D&D 4E 4E - What Rules Need Fixing?

[Nail]

And you're assuming that your players are too stupid to understand the "wealth adjustment" concept and you'll need to babysit them in order for it to be implemented?

JustinA, please play nice. Thanks.

It's well understood that the fighter is more dependent on his gear than the arcanists are (for example).

That was not true the the 3.xe-typical groups I played in. Arcanists got at least as much milage out of their gear as fighter-types did. Scrolls are an obvious example, but Headbands of Intellect (etc) are also front-and-center.

 

[~Johnny~]

I wish I could post this in a place where I knew someone from WotC was actually paying attention. But I figure page 2 of an ENWorld thread is better than page 29 of a Wizards thread. Here's what I want out of D&D in 4e:

• Familiars as a default class option - Flavor-wise, you might as well require wizards to wear pointy hats. In years of playing D&D, I think I've seen one person consistently remember to use (and roleplay) his familiar.
• 30 minutes of adventure, 8 hours of sleep - It's silly enough that my players to have to set up camp every time they advance three rooms through a dungeon. But if I want them to be invading an enemy camp, or participating in a war, that limitation gets ridiculous. What is fun about requiring an 8 hour recharge every three encounters for 50% of your party?
• Point-buy micromanagement - And I'm not even talking about character generation. The wealth and magic item creation rules leave players juggling tens of thousands of points in a search of optimal builds. And this leads to my two next complaints...
• It's all about the gear - Sure, finding magic items is fun. But if every 2nd-level fighter has a +1 weapon, why not just build that into the class? If every wizard is carrrying around scrolls, why not just add more spells per day (or per encounter)? Keep magic items special, like they are in nearly all fantasy literature.
• Dealing with loot - Actually, finding magic items isn't that fun. The process of dividing, identifying, and carrying around treasure can be a real pain. Characters shouldn't need to be followed around by a hireling with a wheelbarrow of holding just to avoid heading back to town every hour.
• Crappy rules for Diplomacy - I don't know if it really "discourages roleplaying," but Diplomacy sure sucks. Making it opposed is a start. Completely transforming it would be better.
• Crappy rules for non-combat action - At the very least, a chase scene shouldn't be something I have to houserule.
• A spell system that's at once redundant and contradictory - I echo the calls for fewer, more scaleable spells. And this is one case where taking cues from CRPGs actually makes sense: spell trees would be an improvement over the current schizophrenic grab bag. ("I've never cast a transmutation spell before, but now I'm an expert at transforming myself into a dragon!")

Wow, and I thought I really liked 3.5e rules. Guess it just goes to show there's always room for improvement.

 

[~Johnny~]

Demonstrate a workable system, in principle, for balancing encounters that "decouples the wealth mechanic" that isn't horribly broken.

I may be missing the point of this debate, but Vow of Poverty is one example of this approach, right? It may not be optimally balanced, but I think that's more an issue of execution than concept.

I once started to draft up an alternative ruleset that turned treasure-sourced abilities into additional class options that were earned over the course of play. One assumption was that you would have to restrict magic item use by characters using that ruleset. And charged or single-use items would need to be disregarded or significantly tweaked in order to convert. I still think you could devise that kind of overlay for 3.5e, but it's easier just to start from scratch (as in Iron Heroes). Here's hoping they just bring some of that philosophy into the design of 4e.

 

[MarkB]

Grappling was specifically called out in both the teaser video and the initial presentation, so I think we can assume that they've already come up with an alternate mechanic which they, at least, consider to be highly effective.

None of this discussion matters, now. The 4e books are practicly written, so it's not like they're gonna take suggestions.

Sigh. (shambles off)

They're still in the process of rolling out public playtesting, so I'd guess there's still time for some refinements.

 

[JustinA]

Excellent. You are incapable of imagining something, thus I get a pile of homework. Well, perhaps I will write one. You'll pay for the editing and proofreading, right?

Why on earth would you need to write an entire system from scratch in order to demonstrate it in principle?

