Why I'm done with 4e

[Pbartender]

Yes or even a mix n match table where a Tier 1 effect (lowest) + high damage stunt at level 1 to 3 has difficulty... X

Edit: Yet whenever page 42 is brought up people act like all of this is already included on it and I just don't understand how to use it... or haven't really looked over it... or whatever.

Oh, certainly not. I does provide a good start with some basic guidelines for ad hoc rulings (especially for novice DMs, or DMs who simply aren't as talented at it), and the rest is all DM judgement and experience as its always been.

It is by no means a comprehensive set of rules for building powers. I agree with you on that point.

 

[Imaro]

If that were true, then the "DM's best friend" rule also wouldn't have a place in 4e. After all, that's also a rule that takes context and uses it in a game mechanical sense.

Eh, I'm going to disagree (though only slightly) here... the +2/-2 allows a DM to bring context into the game if he chooses to, it's optional not something integral to the system itself. Not to mention being very limited in scope.

The fact that improvised damage is different depending on how dangerous it sounds and how often it can be done is another example of context mattering.

No it's based upon mechanical balance.

All of page 42 is positively drenched in context. I think people rather overestimate how gamist 4e is and paint a picture that's almost a one-dimensional caricature.

Again I think you are confusing mechanical balance vs. gameworld context... in the context of a given situation it may very well be easy enough to repeat an action that causes high damage... yet pg. 42 shows us that it's damage should be reduced because of mechanical balance (it's to repeatable), not because the context of the game world implies it.

As a complete aside, I do apologize for saying you operated under a misconception. You just have different expectations of what a freeform stunting system should entail.

Thanks, I just think it's my experience with other free form systems like the magic in Mage or Talislanta 4e that colors what I judge as a robust free-form system.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure how other DMs run stunts, but here's how it generally goes with me and my players:

The player lays what they want their character to do. Usually, this is a fairly non-rules abused description. To use an example this weekend, the party barbarian got himself stunned while fighting some ghouls. He's still in the front line getting chewed on pretty badly, so my wife, whose rogue is standing right behind him says, "I want to grab him by the collar and drag him back away from the ghouls."

With no real rules for this, but several powers as inspiration, I give her a few suggestions, "You can make an Easy Athletics check as a Move action to pull him back into your square and knock him prone, or you can make a Moderate Athletics check as a Minor action to do the same thing. You can also make a Difficult Athletics check to move half your speed while pulling him with you... If you burn a healing surge, you can turn that into a Moderate Athletics check, or move your full speed."

Once I've laid out the options, she gets to decide which option to take, or she can change her mind and do something else completely different.

All I'm going to point out here is that not once did you reference pg. 42... you made all the effects/checks/balances up yourself which while I think it's cool... I can't help but wonder how in the world do you attribute this stunt ruling to page 42?

 

[rkwoodard]

I am done as well

I tried 4th edition. It was fun, but not fun enough to spend tons of money and time learning.

I looked at Pathfinder, and the page count just made me tired.

So, I went with simple. I have fell back in love with C&C, and the Siege Engine.

With enough time/money/energy 3.5-PF, and 4th edition are good. But for the simple and inexpensive, not so much.

RK

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

All I'm going to point out here is that not once did you reference pg. 42... you made all the effects/checks/balances up yourself which while I think it's cool... I can't help but wonder how in the world do you attribute this stunt ruling to page 42?

Doesn't page 42 not also contain the low/moderate/difficult DCs?

 

[LostSoul]

What exactly, are the "effects" based upon fiction that you are speaking of? If you're talking any effect the Player makes up and the DM ad-hoc's, well then that's player inventiveness + great DM'ing... but unless every stunt's purpose is to cause damage, it's not 4e that's giving you these effects... it's your playing and DM'ing skill.

Thanks!

I don't need a table to tell me what happens when someone gets a curtain thrown over him. He's Blind. Nor do I need a table to tell me what happens when someone is pushed, has a torch shoved in his eyes, wrapped in cloth and set on fire, knocked down, tackled, etc.

What I do need is a table telling me how much damage attacks should be expected to do and at what level.

