MindWanderer
First Post
Immobilized != unable to act. It means you can't move, but you can still attack, teleport, use any powers that don't involve moving, etc.Primal said:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
- Thread starter brehobit
- Start date
SweeneyTodd
First Post
There's not much point in picking at the individual issues when you can just boil it down to a design theme:
It's a game. There are game-y mechanics. I think that's pretty cool and I'm looking forward to trying them out, but it's worth saying that, generally, that's why some of this stuff is the way it is.
Level 26 minions don't exist in a vacuum -- everything is relative to the PCs, because, well, the game is about the PCs. If you were to encounter a Lich Vestige when you're level 15-18, hey, maybe he should have the same abilities but full HP. That's because the DM's role when creating and balancing encounters is to come up with a mix of monsters with different roles that is plausible within the game world. The examples in the MM are all about small units that you can believe would work together, while also being mechanically unified. (So the fact that there are some minion grunts up front guarding the ranged attackers has a mechanical and an in-game reason for being that way.) The mechanical relevance of an "encounter" is actually pretty handy, I think, for helping the DM come up with the in-fiction relevance of the encounter -- a physically weak necromancer surrounds himself with cannon fodder zombies for safety, for instance. So when you look at a lvl 26 minion in a vacuum, there's no mechanical justification to ever do that, so if you want it to make sense in-fiction you might as well change it up (as the DMG/MM suggest) so that it's an encounter that both works well as a mechanical challenge and an in-game event.
Similarly, there's not a listed in-game justification for why some powers are daily vs. encounter vs. at-will except that, mechanically, that's what the characters can do, so in-game that's what they can do. The players or the DM are free to come up with an in-fiction reason it works this way, and it can differ from campaign to campaign.
So is there a way to justify all the stuff some folks have issues with? Absolutely. Is it mandated or provided by the game, beyond saying the DM should make sure he's giving the players and himself an environment they enjoy playing in? No, that's left up to the people at the table.
It's just a matter of the focus being on providing a mechanical system that people can hang a fictional world on. It doesn't necessarily work by itself as a simulation of a fictional reality, because it doesn't try to.
It's a game. There are game-y mechanics. I think that's pretty cool and I'm looking forward to trying them out, but it's worth saying that, generally, that's why some of this stuff is the way it is.
Level 26 minions don't exist in a vacuum -- everything is relative to the PCs, because, well, the game is about the PCs. If you were to encounter a Lich Vestige when you're level 15-18, hey, maybe he should have the same abilities but full HP. That's because the DM's role when creating and balancing encounters is to come up with a mix of monsters with different roles that is plausible within the game world. The examples in the MM are all about small units that you can believe would work together, while also being mechanically unified. (So the fact that there are some minion grunts up front guarding the ranged attackers has a mechanical and an in-game reason for being that way.) The mechanical relevance of an "encounter" is actually pretty handy, I think, for helping the DM come up with the in-fiction relevance of the encounter -- a physically weak necromancer surrounds himself with cannon fodder zombies for safety, for instance. So when you look at a lvl 26 minion in a vacuum, there's no mechanical justification to ever do that, so if you want it to make sense in-fiction you might as well change it up (as the DMG/MM suggest) so that it's an encounter that both works well as a mechanical challenge and an in-game event.
Similarly, there's not a listed in-game justification for why some powers are daily vs. encounter vs. at-will except that, mechanically, that's what the characters can do, so in-game that's what they can do. The players or the DM are free to come up with an in-fiction reason it works this way, and it can differ from campaign to campaign.
So is there a way to justify all the stuff some folks have issues with? Absolutely. Is it mandated or provided by the game, beyond saying the DM should make sure he's giving the players and himself an environment they enjoy playing in? No, that's left up to the people at the table.
It's just a matter of the focus being on providing a mechanical system that people can hang a fictional world on. It doesn't necessarily work by itself as a simulation of a fictional reality, because it doesn't try to.
Quite frankly, Vancian is here even stronger then ever.
