Anyway so I am wondering how many people out there run the FR with 4th edition rules? What problems they faced? Any outside infomation they got that help?
I don't want to turn this into a edition war thread...I just want to hear people's actual honest experience with this.
That isn't to say I long for the days of THAC0, or dream of the times when a wizard had a hundred spells inn his book, but if you focus on the charcaters, then there is no reason why things have to feel strange.
-RW
I think it can run fairly smoothly to be honest. The Realms, for me anyway, has always been about the story, and while 4e has it's shortcomings it certainly supports RP at every level far better than any prior edition.
That isn't to say I long for the days of THAC0, or dream of the times when a wizard had a hundred spells inn his book, but if you focus on the charcaters, then there is no reason why things have to feel strange.
-RW
Well I would imagine there would be a need for creating of feats, Paragon paths, etc. I mean a paragon path for shadow weave users....NPC powers based on the weave. Things that WotC didn't really want to deal with.
the shadow weave fell apart though....
The Shadow Weave fell apart under the application of logic and common sense.
That is one if the reason they got rid of the weave. They couldn't just have the Weave( still don't know why) so they came up with the Shadow Weave...and just couldn't get the darn thing to work. So they used the sledge hammer approach to a precieved problem.
But if you are still playing in the old realms they is the whole shadow weave issue. Though a solution would be to just ignore it I suppose...
But I wonder has anybody made 4th ed Paragon Paths, Epic destinies, powers, feats, items (like the shadow potatoes ;) ) .
I know if I ever play 4E in the Realms it will be using my 'Old Grey Box'. Manshoon(Yes Lord Manshoon I am using your namesake as an example.
) would be a 16th level Elite(Leader) Controller, or Artillery.Yet I would still like to run a game in the 220 DR Realms, gotta love those Magelords.
The Shadow Weave would become the Shadow Power Source. I still believe that the Arcane Power Source should be the Weave in the Realms. Heck just call it that.
I know if I ever play 4E in the Realms it will be using my 'Old Grey Box'. Manshoon(Yes Lord Manshoon I am using your namesake as an example.
Yet I would still like to run a game in the 220 DR Realms, gotta love those Magelords.
Magelords were a bunch of wannbes. ;) MAGELORDS MUST BE STOPPEED !!!
So does anybody run the old Realms with 4th edition rules?
As for any problems using 4e rules in a 1375DR or prior Realms, I never had a problem. The way the rules work can easily work the the Weave and Shadow Weave just as if there wasn't one there. If you wanted to get really indepth, then you could start making Homebrew feats that reflect the differences between the two. For example, you could make Shadow Magic Weave feat that turns your spells from Arcane power source to the Shadow power source. It could also have penalties to fire and radiant spells (say a -2 penalty to attack rolls and damge rolls) but give you a bonus to cold and necrotic spells (say a +2 feat bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls).
But aside from going the "homebrew" route, the game mechanics are perfectly viable for the time of play. I really don't see how they would pose a problem if you want my honest opinion. Besides the flavor and fluff of the specific powers, each Base class has been seen in previous FR lore.
Though if I ran a 4th ed game at that time period I probably would go insane...each god clerics would be so different from one another it would almost be it's own class....or creat a whole slew of powers only available to those god's clerics.
I would make Eladarin equilvant to to sun elves and star elves...Elves would be moon elves and creat the Grugach( their old 1st ed name) for the wild elves and possibly wood elves.
Etc.
Yes I understand I son't have to do those things...but I would feel the need to.
So does anybody run the old Realms with 4th edition rules?
My group is leaning this way. There's a bunch of bizarreness and silliness in 4th ed realms that made a couple people in my group LOL and say, "no wait, you're serious?" when I described some of it. So although I bought the 4E ruleset book trio, we didn't plunge for the 4th ed Realms book.
The hard part, though, is that I only have 1e and a few 2e books, so we'd end up running a really old version of the realms. Not sure if I should buy more of the 2e-3e old stuff, and much of it is out of print now anyway.
So does anybody run the old Realms with 4th edition rules?
My group is leaning this way. There's a bunch of bizarreness and silliness in 4th ed realms that made a couple people in my group LOL and say, "no wait, you're serious?" when I described some of it. So although I bought the 4E ruleset book trio, we didn't plunge for the 4th ed Realms book.
The hard part, though, is that I only have 1e and a few 2e books, so we'd end up running a really old version of the realms. Not sure if I should buy more of the 2e-3e old stuff, and much of it is out of print now anyway.
A good place to look would be nobleknight.com. It is a online store that sells a alot of old books at a decent price...though some them are expensive.
A good place to look would be nobleknight.com. It is a online store that sells a alot of old books at a decent price...though some them are expensive.
That's great, thanks, I'll check it out. It's been really hard to find stuff and "catch up" on all the stuff I missed. I've tried Paizo and rpgnow since I had thought that lots of things were available as PDFs, but I can't find hardly anything in PDFs.
The core 4E rules are built upon a back story. That back story is modified to fit the Realms, obviously, but it still brings changes to how one perceives elves-now-Eladrin, the nature of the outer planes, and how the rules are extrapolated from and made to fit that background.
To me, game mechanics are inextricably linked to specific versions and eras of a given setting.
I'm sure one could --with a good group of players-- use the 4E mechanics in a pre-plague game. But I wouldn't enjoy it because I'd have to constantly separate elements of what's truly 4E from not in my mind as play progressed in a 3E era game.
I've never run the pre-Spellplague Realms using the 4E rules, and I wouldn't want to, because it wouldn't feel right.
The core 4E rules are built upon a back story. That backstory is modified to fit the Realms, obviously, but it still brings changes to how one perceives elves-now-Eladrin, the nature of the outer planes, etc...
I'm sure one could --with a good group of players-- use the 4E mechanics in a pre-plague game. But I wouldn't enjoy it because I'd have to separate elements of what's truly 4E from not.
I can agree with you on this....I am agreeing with Mr_Miscellany on something
. Yeah I doubt you remember me from the days when I was on these boards.Anyway I think you hit the nail on the head 3.5 and 4th have very different feels. While I might one day to learn to like 4th...(just looked at the Hybrid Class concept in the PHB 3...and got the creative juices flowing...so there is hope this old school anti 4thed player might come around
) I would still always play 3rd edition. I don't know of anything that would prevent me from using (for example) the 4E rules with the first edition Realms. Granted, I'd have to roughly translate power levels and such, but most of the gray box is purely content/flavor.
Not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious why you think this way.
Why do you both think earlier Realms would be incompatible with 4E rules?
I don't know of anything that would prevent me from using (for example) the 4E rules with the first edition Realms. Granted, I'd have to roughly translate power levels and such, but most of the gray box is purely content/flavor.
Not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious why you think this way.
For me is that the favor did changed signifantly between the edition. It is hard to quantified in x way. But the answear as a mentioned before to me.
4th ed Eladrin doe not feel mechanicaly like 3.5 high elves...
4th ed Elves don't feel like mechanicaly like 3.5 wild elves.
I think 3.5 did a good job of having the flavor support the mechanics and vice a versa. I don't feel the same way with 4th edition.
I hope that explains it.
For me is that the favor did changed signifantly between the edition. It is hard to quantified in x way. But the answear as a mentioned before to me.
4th ed Eladrin doe not feel mechanicaly like 3.5 high elves...
4th ed Elves don't feel like mechanicaly like 3.5 wild elves.
I think 3.5 did a good job of having the flavor support the mechanics and vice a versa. I don't feel the same way with 4th edition.
I hope that explains it.
I think so. Since you played 3.5 Realms with the 3.5 rules, there's a strong association there for you. For myself, though, I missed 90% of 2E and all of 3E. Maybe it's easier for me to throw out the minimal "story" in the core 4E rules and just go with the story/history in 1E realms (like, there's no way I'd ever use the Raven Queen) and just import things I like from 2E and 3E history. I can keep the "Weave" as it was originally intended. But if I'd played 3E, I can easily see how I'd expect certain things from both the rules side and the history side.
Well I would imagine there would be a need for creating of feats, Paragon paths, etc. I mean a paragon path for shadow weave users....NPC powers based on the weave. Things that WotC didn't really want to deal with.
NPCs in 4E don't care about power sources at all. When making an NPC you can literally decide how it functions, why it functions and it doesn't remotely translate or use PC mechanics at all. An NPC can have whatever shadow powers you feel like and such forth. Where you would run into trouble would be PCs, as there aren't really any shadow powersource PC options except the assassin (which doesn't fit here anyway). So you may have to do some legwork there.
The main point here is that it doesn't matter what the weave does, the explanation for how magic works doesn't even have to change from 4E back to a pre-spellplague realms. The only things you would have trouble with are mechanics that target power sources like dead magic zones and such. These in 4E are irrelevant mechanics that you don't really need anymore.
I've never run the pre-Spellplague Realms using the 4E rules, and I wouldn't want to, because it wouldn't feel right.
The core 4E rules are built upon a back story. That backstory is modified to fit the Realms, obviously, but it still brings changes to how one perceives elves-now-Eladrin, the nature of the outer planes, etc...
I'm sure one could --with a good group of players-- use the 4E mechanics in a pre-plague game. But I wouldn't enjoy it because I'd have to separate elements of what's truly 4E from not.
I can agree with you on this....I am agreeing with Mr_Miscellany on something
Anyway I think you hit the nail on the head 3.5 and 4th have very different feels. While I might one day to learn to like 4th...(just looked at the Hybrid Class concept in the PHB 3...and got the creative juices flowing...so there is hope this old school anti 4thed player might come around
@johnkretzer: Hello and well met. I do remember you and it's nice to see you again.
To me Third Edition D&D did the best of all the systems so far to shape the game mechanics around the fantasy setting.
In 2nd ed There were impractical limits on character classes and an imbalance between what a DM could do and what players could do.
3rd ed did away with this by making a point of saying, "If the DM can do it, so can the players and vice versa."
Prestige classes at the beginning and end of the 3rd ed era (and not the cheaper by the dozen crap that WotC went gangbusters over in the middle years of 3rd ed) reflected, in my opinion, the best that 3rd Edition D&D had to offer. You had deeply flavorful classes married to mechanics that perfectly reflected the unique flavor traits of the class and made it possible for players to really immerse themselves in the PrC and make it a part of their characters.
4E, for all its simplicity, took a step backwards by reopening the disjunction that existed in 2E between what players and DMs could do.
Aegeri's point about DMs just building whatever they need is sound, but I think it betrays a weakness in 4E that will only become more apparent over time.
Aegeri's point about DMs just building whatever they need is sound, but I think it betrays a weakness in 4E that will only become more apparent over time.
I find this an inherent strength in the system actually. Monsters do not need and in fact should not base their mechanics on PCs. 3rd edition demonstrated how this idea was not a good one, because monsters were often huge space taking stat blocks that were 90% useless. Monsters don't need to be built like PCs and it's far better they aren't, 4Es combat works so well because monsters are consistent - making balance consistent throughout all tiers of play.
Aegeri's point about DMs just building whatever they need is sound, but I think it betrays a weakness in 4E that will only become more apparent over time.
I find this an inherent strength in the system actually. Monsters do not need and in fact should not base their mechanics on PCs. 3rd edition demonstrated how this idea was not a good one, because monsters were often huge space taking stat blocks that were 90% useless. Monsters don't need to be built like PCs and it's far better they aren't, 4Es combat works so well because monsters are consistent - making balance consistent throughout all tiers of play.
I can't say much in the way of customizing monsters in 4th ed. I really don't have much experience with it. Though I'll say this about it it instead of giving monster 3 powers he can use on the idea he won't get a fouth power of in a fight. Then I sorta have to give him powers the next time I use a monster of the same type. Giving me more option built in means I don't neccessary have to spend the time to make him different. I think it would be faster to set up a game if they did give monsters more power at base.
But I can comment on buiulding monsters with class in 3.5. While at first it is alot more work you will learn shortcuts to be able to do it quicker. I mean I can stat out most monsters with classes in about 10 to 20 min. I also find it more rewarding as a DM to run said creature even realizing it is going to die...though most of my monsters w/ classes do have escape plans....so it also possible I'll use that same monster.
Now I can see and understand why they went the way they did. It is faster and easier for new DMs to run...probably even experience DMs find alot easier...but I don't find it as rewarding. It is depth vs shallowness to me. Besides since you don't know how the dice will work out...or what the PCs will do if the monster survives 6 rounds the fight suddenly gets very repetive and boring.
I think (...) while 4e has it's shortcomings it certainly supports RP at every level far better than any prior edition.
How so? Although D&D as a system, regardless of its incarnation, has never been one to support roleplaying particularly well, 4e IMHO does an even worse job of that because many of its mechanisms are completely seperated from the gaming world. An opponent who receives damage if he attacks anyone other than the paladin, moving and shifting, and so on, i. e. all those powers that do something without explaining why and how they do it. Which - the way I see it - is even more boardgamey than 3e and 3.5 (which were already very boardgamey to begin with).
Just my personal impression. What I'd like to know is how 4e is better at supporting roleplaying.
DB
each god clerics would be so different from one another it would almost be it's own class...
I actually did that in 3e. Quite a hassle, but definitely worth it.
DB
each god clerics would be so different from one another it would almost be it's own class...
I actually did that in 3e. Quite a hassle, but definitely worth it.
DB
I am working on similar with 3e though using Initiate of....feats and PrCs using the 2nd edition as a guide. It will take me awhile but I agree just because something is extra work or complex does not mean it is not worthwhile. And I think cleric should be more shaped by who they worshipped.
I'll freely admitt doing similar with 4th ed is probably is quite possible with paragon paths and divine(?) feats. But at the end of it all I am happier with the final results in worth it.
And I think cleric should be more shaped by who they worshipped.
That's exactly why I did it. Okay, IMC clerics are quite imbalanced (depending on which god they revere) because I adjusted the spell lists, so every god has their own spell list - which means that as a cleric you get considerably less spells to choose from, but at least what you can do mirrors which god you pray to. Balance is not that much of a problem because of our close-knit gaming group, anyway. So yeah, if balance is not an issue, I guess you could do it in 4e, too. (Still a lot of work, though.)
DB
I think (...) while 4e has it's shortcomings it certainly supports RP at every level far better than any prior edition.
How so? Although D&D as a system, regardless of its incarnation, has never been one to support roleplaying particularly well, 4e IMHO does an even worse job of that because many of its mechanisms are completely seperated from the gaming world. An opponent who receives damage if he attacks anyone other than the paladin, moving and shifting, and so on, i. e. all those powers that do something without explaining why and how they do it. Which - the way I see it - is even more boardgamey than 3e and 3.5 (which were already very boardgamey to begin with).
Just my personal impression. What I'd like to know is how 4e is better at supporting roleplaying.
DB
For me, I feel 4E has more freedom and a free-style way of handling RPing. For example, in 4E if I want my PC to be a blacksmith then *bam!* he's a blacksmith. I don't have to back up that title with skill points and feats. Same goes for any sort of profession or ability to do "non-combative" things that aren't expressed in the rules. I think these sort of things should be put into the Backround and notes of your character but not require the spending of a resourses. And that's just the skills side of 4E.
Also, they've gotten rid of alignment requirments in 4E (yay, no more lawful stupid!!) and this, I believe, helps to make for better character custimization. Now, I can have a chaotic evil paladin or a paladin who multiclassed to a Barbarian.
This might not necessarly mean that 4E is better at supporting roleplaying, but I feel the support is there none the less in a non-restrictive gaming system.
Monsters do not need and in fact should not base their mechanics on PCs. 3rd edition demonstrated how this idea was not a good one, because monsters were often huge space taking stat blocks that were 90% useless.
A whitewash, there. The notion that stat blocks were 90% useless doesn't comport with facts or experience.
Look at the 3E and 4E Monster Manuals, and you find about the same space covered for stats and descriptions.
I think the key is that 4E did away with much of the skill lists for monsters. Advancing monsters under the 3E rules was a pain for me at about the point where I had to fill in skill points. The rest of it worked great.
Monster abilities that mimicked spells were another area of "too much information" but a cursory glance at the MMs of 3E shows that the majority of monsters didn't have huge lists of spell like abilities.
I like that 4E winnowed down the stat blocks, but IMO they went a little too far. Regardless, I don't think this winnowing alone supports the conclusion that monsters should not base their mechanics on a system shared by players.
Monsters don't need to be built like PCs and it's far better they aren't, 4Es combat works so well because monsters are consistent - making balance consistent throughout all tiers of play.