There is a difference there - numbers vs. description. I need the numbers; I don't need the description.

edit: I think we should fork this side-discussion.

 

[Imaro]

Doesn't page 42 not also contain the low/moderate/difficult DCs?

Yes and we've already established this up thread, what we are discussing are the effects and how pg. 42 in any way helps you apply them when stunting.

 

[Imaro]

Thanks!

I don't need a table to tell me what happens when someone gets a curtain thrown over him. He's Blind. Nor do I need a table to tell me what happens when someone is pushed, has a torch shoved in his eyes, wrapped in cloth and set on fire, knocked down, tackled, etc.

What I do need is a table telling me how much damage attacks should be expected to do and at what level.

There is a difference there - numbers vs. description. I need the numbers; I don't need the description.

Ok, so how do you decide between someone being dazed, stunned or unconscious? The table would actually be so that you could balance these conditions with level, added damage and difficulty.

Ok, how about restrained or immobilized... you see description is all well and good but different conditions have actual in game effects... so when I do a trick with my whip where I want to have it wrap around someone, and pull them to the ground are they...

helpless, immobilized, prone, restrained, or slowed? Who decides what condition I've inflicted, I or the DM? If it's the DM, why am I giving up hard numbers and facts (my powers) to try something cool that I have no idea what it may or may not do (thus it may not be as cool as I thought it was)... or what my chances are to succeed? I mean these are all questions that might help account for power fixation.

 

[Obryn]

3. I love the character creation mini-game, this 4e does not do well (in my opinion, though this may change a few years down the road with expansions)
4. I very much miss the ability to create characters around a single (but flexible) theme that has a huge variety of uses in and out of combat. For example shapeshifting/wildshape, summoning or illusion.

The situation for both of these has been much improved over the past few years... Nowadays, I'm finding it at least as much fun to figure out a character theme and work it through Character Builder as I did under 3e.

It's all about Character Builder, honestly, just like it was all about Heroforge under 3.5... I can come up with a concept, say "Eladrin Warlock with great Longsword skills" or "Half-Orc Spiked Chain Tempest Fighter" and tweak them to my heart's content. Multiclassing, Hybrid classing, and so on give me a lot of room to work with. Just like under 3.5, I can find a certain class, race, feat, item, or ability and use that to build a really fun character.

A year ago, I would have agreed with you without hesitation. But it's gotten way, way better nowadays.

-O

 

[pascale]

Well, you know. In D&D, I don't play more or less solo for the first umpteen levels. I also don't have some sort of global chat channel going all the time while I'm soloing. Nobody yells over to me and asks me to join their guild whenever I start my solo D&D sessions. I don't randomly run into other players while I'm out killing monsters to gather supplies to make a magical sword.

The terminology's got MMO aspects to it, which is undoubtedly intentional -- it's reminiscent of OD&D's miniatures terminology. It makes it a more appealing game for MMO players who haven't done tabletop. I find it's really easy to look past that terminology and see the differences, though, both in the flippant logic I just used and in deeper ways.

The OP stated a number of preferences as absolute facts. With the exception of Vancian magic, every one of those should be preceded with the words "To me," because it's self-evident that there are also players who would disagree with them. But, hey, it wouldn't be the Edition Wars if there weren't players of both editions willing to state their opinions and preferences as if they were holy writ.

So sorry the game didn't work out for you! Thanks for letting the world know; hope you didn't think it was going to change anyone's opinion either way.

Firstly I do still play D&D 4e I just perfer pathfinder.

No as for those simmiliarities that I noticed, they are just that simmiliarities, I'm not making a case that 4e = wow or anything silly like that.

I am saying that I have noticed a few simmiliarities. for instances the rules for treasure parcels seem very simmiliar to the loote dropped by "mobs" and bosses in wow. Also Marking resembles agro to me. Further the perception/surprise rules in 4e are very simmiliar to the mob site radiouse in WoW.

Dave Noonan wrote a good article ont he subject before comparing 4e to wow was considered a bad thing. Basically he said that MMos borrowed alot from D&D and then evolved into a really fun games. Now it is D&Ds turn to borrow from the MMOs to evolve itself.