The flaw with vancian magic wasn't that casters had to memorize spells, it was that they always made you rest. Well hey, now it's not just casters, but EVERYONE that constantly wants to rest after every encounter (or two, should you push them hard).
The flaw with vancian magic wasn't that casters had to memorize spells, it was that they always made you rest. Well hey, now it's not just casters, but EVERYONE that constantly wants to rest after every encounter (or two, should you push them hard).
my thoughts
I've gone over about half the PHB (all the important stuff)..classes, powers, feats...the DMG and read the coolest monsters over.
My thoughts:
Someone in another thread asked for my opinion on the DMG. As many here have said, it's pretty much a wash for an experienced DM. There are a few rules there that make it worth having (stuff that I didn't see in the PHB) but other than that, it's all info for new DMs (which i think would be very good for a new DM).
Overall, there is a lot of stuff I like in 4E...
The healing surges are cool, and the concept of action points from "milestones" I consider a bonus due to being on an adrenaline rush via 2 or 3 victories, then charging ahead on the quest, etc and I like that better than the Eberron style action points that we use in our 3.X campaign now.
I am so happy that warriors/rogues now have "powers" to choose from. It's a great benefit for them overall. The swordsage in my party likes the powers he has and can choose from and wished warriors were all like that. Now they get a slight taste of it. Can't wait to see the sword mage.
The streamlined skill system is also good, although alot of what they talk about we have been doing for years already.
monsters, the idea that they don't (unless there is a good reason for it), have the same spells, feats, powers as players I like alot and agree with this design method. Something I had partially implemented already with my games.
Now, the bad...what I/players do not like.
1) the classes, due to the quest for exact balance has made classes, as someone else already mentioned, very stale...dull. Even the powers in many cases are similar with very little to differentiate them. Depending on play style, this is good (for balance) or bad (boring parties)
2) my players hate the wizards/clerics and aren't happy about them. I haven't been happy with them either since most of 2E though, so I began work on my own house ruled versions of them. So far, the Wild Mage and Cleric are about 75% done, and an NPC in current game is previewing the cleric's powers already). So far, friends seem to like the idea. The wild mage is due to a character in our party, and how the 3.5E wildmage just wasn't that wild. We house ruled it as well, as a combination of 3.XE version and 2E. Now we are taking that a step further to truly make a wildmage something to see, love, and fear all at the same time. The wizard will be harder, but currently have several ideas for how to house rule a new wizard class. Warlock, some changed I thought they were doingg for him, to truly make the background make a difference for them...ie. the plane that their powers are tied too, or the god, etc. so will have custom house rules for that to make 2 warlocks at least 50 to 75% different.
3) clerics and gods have never truly been happy with how they have been done. In fact, even in myth, you get examples of warriors who worship some god and get power due to that. What I have been working on for some time now...for each god in 4E and a few more i tossed in that are important to my campaigns, custom rules, powers, spells, ability bonuses, etc that each class and sometimes even race, can get based on what god they choose. An example, a fighter who worships Bahamut would get some type of bonuses, that are totally different than what a cleric would get, etc. A warlock that worships asmodeus, is automatically a hellfire warlock (to use a 3.5E prestige class term) although the amount of damage is lowered, and some other changes as well to balance it. THis makes choosing a god TRULY make a difference, roleplaying wise AND combat wise. That said, i wanted no god to be a good choice as well, so thought of benefits (that I think make sense as well) for players who do not want to follow a god, so that is still viable.
4) I don't think they went far enough with monsters. For example, what I have (not done yet as I add stuff as I use the creatures and most of them I have never used yet) is a spreadsheet with powers/spells for creatures that I think would have them (ie. dragons, angels, demons, devils, etc). Dragons for example have spells BUT they are the dragon specific spells from the 2e and 3e draconomicons, plus some custom ones that make sense for a dragon to have. Demons have a long list of powers, and I like how the Tanar'ri are supposed to be chaotic...killing their own, etc as long as the enemy falls as well. So they basically all function as a result of the chaotic nature of the abyss. Essentially, all their powers are like wild mages...causing true havoc and destruction but much of it is not controllable.... a marilith/balor in my games is TRULY something to fear... pit fiends can unleashe the power of hell, etc. Angels on the other hand, us something similar to my custom clerical rules and have other powers (many from the cool powers they had in 2E planescape). Dragons have alot of their flavour powers back (ie. silvers will be able to cloud walk, etc and make lairs in the skies for example).
