Do you consider 4e D&D "newbie teeball"?

[Oryan77]

Smaller stat blocks, don't build an NPC to the same level of detail you'd build a PC,

Isn't that what DMs do in 3e also? What type of info does a 4e NPC not need that we needed in a 3e NPC? Are NPCs in 4e built with the lower level of detail in the books or is this something a 4e DM chooses to do on his own?

stats are focused on roles rather than in-character taxonomy ("brute" and "artillery" rather than "giant" and "dragon"), that sort of approach.

I don't really understand this. Can you elaborate this and show me what the differences are? I'm familiar with what "roles" are in 4e (if you're referring to the same thing that 4e PCs have). I'm just curious how the roles help a DM prep faster.

 

[RangerWickett]

:staredown:

Hehe. Trailblazer didn't quite do that for me, but it was a nice start. I prefer to start from 4e and keep the monsters, DM stuff, defenses, skills, and general combat rules, but rip out the character creation and put in my own version.

Working on it now in the 4e house rules forum.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The fact is both 4e and 3e have strengths AND weaknesses. Play what you want to play (and let other people play what they want to play) and just let it rest already.

Yup.

 

[rjdafoe]

He made an argument that can be defended on strict denotative grounds (there are aspects of 4e that are simpler than 3e), but he phrased it in an indefensibly insulting connotative manner that he refuses to affirm or deny.

Couple that with his signature, and I don't think that anyone is off base about how his views on the subject.

 

[billd91]

Seriously, how long has 4e been on the shelves now and those of us not interested in the edition war nonsense must still endure it? Who else is getting sick and tired of the "subtle" digs, the snark, the condescension, and so on? Steve says it right and it saddens me that more people can't seem to wrap their heads around the mentality he expresses here.

The fact is both 4e and 3e have strengths AND weaknesses. Play what you want to play (and let other people play what they want to play) and just let it rest already.

How long will you need to endure it? Probably about as long as people will make criticisms of it, talk about it dismissively, because they honestly don't like it and have everything they say interpreted as "edition warring".

The fact is both 4e and 3e are not immune to criticism or dislike from people. And people should be free to express that, even comparing the two editions, without being jumped on for edition warring.

Honestly, for every post that seems to be edition-trolling, there seems to be tons of posts complaining about edition warring where it isn't necessary. The t-ball comparision came up in another thread, generated an eruption in this thread, and pretty much been completely moved past in the original thread.

 

[Cadfan]

On a serious note, I've only been a player in 4e and have never DMed it. But my assumption based off of my experience seeing my options as a player would be that a big reason creating an NPC in 4e is easier is because there are way less options for a 4e character than there are in 3e. Is there any truth in that? Is that what people are talking about when they say 4e is easier to manage? Or is character creation easier for another reason?

Yes and no.

3e wants you to be able to algorythmically create balanced monsters and NPCs. That is, you should be able to take X amount of Fighter, Y amount of Sorcerer, and Z amount of Minotaur and come up with a balanced minotaur fighter/sorcerer. They even go so far as to assign a challenge rating to that monster, which would be equal to, and I'm not kidding, X + Z + Y/2 + K, where K is a constant the designers inserted into the system to aid in the creation of NPC minotaurs.

The theory was that this algorythm would help you create monsters and NPCs with the appropriate stats to make them fair challenges for their level.

4e just tells you the stats that would make a monster appropriate for a particular level, and gives you advice on how to adjust the monster based on what you want it to be good or bad at.

So yeah, the 4e version is less complex. Instead of trying to procedurally generate numbers that match a particular benchmark, it informs you of the benchmark and lets you adjust around it as you want.

 

[Barastrondo]

Isn't that what DMs do in 3e also? What type of info does a 4e NPC not need that we needed in a 3e NPC? Are NPCs in 4e built with the lower level of detail in the books or is this something a 4e DM chooses to do on his own?

It's a mix. For instance, there are no long lists of spell-like abilities; very little page-flipping is a design goal. No demons that have 17 different spell-like abilities. Definitely a problem for some and a benefit for others. Similarly, you're encouraged to pick only one or two skills of relevance. The best way to see is probably just to compare some stat blocks; at low levels they're roughly equal, but at higher levels Demogorgon fits on half a page in 4e and more of a full page in 3e, and in 3e he has spell-like abilities whose effects aren't listed in his stat block.

I don't really understand this. Can you elaborate this and show me what the differences are? I'm familiar with what "roles" are in 4e (if you're referring to the same thing that 4e PCs have). I'm just curious how the roles help a DM prep faster.

Sure. One example: Figuring armor class. The 3e approach is to take all the basic factors that contribute to AC, as they would for PCs, and add them together. Figure all the attribute bonuses, any enhancement or deflection bonuses, equipment if any, and so on. Then tweak to taste with natural AC bonuses or add in new items/change attributes if it isn't where you want it.