4E monsters are a little boring, in my experience.
Also, it's ironic to me that as a DM you have to "play" your monsters like they're an entire party of PCs, each with one or two limited abilities and maybe one big-bang ability that you hope hits.
Like so much else with 4E, I think WotC swung the pendulum too far to the other side in terms of moving the game away from a simple, unified system for players and NPCs/Monsters.
All in my not so humble opinion, of course. ;)
Good talking with you all.
For me, I feel 4E has more freedom and a free-style way of handling RPing. For example, in 4E if I want my PC to be a blacksmith then *bam!* he's a blacksmith. I don't have to back up that title with skill points and feats. Same goes for any sort of profession or ability to do "non-combative" things that aren't expressed in the rules. I think these sort of things should be put into the Backround and notes of your character but not require the spending of a resourses. And that's just the skills side of 4E.
Also, they've gotten rid of alignment requirments in 4E (yay, no more lawful stupid!!) and this, I believe, helps to make for better character custimization. Now, I can have a chaotic evil paladin or a paladin who multiclassed to a Barbarian.
This might not necessarly mean that 4E is better at supporting roleplaying, but I feel the support is there none the less in a non-restrictive gaming system.
Not to argue or even to disagree but to give my PoV on it.
The problem I have with the Skill System in 4th ed is that it does put things like I am a blacksmith into the background. With mechanics backing it up it is more involved with the RP. For instance if I make a sword in 3.5 I spend the time....and use my skill and spend a little(usualy about half the money) and I have a sword. I feel like a black smith. In 4th ed....I say I am making a sword and I spend time according to the DM...I spend the same amount of money as if I just went out brought it at another blacksmith...and I am not feeling like I am a blacksmith. I know why it works like this in 4th ed because it can disrupt game balance...but personaly I would trade a little balance for RP. And yes I know a DM can play however he wants...but I am talking about the rules in the game.
My other problem with the skill system in 4th edition that detracts from the RP is the instant skill mastery. If one character has a skill since 1st level and another character takes via feat at 9th level suddenly the only thing separating them is natural ability(IE stats) and their both equaly skilled, even if that first player RPed training the second player....what one took many years to learn took the other overnight( sure you can do this in 3.5 too...but it is easier to regulate by saying you can only spend x sp on any given skill per level I don't see a easy means of doing it in 4th).
As to paladine and restictive alignments and multiclassing...well to me sometimes it is the restriction that is more important to RP then the benefits. Though I agree all alignments should have had their own 'paladins' order. I mean one of the thing in 4th ed that absolutely kills RP in my opinion is that after a cleric is invested with the power of his god it does not matter what he does...he could go join the enemy faith...or start is own religion just worshpping himself....If you are going to play a cleric the player should expect that they will be a code conduct and breaking it will have consequences. If he decides to break it...for whatever reason the act thus RP has more meaning.
Anyway the above is just my opinion on RP and parts of it that makes it fun for me. I recognize the fact that others have different style of play that are just as valid as mine.
Monsters do not need and in fact should not base their mechanics on PCs. 3rd edition demonstrated how this idea was not a good one, because monsters were often huge space taking stat blocks that were 90% useless.
A whitewash, there. The notion that stat blocks were 90% useless doesn't comport with facts or experience.
Like how the Tarrasque has multiple copies of the feat "toughness" for no particular reason other than it pointlessly needs to fill feat slots? Not to mention a bunch of relatively useless abilities and skills - if the DM needs it to do something outside of combat then that doesn't require things on the stat block.
Look at the 3E and 4E Monster Manuals, and you find about the same space covered for stats and descriptions.
Not true, I'm looking at my 3E Eberron books right now and NPCs especially can occupy 1/2 to 3/4 of a page. Most monsters also take up a lot of space, depending on what they are (which is just like 4E). But again, much of those blocks are things I would never need or bother using.
The rest of it worked great.
Except that they needed a wide array of immunities to PC powers or be utterly useless in combat of course. Not to mention the core problem I'll take with your argument is that CR was absolutely and utterly worthless. This does not show a system that "works great".
In 4E, a level 1 monster is a level 1 monster. You know how that creature will function in an encounter. You know that it's not going to one shot your PCs left and right. It will behave 100% predictably, making encounter design more about making it interesting, terrain and similar.
In 3E a CR 1/2 (I think) Orc can easily take out a level 1 adventurer. The encounter is all about how rolls initiative first and if the Orc rolls a 20. Goodbye first level adventurer, hope you enjoy making an entirely new character because a CR 1/2 orc, which shouldn't be a significantly resource draining challenge in a system that "worked great" wouldn't instantly kill a PC 5% of the time (or even 15% of the time, they could potentially have an axe with a higher critical range). Heck, thinking about it I don't even need to critically hit in many cases either - just need to get a single strike and a second hit is almost certain death.
If you have 20 orcs in your first level adventure....
I will never agree with you that is a system that works great.
Monster abilities that mimicked spells were another area of "too much information" but a cursory glance at the MMs of 3E shows that the majority of monsters didn't have huge lists of spell like abilities.
A lot of iconic monsters did like Illithids, Beholders, Dragons and other things. Monsters that I certainly will be using often (Devils, Daemons also come to mind).
Regardless, I don't think this winnowing alone supports the conclusion that monsters should not base their mechanics on a system shared by players.
3rd edition answers that for me conclusively. For example, monsters do not require a large amount of skills and if their design is changed to not be PC like it means what they can do is limited by what PCs can do. Likewise, if PCs don't function like monsters then you can make rules that make PC powers function and work in specific ways without interfering with monster balance.
For example, monsters do not have many healing surges and this is irrelevant for them. This is something PCs need that monsters - which usually only face one encounter - do not need at all. Similarly, PCs need rules that dictate how their weapons, items and implements work - this is something that is pointless for monsters as monsters don't need (or require) such complications. Monsters as an example of this lack power sources (Divine, Psionic) as this wouldn't add anything to their functioning.
4E monsters are a little boring, in my experience.
Not really, if you design encounters well they do exactly what they should do: Challenge PCs, without being overwhelming or without breaking core game mechanics - for that matter they don't have to break core mechanics to be challenging. Something 3rd edition monsters had to do.
For example, I can point out that in 3rd edition Housecats have a considerably good chance of easily killing a 1st level PC. This is because the cat is built like a PC (which is stupid in and of itself) meaning it has a ridiculously high sneak skill and in fact IIRC even has sneak attack. There is something incredibly wrong with a system where a housecat can threaten an adventurer - but that is the inherent stupidity in making monsters function like PCs.
Also, it's ironic to me that as a DM you have to "play" your monsters like they're an entire party of PCs, each with one or two limited abilities and maybe one big-bang ability that you hope hits.
This is similar to PCs with daily powers, monsters don't require billions of powers though (unless they are particularly tough solos) so such design is better for them. Again, they aren't PCs, they don't need billions of powers they need powers that make them interesting. Not throwing the kitchen sink at the wall and hoping something sticks.
Like so much else with 4E, I think WotC swung the pendulum too far to the other side in terms of moving the game away from a simple, unified system for players and NPCs/Monsters.
The game is inherently better off for it, because monsters =/ PCs. They have actually made monster design more streamlined, simpler and given clear expectations. Unless you want to argue the CR system in 3rd edition worked (and you would be immensely brave to make that argument) then it is pretty clear how terribly and fundamentally flawed the monsters = PCs approach was.
But let's go to an example. I have my orcs from above and a shaman with sleep. This makes up a relatively standard EL 1 encounter in 3rd edition terms. We know that whoever goes first will either automatically win (sleep) or automatically lose (due to the party probably having sleep or spells that can kill them). Now, I give the Shaman and the Orcs the improved initiative feat. Is the encounter more or less challenging? Are the Orcs with improved initiative still the same CR? I would argue in both cases the shaman and orcs increasing their chances of going first have increased the CR considerably - a single PC hit by sleep is a dead PC on an orcs turn.
I think you'll find that's a very tough question to answer in 3rd editions design where monsters are similar to PCs (combined with how plainly wonky the CR system was). If I give a moster in 4E +4 initiative do I make the encounter harder? Nope. It will be insignificant, because going first isn't going to have a chance of instantly wiping the party for any level 1 monster in 4E (they simply do not have powers or inflict enough damage to do so). Yet in 3E, I can make a minor change at low levels and potentially break the entire CR system (and greatly enhance the chance of TPKing or outright killing a PC or the entire party). Yet I'm building the creature perfectly according to the rules.
CoDzilla (all spellcasters really, to a certain extent) in general I find works only with a core set of assumptions that I find kind of odd, personally, and isn't going to be universally true if those assumptions aren't present in a particular group. The major flaw with the argument is that it presumes that everyone will come to the exact same conclusion as to what is useful/best/uber, and that they will always care about such things. Obviously, the argument depends on certain assumptions being true, that are not always going to be true, so its something of a fallacy to make absolute statements about it. It would be true to say that it could become a problem under a given set of circumstances, but it isn't true to say that it will always become a problem under every set of circumstances.
Which could pretty much be said about anything in 3e. Or pretty much any ruleset you can think of, with a couple of exceptions.
Its kind of silly really, the whole argument of whether 3e was crap, or 4e is, or if 2e ruled them all. 3e brought a lot of new blood into the game, and that's really what matters at the end of the day, not the mathematicaly inequities and imbalances of evolving game design, which some of us really don't care much about so long as we're having fun with things. Play what you like, but don't tell me I'm wrong for doing exactly the same thing, is what I'm getting at.
Its kind of silly really, the whole argument of whether 3e was crap, or 4e is, or if 2e ruled them all. 3e brought a lot of new blood into the game, and that's really what matters at the end of the day, not the mathematicaly inequities and imbalances of evolving game design, which some of us really don't care much about so long as we're having fun with things. Play what you like, but don't tell me I'm wrong for doing exactly the same thing, is what I'm getting at.
Quoted for Emphasis (QFE)
I agree...
Its kind of silly really, the whole argument of whether 3e was crap, or 4e is, or if 2e ruled them all. 3e brought a lot of new blood into the game, and that's really what matters at the end of the day, not the mathematicaly inequities and imbalances of evolving game design, which some of us really don't care much about so long as we're having fun with things. Play what you like, but don't tell me I'm wrong for doing exactly the same thing, is what I'm getting at.
Quoted for Emphasis (QFE)
QFT
Its kind of silly really, the whole argument of whether 3e was crap, or 4e is, or if 2e ruled them all. 3e brought a lot of new blood into the game, and that's really what matters at the end of the day, not the mathematicaly inequities and imbalances of evolving game design, which some of us really don't care much about so long as we're having fun with things.
From a generalist standpoint, sure.
However that doesn't mean the evolution of the game, its mechanics and the cumulative effects on settings like the Realms and Eberron aren't of interest or import.
3E fixed a lot of 2E's problems. It also kept a lot of players from 2E. The later is something 4E hasn't, to my knowledge, managed to do.
That's worth talking about. ;)
Play what you like, but don't tell me I'm wrong for doing exactly the same thing, is what I'm getting at.
I don't think anyone's doing that (well, at least not me).
Show
You're using the Tarrassque for a baseline? What? ;)
Dude, it's the Tarrasque. If it didn't have Toughness more than once, I'd be inclined to change the stats. In fact, being an experienced DM who's used the Tarrasque (actually, an advanced Tarrasque out of Dragon Magazine) against my players, I'd swap several of those six Toughness feats for other feats that make the Tarrasque that much more tougher, because I know my players and the power levels of their characters.
That's something missing from this debate: the fact that 3E not only allowed, but encouraged, DMs to modify monsters up or down based on relative party strength and composition. The unified system to do that was the set of mechanics used to build players just as you would monsters.
People often take shots at the CR system by assuming it was meant to be run "as is". Wrong. DMing in 3E at mid to high to Epic levels required DM investment of time and energy to customize creatures and encounters. The CR system was a tool, not an absolute.
Arguing against the CR system without understanding this fundamental aspect of CR as it related to the 3E game is to start from a flawed position.
All 4E did was try to remove a chunk of that time investment and make things "work" at all levels. This was the basis for the 4E designers philosophy of building 4E around the "sweet spot" (i.e., approx 10th level) of 3E.
OK, still using the Tarrasque.
Skills: Listen, Search, Spot, Survival.
Abilities: Augmented Critical, Frightful Presence, Improved Grab, Rush, Swallow Whole, Carapace, Regeneration
Question, Aegeri: Where are the "relatively useless abilities and skills" - especially for outside of combat? I don't see any.
;)
We're talking monsters from the Monster Manuals, not NPCs, right? I see that you agree monsters in both editions take up about the same space.
Really? How so?
OK, restating, you're saying CR had no value to a DM at all and didn't work as written. Got it. Let's apply that with regard to the arguments you made that follow.
OK, let's pause here.
In 4E, creatures don't behave 100% predictably. Because of the 4E rules structure, a DM is far, far less likely to kill a PC with a level 1 creature, thanks to the generous character creation rules in 4E as well as the rules governing healing surges, but there's still a chance a PC can die.
In 3E, you know with the bounds of reality just how a CR 1/4, 1/2 or 1 creature will function. It could kill a PC in one hit, but that's always been the nature of 3E. In 3E, you had save or die effects. You had death by massive damage. The chance at instant character death was an ever-present aspect of 3E.
The unspoken claim in your argument, Aegeri, is that instant death is a bad thing. Subjectively, that's fine. But using it as a claim in an argument against the CR system doesn't work, because it ignores the nature of the 3E game.
You also claim that since 3E DMs couldn't know (in so many words) how their monsters would work, this limits a DMs ability to focus on using terrain and otherwise building an interesting encounter situation. Can you elaborate on this? From where I'm sitting (a decade playing 3E in the Realms -- and incidentally using Orcs from 1st level through about 12th liberally, all over Cormyr and beyond), your claim holds no water at all.
Wait...they didn't throw their javelins first? Are these orcs actually orcs or are they metagamers? Also, for a 1st level party, the typical encounter will be with 1 to 3 orcs (average, 2).
So...four party members and two orcs. On average, a PC or two will go first. More than half the time that's one orc down after those PCs take their turns.
The DM could roll initiative for each orc, but a noob DM most likely would not. Orcs have 5 hp. If 3.0, the orcs have great axes (+3 to hit, 1d12+3), if 3.5, they have falchions (+4 to hit, 2d4+4/18-20).
So one orc survives, gets one attack. Maybe it drops a PC, but more than likely it won't. Then that orc is dead when the rest of the party acts.
The rest of your argument boils down to: the characters might die.
My response: So what? That was part of the game and the danger of death from a lowly CR 1/2 orc doesn't go away for several levels. Yet somehow players survived. Mine sure did, in part because they learned that you put the tank in front for god's sake. ;)
Even 4E characters can die. You're taking the dangers and vagaries of 1st level play and trying to turn it into an indictment against the whole CR system. But the argument doesn't hold, unless you're absolutely against character death at low levels.
But if that's true, you can't play 4E either, because there's still a chance at death.
For one encounter? If this is the case, you didn't read the CR rules. Not an argument against CR here. For what it's worth, I pitted my players against 200 orcs at around 10th level when they faced off against Nalavara and her hoard. That. Was. Fun.
If so, then why are you chatting with me about it?
You're only half-getting my point (or you're just not reading your 3E Monster Manual). Illithids aren't loaded with overbearing lists of spell-like abilities at all. Nor are Beholders (nor, as I stated, are most creatures in the Monster Manual).
Demons and Devils: here's a good example where the higher CR versions had lots of attacks and lots of abilities and -as a DM- it was hard for me to keep track of it all. Pit fiend, for example.
Lower CR examples like Bearded Devils and Chain Devils were better: easier for me to use (and in hindsight remind me most of the current 4E monster write ups) because they had one or two cool abilities.
I had to learn to use the higher CR monsters over time by running multiple encounters with them. But again, that's the time investment thing and it paid off in the long run. 4E makes this all go away (which I do appreciate the designers working towards) but again I think they went too far. But who knows, as my 4E game reaches Paragon level I may just change my mind.
Now, Dragons. 3E Dragons are the be-all and end-all of too much information. High CR dragons were tops across the line: attacks, hit points, spell like abilities, spell lists like a high level wizard and cleric put together (that you as DM had to be ready to generate), reach, etc....
(It should be noted Dragons were designed this way on purpose. It was assumed a party of PCs would know where the dragon laired and make preparations to kick its ass. Thus, Dragon CRs were intentionally undervalued in the Monster Manual. (And the book doesn't even let you in on this secret!) That's a problem with CR, as it relates to dragons.)
