Challenging Challenge Ratings...again

[paradox42]

The simplification is mostly for DMs (thus NPCs and Monsters). PCs still have tons of options, with each class having lots to do. Every class is relevant at all levels with choices that do not simply boil down to "full attack" for martial classes.

(Emphasis mine.) Irrelevant. I as the DM am the one who sees the simplification, and its negatives. Therefore I am the one turned off by it and will make the choice of whether or not to adopt the new system.

Also, for PCs, I will note that "tons" of options that remain the same at all levels do not translate to real "tons." 3.0 psionics featured powers that dealt absolute amounts of damage, so that every Concussion dealt exactly 3d6 damage, every time, no ifs ands or buts. To deal 5d6 damage with one manifestation, the character had to learn an entirely new power, Greater Concussion. This wisely gave way to the Augmentation system in Malhavoc's psionics stuff and later on 3.5E psionics, because designers and players alike recognized that a "new" power that is really the same as an old power except for being "more" is not really a new power at all. I suggest that many of the abilities I've seen for 4E look suspiciously similar to the 3.0 psionics way of doing things- I can't give specific examples, it's a general feeling. But that feeling definitely turns me off, particularly for Epic levels where things should really be different from earlier play. If that's the only way for classes to remain relevant at all levels, then IMO it's not worth doing at all and some classes should become irrelevant in certain regimes. Greater overall variety makes for greater interest.

As I said, I'll at least get the core rulebooks and mull them over carefully, but right now I'm in "wait and see" mode due to not liking a large portion of what I've seen. I may well stick with 3.5 or move to Pathfinder in the end.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

When 4E was first announced, I hated it. Some of their prime points seemed to cater to people who play MMO type games, and I didn't like that style at all. So my bias was firmly against 4E from the get-go. However, after reading some of the pre-release info, It really has made a good 2nd impression on me. For all the things I don't like about it, It looks like a promising game.

For me, its not about which system is better; Its about which system has better potential. 3E had a lot of mistakes made early on that I HOPE will not be repeated in 4E. The main one, as I see it, was Class imbalance/Errors: Not that the classes were terribly unbalanced in 3E core, but that the way they dealt with it was to make another class unbalanced, leading to more 'upping the ante', instead of nerfing or fixing the original problem. The Designers of M:tG do it all the time, so why can't D&D use the concept?
4E seems to have a lot more emphasis on unifying things and bringing power curves down to a linear scale. While 3E, right now, has my vote (and a couple of my gaming group members') as the preferable game, after WotC prints a few supplements for 4E, that is likely to change.
Also, on a unrelated note: I really dig 4E's art. It seems less cartoon-y and more akin to the old style from 2E days of very realistic artwork.

But honestly, I don't care what system is used, as long as it is fun, and as a DM I can create a cool game and story, and as a player, I am able to play the kind of character (class and RP wise) that I want to play. Since almost all game systems cater to those points, the only thing that matters to me is which lets me do those things easier.

 

[Kerrick]

4E seems to have a lot more emphasis on unifying things and bringing power curves down to a linear scale.

Yeah... while I can't say I like 4E on the whole, the designers went about it the right way - the started with a new system that scales more slowly and made everything work within that framework. (I'm not contradicting my earlier comments; I would've preferred to keep the existing system and just overhaul it instead of forcing everyone to learn an entirely new one.)

Also, on a unrelated note: I really dig 4E's art. It seems less cartoon-y and more akin to the old style from 2E days of very realistic artwork.

Yeah.. I just saw the GAMA photos, and they're gorgeous. Artwork is definitely not one of 4E's low points.

 

[Kerrick]

On another note.... I am the MAN!

Okay, maybe I'm tooting my own horn a little, but I think I deserve it. I figured out the dragon AC problem, and it only took me about an hour to do it.

After doing my usual rounds of the forums, I grabbed a can of peaches (it was midmorning and I was hungry) and, armed with a MM, the v4 rules, a notebook, and a calculator, went to sit outside in the sun while I worked.

I won't bore you all with a long story, so I'll cut to the chase: the 3/4 HD bonus for natural armor does work, but you have to add the dragon's age category also. At age categories 10, 11, and 12 (Old, Very Old, Great Wyrm), the NA bonus becomes 2/3 HD for some reason. So the formula is:

10 + size mod + NA (3/4 HD) + age category = AC (which is still CR * 1.5, or CR + 20 if CR > 20).

I tried this for just about every dragon, and the results are off by no more than 2 points- bronze, gold, and red are dead on; green, and brass are very close (+1 at most levels); black is fairly close (off a bit at the low levels), and blue and white are off by a lot (2-3 at every level). I have a feeling the CRs for blues and whites are wrong.

One other thing I noticed: if you use 1/4 HD as the NA bonus for Tiny dragons, the AC is almost dead on. I'm not quite sure why that is, but it works for all three I tried - whites are the same (predicted AC vs. actual), and black and brass are 1 off.

I've attached the Excel sheet so you can check it out.

