basic differences in rules per edition

[ExploderWizard]

Oh hey we're back on the argument of "No see I just ignore the rules and play freeform!"

That can be a lot of fun but you aren't really playing the game at that point.

Rule 1: The game is not the rules.

Rule2: Come back when you have mastered rule 1.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Really? I find the monsters require far more intelligence to manage things like marks and defender auras than they ever did in 3e. And that's supported by the way that there are published computer games for every recent edition of D&D except fourth.

Your logic there is wonky by the way. However, have you ever played MTGO? If so you would have more than likely seen what I meant automatically, but to rephrase: a computer could perfectly adjudicate all the actions taken by each of the players for their characters. In MTGO, the computer acts as a level 5 (the highest level) perfect judge. It can perfectly adjudicate the outcome of any action taken by a player. [The computer does not play the role of a player, it "simply" adjudicates the rules and outcomes of player actions.] Previous editions have a lot of loopholes and situations where such clear adjudication would not be possible. And this is referring to the rules as written, not some "computerized" derivation of the core rule books. To my mind, the 4e ruleset was designed so that a computer could perfectly adjudicate the actions of the players (and DM) similar to a computer's role of adjudicating actions on MTGO. Do you see what I mean now? I was not referring to the difficulty of coding the AI.

Depends on the poison. And the build. Most combat poisons need to overcome the fortitude defence - meaning that they have a much harder time affecting fighters than wizards [correction mine - but I disagree on the use of much. Harder, yes, but not much harder.]. And the barbarian in my current campaign has 5 points of poison resistance due to a feat. It's not often useful but has really saved her neck from spiderlings.

You're skirting around the core issue here. A simplification was made to the rules that was made more for ease of play issues than what made sense. This was yet another reason for the feeling of "sameness" of characters in play. This bothered some but not others.

You mean they had similar numbers?

Yes. Because of the alternative ability modifiers that could be used for defenses, all the values ended up in a similar range for almost all characters. Everyone's average or good at such things. Mathematically this works out nicely for holding a stable encounter duration and level of character involvement. It is a component of hardcoding effective characters into the game.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[pemerton]

Previous editions have a lot of loopholes and situations where such clear adjudication would not be possible. And this is referring to the rules as written, not some "computerized" derivation of the core rule books. To my mind, the 4e ruleset was designed so that a computer could perfectly adjudicate the actions of the players (and DM) similar to a computer's role of adjudicating actions on MTGO.

How would a computer adjudicate page 42? Or a skill challenge? Or are you only referring to combat powers?

Because of the alternative ability modifiers that could be used for defenses, all the values ended up in a similar range for almost all characters.

Interesting. In the party I GM, ACs range from 23 to 28, Fort from 18 to 23, Ref from 19 to 24 and Will from 20 to 24. I guess it depends what you mean by "similar range" - but level 10 monsters with an attack vs AC of +15 hit the 23 AC 13 time in 20, and the 28 AC 8 times in 20. The lower AC is likely to be hit more than 50% more often. That's noticeable in play.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

How would a computer adjudicate page 42? Or a skill challenge? Or are you only referring to combat powers?

Hit: X damage, and slide the target 3 squares.

Computer: "Which way?"

The DM is a far superior software system than WoW.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not familiar with any buffs a 4th-5th level wizard could use on a fighter that would allow the fighter to bring down the house either.

Well, there's "Strength" (MU-2) in 1e, adds to a Fighter's strength for a while - a 3rd-level MU can cast it. The MU casting this on self is nowhere near as helpful: the MU is probably weaker to begin with, and the random added amount is rolled on a smaller die.

And "Levitate" (MU-2) to get him up to the ceiling...

Lan-"no idea what buffs there are in 4e, 3e had lots"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Interesting. In the party I GM, ACs range from 23 to 28, Fort from 18 to 23, Ref from 19 to 24 and Will from 20 to 24. I guess it depends what you mean by "similar range" - but level 10 monsters with an attack vs AC of +15 hit the 23 AC 13 time in 20, and the 28 AC 8 times in 20. The lower AC is likely to be hit more than 50% more often. That's noticeable in play.

The only thing I can directly compare is AC, but 23-28 is actually a *very* narrow range given as the available numbers range from 10 to nigh infinity (3e went to at least 50).

For contrast, in my 1e games the ACs currently range from (I think) +4 to -4 in one party and +6 to -2 in the other - not much bigger of a spread when looked at out of context, but hugely bigger when you consider this is a system that by RAW only goes from +10 to -10. [Full disclosure: in my game I've taken off the arbitrary -10 limit as I've found it pretty much impossible to get much below that anyway - the best I've ever seen a PC get to was -12 and you just don't want to know how much gold that cost her...]

Lan-"and if you're really incompetent you can have an AC above 10"-efan

 

[Herremann the Wise]

How would a computer adjudicate page 42? Or a skill challenge? Or are you only referring to combat powers?

