4E is unacceptable

[Remathilis]

It might be interesting if many of the players who prefer 4E's focus on game balance played mainly bought adventures (which usually had many many combat encounters).

Adventures serve as a great example; they assume a certain power curve (by nature, they need to write to a baseline) but it goes further than that.

3.5 assumes 13 "combat worthy" encounters of equal challenge rating to advance a level. The encounters could be negotiations, sneakery, or melee, but they are, in essence, as difficult as a combat with an equal foe. This is all the core rules reward.

The game assumes that X level PC can handle X level challenge. An 18th level PC (with his party) can face a CR 18 monster, and live.

The problem with sub-optimal choices is that the PC =/= to his level. Our 10/10 fighter/wizard (or sub in any poor choice combo) doesn't take blows like a fighter nor deal damage like a wizard could in those situations. When dealing with each role (fighting, casting) he's little better than a PC 1/2 his level. And due to the economy of actions (one standard action a round) he doesn't even count for two PCs. His vaunted versatility is useless because he sucks in both roles.

(Prove my point: create a party of 10th level single-classed PCs. Give them level 20 treasure and double their hp. Now, let them fight a Balor. See if they win).

So the SYSTEM ITSELF (and its inherent assumptions) begin to break down. The PC is =/= to his level, so challenges equal to his level are actually harder than anticipated. He cannot penetrate monster defenses. He cannot locate or disarm traps. He cannot remove/negate the status ailments monsters produce.

So the DM has to compensate. Weaker monsters. Weaker traps. Dice Fudging. The CR/EL goes off the rails. You need more weaker encounters than 13 to level. Appropriate challenges slowly increase the chance of TPK.

Basically, the system and all its balancing assumptions goes out the window.

Modules show this glaring weakness best by being neutral. The DM has to let the dice fall where they may, or seriously alter them (and thus show how much he must deviate from baseline assumptions) to make these sub-optimal PCs work.

If you are the type of DM who either a.) tolerates rampant PC death OR b.) uses a nontraditional setup to insure the game remains "balanced" then this is a non-issue. You have gone a fixed the issue your own way. However, the core rules of the game shouldn't require such patches to work just because of booby-trap PCs. There is no warning that "even multi-classing may make your PC less effective" in the PHB, no "DMs must do this to compensate for floundering PCs" in the DMG. It assumes that such a PC is equal to the rest. That is not true.

I guess in essence, my point is that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Such characters are the weak link, and it then falls to others (other PCs, the DM) to compensate for that weak link somehow. I much prefer a system that doesn't allow for so many weak links, even at the expense of "customizing" because knowing my fellow players can do their job well makes me a better player and DM.

 

[Obryn]

Why?

If it is a role-playing heavy campaign, why is one role better than another role?

Well, I'm assuming that there's conflict of some sort, right? And the game is using skill rolls? That they're not just role-playing a sewing circle (sans Craft: Needlepoint rolls)?

If there's conflict, but fighting isn't a good way to resolve conflict, spellcasters and skill-monkeys have an edge for resolving said conflicts. If there's no fighting, then a fighter will clearly not have much to do - since they have few skills to speak of, and all their class features are based on combat.

If, OTOH, you're just speaking in terms of a nearly-diceless role-playing session, where die rolls aren't used in 90%+ of all conflict, how in the world would 4e be inferior to 3e for this purpose? If you're ignoring the mechanics, mechanics don't matter.

Again, why? If the role I want to play is a character who has dabbled in magic and has some skill with a sword, why would it be a bad choice?

In my mind, admittedly, speaking primarily as a DM, there are no bad choices in character creation provided the player makes the choices that fit what he wants from a character.

If the player wants a heavy hitter, then a gnome bard is a bad choice. But if the player wants a small but talented individual then gnome bard might be the very best choice.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing whatsoever.

I am certainly not objecting to characters who are focused at being good in one area to the detriment of other areas.

I am saying that you don't need to make a mechanically gimped character in order to have a fun and exciting role-playing experience.

Your fighter who dabbles in magic? Why did he take 10 levels of Wizard - putting him at a decent amount of talent, far above the "dabbler" stage? Why didn't he jump into Eldritch Knight if he were that serious about both spellcasting and fighting?

A gnome bard will never be as strong in a fight as a half-orc barbarian, but it doesn't need to be for the game to end up being fun and it might force all the players to be more creative in their problem solving. Which is a good thing.

No, of course he won't. And, in 4e, a Warlock will never be able to stand in melee right next to a Fighter without getting hurt. Those are specialists, though; it's a different topic altogether.

-O

 

[Jack Colby]

To the OP: It's all in your head.

I have the 4E books, have been playing, consider them complete, and haven't even looked at the errata. If there's ever a problem (none so far) I'll make a ruling on it and move on. If an element I want is "missing", I'll make up something. That's what DM's do.

The only point I can agree with you on is that the intended simplicity and directness of the rules is impaired by bad wording, bad naming, etc. I'm not saying the books or WotC are perfect by the way, only that there is but one real flaw I agree with you on. The rest is stuff that I can deal with or, frankly, have never noticed as a problem.

 

[Fenes]

But as was said - there is the Eldritch knight for such characters.

I somehow don't think that people making suboptimal choices was such a problem in 3E. And I do not think that reducing options so no one can make bad choices anymore is so good. Some of those "bad choices" had their uses, if combined with other options.

Just because some hypothetical player could make a bad choice doesn't mean we have to reduce the choices for everyone.

