What is a good way to describe the differences in Pathfinder and 4e, and which do you feel is better? Please just focus what you like about each and differences, don't go into hating one or the other. I'm trying to give both options to a group of new players, where some have played 4e.
There are about 1000 threads on this very topic already. Please use either the search function, or google, as a flame war is almost inevitable.
If you really want to see the differences, just look at the two systems and maybe play a couple games from each. You can get the Pathfinder SRD for free and you can download the 4e Keep on the Shadowfell for free.
- 4e D&D
- Pros-
Simpler Rules set, but still has many options.
Classes are well balanced so everyone gets to shine at points in the game.
"Gamist' style, Rule of Cool over rule of minutae.
Good Support
Well known brand name provides easier group finding
Rich Histroy - Cons-
More 'Gamist' than Simulationist in many cases where simulation would be good.
All classes being equal also means all classes are about as hard to learn to play
Multiple situational modifiers
Levels start breaking down in the 14-20 range (subjective, but listed for completion) - Pathfinder
- Pros-
Wide variety of skills and sub-set rules for Simulationist players
Good Support
Growing brand name
You likley know the rules (or at least part) already. - Cons-
Poor class balance.
Levels strat breaking about level 7.
Multiple situational modifiers, with sub-rule sets for many of them.
That's about it, from my experience. If you want hard and gritty, Pathfinder might be more your thing, if you want easier to play and survive, you might want 4e.
If you want a good blend of both extremes, play Savage Worlds instead.
Pros of Pathfinder: It is 3.5.
That's it in a nutshell, really.
If you want to play 4E, play 4E
If you're angry and want to stick it to WotC, play Pathfinder
If you want to play 3.5E, play 3.5E
If you want to play 4E, play 4E
If you're angry and want to stick it to WotC, play Pathfinder
/thread
The side of me that begs for simplicity in grid rules and DM prep runs a 4th Edition game.
Call me conflicted.
Well, the old school D&D player in me who prefers Vancian magic and non-combat spells plays in a Pathfinder campaign and runs another.
The side of me that begs for simplicity in grid rules and DM prep runs a 4th Edition game.
Call me conflicted.
OK yep you're conflicted.
Pros of 4e: It's not 3.5.
Pros of Pathfinder: It is 3.5.
That's it in a nutshell, really.
...Ya know, usually I disagree with what you say, Tony, but....I think you put it quite well.
Of course, to somebody who has no knowledge of 3.5e, its not helpful.
In any case, I'm surprised that it hasn't devolved into whines or screams already.
I have played D&D 4E using the PH and PH 2 and Pathfinder using the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Player's Guide. Here's my take on the differences from a player's point of view.
With 4E, you pick one of two builds (more with other books) and that build points a new player pretty well in one direction. In the case of the PH, a couple of classes actually use different primary ability scores for each build, encouraging a certain selection of powers even more.
Pathfinder uses a similar system, but in 4E speak the player creates a build not the designer. By this I mean a player playing a fighter picks out the feats he thinks will create the gladiator he sees in his mind's eye or the player of a sorcerer picks a bloodline to create a cursed antihero with corrupted magic flowing through his veins. The player narrows the focus instead of the game designer.
The differences for the players are that in 4E a professional game designer gives you the initial build making it a bit harder for a player to make truly poor design choices, but also limiting what the player can do to what the builds provided allow. In PF, the player has more freedom since he isn't restricted to two builds but the danger is he could flail around with no real concept and make a lot of choices that don't work together.
The game designer is expected to help out the player a lot in 4E, hence the errata and updates to rules. Some players love the constant rule tweaking and some players don't like the constant changes.
The gamemaster is expected to help out the player more in PF. PF requires trial and error and acquiring system knowledge, which is a lot of fun for some people and too much work and effort just to play a game for others.
Just as a side note, it isn't necessary to be an experienced GM to try out PF. A GM can use an Adventure Path or module to get started, and help his players learn at the same time he is learning.
Both the player and the GM can also get help in building PCs by buying the Hero Lab rules for Pathfinder. It does a lot of number crunching for the player and allows monster customization for the GM.
In 4E, a DM doesn't need expert knowledge of the players' characters. However, the DM has to decide how he will handle the updates done by the game designers. I don't use the new online character builder but I assume it now automatically updates each month? If so, the DM who wants to use online help has to adapt to new rules as updates come out. If a DM doesn't want to do this, he will have to restrict his players to offline builds or find a copy of the original character builder that he can download. So the DM will also gain system knowledge in 4E by seeing the changes the designers make each month to tweak the system and how those changes affect game play in the DM's campaign.
In Pathfinder you do get more freedom with character builds. And the poor balance created because of it makes it easier for campaigns to fall apart to over powered characters.
Pathfinder = Character-centric attitudes. It's all about the character. They don't need their buddies. High potential for over powered combos.
4e = Party-centric attitudes. Its all about the party and how you fit in with the party. You can't solo things very easily.
In PF, the PCs have to find a role in the group to fill. In PF, though, the GM and players have to work together more to determine the roles each PC can fill. The game doesn't define roles directly, so the group determines what it wants out of the game. This design can backfire if the group doesn't agree or chooses poorly. However, between multi-classing and prestige classes, PF offers a lot of tweaks even as PCs advance to tweak the roles and change concepts so if the group works together, they can usually work any problems out.
With PF, if a player played 3.5 and wants a different experience, they should pick up the Advanced Player's Guide. The APG is Paizo's first major rule design work on PF that doesn't work off of previous 3.5 designs. It is all new, all PF. I haven't see a cleric played since the APG came out and the classes in the book really allow for a wide range of characters. A combination of Core Rulebook and APG classes work seamlessly together; the APG is balanced against the Core Rulebook and the classes don't have any new tweaks or upgrades.
In the same way, I'd recommend the PH 2 in addition to the PH to cover the traditional D&D classes. While the PH already has a new class in the warlord, the PH 2 brings back old favorites like the druid and introduces new and interesting classes like the shaman. The classes in the PH 2 are my favorite for 4E.
Expounding further:
In Pathfinder you do get more freedom with character builds. And the poor balance created because of it makes it easier for campaigns to fall apart to over powered characters.
Pathfinder = Character-centric attitudes. It's all about the character. They don't need their buddies. High potential for over powered combos.
4e = Party-centric attitudes. Its all about the party and how you fit in with the party. You can't solo things very easily.
PF doesn't have poor balance; that is opinion not fact. PF has much less errata than 4E; that is fact not opinion. My 1st printing 4E DMG has skill challenges all wrong and two-thirds of the monsters in the 1st printing MM are underpowered. Both of those rule problems indicate poor balance. The game designers have since tweaked those rules to generate better balance in 4E.
PF is also not about the character. It is about the shared story. Read the Core Rulebook and it is hard to miss that design paradigm.
I do agree about 4E however, it is about the shared experience between the classes and how they interact with the world through roleplaying, skill challenges, and combat. That design paradigm is a good one too. It is different than the design paradigm of PF, not better or worse, just different.
Which is what the OP was looking for--a contrast between 4E and PF.
If you want to play 3.5E, play 3.5E
If you want to play 4E, play 4EIf you're angry and want to stick it to WotC, play Pathfinder
I hate to jump on the bandwagon here, but that really is perfect.
If you want to play 3.5E, play 3.5E
If you want to play 4E, play 4EIf you're angry and want to stick it to WotC, play Pathfinder
I hate to jump on the bandwagon here, but that really is perfect.
Not quite perfect.
Wizards didn't invent D&D and their 3.0, 3.5, 4E, and 4E with Essentials is no more worthy or less worthy than PF. Both game systems are built on the work of previous game designers.
Also, many people (everyone in my game group for example) have played and many continue to play both 4E and PF (and some of us also played 3.5, 3.0, 2E, 1E, Basic, and at least looked at OD&D).
Some players like PF more than 3.5 but that doesn't stick to WotC as WotC doesn't produce 3.5 material anymore. Wizards isn't losing 3.5 sales to PF as they don't sell 3.5 anymore. In fact, PF encourages some 3.5 sales as players pick up old books they like. Wizards could actually make some money from PF players if they starting selling PDFs again (of any OOP edition).
Pathfinder, like 3e before it, starts with the assumption you can do anything and provides rules for anyone to attemp anything. But, it gives you penalties for trying unless you take a feat or your class gives you bonuses.
4e lets you do much less, so you can't even try without a power. If it is something anyone can do you perform it normally but recieve a bonus for having a feat or class feature.
That's the major difference in game design, everything else is nuance and specific to classes or rule subsets.
There's also the game's philosophy to the world. Specifically, PF is a world made up of numbers while 4e is not. There are set challenges for most tasks, so if you train in something it gets easier as you become higher level. Fighters have easier time knocking down most doors, walls get easier to climb, locks easier to pick, etc. Unless said door/ wall/ lock is extraordinary. Monsters have a set, singular power level that is added onto. For the most part, 4e scales the challenge with the level, so there are fewer set DCs. So it's always equally as challenging to knock down the door, climb the wall, or pick the lock. Monsters are relative, and can go up and down in potency for narrative reasons.
The other big differences have nothing to do with the game.
First, Pathfinder is covered under the Open Game Licence. So ALL of the core rulebook is available free online. Legally. So you can try it for free. And Paizo has taken Pathfinder's open content further, so all of their releases are available to be shared online. You technically don't ever have to buy the books. You can also get Pathfinder books as well-made PDFs, and for some products, if you pre-order a print book off Paizo's website (because they have a very complete online store) they will often throw in a free PDF copy. PDFs themselves are cheaper, often a quarter of the book's cover price.
4e is not and they want you to pay for the books or monthly for the online tools. There is a place to try 4e for free, but this is hidden in the website and no longer available via the main page (because they want you to buy Essentials). And WotC is actively trying to make it so people buy their books or pay for their products, cancelling the downloadable Character Builder and Monster Builder and switching to an online version. WotC does not have an online store. They stopped doing PDFs two years ago, and when they did sell PDFs they could often be more expensive than pre-ordered print copies.
Paizo is really well liked by their fans, both as a company and the individual members. They support their fans encouraging fan projects (they host the fan magazine Wayfinder on the main site). And they regularly have open (free) playtests of new material and take feedback, knowing the fans can review more thoroughly than the designers. Fans on the site occasionally deliver pizza to the Paizo office and Paizo staff are encouraged to to spend free time on the message boards communicating with the fans.
Meanwhile, people seem to like D&D despite WotC. WotC really is this impossing faceless company that seems to get in the way of the designers and developers (all really nice people) talking with the fans and communicating. The fans often don't trust, feeling like they're being lied to or used. And it's rare to see a WotC employee on the forums as there's no incentive and it can be such a toxic environment. When WotC released its new, updated community site you occasionally got staff blogging, but that's rare now.
Really, people seem to like Pathfinder so much because of Paizo, while people seem to like D&D and 4e despite of WotC.
Personally, I find the quality of the game more important than whether or not the company is kissing my butt.
As I mentioned above, my 4E Dungeon Master's Guide had incorrect rules on skill challenges and the damage mechanic by level right from the beginning. And two-thirds of my 4E Monster Manual is underpowered. So quality for 4E was not high in the beginning of the system.
Fans like Paizo not because Paizo kisses their butt (wonderful image right after I ate lunch, thanks btw) but because Paizo communicates with customers, listens to customer feedback, and makes business decisions (ie produces RPG game products) that meets the needs of their greatest number of customers while trying not to alienate those customers whose needs they cannot directly meet.
This openness translates directly into quality. Huge open playtests help the quality of rules. Working with skilled writers of all types (novel, D&D designers from all editions including 4E, world builders for Wizards etc) produces not only quality rules but also well detailed and enjoyable stories.
Just because Paizo is good at these things does not means Wizards has to be bad in general. Wizards just doesn't have the same priorities. Some customers like Wizards hands off approach and some like Paizo's direct to the customer response.
4e lets you do much less, so you can't even try without a power. If it is something anyone can do you perform it normally but recieve a bonus for having a feat or class feature.
I don't take issue with most of what you said (and rather agree wholeheartedly with your last statement). However, I do want to say something about this part right here. Powers codify what your character is best at, but they are not the only thing you can do. The part about not being able to even attempt anything not covered by a power is patently false (check the DMG pg 42). However, players do seem to ignore this and unconsciously limit themselves to only what their powers can do.
Pathfinder, like 3e before it, starts with the assumption you can do anything and provides rules for anyone to attemp anything. But, it gives you penalties for trying unless you take a feat or your class gives you bonuses.
4e lets you do much less, so you can't even try without a power. If it is something anyone can do you perform it normally but recieve a bonus for having a feat or class feature.
That's the major difference in game design, everything else is nuance and specific to classes or rule subsets.
Hello, page 42? This is just misinformation.
There's also the game's philosophy to the world. Specifically, PF is a world made up of numbers while 4e is not. There are set challenges for most tasks, so if you train in something it gets easier as you become higher level. Fighters have easier time knocking down most doors, walls get easier to climb, locks easier to pick, etc. Unless said door/ wall/ lock is extraordinary. Monsters have a set, singular power level that is added onto. For the most part, 4e scales the challenge with the level, so there are fewer set DCs. So it's always equally as challenging to knock down the door, climb the wall, or pick the lock. Monsters are relative, and can go up and down in potency for narrative reasons.
This is also false. A wooden door is a wooden door, even in 4e. But by the time you're epic tier you're not bashing in wooden doors anymore, you're bashing in doors constructed from the divine will of a pantheon of gods.
4e lets you do much less, so you can't even try without a power.
I know you're aware of page 42, so I have to imagine this was some sort of typo.
PF is a world made up of numbers while 4e is not. There are set challenges for most tasks, so if you train in something it gets easier as you become higher level. Fighters have easier time knocking down most doors, walls get easier to climb, locks easier to pick, etc.
While I appreciate the plug for my blog. In both PF and 4e, characters can get better at knocking down doors, picking locks, and climbing walls. Both PF and 4e assume that as players level, they encounter tougher doors, more complex locks, and more difficult walls. So I'm not sure how this is a point of comparison.
The only difference is that in 4e, everyone is getting better, while in PF, only the character choosing the skill gets better, resulting in an obscene skill spread by which a climbing challenge results in either one character easily overcoming it, or only one character having a hope to overcome it.
The thing PF brings to the table is better adventures. Paizo got their start really with Dungeon, so its no real surprise there, but the aventure path modules can be good runs that dont feel *too* rail roady. Add in actual cartography and dungeon exploration instead of map-tile setup skirmish after map-tile set up skirmish, and its more in line with how I've enjoyed adventures for the past 25 years. I also think they are aimed at a more adule audience, with some gritty and dark horror and more adult themes touched on. WOTC seems aware of how the delve format doesnt have broad appeal, so perhaps 4th edition might begin producing worthy adventures. Right now, the best 4th edition ones I've seen have all been patron projects by Wolfgang Bauer (particularly the fey heavy Wrath of the River King).
Its also rather easy to convert fights in these to 4th edition, since 4th edition is really easy to build encoutners for with the insider tools. I'm running a 4th edition game set in the PF world, and using mainly their adventures, and its been quite fun, and a breeze to DM for.
Personally, I find the quality of the game more important than whether or not the company is kissing my butt.
As I mentioned above, my 4E Dungeon Master's Guide had incorrect rules on skill challenges and the damage mechanic by level right from the beginning. And two-thirds of my 4E Monster Manual is underpowered. So quality for 4E was not high in the beginning of the system.
Fans like Paizo not because Paizo kisses their butt (wonderful image right after I ate lunch, thanks btw) but because Paizo communicates with customers, listens to customer feedback, and makes business decisions (ie produces RPG game products) that meets the needs of their greatest number of customers while trying not to alienate those customers whose needs they cannot directly meet.
This openness translates directly into quality. Huge open playtests help the quality of rules. Working with skilled writers of all types (novel, D&D designers from all editions including 4E, world builders for Wizards etc) produces not only quality rules but also well detailed and enjoyable stories.
Just because Paizo is good at these things does not means Wizards has to be bad in general. Wizards just doesn't have the same priorities. Some customers like Wizards hands off approach and some like Paizo's direct to the customer response.
I'd just like to say that while I don't know much about Paizo's interactions with its customers, not being a PF player. I do know SOMETHING about WotC's. They are not as cold and distant as some people would like to make out. ALL of the WotC developers have staff blogs. Some of them haven't been super active lately, but others have posted pretty consistently and you can definitely have discussions with them there. I've also had discussions with a couple of the core 4e devs at various (rare) intervals here and there. Mostly you have to want to talk and have something interesting to say besides begging for your favorite candybar or some complaint about some detail of something (which I'm sure they're not averse to hearing, but they simply can't absorb themselves in those debates all day every day). You will also note that WotC has solicited a lot of fan input in various ways, particularly offline at cons, Encounters groups, etc. but also online. They've made a number of previews of different rules that were used for playtest purposes by the community, etc.
Now, I've heard some complaints about WotC not listening to playtest feedback etc too, but I've also heard people complain on that score about Paizo at times, especially during the original PF development. I think you just have to accept that while fan involvement in design is great there are just limits to what is possible.
I think most of the differences between WotC and Paizo are more audience expectation than anything else. This is where Paizo has at least benefited from their situation and probably done some smart things to appear more friendly. WotC OTOH seems to be somewhat less focused on that. Probably there are more internal things for their guys to worry about, I don't know. Doubtless Paizo has acheived a more friendly reputation. I'm not sure WotC is LESS friendly or open though in reality. They are just not seeming to know how to project it effectively.
Anyway, PF vs 4e? Play what you want. Get the starters for each of them and pick. They're both FRPGs and they're both pretty good. 4e is a bit easier to play, PF is more like older classic D&D in some respects.
4th Ed has much more bland settings and made the mistake of killing Forgotten realms, which had a very loyal fanbase. Eberron remains a good setting, but when Ravenloft didnt make its planned appearance, it became pretty obvious that the next big hitter wasnt going to leave the stable. A great shame as a good Ravenloft would have done a great deal to win back players.
I dont understand the WotC mindset on this. I was a great fan of Ravenloft and Planescape, as well as the Realms. I can put my dislike of the rules aside should a decent job be done with any of those, but at this time, it hasn't. 4th Edition is like some faceless thing that sucks the colour out of the RP experience and that shouldnt be the case.
Even "points of light" is bland and most people dont even see it as the core setting.
I almost wonder if WotC is in negotiations with a 3rd party to either publish D&D, or take on publishing and fleshing out the campaign settings. The dearth of campaign material in 4e for the settings, and the lack of settings in general is odd. I mean here you have a robust and balanced play system, some of the largest and well established settings and no material to run in them.
DM'ing encounters got much easier with 4e, but there aren't any adventures to put those encounters in. As a DM for Dark Sun you have to create all of the adventures yourself. Back in the hey-day, there were like 12 different adventures for Dark Sun within the first 2 years of its release.
Pathfinder has more adventures than you can shake a stick at. They are hardcore trying to build up Golarion into an epic campaign setting on par with earlier FR or Greyhawk.
WotC is sitting on all of this wonderful and rich IP, and aren't doing squat with it. That is why I am theorizing that they are having meetings with other providers to establish content for the system.
With 4E, you pick one of two builds (more with other books) and that build points a new player pretty well in one direction. In the case of the PH, a couple of classes actually use different primary ability scores for each build, encouraging a certain selection of powers even more.
Builds? You're saying that the suggested builds that are optional limit your creativity?
I have never used a build.
Ever.
And its not like I had to do an extensive workaround. They are simply....not important, and exist purely to give a complete FNG without the time to read and grok the powers an idea of how to create and run a concept.
To the OP: If you like "old-school" D&D, Pathfinder is what you wanna play. I have the books, but personally I find the rules clunky and inefficient, especially for combat. 4E for my money, is a much more streamlined and elegant combat system. Also, I find character creation/advancement in 4E far more interesting than Pathfinder, with many more options, and balance between character classes in 4E is far superior as well.
Where Pathfinder has a huge advantage over 4E, as others have mentioned, is in the sheer amount of published setting materials and adventures. Even better, they have Adventure Paths that take characters from lvls 1 through 20.
@Warrant: Your theory seems plausible, I've been wondering about the dearth of setting material and adventures for 4E myself, especially compared with previous editions.
Time will tell....Time will also funnel more money from WotC to Paizo. I have started to buy Paizo adventures to use in 4e simply because 4e doesn't have enough stuff to purchase.
In my experience, combat passes more quickly in Pathfinder than it does in 4e; also there are more ways to bypass encouters (combat-wise) in Pathfinder than in 4e in my experience.
Skills are something else where Pathfinder OR 4e can appeal to different playstyles. In 4e, EVERY character can give a shot at EVERY skill (they may not be trained, but they can still try, and get the basic modifier) So in a 4e game if you tell one person to roll for arcana, the whole group can roll and someone will inevitably succeed. In Pathfinder, if you don't know certain skills, you can't even try. To each their own with this.
To the OP: If you like "old-school" D&D, Pathfinder is what you wanna play.
Define "old-school". As which matches closer will vary depending on what you consider core to old school (and what editions you use for the definition, for me it is OD&d, AD&D 1st edition and BECMI).
For me one of the properties is your class choice at creation mattering. which it does not in 3.X and I would assume in pathfinder as well as it is a 3.x derivative.
In both PF and 4e, characters can get better at knocking down doors, picking locks, and climbing walls. Both PF and 4e assume that as players level, they encounter tougher doors, more complex locks, and more difficult walls. So I'm not sure how this is a point of comparison.
The only difference is that in 4e, everyone is getting better, while in PF, only the character choosing the skill gets better, resulting in an obscene skill spread by which a climbing challenge results in either one character easily overcoming it, or only one character having a hope to overcome it.
I think the point is that 4E scales the skill challenge by default based on character level. PF doesn't scale DCs; a wooden door always has a set break DC for example unless the GM changes its construction.
Your second point also shows the big difference in philosophy between 4E and PF. In 4E all characters are close to being equal at many things--the perceived balance. In PF, if a wizard can't climb a wall he tries a spell or goes and buys a grappling hook or has the barbarian give him a boost. A wizard climbing a wall is not a core idea in previous editions of D&D just in 4E. If I was genius with a book of spells I would never have learned to climb a wall either. PF models that type of thinking. D&D models allowing everyone in a group to do similar things. Different design philosophies.
With 4E, you pick one of two builds (more with other books) and that build points a new player pretty well in one direction. In the case of the PH, a couple of classes actually use different primary ability scores for each build, encouraging a certain selection of powers even more.
Builds? You're saying that the suggested builds that are optional limit your creativity?
Yes. No.
Builds point to a class feature for many classes, usually one of two choices in the PH (see ranger, rogue, and warlock) and PH 2 (many of the classes). In addition, several powers get an extra boost depending on the build, the last line of a power notes is which of the two (or three in a warlock's case) class features get an extra effect.
As I said, the build points a new player in a certain direction, that of a defined class feature out of two choices and encouraging but not requiring certain powers that work best with the chosen build. But don't take my word for it, check out p. 52 in the PH:
The next section of a class entry describes each class build in more detail. A build is the theme you think about when choosing your powers and other abilities. The build you choose (if you choose one) suggests what abilities you should prioritize and gives you some guidance as you choose powers, at 1st level and as you gain levels.
A build isn't intended as a constraint, but asa way to make informed choices....
You know, I am pleasantly surprised that there hasn't been any ranting, raving and
unfettered nerdrage in this thread.
I guess the Pathfinder vs. 4E rivalry is basically over, the real venom seems to be
between Original 4E and Essentials supporters.
Not that I think that particular issue should be discussed here, however.
D&D models allowing everyone in a group to do similar things.
My characters do things our own way.,.. the end may be the same but methods are their own.
If my wizard needed to pass a locked door - he would scribe glowing runes over it and mutter incantations for a moment and snap his fingers, I the player would then make a thieving check. My dm might allow me to do it from a distance using my Magehand. Or I would blow the thing off its hinges with a precision magic missile... Come to think of it I might be able to turn back time on the door till it was last unlocked just for a moment or two but that takes a bit longer than the cantrip and might take some dust of crow wing and a hung thiefs finger bone .... but whichever
I could float across the water top by a ritual conjuring and bribing a hoard of fairies to do the task. If we suspect lots of water hazards I can have the entire party breathing water but in an unpredicted emergency my fighter friends athletics will still be useful not over-ridden by a quick and cheap assed scroll.
Wizards didn't invent D&D and their 3.0, 3.5, 4E, and 4E with Essentials is no more worthy or less worthy than PF. Both game systems are built on the work of previous game designers.
I didn't say they invented DND and are the only ones worthy to work on dungeons and dragons. Heck I don't even know if I agree with that statement.
I will say that Pathfinder is someone's crappy house rules to 3.5. Only problem with that is that I can find loads of free crappy house rules to 3.5 on the internet.
If you want to play 3.5E, play 3.5E
If you want to play 4E, play 4E
If you're angry and want to stick it to WotC, play Pathfinder
No matter how irritated I get with WOTC, I won't punish myself by playing PF.
A build isn't intended as a constraint, but asa way to make informed choices....
Sure, I'll agree with this 100%. However, the rest of your initial post seemed to have the argument that in 4e, you choose from the possibilities that WotC gives you, rather than making your own customizable character. Your main proofs of this seem to be the existance of builds, which I consider so insignificant that the first time I read your post I wondered what you were talking about when you said, 'builds.'
I think the point is that 4E scales the skill challenge by default based on character level. PF doesn't scale DCs; a wooden door always has a set break DC for example unless the GM changes its construction.
That's the exact same rule in 4e. A wooden door is DC 16 to break, and considered a level 3 challenge.
In PF, if a wizard can't climb a wall he tries a spell or goes and buys a grappling hook
Wait, a wall-climbing wizard isn't a "core idea" but a wizard using a grappling hook is?!
Please go read the blog to which I linked. The half-level bonus doesn't mean the wizard studies wall-climbing. It only represents his skill relative to the other party members, which is going to be poor. It just means it's not so poor that party-appropriate challenges are impossible for him.
You're stuck in a mindset that the numbers represent laws of physics rather than the narrative tools they are.
A wooden door is DC 16 to break, and considered a level 3 challenge.
This one is confusing to a lot of people on first read through. Specifically because of the scaling DC by level chart. That leads people to think "Oh DCs get harder as I level" instead of "Oh I have to break wooden doors, stone doors, iron doors, and doors of force depending on my level."
The books could make this more clear.
I will say that Pathfinder is someone's crappy house rules to 3.5. Only problem with that is that I can find loads of free crappy house rules to 3.5 on the internet.
Just like 4e is someone's crappy houserules of 3.5, and 3.5 is someone's crappy house rules of 3.0. And 3.0. is someone's crappy houserules of Skills & Powers. And S&P is someone's crappy houserules of AD&D2. And AD&D2 is someone's crappy houserules of AD&D, and AD&D is someone's crappy houserules of OD&D, and OD&D is someone's crappy houserules of the Blackmoor campaign, and the Blackmoor campaign is someone's crappy houserules of Chainmail-based Braunstein experiments, and these are someone's crappy houserules for Napoleonics and Medieval miniatures wargaming, bla-bla-blah, ad nauseam, et bis repetita. Enough already.
All games are crappy houserules. Some crappy houserules are fun to play with, and others aren't. The thing is? That will vary with people's tastes and inclinations. Learn to live with that, and stop pissing on other people's games, for God's sakes.
Pathfinder caters to people who were (mostly) happy with the 3.5 ruleset, and who want new options.
4th Edition is Dungeons & Dragons of the 21st century, and has been completely redesigned from the ground up. Some people think that this modernization is liberating, while others are angered by it.
Personally, I find 4th edition a refreshing change from 3.5, although I still enjoy 3.5 (and Pathfinder).
As well, the way I've seen it, PF hasn't had anything new or interesting as from the Gunslinger. Either they have published slight theme changes on some classes (Knight+Paladin = Cavalier, Warlock = Witch), or "variant" classes. A whole lot of "variant" classes. Sorta like how you can swap a class feature for another in 4e, but you give a whole lot for a corner case concept.
Basically, in PF you're just retreading territory. 4e, you actually get some new stuff.
Frankly, Pathfinder is a really lame version of 4e.........
............Basically, in PF you're just retreading territory. 4e, you actually get some new stuff.
Pathfinder has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with 4e. There is no correlation between the two. Pathfinder is an ALTERNATIVE D&D based upon 3.5e.
Pathfinder has tons of adventures. The advanced players guide has some really cool classes (the inquisitor is really wicked) and the world is really fleshed out.
Pathfinder is basically a refined version of 3.5 which still has appeal to alot of people. Its backwards compatable as far as most feats and spells are concerned as you can plug your 3.5 ones into the system fine. I don't care to much which one is better as I have both and the Pathfinder Beastiary a great tool to use. Click on an imgae, copy and paste it into word and shrink it and hey presto instant tokens.
Pathfinder is so awful that several people in this thread have admitted top using it in a 4th ed forum. What is Paizo doing right that WoTC is doing wrong? In case it isn't perfectly obvious by now a large chunk of players for the 1st time ever did not convert over to the new edition as oppsed to what seems to be a few holdouts from ealrier on. Hell people are converting PF material to 4h ed because wizards doesn't make it for sale. Ironically the 4th ed forums on the Paizo forums are less rancorous than the ones here.
If I get bored of playing 4th ed I'll quite happily play or run PF although to be honest I wouldn't care if they released 5th ed tomorrow. PF still has alot of the problems 3.5 had, 4th ed is a different game.
I owuld go as far as saying PF drew on 4th eds influence as if you look at the racial stats for example in PF and the 4th ed PHB they tend to match up except with the negative -2 PF still uses. There was also an attempt to add at wills in there for spellcasters on one of the beta tests.
Pathfinder is basically a refined version of 3.5 which still has appeal to alot of people. Its backwards compatable as far as most feats and spells are concerned as you can plug your 3.5 ones into the system fine. I don't care to much which one is better as I have both and the Pathfinder Beastiary a great tool to use. Click on an imgae, copy and paste it into word and shrink it and hey presto instant tokens.
Pathfinder is so awful that several people in this thread have admitted top using it in a 4th ed forum. What is Paizo doing right that WoTC is doing wrong? In case it isn't perfectly obvious by now a large chunk of players for the 1st time ever did not convert over to the new edition as oppsed to what seems to be a few holdouts from ealrier on. Hell people are converting PF material to 4h ed because wizards doesn't make it for sale. Ironically the 4th ed forums on the Paizo forums are less rancorous than the ones here.
If I get bored of playing 4th ed I'll quite happily play or run PF although to be honest I wouldn't care if they released 5th ed tomorrow. PF still has alot of the problems 3.5 had, 4th ed is a different game.
It's the setting books and modules/adventure paths. Paizo puts out alot of tools for DMs to use for their campaigns, and they have made a real effort to flesh out the setting for Pathfinder.
4E to me is a far superior game as a player, much more fun. But I think 4E DMs are getting desperate for modules and adventures to use, as well as setting material, because WOTC doesn't
publish much of these types of books.
The biggest difference is the adventure paths, Pathfinder has a dozen or so adventure paths that can take a party of characters from lvl 1 to 20. 4E missed the boat on that one, I think DMs would have loved to see WOTC publish that type of product.
4E = more player friendly, Pathfinder = more DM friendly. At least in my opinion.
If you're angry and want to stick it to WotC, play Pathfinder
What if you're not angry but 4e just doesn't suit you?
If you're angry and want to stick it to WotC, play Pathfinder
What if you're not angry but 4e just doesn't suit you?
Play Savage Worlds ?
The biggest difference is the adventure paths, Pathfinder has a dozen or so adventure paths that can take a party of characters from lvl 1 to 20. 4E missed the boat on that one, I think DMs would have loved to see WOTC publish that type of product.
4E = more player friendly, Pathfinder = more DM friendly. At least in my opinion.
4E does have a couple adventure paths, There is the H1-3/P1-3/E1-3 adventure series, Scales of War and In a way Chaos Scar. Plus they have allot of adventures in dragon.The adventurers may be made for the system, but they are not features of the system itself. A good adventure is made for a system, but what makes an adventure good is not the system but the story which can be ported to other systems easily.
Pathfinder is not the more DM friendly game, the DM friendly game is going to be the one that allows you to run the game easier, and to MAKE UP your own adventurers more easily.
- 1975 (D&D): TSR breaks into the gaming industry with a shiny new Compact (OD&D), with never before seen features in a miniature war gaming product.
- 1979 (1E): TSR releases the 1979 model Dungeons & Dragons. It was a shiny new muscle car next to OD&D/BECMI's compact.
- 1989 (2E): TSR releases the 1989 model muscle car, which is little more than a modernized version of the 1979 model, but with a few structural and mechanical changes, and a slightly modified body shape.
- 1995 (PO): TSR releases their Players Option line of muscle cars. These cars have the same big-block engine as their 1989 model, but have a sleek new body shape and modernized systems (but interchangable parts).
- 1997: TSR sells their muscle car to Wizards in order to recoup some losses before going belly under.
- 2000 (3E): WotC releases the 2000-model muscle car, with its retro 1979 body-shape and modern interior, and mechanics. This car is a beast, although some gamers are unhappy with the design changes and refuse to trade-in their '89/95 model.
- 2003 (3.5): WotC recalls all 2000-model muscle cars due to structural defects and customer complaints. In its place, they release the 2003 model muscle car, which is largely unchanged from the 2000-model, but has fewer defects.
- 2007: After 30 years of making muscle cars based on 1979 technology (and body shape), the company decides to completely redesign their product line from the ground up.
- 2008 (4E): WotC unveils the fruits of their efforts. A sleek, modern, and revolutionary sports car which incorporates the latest design principles, and whose engine is not only fuel efficient - but purrs like a kitten. Some gamers, impressed with the changes, finally trade-in their 89-95 model muscle cars and take it for a test drive. Meanwhile, other fans are offended that the company discontinued the 1979 body-shape, and refuse to trade in their 2003 model.
- 2009 (PF): Paizo purchases an aging 2003-model muscle car (with high mileage on the gague). After a thorough mechanical inspection, a complete engine rebuild, and a shiny new coat of paint - Paizo drives it away. Fans of the old 1979 muscle cars ooooh and ahhh to see Paizo driving down the street in their rebuilt 2003*
- 2010 (4Ee): Wizards unveils the second sports car in their lineup. This sports car has a sleek retro body shape and interior, but was designed with the latest in modern technology. Some fans of the old 1979 muscle cars complain that the car is too modern for their tastes (they prefer pathfinder), while others are happy with the changes (and trade-in their 2003s). Meanwhile, fans of the 2008 model complain that the new model is too retro for their liking, and fear that the new model will replace theirs. Finally, others try to be the voice of reason and stubbornly insist that both cars can be supported in parallel.
*This is not to put down Pathfinder (I like Pathfinder), only the role Pathfinder takes in the above analogy.
It seems pretty plain from what they've said that they came to the conclusion that because adventure modules are fairly poor sellers that they could skimp on that part of the product lineup. Settings are also slow movers, expensive to put together, and while obviously more needed than specific adventures have also obviously been skimped on as well. In other words the emphasis has been 100% on crunch and 'general background' material, the latter somewhat packaged via the PoL concept.
The problem is it obviously just doesn't work, at least not for a large chunk of the community. While you can certainly sell a bare system to a good number of people, and another chunk will take minimalistic settings and run with them, a LOT of players simply want prebuilt adventures set in prebuilt settings. The H-P-E modules were obviously intended to give everyone a baseline set of adventures they could run, but frankly most of them come off as fairly quickly written adventures, lacking of real experience with the system, and just overall quite lackluster. DDI is supposed to provide an alternative/supplemental supply of adventures, which is not bad in theory, but apparently hasn't produced the kind of quality or type of adventure most people are wanting. On top of that a lot of people don't have DDI subscriptions presumably. Oddly subscriptions seem to be preferred by people buying the Paizo APs, so we'd have to consider this some kind of matter of presentation, or entirely an issue with the actual content.
I think part of the problem with the DDI adventures is they're simply written by a wide variety of different people, and mostly without a lot of knowledge of what each other are doing. Scales of War shows that DDI can provide an AP, and Chaos Scar shows you can do a group of adventures built around a common area and concept as a sandbox. Still, we seem to lack a sufficiency of well-written story arcs with a good tight focus, good consistent encounter design, nice maps, etc. SoW was good now and then but some parts of it were also fairly lackluster and the whole thing seems to have featured too much hard-core combat for most players (I would never run it for instance, just not my cup of tea).
Luckily 4e is also an easy game to write for in a lot of ways. You don't have a lot of detailed strictures on who can do what, etc which often plagues 3.x and its kin. Plot magic is a lot more freeform, etc. The mechanics of encounter design itself are pretty clean, creating monsters is a breeze and is an expected part of the DM's repertoire (where it was really kind of an arcane art in previous editions which most DMs rarely attempted).
