I don't get what you'all are saying

[Storm Raven]

But would you run said character through, oh, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft? What if the DM wished to run said module only to discover his "sub-par" PCs would be destroyed by it?

Maybe. Arguably the most "sub-par" PC I ever played with or DMed played through Forge of Fury (and numerous other combat oriented adventures) without any real trouble.

Personally, I'd prefer to have players who play the PCs they want to play, in a campaign that they like. If they want to try to play poor combatant in a combat oriented adventure, and that's fun for them, that's fine with me.

 

[Storm Raven]

Ok, lets get the classic canard out of the way: The DM can tailor the game to suit the player choices. Duh. I can run a level 1-20 game using only half-elf commoners with proper DM adjudication. If I built a game completely around social-political intrigue or other-non combat elements, or never use a monster above CR 8, or never plan on using a module as written, then there is no problem.

And 3e supports this type of game and a combat oriented game in which all the PCs are hyper-optimized combat monsters. 4e doesn't offer that range of possibilities. To me, that's a step backwards in game design. Like I said before, if I wanted a game in which characters were defined, in game, almost excluively by their combat role, then I could have been playing 1e for the last 8 years. I didn't make that choice. Why now would I make that choice and switch to 4e?

However, if you DO plan on trying to run a game close to the normal expectancy, you have a lot more work. A single sub-optimal character robs the group of a vital element that could be the key to victory or simply survival. Lacking a particular element (trapfinding, for example) puts the DM in a tough spot: do NO enemies ever put traps on stuff because the PCs can't detect/remove them, or do I play "gotcha" at every trapped door?

When I DM, I put the traps in anyway. I make sure the players know that the world won't necessarily conform to their character strengths. On the other hand, I adhere to the suggestion given in SJGames outlines for designing adventures and try to include a range of activites that will require the characters to use skills no one has any ranks in, or situations that would optimally be solved with abilities the PCs don't have in addition to situations that play to their strengths.

IMHO, I'd rather know that a PC of a given class meets certain expectations so that I can design adventures with what's best of the story or setting, not nerfed to meet some PCs nontraditional build numbers.

So, why have you been playing 3e instead of 1e?

 

[Darth Shoju]

...and who traded away his sneak attack ability for sage like skills.

How did he do that? I always wanted to try something like that but I never found something to let me swap out the sneak attack ability.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Agreed. I prefer the feel of pre-3E worlds myself. I don't bother with full stats every NPC. Everyone in the world plays by the same rules though. A monster is a monster. There are no 15th level badass fighters with 1 hit point.

There is no logical explanation of why 2 creatures from the same tribe are so different. Both are 6 HD, one is tough as nails and the other is a minion? You can't explain how a 1hp critter survives to adulthood in a violent humanoid tribe. 1hp is 1hp, the poor thing can't survive by just not thinking of himself as a minion.

I guess I've always just looked at HP as a way of representing how difficult a creature/character was to overcome in combat. Looking at it as just how much physical damage something can take has always been tough to explain in D&D. Anyone with enough HPs never had to worry about being stabbed in their sleep, or shot to death by the town guards with their crossbows, or falling off a cliff (although concepts like coup de grace and massive damage saves help).

For me, if you want a monster that is a badass fighter, don't make them a minion. A high-level minion is a creature that is competent at certain aspects of combat but is still not talented enough to represent as much as a threat as others of its kind.

IMO, part of being comfortable with a rules set is finding one that has weaknesses you don't mind handwaving (as I haven't found the perfect system yet).

 

[Nellisir]

I think it's because 4e is more...exclusive, whereas 3e and earlier editions were inclusive.

For instance, in 3e, certain classes got an increase to speed.
In 4e, certain classes may opt to take a power that increases their speed, if they spend a minor action every round.

Contrary to the advertising I've heard, I get a very strong sense that 4e has much greater restrictions on what the PCs can and can't do. I think it's a mechanically stronger framework, but it also seems much more rigid and unforgiving.

Ultimately, I think 4e combined two prominent developments - the whole structure of classes and powers, which seems to be the point of contention for 90% of the naysayers - and a variety of 3e "evolutions" that aren't related to the classes. Skill challenges work fine in 3e; they were just never emphasized or presented well. Minions work fine. Most of the changes in monsters and monster design could have been implemented in a fundamentally 3e framework.

