love the 4.0 version.

I don't think 3.0 is really any less geared towards tactics and balanced fighting. I don't think the primacy of combat in any version of D&D is really a debatable point.

But at least 4e gives us a solid mechanic for non-combat encounters. Previously, that wasn't even given the courtesy of an afterthought in D&D.

Another extreme might be people who want to deal with other aspects of the world. Let's say the renaissance character managed to win a keep and wanted to deal with the administration, hold a ball and talk to some people about art and woo the girls there so he could marry her and add more land to his own (a more political social based game) then 3.x seems a lot better then 4.0.

Unsurprisingly, I tend to disagree. In 4e you can do an extended skill challenge which can take place episodically over a series of sessions or even adventures. The DM has the leeway to give out free successes for really good roleplaying.

The player is free to narrate his skill challenge and be creative with the next steps he or she wants to take. Even better, you get experience points for it. Rewards tied in that aren't handwavy.

Even better than better, it can be a part of a quest or an encounter and be balanced as such. Maybe you're sent as an envoy by the king to win over the warlords to the south. Complete the skill challenge? Boom, XP. Complete the Quest? Boom, more XP.

Now your Baron socialite can work his way up the Heroic tier on the strength of his words, not his blade. i'm not saying it couldn't happen in previous editions of D&D. But I am saying it wasn't a core rule.

Maybe a guideline at best.

As a further example, the 'renaissance man' can now have some super-duper utility in combat (outside of using a blade or quarrel). Now, the Baron can decipher Abyssal runes of the magically sealed door while the party fights off the beasties.

Not that it couldn't happen in previous editions. But never has it been so integrated with D&D's flagship of conflict resolution (combat) before.

Furthermore, in 4e, either situation (setting up the grand ball or deciphering the runes) is dynamic and has a system that provides tension and complexity.

In 3e, it's roll a skill, add your bonus, check the DC. You pass or you fail. Done. Anything else is pretty much just a house rule or a good DM being nice.

Granted, I can see some of your points about the changes in 4e -- the reduction of the skill list, the removal of the more background oriented skills. But the overall comparison between 4e and 3e I really don't follow.

4e is the first edition of D&D where skills really shine. From their humble beginnings as 'non-weapon proficiencies', they've finally emerged from the ghetto of the PHB into their own fully fledged mechanical representation.

From where I'm sitting, 4e was designed to support exactly the type of contests you're talking about.

Now, if you're looking for a system that arguably does it better, then I could not disagree if you'd compared 4e to HeroQuest, Hero's Banner or (maybe) the new Song of Ice and Fire.

But 3e?

 

[Skyduke]

I'm sorry, but what you said simply doesn't make any sense. You are telling me I should accept an incomplete system (lacking: mundane item creation rules, magic item creation rules, construct creation rules, ritual for creating zombies, rituals for summoning and binding creatures, illusions, necromancy, conjuration, etc...), and make up everything on my own? I'm sorry, but when I buy a gaming system, I want the rules to AT LEAST match the ones of the previous edition in terms of content (and the core rules of the 3.5 had everything I previously mentioned in them). The DM is already busy enough cooking up solid adventures for a good campaign, I don't think rewriting a ton of rules because they don't affect "adventuring" and were thus left out is a good suggestion.

You know, I desperately wanted to believe in the 4th. I had lots of naysayers in my immediate entourage, but I kept telling them to wait, to check out the final product, that it couldn't be as bad as certain people said it would be. Well, it turned out they were right. This isn't D&D anymore. I'm not criticizing the game - it certainly is good, mechanically speaking. But it's a board game. Not a RPG. I know some people might disagree, but I think playing a RPG should not force somebody to be extremely buff, tactically-wise; that a modicum of group work should suffice to pull a group through. Well, I ran KotS, and I think we all know this isn't true.

My DM already had to hold back in 3.5 - because he has more experience playing than all the other players in my group except me. So we don't always act in a coordinated way, or in an efficient one. So the DM pulls punches. In the 4th, by Jove... He will basically need to play monsters as braindead. I've read about the KotS experience, I've played it as a PC, and run it as a DM. I also examined very closely the monsters in the MM, and the encounter suggestions in it. And it's bad. Some people also like a relaxed game of D&D... Well, they sure as hell can't play the 4th ed.

 

[smathis]

I'm sorry, but what you said simply doesn't make any sense.

I'm sorry but was this directed at my post? Or is it sort of general "you" being used.

You know, I desperately wanted to believe in the 4th. I had lots of naysayers in my immediate entourage, but I kept telling them to wait, to check out the final product, that it couldn't be as bad as certain people said it would be. Well, it turned out they were right. This isn't D&D anymore. I'm not criticizing the game - it certainly is good, mechanically speaking. But it's a board game. Not a RPG. I know some people might disagree, but I think playing a RPG should not force somebody to be extremely buff, tactically-wise; that a modicum of group work should suffice to pull a group through. Well, I ran KotS, and I think we all know this isn't true.

Yeah, I ran KotS too. A modicum of tactics saw the group through. The important part is teamwork. If your party's Rogue pickpockets the Cleric and then the Cleric summarily refuses to use any of his healing powers until the Rogue gives his satchel back and apologizes... yeah, well THAT group ain't gonna make it.

My DM already had to hold back in 3.5 - because he has more experience playing than all the other players in my group except me. So we don't always act in a coordinated way, or in an efficient one. So the DM pulls punches. In the 4th, by Jove... He will basically need to play monsters as braindead.

Not really. If the party really is just looking for a cruise through Winterhaven, he can just reduce the encounter groupings. Advice is right there in the DMG. That way he can bring what monsters he has full on and not have to worry about pulling punches.