5) i do not find 4E 'truly' tactical. Let me explain. The tactics are forced. My players require tactics, due to how i design battles (to make sense, in terms of what they face)...when they don't use tactics, things sometimes have gone very wrong; othertimes they have had to improvise a lot to succeed. when they use tactics correctly, they do see the benefits. When i say tactics, I mean, using cover, charging an archer maybe holding something in front of you for added cover, having rogues sneak on the rafters in the ceiling to get behind people, pelting them from above. Spreading fire, etc around a place to cause havoc, warriors knocking people down or back, then mages targetting spells not at the enemy (due to their protections) but at the cielings (we use a detailed critical hit, material saving system so a fireball CAN destroy a structure and bring it down on the enemy if the wood, etc splinters and breaks). Stuff like this is tactical. Have a character's attack force an enemy back X squares into the path of another PC who can then do an AoO, which can then knock them back, etc is very forced. It can be cool, but friends do not like it. As well, my friends agree that even if wizards are more powerful than others at higher levels, so what..they think it 'makes sense' and they dont mind it since all our puzzles, battles, roleplaying moments, have always had opportunity for everyone to shine, and my friends like how there are times when a wizard may have to use spells indirectly to aid warriors who are the only ones able to harm something, or vice versa....
6) i do not like the dragons in 4E. The low damages for the breathe, IMHO, make them not that fearful as well as the fear ability. if something is scary, they don' thave to 'turn it on'..it's either scary or it's not. (unless it's a spell, in which case, it's not scary on it's own). I will certainly use 3E or just a bit below that, breathe damages and dragon damages. We house rule draogns alot since we use them as per the 2E size scale, etc. We like that. I find the concept to have battles last longer, they reduced the damage of dragons so they last longer and/or don't kill people as fast. Due to what i mentioned above in combat. My players have to think their way through a major boss battle, and dragon's crazy breathe damage has never stopped them before and if someone died from it...they deserved it for being stupid (ie. let me stand in this open area and see if the dragon cares that I'm trying to dazzle it with some sword trick...oh..it doesn't care...*crap*)....
All that said, I am trying to figure out, should we stick with 3.XE and house rule in the stuff we like from 4E OR use 4E as the basis and make the house rule changes that we want (some mentioned above).
Overall, i'm at about a 65% like rate for 4E...and I figured if I was over a 50% like rate, we would switch and implement house rules...however, it turns out the few things we do not like, some of them are the biggest stuff to change (a couple classes)....
oh well... overall I am happy I have bought the 3 corebooks and have put in an order for the Manual of the Planes for later this year
Sanjay
I've gone over about half the PHB (all the important stuff)..classes, powers, feats...the DMG and read the coolest monsters over.
My thoughts:
Someone in another thread asked for my opinion on the DMG. As many here have said, it's pretty much a wash for an experienced DM. There are a few rules there that make it worth having (stuff that I didn't see in the PHB) but other than that, it's all info for new DMs (which i think would be very good for a new DM).
Overall, there is a lot of stuff I like in 4E...
The healing surges are cool, and the concept of action points from "milestones" I consider a bonus due to being on an adrenaline rush via 2 or 3 victories, then charging ahead on the quest, etc and I like that better than the Eberron style action points that we use in our 3.X campaign now.
I am so happy that warriors/rogues now have "powers" to choose from. It's a great benefit for them overall. The swordsage in my party likes the powers he has and can choose from and wished warriors were all like that. Now they get a slight taste of it. Can't wait to see the sword mage.
