I can adapt to new rules, although I don't like the apparent loss of the Sun Elf. Forgive me if I'm wrong about that, I haven't bought the rule set, I just look up as much information as I can on the internet and as I said, my friends don't like d&d.
As for the information I found, I like the skill set change. I remember playing the crpgs, which I know is not the same, and needing a high taunt skill. Being a wizard, I was working on things like spellcraft, needing a conversation skill, I chose diplomacy, (again, it was a crpg, so some skills may have been combined or renamed), so I could not pass the test. The new system seems to be better that way. If you need to use a skill that you usually do not use, it comes in handy. A fixed hit point increase makes sense instead of a die roll as well, in crpgs like Neverwinter Nights they did away with that and just gave the maximum amount anyways. They figured out that people just cancel the levelling process to force a new die roll so why bother.
I can try to adapt to the new classes and races, like anyone else. Although I do not understand much of a difference between a striker or a commander or a defender. I get the feeling it does not matter much. A wizard is still a wizard.
What I do take objection with was the destruction of several famous npcs and interesting locations. Neverwinter for instance was destroyed, so I read. Which will probably have no or little affect on Neverwinter Nights 3. They are not giving up millions of dollars of profits on that technicality. Moreover, I loved mystra, for those of you who played the crpg Mask of The Betrayer you know you get to actually meet a god. Being a wizard, she was by far my favorite deity. I was hoping to play a game that would take me to her realm.
I can accept rules changes, for me a lot of the forgotten realms is the setting it takes place in. For me, more classes = more variety = more fun. But I also accept that too much complexity = bad thing.
But what I personally dislike, is the death of Mystra. In the Time Of Troubles, Mystra was replaced by Midnight. I can accept that, but no goddess of magic is something I cannot accept. Or that her mantle is absorbed by another, to me, she is the greatest deity, as essential to d&d as Lord Ao himself. I also dislike a lot of the destruction, like Neverwinter and other cities. Some smaller cities, or remote regions, or the loss of the smaller deities I can accept. But prominent areas and important figures are too much for me. I also read that there are new elves coming from another dimension to replace the magically endowed sun elf, that is another thing I cannot understand. I never heard of this place before. I expected changes, big changes, but it seems to me like they are changing too much.
I guess I was expecting the loss of some smaller classes or lesser deities. Loviatar for instance, or perhaps the barbarian or half orc. I know people may be fans of each, but lets face it, a barbarian, for all his abilities, is still a lot like a fighter. He is not a unique class, like a cleric or wizard. From a roleplaying perspective, he is, but take out the wizard class and you changed d&d a hell of a lot. (I consider the loss of Mystra almost as pivotal) Loviatar is a nice god, a god of the morning I believe, but not as important as say the goddess of all magic, likewise the half orc is not as essential as the dwarf.I heard the half-orc is gone, it makes little sense to me that a whole race of beings is extinguished, but I never liked them anyway.
I personally hope that there will be 4.5 coming out soon, like what happened when version 3 was released. That will see the re-emergance of a new Mystra, and maybe some of the more traditional races and classes come back.
I know that a lot of complaints may be based on some misconceptions. I have never found a lore behind the 4th edition on the net, not a full one anyways. And as my friends do not like d&d I found little uses for buying the books other than as stories to read. So if anyone wants to point out the flaws in my arguments, please feel free. But the snippets I read about the disappearance of races and gods, the destruction of key places, and the emergence of new and weird elf race makes me skeptical of a game that I was hoping to get in to more.
I like 3.5 and there are things 4.0 that I like. The death of Mystra is not one of them, but the skills and hit points are. I just hope they can combine them a bit better in a 4.5 in the future. Fix some problems in 4.0 that I heard complaints about but still keep the good things.
I also read that 4.0 is based somehwat on MMORPGs. If anyone in the company is listening, outsorce a software team and create a d&d mmorpg, I think one exists but not owned and operated by WOTC, if that is what you want. The MMORPG and the D&D fan base are pretty much mutually exlusive. D&D is about playing a character and developing the character as he goes through a series of stories or adventures, with decent abilties and magics to make the character interesting. MMORPGS are about slash and hack action with explosive combats with little if any regard for character creation. MMORPG fans will never like D&D no matter what you do, so do not bother trying.
Eladrin are close cousins to the elves and are occasionally called high elves or gray elves.
... and these are essentially synonyms for sun elves. The latter word was coined especially for the Realms. The FRPG goes into more detail, saying that the Eladrin's two major "subraces" are called moon/silver elves and sun/gold elves in the Realms - just like it always was. They only put the eladrin / elf distinction ahead of that.
They left quite a lot of the Swordcoast untouched and destroying Neverwinter seemed almost completely arbitrary.
NWN3 could be in Waterdeep too, that could be better, biggest city in Faerun. I beleive.
How has 4.0 been recieved, I've read that for the most part it was not received well. There were things people liked about it, but for the most part they disliked it as a whole. If that's true, we could probably see a 4.5 coming out, that might bring some things back.
I like being a wizard, and I am dubious about how no weave and no mystra could affect my char. Of course, as long as my char from 3.5 keeps worshipping her, she can't die, unless that changed too.
The biggest city in Faerun now is probably Baldurs Gate, which picked up tons of refugees and has massively expanded after the events of the spellplague.
How has 4.0 been recieved, I've read that for the most part it was not received well. There were things people liked about it, but for the most part they disliked it as a whole.
It's generally very mixed. Some people hate it and some people like the new changes. The original books can still be found if you want them.
I like being a wizard, and I am dubious about how no weave and no mystra could affect my char.
It doesn't really, except the way magic works in 4th edition is different and the timeline has been advanced 100 years. Not many people are worried about Mystra anymore, especially with the fact the likes of the Netherese and Cthulhus flying obelisk of doom (well ok, that's just how I see it) running about. People can still cast magic and enchant items, it's just the processes to do these things is different.
keeps worshipping her, she can't die, unless that changed too.
Gods can actually be killed, lack of belief is one way that a God can lose power but also being slain is possible as well.
Before you studied a spell, rested, then cast it. With up to 7 or 8 spell slots depending on various factors. Except a sorcerer who casts magic without the studying part. As for enchantments, I figure they work way differently than the crpgs so I'm not touching them.
100 years huh? My sun elf was a wee lass of merely 20 or 30, growing up in a human village she left for life earlier than usual.(She was orphaned, and adapted as a babe) She could still be around. . .
BTW what happened to the Wall of the Faithless?
You get at-will powers (Magic Missile to your hearts content for 2d4 damage each! It just isn't an auto hit anymore)
encounter powers(basically, only once per fight)
daily powers( once per day)
I'm personally a huge fan of 4e and highly recommend it
I am new to Dungeons and Dragons. The first time I ever tried it was in a crpg in the late 80s.
Heh, you aren't as new as some people here.
What I do take objection with was the destruction of several famous npcs and interesting locations.
You certainly aren't alone in that.
I can accept that, but no goddess of magic is something I cannot accept. Or that her mantle is absorbed by another, to me, she is the greatest deity, as essential to d&d as Lord Ao himself.
I wouldn't say that Mystra is essential to D&D, but I consider her essential to the Realms setting.
I also read that there are new elves coming from another dimension to replace the magically endowed sun elf, that is another thing I cannot understand.
The sun elf isn't being replaced, it's just under a different name.
I know people may be fans of each, but lets face it, a barbarian, for all his abilities, is still a lot like a fighter. He is not a unique class, like a cleric or wizard.
Well, clerics and wizards can be culled together into a generic class called "spellcaster"--when you get right down to it, most classes are at least a bit specialized.
Loviatar is a nice god, a god of the morning I believe...
She is the goddess of pain, and she's not nice by any measure of the word.
I personally hope that there will be 4.5 coming out soon, like what happened when version 3 was released. That will see the re-emergance of a new Mystra...
That's possible, but not likely, since the designers saw Mystra as a problem (in terms of attracting players to the setting).
From what I read, the powers can be used a few times a day, or unlimited depending on the type of power. But it looks like the magic system is very very different, and far less complex. Which, when it comes down to it, is less variety, and that to me is a bad thing.
I mean, how can you justify a level 9 wizard, who is adept at casting missile several times, be able to cast cacophinc burst, a spell they just got experienced enough to learn, just as often?
I wish I could think of a few other things, like maybe the whirlwind attack feat, is that now a power too? That changes the feat system and the power system.
It seems they dumbed the down whole thing. That is bad. As I said earlier, I approve of skills and hit points, I think changing that is good, but it is this sort of thing that concerns me.
Getting a new market is a good thing sometimes, but can backfire. For those of you who know something about classic computer games, maybe you'll know these examples. Ultima 8, King's Quest 8, Dreamfall.
Ultima 8, the second last in 14 game series (including spinoffs) that lasted 20 years (79-99). . In Ultima 8, they took away the party system that was in the games for a while, they replaced the slower combat styles with arcade action, and the npcs were few and very shallow. Apparently they were trying to get the arcade fans interested in the series, branching out to get new players. What happened? No new players came, the core community was ****** off big time, and in Ultima 9, (if it weren't for EAs time restraints) they would have corrected all of these. U8 was a flop. For those interested, EA said finish Ultima 9 in 3 months or its cancelled when it was two years away from completion. So they finished it, rushed it out, and the game suffered horribily.
King's Quest was a well established family adventure game that actively despised violence and punished players for taking violent actions. In KQ8, they dumped all the main characters, brought in a nobody you never heard of and the gameplay was pure hack and slash. The puzzles were almost non existant, and almost every creature you come across you're expected to kill. How was it recieved? Fans of the series consider it non canon, it doesn't exist, it was never made. They also never made a KQ9.
And Dreamfall, the sequel to The Longest Journey. Let's say they made an x-box sequel to a pc adventure game. The interface was horrid, designed for the x-box and has little mouse support. It also incorporated numerous arcade sequences that had nothing at all to do with the plot. Fortunately, the arcade sequences were add ons, they were not part of the core game, just extras. As a result people were forgiving and it was well received although the arcade sequences were not. The game sold fairly well, and they are making a 3rd. But that was because at it's core, underneath those differences, it still had a great story and compelling characters.
My point is, that when companies try to find a new audience, they usually fail. When you make too big a change, too big a difference, you **** off the core community. The newbies might get attracted in time, and they might like it more, but its the already established fan base that pays the bills.
4.0 looks like it might be one of those. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't try to get new fans. I'm saying if you change things too much, like taking a well established adventure game like King's Quest and make it into an arcade game, you're asking for trouble. They should make smaller changes, and do it in increments. That way people who like the 3.5 system won't be upset with too many changes.
That's the way I'm seeing it anyways.
Err, I didn't think what was a bad word, sorry. . .
I would suggest taking a browse at the player's handbook so you can get a better feel for the new magic system as it is an entirely new system. In fact, you'll learn that any class can now use magical rituals (such as raise dead) with the right feats. Wizards are not the same as they were.
Spells as they were no longer exist. They are grouped as encounter powers (non memorized and recharge), daily, and utility (the closest things to traditional spells as you can choose them). However, choice is fairly much gone as you can only learn an extremely finite amount of spells. While you can "retrain" them as you level, you lose lower level spells and replace them with higher ones. So, to provide an example: You find a horde of spellbooks. In 4e you can't ever learn 99.9% of the combat or defensive spells. Only rituals can be learned (to an unlimited amount).
There are no instant death spells anymore. Wizards were deemed to be too powerful and needed to be more in line with other classes. Also of note for you is that Wizards are controllers not the ones dealing the most damage anymore. Schools of magic have also been removed as have all metamagic (though circle magic exists).
In terms of Mystra, while in 3.5 her death would have resulted in the negatation of all magic, 4e does not explain why this is not the case. Instead, users of magic have learned new ways to cast spells in the absense of the Weave. Also, ALL users of magic drew upon the Weave. Every ancient kingdom from Netheril to the Progentor races used Weave-based magic. Magic in 4e is weaker and more rudimentary.
Last, in terms of resurrecting a deity this is still an option. So, if you choose you could certainly return her to your game. However, as it stands the designers have created their own new lore counter to the old which now favors no deity of magic existing.
Cheers!
So I hope people get outraged. . . . .
So unless the designers choose to reverse this decision, based on I would imagine, the outrage of the community over the new magic system, I'm screwed.
So I hope people get outraged. . . . .
Where have you been these last few months? While I really hope the New Realms will get out of childbed well enough - if only for its continuous existence as a setting - I have my doubt that it will be an easy process.
Just noted that my question to KainHighwind got chopped
So unless the designers choose to reverse this decision, based on I would imagine, the outrage of the community over the new magic system, I'm screwed.
So I hope people get outraged. . . . .
I'm not really sure if your issue with magic is with Forgotten Realms or 4th Edition D&D. Forgotten Realms using the magic of previous editions after the release of 4th Edition D&D was never an option on any level.
Its my belief that the designers knew the outrage they were creating by changing the Realms, and as such are committed to the change and have no intention of going back, regardless of internet chatter. That being said, I prefer the changes. I didn't really care for the Forgotten Realms as the previously existed, and I really like how things are now.
So unless the designers choose to reverse this decision, based on I would imagine, the outrage of the community over the new magic system, I'm screwed.
No, because you can still use the setting however you want.
So I hope people get outraged. . . . .
People were outraged. However, it's mostly died down now. People have excepted reality and know that they don't have to use the changes if they don't want to.
And I know, I can use 3.5 ed. And several others always will, unless they make a new rule set that will change their minds. But as a fan of crpgs too, well, lets just say that if I played Neverwinter Nights 3, and they used 4.0, I can't use 3.5 now can I?
I know 4e has its good, points, fixed hit dice, the skill points. The ability for any class to cast ritual magic is alright. But in my mind at least, the way the game has changed with controller classes etc. and a weaker magic system. . . .
I like wizards, and their powers, they had power, if they kept a distance. For people who like other classes I guess 4e is okay, but since I play wizard almost exclusively, (with different prestige classes) it seems more like a nightmare. All my power is gone.
I guess I'd like to keep, some of the magical feats and complexity of 3.5, but keep some of the hit points skills, races classes of 4.0. You know, the best of both. I know it's unrealistic, it's just what I'd like.
With my job and my kids I do not have lots of time to spend crunching numbers, and I am not a numbers nerd so I was spending lots of time making up encounters.
I like that the gamebreaking spells are gone as well and that casters and melee are now equals in this game. I played a wizard for the first time ever in 4E and liked it. I chose it because it wasn't the most overpowered classes like it was in 3E. Since you can hit your own players with all those terrain and AOE attacks it made me think tactically.
I also am fine with the FR changes since if I do not like something I can always alter it as I have always done before.
Those are my opinions of a longtime FR fan and a gamer of about 10 years. I am not saying you are wrong or whatever, just voiceing a reason as to why I prefer the new stuff to the old stuff. :D
My problem with magic in 4e is that the wizard class has been almost destroyed. I like the 3.5e, or the spells at least, if the class was too powerful change the spells and feats. But now, as a controller class, the wizards role has changed. Where once they were capable warriors and fighters in there own way, now they are next to useless. I know they are not completely usless, but they can't perform the same roll as a 3.5 ed wizard, their magic is weaker, and with no metamagic feats it makes them weaker yet. With still spell for instance, they could wear armor giving them some tank abilities. Moerover someone said that 99% of all spells can't be used, that a wizard has become like a sorcerer, forced to sacrifice some spells to gain others.
And I know, I can use 3.5 ed. And several others always will, unless they make a new rule set that will change their minds. But as a fan of crpgs too, well, lets just say that if I played Neverwinter Nights 3, and they used 4.0, I can't use 3.5 now can I?
I know 4e has its good, points, fixed hit dice, the skill points. The ability for any class to cast ritual magic is alright. But in my mind at least, the way the game has changed with controller classes etc. and a weaker magic system. . . .
I like wizards, and their powers, they had power, if they kept a distance. For people who like other classes I guess 4e is okay, but since I play wizard almost exclusively, (with different prestige classes) it seems more like a nightmare. All my power is gone.
I guess I'd like to keep, some of the magical feats and complexity of 3.5, but keep some of the hit points skills, races classes of 4.0. You know, the best of both. I know it's unrealistic, it's just what I'd like.
-If something changes, it's obviously going to be different. That's kind of the definition of change. If you want a 3e-type magician, there are a few homebrew systems I've seen that emulate it using 4e rules, if you go look in the general section.
My problem with magic in 4e is that the wizard class has been almost destroyed. I like the 3.5e, or the spells at least, if the class was too powerful change the spells and feats. But now, as a controller class, the wizards role has changed. Where once they were capable warriors and fighters in there own way, now they are next to useless. I know they are not completely usless, but they can't perform the same roll as a 3.5 ed wizard, their magic is weaker, and with no metamagic feats it makes them weaker yet. With still spell for instance, they could wear armor giving them some tank abilities. Moerover someone said that 99% of all spells can't be used, that a wizard has become like a sorcerer, forced to sacrifice some spells to gain others.
And I know, I can use 3.5 ed. And several others always will, unless they make a new rule set that will change their minds. But as a fan of crpgs too, well, lets just say that if I played Neverwinter Nights 3, and they used 4.0, I can't use 3.5 now can I?
I know 4e has its good, points, fixed hit dice, the skill points. The ability for any class to cast ritual magic is alright. But in my mind at least, the way the game has changed with controller classes etc. and a weaker magic system. . . .
I like wizards, and their powers, they had power, if they kept a distance. For people who like other classes I guess 4e is okay, but since I play wizard almost exclusively, (with different prestige classes) it seems more like a nightmare. All my power is gone.
I guess I'd like to keep, some of the magical feats and complexity of 3.5, but keep some of the hit points skills, races classes of 4.0. You know, the best of both. I know it's unrealistic, it's just what I'd like.
One thing that WotC have tried to address with 4e is that the wizard, and other classes like the druid and cleric, were capable of doing so many different things. In many ways, characters of other classes were superfluous at high level. By reducing the ability of some classes to do anything (with the proper preparation) they've increased the options available to players by making other classes more useful. Yes, if you play a wizard nearly all the time in 3.x it was great because you had more power than at least the non-spellcasters, and 4e takes that from you. I played wizards most of the time myself and I'm actually glad about it, because it's no longer about me and my lackies at high level and the people who can do important stuff and the crossbowman who can end one encounter/day as well at low level.
I may be a little sour on 3.5 at the moment though. My group just finished the Savage Tide adventure path from Paizo, where the climactic battle pits the PCs against Demogorgon. That should have been, or at least I'd like it to have been, an epic battle that we'd remember for ages. Instead, my wizard went second in the initiative order and it became effectively an execution (Quickened Assay Spell Resistance, Extended Otto's Irresistible Dance were the two spells I bothered to cast). This was unsatisfying for everyone.
I may be a little sour on 3.5 at the moment though. My group just finished the Savage Tide adventure path from Paizo, where the climactic battle pits the PCs against Demogorgon. That should have been, or at least I'd like it to have been, an epic battle that we'd remember for ages. Instead, my wizard went second in the initiative order and it became effectively an execution (Quickened Assay Spell Resistance, Extended Otto's Irresistible Dance were the two spells I bothered to cast). This was unsatisfying for everyone.
You mean, now 4 players can bash Demogorgon to pulp in 4 rounds, all getting one or two hits each? That ain't very epic either.
Obviously, as has always been the case in this game, DMs have a task to control things (like using a screen and saying: Demogorgon comes first, full stop). They determine what the players get (spells (mages), feats, weaponry, equipment et al) and also how this is going to challenge an opponent. If e.g. a wizard is purpose-built for slaying SR things and the like, he's going to have a lean time in such fights. I would assume your DM knew what your character was able to do against the likes of Demogorgon?
Anyway ... all my D&D life it worked that the fighter types were the meat shields of the weakish mages et al during the first levels of their adventurers' lives. That tide turned later on when the spellcasters grew in power. It did not make any of the others less usefull ... unless it came to large scale battles where the spellslingers could aim and hit easily. Firestorm here, Maximized Fireball there, you know it all. For some reason though, the fighter-type and even the rogue-type players usually don't like that though, as they always want to stay damage-output wonders. Hence, IMHO, they called up loudest for a change in power and now all the spellslingers of old are being curbed in spell-power and selection by ridiculous margins and one wonders why they actually cared to name this stuff "spells". Funnily enough ... hardly anything that goes by the name "spell" these days is not something that can be used for anything but combat, no matter whether it is called attack or utility or whatnot.
Just my 2 cents.
I am a fan of the FR world since 87. I started truely playing D&D in 2000 with 3E. I like 4E. What you call complexity I call a nusance. I am currently DMing a 4E game and am much happier than I was when I was running a 3E game.
With my job and my kids I do not have lots of time to spend crunching numbers, and I am not a numbers nerd so I was spending lots of time making up encounters.
I like that the gamebreaking spells are gone as well and that casters and melee are now equals in this game. I played a wizard for the first time ever in 4E and liked it. I chose it because it wasn't the most overpowered classes like it was in 3E. Since you can hit your own players with all those terrain and AOE attacks it made me think tactically.
I accept that argument. 3.5 was too much in complexity. For a crpg it was better, the computer does the work. And I accept that the complexity of the game was a downfall as well as blessing. It gave you the option to do more, be more, at the cost of having to keep track of too much. It was up to the particular game which one won out.
As for the spells, as dm, you just don't allow Wail of The Banshee. Which, can take out a small army, including your own guys if they are caught in the blast. That's easy enough, or have a level cap that won't allow a wizard to get them. There are also magic items and spells that will help out with resistance, it's the matter of the dm compensating, if you think there may be a problem. So the powerful spells, to me, aren't an issue. (Dm is generous with rings of fortitude +5 to help win the saving throw)
My argument is that I can accept if 3.5 is too complex and the number crunching a bit too much. The skill set is easier, and I approve of no hit die, just a fixed amount. However, I believe that 4.0 goes too far in the other direction. Too simplistic, the spells too weak. There should have been a middle ground between them. That's my argument.
My argument is that I can accept if 3.5 is too complex and the number crunching a bit too much. The skill set is easier, and I approve of no hit die, just a fixed amount. However, I believe that 4.0 goes too far in the other direction. Too simplistic, the spells too weak. There should have been a middle ground between them. That's my argument.
I got that feeling too when I tried out 4e. D&D for Dummies, more or less. Is it bad that me and my group had a hard time learning the rules, after playing previous editions of D&D for so long?
It wasn't really a matter of damage. For the most part, dealing damage was a waste of a Wizard's time. The problem with Wizards was that they could change the nature of the game. The imbalance was between one group who was limited to reality and the rules of the game while the other had the ability to rewrite reality and the rules of the game.
First, it is called "magic", and second, all spellcasters could do that and they are what, half of all the classes about? I don't think the rules of the game covered anything "better" (or rather more) than magic, as it is an integral part of this fantasy setting. If players want to play non-magic characters, they should accept (preferably from the beginning) that their strength lie somewhere else. The magic-users should learn that they are playing in a group of people, not on their own. And at the end of 3,xE there was a number of classes who meshed mundane and magical classes for those who wanted both ... for a price. Warmage, duskblade, hexblade, dread necromancer, you name them. The core rules, IMHO, provide classes for "beginners", easy to use and all (in essence, most warrior-types, the sorcerer, and the cleric), as well as some advanced ones (druid, ranger, rogue) for players with greater experience. IMHO it is the job of the DM to rear his/her players to form a group of characters that work along with one another throughout the campaign (level 1 to 19), not in competition with one another.
You mean, now 4 players can bash Demogorgon to pulp in 4 rounds, all getting one or two hits each? That ain't very epic either.
That's exactly what happened. Honestly, we'd been playing this campaign for a bit over a year every other week, and this last climactic fight against the bad guy was turned into an execution. I don't think anyone was happy, not even me.
Obviously, as has always been the case in this game, DMs have a task to control things (like using a screen and saying: Demogorgon comes first, full stop). They determine what the players get (spells (mages), feats, weaponry, equipment et al) and also how this is going to challenge an opponent. If e.g. a wizard is purpose-built for slaying SR things and the like, he's going to have a lean time in such fights. I would assume your DM knew what your character was able to do against the likes of Demogorgon?
I don't think there was much that the DM could do without making it quite plain he'd set up expresslessly to make my PC useless. Firstly, we really don't like rolling dice behind the screen unless it's for something that the players wouldn't know about. So the DM rolled out in the open as usual. As for determining what players get, I believe my PC had perhaps three spells that don't appear in the core rules, and one item that appeared in the adventure and wasn't core rules. The DM knew what I could do well enough, but for the last seven or eight levels we'd been adventuring mostly against creatures with SR and I'd made a wizard who was good at getting through it - Diviner 8/Loremaster 10/Archmage 5, 25 caster levels thanks to spell power and an Orange Ioun Stone, all the Spell Penetration feats, so +33 to penetrate SR without the quickened ASR. Mind Blank would have stopped me, but that wasn't on the Big D's stat block - although we had it up, making his madness gaze useless. And a 20 on my initiative roll helped.
Anyway ... all my D&D life it worked that the fighter types were the meat shields of the weakish mages et al during the first levels of their adventurers' lives. That tide turned later on when the spellcasters grew in power. It did not make any of the others less usefull ... unless it came to large scale battles where the spellslingers could aim and hit easily. Firestorm here, Maximized Fireball there, you know it all. For some reason though, the fighter-type and even the rogue-type players usually don't like that though, as they always want to stay damage-output wonders. Hence, IMHO, they called up loudest for a change in power and now all the spellslingers of old are being curbed in spell-power and selection by ridiculous margins and one wonders why they actually cared to name this stuff "spells". Funnily enough ... hardly anything that goes by the name "spell" these days is not something that can be used for anything but combat, no matter whether it is called attack or utility or whatnot.
It wasn't a spell that did damage that won the fight with Demogorgon.
I also feel that the balance for a wizard consisted of being occasionally awesome and mostly useless at low levels and full-time awesome at high levels. Which is fine, Which is fine if that's what you want, but I'd like my wizards to be useful from the beginning without being owerpowered at the end. That's a balance I think 3.x failed to find.
You mean, now 4 players can bash Demogorgon to pulp in 4 rounds, all getting one or two hits each? That ain't very epic either.
Could you explain how 4 PCs could do sufficient damage to Demogorgon, who at minimum will be level 33 (probably a solo) in 4 rounds please? Post supporting maths and characters please, noting that you have 20 actions to do this in. That's eight in the first round (action point + standard attack) and four per round (standard actions) for the next 3 rounds. I'm genuinely curious as to what party strips through 1,500+ HP of monster in 4 rounds, or roughly 20 attacks going completely all out in the first round, hoping that they don't end up stunned, auraed to death or similar. Not to mention, has to survive said four rounds as well themselves.
You can use Orcus as a model if you want, as Demogorgon will most likely have similar stats (if he's a soldier it's even harder to hit him).
I've played a fair amount of 4th edition at high levels as tests and for fun, but I've never seen a group of SIX players strip through a large HP solo that fast (and they were well optimised). Especially when the solo was 4 levels higher than the party, meaning it had significantly enhanced defenses so not all of their attacks struck at all reliably.
So could you explain this? Be aware that blade cascade got completely nerfed and I've had more close encounters that were tense and exciting in 4th than I ever had in 3rd. This is with parties who are only in the heroic tier, previously a period in 3rd (roughly 1st-7thish level) where one hit sent a player looking for a new character sheet.
Obviously, as has always been the case in this game, DMs have a task to control things (like using a screen and saying: Demogorgon comes first, full stop).
Hey in 4th, I don't need to cheat at all. I roll my dice in the open, in front of my players. I've never felt the need to say "this creature goes first, otherwise it never gets a turn and dies first round, oh well" or other similar horrific DM related metagaming.
Perhaps you should think about your statement, because honestly I find this hilarious given your first statement. Demogorgon has to CHEAT on the DMs will to have ANY chance against mortals?
And this is a problem with the DM?
Really?
I mean, really? Like let's think about this for a moment. You're saying that Demogorgon, if he doesn't go first against a piddly mortal mage by DM fiat, is just going to instantly die in one round. This is the DMs fault? I didn't need to "cheat" at all with Orcus to make him an extraordinarily hard challenge for six 30th level PCs (actually, him and his undead cronies wiped the party, as I was going for an EL 34 encounter for six players so had some XP to use, but it was pretty close!). Blade cascade got nerfed (appropriately as well) and his high defenses ensure that he's not exactly easy to hit consistently.
If Demogorgon is a soldier (and I would guess that to be the case) he'll be even harder to kill in 4th than Orcus (because Soldiers have better defenses and attacks than a Brute, which is what Orcus is).
Hence, IMHO, they called up loudest for a change in power and now all the spellslingers of old are being curbed in spell-power and selection by ridiculous margins and one wonders why they actually cared to name this stuff "spells".
Boo-hoo. They no longer wipe the floor with everything while the rest of the party watches wondering why they aren't playing on the 360 or watching TV instead.
I have zero sympathy.
18DELTA :D
Could you explain how 4 PCs could do sufficient damage to Demogorgon, ...
No. Why? I do not play 25odd level 4E - people nor do some hypothetical games on rules just being published. Matter of factly, my PCs so far "only" managed 19th level in 3,xE and they had their up's and downs fair and square throughout the campaigns. The above sample was a veiled attempt showing that in 4E the battle may last a few rounds longers since all may have a chance to strike at Demogorgon so everyone can - at the end say - "I hit him". Wow. Not just one disintegrate or destruction or imprisonment et al and the arch fiend bites the dust. In essence, 4E boosted Demogorgon's stats out of proportion (making him "last longer") and curbing one of the most fantastic stuff ever created for the game, i.e. magic, to something petty (making the opponent last longer - for the benefit of whom?). Oh, you can still raise earth and hop about from here to there. But honestly, I cannot envisage any spellcaster who was reared in 3E - or AD&D for that matter - not going ballistic over the joke that is now called a "spell" list.
I have zero sympathy.
Fair enough. Am I right in assuming that you usually play fighter-types?
Bluenose ... your sample showed how 3,xE can uproot the idea of the game, if the correct things come together. "Slagging" it a 3,xE failure in general is a bit over the top. Optimized folk always rule the roost, have so and will do so in 4E too - once the lore is out. It could well be that my players tend to play "characters"* rather than purpose-build folk (which I do not imply to happen everywhere else) and thus no feat/spell/skill/damage wonders happen by and slay even the mightiest. In essence, Demogorgon got a very short straw here and on another day, on a rolled "1" (Fort save), your character might have fallen to a drow warrior's poisoned crossbow quarrel just as easily. Or your group's fighter score's a critical hit for 67 HP and Demogorgon get's a "1" on his Fort save vs massive damage.
One fine example for purpose-build folk could be the City of the Spider Queen campaign. Clerics or the like built for beating up undead will have an easy ride through it, but take that out and you will need all the chaps you have in the group to even get past the first few encounters. It is, of course, the job of the DM to make sure that once the PC start breezing through the campaign because of purpose-built folk, the opponents don't just line up for slaughter as described in the book. For that is not what the book intended, nor the rules.
It very much depends on the style of game and there are dozens of variants possible here - which should all be taken into consideration when it comes to evaluate the system. IMHO, magic plays a big part in AD&D and 3,xE - as it should be. No-one says that it is easy to handle or "balanced". Yet, as has been set before, 4E went over the top here. Unless you think that 4E wizards will be more useful from level 1 onwards till the end?
*That is, e.g. a middle-aged woman, aristocrat, who studied magic as a wizard, learned spontaneous magic too and will strife onwards as an Ultimate Magus (or the like). This takes time and her overall "power-level" will lack behind both the straight wizard and the straight sorcerer. But "power-level" was never on her mind when deciding on the character and how that lass is going to "work in the campaign".
No. Why?
Sorry, I just expect people to be able to actually back up their statements. Silly me.
I take it no such support will be forthcoming then?
The above sample was a veiled attempt showing that in 4E the battle may last a few rounds longers since all may have a chance to strike at Demogorgon so everyone can - at the end say - "I hit him".
It doesn't last just a few more rounds, high level combat in 4E has the problem (if anything) that the game lasts much longer. It can take a long time to get through an enemies defenses (especially a high level solo).
But again, why are you talking about something you admit you have zero idea how it plays?
In essence, 4E boosted Demogorgon's stats out of proportion (making him "last longer") and curbing one of the most fantastic stuff ever created for the game, i.e. magic, to something petty (making the opponent last longer - for the benefit of whom?).
This is laughable really. You think Demogorgon should fall to a single spell? Really? That doesn't seem like he is very powerful or intimidating at all. 4E makes a fight against such a high level opponent something other than a one hit wonder battle (on both sides btw). The valid point against 4E in this regard, is that monsters at high levels often run out of things to do after the first 10 rounds or so and the game becomes very "he just tries to hit you" etc. Similarly, the PCs often go all out early on, meaning that they use many of their better dailies and other abilities (some of which do not hit) early on. So they end up in a sort of "I just attack" rut for a while. Generally though, this is towards the end of the fight and doesn't significantly detract from the fun.
