Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 4670422" data-attributes="member: 40177">Okay.  I'm done with you.  I'm tired of watching you spit at people because they disagree with you.  You like 4e, and apparently, it has no faults.  Cool, I can dig it.  I don't appreciate being spoken to the way you are speaking, so I'm done.You're right, I missed cantrips.  I don't count healing as a non-combat ability, since 9/10 of the time, healing comes about as a result of combat.  As I've said, I don't care about skills - we can rule them out as roughly equal between 3e/4e... hell, I'll even give you the edge and say 4e wins in skills.  When I do speak of other mechanical benefits in non-combat situations, you tell me I haven't read what you've said, and so on.Let's go back to Web, because it's a perfect microcosm of the editions.  You're right, the game never said how to use web as a safety net... and that was one of the great things about the game.  It DID say "It's this long, and it anchors between two places, and it does this, and it does this, etc..".  4e gives you a game effect, and a bit of flavour.  In other words, it makes it HARDER to use your spells creatively, because all you have is a pure mechanical result.I can see using Web in creative ways, but only because I have prior experience with the spell in other editions.  most of the powers pointed out in the Wizard section are combat-related, and the utilities seem much more limiting than they did in other editions (for the most part;  I recognize there are corner cases).Apparently, I've been deliberately insulting to you.  I didn't feel I was.  I can't see it in my writing.  I was trying to argue my point.  You freely admit you were being condescending.  So, fine, you win.  I really don't care enough about this to get worked up over. But, I've said my piece, and you have said yours.  I do not agree with many of your points, and you apparently think I'm a flaming idiot because of it, so let's just leave it there.  'Nuff said.***Moridin:   I'll admit that I didn't really pick out some of the non-combat powers in the PHB.  I have only GM'ed 4e (and have been since it came out), and I'm not as familiar with the Player Powers.  However, I've seen many of them have either very limited effects (Holy Lantern is only a lamp, after all), or are useful just as much in a combat as outside of it (Dark One's Own Luck).  Yeah.  You're right, that some can see them as "I wins".  I instead see them as tools.  In CSI, just because they can use DNA to link someone to the crime, it doesn't explain everything.  I think, using 3e as a starter, the game follows that same pattern.  The corpse won't tell you everything.  Using Object Read on the murder weapon won't give you a motive.  And Skill Challenging witnesses won't do everything, either.  You can run CSI: Eberron if you want using 4e, but I still don't feel that 17 skills and a handful of rituals accessible by all PCs if they're willing to burn a feat is enough to differentiate characters in a setting that is primarily non-combat in nature.  That was my initial question - how would you tweak the game's rules to get the effect you want?  I'd do it by increasing the skill list, breaking rituals up into groups, so that PCs can specialize in a ritual of the type they like (one could specialize in Divination Rituals, while another could specialize in transport rituals).  I'd encourage the purchasing of non-combat feats, perhaps by splitting feats into two grades, and requiring PCs to balance their choices.  And I'd add in the optional Contact Rules from 3e's Unearthed Arcana.  Personally, though, I feel as if 3e suits the genre better, and would generate better results (and more interesting results from the players' perspective).  Your tastes may vary, and all that jazz.Really, I think the big difference in this argument (and most threads that turn into "Edition Wars" - which is unfortunate here, because I enjoy both systems!) comes down to this:  3e is mostly Simulationist, whereas 4e is staunchly Gamist.  I think a Simulationist game is the way to go, because I think if I want to play a Gamist approach, I'll turn on my Xbox.  Not everyone agrees with me, and that's cool. I'll defend Tyrlaan, since he so reasonably defended my own points.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />1)  Playing a fighter can be great in that world.   Ditto for the other classes (except for the monk, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth... like broken dreams).  In an investigation-based game, being a fighter COULD suck - so, don't play a fighter.  Or, if you are a fighter, then when the fights do break out, you'll be awesome.  And, at least in how I'd run CSI: Eberron, there will be combats.  Just not as many of 'em.  2)  3e does NOT force murderers to be uber-sophisticated.  You can have a feral killer still be a mystery... the GM just needs to think things through.  But, in any Mystery RPG, the GM damned well BETTER think things through, regardless of system, or the game will flop.  Mysteries are, after all, the hardest adventure type to prepare.The Feral Killer could accidentally be killing the enemies.  Or it could be unaware that it's the killer.  You cast Speak With Dead, and the corpse doesn't really know much, or speaks cryptically.  Each "game-breaking" spell the PCs cast, you give 'em a clue, but they still have to INTERPRET those clues.  That's where the fun lies.3)  And I agree.  Good riddance to alignment.  It was a great improvement, and it should've gone a long time ago.  Mind you, I dropped it years ago.  It wasn't present in my 2e DARK SUN games, and it wasn't really a factor in my 3e games, either.  But yeah, cutting alignment loose from the rules was a good call.</blockquote>

Verification