Really, WotC needs to wake up and realize that as nice as 4e is that they simply need to put out better supporting material. Call it a loss leader or whatever they need to call it, but they really need to put out something like 6 adventure modules a year in print, and they need to be good interesting modules with strong stories. The also need to put out some additional material for their settings, again in print. Mostly, they just somehow need to manage to up the productivity of this stuff over there. Good grief, we've had 12 modules in over 3 years. How many has Paizo put out? A lot more than that.
Frankly, Pathfinder is a really lame version of 4e.........
............Basically, in PF you're just retreading territory. 4e, you actually get some new stuff.
Pathfinder has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with 4e. There is no correlation between the two. Pathfinder is an ALTERNATIVE D&D based upon 3.5e.
Pathfinder has tons of adventures. The advanced players guide has some really cool classes (the inquisitor is really wicked) and the world is really fleshed out.
Well, yeah. Doesn't mean they don't share a lot of similar design choices, in thought anyway. Look at the Rogue. Every couple of levels, he gets either passive abilities, or dailies. You know, giving the class more flexibility. Hell, making your Ranger a "Skrimisher" makes it look a LOT like a 4e Ranger.
4e has tons of adventures. I really can't find anything too interesting out of the APG classes, save for maybe the Cavalier, but I like knights. Either way, I suppose liking them or not is all subjective.
Frankly, Pathfinder is a really lame version of 4e.
Basically, in PF you're just retreading territory. 4e, you actually get some new stuff.
Or to put it another way, 4e is a really lame version of Pathfinder.
Basically in 4e you're just retreading territory - whats the latest product offer? Necromancers, Vampires and Blackguards, hardly ground breaking new stuff.
Pathfinder has the freedom and flexibility to basically do anything you want within the game and not be restricted, as 3.5 did before it. Paizo cleaned up some (not all, unfortunately) of the nonsense from 3.5 but left a fair bit (for instance I think Wizards/Cleric/Druid still dominate, even though the Fighter got a boost) of cruft; you can still make a totally useless character who can't contribute anything to the group, or a super character that doesn't even need the rest of the party. What it does have going for it are the amazing Adventure Paths.
On the other hand, 4E is simplified at the cost of freedom - there aren't as many choices, you can't build a character entirely freeform; this has the benefit of not letting you build a useless character like you could do in 3.5 if you accidentally took the wrong combination of classes or feats, but the drawback of constraining you to WotC's vision of what a class should be (and Essentials takes this a step further with very tightly defined builds that, basically, only allow you to do X, Y and Z but never even the option to do A or B). IMO the adventures are pretty lackluster and even the best adventure in Dungeon or printed by WotC can't hold a candle to the worst of Paizo's adventures. This is honestly something I wish WotC would fix.
People forget Paizo more or less invented adventure paths.
Did they now?
Once upon a time there was a company called TSR. You might have heard of them - they published a few editions of D&D throughout the 70s, 80's & 90's.
Along with the rules they also published many many modules. Some were stand alone adventures. But plenty of others were multi-chapter affairs that continue to be played, & even re-written, today.
The Slave Lords series,
the "Against the Giants" series,
The original Drow/Demonweb adventures,
The Bloodstone series,
The Desert of Desolation series,
Dungeonland/Beyond the Magic Mirror
The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh/Danger at Dunwater/The Final Enemy
and a tiny project called Dragonlance....
{these are but a few examples, all from AD&D1e, but there's plenty more from BECMI, AD&D2e, and even other sytems they published - like Star Frontiers, Gamma World, etc}
This is where your Adventure Paths came from.
Or to put it another way, 4e is a really lame version of Pathfinder.
Huh?
Pathfinder touts itself as 3.75. I prefer to call it 3.52. Any way you slice it, though, its main attraction is that it is a cleaned-up version of 3.5. Therefore, the bulk of stuff you'll do in Pathfinder is the same as you already did in 3.5. 4e, though, is quite different, and we can see this by the people who still shriek and froth at the mouth when 4e is mentioned.
Therefore, I think that BlackKnight's earlier post is far more true than your post is.
Or to put it another way, 4e is a really lame version of Pathfinder.
Huh?
Pathfinder touts itself as 3.75. I prefer to call it 3.52. Any way you slice it, though, its main attraction is that it is a cleaned-up version of 3.5. Therefore, the bulk of stuff you'll do in Pathfinder is the same as you already did in 3.5. 4e, though, is quite different, and we can see this by the people who still shriek and froth at the mouth when 4e is mentioned.
Therefore, I think that BlackKnight's earlier post is far more true than your post is.
Yeah. It's far from being a 3.75. SWSE deserves that title a lot more.
*Pathfinder owes its success to its highly public marketing campaign promoting it as being 100% backwards compatible, allowing you to use all of your pre-existing 3.5 material while simultaneously correcting game balance issues.
Truth be told, it only went so far in keeping both of its marketing promises, but is still a good system (I just prefer 4E at this time, as I have grown tired of playing 3.X after 11 years).
Wizards didn't invent D&D and their 3.0, 3.5, 4E, and 4E with Essentials is no more worthy or less worthy than PF. Both game systems are built on the work of previous game designers.
I didn't say they invented DND and are the only ones worthy to work on dungeons and dragons. Heck I don't even know if I agree with that statement.
I agree with both of your points.
I will say that Pathfinder is someone's crappy house rules to 3.5. Only problem with that is that I can find loads of free crappy house rules to 3.5 on the internet.
I would reply that you'd have give me your definition of crappy and house rules. Pathfinder has little errata, is played by many people, and is heavily playtested. That doesn't sound like crappy (little errata and played by many people) or house rules (played by many people and heavily playtested). I'm using my understanding of what those words mean, not my opinion of Pathfinder, just to be clear.
I would reply that you'd have give me your definition of crappy and house rules. Pathfinder has little errata, is played by many people, and is heavily playtested. That doesn't sound like crappy (little errata and played by many people) or house rules (played by many people and heavily playtested). I'm using my understanding of what those words mean, not my opinion of Pathfinder, just to be clear.
Does PF still have broken wizards, clerics, and druids?
Just because PF has little errata doesn't mean it doesn't need it.
A build isn't intended as a constraint, but asa way to make informed choices....
Sure, I'll agree with this 100%. However, the rest of your initial post seemed to have the argument that in 4e, you choose from the possibilities that WotC gives you, rather than making your own customizable character. Your main proofs of this seem to be the existance of builds, which I consider so insignificant that the first time I read your post I wondered what you were talking about when you said, 'builds.'
I didn't realize my first post was unclear. Thanks for the heads up so I could clarify it.
In my experience, players were picking either rageblood barbarian or thaneborn barbarian (for an example) and then modeling play on either striker-defender or striker-leader respectively. So builds had a bigger impact on our character creation than yours it appears.
I think the point is that 4E scales the skill challenge by default based on character level. PF doesn't scale DCs; a wooden door always has a set break DC for example unless the GM changes its construction.
That's the exact same rule in 4e. A wooden door is DC 16 to break, and considered a level 3 challenge.
With respect, the DC of the wooden door is not always a set number. That is not how the rules read. Under additional rules on p 42 that wooden door has a DC 16 to break BECAUSE it is level 3, not because it is a wooden door. According to the rules, the DM uses the level column that matches the PC's level and the the DM chooses the difficulty. No where does it say that the DM chooses the level (the level is set by the PC's level) it only says the DM chooses the difficulty. I applaud using a house rule that has the DM setting both the level of DCs AND the difficulty, but the RAW doesn't say to do that.
The Example given on the same page in the DMG supports my understanding of the rule: Shiera is 8th level so swinging on the chandelier is a DC 15 (or 20 the rules were sketchy with skill checks in the DMG) BECAUSE she is 8th level, NOT because swinging on a chandelier is ALWAYS a DC 15 (20). The DM may have set a precendent that swinging is always Easy, but the DC will always slide when the next level threshold is crossed by any PC. Unless the DM house rules otherwise.
Perhaps the chart with the wooden door could be interpreted to override this rule. But the rules on setting DCs has more weight in the game, to me, than a table of sample DCs that specifically include the level that generates the DC (granted a 16 rather than 15 but pretty close).
In PF, if a wizard can't climb a wall he tries a spell or goes and buys a grappling hook
Wait, a wall-climbing wizard isn't a "core idea" but a wizard using a grappling hook is?!
Please go read the blog to which I linked. The half-level bonus doesn't mean the wizard studies wall-climbing. It only represents his skill relative to the other party members, which is going to be poor. It just means it's not so poor that party-appropriate challenges are impossible for him.
You're stuck in a mindset that the numbers represent laws of physics rather than the narrative tools they are.
The setting of my mind is pretty unstuck! I don't mind that in 4E that the gap between skilled and unskilled PCs is less than in PF. My point was, it is okay that the gap is wider in PF. There are other ways to handle skill differences. One is 4E's way with a closer spread. And another is D&D 3.0 and 3.5 and PF with a wider spread and other solutions needing to be found. AD&D 1E and 2E only had skills as a optional rule (and more than one option at that) usually with a spread in difference somewhere between that of PF and 4E. Lots of ways to do it; all are equally valid, just depends on what you're looking for!
It mattered little, as Paizo's success was built on hatred of 4E more than any quality it possessed, particularly any quality it possessed that it didn't inherit from 3.5E.
I would reply that you'd have give me your definition of crappy and house rules. Pathfinder has little errata, is played by many people, and is heavily playtested. That doesn't sound like crappy (little errata and played by many people) or house rules (played by many people and heavily playtested). I'm using my understanding of what those words mean, not my opinion of Pathfinder, just to be clear.
Does PF still have broken wizards, clerics, and druids?
Just because PF has little errata doesn't mean it doesn't need it.
this
non-casters still have the problem of little to nothing they can effectively rely on outside of combat and still rely on treating every problem like a nail since all they're pretty much given is a hammer.
casters still have the problem of having too many options, and many of those options are free passes that auto-succeed in places where the non-caster has to roll for success.
low-level is still far too swingy where one good placed sleep spell can still end encounters, that one good and solid hit can drop all but highest of hit die PC or monster and casters, even with the unlimited cantrips, still feel like a crossbowman in a funny hat once those few level 1 spells are gone.
past level 4, your characters start having some durability but at this point the options of the casters start going up and up. i've been playing pathfinder for quite a while now with the one group i trust with 3.5 and it's derivatives and i don't know if it's because the GM is playing with the kiddie gloves on or what, but we've just hit level 9 and the past few levels haven't been much of a challenge for the casters of the group, even if i've been nerfing myself (picking mostly spells from the evocation types but still keeping a few "problem solvers" like sleep/color spray, glitterdust or black tentacles for absolute worst case scenarios) and simply playing smart.
from what i've experienced it seems to have the same "sweet spot" as 3.5: somewhere between 5-9 to 13, depending on your group and GM's optimization skills.
the subsystems have been cleaned up a wee bit, but many, like grappling and tripping are still as situational as they were in 3.5 : unless you specialize in those subsystems, they tend to be ignored for the old standard of "charge > full attack+5ft step > full attack+5ft step > full attack+5ft step > repeat"
multiclassing still seems to be stuck in the old "bad idea for casters, great for non-casters"
it still has the issue of too many skills (35-ish individual skills) and not enough skill points (only 3 classes get 6+ skill points). even with the new "favored class" bonuses, you still don't get much out of it since only one class, wizard, relies heavily on Int.
another issue is that it suffers the same problem that 3.5 has: it usually takes several levels until your character's mechanical concept starts working as you want it too. either because it takes several feats or you just don't have enough of the spells you want available.
i haven't really looked at the new "advanced" stuff so i can't comment on it to see if they've changed their design philosophy or if they're actually trying something outside the scope of your standard 3.5 methodology.
one of my friends said it best when i explained my greifs with 3.whatever: the system just doesn't engage me anymore and has become a hassle. i'll play it, but simply because there is one group i do play with that can bring enough Roleplaying to the table to make up for the lack of an interesting Game.
I would reply that you'd have give me your definition of crappy and house rules. Pathfinder has little errata, is played by many people, and is heavily playtested. That doesn't sound like crappy (little errata and played by many people) or house rules (played by many people and heavily playtested). I'm using my understanding of what those words mean, not my opinion of Pathfinder, just to be clear.
Pathfinder needs more erratta, is played by a (large) minority of RPG players, and their playtest was a joke.
Pathfinder is someone's crappy house rules ot 3.5. Just like Tome, brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.p... , or that thing you and your friends play on weekends because after 10 years of play your hourse rules hit 80 pages.
Crappy in a sense of "This shouldn't be published, only works for a minority of people, and requires extensive house rules to run properly because stuff wasn't tested well"
The biggest differences are
- the other ones are free
- Pathfinder has nice art
- Pathfinder has revenue coming in, so they have much more material coming out
- Pathfinder has a physical book that is easily accessable and you don't have to make yourself.
With respect, the DC of the wooden door is not always a set number. That is not how the rules read. Under additional rules on p 42 that wooden door has a DC 16 to break BECAUSE it is level 3, not because it is a wooden door.
No, that's absolutely false. A wooden door is always the same DC. The developers even described a thief breaking into a mayor's house at 1st level and again at 18th level. The DCs for the mayor's lock would not change (unless th mayor replaced his locks with superior verions, of course).
My point was, it is okay that the gap is wider in PF. There are other ways to handle skill differences.
With that point I can agree.
What is a good way to describe the differences in Pathfinder and 4e, and which do you feel is better? Please just focus what you like about each and differences, don't go into hating one or the other. I'm trying to give both options to a group of new players, where some have played 4e.
To the OP: What do you actually want to DM? Pathfinder or 4e? Wouldn't it be easier to state your preference to your players and ask them if they're OK with that?
4e lets you do much less, so you can't even try without a power. If it is something anyone can do you perform it normally but recieve a bonus for having a feat or class feature.
Everyone else said:
Powers codify what your character is best at, but they are not the only thing you can do. The part about not being able to even attempt anything not covered by a power is patently false (check the DMG pg 42). However, players do seem to ignore this and unconsciously limit themselves to only what their powers can do.
Hello, page 42? This is just misinformation.
I know you're aware of page 42, so I have to imagine this was some sort of typo.
PF and 3.5 let anyone try and trip a monster. Or disarm. Or sunder. Anyone can try and tumble (with 1 skill rank). Anyone can pick-up cleave.
4e reigns in much of the those into powers that only set people can try. While Page 42 is great for impromtu damage, it's less solid for everything else. Mostly because skills are so easily Min/Max-ed that letting someone make an Acrobatics check to knock something prone is silly. And if you really want a character that knocks people prone there are a dozen At-wills that do it just fine.
That's the difference I was stating.
Anyone can try to trip someone in 3.5, but they're going to provoke an Attack of Opportunity and not be great at it. The feat makes it possible. Anyone can attempt a grapple but the bad guy gets a free hit. In 4e don't try the former without a power and the later anyone can try without penalty... but it's only worth doing if you have a follow-up power or a power that lets you deal damage and grab.
PF and 3.5 let anyone try and trip a monster. Or disarm. Or sunder. Anyone can try and tumble (with 1 skill rank). Anyone can pick-up cleave. 4e reigns in much of the those into powers that only set people can try.
Tripping is one of the examples for page 42! Tripping was a trap option in 3.5 or PF if you're not built for trippling.
And if you really want a character that knocks people prone there are a dozen At-wills that do it just fine.
Yes, and in PF/3.5, if you really want to trip people, you spend feat slots to improve your ability.
Anyone can try to trip someone in 3.5, but they're going to provoke an Attack of Opportunity and not be great at it. The feat makes it possible. Anyone can attempt a grapple but the bad guy gets a free hit. In 4e don't try the former without a power and the later anyone can try without penalty... but it's only worth doing if you have a follow-up power or a power that lets you deal damage and grab.
This is really confusing and I still can't tell what point you are trying to make. It sounds like "In PF, you can try to trip, but you shouldn't without a feat. In 4e, you shouldn't try to trip without a power, but you can try." The only difference I can see is innuendo.
PF and 3.5 let anyone try and trip a monster. Or disarm. Or sunder. Anyone can try and tumble (with 1 skill rank). Anyone can pick-up cleave. 4e reigns in much of the those into powers that only set people can try.
Tripping is one of the examples for page 42! Tripping was a trap option in 3.5 or PF if you're not built for trippling.
I don't recall that. I recall a push into terrain, but there might be a second example I overlooked.
Damn, now I need to pull out my books.
And if you really want a character that knocks people prone there are a dozen At-wills that do it just fine.
Yes, and in PF/3.5, if you really want to trip people, you spend feat slots to improve your ability.Anyone can try to trip someone in 3.5, but they're going to provoke an Attack of Opportunity and not be great at it. The feat makes it possible. Anyone can attempt a grapple but the bad guy gets a free hit. In 4e don't try the former without a power and the later anyone can try without penalty... but it's only worth doing if you have a follow-up power or a power that lets you deal damage and grab.
This is really confusing and I still can't tell what point you are trying to make. It sounds like "In PF, you can try to trip, but you shouldn't without a feat. In 4e, you shouldn't try to trip without a power, but you can try." The only difference I can see is innuendo.
Strictly discussing the different approach to rules design / character options between the two editions, what the OP asked. The subtle yet meaningful way the games differ in approach. No value judgements being made here, just looking at game design.
3e/PF gives you a stack of viable options and says anyone can try, but unless you spent character options you're better off not trying. 4e doesn't give you the option (except grab, which seems like a vestigial legacy, just so they could show how simple grapple was in the new edition) unless you have a power OR lets everyone try but gives you a bonus if you spend character options making that your "thing".
Weapons are a great example. Anyone can pick-up a long sword in 3e, but if you're not proficient you take a penalty. Anyone can pick-up that same long sword in 4e, but if you're proficient you gain a bonus.
Really, the games are very, very, very similar in core mechanics and feel and play. So when looking for fundamental differences, you need to go finicky.
3e/PF gives you a stack of viable options and says anyone can try, but unless you spent character options you're better off not trying. 4e doesn't give you the option
You keep saying this but page 42 indicates ths is not true. What PF/3.5 does and 4e does not, is give separate mechanics for each option. 4e instead relies on a single chart of improvisation DCs and damage values.
Really, the games are very, very, very similar in core mechanics and feel and play. So when looking for fundamental differences, you need to go finicky.
I agree. I just didn't agree with the finicky points you identified.
3e/PF gives you a stack of viable options and says anyone can try, but unless you spent character options you're better off not trying. 4e doesn't give you the option
You keep saying this but page 42 indicates ths is not true. What PF/3.5 does and 4e does not, is give separate mechanics for each option. 4e instead relies on a single chart of improvisation DCs and damage values.
But Page 42 isn't rules. It's a place-holder for rules. Look at the title of that page "Actions Rules Don't Cover". As you yourself say, 4e does not have mechanics for each option and instead has improvisation. And, arguably, they could have folded other options (like grab) into that category.
BUT, Page 42 does not mean an absent rule is not absent. You cannot just make-up for lack of class options with Page 42, such as adding new Seeker powers through liberal use of that page. It's not the same.
Now, I love Page 42. I want an ammendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows me to enter into a polygymous union with Page 42. And, if you look at what Paizo did with Combat Maneuver Bonuses, it seems very much like slipping a little pg42 into Pathfinder.
Page 42 is just a way of codifying DM ajudication, but that is not "rules" because DMs can and could adjudicate anything and everything. Rules aleviate the need for DM adjudication and normalize play. Different DMs will interpret tripping via pg42 differently and it won't be something I rely on during a LFR game.
We need a new one of those silly MB Fallacies that states "the existance of Page 42 does not make up for the absence of rules or content or options, it just prevent said absence from impacting the game."
Really, the games are very, very, very similar in core mechanics and feel and play. So when looking for fundamental differences, you need to go finicky.
I agree. I just didn't agree with the finicky points you identified.
Fair enough. But sleep on it. Think about 3e baseline = anyone with penalties and 4e baseline = certain people with bonuses.
My main beef with Pathfinder was the dishonesty of its marketing. It made two big claims, that it was backwards compatible, and that they fixed what was broken with 3.5E. In truth, they didn't really do a good job with either of these things. They managed to change the base math enough in Pathfinder to require work for the DM in the form of mechanical conversion to use non-OGL 3.5E material, or else have the numbers not line up correctly. They also did little more than slap a fresh coat of paint on 3.5E's issues, like caster imbalance and DM prep.
It mattered little, as Paizo's success was built on hatred of 4E more than any quality it possessed, particularly any quality it possessed that it didn't inherit from 3.5E.
As to your first points, I can't see how the players of PF agree. Many people still run PF using the 3.5 Monster Manual for example. And I've played both 3.5 and PF and PF is both better balanced and easier to run than 3.5. But that second point is my opinion.
Your second point is false. Paizo's success was built first on the quality of Dragon and Dungeon and second on the adventure path format they refined. The adventure path is what sells at Paizo. The staff doesn't even talk about 4E so hate doesn't enter into it.
I would reply that you'd have give me your definition of crappy and house rules. Pathfinder has little errata, is played by many people, and is heavily playtested. That doesn't sound like crappy (little errata and played by many people) or house rules (played by many people and heavily playtested). I'm using my understanding of what those words mean, not my opinion of Pathfinder, just to be clear.
Does PF still have broken wizards, clerics, and druids?
Just because PF has little errata doesn't mean it doesn't need it.
this....many examples....
While I don't agree with your opinions, you have stated them well. We'll just have to agree to disagree as my opinions vary quite a lot from yours.
I would reply that you'd have give me your definition of crappy and house rules. Pathfinder has little errata, is played by many people, and is heavily playtested. That doesn't sound like crappy (little errata and played by many people) or house rules (played by many people and heavily playtested). I'm using my understanding of what those words mean, not my opinion of Pathfinder, just to be clear.Pathfinder needs more erratta, is played by a (large) minority of RPG players, and their playtest was a joke.
Pathfinder is someone's crappy house rules ot 3.5. Just like Tome, brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.p... , or that thing you and your friends play on weekends because after 10 years of play your hourse rules hit 80 pages.
Crappy in a sense of "This shouldn't be published, only works for a minority of people, and requires extensive house rules to run properly because stuff wasn't tested well"
The biggest differences are
- the other ones are free
- Pathfinder has nice art
- Pathfinder has revenue coming in, so they have much more material coming out
- Pathfinder has a physical book that is easily accessable and you don't have to make yourself.
Got you. Absolutely a lot of stuff you made up, no facts, and some ranting. All stated as fact. I can't even agree to disagree because so many of your statements are simply false. Simply stating something as if it is fact does not, in fact, make it fact. But this is the internet, so keep on rolling and don't let facts stop you, you've got quite a bit of steam built up already!
With respect, the DC of the wooden door is not always a set number. That is not how the rules read. Under additional rules on p 42 that wooden door has a DC 16 to break BECAUSE it is level 3, not because it is a wooden door.
No, that's absolutely false. A wooden door is always the same DC. The developers even described a thief breaking into a mayor's house at 1st level and again at 18th level. The DCs for the mayor's lock would not change (unless th mayor replaced his locks with superior verions, of course).
The developers left that rule info out of my DMG. And if I had a chance to talk to one of them I'd ask them why swinging on a chandleler gets harder as a character levels up but breaking down a door does not. Seems the underlying system is off somewhere if both of those rules are correct. When does a DC slide and when does it not slide then? Whenever a developer says so? Doesn't seem clear to me. But it works for you and you're the one running the game, so it doesn't really matter I suppose.
why swinging on a chandleler gets harder as a character levels up but breaking down a door does not.
Swinging doesn't get harder. It assumes that when you're at epic tier, the chandelier you are hanging from is made of elemental rimefire, not brass and wood.
When does a DC slide and when does it not slide then?
DC never slide. The encounters change and the DCs are designed for the PCs as they exist in the moment of the encounter.
(Trivia fact: "SPEED LIMIT 35" means that 35 mph is the recommended speed limit, and if the officer cannot cite a reason that driving 40 mph at the specific time he metered you driving at that speed, then the ticket is invalid. "MAX SPEED" on the other hand, means if you're driving 36, you're breaking the law.)
It's a guide, but it's also one that if you either exceed or fail to meet, then you're "somewhat" in violation of the rules. You can argue that in that specific situation (no traffic, great visibility, "Who Do You Love" by George Thorogood blaring on the radio) you were doing just fine, but the idea is that you were operating outside of a set of explicit and understood regulations and principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere... which (lookee there!) is the definition of a rule.
Fair enough. But sleep on it. Think about 3e baseline = anyone with penalties and 4e baseline = certain people with bonuses.
- 3e baseline with penalties: Scaling chance of failure, beginning at "very likely" at low levels and peaking at "insurmountably impossible, get a wizard to cast a spell that does it better."
- 3e baseline: Scaling chance of failure, beginning at "likely" at low levels and peaking at "insurmountably impossible, get a wizard to cast a spell that does it better."
- 3e with bonuses: Somewhere between "I roll 1s with -10 penalties due to raining lava and still succeed by 20" and "I roll a 4 or better and I got this."
- 4e baseline without bonuses: Slightly scaling chance of failure (due to some bad math in development) starting at "somewhat unlikely, but doable" to "highly unlikely." Also encourages (and codifies the use of) relevant bonuses for creative thinking, applying workable ideas to the problem at hand, etc, to bring likelihood up, etc.
- 4e with bonuses: Slightly scaling chance of failure (due to some bad math in development) starting at "relatively doable" to "quite simple, depending on build."
But Page 42 isn't rules. It's a place-holder for rules. Look at the title of that page "Actions Rules Don't Cover".
It's a chart with DCs and damage expressions. It's a rule. It's a rule for actions other ruels don't cover, butit's absolutely a rule.
Page 42 does not mean an absent rule is not absent. You cannot just make-up for lack of class options with Page 42
Hold on, Jester. You're changing the topic. We were discussing options that any character could attempt, such as tripping. If you're going to now talk about some complaint that a specific class is missing a class feature you think it should have, that's different.
We need a new one of those silly MB Fallacies that states "the existance of Page 42 does not make up for the absence of rules or content or options, it just prevent said absence from impacting the game."
Or how about, the Jester Fallacy: Stating that there are no rules that cover something that is covered by using the rules for improvised actions found on DMG p.42 is itself a fallacy.
If you had said that tripping requires soem DM adjudication, I would agree. But you didn't. You said there were no rules for improvising a trip action, and that's simply untrue.
But sleep on it. Think about 3e baseline = anyone with penalties and 4e baseline = certain people with bonuses.
Yeah, I got that the first time you said it. I'm not sure why that's a notable distinction between the games. Both of them simply seem to be two ways of saying "Anybody can try an action, but only people who build their characters to do it should bother."
But Page 42 isn't rules. It's a place-holder for rules. Look at the title of that page "Actions Rules Don't Cover".
It's a chart with DCs and damage expressions. It's a rule. It's a rule for actions other ruels don't cover, butit's absolutely a rule.
...
If you had said that tripping requires soem DM adjudication, I would agree. But you didn't. You said there were no rules for improvising a trip action, and that's simply untrue.
There are no rules for the Trip action. Instead, there are rules for building rules. It's not hard and solid and in instead fast an loose.
A rogue trying to trip someone uses Acrobatics while a fighter uses Athletics. Unless the DM decides it's Strength and or Dex. It might target Fort or Ref, being equally Str vs Fort or Str vs Reflex. Moderate or hard DC?
Page 42 also exists outside the rules. There are no feats expanding on Page 42. You'll never be able to take powers that make youself a chandelier swinging master. There is no "Swinger" Paragon Path. Pg42 is nice and good, but it's no substitute for actual rules.
That said, I don't think we need a "trip" action. Pg42 does do the job perfectly adequately.
To the person contrasting the amount of erratta in PF to the amount in 4e, don't forget to include all the erratta WotC put out for 3e, plus the 3.5e revision, plus the erratta for that. It's easy to have a pretty solid book in terms of updates when it's the fourth swing at a rule set.
Edit: Just wanted to clarify - I'm not saying this to cheapen the revision work that Paizo took on PF. I'm just pointing out the reality that this is the 3rd printing of 3e and the lack of erratta is reflected accordingly.
I don't have much to add because, "Pathfider is 3.5, 4e is 4e," hit it on the head, other than this:
To the person contrasting the amount of erratta in PF to the amount in 4e, don't forget to include all the erratta WotC put out for 3e, plus the 3.5e revision, plus the erratta for that. It's easy to have a pretty solid book in terms of updates when it's the fourth swing at a rule set.
Edit: Just wanted to clarify - I'm not saying this to cheapen the revision work that Paizo took on PF. I'm just pointing out the reality that this is the 3rd printing of 3e and the lack of erratta is reflected accordingly.
The lack of errata also represents PF not actually fixing 3e's major problems like broken spellcasters and useless non-spellcasters.
I don't have much to add because, "Pathfider is 3.5, 4e is 4e," hit it on the head, other than this:
To the person contrasting the amount of erratta in PF to the amount in 4e, don't forget to include all the erratta WotC put out for 3e, plus the 3.5e revision, plus the erratta for that. It's easy to have a pretty solid book in terms of updates when it's the fourth swing at a rule set.
Edit: Just wanted to clarify - I'm not saying this to cheapen the revision work that Paizo took on PF. I'm just pointing out the reality that this is the 3rd printing of 3e and the lack of erratta is reflected accordingly.
The lack of errata also represents PF not actually fixing 3e's major problems like broken spellcasters and useless non-spellcasters.
Exactly a negative some try to pretend is a positive.
I understand you fine. I just disagree with your use of my analogy. You think I am arguing that trip is a type of trap. And I am not. I am arguing that Special Attacks are a type of trap, of which one iteration is tripping.
We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I see traps as being repeatable and the special attacks just.......aren't. In fact, they aren't for the most part done even once. Even someone who doesn't understand trip clearly will change his mind about using it once he realizes how poor it is if you don't specialize in it. If trip is a "trap", then it has a save DC of -20.
We're not talking about descriptions or in-game time tracking. We're discussing dice-rolling.
I was discussing with Garthanos about whether or not you should just rush a party through 10 or 100 doors to the one door that is a challenge or not. Rushing a party though that many doors is two issues. 1) rolling. 2) descriptions. They overlap.
But Page 42 isn't rules. It's a place-holder for rules. Look at the title of that page "Actions Rules Don't Cover".
It's a chart with DCs and damage expressions. It's a rule. It's a rule for actions other ruels don't cover, butit's absolutely a rule.
...
If you had said that tripping requires soem DM adjudication, I would agree. But you didn't. You said there were no rules for improvising a trip action, and that's simply untrue.
There are no rules for the Trip action. Instead, there are rules for building rules. It's not hard and solid and in instead fast an loose.
A rogue trying to trip someone uses Acrobatics while a fighter uses Athletics. Unless the DM decides it's Strength and or Dex. It might target Fort or Ref, being equally Str vs Fort or Str vs Reflex. Moderate or hard DC?
Page 42 also exists outside the rules. There are no feats expanding on Page 42. You'll never be able to take powers that make youself a chandelier swinging master. There is no "Swinger" Paragon Path. Pg42 is nice and good, but it's no substitute for actual rules.
That said, I don't think we need a "trip" action. Pg42 does do the job perfectly adequately.
Do we really need printed rules for tripping, swinging, disarming, breaking of weapons, tumbling, etc? The wife asked if her rogue could trip, I told her it was a Dex attack versus the target's Reflex. She succeeded, he was knocked prone. If she had failed, he'd have had CA against her until the end of her next turn. All of which I told her before she rolled the attack. If you need printed rules to figure something like that out, then you seriously confuse me.
Also, there was an article about the RC, where they realized that page 42 wasn't for when there was no rules around; instead, all the other rules of the game are based around page 42, making 42 the rules. That is the entire beauty on 4th edition for me. The player trusts the DM to not **** them over, and the DM uses page 42 rules as a guide so as not to **** their players over. Instead of DM versus players, it is DM and players.
Plus, page 42 kind of helps kick rules lawyers to the curb. Which I will always support.
If swinging on a chandelier is a heroic challenge, it gets a heroic DC, even if the character attempting it is epic. If walking on a cloud is an epic challenge, it gets an epic DC, even if the character attempting it is heroic.
You do not assign a DC by saying, "The party is level X, therefore this action will have a level X DC." You assign a DC by saying, "A party of level Y should reasonably be able to handle this action with some amount of challenge, therefore this action will have a level Y DC." Providing challenges appropriate to the party, however, should be a consideration in general encounter design.
Saw this and had to edit: Ash2Dust has it right. Swinging doesn't scale, at least for me it never would. Now, the difficulty of something an Epic level character might try and do with their Acrobatics check? That will scale. And one place where I suppose swinging itself might "scale":
- Level 10: the character swings on a chandelier to kick a baddie into a brazier.
- Level 25: the character swings on a rope across a forty foot expanse between two warring ships in the Astral Sea in an attempt to kick somone off the other side of their ship.
It is not the action itself, but the possible circumstances and result of trying the action that can scale.
We're going to have to agree to disagree, then.
Fine, whatever. I'm not even sure what your point would have added to the conversation even if I agreed with it.
Since it uses the same rulset as 3.5 I would not want to DM it (I find 3.5 to be very DM unfriendly and after doing it for a while I am still burned out). I would play it if somebody offered to DM it but I have not met anybody interested in doing so in my area (3.5 yes PF no and yes they are keeping them seperate with the people I know).
We're going to have to agree to disagree, then.
Fine, whatever. I'm not even sure what your point would have added to the conversation even if I agreed with it.
I just resent aspects of 3.5 being referred to as traps when they are not. Traps were those parts of 3.5 that were very negative to the system and never positive. Tripping and other special attacks were not traps as they were not in and of themselves negatives and were in fact positives most of time that they were used.
I enjoyed and still enjoy 3.5 and dislike mischaracterizations about the system, so I will argue against those mischaracterizations. 3.5 had its flaws and those flaws needed to be changed or warned against, but special attacks were not one of them.
I just resent aspects of 3.5 being referred to as traps when they are not.
To paraphrase: I'm not sure what an expression of resentment adds to the conversation.
And to add: Since there's no commonly accepted definition for "trap" in this context, it's not a "mischaracterization". It's an opinion, and an opinion that was not directly relevant to the point I was making to The Jester, when you decided to start in. I'm not sure why your feelings of resentment warrant thread derails like this one.
I just resent aspects of 3.5 being referred to as traps when they are not.
To paraphrase: I'm not sure what an expression of resentment adds to the conversation.
Just as people grow sick and tired of having 4e unfairly slammed by people, so to am I sick and tired of seeing 3.5 unfairly slammed by people. To that end, I have set myself up as a defender of 3.5 when it is unfairly slammed. What it adds is clarity. There may be readers who would incorrectly think that all special attacks were traps if they had only your side to read. Now that they have my side as well, they can make up their minds based on the discussion.
And to add: Since there's no commonly accepted definition for "trap" in this context, it's not a "mischaracterization". It's an opinion, and an opinion that was not directly relevant to the point I was making to The Jester, when you decided to start in. I'm not sure why your feelings of resentment warrant thread derails like this one.
Characterizations and mischaracterizations are opinions and am well within my rights to view your opinion characterization of special attacks as "traps" as a mischaracterization and to call it so. I'm not trying to derail the thread. I'm only defending an unwarranted overly negative slight against 3.5. That system had several legitimate serious faults, but that doesn't mean that it should have to suffer from unwarranted accusations of fault where there isn't any.
4th edtion, IMO, has a lot of pent up demand for things that it isn't doing a very good job of filling. Instead there is a new product line, essentials which fails to build the game in any meaningful way to a great many people. It is great as a beginner's line of product, but it doesn't flesh out any of the settings, provide any adventures for the cast to go on, nor fill out the fluff aspects of the game. The ecommerce model is missing a solid direction, and don't get me started on digital/mobile product for the game.
Pathfinder does the opposite; It provides much in the way of material for its system and conducts e-commerce offerings in a much more pro-2011 business model than WotC does with D&D.
Other than that, the mechanical differences really come down to preference. Millions of people have had fun playing 3.x/Pathfinder and millions more have fun playing D&D 4e. They are both successful and I personally think it is enriching to play BOTH games. 4e for its elegant monster design, ease of encounters and balance; Pathfinder for its rich, fleshed out world with compelling storylines, and traditional D&D flavor.
Back when it was 2e....well, it was 2e. Now there is 4e AND Pathfinder to play for my fantasy RPG fix. I look at that as a positive.
4th Edition: Characters can attempt almost any action they can concieve. If rules for that action exist, or if the character possesses a power/feat/etc which specifically states how such an action is to be resolved - use those rules. Otherwise, page 42.
42: The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Either a deliberate homage on wizards part, or a happy coincidence (I like to think the former).
For the most part I agree, but not in all cases. Sometimes the fear of a trap in that series of empty rooms is enough reason to slow down and go one by one rather than just zoom them through.
At epic your heros are Herakles and Seigfried and company the guy on the left is probably Apollo or atleast his Avatar when he gets around to it - and they are a tier above Gandalf you know
-ok 12 is just the minimum level I would build that character. I find them hunching outside a broom closet in fear of the unknown just about... rediculous.