The 4e approach is look up what the average AC is for a [role] of [Xth] level. (Usually Level+12, or +14 for skirmishers and lurkers, +16 for soldiers.) Tweak it a point or two if desired. You then pretty much just assume that some of it comes from armor, some from attributes, some from how much of a hardened battle veteran it is.

Now absolutely you can take the latter approach for 3e; just pick an appropriate AC, and not worry about if the NPC or monster's stats and equipment don't add up perfectly to that AC. The main difference is, though, that 4e assumes this technique by default.

 

[tyrlaan]

How long will you need to endure it? Probably about as long as people will make criticisms of it, talk about it dismissively, because they honestly don't like it and have everything they say interpreted as "edition warring".

The fact is both 4e and 3e are not immune to criticism or dislike from people. And people should be free to express that, even comparing the two editions, without being jumped on for edition warring.

Honestly, for every post that seems to be edition-trolling, there seems to be tons of posts complaining about edition warring where it isn't necessary. The t-ball comparision came up in another thread, generated an eruption in this thread, and pretty much been completely moved past in the original thread.

Criticism and the snark etc that I reference are two very different ballparks (to stay "on topic" with our phraseology hehe). Of course people should feel free to express dislike and criticism. But people don't have to be jerks about it. And yes you're right, a lot of complaints against edition warring are really just edition warring attempts in disguise. It seems this edition war is being fought mostly with subtext that isn't all that subtle.

 

[Thasmodious]

On a serious note, I've only been a player in 4e and have never DMed it. But my assumption based off of my experience seeing my options as a player would be that a big reason creating an NPC in 4e is easier is because there are way less options for a 4e character than there are in 3e. Is there any truth in that? Is that what people are talking about when they say 4e is easier to manage? Or is character creation easier for another reason?

The big reason creating NPCs in 4e is easier is because NPCs and monsters are not built with the same mechanics as PCs. It was an experiment of 3e to build all monsters and NPCs with the same rules of creation and advancement as PCs. It was not a part of the game before 3e, and was not continued after 3e. In 4e, monsters and NPCs again have their own creation rules which stress their different roles within the game. A player wants options and expects to spend some time creating a character. Making the DM apply that same breadth of options and time expenditure to create every monster and NPC in the game is going to slow him down. He has a much bigger cast to worry about.

What's interesting is that 3e is the aberrant edition here, not 4e. It's options took characters well away from the core D&D principle of archetypal classes (or races). Many people like this and I am not attacking 3e as bad for it, just as different than all other versions of D&D, including 4e.

In all other versions you pick a class (or a multiclass combo, or a race) and that's what you are, even if you multiclass. The answer to the question "what are you playing?" is "fighter" or "elf" or "fighter/thief". It's a recognizable archetype of D&D in a way that barbarian1/scout2/fighter2/assassin3/shadowdancer2/ninja4 absolutely isn't. The mix and match character design of 3e suggests that a classless version of D&D was almost presented, but the designers didn't want to sacrifice that particular sacred cow. Now, many players of 3e did not like examples like the above and houseruled limitations, demanded players pick a class and not level dip just for class abilities and so on. That's a houserule, though. The system was designed just for that sort of thing. If your goal, starting out a character, was to play a Wizard, the archetype and the class, then you didn't have an amazing set of options, you had some feats and a prestige class to pick that enhanced your wizardliness. The abundance of choice only really came into play when you approached creation as in the example above, well outside the idea of classic class-based archetypes.

Again, if you like that sort of thing, that's fine. But within the context of specifically D&D, 3e was the only time this style of character creating (and NPC/monster creating) was attempted.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't really understand this. Can you elaborate this and show me what the differences are? I'm familiar with what "roles" are in 4e (if you're referring to the same thing that 4e PCs have). I'm just curious how the roles help a DM prep faster.

Basically, this is the difference:

Lets say I'm creating a dragon that wears armor for a 3e game, and then again for a 4e game.

In the 3e game, I start with the dragon stat block. Then I add armor to it. I check the dragon's original AC, and look at what makes it up. Then I apply the AC changes due to the armor, which grants an "armor" bonus to armor class, but which caps the "dexterity" bonus to armor class. I come up with a final AC, and then penalize the dragon's skills based on the armor's "armor check penalty."

In the 4e game, I ask myself why I want to put the dragon in armor. I decide that my reason is that I want this to be a heavily armored foe that fights in melee reach, but which is difficult to injure with weapons. That's a "soldier" type of monster. So I create a soldier monster of the appropriate level and complexity (standard, elite, solo), and give it some of the powers of the dragon type I like the most. Maybe I also throw in some armor related power that emphasizes his armored status. Or else I could maybe take an existing dragon and adjust it to match the established benchmarks, or maybe I take a dragon that's already a soldier and swap out some of its abilities so that it matches the abilities of the dragon type I want to use.

Each approach has its benefits and disadvantages. The latter is probably a bit easier for DMs who primarily care about results at the game table.