Let's sum up:

(1) You think you can balance the power levels of different characters while ignoring a major source of power.

(2) I don't.

(3) You're very rude.

Let me know if you want to add any other bullet points to this discussion. Or are you planning to just continue sniping instead of actually participating?

That was not true the the 3.xe-typical groups I played in. Arcanists got at least as much milage out of their gear as fighter-types did. Scrolls are an obvious example, but Headbands of Intellect (etc) are also front-and-center.

True. But that's not actually what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the skew of power that happens when you take equipment away from everybody. Take away a high level wizard's items away and he gets fewer spells that aren't quite as good as they would be otherwise -- he can face fewer opponents of his CR in a day, but he can still face them.

A high level fighter, OTOH, is completely dependent on his gear. Even his primary schtick -- beating on things -- is dependent on the magical pluses he gets to his attack rolls, damage, and AC.

To boil it down: Without magical items, a high-level wizard is inconvenienced. A high-level fighter is screwed.

I may be missing the point of this debate, but Vow of Poverty is one example of this approach, right? It may not be optimally balanced, but I think that's more an issue of execution than concept.

That doesn't actually decouple the wealth mechanic, though. It annihilates the concept of loot (for that particular character) and replaces it with an alternate mechanic.

You can certainly get rid of treasure in D&D, but that's not actually the equivalent of ignoring the effects of wealth on power balance -- it's just setting the default level of wealth at a different point.

As long as D&D remains a game about traditional dungeon-crawling (kicking in the door, killing the monsters, and taking their stuff), wealth is going to continue to be an important factor in determining how much power a character or a group has at their disposal. Pretending that you can somehow ignore that factor and still balance the system is simply ridiculous. It's like trying to analyze the balance of military power between the U.S. and China without taking into consideration the number of soldiers each nation has.

I once started to draft up an alternative ruleset that turned treasure-sourced abilities into additional class options that were earned over the course of play. One assumption was that you would have to restrict magic item use by characters using that ruleset. And charged or single-use items would need to be disregarded or significantly tweaked in order to convert. I still think you could devise that kind of overlay for 3.5e, but it's easier just to start from scratch (as in Iron Heroes). Here's hoping they just bring some of that philosophy into the design of 4e.

If Dream Machine Production's Rule Supplement 5: Advanced Training sees the light of day (4th edition may have put the kibosh on its release), you'll see a training system in which wealth can be spent on inherent abilities instead of magical items (for identical results).

It's a pretty solid approach.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Nail]

I'm talking about the skew of power that happens when you take equipment away from everybody.

I don't see anyone in this thread refuting that. Gear-dependence in 3.xe (for me) really takes some of the fun out of the game. I house-ruled that problem away, and I hope 4e does the same.

As long as D&D remains a game about traditional dungeon-crawling (kicking in the door, killing the monsters, and taking their stuff), wealth is going to continue to be an important factor in determining how much power a character or a group has at their disposal.

I disagree.

What if wealth didn't lead to more powerful magic? What if more powerful magic was only accessible to those that were already powerful?

Etc.

 

[Felix]

(3) You're very rude.

Let me know if you want to add any other bullet points to this discussion. Or are you planning to just continue sniping instead of actually participating?

Justin, I agree with you for a few reasons.

One, items are a source of power and to a large extent they are common or rare on a campaign-to-campaign basis; I think that is going to be very hard to write out of the rules system.

Secondly, I want my Ogre Slaying Knife with a +9 versus Ogres; it's part of what I love about D&D that I can get stuff that does something cool that doesn't have to do with my class or race; I like that equipment is something outside of my character that I can use.

However: Nifft has been perfectly polite in this conversation, as he always is on these boards. If such a thing as an ENWorld reputation exists, he has a good one; Nail as well. You are being rather short with them, and as much as I agree that wealth and stuff should be a part of the game, I have a hard time reading your posts' content because of the attitude. They honestly aren't taking it personally; I very much recommend against comments like the one I've quoted.