Its possible to adjust this I double the level of the resurrection ritual and similar things
but it really is the default / Shrug = you can also track how many arrows you use.
There can be mood reasons to manipulate both pacing and uncertainty, players thinking they have to drudge through or the DM is gonna get them and make them miss something is something I would actually very much rather avoid... I have encountered at least once but the individual was very steeped in the era of adversarial dming... I have had others who trusted me to mention the countless store rooms and such of the castle they had aquired and were mapping. We made periodic perception checks(which for the most part was just to create an air that there might be mysteries not yet revealed and to allow interesting things to happen later within this place that was probably going to become there base) and when something really interesting showed up in depth description ensued (or even a struggle with ancient left over magical hazards)... this was back when I wasnt playing D&D but rather Stormbringer -- and that place had some potentially deadly secrets.
Pathfinder does not succeed because people disliked the direction the game went so much as the fact that the game went anywhere. Most people want things to go on just as they always have, dammit, and any change whatsoever will throw them into a tizzy. Providing those people something they can cling to like a captain clinging to their sinking ship is a great way to make a tidy profit.
Oh, I don't know about that so much. There was never so great a schism in the game as there was between 3.5 and 4e when a large segment of the WotC fanbase turned to a system that was analogous to 3.5e - Pathfinder. You didn't see folks switching to a different company when 3.0 came out, 2e came out, 1e came out, or 3.5 came out. You DID see this break in the base when 4e came out.
I don't think people migrated away because they disliked change...many of the people that left were really looking forward to 4th edition. WotC took D&D in an entirely different direction going from 3.5e to 4e; a much more radical shift than had occurred in the game prior. This turned a lot of people off...as is to be expected. I don't think WotC lured in all of the new blood that they had hoped with the new edition.
Backpedeling Ensued and essentials came out to simplify the game to possible newcomers and try to appease the "grognards" who didn't like the radical new direction that D&D took. Not to say that D&D 4e isn't a solid game..it is, but it is a radically different game than the D&D that had preceded it for the last 30 years.
I don't think the true edition war is here yet. Pathfinder vs. 4e isn't quite Apples to Oranges in comparision, because Pathfinder IS Dungeons and Dragons 3.5+ edition. The true edition war will come when Paizo takes Pathfinder to the next iteration with PF 2.0 and D&D tackles 5th edition.
My prediction is that D&D 4e will devolve somewhat, melding what worked from 3.5 and from 4e into a system. Pathfinder I think will just evolve 3.5 to the next level and exhaustively playtest it. I don't know if one medium will rise and one will fade into obscurity, or if the marketplace really is big enough for two Fantasy RPG's based off of D&D. I don't see the matter being settled with either of these two editions as they currently stand.
Hey, have some fun of it. Praise both for what they are doing well. Every dollar you spend at each company improves the odds that the game you love will be around for a long time.
(now, WotC, just launch the pdfs already...make some money...kindof like itunes did with the $.99 song; it made pirating music pretty much obsolete)
I 4th ed is like having a Italian supercar but being unable to buy petrol for it.
+1
Balor +16, Pit Fiend +17, Solar +13. 20th level fighter with 18 base strength, +5 inherent bonus, +6 strength item, +5 for level = 34 strength +4 for improved trip = +16. It's very comparable for creatures of his catagory. The same can be said at all levels for many creatures of those levels. All for the investment of two out of a bazillion feats.
All three of your examples are Large humanoid creatures (that is, they have a humanoid body shape). Then there is the fact that (outside of CharOp), having access to a +5 manual of gainful excercise (137,500gp), is far from certain, even by 20th level.... In fact, in my 10 years of playing 3.5, I encountered exactly one +X manual during actual gameplay (a +3 book of Intelligence).
Putting my statement into proper context:
- Huge creatures get an additional +4 size bonus, and at least an additional +4 bonus to Strength. Add this bonus for each size category beyond Huge.
- Quadrapeds gain an additional +4 bonus.
- Flying or Swimming creatures are relatively common, both of which can easily avoid the trip-master.
- Im sure there are other examples I can name, but I cannot be bothered looking for them.
An average Centaur will have STR/DEX +8 on their opposed check, and thats far from extraordinary.
Its not a case of a tactic being effective all the time, its that (like Sneak Attack), the usefulness of the trip mechanic rapidly diminishes as players level - as higher level monsters become increasingly more resistant to this technique (for the above reasons, and any others I have failed to mention).
In many respects, the effectiveness of Trip mirrors that of Sneak Attack, and other abilities which offer diminishing returns at higher level (the sheer volume of things resistant/immune to SA at high levels borders on the rediculous).
Its not a case of a tactic being effective all the time, its that (like Sneak Attack), the usefulness of the trip mechanic rapidly diminishes as players level - as higher level monsters become increasingly more resistant to this technique (for the above reasons, and any others I have failed to mention).
In many respects, the effectiveness of Trip mirrors that of Sneak Attack, and other abilities which offer diminishing returns at higher level (the sheer volume of things resistant/immune to SA at high levels borders on the rediculous).
If you like playing 4th ed now try playing with just the PHB, DMG and MM and thats it. I
I didnt get in to 4th till atleast a year after those were out and so no longer the sole resources.. I can definitely see why somebody would be reticent about the initial offering .... and I didnt even play 3e I had moved from 1e to completely different games back in the very early 80s. There were things in each edition previously that made them better than the last but they were always still rather behind completely other games without the brand on them. If it wasnt for 4e with the promise of the impossible class balance - I would probably be playing Fate/Dresden Files or something different.
Yeah, enjoy those 2 skill points, and expansive skill list. With the gobs of plot busting spells relating to travel, information gathering, and all around utility, if your casters were not dominating out of combat encoutners, its because they didnt bother to show up.
Did you ever actually play 3rd edition?
You act like a Wizard or Sorcerer had all spells known, and always had the appropriate spells memorized.
Tell you what: How about you give us a list of examples to back up your opinion on these so called spellcasters dominating the game? During battle I want a round by round account of how this is all pulled off.
A high level sorcerer/wizard could cast timestop and then another timestop and chain togather multiple coud type spells, forcecage, delayed blast metamagiced fireballs etc. Instant death if you lack a spellcaster of your own, difficult to survive even with spellcasters of your own.
Spellcaster goes toa plane difficult to survive on. Casts gate and calls through PCs for a holiday on the negative energy plane or whatever.
Spellcaster uses divination magic to locate BBEG. Party buffs up and teleports in avoiding all of the encounters and everyone has +4-8 or more to hit and damage along with uber saves and AC.
Level 5 druid wildshapes into anything with flight and casts seplls at range for the rest of their career.
Druid wildshapes into various legendary animals while wearing wildshape armor fomr the DMG and spellbuffs his AC and that spell that gives them magic fangs on all appendages.+5 to hit and damage, 30-40 strength 4-5 attacks or a ridiculess number if it is an octopus or something. Mr fighter cries around aboput now.
Druid takes various feats that augment summoned beings several of which apply templates to summoned animals. Druid spends 2-3 rounds summoning a small army of critters each with 2-3 templates stacked on them. A haste spell or druidic buff spell is then used to make them even meaner. Druid solos an encounter or whole dungeon with an animal army. The amount of time one player takes really slows down combat espicialy if they like selecting multiple animal types each of which need to have templates applied.
Bards can be built giving out +8 (or more) to hit and damage for every attack. Combine with multi attack rapid shot rangers/fighters or the wildshaped druid with his animal army. Each wolf/bear/cat/dire critter now has +13 to hit and damage.
Cleric builds himself around having alot of turn undead attempts and/or uses nightsticks and takes divine metamgaic. Cleric walks around with 2-3 buff spells running 24/7. Divine power divine favor were popular for this. Fighter BAB, hit points, +3-5 or more to hit and damage for 2 feats.
Cleric Cheater of Mystra. Makes antimagic shell permanent around him. Being a cleric of the god of magic the prestige class lets you ignore the effects of your antimagic spell. Cleric spellbuffs as per normal (see above paragraph).
Basic combos.
enervate+save or die spell. Metamagic the enervate spell.
Sudden metamagic feats. Empower and maximise being prime candidates.
Greater Invisability+Rogue
Greater Invisability+ fly.
Evards Black Tentacles by itself.
Forcecage+ cloud type spells.
Any shapechange effect that allows you to assume any form.
Yeah, enjoy those 2 skill points, and expansive skill list. With the gobs of plot busting spells relating to travel, information gathering, and all around utility, if your casters were not dominating out of combat encoutners, its because they didnt bother to show up.
Did you ever actually play 3rd edition?
You act like a Wizard or Sorcerer had all spells known, and always had the appropriate spells memorized.
Tell you what: How about you give us a list of examples to back up your opinion on these so called spellcasters dominating the game? During battle I want a round by round account of how this is all pulled off.
who said anything about battles?
from the way some of you guys talk, it's like 3.5 is all about battles and nothing else?
casters ruled not only because they have such a wide berth of combat spells at their disposal, which allowed them to go into a fight with several different battle plans (and the ability to scribe those onto scrolls for later use) but because their spell lists had spells that was effectively "Summon Plot Buster I-IX". the ability to turn into creatures that had a wide array of travel options (swim/fly/burrow), turn invisible, turn into critters for stealth reasons, fly, bypass terrain (like walls, doors, chasms, mountains, continents, etc... up to and including planes of existance), etc...
wizards and other casters weren't OP because they could drop one or two powerful debuff spells and let either summons or the big dumb sword swinger take care of the castrated enemy... they were powerful because they could tear down non-combat obstacles, either physical or plot-related quite easily.
wizards and other casters weren't OP because they could drop one or two powerful debuff spells and let either summons or the big dumb sword swinger take care of the castrated enemy... they were powerful because they could tear down non-combat obstacles, either physical or plot-related quite easily.
Actually, I would say that it was both, although the out of combat shenanigans were by far some of the worst.
I'm not sure if the lack of balance in combat was the result of poor and flawed reasoning behind attempts at balance, (whih I am more inclined to believe) or purposeful attempts at imbalance that just looked like balance at a glance, (as Mr. Monte Cooke claims) but it was by far more balanced in combat than it was outside of it--unfortunately that speaks volumes of how the game resolved outside of it.
wizards and other casters weren't OP because they could drop one or two powerful debuff spells and let either summons or the big dumb sword swinger take care of the castrated enemy... they were powerful because they could tear down non-combat obstacles, either physical or plot-related quite easily.
Actually, I would say that it was both, although the out of combat shenanigans were by far some of the worst.
I'm not sure if the lack of balance in combat was the result of poor and flawed reasoning behind attempts at balance, (whih I am more inclined to believe) or purposeful attempts at imbalance that just looked like balance at a glance, (as Mr. Monte Cooke claims) but it was by far more balanced in combat than it was outside of it--unfortunately that speaks volumes of how the game resolved outside of it.
I think the idea that 3e casters were balanced came from a basically flawed premise: "We make your basic abilities more powerful than everybody else, but by putting drawbacks into it, we make it balanced." The problem with that being, there's always a way to nullify the drawback, even if it's as simple as 'we don't adventure when the wizard is low on spells'.
It was the same principle as the Rogue's incredibly high sneak attack ... which could be negated by a level 1 spell.
Yeah, enjoy those 2 skill points, and expansive skill list. With the gobs of plot busting spells relating to travel, information gathering, and all around utility, if your casters were not dominating out of combat encoutners, its because they didnt bother to show up.
Did you ever actually play 3rd edition?
You act like a Wizard or Sorcerer had all spells known, and always had the appropriate spells memorized.
Tell you what: How about you give us a list of examples to back up your opinion on these so called spellcasters dominating the game? During battle I want a round by round account of how this is all pulled off.
who said anything about battles?
from the way some of you guys talk, it's like 3.5 is all about battles and nothing else?
casters ruled not only because they have such a wide berth of combat spells at their disposal, which allowed them to go into a fight with several different battle plans (and the ability to scribe those onto scrolls for later use) but because their spell lists had spells that was effectively "Summon Plot Buster I-IX". the ability to turn into creatures that had a wide array of travel options (swim/fly/burrow), turn invisible, turn into critters for stealth reasons, fly, bypass terrain (like walls, doors, chasms, mountains, continents, etc... up to and including planes of existance), etc...
wizards and other casters weren't OP because they could drop one or two powerful debuff spells and let either summons or the big dumb sword swinger take care of the castrated enemy... they were powerful because they could tear down non-combat obstacles, either physical or plot-related quite easily.
Okay they turn into critters that can do other things such as fly, burrow etc.. Okay thats fine and all but then what? They go off by themselves because the rest of the party can't follow? That makes sense.
Why would you need to turn invisible when you have a rogue in the party who can do the same thing with a Move Silent and Hide roll which makes him silent and hidden and doesn't have to worry about the effect being dispelled, or found with Detect Magic.
I think the problem that a lot of you had with spellcasters is not the system but your DM. If your DM made buying spells easy as 1,2,3 then yeah I can see it being a problem. If I can walk into any magic shop, flip open any book I own and start picking spells to buy then like I said that is a DM problem.
Okay, a spellcaster teleports the party to certain areas. What's the big deal, what other class is that taking something away from? If you want to walk and the rest of the party feels the same way then the Wizard goes off by himself and gets killed or he goes with the rest of the group.
What is this Summon Plot Killer spell you are talking about? Give me an example.
Okay the group goes to another plane of existance. Again, what other class is this taking something away from? Would you rather walk around looking for a portal to get there? If so then do it and leave the Wizard where he is or he can coem with the rest if the party.
Why would a spellcaster memorize or have certain spells that others in the group can do? Is it all about the fact that a spellcaster could do some things that another class can do? Oh my god, break out the torches and pitchforks, that guy over there could technically do some of what I can do!!
You've got to do better than that if you are tryign to prove a point here.
In our games the spellcasters weren't allowed to stop every five minutes to change out their spells to fit every situation while the others sat around twirling their thumbs. Again that's a DM problem. If we stopped to rest in the middle of nowhere then he rolled on the random encounter chart every hour to see if something came along. Yes I know Rope trick exists, but the whole party has a say so in the matter and if they didn't want to stop to let the spellcaster rearrange his spells then you didn't stop.
Get out of the vacuum please.
wizards and other casters weren't OP because they could drop one or two powerful debuff spells and let either summons or the big dumb sword swinger take care of the castrated enemy... they were powerful because they could tear down non-combat obstacles, either physical or plot-related quite easily.
Actually, I would say that it was both, although the out of combat shenanigans were by far some of the worst.
I'm not sure if the lack of balance in combat was the result of poor and flawed reasoning behind attempts at balance, (whih I am more inclined to believe) or purposeful attempts at imbalance that just looked like balance at a glance, (as Mr. Monte Cooke claims) but it was by far more balanced in combat than it was outside of it--unfortunately that speaks volumes of how the game resolved outside of it.
I think the idea that 3e casters were balanced came from a basically flawed premise: "We make your basic abilities more powerful than everybody else, but by putting drawbacks into it, we make it balanced." The problem with that being, there's always a way to nullify the drawback, even if it's as simple as 'we don't adventure when the wizard is low on spells'.
It was the same principle as the Rogue's incredibly high sneak attack ... which could be negated by a level 1 spell.
Which spell?
The overall problem with the Multiclassing in 3rd edition was the overall freeform structure. The classes lost seperation between them with PrC's that encouraged class hoarding to qualify for them. If any ever played the previous systems, they knew that 3rd edition went to far in this respect. Anything done in 4th edition would be panned by 3.5 fans, though the feats and tiers was just as bad move in the other direction.
A part of the reason that some think that 4th edition is a return to play like in 2nd or 1st edition is because of the class identity being back in the game.
I still say that a major part of PF success is in the setting, not the rule set. 4th edition (or 5th edition if Piazo waits long enough) Pathfinder will happen.
Okay they turn into critters that can do other things such as fly, burrow etc.. Okay thats fine and all but then what? They go off by themselves because the rest of the party can't follow? That makes sense.
My spell casters often did. It was fairly easy to keep yourself safe while you spied and did things. Of course, my fighters and rogue ALSO went off by themselves and did just fine as well, it was just harder to accomplish what I wanted to accomplish as a non-caster.
Why would you need to turn invisible when you have a rogue in the party who can do the same thing with a Move Silent and Hide roll which makes him silent and hidden and doesn't have to worry about the effect being dispelled, or found with Detect Magic.
Usually to avoid being seen ;)
Seriously, invisibility was over rated. Starting at about 7th level, everything and its mother could see invisibility, scent or tremor/blind sense you. It was nearly worthless, becoming good again at 15th level when you got Superior Invisibility which could only be seen through by True Seeing. Of course, many things at that level had True Seeing, so...
I think the problem that a lot of you had with spellcasters is not the system but your DM. If your DM made buying spells easy as 1,2,3 then yeah I can see it being a problem. If I can walk into any magic shop, flip open any book I own and start picking spells to buy then like I said that is a DM problem.
The problem was the two spells of choice per level. It made getting the REALLY good spells REALLY easy.
What is this Summon Plot Killer spell you are talking about? Give me an example.
The many overly powerful divination spells for one. I'm currently runnig a 3.5 game and if/when the wizard and cleric get to the point that they start divining, I'm going to have to be a little heavy handed and ban/modify some spells. I warned the spell casters at the beginning of the campaign that there would be spells that I did that to, though, so it won't be too terrible for them ;)
Why would a spellcaster memorize or have certain spells that others in the group can do?
He wouldn't unless the player is an ass, and stupid to boot. There are always better spells to take than ones stepping on the toes of someone in the party and spells are a limited resource, as are scrolls. The caster would be much better off making scrolls for things that the rest of the party CAN'T do.
Which spell?
The only one off-hand that I can think of is Obscuring Mist. It provides concealement for any creature 5ft away and rogue can't sneak attack foes under concealment.
Which spell?
The only one off-hand that I can think of is Obscuring Mist. It provides concealement for any creature 5ft away and rogue can't sneak attack foes under concealment.
That would be it.
Yeah, enjoy those 2 skill points, and expansive skill list. With the gobs of plot busting spells relating to travel, information gathering, and all around utility, if your casters were not dominating out of combat encoutners, its because they didnt bother to show up.
Did you ever actually play 3rd edition?
You act like a Wizard or Sorcerer had all spells known, and always had the appropriate spells memorized.
Tell you what: How about you give us a list of examples to back up your opinion on these so called spellcasters dominating the game? During battle I want a round by round account of how this is all pulled off.
A high level sorcerer/wizard could cast timestop and then another timestop and chain togather multiple coud type spells, forcecage, delayed blast metamagiced fireballs etc. Instant death if you lack a spellcaster of your own, difficult to survive even with spellcasters of your own.
Two Time Stops didn't stack, they would overlap. Also, while Time Stop is in effect all creatures are invulnerable to your spells and they cannot be targeted. Time Stop is basically just for buffing yourself up.
Spellcaster goes toa plane difficult to survive on. Casts gate and calls through PCs for a holiday on the negative energy plane or whatever.
And this is taking away from another class how?
Spellcaster uses divination magic to locate BBEG. Party buffs up and teleports in avoiding all of the encounters and everyone has +4-8 or more to hit and damage along with uber saves and AC.
Divinations don't really work this way and others always have a chance to know something is up.
Level 5 druid wildshapes into anything with flight and casts seplls at range for the rest of their career.
That's fine, but there is nothing that says they can't be seen by enemies and targeted.
Druid wildshapes into various legendary animals while wearing wildshape armor fomr the DMG and spellbuffs his AC and that spell that gives them magic fangs on all appendages.+5 to hit and damage, 30-40 strength 4-5 attacks or a ridiculess number if it is an octopus or something. Mr fighter cries around aboput now.
That's great and all but by this time the fighter has a better chance to hit, more attacks, and most likely does more damage because of his items.
Druid takes various feats that augment summoned beings several of which apply templates to summoned animals. Druid spends 2-3 rounds summoning a small army of critters each with 2-3 templates stacked on them. A haste spell or druidic buff spell is then used to make them even meaner. Druid solos an encounter or whole dungeon with an animal army. The amount of time one player takes really slows down combat espicialy if they like selecting multiple animal types each of which need to have templates applied.
Usually buy the time the druid is finished doing all this the battle is most likely going to be over. Think about it, he spends 2-3 rounds just summoning these creatures, remember it takes one full round to cast Summon anything. Then he has to take a few rounds to start giving them buffs. Sure the feats help but not as much as you think.
Bards can be built giving out +8 (or more) to hit and damage for every attack. Combine with multi attack rapid shot rangers/fighters or the wildshaped druid with his animal army. Each wolf/bear/cat/dire critter now has +13 to hit and damage.
That is the Bard's job.
Cleric builds himself around having alot of turn undead attempts and/or uses nightsticks and takes divine metamgaic. Cleric walks around with 2-3 buff spells running 24/7. Divine power divine favor were popular for this. Fighter BAB, hit points, +3-5 or more to hit and damage for 2 feats.
You can't walk around with a pocket full of Nightsticks, they are rods. The way the rulle is written would require a DM to give the final judgement on.
Cleric Cheater of Mystra. Makes antimagic shell permanent around him. Being a cleric of the god of magic the prestige class lets you ignore the effects of your antimagic spell. Cleric spellbuffs as per normal (see above paragraph).
I don't think it works quite like that. Might better check again.
Basic combos.
enervate+save or die spell. Metamagic the enervate spell.
Sudden metamagic feats. Empower and maximise being prime candidates.
Greater Invisability+Rogue
Greater Invisability+ fly.
Evards Black Tentacles by itself.
Forcecage+ cloud type spells.
Any shapechange effect that allows you to assume any form.
Which spell?
The only one off-hand that I can think of is Obscuring Mist. It provides concealement for any creature 5ft away and rogue can't sneak attack foes under concealment.
Most sneak attacks are within 5 feet anyway.
Yeah, enjoy those 2 skill points, and expansive skill list. With the gobs of plot busting spells relating to travel, information gathering, and all around utility, if your casters were not dominating out of combat encoutners, its because they didnt bother to show up.
Did you ever actually play 3rd edition?
You act like a Wizard or Sorcerer had all spells known, and always had the appropriate spells memorized.
Tell you what: How about you give us a list of examples to back up your opinion on these so called spellcasters dominating the game? During battle I want a round by round account of how this is all pulled off.
Sorcerer I'll give you (which is sort of like saying your sports car isn't as fast as a professional race car), but thing is, if you didn't have the appropriate spells as a wizard, there wasn't much stopping you from acquiring them. Even if you were on a short time limit, there were spells and items you could use to quickly rest, regain or alter your spell selection, and there was no reason not to put as many generally useful spells into your book as you could (and if you were a cleric or druid, your list of useful spells could be adequately summarized as "almost all of them"). The fun thing about casters is that every time you came up with a weakness, someone would complain, and they'd get a spell to close off that weakness. Thing is, D&D is a game where specialization dominates, and the way noncasters specialize is by focusing their equipment, feats, and levels into doing something incredibly well (charging, multiple attacks, defenses, checks for a specific skill, etc.). But spellcasters could do all of that and also specialize through spells.
Feats, skill points and levels are generally sunk costs that are hard to change on a whim (and also require you to plan long-term if you didn't want to end up being a master-of-none). Spells aren't if you're a caster who prepares them (spontaneous casting is a little harder to fix, but there are spells that can cast other spells you didn't prepare). And for noncasters, if you specialize in something (like you should), it can be incredibly easy to completely trivialize your speciality (throw undead at a sneak attack rogue... or just make the fight take place in a dim alleyway), making you dead weight.
A properly built cleric, druid, or wizard is basically Batman- the caster can do almost anything given proper preparation time and intelligence (and you spells that could grant you both). For a caster, every problem that can shut down a spellcaster has a spell that can counter it. The trouble you have to go through to inconvenience a well-built caster borders on comedy, since you basically have to openly gun for the caster at full strength (swiping spellbooks and the like, though even that can be thwarted by an Instant Summons cast from a scroll or something). Prepared casters get worse with every book released since their arsenals keep expanding and create some ridiculous game-breaking combos owing to the fact that it's so easy to adapt.
On the battlefield, casters ruled the day because of one of the important facts of combat- when it comes to hit points, there is almost no difference between 100% and 1%. Casting a spell that did damage was usually a trap for chumps, because a spell slot could be occupied by any spell of the same level. So if you cast fireball, you did damage, or more damage if the target failed the save. Unless you managed to kill the target outright, the target's capacities remained the same. But if you took that same 3rd spell slot and used it to cast something like slow, the target had to make a saving throw at the same difficulty, but if it failed then the targets would be completely shut down, especially if they were melee types. In most situations, spells that disabled the target were objectively more useful than spells that damaged the target. If you wanted to damage a target, you had a noncaster hit it (and if it was a tough target, you buffed the noncaster first, because an offensive boost is better on someone with a potent offense than on someone with a middling offense). At higher levels, you could throw down even bigger spells that completely shut down the enemy (save-or-suck, save-or-lose), or bypassed the hit point grind and killed the enemy outright (save-or-die). The classic example is the comedically broken shivering touch spell. 3d6 points of Dexterity damage to a target (average of 10). Dragons have 10 Dexterity, and a target reduced to 0 Dexterity is helpless, giving it the nickname of "dragonslayer" since you can touch a dragon and then club it to death. Due to the nature of magic items, noncasters require casters to match challenges of an equal level (if only to create the items they need), but casters without magic items can substitute spells to boost things like defenses and saves, plus defend against some of the ridiculous high-level threats (mind control, death effects, ability/energy drain, HP loss, environmental damage).
Off the battlefield, casters ruled the day because there is no dramatic plot in the entire history of the game that can't be completely bypassed with proper spell selection (save for ones with blatant "screw you spellcaster!" signs on them- those are just moderately inconvenient to bypass with spells). Seriously, a high level caster can do damn near anything, because many of their spells are vaguely defined to allow for maximum plot flexibility (illusions are basically a question of "how clever is your player?"). What sort of exciting things can a fighter offer off the battlefield? Skill checks? Well, a wizard has the same number of skills per day, but can pump Intelligence to the maximum, granting a boatload more of skill points (and the fighter's class skills are can all be bypassed by a good spell). Sure, a rogue has a nice skill list and trapfinding abilities, but so does a Beguiler (and is Intelligence primary as well for even more skill points). Casters just bring so much more to the table in and out of battle. Sure, you can come up with plans to thwart them, but they often have spells to thwart your attempts at thwarting them, and anything you can do to hinder a caster can probably completely shut down a noncaster. 3rd edition was absolutely 100% the edition where casters ruled the roost.
Sure, you can come up with plans to thwart them, but they often have spells to thwart your attempts at thwarting them, and anything you can do to hinder a caster can probably completely shut down a noncaster.
Underlined section should be "will certainly."
Anything that negates magic will also shut down non-casters, as past very low levels they rely on magic items to function. Without their (caster created) +whatever sword of whateverness, they frequently fall amazingly behind the curve needed to be relevant even in long, drawn-out, HP grinding combat, which they will likely not survive without having magical healing from another caster.
IF you rea going to talk about balance how can you balance a game where you have some classes that can only work within physics and then having a subset of classes that can go beyond the laws of physics with no apreciable downside.
Now if you want to argue whether you can have fun. Of course you can. I enjoy playing a 3.5 game (though I will no longer DM them since trying to make things fun for everybody is just so not fun for me it is just not worth it to me to do).
Of course, people will toss out the classic chestnuts of the wizard somehow "earning" that power imbalance by being weak at low levels, despite the wizard having formidable save-or-die powers like sleep and color spray even then, and the fact that the bulk of the wizard's survival is just because the wizard uses the fighter's HP as abalative armor in a tier where a single critical hit can be the difference between life and death and housecats are the slayers of commoners. Plus, there's the problem when people start campaigns at higher levels to avoid the aforementioned feline TPKs, and the fact that trading low power now for high power later vs decent starting power but slow growth is a terrible game design philosophy when each individual character represents a different player's long-term investment of time and energy (as opposed to a single-player RPG, where if one of your guys becomes irrelevant it's not that bad to table that character, since all characters serve your interests as the player. The time investment might sting a bit though, and you might also have an emotional attachment to that character that keeps the character on the field).
My other favorite defense of caster supremacy is the idea that casters have limited amounts of spells while swords can be swung all day, when in reality it's much more effective in most situations to simply stop and reload your death laser rather than continue into battle armed only with a herring, especially given that fighters fight better with caster support (because caster support makes everything better) and having a dead weight caster on the field only makes things more likely to end tragically for that caster, and the party some time thereafter (especially if the caster is the one providing defenses against some of the hilarious screw-jobs found in high-level D&D). You might be on the clock and have trouble justifying rests... but don't worry, there are spells for that too (because you seriously don't want to face the BBEG without a full array of spells- every enemy capable of punching at or above its CR has spells and special abilities that can demolish unspelled fighters).
But if you enjoy the caster supremacy, there's no reason you can't play the game and have a blast. Just don't pretend that the disparity doesn't exist, that's simply dishonest.
First of all 2e had you roll for ability scores. You could be a mage, but if you rolled the 3d6 in order you didn't necessarily get to cast the most powerful spells (or could even manage to learn them for that matter)
The mage progressed at a much slower level than the other classes..this was sort of an inherent balance to the mage gaining such access to power at higher levels
The mage had components that he/she had to manage for spells. This was cumbersome in my campaigns, so I had a monetary value for the components and casters subtracted the amount of money it costs for casting spells (the price of components) keeping track of gold rather than multitude of components made it less cumbersome, but still....it costed more to play a mage.
The way combat worked forced the mage to commit to a combat spell..and then add the casting time to the initiative...many more spells were botched in 2e combats than further on.
Also, wanna reach 20th level and have unbridled power? you had to be human. The other races didn't have the option to reach such pinnacles of power because they had level caps. These caps were much bally-hooed when 2e was nearing its end, but the inverse resulted in further imbalance.
So yes, 3.x D&D had a greater propensity for imbalance than other editions of the game played RAW. 4th ed wiped the slate clean and went at the balance issued a whole new way by adding powers to the characters and allowing them to pick a hero-archetype with similar access to their respective powers.
Not the same game.
But for the rest of the game, a party of all casters is better than a party without them, and usually works better than a mixed party of casters and noncasters.
This is completely irrelevant to the game, though. Not only do some people prefer to roleplay with non-casters, but a mixed party will still kick ass in the game and everyone can contribute. There is absolutely zero need for a party to be all casters.
You can shut down a noncaster fairly easily (and regularly- throw a flying enemy at a fighter who's gone all-in to build a charging melee master and all the fighter can do is shoot arrows at a dramatically reduced bonus to hit and damage),
Yes, but I can count on no fingers the number of DMs who do this.
while it becomes incredibly obvious that you're shutting down a caster character (antimagic zones, SR, spell immunity, swiping your spellcasting gear), and it usually ends poorly for the rest of the party.
SR doesn't shut down a caster and the number of DMs who regularly use anti-magic zones is equal to the number of DMs who regularly use flying creatures to screw with the fighter.
(as opposed to a single-player RPG, where if one of your guys becomes irrelevant it's not that bad to table that character, since all characters serve your interests as the player. The time investment might sting a bit though, and you might also have an emotional attachment to that character that keeps the character on the field).
Since no non-caster is ever made irrelevant by a caster, this is a non-issue.
But if you enjoy the caster supremacy superiority, there's no reason you can't play the game and have a blast. Just don't pretend that the disparity doesn't exist, that's simply dishonest.
Absolutely. Both statements are true, although I made the first one a bit more accurate.
The way combat worked forced the mage to commit to a combat spell..and then add the casting time to the initiative...many more spells were botched in 2e combats than further on.
This was the single most balancing factor for spell casters in 2e. The casting time during which time if you were hit, you lost the spell.....period. It meant you had to choose between casting the slower and more powerful spell and the faster less powerful spell. It made magic more tactical AND more balanced. It should have been kept for 3e.
3.x took away a lot of the mage balance that used to exist in 2e.
In the parlance of our times:
LOLWUT
First of all 2e had you roll for ability scores. You could be a mage, but if you rolled the 3d6 in order you didn't necessarily get to cast the most powerful spells (or could even manage to learn them for that matter)
I don't recall this ever taking place in any of the 2nd edition games I played, and so I cracked open the source.
I cannot actually find a reference to this rule anywhere in my AD&D 2nd edition PHB, only the 3e, and 3.5 PHBs. There's mention of progression based on level in table 21, but nothing further.
The mage progressed at a much slower level than the other classes..this was sort of an inherent balance to the mage gaining such access to power at higher levels
save for the fact that the power the wizard gined even moving along this "slower" progression still vastly outstripped the fighter past low levels in anything but raw sustained damage potential. (Fighters could at least do decent damage by default back then... of course you still had "save or lose/fail/suck/die" spells for the magic user that was the real way to go.) Not that the magic user did less damage than the fighter... he just didn't do ludicrous amounts more all the time, every time.
The mage had components that he/she had to manage for spells. This was cumbersome in my campaigns, so I had a monetary value for the components and casters subtracted the amount of money it costs for casting spells (the price of components) keeping track of gold rather than multitude of components made it less cumbersome, but still....it costed more to play a mage.
A. this exists in 3e as well.
B. this was not always tracked, as it frequently wasn't fun to track.
C. if it was tracked, then likely you were tracking armor repairs/maintenance, weapon breakage and replacement, and having to carry an arsenal around if someone liked the slashing/piecing/blunt damage, and so the fighter was still almost always more expensive to play.
The way combat worked forced the mage to commit to a combat spell..and then add the casting time to the initiative...many more spells were botched in 2e combats than further on.
Sure, but defensive casting with even half a specialization in 3e kinda made it damn near impossible to wind up with a botched spell.
Even so, getting off a spell was not as hard as you claim. Yes, it required either coordination from your party to protect you as you cast, or you just wasting some low level spells slots to summon up minor objects around you or somesuch, (Tenser's Floating shieldwall is not a new invention) but it happened. By the time you were casting lengthy spells (because you had nifty spells that took a while to cast) there wasn't much stopping you from casting them other than DM fiat if you were at all smart about it.
Also, wanna reach 20th level and have unbridled power? you had to be human. The other races didn't have the option to reach such pinnacles of power because they had level caps. These caps were much bally-hooed when 2e was nearing its end, but the inverse resulted in further imbalance.
They were mainly lamented because racial contributions to the game certainly did not make up for the inability to progress past a certain level, and frankly it didn't make much sense. Still, I do not see how this would be a point of balance in 2e's favor, which I took to be the purpose of our post.
So yes, 3.x D&D had a greater propensity for imbalance than other editions of the game played RAW. 4th ed wiped the slate clean and went at the balance issued a whole new way by adding powers to the characters and allowing them to pick a hero-archetype with similar access to their respective powers.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. OD&D through AD&D both had severe balance issues, specifically revolving around wizards and clerics.
Not the same game.
As you likely define it? No, and I can only rejoice. Its still very much D&D, and I see more of Gary's vision in it than I do in 2e, as a matter of fact.
On balance in general: Wizards and clerics in 2e still had the answer to every problem out of combat. Every problem.
E V E R Y P R O B L E M.
First of all 2e had you roll for ability scores. You could be a mage, but if you rolled the 3d6 in order you didn't necessarily get to cast the most powerful spells (or could even manage to learn them for that matter)
I don't recall this ever taking place in any of the 2nd edition games I played, and so I cracked open the source.
I cannot actually find a reference to this rule anywhere in my AD&D 2nd edition PHB, only the 3e, and 3.5 PHBs. There's mention of progression based on level in table 21, but nothing further.
I think it is a reference to the max spell level in the INT table, but the max spell level in 2nd was actually Higher then the max level in 3.x for the same score, though they did have the max # known as a limiter and the % chance to learn a spell, as you could not go out and get every spell.
This is wholly off topic, but I do love Warrant's posts.
So do I, I am somewhat partial to them.
3.x took away a lot of the mage balance that used to exist in 2e.
In the parlance of our times:
LOLWU
3.x did...it took away much of what balanced the mage in 2e. Mages weren't the gods they were in 3e and it was much harder to get them there in the first place. Harder in 2e than in Pathfinder.
First of all 2e had you roll for ability scores. You could be a mage, but if you rolled the 3d6 in order you didn't necessarily get to cast the most powerful spells (or could even manage to learn them for that matter)
I don't recall this ever taking place in any of the 2nd edition games I played, and so I cracked open the source.
I cannot actually find a reference to this rule anywhere in my AD&D 2nd edition PHB, only the 3e, and 3.5 PHBs. There's mention of progression based on level in table 21, but nothing further.
Let me refresh your memory. Keep in mind, if it didn't take place in your table's games, you weren't playing RAW. By RAW I stake that the 2e mage was more balanced.
PHB AD&D 2nd Edition Page 13 - Rolling for ability scores - method 1
(2e did introduce alternative methods, but the DMG talked more about this and in my sphere (upper midwest) we went with Method I. Also the 6 kids that play D&D at my house use method I as well.
