"Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)

[AllisterH]

Yeah, but look at the actual power of the spell: In 3rd Edition the scope of a wish spell is severely limited. In 2nd Edition, a wish could literally do anything (albeit with the risk of DM word-twisting).

Many of the things that a 3rd Edition wish spell can do (requiring 5000 XP) can actually be done with a 2nd Edition wish spell with no penalty at all. 2nd Edition PHB, pg. 197: "If it is used to alter reality with respect to damage sustained by a party, or to bring a dead creature to life, or to escape from a difficult situation by lifting the spellcaster (and his party) from one place to another, it will not cause the wizard any disability.".

Er, I think you need to reread the spell description again. The disability it refers to is the fact that any other use of the spell causes the caster to weaken (-3 to STR) and require 2d4 days of bed rest. The 5 year ageing feature happens NO MATTER WHAT. Teleporting the caster home would still cause the 5 year age increase. The spell in 3e is much easier on casters...

This is somewhat my fault. I meant to top stoneskin, but apparently my fingers had other ideas. .

Now this is a spell that simply is vastly different that before. The 2e version wasn't powerful at all (HELLO DART SPECIALISTS - what else was a fighter going to use those excess WPN slots after he got one in Longsword?) while the 3rd edition version is useless as well (10 pts of damage reduction? Please....)

Neither spell was good IMO. Still, I'll actually give you this one but I'm still disputing your claim that 3e spells are more powerful even though the subsystems such as the initiative system and the save system made ALL spells much more effective than before. For example, geneally speaking all of the spells from levels 4 aon up are more powerful thanks to the loss of the initiative system and the loss of wpn speed vs casting time and the addition of the Concentration skill

Wands are not cheap. The XP cost if you're creating scrolls and wands for yourself actually becomes significant very quickly. (I've got a wizard in my current campaign who does it. It helps a lot... but it also means that he's already a full level behind the other PCs. That's a meaningful trade-off.)

I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark here and guess that your 3rd Edition campaigns got rid of the XP penalty for crafting magic items. I know that's popular, but it does have a rather huge impact on game balance.

Er, no. He doesn't stay a level behind the party because a lower level character needs less CP to progress than a higher level character and catches up very quickly. Your implication is that the wizard is stuck behind the party but if you do the math, you'll realize the wizard catches up very quickly.

 

[Shadeydm]

I find that I largely agree with Zustiur's observations about some of 4E's shortcomings, and must admit I had to laughed at the adamantine inn door. Very well done.

Its nice to see the c4bal is still stalking the boards ready to subject anyone who would dare to disagree with elements of 4E to the inquisition.

 

[Jack99]

I find that I largely agree with Zustiur's observations about some of 4E's shortcomings, and must admit I had to laughed at the adamantine inn door. Very well done.

Its nice to see the c4bal is still stalking the boards ready to subject anyone who would dare to disagree with elements of 4E to the inquisition.

So because we do not share your view of 4e and try to explain we understand it, we are now the Inquisition?

Or is it just that you have no good arguments left and must thus resort to insults?

 

[JoeGKushner]

So because we do not share your view of 4e and try to explain we understand it, we are now the Inquisition?

Or is it just that you have no good arguments left and must thus resort to insults?

In all fairness, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A"]No One Expects the Inquisition[/ame]

 

[Cadfan]

I wish I could figure out why 4th Edition supporters find it so difficult to accept that some people don't like dissociated mechanics. I find it fairly trivial to understand what you like in the game. Why do you find it so difficult to understand any POV except your own?

Because that's not what you don't like.

Obviously you like that challenges get harder as characters level. You know it, I know it, that's how it is. I'm 100% sure that if you DM, when you want a "challenging" combat for your characters, you don't put your high level PCs against pathetic mooks they can slaughter at ease, because you know that's not a challeng. You put them against level appropriate foes. When you want a lock that is "challenging" to pick, you put them against a lock that is of a difficulty that creates a skill check DC that has a chance of failure. I know that these things are true because that's how D&D works. Sure, your game world HAS pathetic mooks while the PCs are at high level, and the PCs can beat them up if they want, but that's not what you do for a challenging fight. And sure, your game world has locks that are impossibly difficult for low level characters while your characters are at low levels, but you don't require the PCs to pick those locks while they're at low levels because they can't.