The streamlined skill system is also good, although alot of what they talk about we have been doing for years already.
monsters, the idea that they don't (unless there is a good reason for it), have the same spells, feats, powers as players I like alot and agree with this design method. Something I had partially implemented already with my games.
Now, the bad...what I/players do not like.
1) the classes, due to the quest for exact balance has made classes, as someone else already mentioned, very stale...dull. Even the powers in many cases are similar with very little to differentiate them. Depending on play style, this is good (for balance) or bad (boring parties)
2) my players hate the wizards/clerics and aren't happy about them. I haven't been happy with them either since most of 2E though, so I began work on my own house ruled versions of them. So far, the Wild Mage and Cleric are about 75% done, and an NPC in current game is previewing the cleric's powers already). So far, friends seem to like the idea. The wild mage is due to a character in our party, and how the 3.5E wildmage just wasn't that wild. We house ruled it as well, as a combination of 3.XE version and 2E. Now we are taking that a step further to truly make a wildmage something to see, love, and fear all at the same time. The wizard will be harder, but currently have several ideas for how to house rule a new wizard class. Warlock, some changed I thought they were doingg for him, to truly make the background make a difference for them...ie. the plane that their powers are tied too, or the god, etc. so will have custom house rules for that to make 2 warlocks at least 50 to 75% different.
3) clerics and gods have never truly been happy with how they have been done. In fact, even in myth, you get examples of warriors who worship some god and get power due to that. What I have been working on for some time now...for each god in 4E and a few more i tossed in that are important to my campaigns, custom rules, powers, spells, ability bonuses, etc that each class and sometimes even race, can get based on what god they choose. An example, a fighter who worships Bahamut would get some type of bonuses, that are totally different than what a cleric would get, etc. A warlock that worships asmodeus, is automatically a hellfire warlock (to use a 3.5E prestige class term) although the amount of damage is lowered, and some other changes as well to balance it. THis makes choosing a god TRULY make a difference, roleplaying wise AND combat wise. That said, i wanted no god to be a good choice as well, so thought of benefits (that I think make sense as well) for players who do not want to follow a god, so that is still viable.
4) I don't think they went far enough with monsters. For example, what I have (not done yet as I add stuff as I use the creatures and most of them I have never used yet) is a spreadsheet with powers/spells for creatures that I think would have them (ie. dragons, angels, demons, devils, etc). Dragons for example have spells BUT they are the dragon specific spells from the 2e and 3e draconomicons, plus some custom ones that make sense for a dragon to have. Demons have a long list of powers, and I like how the Tanar'ri are supposed to be chaotic...killing their own, etc as long as the enemy falls as well. So they basically all function as a result of the chaotic nature of the abyss. Essentially, all their powers are like wild mages...causing true havoc and destruction but much of it is not controllable.... a marilith/balor in my games is TRULY something to fear... pit fiends can unleashe the power of hell, etc. Angels on the other hand, us something similar to my custom clerical rules and have other powers (many from the cool powers they had in 2E planescape). Dragons have alot of their flavour powers back (ie. silvers will be able to cloud walk, etc and make lairs in the skies for example).
5) i do not find 4E 'truly' tactical. Let me explain. The tactics are forced. My players require tactics, due to how i design battles (to make sense, in terms of what they face)...when they don't use tactics, things sometimes have gone very wrong; othertimes they have had to improvise a lot to succeed. when they use tactics correctly, they do see the benefits. When i say tactics, I mean, using cover, charging an archer maybe holding something in front of you for added cover, having rogues sneak on the rafters in the ceiling to get behind people, pelting them from above. Spreading fire, etc around a place to cause havoc, warriors knocking people down or back, then mages targetting spells not at the enemy (due to their protections) but at the cielings (we use a detailed critical hit, material saving system so a fireball CAN destroy a structure and bring it down on the enemy if the wood, etc splinters and breaks). Stuff like this is tactical. Have a character's attack force an enemy back X squares into the path of another PC who can then do an AoO, which can then knock them back, etc is very forced. It can be cool, but friends do not like it. As well, my friends agree that even if wizards are more powerful than others at higher levels, so what..they think it 'makes sense' and they dont mind it since all our puzzles, battles, roleplaying moments, have always had opportunity for everyone to shine, and my friends like how there are times when a wizard may have to use spells indirectly to aid warriors who are the only ones able to harm something, or vice versa....