But again, how can you comment on high level play in 4E when you admit you haven't any idea how it plays? I've played 3E and 4E at high levels, 4E is much more playable than 3E ever was. 3Es single dice roll and go home in the climatic fight of an entire campaign is *infinitely* worse than 4E, which while a fight can drag on a little too long, does give an appropriately epic feeling and that the creature has a good chance of fighting back.
But honestly, I cannot envisage any spellcaster who was reared in 3E - or AD&D for that matter - not going ballistic over the joke that is now called a "spell" list.
Oh noes, I no longer dominate the entire game while everyone else watches. Oh woe is me that I can't deny everyone else having fun anymore. WOE IS MEEEEEEE.
Fair enough. Am I right in assuming that you usually play fighter-types?
No, I'm the DM and when one person is dominating the entire game or one or two people of a five person group (the two spellcasters) there is a massive problem. When people just don't want to play anymore or do something else except spectating in my game (and let's face it, this is what ended up happening in a good deal of high level 3E campaigns for non-magical characters), I am not exactly happy. Curbing spell power is one way of solving the problem and now, 4E goes from 1-30 and functions (generally) all the way along for everyone.
I'm sorry you hate other people having fun. I really am.
In essence, Demogorgon got a very short straw here and on another day, on a rolled "1" (Fort save)
You can make the DCs in 3rd so high, that nothing could possibly save it (even gods).
And he didn't get a short straw. This is just how 3rd works with high level players and spellcasters. Always has. I've played a lot of epic level 3rd, I've seen things even more ridiculous than that.
Yet, as has been set before, 4E went over the top here. Unless you think that 4E wizards will be more useful from level 1 onwards till the end?
Yes, they are. They are perfectly balanced. I've had wizards at level 1, level 12, level 22, and level 30. A wide range of levels. They are useful right through the game and best of all, they don't dominate the entire game. Everyone around the table PLAYS DnD, not watches the spellcasters destroy everything while they wonder "why am I playing this again?". Playing DnD is so much better than watching the mage and cleric destroy everything.
Sorry, I just expect people to be able to actually back up their statements. Silly me.
I take it no such support will be forthcoming then?
We play once a week and a campaign of getting to epic proportions mean two years of gaming. 4E has been out a months or two? Not hard to discern that.
Point is that Bluenose lamented the double-spell slaying of the archfiend by his purpose-built 3E chap who got a lucky break with Ini et al. So the rest of the group was dissatisfied with this climactic encounter. As I said above, a fighter with a lucky break and a failed death-from-massive damage could have doen the trick too. That is nothing to be laid at the doorsteps of 3E in general though. 4E might now see a group need to fight down Demogorgon together in 4 rounds (or however long it takes them - likewise any 3E group who is not purpose-built) since the magic has been curbed considerably. So the days of archmages being feared are essentially gone ... unless people are indeed cowed by land raisings et al.
I may come back to the rest of your reply later ... though I don't see much point in spending too much time advocating my point of view in day-long debates on here. Done that in the past and won't do it every time such a topic is being raised. No disrespect whatsoever.
Then again, reading the rest of your reply, I doubt that there is any need to reply. You see, in the earliest days of D&D archwizards were indeed able to summon and enslave or imprision archfiends et al. Eltab being just one example. Given the right circumstances and preparations. Fighters, rogues, bards et al will never ever get that chance and never ever got that chance. For the fun at the table, the archwizards or high priests powers have been toned down and if people like that, fair enough. It does ridicule lots of the lore that went before. Since you have no sympathy for that, no need to drag this on.
We play once a week and a campaign of getting to epic proportions mean two years of gaming. 4E has been out a months or two? Not hard to discern that.
Point is that Bluenose lamented the double-spell slaying of the archfiend by his purpose-built 3E chap who got a lucky break with Ini et al. So the rest of the group was dissatisfied with this climactic encounter. As I said above, a fighter with a lucky break and a failed death-from-massive damage could have doen the trick too. That is nothing to be laid at the doorsteps of 3E in general though. 4E might now see a group need to fight down Demogorgon together in 4 rounds (or however long it takes them - likewise any 3E group who is not purpose-built) since the magic has been curbed considerably. So the days of archmages being feared are essentially gone ... unless people are indeed cowed by land raisings et al.
I may come back to the rest of your reply later ... though I don't see much point in spending too much time advocating my point of view in day-long debates on here. Done that in the past and won't do it every time such a topic is being raised. No disrespect whatsoever.
Then again, reading the rest of your reply, I doubt that there is any need to reply. You see, in the earliest days of D&D archwizards were indeed able to summon and enslave or imprision archfiends et al. Eltab being just one example. Given the right circumstances and preparations. Fighters, rogues, bards et al will never ever get that chance and never ever got that chance. For the fun at the table, the archwizards or high priests powers have been toned down and if people like that, fair enough. It does ridicule lots of the lore that went before. Since you have no sympathy for that, no need to drag this on.
All the math and innumerable first-hand in-game accounts contradict your nonfactual assessments of both 3.5 and 4e. Until you actually back up your statements with FACT, they will remain personal preferences.
And oh, 4.0 is a better game than 3/3.5, but not as good a Fantasy Simulator.
I prefer a good game that simulates well enough to a mediocre simulator that has a lopsided and largely broken game, i.e. one where you are either a magic user or you suck. But thats just me.
My personal suggestion for a solution to the overpowered caster problems is to use some of the more specialized classes from the various 3.5 splats and eliminate clerics, druids, and wizards entirely. Grim Necromancer, Beguiler, Warlock, Warmage, etc. all do fine jobs of replacing the wizard and sorcerer with more specialized spellcasters that were far less broken than their all-encompassing godclass counterparts. And also, add in Book of Nine Swords classes, and then the game gets a lot more playable.
SvD
We play once a week and a campaign of getting to epic proportions mean two years of gaming. 4E has been out a months or two? Not hard to discern that.
I play with people online and with an IRL group. I also play one shot modules when I can just to try things and the first things I tried with 4th edition was very high level combat. I wanted to see how level 22+ characters performed deliberately as well as monsters.
That is nothing to be laid at the doorsteps of 3E in general though.
I'm sorry, but yes it is. This isn't even getting into the ridiculousness of things like Clerics that can rip apart anything in melee better than a fighter, have better HP, better attacks AND a host of healing and other magic as well. Again, making anyone playing said fighter etc wonder why they aren't doing something more fun than spectating in a game they are supposed to be a part of.
4E might now see a group need to fight down Demogorgon together in 4 rounds (or however long it takes them
Quite a bit longer, which is the point. The "Epic" climatic fight is in fact an "epic" climatic fight. Only an extraordinarily well optimised, almost charop board looking party can strip monsters of an insane amount of HP in 4th edition like that. Even so, many creatures in 4th have ways that prevent them from taking hideous amounts of damage and can successfully make a saving throw or similar.
With the sole exception of wizards with highly stacked orb mastery (ironic, given the topic), there are no real save or die effects in 4th edition (though there are a few combinations that can increase stunning potential and similar). All of these have very simple fixes, which do not require major rewriting of rules or having to adjust a lot of things (such as what 3rd requires to fix spellcasters even remotely).
So the days of archmages being feared are essentially gone ... unless people are indeed cowed by land raisings et al.
No, they just have power that is appropriate vs. everyone else.
You see, in the earliest days of D&D archwizards were indeed able to summon and enslave or imprision archfiends et al
You assume I care, when I don't. What I care about is game balance. Characters that break game balance routinely, make other players spectators in a game they are playing and are horrifically out of whack power wise are not good game design.
It does ridicule lots of the lore that went before. Since you have no sympathy for that, no need to drag this on.
Nope. None at all. Because everyone has to have fun at the table: not just the spellcasters. When someone isn't enjoying my game because they never really do anything except wonder why they are taking XP for not doing anything, that's a distinct problem and as the DM it means I don't have fun. It's not fun to metagame every single encounter out the wazoo, think "I must cheat to allow X character to make this save or go first, otherwise he'll instantly die ruining the adventure", because of one party member.
Likewise, it's never fun when that one party member dies instantly to something horrible and then the party gets wiped as martial classes suck vs. everything after a certain point.
Game balance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the wizard feeling like they should be able to kill everything and the game is about them.
Every. Single. Time.
I play with people online and with an IRL group. I also play one shot modules when I can just to try things and the first things I tried with 4th edition was very high level combat. I wanted to see how level 22+ characters performed deliberately as well as monsters.
I'm sorry, but yes it is. This isn't even getting into the ridiculousness of things like Clerics that can rip apart anything in melee better than a fighter, have better HP, better attacks AND a host of healing and other magic as well. Again, making anyone playing said fighter etc wonder why they aren't doing something more fun than spectating in a game they are supposed to be a part of.
Quite a bit longer, which is the point. The "Epic" climatic fight is in fact an "epic" climatic fight. Only an extraordinarily well optimised, almost charop board looking party can strip monsters of an insane amount of HP in 4th edition like that. Even so, many creatures in 4th have ways that prevent them from taking hideous amounts of damage and can successfully make a saving throw or similar.
With the sole exception of wizards with highly stacked orb mastery (ironic, given the topic), there are no real save or die effects in 4th edition (though there are a few combinations that can increase stunning potential and similar). All of these have very simple fixes, which do not require major rewriting of rules or having to adjust a lot of things (such as what 3rd requires to fix spellcasters even remotely).
No, they just have power that is appropriate vs. everyone else.
You assume I care, when I don't. What I care about is game balance. Characters that break game balance routinely, make other players spectators in a game they are playing and are horrifically out of whack power wise are not good game design.
Nope. None at all. Because everyone has to have fun at the table: not just the spellcasters. When someone isn't enjoying my game because they never really do anything except wonder why they are taking XP for not doing anything, that's a distinct problem and as the DM it means I don't have fun. It's not fun to metagame every single encounter out the wazoo, think "I must cheat to allow X character to make this save or go first, otherwise he'll instantly die ruining the adventure", because of one party member.
Likewise, it's never fun when that one party member dies instantly to something horrible and then the party gets wiped as martial classes suck vs. everything after a certain point.
Game balance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the wizard feeling like they should be able to kill everything and the game is about them.
Every. Single. Time.
Wow, thats so eloquently stated. Very nice job explaining a large number of people's problem with 3e.
Game balance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the wizard feeling like they should be able to kill everything and the game is about them.
Every. Single. Time.
No. It is called role-playing. If you only have egomaniacs playing wizards or high priests, you never will have fun no matter what game you play. Whether it is AD&D, 3E or 4E. Shackling magic in 4E does not help - it only makes the game called D&D something flat and not D&D any longer.
Actually, in my Eberron (I do not DM this one) group we have a "purpose-built" warforged Ftr 7 and he essentially splatters the floor with everything that gets near to his sword while we* "stand back" and enjoy the show. But for some reason none of the players wants to challenge him in this department, for they know that this is what he is good at, while we excel in other stuff. He won't be that great in days to come, of course, when the psion gets at "real powers". And, for some matter, he's content with that - as he saves/ed our backs for ages now. And, for that matter, it is not that he will never score a hit either.
I am not exactly sure whether a mage is "entirely useless in everything" at low levels and "just brilliant" in high levels - unless you speak of battle. As it looks 4E simply makes sure that those "poor" fighters lot who like said warforged rule the roost at lower levels in "their" department get their chance at high levels too and thus it is taking much of the magic out of D&D, literally. Then again, 4E seems to heavily focus on battle anyways and chopped about 75% of the spells that made wizards "brilliant everywhere". What is it ... 60 attack vs 28 utility "spells" in the PHB list? And these utilities themselves are more often than not usable in - guess what - battle? Like stoneskinning and laying resistances on people? As in: with 4E the wizards or magic did not just lose its power, but also much of what made magic special. (Then again, there will surely be some cool mage books out which gives them all those "spells" back. Methinks the PHB 3,xE had some 350 arcane spells alone? ... that's a neat catch up coming our way ... maybe) As I said, I cannot envisage former wizard players will have their fun when they actually see their new "spell" list. That a former fighter-type does not care about that is no wonder at all.
*Psion, rogue, soulknife
No. It is called role-playing.
No it's not, it's called "Munckinism". Please don't try to hide behind "roleplaying" as an excuse here. Wanting to be significantly more powerful than everyone else at the table is plain being a munchkin or powergamer. The day you think I even remotely respect this, is the day I cease playing these games altogether.
Whether it is AD&D, 3E or 4E. Shackling magic in 4E does not help - it only makes the game called D&D something flat and not D&D any longer.
Again, sorry that you're upset other players can have fun at the table. I know that they don't deserve to, after all they were foolish enough to believe they can pick a class other than a magic user and have fun.
And it's still DnD. Don't bring back hilarious memories of seven years ago for me, I've been around the "lulz this new edition isn't DnD!!111" before and it was boring the first time, it will be equally boring the second time.
I am not exactly sure whether a mage is "entirely useless in everything" at low levels and "just brilliant" in high levels
Wizards in 4th are just as useful and contribute just as much at 1st level as they do at 30th. Just like everyone else in the party, who has a role and contributes to an entire group. Only now they don't dominate 90% of the game.
Then again, 4E seems to heavy focus on battle anyways and chopped about 75% of the spells that made wizards "brilliant everywhere".
Poor them.
Again, if you think I'm at all sympathetic to an argument that is basically "I can't stand I can't break the game every 2 seconds and make everyone else in the party feel irrelevant" you've got to try harder than this.
As I said, I cannot envisage former wizard players will have their fun when they actually see their new "spell" list.
I don't actually really care. If such people can't deal with the fact they are not able to break the game constantly and dominate everything, while everyone else stands back watching doing utterly nothing, that isn't my problem. I don't want them and they can quite happily stick with 3rd edition.
Honestly, the term here isn't "roleplaying" the term here is "munchkin". If someone can't deal with the fact their power level is balanced with other party members and that they have zero sympathy at all from me at all.
While I can understand the complaint from a gaming table point of view, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me from a dramatic standpoint... or a logical one for that matter. But, that's why I tend to prefer 3e, but on the bright side, we both have something that appeals to our preferred style, so its all good, as they say.
No it's not, it's called "Munckinism". Please don't try to hide behind "roleplaying" as an excuse here.
Do you think Bluenose's Demogorgon slayer was a munchkin? I do not. He was purpose built for laying into SR chaps et al and fair enough. It made Demogorgon look poor, but that is no inbuilt problem of 3E in general.
I'm not hiding either. Roleplaying is part of D&D and if people are egomaniacs they are not munchkins. They try to do it to the best of their abilities (of the character) and ignore the rest of the players. Maybe not even on purpose. As a low level fighter may stride through a horde of goblins at low levels, a wizards can make an archfiend look poor. And fair enough. That's part and parcel of the game, as is the fact that players should realize that D&D is a group game in which all shall have their fun. Turning the sample on its head though and say Demogorgon had rolled high ini and loosened some fiendish ability on the whole group, stunning them with one go and laying them low the next round? Where's the "fun" in that? And none of the players would lay blame at the sytsem, the archfiend or the DM - they fought an archfiend, no less. The wizards did what he does best, got his lucky break and
that was that. In a normal D&D round, not some optional feats et al, it might have went far longer too. Equally well, priest might have used destruction and got his lucky break. But that has been part and parcel of the game too.
If people have more fun beating up a AC/HP wonder for 10 rounds rather than a possible 2, fair enough. Wrecking a fantasy game for that does not sit well with all though. Not that you'd care, apparently.
And it's still DnD. Don't bring back hilarious memories of seven years ago for me, I've been around the "lulz this new edition isn't DnD!!111" before and it was boring the first time, it will be equally boring the second time.
Oh, my memories of seven years ago are actually just one year old and guess what, we're playing the same campaign again and the folk just managed level 7. But it is astonishing how easily you want to discard other people's experiences and as I am not here to discourage you from enjoying 4E or hating/slagging 3E, nor being willing to entertain you on a Sunday afternoon, I'll leave it at that.
Do you think Bluenose's Demogorgon slayer was a munchkin? I do not. He was purpose built for laying into SR chaps et al and fair enough.
I am merely responding to your pathetic "roleplaying" defense, which can be used to justify just about any kind of horribly abusive or stupid thing you can imagine. The Paladin who uses detect evil on anything and slaughters everything he finds with an evil alignment hides behind "roleplaying" as an excuse. I am not talking to Bluenose, I am talking to you and YOUR argument centers around the wizard going "Why is the game not all about MEEEEEE anymore". That is plain munckinism, pure and simple.
It is a fault of the system when a group of classes, so far outweighs the others in abilities, utility, power and more that they dominate and eventually completely control the game: making the other players feel unnecessary.
This is a flaw of the game system.
Your first response, which amounted to acknowledging that the DM would have to cheat to have any chance of saving the creature in question just proved the entire point I've made.
That's part and parcel of the game, as is the fact that players should realize that D&D is a group game in which all shall have their fun.
Funny that, because that's what I argue. I just disagree you can have several classes (a handful really) so ridiculously more powerful than everyone else and facilitate this. You fall behind "roleplaying" as a defense of basically being a complete munchkin that has to be more powerful than everyone else in the party or feel disillusioned or ineffective.
Uh-huh.
Turning the sample on its head though and say Demogorgon had rolled high ini and loosened some fiendish ability on the whole group, stunning them with one go and laying them low the next round?
That's the flaw of 3rd edition then isn't it? Why are you bringing up problems with 3rd editions save or die mechanics that aren't relevant to any of my arguments?
Unless you're trying to make my point for me.
If people have more fun beating up a AC/HP wonder for 10 rounds rather than a possible 2, fair enough. Wrecking a fantasy game for that does not sit well with all though. Not that you'd care, apparently.
It's not wrecking the game if it makes it better, makes fights more intense and gives everyone some actual time to make proper tactical decisions. Rather than "I get my huge DC instant death effect off, time to go home" of 3rd? Or alternatively, you're right, Demogorgon instead stuns the whole party turn 1 and they all die instantly round 1. That doesn't happen in 4th, so I can't see how this is "wrecked", when neither side can be demolished straight off the bat.
Not that I care what your opinion is that's true, because you admitted to me in your first post that you actually haven't even bothered playing 4th at high levels, so how do you know if it is "wrecked"?
Oh, my memories of seven years ago are actually just one year old and guess what, we're playing the same campaign again and the folk just managed level 7.
Good for you.
But it is astonishing how easily you want to discard other people's experiences
You mean your experiences where you admitted in your first reply you haven't any idea how high level combat in 4th edition plays? If you don't have any experience, may I ask, how can I dismiss it? Is there something I'm missing where you said you had actually played high level combat in 4th edition, to have any "experience" that 4th has been "wrecking the game" is actually the case or not in high level combat?
One hit death effects wreck the game far faster than a monster with suitable defenses for a demigod, a large amount of HP and powerful abilities vs. a party of characters with similar powerful abilities. It makes the game come down to the best use and employment of those abilities at the right times over an entire combat, not who has the luckiest dice roll from the spellcaster first.
I've played BOTH high level 3E and 4E. What have you done to qualify you to make such insipid statements as "Wrecking the game"?
While I agree that there are some aspects to playing a spellcaster in 3e that can make a spellcaster abusively powerful, it's the role of the DM to make sure that their players aren't abusing the system's shortcomings and playing well with others. I'm almost sure that this will be refuted with an arguements along the lines of 'its in the rulebook so must be allowed', but that seems to me to abdicating one of the basic roles of the DM in favor of a rather lawyerish view of the games... and pretty much ignoring the idea of Rule 0 in its entirety. That some players argue and abuse I've no doubt, I've not run across any myself, but that's besides the point. But to let them get away with it strikes me more as a personal failing of the DM for not taking control of a game their supposed to be in charge of, and the player for a number of best-left-unspoken reasons. Not so much a flaw of any given ruleset, be it D&D or Storyteller or whatever, but of the participants, at least from my experiences.
It seems to come down to the point of not everyone playing D&D in the same way, and by all appearances, and you not being able to imagine that as being the case. To dismiss and disparage Zanan's style of play as munchkinism without knowing much of anything about her style of play seems disingenuous at best... It just seems that you're dismissing and disparaging her, simply because her tastes, preferences, and style is different is based on the presumption that your preferences are inherently superior, and seemingly going out of your way to view her words in as negative a light as possible... hardly possible in something so subjective a topic as how best to play D&D.
Speaking from a personal point of view, I tend to favor 3e's apparently 'unfair' rules, simply for the idea that life isn't fair, nor necessarily long for someone who fights monsters and puts themselves at risk purposely. Yes, I do favor wizards and other spellcasters when I play... which is almost never since I'm pretty much always the DM. But, with a stable core group of four players for the last five years, with games once or twice a week, I must be doing something right, since 3e has worked well as a system so far, with no one feeling left out or useless. Maybe, and perhaps this is a bit far-fetched, you might consider the idea that perhaps the DM might need to tailor adventures and stories with the spotlight focused on the non-spellcasters, putting the players in situations where the spellcasters aren't at such an advantage? If nothing can be thought of, then perhaps its time to find a more imaginative DM, or maybe even a player better suited to working in a group?
3Es cleric, wizard and druid blew the doors off the other races. They could "multitask" while all a fighter could do was kill things, and with the proper spells the casters could melee things pretty damn well also (plus summon things that healed and tanked for the group. So straight, core, non-multiclassed casters could melee and do ranged damage and cast spells that are useful in out of combat situations. A fighter usually just hit things and was ok at jumping and climbing unless he wore armor...oh wait that was all the time. Not everyone played casters like gamebreakers did but even when they were not made to be broken they could use simple spells that the class had that could make it better than the other classes.
Now every class is good at combat and can take feats to use rituals or become good at knowleges even if the class does not already cover the subject and then after that you can always multiclass for more fun stuff your primary class does not cover.
So all these change make me happy and I primarily played clerics in 3.5.
I'm not really sure if your issue with magic is with Forgotten Realms or 4th Edition D&D. Forgotten Realms using the magic of previous editions after the release of 4th Edition D&D was never an option on any level.
I had a feeling this was a topic that had more to do with 4E than it did with Forgotten Realms when I said this, and the discussion that followed this comment of mine bears that out.
To Zanan: Oberoni Fallacy--Just because "good roleplayers" can play spellcasters without breaking the game, doesn't mean the game isn't broken in terms of RAW. In addition, spellcasters blew noncasters away outside of combat to an even greater degree than they did inside of it.
To Stigger: In 3E, your class and class features(spellcasters) went a long way to determining how powerful you were. In 4E, your power level is almost solely determined by your level, and characters of the same level are roughly equal in power regardless of class or whether or not they use magic. Makes for a much better game. As for the whole "magic is magic, so it should blow everything else away" crap, I invoke people like Conan, Captain America, and so on who stand up against superhuman threats with nothing but their personal prowess and grit, and win. Fighters and Rogues standing equal to Wizards has just as big a place in fiction as magic=god.
As I said before, no disrespect whatsoever.
thecasualoblivion
Fighters and Rogues standing equal to Wizards has just as big a place in fiction as magic=god.
That is true enough for fantasy / fiction, but so far has not worked for D&D at high levels. All the great D&D settings have mages and priests, dragons and archfiends et al ruling the roost. Magic is something special in D&D. Or rather "was".
All the great D&D settings have mages and priests, dragons and archfiends et al ruling the roost.
Maybe a few monks, thieves' guildmasters, and the odd ranger in there, too, though, eh?
thecasualoblivion
That is true enough for fantasy / fiction, but so far has not worked for D&D at high levels. All the great D&D settings have mages and priests, dragons and archfiends et al ruling the roost. Magic is something special in D&D. Or rather "was".
And good riddance.
That you seem to be suggesting that they must be built in that way, and that its unavoidable, does seem to point towards either bad experiences with those who do play them, or that you simply can't imagine not 'building' a character without optimizing it as much as possible.
There is no way not to be more effective as a spellcaster, because you can literally do more than any other class can. You don't need to "optimise" it to be more effective, the inherit way these classes works makes them by default more effective.
(All quote blocks are from Stigger unless otherwise noted).
Either way, there seems to be a good amount of unfair presumptions on your part Aegeri that aren't really justified by what was said.
There is nothing "unfair" about being highly critical of an argument that amounts to "Mages aren't more powerful than other classes, therefore DnD is ruined QED". It's insipid.
For example:
If players want to play non-magic characters, they should accept (preferably from the beginning) that their strength lie somewhere else
Which given that mages have spells that can do literally anything, is a weird statement especially at high levels. Using combination's of spells, a mage can out melee a fighter, out tank a barbarian, out stealth a rogue and out damage literally anyone. What "strengths" are these for the other classes then? The ability to spectate? Perception?
This is a continual line of argumentation, eg "Archmages should be feared" etc etc. All of it amounts to the fact that spellcasters are, in 3rd edition, indisputably more powerful than martial or non-magical classes. This becomes more of a problem over time. In 4th edition, everyone has been balanced, mages are still powerful and useful all the way from 1st to 30th - they no longer dominate the game.
Just because a class is balanced doesn't make it worthless to play or similar. That people who want the game to actually be balanced are accused of "wrecking" DnD is so utterly insipid it bears no real comment (especially as I find the wizard, through actual play experience from 1st level to 30th, actually one of the most useful classes in the entire game by far). No magic users don't dominate the game anymore. No you don't get to do anything you want. This was a sacrifice for game-balance and to make it so that every class played a specific role.
While I agree that there are some aspects to playing a spellcaster in 3e that can make a spellcaster abusively powerful, it's the role of the DM to make sure that their players aren't abusing the system's shortcomings and playing well with others.
So you're saying I should be virtually re-writing the system? Because that's what you're saying and it sounds as ridiculous as it reads.
I'm almost sure that this will be refuted with an arguements along the lines of 'its in the rulebook so must be allowed', but that seems to me to abdicating one of the basic roles of the DM in favor of a rather lawyerish view of the games
No the simple refutation is "I'm not re-writing an entire game system to fix all the numerous broken aspects of spellcasting, AND boosting martial classes so they don't suck, AND fixing monsters so that they aren't so incredibly ridiculous after I'm done fixing both magic and martial classes".
Honestly, by this point I might as well write my own game system.
But to let them get away with it strikes me more as a personal failing of the DM for not taking control of a game their supposed to be in charge of
Thank you for implying that I am incompetent after 11 years of DMing. I have such high respect for your arguments that amount to "rewriting the entire system is simple and easy to fix all the numerous broken aspects of spellcasting, you'll wonder why you never thought of it before". Who would have thought that putting limits on spellcasters would actually be a solution. I totally wouldn't have! I haven't only been advocating that, which is 4th editions approach, all thread because I'm clearly incompetent and would never have thought of that.
As you're so brilliant, why don't you please go on, how do I fix invisibility for a mage and silence being superior to any rogues stealth or move silently? How do I fix teleportation? Tensers transformation? Harm? How do I fix enlarge person? How do I fix time stop? how do I fix haste? How do I fix being able to give yourself damage reduction, energy resistance, improved strength, dexterity and other stat boosts? How do I fix instant death effects? How do I fix being able to fly for hours every single day? Etc.
Wizards failed at this attempt, not once but twice in 3rd edition and Paizo with pathfinder have been equally unsuccessful (and yes, I've played that as well). So how do I, in any manner, make other classes do anywhere near as much as a mage or spellcaster, that can literally do anything they can using magic, without "wrecking" DnD by putting limits on what magic using classes can actually do?
But no, spellcasters in 3rd edition never caused problems. Only the incompetent DMs who couldn't think of something as simple as limiting power of a class that has limitless ability to do anything after a certain level, by the normal rules compared to other classes is one idea. I couldn't possibly have thought of that.
To dismiss and disparage Zanan's style of play as munchkinism without knowing much of anything about her style of play seems disingenuous at best
Yes it is. Any argument that boils down to "I want to be more powerful than everyone else, why am I actually restricted in power compared to these other classes when I shouldn't be" and then throws in "wrecking DnD" and other nonsense reeks of munkinism. Hiding behind "roleplaying" while appealing simultaneously that a class should have infinitely more power than anyone else doesn't work on any level - at all.
It just seems that you're dismissing and disparaging her, simply because her tastes, preferences, and style is different is based on the presumption that your preferences are inherently superior, and seemingly going out of your way to view her words in as negative a light as possible... hardly possible in something so subjective a topic as how best to play D&D
Funny how you specifically pick me out on this.
Where did I claim that she was not "playing DnD" anymore? Where did I claim it was "wrecked"? You perhaps shouldn't have made your biases so obvious if you were trying to get at this and direct it at both of us.
In any event, if you mean like the first post she made I responded to right, like here when she says:
. Hence, IMHO, they called up loudest for a change in power and now all the spellslingers of old are being curbed in spell-power and selection by ridiculous margins and one wonders why they actually cared to name this stuff "spells".
Funny that, other people want the game to be balanced so everyone has a fair go and you don't have spellcasters dominating the game. How is this statement not disparaging to people who actually don't like being spectators in a GAME they are playing? If this is such a terrible thing that it has "wrecked" the game and we're no longer "playing DnD", then how is that not disparaging? I didn't get this incensed for no particular reason.
Now, I'm going to happily dismiss her arguments, because really complaining because you aren't able to do everything anymore and are balanced with other classes, doesn't get traction from me. It just doesn't and reeks of being a munchkin. Roleplaying doesn't require a disparate power level and let's talk about another system here.
In Call of Cthulhu, for example, none of my players need to be a Great Old One in a party of mortal investigators to "roleplay". Yet I get some of the greatest and most enthralling roleplaying out of Call of Cthulhu than any other system when I get the pleasure to run it. Everyone in the group is just a normal, everyday dude who may or may not know how to fire a gun (or even, gasp, CAST SPELLS!). You don't need to be the DnD equivalent of a Great Old One in a party of mortal humans to roleplay in this game: everyone is human so while you have different talents, there is no one person who does everything. Now roleplaying, by definition, is playing a character and not being more powerful than everyone else by fiat because you picked the better class.
Dismissing her "roleplaying" defense as laughable is perfectly justified. Unless she can give a justification for why you have to have a massive disparity in powers between one class and another to roleplay, the argument simply has no merit. It's the equivalent of the paladin who claims he needs to murder everything in sight that's evil "because I'm roleplaying". Reeks of metagaming as well.
Now I agree that "roleplaying" a wizard doesn't have to mean "being able to do anything I want without limits and being able to overshadow any other party member I want with magic". Why then the focus on "curbing", "nerfing", "wrecking" et-al spellcasters power? Unless of course, we aren't talking about roleplaying and we're really just upset mages are now equivalent power of everyone else. That's not a position I'm sympathetic to and yep, I'm going to dismiss that completely. I don't see the need for a disparate power level in a fantasy game between magic users and the other party members (who are also exceptional at what they do) for "roleplaying" at all.
Being the class that does everything =/ improved roleplaying.
Also the fact I seem so dismissive is because I have little patience for someone criticizing something they have not actually played, which is truly remarkable. It's the height of hubris. 4E has lots of flaws, it has many legitimate arguments against aspects of design such as its backing down from simulationist aspects that it previously had and the almost useless skill challenge system (which is still broken IMO). I can accept all of these arguments, but if someone isn't going to bother actually having played an epic level 4E campaign to know how it compares (particularly spellcasters at said levels), how is it in any way fair to make those sorts of statements?
It isn't. So why should I respect someones opinion, when their opinion has absolutely no basis? Yes, it would be dismissive, but you fail to realise there is no tangible experience or actual basis for that opinion to dismiss. So the only real arguments advanced that had any sort of substance were:
1) Mages should be more powerful than everyone else, because it's magic!
2) 4th edition isn't DnD anymore because magic is actually balanced.
Argument 1 could have merit, in some tenuous basis, but argument 2 is patently ridiculous. Less simulationist yes, but this doesn't mean I'm not playing DnD anymore. I never claimed she wasn't playing DnD or anything else incidentally, imbalanced DnD is still DnD. Balanced DnD is also still DnD.
Which one of us dismissed the others preferred way of playing DnD again? I dismissed, if you're confused, a specific argument (presented above). There is a significant difference in these positions. I never said anywhere game balance was a required facet of playing DnD. Who is it that said that without magic being all-powerful you weren't playing DnD?
And you directed this argument at me?
If nothing can be thought of, then perhaps its time to find a more imaginative DM, or maybe even a player better suited to working in a group?
Bravo, one last shot at me eh? Obviously I'm an incompetent drooling moron who can't run something as complex as 3rd. But assuming I'm not an incompetent drooling moron (for the sake of argument), perhaps I have a massive issue with disparate power levels in the same party, where one or two characters can do everything and clearly overshadow the others. Maybe it's because many encounters, in my experience, come down to the spellcasters failing/making save or die throws then the rest of the party being obliterated shortly after (because many monsters in 3rd are pretty hard to deal with if you don't have spellcasters).