Pitting Dragons against my players was fun. But for me as DM it was a hell of a lot of work. On the flip side, by 14th level or so, I was regularly using multiple dragons with githyanki riders. You can learn a lot and get really good at DMing, with practice.
Yes, really.
Like 3E, 4E monsters have what amount to their basic attacks. You attack, roll the dice, hit or miss, move on.
What 4E also has are these set creature abilities as part of the basic attack that hinder the players in some way through the application of conditions (like being weakened or slowed) or providing combat advantage against, extra damage dealt, etc... but they don't do much more than that.
I know I can hinder my players and drop their hit points down, but if they play their character roles correctly, they'll survive through healing surges, challenging and marking the right monsters, etc...
Only if they don't do this will I (sometimes) drop a PC.
And that's what I don't like. I can bring a player right to the edge, but the monsters (so far, we're talking heroic tier play) don't seem to have that extra something that can blast a PC into a bloody mess on the floor.
The players just have too much on their side of the rules to stay alive.
I'd like to see some actual support for this claim. The housecat example doesn't support it (see below) because it's an irregularity of the rules, easily solved, and such an irregularity doesn't follow onward into similar problems at higher levels of play (that is, the problem is peripheral, at best, and doesn't propagate further into the system). Anything else?
There are oddities in the 3E rules, sure. Take your house cat example. Claw/claw/bite routine, big strength penalty (-4) but thanks to the minimum 1 point of damage rule, a lucky cat could outright kill a 1st level fledgling wizard with a crappy Con score modifier.
So, if we have a lucky set of attacks, and if the wizard has hit points less than max for 1st level, the cat is a danger.
Lots of ifs and not much of an argument against CR. Especially when you can just apply common sense and make small, non-magical animals with major strength penalties do subdual damage, ala the Phil Athans rule.
I recognize that the 3E rules were not perfect. Far from it, in fact! But again, the key here is that the CR system (and 3E rules in general) were not set in stone. DMs could change things. DMs were expected to change things to suit their game.
Hrmm...no. You didn't show the CR system was "fundamentally flawed". I get the impression (based on your Orcs and Shaman encounter scenario) that you don't actually understand the CR/EL system.
Granted, I didn't show the CR system was perfect either. I even agreed with you in some instances and gave examples of such.
But I did show that not all monster stat blocks were not nearly overloaded as you claimed they were. I showed how many (if not all) of your examples were exaggerations and corner cases.
I also showed how the fundamental (and subjective) belief that players shouldn't have their characters killed outright during play was in fact a known aspect of the 3E game and thus part of the play experience, and not in fact a "flaw" of the CR system.
Most importantly, I showed that the CR system wasn't an absolute thing that just magically worked. Rather, it was a tool meant to aid a DM with his or her own judgement on how challenging an encounter should be opposite his or her particular group of player characters.
4E is a game I enjoy. It's too simplified for my tastes, but I play it to mine and my player's satisfaction. I hope that further play into Paragon and even Epic tier alleviates some of my impressions of what are, to me, 4E's many weaknesses.
Time will tell!
Good talking with you, Aegeri.
Like how the Tarrasque has multiple copies of the feat "toughness" for no particular reason other than it pointlessly needs to fill feat slots?
You're using the Tarrassque for a baseline? What? ;)
Dude, it's the Tarrasque. If it didn't have Toughness more than once, I'd be inclined to change the stats. In fact, being an experienced DM who's used the Tarrasque (actually, an advanced Tarrasque out of Dragon Magazine) against my players, I'd swap several of those six Toughness feats for other feats that make the Tarrasque that much more tougher, because I know my players and the power levels of their characters.
That's something missing from this debate: the fact that 3E not only allowed, but encouraged, DMs to modify monsters up or down based on relative party strength and composition. The unified system to do that was the set of mechanics used to build players just as you would monsters.
People often take shots at the CR system by assuming it was meant to be run "as is". Wrong. DMing in 3E at mid to high to Epic levels required DM investment of time and energy to customize creatures and encounters. The CR system was a tool, not an absolute.
Arguing against the CR system without understanding this fundamental aspect of CR as it related to the 3E game is to start from a flawed position.
All 4E did was try to remove a chunk of that time investment and make things "work" at all levels. This was the basis for the 4E designers philosophy of building 4E around the "sweet spot" (i.e., approx 10th level) of 3E.
Not to mention a bunch of relatively useless abilities and skills - if the DM needs it to do something outside of combat then that doesn't require things on the stat block.
OK, still using the Tarrasque.
Skills: Listen, Search, Spot, Survival.
Abilities: Augmented Critical, Frightful Presence, Improved Grab, Rush, Swallow Whole, Carapace, Regeneration
Question, Aegeri: Where are the "relatively useless abilities and skills" - especially for outside of combat? I don't see any.
;)
Not true, I'm looking at my 3E Eberron books right now and NPCs especially can occupy 1/2 to 3/4 of a page. Most monsters also take up a lot of space, depending on what they are (which is just like 4E). But again, much of those blocks are things I would never need or bother using.
We're talking monsters from the Monster Manuals, not NPCs, right? I see that you agree monsters in both editions take up about the same space.
Except that they needed a wide array of immunities to PC powers or be utterly useless in combat of course.
Really? How so?
Not to mention the core problem I'll take with your argument is that CR was absolutely and utterly worthless.
OK, restating, you're saying CR had no value to a DM at all and didn't work as written. Got it. Let's apply that with regard to the arguments you made that follow.
In 4E, a level 1 monster is a level 1 monster. You know how that creature will function in an encounter. You know that it's not going to one shot your PCs left and right. It will behave 100% predictably, making encounter design more about making it interesting, terrain and similar.
In 3E a CR 1/2 (I think) Orc can easily take out a level 1 adventurer.
OK, let's pause here.
In 4E, creatures don't behave 100% predictably. Because of the 4E rules structure, a DM is far, far less likely to kill a PC with a level 1 creature, thanks to the generous character creation rules in 4E as well as the rules governing healing surges, but there's still a chance a PC can die.
In 3E, you know with the bounds of reality just how a CR 1/4, 1/2 or 1 creature will function. It could kill a PC in one hit, but that's always been the nature of 3E. In 3E, you had save or die effects. You had death by massive damage. The chance at instant character death was an ever-present aspect of 3E.
The unspoken claim in your argument, Aegeri, is that instant death is a bad thing. Subjectively, that's fine. But using it as a claim in an argument against the CR system doesn't work, because it ignores the nature of the 3E game.
You also claim that since 3E DMs couldn't know (in so many words) how their monsters would work, this limits a DMs ability to focus on using terrain and otherwise building an interesting encounter situation. Can you elaborate on this? From where I'm sitting (a decade playing 3E in the Realms -- and incidentally using Orcs from 1st level through about 12th liberally, all over Cormyr and beyond), your claim holds no water at all.
The encounter is all about how rolls initiative first and if the Orc rolls a 20. Goodbye first level adventurer, hope you enjoy making an entirely new character because a CR 1/2 orc, which shouldn't be a significantly resource draining challenge in a system that "worked great" wouldn't instantly kill a PC 5% of the time (or even 15% of the time, they could potentially have an axe with a higher critical range). Heck, thinking about it I don't even need to critically hit in many cases either - just need to get a single strike and a second hit is almost certain death.
Wait...they didn't throw their javelins first? Are these orcs actually orcs or are they metagamers? Also, for a 1st level party, the typical encounter will be with 1 to 3 orcs (average, 2).
So...four party members and two orcs. On average, a PC or two will go first. More than half the time that's one orc down after those PCs take their turns.
The DM could roll initiative for each orc, but a noob DM most likely would not. Orcs have 5 hp. If 3.0, the orcs have great axes (+3 to hit, 1d12+3), if 3.5, they have falchions (+4 to hit, 2d4+4/18-20).
So one orc survives, gets one attack. Maybe it drops a PC, but more than likely it won't. Then that orc is dead when the rest of the party acts.
The rest of your argument boils down to: the characters might die.
My response: So what? That was part of the game and the danger of death from a lowly CR 1/2 orc doesn't go away for several levels. Yet somehow players survived. Mine sure did, in part because they learned that you put the tank in front for god's sake. ;)
Even 4E characters can die. You're taking the dangers and vagaries of 1st level play and trying to turn it into an indictment against the whole CR system. But the argument doesn't hold, unless you're absolutely against character death at low levels.
But if that's true, you can't play 4E either, because there's still a chance at death.
If you have 20 orcs in your first level adventure....
For one encounter? If this is the case, you didn't read the CR rules. Not an argument against CR here. For what it's worth, I pitted my players against 200 orcs at around 10th level when they faced off against Nalavara and her hoard. That. Was. Fun.
I will never agree with you that is a system that works great.
If so, then why are you chatting with me about it?
A lot of iconic monsters did like Illithids, Beholders, Dragons and other things. Monsters that I certainly will be using often (Devils, Daemons also come to mind).
You're only half-getting my point (or you're just not reading your 3E Monster Manual). Illithids aren't loaded with overbearing lists of spell-like abilities at all. Nor are Beholders (nor, as I stated, are most creatures in the Monster Manual).
Demons and Devils: here's a good example where the higher CR versions had lots of attacks and lots of abilities and -as a DM- it was hard for me to keep track of it all. Pit fiend, for example.
Lower CR examples like Bearded Devils and Chain Devils were better: easier for me to use (and in hindsight remind me most of the current 4E monster write ups) because they had one or two cool abilities.
I had to learn to use the higher CR monsters over time by running multiple encounters with them. But again, that's the time investment thing and it paid off in the long run. 4E makes this all go away (which I do appreciate the designers working towards) but again I think they went too far. But who knows, as my 4E game reaches Paragon level I may just change my mind.
Now, Dragons. 3E Dragons are the be-all and end-all of too much information. High CR dragons were tops across the line: attacks, hit points, spell like abilities, spell lists like a high level wizard and cleric put together (that you as DM had to be ready to generate), reach, etc....
(It should be noted Dragons were designed this way on purpose. It was assumed a party of PCs would know where the dragon laired and make preparations to kick its ass. Thus, Dragon CRs were intentionally undervalued in the Monster Manual. (And the book doesn't even let you in on this secret!) That's a problem with CR, as it relates to dragons.)
Pitting Dragons against my players was fun. But for me as DM it was a hell of a lot of work. On the flip side, by 14th level or so, I was regularly using multiple dragons with githyanki riders. You can learn a lot and get really good at DMing, with practice.
Not really,
Yes, really.
Like 3E, 4E monsters have what amount to their basic attacks. You attack, roll the dice, hit or miss, move on.
What 4E also has are these set creature abilities as part of the basic attack that hinder the players in some way through the application of conditions (like being weakened or slowed) or providing combat advantage against, extra damage dealt, etc... but they don't do much more than that.
I know I can hinder my players and drop their hit points down, but if they play their character roles correctly, they'll survive through healing surges, challenging and marking the right monsters, etc...
Only if they don't do this will I (sometimes) drop a PC.
And that's what I don't like. I can bring a player right to the edge, but the monsters (so far, we're talking heroic tier play) don't seem to have that extra something that can blast a PC into a bloody mess on the floor.
The players just have too much on their side of the rules to stay alive.
... - for that matter they don't have to break core mechanics to be challenging. Something 3rd edition monsters had to do.
I'd like to see some actual support for this claim. The housecat example doesn't support it (see below) because it's an irregularity of the rules, easily solved, and such an irregularity doesn't follow onward into similar problems at higher levels of play (that is, the problem is peripheral, at best, and doesn't propagate further into the system). Anything else?
For example, I can point out that in 3rd edition Housecats have a considerably good chance of easily killing a 1st level PC. This is because the cat is built like a PC (which is stupid in and of itself) meaning it has a ridiculously high sneak skill and in fact IIRC even has sneak attack. There is something incredibly wrong with a system where a housecat can threaten an adventurer - but that is the inherent stupidity in making monsters function like PCs.
There are oddities in the 3E rules, sure. Take your house cat example. Claw/claw/bite routine, big strength penalty (-4) but thanks to the minimum 1 point of damage rule, a lucky cat could outright kill a 1st level fledgling wizard with a crappy Con score modifier.
So, if we have a lucky set of attacks, and if the wizard has hit points less than max for 1st level, the cat is a danger.
Lots of ifs and not much of an argument against CR. Especially when you can just apply common sense and make small, non-magical animals with major strength penalties do subdual damage, ala the Phil Athans rule.
I recognize that the 3E rules were not perfect. Far from it, in fact! But again, the key here is that the CR system (and 3E rules in general) were not set in stone. DMs could change things. DMs were expected to change things to suit their game.
Unless you want to argue the CR system in 3rd edition worked (and you would be immensely brave to make that argument) then it is pretty clear how terribly and fundamentally flawed the monsters = PCs approach was.
Hrmm...no. You didn't show the CR system was "fundamentally flawed". I get the impression (based on your Orcs and Shaman encounter scenario) that you don't actually understand the CR/EL system.
Granted, I didn't show the CR system was perfect either. I even agreed with you in some instances and gave examples of such.
But I did show that not all monster stat blocks were not nearly overloaded as you claimed they were. I showed how many (if not all) of your examples were exaggerations and corner cases.
I also showed how the fundamental (and subjective) belief that players shouldn't have their characters killed outright during play was in fact a known aspect of the 3E game and thus part of the play experience, and not in fact a "flaw" of the CR system.
Most importantly, I showed that the CR system wasn't an absolute thing that just magically worked. Rather, it was a tool meant to aid a DM with his or her own judgement on how challenging an encounter should be opposite his or her particular group of player characters.
4E is a game I enjoy. It's too simplified for my tastes, but I play it to mine and my player's satisfaction. I hope that further play into Paragon and even Epic tier alleviates some of my impressions of what are, to me, 4E's many weaknesses.
Time will tell!
Good talking with you, Aegeri.
I'd agree no one was saying that as of yet, but I'm still very weary of edition war ruleset bashing, and probably overreact when faced with it. As to the rest of it... well, I'm kind of done with D&D for now, having moved on to SW Saga Edition, but who knows, maybe I'll get back into the Realms eventually.
Hey Misc, glad to see you're still going strong.I'd agree no one was saying that as of yet, but I'm still very weary of edition war ruleset bashing, and probably overreact when faced with it. As to the rest of it... well, I'm kind of done with D&D for now, having moved on to SW Saga Edition, but who knows, maybe I'll get back into the Realms eventually.
*ties you up and sits you in a room with Corellon until you repent to him and change your ways*
Hey Misc, glad to see you're still going strong.I'd agree no one was saying that as of yet, but I'm still very weary of edition war ruleset bashing, and probably overreact when faced with it. As to the rest of it... well, I'm kind of done with D&D for now, having moved on to SW Saga Edition, but who knows, maybe I'll get back into the Realms eventually.
*ties you up and sits you in a room with Corellon until you repent to him and change your ways*
By Helm, I thought we took all the in character posting to spamclub?
Or should we just tie you up in a room with Bahamut until you see the way
Show
Just to demonstrate that the creature needs to take toughness multiple times, instead of just having the required HP anyway and doing something more relevant with those resources. I view this as particularly poor design and an example where just making the creature what it needs to be is far superior.
4E does this as well and it's superior at it, because there is less fuss in determining things like skills among other problems that adjusting monsters in 3E had. Plus it has a clear and defining set of rules for what kind of powers (and how powerful these should be) can be added to a creature (and how they function).
If I give a monster a level or two of fighter in 3E is it the same CR as a monster with a level or two of a spell casting class?
I would argue one of these things affects balance far more greatly than the other does (considerably so).
Which was also inherently flawed.
That's why it failed miserably. What you've just conceded was "CR didn't work, so you had to guess it as you went anyway", which was my entire argument. In 4E, due to the way monsters are built and balanced a 15th level monster is a 15th level monster. A 14th level monster is a 14th level monster. There is no guesswork anywhere in this system as to what a monster does. A CR 14 devil in 3E could either be an overwhelming challenge that would wipe a party or die to the first spell it encountered.
This is a core point, you've conceded my argument inherently right here about CR in 3rd edition. If it does not work as is it is a failure as a system to accurately guage the challenge of a monster. This is inherently the argument I've made. If you cannot prove CR can accurately predict the challenge of a monster, it is inherently a system that does not work. You can argue "It wasn't meant to accurately predict a monsters challenge" and I will point out to you that makes it a failure of a system.
