The CR system was poorly designed. A nice idea, but poorly executed. One of the biggest issues for me was that CR 4 NPC Wizard was not a CR 4 challenge. A lvl 4 party could crush an lvl 4 NPC based on a class. There were alot of problems with the system.
D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game
- Thread starter STARP_Social_Officer
- Start date
The CR system was poorly designed. A nice idea, but poorly executed. One of the biggest issues for me was that CR 4 NPC Wizard was not a CR 4 challenge. A lvl 4 party could crush an lvl 4 NPC based on a class. There were alot of problems with the system.
Jack99
Adventurer
Personally I don't care about anything but the edition of D&D that I play. I do however like Paizo, so I wish they succeed. However, I must say that I agree 100% with you Henry. Pathfinder, while it may have found an elegant fix or two for the small issues I had with 3.5 (such as grappling), it also looks as if it has amplified other issues, especially the complicated/complex (I loathe to use that word, because nothing is hard per say, but I am sure you understand me) high-level play, not to mention the time the combats take.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I think there is just a fundamental difference between what people like in game. 3E has become to intricate and complicated for my taste, and 4E is the fix for me. But there are definitely people that like having several subsystems to master with each class. Pathfinder exemplifies this with the new subsystems for Rage, Domains, Spell Schools and Sorcerer Bloodlines.
It is a different kind of "exception based design". 4E is full of small, contained exceptions. 3E and Pathfinder contain "big exceptions" in form of sub-systems. They are barely comparable to each other and you need to learn each subsystem mini-game.
From a game design point of view, I think the mini-game/subsystem method for different classes is what makes it so hard - or impossible? - to balance them correctly. You introduce very different mathematic approaches to the same conceptual area of the game - combat.
But then, each class can give you its own "mini-game" of resource management and abilities. That's the attraction. The difference between two classes and two characters is not just some numbers, the mathematical formula behind it are different, too.
Ultimately, I just don't like the latter approach that much. You have to relearn a lot for each character you want to create (unless you focus on one class - not that uncommon, either). The balance is weak, and you end up with a lot of complicated aspects.
My Savage Tides DM converted his game to 4E (after a brief Pathfinder experiment). We converted from 11th level 3E to 15th level 4E character (since he wanted the campaign to end at epic level). He created and converted a few monster, which was very easy, as he professed. He had no real idea what characters at level 15 could pull of, what their numbers would be (attack? hit points? damage? defense), and it just worked seamlessly. He didn't have to read through half a page of NPC tactics to make the NPC work effectively. And there can be no doubt that every one at the table still had fun and was challenged.
I can't imagine jumping into a 15th level 3E D&D game with that ease.
And regardless of what complaints people can bring up against 4E, the ease of play and the game flow is just so much more enjoyable so far that we just don't like going back.
Which, for the record, we did yesterday - A Pathfinder adventure path with Pathfinder Alpha 3 rules. Well, it worked, but... Something was missing. The combat just didn't feel that interesting to us. And when my Paladin made it to level 2 and we read through the Paladins Lay on Hands ability, we wondered what use it would have in combat (none?) or out of combat (Wand of Cure Light Wounds, anyone?) and how much nicer Healing Surges and 4E Lay on Hands works by contrast...
Edit: maybe I come down a little to negative on Lay on Hands, but I think it exemplifies the whole mini-game thing for 3E that I just don't like anymore:
Usable once per 2 Levels+Charisma BOnus, heals (Level) Hit Points. I was just underwhelmed - to figure out the effectiveness, my 3E experience was helpful - I am not sure beginners would have find it that easy. Healing my level in damage is at no point useful in 3E Combat if it costs you a Standard Action!
Such a complicated way to express an ability that is not very useful in the end!
Last edited:
The Green Adam
First Post
I would say yes, apart from those because there aren't enough of any of those elements to really make characters feel different. I generated 3 Dwarven Wizards and 2 Dwarven Warlocks as an experiment and it felt like I was only able to create 3 characters that truly felt different. For my group, not really liking the Dragonborn, Tieflings and Eldarin (or whatever they're called...The SuperElves) we feel like there are about 4 species choices in the book.