PHB AD&D 2nd Edition Page 16 Table 4 - Wizard Spell Level and chance to learn spell.
The mage progressed at a much slower level than the other classes..this was sort of an inherent balance to the mage gaining such access to power at higher levels
save for the fact that the power the wizard gined even moving along this "slower" progression still vastly outstripped the fighter past low levels in anything but raw sustained damage potential. (Fighters could at least do decent damage by default back then... of course you still had "save or lose/fail/suck/die" spells for the magic user that was the real way to go.) Not that the magic user did less damage than the fighter... he just didn't do ludicrous amounts more all the time, every time.
The mage failed quite a bit more often as well..and if you played RAW and used the rules from page 13 and 16 the mage didn't always automatically get the auto-death-kill spells.
The mage had components that he/she had to manage for spells. This was cumbersome in my campaigns, so I had a monetary value for the components and casters subtracted the amount of money it costs for casting spells (the price of components) keeping track of gold rather than multitude of components made it less cumbersome, but still....it costed more to play a mage.
A. this exists in 3e as well.
B. this was not always tracked, as it frequently wasn't fun to track.
C. if it was tracked, then likely you were tracking armor repairs/maintenance, weapon breakage and replacement, and having to carry an arsenal around if someone liked the slashing/piecing/blunt damage, and so the fighter was still almost always more expensive to play.
This stuff wasn't around for fighters etc. in 2e, but it WAS around for the mage in 2e. The mage had to track it via RAW. It is harder and more expensive to track. Weapon breakage was a factor in 2e Dark Sun, but weapons were cheaper (and spells more costly) so it's a non-sequitur
The way combat worked forced the mage to commit to a combat spell..and then add the casting time to the initiative...many more spells were botched in 2e combats than further on.
Sure, but defensive casting with even half a specialization in 3e kinda made it damn near impossible to wind up with a botched spell.
I agree...I was comparing 2e to 3e. 3.x had mechanisms to help the mage cast...2e didn't. Hence the mage had more chances of failure.
Also, wanna reach 20th level and have unbridled power? you had to be human. The other races didn't have the option to reach such pinnacles of power because they had level caps. These caps were much bally-hooed when 2e was nearing its end, but the inverse resulted in further imbalance.
They were mainly lamented because racial contributions to the game certainly did not make up for the inability to progress past a certain level, and frankly it didn't make much sense. Still, I do not see how this would be a point of balance in 2e's favor, which I took to be the purpose of our post.
Well...Elves live to be what 600? Humans live to be 80. If in game terms if elves and humans could be 20th level, it would stand to reason that elves would rule the planet since they live much longer. This was all explained in 2e. Humans were the dominant force in 2e game worlds...the reasoning is that elves/dwarves etc didn't excel to reach the peak of power precisely because they lived so long...they got bored.
So yes, 3.x D&D had a greater propensity for imbalance than other editions of the game played RAW. 4th ed wiped the slate clean and went at the balance issued a whole new way by adding powers to the characters and allowing them to pick a hero-archetype with similar access to their respective powers.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. OD&D through AD&D both had severe balance issues, specifically revolving around wizards and clerics.
I think that is a fair assesment.
Not the same game.
As you likely define it? No, and I can only rejoice. Its still very much D&D, and I see more of Gary's vision in it than I do in 2e, as a matter of fact.
Many people agree it's not the same game and don't like it hence they don't support it or give money to it. I personally believe it's a different game...but I like it and support it. Doesn't mean what I said in this post or my previous post is false.
If memory serves, there was also a class-based ability score generation method in Unearthed Arcana for 1st edition Ad&D.
Alot of people who post on the forums blasting spell-casters in earlier editions take their experience with 3 and 3.5 and project it back to 2 and 1.
Let me refresh your memory. Keep in mind, if it didn't take place in your table's games, you weren't playing RAW. By RAW I stake that the 2e mage was more balanced.
More balanced I'll somewhat agree to. I'm not disputing that it was, by virtue only of relative view to the godmode of 3e spellcasters, slightly more in balance. I'd posit that it's the difference between stabbing someone repeatedly and shooting them with a large calibur weapon.
I don't take issue with you saying they're (somewhat) more balanced than 3e, and in fact I put forth a point of note on that as well. I do take issue with representing them as balanced without some very heavy qualifications, and by representing them as such with the incorect information you have is dishonest.
PHB AD&D 2nd Edition Page 13 - Rolling for ability scores - method 1
(2e did introduce alternative methods, but the DMG talked more about this and in my sphere (upper midwest) we went with Method I. Also the 6 kids that play D&D at my house use method I as well.
PHB AD&D 2nd Edition Page 16 Table 4 - Wizard Spell Level and chance to learn spell.
I did not fault your description of rolling stats. I know that it was a frequently ignored rule, as AD&D had many of.
On the other hand I took issue with your linking of the stats to learned spells. I saw no evidence in the text for this. My page 13 actually includes a glossary.
However, I'd failed to check under the description of stats, and did indeed find spell level limits in the int description table. I was incorrect and apologize.
On the other hand, I'll note that the progression isn't really that bad. At intelligence 9, (on the lowest end of average) you still allowed you to cast up to level 4 spells, which were still pretty bad ass.
The mage failed quite a bit more often as well..and if you played RAW and used the rules from page 13 and 16 the mage didn't always automatically get the auto-death-kill spells.
Auto death? I don't recall any, but I don't have my wealth of assorted handbooks and encyclopediae I used to. There could have been some level 4 death spells.
There were plenty capable of ending combat immediately though.
This stuff wasn't around in 2e, but it WAS around for the mage in 2e. The mage had to track it via RAW. It is harder and more expensive to track. Weapon breakage was a factor in 2e Dark Sun, but weapons were cheaper (and spells more costly) so it's a non-sequitur .
Uhm... No. Weapon and armor repairs were not confined to Dark Sun. Weapon type/armor resistance were also native to 2e, although they were not in the original core book. They were still in the rules eventually and were thus wholly RAW, and not a house rule.
And yes, they did make being a fighter more expensive than being a wizard, assuming of course that the party did not split costs among eachother and made each person pay for their own costs.
Well...Elves live to be what 600? Humans live to be 80. If in game terms if elves and humans could be 20th level, it would stand to reason that elves would rule the planet since they live much longer. This was all explained in 2e. Humans were the dominant force in 2e game worlds...the reasoning is that elves/dwarves etc didn't excel to reach the peak of power precisely because they lived so long...they got bored.
Which was/is asinine, illogical, and still has nothing to do with balance of casters.
I think that is a fair assesment.
I do not.
See, when I said I didn't think it was the first time, I actually gave reasons for it. People usually do that, you know... support their statements with reasons/facts/logic/etc.
Many people agree it's not the same game and don't like it hence they don't support it or give money to it.
Even in this age of easy access to verifiable information, "Many people" believe a lot of things that are verifiably untrue and in some cases make no damned sense at all.
"Many People" is not a verifiable number.
"Many People" is not a credible source.
"Many People agree" is not even a useful or appropriate measure of what something genuinely is.
I personally believe it's a different game...but I like it and support it.
I personally believe that I am a millionaire.
*checks wallet*
Damn, that's not working.
Doesn't mean what I said in this post or my previous post is false.
No, but what you said in your previous post being false, does. ;)
More balanced I'll somewhat agree to. I'm not disputing that it was, by virtue only of relative view to the godmode of 3e spellcasters, slightly more in balance. I'd posit that it's the difference between stabbing someone repeatedly and shooting them with a large calibur weapon.
I don't take issue with you saying they're (somewhat) more balanced than 3e, and in fact I put forth a point of note on that as well. I do take issue with representing them as balanced without some very heavy qualifications, and by representing them as such with the incorect information you have is dishonest.
Oh come on now RedJack, stating that 2e mages were more balanced than 3.x/pathfinder mages and then backing it up with factual statements is hardly dishonest. Demagogging me doesn't change the fact that what I said is true.
I did not fault your description of rolling stats. I know that it was a frequently ignored rule, as AD&D had many of.
hence leading to unbalance.....
On the other hand I took issue with your linking of the stats to learned spells. I saw no evidence in the text for this. My page 13 actually includes a glossary.
However, I'd failed to check under the description of stats, and did indeed find spell level limits in the int description table. I was incorrect and apologize.
On the other hand, I'll note that the progression isn't really that bad. At intelligence 9, (on the lowest end of average) you still allowed you to cast up to level 4 spells, which were still pretty bad ass.
But not as bad ass as when you are a 20th level fighter fighting next to a 12th level maxxed out half-elf mage that only has access to 4th level spells.
Auto death? I don't recall any, but I don't have my wealth of assorted handbooks and encyclopediae I used to. There could have been some level 4 death spells.
There were plenty capable of ending combat immediately though.
Well, IF your mage got high enough initiative to avoid being hit, and if he/she was able to learn the spell, and IF he/she was able to cause all the creatures to fail their saving throws. Plus, monsters had their own spells, magic resistance etc.
Uhm... No. Weapon and armor repairs were not confined to Dark Sun. Weapon type/armor resistance were also native to 2e, although they were not in the original core book. They were still in the rules eventually and were thus wholly RAW, and not a house rule.
And yes, they did make being a fighter more expensive than being a wizard, assuming of course that the party did not split costs among each-other and made each person pay for their own costs.
I'm Sorry RedJack, I have pretty much all of the 2e stuff still and I don't recall anything that added cost to the fighter outside of adding more weapons or armor (besides, by 5th level, most fighters have some sort of magical weapon/armor anyways) I disagree that the fighter had to spend anywhere near as much as the wizard who casted spells every encounter.
Which was/is asinine, illogical, and still has nothing to do with balance of casters.
Illogical? how? If there were a race of beings on earth that lived to be 600 years old, don't you think they would probably rule the planet? I find it hardly illogical. Sure, adding class limits may sound illogical, but races had the ability to multiclass whereas humans did NOT have that ability in 2e.
It was another balance that 3.x did away with - and that is irrefuteable.
I do not.
See, when I said I didn't think it was the first time, I actually gave reasons for it. People usually do that, you know... support their statements with reasons/facts/logic/etc.
I was agreeing with your assessment, I didn't feel that it needed facts/logic/etc. to voice my acknowledgement that what you said was a fair assessment. I do however think that I have added quite a few more factual references than you have in this little debate my friend.
Many people agree it's not the same game and don't like it hence they don't support it or give money to it.
Even in this age of easy access to verifiable information, "Many people" believe a lot of things that are verifiably untrue and in some cases make no damned sense at all.
"Many People" is not a verifiable number.
"Many People" is not a credible source.
"Many People agree" is not even a useful or appropriate measure of what something genuinely is.I personally believe it's a different game...but I like it and support it.
I personally believe that I am a millionaire.
*checks wallet*
Damn, that's not working.Doesn't mean what I said in this post or my previous post is false.
No, but what you said in your previous post being false, does. ;)
blah blah words..semantics...arguments for argument's sake. Many people live in Japan. Many people have brown hair. Many people play Pathfinder.
Believing you are a millionaire and believing that the two versions are different doesn't even bear a response. Seriously, you are starting to sound like you can divorce mechanics from balance simply because you KNOW it can be done.
I stand by my assertion that nothing I have postulated in this post is false.
A reasonably low level Druid can wildshape into a very big dire animal (lvl 8 IIRC) and some of those animals had very high strength scores and the Druid could buff themselves with various spells. Unless you DM is handing out +6 belt of giant strength and +5 weapons at around about level 8-11 you be screwed. If any of those animals have grapple abilities or whatever it is not going to be pretty. Summoning stuff in combat may not be uber efficient but its when the party has scouted out or has a fixed target you are going to have problems. A dungeon door or whatever PCs summon up XYZ animal army and kick in the door or assault a fortress. I had a frost giant keep on top of a hill which was neutralised by the parties Druid who summoned up the animal army and destroyed the door with warp wood IIRC. Even spening the 1st round in a combat to summon up 1d3 templated animals was bad enough but it was also slow.
A cleric without access to nightsticks could still take the domain that gave access to extra turning and the Radient Servent of Pelor PrC and have a a half decent charisma. There was also a feat that granted extra turn attempts as well IIRC. turn undead could power divine metamagic which was in the Complete Divine.
Most games of 3.5 were alot of fun because the DM either banned the broken crap or the players kne about the broken crap and didn't use it. This is coming from a DM who still likes 3.5 and isn't exactly a die hard 4th ed fanboy. Try applying templates to summoned creatures in combat or make a level 13 NPC rogue with proper equipment and then apply the vampire template. The 1st one will likely take you 10 minutes or so the second probably an hour or there abouts. Last time I ran 3.5 heres the houserules I used.
1. Improved defense for all classes (+1 saves/2 levels), extra skill points for all non spellcasters (+2 across the board)
2. Banned divine metamagic, sudden metamagic feats, persistent spell, natural spell, timestop, all unlimited polymorph spells, evards black tentacles and most of the broken spells. Save
3. Pathfinder classes and races (powered up non spellcasters)
4. StarWars Saga/4th ed skill system, tweaked pathfinder skill list
5. Unearthed Arcana Druid varient was used as the core Druid. Normal Druid was essentially banned.
Basically if a spell or feat was broken or slowed down pay excessively it was just banned and I more or less limited PC options to.
1st 4 Complete books
PHB, PHB2
Spell Compendium
Magic item Compendium
I used the DMG and the monster books. The occasional piece from other books was OK. Most summon spells were essentially banned. PCs could use them but they had to provide their own copy of the monster manual which none of them had. That was to speed the game up so a spellcaster player couldn't look through the book looking for an ideal creature to summon. Alot of the casual D&D players didn't really know about the broken as stuff or thought fireball wa better than slow as they were in 2nd ed mode where blasting spells were better due to lower hit points.
Oh come on now RedJack, stating that 2e mages were more balanced than 3.x/pathfinder mages and then backing it up with factual statements is hardly dishonest. Demogogueing me doesn't change the fact that what I said is true.
It would not change what you said was true if it was the whole truth and given with the proper qualifications.
It was not.
hence leading to unbalance.
Uhm... No.
Following the rule you mentioned as you stated it actually lead to more imbalance. One player rolling well and having several scores above 16 or even a relevant score to their class that was great while another player got stuck with a 7 in their class's stat was not "balanced."
Assuming that all fighters rolled well and all wizards roll crappy is not accurate, nor is it the basis for an argument on balance.
But not as bad ass as when you are a 20th level fighter fighting next to a 12th level maxxed out half-elf mage that only has access to 4th level spells.
Sure, if you mean "not as bad ass, being still more bad ass."
Well, IF your mage got high enough initiative to avoid being hit, and if he/she was able to learn the spell, and IF he/she was able to cause all the creatures to fail their saving throws. Plus, monsters had their own spells, magic resistance etc.
And we can apply plenty of ifs to fighters, as well. If they it the enemy in the first place. If they have a weapon to hit the enemy with. If they have armor to withstand a blow. If they can ever get into position to hit anything. We can play the if game all day long, however nothing you mentioned was all that difficult.
By the way, getting off a spell was not as hard as you claim. Yes, it required either coordination from your party to protect you as you cast, or you just wasting some low level spells slots to summon up minor objects around you or somesuch, (Tenser's Floating shieldwall is not a new invention) but it happened. By the time you were casting lengthy spells (because you had nifty spells that took a while to cast) there wasn't much stopping you from casting them other than DM fiat if you were at all smart about it.
I'm Sorry RedJack, I have pretty much all of the 2e stuff still and I don't recall anything that added cost to the fighter outside of adding more weapons or armor (besides, by 5th level, most fighters have some sort of magical weapon/armor anyways) I disagree that the fighter had to spend anywhere near as much as the wizard who casted spells every encounter.
It was one of the optional rules. I'll see if I can find it and update you on it later.
If we're not counting "optional rules" then I'll point out that right at the top of page 113 in my book it has a sidebar clearly entitled "Spell Components (Optional Rule)."
Illogical? how? If there were a race of beings on earth that lived to be 600 years old, don't you think they would probably rule the planet?
I agree that they would. Saying that they cannot attain equal levels because every member of that race is predisposed to boredombeginning at a certain level of prowess is the asinine and illogical part.
I find it hardly illogical. Sure, adding class limits may sound illogical, but races had the ability to multiclass whereas humans did NOT have that ability in 2e.
It was another balance that 3.x did away with - and that is irrefuteable.
I cannot find that anywhere. I can find a passage stating humans can excell in any class they wish to while other races are limited, but again, this book is seeing more use tonight than it has in about a year.
EDIT: Did find a passage stating humans were the only race who could dual class, however they cannot multi-class. Given the systems involved, the difference in results is minimal, and possibly comes out ahead for the humans, as they can pick up features from any and every class while demi-humans were stuck with the choice they made at creation and (if a half elf) could pick up a maximum of three classes.
I was agreeing with your assessment, I didn't feel that it needed facts/logic/etc. to voice my acknowledgement that what you said was a fair assessment. I do however think that I have added quite a few more factual references than you have in this little debate my friend.
You have added many highly spun, incompletely described, obfucatorily partial facts, yes. ^_^
blah blah words..semantics...arguments for argument's sake.
No, arguments because I strongly believe that if you're going to present facts and a position you should present as many facts as is prudent to provide the reader with a way to guage your opinion in a fair manner.
Many people live in Japan.
Verifiable.
Many people have brown hair.
Verifiable.
Many people play Pathfinder.
(presently)Unverifiable, just as "many people agree that 4e isn't D&D" is not verifiable.
Believing you are a millionaire and believing that the two versions are different doesn't even bear a response. Seriously, you are starting to sound like you can divorce mechanics from balance simply because you KNOW it can be done.
And it's entirely reasonable to equate census numbers from Japan (approx. 127,560,000 in 2009) with "many people think 4e is not D&D." (numbers go here?)
I stand by my assertion that nothing I have postulated in this post is false.
In most cases, not entirely false, but dishonestly presented, omitting key factors and incompletely made as to present them in a light which is not at all correct.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek you may want to read timestop again. You can buff yourself with it but you can also use spells that don't have a target and have a duration longer than instantaneous. Essentially this means are of effect spells like delayed blast fireball, force cage and cloudkill and incendiary cloud type spells are perfectly fine to use along with spells like timestop. You cast a timestop cast XYZ spells followed by another timestop. timestop takes effect along with XYZ spells and then the other timestop kicks in. Wash rinse repeat.
A reasonably low level Druid can wildshape into a very big dire animal (lvl 8 IIRC) and some of those animals had very high strength scores and the Druid could buff themselves with various spells. Unless you DM is handing out +6 belt of giant strength and +5 weapons at around about level 8-11 you be screwed. If any of those animals have grapple abilities or whatever it is not going to be pretty. Summoning stuff in combat may not be uber efficient but its when the party has scouted out or has a fixed target you are going to have problems. A dungeon door or whatever PCs summon up XYZ animal army and kick in the door or assault a fortress. I had a frost giant keep on top of a hill which was neutralised by the parties Druid who summoned up the animal army and destroyed the door with warp wood IIRC. Even spening the 1st round in a combat to summon up 1d3 templated animals was bad enough but it was also slow.
A cleric without access to nightsticks could still take the domain that gave access to extra turning and the Radient Servent of Pelor PrC and have a a half decent charisma. There was also a feat that granted extra turn attempts as well IIRC. turn undead could power divine metamagic which was in the Complete Divine.
Most games of 3.5 were alot of fun because the DM either banned the broken crap or the players kne about the broken crap and didn't use it. This is coming from a DM who still likes 3.5 and isn't exactly a die hard 4th ed fanboy. Try applying templates to summoned creatures in combat or make a level 13 NPC rogue with proper equipment and then apply the vampire template. The 1st one will likely take you 10 minutes or so the second probably an hour or there abouts. Last time I ran 3.5 heres the houserules I used.
1. Improved defense for all classes (+1 saves/2 levels), extra skill points for all non spellcasters (+2 across the board)
2. Banned divine metamagic, sudden metamagic feats, persistent spell, natural spell, timestop, all unlimited polymorph spells, evards black tentacles and most of the broken spells. Save
3. Pathfinder classes and races (powered up non spellcasters)
4. StarWars Saga/4th ed skill system, tweaked pathfinder skill list
5. Unearthed Arcana Druid varient was used as the core Druid. Normal Druid was essentially banned.
Basically if a spell or feat was broken or slowed down pay excessively it was just banned and I more or less limited PC options to.
1st 4 Complete books
PHB, PHB2
Spell Compendium
Magic item Compendium
I used the DMG and the monster books. The occasional piece from other books was OK. Most summon spells were essentially banned. PCs could use them but they had to provide their own copy of the monster manual which none of them had. That was to speed the game up so a spellcaster player couldn't look through the book looking for an ideal creature to summon. Alot of the casual D&D players didn't really know about the broken as stuff or thought fireball wa better than slow as they were in 2nd ed mode where blasting spells were better due to lower hit points.
Time Stop
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 9, Trickery 9
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1d4+1 rounds (apparent
time); see text
This spell seems to make time cease to
flow for everyone but you. In fact, you
speed up so greatly that all other creatures
seem frozen, though they are actually still
moving at their normal speeds. You are
free to act for 1d4+1 rounds of apparent
time. Normal and magical fire, cold, gas,
and the like can still harm you. While the
time stop is in effect, other creatures are
invulnerable to your attacks and spells; you
cannot target such creatures with any
attack or spell. A spell that affects an area
and has a duration longer than the
remaining duration of the time stop (such as
cloudkill) have their normal effects on
other creatures once the time stop ends.
Most spellcasters use the additional time
to improve their defenses, summon allies,
or flee from combat.
You cannot move or harm items held,
carried, or worn by a creature stuck in normal
time, but you can affect any item that
is not in another creature’s possession.
You are undetectable while time stop
lasts. You cannot enter an area protected
by an antimagic field while under the effect
of time stop.
At least it isn't 3.0 though where you could cast haste then timestop and have 2 spells per round of the timestop. Even without forcecage abuse you can still cast multiple summon spels or whatever while timestopped and timestop in effect stacks with itself. Our sorcerer in an eic level game cast 17 spells in 1 round with timestop. If you're fine with a spellcaster being able to have 17 rounds (or more) in a single turn please be honest about it. Sorcerer didn't even drain all of her spells to do it as she activated a variety of magic items as well.
I like Pathfinder and they made an effort to neuter wildshape and polymorph abuse but timestop is more or less funtionally identical to 3.5 timestop in tis regard. Timestop is also only one of the many broken spells in 3.5. The old pre 4th ed forums had a good list of broken spells and broken combos or stupid ones like wall of iron+fabricate (infinate plate armor, sell for gp).
Timestop in 2nd ed only let you move around. Simple errata like any spell cast during timestop ends when timestop ends would fix the major abuse and let you move around and do things like drink potions or whatever. Timestop is a large reason why high level and epic level 3.5 games are an initiative roll. Lose initiative and you get timestopped and comboed/novaed out. an NPC sorcerer or psion has no incentive to hold back and clerics get access to it via time domain and trickery domain and probably some others.
Timestop pg 359 PF
3.5 pg 294
]PHB AD&D 2nd Edition Page 13 - Rolling for ability scores - method 1
(2e did introduce alternative methods, but the DMG talked more about this and in my sphere (upper midwest) we went with Method I. Also the 6 kids that play D&D at my house use method I as well.
PHB AD&D 2nd Edition Page 16 Table 4 - Wizard Spell Level and chance to learn spell.
I did not fault your description of rolling stats. I know that it was a frequently ignored rule, as AD&D had many of.
On the other hand I took issue with your linking of the stats to learned spells. I saw no evidence in the text for this. My page 13 actually includes a glossary.
However, I'd failed to check under the description of stats, and did indeed find spell level limits in the int description table. I was incorrect and apologize.
On the other hand, I'll note that the progression isn't really that bad. At intelligence 9, (on the lowest end of average) you still allowed you to cast up to level 4 spells, which were still pretty bad ass.
There was a previous thread on this, and the point you make is valid and similar to a point I made.
A level 1 Wizard with a 9 in all stats has about a 50% chance of successfully casting a charm person spell on a level 9 fighter who has an 18 in all stats, and if that charm is successful, it will last for at least 3 days (IIRC - at work don't have my books in front of me). This is not taking into consideration any magical gear or racial bonuses the fighter may have.
If there is enough distance between the fighter and the wizard and/or the wizard gets the jump on the fighter, a 50% chance of him ending the fight on round 1 when there is 8 levels between them.
On the flip side, a level 1 fighter with 18 in all stats would easily fall to a level 9 wizard with 9 in all stats with the same spell.
"Rolling Stats" was not a balancing factor in previous editions.
AD&D, even 1e, didn't normally use 3d6 in-order stat generation. Refer to 1e DMG page 11, which specifies the 4 standard methods. Method 1 was the most tame, that allowed 4d6 keep 3 and arrange as you wish. This virtually guaranteed a 14 in your prime requisite. This meant that effectively the baseline for MU/Illusionist casting was (IIRC I can't find my 1e PHB) 75% chance to know spell and you could cast up to 6th or 7th level. A 16 int MU, not at all uncommon, would generally have whatever spell selection they wished at any appreciable level. Applied to cleric/druid you were pretty much guaranteed no spell failure and 3 starting level 1 spells, etc.
In 1e casting times were rarely significant due to the way initiative worked you would be almost guaranteed to get off all but the slowest spells (most of which were of limited combat utility anyway) as long as you got the initiative. In 2e it was slightly less certain since a slow spell could go off after the enemy did weapon attacks even if you won the initiative, but weapon speed factors etc also slowed down many melee attacks and a good dex would help you as well, which was generally your best choice for 2nd stat (and again you were likely to have a 2nd stat high enough to get some kind of bonus).
There were also MANY ways to greatly increase the chance of getting spells off. Carrying around a tower shield (or just taking cover behind a cart, the party mule, etc) was one easy strategy that worked from level 1 against missile armed enemies (your main danger). There were also a lot of things you could do that were fast, like fire a wand/staff. You could also use a number of spells that would momentarily foil attackers like blur, cloak of displacement, invisibility, amulet of protection, etc. AD&D wizards could also get quite good ACs using bracers, etc. which always upped your chances of getting off that spell quite a lot. Many spells were also quite fast. A Cloak of Elvenkind, a relatively easy item to come by, would usually be all you needed. You could also simply fly a lot of the time, which worked fine against a large number of possible opponents.
At higher levels you had all of the above tricks, and beyond that you had various other contingencies. Stoneskin would always be up and that would at least be guaranteed to keep you up and able to keep casting even if you did get a spell spoiled.
I have to agree with Red-Jack, level limits for demi-humans neither made the game more balanced nor served any useful purpose except encouraging the more ambitious players in some campaigns to actually bother to play a human. The giant flaw in even this measure being that if the game only went to say level 12 then the restrictions were irrelevant, and the vast majority of AD&D games IME wound up by level 12. The more expensive XP progression was pretty worthless as well. Since the XP needed per level was a geometric progression all it meant was that the MU/wizard was at most 1 level behind the rest of the party. Not only that but the cleric and the druid, who were certainly just as potent as the wizard at higher levels had some of the cheapest XP progression of all, with only thieves beating them out (and still, a thief would only be 1 level ahead of a wizard at most points, 2 levels ahead at a few selected XP totals).
So, yeah, AD&D casters lacked the crazy stupid meta-magic and concentration hacks that completely broke 3.x, but they were still pretty stupidly effective and beyond level 3-5 or so you were actually better off swapping out your fighters for more wizards or clerics (and even in 2e the druid was particularly handy for this). A 2e all-druid party was pretty classic, though you'd generally want one guy to MC into wizard to pick up some things like identify that you really couldn't do without. I guess if balance was a TWO in 3.x and is an EIGHT in 4e it was about a THREE in 2e and maybe almost a FOUR in 1e.
As for PF allowing for more character design flexibility than 4e, are you guys kidding? No way. MAYBE there are more permutations available in PF/3.5, but that means next to nothing because about 99.5% of them are hopelessly unplayable. Beyond that 4e offers a pretty mind-boggling number of possibilities. There are what, 20 classes that can hybrid, that's 400 combinations right there, not even counting base classes, different build options and their combinations, multi-classing, etc etc etc. Sorry, anyone trying to pass that off hasn't had much exposure to 4e. It is an extremely flexible system.
Beyond that though, the real core difference revolves around what always frustrated me about AD&D (and which was off the scale in 3.5 to the extent that I really had no interest in running it). Any world you want to make up, any setting, any story you want to tell, the casters are always in charge. You can argue that you can have just as much fun playing unbalanced classes with limited utility fighters etc, and nobody can argue with that, we all DID have fun. However you couldn't create a game that contained casters and NOT have those characters be the top dogs (unless you played nothing but very low level, sort of). No story would ever primarily revolve around the fighter. The very concept of warriors in general having any kind of pride of place in society seemed at best strained. The game revolved around spell-casting. It always did and always will. 2e Conan is a joke, 4e Conan is something to be afraid of.
At least it isn't 3.0 though where you could cast haste then timestop and have 2 spells per round of the timestop. Even without forcecage abuse you can still cast multiple summon spels or whatever while timestopped and timestop in effect stacks with itself.
By that level you should have quickened spells, sudden quicken and probably a metamagic rod of quicken.
Our sorcerer in an eic level game cast 17 spells in 1 round with timestop. If you're fine with a spellcaster being able to have 17 rounds (or more) in a single turn please be honest about it. Sorcerer didn't even drain all of her spells to do it as she activated a variety of magic items as well.
Epic should never be used for any example of anything in the game. It was poorly thought out and executed to the point of absurdity.
I like Pathfinder and they made an effort to neuter wildshape and polymorph abuse but timestop is more or less funtionally identical to 3.5 timestop in tis regard. Timestop is also only one of the many broken spells in 3.5. The old pre 4th ed forums had a good list of broken spells and broken combos or stupid ones like wall of iron+fabricate (infinate plate armor, sell for gp).
Combined with Greater Celerity it became even more broken.
Timestop is a large reason why high level and epic level 3.5 games are an initiative roll. Lose initiative and you get timestopped and comboed/novaed out. an NPC sorcerer or psion has no incentive to hold back and clerics get access to it via time domain and trickery domain and probably some others.
Greater Celerity says that if you lose initiative or even during surprise, you get to stop the winning side's turn and take a turn of your own, so even losing initiative does not stop it. If you use Greater Celerity you are dazed for 1 round, but Time Stop is a 2-5 round spell which can be sudden maximized, so you still get 4 rounds if used on the opponants turn.
]PHB AD&D 2nd Edition Page 13 - Rolling for ability scores - method 1
(2e did introduce alternative methods, but the DMG talked more about this and in my sphere (upper midwest) we went with Method I. Also the 6 kids that play D&D at my house use method I as well.
PHB AD&D 2nd Edition Page 16 Table 4 - Wizard Spell Level and chance to learn spell.
I did not fault your description of rolling stats. I know that it was a frequently ignored rule, as AD&D had many of.
On the other hand I took issue with your linking of the stats to learned spells. I saw no evidence in the text for this. My page 13 actually includes a glossary.
However, I'd failed to check under the description of stats, and did indeed find spell level limits in the int description table. I was incorrect and apologize.
On the other hand, I'll note that the progression isn't really that bad. At intelligence 9, (on the lowest end of average) you still allowed you to cast up to level 4 spells, which were still pretty bad ass.
There was a previous thread on this, and the point you make is valid and similar to a point I made.
A level 1 Wizard with a 9 in all stats has about a 50% chance of successfully casting a charm person spell on a level 9 fighter who has an 18 in all stats, and if that charm is successful, it will last for at least 3 days (IIRC - at work don't have my books in front of me). This is not taking into consideration any magical gear or racial bonuses the fighter may have.
If there is enough distance between the fighter and the wizard and/or the wizard gets the jump on the fighter, a 50% chance of him ending the fight on round 1 when there is 8 levels between them.
On the flip side, a level 1 fighter with 18 in all stats would easily fall to a level 9 wizard with 9 in all stats with the same spell.
"Rolling Stats" was not a balancing factor in previous editions.
Sure it was. You also at that 9 intelligence had a mere 35% chance to be able to learn any given spell and had a maximum of 6 spells per level to be able to learn period. Wizards with a low intelligence didn't have enough spells of a given level to be able to take the role of "I can do nearly anything" that 3e wizards could do. It didn't balance them equally with fighters, but it was sure as hell a balancing factor that brought them much closer to fighter than they were in 3e.
As for PF allowing for more character design flexibility than 4e, are you guys kidding? No way. MAYBE there are more permutations available in PF/3.5, but that means next to nothing because about 99.5% of them are hopelessly unplayable.
I wouldn't call them hopelessly unplayable, exactly. They're playable under the same conditions you'd find in 3.5 (e.g. players making casters being severely self-limiting about their spell selection, feat selection, and use of their use fo their other class abilities after level 7-8) and Pathfinder was kind enough to add some additional features to the non casting classes, although those classes do little to close the ever-widening gap. They can be quite fun when they're allowed to function, there's just the standard 3.5 mechanics that make the situations in which they are allowed to do so extremely narrow and difficult to create and maintain.
Beyond that 4e offers a pretty mind-boggling number of possibilities. There are what, 20 classes that can hybrid, that's 400 combinations right there, not even counting base classes, different build options and their combinations, multi-classing, etc etc etc. Sorry, anyone trying to pass that off hasn't had much exposure to 4e. It is an extremely flexible system.
Additionally, class levels in PF grant little choice in abilities gained (outside of feat/spell selection.) Several classes do have additional options on what abilties are gained at what level (like the Rogue) but they're drawn from a small-ish pool.
Contrast to 4e where at first level (non-Essentials) classes are provided with several build options (at least 2 at time of publication and usually expanded further to 3-4) a host of choices for class abilities at 1st leevl and then further choices for those abilities at subsequent levels, NOT counting hybridization or feat based multi-classing. The result is a staggering bounty of choices really only matched by the ludicrous amount of choices that "full" casters get in 3.5 via spell selection.
[snipped]The very concept of warriors in general having any kind of pride of place in society seemed at best strained. The game revolved around spell-casting. It always did and always will.[snipped]
Agreed. The evil wizard, evil cleric or evil spell casting monster were the only viable choices for credible threats in older editions, something I embraced at first but later came to resent as my desire for more varied stories grew. It was difficult to the point of nigh-impossibility to create a warlord or assassin of any credible threatening nature, unless they themselves relied heavily on spellcasters to do their work and protect them.
There was always the possibility of the guy with an army marching across Whateverland, sewing destruction and taking whatever he felt to be his, but the moment the party could scry/teleport he ceased being more than a sack of XP with an inability to make relevant saving throws. That was disappointing to me.
Yeah, enjoy those 2 skill points, and expansive skill list. With the gobs of plot busting spells relating to travel, information gathering, and all around utility, if your casters were not dominating out of combat encoutners, its because they didnt bother to show up.
Did you ever actually play 3rd edition?
You act like a Wizard or Sorcerer had all spells known, and always had the appropriate spells memorized.
Tell you what: How about you give us a list of examples to back up your opinion on these so called spellcasters dominating the game? During battle I want a round by round account of how this is all pulled off.
Given that you can read minds, become invisible, turn incorporeal, charm, dominate, etc.... If your casters just memorized magic missile for 20 levels, then I guess its conceivable they didnt dominate non-combat, exploration, information gathering, and all around functionaility. If you dont see how the dude that can only jump and climb, or whatever he dumps his 2 points into is next to useless in comparison, then I'm not going to waste my time. We played 3rd edition from 1 to 20 over 5 years, the casters were the ones doing the heavy lifting the entire time. The only way a non-caster could hope to keep up, was to become a caster through magic item aquisition.
The comment about the monsters dropping out of a tube in a 10x10 room was to illustrate that if all you did was mindlessly hack and slash non-stop, I guess it could appear as though everyone was equal...
Yeah, enjoy those 2 skill points, and expansive skill list. With the gobs of plot busting spells relating to travel, information gathering, and all around utility, if your casters were not dominating out of combat encoutners, its because they didnt bother to show up.
Did you ever actually play 3rd edition?
You act like a Wizard or Sorcerer had all spells known, and always had the appropriate spells memorized.
Tell you what: How about you give us a list of examples to back up your opinion on these so called spellcasters dominating the game? During battle I want a round by round account of how this is all pulled off.
who said anything about battles?
from the way some of you guys talk, it's like 3.5 is all about battles and nothing else?
casters ruled not only because they have such a wide berth of combat spells at their disposal, which allowed them to go into a fight with several different battle plans (and the ability to scribe those onto scrolls for later use) but because their spell lists had spells that was effectively "Summon Plot Buster I-IX". the ability to turn into creatures that had a wide array of travel options (swim/fly/burrow), turn invisible, turn into critters for stealth reasons, fly, bypass terrain (like walls, doors, chasms, mountains, continents, etc... up to and including planes of existance), etc...
wizards and other casters weren't OP because they could drop one or two powerful debuff spells and let either summons or the big dumb sword swinger take care of the castrated enemy... they were powerful because they could tear down non-combat obstacles, either physical or plot-related quite easily.