 

[Nifft]

Why on earth would you need to write an entire system from scratch in order to demonstrate it in principle?

It sounds fun. I take it you can't pay?

Let's sum up:

(1) You think you can balance the power levels of different characters while ignoring a major source of power.

(2) I don't.

Cute, but you're not getting what I wrote.

Here's what I actually said:

IMHO 3e was an "improvement" over previous editions regarding treasure because 3e made the reliance explicit. It had always been the case that you needed +x weapons to harm certain critters. 3e generalized that.

Now I'm glad 3e did that, because once the wealth requirements have been made explicit, the next step IMHO is to make them fungible -- to be able to remove loot / gear / components as a balancing factor, or at least make it so different games with different wealth levels can utilize the same monsters / resources / etc. without unexpected consequences.

I'd like the next system to be better, in that I'd like it to allow wealth to be added or removed without destroying balance.

Under the current system (3.5e), wealth is necessary for all classes: warriors' needs are perhaps most obvious, but all spellcasters need wealth to craft or buy items, which the spontaneous casters use to augment their repertoire and the prepared casters use to increase their staying power.

If you really think wealth affects Wizards less than Fighters, let me remind you of an item named spellbook. Might be some value tied up in that. Might be a bit of reduced functionality if one were to be without it.

(3) You're very rude.

Let me know if you want to add any other bullet points to this discussion. Or are you planning to just continue sniping instead of actually participating?

Irony: priceless.

Please, don't keep trying to tell me what I'm saying. Your record in this regard is ... unenviable.

Cheers, -- N

 

[JustinA]

Here's what I actually said: I'd like the next system to be better, in that I'd like it to allow wealth to be added or removed without destroying balance.

I'd like a perpetual motion machine, too. And a unicorn.

It sounds fun. I take it you can't pay?

I make it a point not to pay for perpetual motion machines. But, sure. If you can produce a system which:

(a) Keeps utilitarian magic items as a source of power (in a manner true to the traditions of D&D);
(b) Allows those magic items to be bought; and
(c) Maintains game balance without taking into account what the PCs are capable (or are not capable) of buying.

I'll pay you $50 for non-exclusive rights to it, do the editing and proofreading myself, publish it, and give you a 75% royalty on revenue.

What if wealth didn't lead to more powerful magic? What if more powerful magic was only accessible to those that were already powerful?

Can you expand on this thought? Because right now it looks like you're arguing that a guy who has one nuclear weapon doesn't gain any more power if you give him a second nuke. And I think you might mean something else, but I"m not quite sure I can see what it is.

I can understand the desire to have more of a character's power dependent on their own capabilities instead of their equipment. (Is that what you mean?) But that doesn't "decouple the wealth mechanic" or make the wealth requirements "fungible". One solution would involve simply changing the expected levels of wealth. Another solution would be a World of Warcraft-style level cap on items/abilities -- but even that, given the wide variety of abilities available in D&D, doesn't prevent a shift in game balance as a result of shifting wealth levels.

However: Nifft has been perfectly polite in this conversation, as he always is on these boards.

Suffice it to say that, I consider personal insults like "you are incapable of imagining something" to be rude. You may consider that behavior to be "perfectly polite", but I don't.

So let's agree to disagree on this point and focus on the more substantive portions of the discussion.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[KarinsDad]

Suffice it to say that, I consider personal insults like "you are incapable of imagining something" to be rude. You may consider that behavior to be "perfectly polite", but I don't.

As rude as?

And you're assuming that your players are too stupid to understand the "wealth adjustment" concept and you'll need to babysit them in order for it to be implemented?

I guess I just have smarter players than you do. Sorry about that. Hope you can get better players in the future.

I agree with Felix and Nail. This post of yours was where this started going downhill and several of your posts since then have been in the same vein. What you should do to straighten this out is admit that you started this crap, apologize, and move on with the conversation instead of perpetuating this nonsense. The rest of us do not consider your post here "perfectly polite".