Every RPG out there works like this. There are easy and hard challenges, and their intended for characters of varying skill levels. 3e works like this even more so than most non WOTC games. Obviously you can't have a problem with a game where there are locks of various degrees of difficulty, players get better at picking locks over time, and players, when they encounter lock-related challenges, can expect to challenge locks of difficulty levels roughly appropriate for their character's level. You can't have a problem with this because if you did you would hate every RPG ever made, and 3e and 4e in particular as the sort of twin objects of your loathing.

The only thing that changed between 3e and 4e is that alongside the old school style of doing the math for you and putting it into the skill tables, the game designers gave the dungeon master a chart. And that chart tells the DM "this is how we did it. If you need to assign difficulties the way we did, this is the guideline we used."

That IS a change.

And some people hate it.

You can tell because they complain that 4e is too calibrated for "balance." They want a game where difficulties are "based in reality" instead of "some notion of balance." And they think that 3e represents that game.

It doesn't. It represents that game exactly as much as 4e does. Which is not at all.

I feel for these people, because they're sort of like someone going to a movie and hearing someone else blurt out the surprise ending while they're in line. Or someone going to a seance hoping to be spooked and having someone else tell them that the "ghost rapping" is really a device hooked to the bottom of the table.

Not knowing how the DCs were calculated had provided them with a veil of illusionism that made suspension of disbelief easier for them. 4e took that away. Or more specifically, the 4e DMG took that away.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Its game design. The designers worked out how hard they wanted a "good challenge" to be. Then they calibrated the game to match.

4e did the same thing. It made ONLY ONE CHANGE: it made explicit the assumptions that went into this calibration process.

Some people are not psychologically prepared to handle that.

That's immensely condescending, you know. And it makes you seem tremendously arrogant to boot.

And you're missing one little bugaboo from the change: it did make it more explicit. It also made it more important. Getting that calibration process right is everything to 4e.

And I don't really play games to calibrate.

 

[Imaro]

Please do not bring logic and actual rules into this discussion. Some people might realise that some of their problems with 4e derive from a lack of understanding of the rules, instead of something else.

Have you ever thought, that maybe (contrary to the popular belief that 4e has the best DMG evah) that it is in fact the sloppy nature of how this subject is written about in the 4e DMG and PHB that creates differing perceptions on how it should be handled...as opposed to peoples "LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES"?

Here's some examples...

On page 37 we have DC's for listening through a door, done exactly how they were in 3.5 ( and the 4e PHB), with descriptions and set DC's... contrast this with

Page 41 where we have the DC's for searching a room...now these don't have set DC's (instead a Dm is told to use "easy to hard" from the table on page 42. But check under the perception skill section in the PHB and we again have set DC's that are not based on level...

Barely Hidden...DC 10
Well Hidden...DC 25
More than 10 squares away +2

So which one is what people should be using during play? By the chart above a very hard search is perhaps DC 25+2 (more than 10 squares away)+2 (DM difficulty adjustment) = 29

While using the chart we can get way lower numbers for characters below level 13 and way higher numbers for characters above 19th level...and this applies to many of the skills in the PHB.

So which is correct? Which method are you suppose to use? Especially when you have the whole section on page 42 that outlines exactly how to set difficulties and tells you to ... "Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard or somewhere in between."

There is nothing here about determining the DC by the logic of the world, so that one sentence on 23 is totally discarded here. Furthermore the PHB has set DC's not based on level for certain actions, thus setting up an expectation that an action can be accomplished at a certain difficulty....plain and simple.

 

[Shadeydm]

Have you ever thought, that maybe (contrary to the popular belief that 4e has the best DMG evah) that it is in fact the sloppy nature of how this subject is written about in the 4e DMG and PHB that creates differing perceptions on how it should be handled...as opposed to peoples "LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES"?