Okay they turn into critters that can do other things such as fly, burrow etc.. Okay thats fine and all but then what? They go off by themselves because the rest of the party can't follow? That makes sense.
Why would you need to turn invisible when you have a rogue in the party who can do the same thing with a Move Silent and Hide roll which makes him silent and hidden and doesn't have to worry about the effect being dispelled, or found with Detect Magic.
Any time D&D turns into an escalating magic arms race, you've acknowledged the problem.
I think the problem that a lot of you had with spellcasters is not the system but your DM. If your DM made buying spells easy as 1,2,3 then yeah I can see it being a problem. If I can walk into any magic shop, flip open any book I own and start picking spells to buy then like I said that is a DM problem.
Except thats how the system WORKS. When you start blaming the victim (the DM) for the crappy system, and putting all of the work corraling the caster PC's... I have to start wondering... why even have all those abilities in the first place if they arent allowed to work?
4th editionr ealized this, and gutted caster utility. Rituals take time and money (though the spoiled brat caster players of previous edition comstantly whine about this), so its now sometimes preferrable to go a mundane route.
What is this Summon Plot Killer spell you are talking about? Give me an example.
You're intentionally obtuse. Give us a plot, we'll break it with magic. You are not allowed to counter it with magic however, becauser then... what's the point of magic?
You've got to do better than that if you are tryign to prove a point here.
The point was proven, a LONG time ago. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and given the countless threads about caster imbalance, that alone proves its a system problem. Because its not everyone else that's stupid, its the system. The onus of proof now rests with those who are blind enough to try and argue the converse, that casters did NOT dominate. You prove it. Until then, we get to sit with our arms folded, and say "You're wrong". Because you are.
The point was proven, a LONG time ago. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and given the countless threads about caster imbalance, that alone proves its a system problem. Because its not everyone else that's stupid, its the system. The onus of proof now rests with those who are blind enough to try and argue the converse, that casters did NOT dominate. You prove it. Until then, we get to sit with our arms folded, and say "You're wrong". Because you are.
In our games the spellcasters weren't allowed to stop every five minutes to change out their spells to fit every situation while the others sat around twirling their thumbs. Again that's a DM problem. If we stopped to rest in the middle of nowhere then he rolled on the random encounter chart every hour to see if something came along. Yes I know Rope trick exists, but the whole party has a say so in the matter and if they didn't want to stop to let the spellcaster rearrange his spells then you didn't stop.
Thanks for the example. As previously stated, your casters were clearly dumbing themselves down, and the DM was jumping through hoops to keep them in check. IE, you're wrong. Come back when you start making sense.
Sure it was. You also at that 9 intelligence had a mere 35% chance to be able to learn any given spell
Per time you encountered that spell.
and had a maximum of 6 spells per level to be able to learn period.
While not incorrect, it's important to note that this was an optional rule. By default there was no limit to the number of spells a magic user could learn per level.
Wizards with a low intelligence didn't have enough spells of a given level to be able to take the role of "I can do nearly anything" that 3e wizards could do. It didn't balance them equally with fighters, but it was sure as hell a balancing factor that brought them much closer to fighter than they were in 3e.
If you're going to assume that all wizards have an Intelligence score of 9 for your argument, the I will point out that any spellcaster in 3e with a relevant casting stat score of 9 in 3e cannot even cast cantrips, and have zero chance to learn any spell they come across ever. This means they are actually horribly underbalanced compared to a fighter in 3e, and thus obviously need a major buff.
If you're going to assume low stats on your wizards, why don't you line them up with low stats on the fighter? To do otherwise is disingenuous. To present a 2e wizard with an intelligence of 9 as anything other than "absolute worst case scenario" and note that they're still massively overbalanced is likewise false to the point of outright lying.
My point was more that In 2e, stats didn't matter as much to the Wizard as they do to Fighter or Rogue, 3e started to change that with DC class of the spell being cast, as well as endurance checks and other tidbits. This was changed further in 4e where INT was used as an actual attack roll.
Most 2e spells had no attack roll associated with them, the target maybe had a save (and sometimes the save just prevented half the damage). So in general, a Wizard with "average" stats would perform better than a fighter of the same level with "average" stats.
Once a wizard was able to memorize a spell, their INT stat ment nothing until they found their next spell, a fighter on the other hand, had to worry about their STR score all the time.
This was for good and for bad - if you were to find a potion that gave you a +4 to INT, the only benefit you really get from it was drinking it to improve your chances of memorizing a spell, while a Fighter could get great benefit from a +4 STR potion since it could actively assist in dealing damage.
Cleric became a whole different matter - increasing wisdom not only gave you bonus spells, but also improved your saves, so where Fighters worried about STR during combat, Wizards worried about INT outside of combat, a Cleric would focus on WIS both before and during combat to get the bonus spells and saves.
Mind you, 2e may very well be my most favorite edition as a whole - between the plethora of video games that came out using that as a ruleset, being the first edition of D&D I really ever played, and the edition that pound for pound I own the most books for - it will always hold a special place in my heart.
My point was more that In 2e, stats didn't matter as much to the Wizard as they do to Fighter or Rogue, 3e started to change that with DC class of the spell being cast, as well as endurance checks and other tidbits. This was changed further in 4e where INT was used as an actual attack roll.
Most 2e spells had no attack roll associated with them, the target maybe had a save (and sometimes the save just prevented half the damage). So in general, a Wizard with "average" stats would perform better than a fighter of the same level with "average" stats.
Once a wizard was able to memorize a spell, their INT stat ment nothing until they found their next spell, a fighter on the other hand, had to worry about their STR score all the time.
This was for good and for bad - if you were to find a potion that gave you a +4 to INT, the only benefit you really get from it was drinking it to improve your chances of memorizing a spell, while a Fighter could get great benefit from a +4 STR potion since it could actively assist in dealing damage.
Cleric became a whole different matter - increasing wisdom not only gave you bonus spells, but also improved your saves, so where Fighters worried about STR during combat, Wizards worried about INT outside of combat, a Cleric would focus on WIS both before and during combat to get the bonus spells and saves.
Mind you, 2e may very well be my most favorite edition as a whole - between the plethora of video games that came out using that as a ruleset, being the first edition of D&D I really ever played, and the edition that pound for pound I own the most books for - it will always hold a special place in my heart.
Yeah, making a low INT wizard/MU in AD&D WAS limiting, but at lower levels it wasn't the end of the world. 9 INT gave you 6 spells/level. 2e also lacked a rule for starting spells, which generally meant the DM would be giving you a couple freebies, meaning you would generally have at least 1 of the 'tier 1' spells. You could always try again at level 2 to get some of the ones you'd happen to have found or know someone who'd sell it to you, so by 3rd level you'd have a good selection of level 1 spells in general. Remembering that castable spells/level isn't all that high a limited selection wasn't usually TOO much of an issue. If you had even a 14 INT (virtually guaranteed with most of the character generation methods) you had a 60% chance to know spells and I think a max of 9 spells per level and up to 7th level spells. Your character might well be missing a couple of good spells at any given level, but you would still have a pretty nice selection. I mean, the DM could be a real curmudgeon and held you back some, but worst case you could research them yourself (more time consuming and probably more expensive, but still quite doable).
2e wasn't a BAD game. It lacked a uniform resolution mechanism, and THAC0 was a painful kludge, but it worked OK, as long as you didn't mind casters being the main focus. The thing that bothered me about 2e wasn't the game itself so much. What bugged me was the missed opportunity it represented. Basically it was warmed-over 1e, none of the issues we'd gotten tired of dealing with after 10+ years of playing 1e was addressed in any way by 2e. The things they did change were fairly insignificant and not all of them were really improvements. It was really after the release of 2e that D&D in general started to seem quite dated and clunky. By around 1994 we'd pretty much gone on to other stuff and just played 2e now and then when we wanted to do some retro gaming. Honestly my interest in D&D in general was low enough at that point that I never even bothered to really look at 3.0 and barely ever played 3.5 (and never ran it). I admit 3.x was a much larger update to the game than 2e, but honestly 2e could have been halfway to what 4e is now if TSR had had even a smidgen of vision.
Okay they turn into critters that can do other things such as fly, burrow etc.. Okay thats fine and all but then what? They go off by themselves because the rest of the party can't follow? That makes sense.
um. yes. that's entirely the point. the mage can have easy access to areas the rest of the party doesn't. it also allows them to circumvent challenges that other PCs might have problems with. Alter self is a posterboy for such a spell:
-Locatah form gives you a swim speed, turning any low-level water-based challenges (IE: crossing streams or water-based traps that aren't pools of piranas) into ignorable threats
-i forget it off hand, it's from races of the wild, but there's a form that gets a flight speed which means you can bypass any terrestrial challenges
-if you really want to use it in combat as a last ditch, Troglodyte form gives +6 natural armor.
this is what we call "options". options is what translates to actual, real power. being able to charge and deal XdY+Z damage is only one option, and if my games were all combat, which yours seem to be since many of your refutations turn to it or assume it, then yes, i would treat XdY+Z as the metric for broken... but problem is that EVERY character in D&D can do well in combat with a little tweaking so using combat as the one metric for broken is an ass over head amount of stupid since a lot of the game is not combat or that combat is easy to break for all classes.
if that's the only thing you focus on, then so be it, but don't expect every game to be like that. you'd be thoroughly disappointed sitting at my table then. combat is one facet of the game. being good at only one thing and crappy at everything else generally bores to the point of leaving.
Why would you need to turn invisible when you have a rogue in the party who can do the same thing with a Move Silent and Hide roll which makes him silent and hidden and doesn't have to worry about the effect being dispelled, or found with Detect Magic.
because you don't want to be seen. duh. seriously, your counter to invisibility being actually powerful is "rogues can move silently and use hide"? seriously?
guess what? detect magic will also detect all those magic items and potions and whatnot on the rogue. you also seem to forget that hide requires you to have something to actually hide behind (IE you need some form of concealment) so you can't just "hide" in the middle of a corridor that those two guards are looking down and walk past them, and most importantly: the wizard has far more ways to escape if he is caught then the rogue does. the rogue needs to fight his way out or run away. the wizard can teleport. he can fly away. he can go to another plane of existance.
and yes i agree lots of things can see invis. i will also posit that a lot of things can also look down a corridor and see a guy trying to tippy-toe. hide isn't the god skill you make it out to be when compared to the invisibility, and i would much rather hope they can't see invis rather then hope they're totally blind... which is, surprise surprise, something a wizard can do.
I think the problem that a lot of you had with spellcasters is not the system but your DM. If your DM made buying spells easy as 1,2,3 then yeah I can see it being a problem. If I can walk into any magic shop, flip open any book I own and start picking spells to buy then like I said that is a DM problem.
except the game assumes that these things are generally available. if your GM goes out of his way to severely limit the available scrolls and such, so be it but it's not the norm to my experience and it's definitely not what the game assumes. if you need to go outside the normal expectations of the game to make it playable, then you acknowledge there are issues, you just won't admit them.
the other thing is, is that you also don't need a whole lot of spells to bork up the game. only 3-4 spells per level are REALLY borked and surprise, surprise, you get 2 free spells per level up, your choice. more spells = more options but you really don't need that many of them.
again, i'll use the low-level spell "alter self" since it offers several modes of transportation (flight and swim speeds) and can be used as a combat buff (since you gain the natural armor of the form). this same spell can be used to disguise yourself into someone or something else... it's a very flexible spell and that's where it's power comes from.
Okay, a spellcaster teleports the party to certain areas. What's the big deal, what other class is that taking something away from? If you want to walk and the rest of the party feels the same way then the Wizard goes off by himself and gets killed or he goes with the rest of the group.
you seriously don't see a problem with "if i know the place i can get there"? where "the place" can be anywhere from "the next town over", "the next continent over" or "the BBEG's bedchambers, at night, when he's sleeping"? and if you don't know the place? divination or various other means of scouting can often get you it. i've yet to meet a group that simply said "you know, i think we'll walk" when asked "do you want to take a 7 day trip or a 6 second one?" you're stretching dude.
What is this Summon Plot Killer spell you are talking about? Give me an example.
depends on the plot, really. give me a scenario, any scenario that doesn't have a "LOL MAGIC DOESN'T WORK /trollface.jpg" attached to it can be busted up with a few choice spells. unless you're specifically working the scenario so that magic doesn't work
and if you do, i don't want none of that DM fiat BS. that's flat-out admitting that there is an issue and that the game offers no recourse, and if your recourse is to use magic then you're admitting that to beat magic, you need magic.
Okay the group goes to another plane of existance. Again, what other class is this taking something away from? Would you rather walk around looking for a portal to get there? If so then do it and leave the Wizard where he is or he can coem with the rest if the party.
you see this " . " ? it's the point. and you missed it by... 1d10 miles. or kilometers for you folks with a decent measuring system. it's that casters have options that simply far outstrip anything the other non-casters can do while still being able to the things the non-casters can do.
Why would a spellcaster memorize or have certain spells that others in the group can do? Is it all about the fact that a spellcaster could do some things that another class can do? Oh my god, break out the torches and pitchforks, that guy over there could technically do some of what I can do!!
You've got to do better than that if you are tryign to prove a point here.
because the caster can do it faster & more efficiently then that other guy. because that other guy might not be around to do it when needed. because there are many reasons why anyone would want to double up on resources but generally speaking: the caster can generally do it faster then you with very little chance of failure.
i'd turn the question around: why would you bring someone else along that will waste your time when you know the caster can succeed at it AND still do his caster-y things? and who says that the wizard's thing isn't that thing you're complaining he memorized? because John decides to play a rogue? no. if i want to play a stealthy infiltrator wizard, i'll play my stealthy infiltrator wizard. John doesn't get a free pass just because he chose to play a rogue instead of a wizard, and i won't limit myself to simply being alternating between the "fireball" and "lightning bolt" macros because that's boring and not at all what i want from a gaming experience.
In our games the spellcasters weren't allowed to stop every five minutes to change out their spells to fit every situation while the others sat around twirling their thumbs. Again that's a DM problem. If we stopped to rest in the middle of nowhere then he rolled on the random encounter chart every hour to see if something came along. Yes I know Rope trick exists, but the whole party has a say so in the matter and if they didn't want to stop to let the spellcaster rearrange his spells then you didn't stop.
Get out of the vacuum please.
i think i want what you're smoking cause it sure is making you think in funny ways. no one ever said anything about the 5-minute workday so why are you even bringing it up. also, random encounters, what? you mean that totally optional thing we don't use because it adds nothing to our game experience and works only to drain resources on EVERYONE and not just the casters?
the 5-minute workday is only a byproduct of players going nova. no one but you said ANYTHING about nova-ing or the 5-minute workday... i know i didn't. and you certainly don't need to spend 10 spells to solve your problems. i usually assign/bank 2-3 spells at most per encounter (not combat, but encounter... in essence anything that is there to pose a challenge) and with the ease and general low cost of making scrolls of situational spells and wands of "nice to have, but still too situational to have prepared" spells, the 5 minute workday usually only occurs between levels 1-3 when you simply don't have a wide array of spell slots to prepare OR your group likes to nova every encounter. past level 5 you have more then enough slots that smart prep and usage will get you through many encounters without worry or need to repeatedly spam magic.
you don't need the 5-minute workday to break 3.5 and if that's what you think the problem is, please learn to D&D properly. my problems with 3.5 are due to actual experience with the system and judging it on it's own merits. if i need to go "well if i houserule this or that or sweep these things under the rug as a gentleman's agreement the game works fine... ish... somewhat" to get a game that's fun, well i would much rather simply play another system that works as is then one that forces me to put on the "Game Dev" hat to get a half-arsed experience.
One should not have to houserule to make a game playable, one should houserule to tweak the game experience to his group's preferences.
Timestop is a prominent example but create greater undead is another one along with Mordenkains Disjunction. You can be raised from a save or die spell but having al of your items destroyed sucks. Low magic worlds actually make the problem worse as non spellcasters don't have easy access to gear while spellcaster have access to there spells unless you have a houserule requiring spellcasters to take XYZ amount of levels in another class or a rule where you couldn't start as a spellcaster and can only multiclass into one after lvl 2.
I wanted a fixed 3.5 from 4th ed which i didnt really get. Wouldn't have bothered me if they overhauled 3.5 alot but we got the AEDU power stucture that I don't particuly love and I suspect that is one reason why 4th ed adventures tend to suck. The main appeal for D&D/PF is really hangin around with your frineds and playing a social game. Thats the reason why you get posts like I prefer XYZ but the only DM near me is running ABC so I play that.
I did not enjoy investing large amounts of time into a campaign only to have a couple of power gameresque players break the campaign with broken characters and out of control combos.
This is why, for all of its faults, I prefer 4th.
1- Teleport
2- Scrying and other 2nd edition Divination spells
3- The rope spell that you go rest in another dimension.
It became boring to always have dimensional barrier dungeons or keeps and rings of non-detection on the bad guys and planar monsters to even just try to spice up things. Coupled with the other powerful druid, cleric, and wizards ability, we might as well just tell the story and save us all the trouble of rolling dice when we know results in advance.
I'm with icedcrow before me, that is why as a DM I prefer 4e.
I also enjoyed 3.5 much, but what made me want to quit as a DM mostly were 3 kinds of spells, and not even the save-or-die ones, rather the ones that screw up your whole idea or make you want to pull you hair out just to figure how to counter it, or resort to houserules that I am not a fan of:
1- Teleport
2- Scrying and other 2nd edition Divination spells
3- The rope spell that you go rest in another dimension.
It became boring to always have dimensional barrier dungeons or keeps and rings of non-detection on the bad guys and planar monsters to even just try to spice up things. Coupled with the other powerful druid, cleric, and wizards ability, we might as well just tell the story and save us all the trouble of rolling dice when we know results in advance.
I'm with icedcrow before me, that is why as a DM I prefer 4e.
. . . Rings of illusion? Spells misinterpreting a divining question? Teleportation being interupted and redirected by a strange and unusual happening (thank you, Stargate)? Plenty of ways to screw with people trying to pull the DM curtain away. Though there is another way: allow them to actually use their powers and reward them, or allow them to use the things they have, and then allow the bad guy to compensate because they knew they were being watched the whole time.
. . . Rings of illusion? Spells misinterpreting a divining question? Teleportation being interupted and redirected by a strange and unusual happening (thank you, Stargate)? Plenty of ways to screw with people trying to pull the DM curtain away.
Aside from the phrase "screw with people" you may wish to note that everything you've just noted is actually circumventing the mechanics of the system. If you have to break the system to have it work, then you are acknowledging the problem in the system.
Though there is another way: allow them to actually use their powers and reward them, or allow them to use the things they have, and then allow the bad guy to compensate because they knew they were being watched the whole time.
And how will you be compensating? Will it somehow not involve further circumvention of mechanics?
Additionally, don't you think this "compensating because the bad guy knew" is actually punishing the players for using their powers? "Congratulations on using your powers, here's a way you're now cockblocked because of it."
i, as GM, should not have to do this.
also, what "DM curtain"? as DM i should never have to "screw" with the players unless i'm playing a very DM VS PC game, and at this point i'd rather run the Doom boardgame where it's stated that the DM is supposed to murder the PCs as fast as possible.
why even give the players those options if you're not going to respect them? either ban it and admit the game doesn't work as is or tell the players up front that their choices may be rendered invalid on your whim, at least this way you set the expectation to not trust anything the rules say they should.
. . . Rings of illusion? Spells misinterpreting a divining question? Teleportation being interupted and redirected by a strange and unusual happening (thank you, Stargate)? Plenty of ways to screw with people trying to pull the DM curtain away.
Aside from the phrase "screw with people" you may wish to note that everything you've just noted is actually circumventing the mechanics of the system. If you have to break the system to have it work, then you are acknowledging the problem in the system.Though there is another way: allow them to actually use their powers and reward them, or allow them to use the things they have, and then allow the bad guy to compensate because they knew they were being watched the whole time.
And how will you be compensating? Will it somehow not involve further circumvention of mechanics?
Additionally, don't you think this "compensating because the bad guy knew" is actually punishing the players for using their powers? "Congratulations on using your powers, here's a way you're now cockblocked because of it."
at this point you admit the rules are broken, you admit you can't handle them and that your only recourse is to fiat it away is the poster boy for "broken" ruleset.
i, as GM, should not have to do this.
also, what "DM curtain"? as DM i should never have to "screw" with the players unless i'm playing a very DM VS PC game, and at this point i'd rather run the Doom boardgame where it's stated that the DM is supposed to murder the PCs as fast as possible.
why even give the players those options if you're not going to respect them? either ban it and admit the game doesn't work as is or tell the players up front that their choices may be rendered invalid on your whim, at least this way you set the expectation to not trust anything the rules say they should.
First, it sounded like the previous poster was sad that they could not stop those mechanics, when really, a DM can stop and circumvent anything if they want to, which was my point. If the bad guy knew you were watching, and compensated? Happened dozens of times in books, movies, cinema, etc. Heck all the nasty things I suggested have been done before in some story or another. I'm not saying they are good, or even nice choices. I am saying that as DM, he had the final say in how effective the abilites were used if their main use is in an attempt to discover the plot. He said nothing about being nice to his players, so I did not assume it was so.
However, many of the things mentioned were, after all, nothing more than flavour from what I can see. Not math, no rules involved, so the DM would be allowed to bend the results. That actually seems to be the intention of flavour based PC game components, and something I am glad is relegated to the rituals of 4th edition. Perhaps this is one reason people dislike rituals; except the ones with actual material returns or mathematical components to the outcome, most rituals are sketchy at best. If the game had a budget for "plot money" to be used to burn through rituals and other things as such, players might be more willing to play what, as I understand it was in older editions a "gotcha" game with flavour spells.
For reference a flavour spell would be something like Scrying, and a ritual of the same cloth would be something like Secret Page or Magic Mouth. Possibly interesting to the story, but mathematically unsound or not in touch with any game rule at all, which leaves the DM to arbitrate the outcome. I love being an arbitrator, and I personally attempt to be a fair one, but there are a great many who seem to take joy in the "DM vs. Player" attitude.
First, it sounded like the previous poster was sad that they could not stop those mechanics, when really, a DM can stop and circumvent anything if they want to, which was my point.
Our point was that if the DM has to "break the rules" to do so then that is the first sign that something is wrong. As mentioned by ox, the Dm should not have to play developer. He should have to be the DM.
If the bad guy knew you were watching, and compensated? Happened dozens of times in books, movies, cinema, etc. Heck all the nasty things I suggested have been done before in some story or another. I'm not saying they are good, or even nice choices.
If all the system allows you to have are bad choices and dick moves to continue making a game that is enjoyable for some of the players, then (again!) does this not say something very important about that system?
I am saying that as DM, he had the final say in how effective the abilites were used if their main use is in an attempt to discover the plot. He said nothing about being nice to his players, so I did not assume it was so.
Yes, he does have the final say, however having to constantly invoke that final say (how often can a party scry/buff/teleport ? Multiple times a day, at least.) is not a hallmark of good game design.
However, many of the things mentioned were, after all, nothing more than flavour from what I can see. Not math, no rules involved, so the DM would be allowed to bend the results.
You specifically mentioned circumventing the mechanics of teleportation which has it own miss chance pre-figured into the rules. You're basically forcing a mechanical failure on the players, which is most certainly altering the rules. Scry likewise has rules associated with its use, including failure chances and the use of the user's acuity and other effects. As written, illusions would allow the scryer a will save, denying that save would be further undermining the rules.
That actually seems to be the intention of flavour based PC game components, and something I am glad is relegated to the rituals of 4th edition. Perhaps this is one reason people dislike rituals; except the ones with actual material returns or mathematical components to the outcome, most rituals are sketchy at best. If the game had a budget for "plot money" to be used to burn through rituals and other things as such, players might be more willing to play what, as I understand it was in older editions a "gotcha" game with flavour spells.
Not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but 4e rituals have a few problems with their design. They're not as bad as many think, but that is primarilly because those individuals are usually expecting them to be more like the wizard spells of old. (free, instant, effectively unlimited in use, etc.)
The race/level balance was instituted as a balancing factor regardless of how asinine one may think the rules were in this regard. 2e was designed around the premise that players wanted to play in a stereotypical fantasy world with stereotypical race roles. There was much advice to DM's against allowing class/race restrictions to be lifted given that the reason they were in place was to be a balancer in the game and give Humans an advantage to counter the other advantages the demihumans had. The designers called out that they had these restrictions also to explain why the game world is dominated by humans. It would be hard to juxtapose a world ruled by humans who live to be around 80, when the longerlived races with abiliy bonuses that live at least twice as long wouldn't then in fact be the dominant races on the planet. The books talked about this being a possibility, but the standard D&D world was dominated by humans and racial class limits were given as one of the reasons. In 3/PF, all limits were thrown out the window and curiously still humans are the dominant race...implied acceptance of racial stereotypes can be the only explanation (elves loving nature and receding from world conquest, dwarves being xenophobic and reclusive underground)
Another game mechanic that added balance to the wizard class is the way wizards obtained spells. It is called out multiple times in the PHB and DMG for 2e that the DM would give you your spells. Now as a DM, if you know you're playing with a gamist who is going to use spells to circumvent the storyline leaving other players in the dust, you might issue them combat direct damage spells and leave the "broken" spells out of their repetoire. The gamist may be angry, but that was how 2e adjuticated balance. Players who weren't just trying to "win" and "beat the DM" may be offered different choices in spells. People moan and complain that the DM balancing the game was crap, but if the DM did it judiciously, then the Mage was more balanced than in 3/PF. I am not aware of specific call outs in the PF rulebook (or 3.x for that matter) that lays the gift of spells in the DM's hands.
One thing I noticed as I was reading the DMG again...2e specifically called to DM's to punish min/maxers by deliberately throwing things at them that they would be unable to contend with. I think the design philosophy of 2e was that it was a gentleman's game and players weren't going to try and metagame it to death for unlimited power. I think in 3x/PF that went out the window and all of those gamist approaches to the game became encouraged.
@Red-Jack: I stand by my assertion that many people play Pathfinder. I don't assert that as many people play Pathfinder as live in Japan. I do assert that many people have brown hair in the same vein as many people play Pathfinder
Trying to come up with some pseudo-intellectual reasoning about how saying that many people play Pathfinder is false is just plain ridiculous.
I think I'll design my own veriosn of D&D built around the d6. On a 4-6 you hit and deal one d6 damage. Spells also deal 1d6 damage and hit on a 4-6.
In regards to ability scores in 2e: if you rolled method I, (the standard method) you used 3d6 in order starting with strength and working your way down from there. You ended up with a lot of 8's 9's 10's 11's and 12's in the matrix. You would have some outliers on both ends of the spectrum, but other methods generally yielded on average, higher ability scores (minus method III,V sometimes) 3/PF edition did away with method I and had 4d6 drop one as the standard..this led to higher average ability scores, higher access to unbalancing game effects.
First, I still dispute this was the "primary" stat generation method. I could say I played one game where we used that method, but the thruth is all we did was just keep remaking characters for about two hours until we got stats that didn't include a host of 6s and 3s, and had stats that worked for the class we wanted to play. Again, arguing that this would be a primary generation method when its use is more likely to prevent the ability to play the concept you wanted to make in the first place is ludicrous.
Second: Is a score of 9 a "higher" score? One of the outliers? A hugely unbalancing stat? Because it allows access to Ervard's Black Tentacles, and a host of other spells in 2e with similar ludicrous effects. You didn't need an Int of 18 to break the game, you needed nothing more than the ability to cast spells at all. As I pointed out previously, this ability is actually granted far easier under the rules of 2e than it is in 3e.
The race/level balance was instituted as a balancing factor regardless of how asinine one may think the rules were in this regard. 2e was designed around the premise that players wanted to play in a stereotypical fantasy world with stereotypical race roles. There was much advice to DM's against allowing class/race restrictions to be lifted given that the reason they were in place was to be a balancer in the game and give Humans an advantage to counter the other advantages the demihumans had.
I'll be happy to admit these were... attempts at balance. There were many such attempts. There were the same attempts in 3.5. Attempts alone do not make balance, just as they do not make anything else.
Please provide me with some sort of mathematical or logical argument as to why these choices in design resulted in actual balance, or concede the point.
The designers called out that they had these restrictions also to explain why the game world is dominated by humans. It would be hard to juxtapose a world ruled by humans who live to be around 80, when the longerlived races with abiliy bonuses that live at least twice as long wouldn't then in fact be the dominant races on the planet. The books talked about this being a possibility, but the standard D&D world was dominated by humans and racial class limits were given as one of the reasons. In 3/PF, all limits were thrown out the window and curiously still humans are the dominant race...implied acceptance of racial stereotypes can be the only explanation (elves loving nature and receding from world conquest, dwarves being xenophobic and reclusive underground)
Let me sum up the design principle you just described:
The designers had a favorable prejudice towards a certain type of fluff, and used imbalance within those rules to enforce that fluff that they liked.
This design principle pervades AD&D. It has existed as a legacy in every single edition of D&D, and even continues (although in thankfully smaller amounts) in 4e today. That does not make it "good balance," or even balanced at all. It makes it design that punished people for making specific conceptual choices that do not line up with the likes and desires of the first designers.
Another game mechanic that added balance to the wizard class is the way wizards obtained spells. It is called out multiple times in the PHB and DMG for 2e that the DM would give you your spells. Now as a DM, if you know you're playing with a gamist who is going to use spells to circumvent the storyline leaving other players in the dust, you might issue them combat direct damage spells and leave the "broken" spells out of their repetoire. The gamist may be angry, but that was how 2e adjuticated balance. Players who weren't just trying to "win" and "beat the DM" may be offered different choices in spells. People moan and complain that the DM balancing the game was crap, but if the DM did it judiciously, then the Mage was more balanced than in 3/PF. I am not aware of specific call outs in the PF rulebook (or 3.x for that matter) that lays the gift of spells in the DM's hands.
If you are going to claim that's how it maintained balance, then I am going to point out that it is not only a terrible way to do so, but is itself inherently imbalanced. Additionally it results in the constraining of a player's imagination in keeping with what the designers see as fitting. "Oh, a mage who summons black tentacles should be powerful." "I want to play a mage who summons black tentacles." "No, that's too powerful for you." "Uhm... is this a game of imagination?" "Well sure, but only ifwhat you imagine jives with what we say is okay."
One thing I noticed as I was reading the DMG again...2e specifically called to DM's to punish min/maxers by deliberately throwing things at them that they would be unable to contend with. I think the design philosophy of 2e was that it was a gentleman's game and players weren't going to try and metagame it to death for unlimited power. I think in 3x/PF that went out the window and all of those gamist approaches to the game became encouraged.
In other words, "if our design fails, then punish your players by breaking the rules and play developer to make up for our bad design because obviously they are bad players and should be punished for not having viewsthat agree with ours." Excellent.
@Red-Jack: I stand by my assertion that many people play Pathfinder. I don't assert that as many people play Pathfinder as live in Japan. I do assert that many people have brown hair in the same vein as many people play Pathfinder
Trying to come up with some pseudo-intellectual reasoning about how saying that many people play Pathfinder is false is just plain ridiculous.
I didn't say it was alse, I said it was unhelpful and uninformative. Many more people do not play pathfinder. Many more people have never heard of pathfinder. Many people play pathfinder because it is the only game avilable to them. Many people bleach their brown hair blonde. Many people have moved away from Japan.
Your statement is unqualified, vague, and of little meaning, and of absolutely no more genuine value than stating more people do not play Pathfinder than the "many" who do.
First, it sounded like the previous poster was sad that they could not stop those mechanics, when really, a DM can stop and circumvent anything if they want to, which was my point.
Our point was that if the DM has to "break the rules" to do so then that is the first sign that something is wrong. As mentioned by ox, the Dm should not have to play developer. He should have to be the DM.If the bad guy knew you were watching, and compensated? Happened dozens of times in books, movies, cinema, etc. Heck all the nasty things I suggested have been done before in some story or another. I'm not saying they are good, or even nice choices.
If all the system allows you to have are bad choices and dick moves to continue making a game that is enjoyable for some of the players, then (again!) does this not say something very important about that system?I am saying that as DM, he had the final say in how effective the abilites were used if their main use is in an attempt to discover the plot. He said nothing about being nice to his players, so I did not assume it was so.
Yes, he does have the final say, however having to constantly invoke that final say (how often can a party scry/buff/teleport ? Multiple times a day, at least.) is not a hallmark of good game design.However, many of the things mentioned were, after all, nothing more than flavour from what I can see. Not math, no rules involved, so the DM would be allowed to bend the results.
You specifically mentioned circumventing the mechanics of teleportation which has it own miss chance pre-figured into the rules. You're basically forcing a mechanical failure on the players, which is most certainly altering the rules. Scry likewise has rules associated with its use, including failure chances and the use of the user's acuity and other effects. As written, illusions would allow the scryer a will save, denying that save would be further undermining the rules.That actually seems to be the intention of flavour based PC game components, and something I am glad is relegated to the rituals of 4th edition. Perhaps this is one reason people dislike rituals; except the ones with actual material returns or mathematical components to the outcome, most rituals are sketchy at best. If the game had a budget for "plot money" to be used to burn through rituals and other things as such, players might be more willing to play what, as I understand it was in older editions a "gotcha" game with flavour spells.
Not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but 4e rituals have a few problems with their design. They're not as bad as many think, but that is primarilly because those individuals are usually expecting them to be more like the wizard spells of old. (free, instant, effectively unlimited in use, etc.)
Teleport: I assume you mean 3rd ed teleport has a chance of failure, since I can't find the fail chance in 4th ed. I wouldn't really know, as I have only ever read 3rd ed. It hurt my brain with all the rules, and all the myriad exceptions to them. o.O
About the DM fiat: since 4th ed is pretty much "rule of DM fiat", and since I like this (with the caveat that the players must be able to trust the DM), I see no problem with DM fiat, provided it stays consistent.
Rituals: Yeah.
Teleport: I assume you mean 3rd ed teleport has a chance of failure, since I can't find the fail chance in 4th ed. I wouldn't really know, as I have only ever read 3rd ed. It hurt my brain with all the rules, and all the myriad exceptions to them. o.O
Yes, I was talking about 3rd edition, as was the post you orignally quoted, and what i've been discussing since.
I have yet to have to have to pull the same sort of BS to circumvent the rules in 4e as was necessary in 3e, as even scry/buff/teleport in 4e does not result in "instant win," as it did in 3e.
About the DM fiat: since 4th ed is pretty much "rule of DM fiat", and since I like this (with the caveat that the players must be able to trust the DM), I see no problem with DM fiat, provided it stays consistent.
All editions had a rule of DM fiat. 4e made that rule less necessary to use to constantly reign in the poor balance decisions made by the designers, as has been my point, and Ox's point.
Teleport: I assume you mean 3rd ed teleport has a chance of failure, since I can't find the fail chance in 4th ed. I wouldn't really know, as I have only ever read 3rd ed. It hurt my brain with all the rules, and all the myriad exceptions to them. o.O
Yes, I was talking about 3rd edition, as was the post you orignally quoted, and what i've been discussing since.
I have yet to have to have to pull the same sort of BS to circumvent the rules in 4e as was necessary in 3e, as even scry/buff/teleport in 4e does not result in "instant win," as it did in 3e.About the DM fiat: since 4th ed is pretty much "rule of DM fiat", and since I like this (with the caveat that the players must be able to trust the DM), I see no problem with DM fiat, provided it stays consistent.
All editions had a rule of DM fiat. 4e made that rule less necessary to use to constantly reign in the poor balance decisions made by the designers, as has been my point, and Ox's point.
Oh.
Then I agree with you on all points. ^_^
Awww, I think I've made my point insomuch as explaining why 2e casters were balanced in D&D moreso than 3x/PF casters were/are.
All balance doesn't come down to mathmatics in the end, as all game results are not determined mathematically. Also, I am not arguing that 2e is as balanced as 4e. I would agree with Abdulalhazred as to the degree of balance each edition of wizard espoused, with the exception of swapping 1e/2e. If I were to compare the balance of 4e to 2e I would say that 4e is balanced symmetrically and mathematically - gamist players have a much more difficult time using the rules to usurp the story; 2e was balanced philosophically to say that the philosophy of the gaming system was "here are these incredibly powerful and fantastic game elements DM. Some may use them for the enjoyment of all, some may use them to the detriment of all, it is your job to make sure the latter doesn't happen"
Adjuticating the balance is a talent that many DM's lacked, leading to the usurping of the game rules to bypass the storyline.
Awww, I think I've made my point insomuch as explaining why 2e casters were balanced in D&D moreso than 3x/PF casters were/are.