I think page 42 is what it says: actions the rules don't cover. Perhaps you could have players pre-craft a special action that they could pull out when appropriate based on a particular check or checks but in reality, I think this would be the limit of what you could do. Skill challenges mapped on a prewritten module would hopefully be possible. Or again, you just use it to keep track of overall successes and failures with the DM selecting what a success or failure means from a list. I think the rules for skill challenges have been formalized enough that this would be possible. However, it is combat where a computer would excel ensuring speed and continuity while making sure the rules were applied perfectly.

Interesting. In the party I GM, ACs range from 23 to 28, Fort from 18 to 23, Ref from 19 to 24 and Will from 20 to 24. I guess it depends what you mean by "similar range" - but level 10 monsters with an attack vs AC of +15 hit the 23 AC 13 time in 20, and the 28 AC 8 times in 20. The lower AC is likely to be hit more than 50% more often. That's noticeable in play.

In both of our parties (which admittedly are not hyper-optimized), the difference between top and bottom is between 3 and 4 which while mathematically significant in the long run does not have as noticeable effect in the immediacy. The difference here compared to 3.x/Pathfinder is noticeable (which people will find a good or bad thing, one way or the other, swinginess or not).

Hit: X damage, and slide the target 3 squares.

Computer: "Which way?"

The DM is a far superior software system than WoW.

Actually you will find (particularly if you have played MTGO), that this is where the computer with a virtual table would really excel. In your example, the player who's turn it is receives priority meaning that the computer waits for them to input their action and selections necessary for that action. They select their power from a list, they then select one of the legal targets that the computer highlights on the VTT, and then they select from the legal highlighted spaces where the target is to be slid to if the rolling d20 says the attack was succcessful. All done 100% perfectly according to the rules. Maybe not the way how some want to play D&D, but if they had have had this up and running when 4e was initially released, things might have worked out more successfully for WotC.

In essence, I still maintain that the rules must have been built around catering to this sort of structure.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[pemerton]

Herreman, just doing some maths in public here: if ACs ranged from 24 to 27, then a +15 to hit would hit the 24 12 times in 20, and the 27 9 times in 20. So the lower AC gets hit a third as often again (in percentage terms, a little over 33%).

I can see how that may not be especially noticable in play.

What about Lanefan's spread of 8? I'll do ACs of 22 to 29 instead - in my game, this would be the Paladin having +3 rather than +2 armour, and the wizard having started with 18 rather than 20 Int - neither a ludicrous possibility. +15 to hit hits AC22 14 times in 20, and hits AC 29 7 times in 20. The lower AC will be hit twice as often. That should be very noticeable in play!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Actually you will find (particularly if you have played MTGO), that this is where the computer with a virtual table would really excel. In your example, the player who's turn it is

I was talking about the computer making the decision, for a monster or NPC. I never considered VTT as I've never even seen one.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I can buy that. With the 2e fighter (sorry, it's when I started), I could play any manner of guy who fights from barbarians, knights, archers, etc.

I suppose some of that was defined by what meager gear he had (leather armor vs plate) or if he had a bow or a really big sword.

And 4e actually supports me in playing these characters. 2e hindered me by making me incompetent with the majority of weapons. To take one example, I want to play someone who bullies people with his shield in combat (which is the way I fight when reenacting). In 2e this was neither supported nor hindered. In 3e (or rather with the battlemat) I can't push people backwards with my shield and drive them back so I'm hindered. In 4e I just need to take the "Tide of Iron" at will or the "Hammer Hands" fighter stance and what happens reflects the way I see it happening.

I think page 42 is what it says: actions the rules don't cover. Perhaps you could have players pre-craft a special action that they could pull out when appropriate based on a particular check or checks but in reality, I think this would be the limit of what you could do. Skill challenges mapped on a prewritten module would hopefully be possible. Or again, you just use it to keep track of overall successes and failures with the DM selecting what a success or failure means from a list. I think the rules for skill challenges have been formalized enough that this would be possible. However, it is combat where a computer would excel ensuring speed and continuity while making sure the rules were applied perfectly.

...

Actually you will find (particularly if you have played MTGO), that this is where the computer with a virtual table would really excel. In your example, the player who's turn it is receives priority meaning that the computer waits for them to input their action and selections necessary for that action. They select their power from a list, they then select one of the legal targets that the computer highlights on the VTT, and then they select from the legal highlighted spaces where the target is to be slid to if the rolling d20 says the attack was succcessful. All done 100% perfectly according to the rules. Maybe not the way how some want to play D&D, but if they had have had this up and running when 4e was initially released, things might have worked out more successfully for WotC.

In essence, I still maintain that the rules must have been built around catering to this sort of structure.

Wait a second. What you have just said is that the rules design of 4e is built around actually defining the rules when the rules cover the actions. And providing guidance for the DM where it doesn't. In one fell swoop this makes DMing much easier, almost eliminates the three hour rules argument and its smaller but more common cousin the five minute rules argument followed by the losing side feeling miffed, and makes it easier for new players to adapt to a group. And you think this is a bad thing?

Having the rules do what I want a rule system for is to me a vast improvement. I don't understand why you think otherwise.