Finally got the 4e core books

[Wulf Ratbane]

Now maybe I'm wrong! Maybe Prone + Silence is too good; maybe it'll be used all the time, and the PCs will never use their Powers. I am just not seeing it right now.

What advice does the new DMG give you about PCs taking captives?

Is it icky, and best avoided? Like half-orcs?

 

[The Little Raven]

If it was a "chore" and "work", then you weren't experienced enough.

I've got 20 years of mowing lawns and raking leaves, but that doesn't make them any less of a chore. It's the same with encounter design in 3.X, except I'd rather be mowing a lawn and raking leaves.

 

[The Little Raven]

What advice does the new DMG give you about PCs taking captives?

When you reduce an enemy to 0 hit points, you decide whether to kill or knock out.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yeah, it makes encounter creation fun, instead of a chore.

Speak for yourself - I love character creation. Getting a rough idea in my head of what I want my character to be like, and taking the classes/feats/skills that equate to that. Or the opposite - choosing a class and saying "This class is what my character will revolve around" and building it up.

To the graveyard of needless creations based on alignment symmetry.

"Needless symmetry" as a comment doesn't work when your game cannot function without it's Powers system, or it's "Only four types of classes allowed EVER" mandate. You have just as much needless symmetry. It's just now somewhere else. Also, 4e decided to throw coherent world building to the graveyard instead, sadly enough.

I'm an experienced DM and it's because of that experience that I prefer 4e over any previous edition, because it reduces the amount of time devoted to work, which maximizes the amount of time devoted to fun.

This DM will take 3.5 any day. 4e, ironically enough, actually requires MORE DM output and DM fiat then 3.5 did.

 

[Mercule]

If it was a "chore" and "work", then you weren't experienced enough.

Condescend much?

I played 1e for 8-10 years. After about three, I was able to wing entire campaigns. I've been playing 3e for about 8. It still takes me an hour or more to stat up a good encounter.

If 3e happens to mesh better with the way you think, then I'm happy for you.

For myself, I don't have time to get "experienced enough".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

When you reduce an enemy to 0 hit points, you decide whether to kill or knock out.

I don't think that was Wulfs question - it's more this question (correct me if I am wrong, Wulf): Does the DMG say it's something you can do, and this is how, or say you shouldn't do it, or is silent on it.

I actually don't know at this moment, it might be silent on the issue.

 

[billd91]

There has been a big conceptual shift between the two editions.

3e = rules are king
4e = game fiction is king

Here's a simple example:


I'm fighting some orcs in a bar. One of them is near enough the wizard to charge, and I, the Fighter, am too far away to block him.

So I pick up a barstool and throw it at the orc, hoping to trip him.


3e? I cannot do this without the Ranged Trip feat, from one of the splat books; in the core, I just can't do this.

If we're really talking about a charge here, since the orc can't charge over difficult terrain and obstacles, you can pick up something substantial and throw it in his way alright in 3e. Charge prevented.
Of course there are other options like using the barstool as an improvised net-like weapon.

Now, I'll grant that there's a certain simplicity to picking an attack stat, a defense, and going with some DM-adjudicated effect. But, as Imaro pointed out in another thread, putting that beside the strict structure and limitations on use of actual powers makes 4e seem like it has a multiple personality disorder. I'm not really sure I want to spend the effort to reconcile the two directions the game seems to want to go.

 

[rounser]

needless symmetry

I'll trump your "needless symmetry" with an "unbalanced flavour".

If symmetry is necessary for suspension of disbelief, and in order for things not to seem lopsided and arbitrary, then that symmetry is not needless.

As I've said before - if you're going to gut chaos and law out of the alignment system (and it's long overdue, IMO), do the job properly. Put the poor thing out of it's misery. 4E has just left it there, bleeding and arbitrary. That is, IMO, a worse result than not touching it at all.

 

[BryonD]

This might be true for me, but certainly not for other members of my group who have DMed games 10 years longer then me. And they still prefer 4E.

So I consider this .

A preference for 4E and consistently finding prep for 3E to be "work" are not linked.

4E is easier to DM for, and even an inexperienced DM can get good results, thanks to the "hand-holding".

I agree. We are back to the hitting a ball of a tee is easier thing.

But if you're already an experienced DM, it's still easier to get good results. I just don't see how 3E can give me better results. I just see where DMing because more difficult - I have mastered D&D (or rather Arcana Evolved) in the 10+ regions of D&D, and I've seen others master it at that level. It was a lot of work.

I can't think of a time in years when it felt like work to me.

And I have no way of knowing what kind of results either edition is giving you.

I'm completely on board with the understanding that different people want different things out of a game.

But I know what I want and I know what I am getting now. And I know that the "hand holding" plays a direct role in making the current edition far less satisfactory in providing the level of game I'm looking for.

I'm not trying to state a truth for you in terms of what you want. But your anecdote does not invalidate mine any more than mine invalidates yours.

But I'll stand firmly by the statement that it doesn't need to be work. It takes some learning curve, no doubt. All worthwhile things do. But my games run the gambit from massively detailed npcs that I have put a lot of time into to running 10+ level npcs on the fly when my players take a left turn I didn't expect.

If I put a lot of time into a character, it is because I want to. If I don't want to, I don't do it. I've got a level of experience and judgment that this works great for me.

It is a game. If you are working you are doing something wrong. And if the only solution for you is to play a different game, then I fully endorse you doing so. But don't try to tell me that my experience is in any way tied to yours.

There are things that 3E offers that 4E doesn't. Even Mearls has stated that. So when people try to claim that they are getting the same results I assume the most likely answer is they never really got the real value out of 3E in the first place. Either that or it is simple sour grapes talk.

 

[BryonD]

I've got 20 years of mowing lawns and raking leaves, but that doesn't make them any less of a chore. It's the same with encounter design in 3.X, except I'd rather be mowing a lawn and raking leaves.

You just provided very strong evidence to support my position.

(And if you can't find a better way to do something in 20 years, well, that fits also)