Farewell to thee D&D

[Ximenes088]

I acknowledge that most fantasy wizards are not like D&D wizards. Most fantasy wizards are not like each other at all. A wizard from a Conan book is nothing like Gandalf who is nothing like Allanon.

But one thing they do all have in common: They are the most powerful people in their world. They are not unbeatable, but they deal in arcane forces that other people cannot emulate or equal in power. They are mysterious and considered dangerous to toy with due to that arcane power. They have a particularly feel that 4E does not capture.

The 4E wizard would be laughed at if it tried to rule a kingdom with his weak hit points and limited arcane magic. He is nothing like the wizards I listed.

So in brief, the fact that 3e wizards were vastly more powerful than 3e non-spellcasters is a crucial point for your satisfaction? And there's no reasonable way a wizard can aspire to a leadership position due to powers that are... now exactly the same scale as every other class? These positions may be held in good faith, but I think you're going to be pretty lonely in holding them.

If I wanted to play a game where wizards were Just Better, I'd play Ars Magica. I think WotC is being very reasonable in targeting the game towards sharing the Awesome out among all the character class, and not bestowing special power upon the PC who decides that his Awesome comes from the "Totally Impossible" power source rather than the "Highly Implausible" power source. You can still write perfectly good fights with Unstoppable Wizard Antagonists just by following the DMG guidelines for ginning up solo monsters. Once a wizard sips from the chalice of NPCdom, he gains assorted hideous powers hinging on his eventual unspeakable fate. It's a thin fantasy world that can't support the concept of wizards who make sacrifices totally unacceptable to any PC in exchange for unheard-of personal power.

In terms of leadership, I can't understand why wizards-as-powerful-as-everyone-else makes it impossible for a wizard to be a ruler now. A cursory review of real-life history strongly suggests that people totally incapable of hewing down even five ordinary men in a single blow still manage to run countries. Possession of godlike powers of reality-shaping is strictly optional, and it's not as if other classes now possess unique degrees of might unapproachable by a lowly spellslinger.

Ultimately, if you really must have wizards be grossly more powerful than mere warriors, give all wizards five or six bonus levels. That's essentially what you're asking for from the game- wizards as intrinsically and naturally superior to noncasters. I really don't think you're going to get it in any modern game not devoted to the conceit.

 

[Celtavian]

Jackie also uses a lot of props, which, if they aren't present, limit the "do all kinds of cool things" that you can do with page 42.

My point is that Jackie Chan doesn't use Tumble once per encounter. No, don't even try to argue because he doesn't.

Well, there is your problem. You don't want to play a game with your friends, you want to play a game with your friends incidentally in the room.

Remove your expectations that you must be the most powerful character in the room and the game will play a lot better.

This is nothing but a worthless response meant to invalidate my concerns. I'm glad I don't have friends who believe the tripe you posted above. Neither of those assumptions is true and is nothing more than a backhanded insult meant to make you feel superior. I'm not buying into it.

 

[Celtavian]

Change a little in the above statement, and you have my sentiments about 3e.
Especially for non-casters. They usually had few choices beyond what target to hit and when to run away. Special attacks such as trip, grapple, power attack etc. where only ever useful if you had a pc dedicated to the tactic. They would then use this trick over and over again. And ofcourse, these options excist in 4e as well (in principle anyway)...

4e tries to give every class more options, which include encounter, daily and at-will powers. Though i haven't really played 4e as much as 3e yet (ofcourse), it seems to work fine, at low level, for giving varied combats. When you run out of encounter powers and dailies, you still have a choice of at least two different at-wills + the stunt system (page 42?).

imx it seems to be enough.

What you say is true. I liked what they did for melees in 4E. I'm going to try to import some dailies to 4E. I feel dailies better allow me to run things as I like to run them and will give the melees some better options.