I can tell you that in 4E, a monsters level and creature type is a completely accurately reflection of its challenge to a party. This is a 100% working and functional system, without guesswork. That is a massive success compared to how flawed the CR is as a system.
Once again saying "The DM has to assess challenge himself based loosely off the CR" is not good enough. That is a poor system. A better system gives you an accurate idea of how a monster performs and instead it is the other factions, terrain, composition of creatures and similar that you need to add to determine the overall challenge to your party. One of these 3E gets horrifically wrong and the reason for that IMO, is that 3E monsters are built like PCs - effectively throwing two groups of PCs at one another is always going to be a poor result.
As an example, if you take 4E and you make NPCs as if they were PCs (Same powers and similar) and use them in encounters the result is an absolute unmigitated disaster. Whoever goes first invariably wins, because with a daily power + action point you can almost guarantee dropping a PC first round - heaven forbid that NPC gets a critical hit and does 100+ points of damage instantly by epic tier. As monsters, they don't have enough HP to survive the PCs attacks and their defenses are often poor enough to be auto-hit on at least 1-2 of them. The result here plays very much like 3rd edition with its CR system in predicting challenge - very poorly.
I do understand CR, that is why I say it is an immensely falwed and poor system for actually telling you how challenging a monster would be.
And make adjusting monsters easier, changing their powers easier, less work in creating new monsters and standardizing how challenging a monster should be at every level. I can, without touching a single book level up or down any monster on the fly to suit my needs. It will all still function 100% according to RAW and still be as challenging (with exceptions of leveling a creature up/down more than 3-4 levels). That's a real strength of the way they are designed.
I don't think you need any of the things on the ability line except swallow whole and regeneration. For skills, it doesn't need survival. So there are quite a few things there I would regard as relatively useless that could be built better into attacks or similar.
In 4E, if I want the tarrasque to have more HP I just - get this - give it more HP. Not that it particularly needs more HP actually - but I could give it more HP if I felt like it.
Some monsters take up ridiculous amounts of space as well, but by far the worst offenders in 3E were NPCs.
Instant death effects, critical hit immunities, various spell immunities I could go on (not to mention how many ways you needed to metagame your BBEG so he didn't trivally die to the first optimized death spell - or just plain save or lose like hold person - he encountered).
Yep that's my argument.
That is true, but that doesn't mean they are not predictable. You cannot complain that you can't kill PCs in 4E and claim monsters in 4E do not behave predictably. That argument uhhh, doesn't work.
Now you increase that EL to +5 and those same monsters are more than enough to kill PCs. Because challenge is appropriately proportional to the level of the monster!
But it's not predictable, it's pure dice rolls. That's the definition of unpredictable (EG pure luck). A system of challenges based on pure luck and later, being utterly ineffective at just about anything else for predicting challenge isn't a good system.
Take a CR 14 creature that heavily uses magic and spell like abilities. Is that creature the equivalent of a CR 14 creature that is basically just HD and a solid melee attack? There is absolutely no way a spellcaster like creature is the same challenge as one that isn't - 3rd edition plainly does NOT work that way.
These aren't save or die effects, this is just pure lucky (or unlucky) dice rolls swinging a combat so badly it results in a walk over or a TPK. That 3rd edition is so poorly designed on instant death effects is just another problem with it, but not really the core problem with the way CR works.
Whereas with the concept that PCs are not monsters, you do not have a combat that swings so badly on dice rolls it turns into a TPK or a walkover instantly. You can make PCs have enough survivability that they can take 5 encounters a day without falling over, while at the same time not putting that (non-required) durability on monsters. Bear in mind just because monsters have more HP than PCs does not mean they have the durability of PCs.
This is not true but you actually get close to my true point. That 3E makes monsters the same as PCs means the CR system doesn't work, because it's such a luck and dice roll based system (SoDs, HoDs etc)
HoD= Hit or Die at low levels.
It's simple, if I give the orcs favourable terrain in 4E I make an interesting encounter.
If I give the orcs favourable terrain in 3E I increase my chances of a TPK. This is because the more rolls given to 3E orcs - who as you say do not have many HPs - means the higher the chances of them one shotting a PC.
How do you know I even gave them javelins? Or are you saying they have to use their weaker ranged attacks for balance?
Seems you just undermined your argument that CR means anything and customizing creatures is simple and doesn't instantly change the CR system.
2 Orcs is an EL 1 encounter (As they are CR 1/2 each).
What if I've given the orcs improved initiative?
The Falchions are actually far worse than the greataxe. 18-20 crit and 2d4+4 damage with probably a x2 crit. What PC survives 4d4+8 damage at level 1? I mean, you're trying to tell me the CR system can be guaged for how challenging a monster is, yet this supposedly "simple" creature can eliminate an entire party member in one hit? Minding on a crit the greataxe is just as easily doing the same thing in all fairness to 3.5.
That clearly shows the CR system doesn't work at all.
I'm glad you concede it entirely depends on luck.
Does it matter if he gets a natural 20? It really doesn't. That's the flaw in your argument.
Sure, I've killed more than a few PCs in 4E. In an EL + 4 or EL +5 encounter, which should as the rules predict be hard I have killed more than a few PCs. That's exactly why CR in 3E fails and the EL system of 4E works. Encounters that will kill PCs are in fact intentionally hard - not a lucky dice roll that instantly swings the combat (which is a flaw in 3E inherently as well).
Actually it gets worse as you level, because CR becomes worthless as even CR opponents cannot survive spellcasters save or dies (or magic in general), yet can easily outfight and slaughter a fighter or martial character of a lower level.
This doesn't happen anywhere in 4E. PCs are built with different assumptions and a higher power level than monsters, while monsters are built as challenges that need different assumptions to work as challenges. One of these systems works with 100% predictability as to what the outcome will be.
The other is pure guesswork - precisely because it's so heavily dictated by dice rolls from the outset. Not to mention that there is absolutely no equivalence anywhere in the system between monsters that cast spells like PCs and those that do not. The spellcasting monster is ALWAYS better than the equal CR creature without spells.
Yeah, when I make a EL + 3 to EL +5 encounter at low levels I agree. But normally? Not really.
No, across the entire adventure. I don't think 20 orcs in one entire adventure is out of line. Remember that if they each get 1 roll that's 1 crit and probably 1 dead PC.
Great system for predicting challenge that is (based on dice rolls statistics ;)).
You've only played heroic tier 4E? I've played every level of 4E and I assure you, monsters in 4E are complicated enough and they can drop PCs pretty easily. Most of my TPKs have been in difficult paragon and epic encounters. That is a GOOD thing. It means dice rolls are not determining those TPKs, but the difficulty of the encounter and the monsters.
Or just CR in general, showing again that CR was a worthless metric for anything.
I absolutely agree. By realizing the CR system was worthless for absolutely anything and doing all the work yourself, you could get good at DMing in 3rd edition by understanding the rules and building encounters specifically against your party - but not paying attention to the CR of any monsters in it.
That's why I say that CR is worthless - because it doesn't tell you anything meaningful about a monsters challenge at all.
A good thing that as well.
Nor should they. They are monsters, not PCs and they don't have to. If they should do something outside of combat, the DM can perfectly make up his own mind as to what they do. This is similar to the discussion about mariliths polymorphing, if it's relevant to the plot BAM she can polymorph. If it's not relevant to the plot who cares, it's simply not something that needs to be on the stat block at all.
Precisely.
I'm not seeing the flaw here, whereas you've done well to show my argument that CR isn't useful is right. You've basically admitted that you needed to basically understand creatures inherently in 3E rather than relying on their CR. You've already conceded to me a CR 1/2 orc can easily wipe out over 25% of a party in a single hit.
Is this an EL +3 to +5 encounter? Because limited breath weapons and abilities can nearly always drop a 0 HP PC to dead.
Yes, because they need to face multiple encounters every single day and monsters only face 1 encounter, the one where they die. Hence why monsters do not need to be PCs, they need to be challenges, FOR PCs.
All undead, plants and constructs are immune to critical hits. Many monsters are outright immune to death spells (or categories of spells in general). I view this as breaking mechanics.
How many monsters in 4E are immune to crits? How many are outright immune to certain conditions and similar (and some certainly are, but they are a very small minority)?
I can tell you that a monster being a challenge or not in 4E has little to do with needing a list of immunities to different conditions. They don't need to be to be challenging, while in 3rd they certainly needed to be so but again, how do you determine is something immune to critical hits is more challenging or the same challenge as something that isn't?
No it's not. Housecats are oddly challenging for the reason they are built like PCs. You can't go claiming a monster (in this case a housecat of all things) is an "irregularity" of the rules when it is built USING those rules. What other rules should they have been using?
Also you forgot the housecats stealth is so ridiculous they will nearly always get a surprise round. Plus they aren't a CR 1 creature, so I can have multiple housecats to down that PC. With multiple houecats, a surprise round and stealth beyond what even optimized PCs will have for spot/listen I can easily take down someones first level wizard trivially.
A proper argument would be good ;)
Actually it's not just lucky, the cats stealth should basically guarantee it a surprise round and he's likely to go first as well. You seem to have forgot that ;)
Also, he's under CR 1 so you get multiple housecats. It's not easy at all to down the PC before the surprise round has ended.
That's not RAW. I'm arguing "Does this system work by RAW". If you need to houserule it, congratulations you prove my point that the CR system is not working by RAW.
I agree, the CR system was worthless so making it set in stone is the last thing any good DM should do. You seem oblivious to the fact CR is a CORE system in encounter design. By saying CR was not set in stone and didn't accurately reflect the challenge of a creature you inherently concede my point it doesn't work.
In 4E, a level 1 monster IS a level 1 monster. You can take that as being set in stone and it works absolutely as intended.
Actually I did, but I notice you failed to answer the argument. Is it a higher or lower CR when I change one feat (and CR naturally affects the EL)? You still haven't addressed the question.
Like how the Tarrasque has multiple copies of the feat "toughness" for no particular reason other than it pointlessly needs to fill feat slots?
You're using the Tarrassque for a baseline? What? ;)
Just to demonstrate that the creature needs to take toughness multiple times, instead of just having the required HP anyway and doing something more relevant with those resources. I view this as particularly poor design and an example where just making the creature what it needs to be is far superior.
That's something missing from this debate: the fact that 3E not only allowed, but encouraged, DMs to modify monsters up or down based on relative party strength and composition.
4E does this as well and it's superior at it, because there is less fuss in determining things like skills among other problems that adjusting monsters in 3E had. Plus it has a clear and defining set of rules for what kind of powers (and how powerful these should be) can be added to a creature (and how they function).
If I give a monster a level or two of fighter in 3E is it the same CR as a monster with a level or two of a spell casting class?
I would argue one of these things affects balance far more greatly than the other does (considerably so).
The unified system to do that was the set of mechanics used to build players just as you would monsters.
Which was also inherently flawed.
People often take shots at the CR system by assuming it was meant to be run "as is". Wrong. DMing in 3E at mid to high to Epic levels required DM investment of time and energy to customize creatures and encounters. The CR system was a tool, not an absolute.
That's why it failed miserably. What you've just conceded was "CR didn't work, so you had to guess it as you went anyway", which was my entire argument. In 4E, due to the way monsters are built and balanced a 15th level monster is a 15th level monster. A 14th level monster is a 14th level monster. There is no guesswork anywhere in this system as to what a monster does. A CR 14 devil in 3E could either be an overwhelming challenge that would wipe a party or die to the first spell it encountered.
This is a core point, you've conceded my argument inherently right here about CR in 3rd edition. If it does not work as is it is a failure as a system to accurately guage the challenge of a monster. This is inherently the argument I've made. If you cannot prove CR can accurately predict the challenge of a monster, it is inherently a system that does not work. You can argue "It wasn't meant to accurately predict a monsters challenge" and I will point out to you that makes it a failure of a system.
I can tell you that in 4E, a monsters level and creature type is a completely accurately reflection of its challenge to a party. This is a 100% working and functional system, without guesswork. That is a massive success compared to how flawed the CR is as a system.
Once again saying "The DM has to assess challenge himself based loosely off the CR" is not good enough. That is a poor system. A better system gives you an accurate idea of how a monster performs and instead it is the other factions, terrain, composition of creatures and similar that you need to add to determine the overall challenge to your party. One of these 3E gets horrifically wrong and the reason for that IMO, is that 3E monsters are built like PCs - effectively throwing two groups of PCs at one another is always going to be a poor result.
As an example, if you take 4E and you make NPCs as if they were PCs (Same powers and similar) and use them in encounters the result is an absolute unmigitated disaster. Whoever goes first invariably wins, because with a daily power + action point you can almost guarantee dropping a PC first round - heaven forbid that NPC gets a critical hit and does 100+ points of damage instantly by epic tier. As monsters, they don't have enough HP to survive the PCs attacks and their defenses are often poor enough to be auto-hit on at least 1-2 of them. The result here plays very much like 3rd edition with its CR system in predicting challenge - very poorly.
Arguing against the CR system without understanding this fundamental aspect of CR as it related to the 3E game is to start from a flawed position.
I do understand CR, that is why I say it is an immensely falwed and poor system for actually telling you how challenging a monster would be.
All 4E did was try to remove a chunk of that time investment and make things "work" at all levels. This was the basis for the 4E designers philosophy of building 4E around the "sweet spot" (i.e., approx 10th level) of 3E.
And make adjusting monsters easier, changing their powers easier, less work in creating new monsters and standardizing how challenging a monster should be at every level. I can, without touching a single book level up or down any monster on the fly to suit my needs. It will all still function 100% according to RAW and still be as challenging (with exceptions of leveling a creature up/down more than 3-4 levels). That's a real strength of the way they are designed.
OK, still using the Tarrasque.
Skills: Listen, Search, Spot, Survival.
Abilities: Augmented Critical, Frightful Presence, Improved Grab, Rush, Swallow Whole, Carapace, Regeneration
I don't think you need any of the things on the ability line except swallow whole and regeneration. For skills, it doesn't need survival. So there are quite a few things there I would regard as relatively useless that could be built better into attacks or similar.
In 4E, if I want the tarrasque to have more HP I just - get this - give it more HP. Not that it particularly needs more HP actually - but I could give it more HP if I felt like it.
We're talking monsters from the Monster Manuals, not NPCs, right? I see that you agree monsters in both editions take up about the same space.
Some monsters take up ridiculous amounts of space as well, but by far the worst offenders in 3E were NPCs.
Really? How so?
Instant death effects, critical hit immunities, various spell immunities I could go on (not to mention how many ways you needed to metagame your BBEG so he didn't trivally die to the first optimized death spell - or just plain save or lose like hold person - he encountered).
OK, restating, you're saying CR had no value to a DM at all and didn't work as written. Got it. Let's apply that with regard to the arguments you made that follow.
Yep that's my argument.
In 4E, creatures don't behave 100% predictably. Because of the 4E rules structure, a DM is far, far less likely to kill a PC with a level 1 creature, thanks to the generous character creation rules in 4E as well as the rules governing healing surges, but there's still a chance a PC can die.
That is true, but that doesn't mean they are not predictable. You cannot complain that you can't kill PCs in 4E and claim monsters in 4E do not behave predictably. That argument uhhh, doesn't work.
Now you increase that EL to +5 and those same monsters are more than enough to kill PCs. Because challenge is appropriately proportional to the level of the monster!
In 3E, you know with the bounds of reality just how a CR 1/4, 1/2 or 1 creature will function. It could kill a PC in one hit, but that's always been the nature of 3E.
But it's not predictable, it's pure dice rolls. That's the definition of unpredictable (EG pure luck). A system of challenges based on pure luck and later, being utterly ineffective at just about anything else for predicting challenge isn't a good system.
Take a CR 14 creature that heavily uses magic and spell like abilities. Is that creature the equivalent of a CR 14 creature that is basically just HD and a solid melee attack? There is absolutely no way a spellcaster like creature is the same challenge as one that isn't - 3rd edition plainly does NOT work that way.
The unspoken claim in your argument, Aegeri, is that instant death is a bad thing.
These aren't save or die effects, this is just pure lucky (or unlucky) dice rolls swinging a combat so badly it results in a walk over or a TPK. That 3rd edition is so poorly designed on instant death effects is just another problem with it, but not really the core problem with the way CR works.
Whereas with the concept that PCs are not monsters, you do not have a combat that swings so badly on dice rolls it turns into a TPK or a walkover instantly. You can make PCs have enough survivability that they can take 5 encounters a day without falling over, while at the same time not putting that (non-required) durability on monsters. Bear in mind just because monsters have more HP than PCs does not mean they have the durability of PCs.