 

[dante58701]

Making 4E monsters and converting them to 3.5 is not possible without completely rewriting the monsters. 4E is NOTHING like 3.5 at all. It's not even D&D. Rolemaster is more D&D than 4E is, and that's incredibly sick.

4E lacks ALL the nuances of D&D, except, the names of the monsters, and completely sickens me in it's LAZY approach to creation. It's not D&D it's MINIATURES. They definitely have that right.

Converting monsters from 4E not only taints them with bad rules and even worse abilities, but completely strips them of any of the abilities they would have gotten had they been 3.5.

Converting from 4E to 3.5 is like trying to turn a Power Rangers Zord (4E) into Voltron (3.5). Please don't corrupt 3.5 by rendering severely watered down monsters (i.e. The wimpy limp-wristed 4E Phane being a prime example of suckage) into 3.5.

Massive Hit Dice do not equate to tough in ROLEPLAYING. All those nuance abilities that 3.5'rs love...they do NOT exist in 4E.

The prime reason...4E is all about ROLLPLAYING, not ROLEPLAYING.

Incidentally, I've been keeping tabs on their new line and I am even less impressed than I was before.

Now that I've had a chance to dismantle their little system I've come to this conclusion.

4E might make for a wonderful MINIATURES game. But it is NOT a roleplaying game no matter what they want to call it. It's WAY too hack'n'slash.

I have a problem with fiends being..."Evil" and just "Evil", I have a problem with Actions Points (lame), ect. I could honestly go on for days and days about why it isn't D&D. But I just don't have the time for it.

Anyway...remember...you asked.

 

[Pssthpok]

*yawn*

 

[paradox42]

Kerrick, how is your AC formula for dragons better than the standard natural armor = HD - 1 that's invariably used in WotC-published books for 3.5E? If you're trying to get it to track close to the existing numbers, then why not just use the known simple HD - 1 formula?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Kerrick mate!

3.5 does have its flaws, to be sure... but 4E doesn't fix them - it just builds an entirely new system.

Yes, a much better one.

That's one of the issues I have with 4E - despite its flaws, 3.5 works.

So does 1st Edition, that didn't stop another three and a half systems being made after it.

Just because something works doesn't say it cannot be improved. Added to which its debateable that many aspects of 3.5 work 'well'. You yourself preface comments with "despite its flaws".

Even that wouldn't have been enough to turn me off, if they'd done it right; I just don't like 4E, from what I've seen, because it looks too tactical and too ToB for my taste.

So it actually requires players to 'think' and rewards smart play rather than just min/maxing and rules lawyering. How is that a bad thing?

Everyone can teleport around the map, and "shift" themselves and their opponents, and... ugh. I like using using minis, but I have lousy spatial perception (and let's face it - they're fun to paint and they look cool ). But... a game that's centered around minis, that effectively removes the choice of whether or not you want to use them, is not a game a lot of people want to play.

3.5 was already mini-centric. I have never played a 3/3.5 game without a battle mat/map and some minis.

I can understand it from a business POV - they want to tie it more closely to their minis line so they can make more money - but that doesn't mean I have to buy into it. My books aren't going to burst into flame on June 6th, and my ability to write new material (either for myself or for publication) isn't going to suddenly vanish.

You can get away with not using miniatures in 4E (I imagine) just as well/badly as you can for 3.5.

My books are in excellent condition (despite heavy use), I've got tons of material that I can't (and won't) convert over, and there won't be an SRD like the one we have now that I could refer to... And, really, I can't afford it. That, more than anything, is the largest deciding factor. I don't know anyone around here who is, either, so I can't borrow their books, even if I were interested. And really, I enjoy designing for 3.5. It took me several years and a lot of work to get to where I am now in terms of knowledge of the system, and I don't want to flush most of it down the toilet to learn a new system.

Certainly the expense is going to be a factor for a few (especially if you are nominally the DM). Its not so long ago that I was totally broke, so I can remember what thats like.

Instead, I'll keep working on my 3.75 revision. The change to 4E has offered us a unique opportunity - Paizo's jumped on it with both feet, and so am I. The difference is, I'm not going for publication, so that cuts down my production time/costs.

I'm sure if Paizo were epic-centric (as Eternity Publishing is) they would have jumped out of 3.5 with both feet.

I've identified many of the major flaws in the system and am working on correcting them at low levels (which, incidentally, will provide a lot of fixes for high-level play) - immunities, BAB/saves, spells, skills, the wealth system, etc.

Lets rewrite the rulebook and pretend its still 3rd Edition.

And yes, I'm borrowing some of your rules - the CR/EL system chief among them - to help.

Fire away - happy to help.

And, quite honestly, I take some issue with how sacred the idea of "balance" has become. If the CR of a monster isn't exactly equal to the average party level, then things won't really be that bad, so long as it's close enough.

Yeah - once you hit epic, the CR increments space out even further, so the range of creatures that could provide a challenge for the PCs keeps increasing. The whole "balance" is getting a bit absurd - with everything being tied to numbers more closely than ever before, it's become easier to balance things out, but it's also become easier for rules lawyers to point out things that are broken. I think that's why the pendulum swung the other way for 4E - they wanted a looser, more flexible system where the DM could fudge things here and there and still be able to provide a challenge for the party.