6) i do not like the dragons in 4E. The low damages for the breathe, IMHO, make them not that fearful as well as the fear ability. if something is scary, they don' thave to 'turn it on'..it's either scary or it's not. (unless it's a spell, in which case, it's not scary on it's own). I will certainly use 3E or just a bit below that, breathe damages and dragon damages. We house rule draogns alot since we use them as per the 2E size scale, etc. We like that. I find the concept to have battles last longer, they reduced the damage of dragons so they last longer and/or don't kill people as fast. Due to what i mentioned above in combat. My players have to think their way through a major boss battle, and dragon's crazy breathe damage has never stopped them before and if someone died from it...they deserved it for being stupid (ie. let me stand in this open area and see if the dragon cares that I'm trying to dazzle it with some sword trick...oh..it doesn't care...*crap*)....
All that said, I am trying to figure out, should we stick with 3.XE and house rule in the stuff we like from 4E OR use 4E as the basis and make the house rule changes that we want (some mentioned above).
Overall, i'm at about a 65% like rate for 4E...and I figured if I was over a 50% like rate, we would switch and implement house rules...however, it turns out the few things we do not like, some of them are the biggest stuff to change (a couple classes)....
oh well... overall I am happy I have bought the 3 corebooks and have put in an order for the Manual of the Planes for later this year
Sanjay
Last edited:
It's far worse... capping healing surges per day completely guts any ability to use the combat system of DnD in a role-playing game.
When the conversation in the game goes like this, your game system is retarded:
Cleric - I'll use Healing Strike on the kobold and allow the fighter to use a surge.
Fighter - I don't have any surges left.
Cleric - Uh... no, wait a minute, Pelor has forsaken the fighter... uh... uhmm... I'll... shoot a Lance of Radiance out of my anus and kill the kobold instead!
When the conversation in the game goes like this, your game system is retarded:
Cleric - I'll use Healing Strike on the kobold and allow the fighter to use a surge.
Fighter - I don't have any surges left.
Cleric - Uh... no, wait a minute, Pelor has forsaken the fighter... uh... uhmm... I'll... shoot a Lance of Radiance out of my anus and kill the kobold instead!
Skyscraper said:
Well, that's why it's optional. I'm not going to force anybody to use my weird experiments in this area; players are welcome to keep using the system as written, or to switch back at any time. And I might not go with that system anyhow. Mostly I'm trying to come up with an approach that offers a bit more verisimilitude (to me, at least), while maintaining diversity in combat and approximately the same power level.
I mean, the simplest solution is to make encounter powers interchangeable, and same with dailies; if you have 3 daily powers, you can use each of them once, or one of them three times. Then the whole thing can be explained on the basis of fatigue (you're too tired to use any more encounter powers without a short rest; you're too tired to use any more daily powers without a long one). But that might make combats too repetitive. Again, something to experiment with.
Dausuul said:
Honestly, if you are going to do encounter and daily powers, that would have been the way to do it. I find that works better honestly in terms of understanding. If the dailies are the high flying moves, eventually they are going ot tire you out. Same with the encounters. Personally I'd have taken it a step farther and have an Endurance/Magic pool where at wills are free, encounters cost 1 and dailies cost 5. How it refreshes would probably be something to work on, but I suspect I could get a working mechanic.
Also, I would have liked a feat/mechanic/spell or something that would allow the character to dig deep, push himself passed fatigue for that heroic last.... so on. Maybe make it cost hp (significant) or healing surges.... not sure yet.
But again I'm sort of riffing. If you were to talk that approach, I would be much more comfortable with both if they were treated thus. As I can buy that there are some moves that are very fatiguing and possibly put a great deal of strain on you and your weapon, some that are less so, and some that you could "functionally" do all day.
Similar Threads