I won't be importing encounter powers though. I like that a simple sword or axe swing will work the majority of the time. That is real fighting to me. I like when my melee characters fight using a particular fighting style rather than blowing off one shot powers that they can't repeat for an artificial amount of time.

If I were a 4E designer, I would have worked on improving fighting style options. Not making everyone into the equivalent of a spellcaster with abilities that once used cannot be used again for an arbitrary amount of time.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I remember a half jokey thread a while back where it was posited that an 18th level lich could take out a million 5th level NPC's. The worst part was, there were ways that it could actually happen. It was actually possible for the lich to win on his own.

Meanwhile, the poor non-caster classed got toasted in a hail of arrows.

I'm confused. Why are you bringing liches into a comparison of wizards vs. non-casters? Wizard != lich.

I mean, I assume the only reason the lich didn't also get "toasted in a hail of arrows" is its DR...which has nothing to do with it being a wizard.

 

[Celtavian]

(1) The problem in D&D (and most others RPGs) tends to be that there are way more combat encounters then in a typical story, from a story-telling point perspective. I mean, think about how many real battles we have in LotR - that would never be enough for the span of a typical D&D campaign.

That's what I'm getting at.I reduced the number of encounters. I agree with you. There are alot less in movies and books. So I worked to reduce the number of encounters into single, big block encounters.

Long-Drawn out fights are perfectly possible using a mix of lots of Minions and powerful individual foes, possibly attacking in waves - but all within one encounter.

I've tried what you say. It doesn't work in 4E. You run out of healing, you run out of hit points, you run out of encounter powers, and you can't get your AC high enough to stand up to a long fight.

I could with work capture what I'm talking about in 4E by reducing the attack roll of the minions or monsters. But I can do exactly the same thing in 3E.

Jackie Chain is constantly using tumbling, flying kicks, roundhouse kicks and so on because - like most movie characters - he is fighting Minions - if he hits, he gets to do all kinds of cool stuff. And of course, Jackie Chan has probably a DM that uses DMG p.42 a lot more then me or you (or your DM?).

No. If it were 4E, he could roundhouse kick once per encounter. Otherwise, he would be reduced to regular kicks. He could tumble once per encounter, otherwise he would be reduced to walking. He could flying kick maybe one time a day, then he would be reduced to normal kicks.

When they name something tumble, don't you think they mean it in 4E? Tumble is an encounter power. Why can I in your mind suddenly tumble as a standard form of movement?

That is exactly what I'm getting at. You do alot of handwaving and assumption completely ignoring the names of powers. So what do you do when a guy uses a Roundhouse Kick encounter power? And then tells you he is using a Roundhosue kick as his standard attack? What do you do when the guy does different damage for each effect?

I gather that you don't worry about it. It isn't important to you.

So what do you do if it is important to you to have that internal consistency? What do you do then?

Did you ever try this in 3E? Sure, the Fighter manages to do that (if someone keeps him up with some healing spells), but the Wizard? He's out of useful spells quickly, and then (unlike maybe the Wizard-That's-not-really-a-wizard-as-we-all-known, Gandalf) he can't get out his sword and staff to kick ass.

Well, yes I have. The wizard generally has wands and other items that allow him to slog through the regular minions. Heck, that is what the fighter is there for.

You have to remember how minions work in 3E. They vary in level according to what the DM wants to do with them. They can die in one hit or be a real nuisance. They wear gear that matters.

They have a larger variance than minions in 3E. I like being able to vary minion level creatures. As I said, it comes down to what we want. I don't want to know that a lucky hit by little boy with a rock can kill a creature that my fighter with his +6 Greatsword can kill.

All games are in essence about the feel of the game. In 4E a minion is a creature that can be killed in one hit by anyone. In 3E a minion is a creature that can be killed in one hit by a high level skilled fighter. A little boy with a rock has no chance against him nor a farmer with a pitchfork nor a low level guard.