Here's some examples...

On page 37 we have DC's for listening through a door, done exactly how they were in 3.5 ( and the 4e PHB), with descriptions and set DC's... contrast this with

Page 41 where we have the DC's for searching a room...now these don't have set DC's (instead a Dm is told to use "easy to hard" from the table on page 42. But check under the perception skill section in the PHB and we again have set DC's that are not based on level...

Barely Hidden...DC 10
Well Hidden...DC 25
More than 10 squares away +2

So which one is what people should be using during play? By the chart above a very hard search is perhaps DC 25+2 (more than 10 squares away)+2 (DM difficulty adjustment) = 29

While using the chart we can get way lower numbers for characters below level 13 and way higher numbers for characters above 19th level...and this applies to many of the skills in the PHB.

So which is correct? Which method are you suppose to use? Especially when you have the whole section on page 42 that outlines exactly how to set difficulties and tells you to ... "Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard or somewhere in between."

There is nothing here about determining the DC by the logic of the world, so that one sentence on 23 is totally discarded here. Furthermore the PHB has set DC's not based on level for certain actions, thus setting up an expectation that an action can be accomplished at a certain difficulty....plain and simple.

Please do not bring logic or actual rules into the discussion, some people might take off thier rose colored glasses and find that 4E is not the pinnacle of DnD they keep telling everyone it is

 

[Imaro]

Because that's not what you don't like.

Obviously you like that challenges get harder as characters level. You know it, I know it, that's how it is. I'm 100% sure that if you DM, when you want a "challenging" combat for your characters, you don't put your high level PCs against pathetic mooks they can slaughter at ease, because you know that's not a challeng. You put them against level appropriate foes. When you want a lock that is "challenging" to pick, you put them against a lock that is of a difficulty that creates a skill check DC that has a chance of failure. I know that these things are true because that's how D&D works. Sure, your game world HAS pathetic mooks while the PCs are at high level, and the PCs can beat them up if they want, but that's not what you do for a challenging fight. And sure, your game world has locks that are impossibly difficult for low level characters while your characters are at low levels, but you don't require the PCs to pick those locks while they're at low levels because they can't.

Wow alot of assumptions here...and well we know what happens when you assume...how about you take into consideration a sandbox style game...or does D&D not "work like that." I don't 'require" my PC's do anything, I create my world and they explore it...I create the challenges and where they are located using the logic of my campaign setting... but then I must not be playing D&D because you have apparently decided how D&D works...

Every RPG out there works like this. There are easy and hard challenges, and their intended for characters of varying skill levels. 3e works like this even more so than most non WOTC games. Obviously you can't have a problem with a game where there are locks of various degrees of difficulty, players get better at picking locks over time, and players, when they encounter lock-related challenges, can expect to challenge locks of difficulty levels roughly appropriate for their character's level. You can't have a problem with this because if you did you would hate every RPG ever made, and 3e and 4e in particular as the sort of twin objects of your loathing.

Uhm no every rpg doesn't work like this...check out some indie rpg's once in awhile.

There are locks of varying degrees and you can stumble upon any of them depending on what you choose to do as a player in my campaign world. Perhaps you run into a lock that you can't pick at 3rd level, but you can come back later and try it when you feel up to it...perhaps you will find a super easy lock at level 15, and whatever is protected by it will be equal with it's quality. You on the other hand seem to create a very artificial world an assume everyone else does. Besides what's so great about getting stronger...if everything else always gets harder...you're basically still at 1st level throughout your whole career... yeah that sounds like fun...not.

The only thing that changed between 3e and 4e is that alongside the old school style of doing the math for you and putting it into the skill tables, the game designers gave the dungeon master a chart. And that chart tells the DM "this is how we did it. If you need to assign difficulties the way we did, this is the guideline we used."

That IS a change.

And some people hate it.

Then why don't the chart and the examples coordinate in the corebooks... Why do the numbers from the chart and the sample DC's not line up at certain levels...when they did in 3e/3.5?

