What is missing from 4E

[DandD]

Suspension of disbelief had to be applied from the moment on when rogues could evade fireballs exploding in a small closed room, fighters were able to great cleave eight enemies with one strike, or duelists reaching AC 40+ without any magical equipment.
No, say what you want, but 3rd edition mundane heroes are too much straining one's ability to accept them as normal human beings like us, unless one lives in a fantasy world. First and second edition thieves and fighters might perhaps claim to be less phantastic than their 4th and 3rd edition counterparts (well, except the fact that only fighers and other classes in their category could get exceptional strenght, and only thieves knew how to pickpocket in the first place). 3rd edition fighters and rogues are as unbelievable and wuxia-anime-like as their 4th edition counterparts. Other supplements like the Tome of Battle only replace the Full Attack Option with a different-looking single attack, and making the "mundane" classes a little bit more on the level of their magic colleagues.

Back to topic.

 

[Betote]

I wouldn't use Tome of Battle as a point in a discussion about 3e. ToB is definitely not "3e" but "pre-4e". I don't know anybody who liked ToB and didn't adopt 4e.

 

[Halivar]

Halivar presents the central power paradox of 3E vs. 4E in concert with thecasualoblivion to which rounser provides the most succinct answer.

I don't know if I'd call it a paradox. Definitely a new way of thinking about heroes and their relative power to the enemy, though. 3.x is Drizz't Do'Urden, and 4E is Beowulf.

All I can provide is anecdotal evidence, but here it is. I have had occasion, in 3.x, to kill an ancient red dragon in a single full-attack with a fighter/planar champion's greatsword at the top of initiative (let's just say there was a LOT of math involved). THIS is superpowered, IMO. In 4E, this will never happen. Granted, as a player I reveled in "the POWAH!!!!" in 3E. I must, at the same time, admit that it had a hugely deleterious effect on the narrative. I would have had just as much fun with a knock-down, drag-out fight with the dragon, and a stronger sense of accomplishment from having killed it. As it was, I literally felt that my character was a superhero, and therefore the act was no big deal.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Suspension of disbelief had to be applied from the moment on when rogues could evade fireballs exploding in a small closed room, fighters were able to great cleave eight enemies with one strike, or duelists reaching AC 40+ without any magical equipment.

No edition of D&D has been perfect. Personally, I'd say the most unrealistic, sense-of-disbelief-destroying thing in 3E is the standard action heal check to stabilize an unconscious colleague: "here... let me just kick those intestines back in there for ya... now that feels better don't it". The ones you mention don't bother me anywhere near as much.

No, say what you want, but 3rd edition mundane heroes are too much straining one's ability to accept them as normal human beings like us, unless one lives in a fantasy world.

You are correct, they are viewed as heroes; the PCs are special, in that the game focuses on their activities. Your point is?

First and second edition thieves and fighters might perhaps claim to be less phantastic than their 4th and 3rd edition counterparts (well, except the fact that only fighers and other classes in their category could get exceptional strenght, and only thieves knew how to pickpocket in the first place). 3rd edition fighters and rogues are as unbelievable and wuxia-anime-like as their 4th edition counterparts.

How? I disagree with you here but I'd like you to provide a little reasoning for this statement.

Other supplements like the Tome of Battle only replace the Full Attack Option with a different-looking single attack, and making the "mundane" classes a little bit more on the level of their magic colleagues.

By giving them psuedo-magical (the book refers to them as superhuman and transcending the natural) powers that many feel martial characters didn't have a right to. Along with the naming system, this was a completely different influence and direction compared to the more "traditional" approach. Tome of Battle was far more significant than what you seem to be giving it credit for in this regard. While many loved the fact that this direction was included in an experimental supplement, others completely dismissed it as not suitable for their game... and neither side was wrong.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I don't know if I'd call it a paradox...

A paradox in that some are saying 4E is too powerful while others are saying it is not powerful enough in comparison to 3E. How could both be true? I believe Rounser answered this very well.

All I can provide is anecdotal evidence, but here it is. I have had occasion, in 3.x, to kill an ancient red dragon in a single full-attack with a fighter/planar champion's greatsword at the top of initiative (let's just say there was a LOT of math involved). THIS is superpowered, IMO. In 4E, this will never happen. Granted, as a player I reveled in "the POWAH!!!!" in 3E. I must, at the same time, admit that it had a hugely deleterious effect on the narrative. I would have had just as much fun with a knock-down, drag-out fight with the dragon, and a stronger sense of accomplishment from having killed it. As it was, I literally felt that my character was a superhero, and therefore the act was no big deal.

This was so true of high level play in 3E, where a battle was decided on by initiative and who could get the advantage first. I think that most people agree that high level combat was the prime thing that 4E needed to fix. The eventual solution provides some weirdness of it's own though... kind of like that game where you would hammer a ferret's head as it poked it out of a hole only to have the ferret duck and appear out of a different hole. No edition of D&D has been perfect and I think nor could it be to everyone at the same time. For every solution, more questions seem to be raised.

In the end, Fifth Element has it right... D&D is Awesome!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[DandD]

No edition of D&D has been perfect. Personally, I'd say the most unrealistic, sense-of-disbelief-destroying thing in 3E is the standard action heal check to stabilize an unconscious colleague: "here... let me just kick those intestines back in there for ya... now that feels better don't it".

