Why I'm done with 4e

[ProfessorCirno]

I think one of the issues with fighters punching their way through walls is less an issue with hardness and mass and whatnot and more a problem with post 2e stat generation and accumulation.

Pre-3e, stats were static. What you started out with was what you had, unless you found items or tomes to raise it. As such, having 18/00 strength was a huge deal and made you the literal peak of physical power. Anything above 18/00 was quite simply inhuman - literally, in that no human being could naturally reach it. A Belt of Hill Giant's Strength gave you the strength of a hill giant. Furthermore odd numbers in stats still had an effect. You weren't limited to just sighing in frustration at your 17, knowing that it was useless until you patched it up.

Post-2e, stats were not static. Every x levels you raised your stats. This had a major change in things. There weren't belts of ____ giant's strength anymore, because by level 8 you'd have 20 strength already - instead, they were commonly just "belts of +2 strength." You also saw stats all become heavily rounded into even numbers only.

What's the big issue here? Simple - having 18 strength was no longer a big deal. It was expected in many cases. Having more then 18 strength also wasn't a big deal. Taking a pick and slamming it into a wall hard enough to break through when you had the strength of a giant is awesome and fits the genre. Having some bloke who just leveled up a few times do it is dumb and :| worthy. Even though the statistics are the same. It comes down not to the mechanics behind it, but the flavor and the feel. When the statistics are stripped away from the feel and just become numbers, they become boring.

Unless you're a math nerd like me. Then numbers are kicking rad. But I still prefer them with fluff ;p

 

[ferratus]

I rather wish stats didn't go up as levels do. I don't really understand why they do in 3e and 4e in fact, given that they have bonuses to attacks and/or defenses based on level anyway. The bonus to stats just seems rather redundant unless you want to say that people do become stronger or smarter as they go up in levels.

The problem with that of course is that it leads to every fighter being the strongest man who ever lived, or every wizard PC being the smartest. You don't dare put your ability score increases in other stats, because the system provides very little reward for it.

I wouldn't mind it so much if high stats open up new feats, or particular fighting styles, or particular magical techniques. However, when your ability scores determine how often you hit, or how effective your spells are, you can't deviate from putting all your boosts into your primary score.

So I'd rather have a straight attack score, and leave the 6 ability scores to determine character details rather than character effectiveness.

 

[billd91]

I rather wish stats didn't go up as levels do. I don't really understand why they do in 3e and 4e in fact, given that they have bonuses to attacks and/or defenses based on level anyway. The bonus to stats just seems rather redundant unless you want to say that people do become stronger or smarter as they go up in levels.

The problem with that of course is that it leads to every fighter being the strongest man who ever lived, or every wizard PC being the smartest. You don't dare put your ability score increases in other stats, because the system provides very little reward for it.

Why improve stats? It's another way for a character to improve that each player can decide for themselves. Plus, it means you no longer need to have absolutely top-notch stats in everything you want, you can improve them a little to get that little extra mojo.

I disagree that you only get benefits from improving your prime stats. I think that's a very unfortunate optimization mentality, geared just around offense, to box yourself into. 3e has plenty of reasons to increase more than just your main offensive attribute. Con nets more hp and Fort. Wisdom nets more Will. Dex better initiative and Ref. Intelligence more skills. Strength more bonuses to melee combat. Charisma - well, that one may depend on the class you've got. Most of these stats are useful to improve for most characters if you perceive a deficiency in your stats.

I can accept that focusing on offense if a useful strategy, but I think monomaniacal focus on this strategy is also what leads players to complain about balance issues, particularly when they suddenly find their defenses can't keep up with the offensive arms race.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But you've got admit that much of that depends greatly on the style, tone, setting and genre of the game you're playing.

Punching through a stone wall, for example, is arguably more appropriate in Mutants & Masterminds than it would be in most D&D games, and generally more appropriate in any given D&D game than it would be in, say, Spycraft.

Yeah, I'll agree that it has to do with the style (mythic, Heracles-and-Samson style fantasy, or more low-key, perhaps Tolkeinesque fantasy).