In 4E it doesn't matter if it is a demon, an ogre, or a human rabble, a lucky 20 by that little boy with the rock kills that minion. I don't care how lucky a little boy with a rock is he isn't going to kill a 3E lvl 9 orc warrior minion, but that lvl 13 human warrior with his +3 greatsword just might kill that lvl 9 orc warrior in service to the orc warlord.

That's the feel I want for my demon and ogre or lvl 9 orc warrior minions. I want them to be a force that can't be killed by regular townsfolk so that they actually need the warrior to show up. If I want some minion level creatures that townsfolk can kill, I'll throw in some lvl 1 regular orcs. I especially don't want demon minions feeling like they can be killed in one swift easy hit by anyone.

That 20th lvl fighter with a +5 weapon can skill a Vrock or something in one hit because he is a bad to the bone lvl 20 fighter that can rock you hard if you go toe to toe with him.

You are not forced to re-use flavor text if you don't like it. Just because you use the same mechanical representation for a certain task, doesn't mean you use the same narrative. And vice versa, of course...

I can't much disagree with this. It's true.

I do like internal consistency. That's just my preference.

Ultimately, everyone has to make his pick according to preferences. Though I still don't get why you'd give up D&D entirely, but well, there are a lot of other games out there that also deserve a fair chance to be tested and played...

This is true. Which I why my post is subjective. What you find ok, I don't. And vice versa. It isn't an either or scenario.

But I'm sure if D&D had designed a game you didn't enjoy that you felt like was driving you out of the game, you wouldn't be too happy either. This game feels so unlike D&D, so unlike the fantasy books that I have read and enjoyed, that I feel driven out of a game I've played for 25 years.

I don't care which side of the fence you are on, 4E is a vastly different form of D&D that has an entirely different design goal and design inspiration than 3E or an previous version of D&D.

Those different mechanics lead to an entirely different feel and thus apperance to the game. For example, when a wizard launches an Aoe Spell and levels a group of minions, it looks the same as when he did it in 3E. But when a 3E wizard launched a fireball to level a group of orcs, he generally would not drop it on the heads of his party comrades because he did significant damage to them as well. But in 4E if the party wizard drops a Scorching Blast on top of the fighter killing a ton of orc minions surrounding that fighter, he does pittance damage in general to that fighter and may in fact do not damage if he misses them completely. That is an entirely different feel from previous editions.

As in that 3E fireball was equally dangerous to the monsters and the party.

But a 4E scorching blast is far less dangerous to the party and far more dangerous to minion level monsters. And becomes less dangerous to the party and remains equally dangerous to minions as you level.

Whereas 3E Aoe attacks become more dangerous to the party, more dangerous to minion level creatures, and just all around more dangerous.

Seriously, you need a Meteor Swarm or Horrid Wilting to kill high level minions. But that same 1st lvl Scorching Blast that killed lvl 1 human rabble will kill a lvl 9 orc warrior minion and will kill a lvl 20 demon minion. So will the rogue's fist or the lucky 20 hit roll with a rock from the little boy.

To me a big old "fake power, fake power, fake power" ringing bell goes off in my head when a wizard uses a scorching blast on lvl 9 orc minions that he used to kill lvl 2 human rabble.

That is a difficult thing for someone like me to reconcile. I'm glad you are able to reconcile it fine so you can enjoy the game. But it bothers me immensely as it makes a class I greatly enjoyed seem like a fake. Like he may look powerful when he levels those minions, but really it is only because someone artificially made minions have 1 hit point each. Against real monsters, he would do pittance damage. That just bothers the heck out of me.

I'm glad you extended your reply. That wink of yours, man that just seems like patronization.

I know we already discussed this in a previous thread. And we will probably never agree. But you've always been polite. I understand you like 4E and it is more to your preference. I can accept that. We don't wall look for the same things in a fantasy game. My original post is suitable to me.