Subjectively, that's fine. But using it as a claim in an argument against the CR system doesn't work, because it ignores the nature of the 3E game.
This is not true but you actually get close to my true point. That 3E makes monsters the same as PCs means the CR system doesn't work, because it's such a luck and dice roll based system (SoDs, HoDs etc)
HoD= Hit or Die at low levels.
You also claim that since 3E DMs couldn't know (in so many words) how their monsters would work, this limits a DMs ability to focus on using terrain and otherwise building an interesting encounter situation. Can you elaborate on this?
It's simple, if I give the orcs favourable terrain in 4E I make an interesting encounter.
If I give the orcs favourable terrain in 3E I increase my chances of a TPK. This is because the more rolls given to 3E orcs - who as you say do not have many HPs - means the higher the chances of them one shotting a PC.
Wait...they didn't throw their javelins first?
How do you know I even gave them javelins? Or are you saying they have to use their weaker ranged attacks for balance?
Seems you just undermined your argument that CR means anything and customizing creatures is simple and doesn't instantly change the CR system.
Are these orcs actually orcs or are they metagamers? Also, for a 1st level party, the typical encounter will be with 1 to 3 orcs (average, 2).
2 Orcs is an EL 1 encounter (As they are CR 1/2 each).
So...four party members and two orcs. On average, a PC or two will go first.
What if I've given the orcs improved initiative?
The DM could roll initiative for each orc, but a noob DM most likely would not. Orcs have 5 hp. If 3.0, the orcs have great axes (+3 to hit, 1d12+3), if 3.5, they have falchions (+4 to hit, 2d4+4/18-20).
The Falchions are actually far worse than the greataxe. 18-20 crit and 2d4+4 damage with probably a x2 crit. What PC survives 4d4+8 damage at level 1? I mean, you're trying to tell me the CR system can be guaged for how challenging a monster is, yet this supposedly "simple" creature can eliminate an entire party member in one hit? Minding on a crit the greataxe is just as easily doing the same thing in all fairness to 3.5.
That clearly shows the CR system doesn't work at all.
So one orc survives, gets one attack. Maybe it drops a PC, but more than likely it won't. Then that orc is dead when the rest of the party acts.
I'm glad you concede it entirely depends on luck.
My response: So what? That was part of the game and the danger of death from a lowly CR 1/2 orc doesn't go away for several levels. Yet somehow players survived. Mine sure did, in part because they learned that you put the tank in front for god's sake. ;)
Does it matter if he gets a natural 20? It really doesn't. That's the flaw in your argument.
Even 4E characters can die.
Sure, I've killed more than a few PCs in 4E. In an EL + 4 or EL +5 encounter, which should as the rules predict be hard I have killed more than a few PCs. That's exactly why CR in 3E fails and the EL system of 4E works. Encounters that will kill PCs are in fact intentionally hard - not a lucky dice roll that instantly swings the combat (which is a flaw in 3E inherently as well).
You're taking the dangers and vagaries of 1st level play and trying to turn it into an indictment against the whole CR system.
Actually it gets worse as you level, because CR becomes worthless as even CR opponents cannot survive spellcasters save or dies (or magic in general), yet can easily outfight and slaughter a fighter or martial character of a lower level.
This doesn't happen anywhere in 4E. PCs are built with different assumptions and a higher power level than monsters, while monsters are built as challenges that need different assumptions to work as challenges. One of these systems works with 100% predictability as to what the outcome will be.
The other is pure guesswork - precisely because it's so heavily dictated by dice rolls from the outset. Not to mention that there is absolutely no equivalence anywhere in the system between monsters that cast spells like PCs and those that do not. The spellcasting monster is ALWAYS better than the equal CR creature without spells.
But if that's true, you can't play 4E either, because there's still a chance at death.
Yeah, when I make a EL + 3 to EL +5 encounter at low levels I agree. But normally? Not really.
For one encounter?
No, across the entire adventure. I don't think 20 orcs in one entire adventure is out of line. Remember that if they each get 1 roll that's 1 crit and probably 1 dead PC.
Great system for predicting challenge that is (based on dice rolls statistics ;)).
I had to learn to use the higher CR monsters over time by running multiple encounters with them. But again, that's the time investment thing and it paid off in the long run. 4E makes this all go away (which I do appreciate the designers working towards) but again I think they went too far. But who knows, as my 4E game reaches Paragon level I may just change my mind.
You've only played heroic tier 4E? I've played every level of 4E and I assure you, monsters in 4E are complicated enough and they can drop PCs pretty easily. Most of my TPKs have been in difficult paragon and epic encounters. That is a GOOD thing. It means dice rolls are not determining those TPKs, but the difficulty of the encounter and the monsters.
(It should be noted Dragons were designed this way on purpose. It was assumed a party of PCs would know where the dragon laired and make preparations to kick its ass. Thus, Dragon CRs were intentionally undervalued in the Monster Manual. (And the book doesn't even let you in on this secret!) That's a problem with CR, as it relates to dragons.)
Or just CR in general, showing again that CR was a worthless metric for anything.
Pitting Dragons against my players was fun. But for me as DM it was a hell of a lot of work. On the flip side, by 14th level or so, I was regularly using multiple dragons with githyanki riders. You can learn a lot and get really good at DMing, with practice.
I absolutely agree. By realizing the CR system was worthless for absolutely anything and doing all the work yourself, you could get good at DMing in 3rd edition by understanding the rules and building encounters specifically against your party - but not paying attention to the CR of any monsters in it.
That's why I say that CR is worthless - because it doesn't tell you anything meaningful about a monsters challenge at all.
Like 3E, 4E monsters have what amount to their basic attacks. You attack, roll the dice, hit or miss, move on.
A good thing that as well.
What 4E also has are these set creature abilities as part of the basic attack that hinder the players in some way through the application of conditions (like being weakened or slowed) or providing combat advantage against, extra damage dealt, etc... but they don't do much more than that.
Nor should they. They are monsters, not PCs and they don't have to. If they should do something outside of combat, the DM can perfectly make up his own mind as to what they do. This is similar to the discussion about mariliths polymorphing, if it's relevant to the plot BAM she can polymorph. If it's not relevant to the plot who cares, it's simply not something that needs to be on the stat block at all.
I know I can hinder my players and drop their hit points down, but if they play their character roles correctly, they'll survive through healing surges, challenging and marking the right monsters, etc...
Precisely.
I'm not seeing the flaw here, whereas you've done well to show my argument that CR isn't useful is right. You've basically admitted that you needed to basically understand creatures inherently in 3E rather than relying on their CR. You've already conceded to me a CR 1/2 orc can easily wipe out over 25% of a party in a single hit.
And that's what I don't like. I can bring a player right to the edge, but the monsters (so far, we're talking heroic tier play) don't seem to have that extra something that can blast a PC into a bloody mess on the floor.
Is this an EL +3 to +5 encounter? Because limited breath weapons and abilities can nearly always drop a 0 HP PC to dead.
The players just have too much on their side of the rules to stay alive.
Yes, because they need to face multiple encounters every single day and monsters only face 1 encounter, the one where they die. Hence why monsters do not need to be PCs, they need to be challenges, FOR PCs.
I'd like to see some actual support for this claim.
All undead, plants and constructs are immune to critical hits. Many monsters are outright immune to death spells (or categories of spells in general). I view this as breaking mechanics.
How many monsters in 4E are immune to crits? How many are outright immune to certain conditions and similar (and some certainly are, but they are a very small minority)?
I can tell you that a monster being a challenge or not in 4E has little to do with needing a list of immunities to different conditions. They don't need to be to be challenging, while in 3rd they certainly needed to be so but again, how do you determine is something immune to critical hits is more challenging or the same challenge as something that isn't?
The housecat example doesn't support it (see below) because it's an irregularity of the rules
No it's not. Housecats are oddly challenging for the reason they are built like PCs. You can't go claiming a monster (in this case a housecat of all things) is an "irregularity" of the rules when it is built USING those rules. What other rules should they have been using?
Also you forgot the housecats stealth is so ridiculous they will nearly always get a surprise round. Plus they aren't a CR 1 creature, so I can have multiple housecats to down that PC. With multiple houecats, a surprise round and stealth beyond what even optimized PCs will have for spot/listen I can easily take down someones first level wizard trivially.
Anything else?
A proper argument would be good ;)
There are oddities in the 3E rules, sure. Take your house cat example. Claw/claw/bite routine, big strength penalty (-4) but thanks to the minimum 1 point of damage rule, a lucky cat could outright kill a 1st level fledgling wizard with a crappy Con score modifier.
Actually it's not just lucky, the cats stealth should basically guarantee it a surprise round and he's likely to go first as well. You seem to have forgot that ;)
Also, he's under CR 1 so you get multiple housecats. It's not easy at all to down the PC before the surprise round has ended.
Lots of ifs and not much of an argument against CR. Especially when you can just apply common sense and make small, non-magical animals with major strength penalties do subdual damage, ala the Phil Athans rule.
That's not RAW. I'm arguing "Does this system work by RAW". If you need to houserule it, congratulations you prove my point that the CR system is not working by RAW.
But again, the key here is that the CR system (and 3E rules in general) were not set in stone.
I agree, the CR system was worthless so making it set in stone is the last thing any good DM should do. You seem oblivious to the fact CR is a CORE system in encounter design. By saying CR was not set in stone and didn't accurately reflect the challenge of a creature you inherently concede my point it doesn't work.
In 4E, a level 1 monster IS a level 1 monster. You can take that as being set in stone and it works absolutely as intended.
Hrmm...no. You didn't show the CR system was "fundamentally flawed". I get the impression (based on your Orcs and Shaman encounter scenario) that you don't actually understand the CR/EL system.
Actually I did, but I notice you failed to answer the argument. Is it a higher or lower CR when I change one feat (and CR naturally affects the EL)? You still haven't addressed the question.
But I did show that not all monster stat blocks were not nearly overloaded as you claimed they were. I showed how many (if not all) of your examples were exaggerations and corner cases.
Dragons, the Tarrasque, Daemons/Devils (high CR ones specifically at that), Beholders (which I disagree with you on) and others are all prime examples of what I mean. You did not refute these at all IMO.
I also showed how the fundamental (and subjective) belief that players shouldn't have their characters killed outright during play was in fact a known aspect of the 3E game and thus part of the play experience, and not in fact a "flaw" of the CR system.
Then this shows that you don't understand the CR system. Go and fetch the definition of "Challenge Rating" and show me where in the CR definition the game assumes that a CR 1/2 creature should be able to kill a PC instantly? Because that's not quite what CR as a system claims to do.
I hope that further play into Paragon and even Epic tier alleviates some of my impressions of what are, to me, 4E's many weaknesses.
I think so as well. Because Paragon/Epic is a real step up - not just for your PCs but monsters as well. Many monsters can inflict automatic damage and conditions at the beginning of their turn with an aura. In addition the commonality of particular status effects like stun and dominate becomes much higher in paragon/epic. Building an encounter well in 4E gets more rewards - with higher predictability as to how survivable it will be - than 3E. Most importantly, it isn't decided by who goes first or who rolls a critical hit either (or fails a saving throw).
It's a game. All games are not perfectly balanced, and they don't need to be unless you definitely expect the players or the GM to exploit everything they possibly can. In an online MMORPG, or in a tabletop gaming tournament, such things can be expected from some people who want to "win" (i.e. have the best of everything, even if it requires min-max crippling), but most people in D&D aren't playing in tournaments or RPGA. Further, most people who play the game aren't in it to "win" or maximize their power/items/etc unless they're the kind of person who would ruin the game.
If you're min-maxing, or need to overshadow everyone else with your PC, then you're doing it wrong. It might be fun for you, in a selfish sort of way, but it makes the game a whole lot of un-fun for everyone else you play with. It's a game meant to be shared as an experience, where everyone "wins" when they work together. You're meant to enjoy the story that unfolds, and participate in its unfolding as a group. If you're concentrating too much on specific rules, dice roll bonuses, or procedures, and you're not spending time actually roleplaying, then you're either doing it wrong or you're trying to force something into the game that makes it un-fun for most regular people.
Encouraging certain types of players to move into RPGA was the way normal gamers could effectively exile the rules lawyers into their own version of the game. That way, they didn't ruin it for the majority. Re-framing D&D so that it better fits the tournament or MMORPG "balance everything so no one 'cheats' or finds an exploit to use against other players" model pushes the game away from roleplaying and toward rule-playing. It's a shame, really, that designers cater to those types of jerks.
ShowLike how the Tarrasque has multiple copies of the feat "toughness" for no particular reason other than it pointlessly needs to fill feat slots?
You're using the Tarrassque for a baseline? What? ;)
Just to demonstrate that the creature needs to take toughness multiple times, instead of just having the required HP anyway and doing something more relevant with those resources. I view this as particularly poor design and an example where just making the creature what it needs to be is far superior.That's something missing from this debate: the fact that 3E not only allowed, but encouraged, DMs to modify monsters up or down based on relative party strength and composition.
4E does this as well and it's superior at it, because there is less fuss in determining things like skills among other problems that adjusting monsters in 3E had. Plus it has a clear and defining set of rules for what kind of powers (and how powerful these should be) can be added to a creature (and how they function).
If I give a monster a level or two of fighter in 3E is it the same CR as a monster with a level or two of a spell casting class?
I would argue one of these things affects balance far more greatly than the other does (considerably so).The unified system to do that was the set of mechanics used to build players just as you would monsters.
Which was also inherently flawed.People often take shots at the CR system by assuming it was meant to be run "as is". Wrong. DMing in 3E at mid to high to Epic levels required DM investment of time and energy to customize creatures and encounters. The CR system was a tool, not an absolute.
That's why it failed miserably. What you've just conceded was "CR didn't work, so you had to guess it as you went anyway", which was my entire argument. In 4E, due to the way monsters are built and balanced a 15th level monster is a 15th level monster. A 14th level monster is a 14th level monster. There is no guesswork anywhere in this system as to what a monster does. A CR 14 devil in 3E could either be an overwhelming challenge that would wipe a party or die to the first spell it encountered.
This is a core point, you've conceded my argument inherently right here about CR in 3rd edition. If it does not work as is it is a failure as a system to accurately guage the challenge of a monster. This is inherently the argument I've made. If you cannot prove CR can accurately predict the challenge of a monster, it is inherently a system that does not work. You can argue "It wasn't meant to accurately predict a monsters challenge" and I will point out to you that makes it a failure of a system.
I can tell you that in 4E, a monsters level and creature type is a completely accurately reflection of its challenge to a party. This is a 100% working and functional system, without guesswork. That is a massive success compared to how flawed the CR is as a system.
Once again saying "The DM has to assess challenge himself based loosely off the CR" is not good enough. That is a poor system. A better system gives you an accurate idea of how a monster performs and instead it is the other factions, terrain, composition of creatures and similar that you need to add to determine the overall challenge to your party. One of these 3E gets horrifically wrong and the reason for that IMO, is that 3E monsters are built like PCs - effectively throwing two groups of PCs at one another is always going to be a poor result.
As an example, if you take 4E and you make NPCs as if they were PCs (Same powers and similar) and use them in encounters the result is an absolute unmigitated disaster. Whoever goes first invariably wins, because with a daily power + action point you can almost guarantee dropping a PC first round - heaven forbid that NPC gets a critical hit and does 100+ points of damage instantly by epic tier. As monsters, they don't have enough HP to survive the PCs attacks and their defenses are often poor enough to be auto-hit on at least 1-2 of them. The result here plays very much like 3rd edition with its CR system in predicting challenge - very poorly.Arguing against the CR system without understanding this fundamental aspect of CR as it related to the 3E game is to start from a flawed position.
I do understand CR, that is why I say it is an immensely falwed and poor system for actually telling you how challenging a monster would be.All 4E did was try to remove a chunk of that time investment and make things "work" at all levels. This was the basis for the 4E designers philosophy of building 4E around the "sweet spot" (i.e., approx 10th level) of 3E.
And make adjusting monsters easier, changing their powers easier, less work in creating new monsters and standardizing how challenging a monster should be at every level. I can, without touching a single book level up or down any monster on the fly to suit my needs. It will all still function 100% according to RAW and still be as challenging (with exceptions of leveling a creature up/down more than 3-4 levels). That's a real strength of the way they are designed.OK, still using the Tarrasque.
Skills: Listen, Search, Spot, Survival.