But none the less, you still haven't actually addressed any of the arguments I've made. Nor do I feel the need to worry about building a campaign around groups of individual spellcasting classes, because 4th edition, heaven forbid, works with every player I have and their class. I don't need to deliberately metagame what I want to do (and btw, I'm well aware of using things like dead magic, despite your low opinion of me, I am not a complete idiot), instead I can design encounters without needing to look at the myriad of ways that spellcasters can break them. This means more time on my end making things fun and less time pawing through books looking for loopholes to stop spellcasters such as, but not limited to, dead magic zones, wild magic zones, sending them to random planes that are completely silent (no sounds can be made) or a tiny demiplane that turns them into chess pieces capable of communicating through a kind of sign language (obviously has major ramifications for casting spells, or doing anything much). But I'm an unimaginative idiot and troglodyte, I couldn't think of such solutions so we'll move on.
If I use an area that does weird things, it's because it heightens excitement and makes the encounter more interesting. It's not to balance out classes that is clearly ridiculously overpowered to give highly underpowered classes a boost.
Your post is precisely what makes me so angry about this whole "oh noes, magic is ruined and is the sux because it isn't incredibly powerful and you can't do anything with it" argument. If you have to design the game around something that is clearly imbalanced, it's a huge problem (ESPECIALLY save or die mechanics and this goes both ways, it sucks just as badly for PCs as well). It's not the fault of the DM that a game system promotes a huge imbalance in between character classes, which then has to be virtually metagamed out or they dominate proceedings on a regular basis.
Yes, I can constantly cheat if I want - but maybe I don't want to constantly cheat and would rather the system be balanced enough initially that I don't have to.
I won't reply to Aegeri since as far as I am concerned he's as close as getting to flaming as is tolerable hereabouts.
Pointing out that you admit yourself you don't actually have any experience with high level 4E gameplay to comment (despite evidently feeling otherwise) and that your argument is weak is not "flaming".
That is true enough for fantasy / fiction, but so far has not worked for D&D at high levels. All the great D&D settings have mages and priests, dragons and archfiends et al ruling the roost. Magic is something special in D&D. Or rather "was".
What a load of rubbish.
Firstly, dragons, archfiends and other obscenely powerful creatures "rule the roost" not just because of their manipulation of magic, but inherit hardiness, innate abilities, huge strength and size and beyond human intelligence/cunning. Not to mention the hordes of lesser evil creatures at these beasts command. It's not exactly easy to hurt a dragon or archfiend with a pitchfork, not to mention most people wouldn't be able to even resist a single blow from such a creature. Demogorgon, for example, makes people go mad by looking at him and rips their flesh off with necrotising tentacles. That he can also run around quite happily eating people even when you apply timestop is just a boost. Demogorgon however is mostly just a really powerful monster, but he's not an exceptionally powerful magic user compared with the physical abilities he has (minding, he's very hard to hurt with magic at the same time and is quite resistant to a lot of stuff). Even in 3rd edition and he "rules" a layer of the Abyss, a feat that is pretty hard for anything to do.
Priests can have immense power because they are supported by gods themselves, not to mention their own spell like abilities and their fanatical flocks who follow their words (for their own gain or because they genuinely believe in them). You don't even need to explain a priests ability to rise in power with anything resembling magic at all. Let's go a step further, you can don't need magic to have influence as a member of the clergy, as the Catholic Church certainly didn't with the height of their power in Europe. Magic can make an individual powerful, it can't make an individual a ruler without having that power structure to support that rule.
Archmages, in 4th edition are level 21+ wizards by default. This makes them among the most powerful people in all of the world and there aren't very many of them anymore (especially in post-spellplague times). Incredibly powerful wizards who are well over level 20 should be powerful, there simply aren't a lot of people running around at that high a level to challenge them (because that's a level of truly exceptional ability).
None of this requires an horrifically imbalanced core magic system to inflict on players to justify.
Aegeri ... try to read your comments from someone else's point of view and then have a look at the CoC.
I don't recall reading "disagree with you" as being against the CoC, let alone when you don't even support the points you actually make.
Aegeri ... try to read your comments from someone else's point of view and then have a look at the CoC.
Is this the portion you are referring to?
Harass a specific person (repeated flaming, personal attacks or posting their private information)
Because if it is, Aegeri has not come even close to breaking it, unless you just want to muzzle the discussion because he disagrees with you? Not to mention that he does so in a respectful and cogent manner.
3E D&D favored spellcasters, and FR novels released during 3E D&D tended to focus on high to epic level characters, who were most often spellcasters(correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm basing this on hearsay). FR did have that reputation of being filled with archmanges. In addition, much of the FR exclusive game mechanics from sourcebooks tended to focus on spellcasting, at least the most famous examples like Incantatrix, Cleric Paragons, ect. The first three 4E FR novels have bucked this trend, focusing on lower level characters with less of an emphasis on magic. Descriptions of the Spellplague itself spoke of the "pile of archmages" going crazy or loosing their arcane abilities en masse. In addition, the 4E ruleset seems to be deemphasizing spellcasting and putting other classes on an even par with them.
Discuss.
Is this the portion you are referring to?
Because if it is, Aegeri has not come even close to breaking it, unless you just want to muzzle the discussion because he disagrees with you? Not to mention that he does so in a respectful and cogent manner.
Maybe it is just me, but even his last comments do not exactly sound respectful (Post 49). Nothing about him disagreeing.
LK ... the FR were as "nerfed" as D&D was and since it was a setting brimming with magic and archmages et al, it got a full broadside. As the last poster intimated, it now follows the way of the rules and focusses on non-casters. Obviously, it was not solely about archmages before either, but magic itself was all too evident. The recent Waterdeep novels give us other heroes, like spellcarred chaps. For continuity reasons, one would hope, they keep to "spells" being cast and they will most likely "look" like those of the old days. But one would also assume that 4E readers will look even more confused when apparenty HP/AC wonders getting struck down by a "magic missile" or "fireball" dealing damage that would nowadays just about dent a characters HP total?
Descriptions of the Spellplague itself spoke of the "pile of archmages" going crazy or loosing their arcane abilities en masse. In addition, the 4E ruleset seems to be deemphasizing spellcasting and putting other classes on an even par with them.
I like to imagine they ran off cliffs like lemmings, casting random spells all the way down.
Show
And yes, I know lemmings do not run off cliffs
Maybe it is just me, but even his last comments do not exactly sound respectful (Post 49). Nothing about him disagreeing.
LK ... the FR were as "nerfed" as D&D was and since it was a setting brimming with magic and archmages et al, it got a full broadside. As the last poster intimated, it now follows the way of the rules and focusses on non-casters. Obviously, it was not solely about archmages before either, but magic itself was all too evident. The recent Waterdeep novels give us other heroes, like spellcarred chaps. For continuity reasons, one would hope, they keep to "spells" being cast and they will most likely "look" like those of the old days. But one would also assume that 4E readers will look even more confused when apparenty HP/AC wonders getting struck down by a "magic missile" or "fireball" dealing damage that would nowadays just about dent a characters HP total?
FR now focuses on the players if anything else. It does not just focus on casters or melee. Going up agaisnt some Solo melee guy is just as bad as a Solo caster now.
I'm quite happy to drop it if you don't want to continue, but do please stop trying to save face by appealing to the CoC after having your arguments eviscerated. Disagreeing with your arguments, particularly the tone that the whole "Mages should be more powerful" argument takes, does not equal attacking you. You can either answer my arguments carrying on the discussion or cease sniping at me ending any further involvement. Your decision.
adding that to ...
"a weird statement"
"Because that's what you're saying and it sounds as ridiculous as it reads." (in response to Stigger though)
"and then throws in "wrecking DnD" and other nonsense reeks of munkinism."
"Hiding behind "roleplaying" "
As for the arguments:
they no longer dominate the game
You see, they did not and do not. That is the whole point. Of course they and high priests rule the roost in the high or near epic levels, but generally there it ends. Did they rule the roost before? Or dominate the game? ONLY if the player wants them to and the DM allows them to. That they can as per all spells/feats et al in the PHB does not mean that they generally do too. If they do, it is in your experience and guess what, it is just ONE experience. Mine was different.
Unless she can give a justification for why you have to have a massive disparity in powers between one class and another to roleplay, the argument simply has no merit.
I gave it: Magic. It is as simple as that. If you don't like it, you could have played a system bereft of it. The point here is that you constantly advocating the slashing of magic to 4E proportions from the standpoint of a fully developed archmage ruling the game. Not once did that happen in my games and when it happened in your, fair enough. I actually noted that our 7th level warforged just "rules" in a fight and we are all content with that. And we will be contend when said psion can wield 7th level powers and do tricks we will (as players) all gawk at. That's the way of the game.
Right now though, we are not debating on the same grounds.
Pointing out that you admit yourself you don't actually have any experience with high level 4E gameplay to comment (despite evidently feeling otherwise) and that your argument is weak is not "flaming".
You see, that is no common ground either. I need not to prove to you that I have played a 29th level warlord and thus get your thumbs up for a right on judging 4E. Else I am not "worthy" ... I take? Much like you, I am old and experienced enough to look into the books, calculate the numbers, read the texts and come up with an opinion. Based on what I have read, it obviously does not match with yours and fair enough.
So why should I respect someones opinion, when their opinion has absolutely no basis?
Where did you actually got that notion from? Then again, it all depends on what you deem "good enough" as basis anyway.
Not that I care what your opinion is that's true, because you admitted to me in your first post that you actually haven't even bothered playing 4th at high levels, so how do you know if it is "wrecked"?
Sorry ... I seem to remember to say that I did not yet had the time to get a 4E player into the epic stratas necessary to challenge a Demogorgon et al. Or something to that end. As for experience and 4E, see above.
What a load of rubbish.
Thanks for the flowers. I think we can agree to disagree and as I said a couple of times before, no disrespect whatsoever.
FR now focuses on the players if anything else. It does not just focus on casters or melee. Going up agaisnt some Solo melee guy is just as bad as a Solo caster now.
That's what D&D focusses on. The FR are more or less pummelled into obedience from now on.
That's what D&D focusses on. The FR are more or less pummelled into obedience from now on.
No it is not at least not in my opinion. There are still high level casters in charge of things.Something people disliked was that most rulers were casters. It was an elitist thing I think.
That's what D&D focusses on. The FR are more or less pummelled into obedience from now on.
For the most part, 3E D&D kinda focused on the Archmages. You could say that FR was following D&D at the time. I'm not familiar with 1E/2E Forgotten Realms, but I believe it didn't have the epic, high magic, superhero tone FR had during 3E. I know the game itself sure didn't, as most people didn't play much past level 10 since that was where multiclassing started to fall apart. I will admit that FR took things a bit further down the epic high magic road than 3E D&D did, but D&D opened the door.
As for your little discussion with Aegeri, he wasn't saying you were ridiculous. He was saying your opinion/argument was ridiculous. That isn't against the CoC. While you personally are protected from being harassed or ridiculed, your opinions aren't afforded the same level of protection.
No it is not at least not in my opinion. There are still high level casters in charge of things.Something people disliked was that most rulers were casters. It was an elitist thing I think.
Well, that Cormyr chap springs to mind, the big guns in Baldur's Gate, Sembia or over in Mulhorand. Anyway, it was only natural that spellcasters capable of drawing on power beyond sword and bow will climb into or "behind" positions of power. Now, while we will still have a fair share of spellcasting rulers, we will see the Realms being drawn back into the mass of fantasy worlds that is out there, possibly taking away what made them special before. Then again, we'll have to see how it all fans out, of course.
@thecasualoblivion ... ahem, to have a decent enough discussion, one would expect respect from the participants. Whether one has a valid 100% view on something or not. As I showed in the last reply to him, he apparently lacked that respect. And it does not matter whether he ridicules my opinions or myself, for the end result is the same.
adding that to ...
And?
None of that is an attack on a person, only an argument, and they are direct responses to people involved. You have to do better than that I'm afraid and yes, hyperbolic statements like "wrecking DnD" can quite happily be called nonsense.
Anyway.
You see, they do not.
I'm sorry, but mechanically that isn't true at all in 3rd edition.
I gave it: Magic.
That isn't a good justification, because all you're really saying is "I want more power". Just in the same way that the paladin justifies murdering everything in sight with detect evil because it's "roleplaying" as well.
This does not justify, in itself, having such a disparity in power between magic users and everyone else. It may not be disruptive in your game, but given how often these complaints come to life it is the exception and not the norm.
But again, you do not justify why you NEED to be more powerful than everyone else. I cannot see any NEED to be more powerful, significantly so in 3rd edition mechanically, for a roleplaying reason. It does, literally come back to the "I can't stand being equal" argument I've already elaborated on.
If you don't like it, you could have played a system bereft of it.
I did, I stopped playing DnD and played Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: The Requiem and the likes instead.
The point here is that you constantly advocating the slashing of magic to 4E proportions from the standpoint of a fully developed archmage ruling the game.
No, it's just from any magic user. Clerics are arguably worse than Wizards actually again. Druids were just as ridiculous too. Spellcasters in general were broken.
Not once did that happen in my games and when it happened in your, fair enough. I actually noted that our 7th level warforged just "rules" in a fight and we are all content with that.
Nobody rules the fight in my 4E games. Everyone plays a role, from level 1 all the way up. Everyone has their moment, everyone has their time where they excel, nobody spends all game a spectator to someone else destroying everything.
That's the way of the game.
This doesn't justify it mechanically. Note that I could, theoretically, say the same thing in reverse to you about 4th edition. I don't because this is a terrible argument. It's like arguing blade cascade is fine because that's the way of the game, when it's a horribly out of whack power compared with everything else.
You are justifying the "Blade cascade" [spellcasting] of 3rd edition, whereas I am firmly in the camp where something that completely removes other players from the game and significantly disrupts balance is not good for a group roleplaying game. Blade cascade is such an example, but it got appropriately nerfed because such a fix is easy.
When Stigger asks me to rewrite 3rd edition to fix all the broken aspects of spellcasting, I naturally say "that's ridiculous". Because it is, to return to your first point.
You see, that is no common ground either. I need not to prove to you that I have played a 29th level warlord and thus get your thumbs up for a right on judging 4E.
Yes. Quite frankly, what do you find so insulting about being asked to give impressions based on actual experience?
Else I am not "worthy" ... I take? Much like you, I am old and experienced enough to look int othe books, calculate the numbers, read the text and come up with an opinion. Based on what I have read, it obviously does not match with yours and fair enough.
Yeah, it's funny what "playing it" can do isn't it?
Sorry, but I can't think of any way of putting this that isn't impolite. You're basically saying "I refuse to play this to actually form an opinion based on actual gameplay experience".
I just have no idea how to respond.
Where did you actually got that notion from? Then again, it all depends on what you deem "good enough" as basis anyway.
You've not played it at high levels, you admitted this. I'm sorry, but playing it is "Good enough", because playing it gives you real, honest impressions of how the game works at high levels.
There is simply put no other way of saying it.
I'm frankly stunned you think being asked to give impressions based on fair play experience is an extraordinary or overly demanding position.
@thecasualoblivion ... ahem, to have a decent enough discussion, one would expect respect from the participants.
Your argument =/ you.
You are not an argument. You are a person. There is a difference between disagree with the argument put forth by that person and the person who makes it.
As I showed in the last reply to him, he apparently lacked that respect.
No you didn't. Nobody agrees with you that I'm attacking you, only your arguments which are, in some cases utterly baseless (as you've conceded). Really, this isn't having the effect you wanted so why not drop it and carry on the actual discussion? This isn't about you, this is about the arguments you have put forth and the logic you've used to support them. Personally, I find your whole argument, that magic should be inherently more powerful than anything else tenuous at best for a GAME system.
For fluff, for books, for other things this makes perfect sense. But we're talking about a game system. I don't buy "Oh poor me, I can't dominate the game because I *deserve* to be more powerful by means solely of choice of class" as a fair argument for why the other people playing non-spellcasting classes have to play second fiddle (or be "meatshields" as you so wonderfully put it).
And it does not matter whether he ridicules my opinions or myself, for the end result is the same.
Now that's really rich. Attacking your opinions isn't against the CoC, despite what you would like to believe.
@thecasualoblivion ... ahem, to have a decent enough discussion, one would expect respect from the participants. Whether one has a valid 100% view on something or not. As I showed in the last reply to him, he apparently lacked that respect. And it does not matter whether he ridicules my opinions or myself, for the end result is the same.
For the record, your opinion is in and of itself condescending. You believe that magic should rule and that other peoples opinions and enjoyment should take a backseat to what you want. You believe that magic should be "better" which inevitably must mean that everything else becomes "worse". In other words, your opinion implies that the alternative is of lesser value, and when your opinion is in place in terms of a setting and game system, it relegates people who hold other opinions to second class citizenship. This opens your opinion up to well deserved criticism.
The alternative opinion that magic should be balanced, doesn't come with the steep costs your opinion does. People who like magic and people who like other characters are on perfectly equal terms, and nobody is "lesser". The only people this would displease are people who need to feel "better" than the other players at the table, and satisfying those people is worse for the game than the alternative.
I've been heavily involved in the edition wars on General Discussion. My opinion is that 4E is much better than 3E, and my participation in the edition war there is based around that simple opinion. My opinion, unlike "magic should be better" is not condescending, since nothing about my opinion takes 3E away from those who prefer it. Circumstances and popular opinion may be taking 3E away(at the very least taking 3E away as the dominant game in RPGdom and being easiest to find players for), but that has nothing directly to do with my opinion. The same goes for 4E Forgotten Realms. I prefer the 4E Realms, but this opinion doesn't by itself take away the enjoyment and preference of other people for previous editions. The game designers leaving previous editions behind and focusing on 4E may be impacting those people negatively, but my preference by itself does nothing to disrespect those people.
For the record, your opinion is in and of itself condescending. You believe that magic should rule and that other peoples opinions and enjoyment should take a backseat to what you want. You believe that magic should be "better" which inevitably must mean that everything else becomes "worse". In other words, your opinion implies that the alternative is of lesser value, and when your opinion is in place in terms of a setting and game system, it relegates people who hold other opinions to second class citizenship. This opens your opinion up to well deserved criticism.
Bingo.
Edit:
The alternative opinion that magic should be balanced, doesn't come with the steep costs your opinion does. People who like magic and people who like other characters are on perfectly equal terms, and nobody is "lesser". The only people this would displease are people who need to feel "better" than the other players at the table, and satisfying those people is worse for the game than the alternative.
This is beautifully stated.
Concentration allowed a caster to rapidly get to the point where he could cast a spell in the middle of a hurricane, while a dire wolf was chewing on his leg, and he had just been run through with a lance. Before 3E the caster was interrupted, even more pointed was the fact that while casting his AC sucked big chunks. This was there for balance, in 3E they decided it was too restrictive, but instead of changing the spells to reflect this they decided that the spells needed a boost via metamagic. Cool ain't it, in an attempt to provide options they completely destroyed game balance, and handed the game lock, stock, and barrel to the caster classes. 4E has finally rectified this atrocity. Casters are still capable of incredible earth shattering feats of magic, leveling cities, destroying islands, controlling the weather over a huge area, all of this via rituals. The thing is they are once again story elements requiring great effort instead of coming with the ease of a fart.
THIS IS NOT A FORGOTTEN REALMS DISCUSSION, AND IT NEEDS TO BE IF ITS GOING TO CONTINUE.
This is the 4E General Discussion edition war brought here, plain and simple. I'm a member of that edition war, and we have enough problems on these forums without dragging that in here.
I apologize for my own participation in this. As I've said, I'm a soldier in the 4E General Discussion edition war(which is still ongoing), and those habits die hard. I have disrespected someone's opinion where I've tried to avoid doing that here because it was one of the anti 4E edition war opinions. I've attempted to not to disrespect people's FR opinions, but as this wasn't one I went into General Discussion attack mode.
Again, this discussion as it stands shouldn't be here. Either we talk about Forgotten Realms or this should be moved or closed.
Unfortunately as regards this discussion it really is both. Sure you could argue that it is part of the edition wars, and in some ways it is because simply the setting completely sold out to the "Uber Archmage Paradigm" with the release of the FRCS soon after 3E came out. This paradigm partially existed prior to this, but mages throughout the history of D&D (except) 3rd Edition were deathly afraid in both literature, and game play of a little piece of cold steel getting slipped in between their ribs. This was not the case in 3E, and this helped reinforce many of the issues some fans had with FR towards the end of its 2E run. Talking about FR is inevitably going to touch on different editions since it has been around for 30+ years. Many of the things done to it in 4E has certainly been drastic, perhaps even too drastic, however the return of balance to the classes is exactly that, a return.
Your statement is true, and discussing this issue in the terms you describe in your post is what this thread should be.
As it stands though, it has devolved into Zanan and Stigger arguing with Aegeri, myself and others on the comparitive merits of 3E and 4E magic with little or no reference to the Forgotten Realms and in the tone of the General Discussion edition wars.
This isn't a bad discussion at its core, but its taken a bad turn. Lets get this back on track or let it drop.
I think I need to step in here and support Lord Karsus for a second.
THIS IS NOT A FORGOTTEN REALMS DISCUSSION, AND IT NEEDS TO BE IF ITS GOING TO CONTINUE.
This is the 4E General Discussion edition war brought here, plain and simple. I'm a member of that edition war, and we have enough problems on these forums without dragging that in here.
I apologize for my own participation in this. As I've said, I'm a soldier in the 4E General Discussion edition war(which is still ongoing), and those habits die hard. I have disrespected someone's opinion where I've tried to avoid doing that here because it was one of the anti 4E edition war opinions. I've attempted to not to disrespect people's FR opinions, but as this wasn't one I went into General Discussion attack mode.
Again, this discussion as it stands shouldn't be here. Either we talk about Forgotten Realms or this should be moved or closed.
Fair enough. I did not read Aegeris last reply because of that. But give me one last reply to this - as it also concerns the Realms:
You believe that magic should rule and that other peoples opinions and enjoyment should take a backseat to what you want.
This is not true at all. Maybe it is how you see me arguing here. But read again. I said from the beginning that D&D as well as the FR are a highly magical game/setting, was developed as such and played as such for decades. Now, magic was cut down in size, quality, quantity ... and "balanced" with other classes and their abilities. And IMHO this rips the heart out of D&D as we know it and the FR as we know them. Now we - as it looks - have a game and a setting that caters to the players much like any other ordinary fantasy world. It has, as has been intimated often enough, descended into some "WoW/Sacred/Diablo" clone-world where every player can create a character that has its equals out there, stuffed with attack and utility "spells" and abilities, ready to hasten from one hot-spot to the next.
I am not saying people shall bite the bullet with magic and some "shall have fun" and other "shall not". I advocate a group play where people accept that some have abilities beyond others, abilities not readily explainable. But this is always a conscious choice by the gamers, who can both change classes with every game they play as well as decide how they play their characters. Magic offers the opportunities and it depends on the players and DM how they utilize it. And 3E, for that matter offered enough opportunities for normal characters to develope into something special, even if it was still something mundane.
The whole "wizards dominate the game" - myth, IMHO, lives and dies with the way you look at it. 2nd level, 12th level, or 20th level wizards. Do they all dominate the game or the Realms? Nope. A selected few do, and rightly so, IMHO. With what I have read about 4E, no archwizard will be a straight choice for ruling some place in the Realms any longer, as every other equally high-levelled fighter may happen by and tell him with his sword and whatnot abilities that he has as much claim to throne and power as him, e.g. Ssazz Tam. And in that line of thinking, the topical header has very much relevance here, "mass destruction" to the Realms as we knew them - caused, in essence, by the rule change.
This is not true at all. Maybe it is how you see me arguing here. But read again. I said from the beginning that D&D as well as the FR are a highly magical game/setting, was developed as such and played as such for decades. Now, magic was cut down in size, quality, quantity ... and "balanced" with other classes and their abilities. And IMHO this rips the heart out of D&D as we know it and the FR as we know them. Now we - as it looks - have a game and a setting that caters to the players much like any other ordinary fantasy world. It has, as has been intimated often enough, descended into some "WoW/Sacred/Diablo" clone-world where every player can create a character that has its equals out there, stuffed with attack and utility "spells" and abilities, ready to hasten from one hot-spot to the next.
I am not saying people shall bite the bullet with magic and some "shall have fun" and other "shall not". I advocate a group play where people accept that some have abilities beyond others, abilities not readily explainable. But this is always a conscious choice by the gamers, who can both change classes with every game they play as well as decide how they play their characters. Magic offers the opportunities and it depends on the players and DM how they utilize it. And 3E, for that matter offered enough opportunities for normal characters to develope into something special, even if it was still something mundane.
The whole "wizards dominate the game" - myth, IMHO, lives and dies with the way you look at it. 2nd level, 12th level, or 20th level wizards. Do they all dominate the game or the Realms? Nope. A selected few do, and rightly so, IMHO. With what I have read about 4E, no archwizard will be a straight choice for ruling some place in the Realms any longer, as every other equally high-levelled fighter may happen by and tell him with his sword and whatnot abilities that he has as much claim to throne and power as him, e.g. Ssazz Tam. And in that line of thinking, the topical header has very much relevance here, "mass destruction" to the Realms as we knew them - caused, in essence, by the rule change.
What you say isn't entirely true, at least not for editions prior to 3E. For the most part, spellcasters in 1E/2E weren't the problem they became in 3E. This was for two reasons. One was that they got less spell slots, and the fact that 1E/2E combat ran three times as fast as it does with 3E. The speed of combat meant that adventures tended to include more of them, so having more encounters and less spell slots meant that spellcasters resources were more limited and more balanced with nonspellcasters. The other reason was that the game tended to break down after level 10 or so, particularly the multiclass system, and the vast majority of 1E/2E was lower level play. Spellcasters become more unbalanced the higher level they get, and the rarity of high level play again contributed to the game being better balanced in practice. The spellcasting issue was caused by 3E inadvertantly opening up Pandora's box by not taking into account the things that kept the game reasonably functional if not exactly balanced in AD&D.
As for FR and other settings, the game system(4E) doesn't actually prevent the domination of archwizards. It merely states that how powerful you are is based solely on your level, not on your class. If archmages dominate the landscape, then they make up a large part of higher level characters. Szass Tam is what he is because there really aren't a lot(or any for that matter) of 30th level Fighters and Rogues. At least not until the PCs come along.
The fact is though, that this imbalance was wrong, and has always been wrong. Sometimes sacred cows need to be slain.
The sad thing is I have explained to Zanan how magic of older editions is still at the current casters fingertips but in Ritual form. She has ignored this and keeps going back to her old arguement so she really does not wish to discuss anything IMO. Oh well, it made for an "entertaining" Sunday I guess inbetween cleaning the house. ;)
-Can't be gone for ten minutes...
18DELTA ;)
At least not until the PCs come along.
Yep ... and that is the problem. Some of the greatest movers and shakers of the Realms have been brought into "striking" distance of PC, something hardly done before. At least not as easily. And that "striking distance" will include non-spellcasters as well now. Hence, the Realms as we know them are gone. It is all too obvious that the non-casters rejoice on that, as can be seen here.
The fact is though, that this imbalance was wrong, and has always been wrong. Sometimes sacred cows need to be slain.
Toning down magic as it happens while at the same time buffing the other classes is somewhat like removing all nuclear weaponry from Earth. Quite a number of "world powers" will loose a lot of "punch" in world politics, whether they are actually that important or not. So there is a gross imbalance there too, but does the world not work because of it? It does, in a way. Not perfect, but it does. Likewise with magic. If you slap high level wizardy into the argument and only that, there is no basis to discuss. For the Realms - while shaken by magic and archwizards every now and then - do not solely work because of it and in many regions it ain't wizards whole hold the reigns of power.
LK ... what are you on?
Rauric
The sad thing is I have explained to Zanan how magic of older editions is still at the current casters fingertips but in Ritual form. She has ignored this ...
Rauric, do not presume too much. Rituals are fine, but since they can be cast by anyone, sheperds or archwizards alike (if they can come up with the costs), it is nothing special or wizard-specific any longer.
I am glad you acknowledged the fact that casters in 4E have access to most of the spells that they had in other editions so there is no "nerfing" going on just a rebalanceing. So casters in FR also cast spells like they used to ne able to do (for the most part). Sure non-casters have the option to do so as well but they must use a feat to do so and have the corresponding skill to make the Ritual work. Plus they need to buy or find the Ritual so they can place it in their book while a wizard just "gets" it for free.
So it looks like we both agree that Casters in FR and D&D have the same spells that they did in other editions, they are just toned down so they are balanced and stopped breeding elitism among certain immature and/or egocnetric, powergamers. See diplomacy's hot!;)
There is no way not to be more effective as a spellcaster, because you can literally do more than any other class can. You don't need to "optimise" it to be more effective, the inherit way these classes works makes them by default more effective.
A lot of that is going to depend on spell selection... and how imaginative the player decides to be with it. Or unimaginative for that matter. Which is not to say that I think spellcasters should purposefully go out of their way to 'gimp' themselves, but I've found that can be solved a bit by encouraging the player to find a role within the party and sticking with that role, maybe quietly taking them aside and speaking with them about stepping on the toes of the other players and letting them swap out the offending spell or spells with something more appropriate, however you chose to define that. If they aren't willing to do that, well, you probably don't need them as players.
There is nothing "unfair" about being highly critical of an argument that amounts to "Mages aren't more powerful than other classes, therefore DnD is ruined QED". It's insipid.
Which given that mages have spells that can do literally anything, is a weird statement especially at high levels. Using combination's of spells, a mage can out melee a fighter, out tank a barbarian, out stealth a rogue and out damage literally anyone. What "strengths" are these for the other classes then? The ability to spectate? Perception?
This is a continual line of argumentation, eg "Archmages should be feared" etc etc. All of it amounts to the fact that spellcasters are, in 3rd edition, indisputably more powerful than martial or non-magical classes. This becomes more of a problem over time. In 4th edition, everyone has been balanced, mages are still powerful and useful all the way from 1st to 30th - they no longer dominate the game.
Just because a class is balanced doesn't make it worthless to play or similar. That people who want the game to actually be balanced are accused of "wrecking" DnD is so utterly insipid it bears no real comment (especially as I find the wizard, through actual play experience from 1st level to 30th, actually one of the most useful classes in the entire game by far). No magic users don't dominate the game anymore. No you don't get to do anything you want. This was a sacrifice for game-balance and to make it so that every class played a specific role.
Not the argument I got from her posts… but if you wish to interpret it that way, which I don’t think is what she intended, you’re welcome to I suppose.
As to balanced classes, well, I’m not a big fan of balancing classes to be perfectly honest. This goes along with my notions that life isn’t fair or balanced inherently, nor should my gaming be, but that’s just me it seems. But at the same time, I don’t see spellcasters as the end-all, be-all class you seem to view them as under 3e. Powerful, certainly… but not overly much unless the DM allows them to be. A lot of it I think depends on the types of stories told, and the sorts of combats and encounters you toss at the party. Personally, I’m of the opinion that they should be constructed in such a way as to make certain classes shine in different situations, mostly through terrain, rather than arbitrary plot devices simply to screw over the spellcasters.
So you're saying I should be virtually re-writing the system? Because that's what you're saying and it sounds as ridiculous as it reads.
No the simple refutation is "I'm not re-writing an entire game system to fix all the numerous broken aspects of spellcasting, AND boosting martial classes so they don't suck, AND fixing monsters so that they aren't so incredibly ridiculous after I'm done fixing both magic and martial classes".
Honestly, by this point I might as well write my own game system.
Nope, not saying that at all. I’ve found that there are plenty of ways to limit the amount of impact a spellcaster can have on an encounter simply by giving them unfavorable terrain to fight in. A quick glance at their sheet should tell you what sort of situations they’re prepared for, and then giving them terrain that they aren’t going to be particularly effective in. A few simple twists and bends can screw over their line of sight and mess with their ability to effectively use area spells for instance. There’s lots of ways to limit them without having to resort to tricks like dead magic zones.
Thank you for implying that I am incompetent after 11 years of DMing. I have such high respect for your arguments that amount to "rewriting the entire system is simple and easy to fix all the numerous broken aspects of spellcasting, you'll wonder why you never thought of it before". Who would have thought that putting limits on spellcasters would actually be a solution. I totally wouldn't have! I haven't only been advocating that, which is 4th editions approach, all thread because I'm clearly incompetent and would never have thought of that.
As you're so brilliant, why don't you please go on, how do I fix invisibility for a mage and silence being superior to any rogues stealth or move silently? How do I fix teleportation? Tensers transformation? Harm? How do I fix enlarge person? How do I fix time stop? how do I fix haste? How do I fix being able to give yourself damage reduction, energy resistance, improved strength, dexterity and other stat boosts? How do I fix instant death effects? How do I fix being able to fly for hours every single day? Etc.
Wizards failed at this attempt, not once but twice in 3rd edition and Paizo with pathfinder have been equally unsuccessful (and yes, I've played that as well). So how do I, in any manner, make other classes do anywhere near as much as a mage or spellcaster, that can literally do anything they can using magic, without "wrecking" DnD by putting limits on what magic using classes can actually do?
