Something 3E and 4E lost (that 2E had)

[Alex319]

I'm a little confused about the claim that 4e offers less opportunities for customization than earlier editions.

Can anyone give a specific example of something they would like to customize that they could customize easily with earlier editions, but not 4e?

 

[fuzzlewump]

I'm a little confused about the claim that 4e offers less opportunities for customization than earlier editions.

Can anyone give a specific example of something they would like to customize that they could customize easily with earlier editions, but not 4e?

It's not specific, but I feel discouraged as a 4E DM to create house rules and custom items, feats, powers, classes, races, etc, because there's not a good way to put those into the character builder. If 4E was restricted to paper, then it would be the same as previous editions.

It's a silly argument, and it feels funny typing it, but I really think it's true. To use a bad analogy, 3E is like having a hammer and nails. 4E is like having a hammer and nails and a nailgun. In both editions, I can use whatever type of nails I want to fit the situation and the job. But, in 4E, even if the nails of the nailgun aren't perfect for the job, it's just so easy, quick, and convenient! It's hard not to use.

Once 4E lets you put different nails into the nailgun (allow streamlined custom rules, like a single file created by the Adventure Tools) then I won't see much to complain about as far as customization.

On a different note, and to directly answer your question, it's harder to make your own class in 4E because of the number of powers required, as well as possible custom feats, items, paragon paths, and epic destinies that must be created to have a fully realized class.

 

[Garmorn]

It's a silly argument, and it feels funny typing it, but I really think it's true. To use a bad analogy, 3E is like having a hammer and nails. 4E is like having a hammer and nails and a nailgun. In both editions, I can use whatever type of nails I want to fit the situation and the job. But, in 4E, even if the nails of the nailgun aren't perfect for the job, it's just so easy, quick, and convenient! It's hard not to use.

Once 4E lets you put different nails into the nailgun (allow streamlined custom rules, like a single file created by the Adventure Tools) then I won't see much to complain about as far as customization.

Check out HeroForge. I found it here in the Software forum. I looks to be what you want for customization.

Here is the link to the thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/softwa...es/268734-heroforge-v1-0-2-now-available.html

 

[fuzzlewump]

Check out HeroForge. I found it here in the Software forum. I looks to be what you want for customization.

Here is the link to the thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/softwa...es/268734-heroforge-v1-0-2-now-available.html

Well, I meant something that would be compatible with the Character Builder, but I downloaded it and it seems fairly cool. It doesn't seem to have some newer stuff like PH3 classes and races, so that is annoying.

 

[Garmorn]

Well, I meant something that would be compatible with the Character Builder, but I downloaded it and it seems fairly cool. It doesn't seem to have some newer stuff like PH3 classes and races, so that is annoying.

It uses the DDI contents so it should. It least that was my quick impression.

Now to bring this back on topic.

How much is enough when it comes to the statement - be creative? Do you need full pages showing you how? Is just a few paragraphs enough? Or do you need a complete chapter? How much is needed to qualify as a system that encourages creativity?

 

[malraux]

It's not specific, but I feel discouraged as a 4E DM to create house rules and custom items, feats, powers, classes, races, etc, because there's not a good way to put those into the character builder. If 4E was restricted to paper, then it would be the same as previous editions.

It's a silly argument, and it feels funny typing it, but I really think it's true. To use a bad analogy, 3E is like having a hammer and nails. 4E is like having a hammer and nails and a nailgun. In both editions, I can use whatever type of nails I want to fit the situation and the job. But, in 4E, even if the nails of the nailgun aren't perfect for the job, it's just so easy, quick, and convenient! It's hard not to use.

I've found items are not too bad, as you in general take a base item (generic +3 magic bastard sword) and then add properties to that. Custom feats and the like are a bit more difficult I agree.

All that said, I've found that while custom player related stuff is either more difficult or cumbersome, custom DM stuff is surprisingly easy. Monsters, traps, NPCs etc are much less limited in 4e. Personally, I like it that way.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

1st) Why would very creative and intelligent people need to be told this? Are we so indoctrinated that we have to be told something is allowed before we will even think of it?

Given the evidence provided by online discussion since 2000, sadly the answer for a shocking large portion of gamers is YES. Obviously it CAN be done, the point is that WotC seems to have endeavored, possibly intentionally, to ensure that nobody does.

3rd) Why is rule customization so important?

For some it isn't. But the game was built and popularized on the idea of rampant customization by DM's. Again going back to the topic of the thread - what is it that 2E/earlier had that has been lost with 3E/4E? The benefits of mechanical standardization that 3E brought to the game were needed and beneficial, but the accompanying orientation of the game as a players number-crunching excercise was not.

 

[Garmorn]

Given the evidence provided by online discussion since 2000, sadly the answer for a shocking large portion of gamers is YES. Obviously it CAN be done, the point is that WotC seems to have endeavored, possibly intentionally, to ensure that nobody does.

Ok, I don't normally follow most onine threads. This is one of the few that has caught my attention. (It has been educational as I am really not your average gamer nor tend to hang with the average gamer.)

Since the 4e seems to be the current trend to balance at the encounter level, why not try to promote more home brew world and similar non rule area. I have seen many a person drop out of campaigns by poor house rules so why not a fairly fixed rule set at that level, but add lots of world building/running tools for both the player and DM?

Would this fix your complaint or do you think the ability to modify the classes, feats and powers are necessary?