I can't do like you do. If a character can tumble as part of his fighting style, I want him to be able to do it all time the time when condition allow. When he does a roundhouse or flying kick, same thing. I don't want it to be an encounter power with an arbitrary limitation I can't explain in real terms. That's just my personal preference.

I understand conceptually I can do the same things in 4E if I handwaye the idea of realism and consistency. But I don't want to have to do that. I don't like to do that. I'm a guy who likes a sense of realism. Not so much that I cant buy into magic and fantasy, but enough that things seem somewhat to work as they might work in the real world. 4E doesn't give me enough of what I prefer.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

In this thread, SHUT UP CELTAVIAN, STOP HAVING THE WRONG OPINION. THAT'S NOT ALLOWED. BAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW.

Honestly Celtavian, my advice is to just stop responding. We all know it won't get you anywhere.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My point is that Jackie Chan doesn't use Tumble once per encounter. No, don't even try to argue because he doesn't.

When did he take opportunity attacks?
You're getting lost in details.

The Rogues Artful Dodger ability represents his tumbling just as much as the Tumble encounter power. The encounter power is just a particularly awesome display of Tumble...

I've tried what you say. It doesn't work in 4E. You run out of healing, you run out of hit points, you run out of encounter powers, and you can't get your AC high enough to stand up to a long fight.

Well, than you might be doing it wrong.
Use Minions, use monsters with a levels slightly lower than the PCs, and than go to an encounter budget that's higher than the PCs level (they are supposed to take that).

No. If it were 4E, he could roundhouse kick once per encounter. Otherwise, he would be reduced to regular kicks.

See that Minion over there - I'll try a round-house kick to death. Basic Attack, if I hit, it dies in any spectacular display I like.
See that Elite over there - I'll try a round-house kick to death - Basic Attack. Oops, I hit, but the opponent isn't dead - apparently, he dodged out of the way at the last moment...

That is exactly what I'm getting at. You do alot of handwaving and assumption completely ignoring the names of powers.

Yes, I do. That's the fun of it. Think of it as deciding that I want to describe my spells in a non-standard way, like my Necromancer throwing skulls instead of missiles when casting magic missile. This is the type of stuff some roleplayers do all the time. I am glad I eventually started with that, too.

So what do you do if it is important to you to have that internal consistency? What do you do then?

Hmm. Whine on message boards?
I don't care about this type of consistency. I really don't.
And what is inconsistent about Jackie Chan using round-house kicks when it pleases him, but not always succeeding in a particularly effective way?

The only inconsistency arises if you assume that there is a 1:1 mapping between game terms and "fictional world" elements. But that's not the case. Hit Points aren't part of the fiction world. Levels are not part of the fictional world. Even the skills don't map entirely to the fictional world. (or are you telling me there only exist people that know something on every part of history, which is why there is just one "Knowledge (History)" skill, not a Knowledge (History of the Stone Ages) and Knowledge (History of the Roman Empire)?)

All games are in essence about the feel of the game. In 4E a minion is a creature that can be killed in one hit by anyone. In 3E a minion is a creature that can be killed in one hit by a high level skilled fighter. A little boy with a rock has no chance against him nor a farmer with a pitchfork nor a low level guard.

Your 3E Minion (barring house rules) will most likely be unable to affect the Fighter at all if the Fighter can really kill him in one blow. That's why the Minion mechanics for 4E have changed - to ensure that they still matter, but also don't require me any book-keeping on hit points.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is true. Which I why my post is subjective. What you find ok, I don't. And vice versa. It isn't an either or scenario.

Certainly. But you'll still invite people to explain how they see things, if you post your view on it.

But I'm sure if D&D had designed a game you didn't enjoy that you felt like was driving you out of the game, you wouldn't be too happy either. This game feels so unlike D&D, so unlike the fantasy books that I have read and enjoyed, that I feel driven out of a game I've played for 25 years.

