No candy for fun; and bring back the absolute

Skyscraper

Adventurer
Here are two things that I would hope for in the new edition:

1) asking oneself whether each power and effect is fun does not make a game better IMO. Only positive things is like too much candy: it's not good for your health. Bring back stuff that hurst the PCs and makes the victory meaningful. Dose it, perhaps; but bring it back. It's ok to be paralized (if the battle doesn't last for 3 hours).

2) I hope they avoid the "relative" value of all things that they introduced in 4E, where all numbers scale so in the end, you end up needing exactly the same number on your d20 to succeed at anything notwithstanding the level you're at.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Here are two things that I would hope for in the new edition:

1) asking oneself whether each power and effect is fun does not make a game better IMO. Only positive things is like too much candy: it's not good for your health. Bring back stuff that hurst the PCs and makes the victory meaningful. Dose it, perhaps; but bring it back. It's ok to be paralized (if the battle doesn't last for 3 hours).

It never left.

2) I hope they avoid the "relative" value of all things that they introduced in 4E, where all numbers scale so in the end, you end up needing exactly the same number on your d20 to succeed at anything notwithstanding the level you're at.

Agreed - I was actually at the point of wanting to take about thirty off the attacks and defenses of all the characters in my 4e game because it'd make the maths easier for my players.

I'd love to see defenses and attacks stay static, and only hitpoints and damage scale. That way you could chuck 200 orcs at the level 30 paladin and they could still hit him, they'd just be doing 5 HP a hit, out of his 300 HP. Eventually they'd tire him out and take him down.

Likewise with dragons - the local militia could pelt him with arrows, but most would do little more than scratch his hide, but eventually one's going to hit him in the eye and take him down. Meanwhile Ironthews McGee the Master Bowman with his magic ballista could impale the thing right through with one shot.
 
Last edited:

Here are two things that I would hope for in the new edition:

1) asking oneself whether each power and effect is fun does not make a game better IMO. Only positive things is like too much candy: it's not good for your health. Bring back stuff that hurst the PCs and makes the victory meaningful. Dose it, perhaps; but bring it back. It's ok to be paralized (if the battle doesn't last for 3 hours).

2) I hope they avoid the "relative" value of all things that they introduced in 4E, where all numbers scale so in the end, you end up needing exactly the same number on your d20 to succeed at anything notwithstanding the level you're at.

I can't help but agree with you. When I see historically lethal things like the medusa gaze not turning people to stone then it seems something has gone wrong. Or maybe just as bad is Fire Elementals not being immune to fire. How on earth do they survive on the plane of fire? It's like someone is trying to drive the dnd community insane.

foolish_mortals
 

I can't help but agree with you. When I see historically lethal things like the medusa gaze not turning people to stone then it seems something has gone wrong. Or maybe just as bad is Fire Elementals not being immune to fire. How on earth do they survive on the plane of fire? It's like someone is trying to drive the dnd community insane.

foolish_mortals

4e fire elementals aren't purely made of fire, as in earlier editions and thus complaining that they aren't exactly like those from prior editions is a non sequitor.

And you may wish to recheck your source of information - a 4e medusa can still turn a character to stone.
 

1) asking oneself whether each power and effect is fun does not make a game better IMO. Only positive things is like too much candy: it's not good for your health. Bring back stuff that hurst the PCs and makes the victory meaningful. Dose it, perhaps; but bring it back. It's ok to be paralized (if the battle doesn't last for 3 hours).

No thanks. As DM I accidently ran a 4E fight where the Paladin ended up completely useless because he got hit by some effect that made the monsters invisible to him, repeatedly. It sucked, and the player was pretty upset about it.

You can do that once in a while, but it shouldn't happen too often.

2) I hope they avoid the "relative" value of all things that they introduced in 4E, where all numbers scale so in the end, you end up needing exactly the same number on your d20 to succeed at anything notwithstanding the level you're at.

Why? Because that would be good game design? Because missing a lot is fun at either high or low levels? Because the game should be wonky outside of the sweet spot? Give me one useful argument for it, except for "we walked uphill in the snow, and we liked it!"
 

No thanks. As DM I accidently ran a 4E fight where the Paladin ended up completely useless because he got hit by some effect that made the monsters invisible to him, repeatedly. It sucked, and the player was pretty upset about it.

You can do that once in a while, but it shouldn't happen too often.

In 1E, we had mages and clerics with Dispel Magic and Remove Paralysis spells, and other such contingency protections. So we could defend against those dangerous attacks.

