Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Gothmog]

A level 2 kobold? With 36 hit points?

Level 9 daily Thicket of Blades is close burst 1, for 3[W]+Strength modifier. Let's say (3x8) =24, +4 for strength and +2 for magic = 30. Not a kill yet, even with maximum damage -- unless it's a critical hit and the bonus roll for a "high critical" weapon and/or magic is enough.

In the old days, a 9th-level fighter could on average fell a kobold chieftain and his two bodyguards -- and a normal kobold or two -- in a single round. The rank and file would have been cut down at a rate of five or six per round.

And that's without a bonus for strength or any magic. Number Appearing: 40-400? No, that does not mean our man is likely to be tied down for forty minutes or so. Even if their morale does not break after the first round, he probably won't have to slaughter more than 50 or 60 to send the rest packing.

And some folks complain 4e is "superheroic"? Seriously, the same thing can happen in 4e if the critters are minions, but the difference is that previous editions assumed ALL kobolds/goblins/orcs/etc are minions, and very few actually were competent. 4e assumes a larger proportion of those monsters are competent and have unusual skillsets.

Back on topic, 4e is only as dry, boring, and nonsensical as the DM or group that runs it. Same can be said for 3e, 2e, 1e, or any RPG. Roleplaying doesn't come from rules or books, it comes from your imagination. If someone truly does need to have hard-wired rules, feats, etc in the system to roleplay, I feel sorry for them- they are artifically limiting themrselves when they really don't need to. Look back at 1e AD&D- there were no skills, feats, etc back then, and people did and STILL DO roleplay using 1e and have characters with deep backgrounds and personalities.

What a lot of folks do like is that 4e opens up the interpretation of the game to be described as whatever best tickles the DM's or players' fancy at the time. Yes, this could be done in previous editions, but 4e makes it easier to do and actively encourages it via reskinning of powers, monsters, and giving players some narrative control to describe when and how they use their abilities. Thats a HUGE strength IMO.

4e does have more abstraction than other games on the market (Runequest or Harn for example), but about the same amount as any previous version of D&D, and NO version of D&D has done an even remotely good job of being simulationist or realistic. 3e tried to pretend to be simulationist, but did a rather poor job with it and ended up being a confused mishmash of themes and tropes that fell apart under even basic scrutiny. D&D has always been about heroic adventure, swords and sorcery swashbuckling, and larger-than-life heroes.

And for what its worth, I tend to run games that are not gonzo, over-the-top supers games, but more dark fantasy with strong horror themes and lots of investigation and RP in an internally consistent and detailed setting, and 4e has not only NOT been a hinderance, but actually facilitates the kind of games I like to run far more than 3e ever dreamed of being able to. In fact, I resurrected my 1e AD&D horror swords & sorcery setting and converted it to 4e, and have had no problems. The only change to the core 4e I made was slowed down the rate of healing somewhat, and allowed for long-term injuries. The same setting in 3e required 56 pages of houserules and adjustments just to be able to work to my satisfaction, but by then it was too much hassle to mess with.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

please note that if discussion goes south, it will be closed without another warning. Thanks, all.

[foghornleghorn]Suh! I shall endeavor to be the ver' pickchah of a gentleman, as long as no one heah insults mah beloved South!
[/foghornleghorn]

I keep seeing the same criticisms over and over and over again by (usually) the same people. I'm finally convinced that they're right: 4e is everything they say it is.

Which is a shame because they're missing out on a whole heap of fun.

<snip many points>

For the naysayers, I say: try it. Just let yourself go. Put the book down and roleplay through the combats with descriptive verses about how you use Tide of Iron to force someone over a cliff or Positioning Strike to weave through the battlefield or Rain of Steel to cleave about you mercilessly. Be imaginative. You never know, you might like it.

I hear what you're saying, but that sounds like you've run into a lot of rules-lawyers and so forth who eventually show up in any RPG, any edition.

What you describe as your fun, freewheeling 4Ed game sounds like my 3.X games.

The absolute truth was said while I was composing my post:

4e is only as dry, boring, and nonsensical as the DM or group that runs it. Same can be said for 3e, 2e, 1e, or any RPG.

Mechanically, 4Ed doesn't do what I want it to do, not in the way I want it to- and from both sides of the DM's screen. I could have fun playing the game, but definitely not DMing it, and the fun I'd have wouldn't match the enjoyment I'd have in another system.

3.X does. End of story.

 

[Ariosto]

No Snark, Boojum or Bandersnatch -- just perplexity!

Was Nightson pulling my leg?

Gothmog, an 8th level fighter is a Superhero; 9th and up are Lords.

 

[Kzach]

4e is only as dry, boring, and nonsensical as the DM or group that runs it. Same can be said for 3e, 2e, 1e, or any RPG.

*
That's sortof what I was trying to get at. It's about 90% of the point I was aiming for but said succinctly and thus with far less waffle

The other 10% was that I was trying to say that 4e is more conducive to a less literal and more free-wheeling play-style than 3rd edition. That isn't to say that you can't have much the same game with the two systems, it's more to say that one system promotes/encourages a certain play-style more than the other and vice versa.

IMO, 4e needs players to be more imaginative at the table and less literal with the rules to facilitate a more narrative type of play. And when one does so, it fits that play-style very well.

With 3e you could certainly do much the same, but I don't feel it suited that sortof play-style as well as 4e does. 3e IME was always more suited to the more literal and strict gaming style where the rules are well-explained and are meant to be taken exactly as written with no narrative interpretation.