All balance doesn't come down to mathmatics in the end, as all game results are not determined mathematically. Also, I am not arguing that 2e is as balanced as 4e. I would agree with Abdulalhazred as to the degree of balance each edition of wizard espoused, with the exception of swapping 1e/2e. If I were to compare the balance of 4e to 2e I would say that 4e is balanced symmetrically and mathematically - gamist players have a much more difficult time using the rules to usurp the story; 2e was balanced philosophically to say that the philosophy of the gaming system was "here are these incredibly powerful and fantastic game elements DM. Some may use them for the enjoyment of all, some may use them to the detriment of all, it is your job to make sure the latter doesn't happen"
Adjuticating the balance is a talent that many DM's lacked, leading to the usurping of the game rules to bypass the storyline.
The DM's job is not to balance the system, though. If the DM has to ban things because of balance, it's an unbalanced system.
I also enjoyed 3.5 much, but what made me want to quit as a DM mostly were 3 kinds of spells, and not even the save-or-die ones, rather the ones that screw up your whole idea or make you want to pull you hair out just to figure how to counter it, or resort to houserules that I am not a fan of:
1- Teleport
2- Scrying and other 2nd edition Divination spells
3- The rope spell that you go rest in another dimension.
It became boring to always have dimensional barrier dungeons or keeps and rings of non-detection on the bad guys and planar monsters to even just try to spice up things. Coupled with the other powerful druid, cleric, and wizards ability, we might as well just tell the story and save us all the trouble of rolling dice when we know results in advance.
I'm with icedcrow before me, that is why as a DM I prefer 4e.
. . . Rings of illusion? Spells misinterpreting a divining question? Teleportation being interupted and redirected by a strange and unusual happening (thank you, Stargate)? Plenty of ways to screw with people trying to pull the DM curtain away. Though there is another way: allow them to actually use their powers and reward them, or allow them to use the things they have, and then allow the bad guy to compensate because they knew they were being watched the whole time.
I understand where you're coming from, the first few times are fun indeed, and sometimes you let them pull it off again because it fits the storyline, or you want to expedite a final encounter. But it gets old rather quickly, you can always buff the bad guy with protections and dimensional barriers towers like I said, but once you've pulled this once or twice in a campaign, you're just negating players the ability the use of their powers.
In my case those campaign tended to lead in a friendly arms-race between team pc and team monster and preparation time became unmanageable to cope with all player powers and keep an interesting and fun for everyone storyline.
As many have said earlier, 4e made it so much easier for me to prepare games, and I will add that we're having as much complexity in our storyline plots and I have more time developping it.
EDIT: After reading some of the other posts, I also believe that I'm no longer fighting the mechanics of the system anymore and I am rather using them fully.
On the Stargate redirecting teleport, I remember a free adventure published by Wizards for 3E where the premise was exactly that, team pc got trapped by some artifact in a tower when using teleport in proximity and had to escape. Was pretty decent.
Awww, I think I've made my point insomuch as explaining why 2e casters were balanced in D&D moreso than 3x/PF casters were/are.
Not really. You've just said "they are because X" and when X was sumarilly shot down and Y was brought up, you repeated X again.
Repetition is not making a point.
All balance doesn't come down to mathmatics in the end, as all game results are not determined mathematically.
Incorrect. All game results are not mathematically resolved, but they can be mathematically modeled and represented as results, if not in resolution.
However, the math present in 2e is just as exceedingly off as 3e.
Also, I am not arguing that 2e is as balanced as 4e. I would agree with Abdulalhazred as to the degree of balance each edition of wizard espoused, with the exception of swapping 1e/2e. If I were to compare the balance of 4e to 2e I would say that 4e is balanced symmetrically and mathematically - gamist players have a much more difficult time using the rules to usurp the story;
Tentatively agreed.
2e was balanced philosophically to say that the philosophy of the gaming system was "here are these incredibly powerful and fantastic game elements DM. Some may use them for the enjoyment of all, some may use them to the detriment of all, it is your job to make sure the latter doesn't happen"
That is not balanced philosphically, as it represents nothing of balance in its philosophy.
Although attempts at balance were made, the results certainly did not reflect those attempts. Also, saying "uhm... here's a buncha stuff, YOU make it work!" is not game balance.
Adjuticating the balance is a talent that many DM's lacked,
Because if everyone had that knack, we wouldn't need to buy a game system, we would all make our own home games which are perfectly balanced, just as if everyone was an amazing storyteller we would all write our own books.
Pawning the developer's job onto the DM was a decision made a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it was the only decision, the right decision, or even a creative one. People have been pawning off their unwanted work and bad decisions on others since time immemorial.
leading to the usurping of the game rules to bypass the storyline.
No, rules that allowed and encouraged their use to byass the storyline lead to their use to bypass the storyline.
If a player had access to Scry/Buff/Teleport (to use the above example), design your adventures around the expectation that they will use these tools, and reward the player for their choices (rather than punish them).
- A Novice DM will have no answers to the above, and will have the creative player use such tools to bypass whole swathes of plot.
- An experienced DM will (unfortunately) come up with creative solutions to say "NO!" to the player's use of such tactics (antimagic, anti-scrying, anti-teleportation, creatures immune to sneak attack, etc).
- An expert/master DM will design encounters that will force players to utilize their favorite tactics in order to advance the plot, or - will be designed in such a way as to force players to choose when to use such options. By this I mean that the story would provide multiple (equally inviting) reasons for the party to scry, buff and/or teleport - and have some outside factor that forces them to choose between them (divergent paths/mutually exclusive targets, time sensitivity, etc).
1E/2E and 3E were designed in such a way, that it required a True Master to create fun, and exciting adventures in which the players could use their favorite toys without it being an auto-win.
1E/2E and 3E were designed in such a way, that it required a True Master to create fun, and exciting adventures in which the players could use their favorite toys without it being an auto-win.
What I think the above poster meant, was that it was up to the DM to create a balanced story that took into account player options.
If a player had access to Scry/Buff/Teleport (to use the above example), design your adventures around the expectation that they will use these tools, and reward the player for their choices (rather than punish them).
- A Novice DM will have no answers to the above, and will have the creative player use such tools to bypass whole swathes of plot.
- An experienced DM will (unfortunately) come up with creative solutions to say "NO!" to the player's use of such tactics (antimagic, anti-scrying, anti-teleportation, creatures immune to sneak attack, etc).
- An expert/master DM will design encounters that will force players to utilize their favorite tactics in order to advance the plot, or - will be designed in such a way as to force players to choose when to use such options. By this I mean that the story would provide multiple (equally inviting) reasons for the party to scry, buff and/or teleport - and have some outside factor that forces them to choose between them (divergent paths/mutually exclusive targets, time sensitivity, etc).
1E/2E and 3E were designed in such a way, that it required a True Master to create fun, and exciting adventures in which the players could use their favorite toys without it being an auto-win.
1E/2E and 3E were designed in such a way, that it required a True Master to create fun, and exciting adventures in which the players could use their favorite toys without it being an auto-win.
The extreme modularity of PF/3E was a double edged sword. If I want to make a "special snowflake" that is unique and different from everything the world has seen before, PF/3E blows 4E away. If I want to make a character who looks like the archetypal fantasy concept of "Fighter" and have it sound in mechanics as well as concept, 4E blows PF/3E away. 4E does a great job at a most every fantasy archetype, while PF/3E only does a rare few well both in concept and mechanics simultaneously. I am of the opinion that doing the core archetypes well is far more important than the ability to create a "special snowflake", and a lot of the reasons I dislike 3E/PF is how it failed in this regard.
On 2E and caster balance:
There are two subtle forms of caster balance that existed in Basic/1E/2E that ceased to exist in 3E, things that weren't in the system itself, but in the actual game play. First off was that the game was generally played at lower levels. Exp gain was slower, and it took longer to progress. People tended not to start at high levels, and games often didn't progress far into double digit levels, if they got there at all. Its at the high levels that casters dominate, and high level play was far more common in 3E than it had been previously. The second was the pace of the game. 3E was slow and cumbersome compared to earlier editions. Basic/1E/2E played fast, and it had an effect on what a caster had to deal with. A 2E caster often had to deal with more encounters, both in combat and out, because the game played faster. I rarely saw more than 2 fights per night playing 3E, and we usually allowed a rest between sessions since tracking HP and spells between game sessions was generally a hassle. A lot of the 5 minute workday had to do with how long it took to resolve a fight. In contrast, we could have combat 4-5 times in a 4hr session without breaking a sweat in 2E, at least at higher levels when PCs actually had the resources to last that long. I ran the original Dragonlance mods with homebrewed encounters a little over a year ago, and we were fielding a party of 11 vs 15-30 monsters and combat was faster than 3E or 4E for that matter. My players, who were used to playing 3E(or 4E), found their spellcasters running out of bullets because they just weren't used to having to space out their casting over 4-5 battles and utility spells.
One person's experiences with something are not always going to be the same as someone elses. If you don't like Pathfinder then that's great but besides you, who really gives a rat's arse if you like it or not. If you find imbalance then that's wonderful but don't act like everyone else has. If there is a mathematical error then that's one thing but if we are talking about opinion then there is no wrong answer.
From my personal observations I see that Pathfinder is doing very well and to be honest, D&D is so cluttered right now I can't tell if they are doing well or not. We are seeing some significant changes going on in 4th editions infancy and I can only take that as a bad sign. You don't change what works.
In all honesty: WHO FREAKING CARES!!!!! You (in general) play what you want to play and that guy over there, or that girl over there can play whatever they want. If you don't like one edition then that's fine. If you feel like you have to explain why then go ahead but explain it in an opinion not as factual.
One person's experiences with something are not always going to be the same as someone elses. If you don't like Pathfinder then that's great but besides you, who really gives a rat's arse if you like it or not. If you find imbalance then that's wonderful but don't act like everyone else has. If there is a mathematical error then that's one thing but if we are talking about opinion then there is no wrong answer.
From my personal observations I see that Pathfinder is doing very well and to be honest, D&D is so cluttered right now I can't tell if they are doing well or not. We are seeing some significant changes going on in 4th editions infancy and I can only take that as a bad sign. You don't change what works.
Sure you do. It still works, but having changing, evolving ideas makes sure things don't get stale. Frankly, I don't think 4e was going stale, but there was a risk. Essentials proves that 4e can do stuff that isn't AEDU and still fit relatively well into the balance of 4e. Sure, it has a few problems (Slayers, Knights and Theives really don't have a reason to rest, unless they are out of Surges) but they work pretty well.
All I know is that I doubt Pathfinder can keep steam with their releases. They haven't thrown down much in terms of invovation in the system, and from what I saw, they are really stretching. You got Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic and then...what?
Awww, I think I've made my point insomuch as explaining why 2e casters were balanced in D&D moreso than 3x/PF casters were/are.
All balance doesn't come down to mathmatics in the end, as all game results are not determined mathematically. Also, I am not arguing that 2e is as balanced as 4e. I would agree with Abdulalhazred as to the degree of balance each edition of wizard espoused, with the exception of swapping 1e/2e. If I were to compare the balance of 4e to 2e I would say that 4e is balanced symmetrically and mathematically - gamist players have a much more difficult time using the rules to usurp the story; 2e was balanced philosophically to say that the philosophy of the gaming system was "here are these incredibly powerful and fantastic game elements DM. Some may use them for the enjoyment of all, some may use them to the detriment of all, it is your job to make sure the latter doesn't happen"
Adjuticating the balance is a talent that many DM's lacked, leading to the usurping of the game rules to bypass the storyline.
The DM's job is not to balance the system, though. If the DM has to ban things because of balance, it's an unbalanced system.
No system is balanced, so that is ultimately irrelevant. DMs will have to balance any game they run or run an imbalanced game. One of the two.
In all honesty: WHO FREAKING CARES!!!!! You (in general) play what you want to play and that guy over there, or that girl over there can play whatever they want. If you don't like one edition then that's fine. If you feel like you have to explain why then go ahead but explain it in an opinion not as factual.
One person's experiences with something are not always going to be the same as someone elses. If you don't like Pathfinder then that's great but besides you, who really gives a rat's arse if you like it or not. If you find imbalance then that's wonderful but don't act like everyone else has. If there is a mathematical error then that's one thing but if we are talking about opinion then there is no wrong answer.
From my personal observations I see that Pathfinder is doing very well and to be honest, D&D is so cluttered right now I can't tell if they are doing well or not. We are seeing some significant changes going on in 4th editions infancy and I can only take that as a bad sign. You don't change what works.
Sure you do. It still works, but having changing, evolving ideas makes sure things don't get stale. Frankly, I don't think 4e was going stale, but there was a risk. Essentials proves that 4e can do stuff that isn't AEDU and still fit relatively well into the balance of 4e. Sure, it has a few problems (Slayers, Knights and Theives really don't have a reason to rest, unless they are out of Surges) but they work pretty well.
All I know is that I doubt Pathfinder can keep steam with their releases. They haven't thrown down much in terms of invovation in the system, and from what I saw, they are really stretching. You got Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic and then...what?
Well if they run out of steam then they run out of steam. Thing is, I believe Paizo has something else under their sleeves. You don't invest in something that you think is going to die in a year or two, unless it's something replaceable very quickly, like a singer.
When I read Pathfinder material I can see the thought and care that went into the product. I can see and read the quality of their products and to me that is a huge thing. I would rather spend a $1.00 more and be treated like Xun, than to go someplace cheaper and be treated like just a number.
Great customer service will always win my business.
In all honesty: WHO FREAKING CARES!!!!! You (in general) play what you want to play and that guy over there, or that girl over there can play whatever they want. If you don't like one edition then that's fine. If you feel like you have to explain why then go ahead but explain it in an opinion not as factual.
One person's experiences with something are not always going to be the same as someone elses. If you don't like Pathfinder then that's great but besides you, who really gives a rat's arse if you like it or not. If you find imbalance then that's wonderful but don't act like everyone else has. If there is a mathematical error then that's one thing but if we are talking about opinion then there is no wrong answer.
From my personal observations I see that Pathfinder is doing very well and to be honest, D&D is so cluttered right now I can't tell if they are doing well or not. We are seeing some significant changes going on in 4th editions infancy and I can only take that as a bad sign. You don't change what works.
Sure you do. It still works, but having changing, evolving ideas makes sure things don't get stale. Frankly, I don't think 4e was going stale, but there was a risk. Essentials proves that 4e can do stuff that isn't AEDU and still fit relatively well into the balance of 4e. Sure, it has a few problems (Slayers, Knights and Theives really don't have a reason to rest, unless they are out of Surges) but they work pretty well.
All I know is that I doubt Pathfinder can keep steam with their releases. They haven't thrown down much in terms of invovation in the system, and from what I saw, they are really stretching. You got Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic and then...what?
Well if they run out of steam then they run out of steam. Thing is, I believe Paizo has something else under their sleeves. You don't invest in something that you think is going to die in a year or two, unless it's something replaceable very quickly, like a singer.
When I read Pathfinder material I can see the thought and care that went into the product. I can see and read the quality of their products and to me that is a huge thing. I would rather spend a $1.00 more and be treated like Xun, than to go someplace cheaper and be treated like just a number.
Great customer service will always win my business.
Hey, I honestly have had no problems with WotC's customer service insofar. Frankly, I think Wizard's isn't giving enough credit sometimes on these forums, and is just strung up because people precive some slight when Wizards releases something they don't like. Regardless, I see 4e having a long life as well, especially since they just opened up a bunch more design space. It's a good thing.
I haven't seen too much quality from Pathfinder, outside Paizo's adventures. All the house designed classes seem weak, and ill-thoughtout, and the stories of people being banned from forums after giving legitimate playtesting results don't exactly inspire confidence, imo. And I'd MUCH rather see an entire game designed by Paizo. Sure, they showed us they can mess around with 3.5 a bunch, but I'd like to see what they could do if they weren't constrained by their choice of system. While I doubt that'll happen, it's something to ponder.
Here is an example where you "refute" something that I said, without actually refuting what I said. What you said does not change the fact that all results in the game of 2nd edition D&D are not determined via mathematics.
WARRANT: All balance doesn't come down to mathmatics in the end, as all game results are not determined mathematically.
Ok Red-Jack, I'll try put this baby to bed for the last time. You will probably "refute" my analysis (without actually refuting anything)
Here is an example where you "refute" something that I said, without actually refuting what I said. What you said does not change the fact that all results in the game of 2nd edition D&D are not determined via mathematics.WARRANT: All balance doesn't come down to mathmatics in the end, as all game results are not determined mathematically.
RED-JACK: Incorrect. All game results are not mathematically resolved, but they can be mathematically modeled and represented as results, if not in resolution.
See, you said I was incorrect, but then went on to state what I was stating. Sure you can 'model' all game results mathematically. Nobody said you couldn't. Why would you?
I didn't restate what you said. "All balance doesn't come down to mathmatics in the end..." "All game results are not mathematically resolved, but they can be mathematically modeled and represented as results, if not in resolution." I didn't feel the need to add "from those results we can mathematically figure balance," as I figured it was self-evident, but apparently not.
To give examples:
Class Y in combat can produce results scaling from 4-6, with an average result of 5. An accumulated result of 50 will end combat favorably, and this must be done be fore the opponent reaches an accumulated result of 50 for themselves. Class X can negate that combat 10 times a day with an ability. The negation isn't generated mathematically, but we can still track its value by comparisson.
Class Y can perform Tasks A-N with a 50% probability of success. Class X can negate the need to perform Tasks A-N, as well as Tasks O-ZZ. Again, that negation isn't mathematically genererated, but we can see that it obviously of much higher value than the abilities of class Y.
2e Wizard: Method I, the standard method consists of rolling 3d6 in order for ability scores
3x/PF Wizard: Method I, the standard method consists of rolling 4d6, dropping the lowest and assign them in any order you see fit
Advantage: 3x/PF wizard (Tie if using method III for 2e Wizard)
- Assumes stats represent the same thing and have the same mechanical benefits in both systems. You may wish to note that a 2e "9" in intelligence is functionally equivalent to a "14" for a 3e wizard. (False)
- Assumes someone is going to play a wizard in 2e D&D with an int of 8, meaning they will be playing a wizard who cannot at all cast spells. (I am going to assume false.)
- Assumes all spells in both editions have the same effects, spell level, and limitations (or lack thereof) in both editions. (False.)
- Assumes your stated methods are genuinely the primary method of producing stats. (Again, we would have to survey this for a genuine answer but you're the first person in more than 25 years to tell me this is the "primary" way of doing things, so I'm going to conclude "false." This isn't a lynch-pin for the argument, so I'm not generally concerned.)
- Assumes a lower average of generated scores either happens only to the wizard, or effects the 2e wizard more dramatically than any other class sampled, i.e. a 2e wizard with an int 9 can still learn and cast spells up to 4th spell level which includes black tentacles, polymorphs, etc., A 3e wizard with an int of 9 cannot cast any spell. A 2e fighter with a strength of 9 is BONED, as is the 3e fighter. (False.)
- Assumes looking at a single aspect of a system in a vacuum and assuming the next system will function on the same principles is a good method of determining relative balance. (False.)
2e Wizard: Not all races can reach level 20 playing a mage, only Humans can reach 20th level playing a mage
3x/PF Wizard: All races can reach level 20 playing a mage
Advantage: 3x/PF Wizard
This is an issue of racial imbalance, not class imbalance. Additionally, it is a prime example of imbalance used to discourage imagination. Go 2e.
2e Wizard: Roll d4 for hit points, including 1st level
3x/PF Wizard: Roll d6 for hit points, max hitpoints at 1st level
Advantage:3x/PF Wizard
This I will barely concede, although this applies solely to PF and not 3.5. Mathematically the guy in PF does come out ahead, as the overall damage values are similar. On the other hand, if you're still bothering to track hitpoints by the time you can cast 4th level spells in either system, then you either enjoy the paperwork or are doing it wrong.
Hooray for the boards screwing up formatting. After this point, I'll be putting your quotes in bold print. Bold print for a bold claim. ^_^
2e Wizard: The slowest advancing class in the game
3x/PF Wizard: Advances at the same rate as every other class
Advantage: 3x/PF Wizard
- Assumes advancement means the same thing across the board to all classes in either game. (False.)
- Assumes a fighter and a wizard with the same XP total 2e will have less disparity because of level difference than a fighter and a wizard in 3e with the same XP total will have. (As of yet, unproven, I'm going with false.)
2e Wizard: Chance to fail learning spell, intelligence determines success probability
3x/PF Wizard: Can automatically learn all spells, does not need to roll percentile chance to learn spell
Advantage: 3x/PF Wizard
Chance to fail to learn FOUND, spells not researched spells.
- Assumes the research mechanic in 2e is less painful than 3X, and widely available. (False.)
- Assumes all spells will be bought or found and not researched. (False)
- Assumes one will not come across multiple copies of the same spell--after all it's not like any bad guy has a spell book, AMIRITE LULZ. (False)
- Assumes one cannot attempt again at the next level. (False)
- Assumes all spells in both editions have the same effects, spell level, and limitations (or lack thereof) in both editions, as this statement is made in a vacuum that must assume that to be relevant to the discussion of relative balance. (False.)
2e Wizard: Intelligence determines max level of spellcasting ability
3x/PF Wizard: Intelligenc determines max level of spellcasting ability
Advantage: Tie
- Assumes Intelligence score has the exact same effect per numerical result in both editions. (False, as repeatedly mentioned.)
2e Wizard: Standard method is to receive spells from DM, not always automatically either (find scroll, visit mentor, etc)
3x/PF wizard: Gain your spells automatically and pick your own spells
Advantage: 3x/PF Wizard (tie if using alternate method)
- Ignores several other subsystems for spell gain in both systems.
2e Wizard: Must add casting time of spell to initiative roll, must call out action before rolling initiative, dexterity modifier to AC is negated when casting a spell in combat.
3x/PF wizard: Casts spell as a standard action when turn arrives, retain dexterity bonus to AC when casting in combat
Advantage: 3x/PF Wizard
- Assumes dexterity modifier to AC is of the same weight in both systems. (False.)
- Assumes both wizards and their parties are incompetent and unable to place themselves correctly.
2e Wizard: No inherent special abilities gained with level increase to pump up spellcasting functionality
3x/PF Wizard: Plethora of spellcasting feats to further pump up the power, effectiveness, and efficacy of spells.
Advantage: 3x/PF Wizard
- Assumes all spells in both editions have the same effects, spell level, and limitations (or lack thereof) in both editions, as this statement is made in a vacuum that must assume that to be relevant to the discussion of relative balance. (False.)
The 3x/PF wizard was a better class in almost EVERY way compared to its 2e counterpart. Any semblance of reducing or placing restrictions on the class evaporated with 3x/PF so the disparity between the classes was even more profound than in 2e.
See... i think you missed something...
You didn't look at the spells. Are there more limitations on the old wizard? In some cases, yes. But there were far less restrictions on their spell effects, and making a saving throw in 2e was not nearly as likely as it was in 3e. 3e DID open up the door a bit as far as restrictions on the wizards themselves, I agree with you on that point. However, you're viewing this in a vacuum, and not looking at the spells that they codified and chained down--hell, I remember that being one of the things I had to listen to people scream and whine about when 3e came out! "Sure, I've got more character options, but they killed my spells!!!" Balance is about the whole of a system, not each piece viewed individually. Furthermore, you can't assume that just because one thing interacts with a system in a specific way for one game that it will do so in an identical fashion in the other.
It's not that I don't get where you're coming from, I totally do. I just think you've missed the forest for the trees here.
See, you said I was incorrect, but then went on to state what I was stating. Sure you can 'model' all game results mathematically. Nobody said you couldn't. Why would you?
The other thing he doesn't seem to see is that any and all such mathmatical models are approximations (guesswork) of what the game designers think (subjective opinion) represents balance in that situation. This means that balance (as measured objectively) still does not exist. They will get some players who agree with them and some who disagree. Simply having math involved does not mean that balance will exist or that the subject will even be remotely close to being balanced. Game balance in an RPG is a myth. It can never happen.
Sure you do. It still works, but having changing, evolving ideas makes sure things don't get stale. Frankly, I don't think 4e was going stale, but there was a risk. Essentials proves that 4e can do stuff that isn't AEDU and still fit relatively well into the balance of 4e. Sure, it has a few problems (Slayers, Knights and Theives really don't have a reason to rest, unless they are out of Surges) but they work pretty well.
All I know is that I doubt Pathfinder can keep steam with their releases. They haven't thrown down much in terms of invovation in the system, and from what I saw, they are really stretching. You got Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic and then...what?
Adventures. Paizo has said (and people love to ignore this tidbit) that the majority of their income is made off modules. The large audience success of PF has been mostly... accidental, shall we say. They never intended to put up a fight, it just sort of happened. They've also said that they are planning on at least a ten year run. Combine these two and it's easy to see that they will do just fine without releasing tons of rule books each year.
The other thing he doesn't seem to see is that any and all such mathmatical models are approximations (guesswork) of what the game designers think (subjective opinion) represents balance in that situation.
No, balance is an objective standard.
That objective standard is often undermined by the subjective standards of designers, or the limitations of attempting to recreate as many options as possible within a mechanical system where the value of those options may radically change depending on use, situation, and the needs of the players.
This means that balance (as measured objectively) still does not exist.
Does not exist in the sense of "currently exemplified perfectly within an RPG game?" I'd agree.
Does not exist in the sense of "Is most likely an unatainable goal while still providing options that will allow for and encourage dynamic roleplay?" I'd still agree, actually. But because we have a low (or nil) probability of attaining that goal does not mean that we should not strive for it.
There may or may not be a way to create a perfectly balanced system that is still interesting to play and offers a wide host of options, but just as that does not mean that one should abandon all pretense of creating an interesting game in the name of balance, it does not mean one should abandon all pretense of balance in the name of making an interesting game. In the end, balance is objectively provable and disprovable, while "interesting" is highly subjective, and will not only vary from individual to individual, but will vary in the same individual over time.
I once had a great fondness for mechanics that forced elves, dwarves and other demi-humans to be objectively, mathematically lesser options, and denied that anything that was not overloaded with magical power could be a genuine threat. I loved them, in a word. Now I have done as much with that as I can, and its relative value as being of interest to me is far diminished.
They will get some players who agree with them and some who disagree.
Disagreement is irrelevant. I can disagree that the light wavelengths from sky that reach my eye are objectively measurable as "blue." That does not mean that they are not blue.
Simply having math involved does not mean that balance will exist or that the subject will even be remotely close to being balanced.
Very astute observation, as shown by the massive imbalance present in early RPG design. On the other hand, it does make correcting those imbalances much easier, as we can observe, measure, and reconsider the designs as informed individuals rather than just making blind shots in the dark.
Game balance in an RPG is a myth. It can never happen.
Perfect game balance in an RPG worth playing most likely is a myth. Again, this does not imply that it is not a goal worth achieving, nor that imbalance makes an RPG objectively or even subjectively good.
If balance is unatainable, if balance is a myth, if balance is BAD, then why does Max spend so much of his time trying to convince people that 3.X isn't as poorly balanced as it is? Why has Warrant spent all this time discussing the merits of balance in 2e over 3.X with me?
Awww, I think I've made my point insomuch as explaining why 2e casters were balanced in D&D moreso than 3x/PF casters were/are.
All balance doesn't come down to mathmatics in the end, as all game results are not determined mathematically. Also, I am not arguing that 2e is as balanced as 4e. I would agree with Abdulalhazred as to the degree of balance each edition of wizard espoused, with the exception of swapping 1e/2e. If I were to compare the balance of 4e to 2e I would say that 4e is balanced symmetrically and mathematically - gamist players have a much more difficult time using the rules to usurp the story; 2e was balanced philosophically to say that the philosophy of the gaming system was "here are these incredibly powerful and fantastic game elements DM. Some may use them for the enjoyment of all, some may use them to the detriment of all, it is your job to make sure the latter doesn't happen"
Adjuticating the balance is a talent that many DM's lacked, leading to the usurping of the game rules to bypass the storyline.
The DM's job is not to balance the system, though. If the DM has to ban things because of balance, it's an unbalanced system.
No system is balanced, so that is ultimately irrelevant. DMs will have to balance any game they run or run an imbalanced game. One of the two.
So just because you have to do some work, it shouldnt matter how much you have to do?
Awww, I think I've made my point insomuch as explaining why 2e casters were balanced in D&D moreso than 3x/PF casters were/are.
All balance doesn't come down to mathmatics in the end, as all game results are not determined mathematically. Also, I am not arguing that 2e is as balanced as 4e. I would agree with Abdulalhazred as to the degree of balance each edition of wizard espoused, with the exception of swapping 1e/2e. If I were to compare the balance of 4e to 2e I would say that 4e is balanced symmetrically and mathematically - gamist players have a much more difficult time using the rules to usurp the story; 2e was balanced philosophically to say that the philosophy of the gaming system was "here are these incredibly powerful and fantastic game elements DM. Some may use them for the enjoyment of all, some may use them to the detriment of all, it is your job to make sure the latter doesn't happen"
Adjuticating the balance is a talent that many DM's lacked, leading to the usurping of the game rules to bypass the storyline.
The DM's job is not to balance the system, though. If the DM has to ban things because of balance, it's an unbalanced system.
No system is balanced, so that is ultimately irrelevant. DMs will have to balance any game they run or run an imbalanced game. One of the two.
So just because you have to do some work, it shouldnt matter how much you have to do?
Not if you like the game.
So just because you have to do some work, it shouldnt matter how much you have to do?
Not if you like the game.
Points of note:
- This assumes additional work will have no impact (or a positive impact) on one's enjoyment of the game.
- This assumes less work will have no impact (or a negative impact) on one's enjoyment of the game.
- Work is time spent not playing, although it may be subjectively enjoyable to some.
- If more time spent not playing the game is enjoyable, then there may be a problem.
Awww, I think I've made my point insomuch as explaining why 2e casters were balanced in D&D moreso than 3x/PF casters were/are.
All balance doesn't come down to mathmatics in the end, as all game results are not determined mathematically. Also, I am not arguing that 2e is as balanced as 4e. I would agree with Abdulalhazred as to the degree of balance each edition of wizard espoused, with the exception of swapping 1e/2e. If I were to compare the balance of 4e to 2e I would say that 4e is balanced symmetrically and mathematically - gamist players have a much more difficult time using the rules to usurp the story; 2e was balanced philosophically to say that the philosophy of the gaming system was "here are these incredibly powerful and fantastic game elements DM. Some may use them for the enjoyment of all, some may use them to the detriment of all, it is your job to make sure the latter doesn't happen"
Adjuticating the balance is a talent that many DM's lacked, leading to the usurping of the game rules to bypass the storyline.
The DM's job is not to balance the system, though. If the DM has to ban things because of balance, it's an unbalanced system.
No system is balanced, so that is ultimately irrelevant. DMs will have to balance any game they run or run an imbalanced game. One of the two.
So just because you have to do some work, it shouldnt matter how much you have to do?
Not if you like the game.
Non-D&D Friend and Family be DAMNED!!
Balance, however, is something that can be measured, and you liking the game doesn't make it more balanced.
I agree that perfect game balance is a myth. The DM is and always has been the one to control every aspect of the game. Things happen during play that the rules just don't cover. In D&D players should be able to do anything they want to. If they can't, then the're not playing an RPG and they might as well just go and play an online MMO.
Personally, I find the 4e system has created far too much work for me as a DM. The reason is that the system doesn't facilitate our groups play style and I'm having to constantly change the monsters, magical items, invent house rules, and create my own modules. I also can't use any of my old modules as they are no longer compatable.
Now as for perfect balance between the classes, it really isn't important in an RPG. Actually, I would much rather see the classes balanced against each other (in combat) then balanced in terms of roles. Roles are the dumest thing to ever be introduced to D&D. They are just not needed in an RPG and they add too much complexity to the game.
I agree with 4e's direction in terms of providing more power to the martial classes, but I don't agree with how they nerfed the arcane casters and completly gutted magic from the game.
I really have a hard time calling the 4e system D&D. Sure the name is the same and it has all the flavour , but it just isn't the same game anymore. The 4e system has the illusion of D&D wereas Pathfinder is D&D.
Oh well.. it won't be long and WoTC will cast Finger of Death at 4e and it will fail its save and die.
All: You do realize that the OP hasn't posted once after starting this thread? I call troll - who's probably laughing quite nicely as he sees the posts piling up.
I said it in the 1st reply.... people keep taking the bait and feeding the trolls.
;)
If I couldn't play fast and lose with the 4e rules I wouldn't play the game. My players would get board with the 4e system out of the box very quickly.
I agree that perfect game balance is a myth. The DM is and always has been the one to control every aspect of the game. Things happen during play that the rules just don't cover. In D&D players should be able to do anything they want to. If they can't, then the're not playing an RPG and they might as well just go and play an online MMO.
Personally, I find the 4e system has created far too much work for me as a DM. The reason is that the system doesn't facilitate our groups play style and I'm having to constantly change the monsters, magical items, invent house rules, and create my own modules. I also can't use any of my old modules as they are no longer compatable.
Now as for perfect balance between the classes, it really isn't important in an RPG. Actually, I would much rather see the classes balanced against each other (in combat) then balanced in terms of roles. Roles are the dumest thing to ever be introduced to D&D. They are just not needed in an RPG and they add too much complexity to the game.
I agree with 4e's direction in terms of providing more power to the martial classes, but I don't agree with how they nerfed the arcane casters and completly gutted magic from the game.
I really have a hard time calling the 4e system D&D. Sure the name is the same and it has all the flavour , but it just isn't the same game anymore. The 4e system has the illusion of D&D wereas Pathfinder is D&D.
Oh well.. it won't be long and WoTC will cast Finger of Death at 4e and it will fail its save and die.
I kind of got used to the changes and actually like them. With the new mechanical changes and the dumping of the Great Wheel cosmology I can understand how to some people PF would have a beter claim to being D&D than 4th ed. I don't like the 4th ed hells or the changes to the upper planes but I'm not sad to see the ethereal plane go and I tend to desgin my own cosmology anyway. I reallly like the elemental chaos over the old elemental planes and I will be using that instead even if I play 3.5 or PF again or in my own 4th ed homebrew world. The only way I plane on using the old elemental planes would be in something like a classic Darksun game where it is relevent and even then I'll probably use the new 4th ed Darksun anyway unless I run a 2nd ed DS game.
The severe 4th ed changes did manage to alienate a large % of D&D's fanbase which is probably no secret by now.
Pathfinder has a very good setting that had been started within the pages of the quarterly Pathfinder adventure paths used with the (then current) 3.5 rules. The quality of the art (mainly by one artist) combined with a slightly different take on Goblins (let it be know, they are definatly monsters here) and a very well written introduction to the world as it took shape combined to make it very appealing, even when the system wasn't in place yet as Wizards wound down the 3.5 machine to have 4th take over.
The main difference between the systems, though, is that 4th edition, even with the flaws of the Parcel System, mundane Magical Items, and Skill Challenges, has evolved to a more modern rule set. 3.5, or the Pathfinder setting adjustments (referred to as 3.75 by some), is still the same system that has been ferreted out and twisted since the first PHB.
The Pathfinder "fixes" are things that front load the characters at first level, and make for a more study adventurer than the RAW PHB (3.5). It also fills in "dead" levels and makes a single class character improved over the multiclassing ones. Schools, I believe, are represented better, and the Sorcerer is filled out to be a full class instead of a "wizard lite." The things I really don't like, that I tired of in 3.5, is the differing mechanics between the classes, moreso with the later classes in the 3.5 line, but the difference between the Wizard and the Sorcerer is enough to see what I mean. (And the Warlock after that, when it comes down to it)
4th edition started out very well, with classes having their own identity, and the same layout for each class. Some though that this made each class the same, with "tree" powers and no real differing powers between them. Playing the game, I find that is not the case.
I look forward to the day when Pathfinder is updated to the current edition, though it may be 5th edition before it is all said and done.
What is a good way to describe the differences in Pathfinder and 4e, and which do you feel is better? Please just focus what you like about each and differences, don't go into hating one or the other. I'm trying to give both options to a group of new players, where some have played 4e.
To the OP: What do you actually want to DM? Pathfinder or 4e? Wouldn't it be easier to state your preference to your players and ask them if they're OK with that?
A little behind on reading my own thread.
Right now I'm leaning more towards Pathfinder simply because I like the options it provides. I think it is a lot easier to create your own build in it. However, my group is split on two people that are interested in Pathfinder, one person who doesn't care, and one very loud 4e advocate. I'm giving them parts of this so that they can give me which one they want (I've already given them the PF sourcebooks and they've got the 4e PH)
A little behind on reading my own thread.
Welcome back, anyhow. Sadly this one turned out much like other, similar threads.
Right now I'm leaning more towards Pathfinder simply because I like the options it provides. I think it is a lot easier to create your own build in it.
Out of curiosity, what do you think would be hard to build in 4e? I had a few problems building things when I first started playing because I was new to the system, but I got a couple good bits of advice that really cleared things up for me--haven't had a problem again yet. ^_^
However, my group is split on two people that are interested in Pathfinder, one person who doesn't care, and one very loud 4e advocate. I'm giving them parts of this so that they can give me which one they want (I've already given them the PF sourcebooks and they've got the 4e PH)
Well this is the heart of the matter. What's going to make you and the other players the happiest.