AD
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Or, in other words and in my experience, the Fighters, Paladins, and Barbarians were expected to play tank, but were relatively incapable of actually executing that role unless they could find a 5'-wide corridor to stand in and block off.
Phlebas
First Post
I think that comment about certain types of player is the key thing here. some people like the complexity of 3,5 / PFRP, some people like the simplicity of 4e. They really are two different games appealing to different groups (though I'm sure a lot of people probably will end up playing both as they both offer different experiences)
(threadjack)
not found any problems while playtesting as most of the sub-systems have been modified rather than added to, and then you can effectively use or ignore the changed sub-systems for NPC's without effecting the rest of the game. certainly the CMB rules / steamlined skills make some aspects of the game simpler - other changes are just changes and its more a case of not confusing with the 3,5 version (which since i'm DM-ing 3,5 & PF, plus playing 3,5 is not as easy as it sounds. luckily the free pdf meant that all the players had the rule set!)
Of course its still as complex as 3,5 but at least the changes to core means that their should be less PrC / Splatbook 'goodness' for the DM to worry about.......
The beta looks like its continuing to tidy up / simplify the ideas as well so I continue to watch the development with interest.....
(/threadjack)
Vocenoctum
First Post
That was entirely my point, there was no tank role. Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, Cleric, Monk, everyone but the thief and mage were in the front line. Even rangers more often than not.
The dichotomy wasn't "Tank vs DPS vs CC vs Healer", it was "melee or range" and that was all.
I'm not saying my games are the universal standard, but most of the folks I've talked to that think of the fighter as tank came into the hobby during/ after the EQ era.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
We never used the name "Tank" (or did we?), but we learned over time that there must be someone with AC and HP that can attract the opponents to attack him, not the Wizard, not the Rogue, not the Archer. It wasn't necessarily a Fighter standing there, but it was one of the best classes suited for the job (and most other classes - especially Rogue and Ranger) needed lots of tweaking and min-maxing to get there.
We thought for a while a melee warrior with lots of hit points could be enough, but if that was true, it wasn't the Barbarian, unless you head a Cleric focusing on healing him in combat.
I think the fact that we use a lot of published modules enforced this. The modules were written with the standard 4-man party in mind (and sometimes more PCs), and as such any non-standard group suffered.
But the bigger problem from the player perspective was not that the roles were predetermined and neccessary, but that some classes just didn't fit well into any of the roles (Barbarian, Monk and Rogue where the biggest problem). And this meant we had to "suffer" through the adventures or just had to play the standard classes. And that's something I greatly hated. I don't enjoy Clerics. I would have liked to play more of the role-poor classes. But the play experience was to frustrating, because you was constantly reminded that some job was missing and you couldn't fulfill the job.
Of course, a secondary aspect here was not only the combat role. A Barbarian would have worked well as a Striker paired with a Fighter instead of the Rogue, but who handles the traps now? And what's with "Striking" against Undeads? A Druid replaces a Cleric mostly, but better don't suffer any status effects or ability damage and stuff - the Cleric just handled that better (and sometimes he was even the only one)
I always considered the "tank" role as stupid unless it made tactically sense (the aforementioned corridor, for example), or if the NPCs could do the same - and telling players "No, your character will attack the heavily armored fighter, and not the weak wizard that is magic missiling you to death, because the tank taunted you" is just wrong.
I still think that terrain and tactics, not "magical" "you have to attack me and ignore the wizard" powers should determine if tanking is possible. A single fighter, in open terrain, simply can't protect a whole party of four, IMHO.
I still think that terrain and tactics, not "magical" "you have to attack me and ignore the wizard" powers should determine if tanking is possible. A single fighter, in open terrain, simply can't protect a whole party of four, IMHO.
