Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[BryonD]

Myself as well- at least pretty close to square

It must be square. Not even fireballs are round in 4E.
(No offense, just couldn't resist)

 

[LoneWolf23]

I can sympathize with the Original Poster. I don't hate 4e, but I can honestly say I don't like it as much as I liked 3.5. For one, I think powers for all classes added unnecessary complication to non-magical classes. ...Although that's probably my frustration over always rolling poorly every time I try using my Dailies talking.

Meanwhile, I've played Pathfinder about 4 times, and I've never had a frustrating playing experience with it. Sure, my Ranger and my Paladin don't have any "Nifty-Cool Powerz", but they do their jobs well enough, and I don't miss the powers.

I'll stay play D&D 4e when offered, but I think Pathfinder does D&D better then D&D 4e does.

 

[N0Man]

To me, that's not an issue. It's really only a problem with a wizard with a large spell collection and time to prepare for the situation. He's a specialist's specialist with enough time, but for every day adventuring I've never found them to be that much better than other classes.

Really? Most wizards I saw played in 3E tended to keep lots of spells on scrolls, and just pop out the scroll that they needed. They'd always have a stash of the utility spells on scrolls whenever possible.

The players could try not invading successive wizard controlled areas or try getting out of the cemeteries for a while. If one environment favors one class and the players are finding that a bit boring, well, leave that environment and go somewhere different. Or have a GM that knows how to spice things up, even when they are similar.

What environment is a wizard not good in, aside from anti-magic zones?

 

[N0Man]

The thought behind saying "breaking an encounter" is deeply rooted in the CRPG environment - wherein challenges have a pre-determined methodology of success because designers are working within a limited paradigm. An rpg encounter can never be "broken" or "cheesed" because that means that the creator of the encounter considers certain ways of solving the problem "the right way" and other ways of solving the problem as "the wrong way". Designers in rpgs do not have a limited paradigm as the players are not reliant upon an interface to determine reality. How a problem is solved isn't the DM's or the designers responsibility in rpgs - that's one of the challenges of the G in RPG for the players.

Seriously, do you realize how many little notes and rules have been added to a lot of simple spells over the years to prevent them from being abused by "creative spellcasting"?

Take the simple level 1 spell Enlarge. In 2E, the text "the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by growth" was added from the original AD&D because players would want to do stuff like enlarge a person in their armor and crush them to death in it with a level 1 spell. In 3E, they added, "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack", because players decided that 2 Enlarges are better than 1.

That's just one example.

Many spells have had additional disclaimers and restrictions added onto them over time through the various editions in order to prevent certain overpowered "creative casting". For you to tell me that cheesing encounters is not possible in a true RPG, only in a CRPG, is completely false.

It does not matter how a problem is solved. Hell, it doesn't even matter if a problem is not solved at all. The game's not about a series of challenges that are overcome. The game is about a series of challenges. The results of the challenges are entirely in the player's hands.

What some people believe (including the 4E designers) was that casters just had so many tricks up their sleeves, frequently that were used in ways that weren't really intended, that they frequently overshadowed non-magic users to severe degrees. All too often the result of the challenge is more about the characters (and classes), not the players.

It's really obvious that 4E design is intentionally working to try to allow different classes share the spotlight and get their chances too. Magic users weren't pushed into the backseat, but rather everyone else is getting more turns in the front seat now.

And there's a problem with that? There's nothing wrong with facing a challenge that cannot be overcome immediately. That not "not fun." Having such encounters adds another data point in the Player's thinking - another mobile piece in the rpg game. They have to plan and account for the possibility that they may need something they don't have and have to wait longer than they would like to gain the ability.

As it was pointed out by someone else... the scenario I presented neglected to consider just how common scrolls were in 3E. It's been a while since I played, so I almost forgot about that. It kind of makes the point for either of us rather moot.

 

[Hairfoot]

when our characters were about 9th level, we explored a wizards tower. Every door of any consequence was wizard locked; meaning the rogue (in all of his pixie 30 DEX glory) had exactly 0% of opening any of the doors. Knock, on the other hand, got through the doors quite nicely. It's disparity like this that sours me a bit (and I was the one playing the mage, the rogue was even less thrilled).

What an awesome adventure for the party wizard!

A master of his craft, at the cusp of greatness, testing his magical skills against the arcane defences of a senior mage. Why should a rogue be the one to shine in that adventure? And if, through the magical mastery of the PC wizard, the party finds the elder mage, does the wiz have the ability to sneak under a lab bench and throw a sneak attack to prevent a shower of fireballs destroying the party?

The party's rogue will have a hundred and one opportunities to do his schtick, before and after the wizard's tower. Should every scenario be massaged into blandness in order to provide equal scope for all classes and characters?

And, well...pixie rogue with 30 DEX. Some D&D games neatly demonstrate why Exalted needed to be published.

Take the simple level 1 spell Enlarge. In 2E, the text "the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by growth" was added from the original AD&D because players would want to do stuff like enlarge a person in their armor and crush them to death in it

Sounds like a dozen kinds of awesome to me. How disappointing that players should be restrained with rules to compensate for DMs who can't handle lateral thinking.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

How disappointing that players should be restrained with rules to compensate for DMs who can't handle lateral thinking.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sounds like a dozen kinds of awesome to me. How disappointing that players should be restrained with rules to compensate for DMs who can't handle lateral thinking.

Casting enlarge to crush someone to death isn't creative. It's nothing more than a player trying to abuse the RAI by quoting the RAW.

While being a rules lawyer does require a certain degree of lateral thinking, IMO it isn't the kind I want in my games. It's like trying to argue that if a character holds a sword between his teeth, he should be able to make extra attacks (because the books don't say you can't).

 

[JeffB]

It must be square. Not even fireballs are round in 4E.
(No offense, just couldn't resist)

I LOL'ed- no offense taken in the slightest (its just a silly game of make believe after all)

 

[Garthanos]

Casting enlarge to crush someone to death isn't creative. It's nothing more than a player trying to abuse the RAI by quoting the RAW.

QFT.

How disappointing sloppy vagueness which enables sneaking in of genre breaking effects gets confused as a good thing and a rules feature and rules lawyering gets confused as desireable lateral thinking.

 

[BryonD]

QFT.

How disappointing sloppy vagueness which enables sneaking in of genre breaking effects gets confused as a good thing and a rules feature and rules lawyering gets confused as desireable lateral thinking.

A roll eyes fits nicely here. Basically we have a misrepresentation of an off-hand example being QFT'd.

If "genre breaking" is a concern then 4E should be way down the list of viable options.