 

[Aus_Snow]

But 3e did explicitly encourage that.

As evidence, I offer the DMG Witch character class which was offered as merely an example of what a GM could/should do to create custom classes.

Indeed, and furthermore, your honour. . .

• D&D 3.5 DMG, page 174: (under 'Classes') A DM should consider carefully the classes in her world, for they define the people who live there. Presented first in this section are ideas for modifying Player's Handbook character classes. [. . .]
  
  
• D&D 3.5 DMG, page 175: (under 'Why Mess Around with Character Classes?') [. . .] Sometimes it can't be achieved - the player asks for too much, or what she wants doesn't fit with your campaign - but the effort to accommodate reasonable modifications is almost always worth it.
  
  
• D&D 3.5 DMG, page 176: (under 'Prestige Classes') [. . .] The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.
  
  
• D&D 3.5 MM, Chapter 5 [Making Monsters]

All in all, it seems rather conclusive, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[celloshane]

1st) Why would very creative and intelligent people need to be told this? Are we so indoctrinated that we have to be told something is allowed before we will even think of it?

2nd) Customization is in the Character Builder, sure it not great but it is there. It will cause a few to think out of the box.

3rd) Why is rule customization so important? I would prefer a DM that creates his own world not to have to waste precious time on house rules that are designed to make his world unique, and use the rest of the time to improve his world and adventures.

1st) A few others have covered this, but I'd like to provide a different point. Maybe the people who need to be told aren't the creative, discerning ones. (Note I purposely did not use intelligent, as the presence or lack of creativity does not indicate the presence or lack of intelligence.) The point is, maybe the people who need to be told houseruling is ok are the ones who aren't interested in doing it.
...
3rd) For some it is important and for others it isn't, but perhaps you should look at how you're approaching this discussion. You make the assumption that any time spent creating house rules is a waste. For some DMs improving the world, story, and adventures means creating houserules. Some worlds don't match up perfectly with the core rules, and in those situations if the DM wants to improve his world it means changing some of the assumptions in the ruleset.

The custom rules sections in the 3e and 4e dmgs beg to differ. In addition, page 42 and the custom monster rules also give a huge amount of space for creativity. And given the idea of exception based design, creating monsters and traps is effectively custom rules.

Page 42 was a great addition to the game, but it doesn't solve every problem people have with 4e. It's just a set of guidelines for a specific combat circumstance. Furthermore, I don't see how exception based design makes creating monsters and traps new. DMs have been doing that since the beginning of D&D. If anything that supports my point; 4e DMs have plenty of freedom to create unique encounters, and little to no freedom to create unique campaigns.

On the other hand, DMG for 4.0 does explicitly address Creating House Rules, and give some very general design advice and warnings.

I will humbly admit that I had forgotten about page 189, so thanks for the reminder. I do wish that such a complicated subject had received more that 1 page though. Like the page says, it would take a lot more than they can print in the DMG to make someone an expert rules designer, but the text could have at least been more encouraging than cautionary. I'm especially disappointed that the example(s) they chose to use was one of the common house rules from previous editions, not to mention being one of the most complained about. I haven't seen DMG II, so maybe someone can fill me in on whether it expands on the subject? One thing I would like to see in the future is a regular article in Dungeon that explores possible houserules in depth, but that's highly wishful thinking.

I'm a little confused about the claim that 4e offers less opportunities for customization than earlier editions.

Can anyone give a specific example of something they would like to customize that they could customize easily with earlier editions, but not 4e?

Here's a few of my favorite examples:
- One of the basic assumptions of 4e is that player characters begin the game as experienced and capable adventurers. I'd love to have rules that represent less advanced characters like the apprentice wizard, or the farm boy who found Grandfather's sword in the attic, or the street urchin trying to prove her worth to the Thieve's Guild.
- Rules that alter the advancement of Will/Encounter/Daily powers. I'd like to make Martial characters feel more mundane by giving them more At Wills and less Dailies while giving Arcane characters more resource management by doing the opposite.
- A skill system that is more of a blend between 4e's balanced auto-proficiency and 3.x's character driven investment.
- Rules that allow all characters to attempt combat tricks like disarm, trip, sunder, and advanced grappling. Page 42 doesn't seem to apply to these sort of manuevers.

Ok, I don't normally follow most onine threads. This is one of the few that has caught my attention. (It has been educational as I am really not your average gamer nor tend to hang with the average gamer.)

Since the 4e seems to be the current trend to balance at the encounter level, why not try to promote more home brew world and similar non rule area. I have seen many a person drop out of campaigns by poor house rules so why not a fairly fixed rule set at that level, but add lots of world building/running tools for both the player and DM?

Would this fix your complaint or do you think the ability to modify the classes, feats and powers are necessary?

I wanted to point this post out as the exact attitude toward houserules that bothers me. It basically makes the statement "I had a bad experience with houserules once so people shouldn't use them." If I told you I had a bad experience with jelly donuts once and people shouldn't eat them would you respect that opinion?
I'm having a hard time understanding what a world building tool is that doesn't include rule customization. Aside from maps, culture description, and custom player material (by which I mean powers, classes, PPs, EDs, equipment, ect.) what makes a world unique if the rules are exactly the same as every other world? I feel it's important to modify any part of the ruleset necessary in order to make my campaigns memorable beyond just the default D&D experience.