PF isn't a life destroying pit of evil that will consume your souls, it's a game, and it can be a very fun one to play. I prefer 4th, but I have some very specific reasons for it.
Pathfinder practically shines in some areas:
Like 4th, low level games are pretty great. There's options and even the wizards (who used to be nearly crippled at level 1) can be pretty fun. It does great and is a lot of fun up until those 4th level spells start to make it into spell lists. (7th level) Likewise, past about level 3-5, most of the options are in the hands of spellcasters. If your players all want to play men and women of magical prowess, spurn the rogues and fighting men, Pathfinder does pretty good, and this will help clean up some of the balance. (at least on the player side.)
If you've got rangers and rogues and fighters, they're going to find out pretty quick that most of what they can do can be matched by the casters (outside of combat, and in) with the casters having plenty of options besides. Our PF party ranger renamed her wolf companion "Dammit" and no longer bothers to even track his contributions in combat because since the day she got him (level 4, we're level 9 now) he hasn't been able to hit anything. She had really been looking forward to having a pet wolf, too.
If you're planning to stick to a mostly low-level game with nothing but full-casting characters, expect to have a lot of fun with Pathfinder. Outside that comfort zone... YMMV.
A little behind on reading my own thread.
Welcome back, anyhow. Sadly this one turned out much like other, similar threads.Right now I'm leaning more towards Pathfinder simply because I like the options it provides. I think it is a lot easier to create your own build in it.
Out of curiosity, what do you think would be hard to build in 4e? I had a few problems building things when I first started playing because I was new to the system, but I got a couple good bits of advice that really cleared things up for me--haven't had a problem again yet. ^_^
This - I can build anything from a non-combatant(action adventurer style) to an Elric of Melnibone or many other more surprising possiblities... ofcourse if all you have access to is the phb you will feel limited?
Charisma includes creativitivity and desception (tis why its the basis for bluffing)... deception is a standard ingredient
Deception really has nothing to do with charisma. Charisma determines believability, not deception. I can be really charismatic and believable, but if I am not a good liar, I still will be bad at deception. That's one of the issues with D&D. It cannot handle skills or abilities that really use multiple stats to perform. WoTC has chosen to go with simplicity over accuracy, for good or for ill depending on your personal preference, and in the case of bluffing they chose to utilize charisma over intelligence for deception.
Charisma also reflects divine inspiration. (The divine guides your hand)
Charisma includes spirit ... in the martial arts by invoking ones spirit you can surge your adrenaline and scientific studies in real life show empassioned attacks are as much as 50 percent more forceful than otherwise.
The problem with this is that passion does not equal charisma, nor does the spirit. You are inventing definitions for these words that do not exist in order to justify a game that has deliberately choses to sacrifice accuracy in favor of simplicity.
Divine might =/= wisdon and arcane power =/= intelligence. Both can be had easily with a 3 in each score. I'm not losing out on anything by taking it for what it means. You are inventing definitions for these things that are not there and home brewing those stats.
How many spells can a (3.5) paladin or cleric with a wisdom of 3 cast per day? How many times can they turn undead with a charisma of 3?
How many spells does a wizard know with an int of 3? How many can he learn? What if he's like level 20 and still has an Int of 3? Is he pouring out amazing, world shaping magics about like they're water?
What about that Sorcerer fellow? Does he easily have arcane power with a charisma of 3? Does he practically glow with magic? Is his sorcerous ability based on his good looks? Would Selma Hayek be able to channel unstoppable fingers of death with saves so high we'd never manage to ake them?
(I'd still tear that @$# up! She can finger me wherever, however, whenever she wants, I swear.)
Strength is mocked a lot by the martial arts (that includes fencing) In fact if you try to force openings using more strength? that is something very easy to use against you. Judo is a well known relection of this. The qualities useful for doing so oh perception and decisiveness.. this is timing not force. Ironically Unpredictability or Deception is at minimum another point of the star.. shrug but it isnt so useful against force.
If Strength is mocked by the martial arts, then why do they make me do all those strengthening exercises?
And I'm still wondering how with Almeidaboo's views it's okay for Strength to help you aim, Dexterity to help with damage and Int/Wis/Cha to help you throw a fireball 50 feet or unerringly point a magic missile to its target.
If these things are off limits for magically aiming a sword, then surely they're off limits for magically aiming a ball of fire with no handle on it.
Because it wasn't in 3.5, thus it's bad and kills his gaming mood.
You do realize that the +1 through +5 on a magic weapon is the "magic" that helps you swing more accurate and do more damage.
Sooo...Yeah, it makes prefect sense for a bard to use his magic to making his strikes more accurate and deal more damage. I don't understand why you can't deal with this abstraction when it's the exact same one that is being used for strength and dexterity.
I mean, it's like a massive double standard. That if it's new and in 4e, it kills verisimilitude and it laughable, while 3.5 or early is a prefect simulation and just shoves on the immersion. I just can't wrap my head around it.
Strength is mocked a lot by the martial arts (that includes fencing) In fact if you try to force openings using more strength? that is something very easy to use against you. Judo is a well known relection of this. The qualities useful for doing so oh perception and decisiveness.. this is timing not force. Ironically Unpredictability or Deception is at minimum another point of the star.. shrug but it isnt so useful against force.
If Strength is mocked by the martial arts, then why do they make me do all those strengthening exercises?
I think he meant pure, brute strength, rather than that proper use of it.
I fail to see any reason why choosing to model the game in the manner of Pathfinder in any way, shape, or form, objectively improves the quality of the game. Especially considering how much I hate Pathfinder's mechanics. I will stick to 4e, Savage Worlds, Warhammer FRPG 3e, Star Wars Saga, and the like, thank you very much.
Second, I'm about 99% certain that 3.x had all sorts of feats that let you use abilities other than STR and DEX to calculate your attack. So, if its kosher in 3.x, why is it bad and wrong in 4e? Methinks there's a bit of hypocracy here.
Last, what BlackKnight said about strength in martial arts. Its not about brute strength; its about strength properly applied. Having more strength just means you'll be more efficient at breaking bones or whatnot, but the key is that it is strength coupled with skill.
Second, I'm about 99% certain that 3.x had all sorts of feats that let you use abilities other than STR and DEX to calculate your attack. So, if its kosher in 3.x, why is it bad and wrong in 4e? Methinks there's a bit of hypocracy here.
Because its only logical when you allow it with a feat, using the exact same mechanics as those used in Pathfinder or 3e. True story.
Concerning using stats other than Strength and Dex to calculate attack and damage: Why are we arguing about it being realistic or not? The better question is, in my mind, "Does it fit the narrative?"
Second, I'm about 99% certain that 3.x had all sorts of feats that let you use abilities other than STR and DEX to calculate your attack. So, if its kosher in 3.x, why is it bad and wrong in 4e? Methinks there's a bit of hypocracy here.
Last, what BlackKnight said about strength in martial arts. Its not about brute strength; its about strength properly applied. Having more strength just means you'll be more efficient at breaking bones or whatnot, but the key is that it is strength coupled with skill.
Feats were different because they were not a part of class abilities and weren't in the mechanics of the game. Yes they had feats that did this but you could easily remove them. Try removing the Dex bonus to damage for the Vampire.
Hypocracy has nothing to do with this.
And, in a game where classes can summon magical fireballs at will as a result of their intellectual studies, someone is going to actually argue that it is unreasonable that a class use such magical force to guide their blade instead of using the muscles that a typical swordsman would use? Really!?
Not that I saw (but I didn't/can't read every post). I said that one does not equal the other, and that using int to guide a blade was home brew, but I never said it was unreasonable to home brew it that way.
And, in a game where classes can summon magical fireballs at will as a result of their intellectual studies, someone is going to actually argue that it is unreasonable that a class use such magical force to guide their blade instead of using the muscles that a typical swordsman would use? Really!?
Not that I saw (but I didn't/can't read every post). I said that one does not equal the other, and that using int to guide a blade was home brew, but I never said it was unreasonable to home brew it that way.
Its homebrew that the swordmage uses Int to guide the spells it casts with its blade (spells that require that one swing a sword, and try and make contact with a foe)? Really!? Because, I could swear it has powers called spells, with the arcane keyword, the weapon keyword, melee range, and that use Int to grant a bonus to hit and damage. I must be going mad.
Concerning using stats other than Strength and Dex to calculate attack and damage: Why are we arguing about it being realistic or not? The better question is, in my mind, "Does it fit the narrative?"
Second, I'm about 99% certain that 3.x had all sorts of feats that let you use abilities other than STR and DEX to calculate your attack. So, if its kosher in 3.x, why is it bad and wrong in 4e? Methinks there's a bit of hypocracy here.
Last, what BlackKnight said about strength in martial arts. Its not about brute strength; its about strength properly applied. Having more strength just means you'll be more efficient at breaking bones or whatnot, but the key is that it is strength coupled with skill.
Feats were different because they were not a part of class abilities and weren't in the mechanics of the game. Yes they had feats that did this but you could easily remove them. Try removing the Dex bonus to damage for the Vampire.
Hypocracy has nothing to do with this.
Huh. Now where was the post where I said exactly that (but with a heavy dose of irony). Oh, here it was...
Because its only logical when you allow it with a feat, using the exact same mechanics as those used in Pathfinder or 3e. True story.
And, in a game where classes can summon magical fireballs at will as a result of their intellectual studies, someone is going to actually argue that it is unreasonable that a class use such magical force to guide their blade instead of using the muscles that a typical swordsman would use? Really!?
Not that I saw (but I didn't/can't read every post). I said that one does not equal the other, and that using int to guide a blade was home brew, but I never said it was unreasonable to home brew it that way.
Its homebrew that the swordmage uses Int to guide the spells it casts with its blade (spells that require that one swing a sword, and try and make contact with a foe)? Really!? Because, I could swear it has powers called spells, with the arcane keyword, the weapon keyword, and that use Int to grant a bonus to hit and damage. I must be going mad.
I don't think you're going mad, I just think you're confused. I'm talking about the intelligence bonus being added to attacks, etc. and being called arcane power guiding the sword. I'm not talking about powers that actually use the sword.
Edit: I said very clearly that int bonus =/= arcane power, and it does not.
And, in a game where classes can summon magical fireballs at will as a result of their intellectual studies, someone is going to actually argue that it is unreasonable that a class use such magical force to guide their blade instead of using the muscles that a typical swordsman would use? Really!?
Not that I saw (but I didn't/can't read every post). I said that one does not equal the other, and that using int to guide a blade was home brew, but I never said it was unreasonable to home brew it that way.
Its homebrew that the swordmage uses Int to guide the spells it casts with its blade (spells that require that one swing a sword, and try and make contact with a foe)? Really!? Because, I could swear it has powers called spells, with the arcane keyword, the weapon keyword, and that use Int to grant a bonus to hit and damage. I must be going mad.
I don't think you're going mad, I just think you're confused. I'm talking about the intelligence bonus being added to attacks, etc. and being called arcane power guiding the sword. I'm not talking about powers that actually use the sword.
Yea. I am the one confused. The power has the arcane keyword. It is called a spell. It uses a sword. It adds an Int bonus to hit and damage. But, the spell's power, its strength, is not guided by arcane power (despite the spell's keywords, which say that it is). Yup. Your argument is totally logical. True story.
Concerning using stats other than Strength and Dex to calculate attack and damage: Why are we arguing about it being realistic or not? The better question is, in my mind, "Does it fit the narrative?"
Second, I'm about 99% certain that 3.x had all sorts of feats that let you use abilities other than STR and DEX to calculate your attack. So, if its kosher in 3.x, why is it bad and wrong in 4e? Methinks there's a bit of hypocracy here.
Last, what BlackKnight said about strength in martial arts. Its not about brute strength; its about strength properly applied. Having more strength just means you'll be more efficient at breaking bones or whatnot, but the key is that it is strength coupled with skill.
Feats were different because they were not a part of class abilities and weren't in the mechanics of the game. Yes they had feats that did this but you could easily remove them. Try removing the Dex bonus to damage for the Vampire.
Hypocracy has nothing to do with this.
Huh. Now where was the post where I said exactly that (but with a heavy dose of irony). Oh, here it was...Because its only logical when you allow it with a feat, using the exact same mechanics as those used in Pathfinder or 3e. True story.
You can roll your eyes until they fall out and end up on the ground. Removing certain feats don't change the game, removing built in game mechanics do.
Pathfinder is more fun for me to play because when a rule or mechanic is given, it makes sense to me and to the situation IAW verisimilitude. I don't have to invent new conventions for why something that seemingly wouldn't work (but does for sake of mechanics) does. That being said, PF is more difficult to DM due to the disparate power levels of PC's and the wildly unbalanced effect a gamist player can have on the system. 4e suffers much less of a detriment from a gamist player. PF appeals more to my simulationist mindset, which is why I prefer to play it.
I think the reason that WotC tied ability scores to actions and concepts that aren't within the historical conventions of fantasy gaming (besides trying to equally include all ability scores in effecting in-game powers and skills mechanically)was that they were hoping to rewrite the traditional mindest tied to those ability scores.
Did they succeed? In some people's eyes - Yes. For others, Not so much.
You can roll your eyes until they fall out and end up on the ground. Removing certain feats don't change the game, removing built in game mechanics do.
Removing those feats, in terms of the paradigm of 3e, is much the same as removing certain classes from 4e. Removing certain class options from your game doesn't "change" the game any more than removing certain classes does.
Yea. I am the one confused. The power has the arcane keyword. It is called a spell. It uses a sword. It adds an Int bonus to hit and damage. But, the spell's power, its strength, is not guided by arcane power (despite the spell's keywords, which say that it is). Yup. Your argument is totally logical. True story.
And yet int bonus =/= arcane power.....which is what I've been saying.
It can be used that way if you wish, but it does not inherently mean that. No one is saying that there are not arcane powers that use int to hit and do damage. We are saying that it's stupid. The spell uses a sword and is arcane power. Intelligence is intelligence, not arcane power. The game uses int as a lazy way out for balance purposes, not to make any sort of sense.
The game uses int as a lazy way out for balance purposes, not to make any sort of sense.
Yes.
I don't think INT is the only one however.
The game uses int as a lazy way out for balance purposes, not to make any sort of sense.
Yes.
I don't think INT is the only one however.
No. The game does that in a lot of areas.
Yea. I am the one confused. The power has the arcane keyword. It is called a spell. It uses a sword. It adds an Int bonus to hit and damage. But, the spell's power, its strength, is not guided by arcane power (despite the spell's keywords, which say that it is). Yup. Your argument is totally logical. True story.
And yet int bonus =/= arcane power.....which is what I've been saying.
It can be used that way if you wish, but it does not inherently mean that. No one is saying that there are not arcane powers that use int to hit and do damage. We are saying that it's stupid. The spell uses a sword and is arcane power. Intelligence is intelligence, not arcane power. The game uses int as a lazy way out for balance purposes, not to make any sort of sense.
Yeah, it's not like your study and devotion to the Arcane arts isn't based off you're intellengence, and that 4e already has precidence for it.
Wait.
Shut up and let the thread die. If this thread has any effect on what you're going to do with your game, then you're allowed to keep talking.
And yet int bonus =/= arcane power.....which is what I've been saying.
Absolutly, for some classes, yes it does. We know this, because some classes have more powerful spells if they have a larger Int bonus. Insofar as accuracy and damage can be described as a facet of "power," and insofar as some spells are more accurate and do more damage if you have a larger Int, for those classes Int does equal arcane power.
It can be used that way if you wish, but it does not inherently mean that. No one is saying that there are not arcane powers that use int to hit and do damage. We are saying that it's stupid. The spell uses a sword and is arcane power. Intelligence is intelligence, not arcane power. The game uses int as a lazy way out for balance purposes, not to make any sort of sense.
Inherently? No, it doesn't. For a few classes their arcane power is measured by Charisma; the bard and the sorcerer are good examples. But it does mean that for some classes, objectively, including the swordmage. That class's spells use a sword, are arcane in power, and the effectiveness of those spells is measured in terms of intelligence and not muscles (or Strength). Intelligence is intelligence, not arcane power, but many classes measure their arcane capabilities in terms of intelligence. That isn't a "lazy way out." In fact, it is pretty typical for every edition of D&D that I have played. The mechanics are different; in the past that measurement was modeled by a minimum Int required to cast a certain spells, and an Int based effect on a spell's saving throw difficulty class, now that measurement is modeled by a bonus to hit and damage with applicable spells, but there is nothing objectively "lazy, realistic, or unrealistic" about either choice. Claiming that one makes sense and the other doesn't is hypocrisy. Furthermore, claiming that Intelligence has no narrative history of being a measurement of arcane capability is either disingenuous, or ignorant, depending on how much you know about the history of D&D (and if you have played a wizard or mage in 2e or 3e, it is disingenuous).
I've found 4e to be much more enjoyable if you don't think about it too much. 4e has taken many of the conventionally accepted concepts from fantasy gaming and tweaked them to fit in a mechanically balanced system. In the end, 4e ends up as an extremely balanced game that has traded verisimilitude1 to achieve those gains in mechanical balance. 4e is much more fun for me now that I don't try to think2 about the "why" of something, and just deal with the effect. The mantra in 4e is "Nothing is wrong with the system design because I can use my imagination to explain the effect3" This is the concept of dissociated mechanics and it does a good job for balance. This is one of the reasons why playing 4e does not appeal to me (DM'ing is fun because I tend to houserule in favor of verisimilitude4 and generally accepted conventions of fantasy gaming, and moreso because the monster redesigns were the single best leap forward in RPG gaming IMO, and ease-of-use.)
1.) False premise. Versimilitude means "like the truth." It could be taken to mean a more accurate portrayal or a strict simulation. There is nothing about the mechanics of either system that on their own merits accurately model the truth. What you likely meant to say was "a version of how stories and unrealistic physics that are in complete contradiction to how the real world actually works that I like better than other because it's what was handed out to people for 30 years and so I'm used to it and comfortable with it." There is no versimilitude in studying all your life only to forget what you have learned every day, being crippled with palsy or unable to touch your own finger to your nose without extreme difficulty but being able to twirl your sword and attack one guy with it six times in as many seconds without hurting yourself or anyone but your intended target because you are really, really strong. There is nothing realistic about guards who cannot guard (fighters with no spot or listen) sorcerers whose magical power flows from their aesthetically pleasing features, or ten ton flying lizards with relatively small wingspans. Again, your version of "versimilitude" is not like the truth, it is like a story that someone told you is th only kind that is right to play no matter how little sense it genuinely makes. You are welcome to like this kind of story, but to call it "like the truth" is insulting to your own intelligence as well as mine.
2.) How very cute. Would it be amusing if I said "your posts make much more sense now that I've stopped thinking about what kind of idiot writes them."? I'm not saying that, just pointing out the unecessary elitism, closemindedness, and general douchebaggery inherent in such a statement. In all seriousness, I do have to wonder how much thinking you've really done about how any system's mechanics genuinely reflect the narrative if you have no problem with 3e and older editions. Protip: "Uhhh... it's okay cuz a wizard did it!" is not deep thought.
3.) As opposed to "Your imagination must be broken, because the rules can't be," or "Your imagination is wrong because of how I choose to interpret the rules." In a roleplaying/storytelling game? Given the alternatives, I'll take what you're calling "4e's mantra" every time. It sounds like an excellent policy.
4.) Yeaaaaahhh... About that. This would be less an example of "interpreting the rules as they jive with reality" and more like "interpreting the rules as my interpretation of what someone told me should be the Right Way to Do Things™ 30 years ago based on their own heavily biased opinions and desire to intentionally create specific types of imbalance in order to enforce their views of how Fantasy Should Be™ on those who played their game." If you really like their biases and ideas, that's cool, though, I just have a minor issue with you comparing it to "truth" or "reality."
Pathfinder is more fun for me to play because when a rule or mechanic is given, it makes sense to me and to the situation IAW verisimilitude1. I don't have to invent new conventions for why something that seemingly wouldn't work (but does for sake of mechanics) does5. That being said, PF is more difficult to DM due to the disparate power levels of PC's and the wildly unbalanced effect a gamist player can have on the system. 4e suffers much less of a detriment from a gamist player. PF appeals more to my simulationist mindset6, which is why I prefer to play it.
5.) Uh oh... there's that troublesome "imagination" popping up again. I mean, whatever did we do before we had mechanics and descriptions that took all of that nasty old guesswork out for us and just fed us nice, bland, generic, safe, and comfortable ideas? Man, I think I'll switch to PF too, all of this blasted creativity being required on my part is a lot of work and just creates so much uncertainty in the game. I mean how will I ever know if wizard vs. world=absolute win everytime ever if someone doesn't tell me that's the only way it can be?
6.) Simulation of what, exactly? Again, if you're going to claim that any system (including 4e) is a simulation of any world where the general laws of physics and nature apply as they do here in even the most vauge of senses, then I'm going to ask you to do some more thinking.
I think the reason that WotC tied ability scores to actions and concepts that aren't within the historical conventions of fantasy gaming (besides trying to equally include all ability scores in effecting in-game powers and skills mechanically)was that they were hoping to rewrite the traditional mindest tied to those ability scores.
Did they succeed? In some people's eyes - Yes. For others, Not so much.
I think your disconnect is not one of broken realism, or even (lack of) broken mechanics.
Disconnect 1: What you've been told for the last 30 years is the One True Way™... isn't. They said "well it's good to use your imagination, but only if it agrees with my imagination." That's kindof a **** thing to do, come to think of it, but we all bought it hook, line and sinker. I felt pretty stupid when I realized this. I mean, how hypocritical is that?
Disconnect 2: These are mechanics, not your drill sergeant. I know, there's math in there, and after 30 years you're really, really, really expecting those numbers and symbols to not just tell you what to think, but how to think, and even what to think about them, (RAWR!!! DIFFERENT BAD! HULK SMASH!) but they're not going to. These aren't judgemental mechanics. They're loose, easygoing mechanics with a thirst for exciting and new things. Want them to get crazy and bust out the whips and chains? They'll do that for you. Snort a line of stuff off their butt with Air Supply blaring in the background and a technicolor disco ball spinning in the background? They'll even show up with the body glitter. Want to play pretend out in the rain with the neighbors watching? Any time you're up for it cowboy. Heck, even if you want to be all traditional and missionary--you know, wizard on top, fighter on the bottom, you could probably take them into it, but they're not going to be too excited. Remember: Just because they're naughty doesn't mean they're bad.
The best part: no matter what you do with them, they'll still respect you in the morning... Unless you don't want them to.
Disconnect 3: They're not really mechanics. I know what I just said, but they're not. Really, it's true! They're little pieces of story masquerading as mechanics so you'd look at them and maybe discover their wonder on your own. Like the Loathely Lady of arthurian legend or the frog prince, they're there in plain sight but you've gotta step just a little outside of your comfort zone to find out what they really are... and when you do it's awesome, cuz you get to @#$% a prince.(ess.)
INT determining how likely you are to 'hit' with your arcane spell makes exactly as much sense as INT determining how hard your arcane spell was to 'save' against.
Its essentially the same thing considering the mechanical differences in the editions. It does get a bit silly though with some of those essentials feats that allow you to basic atacks using any stat you like. Str dex and at a stretch int makees sense the otheres are a bit weird IMHO. I like those feats and it makes a Knight or whatever interesting if you go with an odd build. Just don't think about it to hard. I don't mind intelligent criticism of 43th ed, 3.5 or PF but yeah.
INT determining how likely you are to 'hit' with your arcane spell makes exactly as much sense as INT determining how hard your arcane spell was to 'save' against.
Its essentially the same thing considering the mechanical fifferenes in the editions. It does get a bit silly though with some of those essentials feats that allow you to basic atacks using any stat you like. Str dex and at a stretch int makees sense the otheres are a bit weird IMHO. I like those feats and it makes a Knight or whatever interesting if you go with an odd build. Just don't think about it to hard.
Doesn't really seem so strange to me. It basically just allows you to power your basic attacks with prayer, psionics, spellcraft, or so on and so forth.
1.) False premise. Versimilitude means "like the truth." It could be taken to mean a more accurate portrayal or a strict simulation. There is nothing about the mechanics of either system that on their own merits accurately model the truth. What you likely meant to say was "a version of how stories and unrealistic physics that are in complete contradiction to how the real world actually works that I like better than other because it's what was handed out to people for 30 years and so I'm used to it and comfortable with it." There is no versimilitude in studying all your life only to forget what you have learned every day, being crippled with palsy or unable to touch your own finger to your nose without extreme difficulty but being able to twirl your sword and attack one guy with it six times in as many seconds without hurting yourself or anyone but your intended target because you are really, really strong. There is nothing realistic about guards who cannot guard (fighters with no spot or listen) sorcerers whose magical power flows from their aesthetically pleasing features, or ten ton flying lizards with relatively small wingspans. Again, your version of "versimilitude" is not like the truth, it is like a story that someone told you is th only kind that is right to play no matter how little sense it genuinely makes. You are welcome to like this kind of story, but to call it "like the truth" is insulting to your own intelligence as well as mine.
Talking about (literary)versimilitude in the context of traditional conventions of fantasy roleplaying, and fantasy literary works NOT necessarily based upon the real world and real physics. Playing a fantasy roleplaying game is specifically used for escapism from the real world.
2.) How very cute.Would it be amusing if I said "your posts make much more sense now that I've stopped thinking about what kind of idiot writes them."? I'm not saying that, just pointing out the unecessary elitism, closemindedness, and general douchebaggery inherent in such a statement. In all seriousness, I do have to wonder how much thinking you've really done about how any system's mechanics genuinely reflect the narrative if you have no problem with 3e and older editions. Protip: "Uhhh... it's okay cuz a wizard did it!" is not deep thought.
Well, I don't think making a statement about what works for me is deserving of inflammatory comments. Stating that it works better for me if I don't think too much about it is completely an opinion, not objective fact. Also, keep in mind that I am speaking within the traditional fantasy narrative conventions that D&D has used for the last 30 years.
3.) As opposed to "Your imagination must be broken, because the rules can't be," or "Your imagination is wrong because of how I choose to interpret the rules."In a roleplaying/storytelling game? Given the alternatives, I'll take what you're calling "4e's mantra" every time. It sounds like an excellent policy.
You can rationalize it all you want, I would tend to think that a significant amount of pre 4e/PF split players would agree with me. I think if this wasn't an issue, there wouldn't be the split there is right now.
4.) Yeaaaaahhh... About that.This would be less an example of "interpreting the rules as they jive with reality" and more like "interpreting the rules as my interpretation of what someone told me should be the Right Way to Do Things™ 30 years ago based on their own heavily biased opinions and desire to intentionally create specific types of imbalance in order to enforce their views of how Fantasy Should Be™ on those who played their game." If you really like their biases and ideas, that's cool, though, I just have a minor issue with you comparing it to "truth" or "reality."
Not truth or reality, but the generally accepted conventions of fantasy role playing that have served as a decent model for the past 30 years.
5.) Uh oh... there's that troublesome "imagination" popping up again. I mean, whatever did we do before we had mechanics and descriptions that took all of that nasty old guesswork out for us and just fed us nice, bland, generic, safe, and comfortable ideas? Man, I think I'll switch to PF too, all of this blasted creativity being required on my part is a lot of work and just creates so much uncertainty in the game. I mean how will I ever know if wizard vs. world=absolute win everytime ever if someone doesn't tell me that's the only way it can be?
6.) Simulation of what, exactly? Again, if you're going to claim that any system (including 4e) is a simulation of any world where the general laws of physics and nature apply as they do here in even the most vauge of senses, then I'm going to ask you to do some more thinking.
Creativity that borders on absurdity...sure. Having to toss out the notion that a ghost can be tripped..absolutely. It works in 4e because you can explain it away.
Simulation of a fantasy world modeled along the traditional conventions.
Disconnect 1: What you've been told for the last 30 years is the One True Way™... isn't. They said "well it's good to use your imagination, but only if it agrees with my imagination." That's kindof a **** thing to do, come to think of it, but we all bought it hook, line and sinker. I felt pretty stupid when I realized this. I mean, how hypocritical is that?
Disconnect 2: These are mechanics, not your drill sergeant. I know, there's math in there, and after 30 years you're really, really, really expecting those numbers and symbols to not just tell you what to think, but how to think, and even what to think about them, (RAWR!!! DIFFERENT BAD! HULK SMASH!) but they're not going to. These aren't judgemental mechanics. They're loose, easygoing mechanics with a thirst for exciting and new things. Want them to get crazy and bust out the whips and chains? They'll do that for you. Snort a line of stuff off their butt with Air Supply blaring in the background and a technicolor disco ball spinning in the background? They'll even show up with the body glitter. Want to play pretend out in the rain with the neighbors watching? Any time you're up for it cowboy. Heck, even if you want to be all traditional and missionary--you know, wizard on top, fighter on the bottom, you could probably take them into it, but they're not going to be too excited.
The best part: no matter what you do with them, they'll still respect you in the morning... Unless you don't want them to.
Disconnect 3: They're not really mechanics. I know what I just said, but they're not. Really, it's true! They're little pieces of story masquerading as mechanics so you'd look at them and maybe discover their wonder on your own. Like the Loathely Lady of arthurian legend or the frog prince, they're there in plain sight but you've gotta step just a little outside of your comfort zone to find out what they really are... and when you do it's awesome, cuz you get to @#$% a prince.(ess.)
WotC did it for mechanical reasons....they just hoped that no one would notice or be upset that they were upending what people had come to accept over many years of playing. Different isn't bad, different isn't always as FUN however.
I've found 4e to be much more enjoyable if you don't think about it too much. 4e has taken many of the conventionally accepted concepts from fantasy gaming and tweaked them to fit in a mechanically balanced system. In the end, 4e ends up as an extremely balanced game that has traded verisimilitude1 to achieve those gains in mechanical balance. 4e is much more fun for me now that I don't try to think2 about the "why" of something, and just deal with the effect. The mantra in 4e is "Nothing is wrong with the system design because I can use my imagination to explain the effect3" This is the concept of dissociated mechanics and it does a good job for balance. This is one of the reasons why playing 4e does not appeal to me (DM'ing is fun because I tend to houserule in favor of verisimilitude4 and generally accepted conventions of fantasy gaming, and moreso because the monster redesigns were the single best leap forward in RPG gaming IMO, and ease-of-use.)
1.) False premise. Versimilitude means "like the truth." It could be taken to mean a more accurate portrayal or a strict simulation. There is nothing about the mechanics of either system that on their own merits accurately model the truth. What you likely meant to say was "a version of how stories and unrealistic physics that are in complete contradiction to how the real world actually works that I like better than other because it's what was handed out to people for 30 years and so I'm used to it and comfortable with it." There is no versimilitude in studying all your life only to forget what you have learned every day, being crippled with palsy or unable to touch your own finger to your nose without extreme difficulty but being able to twirl your sword and attack one guy with it six times in as many seconds without hurting yourself or anyone but your intended target because you are really, really strong. There is nothing realistic about guards who cannot guard (fighters with no spot or listen) sorcerers whose magical power flows from their aesthetically pleasing features, or ten ton flying lizards with relatively small wingspans. Again, your version of "versimilitude" is not like the truth, it is like a story that someone told you is th only kind that is right to play no matter how little sense it genuinely makes. You are welcome to like this kind of story, but to call it "like the truth" is insulting to your own intelligence as well as mine.
2.) How very cute. Would it be amusing if I said "your posts make much more sense now that I've stopped thinking about what kind of idiot writes them."? I'm not saying that, just pointing out the unecessary elitism, closemindedness, and general douchebaggery inherent in such a statement. In all seriousness, I do have to wonder how much thinking you've really done about how any system's mechanics genuinely reflect the narrative if you have no problem with 3e and older editions. Protip: "Uhhh... it's okay cuz a wizard did it!" is not deep thought.
3.) As opposed to "Your imagination must be broken, because the rules can't be," or "Your imagination is wrong because of how I choose to interpret the rules." In a roleplaying/storytelling game? Given the alternatives, I'll take what you're calling "4e's mantra" every time. It sounds like an excellent policy.
4.) Yeaaaaahhh... About that. This would be less an example of "interpreting the rules as they jive with reality" and more like "interpreting the rules as my interpretation of what someone told me should be the Right Way to Do Things™ 30 years ago based on their own heavily biased opinions and desire to intentionally create specific types of imbalance in order to enforce their views of how Fantasy Should Be™ on those who played their game." If you really like their biases and ideas, that's cool, though, I just have a minor issue with you comparing it to "truth" or "reality."Pathfinder is more fun for me to play because when a rule or mechanic is given, it makes sense to me and to the situation IAW verisimilitude1. I don't have to invent new conventions for why something that seemingly wouldn't work (but does for sake of mechanics) does5. That being said, PF is more difficult to DM due to the disparate power levels of PC's and the wildly unbalanced effect a gamist player can have on the system. 4e suffers much less of a detriment from a gamist player. PF appeals more to my simulationist mindset6, which is why I prefer to play it.
5.) Uh oh... there's that troublesome "imagination" popping up again. I mean, whatever did we do before we had mechanics and descriptions that took all of that nasty old guesswork out for us and just fed us nice, bland, generic, safe, and comfortable ideas? Man, I think I'll switch to PF too, all of this blasted creativity being required on my part is a lot of work and just creates so much uncertainty in the game. I mean how will I ever know if wizard vs. world=absolute win everytime ever if someone doesn't tell me that's the only way it can be?
6.) Simulation of what, exactly? Again, if you're going to claim that any system (including 4e) is a simulation of any world where the general laws of physics and nature apply as they do here in even the most vauge of senses, then I'm going to ask you to do some more thinking.I think the reason that WotC tied ability scores to actions and concepts that aren't within the historical conventions of fantasy gaming (besides trying to equally include all ability scores in effecting in-game powers and skills mechanically)was that they were hoping to rewrite the traditional mindest tied to those ability scores.
Did they succeed? In some people's eyes - Yes. For others, Not so much.
I think your disconnect is not one of broken realism, or even (lack of) broken mechanics.
Disconnect 1: What you've been told for the last 30 years is the One True Way™... isn't. They said "well it's good to use your imagination, but only if it agrees with my imagination." That's kindof a **** thing to do, come to think of it, but we all bought it hook, line and sinker. I felt pretty stupid when I realized this. I mean, how hypocritical is that?
Disconnect 2: These are mechanics, not your drill sergeant. I know, there's math in there, and after 30 years you're really, really, really expecting those numbers and symbols to not just tell you what to think, but how to think, and even what to think about them, (RAWR!!! DIFFERENT BAD! HULK SMASH!) but they're not going to. These aren't judgemental mechanics. They're loose, easygoing mechanics with a thirst for exciting and new things. Want them to get crazy and bust out the whips and chains? They'll do that for you. Snort a line of stuff off their butt with Air Supply blaring in the background and a technicolor disco ball spinning in the background? They'll even show up with the body glitter. Want to play pretend out in the rain with the neighbors watching? Any time you're up for it cowboy. Heck, even if you want to be all traditional and missionary--you know, wizard on top, fighter on the bottom, you could probably take them into it, but they're not going to be too excited. Remember: Just because they're naughty doesn't mean they're bad.
The best part: no matter what you do with them, they'll still respect you in the morning... Unless you don't want them to.
Disconnect 3: They're not really mechanics. I know what I just said, but they're not. Really, it's true! They're little pieces of story masquerading as mechanics so you'd look at them and maybe discover their wonder on your own. Like the Loathely Lady of arthurian legend or the frog prince, they're there in plain sight but you've gotta step just a little outside of your comfort zone to find out what they really are... and when you do it's awesome, cuz you get to @#$% a prince.(ess.)
+1 really wouldn't cut it for me, but still. +1
Yea. I am the one confused. The power has the arcane keyword. It is called a spell. It uses a sword. It adds an Int bonus to hit and damage. But, the spell's power, its strength, is not guided by arcane power (despite the spell's keywords, which say that it is). Yup. Your argument is totally logical. True story.
And yet int bonus =/= arcane power.....which is what I've been saying.
It can be used that way if you wish, but it does not inherently mean that. No one is saying that there are not arcane powers that use int to hit and do damage. We are saying that it's stupid. The spell uses a sword and is arcane power. Intelligence is intelligence, not arcane power. The game uses int as a lazy way out for balance purposes, not to make any sort of sense.
Wait, what? You are actually claiming that damage from powers based off your learnt knowledge, defined in-game as intelligence, should not use intelligence to cause damage?
I mean, **** arcane or psionic or whatever source you are using; the powers are using different stats because the class focuses on the stats that make the most sense to have the class be skilled in. A Charismatic Rogue uses their dexterity and sly wit to slip close and cause more damage than normal, a Barbarian can have high Constitution showing their overall resilience, and even continual resilience in the face of death, bolstered by blood and death. And a wizard or psion channels the power of what they have learned to destroy with the power of arcane forces or mental might. How does this not make sense? How is it the easy way out? It is one of the most sense driven choices of the system!