But the bottom line here is that adamantium spoons or punching through brick walls or not finding a way to escape the prison cell basically boil down to something that becomes irrelevant at the table if the DM is doing his job right and giving the players a way to accomplish their characters' goals. Nothing like this is a problem (they're all ways to overcome the challenge).

 

[LostSoul]

One idea that's floating around in my head is that, in Epic level 4E, PCs might be able to talk a wall into opening up for them. At Paragon levels they might be able to talk with it and ask it what it's seen.

I need to do more work on the campaign setting first, though. I think PCs might have to speak in Supernal to do it.

 

[wingsandsword]

I rather wish stats didn't go up as levels do. I don't really understand why they do in 3e and 4e in fact, given that they have bonuses to attacks and/or defenses based on level anyway. The bonus to stats just seems rather redundant unless you want to say that people do become stronger or smarter as they go up in levels.

The problem with that of course is that it leads to every fighter being the strongest man who ever lived, or every wizard PC being the smartest. You don't dare put your ability score increases in other stats, because the system provides very little reward for it.

I wouldn't mind it so much if high stats open up new feats, or particular fighting styles, or particular magical techniques. However, when your ability scores determine how often you hit, or how effective your spells are, you can't deviate from putting all your boosts into your primary score.

So I'd rather have a straight attack score, and leave the 6 ability scores to determine character details rather than character effectiveness.

Realize, that in 3.x at least, ability scores in the 19 to 22 range were humanly possible by "mere mortals" (non-epic beings). The lifting/carrying tables for STR show that 22 and 23 STR would be equivalent to world-record level strength, and 20 or 21 would be world-class strength that would be a professional bodybuilder or Olympic athlete. The old 2e to 3e conversion book made each 18/XX category equivalent to 1 number above 18, so a 2e 18/22 STR would be converted to a 19.

Also, with the 3e spellcasting system, you can cast spell levels equal to your casting stat minus 10, so you need a 19 INT for a Wizard to cast 9th level spells, and at least it makes sense to say that you have to be particularly bright to cast a Wish, while any average person could learn a cantrip or Magic Missile, and a mediocre mind could never cast mighty magic no matter how much training (i.e. levels). To have that without stat-boosting items, you'll have to raise your ability scores at some point. One thing I hated about 2e was being stuck with mediocre stats because you had a weak roll starting out. In 3.x, as long as you start with at least a 15, a primary spellcaster will never be unable to cast even without stat-boosting items or Wishes, but if you don't have that much you can still be a dabbler and take a few levels and not have problems.

Why should a 1st level fighter be just as good if he has an 11 STR as an 18 and how strong he is should be "flavor text"? Why should a 1st level Wizard be just as good of a spellcaster if he has a 11 INT and is about to flunk out of Wizard school as an 18 and is a prodigy? He shouldn't, raw talent counts for a lot, and that's what the ability scores represent. Bonuses for ability scores are the "talent" part of a characters saves, attacks, skills ect, while their BAB and skill ranks ect. are the "practice and training" part of the equation. It's that way to make characters less cookie-cutter and more customizable, because that's a very good thing.

 

[amerigoV]

Wow, this thread is so off course. Arguing over digging through steel doors with adamantine spoons.... No wonder the OP is giving up on 4e...

 

[Psion]

Most people who compare both games seem to be people who has no much Wow experience...

My observations are contrary to this.

 

[Psion]

There seem to be a lot of people here who tried 4E, found out it's not theirs but also couldn't return to 3E since they suddenly felt that system's flaws were too obvious to return.

If you find yourself in this situation, and you don't think PF will fix your issues with D&D, you might consider Fantasy Craft:

http://www.crafty-games.com/node/348

It's not exactly D&D, but maybe if you fit in the above category, you might need something that isn't exactly D&D.

 

[Maggan]

Wow, this thread is so off course. Arguing over digging through steel doors with adamantine spoons.... No wonder the OP is giving up on 4e...

Erm ... the adamantine spoons were a problem with 3e ... wasn't it?

/M