Abilities: Augmented Critical, Frightful Presence, Improved Grab, Rush, Swallow Whole, Carapace, Regeneration
I don't think you need any of the things on the ability line except swallow whole and regeneration. For skills, it doesn't need survival. So there are quite a few things there I would regard as relatively useless that could be built better into attacks or similar.
In 4E, if I want the tarrasque to have more HP I just - get this - give it more HP. Not that it particularly needs more HP actually - but I could give it more HP if I felt like it.We're talking monsters from the Monster Manuals, not NPCs, right? I see that you agree monsters in both editions take up about the same space.
Some monsters take up ridiculous amounts of space as well, but by far the worst offenders in 3E were NPCs.Really? How so?
Instant death effects, critical hit immunities, various spell immunities I could go on (not to mention how many ways you needed to metagame your BBEG so he didn't trivally die to the first optimized death spell - or just plain save or lose like hold person - he encountered).OK, restating, you're saying CR had no value to a DM at all and didn't work as written. Got it. Let's apply that with regard to the arguments you made that follow.
Yep that's my argument.In 4E, creatures don't behave 100% predictably. Because of the 4E rules structure, a DM is far, far less likely to kill a PC with a level 1 creature, thanks to the generous character creation rules in 4E as well as the rules governing healing surges, but there's still a chance a PC can die.
That is true, but that doesn't mean they are not predictable. You cannot complain that you can't kill PCs in 4E and claim monsters in 4E do not behave predictably. That argument uhhh, doesn't work.
Now you increase that EL to +5 and those same monsters are more than enough to kill PCs. Because challenge is appropriately proportional to the level of the monster!In 3E, you know with the bounds of reality just how a CR 1/4, 1/2 or 1 creature will function. It could kill a PC in one hit, but that's always been the nature of 3E.
But it's not predictable, it's pure dice rolls. That's the definition of unpredictable (EG pure luck). A system of challenges based on pure luck and later, being utterly ineffective at just about anything else for predicting challenge isn't a good system.
Take a CR 14 creature that heavily uses magic and spell like abilities. Is that creature the equivalent of a CR 14 creature that is basically just HD and a solid melee attack? There is absolutely no way a spellcaster like creature is the same challenge as one that isn't - 3rd edition plainly does NOT work that way.The unspoken claim in your argument, Aegeri, is that instant death is a bad thing.
These aren't save or die effects, this is just pure lucky (or unlucky) dice rolls swinging a combat so badly it results in a walk over or a TPK. That 3rd edition is so poorly designed on instant death effects is just another problem with it, but not really the core problem with the way CR works.
Whereas with the concept that PCs are not monsters, you do not have a combat that swings so badly on dice rolls it turns into a TPK or a walkover instantly. You can make PCs have enough survivability that they can take 5 encounters a day without falling over, while at the same time not putting that (non-required) durability on monsters. Bear in mind just because monsters have more HP than PCs does not mean they have the durability of PCs.Subjectively, that's fine. But using it as a claim in an argument against the CR system doesn't work, because it ignores the nature of the 3E game.
This is not true but you actually get close to my true point. That 3E makes monsters the same as PCs means the CR system doesn't work, because it's such a luck and dice roll based system (SoDs, HoDs etc)
HoD= Hit or Die at low levels.You also claim that since 3E DMs couldn't know (in so many words) how their monsters would work, this limits a DMs ability to focus on using terrain and otherwise building an interesting encounter situation. Can you elaborate on this?
It's simple, if I give the orcs favourable terrain in 4E I make an interesting encounter.
If I give the orcs favourable terrain in 3E I increase my chances of a TPK. This is because the more rolls given to 3E orcs - who as you say do not have many HPs - means the higher the chances of them one shotting a PC.Wait...they didn't throw their javelins first?
How do you know I even gave them javelins? Or are you saying they have to use their weaker ranged attacks for balance?
Seems you just undermined your argument that CR means anything and customizing creatures is simple and doesn't instantly change the CR system.Are these orcs actually orcs or are they metagamers? Also, for a 1st level party, the typical encounter will be with 1 to 3 orcs (average, 2).
2 Orcs is an EL 1 encounter (As they are CR 1/2 each).So...four party members and two orcs. On average, a PC or two will go first.
What if I've given the orcs improved initiative?The DM could roll initiative for each orc, but a noob DM most likely would not. Orcs have 5 hp. If 3.0, the orcs have great axes (+3 to hit, 1d12+3), if 3.5, they have falchions (+4 to hit, 2d4+4/18-20).
The Falchions are actually far worse than the greataxe. 18-20 crit and 2d4+4 damage with probably a x2 crit. What PC survives 4d4+8 damage at level 1? I mean, you're trying to tell me the CR system can be guaged for how challenging a monster is, yet this supposedly "simple" creature can eliminate an entire party member in one hit? Minding on a crit the greataxe is just as easily doing the same thing in all fairness to 3.5.
That clearly shows the CR system doesn't work at all.So one orc survives, gets one attack. Maybe it drops a PC, but more than likely it won't. Then that orc is dead when the rest of the party acts.
I'm glad you concede it entirely depends on luck.My response: So what? That was part of the game and the danger of death from a lowly CR 1/2 orc doesn't go away for several levels. Yet somehow players survived. Mine sure did, in part because they learned that you put the tank in front for god's sake. ;)
Does it matter if he gets a natural 20? It really doesn't. That's the flaw in your argument.Even 4E characters can die.
Sure, I've killed more than a few PCs in 4E. In an EL + 4 or EL +5 encounter, which should as the rules predict be hard I have killed more than a few PCs. That's exactly why CR in 3E fails and the EL system of 4E works. Encounters that will kill PCs are in fact intentionally hard - not a lucky dice roll that instantly swings the combat (which is a flaw in 3E inherently as well).You're taking the dangers and vagaries of 1st level play and trying to turn it into an indictment against the whole CR system.
Actually it gets worse as you level, because CR becomes worthless as even CR opponents cannot survive spellcasters save or dies (or magic in general), yet can easily outfight and slaughter a fighter or martial character of a lower level.
This doesn't happen anywhere in 4E. PCs are built with different assumptions and a higher power level than monsters, while monsters are built as challenges that need different assumptions to work as challenges. One of these systems works with 100% predictability as to what the outcome will be.
The other is pure guesswork - precisely because it's so heavily dictated by dice rolls from the outset. Not to mention that there is absolutely no equivalence anywhere in the system between monsters that cast spells like PCs and those that do not. The spellcasting monster is ALWAYS better than the equal CR creature without spells.But if that's true, you can't play 4E either, because there's still a chance at death.
Yeah, when I make a EL + 3 to EL +5 encounter at low levels I agree. But normally? Not really.For one encounter?
No, across the entire adventure. I don't think 20 orcs in one entire adventure is out of line. Remember that if they each get 1 roll that's 1 crit and probably 1 dead PC.
Great system for predicting challenge that is (based on dice rolls statistics ;)).
I had to learn to use the higher CR monsters over time by running multiple encounters with them. But again, that's the time investment thing and it paid off in the long run. 4E makes this all go away (which I do appreciate the designers working towards) but again I think they went too far. But who knows, as my 4E game reaches Paragon level I may just change my mind.
You've only played heroic tier 4E? I've played every level of 4E and I assure you, monsters in 4E are complicated enough and they can drop PCs pretty easily. Most of my TPKs have been in difficult paragon and epic encounters. That is a GOOD thing. It means dice rolls are not determining those TPKs, but the difficulty of the encounter and the monsters.(It should be noted Dragons were designed this way on purpose. It was assumed a party of PCs would know where the dragon laired and make preparations to kick its ass. Thus, Dragon CRs were intentionally undervalued in the Monster Manual. (And the book doesn't even let you in on this secret!) That's a problem with CR, as it relates to dragons.)
Or just CR in general, showing again that CR was a worthless metric for anything.Pitting Dragons against my players was fun. But for me as DM it was a hell of a lot of work. On the flip side, by 14th level or so, I was regularly using multiple dragons with githyanki riders. You can learn a lot and get really good at DMing, with practice.
I absolutely agree. By realizing the CR system was worthless for absolutely anything and doing all the work yourself, you could get good at DMing in 3rd edition by understanding the rules and building encounters specifically against your party - but not paying attention to the CR of any monsters in it.
That's why I say that CR is worthless - because it doesn't tell you anything meaningful about a monsters challenge at all.Like 3E, 4E monsters have what amount to their basic attacks. You attack, roll the dice, hit or miss, move on.
A good thing that as well.What 4E also has are these set creature abilities as part of the basic attack that hinder the players in some way through the application of conditions (like being weakened or slowed) or providing combat advantage against, extra damage dealt, etc... but they don't do much more than that.
Nor should they. They are monsters, not PCs and they don't have to. If they should do something outside of combat, the DM can perfectly make up his own mind as to what they do. This is similar to the discussion about mariliths polymorphing, if it's relevant to the plot BAM she can polymorph. If it's not relevant to the plot who cares, it's simply not something that needs to be on the stat block at all.I know I can hinder my players and drop their hit points down, but if they play their character roles correctly, they'll survive through healing surges, challenging and marking the right monsters, etc...
Precisely.
I'm not seeing the flaw here, whereas you've done well to show my argument that CR isn't useful is right. You've basically admitted that you needed to basically understand creatures inherently in 3E rather than relying on their CR. You've already conceded to me a CR 1/2 orc can easily wipe out over 25% of a party in a single hit.And that's what I don't like. I can bring a player right to the edge, but the monsters (so far, we're talking heroic tier play) don't seem to have that extra something that can blast a PC into a bloody mess on the floor.
Is this an EL +3 to +5 encounter? Because limited breath weapons and abilities can nearly always drop a 0 HP PC to dead.The players just have too much on their side of the rules to stay alive.
Yes, because they need to face multiple encounters every single day and monsters only face 1 encounter, the one where they die. Hence why monsters do not need to be PCs, they need to be challenges, FOR PCs.I'd like to see some actual support for this claim.
All undead, plants and constructs are immune to critical hits. Many monsters are outright immune to death spells (or categories of spells in general). I view this as breaking mechanics.
How many monsters in 4E are immune to crits? How many are outright immune to certain conditions and similar (and some certainly are, but they are a very small minority)?
I can tell you that a monster being a challenge or not in 4E has little to do with needing a list of immunities to different conditions. They don't need to be to be challenging, while in 3rd they certainly needed to be so but again, how do you determine is something immune to critical hits is more challenging or the same challenge as something that isn't?The housecat example doesn't support it (see below) because it's an irregularity of the rules
No it's not. Housecats are oddly challenging for the reason they are built like PCs. You can't go claiming a monster (in this case a housecat of all things) is an "irregularity" of the rules when it is built USING those rules. What other rules should they have been using?
Also you forgot the housecats stealth is so ridiculous they will nearly always get a surprise round. Plus they aren't a CR 1 creature, so I can have multiple housecats to down that PC. With multiple houecats, a surprise round and stealth beyond what even optimized PCs will have for spot/listen I can easily take down someones first level wizard trivially.Anything else?
A proper argument would be good ;)There are oddities in the 3E rules, sure. Take your house cat example. Claw/claw/bite routine, big strength penalty (-4) but thanks to the minimum 1 point of damage rule, a lucky cat could outright kill a 1st level fledgling wizard with a crappy Con score modifier.
Actually it's not just lucky, the cats stealth should basically guarantee it a surprise round and he's likely to go first as well. You seem to have forgot that ;)
Also, he's under CR 1 so you get multiple housecats. It's not easy at all to down the PC before the surprise round has ended.Lots of ifs and not much of an argument against CR. Especially when you can just apply common sense and make small, non-magical animals with major strength penalties do subdual damage, ala the Phil Athans rule.
That's not RAW. I'm arguing "Does this system work by RAW". If you need to houserule it, congratulations you prove my point that the CR system is not working by RAW.But again, the key here is that the CR system (and 3E rules in general) were not set in stone.
I agree, the CR system was worthless so making it set in stone is the last thing any good DM should do. You seem oblivious to the fact CR is a CORE system in encounter design. By saying CR was not set in stone and didn't accurately reflect the challenge of a creature you inherently concede my point it doesn't work.
In 4E, a level 1 monster IS a level 1 monster. You can take that as being set in stone and it works absolutely as intended.Hrmm...no. You didn't show the CR system was "fundamentally flawed". I get the impression (based on your Orcs and Shaman encounter scenario) that you don't actually understand the CR/EL system.
Actually I did, but I notice you failed to answer the argument. Is it a higher or lower CR when I change one feat (and CR naturally affects the EL)? You still haven't addressed the question.But I did show that not all monster stat blocks were not nearly overloaded as you claimed they were. I showed how many (if not all) of your examples were exaggerations and corner cases.Dragons, the Tarrasque, Daemons/Devils (high CR ones specifically at that), Beholders (which I disagree with you on) and others are all prime examples of what I mean. You did not refute these at all IMO.
I also showed how the fundamental (and subjective) belief that players shouldn't have their characters killed outright during play was in fact a known aspect of the 3E game and thus part of the play experience, and not in fact a "flaw" of the CR system.Then this shows that you don't understand the CR system. Go and fetch the definition of "Challenge Rating" and show me where in the CR definition the game assumes that a CR 1/2 creature should be able to kill a PC instantly? Because that's not quite what CR as a system claims to do.
I hope that further play into Paragon and even Epic tier alleviates some of my impressions of what are, to me, 4E's many weaknesses.I think so as well. Because Paragon/Epic is a real step up - not just for your PCs but monsters as well. Many monsters can inflict automatic damage and conditions at the beginning of their turn with an aura. In addition the commonality of particular status effects like stun and dominate becomes much higher in paragon/epic. Building an encounter well in 4E gets more rewards - with higher predictability as to how survivable it will be - than 3E. Most importantly, it isn't decided by who goes first or who rolls a critical hit either (or fails a saving throw).
cany we drop the edition issue please.we all know everyone likes something different.
I agree the point of this thread was to explore mechanical changers people did to 4th edition to play in thwe Classic FR campaign setting.
Anybody did Averial? Lythari? Or others? as PCable races?
could of sworn I saw fan-up for one of those races......
yes, the avariel or winged elf
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
think there was a demon fey running around somewhere
Would you go with feats or a paragon path? Are there paragon paths that improve racial abilities?
Also anything on Lythari? Shifters don't give me that lycanthrope feeling really...though I guess they could do in a pinch.
Anything on aquatic elves? Or other underwater races?
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
no lythari.
my take is. choose elf, and alow lythari racial features, powers and such.
The quick idea I had for Lythari is to use the Shifter racial power with the elf stat block and remove the elven racial power. It's quick, easy, and holds more to balance. It however, does a disservice to the original style and play of that race.
Another way to go about it is use the elven stat block, remove the elven accuracy racial power for the druid's wild shape class feature. You would have to change the flavor that you could only wild shape into a wolf, but you get to use Beast Form powers and/or give them an encouter racial power with the Beast Form keyword. This holds more true to the original style and game-play but might be a balance issue.
@ johnkretzer- Yes, there are paragon paths that are based on race rather than class. The requirments are usually pretty easy and most of the powers are based on what the race can do. I'm sure you could come up with a few Lythari-based Paragon Paths that increase their wild-shape power or one that has alot of Beast Form keywords in the descriptions.
1) Lythari only gets the bonus for it's race when in Werewolf form. IE: They don't gain any stat bonus or the misc special abilities in your normal elf mode....they just have their class abilities.
2)Bring back LA in a form. I actualy see it working in a way. It would sort be like a hybrid class except that you must select (some) powers that are racial in nature but you gain full class abilities.
But since 4th ed is alot more carefuly balanced and not quite as flexable I have no idea how the above would effect things. So has anybody tried these ideas? Or those who are more fimilar with the system see a problem? Any ideas to futher develope these ides that might work better?
Also it seems that flight is broken at lower levels...but what about making it a gradual racial power? Is flight that beroken at higher levels? How would you gradualy improve it so that it is balanced?
I have had a couple of idea for lythari(and some other races) but I have no idea what it would do to the system...
1) Lythari only gets the bonus for it's race when in Werewolf form. IE: They don't gain any stat bonus or the misc special abilities in your normal elf mode....they just have their class abilities.
This is a very bad idea because the loss of any stat bonus really hinders a PC in 4E. Plus, I think it would be annoying for a PC to keep adding/subtracting the bonuses to their stats plus all the other bookwork the PC has to do. It's just too clunky.
2)Bring back LA in a form. I actualy see it working in a way. It would sort be like a hybrid class except that you must select (some) powers that are racial in nature but you gain full class abilities.