Sure, I wouldn't be. Though I am not sure if I would worry that much about it. I am not married to D&D, even if we play it a lot. If D&D 4E was not to my taste, I'd keep playing 3E, Iron Heroes, or would finally run some Star Wars or Shadowrun again.

I don't care which side of the fence you are on, 4E is a vastly different form of D&D that has an entirely different design goal and design inspiration than 3E or an previous version of D&D.

I know, everything people post on the internet is implicitly "IMO", but stating it like this doesn't make it as if you feel like its true. The game we played last saturday felt very much like D&D as I expect it to feel. I have obviously different associations with D&D than you, but 4E definitely definitely fires my D&D neurons.

Those different mechanics lead to an entirely different feel and thus apperance to the game. For example, when a wizard launches an Aoe Spell and levels a group of minions, it looks the same as when he did it in 3E. But when a 3E wizard launched a fireball to level a group of orcs, he generally would not drop it on the heads of his party comrades because he did significant damage to them as well. But in 4E if the party wizard drops a Scorching Blast on top of the fighter killing a ton of orc minions surrounding that fighter, he does pittance damage in general to that fighter and may in fact do not damage if he misses them completely. That is an entirely different feel from previous editions.

As in that 3E fireball was equally dangerous to the monsters and the party.

You never threw a fireball at your own parties fighter or Rogue? Pah, we did that a few times. Sometimes relying on Evasion/Improved Evasion, other times relying on Resist Energy, but we certainly did that a few times.

But a 4E scorching blast is far less dangerous to the party and far more dangerous to minion level monsters. And becomes less dangerous to the party and remains equally dangerous to minions as you level.

Whereas 3E Aoe attacks become more dangerous to the party, more dangerous to minion level creatures, and just all around more dangerous.

Seriously, you need a Meteor Swarm or Horrid Wilting to kill high level minions. But that same 1st lvl Scorching Blast that killed lvl 1 human rabble will kill a lvl 9 orc warrior minion and will kill a lvl 20 demon minion. So will the rogue's fist or the lucky 20 hit roll with a rock from the little boy.

(1) It is the same spell, but not the same character. The character shooting scorching blasts at Human Rabble with have a lower level than the character shooting Scorcing Blast at demon minions (or rather devil minions - I think there are no demon minions so far)
(2) If you want to keep your senses, don't ever run level 20 minions against level 1 characters. Stay in a reasonable level range. You wouldn't run a 5th level party against a Pit Fiend, either.
(3) Damage in 3E does scale with level, especially for wizards. You keep using a 3rd level spell against 5th level monsters and against 10th level monsters, and the impact would be about the same.

 

[Fenes]

Book of Nine Swords solved the "Wizards win" problem, if there ever was one. And they did it by ramping up melee classes.

 

[AWizardInDallas]

I must admit, I don't get it either. Just because you don't like 4ed doesn't mean you should quit playing the version you do like.

I'll be playing 3.5 for a good while yet, and so will many other people. Just because we're not moving over to a new edition doesn't mean we should all just throw in the towel and quit.

Because 4E communities threaten the right to exist of 3.5 communities and the future of 3E is still uncertain. Historically, there has only been ONE version of the game in active company-supported production. Someone on this forum literally said that 4E is the "new hotness" and that if we are not playing the latest version then we are essentially obsolete. That is a very unwelcoming statement.

See if you can find an active 1E or 2E community? There are none. That will be us in a few years. We will have been made to go underground, with the chances of finding players for our version of the game rapidly diminishing with each passing minute. This is what Celtavian cannot reconcile. We are being slowly banished. The only hope for us is that for the first time in history there may actually be TWO popular versions of D&D, except that the second will be called something else. Still, again for the first time in D&D history, we will be a house divided.

Unlike Celtavian, I feel somewhat differently, in that the aliens will have to pry the version of D&D I play from my cold dead hands after the nuclear holocost before I stop playing. So a little thing like being banished by fellow travelers won't stop me.