You can tell because they complain that 4e is too calibrated for "balance." They want a game where difficulties are "based in reality" instead of "some notion of balance." And they think that 3e represents that game.

It doesn't. It represents that game exactly as much as 4e does. Which is not at all.

Uhm see above...3.5 did not change how difficult it was to search for an item in a room...based upon your level, depending on which of the contradicting ways to determine DC's one chooses from 4e...it does.

I feel for these people, because they're sort of like someone going to a movie and hearing someone else blurt out the surprise ending while they're in line. Or someone going to a seance hoping to be spooked and having someone else tell them that the "ghost rapping" is really a device hooked to the bottom of the table.

Not knowing how the DCs were calculated had provided them with a veil of illusionism that made suspension of disbelief easier for them. 4e took that away. Or more specifically, the 4e DMG took that away.

I feel for people who believe in one-wayism...it's like discussing something with a brick wall...or trying to discuss a painting with them when they have only seen a corner of it.

 

[Jack99]

Have you ever thought, that maybe (contrary to the popular belief that 4e has the best DMG evah) that it is in fact the sloppy nature of how this subject is written about in the 4e DMG and PHB that creates differing perceptions on how it should be handled...as opposed to peoples "LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES"?

Sure, it's possible. It's not like I am saying that because you (not you, it's a general "you") do not understand 4e, you are a moron. I hope you didn't take it that way. I am merely saying that while some claims hold merit, some definitely do not, when people explain why they do not like 4e. Besides, while I do think the 4e DMG is great, I do not think I really anyone saying it was flawless. Because let's be honest, it hardly takes a flawless book to improve on what was before.

Here's some examples...

On page 37 we have DC's for listening through a door, done exactly how they were in 3.5 ( and the 4e PHB), with descriptions and set DC's... contrast this with

Page 41 where we have the DC's for searching a room...now these don't have set DC's (instead a Dm is told to use "easy to hard" from the table on page 42. But check under the perception skill section in the PHB and we again have set DC's that are not based on level...
Barely Hidden...DC 10
Well Hidden...DC 25
More than 10 squares away +2

Aye, this one is confusing and makes little sense. However, if you consider that the rest of the core rules operate under the assumption of fixed checks for skills covered in the rules, wouldn't it be fairly easy to assume that someone screwed up? I mean, if you have say 20 pages of rules saying one thing, and a small paragraph saying something else, wouldn't it be logical to assume that the last one is there by mistake?

So which is correct? Which method are you suppose to use? Especially when you have the whole section on page 42 that outlines exactly how to set difficulties and tells you to ... "Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard or somewhere in between."

Page 42 is explicitly for things otherwise not covered in the rules. Meaning, things like listening through doors, climbing up ladders and whatever else is covered in the PHB are not superseded by this.

There is nothing here about determining the DC by the logic of the world, so that one sentence on 23 is totally discarded here. Furthermore the PHB has set DC's not based on level for certain actions, thus setting up an expectation that an action can be accomplished at a certain difficulty....plain and simple.

As I have said before, I do understand why some might have issues with page 42. But I think it's a debate for it's own thread.

But the short version is that while the static DC's from the PHB are skill checks that relate to non-sentient things. Like a ledge doesn't get harder to balance on, just because you become more powerful. Page 42 is however not for those things, since they are covered in the PHB.

Page 42 is for the weird stunts, the things that are hard to cover unless you want to have 30 pages of lists to wade through. Now, the stunts work under the assumption that even though you get better as you level, the fact that these stunts interact with enemies of (more or less) equal level, the stunts themselves become harder to make. Basically, the premise in 4e is that if it's hard for a rogue to make a tumbling move through the legs of say an orc, it should also be hard for the same rogue in 20 levels to do the same against whatever level-appropriate foe he is facing. Sure, he got like +15 more to his skills, but the monster he is facing is also more apt and quick.

I personally like this approach. It means that epic level characters will shine supreme at common stuff, like running quick over a narrow pole, jumping over a chasm, beating down a wooden door etc, but still not always succeed at wacky stuff in combat, because the foes they face are equally good.

I hope that made some sense.

Cheers