I believe that LA was a bad idea in 3E and it would be even worse in 4E. The problem here is that you'll have to homebrew all racial powers to keep up with class powers. I'd leave the powers and what-not simple and either encounter or daily. For my example before, you could give the Lythari a form of wild shape but it be restricted and the duration alot longer. Problem is, I don't know how often Lythari change their shape? I like to keep things simple for balance sake.
But since 4th ed is alot more carefuly balanced and not quite as flexable I have no idea how the above would effect things. So has anybody tried these ideas? Or those who are more fimilar with the system see a problem? Any ideas to futher develope these ides that might work better?
Also it seems that flight is broken at lower levels...but what about making it a gradual racial power? Is flight that beroken at higher levels? How would you gradualy improve it so that it is balanced?
Flight at heroic tier would be quick and short. This means an encounter power that allows your PC a short distance flight. At paragon tier, I'd increase the flight power to an at-will ability with maybe a racial feat or two to either extend it's duration or extend the distance. At epic tier, I'd allow flight at any time the character wants to fly.
I have had a couple of idea for lythari(and some other races) but I have no idea what it would do to the system...
1) Lythari only gets the bonus for it's race when in Werewolf form. IE: They don't gain any stat bonus or the misc special abilities in your normal elf mode....they just have their class abilities.
This is a very bad idea because the loss of any stat bonus really hinders a PC in 4E. Plus, I think it would be annoying for a PC to keep adding/subtracting the bonuses to their stats plus all the other bookwork the PC has to do. It's just too clunky.
Ok how does it hinder PCs that much? Just out of curisity. How much does a +1 either way matter that much? I am not argueing with you my knowledge of 4th is limited. I mean I know the game is really balanced but is it that much?
Also the book keeping aspect would not be that much different then it was in 3.5...so while others might have issues with it I don't. Or is the book keeping so much more in 4th ed then it was in 3.5?
Your other points I can see...
Ok how does it hinder PCs that much? Just out of curisity. How much does a +1 either way matter that much? I am not argueing with you my knowledge of 4th is limited. I mean I know the game is really balanced but is it that much?
Every race has boosts and what-not. Normally those boosts help the "to hit" Ability score and teritary effects. While I'm not that great at statistics or math, it would make a difference in certain tiers of play. You could get a more expanded reason from the CharOps boards, they do the math pretty well and could break it down to level, weapons selection, etc. What I know is the penalty would reduce the % of times you hit with powers and thus, lowering your efficency, damage, and survivability. It's a main reason no playable races in 4E have negative statistics. If anything, I'd give a small boost if the Lythari were in their hybrid or wolf form. This could be as simple as a bonus on damage, speed, or attacks (nothing more than a +1, or +2 at paragon) or possibly a certain skill or two or even benefits to a Skill Challenge.
If anything, I like to use existing material to mix/match into a certain race. I know there is a Dragonborn paragon path that allows them to get wings, so therefore, I'd allow a paragon path for say, avariel or fey'ri to gain a better use of their wings.
Also the book keeping aspect would not be that much different then it was in 3.5...so while others might have issues with it I don't. Or is the book keeping so much more in 4th ed then it was in 3.5?
Your other points I can see...
In my experience, I've found more bookkeeping in 4E in regards to what bonuses effect what powers. Feat bonuses stacking with enchantmen bonuses in addition to other terrain bonuses and combat advantage. Certain effects having a limited duration such. At least in 3.5, I knew most spells would last the entire encounter (usually ending around round 5 to 7). In 4E, our encounters last much longer (sometimes up to 10-12 rounds) if we're rolling poorly. I'm not saying this is a constant problem or even a problem at all, just an observation.
In 3.5, how long could Lythari stay in their wolf or hybrid form? Or more importantly, how many times per day could they use that ability? If it's all the time (at will) because they're natural shape-shifters then I'd say stick with giving the 4E Lythari the Wild Shape class feature of the druid, but limit the flavor to just a wolf. Then, I'd give them another racial power that's maybe daily or encounter with the Beast Form keyword that's a trip attack with some damage.
It's a game. All games are not perfectly balanced, and they don't need to be unless you definitely expect the players or the GM to exploit everything they possibly can. In an online MMORPG, or in a tabletop gaming tournament, such things can be expected from some people who want to "win" (i.e. have the best of everything, even if it requires min-max crippling), but most people in D&D aren't playing in tournaments or RPGA. Further, most people who play the game aren't in it to "win" or maximize their power/items/etc unless they're the kind of person who would ruin the game.
I'd have to disagree that just because I want my PC to do well (by looking up combo's, synergy for power/feats/weapons, etc) doesn't mean I'm attempting to "win" or even ruin the game for others. It means, for me, that I want to do well in battle, contribute to the success of the party (thus furthering the plot of the story), and find unique and interesting ways of using those powers to my betterment.
I don't think anyone who plays D&D cries out happily when he misses on an attack, fails a saving throw, or drops dead from a critical hit. Sure, they happen but I'm assuming your going to try to prevent that.
So someone who goes out of his way to make his character great is "hurting" the game and other's experience? My suggestion to that is: pre-build your character, find out what spells/powers work, what spells/powers don't, have an idea of what feats help you and go from there. I've never understood people's compulsion to have specific feats or powers reflect a certain aspect of role-playing just for role-playing sake. Those are the sorts who take the feats in 3.5E that up your skills (Alertness, Athletics, Stealthy) and wonder why their characters stink when it comes to combat yet still gets mad at the other player who built his character for the purpose of killing monsters. At least in 4E, that doesn't happen nearly as often, and if it does it's mostly because of bad dice rolling.
If you're min-maxing, or need to overshadow everyone else with your PC, then you're doing it wrong. It might be fun for you, in a selfish sort of way, but it makes the game a whole lot of un-fun for everyone else you play with. It's a game meant to be shared as an experience, where everyone "wins" when they work together. You're meant to enjoy the story that unfolds, and participate in its unfolding as a group. If you're concentrating too much on specific rules, dice roll bonuses, or procedures, and you're not spending time actually roleplaying, then you're either doing it wrong or you're trying to force something into the game that makes it un-fun for most regular people.
So because I like to make strong characters who could over-shadow other PCs because possibly they don't know how to make a character (or not care to), I'm doing it wrong? I find that thinking flawed. I don't expect others to optimize their character, but I would expect them to want to create a character who does something well or contributes to the party other than a nice role-playing experience. You can role-play however you want without the rules over-much forcing or guiding you to do so through character stats. This was always something I hated with 3E since many players sacrificed good character-building feats, spells, powers for the sake of role-playing. And then those same players complain that I over-shadow them by turning the battle with a crushing attack on the BBEG or a using a spell in a unique way that could end the encounter. If you find that your characters are being over-shadowed then I'd suggest you (collective you, no one personally) take a gander at the CharOps to find out how to be more productive.
Encouraging certain types of players to move into RPGA was the way normal gamers could effectively exile the rules lawyers into their own version of the game. That way, they didn't ruin it for the majority. Re-framing D&D so that it better fits the tournament or MMORPG "balance everything so no one 'cheats' or finds an exploit to use against other players" model pushes the game away from roleplaying and toward rule-playing. It's a shame, really, that designers cater to those types of jerks.
Actually, I thought it pushed the game in a direction that was fun for all types of players. The balance does cater to the more rule/roll-type player but I've yet to see how roleplaying has been affected in any sort of negative way with this new system. So you (again, collective you) don't have 80+ skills that have no real application in the game what-so-ever other than to further the "style" of character you like. Were you so enamored with expending a finite resource such as skills or feats for something that you could just role-play and have fun with reguardless of a skill check roll? Personally, I found a lot of the skills of 3.5 (pathfind does a much, much beter job) to be rather unnecessary. But I guess that's just the power-gaming sort of guy I am.
cany we drop the edition issue please.we all know everyone likes something different.
No problem. Aeg should snap out of it as soon as 5E comes out. ;)
:giggles at Aegeri's conclusions:cany we drop the edition issue please.we all know everyone likes something different.
No problem. Aeg should snap out of it as soon as 5E comes out. ;)
which would be.... never
:giggles at Aegeri's conclusions:
Not really, I noticed you deliberately avoided answering the core argument (minding the core argument is indefensible in all fairness to you). :P You can giggle however you want, won't change the fact the encounter system on which the system is based on didn't actually function as written.
No problem. Aeg should snap out of it as soon as 5E comes out. ;)
If you're implying I just like any edition that comes out that's a bit ridiculous of you. For one thing, I prefered 2E to 3E for many reasons (despite the flaws in 2E, in fact I still enjoy playing the odd game of 1E and 2E but I'll never play 3rd again :P). Not to mention if I had a choice of an updated new realms for 5E it would be pre-ToT without any of the nonsense that came after... so that pretty much shoots this ridiculous argument down easily enough.
Also, I doubt 5E will be coming out any time soon, although I would put money on a redone 4.5 like reissue of the original PHB.
Ok how does it hinder PCs that much? Just out of curisity. How much does a +1 either way matter that much? I am not argueing with you my knowledge of 4th is limited. I mean I know the game is really balanced but is it that much?
Also the book keeping aspect would not be that much different then it was in 3.5...so while others might have issues with it I don't. Or is the book keeping so much more in 4th ed then it was in 3.5?
Probably less actually, it's just static core stat changes are not done in 4E anymore as a general rule. It would instead just be flat bonuses in one form (or racial powers or similar). The idea isn't actually entirely without merit though, because in all honesty it's actually less work than in 3.5 so it could be done a lot more easily.
So um cutting the edition wars arguement aside for a second here. I like 3.5....4th is meh to me. But in regards to argueing neither side is going to really sway the other( especialy at this point). So why bother? This thread is about 4th ed rules and how far they can go. Now sure I'll bring up 3.5 rules but it is not to argue they are better but
1) Because that is the stuff I am trying to see how converting would work.
2) That is what I am most familar with so putting it in terms of 3.5 is quicker and easier to me.
So please keep to the topic of this thread and ignore off thread posts...if you want to argue the values of 4th over 3.5 or vice a versa start another thread. I'll sure to be to join there.
@Diffan: So if I understaned you right it is a huge penalty not to have bonus period when compared to races with bonus. I know one of the designs of 4th ed is races to have a speciality...IE dwarves with fighters...eladrin and wizards. But basicaly playing a race without bonus would be like playing against type...so what you are saying that is very limiting in the game to play a dwarf wizard vs a eladrin wizard? And your strongly recommend against it?
@Aegeri: See it seems that Diffan disagrees with you about how the idea is workable...Personaly I don't care if it is easier or not then 3.5. If the work is worth it for a character I like I would do times the work then anything that was required by your opinion in 3.5. So how do you see the idea as workable?
@Diffan: So if I understaned you right it is a huge penalty not to have bonus period when compared to races with bonus. I know one of the designs of 4th ed is races to have a speciality...IE dwarves with fighters...eladrin and wizards. But basicaly playing a race without bonus would be like playing against type...so what you are saying that is very limiting in the game to play a dwarf wizard vs a eladrin wizard? And your strongly recommend against it?
@Aegeri: See it seems that Diffan disagrees with you about how the idea is workable...Personaly I don't care if it is easier or not then 3.5. If the work is worth it for a character I like I would do times the work then anything that was required by your opinion in 3.5. So how do you see the idea as workable?
I think the penalties would be bad, but nothing in 4E limits what a PC can do within a certain class. Are eladrin wizards better than dwarf wizards using the standard point-buy/stat array? Yes. Does this mean a dwarf wizard is un-playable? No. Eladrin get a lot of feat support for playing wizards while dwarves get few or none. Playing a dwarf wizard is just a bit more limited.
You were talking about Lythari not receiving any sort of racial bonus (stats among other things) when they weren't in hybrid or wolf form. I think this: A.) gives a disservice to the race. B.) creates balance issues when using the 4E system. And C.) forces a near constant point to always be in their wolf form.
Since I'm prone to using existing mechanics and so-forth for homebrew additions, I think a non-restrictive, non-penalized version of the Lythari would better benefit someone wanting to play that race and thus suggested a modifier form of the wild shape class feature in addition to a racial power that lets the PC attack someone using their hybrid or beast form. This way, it's less of a balance issue and sticks to the 1 to 2 racial ability powers that most races have in 4E.
I've never understood people's compulsion to have specific feats or powers reflect a certain aspect of role-playing just for role-playing sake.
Then I imagine that trying to explain it in a forum probably isn't going to help. I've found that people tend to be either the "maximum pwnage" types or they want story immersion. It's a fundamental difference in the goal of the game.
Those are the sorts who take the feats in 3.5E that up your skills (Alertness, Athletics, Stealthy) and wonder why their characters stink when it comes to combat yet still gets mad at the other player who built his character for the purpose of killing monsters. At least in 4E, that doesn't happen nearly as often, and if it does it's mostly because of bad dice rolling.
If that's what is fun for them, it's perfectly sensible. And if they use their skills and have a good time while doing so, they're immersed in the story. I've played in many sessions where there's minimal or no combat. Numbers do not make a character "stink" as much as a steadfast belief that maximized combat skillz for pwnage are the "only thing that matters." Roleplaying, back in the days of Arneson, was WAY more fun than these days where everything must be perfectly balanced for combat and your character "stinks" if you don't build it the right way. That sort of attitude is prevalent these days because of Warcraft, and it's brought the game downhill in terms of roleplaying.
So because I like to make strong characters who could over-shadow other PCs because possibly they don't know how to make a character (or not care to), I'm doing it wrong? I find that thinking flawed.
So when you say that there's a "best" way to make a character, and look down on people for doing something different, you're not imposing your own flawed thinking on a game that's supposed to be about roleplaying? I'll say again, the overemphasis on balance and maximized stats is hurting the soul of the game.
Actually, I thought it pushed the game in a direction that was fun for all types of players. The balance does cater to the more rule/roll-type player but I've yet to see how roleplaying has been affected in any sort of negative way with this new system.
Making people feel bad by telling them their character choices "stink" and then building combat situations where they are doomed to fail unless they follow a "best build" model" is what really sucks. I've seen it happen time and again. To use your example of someone who wants a PC that focuses on several "useless" skills, why don't DMs build encounters that require use of those skills? Why don't most DMs award story experience when players figure out puzzles and really get into deeper roleplaying? No, if there's a "best build" model for everything, one might as well just get printed out PC cards from the DM.
@Diffan: This is my confusion. A dwarf does not have a stat that makes great wizard...so he is sub-par to the Eladrin Wizard but is still playable? So designing a race that is for most part sub-par to all races in any given class...but gets other things of say greater power level to make up for it...would be sub-par how...I mean everybody who doesn't gain a int bonus is sub par to any race that does in regards to wizard. The way you are talking why would anyone in their right mind play a dwarven wizrd...it is like taking skill focus in 3.5 as you described it. It is weakening you to the point that you are a liability to the party because you could have play a Eladrin? I don't know I have often say the system is overbalanced at the cost of options, RP, and depth...but I didn't think it is that bad. Maybe you misunderstood my concept a little?
Then I imagine that trying to explain it in a forum probably isn't going to help. I've found that people tend to be either the "maximum pwnage" types or they want story immersion. It's a fundamental difference in the goal of the game.
I don't consider myself to be kind of player that only makes character for maximum effiency. Yes, combat plays a big part of my character creation because I don't feel the need to explain my character quirks, role-playing style, and/or mannerisms through the rule-set. I can role-play the character anywhich way I want to reguardless of the character's race and class. Now if someone wants to immerse their character stat-wise into that sort of role, by all means go for it and have loads of fun doing so. I just think it's moot when those sort of players then complain that they're being out-shined during combat.
If that's what is fun for them, it's perfectly sensible. And if they use their skills and have a good time while doing so, they're immersed in the story. I've played in many sessions where there's minimal or no combat. Numbers do not make a character "stink" as much as a steadfast belief that maximized combat skillz for pwnage are the "only thing that matters." Roleplaying, back in the days of Arneson, was WAY more fun than these days where everything must be perfectly balanced for combat and your character "stinks" if you don't build it the right way. That sort of attitude is prevalent these days because of Warcraft, and it's brought the game downhill in terms of roleplaying.
I never said that their characters stink at being characters, just when combat in involved. Like I said previously, if that is the kind of character you want to build for what-ever reason, then that's fine. The beauty of D&D is that it doesn't have to fit a specific mold. But certain character builds are rewarded for certain situations. A character who's designed to fight (like the fighter) is going to do well in melee situations. A bard who's build to be the party's "face" is probably going to excell in social situations. Both are good to have and both provide an asset to the party. But when the bard complains that he can't hit a monster for squat, his spells don't effect anything, and gets killed in each battle, then he only has to look to his character build to see the problem.