The spacing if increments isn't as wide as I initially anticipated (though it is wider than WotC claim). However, the potential mathematical gulfs within 3.5 at even the same Level/Challenge Rating are so immnese that they can be unbalancing.

 

[Kerrick]

Kerrick, how is your AC formula for dragons better than the standard natural armor = HD - 1 that's invariably used in WotC-published books for 3.5E? If you're trying to get it to track close to the existing numbers, then why not just use the known simple HD - 1 formula?

I was trying to track closer to UK's formula, which worked for everything but dragons.

Yes, a much better one.

I'll reserve judgment until I've seen the books.

Just because something works doesn't say it cannot be improved. Added to which its debateable that many aspects of 3.5 work 'well'. You yourself preface comments with "despite its flaws".

Well yeah.. nothing's perfect - that goes without saying.

So it actually requires players to 'think' and rewards smart play rather than just min/maxing and rules lawyering. How is that a bad thing?

Pfft. The designers are touting the "new" tactical aspects of the game like they invented them, but all they're doing is making mechanics that bring them into the light more and encourage players to use them more often. You can do the same thing right now, and you could do it in 2E and 1E too - it's just that the rules to handle it have gotten more concrete through time.

I'm sure if Paizo were epic-centric (as Eternity Publishing is) they would have jumped out of 3.5 with both feet.

Probably. See, the problem here is that you're working with the existing flaws of the system, which start at low levels and extend into high levels - all you're doing is fixing the high-level flaws, which isn't enough.

Lets rewrite the rulebook and pretend its still 3rd Edition.

Bah, it'll still be closer to 3.5 than 4E is - it will actually be backwards compatible. I won't ever claim it's still 3.5; I'm aiming for something closer to 3.6 or 3.7.

The spacing if increments isn't as wide as I initially anticipated (though it is wider than WotC claim). However, the potential mathematical gulfs within 3.5 at even the same Level/Challenge Rating are so immnese that they can be unbalancing.

Because a creature at the high end of the spread, while the same CR on paper, could actually be much higher in actuality? I'm not too worried about anything beyond L40-50, really; I mean, I'm scaling stuff so that it can work beyond that point, but I won't lay bets on it.

I've got zero experience playing ultra-high-level D&D (the highest I've gone was 30ish), so I honestly don't know what effect the changes I'm making will have. I think at some point the power level would just get really silly, no matter how well the system is designed, and things would cease to work in any meaningful manner. If I can make it work at the levels where the vast majority plays, I'll be happy.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey paradox42 matey!

(Emphasis mine.) Irrelevant. I as the DM am the one who sees the simplification, and its negatives. Therefore I am the one turned off by it and will make the choice of whether or not to adopt the new system.

Thats always going to be the case. But we should note that you yourself play a game that only vaguely resembles 3.5 do you not?

Also, for PCs, I will note that "tons" of options that remain the same at all levels do not translate to real "tons." 3.0 psionics featured powers that dealt absolute amounts of damage, so that every Concussion dealt exactly 3d6 damage, every time, no ifs ands or buts. To deal 5d6 damage with one manifestation, the character had to learn an entirely new power, Greater Concussion. This wisely gave way to the Augmentation system in Malhavoc's psionics stuff and later on 3.5E psionics, because designers and players alike recognized that a "new" power that is really the same as an old power except for being "more" is not really a new power at all. I suggest that many of the abilities I've seen for 4E look suspiciously similar to the 3.0 psionics way of doing things- I can't give specific examples, it's a general feeling. But that feeling definitely turns me off, particularly for Epic levels where things should really be different from earlier play.

If that's the only way for classes to remain relevant at all levels, then IMO it's not worth doing at all and some classes should become irrelevant in certain regimes. Greater overall variety makes for greater interest. [/QUOTE]

I certainly think 4E will have attacks that deal a similar amount of damage for a few reasons. Firstly because its better balanced and secondly the trend is for lower damage (so its less of a spread to play with).

So we can see at 1st-level the encounter powers do (approx.) double base damage while daily powers do (approx.) triple base damage. But clearly as you ascend, things branch out far more (as noted in the few spells released so far).

Also in looking at 4E, its less about the damage and more about what the (secondary) effect of the attack/spell. There seems to be lots of status changes, and push targets and so forth. Which is basically what I was trying to accomplish with my metamartial maneouvers in Ascension.

If that's the only way for classes to remain relevant at all levels, then IMO it's not worth doing at all and some classes should become irrelevant in certain regimes. Greater overall variety makes for greater interest.

The idea that classes should become irrelevant is just nonsensical. 4E outlines the archetypes beyond the classes (Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller) and I imagine there will be strong distinctions between such archetypes as characters level up.

As I said, I'll at least get the core rulebooks and mull them over carefully, but right now I'm in "wait and see" mode due to not liking a large portion of what I've seen. I may well stick with 3.5 or move to Pathfinder in the end.

Well at least you are going to wait and see.