But no, spellcasters in 3rd edition never caused problems. Only the incompetent DMs who couldn't think of something as simple as limiting power of a class that has limitless ability to do anything after a certain level, by the normal rules compared to other classes is one idea. I couldn't possibly have thought of that.
You’re welcome. And again, I’m not even remotely suggesting that its necessary to rewrite anything. Limits don’t have to be rules based, or even mechanical beyond what’s already there.
As to fixing those spells, footprints are a good giveaway with stealth oriented spells for mages, something the rogue isn’t going to have to worry about as much, dust being raised by footfalls the bad guys can notice, lots of ways to settle things with a few perception checks or supplemental stealth checks… or simply having the party tell him to not waste the spell and saving it for when they really need it. Teleportation and Harm I’ve never had a problem with, and I’ve never actually encountered a difficulty with Tenser’s, since no one’s ever used it in my games for some reason, so couldn’t speak to those. Enlarge person… relatively easy by giving them confined spaces where its more of a hindrance after a few rounds of the bad guys fleeing into more advantageous ground. The rest, well, I don’t see a problem with most of it, given how fragile most spellcasters tend to be HP wise. Don’t really see a problem with the rest of it either to be honest… instant death effects are kind of a staple of the genre, flying, well, never had much of a problem there either… nothing that couldn’t be solved with a few discouragements that didn’t require messing with the rules.
Yes it is. Any argument that boils down to "I want to be more powerful than everyone else, why am I actually restricted in power compared to these other classes when I shouldn't be" and then throws in "wrecking DnD" and other nonsense reeks of munkinism. Hiding behind "roleplaying" while appealing simultaneously that a class should have infinitely more power than anyone else doesn't work on any level - at all.
A lot of that depends on how you interpret the argument in the first place. A lot of that can be solved, I would suggest, with something like employing a few extra skills, something like Knowledge – Spell Tactics, or something to that effect, which you could conceivably require to restrict some of the more abusive tactics effectiveness, or disallow them entirely if they don’t have enough ranks in them. Not perfect, but its one of many tools a DM might use that would hardly require rewriting the rules themselves.
Funny how you specifically pick me out on this.
Where did I claim that she was not "playing DnD" anymore? Where did I claim it was "wrecked"? You perhaps shouldn't have made your biases so obvious if you were trying to get at this and direct it at both of us.
In any event, if you mean like the first post she made I responded to right, like here when she says:
Funny that, other people want the game to be balanced so everyone has a fair go and you don't have spellcasters dominating the game. How is this statement not disparaging to people who actually don't like being spectators in a GAME they are playing? If this is such a terrible thing that it has "wrecked" the game and we're no longer "playing DnD", then how is that not disparaging? I didn't get this incensed for no particular reason.
Now, I'm going to happily dismiss her arguments, because really complaining because you aren't able to do everything anymore and are balanced with other classes, doesn't get traction from me. It just doesn't and reeks of being a munchkin. Roleplaying doesn't require a disparate power level and let's talk about another system here.
Well, the nerfing of magic does tend to undercut a fairly standard tenet of the fantasy genre to my mind as well. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say it wasn’t D&D anymore, what constitutes that is entirely up to WotC at this point, I would agree that its not much like the D&D that I grew up with. I think it’s a fair statement to say that its wrecked, but only really apply that on a personal level, and hardly apply it to the experiences of others. Certainly one could point to low-magic fantasy, with magic being rare, but one could just as easily point to other settings where magic is indeed the dominant force in the world. It largely depends on taste, and while I could see where one could interpret that as a blanket statement, I tend to view statements like that on a more personal level, preferring to give others the benefit of the doubt on stuff like that.
In Call of Cthulhu, for example, none of my players need to be a Great Old One in a party of mortal investigators to "roleplay". Yet I get some of the greatest and most enthralling roleplaying out of Call of Cthulhu than any other system when I get the pleasure to run it. Everyone in the group is just a normal, everyday dude who may or may not know how to fire a gun (or even, gasp, CAST SPELLS!). You don't need to be the DnD equivalent of a Great Old One in a party of mortal humans to roleplay in this game: everyone is human so while you have different talents, there is no one person who does everything. Now roleplaying, by definition, is playing a character and not being more powerful than everyone else by fiat because you picked the better class.
Lost me entirely there… I can’t stand anything to do with Lovecraft or his beloved Cthulu mythos, so… ;)
Seriously though, I’d agree that you don’t need to be an all-mighty magic-hurling god to roleplay, and certainly within the context of CoC, it would largely be disruptive. But I’d tend to see that as more of a convention of the Lovecraftian (and others) horror genre, where that horror and revulsion is largely a function of being that unwitting, all-too-mortal person against the mysteries of the unknown. Within its own context, a powerful mage would be out of place. Playing a game like M:tA though, it does have its place, as it does with D&D, at least in some people’s definition of that.
Dismissing her "roleplaying" defense as laughable is perfectly justified. Unless she can give a justification for why you have to have a massive disparity in powers between one class and another to roleplay, the argument simply has no merit. It's the equivalent of the paladin who claims he needs to murder everything in sight that's evil "because I'm roleplaying". Reeks of metagaming as well.
Now I agree that "roleplaying" a wizard doesn't have to mean "being able to do anything I want without limits and being able to overshadow any other party member I want with magic". Why then the focus on "curbing", "nerfing", "wrecking" et-al spellcasters power? Unless of course, we aren't talking about roleplaying and we're really just upset mages are now equivalent power of everyone else. That's not a position I'm sympathetic to and yep, I'm going to dismiss that completely. I don't see the need for a disparate power level in a fantasy game between magic users and the other party members (who are also exceptional at what they do) for "roleplaying" at all.
Being the class that does everything =/ improved roleplaying.
Also the fact I seem so dismissive is because I have little patience for someone criticizing something they have not actually played, which is truly remarkable. It's the height of hubris. 4E has lots of flaws, it has many legitimate arguments against aspects of design such as its backing down from simulationist aspects that it previously had and the almost useless skill challenge system (which is still broken IMO). I can accept all of these arguments, but if someone isn't going to bother actually having played an epic level 4E campaign to know how it compares (particularly spellcasters at said levels), how is it in any way fair to make those sorts of statements?
It isn't. So why should I respect someones opinion, when their opinion has absolutely no basis? Yes, it would be dismissive, but you fail to realise there is no tangible experience or actual basis for that opinion to dismiss. So the only real arguments advanced that had any sort of substance were:
1) Mages should be more powerful than everyone else, because it's magic!
2) 4th edition isn't DnD anymore because magic is actually balanced.
Argument 1 could have merit, in some tenuous basis, but argument 2 is patently ridiculous. Less simulationist yes, but this doesn't mean I'm not playing DnD anymore. I never claimed she wasn't playing DnD or anything else incidentally, imbalanced DnD is still DnD. Balanced DnD is also still DnD.
Which one of us dismissed the others preferred way of playing DnD again? I dismissed, if you're confused, a specific argument (presented above). There is a significant difference in these positions. I never said anywhere game balance was a required facet of playing DnD. Who is it that said that without magic being all-powerful you weren't playing DnD?
And you directed this argument at me?
You don’t need that massive disparity, as you put it, in order to roleplay, but her point if I’m not mistaken was that you can use roleplaying to blunt the disparity you see, which I don’t agree is there inherently, by the way, and make decisions for your character that are in line with your concept of your character, which do not make sense in a ‘quest for power’ context, and indeed end up with a sub-optimal character that was built for in-character reasons, rather than a more metagaming optimization approach to building a character. I thought she made that quite clear really.
Really though, my largest complaint about mages in 4e isn’t so much that they’re nerfed, as that they took away a lot of options that a very flexible class offered by forcing us to conform into a fairly specific role that many not appeal to everyone who enjoys playing mages. Maybe I enjoyed playing diviners who acted more like generals than wizards, or transmuters who spent most of their time buffing up their allies and shaping the battlefield than they did hurling spells at opponents, or maybe even an enchanter who played the background, didn’t get actively involved in fights personally, who let their minions deal with the fighting… or maybe that fighter who found a book on an adventure after the wizard got killed and decided he liked magic more than swords, and so switched focus around level 5 to abandon fighting entirely. There’s a lot of avenues of character potential that 4e really cut off, and while you could potentially simulate that with the rules with something like rebuilding, presuming that’s still in there, I found the 3e system much more conducive to building more unique characters than 4e seems to allow, at the moment anyway.
Bravo, one last shot at me eh? Obviously I'm an incompetent drooling moron who can't run something as complex as 3rd. But assuming I'm not an incompetent drooling moron (for the sake of argument), perhaps I have a massive issue with disparate power levels in the same party, where one or two characters can do everything and clearly overshadow the others. Maybe it's because many encounters, in my experience, come down to the spellcasters failing/making save or die throws then the rest of the party being obliterated shortly after (because many monsters in 3rd are pretty hard to deal with if you don't have spellcasters).
But none the less, you still haven't actually addressed any of the arguments I've made. Nor do I feel the need to worry about building a campaign around groups of individual spellcasting classes, because 4th edition, heaven forbid, works with every player I have and their class. I don't need to deliberately metagame what I want to do (and btw, I'm well aware of using things like dead magic, despite your low opinion of me, I am not a complete idiot), instead I can design encounters without needing to look at the myriad of ways that spellcasters can break them. This means more time on my end making things fun and less time pawing through books looking for loopholes to stop spellcasters such as, but not limited to, dead magic zones, wild magic zones, sending them to random planes that are completely silent (no sounds can be made) or a tiny demiplane that turns them into chess pieces capable of communicating through a kind of sign language (obviously has major ramifications for casting spells, or doing anything much). But I'm an unimaginative idiot and troglodyte, I couldn't think of such solutions so we'll move on.
If I use an area that does weird things, it's because it heightens excitement and makes the encounter more interesting. It's not to balance out classes that is clearly ridiculously overpowered to give highly underpowered classes a boost.
Your post is precisely what makes me so angry about this whole "oh noes, magic is ruined and is the sux because it isn't incredibly powerful and you can't do anything with it" argument. If you have to design the game around something that is clearly imbalanced, it's a huge problem (ESPECIALLY save or die mechanics and this goes both ways, it sucks just as badly for PCs as well). It's not the fault of the DM that a game system promotes a huge imbalance in between character classes, which then has to be virtually metagamed out or they dominate proceedings on a regular basis.
Yes, I can constantly cheat if I want - but maybe I don't want to constantly cheat and would rather the system be balanced enough initially that I don't have to.
I think I’d have a fairly low opinion of a DM who relied on those sorts of spellcaster neutering tactics actually… seems more vindictive than creative to me. Once in a while, sure, keep things interesting, but constantly applying them is a bit much. Personally, I’m more of a mind to use natural terrain, or maybe some clever ambushes to keep casters in check, though I don’t often find it necessary. Ambushes with the goblin shaman having already figured out the best place for a caster to stand and having a catapult or ballistae pre-sighted on the position is a good way to give a spellcaster a heart-attack I’ve found… maybe some acid flasks ready to lobbed or dropped on them, something that will target their reflex or fort saves is always a good choice. Using smoke bombs and such to limit line of sight, cause choking, and other fun stuff like that is a lot more effective, and exciting, from what I’ve found as well… and equally effective against archers as well, who’ll probably take up similar positions. There’s tons of tactics a DM could use to curb a out-of-control player, regardless of class. Most of all though, taking the player aside and telling them to tone it down so he stops trying to dominate the game works best, regardless of the class.
On a side note though, the few problems I’ve had with out of control classes usually comes from rogues, not spellcasters. Most of the casters I’ve had to deal with are almost never a problem for me for some reason… obviously your mileage has varied there, but that’s been my experience with 3e.
My basic understanding at this point was that hurling around magic carelessly and destructively was a good way to get killed, since doing so threatened the balance of power, since you were obviously showing yourself to be a potential threat, and hence getting noticed, and likely getting dead. Sure, hurling a few fireballs in a cave, whatever, but access to a wide variety of magic wasn't too likely due to everyone playing things close to their chests and guarding their best secrets.
Sure, while a player might know that this spell and that spell can be used in such and such a way, since they read in someone's post, or maybe in a spell-tactics article in a hobby magazine, how likely was it that they're character would have even the first clue to use that particular spell in such a way? Its not like they could just walk into a public library, or even a mage's guild for that matter, and just find a convenient 'Spell List of the Realms' laying about to reference to decide what they want to try to figure out and research between levels. While its certainly convenient to look at that spell list, look at the various merits and flaws of each spell, and decide from that, how likely would that little mage actually be to have access to that sort of information? And so, with 3e in mind, I would suggest using a reasoning like that to limit what spells you might allow and not allow, and if they complain, pull out the metagaming card and stick your tongue out at them.
(obviously that's not going to work with everyone, but I'm trying to bring this around to the Realms here... )
A lot of that is going to depend on spell selection... and how imaginative the player decides to be with it.
Complete nonsense. You don't need to be imaginative to make use of a class that can fly, turn invisible, detect enemies with spells, has large AoE and powerful single effect spells etc etc.
Not the argument I got from her posts
Perhaps you should have read them?
As to balanced classes, well, I’m not a big fan of balancing classes to be perfectly honest.
That's great, other people disagree and so do I. Having one player make the others feel irrelevant is not good.
Nope, not saying that at all.
Yes you did and now amazingly, you then argue I have to specifically metagame that character out of the game. When you were responding to me, did you not read that I explicitly stated that metagaming one character out because they were overpowered was a terrible mechanic?
Are you aware how absurd your argument is that you must metagame the spellcasting classes to balance encounters, while simultaneously in your first argument claiming they were never "out of hand". Do you not realise these two arguments are inherently contradictory?
And again, I’m not even remotely suggesting that its necessary to rewrite anything.
Sorry this is your entire argument.
You've argued that:
1) You must explicitely design encounters around the spellcasters to balance them.
2) You must re-write rules to get around them
3) You must deliberately metagame (IE examine their spells) to ensure they don't dominate encounters
This sounds to me like writing the game around one or two players.
And you, seriously, don't see the flaw in this in a game with say 3 other players as well?
As to fixing those spells, footprints are a good giveaway with stealth oriented spells for mages, something the rogue isn’t going to have to worry about as much, dust being raised by footfalls the bad guys can notice
You forgot flight...just so you know...
Invisibility + flight and this is no longer an issue.
or simply having the party tell him to not waste the spell and saving it for when they really need it.
So metagaming.
Nice solution.
Teleportation and Harm I’ve never had a problem with,
Harm + a cleric who has sufficient ability to overcome spell resistance ends an encounter with a dragon in one round. Add a mages teleportation to it and it gets even worse.
I'd carry on, but 90% of your response is "metagame". That's not a solution, that's designing the game around 2 players.
You really don't understand my objection to the 3E mage, because you constantly confirm why they were terrible in every response.
Well, the nerfing of magic does tend to undercut a fairly standard tenet of the fantasy genre to my mind as well. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say it wasn’t D&D anymore, what constitutes that is entirely up to WotC at this point, I would agree that its not much like the D&D that I grew up with.
Yeah, it's better when you don't design a game for 5 people around 2 or 3 spellcasters in that group of players. To me, this is the most relevant point. If I'm designing the entire campaign around one class that can frequently break it, it's not a good class.
Seriously though, I’d agree that you don’t need to be an all-mighty magic-hurling god to roleplay, and certainly within the context of CoC, it would largely be disruptive.
Actually, players in CoC can get a lot of magic (become very powerful as well). They just invariably go insane at some point when the horrors of the universe finally take their toll (or they mess up and get eaten by something horrible).
Within its own context, a powerful mage would be out of place. Playing a game like M:tA though, it does have its place, as it does with D&D, at least in some people’s definition of that.
That's a terrible comparison. It's so terrible I'm amazed you would put M:tA and D&D together. In M:tA everyone is a reality bending mage in the same party. Everyone can twist reality and do amazingly absurd things. Nobody feels left out, because everyone always participates because they have [roughly] the same general ability to affect the gameworld between them.
The fair comparison is putting a M:tA character into CoC. One of these characters would clearly dominate the game and constantly overshadow the other people playing. This is previous editions of D&D.
You don’t need that massive disparity, as you put it, in order to roleplay but her point if I’m not mistaken was that you can use roleplaying to blunt the disparity you see, which I don’t agree is there inherently,
It is. You keep proving this with every response that amounts to "metagame out the wizard". If you're designing an entire campaign around one class, it's inherently more powerful. There can be absolutely no denying that mages and spellcasters in 3rd edition were more powerful. It's objectively and factually true.
And this is irrelevant.
by the way, and make decisions for your character that are in line with your concept of your character, which do not make sense in a ‘quest for power’ context, and indeed end up with a sub-optimal character that was built for in-character reasons, rather than a more metagaming optimization approach to building a character.
You don't get to talk about metagaming I'm afraid with your responses
Also, this still boils down to the same argument the homicidal paladin gives for slaughtering everything evil in sight.
Really though, my largest complaint about mages in 4e isn’t so much that they’re nerfed, as that they took away a lot of options that a very flexible class offered by forcing us to conform into a fairly specific role that many not appeal to everyone who enjoys playing mages.
Ok, you've just made the same "This is so unfair!!! I have limits, this is so unfair!!!" that she made earlier. It's just as invalid now as it was the first time she made it.
You cannot make one class do everything and balance it against everyone else. This is fundamentally true. The 3E mage can do everything another class can and eventually even more. This is not balanced and for the other people at the table it ruins the entire game. DnD is not played with spellcasters alone, it's played with a group of different people.
That you and Zanan fully fail to realise that the game is not about you or your particular class preferences, gives me a brilliant indication that I would never want either of you at my table.
There’s a lot of avenues of character potential that 4e really cut off,
In other words, you might have to play something else instead of having one class that could literally do anything it wanted?
You still inherently don't see the flaw in your argument here?
I think I’d have a fairly low opinion of a DM who relied on those sorts of spellcaster neutering tactics actually…
I have an equally low opinion of powergamers and munchkins, I can assure you
Of course, that you're arguing to do similar things above while deliberately metagaming your entire campaign around 1-2 players doesn't really say much about the mage being balanced or fair to a GROUP of players at the table. Just so you know.
Actually it seems to me unless that shepard is a leveled adventuerer in D&D or FR he will not be getting use of the rituals. They can be used by other classes now thanks to a feat but they also need the appropriate skills.
I am glad you acknowledged the fact that casters in 4E have access to most of the spells that they had in other editions so there is no "nerfing" going on just a rebalanceing. So casters in FR also cast spells like they used to ne able to do (for the most part). Sure non-casters have the option to do so as well but they must use a feat to do so and have the corresponding skill to make the Ritual work. Plus they need to buy or find the Ritual so they can place it in their book while a wizard just "gets" it for free.
So it looks like we both agree that Casters in FR and D&D have the same spells that they did in other editions, they are just toned down so they are balanced and stopped breeding elitism among certain immature and/or egocnetric, powergamers. See diplomacy's hot!;)
Ahem ... you missed my remark about the 350 arcane spells of the 3,5E PHB alone? Methinks the mark at the end of 3,5E reached a figure round about 1,500 arcane spells (Sor/Wiz version that is) - in all WotC books. That sea of spells has been emptied considerably ... and I do not even want to think of the cleric spells, i.e. those who could cast all divine spells on their list (after learning their alotted number each day, of course). Nowadays they get a just a fraction of those ... and in both cases, much of the diversity the spells offered got lost. Add to that the fact that 75% of the "spells" are attack stuff and this diversity becomes even smaller.
For the record ... I am not Stigger.
@ Stigger ... dunno, but his last reply starts with "Complete nonsense ..." and I for one have enough of that sort of debate. Alas I know my points have been understood by some, at least in a way that I intended them to be.
dunno, but his last reply starts with "Complete nonsense ..."
Because what he wrote was.
But again, more sniping and avoiding the arguments made I see from you.
Nowadays they get a just a fraction of those ... and in both cases, much of the diversity the spells offered got lost. Add to that the fact that 75% of the "spells" are attack stuff and this diversity becomes even smaller.
Just to note this, but this is again because of balance. The game isn't all about spellcaster classes anymore.
Once again, I apologise on the part of WotC they've made the game FOR EVERYONE at the table, regardless of what they play and that it's no longer about your preferences on how to play.
With beings like Tam, and the Shades, Imskari and even the Zhents and Red Wizards I do not think the High-Magic, Kindoms ruled by magocracies feeling has left the Realms at all.
With beings like Tam, and the Shades, Imskari and even the Zhents and Red Wizards I do not think the High-Magic, Kindoms ruled by magocracies feeling has left the Realms at all.
Not to mention those epic level spellcasters still left (EG: 21st + level) are all in control of various regions realms wide. There just aren't that many powerful characters to be found in the realms, meaning these guys have full control and there is very little doubt they could squish anyone they felt like very easily.
Unfortunately as regards this discussion it really is both. Sure you could argue that it is part of the edition wars, and in some ways it is because simply the setting completely sold out to the "Uber Archmage Paradigm" with the release of the FRCS soon after 3E came out. This paradigm partially existed prior to this, but mages throughout the history of D&D (except) 3rd Edition were deathly afraid in both literature, and game play of a little piece of cold steel getting slipped in between their ribs. This was not the case in 3E, and this helped reinforce many of the issues some fans had with FR towards the end of its 2E run. Talking about FR is inevitably going to touch on different editions since it has been around for 30+ years. Many of the things done to it in 4E has certainly been drastic, perhaps even too drastic, however the return of balance to the classes is exactly that, a return.
As a question, how is it balancing to allow any class to use the "earth shattering" rituals you commented on earlier? I certainly do not see casters getting access to the best fighter techniques. If you think the prior realms catered to magic users, this edition caters to everyone else at their expense.
It took 8 years to reach the 1500 mark you mentioned. WOTC will probably print many of those spells but they won't do it all at once, they need to sell books. When 3E first came out it was missing Reamlsian spells and many spells that were around in past editions, so many of those spells that people missed are not lost just delayed until the next splatbook. This is a new edition so people are going to need some patience just like what happened back in 2000 when D&D 3E came out. Now there will be an equal "powercreep" with every new book, and not just for casters.
With beings like Tam, and the Shades, Imskari and even the Zhents and Red Wizards I do not think the High-Magic, Kindoms ruled by magocracies feeling has left the Realms at all.
With the new 4e magic system it does not matter if new sourcebooks are released. There is a set, finite number of "spells" that a person can ever learn. You can not "add" with new releases, only replace.
It took 8 years to reach the 1500 mark you mentioned. WOTC will probably print many of those spells but they won't do it all at once, they need to sell books. ...
As I pointed out above, the PHB 3,5E alone holds 350 arcane Sor/Wiz spells ... as opposed to 109 "spells" in the new book. And if you consider, as I wrote, that about 75% of those "spells" are attack spells, you will note my concern about what the wizards (and for the time being I speak only of them) have lost. Much of their diversity. Much like in a Sacred/Warcraft game, they have been toned down to something that can deal damage, just not with a sword but with magic. If this cannot be termed simplification of former magic I don't know what can. On the other hand ... take the rogue and they get some 70odd "exploits" which is an increase in this department of what, 10 times compared to 3,5E? Essentially, 9 out of 10 rogue abilities in the PHB 4E have been "scavenged" from optional rules (of 3,xE) and pumped into the standard 4E rogue. And by all accounts, the rogue was not exactly a bad choice of character in 3,5E. The disparity in terms of cuts and gains is glaring and one can hardly expect to gaming community to sit this out and enjoy it.
With beings like Tam, and the Shades, Imskari and even the Zhents and Red Wizards I do not think the High-Magic, Kindoms ruled by magocracies feeling has left the Realms at all.
Not my point. No insult, but I made it quite clear that there are still enough mages in power positions, and always have been. Dunno where this polarized viewpoints come from. These high mages are still and always were among the top movers and shakers in the Realms - no doubt. But there are as many mundane rulers within the boundaries than them too, throughout their long history. There was - though - always some balance of power amongst the high-level spellcasters too, so the rest of the Realms, that with less magical backbone could flourish.
I also intimated that these high level-chaps, the wizards like Tam have now indeed been brought into striking distance to all who get to level 30, no matter what class they are. This was, so far, mostly just stuff of novels and once a bard or fighter lays a Tam to rest, we know that the Realms as we know them from earlier sourcebooks are gone for good. As I said, they have IMHO been turned into something that revolves around the fun and the players.
With the new 4e magic system it does not matter if new sourcebooks are released. There is a set, finite number of "spells" that a person can ever learn. You can not "add" with new releases, only replace.
You mean just like how everyone else is going to have to deal with this same thing, like fighters who might want to be masters of both the polearm and axes (but can't)?
It's not like wizards get 2 dailies to choose whenever they do so, and 3 daily powers with expanded spellbook where everyone else gets 1 daily power.
Wait....
As a question, how is it balancing to allow any class to use the "earth shattering" rituals you commented on earlier? I certainly do not see casters getting access to the best fighter techniques. If you think the prior realms catered to magic users, this edition caters to everyone else at their expense.
Most rituals require arcana and the ritual casting feat. For non-wizards to cast many rituals, they would need to take training in Arcana and to take the ritual casting feat, which requires 2 feats. If they are trained in arcana and they have taken the ritual casting feat, they are at least somewhat competent with magic - but not sufficiently trained that they can manipulate magic on the fly outside of a carefully prepared and written ritual.
So a caster gets this for free, while other characters have to pay at minimum 2 feats for many rituals.
Complete nonsense. You don't need to be imaginative to make use of a class that can fly, turn invisible, detect enemies with spells, has large AoE and powerful single effect spells etc etc.
And all those abilities still depend largely on what spells the character chooses. If they don't have fly, then they aren't flying anywhere... that you seem to presume those are automatic selections that no self-respecting mage would be without says quite a bit really...
Perhaps you should have read them?
Did, still didn't get that impression.
That's great, other people disagree and so do I. Having one player make the others feel irrelevant is not good.
I'm well aware of that, no need to remind me. My idea of balance is more situational superiority... yes, yes, yes, I know, the spellcaster can do it all, I'm sure we're more than aware of your position on that by now, but I'm firmly of the opinion that its more of a substitution rather than an overshadowing. Could be just the way I treat it as a DM, but I've never read anything to the contrary.
Yes you did and now amazingly, you then argue I have to specifically metagame that character out of the game. When you were responding to me, did you not read that I explicitly stated that metagaming one character out because they were overpowered was a terrible mechanic?
Are you aware how absurd your argument is that you must metagame the spellcasting classes to balance encounters, while simultaneously in your first argument claiming they were never "out of hand". Do you not realise these two arguments are inherently contradictory?
I don't really consider the idea metagaming... most of it works just as well against ranged combat types as well. That silly little thing one might consider tactics on the part of one's enemies... setting up a battlefield to the maximum advantage of those who have the time and inclination to prepare them sort of thing. Very easy to make even goblins quite deadly with really... not that hard to imagine goblins concentrating fire on the guy in the dress sputtering gibberish, since that's usually the dangerous one with range.
But I suppose by that logic, we should abandon maneuver warfare, artillery fire support, and close air support as military tactics, since its not really fair to the infantry when their dismounted from their transports.
Sorry this is your entire argument.
You've argued that:
1) You must explicitely design encounters around the spellcasters to balance them.
2) You must re-write rules to get around them
3) You must deliberately metagame (IE examine their spells) to ensure they don't dominate encounters
This sounds to me like writing the game around one or two players.
And you, seriously, don't see the flaw in this in a game with say 3 other players as well?
Um... just no. I didn't say anything even remotely suggesting that one must explicitly design encounters around spellcaster. I said one could, and gave a few suggestions as to how to go about doing that, without relying on the anti-magic/dead-magic-zone route, which I find cheesy.
And no, I don't think you have to rewrite rules, I said you could introduce a few new elements based on existing mechanics if you really felt the need, and made a suggestion about how it might be done. And if you're counting adding in a skill or two as rewriting rules, well, you have my sympathy. I've added dozens of new subskills for my players, to represent more specific knowledge, though I can't say I enjoyed writing them all out overmuch, it was requested, so I relented and put in the effort for most of them.
And again, I don't think you should metagame, though I hardly consider it metagaming as a DM, since I see absolutely no problem with designing encounters around the strengths and weaknesses of your players, spellcaster or not. It can add quite a bit to a campaign, where everyone is given an opportunity to really take advantage of things on their sheet. As to how that relates to spellcasters, the idea of memorizing spells is to anticipate what you might need in your encounters... looking over those spells is a fairly good way of seeing what that player is expecting to face, something a DM should do in my opinion. Same goes for equipment lists really... the players aren't going to go looking for situations they aren't equipped to handle, and I tailor the story around that, with the occassional springing of unexpected situations. Not looking at what they have and trying to anticipate their abilties seems a bit too... adversarial to me. I'm telling a story, not trying to kill them off.
You forgot flight...just so you know...
Invisibility + flight and this is no longer an issue.
Actually, I did mention flying there if you care to look again...
So metagaming.
Nice solution.
And I'm sure when a soldier's squadmates tell him not to waste the ATGW on a guy in a Honda, that's metagaming too...
Harm + a cleric who has sufficient ability to overcome spell resistance ends an encounter with a dragon in one round. Add a mages teleportation to it and it gets even worse.
I'd carry on, but 90% of your response is "metagame". That's not a solution, that's designing the game around 2 players.
You really don't understand my objection to the 3E mage, because you constantly confirm why they were terrible in every response.
Interesting presumption really, that you seem to think I feel the need to design around spellcasters, when I pretty much said I have to do more of that with the rogue... as to the Harm point, I don't think I've ever made it that easy for a cleric to just waltz up to a freaking dragon and give them a love tap... most of my dragons tend to stay in the air for some reason.
But I'm getting the impression you're not a big fan of tactics, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say you likely just prefer the monsters and the PCs to line up and bash each other until somebody falls... thought we got rid of that sort of thinking after WW1.
Yeah, it's better when you don't design a game for 5 people around 2 or 3 spellcasters in that group of players. To me, this is the most relevant point. If I'm designing the entire campaign around one class that can frequently break it, it's not a good class.
Again, never said that needed to be done. I don't think I ever have, unless its to give them a situation to address part of their backstory or evolution as a character. But, for some silly reason, my players tend to think of themselves as a team that works together, not as grouped competitors trying to get the highest body count. Maybe you need to find a leader among your players who can get the group acting like a team, rather than looking for flaws in the mechanics... which will invariably be there, no matter what system you're talking about.
Actually, players in CoC can get a lot of magic (become very powerful as well). They just invariably go insane at some point when the horrors of the universe finally take their toll (or they mess up and get eaten by something horrible).
Can't stand Lovecraft, so can't say I've ever played, so I'll just take your word for it.
That's a terrible comparison. It's so terrible I'm amazed you would put M:tA and D&D together. In M:tA everyone is a reality bending mage in the same party. Everyone can twist reality and do amazingly absurd things. Nobody feels left out, because everyone always participates because they have [roughly] the same general ability to affect the gameworld between them.
The fair comparison is putting a M:tA character into CoC. One of these characters would clearly dominate the game and constantly overshadow the other people playing. This is previous editions of D&D.
Sigh... the idea was the relatively high-magic of the setting, not the build of the characters...
But be that as it may, I don't see it as such an easy case of domination of a game... well, that arguement relies on the idea of getting or encouraging your players to cooperate with each other and not getting into un-upmanship, so I'm not sure how much traction that would have with you.
It is. You keep proving this with every response that amounts to "metagame out the wizard". If you're designing an entire campaign around one class, it's inherently more powerful. There can be absolutely no denying that mages and spellcasters in 3rd edition were more powerful. It's objectively and factually true.
And this is irrelevant.
As I said earlier, I've never had to do that, unless it was with a rogue. As to them being more powerful, I don't see that objective and factual truth you seem to. But you're welcome to your subjective opinion on the matter.
Though I'm puzzled as to how mages aren't included with spellcasters. :P
You don't get to talk about metagaming I'm afraid with your responses
Also, this still boils down to the same argument the homicidal paladin gives for slaughtering everything evil in sight.
I suspect we have very different opinions as to what constitutes metagaming... especially on a DM's part.
As to homicidal paladins... sounds more like a problem player rather than a mechanical flaw. Perhaps more guidance as to how each class is viewed within the world on a DM's part would be helpful, both as advice, and as a subtle or not-subtle warning of what you will and won't put up with from players. Or does not allowing them to run rampant over the other players count as metagaming?
Ok, you've just made the same "This is so unfair!!! I have limits, this is so unfair!!!" that she made earlier. It's just as invalid now as it was the first time she made it.
You cannot make one class do everything and balance it against everyone else. This is fundamentally true. The 3E mage can do everything another class can and eventually even more. This is not balanced and for the other people at the table it ruins the entire game. DnD is not played with spellcasters alone, it's played with a group of different people.