I'm don't think 1E was the best design you could have. But I think in 4E they went overboard with having nothing to fear - at least nohting more than the rest. Everything is equally damageable or dangerous, except the very rare stunned (or helpless) effects. But even from those you're likely to phase out of in a round or 2, especially if you have a warlord or cleric handy.

I remember how in 1E we feared medusae or, worse, beholders with their disintegrate ray. When I say we feared, I'm saying we, the players, feared. We felt the emotion of fear. Now in 4E? There is pretty much no single battle that I can say that the players fear more than others. We've had one player death against a bunch of ghouls not so long ago, then another against orcs. Those are our two player deaths in 5 levels of play. We beat the BBEG without loss, though it was a close call. In 4E, everything is brought to a same level of dangerousness. I do not feat the spellcaster or the beholder more than I fear the orcs or the ghouls.

Why? Because that would be good game design? Because missing a lot is fun at either high or low levels? Because the game should be wonky outside of the sweet spot? Give me one useful argument for it, except for "we walked uphill in the snow, and we liked it!"
What's the point in gaining skill level modifiers if the easy/normal/difficult table (or whatever the name is) also scales? Why bother levelling up if what you gain doesn't give an advantage against anything the PC is going to interact with, since everything scales with the PC? I say: stick with gaining only what gives the PC an advantage over the PC's environment. Then perhaps some things in that environment can also develop interesting defenses, such as a fighter buying good armor.

I prefer an absolute environment where the PCs will evolve. For example, I remember the AC 9 Flesh Golem in AD&D. It was nice that he would be easy to hit (with a magic weapon IIRC) at any level. I liked in all editions except 4E that creatures with plate mail armor were harder to hit with a weapon, than other creatures. In 4E: you need 8 or more on your d20 to hit any opponent (except Brutes, that require 7 or more; and soldiers, that require 10 or more).

I've played 4E a lot - and still do with two games presently running. It has some fantastic design, but some of it took the breath out of the game IMO. The magic is not magic anymore, levelling up includes a lot of useless number crunching that's powder to the player's eyes, almost everything is so balanced and all based on a relative system that doesn't increase the PC's power in reality, it only keeps it abreast with the opponent's he going to face.

There are some elements that are not relative in 4E, such as the increase in number of encounter/utility/daily powers that provide added flexibility to your arsenal, especially as it relates to the effects you can dish out. But all the level up number crunching: that's nothing except complications. Likewise for magic item bonuses: useless. (Which relates to the appearance of the inherent bonus system in DMG2.)

One problem with 4E, IMHO, is that so much emphasis was put on game design balance that the game "spirit" suffered. So it makes a very nice system in theory (the nicest I've seen), but in practice it lacks a soul.

I think that 4E is a stepping stone towards something else. It's appearance showed us something great. It brought a system that did not have its equivalent anywhere - at least not in a system that I know. It is a milestone in itself. I am grateful for it's development and for having been able to play and DM it enough to have become somewhat familiar with its mechanics. But I welcome the introduction of a new edition and hope that the game's soul now returns.
 

See, though, scaling values is not something invented for 4e. It's in 3e definitely; it's just obscured because of the mess of numbers you had to deal with. I played a PF session recently where we couldn't hit a dragon only a few levels above us precisely because of this - and let me tell you, it was not enjoyable.

I can get behind the "static defenses/attack, scaling health/damage", though - mathematically, levelling is just a treadmill as it stands. It would be better to keep numbers low, simply because the math is simpler that way.
 


Quoted for truth. I've turned several PCs to stone this way, and it's not like I keep throwing medusas after them every session or something.

The group I DM has faced, in nine levels of adventuring, one medusa. They only fought it once.

Two characters have been turned to stone by a medusa.
 

I played a PF session recently where we couldn't hit a dragon only a few levels above us precisely because of this - and let me tell you, it was not enjoyable.

Maybe it made sense for your characters to run from the dragon and come back at another time when you were stronger, or found its weakness, or some strong magical item?

Reminds me of the start of my campaigns. I always detail the world and what they know to them. " You've heard of some strange banshee in these forests, legend says theres an underwater monster here, and a few years ago a bard came by and told you a story about a dragon in this mountain."

I speckle my world with interesting creatures and let the players know they are there. That way if they want to take a day off from the campaign, or they just dont want to help the princess today, they can go kill the dragon.

Of course.... if they go to early they get burnt to bits if they dont't run fast enough.
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top