4e delivers on making the DM's job easier -- on all fronts except keeping the monster powers straight (I think).

I've read about the KotS experience, I've played it as a PC, and run it as a DM. I also examined very closely the monsters in the MM, and the encounter suggestions in it. And it's bad. Some people also like a relaxed game of D&D... Well, they sure as hell can't play the 4th ed.

I ran it too. Considering these were 1st level PCs, I think they did pretty well. 1st level was so gimped in previous editions that many groups started at 3rd or higher.

And I think a relaxed game is easier in 4e. Figuring out monsters based on XP vs. the CR debacle of 3e is much simpler. I mean, really, if I have a party that models themselves after the Marx Brothers and I want to avoid a TPK (edit: in KotS), I just remove (roughly) 200-250 XP worth of monsters from the encounters. A DM could eyeball it and still not muck it up.

But try doing that with encounters in 3e. Calculating CR is a mess. Basically the DM's only out is to fudge die rolls or just gimp the monsters -- as you describe your DM having to do.

None of that's necessary in 4e.

 

[Zil]

For all the whining about wizards in 3e (that has suddenly appeared in the mouths of the defenders of 4e) there wasn't a damm thing the wizard could do that the cleric couldn't, but the cleric could heal and the wizard could not. Oh, and take a hit. And wear armour. And fight. And make a fort save. Yeah the wizards was the broken class in 3e. *rolls eyes*

Yes, I wonder when it was decided that wizards were somehow broken in 3E. From what I remember seeing in the past, it was supposed to have been clerics - or druids - that were the class that was too powerful in 3.x. Wizards have certainly not seemed broken in any of my games. Yes, there are some problems with spell casters in 3E (especially with regard to multi-classing), but Wizards as a class aren't really one of them. In fact, the most powerful characters in all of our most recent 3.x games seem to have been the supposedly boring fighter working in a team with a rogue.

In point of fact I'm having trouble recalling the last time I saw a straight wizard played in 3e. 3e had so many option, so many cool classes, so many possibilities
that there was none of the 1st/2nd ed arguing about who had to play the fighter to keep the bad guys off the rest of the party while the spellcaster anihilated everything.

That brought a smile to my face thinking back to the old AD&D wizards of old and how the nature of the game would change so much once you got past 10th level or so and the wizards started to really shine. Very often combat would turn into wizards duels which was quite entertaining from the DM and wizard player perspectives, but not necessarily for those who started to feel like supporting characters.

However, I never felt this was the case in 3E. In our 3.x games all of the characters seemed to be effective (with the exception of some weak multi-class character builds) up to 15th level or so. We never noticed the system breaking down by that level. (assuming you ignore/disallow some of the more broken splat books like the Book of Exalted Deeds.)

 

[hong]

Yes, I wonder when it was decided that wizards were somehow broken in 3E. From what I remember seeing in the past, it was supposed to have been clerics - or druids - that were the class that was too powerful in 3.x. Wizards have certainly not seemed broken in any of my games. Yes, there are some problems with spell casters in 3E (especially with regard to multi-classing), but Wizards as a class aren't really one of them. In fact, the most powerful characters in all of our most recent 3.x games seem to have been the supposedly boring fighter working in a team with a rogue.

Strangely enough, if one does a search-and-replace of "wizards" to "clerics" in the statement "wizards can do everything everyone else can do", its underlying substantiveness remains unchanged.

 

[Zil]

Strangely enough, if one does a search-and-replace of "wizards" to "clerics" in the statement "wizards can do everything everyone else can do", its underlying substantiveness remains unchanged.

Search and replace at will, but I disagree that wizards (and clerics) can do everything that everyone else can do. Consider the fighter since I was talking about them. There is no way a wizard can step into the shoes of a fighter. They simply don't have the combat feats or stamina for it unless you want to pull up some kind of nerfed spell. But bad spells can be easily dealt with - just change or disallow them. A few bad spells doesn't invalidate a class and mean that it is broken in concept ( which seems to be the claim of some going through this thread re: 3E wizards).

Now, I have seen some clerics step into the role of a fighter (with mixed results), but I've never seen a wizard effectively do it in any of my 3.x games.

 

[billd91]

But 3e?

Yes, 3e. The 4e is basically draft 3 or 4 of what was started in 3e and given some options in Unearthed Arcana. Yes, some of the entry into the skill system has been changed and some skills wrapped together, but the fundamental resolution and use of skills, including longer skill tests involving multiple rolls... been there, done that.
It's nice to see some of the ideas integrated into the core, but that's why I'm calling it later draft of the idea. They're just getting better at communicating good ways for the DM to handle it.

 

[hong]

Search and replace at will, but I disagree that wizards (and clerics) can do everything that everyone else can do. Consider the fighter since I was talking about them. There is no way a wizard can step into the shoes of a fighter. They simply don't have the combat feats or stamina for it unless you want to pull up some kind of nerfed spell.

I have no idea why you say a cleric can't step into the shoes of a fighter. They have plenty of stamina, and spells replace feats.

Oh, WIZARD. Well, if one does a search-and-replace of "wizards" to "clerics" in the statement "wizards can do everything everyone else can do", its underlying substantiveness remains unchanged.

But bad spells can be easily dealt with - just change or disallow them.

... or you could just ban wizards. Seems to save an awful lot of trouble.

A few bad spells doesn't invalidate a class and mean that it is broken in concept ( which seems to be the claim of some going through this thread re: 3E wizards).

Which is why 4E still has wizards because they never listen to meeeee. And they banned all the bad spells. So it's all good, yes?