That you and Zanan fully fail to realise that the game is not about you or your particular class preferences, gives me a brilliant indication that I would never want either of you at my table.
In other words, you might have to play something else instead of having one class that could literally do anything it wanted?
You still inherently don't see the flaw in your argument here?
Sigh again. That complaint about being limited applies fairly equally to most other classes as well. Its more to do with the idea of something along the line of character concept, as it was presented in WoD games. I have a view of this mage as one thing, but the 4e ruleset doesn't really allow for that to be expressed mechanically, which it did with 3e. Apply that equally to the fighter who decided to take up thievery, or the rogue who found philosophy and decided to join a monastary, or the rogue who straightened up, joined the watch, and became a fighter, abandoning their more roguish ways.
I understand you have major bias against spellcasters in 3e, and mages in particular. But, surprisingly, not all of us share your opinion or experiences which helped you to form those opinions, and we are not actively sacrficing kittens (well, I am, but that's more to do with Rino than magic ;) ) or defacing American flags just because we don't agree with you... It's not really our fault if you can't quite abandon those opinions of yours long enough to try to see it from someone elses perspective.
I have an equally low opinion of powergamers and munchkins, I can assure you
Of course, that you're arguing to do similar things above while deliberately metagaming your entire campaign around 1-2 players doesn't really say much about the mage being balanced or fair to a GROUP of players at the table. Just so you know.
Again, I wasn't doing so... you presumed that apparently, based on suggestions I made as to how one might possibly get around that, but as I've not had many problems from my spellcasters in that respect, which obviously you have, those were suggestions off the top of my head. Though I have used the pre-sighted artillery one before, with several clues that this was the case, which sadly all of my players missed and paid dearly for, but that's another story entirely.
Yes, one could say that mages of all stripes do tend to strongly influence the pre-Spellplague Realms, but that was one of the characterstics of the setting. I'm not going to say dominate however, with instances of folks like Piergeiron (unless we're counting paladins, I tend to think of them more as fighters for some reason), Mirt, King Azoun IV, Queen Zaranda Star, King Bruenor, Helm of Sundabar, or King Habromm (or however that dwarf's name is spelled), among others. To bring that back around a bit...
With the new 4e magic system it does not matter if new sourcebooks are released. There is a set, finite number of "spells" that a person can ever learn. You can not "add" with new releases, only replace.
Rituals.
1. 4E sucks
2. No it doesn't
3. Yes it does.
4... ect.
[/thread]
4E is reality. Its time to deal with it or move on. Coming here and whining about it to people who are playing it or have come to except things as they are without approving isn't what I'd call polite.
Does the above mean that all the evil NPCs are just meant to be there for the players fun and entertainment?
[thread]
4E is reality. Its time to deal with it or move on. Coming here and whining about it to people who are playing it or have come to except things as they are without approving isn't what I'd call polite.
... i.e. take it or leave this place? That's polite then? You won't lose us that easily.
Just in case you didn't notice, there might be some people about who do not play 4E or use the 4E Realms and thus are willing to discuss things not 4Eish. And I doubt that the 4E loyalists burned all their old material either.
@Rauric ... The Realms have been about, detailed in large scale and small scale to provide a setting for players to find adventure in. The flair, not the game rules ruled the Realms. Few of the adventures had a direct impact on the longstanding history of the Realms, one of these samples would be City of the Spider Queen or For Duty and Deity.
4E pummelled the Realms because of some "much needed" change of the magic rules - i.e. causing the Spellplague and all that followed suit. Thus, the rules - for the "fun of the game" - changed the setting, and quite dramatically. Add to that the fact that people are encouraged to play whatever they like, sinister drow warlocks, weird-looking tieflings et al with virtually no reference being given to DM and player alike that this goes diametrically against all that was lore in D&D and the Realms before. In essence, it feels as if you play Elder Scrolls or Sacred or the like, where no-one really cares how the adventurer looks. Sure, the names and places are still there, but remove them and you have not one special Realms any more, but simply one of many fantasy settings catering to the need of the players - places to go, monsters to finish. Just MHO.
Rituals.
Which are not allowed to have any combat utility at all. So what does it matter if mages get an unlimited supply? 4e is mainly a combat game with roleplaying minimized. Most powers and spells, etc. focus on affecting a battlegrid and the opponents on it. Having a mage with hundreds of rituals matters little if they can not be used in the most focused upon aspect of the game.
I always felt like you could always play what you liked and 3E and 4E helped facilitate this feeling by letting players play PCs that were at one time "unplayable" (tieflings, drow, half-dragons). 3E started this trend but the LA system was pretty bogus, you had a level "behind " the other races but got to play what you wanted. It was a start though. 4E made it better IMO. Everyone wanted to be a drow from 87 on to the current day due to the novelization of Drizzt's adventures. Being "different" is fun for people and DMs can regulate whatever they like as we all know. Players = Consumers so catering to them is a good idea because in the end the DM is the person who has the final say no matter what it says in a rulebook.
I do not think we will see adventures that affect the actual world too much. Perhaps a little, but not in some horrendous way. The last 3E set of adventures sounded pretty terrible to me I must say, but I dislike most published adventures and only buy them to "mine" them for ideas. The Shadowdale one sounded halfway interesting though.
I have found that NPCs do not need to be high levels to be powerful. In Eberron some of the rulers were only 7 to 12th level, but they were still dangerous because of the political and military power they could call upon. Even after a PC killed an NPC they would have to deal with the ramifications that would follow that event.
Which are not allowed to have any combat utility at all. So what does it matter if mages get an unlimited supply? 4e is mainly a combat game with roleplaying minimized. Most powers and spells, etc. focus on affecting a battlegrid and the opponents on it. Having a mage with hundreds of rituals matters little if they can not be used in the most focused upon aspect of the game.
You said a caster had a finite amount of spells and I said Rituals to make a point that your statement was not accurate. Casters "powers" are mosly combat but the Rituals let them do something more outside of combat when the RPing happens.
D&D has always been a combat game, the roleplaying was an added thing that people started to take for granted. 4E has rules set up for out of combat encounters and Rituals are very useful in non-combat situations.
You said a caster had a finite amount of spells and I said Rituals to make a point that your statement was not accurate. Casters "powers" are mosly combat but the Rituals let them do something more outside of combat when the RPing happens.
D&D has always been a combat game, the roleplaying was an added thing that people started to take for granted. 4E has rules set up for out of combat encounters and Rituals are very useful in non-combat situations.
Actually, my statement is 100% accurate. According to the player's handbook, rituals are ceremonies that create magical effects. They are not spells. This is how they can be learned by anyone with the training to use them. Mages in 4e have a finite amount of spells (i.e. powers) they can ever learn. Again, my prior point stands. Adding new spells is pointless unless they are better in combat terms than ones already published. As there are only a finite number that can be learned and since combat is the goal of the edition, only the best will be chosen anyway. This is also why there is so much number crunching going on in the wizard forum. To be effective, you have to use the best powers and that makes for clones of the same thing.
Actually, my statement is 100% accurate. According to the player's handbook, rituals are ceremonies that create magical effects. They are not spells. This is how they can be learned by anyone with the training to use them. Mages in 4e have a finite amount of spells (i.e. powers) they can ever learn. Again, my prior point stands. Adding new spells is pointless unless they are better in combat terms than ones already published. As there are only a finite number that can be learned and since combat is the goal of the edition, only the best will be chosen anyway. This is also why there is so much number crunching going on in the wizard forum. To be effective, you have to use the best powers and that makes for clones of the same thing.
Rituals are spells from past editions.No they are not powers but they are pretty much the exact same thing that they were in 3E or 2E. Wizards have potential access to all of them.
[thread]
1. 4E sucks
2. No it doesn't
3. Yes it does.
4... ect.
[/thread]
4E is reality. Its time to deal with it or move on. Coming here and whining about it to people who are playing it or have come to except things as they are without approving isn't what I'd call polite.
Interesting way of looking at it... while I don't much care for 4e, for personal taste reasons, I don't really have anything against 4e per se, beyond not having much interest in it as a ruleset I might employ.
Personally, I prefer 3e, and was more interested in dispelling what I thought were erroneous and just 'wrongheaded' ways of looking at it. As a combat system, I have no doubt 4e is probably a superior system in a lot of respects, but its barely passable as a system for the ways I use D&D, which is not primarily focused on combat. Is 3e perfect? Hardly, but its better suited to my needs and 'good enough' for what I use it for... certainly less cumbersome than the Storyteller system, and a good balance of RP and combat mechanics if one doesn't look for anything other than a decent approximation to resolve events, though not great. Star Wars: Saga is a much better system to my tastes really, but a lot of work to convert to use for D&D, so... take that for what you will.
Though I do find it amusing that you're 'whining' about the 'whiners'... which was pretty much what we had to put up with for a good long while with the Anti-Mystra/Chosen/Whatever, even before 4e reared its head. :P ;) :D
Rituals are spells from past editions.No they are not powers but they are pretty much the exact same thing that they were in 3E or 2E. Wizards have potential access to all of them.
Anyone who takes the feats has potential access to all of them. Again, this is nothing uniquely beneficial to a mage.
That seems like a strange convention... for a non-spellcaster to go around casting rituals. Leaves an odd taste in the mouth for some reason... not really bothered by it, more like wondering how they came to the conclusion of structuring things that way.
Personally, I think it's overcompensation for the "spellcasters are OP" argument. So, instead of having overpowered spellcasters in 4e we now have all other classes with their own powers with the added ability to do anything a caster can do out of battle (if they take the proper feats) such as raise the dead.
Fighters still get to pick up and use an infinite number of different long swords (as an example) but a mage (whose spells are described as their swords) can not. While there were many potential issues with spells in 3.5, going from one extreme to the other was not the answer.
Personally, when I read your post about non-spellcasters casting spells I had the thought of a fighter holding a "magic for dummies" ritual book raising a fallen companion!a) Elminster stole all their plots
b) Mystra sucked
c) Too many Epic Mages
d) Too many Gods
e) Too much to read
Oddly enough, all those points were addressed in the 4th Edition Realms, regardless of how stupid they were. So don't be surprised to see many vets decrying every single stupid change to the 'Realms' in 4th Edition as loud as possible. They've changed their mind once in response to that, after all.
And all those abilities still depend largely on what spells the character chooses. If they don't have fly, then they aren't flying anywhere... that you seem to presume those are automatic selections that no self-respecting mage would be without says quite a bit really...
Except they can add whatever they want to their spellbook, having a wide range of flexibility. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't this lack of flexibility what you're complaining about being missing in 4th edition?
A lot of constant repetition of a point about "tactics" that is the new retreat from metagaming and claiming I'm uncreative.
So the next few points you make can be summed up as "tactics" and now instead of accusing me of being unimaginative, you've changed to a lack of "tactics". This is really enthralling, but I must point out things that you are indeed, confirming my suspicions you simply metagame rather than anything else around the mage. Take for example your response to harm.
You pointed out that dragons that are flying aren't worried about harm, that is, if the wizard hasn't cast mass flight on the party. The cleric can then chase the dragon around in the air easily and harm being a touch attack (or ranged touch attack if he's really clever) will have to deal with it. Your response, no doubt will fall into a highly comical "well look at his character sheet to see if he has flight and metagame out the wizard so that doesn't happen" (as this is also the only other feeble argument you have produced thus far).
To which I note, that I have already pointed out such metagaming is poor for the game in general because you are indeed, designing the game around the spellcasters. If you don't of course, smart players and those who can use "tactics", can bend magical classes to the point where they can really run over a wide variety of situations with ease. It becomes increasingly difficult (especially at epic levels, where this discussion started btw) to make things challenging without directly metagaming encounters heavily (which is, in fact, the position you've advocated), because the flexibility of these classes increases more and more.
I have to wonder, have you ever actually played epic level or just high level 3rd edition DnD at all? Like, beyond 15th level?
That silly little thing one might consider tactics on the part of one's enemies... setting up a battlefield to the maximum advantage of those who have the time and inclination to prepare them sort of thing.
Never heard of scrying, wandering around under mass invisibility, mass flight, summoning, gate and such have you eh?
You know, if your players used half the flexibility of magic available to them, they'd run all over your encounters easily. It sounds more to me you've never had players who actually know what spells can do when combined (IE: permanent spell haste for one simple and obvious example, a cleric using permanent holy might that makes him a far superior fighter). I think it's more that you have no idea how broken spellcasting was, than it is any deficiency of tactics on my part.
A flying dragon (to return to this) is a problem for spellcasters at epic tiers especially? I mean, really? You can even use a portal to cast a ranged touch attack like harm through to hit the dragon hundreds of feet away.
Um... just no. I didn't say anything even remotely suggesting that one must explicitly design encounters around spellcaster.
Yep. You have to. For example, harm isn't an issue for your dragons as you put it because they are "flying". You seem to have missed the obvious part when the wizard casts mass flight and the cleric is soaring about chasing after the dragon, making that harm quite significant. That none of your players ever thought of this really makes me wonder if you have ever actually seen how badly casters break 3rd edition DnD.
And again, I don't think you should metagame, though I hardly consider it metagaming as a DM, since I see absolutely no problem with designing encounters around the strengths and weaknesses of your players,
No, you're really designing it around spellcasters, especially in the epic tiers of 3rd edition DnD. To challenge my players in 3rd edition, because my players can use "tactics" and are well aware of what they can do with the multitude of spells available to them, I had to basically metagame out the spellcasters.
In 4th, I don't metagame out anyone at all. I design an encounter to challenge a party, with terrain and any 'effects' there to enhance the encounter. Not to make sure the wizard doesn't end it round one with a lucky wail of the banshee (or a pretty much guaranteed wail of the banshee in a genuine power gamers hands).
Actually, I did mention flying there if you care to look again...
I bought them both up together. You metagame out by making footprint puffs, the player simply flies (which you can do while invisible I'll point out). Either you didn't realise that the player can just hover off the ground using a spell like flight completely negating your attempt to metagame (by metagaming themselves) or you didn't realise that was possible to do.
It makes me wonder how much you've actually realised what you can really do with the broken 3rd edition magic system.
Because it seems to me you've not.
And I'm sure when a soldier's squadmates tell him not to waste the ATGW on a guy in a Honda, that's metagaming too...
Invalid.
If you want to sneak past someone and you have invisibility, what logical reason is there to say "we shouldn't be using invisibility!" unless it's actually a metagame one I wonder.
Interesting presumption really, that you seem to think I feel the need to design around spellcasters
And you are. When spellcaster X does Y, you insert something to counteract that ability even if it isn't logical. You deliberately check their memorized spells (as you admitted) and then design around that. You are, inherently metagaming.
In my current 4E campaigns, I don't design encounters around my players individually at all. My parties wizard may prepare sleep or flaming orb (for example), but I feel no need to metagame either choice out. It's not game breaking if he uses sleep successfully in 4E as it isn't the 3E save or die anymore. Likewise, the entire party won't get wiped when he fails to pull something off or even gets killed for some reason.
Because it's balanced and every character as a party works together. I challenge the party in 4e, not the spellcasters like in 3e.
But I'm getting the impression you're not a big fan of tactics
Although I responded to you earlier on this, I can point out that your players are likely not able to realise how to use their spells or smart spell choices. Not to mention you deliberately metagame out their spellchoices (as you've conceded earlier).
I do find it funny how you can't argue on factual information, but instead resort to claiming I am unable to actually DM 3rd edition and now claiming I have no idea what tactics are. If you have actual refutations of my arguments based on actual facts, of which I can point you happily to Pun Pun to show the ludicrous extremes of the 3rd edition magic system, it would be appreciated.
But, for some silly reason, my players tend to think of themselves as a team that works together
And seeing as you like to make assumptions about other peoples competency I'll allow myself the same liberty, perhaps they aren't actually very aware of how to use their spellcasting abilities in a reasonable manner? After all, if a cleric can't figure out how to get a spell like flight cast on him and or use an ability that extends touch attacks by reach (You can combine a portal with this as well, mage casts a minor portal that extends from the square in front of the cleric, to just in front of the flying dragon, then you cast harm through the portal using a metamagic feat to extend the range to a few squares to cast it through the portal and then the wizard shoots it down with the guaranteed hit magic missile: But I see your players haven't heard of "tactics" eh?
).BTW, the above actually happened. 2 characters, both spellcasters, destroyed an epic level encounter in 1 round. Of course, that my players KNOW how to use things like their spells is obviously the difference here.
Sigh... the idea was the relatively high-magic of the setting, not the build of the characters...
Irrelevant.
This is a game. Characters need to be balanced. Fluff doesn't. Characters do.
As I said earlier, I've never had to do that, unless it was with a rogue.
Rogues could only get overpowered in epic tiers of 3rd edition due to use magic device. Ironically, because it let them use magic and not really anything else. Even then, mages, clerics and druids were vastly superior to any other class.
As to them being more powerful, I don't see that objective and factual truth you seem to. But you're welcome to your subjective opinion on the matter.
It's not subjective, it's fact.
It has a simple proof in that you have a group of spellcasting classes that can literally do anything with a wide range of spells. You then have a group of classes with severely limited potential.
It is simple, demonstratable logic, that the classes that can do a wider amount of things and have more flexibility, are more powerful than those that can't.
But let's play your game. Make a fighter as powerful as Pun Pun. Then we agree.
I suspect we have very different opinions as to what constitutes metagaming... especially on a DM's part.
When I'm designing an entire encounter, expressly to screw over one player (or a few players) and their spells, ignoring virtually everyone else I consider that metagaming. Now of course I don't.
As to homicidal paladins... sounds more like a problem player rather than a mechanical flaw.
Actually it's both, detect evil is another one of those 'spells' which is now gone in 4th edition. And good riddance.
Sigh again. That complaint about being limited applies fairly equally to most other classes as well.
No it doesn't. A fighter in 4th edition is nowhere near as bad off as a fighter in 3rd. He is competent and can do far more all the way up to 30th level. All classes in 4th do much more than they did in 3rd in terms of martial classes. It's the spellcasters who got cut down the most in terms of sheer flexibility in comparison.
This isn't a valid complaint against other classes at all, they've gained far more than they lost.
Its more to do with the idea of something along the line of character concept, as it was presented in WoD games.
This is another awful awful awful comparison. It's so awful, I'm stunned again you would make it.
I'll repeat this:
In WoD, everyone plays something that is equally exceptional
I'll put it again and again if I have to. This is a ridiculous comparison, you can't compare a party of werewolves in WoD to a party of adventurers in DnD. Everyone in the party of Werewolves in WoD is able to easily tear apart most opponents and while they will have different strengths/weaknesses, they do indeed all have different strengths/weaknesses.
Casting classes in 3rd edition, beyond low levels, have few weaknesses and can eventually destroy anything with the right assortment of spells and builds. Using metamagic feats, they can do more damage, they can take more damage, they are better at stealth etc etc. This is because they have such incredible flexibility over non-spellcasting classes.
If you want your comparison to be valid, put that werewolf into a party of human characters or a WoD mage into a party of human characters. That's a much more valid comparison.
I have a view of this mage as one thing, but the 4e ruleset doesn't really allow for that to be expressed mechanically, which it did with 3e.
Good for you.
As you've already admitted you care nothing for balance and clearly, what I believe is that all you want is the game to revolve around you and what you want for your character, we are at an impasse.
It's not really our fault if you can't quite abandon those opinions of yours long enough to try to see it from someone elses perspective.
Except that your perspective is terrible and your arguments are worse.
I can boil down this entire response from you to a defense based on 4 points:
1) Claiming I'm an uncreative DM
2) Claiming I'm unable to use tactics
3) That it is so gosh darn unfair you can't do anything and everything you want with one class anymore.
4) Metagame out the spellcasters by putting X contrivance in.
1 and 2 are just insipid arguments made by someone thrashing about on the losing side of an argument trying to make anything stick because they've run out of factual arguments. As you've never played with me to have any idea how I run my games, I find this simply bemusing but it seems to be such an important counter-point, you mention it repeatedly in both your first major response to me (claiming I am uncreative) and then in your second (claiming I do not understand tactics). Both of these are ignorable really, so we can move on. 4 I already actually agree with, because in 3rd edition its fully required. In any event I return to number 3, this weak argument is still weak now. It doesn't justify one group of classes being able to dominate the game and overshadow everyone else, a fact you have yet to address coherently in any of your posts.
So maybe if your arguments were less "It's so unfair I can't do everything with magic anymore" (inherently) I could "see it from your perspective", but your primary defense this post of trying to claim I am unable to use tactics - without having any support for this of course - is pretty laughable.
So where will you go next? Perhaps you can try claiming not only am I uncreative and unable to use tactics, perhaps you'll claim all my games take place on barren fields with no terrain features. I don't believe you've said that yet, but you could always try instead of answering the actual points of discussion.
Do go on about my lack of tactics and creativity again though. We can have fun on this, I can claim your players just don't know at all how to use the variety of spells available to them creatively or use tactics either. This could be such a fun and useless tangent talking about other peoples games we have no idea about.
Or we could be talking about the factual information available and inferring from sound logic. Like how does a class that has a near infinite flexibility in power compare to one with a finite flexibility in power, particularly when two different people are playing those classes. You could always answer that point somewhere, instead of trying to run circles around the mulberry bush about the way I run my games that you have no idea about. The only logical recourse for me is to point out your players aren't competent spellcasters (as I began above in fact, mostly in frustration of your absurd assumptions about how I run my games). Really, can't you tell how stupid that tangent is going to be already?
Now, if I had the same players as Aegari had, I'd simply say to them that if they want to play that sort of magic game, then my monsters will play just the same. I find it sad when players resort to that, but meh.
P.s. Pun Pun required many years worth of sourcebooks to create. I'd be interested to see how broken 4th Edition can be after a similar number of years.
P.p.s. I believe this is a thread in the Realms section, nau? So perhaps it can be about the Realms, rather then a mechanics war.
1) There is no side losing this argument. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
2) Permanent Hate and Holy Might spells? Portals to touch moving objects? That sounds as much like the players are allowed to powergame as much as they know the rules and can bend interpretation. No wonder you hate 3.5 magic if you allow permancy to be added to spells like these. I do not think you will find anyone who thinks that certain spells in 3.5 could not be abused. The point I think was that it is the DM's role and job to ensure that such game breaking actions do not occur by controlling the spells the players have access to and also restricting their use to keep abuses in check.
I certainly would not say you are a bad DM. However, it's easy to bash an edition if you allow the rules to be broken at will without controlling them.
I find it at its best when I, or my players (when I'm DMing) use spells in innovative and new ways to overcome obstacles.
For the player involved yes, but not always for everyone at the table particularly the guys who were unfortunate enough to pick the classes that can't do anywhere near as much.
This is something 4th Edition lacks, and is one of the many reasons I have no wish to play it.
You mean players may have to be creative, in ways that don't always involve using magic as a solution to everything? Good heavens!
Now, if I had the same players as Aegari had, I'd simply say to them that if they want to play that sort of magic game, then my monsters will play just the same. I find it sad when players resort to that, but meh.
I did and ohhh boy, you can believe they didn't like it. I pulled things off on them that they really hated, like encounters with clerics specialising virtually in using harm touch attacks and worse. Why do you think I stopped playing 3rd edition DnD in the end? It became me (the DM) vs. the players playing spellcasters.
Also, I've played with a lot of people for one-offs, online games and many other things. My experience isn't just with groups of friends around a table, but also a large number of random groups or people I've never met before. So I've seen a lot of different people. Thus far, 4th edition stacks up far better for both my long term campaigns and one-off games I've run for people than 3rd.
P.s. Pun Pun required many years worth of sourcebooks to create. I'd be interested to see how broken 4th Edition can be after a similar number of years.
Pun-Pun is only possible through 3rd edition magic mechanics, because again, it relies on the likes of the inherent brokeness of spells like polymorph self.
When and if in eight years, 4th edition has an equivalent I might agree with you. But it doesn't at the moment and I doubt will (because it would take an exceptional breaking of 4th editions general way of designing things to facilitate another Pun-Pun).
For the player involved yes, but not always for everyone at the table particularly the guys who were unfortunate enough to pick the classes that can't do anywhere near as much.
You mean players may have to be creative, in ways that don't always involve using magic as a solution to everything? Good heavens!
I did and ohhh boy, you can believe they didn't like it. I pulled things off on them that they really hated, like encounters with clerics specialising virtually in using harm touch attacks and worse. Why do you think I stopped playing 3rd edition DnD in the end? It became me (the DM) vs. the players playing spellcasters.
Also, I've played with a lot of people for one-offs, online games and many other things. My experience isn't just with groups of friends around a table, but also a large number of random groups or people I've never met before. So I've seen a lot of different people. Thus far, 4th edition stacks up far better for both my long term campaigns and one-off games I've run for people than 3rd.
Pun-Pun is only possible through 3rd edition magic mechanics, because again, it relies on the likes of the inherent brokeness of spells like polymorph self.
When and if in eight years, 4th edition has an equivalent I might agree with you. But it doesn't at the moment and I doubt will (because it would take an exceptional breaking of 4th editions general way of designing things to facilitate another Pun-Pun).
Actually, there are wizard and cleric builds alike already using broken spells and paragon paths giving Dms a hard time. 4e has broken issues as well.
1) There is no side losing this argument. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I view a retreat to "you are a bad DM, even if I have no idea how you run your games as I've met you for the first time ever, on this message board, in this argument" as from the losing side of the argument. Unless he's somehow played with me, which I doubt because he would actually have a good idea how I run my games, I just view it as a worthless argument.
When people are doing so instead of arguing to the core points made, that's certainly losing in my book.
2) Permanent Hate and Holy Might spells? Portals to touch moving objects? That sounds as much like the players are allowed to powergame as much as they know the rules and can bend interpretation.
These are things fixed in 3.5 IIRC. For example, permanent haste I think was fixed in 3.5 (then again I'm not entirely sure) and same with holy might (may not have). But these are but two examples. It's already been mentioned in the previous page (and ignored of course) that what truly broken the spellcasting of 3rd compared to 2nd were metamagic feats.
And again, you all argue for this great flexibility of wizards, then turn around and make this inherently fabulously contradictory argument. When allowed to be immensely flexible, as the class is written, they are far too powerful. You then point out it's the DMs job (And actually, rightly so, what a shame this isn't the topic of discussion here) to curb (eg metagame) them to a more reasonable power level.
In other words, I should actually fix the system deliberately by making sure I either counter or make that flexibility useless (otherwise they obviously will repeatedly overshadow the other players). In fact, this is precisely what I did and I would even ensure players got a taste of their own medicine. But is it really worth going through an entire system to do this? The answer IMO, is actually no. 4th edition really, is the most extreme way of "curbing" spellcasting, while at the same time simultaneously making playing something that isn't a spellcaster a job other than being a "meatshield", especially at high levels where spellcasters were basically who decided high level encounters (I still think that's by far the most entertaining way of putting it).
The point I think was that it is the DM's role and job to ensure that such game breaking actions do not occur by controlling the spells the players have access to and also restricting their use to keep abuses in check.
AKA: Rewriting the system, banning splat books entirely and such forth.
I certainly would not say you are a bad DM. However, it's easy to bash an edition if you allow the rules to be broken at will without controlling them.
This is another variant on the "there is no problem, you're just a bad dm" argument, which is bemusing yes, but logical and coherent it's not. If you like, I can claim you had incompetent players, but this rabbit hole is just not very useful at all.
It's funny, I run mage the ascension games where players can, beyond casting spells in front of normal people, do whatever the hell they want with no problems. Everyone has brilliant fun.
Then again everyone is an exceptional mage who can do these things. Maybe we can go back to the core argument and carry on the discussion there, instead of trying to talk about how competent I am as a DM, when you have no idea how competent/incompetent I am (or for that matter, how competent/incompetent the players you have are at using spells efficiently) and stick to the factual argument I've put forth.
The core argument, lest we forget, is that epic level casters have far too much flexibility compared to everyone else, meaning they frequently overshadow the other classes. That this stands un-refuted 3 pages later is, IMO, a good indication of the strength of this argument.
Actually, there are wizard and cleric builds alike already using broken spells and paragon paths giving Dms a hard time. 4e has broken issues as well.
Such as? I've seen the wizard with orb mastery before, due to the stacking of negative saving throw modifiers, unfortunately I've ceased using solos (which really aren't very good*) so the last one I saw got a nasty shock when he was torn to pieces by the elite monsters in the encounter as everyone went coup de gracing, forgetting the wizard was in the open. Sure they won the encounter, but the wizard was very dead at the end of it. Of course, that the likes of the "broken" orb wizard are only actually effective in encounters with solo monsters points really to how crappy solo monsters are in 4th edition. The last time I bought up a solo with my players, one (in fact, in irony of this topic, the wizard) went "free experience!". Of course, I am not arguing 4th edition is flawless, merely the argument that it has "wrecked" DnD and similar for balancing an overpowered set of classes is nonsense.
Broken builds in 4th edition aren't anywhere near as broken or hard to deal with as epic level casters were in 3rd.
Edit: On thinking, rogues are probably even worse than an orb wizard. My current experiences with 4th edition, it's been strikers and not spellcasters specifically, that have the biggest balance issues. Then again, they are somewhat glass-cannonish. They also, unlike 3rd, can't completely dominate the game. A party with all strikers does not last very long without a leader and a defender at minimum. Everyone plays a role and it's hard for the striker to overshadow the fighters importance in 4th, regardless of how much damage he does, because he needs that fighter to be effective.
2) There is flexibility and then there is rules-breaking walk all over the DM cause it's in a book flexibility. You never need to rewrite an entire system if you don't like a small part. For example, the permanency spell had a list of spells that it could be applied to. Anything other than that was specifically stated as being up for grabs "per DM discression". Allowing permanency on haste and holy might in 3.5 would be at the DMs discretion.
3) Personally, I agree with you that certain metamagic feats were overpowering. To fix that, I removed them.
4) The flexibility I argue for is their ability to learn, create, and trade new spells while retaining the ones they already have. I think this flexibility should still be in 4e and is what defined a wizard. FR was a great example of stories involving magelings adventuring to learn new spells, duel for spellbooks, and explore for old magical lore (i.e. spells). Again, if you opened a magic shop with all the martial weapons, armor, and miscellaneous items in existence and then allowed the fighter to pick and choose at will they would be just as overpowered. Wizards run out of spells, fighters swing their sword til the cows come home. The feats and attacks per round for an epic fighter could also be argued to be OP (but we will focus on magic as that is the thread topic).
5) I suggest you read the wizards thread and take a look at blood mages. There is enough optimization going on with builds on that forum to be just as much a headache.
ANY class can be overpowering if you allow them to pick and choose ANYTHING they want from every book that exists just because it's there. There ya go, issue refuted.
1) Actually, the argument I was referring to was the magic system old vs new.
That is indeed losing, when one side resorts to having to claim the other was a poor DM etc etc, without having any idea of how that DM ever ran their game, it's a less than impressive argument. Again, the core argument I've made still stands untouched.
Also, I never said you were a bad DM.
Funny, didn't you make this argument?
However, it's easy to bash an edition if you allow the rules to be broken at will without controlling them.
Am I allowing the rules to be broken "at-will" without controlling them? How do you know? Where have I done so? Have you ever played a game with me? When did you? Where did you?
I said if you allow players to do whatever they want with every rule, feat, spell, or item without considering its effect you are in for a headache and it's hypocritical (for anyone) to bash the system if they give the players carte blanche to do so.
Using the normal rules of 3rd edition is suitable enough for a headache.
This inherently, does not answer the original argument I made back on page 2. You cannot reasonably balance a class that can do everything, against a class that can do only a very limited amount in comparison with that class. Especially at high, epic levels, being aware that my assumption is that we've been discussing epic level magic users the whole time (because this is where the discussion came from).
If you feel the need to throw insults and bait feel free but I don't need to do so in return.
I've not insulted anyone actually, but I am not forgiving to ridiculous arguments like the above. Claiming someone is metagaming is not being insulting, or that they are being unreasonable by trying to ask to have significantly more power than anyone else by virtue of their preferences. I do view this argument however, that "Wizards should be inherently more powerful" as something that I would hear from a powergamer/munchkin however.
2) There is flexibility and then there is rules-breaking walk all over the DM cause it's in a book flexibility. You never need to rewrite an entire system if you don't like a small part.
There are lots of broken spells, broken combinations of spells with metamagic feats thrown on top of them (which make broken spells even worse) and this still, does not, inherently change the fact spellcasters are much more flexible and powerful than non-spellcasters.
For example, the permanency spell had a list of spells that it could be applied to.
In 3.5. Even so, they did nerf a great deal of spells in 3.5 and metamagic feats (including my personal most despised spell in existence, timestop), but that was more of a band-aid. Spellcasters were still too powerful comparatively with other classes.
Anything other than that was specifically stated as being up for grabs "per DM discression". Allowing permanency on haste and holy might in 3.5 would be at the Dms discretion.
