Forked Thread: Did 4e go far enough or to far?

[Imban]

See, IMO, I don't really understand this idea either. IMO, "off-screen" events are not part of the actual game, since they are not adjudicated by the rules (well I guess they could be, but I don't know any DMs who actually do this), they're part of the larger narrative that encompasses the game and are essentially subject to DM fiat.

Some people look at how the varying super beings in 3e were statted and would object if Asmodeus tooled Kurtulmak in a straight-up fight off-screen because this could never possibly happen on-screen if their stats were used.

In other words, in 3e, it was generally assumed that stats were objective statements about the things so statted, whereas in 4e it's assumed the same being may have completely different stats if encountered alone, in a group of five, or in a group of twenty. (And no meaningful stats whatsoever beyond "what the DM thinks" if it's encountering people who aren't the PCs.)

 

[Shroomy]

In other words, in 3e, it was generally assumed that stats were objective statements about the things so statted, whereas in 4e it's assumed the same being may have completely different stats if encountered alone, in a group of five, or in a group of twenty. (And no meaningful stats whatsoever beyond "what the DM thinks" if it's encountering people who aren't the PCs.)

I have problems with both of those assumptions. First, I don't think that 3e stats are really objective statements about the game world; they're certainly more detailed and less abstracted than 4e stats, but they are built around a power level that exists in relation solely to the level of what the game assumes is a standard party of PCs. Though the execution is different in 4e, the exact same ideas underpin both systems, so by design, while a CR 1 monster is less powerful than a CR 30 monster and a Level 1 Monster is also less powerful than a Level 30 monster, all the measurements are in relation to the PCs' level. Both games are silent on how monster power levels work in relation to one another.

The second assumption, that the 4e stats of a particular monster shift in relation to the number of monsters in an encounter is demonstrably false, as it is not supported by the rules. Minions exist as a distinct type of monster separate from the "standard" examples. They're often given names that stress that they are weaker (i.e. decrepit skeleton, zombie rotter, human rabble, lich vestige) or cannon fodder (i.e. the various types of legion devils), and there have been suggestions that DMs should allow PCs to be able to identify minions based on appearance. Now there is nothing preventing you from using the minion rules in such a way, but then, there is nothing preventing a 3.5e DM from doing some similar de-powering. I've seen suggestions from WoTC that at higher levels, it would be simpler to run low-level monsters as minions for ease of play, but this is more or less a house-ruled application of the minion rules, since those monsters would not have the higher defenses or damage output expected of an appropriate level minion, and in any case, has more to do with power levels than sheer numbers.

I'm not sure what you mean by "And no meaningful stats whatsoever beyond "what the DM thinks" if it's encountering people who aren't the PCs." I think that you are referring to the idea that 4e NPCs/monsters are not built using a system similar to PC creation. 4e does have rules and guidelines for creating monsters and NPCs; its not a completely arbitrary system. It is true that a lot of non-combat information is ultimately left to the DMs discretion, though I think setting skill levels in 4e is fairly trivial, as are target DCs if the PCs interact in some unexpected way (DMG pg. 42).

 

[Imban]

I'm not sure what you mean by "And no meaningful stats whatsoever beyond "what the DM thinks" if it's encountering people who aren't the PCs." I think that you are referring to the idea that 4e NPCs/monsters are not built using a system similar to PC creation.

Actually, no. I meant what I said - if you have a gold and red dragon fighting off-screen that the PCs had a vested interested in, a lot of 3e players would expect that, if you didn't play it out (which wasn't necessary), you'd base the results of the combat on the two monsters' statistics. 4e says "No. If it's not the PCs stabbing things, it's completely the DM's decision and we won't provide any aid for it whatsoever".

I guess it's partially that 4e NPCs/monsters are not built using a system similar to PC creation, but that only contributes through the final stats, rather than the system - PC vs. PC combat and NPC vs. NPC combat in 4e is massively unfun, the former being prone to rocket-launcher tag with how PCs have very weak weak defenses, while the latter can take dozens of rounds at low levels and gets worse from there.

 

[Runestar]

- Too many levels in too short of (real) time - 20 was already more than bad enough, now there's 30 - the focus is on numbers and powers rather than story and imagination

I am fairly divided on this point, actually.

To me at least, part of the fun of the xp/level system is that my characters can grow, become more powerful and access newer abilities. Only problem is balancing the rate at which he progresses. Too fast, and it loses its allure. Too slow, and it becomes too boring.

2e was an excellent example of the later - no one liked having to game hard for years just to gain a level at higher levels. You are stuck with the same stats for a long period of time, with nothing meaningful to look forward to. Conversely, it gets ridiculous how your average wizard can advance to become a master archmage in the span of just 1 month (I am looking at you - city of the spider queen!), a feat which should normally take years, if not decades.

Is it even possible to reach a compromise between these 2 contrasts?

 

[Cadfan]

In other words, in 3e, it was generally assumed that stats were objective statements about the things so statted, whereas in 4e it's assumed the same being may have completely different stats if encountered alone, in a group of five, or in a group of twenty. (And no meaningful stats whatsoever beyond "what the DM thinks" if it's encountering people who aren't the PCs.)