Depends if you belong to those who swear that hitpoints really represents blood lose.

The ones you mention don't bother me anywhere near as much.

They don't bother me either, actually. But they're proof that these classes are far from reality, the same as their fourth-edition cousins are.

You are correct, they are viewed as heroes; the PCs are special, in that the game focuses on their activities. Your point is?

I am talking about their "mundane" abilities, not their (quite fantastic) lifes (which although does contain their awesome and unbelievable abilities).

How? I disagree with you here but I'd like you to provide a little reasoning for this statement.

I'd just be repeating myself, just like above.

By giving them psuedo-magical (the book refers to them as superhuman and transcending the natural) powers that many feel martial characters didn't have a right to.

The book says that they are nearly supernatural (and some others are transcending the natural, like the Shadow Hand and the Desert Wind tradition). Iron Heart, Diamond Mind and other stuff surely aren't.

Along with the naming system, this was a completely different influence and direction compared to the more "traditional" approach. Tome of Battle was far more significant than what you seem to be giving it credit for in this regard. While many loved the fact that this direction was included in an experimental supplement, others completely dismissed it as not suitable for their game... and neither side was wrong.

Yet they cannot deny that 3rd edition already had special maneuvers for fighters before Tome of Battle (Tactical Feats come in mind, having being introduced in Complete Fighter, for example, perhaps even earlier), and that 3rd edition is all about making non-magical classes as fantastic and unbelievable as their magical colleagues, with weird feats, new optional rules, and prestige classes.

And let's not start with epic things for 3rd edition.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But they're proof that these classes are far from reality, the same as their fourth-edition cousins are.

The difference here is not how far from reality the classes are (we are talking about fantasy here), but how far certain things deviate from what one views as their fantasy. Fantasy is the fiction, stories, images and media that a particular person constructs and is highly individual - and as the 3E/4E divide shows can be interestingly particular. Some have a broad view (which includes the more wuxia/anime style elements) while others stick to the narrower traditional sword and sorcery where such elements do not belong. 4E is different to 3E in this regard; not in a black and white sense but certainly in different shades of grey. There is a progression here to include more of the fantasy pie (but at the expense of alienating some of the audience).

Yet they cannot deny that 3rd edition already had special maneuvers for fighters before Tome of Battle (Tactical Feats come in mind, having being introduced in Complete Fighter, for example, perhaps even earlier),

So? It's not the maneuver but the flavor of the maneuver/power that is in question. I believe as above, there is a difference here. This difference will (or won't) affect different players with their different perspectives on fantasy and what D&D should be to them. Essentially, I believe this is what is at the centre of the 3E/4E divide.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[DandD]

D&D 3rd edition is high fantasy, not Sword&Sorcery for sure. Just having magic-using companions and thousands of weird monsters with spell-like abilities proves that. Trying to exclude the fantastic abilities that shouldn't belong to the S&S-genre would mean to even exclude the fighter and the rogue (and the barbarian too, who should have been named berserker in the first place, dammit), and only using warriors, adepts and experts, or anything else would be hypocrisy.
You can and you do play the same campaign in 4th edition as you do in 3rd. Both edition focuse on unrealistic combat with heroes who defy everything we know from our real world, with the difference being that 4th edition emphasizes team battles, whereas 3rd edition has primadonnas who happen to work together.

Also, renaming maneuvers shouldn't be that much of a problem (if the players even have a problem with that in the first place).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

... with the difference being that 4th edition emphasizes team battles, whereas 3rd edition has primadonnas who happen to work together.

I guess you just don't see where I'm coming from.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Gothmog]

D&D 3rd edition is high fantasy, not Sword&Sorcery for sure. Just having magic-using companions and thousands of weird monsters with spell-like abilities proves that. Trying to exclude the fantastic abilities that shouldn't belong to the S&S-genre would mean to even exclude the fighter and the rogue (and the barbarian too, who should have been named berserker in the first place, dammit), and only using warriors, adepts and experts, or anything else would be hypocrisy.
You can and you do play the same campaign in 4th edition as you do in 3rd. Both edition focuse on unrealistic combat with heroes who defy everything we know from our real world, with the difference being that 4th edition emphasizes team battles, whereas 3rd edition has primadonnas who happen to work together.

QFT! You've articulated something I've been trying to come to grips with for a while. 3e definitely was about lone wolves who only cooperated or worked together tangentially, and the rules supported this playstyle via multiclassing, PrCs, etc. 4e is about teamwork and the party as a more cohesive unit. I overwhelmingly enjoy the approach 4e took with this much more.

And while its true 4e characters do start off better than equivalent NPCs in their world or 3e characters, they don't reach the earth-shaking power 3e characters did, EVER. By 12th level, a 3e character was so far into wuxia/anime territory, it was ridiculous Even by 8th level, a 3e character was so much more powerful than almost any other NPCs/monsters that they were definitely in the mid to high range superhero class. From my play experience with 4e so far (two campaigns to 6th level, and two one-shots at 15th and 25th levels), 4e is MUCH better suited to sword & sorcery play than 3e was. Even high level 4e characters feel mortal and vulnerable, wheras 3e characters either became invulnerable, or insta-killed by various effects. I just have to laugh and shake my head when someone says 4e is a supers game- 3e was far more of a supers/wuxia game than 4e could ever be.