Yes, that was a good idea. Which is why I did that myself, but even then, it's a band-aid and it still didn't fix how inherently good a spell like haste was.
3) Personally, I agree with you that certain metamagic feats were overpowering. To fix that, I removed them.
This is a solution, unfortunately you end up with people saying that you are unfairly "nerfing" wizards and destroying their DnD (by putting limits, much more severe ones than just RAW). I just go further and further on limits on what spells could do, but eventually you are no longer really playing anything that was "3rd edition" DnD anymore. If I've changed a system so much, what is the point of playing it and it's hardly fair to someone else coming in either.
So after a while, I just played other systems and gave up on DnD entirely: because rewriting, banning and making sure things couldn't be entirely abused was no longer worth the effort. Especially because none of it ever fixed the problem that spellcasters were still too strong, limits, metagaming and such thrown in, compared to the other classes that still clearly lagged behind them.
4) The flexibility I argue for is their ability to learn, create, and trade new spells while retaining the ones they already have.
Which is part of what made them imbalanced.
How do you intend to balance the class that can do anything it wants, with unlimited versatility, against the people who don't get to enjoy such versatility? You simply can't and even after nerfing spells like harm (which really did get a huuuge whack with the nerf stick in 3.5), timestop, polymorph etc it moved the problems onto multitudes of other broken spells instead.
I think this flexibility should still be in 4e and is what defined a wizard.
They have 2 dailies and utility powers every time they get one. They have 3 daily powers if they take the expanded spellbook.
Everyone else gets 1. Except the swordmage, who can take a feat to get 2 dailies when they get a daily power instead of one. But I digress.
Again, if you opened a magic shop with all the martial weapons, armor, and miscellaneous items in existence and then allowed the fighter to pick and choose at will they would be just as overpowered.
What a good thing 4th edition makes it so the fighter can only take a limited group of dailies, ties powers to two stats (strength and usually another) so that he can't get the utility or feats for every weapon (even if they wanted) and can't get the powers to take the most advantage of them (EG: Polearm mastery Paragon path as an example, you don't get that and the nice powers from another weapon specialization mastery PP as well).
Edit: Reading this again, I'm still amazed you don't see the direct comparison between what you've written here and wizards. If you made the shop the spellbook and replaced "fighter" with "wizard", you end up with something that is overpowered as well. Yet one of these things you seem to think is fine, while decrying the other.
Now, the comparison would be that everyone has access to shops where they can get stuff for their characters but nobody can leave with the whole shop anymore.
5) I suggest you read the wizards thread and take a look at blood mages. There is enough optimization going on with builds on that forum to be just as much a headache.
Bloodmages are alright, they are mostly used because of two powers (their ability to get back encounter powers and the stunning + orb combination). I don't find them exceptionally hard to deal with, even with a player with a really optimised bloodmage. There is an excellent reason for this, he has to work as a team in the entire group and doesn't overshadow (despite his power) everyone else.
The other players never sit there all game wondering what they are doing, because while powerful, they are all very powerful themselves. There are some equally good ranger and barbarian builds as well: neither of them are wizards or spellcasters (just so you know). There are also some excellent fighter builds too.
What you've forgot in all this somewhere, is that monsters aren't one hit wonders anymore. Their abilities, hit points and defenses mean I can still challenge players without needing to heavily metagame a class out (but we'll see how this goes over the course of 4th edition). As they actually last some time, there is no one sided destruction ala 3rd edition anymore.
Looking through most Charop boards, there is nothing there that produces anything close to the game breaking levels of 3rd edition casters. Nothing.
ANY class can be overpowering if you allow them to pick and choose ANYTHING they want from every book that exists just because it's there. There ya go, issue refuted.
No, not really, because the base classes in the PHB itself were broken in comparison with the other classes. You add splat books to it and you make it worse. That you again argue wizards must be limited, including straight culling metamagic feats, merely keeps proving my points.
You still haven't addressed the core argument either.
Point taken.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
You hate 3.5 wizards and the system of magic.
If only that was the argument I made anywhere. What I wrote (which I think comes across very clearly), is actually not the power level of wizards, clerics, druids and spellcasters inherently that I have the problem with. It's the power level of wizards, clerics, druids and spellcasters in comparison with the other classes that is the problem.
For example, I noted that I'm a real fan of Mage: The Ascension. You can bend things in Mage: The Ascension probably even more than you can in DnD, because it has an even less rigid way of casting spells and only a couple of (albeit, very significant) restrictions. The whole difference is everyone has a high level of power in that group.
I could of course, do the opposite thing with 3.5 and allow nobody to play anything other than a spellcaster. This is something that also works, because when everyone has an even or comparative level of power it makes the game function much better.
It is the inherent imbalance of spellcasters vs. the people who don't use magic that is my problem. It's when the magic users dominate the game, while someone else who isn't a magic user sits there repeatedly each session wondering why they aren't bothering to play. It's when one class has all the flexibility and someone can, if they are lucky, hit something with a sword for its resistances to make their damage irrelevant.
For the player involved yes, but not always for everyone at the table particularly the guys who were unfortunate enough to pick the classes that can't do anywhere near as much.
Heck, the most effective guy at my table is the Paladin. Closely followed by the Rogue. That could be because I'm currently playing a low level game though.
You mean players may have to be creative, in ways that don't always involve using magic as a solution to everything? Good heavens!
Ah, snark. That's not what I said and you know it. My players consistently come up with new and varied ways of getting past obstacles, sometimes with magic, sometimes without.
I did and ohhh boy, you can believe they didn't like it. I pulled things off on them that they really hated, like encounters with clerics specialising virtually in using harm touch attacks and worse. Why do you think I stopped playing 3rd edition DnD in the end? It became me (the DM) vs. the players playing spellcasters.
Also, I've played with a lot of people for one-offs, online games and many other things. My experience isn't just with groups of friends around a table, but also a large number of random groups or people I've never met before. So I've seen a lot of different people. Thus far, 4th edition stacks up far better for both my long term campaigns and one-off games I've run for people than 3rd.
Aye, and I can see that sucking a lot. It's why neither my players or I go there. It's no fun for me, no fun for the player of the spellcaster and no fun for the rest of the group. And if people aren't there to have fun, what exactly are they there for?
I've seen it, to be fair. It's why I don't play with those people.
Pun-Pun is only possible through 3rd edition magic mechanics, because again, it relies on the likes of the inherent brokeness of spells like polymorph self.
Polymorph Self isn't used in Pun Pun. ;) But you're right, in the sense that it uses an utterly absurd and completely hypothetical arrangement of various feats, spells and classes from a mass of different sourcebooks. Something only possible in 3rd Edition.
When and if in eight years, 4th edition has an equivalent I might agree with you. But it doesn't at the moment and I doubt will (because it would take an exceptional breaking of 4th editions general way of designing things to facilitate another Pun-Pun).
What's the epic class that kills Orcus in one turn again? Anyway, I suppose we will see once a good number of sourcebooks are released, hmm?
Heck, the most effective guy at my table is the Paladin. Closely followed by the Rogue. That could be because I'm currently playing a low level game though.
The whole time, this whole discussion (and yes I know it's a giant mess, with the original point being missed a lot) starts on page one from this comment by Zanan:
You mean, now 4 players can bash Demogorgon to pulp in 4 rounds, all getting one or two hits each? That ain't very epic either.
Obviously, as has always been the case in this game, DMs have a task to control things (like using a screen and saying: Demogorgon comes first, full stop). They determine what the players get (spells (mages), feats, weaponry, equipment et al) and also how this is going to challenge an opponent. If e.g. a wizard is purpose-built for slaying SR things and the like, he's going to have a lean time in such fights. I would assume your DM knew what your character was able to do against the likes of Demogorgon?
And from there my responses back and forth. I've always, in every argument, assumed epic level 3rd edition spellcasting. At low levels, from 1 to say, 7 or so, spellcasters in 3rd edition are relatively fine. It's beyond 7th + level that they start to become broken, at 14th level they are utterly broken and by 20th level, anyone not a spellcaster might as well play on the playstation instead of playing in my game. It's not like they're going to be affecting the game much beyond occupying a square.
Ah, snark. That's not what I said and you know it.
That's not how I interpreted what you wrote at all. I find magic is the opposite to creativity as well. Instead of having to find a creative way in somewhere, teleport. Instead of finding a route into the castle, fly. Instead of X just use Y spell that suits X.
What's the epic class that kills Orcus in one turn again?
You mean the one that has official errata that stopped it and no longer exists? That "broken" build was fixed less than four weeks after 4th came out, hardly the years that broken epic level casters enjoyed. Let alone one caster that was semi-ok, getting one of the biggest boosts ever and becoming the second, maybe first (arguments can go either way on the Druid) most broken class in 3.5.
Edit: Blade cascade was fixed 2/7/08 in fact. The books were released 6/6/08. It was a clear oversight to allow BC to have unlimited attacks and this was quickly corrected. I doubt anyone even saw how ridiculous BC was given how fast it got the nerf stick.
Except they can add whatever they want to their spellbook, having a wide range of flexibility. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't this lack of flexibility what you're complaining about being missing in 4th edition?
Not really sure what you’re getting at there… I was talking about players not necessarily making the same choices that you might, for whatever reason… the idea that not everyone is going to make the same choices.
So the next few points you make can be summed up as "tactics" and now instead of accusing me of being unimaginative, you've changed to a lack of "tactics". This is really enthralling, but I must point out things that you are indeed, confirming my suspicions you simply metagame rather than anything else around the mage. Take for example your response to harm.
You pointed out that dragons that are flying aren't worried about harm, that is, if the wizard hasn't cast mass flight on the party. The cleric can then chase the dragon around in the air easily and harm being a touch attack (or ranged touch attack if he's really clever) will have to deal with it. Your response, no doubt will fall into a highly comical "well look at his character sheet to see if he has flight and metagame out the wizard so that doesn't happen" (as this is also the only other feeble argument you have produced thus far).
To which I note, that I have already pointed out such metagaming is poor for the game in general because you are indeed, designing the game around the spellcasters. If you don't of course, smart players and those who can use "tactics", can bend magical classes to the point where they can really run over a wide variety of situations with ease. It becomes increasingly difficult (especially at epic levels, where this discussion started btw) to make things challenging without directly metagaming encounters heavily (which is, in fact, the position you've advocated), because the flexibility of these classes increases more and more.
I have to wonder, have you ever actually played epic level or just high level 3rd edition DnD at all? Like, beyond 15th level?
Nope, can’t say I would try to screw over his flight spell in the case of that. For some reason I don’t often have players get into the air with a flying creature much larger and meaner than they are… you know that whole big dragon, the last thing you do is leave the potential of cover thinking. Or maybe I just don’t have players who have the same mindset yours seem to.
As to those tactics you seem to be referring to, I’d tend to think of them largely relying on the knowledge that they are indeed playing a game and don’t mind taking risks that a rational person would likely view as utterly insane. I’d consider using tactics like that metagaming at its finest… since a lot of them do tend to rely looking at things from a mechanical point of view and an objective look at the odds, rather than from a more personal point of view of that big damned dragon is going to utterly destroy me… and yes I have played at epic levels, but apparently not the way you have. Could be that my players focus more on their characters relationships and goals, rather than a collection of mechanical bonuses and ways to destroy whatever might stand in their ways. I’m suspecting we have two very different goals in our games… as well as very different views of how the game should be approached.
To me, analyzing mechanical exploits to built characters who are effectively invulnerable is about as boring as could be… and kind of defeats the point of roleplaying. I don’t build my spellcasters to take every advantage I can, and do my best to approach spell tactics from a less mechanical and more ‘what would actually occur to a fellow in the Realms to do’ sort of way. Obviously, that sort of thinking isn’t the way you approach things, so you get a very different perspective. Certainly, it’s a valid enough way to play the game, and you’re more than welcome to it, but its not an approach I much care for, since it tends to devolve into a mathematical exercise rather than a game to my mind.
Though I am gaining a much better idea of why you find 4e so much more appealing. And that’s great for you, but it still doesn’t have much appeal to me.
Never heard of scrying, wandering around under mass invisibility, mass flight, summoning, gate and such have you eh?
You know, if your players used half the flexibility of magic available to them, they'd run all over your encounters easily. It sounds more to me you've never had players who actually know what spells can do when combined (IE: permanent spell haste for one simple and obvious example, a cleric using permanent holy might that makes him a far superior fighter). I think it's more that you have no idea how broken spellcasting was, than it is any deficiency of tactics on my part.
A flying dragon (to return to this) is a problem for spellcasters at epic tiers especially? I mean, really? You can even use a portal to cast a ranged touch attack like harm through to hit the dragon hundreds of feet away.
Of course I have. And yes, I’m well aware that could be done with spells. But I doubt it would occur to most mages of a technology level such as most settings for D&D, much less the Realms. That strikes me as more a reliance on modern understandings of how the world can work, which I doubt would be present in the Realms… again, strikes me as metagaming. But perhaps you aren’t a student of social history, and don’t really realize how utterly alien modern thought would be in a place like the Realms. The way we think, what we take for granted as just being obvious, aren’t to people who haven’t contemplated things like the scientific method in its modern context just yet. If some player told me he was trying something like that, I’d just have to ask him how he came up with that one, and if the answer didn’t satisfy, I’d tell him to forget it, try something else other than metagaming.
I’m sure you’re probably going to take exception with that idea, but I’d very much consider using tactics like that as using player knowledge rather than character knowledge. That they know the way the spells work, I have no argument, but how to best use them, that’s something else entirely. Having a tool, even knowing how it works and how to make it, and knowing how to use it to its best advantage aren’t the same thing… that sort of thing usually took centuries or longer. Lots of things we consider relatively ubiquitous are based on pretty old technology, but when those technologies were created, the potential wasn’t realized until much, much, much later in a lot of cases. I make the same presumption of magic in the Realms, you might have the spells, but not necessarily the doctrine of how to use it to its fullest potential.
Seems to me that you have serious problems with making vast assumptions about the way people do things, and a seeming fondness for putting words into the mouths of others without fully thinking about what was actually said…
Yep. You have to. For example, harm isn't an issue for your dragons as you put it because they are "flying". You seem to have missed the obvious part when the wizard casts mass flight and the cleric is soaring about chasing after the dragon, making that harm quite significant. That none of your players ever thought of this really makes me wonder if you have ever actually seen how badly casters break 3rd edition DnD.
Apparently I haven’t, for the reasons I mentioned above. Nor would I allow it as a DM if one of them tried it for the most part, again for the reasons above. I’m sure that’ll get me an accusation of metagaming again, or artificially limiting my players because the rules say they can, or however you want to phrase that… but hey, as a DM, at my table, I define what can and can’t happen, rules be damned. I have defined a world within the context of how I think the Realms should be presented, not to limit spellcasters, which wasn’t really on my mind at the time, but to help them get in character and to really think about their place in the world and how they fit into it. As far as combat goes, I try to make it as visceral and descriptive as possible, rarely lasting more than a few rounds. The idea isn’t to do something cool, its to walk away in one piece, and I do my best to make that clear to my players. But then again, I try to keep the fighting to a minimum, with most time spent on intrigue.
I’ve a feeling you tend to focus more on combat though, so I can see where inadequacies of some things might crop up if you don’t mind players or DM’s who allow that sort of stuff in their games. Different strokes and all that.
No, you're really designing it around spellcasters, especially in the epic tiers of 3rd edition DnD. To challenge my players in 3rd edition, because my players can use "tactics" and are well aware of what they can do with the multitude of spells available to them, I had to basically metagame out the spellcasters.
In 4th, I don't metagame out anyone at all. I design an encounter to challenge a party, with terrain and any 'effects' there to enhance the encounter. Not to make sure the wizard doesn't end it round one with a lucky wail of the banshee (or a pretty much guaranteed wail of the banshee in a genuine power gamers hands).
No, I’m really not designing around the casters, nor do my players put me in a position where I have to. I won’t go into the tactics issue, since I think I made it clear above what I thought of your idea of tactics. As to 4e, I won’t speak to it, as I’ve never had to occasion to play, nor will I likely in the foreseeable future. It doesn’t suit my needs, nor tastes, but I’ll take your word for it that it makes for a better combat experience as far as your concerned. But, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I’m not concerned with the superiority of 4e or 3e, simply defending what I consider an adequate system. That it has deficiencies, I don’t contest, every system will and does, but what I contest is how devastating those deficiencies have to be. That they really bother you is apparent, and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that they can be broken, but my point is that they don’t have to be if used in what I consider to be the way they were intended, from my perspective of course.
I bought them both up together. You metagame out by making footprint puffs, the player simply flies (which you can do while invisible I'll point out). Either you didn't realise that the player can just hover off the ground using a spell like flight completely negating your attempt to metagame (by metagaming themselves) or you didn't realise that was possible to do.
It makes me wonder how much you've actually realised what you can really do with the broken 3rd edition magic system.
Because it seems to me you've not.
Ah, so you did mention them together, which I didn’t address directly, but I don’t really have a problem with a player using either. But anyway, that’s great for the wizard, but what about the rest of the party, or was that invisibility chained or something, and used with a mass fly? How are they going to deal with the guards without negating the point of stealth unless their invisible too? See below for the rest of it.
But, how is making footprints metagaming? Its another way of saying that I’d allow guards or whatever to make perception rolls to notice something out of place unless the caster was being careful.
And yes, I realize it can be broken with a DM allowing his players to view things in a modern context, but I consider that metagaming at its finest, as I’ve said, so…
Invalid.
If you want to sneak past someone and you have invisibility, what logical reason is there to say "we shouldn't be using invisibility!" unless it's actually a metagame one I wonder.
I can’t think of one… nor would I think anyone would. My wonder starts at what does that mage do when the spell wears off, the knocks are depleted, and he’s in the middle of a bad place with very few quiet ways out? Which is why I say the rogue is a much superior choice for that situation, and certainly more capable if things go south without alerting the whole castle that someone’s doing something they shouldn’t.
And you are. When spellcaster X does Y, you insert something to counteract that ability even if it isn't logical. You deliberately check their memorized spells (as you admitted) and then design around that. You are, inherently metagaming.
In my current 4E campaigns, I don't design encounters around my players individually at all. My parties wizard may prepare sleep or flaming orb (for example), but I feel no need to metagame either choice out. It's not game breaking if he uses sleep successfully in 4E as it isn't the 3E save or die anymore. Likewise, the entire party won't get wiped when he fails to pull something off or even gets killed for some reason.
Because it's balanced and every character as a party works together. I challenge the party in 4e, not the spellcasters like in 3e.
Nope, I don’t really need to… as I’m sure you’re probably already thinking, I’m using the whole ‘think Realms’ thing as a metagame approach to neutering casters… but there you’d be wrong, since that was specifically directed on my part towards the lady who plays the rogue, since she has a nasty habit of using some fairly modern ideas for her roguery, which tend to rely on a knowledge of physics that her character just wouldn’t have, and my wife, who usually does the bard, quoting Shakespeare and referring to him as Gwilliam Quakepike.
Although I responded to you earlier on this, I can point out that your players are likely not able to realise how to use their spells or smart spell choices. Not to mention you deliberately metagame out their spellchoices (as you've conceded earlier).
I do find it funny how you can't argue on factual information, but instead resort to claiming I am unable to actually DM 3rd edition and now claiming I have no idea what tactics are. If you have actual refutations of my arguments based on actual facts, of which I can point you happily to Pun Pun to show the ludicrous extremes of the 3rd edition magic system, it would be appreciated.
Nope, they realize it, except my wife probably, who relies more on bardic music than magic, but they choose not to use it that way. That they’re smart choices if you’re trying to dominate the game, I agree, but they’re not particularly fun when used that way unless you have some desire to ‘win’ and ignore the roleplaying aspects of the game, at least the way I tend to view it. My players seemingly agree with me on that, as none of them had much problem with my disallowing that sort of stuff as metagaming.
Ultimately, it comes down to it being possible to take pretty much anything of any edition to an extreme with enough effort, but my question would then be, why bother? Shouldn’t it be enough to know you could win, and maybe looking for a way to do it without having to rely on metagaming knowledge?
And seeing as you like to make assumptions about other peoples competency I'll allow myself the same liberty, perhaps they aren't actually very aware of how to use their spellcasting abilities in a reasonable manner? After all, if a cleric can't figure out how to get a spell like flight cast on him and or use an ability that extends touch attacks by reach (You can combine a portal with this as well, mage casts a minor portal that extends from the square in front of the cleric, to just in front of the flying dragon, then you cast harm through the portal using a metamagic feat to extend the range to a few squares to cast it through the portal and then the wizard shoots it down with the guaranteed hit magic missile: But I see your players haven't heard of "tactics" eh?
BTW, the above actually happened. 2 characters, both spellcasters, destroyed an epic level encounter in 1 round. Of course, that my players KNOW how to use things like their spells is obviously the difference here.
Well, you seem fond of putting words into others mouths, so I thought I might return the favor. ;)
As to what constitutes a reasonable manner, I’m certain we have very different views on what that is. I consider your view on it metagaming of the worst sort, as I’m sure you consider mine much the same. Different strokes for different folks is what it comes down to.
Irrelevant.
This is a game. Characters need to be balanced. Fluff doesn't. Characters do.
I’d disagree with that notion… you want characters to be balanced, and I’d suggest that they already are in 3e, unless of course one takes your point of view of the proper way to play, in which case I’d agree that spellcasters can be very broken. My point is that they don’t have to be unless taken to that extreme of abuse and metagaming (what I consider it as anyway, I’m sure you’ll disagree)
Rogues could only get overpowered in epic tiers of 3rd edition due to use magic device. Ironically, because it let them use magic and not really anything else. Even then, mages, clerics and druids were vastly superior to any other class.
See above…
It's not subjective, it's fact.
It has a simple proof in that you have a group of spellcasting classes that can literally do anything with a wide range of spells. You then have a group of classes with severely limited potential.
It is simple, demonstratable logic, that the classes that can do a wider amount of things and have more flexibility, are more powerful than those that can't.
But let's play your game. Make a fighter as powerful as Pun Pun. Then we agree.
See above…
And no, I’m not going to bother with Pun-Pun. That it can be done doesn’t prove much to me, beyond some people having way too much time on their hands, and simply provides examples of people I’d toss from my gaming group as soon as they pulled that kind of garbage. That its in the RAW is utterly without consequence to me, as I consider it in violation of the spirit of the rules, and I’m not going to ruin my groups fun simply to indulge some nitwit who doesn’t play well with others, and who seeming has a pathological need to ‘be the best’.
When I'm designing an entire encounter, expressly to screw over one player (or a few players) and their spells, ignoring virtually everyone else I consider that metagaming. Now of course I don't.
So would I. I’d also consider it unworthy of a DM even remotely worthy of that position. My point, of going over spell sheets and equipment lists, was to tailor encounters that would be fun and challenging for the party, but which wouldn’t require something they didn’t have or think of, or have any way of bypassing with a bit of cleverness, so as to expressly not screw them over with something they just weren’t able to handle. I’m not the sort who goes looking for TPKs, or even trying to kill off anyone, unless its for dramatic purpose, which is usually okayed with the player beforehand if I need them to die for the purpose of the story I’m telling.
Actually it's both, detect evil is another one of those 'spells' which is now gone in 4th edition. And good riddance.
Never bothered me any… but I don’t have players who use it as an excuse to go smoting any and everything in sight, so…
No it doesn't. A fighter in 4th edition is nowhere near as bad off as a fighter in 3rd. He is competent and can do far more all the way up to 30th level. All classes in 4th do much more than they did in 3rd in terms of martial classes. It's the spellcasters who got cut down the most in terms of sheer flexibility in comparison.
This isn't a valid complaint against other classes at all, they've gained far more than they lost.
We’re coming from such different perspective here its getting almost comical. You’re looking at this from a mechanical point of view, while I’m looking at it more from a dramatic roleplaying perspective where mechanics are secondary, at best.
This is another awful awful awful comparison. It's so awful, I'm stunned again you would make it.
I'll repeat this:
In WoD, everyone plays something that is equally exceptional
I'll put it again and again if I have to. This is a ridiculous comparison, you can't compare a party of werewolves in WoD to a party of adventurers in DnD. Everyone in the party of Werewolves in WoD is able to easily tear apart most opponents and while they will have different strengths/weaknesses, they do indeed all have different strengths/weaknesses.
Casting classes in 3rd edition, beyond low levels, have few weaknesses and can eventually destroy anything with the right assortment of spells and builds. Using metamagic feats, they can do more damage, they can take more damage, they are better at stealth etc etc. This is because they have such incredible flexibility over non-spellcasting classes.
If you want your comparison to be valid, put that werewolf into a party of human characters or a WoD mage into a party of human characters. That's a much more valid comparison.
And I’ll point out that I was literally referring only to the idea of Character Concept, that single little line on the top of the sheet that defines your character archetype, not your mechanical statistics. You know the one, Soldier, Priest, Social Worker, or whatever. I wasn’t making any claims at all about comparisons between characters from either game in a mechanical sense, simply that by pigeon-holing me as a wizard to a specific role in 4e is something I find unacceptable. Maybe I want to play a diviner who sucks at combat, who gets all spooky and mystical, but who can barely take a hit from a ten year old, but who makes a great leader since he’s the guy with all the answers, despite not being able to cast a fireball to save his life. Can’t really do that too easily with 4e is my point….
Good for you.
As you've already admitted you care nothing for balance and clearly, what I believe is that all you want is the game to revolve around you and what you want for your character, we are at an impasse.
And I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about that one. I want to be able to build an unconventional player, like the weenie diviner up there, or pretty much anything else I might want, regardless of class, and 3e’s multiclassing system works better for that for my needs than 4e’s more locked class roles system does. Its that simple. Maybe I want to start my fighter off as a commoner, and multi into fighter around 3rd or 4th level, but that’s just not going to happen with 4e, as the mechanics won’t allow too well for it. Maybe I want to play that average schmuck, Mr. Down-on-their-luck-Adventurer who doesn’t particularly excel at anything beyond being mundane, but who tries really hard, any maybe eventually finds their calling in something. Kinda hard to pull that off with 4e’s ruleset from what I’ve read of it, no?
You might think this all boils down to being godlike, because I presume that’s the sort of experience you’ve had with those who prefer 3e, but that’s not always going to be the case, something you seem almost incapable of recognizing for some reason.
Except that your perspective is terrible and your arguments are worse.
I can boil down this entire response from you to a defense based on 4 points:
1) Claiming I'm an uncreative DM
2) Claiming I'm unable to use tactics
3) That it is so gosh darn unfair you can't do anything and everything you want with one class anymore.
4) Metagame out the spellcasters by putting X contrivance in.
1 and 2 are just insipid arguments made by someone thrashing about on the losing side of an argument trying to make anything stick because they've run out of factual arguments. As you've never played with me to have any idea how I run my games, I find this simply bemusing but it seems to be such an important counter-point, you mention it repeatedly in both your first major response to me (claiming I am uncreative) and then in your second (claiming I do not understand tactics). Both of these are ignorable really, so we can move on. 4 I already actually agree with, because in 3rd edition its fully required. In any event I return to number 3, this weak argument is still weak now. It doesn't justify one group of classes being able to dominate the game and overshadow everyone else, a fact you have yet to address coherently in any of your posts.
So maybe if your arguments were less "It's so unfair I can't do everything with magic anymore" (inherently) I could "see it from your perspective", but your primary defense this post of trying to claim I am unable to use tactics - without having any support for this of course - is pretty laughable.
So where will you go next? Perhaps you can try claiming not only am I uncreative and unable to use tactics, perhaps you'll claim all my games take place on barren fields with no terrain features. I don't believe you've said that yet, but you could always try instead of answering the actual points of discussion.
Do go on about my lack of tactics and creativity again though. We can have fun on this, I can claim your players just don't know at all how to use the variety of spells available to them creatively or use tactics either. This could be such a fun and useless tangent talking about other peoples games we have no idea about.
Or we could be talking about the factual information available and inferring from sound logic. Like how does a class that has a near infinite flexibility in power compare to one with a finite flexibility in power, particularly when two different people are playing those classes. You could always answer that point somewhere, instead of trying to run circles around the mulberry bush about the way I run my games that you have no idea about. The only logical recourse for me is to point out your players aren't competent spellcasters (as I began above in fact, mostly in frustration of your absurd assumptions about how I run my games). Really, can't you tell how stupid that tangent is going to be already?
I don’t really feel like responding to much of that, since by now I’m hoping you’re getting the idea of what I’m more interested in… but to respond to those numbers up there…
1) I’m definitely getting the idea you’re far too indulgent a DM, who lets their players get away with murder because of poor wording choices in some rulebooks.
2) We have very different idea as to what constitutes tactics, based on what we seem to define as metagaming, which obviously differs radically from one another.
3) Yes, but for very different reasons that you seem to ascribe to me.
4) Probably guilty of that one by your way of looking at things, not mine though, since I’d say you were metagaming them to be far more powerful than they were likely intended to be. I have a hard time believing WotC would design a game on purpose that made a few classes so dominant. Poorly worded, almost certainly, but that’s where DM’s judgment comes in as far as I’m concerned.
As to my views on what I know of 4e’s magic… its very limited in breadth (not surprising this early on in the edition), very limited in terms of what it allows in terms of character concept beyond being what the wizard has been predefined as, and is feeling far too tracked a course for a character. I find that infinitely boring, and far too similar with other classes to get very excited about. That they’re all balanced against each other I don’t doubt, but my problems with balance is that I prefer an approach of situational superiority for each class. That 4e is much more focused on combat does not make the balancing of classes an inherently bad thing, probably quite the opposite, but it just doesn’t suit the needs of the games I run, which focus much more on the social than the physical. For my needs, 3e is a far superior system for the sorts of games I run. For yours, I’m sure 4e is far and away superior. We just have very different criteria for making those judgments.
As to it being unfair that I can’t do everything with magic, there is a case of that with me, but I’ve a feeling its not what you think it is. From my look over 4e, most powers, dailies, whatever, had from 2 to 4 different options for each selection, most of which weren’t varying all that much from one another really, they mostly served the same purpose, just in different ways. You make your choices, and within the number of options available, there’s only so much variation possible, which is good, since most characters are going to compare fairly well with each other across most levels. But, in doing that, they took away my ability to select from a fairly broad range of spells that let me build the wizard I wanted, say that diviner, who maybe I chose almost no combat spells for, because they didn’t fit with my view of this character. Maybe the only combat spell I took was something like magic missile, or ray of frost, simply because my master insisted I have something to defend myself with, and the rest were all divination or maybe transmutation for a few comfort spells. That character is pretty much impossible to build in 4e as I understand it. I have to take those combat spells, because I’m useless otherwise, even if I decide to play an Eldathian pacifist who has no interest in violence, and who swore an oath not to kill or harm my fellow creature… but am going on an adventure where my divination skills are needed for whatever reason anyway, to serve some greater good, but without breaking those oaths. I’d have never taken those spells in the first place as far as I’m concerned, but I have to have them because that’s what the rules say. Sorry, but that seems far more contrived to me than telling my players that they need to think of their spells in a more ‘Faerunian’ way…
Though I’ll point out that I was offering those suggestions earlier, not to imply that you were incompetent, but to perhaps offer something you might not have thought of. But, that was based more on my style of play, without the sort of tactics you seem to prefer, and on what I consider more realistic, for my games anyway. An error on my part to not fully explain my views on those sorts of tactics. While the second one was probably more snarky, I was getting kinda frustrated myself, I suspect much of that comes from my not explaining my rationalizations fully, and not quite appreciating the vastness of our difference of perspective.
Seems to me that you have serious problems with making vast assumptions about the way people do things, and a seeming fondness for putting words into the mouths of others without fully thinking about what was actually said…
Much like you do about the DM style of people you've never played with? Of course, I've never actually said your game wasn't fun, you were incompetent and such. That you imply this about me, despite having never played with me is quite amusing.
You can have a think on that.
The remainder of your post fails to address the core arguments again. It's mostly a description that goes to say you don't particularly care how imbalanced the mechanical part of the game is.
Now this in itself, is actually fine. The difference is, that the mechanical part of the game does make a big difference on everything else for a lot of people. You still however have not addressed many of my arguments, but this is mostly getting to a circular argument on the definition of metagaming.
1) I’m definitely getting the idea you’re far too indulgent a DM, who lets their players get away with murder because of poor wording choices in some rulebooks.
Moving on, because this argument is still as useless as the first time you made it and still fails to address any points I've made.
2) We have very different idea as to what constitutes tactics, based on what we seem to define as metagaming, which obviously differs radically from one another.
You are welcome to think so, but I am quite capable of using "tactics". When your tactics rely on people not actually using tactics themselves, or getting the maximum utility out of resources available to them, one has to wonder how good your tactics are.
But we can leave it at this.
3) Yes, but for very different reasons that you seem to ascribe to me.
I still think this is what your whole defense comes down to and it's not a good justification at all for an inherently imbalanced class system.