No edition says that the number of monsters you encounter changes the profile of the monster. Instead, monsters have different profiles. Some orcs, for example, are big and tough. Some are less so. Some are absolute killing machines. The challenge rating guidelines inform you that a balanced encounter versus monsters of these varying profiles will need to include varying amounts of that monster in order to remain balanced. This is so obvious that it does not even constitute a valid matter for debate or disagreement.

 

[mach1.9pants]

To sort of pt my thoughts more together-ish...

I think 4e can be a very fun game, and it has the potential to be even MORE fun. But I think that - oddly enough - the D&Disms are holding it back. Look at alignment. 4e very clearly wasn't built to use alignment, but it got shoved in anyways in it's current form that looks like buttocks. Some of the classes - I'm looking at you rogue - look like they started development as one thing but somehow got "Oh wait, thief" bent into them. I have no problem with many of the monsters being drastically different, but I think they'd all work so much better if they DIDN'T have previous D&D history breathing down the back of it's neck.

I agree with this.... A Rogue is a great class but it isn't a thief, but they tried to shoe horn it in as a thief, ranger the same he is an archer or a 2 wep ftr but then they add in naturey stuff..rubbish.
I think it didn't go far enough and they should have split outside combat skills/utilities completely from class. The same way everyone gets the same number of feats they should get the same number of skills etc. Why is a fighter worse than a rogue outside combat, why does he have less skills there is no balance just sacred cow.
The classes are balanced inside combat pretty well but not out..Wiz with free ritual casting/rituals with levels and rogues with skills. I would like every class to have 6 skills, access to all non combat utility powers and have to pay for rituals no matter who.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A little of both.

4e can be quite...schizophrenic at times.

 

[Shroomy]

Actually, no. I meant what I said - if you have a gold and red dragon fighting off-screen that the PCs had a vested interested in, a lot of 3e players would expect that, if you didn't play it out (which wasn't necessary), you'd base the results of the combat on the two monsters' statistics. 4e says "No. If it's not the PCs stabbing things, it's completely the DM's decision and we won't provide any aid for it whatsoever".

But, the DM still decided the results of the battle; it wasn't played out mechanically as part of the game. DMs can make this type of decision based on a whole host of factors (personally, I'd probably go with whatever was best for the story) including a direct comparison of statistics, but I don't see how this matters, as you can do the same sort of thing in 4e if you want.

I guess it's partially that 4e NPCs/monsters are not built using a system similar to PC creation, but that only contributes through the final stats, rather than the system - PC vs. PC combat and NPC vs. NPC combat in 4e is massively unfun, the former being prone to rocket-launcher tag with how PCs have very weak weak defenses, while the latter can take dozens of rounds at low levels and gets worse from there.

I really can't speak to PC vs. PC combat, as I've never tried it in 4e before. You're probably right, it most likely doesn't work really well, as at the very least, the 4e system seems to discourage such conduct (unless you were dominated or something). As for NPC vs. NPC combat, its worked fine in my experience. If NPCs are participating in combat with the PCs, it has played out normally according to the rules; if the PCs are not participating, then it plays out narratively.

 

[Imban]

But, the DM still decided the results of the battle; it wasn't played out mechanically as part of the game. DMs can make this type of decision based on a whole host of factors (personally, I'd probably go with whatever was best for the story) including a direct comparison of statistics, but I don't see how this matters, as you can do the same sort of thing in 4e if you want.

4e also semi-staunchly avoids presenting statistics for things that the PCs are not supposed to murder, including allied NPCs they're supposed to be protecting from assassins who are actively in the room with the PCs during the battle against said assassins. (c.f. Sea Reavers of the Shrouded Crags)

For instance, you'll notice that Jarlaxle Baenre is written up with full stats in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, while Drizzt do'Urden, who your average PCs are probably less likely to murder, is nowhere to be found.

I say semi-staunchly because, while this seems to be a design goal of 4e and a stance most of the material takes, 4e D&D isn't a hyper-focused indie game written by a single author according to his RPG manifesto. For basically anything in it, you can find exceptions - heck, I'll offer how Keep on the Shadowfell (IIRC) mentions an NPC in town is a lv4 Warlord, or King of the Trollhaunt Warrens offers you a fully-statted Dragonborn ally.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

4e also semi-staunchly avoids presenting statistics for things that the PCs are not supposed to murder, including allied NPCs they're supposed to be protecting from assassins who are actively in the room with the PCs during the battle against said assassins. (c.f. Sea Reavers of the Shrouded Crags)

For instance, you'll notice that Jarlaxle Baenre is written up with full stats in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, while Drizzt do'Urden, who your average PCs are probably less likely to murder, is nowhere to be found.

I say semi-staunchly because, while this seems to be a design goal of 4e and a stance most of the material takes, 4e D&D isn't a hyper-focused indie game written by a single author according to his RPG manifesto. For basically anything in it, you can find exceptions - heck, I'll offer how Keep on the Shadowfell (IIRC) mentions an NPC in town is a lv4 Warlord, or King of the Trollhaunt Warrens offers you a fully-statted Dragonborn ally.

Actually, that was one of the design goals listed in the two preview book/pdfs - give a reason to kill near everything. Thus why there's no such thing as a monster who's good, and why many of the elemental planes that you couldn't as comfortably adventure on are gone.