 

[SSquirrel]

One of the few things I lamented in the switch from 2E to 3E was that, back in the day, my players would clearly define a character's roleplaying potential (personality, background, goals, etcetera), and then seek out the statistics that would most readily allow such development.

See when I first started gaming I would try background and such before I had a single die rolled. That didn't last long b/c I ended up w/a guy I wanted to be a smooth talker w/a Charisma of 7. Stupid dice. When I'm not just designing characters for the purpose of giving one to someone or pre-genning all the characters for someone's game, I start w/rolling my stats, usually have one or 2 basic ideas in my head. Go w/whichever sounds like the best match w/my rolls o come up w/a new one entirely. "Hmm, a bard w/a spear and a whip could be interesting and I rolled well enough to have a decent str, dex and charisma." As I start picking skills, choosing spells and such, background bits start popping into my head and I start developing the character.

Then again, I'm terrible w/names and have gone 3 sessions w/no name on my guy I end up at the same place as the frustrated actor who designs the persona and things he wants to be doing out of combat, but is woefully mismatched w/his rolled stats. He ends up playing a Fighter and not enjoying himself. I start w/my stats and wind up making exactly the character I want that can fit within the mold I have provided. Maybe that's why 4E works for me. I can accept what I see in the game and run w/it and still be just as inspired as I was 20 years ago sitting around making characters for Basic.

 

[Storm Raven]

How did he do that? I always wanted to try something like that but I never found something to let me swap out the sneak attack ability.

DM fiat - the player proposed an alteration where he traded his sneak attack ability for the sage like abilities. I don't remember the exact exchange, but I think he had something like bardic lore, all Knowledge skills added to his class skill list, and a bonus skill point every level that he could spend on a Knowledge skill.

 

[Darth Shoju]

DM fiat - the player proposed an alteration where he traded his sneak attack ability for the sage like abilities. I don't remember the exact exchange, but I think he had something like bardic lore, all Knowledge skills added to his class skill list, and a bonus skill point every level that he could spend on a Knowledge skill.

Ah, not too shabby. I'll have to try something like that if we play a 3e campaign again (hopefully we will at some point...)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If I may, in regards to the OP, Paizo's "Why do you think RP has no place in 4th Ed?" may hold some valuable arguments to the limitation of RP as perceived by the fans of the game.

Not that every single point in this thread is logical and well thought-out, but some of it is.

I've only read the first page, and I was surprised - from the rumours about the Paizo boards, I would have expected everyone to post proof on how 4E was role-playing averse. But instead, I see a lot of good arguments showing that 4E is just as good as 3E in the role-playing department. Or sometimes even better. (If pure page- and paragraph count matter).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A lot of you are saying that in 4E, you are unable to ... how do you put it? ... roleplay the way you want? Play the way you want? Experience the game the way you want?

As a DM and a player, 4Ed has me feeling handcuffed.

For me, it boils down to these major things:

1) The 4Ed rules- particularly the multiclassing rules- don't support the way I've been designing my D&D PCs for 30 years. As a player, this vexes me greatly- my taste has been voided by game mechanics.

2) Some of the changes to crunch and fluff seem arbitrary to me, and are not obviously an improvement over their counterparts in previous editions.

3) Some of the rules changes treat the player or DM like an idiot, or are utterly nonsensical. I'm not talking about the rules that simplify or streamline mechanics. I'm talking about things like the magic adjustment charts for monsters and NPCs. If I, as DM, give an opponent a +3 weapon, I mean for it to give that foe a +3 bonus, not something adjusted down because the creature is particularly powerful. If I wanted to give that foe a lesser bonus than +3, I would have done so.

4) Some of the rules I'd like to use as a DM (since I've been using them for 25+ years) are simply absent, like rules for creating unique magic items.

5) 4E is not backwards compatible. I play in several campaigns, one of which has lasted 10+ years, another which has lasted 20+ years. Because of the rules changes, some PCs are simply not creatable, meaning that to update those games to 4Ed would require retconning or waiting until some future date uncertain for a product which may never come. Understandably, I and the other players aren't too keen on ditching established campaigns merely to jump into the new system, especially with its known warts and all.