4) Probably guilty of that one by your way of looking at things, not mine though, since I’d say you were metagaming them to be far more powerful than they were likely intended to be. I have a hard time believing WotC would design a game on purpose that made a few classes so dominant. Poorly worded, almost certainly, but that’s where DM’s judgment comes in as far as I’m concerned.
We've mutated number 4 into a new argument I see. We've changed now from
Original argument: People who didn't like 3rd are incompetent
to
People who didn't like 3rd can't use tactics
to
People who didn't like 3rd allowed abuse of poor wording.
What will this argument manage to mutate into next I wonder. Like the original argument and its second mutation, this isn't valid either. Many of these spells were perfectly fine as written, not poor wording at all. There is nothing poor about the wording of Harm, which simply stated it reduced you to 1d4 HP. Actually, it's pretty clear to be perfectly honest and when compared with the stupid AC system of large creatures like Dragons to touch attacks, it just made it worse.
None of this was "poor wording" and all of this can be laid at the feet that the game was, factually, imbalanced to spellcasters. You have still, not addressed the argument how a class with infinite flexibility is balanced against a class with finite flexibility. Inherently, spellcasters are more powerful and your continual dancing around the point, instead retreating to implying your opponent is incompetent, unable to use tactics and finally can't read does not reflect well upon you.
That 4e is much more focused on combat does not make the balancing of classes an inherently bad thing, probably quite the opposite, but it just doesn’t suit the needs of the games I run, which focus much more on the social than the physical.
This is fair enough.
If this discussion hadn't come from where we are talking about epic level casters in a combat with Demogorgon, I would view this more sympathetically. But it's actually *not* the case, because this is not the argument.
Having never played 4E however as you've just admitted, I find it stunningly amazing you can come out with this:
That they’re all balanced against each other I don’t doubt, but my problems with balance is that I prefer an approach of situational superiority for each class
Every class has, at the moment, areas they excel in. Wizards excel in solo/minion based fights. Fighters excel in long fights where they need to tie up creatures for long periods of time and narrow corridors, where they can easily prevent enemy movement. Strikers excel against creatures with large amounts of HP and single targets they can easily flank (and when terrain suits their mobility).
Etc.
But, in doing that, they took away my ability to select from a fairly broad range of spells that let me build the wizard I wanted, say that diviner, who maybe I chose almost no combat spells for, because they didn’t fit with my view of this character
Again, why should the game system revolve around you and not be balanced for everyone? This is what this argument comes down to once again.
What on earth is the relevance of this in a discussion about epic level 3rd edition where someone is fighting Demogorgon and how this fight would compare with 4th edition?
Though I’ll point out that I was offering those suggestions earlier, not to imply that you were incompetent,
You didn't imply.
But to let them get away with it strikes me more as a personal failing of the DM for not taking control of a game their supposed to be in charge of
This really only has one connotation associated with this. I get testy, but I never implied you were an incompetent DM, that you had no grasp of tactics and finally mutated that argument into a failure to read. That I still believe the only argument for a wizard being hugely flexible and completely dominant is a powergaming/munchkin one is not the same thing. I still feel your "counters" amount to the fact that you heavily metagame your spellcasters in encounter design and how they function. I do not assume that a caster does not know a clever way of using harm - you seem to think that is metagaming. I can in fact however, unlike the first part of the argument, appreciate that distinction you make there as being fair enough.
This isn't what you wrote originally and your argument quickly mutated into looking like thus:
But I'm getting the impression you're not a big fan of tactics
This is ironic, because you spend much of this response decrying my particular interest in playing games that have a lot of varied combat encounters. That I allow players to use spells as they are written and even though I decry the games balance, I still manage to challenge my players (noting that I never said, anywhere, in any post, I could not accomplish this) is really quite amusing. I can in fact, "metagame" and make sure that my players are challenged, that their spells will have difficulty being as optimally broken as possible. The amount of work to do this is inherently more than in the end, is worth it.
Which mutates into this:
I have a hard time believing WotC would design a game on purpose that made a few classes so dominant. Poorly worded, almost certainly, but that’s where DM’s judgment comes in as far as I’m concerned.
There is nothing "poor" about my judgment in using RAW. In fact, I criticized blade cascade for being a hugely broken pile of rubbish. It can, like wizards in 3rd edition and other broken spellcasters, be metagamed out easily. In fact, 4th edition makes this trivial. Simply an ability to immediate interrupt and shift away from an attack ends blade cascade in one fell swoop. It takes a lot more effort to stop the likes of harm, which is effective against a wide variety of things and can be done more than once per day.
I could deal with the RAW easily, using simple "tactics" (apparently what I lack
) and simply designing my own major single monsters to have an immediate interrupt ability to shift away, which even has precedence in creatures as simple as kobolds. Blade cascade, for example, could one shot Orcus because it was "poorly worded" with an oversight. The difference is, that Blade Cascade got properly fixed and bought into line with a simple fix in a mere handful of weeks.3rd edition to 3.5 made many changes to spells, because spellcasters were universally overpowered. Even so, they still failed and IMO, they actually made it worse. They just shifted the balance of power to the cleric and druid, which made more imbalances than others. That Wizards failed twice at fixing spellcasters, despite what you might think mechanics *are* important (even in Call of Cthulhu where many players can die horribly to their first eldrich horror easily), is a hugely important point.
As to my views on what I know of 4e’s magic… its very limited in breadth (not surprising this early on in the edition), very limited in terms of what it allows in terms of character concept beyond being what the wizard has been predefined as, and is feeling far too tracked a course for a character. I find that infinitely boring, and far too similar with other classes to get very excited about. That they’re all balanced against each other I don’t doubt, but my problems with balance is that I prefer an approach of situational superiority for each class. That 4e is much more focused on combat does not make the balancing of classes an inherently bad thing, probably quite the opposite, but it just doesn’t suit the needs of the games I run, which focus much more on the social than the physical. For my needs, 3e is a far superior system for the sorts of games I run. For yours, I’m sure 4e is far and away superior. We just have very different criteria for making those judgments.
As to it being unfair that I can’t do everything with magic, there is a case of that with me, but I’ve a feeling its not what you think it is. From my look over 4e, most powers, dailies, whatever, had from 2 to 4 different options for each selection, most of which weren’t varying all that much from one another really, they mostly served the same purpose, just in different ways. You make your choices, and within the number of options available, there’s only so much variation possible, which is good, since most characters are going to compare fairly well with each other across most levels. But, in doing that, they took away my ability to select from a fairly broad range of spells that let me build the wizard I wanted, say that diviner, who maybe I chose almost no combat spells for, because they didn’t fit with my view of this character. Maybe the only combat spell I took was something like magic missile, or ray of frost, simply because my master insisted I have something to defend myself with, and the rest were all divination or maybe transmutation for a few comfort spells. That character is pretty much impossible to build in 4e as I understand it. I have to take those combat spells, because I’m useless otherwise, even if I decide to play an Eldathian pacifist who has no interest in violence, and who swore an oath not to kill or harm my fellow creature… but am going on an adventure where my divination skills are needed for whatever reason anyway, to serve some greater good, but without breaking those oaths. I’d have never taken those spells in the first place as far as I’m concerned, but I have to have them because that’s what the rules say. Sorry, but that seems far more contrived to me than telling my players that they need to think of their spells in a more ‘Faerunian’ way…
The diviner you're positing is the sort of character I'd ban outright if I was DMing the game. I'd regard it as being a case of attention-grabbing in the worst way - my character is absolutely essential and everyone else exists to keep them alive while they do the important stuff.
The diviner you're positing is the sort of character I'd ban outright if I was DMing the game. I'd regard it as being a case of attention-grabbing in the worst way - my character is absolutely essential and everyone else exists to keep them alive while they do the important stuff.
I agree to an extent. In a non-combat game, where nobody does any fighting or similar this is ok. This is the sort of game that Stigger plays, so you can in some ways understand where he is coming from in this situation. In another group, like mine, this would simply fall under the "Why isn't the game about meeee" problem I've discussed previously. This is because such a character would be a real burden on the group, because hitting things is very often important when the oozes, undead, daemons and other monsters come around eating peasants.
The equivalent is much like someone who wants to be a peasant with a pitchfork in the group with regular characters. They are making the game about them and unfairly at the cost of the other players. If however, this isn't a game with a lot of combat and is heavily focused on roleplaying, even to the extent that the player will be trained by one of his companions it becomes more understandable and adds to the game.
Mechanics however, should support default assumptions and that should be mechanical balance between classes. In reality, many games of DnD are very combat heavy or at least have combat as a significant part (and btw, the same arguments Stigger and others are making about 4th edition were made about 3rd by 2E fans claiming the game had been turned into a video game, dumbed down, made about hack and slash only etc), so the system is not unreasonable in assuming this.
I agree to an extent. In a non-combat game, where nobody does any fighting or similar this is ok. This is the sort of game that Stigger plays, so you can in some ways understand where he is coming from in this situation. In another group, like mine, this would simply fall under the "Why isn't the game about meeee" problem I've discussed previously. This is because such a character would be a real burden on the group, because hitting things is very often important when the oozes, undead, daemons and other monsters come around eating peasants.
The equivalent is much like someone who wants to be a peasant with a pitchfork in the group with regular characters. They are making the game about them and unfairly at the cost of the other players. If however, this isn't a game with a lot of combat and is heavily focused on roleplaying, even to the extent that the player will be trained by one of his companions it becomes more understandable and adds to the game.
Mechanics however, should support default assumptions and that should be mechanical balance between classes. In reality, many games of DnD are very combat heavy or at least have combat as a significant part (and btw, the same arguments Stigger and others are making about 4th edition were made about 3rd by 2E fans claiming the game had been turned into a video game, dumbed down, made about hack and slash only etc), so the system is not unreasonable in assuming this.
Yes, but what Stigger described was a character in an otherwise fairly normal party of adventurers. If it was a game like one I once ran where the PCs were scholars investigating an old ruin - effectively archaeologists - and all the guards and various other specialists were NPCs then I'd be perfectly happy with the concept.
You don't need to tell me about the reaction to 3e, btw. I was there, and it wasn't much different when 2e came around, although the lack of internet forums to ***** about it mean it wasn't as prominent. For that matter there were complaints about 1e AD&D about the destruction of old lore, since obviously elves weren't meant to be clerics
You don't need to tell me about the reaction to 3e, btw. I was there, and it wasn't much different when 2e came around, although the lack of internet forums to ***** about it mean it wasn't as prominent. For that matter there were complaints about 1e AD&D about the destruction of old lore, since obviously elves weren't meant to be clerics
Aye read http://www.gamegrene.com/node/20?fro...ts_per_page=70 .
so you can get an idea of what some of the internet gamers were saying about 3E when it first came out. I loved this article (because it was pretty silly) so much I sigged it. ;)
The diviner you're positing is the sort of character I'd ban outright if I was DMing the game. I'd regard it as being a case of attention-grabbing in the worst way - my character is absolutely essential and everyone else exists to keep them alive while they do the important stuff.
This is actually something I pointed out above, even though people rather liked to wave the "archwizards-type of mages rule the roost" card.
It all depends how a character is being played and whether the DM has a look at what is going on beyond his / her screen. I can bash 3,xE with the archwizards card all day long and no-one will be able to come up with a decent argument to oppose this. On the other hand, I also have witnessed 17th level rogues twin-wielding weapon finessed shortswords leaving a bloody trail in their sneakish wake. I've seen Fighter/Lasher builds were - at the right time and level 15 - their motto was: Can I have 40d6 please? That is possible, but it is not the norm. Neither is the omnipotent archwizard or high priest. There are countless variables coming into play and stating by default that magic ruins a game or setting which is centred about and build upon magic is not exactly fair or a worthwhile venture. After all, there is no need to use all rules given as a definite must. If magic's power displeases, there are umpteen variants and options open.
This is actually something I pointed out above, even though people rather liked to wave the "archwizards-type of mages rule the roost" card.
It all depends how a character is being played and whether the DM has a look at what is going on beyond his / her screen. I can bash 3,xE with the archwizards card all day long and no-one will be able to come up with a decent argument to oppose this. On the other hand, I also have witnessed 17th level rogues twin-wielding weapon finessed shortswords leaving a bloody trail in their sneakish wake. I've seen Fighter/Lasher builds were - at the right time and level 15 - their motto was: Can I have 40d6 please? That is possible, but it is not the norm. Neither is the omnipotent archwizard or high priest. There are countless variables coming into play and stating by default that magic ruins a game or setting which is centred about and build upon magic is not exactly fair or a worthwhile venture. After all, there is no need to use all rules given as a definite must. If magic's power displeases, there are umpteen variants and options open.
The omnipotent archwizard or high priest is a slight exaggeration, but the massively powerful and versatile one is the norm. It requires a lot of work to create one who isn't enormously capable. The 40d6 damage from a massively tweaked warrior type using multiple splatbooks is abnormal. It requires a lot of work to create.
I'd also suggest, specifically with regard to Stigger's Eldathyn wizard, that he would be taking the limelight for the wrong reasons. In this case it's a character who's reason to go adventuring is hard to fathom, one who probably would not become one in normal circumstances. A character like that almost compels the DM to write adventures around them, and requires the other players to go on those adventures; else why would they stay around when what they really want is to complete a particular quest? Either his character has to be compromised from the concept by wandering around doing things the character really doesn't want to be doing, or the other players get to do the adventures he wants regardless of their opinions. This is not something I want to encourage.
The diviner you're positing is the sort of character I'd ban outright if I was DMing the game. I'd regard it as being a case of attention-grabbing in the worst way - my character is absolutely essential and everyone else exists to keep them alive while they do the important stuff.
So a non-combat oriented wizard would be banned in your game? Player characters are supposed to be attention worthy and unique. There are plenty of reasons a diviner who is not combat focused would adventure. Plenty of scholars travel the world over to learn about the past. It doesn't mean they all have to fit the Laura Croft or Indiana Jones butt-kicking mold to have the excuse to leave their homes.
The diviner you're positing is the sort of character I'd ban outright if I was DMing the game. I'd regard it as being a case of attention-grabbing in the worst way - my character is absolutely essential and everyone else exists to keep them alive while they do the important stuff.
It was meant as an example of the limitations of 4e's design, and why it doesn't really suit my particular needs and wants from the game... and in that respect, I think it served its purpose, regardless of its merits or flaws as a character. He'd probably work better as an NPC, but those are the terms I tend to think in, given that I haven't played more than a one-shot in three years, as a player. And even then, I turned the PC into an NPC in the regular campaign... which is probably what I had in mind at the back of my head somewhere in the first place.
Last response as you still fail to address the arguments. At least you didn't go saying I play on no-terrain bowling balls though.
Well, I might, just to do it. ;)
As to the rest, at this point, I'm not even sure what the arguments I've apparently failed to address are. It is getting circular, and frustrating with your tendency to attempt to put people on the defensive with the worst possible interpretations of their statements. Judging by the exchange with Karazhan earlier, you don't seem to find anything inherently antagonistic about this, so I see little point in continuing a discussion where the only thing I'm going to get out of it is higher blood pressure.
As to epic levels against Demogorgon, that was about as far from my mind as it could have been... I can't look at that as anything other than hypothetical, since its not something I would ever toss at my players. If you're (rhetorical, the sense I usually mean that in by the by) playing against that sort of thing, great, not interested, going over there to swing off a chandelier and cut the duke's pants off on the way out is pretty much the way I tend to look at it.
As to how to balance a class with infinite flexibility, versus one with finite flexibility, I just don't see that as being the case, well not in the sense you're probably speaking in. To me, the most limited and finite classes out there are Druids, Clerics (to some extent), Bards, and Paladins. I can almost feel the eyes rolling over that, but hear me out. Those are the classes with the most limited 'role' in terms of their place in society, while the rest of the classes are much freer to define themselves however they like. That's how I view flexibility in a class.
I'm fairly sure you tend to define it in a more mechanical sense, which I have something of a problem with. I've never had a problem with my players feeling slighted because they played x class, nor have I ever found it necessary to counteract certain classes because of y mechanic. I'm guessing it has more to do with our initial approach to things. I prefer more casual mechanics, while you seem to prefer throttling the hells out of them to see if they can take the beating and still look good, both of which I think are valid ways of playing.
My problem with your arguments though is that you tend to make sweeping proclamations of just how broken 3e is, dismissing those of us who like it as munchkins and powergamers, that we're all out there playing spellcasters and love lording it over the non-casters, without knowing how we actually use the ruleset. Seemed fair enough to turn that right back at you up there. Gooses and ganders and all that.
Those long descriptions of mine were to illustrate that not all of us play things the same way, and that for some of us, 3e is an entirely serviceable and unbroken game within the context of our use of it. That its broken for you I don't dispute, what I do dispute is that its broken for myself and others, that some out there can play a fighter or other non-spellcaster without feeling like we're doomed to inadequacy at higher levels. It just depends on how you approach the game.
At any rate, no hard feelings, was kinda fun in a vaguely frustrating sort of way.
The 40d6 damage from a massively tweaked warrior type using multiple splatbooks is abnormal. It requires a lot of work to create.
Not really, it was a min/max build, fair enough, but could have been done without this too: Rogue 3 / Ranger 1 / Fighter 2 / Lasher 9
Used were PHB 3.0E, the FRCS, and Sword and Fist. Though you could cut out the FRCS, as it was only utilized because of the min/max friendly wood elf. As I said, he needed sneak attacks (special circumstances) to get up to the 40d6 per round. But these exploits of the rules are always possible and will not go away in 4E or some 5 or 6E.
Not really, it was a min/max build, fair enough, but could have been done without this too: Rogue 3 / Ranger 1 / Fighter 2 / Lasher 9
Used were PHB 3.0E, the FRCS, and Sword and Fist. Though you could cut out the FRCS, as it was only utilized because of the min/max friendly wood elf. As I said, he needed sneak attacks (special circumstances) to get up to the 40d6 per round. But these exploits of the rules are always possible and will not go away in 4E or some 5 or 6E.
True enough. The thing is to make a melee guy a monster or crazy good you needed to make him gimmicky and use PRCs and special tripping feats ect.
Many on the OP boards would ask what was the best druid cleric or wizard build and many times they would recieve the answer of just take the class up to 20, that is pretty powerful in and of itself. I didn't really care if they were that powerful I just wanted the other classes to be that equally good which could not be done by taking 20 levels of a melee class.
Seriously though, building in the need for magical items was a very dubious idea that 3e made use of, which is a complaint I can fully endorse as something that needed addressing. Ultimately, if one could make a serious case against unbalancing, I think much of it would stem from that convention, since its built right into the spellcasting classes from the start, so at the least gives them an economic advantage. I'm not so sure that really is a fault of the classes, so much as its poor consideration of the design of monsters and encounters. Take away that dependency on magic items, and I think it comes out much more balanced in all likelihood... maybe. Never sat down and tried to work it out though.
True enough. The thing is to make a melee guy a monster or crazy good you needed to make him gimmicky and use PRCs and special tripping feats ect.
Many on the OP boards would ask what was the best druid cleric or wizard build and many times they would recieve the answer of just take the class up to 20, that is pretty powerful in and of itself. I didn't really care if they were that powerful I just wanted the other classes to be that equally good which could not be done by taking 20 levels of a melee class.
Fair enough. A couple of points, intimated above and not just by me: the power of the various spellcasting classes differs over the course of the 20 levels and most of the spellcaster's magic only got really nasty and imbalanced when you move into the double figures. But, as I also intimated above, magic is special. Much like nations "wielding" a nuclear arsenal, no matter how powerful they are otherwise, their political punch grows enormously. Yet, as with magic, potential does not mean usage. Mages only become game-dominating if they get all the great spells, clerics and druids if they pursue that way. As one Bernard Shaw once said: Power does not corrupt man; fools, however, if the they get into a position of power, corrupt power.
Obviously, spellcasters are not just fools, yet it does require a bit of group-sense, insight, and a certain amount of role-playing (of the in-game character) to work throughout a campaign. I have no problem with powerful magic, I have no problem with powerful monsters. I cannot see a dragon gets his flying or breathing or, even worse, menacing aura removed because it becomes too imbalanced compared to the PC's abilities. For that w/could be the next step. There needs not to be some kind of equilibrium in a fantasy world. It ain't there in the real world either but other than in the latter, a player can always taste both halfs, since he can play simple melee chaps, advanced melee chaps (hexblade, duskblade), or spellcasters too.
It was meant as an example of the limitations of 4e's design, and why it doesn't really suit my particular needs and wants from the game... and in that respect, I think it served its purpose, regardless of its merits or flaws as a character. He'd probably work better as an NPC, but those are the terms I tend to think in, given that I haven't played more than a one-shot in three years, as a player. And even then, I turned the PC into an NPC in the regular campaign... which is probably what I had in mind at the back of my head somewhere in the first place.
In 4th I would make the character as an NPC with the Ritual Magic feat, several known divinatory rituals, and high skill levels in a variety of knowledge-related skills, Arcana, Nature, Religion or whatever was relevant. They could even be a minion and drop with one good hit, if that's what you want. Might even be an interesting character to play in a one off game where the other players are helping this peaceful old sage achieve their life's ambition of visiting the incredibly deadly ruins of Somewhere-or-Other. The problem comes if the other PCs aren't interested in going to Somewhere-or-Other, or if the DM doesn't want the game to go that way because they've got their own plans for S-o-O. Then you have to come up with a reason for why the character is hanging around with this group of armed and magical maniacs, and that's not so easy to explain. That's why I wouldn't allow you to play such a character under normal circumstances.
I have no problem with powerful magic, I have no problem with powerful monsters. I cannot see a dragon gets his flying or breathing or, even worse, menacing aura removed because it becomes too imbalanced compared to the PC's abilities. For that w/could be the next step. There needs not to be some kind of equilibrium in a fantasy world.
There doesn't need to be any equilibrium in a fantasy world if it's fictional, or if it's a freeform game. The same holds true if it's a game with very little combat (which are the kind I do online).
However, if you're playing a group that does regular adventures with combat facing those dragons, this is when you need a good set of rules so that all the players can be effective in their own way. If you're dealing with new players or those who do like non-spellcasters, you want to know that they're enjoying themselves and will want to come back and play as well.
To bring it back to the Forgotten Realms, as you and others have pointed out it is a land where people of all kinds of classes can rule. It is important however to have a game system which makes that concept believable in the first place.
Wizards and dragons may be different, but I wouldn't say that either are necessarily weak. In comparison to another edition, sure; in comparison to the mechanics of the present game, no.
I say, for myself, that I am happier with how things are now with the new set of rules. I don't think that the Forgotten Realms is any less high fantasy or magical. There are of course not as many spells yet and I'm aware that for some that there will either never be enough, or at least any comparable to what went before. This again is a matter of opinion and can be respected as such.
Here's a question though; what is "high fantasy/magic" to you? What elements do you see missing that could be added/brought back?
1) I have played wizards from day 1.
2) I am not a power gamer.
3) I like making mages specialized in certain skills (my favorite mages in 3.5 were a frost mage and a dragon mage).
4) 4e rules work for the system they are in (from what I've observed while playing so far).
What is high magic to me is the possibility to find, learn, or create spells. To me dragons (the top of the magic chain) are incredible beings of innate magic, lore, and wisdom. To me the greatest thing about high magic and high fantasy was the diversity and room for choice.
Now, dragons have no innate abilities, no spells, etc. and have been downgraded to long living beings with a breath weapon. Wizards are now cookie cutter images of each other as the game is pretty much fully combat-based and only the best powers/spells/paths are chosen. Gone are the days where I could be a diviner, or a frost mage.
To answer your other question, I would have had Bahamut and Tiamat bestow some sort of spellcasting or (power use) to their children. While it would not be as powerful as it was in 3.5, some sort of rough balance needed to be achieved. In terms of wizards, there really is no combat fix for them as there are only a finite amount of spells learnable ever (though you can learn rituals til the cows come home). Again, I think that while with the release of books wizards will have more technical power choice, that is only an illusion as people will quickly crunch the numbers and take the best ones.
To end, I am sure I worded my reply badly (lol) but I do want to stress again that I am not a hater of 4e. I own the books and play the game along with my 3.5 group. I just feel that the game is so different they needed to rename certain classes (i.e. magic user and not wizard; The Realms and not FR) because things are not comparible anymore and it is more of a completely new setting than a continuation of the old.
The best solution for me would have been to continue to also support 3.5 through DDI articles. Doing so would not be that difficult and would have broadened their sales base.
In 4th I would make the character as an NPC with the Ritual Magic feat, several known divinatory rituals, and high skill levels in a variety of knowledge-related skills, Arcana, Nature, Religion or whatever was relevant. They could even be a minion and drop with one good hit, if that's what you want. That's why I wouldn't allow you to play such a character under normal circumstances.
Heh, no, you're right there, he wouldn't be much use outside of a relatively specific storyline, and utterly non-sensical outside of it if he continued with the group. Maybe if I did something trite like having him discover the meaning of sometimes needing to fight for what you believe in or some such, but that would thoroughly wreck the character, so... not a good option either.
As to 4e, while I'm aware I could come up with any sort of character I like, whether it was mechanically expressable or not, it feels better if I can at least come close to how I envision the character with the rules. 4e is a terrible system for me, but that doesn't mean it has to be a terrible system for anyone else. I admit its almost purely psychological in nature, I have no real complaints about how the system works in most terms. I simply don't like the way the system works when it comes to character building, placing you on a relatively narrow path that is hard to escape from.
3e had a rather generic approach to things, at least with base classes, that let you transpose any mental template over the class that you might like. From that template you could select feats and PrC's to flavor and refine your image and turn it into what you wanted fairly early on in the game, and if you didn't like a direction, you could step back and just not continue down that path, maybe branching into something else. While I agree dipping was easily abusable if not downright cheesy at times, that's besides the point. The point, for me anyway, is that it let you build a character that was unique, or at least felt that way, from both a personality and mechanical sense. Of course a system that allowed for that was going to be fragile if banged with a hammer, but it allowed for what felt like infinite variety in the sorts of games you could play, and let the DM step into the sandbox with homebrew PrC's and such to really make a place feel like a living, breathing world.
4e's approach, while I applaud the ideas and concepts behind all the mechanics being interchangeable, among many other great ideas, was to take away a lot of what I loved about 3e's versatitility in favor of an underlying mechanic that was obviously intended to reduce abuse of the system, pretty much to address everything in Aegeri's posts, among other problems with the system when it was throttled. On the whole, I have no problem with that, its a good thing when it comes down to it, I just don't like what got taken away in order to accomplish that. And yes, I acknowledge that there was no way to build the system I wanted without keeping a lot of that potential in there, at least not one I can think of. They had to make 4e the way they did if they were going to serve the needs of all those players with very legitimate complaints, and I can accept and deal with that, since I've still got my 3e books.
Hmm... that turned into something of a rant. But, it did help me crystalize my thoughts on 4e, and 3e for that matter, much better, so that's good. :D
For my own background:
1) The only time I’ve played wizards has been as NPC’s. I’m a cleric/paladin fan. I’ve been playing a sorcerer for the past three years in an online game but even that is very unusual for me.
2) I am not a power gamer either. I love roleplaying and I’m terrible with mechanics. Ergo being pretty freeform in both the way I play and DM online. :P
I’ll admit that when I think of dragons, The Hobbit’s Smaug is the prototype that leaps first and foremost to my mind – an old, evil and cunning brute who isn’t known for wielding a ton of spells. However, I know that he’s just one dragon in the many which populate the imagination nowadays. The DMG does provide templates for those who do want a wyrm that wields more magic, and odds are good that the Draconomicon is probably going to provide a greater variety of dragons that you’ll be more at home with as well.
As for wizards, I believe it’s fair to expect more spells of every kind to come along in time. People can still create spells but there’s always been the question in any edition as to how well-balanced it would be. I don’t have a problem with the number of spells a wizard can learn and memorize; this way, it actually makes sense for the library of magical tomes that I’ve always associated with them.
I do see your point and Stigger’s (by the way, I didn’t consider your last post a rant at all, but rather feeling out an answer ;)) that 4e is definitely combat-oriented to date and doesn't offer the wide variety of mages you're used to. I would also plead however that it has only been a few months, and we haven’t seen all the classes that may yet appear to replace the prestige classes you’re familiar with. I can appreciate however that they aren’t here yet and that you’d be happier with the rules you love. I am looking forward to powers that are based on social encounters rather than combat.
However, I’ll still argue that a wizard is still nothing to sniff at in 4e. ;)
but those fall under the realm of rituals and rituals can have no combat use per the rules.
This is a good thing. Again, mechanical balance over "I want to do *anything*" should take absolute, 100% precedence. I am not going to have a return to the polymorphing druid turning into the half-gold dragon troll giant wereoctopus with strength 46ish and a huge bunch of attacks*. I'm already concerned enough with the shifter race in the PHB 2.
*This is funny, because it's based entirely on just the normal legal rules and without using anything beyond the core monster manual.
Ergo, 4e is better for DMs who do not have the time or werewithal to learn all the finer points of the rules, because everything is laid out very simply and is cut & dry (which is a good thing, IMHO).
Apples and Oranges - if you want to spend all week designing encounters to challenge your players and come up with new and inventive ways to get around 'their tricks', then 3e is for you. If you want to just crack open a module and run a quick scenario for your buds on the weekend that you can all have a lot of fun with, then 4e is for you.
D&D is a lifestyle, 4e is a game. ;)
EDIT: BTW Stigger...
This is a good thing. Again, mechanical balance over "I want to do *anything*" should take absolute, 100% precedence. I am not going to have a return to the polymorphing druid turning into the half-gold dragon troll giant wereoctopus with strength 46ish and a huge bunch of attacks*. I'm already concerned enough with the shifter race in the PHB 2.
*This is funny, because it's based entirely on just the normal legal rules and without using anything beyond the core monster manual.
How could that possibly be legal with wildshape and/or polymorph? This is genuine curiosity here, since I'm just not seeing it... and have no idea how you'd even remotely go about building something like that.
As to the rant, ramble probably would have described it better... and is probably what I meant had I not used the wrong word. :D
Is your druid in question some sort of mage as well? I ask because druids can not polymorph.
Only sort of true, wildshape = polymorph to an extent. However, they changed it to instead be a polymorph like ability, alternative form.
Wild Shape
Player’s Handbook, page 37
Replace sentence 3 of this class feature with the
following text:
This ability functions like the alternate form special
ability (see the Monster Manual), except as noted here.
Add the following sentence to the end of paragraph 1:
Each time you use wild shape, you regain lost hit points
as if you had rested for a night.
Add this new paragraph after the current paragraph 1:
Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new
form and becomes nonfunctional. When the druid reverts
to her true form, any objects previously melded into the
new form reappear in the same location on her body that
they previously occupied and are once again functional.
Any new items worn in the assumed form fall off and
land at the druid's feet.
Alternate Form (Su): A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume one or more specific alternate forms. This ability works much like the polymorph spell, except that the creature is limited to the forms specified, and does not regain any hit points for changing its form. Assuming an alternate form results in the following changes to the creature:
Also, your template rule may be correct, but the last time I played you could stack multiple templates and there was nothing that said you couldn't. They may have changed it, but too little, too late.
Edit: It is in fact correct. They changed it with an update that you could not take templates anymore. Though it doesn't fix the ability being inherently broken, it brings it back down to just "absurd" from "strangulation absurd".
How could that possibly be legal with wildshape and/or polymorph?
This is actually tame compared to what you can do with these spells and certain PrCs. If you have multiple monster manuals and certain other books as well, you can make something truly more horrifying easily. Druids in 3.5 basically got wild shape turned into a form of polymorph, that was far more broken than it was in 3.0 by a long shot. What you could do with it at high levels was completely ridiculous and one of the reasons druids were almost the most powerful characters by far (you needed a feat for the dragon part). Even without template stacking, the abuses of wildshape are still numerous and extremely overpowered (there is a reason people would respond with "mono-druid is powerful enough, even up to epic"). I can't even think of a useful mono-martial class at epic levels.
Exceeded only by wizards (especially Incantrix) and clerics (harm abuse is fun, though 3.5 fixed that, but made them better in other ways).
I've seen worse before as well, depending on which horrible interaction of increasingly broken spells + PrCs you enabled.
On the other hand, I also have witnessed 17th level rogues twin-wielding weapon finessed shortswords leaving a bloody trail in their sneakish wake. I've seen Fighter/Lasher builds were - at the right time and level 15 - their motto was: Can I have 40d6 please? That is possible, but it is not the norm. Neither is the omnipotent archwizard or high priest.
What you fail to realise again, is that an unoptimised caster is far superior, especially at epic levels, to even a fairly well optimised martial caster. An optimised caster obliterates any other character and is only competing for power against another character.
Also, rogues are easy to screw over with critical hit immune enemies, as are fighters that need to rely on criticial hits for damage. Although there is a feat that gives you half your sneak attack damage though, the damage potential and game breaking ability of these characters is minimal compared to spellcasters.