 

[Wicht]

Well, I'm assuming that there's conflict of some sort, right? And the game is using skill rolls? That they're not just role-playing a sewing circle (sans Craft: Needlepoint rolls)?

If there's conflict, but fighting isn't a good way to resolve conflict, spellcasters and skill-monkeys have an edge for resolving said conflicts. If there's no fighting, then a fighter will clearly not have much to do - since they have few skills to speak of, and all their class features are based on combat.

A fighter with no social graces to speak of, might be really fun to role-play in a high society sort of game.

I think the problem is that you are assuming that having the right skills or abilities at the right time makes for a better game. I don't. I could care less, as a DM, whether the characters have a good diplomacy at the dinner party or good skills with a sword when the dragon attacks. Running away is always an option and failing to get the right clues just makes the challenge more challenging.

If, OTOH, you're just speaking in terms of a nearly-diceless role-playing session, where die rolls aren't used in 90%+ of all conflict, how in the world would 4e be inferior to 3e for this purpose? If you're ignoring the mechanics, mechanics don't matter.

I'm not ignoring the dice nor the mechanics. But failure is always an option and sometimes it can be a very entertaining option.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Paranoia as a game?

I don't think we're talking about the same thing whatsoever.

I'm talking about the idea that a character who is not the best at what he is doing can still make for a good game. He doesn't have to be 'gimped' but he doesn't need to shine in his field either IMO.

Your fighter who dabbles in magic? Why did he take 10 levels of Wizard - putting him at a decent amount of talent, far above the "dabbler" stage? Why didn't he jump into Eldritch Knight if he were that serious about both spellcasting and fighting?

Maybe he wanted to take wizard and I as a DM said he didn't have access to the Eldritch Knight prestige class.

Maybe, IC, he wasn't that dedicated to it but simply had some small natural talent. Maybe he just wanted to be able to cast certain spells at certain times. There could be any number of reasons but in the end, if its what the player wanted, who are you to say that he is playing the game wrong or not enjoying it as much as if he had made different choices?

 

[Fenes]

To put it in other words: If someone drowns in a swimming pool it's not usually the best option to outlaw all swimming pools that are deeper than 1.5 meter.

 

[Obryn]

A fighter with no social graces to speak of, might be really fun to role-play in a high society sort of game.

I think the problem is that you are assuming that having the right skills or abilities at the right time makes for a better game. I don't. I could care less, as a DM, whether the characters have a good diplomacy at the dinner party or good skills with a sword when the dragon attacks. Running away is always an option and failing to get the right clues just makes the challenge more challenging.

I'm not ignoring the dice nor the mechanics. But failure is always an option and sometimes it can be a very entertaining option.

...right, all of which is stuff that you can do under any system, or no system at all. I don't see it as an argument for one system over another like you're trying to.

If you don't care how good someone is with a sword when they're fighting a dragon, why are you using any D&D rules set? If you don't care how good someone is at Diplomacy when trying to persuade someone to do something, why do you have the skill for PCs to spend points in?

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Paranoia as a game?

I love it, but it's a very different kind of game than every other RPG on the market. It's its own category. You can't use Paranoia thinking when running or playing other games, and you can't use other game thinking when running or playing Paranoia.

I'm talking about the idea that a character who is not the best at what he is doing can still make for a good game. He doesn't have to be 'gimped' but he doesn't need to shine in his field either IMO.

Well, of course it can still make for a good game. You can have fun with your characters under any system, no matter how they're built. What I'm objecting to is that, somehow, having minimally competent characters is anathema to RP, or that making a less-capable character than everyone else in the party is a vital ingredient to good RP.

Maybe he wanted to take wizard and I as a DM said he didn't have access to the Eldritch Knight prestige class.

Maybe, IC, he wasn't that dedicated to it but simply had some small natural talent. Maybe he just wanted to be able to cast certain spells at certain times. There could be any number of reasons but in the end, if its what the player wanted, who are you to say that he is playing the game wrong or not enjoying it as much as if he had made different choices?

Yeah, we're involved in different conversations here, and quoting each other is only contributing to the illusion.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

To put it in other words: If someone drowns in a swimming pool it's not usually the best option to outlaw all swimming pools that are deeper than 1.5 meter.

No, but its perfectly acceptable to mandate gates that protect people from falling in accidentally.

 

[Wicht]

If you don't care how good someone is with a sword when they're fighting a dragon, why are you using any D&D rules set? If you don't care how good someone is at Diplomacy when trying to persuade someone to do something, why do you have the skill for PCs to spend points in?

To determine success or failure of course.


I'm just saying, as DM, I don't care if the players have the optimal tools at their disposal. That's their business. But whether they succeed or fail is however important to the outcome of the story. The rules are important and I don't, as a DM, have a preset outcome for the games we play (though I'm privately cheering for the good guys).

We may well be in seperate conversations that somehow got muddled together. I'm not arguing for or against any rules-set. I was arguing that there was nothing wrong with a fighter 10/wizard 10 so long as that was what the player wanted.

 

[Imaro]

To put it in other words: If someone drowns in a swimming pool it's not usually the best option to outlaw all swimming pools that are deeper than 1.5 meter.

Totally agree...

No, but its perfectly acceptable to mandate gates that protect people from falling in accidentally.

Uhm, wouldn't this be more akin to having the "suggested builds, feats, or powers"... but still allowing a player to make the character they want if they choose too, even if it is sub-optimal in certain aspects?