On homogeneity, or how I finally got past the people talking past each other part

[Nifft]

First, I found character creation more interesting in 3e. I'd sit around with a huge stack of books, and piece together builds up to the mid-high levels. It would take days, weeks even, to get things right in my mind. It literally took months to work out my gnome illusionist shadowcaster in 3e, and I loved doing it, even though I knew the odds were against my ever playing the gnome. And while I can still do that somewhat in 4e (I just did with a Paladin I have no intention of ever actually playing), it definitely isn't a process of joy that can last weeks or months. I was done in a couple of reads of the relevant sources (though it was also fun).

To be fair, 4e hasn't been out very long relative to 3.x, so there are just plain fewer source books.

Right now Bards have the monopoly on unlimited multiclassing (and therefore very high complexity), but I don't expect that monopoly to hold forever.

Of course, the fact that I as the DM had to design monsters using basically the same hours of effort sucked. Especially when they died due to a single failed saving throw (because that's how high-level combat went back then).

Second, I found there was more opportunity for crazy magic things to happen in 3e, which was fun.

True dat.

Having two Wizards in the party didn't help.

Liking 3e, and liking 4e, are not mutually exclusive things. And, you can like one more than you like the other, without disliking either of them.

Yep. (Or in my case, I can like and dislike different parts of both, because neither is perfect.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

One hope is that as soon as PHB3 comes out, the ironed out Hybrid rules will be a real shot in the arm for the people who want serious multiclassing.

 

[Nellisir]

The problem you're going to run into with this is the issue of balance.

Take an example, the ranger recharging his encounter powers when he kills his quarry. Well, if you have multiple opponents, the ranger could recharge his encounter power several times in the same encounter. Then if he's using it several times, it shouldn't be as powerful as the encounter power of someone who can't recharge their powers.

It's off-the-cuff "throw-it-out-there", concept/draft, not a finished and playtested rule writ in stone. Sheesh. We -know- there are problems with it. The question is, can you find -solutions-?

 

[Betote]

The problem you're going to run into with this is the issue of balance.

I know. In some places, it's a question of how much we love our Balance goddess and what are we willing to sacrifice at her altar. On one hand, we have 1e or Rifts. On the other hand, we have everyone playing the exact same character. Where do we find our middle ground?

Of course, the answer will be different for each person. And that's why we have so many different games out there.

Take an example, the ranger recharging his encounter powers when he kills his quarry. Well, if you have multiple opponents, the ranger could recharge his encounter power several times in the same encounter. Then if he's using it several times, it shouldn't be as powerful as the encounter power of someone who can't recharge their powers.

OK, first of all, I'll expect from the staff of professional RPG rules writers of WotC a little bit more effort and work than my made up examples

And secondly, it's a "balance altar" thing. We already have roles which perform differently depending on the situation: strikers are better against solos, controllers are better against hordes of minions, leaders are better in some party compositions, and so on. You can't really make every character perform equally well in every encounter, and you can't have variation without certain amount of imbalance.

 

[catsclaw227]

Now, if I say "4e is great if you're a mental midget with all the creativity of an ironing board who likes getting spoon-fed gruel and being told it's duck l'orange" that IS a slight against 4e fans, and I'm wrong to say that.

Be careful KM!

Someone might take a piece of that and ummm......Quote it, Sig it, Attrib it. And you would be On The Hook(tm).

[Wait... I haven't read past this post yet and there's a ton more pages to go.... I am sure I have been ninja'd already. Dammit!]

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I know. In some places, it's a question of how much we love our Balance goddess and what are we willing to sacrifice at her altar. On one hand, we have 1e or Rifts. On the other hand, we have everyone playing the exact same character. Where do we find our middle ground?

The thing is, balance is what 4E does. Its one of the big selling points, and the entire game is built around it. I'm really not sure you can casually mess with or remove 4E's balance without changing things so fundamentally that it doesn't seem like 4E anymore.

Its like the spellcasters vs. nonspellcasters or high level problems of 3E. They were so fundamental to the system that they couldn't be fixed without the game ceasing to be 3E.

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry, but I just boggle at that.
I get decried as someone who mocks 4E players, and yet if you really look you will see that all of that comes from me pointing out the implications of what *some* 4E fans say about 3E.

Edit: to clarify: I'm certain you accurately describe the great majority of 4E fans. But that does not change the point.

Yeah, I'll cop to that. Sorry, my bad. Been removing my blinders a bit lately and I'll totally back away from my original statement.

 

[FireLance]

The thing is, balance is what 4E does. Its one of the big selling points, and the entire game is built around it. I'm really not sure you can casually mess with or remove 4E's balance without changing things so fundamentally that it doesn't seem like 4E anymore.

Its like the spellcasters vs. nonspellcasters or high level problems of 3E. They were so fundamental to the system that they couldn't be fixed without the game ceasing to be 3E.

If you make a small tweak, I think it will still remain pretty much 4e, but with the balance dialed back slightly.

For example, one criticism that might be levelled at 4e is that memorable moments are few and far between. One way to address this might be some mechanism for escalating critical hits, e.g. every time you roll a critical hit, you roll the d20 again and if the result is another critical hit, you gain another benefit and roll the d20 again, etc. until you stop rolling critical hits.

Sample benefits might include:
1. Deal critical bonus damage again
2. A condition imposed by the attack that lasts until the end of your next turn becomes a save ends condition instead
3. The target takes a -5 penalty to its next saving throw against an effect imposed by the attack

This way, each critical hit has the potential to become something devastating and memorable.

 

[ferratus]

I tried using Paizo's critical hit deck, substituting 4e conditions for the effect described on the card (1d2 points of strength damage is weakened till save etc). It worked out very well except for the magic cards, which had a wild surge effect instead of a critical effect on spells. There is no reason why magic missile should petrify someone for example.

So I think I'll make up a chart of 4e conditions that should always work no matter what the power is, and stack that on top of max damage. Elites and Solo NPCs will have access to the chart too.

 

[BryonD]

The thing is, balance is what 4E does. Its one of the big selling points, and the entire game is built around it. I'm really not sure you can casually mess with or remove 4E's balance without changing things so fundamentally that it doesn't seem like 4E anymore.

See that? We can agree on some things after all.