The problem most folks had with the 3e rules is that they didn't know how to abjudicate them. If the DMs spent as much time studying all the nooks and crannies as the players had, they would know most of those loopholes were adressed at some point, and you needn't allow you're players to 'run amok'.
Ergo, 4e is better for DMs who do not have the time or werewithal to learn all the finer points of the rules, because everything is laid out very simply and is cut & dry (which is a good thing, IMHO).
Apples and Oranges - if you want to spend all week designing encounters to challenge your players and come up with new and inventive ways to get around 'their tricks', then 3e is for you. If you want to just crack open a module and run a quick scenario for your buds on the weekend that you can all have a lot of fun with, then 4e is for you.
D&D is a lifestyle, 4e is a game. ;)
EDIT: BTW Stigger...
This is a fairly elitist statement. You are basically saying that if you didn't put in piles of effort learning the ins and outs of 3.5E you were a bad DM, and that 4E is geared towards bad DMs. It also invokes the Oberoni Fallacy(I just seem to be throwing that around everywhere these days), by assuming that because a "good DM" can overcome the problem negates the underlying problem.
I disagree with this, because I find that the 3.5E learning curve was neither necessary nor beneficial to the game. In addition, players really didn't have to work to abuse the game. The CharOp forum used as a resource let almost anyone who was inclined do so. There never was any DM Optimization forum or any resource for DMs to counter what players could learn on CharOp.
As for the last part, what does the game gain by having its focused around the party's "tricks"? Isn't that DM metagaming? Doesn't it stretch the believability of the world when the encounter's the PCs face are specifically tailored to avoid their strengths? Personally, I find it more liberating to be able to craft any adventure I choose without having to take the party's abilities into account. I have yet to see any ability a 4E PC posesses derail an encounter or adventure I have run, and the amount of thought I put into what the PCs possess is zero. In addition, I have yet to see any monster or game world challenge be impossible to overcome because of something the party lacked. This opens up the whole world to be thrown at the PCs, as opposed to simply what won't kill them or what they won't steamroll over. It also reduces the amount of work the DM has to do, which is always good.
To sum up, I don't see 4E as having removed anything that was worth anything in the game in regards to this. DM metagaming and system mastery was a quirk/pitfall of 3E and not a strength. The game is better off without needing such things, and that is true of any system. Vampire: the Requiem does not require such, for example, and is a better game for it in this regard.
Only sort of true, wildshape = polymorph to an extent. However, they changed it to instead be a polymorph like ability, alternative form.
Also, your template rule may be correct, but the last time I played you could stack multiple templates and there was nothing that said you couldn't. They may have changed it, but too little, too late.
Edit: It is in fact correct. They changed it with an update that you could not take templates anymore. Though it doesn't fix the ability being inherently broken, it brings it back down to just "absurd" from "strangulation absurd".
This is actually tame compared to what you can do with these spells and certain PrCs. If you have multiple monster manuals and certain other books as well, you can make something truly more horrifying easily. Druids in 3.5 basically got wild shape turned into a form of polymorph, that was far more broken than it was in 3.0 by a long shot. What you could do with it at high levels was completely ridiculous and one of the reasons druids were almost the most powerful characters by far (you needed a feat for the dragon part). Even without template stacking, the abuses of wildshape are still numerous and extremely overpowered (there is a reason people would respond with "mono-druid is powerful enough, even up to epic"). I can't even think of a useful mono-martial class at epic levels.
Exceeded only by wizards (especially Incantrix) and clerics (harm abuse is fun, though 3.5 fixed that, but made them better in other ways).
I've seen worse before as well, depending on which horrible interaction of increasingly broken spells + PrCs you enabled.
What you fail to realise again, is that an unoptimised caster is far superior, especially at epic levels, to even a fairly well optimised martial caster. An optimised caster obliterates any other character and is only competing for power against another character.
Also, rogues are easy to screw over with critical hit immune enemies, as are fighters that need to rely on criticial hits for damage. Although there is a feat that gives you half your sneak attack damage though, the damage potential and game breaking ability of these characters is minimal compared to spellcasters.
I'm sorry but I can not agree. If you optimized a martial class you could easily overpower the strongest of mages with relatively simple tricks. What people forget is that spells run out, sword swings do not. Case in point...Cyric (a rogue) killed Mystra (ultimate mage/cleric). If your argument is correct, he never would have been able to do it.
Not too sure about that really... the whole 'must be familiar with' thing, which I wouldn't count as 'having seen once' aspect of a druid's wildshape ability, along with the restrictions put in from the PHB2 seem to negate the ability to do something like that. Maybe if you interpret the 'one or more' part of the Alternate Form ability description to mean you can stack forms it might work, but my read of that would be a creature could assume one or more distinct forms, and not that they were allowed to combine multiple forms. Unless I'm missing something entirely in there, I'm still not really seeing how it's legal... maybe with the Master Transmogrifist PrC (or whatever that was, don't recall exactly offhand) or the like, but it still seems to be reaching a bit.
Stigger,
That's correct, a druid has to take the full form of a creature, they can not take bits and pieces. Only people with the Master Transmogrifist PrC can. Druid alternate form also negates their worn magic and also is limited by their hit dice.
This is a fairly elitist statement. You are basically saying that if you didn't put in piles of effort learning the ins and outs of 3.5E you were a bad DM, and that 4E is geared towards bad DMs. It also invokes the Oberoni Fallacy(I just seem to be throwing that around everywhere these days), by assuming that because a "good DM" can overcome the problem negates the underlying problem.
I wouldn't call it elitist, more of a statement of simple fact. In 3e, if the DM wasn't 'putting in the same effort' so to speak, a knowledgable "who put in that effort" player could walk all over them. In 4e that isn't as easy to do, which if you'll note MT referred to as a good thing. They're two very different systems, which I presume is the apples and oranges part, and appeal to two different types of people. I didn't see him putting anything saying 3e sux or 4e sux in there... not on the generals, get your mind out of the trenches. ;)
I'm sorry but I can not agree. If you optimized a martial class you could easily overpower the strongest of mages with relatively simple tricks.
LOL.
Oh wow, that's made my day in terms of hilariously unrealistic. That's definitely not true from what I've played of epic level (or just high level, 15+) 3rd edition DnD. It doesn't take much effort to save one instant death spell, not to mention spell permanency for making it all that much harder.
In the entire time I have been on this board, I never saw anyone on the CharOp boards make a martial character (without heavy PrC abuse) that could compete with something as simple as a mono-wizard or mono-druid (or even mono-cleric) at high and epic levels. If you took a spellcaster with heavy PrC abuse, you could never make a martial character of equivalent power, flexibility and sheer ability to break the game.
What people forget is that spells run out, sword swings do not. Case in point...Cyric (a rogue) killed Mystra (ultimate mage/cleric). If your argument is correct, he never would have been able to do it.
Cyric had Shars backing and did it by surprise. He's very good at killing other Gods and has been doing so for a while.
Also, are you confused that fluff =/ mechanics?
You've never heard of the spell permanency metamagic feat either?
In 3e, if the DM wasn't 'putting in the same effort' so to speak, a knowledgable "who put in that effort" player could walk all over them.
Yes, I know you like to pretend that 3.5 isn't actually incompetently broken by spellcasters and that it's the DMs fault but it isn't. It is broken by spellcasters, routinely. The only way to prevent it from being broken by spellcasters, is to break it the other way.
With spellcasters.
Nice to see you concede that it's DM vs. Players in 3rd edition, proving my point from earlier.
The CharOp forum used as a resource let almost anyone who was inclined do so. There never was any DM Optimization forum or any resource for DMs to counter what players could learn on CharOp.
Actually, I "restored" balance to my games by breaking the game in the same way, using the same optimised casters that the CharOp boards came up with. Sure, eventually my players realised the only way to survive was to be maxmised, charop board like casters themselves, but inevitably I found the "good spot" and the game was really good fun. Wide variety of tactical situations, monsters, enemy casters and the game turned into sort of "magic vs. counter magic".
Of course, any martial class lasted seconds in this game because they couldn't keep up at all (except for the rogue, who was PrCed into a spellcasting class and had use magic device). I don't think I saw a martial character in 3 years of the campaign after the initial horrific massacres (It went from level 14 to level 28). Everyone had good fun though, but it was basically a war of "who could do the most ridiculous things with spellcasting in 3rd edition possible".
What I found was if you do it, your players do it the game actually ends up being equally broken and so broken, it's actually balanced. The spell/counterspell like nature the campaign took (scrying vs. hiding from scrying, instant death spells vs. counterspells like death ward etc etc) actually became extremely fun. It was a case of who could make the first most broken spell combo (I technically won at this when I hit them with an AoE death effect with a DC in the upper 70s that I had read on the CharOp boards - that was a party wipe on first round, first action in fact. I'm still proud of that one really).
As for the last part, what does the game gain by having its focused around the party's "tricks"? Isn't that DM metagaming?
That's precisely what I argued to stigger before. If you need to basically design the campaign around your players abilities, or the game is broken, there is a flaw in the games design if it can be broken so easily by any deviation (like the wizard having hold person and the BBEG failing his, what becomes essentially, a save vs. death).
This was also true in 4th edition until blade cascade got nerfed, which again, took four weeks compared to several years (a great improvement IMO). Blade cascade could utterly ruin an encounter with ease, considering the right build could one shot Orcus. Of course, in saying that one shotting Orcus is something that is routine in 3rd editions save or die environment and nothing that significant. In 4th edition it was hugely game breaking precisely because it went against the current design of the game.
I have yet to see any ability a 4E PC posesses derail an encounter or adventure I have run, and the amount of thought I put into what the PCs possess is zero. In addition, I have yet to see any monster or game world challenge be impossible to overcome because of something the party lacked. This opens up the whole world to be thrown at the PCs, as opposed to simply what won't kill them or what they won't steamroll over. It also reduces the amount of work the DM has to do, which is always good.
I agree with this and I have played 3rd and 4th at epic levels (20+ in 4th and 20+ in 3rd). Something I figure some of those on the other side have not I suspect.
This is a fairly elitist statement.
And I was tip-toeing around that like I was walking on eggshells (with good reason), and people still managed to take offense.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with either edition or the people who play them (or 1e/2e for that matter). Thats like saying someone isn't as good as someone else because they prefer to buy their clothes "off the rack".
Some people just want to have fun, and that is the one thing that 4e excels at. If you just want to play the friggin' game and have a good time, without having to get a doctorate in RPGing, then 4e is the perfect system for you. It gives you everything you need to have great encounters, and the DM can provide whatever level of 'between-encounters' RPing he and his players prefer.
I'm not trying to be elitist - some people just don't have the time or the inclination to do that amount of research just to run a game (which takes from it's enjoyment, I must admit). This isn't MY attitude - this has been clearly stated as the main goal behind all the changes to FR itself. The amount of time to learn ALL the 3e rules (and keep up with the errata) is daunting, just like FR lore, and it does have a way of keeping people away from the game.
On the other hand -as I stated - 3e (and earlier) is more of a lifestyle then a game. If you are the kind of person (we used to be called 'Nerds') that likes to spend all week drawing cavern complexes during class, and looking through 20 different books to find a monster that could circumnavigate your PC's 'killer trick', and reading tons and tons of source material that will probably never see the light of day in any scenario you run, then 3e is great. Its perfectly suited to those people who prefer a more convoluted game.
And some of us do. ;)
Peace --- Mark
Also, for the sake of accuracy Cyric has never defeated a deity on his own. He has had help each of the (3) times he has taken on another god. He is definitely not good at his portfolio or he wouldn't need a crutch every time:D
Good debate!
I'm not trying to be elitist - some people just don't have the time or the inclination to do that amount of research just to run a game (which takes from it's enjoyment, I must admit).
This is only because of how poorly designed 3rd edition was, not because it's any particular "choice". For example, it's well known the CR of Dragons in 3rd edition was ridiculously low for what they actually were. Yet again, something like a Dragon if not ridiculously metagamed could be either overwhelmingly overbearing (easily annihilating a party that it was supposed to be a moderate challenge against) or a 1 round wonder (Harm + magic missile). This isn't anything to do with research and everything to do with terrible core design.
You don't need to do "research" to see this happen once and think "that's stupid".
The amount of time to learn ALL the 3e rules (and keep up with the errata) is daunting
This is only because of how many layers of broken there is without it. For example, I had no idea that they errated out being unable to use templates with wildshape (and it appears maybe even polymorph). It doesn't make a big difference (broken PrCs more or less just added it back in), but it definitely helps.
and looking through 20 different books to find a monster that could circumnavigate your PC's 'killer trick',
You don't need to.
Simply make a PC spellcasting class as an NPC. Wa-la. Problem solved. Use scrying to find the PCs as most PCs never bother with anti-scrying methods, once they've been found, teleport in, timestop and kill them with whatever you want. You've just won, congratulations.
Now play a system that's actually entertaining, like Mage or Call of Cthulhu.
Also, for the sake of accuracy Cyric has never defeated a deity on his own.
I am in fact aware. That's because Cyric sucks and the other Gods are complete morons to allow him to keep stabbing random people in the back like he does.
And I was tip-toeing around that like I was walking on eggshells (with good reason), and people still managed to take offense.
Your statement was pretty close to one of the more annoying complaints on General Discussion, and one that has been beaten to death. Not reading it closely enough had me responding to the General Discussion version. This thread brings out the worst in me.
I get sucked into this 'them vs us' attitude all the time, and its why I don't come here everyday anymore.
This is only because of how poorly designed 3rd edition was...
In your opinion.
I personally think its the most elegant and versatile gaming system ever designed... In my opinion. ;)
Fortunately, the folks over at Paizo - along with the millions of people that will stick with 3e+ - agree with me.
I'm just amazed that the system all of us have been using for eight years is all-of-a-sudden considered 'garbage', just because the folks trying to sell you the latest version claim it so.
I guess we were all deluded into thinking we were having a good time for the last eight years?
I wonder if we could get a class-action suit up against Hasbro for distributing a faulty (in their own words) product? or better yet, for convincing us that it was good all this time. AFAIK, Brainwashing is still against the Geneva Convention.
Don't buy the hype - 3e is a great system, if you know how to iron out all the bugs. Not too many people play a system out-of-the-box, and 3e is a perfect example of one that should be 'tweaked'.
On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for a system that can be used out-of-the-box, which is how 4e was designed - on that, I commend them.
I
In your opinion.
I personally think its the most elegant and versatile gaming system ever designed... In my opinion. ;)
You've obviously never played Mage the Ascension, where you can quite theoretically do anything. Just don't do it where people can see you obviously breaking the laws of nature or you'll regret it very quickly.
I'm just amazed that the system all of us have been using for eight years is all-of-a-sudden considered 'garbage', just because the folks trying to sell you the latest version claim it so.
Thanks for the implication I'm mindless and just go with what is new.
My 2nd edition Call of Cthulhu, that I still play, 2nd edition Shadowrun, Mage the Ascension (boo Mage the Awakening, BOOOOOO) disagree with you fundamentally.
I guess we were all deluded into thinking we were having a good time for the last eight years?
Where did I write this? A system can be broken, but even I stated in my posts that I enjoyed it: when I gave up and broke it back.
Don't buy the hype - 3e is a great system
No it's really not.
if you know how to iron out all the bugs. Not too many people play a system out-of-the-box, and 3e is a perfect example of one that should be 'tweaked'.
Really, so on top of everything else I do as a DM I need to rewrite a crappy system on top of that? Instead, here's sounder logic to me, why don't I play
Mage the Ascension
Vampire the Masquerade/Vampire the Requiem/Vampire the Dark Ages
Werewolf the Apocalypse/Werewolf the Forsaken
Call of Cthulhu
Shadowrun
or any number of better, non-broken systems that I don't have to rewrite?
Oh wait, that's what I did. 3rd edition is more versatile than 4th, but 3rd edition is inherently inferior to other "versatile" systems by far IMO. 4th edition doesn't try to compete with being versatile, instead it tries to ensure balance and that it is mechanically fair. This is what it succeeds at in cost of versatility, but it works extremely well as a game focused around being a fantasy group of tomb raiders (to an extent). 3rd edition is better at being versatile as you have said, but is inferior to other systems that are even more versatile and without the problems I've highlighted. 3rd edition, for example, has a far superior core combat system to any of the above games, but breaks it by being so mechanically imbalanced that combat system, IMO doesn't get to shine. 4th edition has 3rd editions great combat system and balances it.
So I suppose if you really want to know where I come from, I don't need 3rd edition to be more versatile when it's the excellent core combat system that attracts me to it. I need that core combat system to work. When I don't want to run a combat heavy game, 3rd edition is poor at doing that (because it's not flexible enough) compared to other systems I've got and also love (like Call of Cthulhu or Mage the Ascension).
Yes, I know you like to pretend that 3.5 isn't actually incompetently broken by spellcasters and that it's the DMs fault but it isn't. It is broken by spellcasters, routinely. The only way to prevent it from being broken by spellcasters, is to break it the other way.
With spellcasters.
Nice to see you concede that it's DM vs. Players in 3rd edition, proving my point from earlier.
Actually, I was just trying to clarify what I thought MT's point was, though I see I didn't really make that as clear as I thought I had...
Beyond that, I don't concede the point in the slightest. If the game is allowed to devolve into the point where it is DM vs Players, then yes, 3e can get very broken. If it doesn't turn into that, then it isn't. And yes, just to make you feel better, if it does get to that point, then there's either a problem with the DM and/or the Players, at least in my opinion. That's a general opinion, though I'm almost sure it'll be taken as an attack, which it isn't, nor do I think Markus' posts were the attack you seemed to take them as. Might want to think about going over to decaf...
Though as far as M:tA is concerned, that game could be seriously broken by players with a mind to do so... haven't played the new version, so couldn't speak about that, but with the wrong players the old one could get ugly. Was far more open to abuse, in my experience anyway, than 3e ever was. But, you'll probably be able to find anecdotal evidence of that being true with pretty much any game system after its been around a while. I'm sure we'll be seeing the exact same arguments about 4e when 5e finally rolls around.
As to whether 'playing smart' counted, I'd say it depended on the group. If everyone is doing it, including the DM, then no harm no foul, so long as they're all having a good time. If there's only one or two players doing it, and the rest of the group, DM included, is getting upset, then yes, it does count. Especially if they're making the rest of the group feel useless. Having said that, I'd say it counted if the whole group was 'playing smart' and only one or two players were being whiny because they didn't play that way. The majority of the people involved sets the dominant style, and if you can't or won't play that way, you need to find another game better suited to you, its that simple in my book.
Though as far as M:tA is concerned, that game could be seriously broken by players with a mind to do so...
Yes, but, the entire game was designed around this concept. Of course, if you did something stupid in front of a bunch of regular people, you were probably about to get horribly fragged. The PCs enemies could likewise do horrible reality bending things as a matter of course (or worse for that matter). This is the key [and significant] difference.
Edit: It's worth pointing out, that Mage is made more or less broken rather deliberately. I have no problem with this because it's not class based. Everyone is a mage. Everyone can "break" the game in equal measure (and so can the players enemies). I'm wondering if you've actually read what I actually object to about 3rd edition, which can be easily summed up as being too imbalanced between classes as a major problem. I don't care if Mages in Mage the Ascension can break the game. Everyone at the table is one.
It's like having the guy who is mortal in the group in Mage the Ascension. Now we're getting a problem.
Beyond that, I don't concede the point in the slightest
Except you did, this isn't putting words anywhere, you've basically conceded one of my key points. You can stop the guy abusing disarm, combat reflexes and a spiked chain with creatures that don't care about using weapons (Chuuls!). You can't stop the wizard abusing huge DC instant death spells (minding, this isn't even the worst thing) without blatant metagaming or just plain fudging dice every combat (something I'm increasingly moving away from doing).
If the game is allowed to devolve into the point where it is DM vs Players, then yes, 3e can get very broken.
You've conceded so already. If the DM doesn't work against the PCs directly, then the PCs walk all over the game (and by PCs I mean "spellcasters", because I've never had any martial character present anywhere near as much of a problem).
4E, Mage, Call of Cthulhu I never design encounters/antagonists to precisely counter my players abilities otherwise they walk all over it using the normal rules. Abusing rules is one thing, just being more powerful than other classes, in a class based system (which Mage, Call of Cthulhu aren't) is asking for encounters that assume a certain level of ability as being even (when it isn't by far) makes for a TPK or walkover based system.
This is the inherent flaw in 3Es imbalanced casters with "meatshields". Everyone in mage you can assume has a certain degree of power. Everyone in Call of Cthulhu is, well a mortal who is just as squishy anyway, but that's beside the point. Everyone in Werewolf is, well a werewolf so really, there isn't anything to really say about that.
That you have the equivalent of the guy playing a Mage the Ascension like mage in the middle of a group of people who are the power level of the mortals in Call of Cthulhu, it creates gigantic problems. When the DM has to design an encounter that takes account of a subset of a games systems classes that has more power than anyone else, it inherently makes the game broken. You've conceded, IMO, this point numerous times through your arguments.
But again, how much epic level (15+ into the 20s) 3rd edition DnD have you ever played?
As to epic level (up into the low 40's) 3e play, I've engaged in quite a bit. But, I play the game very differently than you do apparently, so I think the point is somewhat irrelevant, since we're obviously not facing the same problems, which is largely due to radically different styles of play, with I suspect radically different styles of character building, most of the higher level feats and such used towards social and/or academic types of ability, rather than combat or spellcasting power.
And no, I don't concede the point. This is really very simple... I'm sure you won't like it, but try to understand the point. I don't put up with players with that sort of style, nor does my group of players, and so it is a moot point as far as we're concerned. Its not an issue because that style of play is not to our taste... so it never comes up. So yes, it is easy to stop if it never starts in the first place. Which is my entire point.
And still, you look at my arguments and seem to presume an adversarial relationship between DM and Player that isn't the case with my games. Those problems you're seeing are only a problem with certain styles of play, which I do not engage in, so while I acknowledge that they are a problem for you, what I'd really like to have happen is you coming to the realization that it is not inherently a problem for everyone, universally, no exceptions.
What I have conceded is that its a problem for you. What I have not conceded is that its a problem for me. That clear things up?
I take it you've never used Ascension's Right Hand, Kinfolk, or The Enchanted much... There's plenty of opportunity for unbalancing most of the WoD games really, with huge disparity in power levels, especially if you cross over the games with each other, and include 'sleepers' or 'psuedo-sleepers' into things. With the right group of people, doing so presents very few problems, and with the wrong group, more than its fair share of them.
Sleepers/pseudosleepers I never ran much with, but I did use most of the other sourcebooks. If you make a problem for yourself, you're to blame
Being ridiculous was the whole fun of mage, but again, everyone was ridiculous. Crossovers were always a horrible idea. I never ever ever ever ever allowed or approved of it. It caused so many issues it wasn't funny. Werewolves would completely dominate combat, mages would dominate this, Vampires had to be transported during the daytime and all sorts of things. Plus, all of this was really weird to do anyway in oWoD, because all the supernaturals despised one anothers guts.
As to epic level (up into the low 40's) 3e play, I've engaged in quite a bit.
I find it hard to believe you've never noticed the clear power disparity that develops at epic levels. Minding, you do admit you don't play a combat orientated campaign so that does make sense.
This does not however, make 3E a good system. In fact, I still think it's a terrible system because IMO, 3E isn't anywhere near as good as this as other systems like GURPS.
But, I play the game very differently than you do apparently, so I think the point is somewhat irrelevant, since we're obviously not facing the same problems, which is largely due to radically different styles of play, with I suspect radically different styles of character building, most of the higher level feats and such used towards social and/or academic types of ability, rather than combat or spellcasting power.
Even unoptimised wizards are more efficient than martial classes. Even so, if you aren't running a combat orientated game, that's good for you. I still can't see how (for example with buff spells freely available, spell permanency etc) that really helps much, especially because all the problems I've described are still there. Albeit, they are largely combat related, but that doesn't magically make them go away.
Of course, for me if I wanted to run a largely intrigue, non-combat orientated game I would use a superior system to 3E for that like Storyteller, GURPS or Call of Cthulhu myself.
What I have conceded is that its a problem for you.
Yes, but is that because I'm
A) Incompetent
B) Unable to use tactics
C) Unable to read
Because that's all I ever get out of your posts on the matter. It may not be a "problem" for you, but then again I played with a lot of different people (not just one group). I saw a wide variety of different builds and similar. I didn't always have the luxury of running exactly what I wanted. Thus far with 4th edition, it lacks the key problem of one subset of classes being substantially stronger than the others (breaking a game, even with people I've only met once or twice, easily). In 3rd edition, this is a distinct problem. If you minimise it by playing with a stable group and not having much combat (where in fact, the problem shows itself very clearly) that's fine, but that you've conceded it's there is all my argument required really.
As to 3e being a good system or not, depends on what you want from it. If you look at your character as a measuring stick of where you've come from and gone over your career as an adventurer, its quite good, as good as any class-based system could be anyway. While I admit Storyteller is much better at it in a lot of respects, the cumbersome amount of dice as the game progresses are discouraging after a while, and the simplicity of a single die roll is remarkably appealing, damage dice excluded, but even then we usually use average results rather than rolling and counting to keep things as easy as possible.
As to mages being more efficient... I still think it depends a lot on how your players deal with them than anything else. One thing I've found with my current group is they tend to curb themselves more than I do, and tend to intentionally leave in weak points on their characters, with the thought that the rest of the party can cover those deficiencies when they work as a group. Its been fascinating watching it over the last few years as it developed among them, which probably got me somewhat spoiled as to how other groups work, thinking about it.
So, while the problem is doubtlessly there from your point of view, its never raised its head in my admittedly sheltered group, so I've never considered it a problem. Which says to me that it isn't a problem inherently, and largely depends on how the system is used, and what the expectations are from it... which is not to say that it isn't broken when used in a certain way, but that if one never uses it that way, then it isn't broken as far as that person is concerned. Great for me, but I can see how it would suck for you.
Depended a lot on the group. The first few groups I fell in with, as a player mostly, just fell apart. The first group was a disaster, since one person tended to min/max, another was a serious spotlight stealer, and the other attacked everything in sight... with me trying to hold the group together and failing utterly. The next few were mostly variations on the theme, which nearly made me give up on RPGs entirely until I found a group that all had pretty much the same style and mostly worked together. Crossovers with the first groups were just nightmares, and it made me very apprehensive until I met my last group, where it worked beautifully. I mostly came to the conclusion that a lot of it depended more on your group than it did on the rules.
Actually it doesn't. While any game can be ruined socially by bad players, the ability for 3E to be ruined in terms of mechanics or gameplay was unique. 4E, White Wolf, Rolemaster, 1E/2E can all be ruined by jerks, but only by them being jerks. Jerks can not destroy the mechanical frameworks of those games like they can with 3E. In AD&D, munchkinism was defined by cheating and bullying the DM. In 3E, it is defined by abusing the rules as written.
Actually it doesn't. While any game can be ruined socially by bad players, the ability for 3E to be ruined in terms of mechanics or gameplay was unique. 4E, White Wolf, Rolemaster, 1E/2E can all be ruined by jerks, but only by them being jerks. Jerks can not destroy the mechanical frameworks of those games like they can with 3E. In AD&D, munchkinism was defined by cheating and bullying the DM. In 3E, it is defined by abusing the rules as written.
Not entirely true. There were ways to be a munchkin in AD&D, both 1st and 2nd edition. Mostly in character generation - write Cavalier on your character sheet (1E), or write Baldesinger as an elf F/M (2e). It wasn't as bad as what you could do in 3e, though.
Of course, we had Monty Haul gamers in my day ;)
Even unoptimised wizards are more efficient than martial classes. Even so, if you aren't running a combat orientated game, that's good for you. I still can't see how (for example with buff spells freely available, spell permanency etc) that really helps much, especially because all the problems I've described are still there. Albeit, they are largely combat related, but that doesn't magically make them go away.
I personally play and have run with the same group of players for 20 years now and we have very combat heavy games at times. It has never been the case that any 1 person outshines the others in general (though typically the same ones are party leaders because of their RL personalities). Personally, I believe that every class shines in 3.5 as every one is needed. Rogues for scouting, locks, traps, clerics for undead, healing, etc. A run of the mill generic mage is not going to be more efficient than a martial class unless you tailor their spell list for the encounter. In my games, mages usually start out as apprentices. This means they gain their spells from their master (who I also create down to his own spells). That alone keeps any spells viewed as unbalancing out of the game. As they level, they gain spells from other avenues and then again it is still in my control as to what they get.
I would also like to see what spells you allow permanancy used with as that spell seems to focus greatly in your argument against 3.5. It doesn't take much effort to make any martial class into a engine of destruction.
Actually it doesn't. While any game can be ruined socially by bad players, the ability for 3E to be ruined in terms of mechanics or gameplay was unique. 4E, White Wolf, Rolemaster, 1E/2E can all be ruined by jerks, but only by them being jerks. Jerks can not destroy the mechanical frameworks of those games like they can with 3E. In AD&D, munchkinism was defined by cheating and bullying the DM. In 3E, it is defined by abusing the rules as written.
In YOUR opinion it does not. Any game can be ruined by powergamers in terms of mechanics. 4e is no different nor is White Wolf. Any time you introduce rules you introduce the possibility that they will be interpreted differently by different people. Any game can also have players trying to intimidate the DM.
Actually it doesn't. While any game can be ruined socially by bad players, the ability for 3E to be ruined in terms of mechanics or gameplay was unique. 4E, White Wolf, Rolemaster, 1E/2E can all be ruined by jerks, but only by them being jerks. Jerks can not destroy the mechanical frameworks of those games like they can with 3E. In AD&D, munchkinism was defined by cheating and bullying the DM. In 3E, it is defined by abusing the rules as written.
The key word there being abused, which from what I've seen, relies largely on interpreting the rules in the loosest possible, most advantageous way, regardless of how the DM wants them interpreted... a lot of the things I've seen pointed out were based on what I would view as very dubious leaps of logic. While I have no problem with people using those interpretations as they see fit in their own games, were someone to try to use them at my table, I'd have to beat them on the head with my DMG. While I acknowledge that some of the rules are a bit shaky on their wording, a lot of the stuff I've seen is mostly based on errors that failed to put in damage caps or limitation with their wording. I don't think a lot of the people writing the rules ever envisioned the abuse that the omission might lead to, so I doubt there was a feeling that they needed to impose those limitations in the first place. Beyond that, if it became a problem, that's why the DM was there, to put the brakes on players trying to hijack the system... at least that was my interpretation of their intentions. Obviously the interpretations of others will vary, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As to 3e being unique in being abusable by RAW, I found a great deal of that in the original and revised Storyteller system to be honest, if a player looked at things sideways enough. And that's kind of the problem for me, which I see only three practical solutions to... one, you write rules with a legalistic framework that reads more like a tax code than a ruleset, with all the little loopholes covered and closed... or two, you streamline and constrict the mechanics to the point where there's only one real way for everything to work... or three, you design a breakable system that relies on all the participants being on an honor system to play nicely with each other, and hope for the best.
As far as I can tell, 4e went with option two, while 3e relied on option three, and I've never seen a game that went with option one, although several that came scarily close. Given the choice, I prefer option three, despite its potential flaws, and appreciate the trust it puts in the players, though I can completely understand why some would greatly prefer option two, particularly in situations like Organized Play, blind games, and the like, where it absolutely makes more sense.
The level to which 3E was abusable by RAW and the disparity in balance between optimized and unoptimized was larger in 3E than in just about any other RPG system.
A bold and undoubtedly subjective statement. And, BTW, no "was" needed just yet.
A bold and undoubtedly subjective statement. And, BTW, no "was" needed just yet.
Its not really a bold statement. Lack of balance and the fragility of the rules as written are pretty much the most obvious weak points of 3E. Didn't make the game unplayable, as I personally played 3.5E over its entire lifetime without abandoning it for another game. At least not until I got a shiny new D&D.
My magic system is nothing like 3e's, and my combat is radically different, so pehaps I wasn't playing 3e at all, eh? ;)
But I built it off of 3e, and I absolutely fell in-love with templates and PrCs, because they allow the game to evolve in directions that earlier editions only imagined. Personally, I would have preferred for them to take 3e and repair everything that was wrong, instead of starting over, because we didn't just loose the bad - we lost a lot of good as well.
But it's all about personal preference here, and none of us are going to agree, so live and let live.
P.S. - I've played Mage, and just about every other system ever invented, so I have a little bit of experience where 'other systems' are comcerned.
Please refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
I certainly hope this wasn't directed in my defense, because I think the conversation in this thread has remained very civil (despite certain people taking offense to imagined slights).
If it was aimed at me (for whatever reason), then I apologize.
I haven't seen this tread cross the line... yet... but it is walking a tightrope ATM.
Thread closed.
We really don't need edition wars currently and it seems the thread has gone away from FR.
Thread closed.
Its about time. Should have been closed pages ago.