As for the perfectly balanced idea, yes D&D has evloved and is more centric to the RPGA-style of play but no one is forcing that sort of game-play on you except maybe an RPGA event. I'm assuming this comment was geared towrads 4E so i'll go that route. The balance is intended for free-range fun across the board. With more focused attention to balance, you have less issues like I discussed before. You don't have feats and skills that hinder your ability in combat. How is that a bad thing if I may ask? Yet the role-playing aspect is still there, your just encourged to take a big leap into creativity with out having a rule-set to hold your hand. 4E is more for a role-player who doesn't feel the need to show his work at all times. I mentioned being a blacksmith earlier. There are rules for making weapons/armor/etc and it can just as easily be done in 4E yet you don't have to put forth all your resources to accomplish that.
So when you say that there's a "best" way to make a character, and look down on people for doing something different, you're not imposing your own flawed thinking on a game that's supposed to be about roleplaying? I'll say again, the overemphasis on balance and maximized stats is hurting the soul of the game.
I never said there is a "best" way for character creation. There is a way that's geared more towards combat and there are those that aren't. Both are good for what they're designed to do. Yet some people express displeasure when their build doesn't keep up with others at the table. So who's fault is that? The person who built his character solely for the RP or those who build more towards combat? I say you can build towards combat and just role-play the rest. I'm my opinion, role-playing doesn't have to be back up with stats, feats, or huge amounts of skill ranks to get across how my character acts in non-combative scenarios.
Making people feel bad by telling them their character choices "stink" and then building combat situations where they are doomed to fail unless they follow a "best build" model" is what really sucks. I've seen it happen time and again. To use your example of someone who wants a PC that focuses on several "useless" skills, why don't DMs build encounters that require use of those skills? Why don't most DMs award story experience when players figure out puzzles and really get into deeper roleplaying? No, if there's a "best build" model for everything, one might as well just get printed out PC cards from the DM.
This I agree with. A DM should look at his PCs and see where their strengths are and which characters are designed for what purpose. A DM who puts their PCs in any sort of situation which they're doomed to fail is a poor DM, not a problem with character creation or edition. And yes, a DM should award story experience (I do this quite often) and should give each PC a time in the spot light. And in those situations, a fighter probably wouldn't perform as good as a class who's designed in social interactions. Most of what I have problems with is that there are some who think that just because a character is made for optimization also means there is little or no role-playing involved. That's just not the case.
More importantly, while D&D 4E has taken a more combat-centric stance, this is only to illustrate the fact that combat is more rule-centered part of the game. To fight monsters and run skill challenges, you need stats, rules, powers, spells, etc (just like in 3.5) yet on the RP side, why is there a need for rules? Do you honestly need a specific rule that spells out how long it takes and what DC's it need to make a sword? Do you honestly need to have rules for pleaing a crowed with your singing? Frankly, I don't think you do. That is a part of role-playing that can be done without the die rolling and number crunching if you ask me.
@Diffan: This is my confusion. A dwarf does not have a stat that makes great wizard...so he is sub-par to the Eladrin Wizard but is still playable?
An eladrin who gets an inherent bonus to the class's main statistic is going to perform, on average, better than a race who doesn't get this bonus. This is just a noticable in 3.5. Is a half-orc going to be a better barbarian than say a halfling barbarian assuming each one puts an 18 in Str. Well the half-orc is going to get a Str of 20 from his +2 bonus and probably, on average, hit more often and deal more damage than the halfling. Does this mean the halfling is un-playable as a barbarian? No. A dwarf wizard, while not "optimized" can still be a wizard and can just be as playable as any eladrin. You just have more options and are better optimized if you do play an eladrin.
So designing a race that is for most part sub-par to all races in any given class...but gets other things of say greater power level to make up for it...would be sub-par how...I mean everybody who doesn't gain a int bonus is sub par to any race that does in regards to wizard.
Each race has some qualities that make it more efficent in certain classes. A half-orc (Str +2/Dex +2) will make for a better ranger, fighter, paladin than say a Deva (Int +2/Wis +2). Does this mean that Devas can't be fighters or rangers? of course they can, yet like the dwarf, there aren't as many options for deva fighters. But just because a race doesn't have the specific stat bonus to the classes main abilities doesn't necessarly make them sub-par or unplayable.
Now taking the Lythari, I believe you were talking about them loosing their stat bonuses (Dex +2/Wis +2 for example) when in their humanoid form. I don't see why this would be good primarly because they would have to be a class that has beast form powers or their stats would be worthless. At least when you have a race that doesn't have specific stat boots to the classes main abilities, they still provide a benefit somewhere else. Take our dwarven wizard for example. He gets +2 Con, +2 Wis. So while he doesn't have the optimized stats of an eladrin, the Con helps out HP and Fortitude defense. The Wis helps out Will defense in addition to the skills as well. So a Lythari player who constantly switches back and forth between a humanoid form and a hybrid form will have to keep track of all these changes in addition to hit and damage if they're a class that relies on Dex or Wis for their attacks.
The way you are talking why would anyone in their right mind play a dwarven wizrd...it is like taking skill focus in 3.5 as you described it. It is weakening you to the point that you are a liability to the party because you could have play a Eladrin? I don't know I have often say the system is overbalanced at the cost of options, RP, and depth...but I didn't think it is that bad. Maybe you misunderstood my concept a little?
While a dwarven wizard isn't as "optimized" as an eladrin wizard, it's still a very viable choice. A dwarven wizard generally has more HP than eladrin wizards. Their Will defense is often better. They can use their second wind as a minor action. They receive a bonus to saves against ongoing Poison (I think) and their bonus to Wis can often lead to great multiclassing opportunities such as the Cleric or Avenger.
The comparison to a dwarf wizard and taking Skill Focus is a bit strange but i'll work with it. While both aren't optimized choices, there is at least a few benefits to playing a dwarven wizard than taking the Skill Focus feat. I think the furthere illustrates why balance is a good thing when it comes to edition. Your un-optimized choice in 4E won't allow your character to be a liability to your party or get you killed from those choices alone.
Roleplaying, back in the days of Arneson, was WAY more fun than these days where everything must be perfectly balanced for combat and your character "stinks" if you don't build it the right way
This statement is rather ironic, because my experience is that it's much harder to build an entirely worthless and ineffectual character in 4th edition compared to 3rd. Like, all you needed to do in 3rd to build a class that was poorer compared to everyone else was just not be a spellcaster. Everything went downhill after that pretty fast for the much maligned fighter in 3rd (as an example).
I'll say again, the overemphasis on balance and maximized stats is hurting the soul of the game.
I find it's the absolute opposite. Players can roleplay whatever they want, because whatever they make will not be chronically overpowered or underpowered in any area of the game (with some specific exceptions). As a result, you can roleplay something and not lose your combat effectiveness either - a perfect compromise to me.
johnkretzer:
@Aegeri: See it seems that Diffan disagrees with you about how the idea is workable...Personaly I don't care if it is easier or not then 3.5. If the work is worth it for a character I like I would do times the work then anything that was required by your opinion in 3.5. So how do you see the idea as workable?
It's mostly because it doesn't affect a lot of different stats IIRC. Looking at it, depending on what the difference is you shouldn't be disqualified from very many feats, it would subtract maybe a +1 off your attacks, some skills and maybe 1 of your defenses (or perhaps 2). In the end it wouldn't be hard to work out on the fly, it would certainly be very awkward but the idea you have could be done. The main flaw with it Diffan has already pointed out, that it basically penalizes the player for being in one form instead of the other.
Also, there are already lycanthropic shifters as a race in 4E anyway - I would just substitute their mechanics to be honest.
Finally, Diffan
Take our dwarven wizard for example. He gets +2 Con, +2 Wis. So while he doesn't have the optimized stats of an eladrin, the Con helps out HP and Fortitude defense. The Wis helps out Will defense in addition to the skills as well.
Also remember that the dwarf has bonuses to two secondary scores for wizards, constitution is used for staff wizards and wisdom is used for orb of imposition. So he's actually not that bad off anyway.
More importantly, while D&D 4E has taken a more combat-centric stance, this is only to illustrate the fact that combat is more rule-centered part of the game. To fight monsters and run skill challenges, you need stats, rules, powers, spells, etc (just like in 3.5) yet on the RP side, why is there a need for rules? Do you honestly need a specific rule that spells out how long it takes and what DC's it need to make a sword? Do you honestly need to have rules for pleaing a crowed with your singing? Frankly, I don't think you do. That is a part of role-playing that can be done without the die rolling and number crunching if you ask me.
That is precisely the point. I've always liked the analogy that if I'm hosting a party I need a cookbook to tell me how to make a cake, but I don't need to have a book to tell me how to interact with my friends who are coming over.
Like, all you needed to do in 3rd to build a class that was poorer compared to everyone else was just not be a spellcaster. Everything went downhill after that pretty fast for the much maligned fighter in 3rd (as an example).
More whitewash.
In 3E, all you needed to do was play a bard if you wanted to suck mechanically compaired to any other class.
You could play a fighter and go hack things for a good ten to fourteen levels (while the wizard was stuck studying after they quickly ran out of spells --which was the norm, btw-- if you were really gung-ho) before the wizards, clerics and druids outshined you.
That level curve went down as 3.5 came along and splat books when bazonkers giving Druids and Clerics lots more (uneeded, IMNSHO) love.
For my Realms game, I found the best way to balance this was to be liberal with magic items, encourage cooperative play (no reason the wizard, cleric and druid can't buff each other and the figher, while they're at it) and play NPCs and monsters at just below metagaming threshold.
It was hard to balance against save or die spells and badass 9th level spells like Shapechange (or for that matter, the 3.0 version of Haste) but I found that actually doing what the 3E DMG told you to do (consider the party, their powers, the level of treasure and their play style, then build encounters around that) worked in the end.
Made for run adventures all over the Realms, let me tell you.
More whitewash.
I will give you there is a period at low levels that a martial class isn't entirely worthless, but I look at things across all levels of play (including epic) - where this was certainly true. Also, 3.5 broke Druids from level 1 sadly and Clerics weren't far off either.
In 3E, all you needed to do was play a bard if you wanted to suck mechanically compaired to any other class.
Actually if you really focused on being a bard and maximizing everything possible with diplomacy you could be so diplomatic you could technically make Orcus your slave. I think it was possible to get a +150 diplomacy check. Albeit you're almost utterly worthless at every other time before then, but still it could be done.
You could play a fighter and go hack things for a good ten to fourteen levels (while the wizard was stuck studying after they quickly ran out of spells --which was the norm, btw-- if you were really gung-ho) before the wizards, clerics and druids outshined you.
I think it's about level 8 actually that the balance swings firmly in favor of spellcasters, especially in 3.5 where Druids with wildshape could outfight martial characters easily and cast while in their melee centric wildshape form. It's not like there was a dearth of options for a druid, regardless of the interpretation of the "Familiar with" rule for something that could outfight a relatively equal level fighter (while again, still being able to cast spells!).
That level curve went down as 3.5 came along and splat books when bazonkers giving Druids and Clerics lots more (uneeded, IMNSHO) love.
You could say 3.5 made that level for druids level 1. I still have no idea what anyone was thinking with 3.5 wildshape. I will agree with your core point here (at least what I think it is anyway) that 3.0 was better in many ways pre-splat books than 3.5 by far. But 3.0 was getting into things added towards the end of 2E that started to heavily bring spellcasters into the "completely dominant in all aspects of the game" mode, namely the concentration skill. In 2E, if you got hit boohoo you lost your (probably important) spell and now it was time to eat something sharp pointy bit first. Towards the end of 2E the defensive casting rules introduced meant that this wasn't a threat anymore (predictably, spell casters became a lot stronger). When 3E adopted concentration (and defensive casting) it was always going to start the slippery slope.
It was hard to balance against save or die spells and badass 9th level spells like Shapechange (or for that matter, the 3.0 version of Haste) but I found that actually doing what the 3E DMG told you to do (consider the party, their powers, the level of treasure and their play style, then build encounters around that) worked in the end.
My approach was to allow my PCs to be as creative and use the spellcasting to their desires actually. It was just the monsters and NPCs did exactly the same things as well. It made for some incredibly fun (if usually very short, extremely violent and very spell/counterspell like battles) games for a while. Eventually I just went back to Call of Cthulhu and other systems though, because the amount of effort put in for an encounter that could be broken very easily either way (if my PCs forgot a simple persistent spell protection or similar) wasn't really that fun in the end to bother with. Given my favourite DnD is high levels - not the low level "sweet spot" of 3rd it just couldn't retain my interest. This is what colors my impressions of 3E most and it is also where 3E was at its most completely broken.
At least now when I want to run a game into epic tier in the realms, I can make it appropriately epic and the game isn't fundamentally broken at these levels by spellcasters. Plus I can design an incredibly difficult encounter that plays off all my PCs weaknesses (not strengths) and it won't be an instant TPK - just an immense challenge (Save or Dies swing fights massively). One thing I do enjoy is that if I wanted Larloch (or something similar) in one of my 4E games I could easily put him in and I could make his mechanics match what he actually is supposed to be like - certainly no push over.
On the other hand in 3.5E, I ran the Tides of Wrath AP and
Show
Demogorgon
Thanks for the help, guys I think honestly that the system can't support these type of characters well...without selling out the flavor and concept. So I probably just play a regular Elf.
I believe the system can support the race and remain balanced. The question is what are u looking for the race to do? The Lythari are natural lycanthropes. They can turn into a wolf or a hybrid wolf-elf. What else is there? I'd give them a +2 to STR and DEX. They'd have the ability to change into a wolf or hybrid at-will and gain a racial encounter power to make an attack that also trips the opponent.This stays mostly true the the mechanics of 3rd and doesn't change any flavor or concept.
Thanks for the help, guys I think honestly that the system can't support these type of characters well...without selling out the flavor and concept. So I probably just play a regular Elf.
I believe the system can support the race and remain balanced. The question is what are u looking for the race to do? The Lythari are natural lycanthropes. They can turn into a wolf or a hybrid wolf-elf. What else is there? I'd give them a +2 to STR and DEX. They'd have the ability to change into a wolf or hybrid at-will and gain a racial encounter power to make an attack that also trips the opponent.This stays mostly true the the mechanics of 3rd and doesn't change any flavor or concept.
Ok...
What about the Scent ability?
What about the DR/silver?
What about the natural attacks?
Even a stickier thing what about the ability to change other elves into lythari?
Pretty much what you are saying is that a werewolf is just the ability to trip somebody once per encounter. I honestly don't think this is true to the orginal concept or flavor.
It is ok really every system has it's limitions. I think playing a actual werewolf character like a lythari in that there is signifant differences between Elf form and hybrid form and wolf form that you would either break it in making it too weak or too over powering. There is no way to put limition on things to balance it out.
What about the Scent ability?
Racial bonus to perception. That one is pretty easy.
What about the DR/silver?
As I mentioned above, 4E doesn't bother with a lot of odd damage reduction and similar. The simplest way to do this is again, just copy what is already there (the Lycanthrope Shifter from Eberron, already in 4E) and simply put the condition that the regenration power won't function if hit by silver. Given 99.99999% of all creatures in 4E don't have silver, it's a pretty irrelevant thing (and unlike in 3rd, there are no rules for "penetrating" DR if you have high enough hit dice).
What about the natural attacks?
Thri-kreen in Dark Sun already have natural attacks. Just take whatever it is, throw a +3/+6/+9 scaling progression on it and it's easily done. If you can be bothered doing so is another thing though, because unless natural weaponry can be enchanted its frequently useless.
Then again, just take a ki-focus and that problem would be solved.
Even a stickier thing what about the ability to change other elves into lythari?
Doesn't really matter, elves are elves in 4E and there aren't billions of (unwarranted) Elven subraces. So mechanically there are only really Elves, Eladrin and Drow. Not really that hard to figure out a way of doing this easily.
All of this could be done with a series of bloodline feats actually as opposed to an actual race. Just bloodline the lythari and give a series of feats that allows for shifting and similar (rather like the Dhampyr). Solved and without messy complications.
IIRC, there is a feat that gives gnoll PCs claw attacks (or scent). It's in a Dragon article.
In 4th ed, it is not so strange to say that as a PC, you do not have these powers yet, but you can get them by investing in feats or powers. That brings the balance back while maintaining the flavor.
And you can always go elf druid to deal with the 'beast' aspect.
Gomez