What CAN'T you do with 4e?

[The Little Raven]

Being told that the evil wizard's spell is pure plot device and that they can't pick it up can be very SOD-breaking.

If people in a fantasy world doing things that others cannot do breaks your suspension of disbelief, then I don't think you're trying very hard.

 

[Doug McCrae]

How hard do you want it to be to notice the abjuration spells?

I was trying to be satirical by bemoaning the loss of the most useless rule in 3e. And that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

 

[Scribble]

"Hey, this monster manual is just blank pages!"
"How hard do you want it to be to kill a dragon?"

Easy Dragon, Standard Dragon, or Hard Dragon?

This abjuration spell is easy for the players to notice. It has a Dc of: 15

your false comparison is way off.

 

[Scribble]

I was trying to be satirical by bemoaning the loss of the most useless rule in 3e. And that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

Ahhh... my appologies... I guess I'm just so used to people bringing up the strangest things these days.

Those are the kinds of rules I'm very happy are out.

 

[Qualidar]

This may have been mentioned up-thread, but I'm coming into this too late to read everything:

What I was thinking of running with 4e was an Al-Qadim campaign, but to do that I need a shi'ir. But to do that I need to develop 50-odd powers of different levels with branching prestige classes and related powers to that. The same applies to re-creating a monk, or a barbarian, or whatever.

What 4e won't let me do is create new classes.

 

[Wolfspider]

What 4e won't let me do is create new classes.

Oh, you can create classes fine in 4e.

It just takes a whole heck of a lot more time and work than it does in v3.5.

Just another example of how D&D 4e makes it easier on the DM than ever, you see....

 

[Scribble]

This may have been mentioned up-thread, but I'm coming into this too late to read everything:

What I was thinking of running with 4e was an Al-Qadim campaign, but to do that I need a shi'ir. But to do that I need to develop 50-odd powers of different levels with branching prestige classes and related powers to that. The same applies to re-creating a monk, or a barbarian, or whatever.

What 4e won't let me do is create new classes.

Create a few powers to start with at low level. (maybe first second and third to give you some room)

as the character goes up in level, add more powers of higher levels.

You also don't have to concern yourself with finding the proper balance with BAB and Saves and such, as it's no longer class based.

Just balance the powers against powers of other similar rolled characters.

 

[The Little Raven]

What 4e won't let me do is create new classes.

No, it will.

You won't let yourself do it, for whatever reason.

 

[Scribble]

No, it will.

You won't let yourself do it, for whatever reason.

Everyone falls on their first jump.

 

[Andor]

Right.

I don't get why some people are so opposed to 'antagonist only' abilities. I see as a practical matter, protagonist and antagonist abilities serve different functions. PC abilities need to to balanced against frequent use and other the PC abilities. Antagonist abilities need to provide a challenge to the PC's for an encounter (or a few, at most, in the case of a recurring villain).

They need to do different jobs, so I don't see why they should be interchangeable. It's a little like insisting you should be able to weld with a food processor and julienne carrots with an acetylene torch.

NPC only powers were a staple of early RPGs. 1st ed, 2nd ed and Palladium to name a few.

And NOTHING drove me more mad then the BS idea that my PC could save the freaking world but could never, ever, under any circumstance learn an NPC ability, be it making a magic item or raising an undead army.

3e killed that nonsense and I danced on it's grave laughing manaically. Now madmen are trying to raise this hideous spectre from it's unholy grave and I say they Must BE STOPPED! ... *shifty eyes* *ahem*

I mean, I disagree with that design principle. Yeah... that's it...