Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4933527" data-attributes="member: 5143">This is a fork of a side conversation from the Marketing of 4e thread.  I felt it was interesting enough to start its own thread.</blockquote>Even if I agreed that this was a problem, which I would not, it does not explain the need to get rid of the nine alignments, vancian casting, and rewrite the entire demon/devil cosmology.[/QUOTE]The problem he was replying to was the difference in numbers between the lowest possible character and the highest possible character in 3e.I certainly think there were reasons to change these things.  Of course, not everyone is going to agree with the reasons.  4e likely wasn't created to fix some of these smaller issues.  I think the issue I mentioned was the main reason to create the edition in the first place.Still, I think that WOTC went into 4e thinking that if they were going to fix the major problem with the underlying math, they might as well fix every other little issue that they had with the game and that people complained about over the past couple of years.Off the top of my head, I'd say the reasons for the above changes were:Getting Rid of the Nine AlignmentsConstant questions and threads about "How to play your alignment properly", "What would a Lawful Good person due in this situation", "What alignment is Pop Culture Character", "Can Evil characters be in groups with Good characters", "What should Good characters do when they use Detect Evil on someone and they detect it?", "Would a Good church allow Evil worshipers", "How would and Evil character infiltrate a Good church without being detected", "Would a Chaotic Good character turn a prisoner over to the law", and so on.The 4e version of alignment pretty much says: Most people are Unaligned.  You can be good and still have your alignment as Unaligned.  You can be evil and have your alignment as Unaligned.  If you are particularly evil or good, you might choose an alignment other than Unaligned.  Either way, it doesn't matter what your alignment is, since no one can detect it or affect it in any way.  Thus, effectively removing the alignment system other than a vague role playing tool to help you figure out how to play your character.Vancian CastingOne problem with Vancian Casting as it was used in 1e-3e is that is presupposed a certain number of encounters per day.  If someone has the ability to cast 3 spells a day, they are unlikely to be able to survive even two battles in a day.  Or at least do anything even remotely caster-like in the second one.  If someone has 65 spells a day, 15 of which pretty much allow them to kill or negate an enemy outright, 1 battle a day is almost never going to challenge him.  If the Cleric has the ability to heal 500 points of damage a day with his combined spells, any battle that does only 50 damage to the party isn't going to register on their radar.  If he can only heal 10 points of damage, any battle that deals 50 damage is going to be the only battle they fight that day.This is pretty much the problem with any "daily" resource.  Once it's used up, people will want to get it back.  Until it's used up, it feels infinite.The second problem was one of balance a daily resource with an unlimited one.  When you have an unlimited resource(say, the ability to attack with a sword) you can't make it too powerful because you don't want someone to use a powerful ability every round.  So, you have to limit its effectiveness.  The reverse is true about limited resources.  The more limited they are, the more powerful they should be.  Otherwise, why bother waiting for them to come back or even using them?  If you can attack for 1d6+5 damage every round and you can attack for 1d6+4 damage once a day...well, you'll just forget you have that ability and never use it.  Also, if you give one class the ability to do 1d6+5 points of damage 5 times per day and another class the ability to do 1d6+5 points of damage at will, everyone will choose the later class every time.So, you have a bunch of spells that are limited in the number of times per day they can be used.  They NEED to be more powerful than abilities that can be used at will.  So, you are creating an imbalance on purpose.  Now, people will say "But after those limited resources run out, now that character is LESS powerful than the class with unlimited resources".  That's true.  But now you are just creating another artificial limit on the number of battles you can use in one day.  Use more battles than the caster has spells for and you risk a player getting really bored and annoyed that they have nothing to do during the combat.  You also risk the party turning away from adventures in order to recover spells in the middle of a storyline because they are afraid of continuing without their spells.  Use less battles than the casters have spells for and you are removing all the advantages of the classes with unlimited resources.  Why play a Fighter who can attack unlimited times for 2d6+10 damage when you can play a Wizard who can cast a 10d6 AoE spell every round of every combat?Sure, some people will play the "bad" classes purely due to theme or role playing reasons.  But the majority won't.  I realized this when the number of non-casting classes played in my 3.5e games slowly went down to 0 as more and more people figured out these facts.Rewriting the entire demon/devil cosmologyThis one appears to be somewhat a side effect.  When WOTC sat down to create the new edition, they decided to question everything in the game to figure out HOW it fit in the game.They appointed a story team whose entire purpose it was to figure out HOW things get used.  They were supposed to examine things like Devils and Demons and say "When a DM wants to use one of these in a game, how do they get used?  What reason is there for the PCs to fight these?  What kind of stories are they involved in?"  And they were specifically told to question everything, no matter how taken for granted they were.One of the first things they tackled was the planes and their usability in game.  What use was snowbank number 1,634,234,123 in the 243th layer of the Abyss in the game?  What reason did it have to exist in a game about killing things and taking their stuff, while saving the world from evil?  What made it different from snowbank number 2 in terms of how it was used in the game?  What made it different from snowbank number 2 in the 1st layer of the Abyss?  What made it different from snowbank number 2 in Cormyr?Those questions led to the changes in the planes we see today.  And, once those changes had been made, you need to make sure everything else makes sense.  Demons come from the Abyss.  Why is there an Abyss?  Where is it located?  Why do all Demons come from the Abyss?  What makes a Demon a Demon?  And the worst answer of all when answering these questions is "because it's always been that way".  Especially when you can find a better answer.So, in this case, they said "The Abyss is a dark, evil hole in the Elemental Chaos.  The creatures that come from there are Demons...evil, corrupted elementals who want to destroy all of reality and rip it apart.  They particularly hate the mortal world.  They hate it because they are the foul spawn of the primordials.  That gives them a reason to be conflicting with the players.  They come to the mortal world to destroy it and the PCs have to stop them."[/QUOTE]

Verification