And again, neither one is better than the other because of these differences, but I do think they suit different play-styles and for me personally, 4e is the system that I feel more comfortable with at the table and enjoy playing more because of those perceived differences.

2e, however, seemed to both suffer and benefit from neither having the well-explained and well-balanced rules but also required you to therefore fill in the gaps with narrative interpretation.

I strongly believe that 3e was the result of many years of players like myself trying to fill those gaps with house-rules. I remember the first thing I thought about 3e when it came out was, "OMG! Those are my house-rules!" I often went to (2e) games with new people and half the first session would agreeing on house-rules and remarkably, despite the internet being far less ubiquitous back then, people often had very similar ideas on how to 'fix' things.

But IMO, 3e went in one direction without taking into account the other direction. And I see 4e as having see-sawed back towards that direction by trying to strike a balance between narration and rules. And in many ways, I followed the same path that led me to dislike 3e and crave what I felt I had lost in 2e.

No play-style is superior to another in an objective sense, but in a subjective sense, systems can fill a particular play-styles needs more effectively than another and so to me, 4e is the bees-knees, whilst to others its anathema.

I think people who argue the superiority of one system over another fail to see or recognise this.






*Sorry, lost who originally said it and am too lazy to scroll through the thread to re-attribute

 

[Rechan]

No Snark, Boojum or Bandersnatch -- just perplexity!

Was Nightson pulling my leg?

No, you're just taking him too literally.

If you confront something 5 levels under you, it's not even a challenge, combat is a pointless exercise. 5 levels under you can't hit your defenses, or damage you in any significant way.

If you confront something 5 levels above you, it's so much of a challenge combat a pointless exercise. 5 levels above you, you can't hit their defenses or damage them in any significant way.

So there would be no reason for 9th level characters to encounter 2nd level kobolds, because they are mechanically not on the same plane. A DM wouldn't put them in the same room as a 9th level character. If the PCs do run across them, then they're going to be minions, they're going to be set dressing, and not meant to really be fought, because the 9th level PCs so far outclass them that it'd be like roleplaying doing laundry: a waste of time and effort in counting HP and rolling damage.

If the point is to emulate "You destroy them without any real effort or threat to you", you can do that in a narrative fashion; you don't need to actually roll for that. If the point is to emulate "you're cutting a swath through an army, but it's still dangerous", then you use minions of a reasonable level to the party.

 

[Jack99]

But they're only like this in 4e. My point was after playing previous editions, in my player's opinion, it in no way felt heroic to struggle in a battle with kobolds or goblins. Now whether you like the new feel of these monsters or not is subjective but it is certainly a difference brought on by hit point escalation of both PC's and monsters.

IMO, it's not heroic to be slaughtered by the scrubs of the monster world... but that's just me.

See below

A level 2 kobold? With 36 hit points?

Level 9 daily Thicket of Blades is close burst 1, for 3[W]+Strength modifier. Let's say (3x8) =24, +4 for strength and +2 for magic = 30. Not a kill yet, even with maximum damage -- unless it's a critical hit and the bonus roll for a "high critical" weapon and/or magic is enough.

In the old days, a 9th-level fighter could on average fell a kobold chieftain and his two bodyguards -- and a normal kobold or two -- in a single round. The rank and file would have been cut down at a rate of five or six per round.

And that's without a bonus for strength or any magic. Number Appearing: 40-400? No, that does not mean our man is likely to be tied down for forty minutes or so. Even if their morale does not break after the first round, he probably won't have to slaughter more than 50 or 60 to send the rest packing.

Except that in the previous edition, an kobold encountered after level 3 seemed to be a bar8/rang3/scout3 - which weren't that easy to kill, iirc. Unless you were a spellcaster of course, but that is a totally different matter, of course.

But it has Megan Fox.

FIFY - just because I am drunk and hot chicks are pretty much all that is on my mind. And she is just... yummy

 

[Jack99]

No, you're just taking him too literally.

If you confront something 5 levels under you, it's not even a challenge, combat is a pointless exercise. 5 levels under you can't hit your defenses, or damage you in any significant way.

If you confront something 5 levels above you, it's so much of a challenge icombat a pointless exercise. 5 levels above you, you can't hit their defenses or damage them in any significant way.

So there would be no reason for 9th level characters to encounter 2nd level kobolds, because they are mechanically not on the same plane. A DM wouldn't put them in the same room as a 9th level character. If the PCs do run across them, then they're going to be minions, they're going to be set dressing, and not meant to really be fought, because the 9th level PCs so far outclass them that it'd be like roleplaying doing laundry: a waste of time and effort in counting HP and rolling damage.

Actually, the point is, if a level 9 character runs into kobolds in 4e, they are most likely level 9 minions, so they die in just one hit, as they did back in the good old days, of 1e and 2e.

 

[Rechan]

Actually, the point is, if a level 9 character runs into kobolds in 4e, they are most likely level 9 minions, so they die in just one hit, as they did back in the good old days, of 1e and 2e.

That too.

 

[Ariosto]

If you confront something 5 levels under you, it's not even a challenge, it is a pointless exercise. 5 levels under you can't hit your defenses, or damage you in any significant way.

So why make it take so long to dispose of such a wretch? I understand that there may be a different power curve when characters are expected to get at as high as 30th level. However even a 6th-level fighter in AD&D can put down about three kobolds per round. It's a bit unsettling that a 9th-level DAILY in 4E might average less than it takes to fell even a Kobold Slinger.

 

[Ariosto]

Except that in the previous edition ...

The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!