The swordmage, for example, does use their brute strength but their learning in both the weapon practices and arcane magic combined to attack. They're so damned smart and so damned magical that they weave armor around themselves, I think they know how to use what they have learned and not how strong they are to make an attack.
The swordmage, for example, does use their brute strength but their learning in both the weapon practices and arcane magic combined to attack. They're so damned smart and so damned magical that they weave armor around themselves, I think they know how to use what they have learned and not how strong they are to make an attack.
I think that is a fair assesment.
INT determining how likely you are to 'hit' with your arcane spell makes exactly as much sense as INT determining how hard your arcane spell was to 'save' against.
Its essentially the same thing considering the mechanical fifferenes in the editions. It does get a bit silly though with some of those essentials feats that allow you to basic atacks using any stat you like. Str dex and at a stretch int makees sense the otheres are a bit weird IMHO. I like those feats and it makes a Knight or whatever interesting if you go with an odd build. Just don't think about it to hard.
Doesn't really seem so strange to me. It basically just allows you to power your basic attacks with prayer, psionics, spellcraft, or so on and so forth.
Mechanically I have no problems with it it just feels a little odd. One of my players has a BArbarian but he was looking at the Knight and he has been noticing that he could have done various things with a Knight due to charge attacks, attacks of opportunity or when you need to throw a Javelin or whatever as a basic atttack. Some of the char op Knight builds are built around high charisma tieflings or whatever. If someone can come up with an unothodox and effective character I'm all for it. Its one of the reasons I'm playing 4th ed now as I hated the limitations and lack of options in 2008. I've played PF and like it but it still has the 80 pound gorilla in the room which is overpowered spellcasters at higher levels. Its not fatal to the system as I suspect alot of that stuff is either houseruled out or you have a gentlemans agreement not to abuse the system.
Yea. I am the one confused. The power has the arcane keyword. It is called a spell. It uses a sword. It adds an Int bonus to hit and damage. But, the spell's power, its strength, is not guided by arcane power (despite the spell's keywords, which say that it is). Yup. Your argument is totally logical. True story.
And yet int bonus =/= arcane power.....which is what I've been saying.
It can be used that way if you wish, but it does not inherently mean that. No one is saying that there are not arcane powers that use int to hit and do damage. We are saying that it's stupid. The spell uses a sword and is arcane power. Intelligence is intelligence, not arcane power. The game uses int as a lazy way out for balance purposes, not to make any sort of sense.
Yeah, it's not like your study and devotion to the Arcane arts isn't based off you're intellengence, and that 4e already has precidence for it.
Wait.
Wait for what? No matter how long we wait, the study and devotion to the Arcane arts won't suddenly be based on intelligence. Look up wizard. There's no minimum intelligence for it. I can have a 3 intelligence wizard if I want and he'll have access to ALL of the ARCANE powers.
Yea. I am the one confused. The power has the arcane keyword. It is called a spell. It uses a sword. It adds an Int bonus to hit and damage. But, the spell's power, its strength, is not guided by arcane power (despite the spell's keywords, which say that it is). Yup. Your argument is totally logical. True story.
And yet int bonus =/= arcane power.....which is what I've been saying.
It can be used that way if you wish, but it does not inherently mean that. No one is saying that there are not arcane powers that use int to hit and do damage. We are saying that it's stupid. The spell uses a sword and is arcane power. Intelligence is intelligence, not arcane power. The game uses int as a lazy way out for balance purposes, not to make any sort of sense.
Yeah, it's not like your study and devotion to the Arcane arts isn't based off you're intellengence, and that 4e already has precidence for it.
Wait.
Wait for what? No matter how long we wait, the study and devotion to the Arcane arts won't suddenly be based on intelligence. Look up wizard. There's no minimum intelligence for it. I can have a 3 intelligence wizard if I want and he'll have access to ALL of the ARCANE powers.
in 4e......
Yea. I am the one confused. The power has the arcane keyword. It is called a spell. It uses a sword. It adds an Int bonus to hit and damage. But, the spell's power, its strength, is not guided by arcane power (despite the spell's keywords, which say that it is). Yup. Your argument is totally logical. True story.
And yet int bonus =/= arcane power.....which is what I've been saying.
It can be used that way if you wish, but it does not inherently mean that. No one is saying that there are not arcane powers that use int to hit and do damage. We are saying that it's stupid. The spell uses a sword and is arcane power. Intelligence is intelligence, not arcane power. The game uses int as a lazy way out for balance purposes, not to make any sort of sense.
Yeah, it's not like your study and devotion to the Arcane arts isn't based off you're intellengence, and that 4e already has precidence for it.
Wait.
Wait for what? No matter how long we wait, the study and devotion to the Arcane arts won't suddenly be based on intelligence. Look up wizard. There's no minimum intelligence for it. I can have a 3 intelligence wizard if I want and he'll have access to ALL of the ARCANE powers.
Which makes you an absolutely terrible Wizard. People who have a high intelligence do better as Arcane caster. The measure of your intellegence IS your Arcane power. That's how it works. Otherwise, why can't I just pick a stat and use that? Seems to be what you're saying.
Just because I'm casting a spell with my sword does not making it any less of a spell.
Talking about (literary)versimilitude in the context of traditional conventions of fantasy roleplaying, and fantasy literary works NOT necessarily based upon the real world and real physics. Playing a fantasy roleplaying game is specifically used for escapism from the real world.
Okay, so you used a word in the complete and exact opposite sense of what the word means. "Truth and realism" are not "fantasy escapism and fictional principles." You may wish to pick a different word to use.
If I say "I will give you money," and then kick you in gibbly bits and take your wallet, me saying "oh, I meant 'I will give you money' in that I will be painfully removing it from your person" is unlikely to seem entirely honest.
Well, I don't think making a statement about what works for me is deserving of inflammatory comments. Stating that it works better for me if I don't think too much about it is completely an opinion, not objective fact. Also, keep in mind that I am speaking within the traditional fantasy narrative conventions that D&D has used for the last 30 years.
Really.
If I say "Pathfinder works great when I don't think while playing it, but the mechanics are so idiotic it makes feel downright moronic for agreeing to play it when I do actually give it any thought at all," that no one will find it offensive or rude because it's obviously just opinion and not objective fact. Sure.
Surely that is not an inflammatory statement and I should go post it on the Paizo boards right now, and all posters will find that to be a helpful and friendly post. In fact, I shall be wholly shocked and accuse them of taking undue offense if anything else happens!
Let's see how that works out.
You can rationalize it all you want, I would tend to think that a significant amount of pre 4e/PF split players would agree with me. I think if this wasn't an issue, there wouldn't be the split there is right now.
Actually, I agree with you. I understand that using your imagination after being told for 30 years that you can only do so in very specific ways is new and scary, and that it's a very hard thing for lot of people to grasp. I know that many people are going to hold tight to being told what stories they can tell and what stories they can't. They'll never start examining just how much those stories they're "allowed" to tell don't make a damned bit of sense.
I know that other people might take a look, get scared and then go back to not thinking about what they're playing because to them not having to think is more comfortable than having to use their imagination.
Are you genuinely sure that I am the one that's having to rationalize here?
Not truth or reality, but the generally accepted conventions of fantasy role playing that have served as a decent model for the past 30 years.
Actually, no. It's been an excessively constraining, incredibly flawed, model based on heavilly biased views of individuals with little knowledge of actual game design principles. They built their mechanics to suit their very singular view of the world quarter based on myth and legend, half the work of someone else, and the last bit was pure crazy bullshit that came from their heads. That last quarter was incredibly silly but it was the best work they ever did, because it's the shining example of original work in the whole lot.
When older D&D exulted us to use our imagination to make stories, we cheered! We followed suit, but when those stories included warlords that rose to challenege the wizards... that never, ever, ever worked out. Because batman is cool, but magic is MAGIC. Magic that wasn't thermonuclear power compared to popguns was TOO MUCH IMAGINATION, BACK IT UP THERE BUDDY. Elves always had to be incompetent, because if they weren't then they'd rule the world, and elves ruling the world was TOO MUCH IMAGINATION, BACK IT UP THERE BUDDY. Eleves that didn't rule the world because of sociological, biological, or ideological reasons was okay, but they had to be incompetent also, because competent elves was TOO MUCH IMAGINATION, BACK IT UP THERE BUDDY.
When it came to 3e, elves were allowed to be competent, (sortof) but fighters still had to suck. Fighters that don't suck is TOO MUCH IMAGINATION, BACK IT UP THERE BUDDY. Fireballs that don't look like balls of fire was TOO MUCH IMAGINATION, BACK IT UP THERE BUDDY. (Later changed in 3.5, thankfully.) And eventually we looked back at some of those silly ideas old Gary and Dave came up with--the only original bits in the whole lot and we sneered in derision at their ideas... because now those were TOO MUCH IMAGINATION, BACK IT UP THERE BUDDY.
And so on.
How much sense does this make in a game of fantasy, fiction, escapism and imagination? You've used every one of these words yourself to describe at least some version of D&D, (in a positive light) so why is it a bad thing all of a sudden?
Creativity that borders on absurdity...sure.1 Having to toss out the notion that a ghost can be tripped2..absolutely. It works in 4e because you can explain it away.
Simulation of a fantasy world modeled along the traditional conventions.1
1.) Inherent contradiction bordering on paradox. First you're talking about things being to absurd for absurdity. This alone is contradictory. Second, you're talking about things that are, (in some cases,) far more reasonable and realistic simulations being unacceptable simulations of your chosen realism because they're not the fake realism you're used to calling realism and you refuse to use your imagination to imagine imaginable things in an imaginative game of imagination.
2.) You're falling into Disconnect 2 again. Prone status does not mean you can only apply it by reaching out with your leg and using the opponent's mass and forward momentum to put them on the ground. They call it Prone because it is much shorter than saying "status which may result in reduced vertical profile and unstable equilibrium which may lead to reduced ability to move and function in combat while presenting less of a targeting profile to ranged attacks." That's a mouthful. But in the majority of cases it generally means the target is actually on the ground and so that name is a handy reference. It can also mean "corporeally destabilized" or "super jiggly" or a hundred other things.
You're letting the mechanics tell you what to do again, and frankly, they're just words on a page! They're there to empower you, not shackle you. Remember, they're not an authority figure, you are, and so are your players. The rules don't deserve that responsibility, and in the case of 4e, they don't want that responsibility. The rules are there to be defined by your story, not to define your story.
WotC did it for mechanical reasons....they just hoped that no one would notice or be upset that they were upending what people had come to accept over many years of playing.
You're making it sound like some vast conspiracy intended to trick you into take it up the rear.
- that's paranoid.
- and silly.
- REALLY silly.
- More silly than flumphs.
Now I'll agree that most of this was probably a side effect of doing it for mechanical reasons... but what does that matter? Do you refuse to eat chocolate chip cookies because the lady was trying to make sugar cookies? Do you refuse to take penicillin because it happened while Mr. Flemming was just trying to avoid washing the dishes?
Now look, if you genuinely hate chocolate, that's cool. I don't have a problem with it. If the taste just bugs you, that's cool. I'm not telling you you have to eat chocolate chips, but I will say that if you're going to eat chocolate chips then it's stupid to complain that you don't like the taste on the Hershey's board or talk about how incredibly unnutritive they are while bragging about the health benefits of smoking three packs a day. If you want to eat tobacco infused sugar cookies, that's great. I commend you sir, and wish you godspeed. Don't jump in and talk about how "superior" your toxic cookies are to folks who are busy experimenting with scones and baclava.
If you don't want to hear about 4th edition and how (and how much!) fun we have with it, then there's a big, wide internet out there, I suggest you make use of it.
If you want to keep playing 4th edition and stubbornly refuse to let it be fun based on your biases, then I might think you're a masochist, but you're still welcome to play in your home as you like, and you'll likely find a lot of support and understanding from individuals who like yourself, continue to play a game they obviously dislike but still barely tolerate because they feel they have to dislike it and barely tolerate it because to do otherwise would "shame" their previous games.
If you want to walk around and spew contradictory idiocy and poorly veiled slander, expect to be called on it.
On the other hand, if you want some genuine advice on how to actually enjoy 4e, I (and many, many others whose opinions you may genuinely listen to) will be happy to help.
Now look, if you genuinely hate chocolate, that's cool. I don't have a problem with it. If the taste just bugs you, that's cool. I'm not telling you you have to eat chocolate chips, but I will say that if you're going to eat chocolate chips then it's stupid to complain that you don't like the taste on the Hershey's board or talk about how incredibly unnutritive they are while bragging about the health benefits of smoking three packs a day. If you want to eat tobacco infused sugar cookies, that's great. I commend you sir, and wish you godspeed. Don't jump in and talk about how "superior" your toxic cookies are to folks who are busy experimenting with scones and baclava.
If you don't want to hear about 4th edition and how (and how much!) fun we have with it, then there's a big, wide internet out there, I suggest you make use of it.
If you want to keep playing 4th edition and stubbornly refuse to let it be fun based on your biases, then I might think you're a masochist, but you're still welcome to play in your home as you like, and you'll likely find a lot of support and understanding from individuals who like yourself, continue to play a game they obviously dislike but still barely tolerate because they feel they have to dislike it and barely tolerate it because to do otherwise would "shame" their previous games.
If you want to walk around and spew contradictory idiocy and poorly veiled slander, expect to be called on it.
On the other hand, if you want some genuine advice on how to actually enjoy 4e, I (and many, many others whose opinions you may genuinely listen to) will be happy to help.
Wait for what? No matter how long we wait, the study and devotion to the Arcane arts won't suddenly be based on intelligence. Look up wizard. There's no minimum intelligence for it. I can have a 3 intelligence wizard if I want and he'll have access to ALL of the ARCANE powers.
So, what you are saying is that a change in mechanics across editions has resulted in you developing a huge mental block, and you just can't get over it?
Yea, 4e did choose to model spellpower slightly differently than earlier editions. It allows a character with any intelligence to learn any spell. Instead of putting that limitation on spells, 4e just makes all spells drastically more potent the higher your intelligence is. I shouldn't have to point out that Intelligence making your spells more powerful means that Intelligence is a measure of your arcane power. Its obvious. Or, at least, it should be.
There is no reason arcane power has to be modeled via a mechanic that only allows you to cast certain spells with a certain Intelligence score. There are other ways to model arcane power deriving from your intelligence. For example, you can make spells have a higher chance of dealing their full potential effects (by making them more "accurate") and capable of dealing more powerful effects (in the form of higher "damage") based on Intelligence. A softcap isn't any less of a cap than a hardcap. It just achieves that cap differently. It doesn't matter that the game no longer tells you that you need at least a 16 Int to play a wizard, or that you need a particular Int to cast a particular spell level, nobody but a masochist is going to play a wizard with Int as their dumpstat. Hell, I don't know anyone who would build a 4e wizard with less than a 16 in Int, and most people will build a Wizard with at least an 18 in Int. That softcap is pretty damn effective. Which means, the end result is exactly the same as it was in editions past... why you have trouble seeing that is beyond me.
I mean, if you are going to argue that Int isn't a measure of spellpower in 4e because you can be a wizard with any Int score, and you can cast any spell with any Int score, I am going to claim that Int was never a measure of spellpower because in earlier editions any spell that did not include a saving throw could be cast as effectively by someone with the minimum Int to cast that spell or an Int of infinite value. The truth is both arguments are disingenuous. Both arguments require that one willfully ignore the way in which Int drastically increases the magical capabilities of Int based spellcasting classes (such as the wizard/mage).
Wow, such passion RedJack. I honestly don't think discussing the parts of 4e that I have a problem with and backing it with rational argument is in any way slanderous.
There is a reason that a split happened in the D&D community. A reason that revenue that used to solely go to D&D is now split between D&D and D&D-Analog. I happen to think that dissociated mechanics and symmetrical class design (all in the name of balance) ruined the sense of verisimilitude for a lot of people that had felt the traditional verisimilitude playing the past versions of the game.
Truth and realism within the confines of accepted fantasy conventions is a perfectly valid way to describe verisimilitude in the literary sense of the word. Using fallacial analogies does in no way invalidate the argument I was making.
I think using terms like idiotic, moronic, and other words with the intent to inflame others is one thing, speaking of a personal preference and (specifically) responding to other sentiment where thinking about it too much doesn't match up to personally accepted conventions of game concepts in 4e is a genuine argument.
Saying that the generally accepted conventions of fantasy gaming have been flawed goes against the objective evidence indicating otherwise. If it was so flawed, then everyone would have got on board with 4e and the great rift wouldn't have occurred. Some people like traditional fantasy and the traditional fantasy conventions.
As far as magic being a thermonuclear event...well, that's why a lot of people choose fantasy games instead of Sci-Fi, Horror, Steampunk, or other genres. Magic is kind of what sets fantasy gaming (specifically D&D) apart from other games. I do not believe that I am alone in this sentiment.
Seriously...calling someone a sadist because they don't blindly love all aspects of a game is sniping for sniping's sake. If I were to go into a CharOP board or Defender board and start thread-crapping metagame philosophy in mechanical threads that would be one thing. Discussing and making arguments about parts of the game I find hard to swallow and contrasting that with PF in a thread specifically designed to contrast the two is legitimate. Why would I debate the 90% of the game that I LIKE?
I have a problem with dissociated mechanics...mechanics that work in the face of verisimilitude. I believe the main reason that 4e split the base is for that fact. That and the symmetry of class design.
You can disagree with me all you want.
All of your "Too much imagination" comments are fallacial in the fact that the rules were given to back up the accepted conventions of fantasy gaming in which elves did NOT in fact rule the world despite their superiority to the other races in almost all aspects.
As far as your chocolate chip analogy goes. If I were to go into the Hershey chocolate chip board and argue that I hate everything about chocolate chips, I think that would be ridiculous. If I were to go on the Hershey board and give reasons why I was having a problem with the fact that they changed the shape of the chips to spirals and contrasted that with baker's chocolate chips retaining that conventional shape, I would be within good conscience to do so. I would not go to the heshey board and talk about how much I love the flavor, and melting consistency, and price of the spiral chips - that would be boring.
I've stated this before, and I'll state this again. Using a mechanical concept such as prone, and then having it perform in contradictory function to the conventionally accepted usage of the word in a combat is the epitome of dissociated mechanics. It demands that a descriptor be rationalized for the action when it applies equally in all situations against all foes. Even if a fighter only has a 4 strength and manages to knock the tarrasque prone. ("The tarrasque wasn't knocked "prone!" the fighter spun around 20 times and disoriented the tarrasque giving him a -2!"
Your opinions about tradition are of course only that....your opinions. I tend to think if traditions were unfun, trite, rehashed or other negative connotations, it would die.
Also, traditions are generally defined in the context in which they are used, not by arbitrary timestamps. Tradition in the context of D&D would be measured in decades. Going on a cruise every year as a family tradition would be measured by how long the tradition had been in place. Celebrating the passover tradition would be measured in terms of millenia.
There is a reason that a split happened in the D&D community. A reason that revenue that used to solely go to D&D is now split between D&D and D&D-Analog. I happen to think that dissociated mechanics and symmetrical class design (all in the name of balance) ruined the sense of verisimilitude for a lot of people that had felt the traditional verisimilitude playing the past versions of the game.
Truth and realism within the confines of accepted fantasy conventions is a perfectly valid way to describe verisimilitude in the literary sense of the word. Using fallacial analogies does in no way invalidate the argument I was making.
I think using terms like idiotic, moronic, and other words with the intent to inflame others is one thing, speaking of a personal preference and (specifically) responding to other sentiment where thinking about it too much doesn't match up to personally accepted conventions of game concepts in 4e is a genuine argument.
Saying that the generally accepted conventions of fantasy gaming have been flawed goes against the objective evidence indicating otherwise. If it was so flawed, then everyone would have got on board with 4e and the great rift wouldn't have occurred. Some people like traditional fantasy and the traditional fantasy conventions.
As far as magic being a thermonuclear event...well, that's why a lot of people choose fantasy games instead of Sci-Fi, Horror, Steampunk, or other genres. Magic is kind of what sets fantasy gaming (specifically D&D) apart from other games. I do not believe that I am alone in this sentiment.
Seriously...calling someone a sadist because they don't blindly love all aspects of a game is sniping for sniping's sake. If I were to go into a CharOP board or Defender board and start thread-crapping metagame philosophy in mechanical threads that would be one thing. Discussing and making arguments about parts of the game I find hard to swallow and contrasting that with PF in a thread specifically designed to contrast the two is legitimate. Why would I debate the 90% of the game that I LIKE?
I have a problem with dissociated mechanics...mechanics that work in the face of verisimilitude. I believe the main reason that 4e split the base is for that fact. That and the symmetry of class design.
You can disagree with me all you want.
All of your "Too much imagination" comments are fallacial in the fact that the rules were given to back up the accepted conventions of fantasy gaming in which elves did NOT in fact rule the world despite their superiority to the other races in almost all aspects.
As far as your chocolate chip analogy goes. If I were to go into the Hershey chocolate chip board and argue that I hate everything about chocolate chips, I think that would be ridiculous. If I were to go on the Hershey board and give reasons why I was having a problem with the fact that they changed the shape of the chips to spirals and contrasted that with baker's chocolate chips retaining that conventional shape, I would be within good conscience to do so. I would not go to the heshey board and talk about how much I love the flavor, and melting consistency, and price of the spiral chips - that would be boring.
I've stated this before, and I'll state this again. Using a mechanical concept such as prone, and then having it perform in contradictory function to the conventionally accepted usage of the word in a combat is the epitome of dissociated mechanics. It demands that a descriptor be rationalized for the action when it applies equally in all situations against all foes. Even if a fighter only has a 4 strength and manages to knock the tarrasque prone. ("The tarrasque wasn't knocked "prone!" the fighter spun around 20 times and disoriented the tarrasque giving him a -2!"
Your opinions about tradition are of course only that....your opinions. I tend to think if traditions were unfun, trite, rehashed or other negative connotations, it would die.
Also, traditions are generally defined in the context in which they are used, not by arbitrary timestamps. Tradition in the context of D&D would be measured in decades. Going on a cruise every year as a family tradition would be measured by how long the tradition had been in place. Celebrating the passover tradition would be measured in terms of millenia.
I know that a lot of people claim verisimilitude has something to do with it, but when you examine their arguments closely they just don't hold up as being logical; they come across as being hypocritical, short sighted, and trite. There just isn't all that much about 3e/Pathfinder mechanics that supports verisimilitude any better than 4e. And, hearing people make the claim that there is comes across as being more of a broad/unsubstantiated insult in regards to 4e and those who like it than anything else. I mean, hearing someone say that they don't like the power system, or the way stats other than Strength get used to make melee attack rolls, is one thing. Like what you like. There is no accounting for personal taste. But, when someone claims they don't like that system of mechanics because it lacks verisimilitude, the general reaction of 4e's fans is, "what!!!!??? So, you are telling me that because I find 4e to be just as realistic as 3e I am daft!? So, you are telling me that what I like, the system which models the reality of fantasy tropes well to me, actually fails at doing what I percieve it to do well!? Please explain, objectively, how that is true." And, the arguments that attempt to explain how that is true don't explain much of anything, objectively speaking.
The truth is, I think that subverted expectation has a lot more to do with it than verisimilitude. A large portion of the D&D player base is attached to certain ways of doing things. They attached subjective importance to a particular way of doing things, not because that way actually helps to maintain verisimilitude, but because that is the way it had been done in the past. When those elements were removed from the game, the game stopped fitting into what they subjectively used to define the boundaries of D&D. The game didn't break with conventions of truth or reality in the fantasy genre, it broke with an accepted way of doing things within the D&D brand. And you know what? Each time a new edition comes around that happens.
There is nothing new to the Pathfinder/4e rift other than the publicity that our contemporary information networks can provide. Because really, lots of people said the sort of things people now say about 4e about 3e when 3e was released. Hell, Gary Gygax said many of those things about 3e. And older 4e players now make complaints about Essentials. People just don't like it when their expectations are subverted. A lot of people are not comfortable with change, and that is that. Verisimilitude has nothing to do with it, because there is nothing more truthful or realistic about the way any edition of the game models the conventions of the heroic fantasy genre.
People just don't like it when their expectations are subverted.
This may well be one of the most honest statements anybody has ever made. I can recall players having brainlock when 3e came out because *gasp* Dwarves could be Wizards!
People just don't like it when their expectations are subverted.
This may well be one of the most honest statements anybody has ever made. I can recall players having brainlock when 3e came out because *gasp* Dwarves could be Wizards!
You know, it is ironic, but warhammer has taught me that I really don't hate race based restrictions as much as I thought I did. In that setting, dwarves can not be wizards. They just don't have the ability to touch the winds of magic the way humans can. Instead, they can perform a unique racial type of magic called rune magic. Meanwhile, while the fluff of the game does have elven mages, they are so powerful in terms of fluff that mechanically no mechanics exist for them as of yet (as an elf mage would destroy the power balance of the game, and thus are not offered as PC choices for the tiers of play released to date). That is the fluff of the setting, and its mechanics model its fluff. And you know what, I love warhammer FRPG 3e. I love it every bit as much as I love 4e. Its race restrictions to certain professions actually seem like an appealing facet in that game, at least to me. Turns out I like a wide spectrum of mechanics. I think I just like games period... perhaps that is why I have always found the changes that each edition of D&D has made to the brand to be more interesting than upsetting. Well, except for 3e. I accepted 3e with open arms, but after a few years of playing it it turned out that I much preferred 2e. 4e brought me back into the contemporary D&D fold (though, I dislike some of its mechanics as well. But then, I dislike some of every games' mechanics after having played any given game long enough).
I believe that verisimilitude in a roleplaying game is precisely the part that has been changed in 4e. Look at it this way. If you have been playing D&D for the past 3 editions, there becomes a generally accepted way that the makebelieve world works. That becomes the "reality" of the setting for people who are used to "living" in that world and are used to things working the way they do.
I completely sympathize with people who complained that dwarves could now be wizards because why hadn't the dwarves living in the world been able to use magic prior to the new edition. Racial class restrictions were part of what give the roleplayer somewhat of a "script" to use when playing a race that exists only in the fantasy realm.
D&D had its own verisimilitude which was tweaked over the years, but not upended in such a drastic fashion as 4e did in the name of balance for the sake of balance. Folks that were used to living in the world and used to the truth to how things worked, suddenly had their conventions upended and many preferred the verisimilitude of the older editions.
The fact that in a roleplaying game, you, in a sense, live in the world and it becomes the reality in your imagination, having the verisimilitude of that reality altered in such a fashion causes heartburn. If your reality had been that undead cannot be backstabbed and dwarves cannot use magic, then it challenges the verisimilitude to all of the sudden allow both to occur.
I think dollars are funneling away from D&D and towards D&D-analog due to that sentiment.
EDIT: The kids (middleschoolers) just finished playing D&D 2e, and are now watching Dorkness Rising. The fun thing about playing D&D as a kid is that you just accept the game for what it is because you don't have nostalgia/habit/preconcieved notions/stereotypes/literary canon etc. hampering your play. One of the kids bought 4e stuff and I let my kids make 4e characters on the CB, they are going to give it a go next time.
Absolutly, for some classes, yes it does. We know this, because some classes have more powerful spells if they have a larger Int bonus. Insofar as accuracy and damage can be described as a facet of "power," and insofar as some spells are more accurate and do more damage if you have a larger Int, for those classes Int does equal arcane power.
You are saying that int is only an ability to cause more arcane damage and increased hit chance because the rules give it an increased hit chance and damage.
I am saying that this does not make sense for non-purely magical powers. It should not give you an increased chance to hit with a sword as an arcane ability. I am not disagreeing with you that the rules allow it.
Inherently? No, it doesn't. For a few classes their arcane power is measured by Charisma; the bard and the sorcerer are good examples. But it does mean that for some classes, objectively, including the swordmage. That class's spells use a sword, are arcane in power, and the effectiveness of those spells is measured in terms of intelligence and not muscles (or Strength). Intelligence is intelligence, not arcane power, but many classes measure their arcane capabilities in terms of intelligence.
Then the sword mage should use strength or dex to hit and int for damage added to his arcane powers. Int should not aid with hitting with a sword.
That isn't a "lazy way out." In fact, it is pretty typical for every edition of D&D that I have played. The mechanics are different; in the past that measurement was modeled by a minimum Int required to cast a certain spells, and an Int based effect on a spell's saving throw difficulty class, now that measurement is modeled by a bonus to hit and damage with applicable spells, but there is nothing objectively "lazy, realistic, or unrealistic" about either choice.
Those were knowledge based increases. There was no increased chance to hit or do damage built into intelligence.
Furthermore, claiming that Intelligence has no narrative history of being a measurement of arcane capability is either disingenuous, or ignorant, depending on how much you know about the history of D&D (and if you have played a wizard or mage in 2e or 3e, it is disingenuous).
Or else it's true. It was never a measure of arcance ability. My 18 int rogue had zero arcane ability. My 16 int fighter had zero arcane ability. So clearly, int was not the measure of it. Class was the measure of it. Int had influence from the increased knowledge of spells and how to get past an enemies defenses, but it wasn't an increased power thing.
Which makes you an absolutely terrible Wizard. People who have a high intelligence do better as Arcane caster. The measure of your intellegence IS your Arcane power.
It's not my arcane power unless I do no damage other than int. In fact, even if I have a high int, the amount of extra damage is minimal, so it most certainly is NOT the arcane power of a spell caster.
Otherwise, why can't I just pick a stat and use that? Seems to be what you're saying.
You need some serious help with your comprehension skills if you think that's what I have been saying.
1. The AEDU Power stucture as opposed to vancian and traditional class design.
2. The dumping of the traditional D&D universe. Basically the great wheel and Greyhawk/FR influences.
3. The craptastic 4th ed PHB. It really is bad compared to a great DMG and MM.
1&2 definately upset more than a few D&D players. I kinda avoided the lead up to 4th ed so I'm not sure about claims that WoTC basically dumped on their own system (3.5) in order to hype up D&D. In the lead up to 3.0 they took great pains to stress in Dragon magazine the posiitve changes 3.0 was making as opposed to ripping on 2nd ed.
I believe that verisimilitude in a roleplaying game is precisely the part that has been changed in 4e. Look at it this way. If you have been playing D&D for the past 3 editions, there becomes a generally accepted way that the makebelieve world works. That becomes the "reality" of the setting for people who are used to "living" in that world and are used to things working the way they do.
It has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with tradition. What you are talking about is not verisimilitude. The attempt to equate it with verisimilitude stretches the meaning of that word beyond its accepted English definitions. Tradition does not equal to reality. The mechanical tradition of a game does not equate to that game's reality. It equates to that games mechanical tradition, nothing more. And, there is nothing more believable, or real, about the way 2e or 3e modeled their mechanics than the way 4e models its mechanics. It is just different.
D&D had its own verisimilitude which was tweaked over the years, but not upended in such a drastic fashion as 4e did in the name of balance for the sake of balance.
And this statement is not objectively true. A lot of people feel that 3e changed at least as much of the traditions of D&D compared to 2e as 4e did to 3e. I respect that you feel this way, I respect that some Pathfinder players/3e grognards might feel that way, but it isn't an objective truth. It is a subjective impression based on personal value judgments. And the thing is, your subjective impressions mean fig all to me. Which is, of course, why I still quite enjoy 4e (though, I am a bit burnt out on it right now, and so am happy to be enjoying some warhammer 3e/savage worlds for the moment), why I loved 2e (though I feel its mechanics are outdated, and I have outgrown them), and why I despise 3e. Those are my subjective impressions based on my personal experiences and value judgments.
And this statement is not objectively true. A lot of people feel that 3e changed at least as much of the traditions of D&D compared to 2e as 4e did to 3e. I respect that you feel this way, I respect that some Pathfinder players/3e grognards might feel that way, but it isn't an objective truth. It is a subjective impression based on personal value judgments. And the thing is, your subjective impressions mean fig all to me. Which is, of course, why I still quite enjoy 4e (though, I am a bit burnt out on it right now, and so am happy to be enjoying some warhammer 3e/savage worlds for the moment), why I loved 2e (though I feel its mechanics are outdated, and I have outgrown them), and why I despise 3e. Those are my subjective impressions based on my personal experiences and value judgments.
I completely agree about it being a subjective statement. I would also say that the sentiment expressed by my statement is felt by others (that felt 4e upended the tradition of the game)
You are saying that int is only an ability to cause more arcane damage and increased hit chance because the rules give it an increased hit chance and damage.
I am saying that this does not make sense for non-purely magical powers. It should not give you an increased chance to hit with a sword as an arcane ability. I am not disagreeing with you that the rules allow it.
And who says the powers are not purly magical? You? I care more about what the power says about itself. Swordmage spells have the arcane keyword. They are called a spell. They do not have the martial keyword. As far as I can tell, they are purly magical. While a sword might be swung at a foe as part of the somatic gestures used to cast the spell, I do not see anything to indicate that anything powers the end result other than arcane might. Indeed, it seems obviouse that that is so considering that Int grants the attack and damage bonus. Your inability to accept that strikes me as being more of a mental block than anything else.
Then the sword mage should use strength or dex to hit and int for damage added to his arcane powers. Int should not aid with hitting with a sword.
Why? The crazy wizards of Star Wars used the force to hit things with starship fire and lightsabers from time to time. There are spells in other editions that grant a bonus to attack via magic. Magic helping someone hit with a physical attack is not unheard of in heroic fantasy. I see no reason why a spell, powered by arcane knowledge, would use anything other than arcane knowledge to hit its foe, whether that spell uses a sword in the somatic gestures or not. Your inability to accept that seems to stem more from preconceived notions born of the mechanics of earlier editions of the game, and less to do with a genuine/honest attempt to interpret the mechanics of the game within the boundaries of the edition to which they belong.
Those were knowledge based increases. There was no increased chance to hit or do damage built into intelligence.
Which a) has nothing to do with the logic of the game world and b) isn't completely true. A higher knowledge increased the DC that foes had to make to save vs. the spell. 4e inverted those saving throw mechanics, turning those types of saves into a static defense number, and forcing the spellcaster to roll the d20 instead of the target. The relationship between a spell's attack roll and a foe's defense is roughly the same as the relationship between a spell and the save it allowed in earlier editions. So, examined within parallel/equivalent contexts, the spells of earlier editions did actually receive the rough analog of a bonus to attack rolls based on Intelligence. And, since higher level spells drastically increased their damage output, and since Intelligence granted you bonus spells, your total potential damage output was increased by having a higher Intelligence. 4e just changed the exact modeling of those mechanics.
These sort of arguments are exactly what I call hypocritical, short sighted, and trite. I don't mind that you prefer the mechanics of earlier editions. Taste is personal. But, trying to pretend that those mechanics are somehow more "realistic"/better is illogical, silly, and childish.
Or else it's true. It was never a measure of arcance ability. My 18 int rogue had zero arcane ability. My 16 int fighter had zero arcane ability. So clearly, int was not the measure of it. Class was the measure of it. Int had influence from the increased knowledge of spells and how to get past an enemies defenses, but it wasn't an increased power thing.
And this is disingenuous. An 18 Int rogue still has zero arcane ability in 4e. Same with a 16 Int fighter. But if you were a spellcasting class in prior editions, Int was the measure of your arcane ability against other members of the same class. The same relationships still hold true. Spells that help you hit with swords still make use of your arcane knowledge. I see no reason why Int shouldn't help you hit with them. There are certainly other ways to model the mechanics, or imagine the relationship of various actions, but I see no reason why those other ways are more or less realistic. When dealing with magic the boundaries of possibility bend quite a bit. Incidentally, no martial class uses anything but Strength or Dexterity to hit with a weapon.
And this statement is not objectively true. A lot of people feel that 3e changed at least as much of the traditions of D&D compared to 2e as 4e did to 3e. I respect that you feel this way, I respect that some Pathfinder players/3e grognards might feel that way, but it isn't an objective truth. It is a subjective impression based on personal value judgments. And the thing is, your subjective impressions mean fig all to me. Which is, of course, why I still quite enjoy 4e (though, I am a bit burnt out on it right now, and so am happy to be enjoying some warhammer 3e/savage worlds for the moment), why I loved 2e (though I feel its mechanics are outdated, and I have outgrown them), and why I despise 3e. Those are my subjective impressions based on my personal experiences and value judgments.
I completely agree about it being a subjective statement. I would also say that the sentiment expressed by my statement is felt by others (that felt 4e upended the tradition of the game)
So? That sentiment is felt by a lot of people every time a new edition of the game comes out. Editions, by necessity, cause change. That change can never appeal to everyone. Any time it doesn't appeal to someone it subverts their expectations. People don't like to have their expectations subverted. I fail to see why that should concern any of us.
If you are simply sharing that some of your expectations were subverted, fair enough. If you want to share exactly which expectations, I think simply outlining what changes you do not like would be a lot more productive/constructive than trying to claim that those changes somehow effect the game's verisimilitude (though, it is less likely to garner interesting responses, because less people are likely to feel obliged to respond). But, the fact that some people feel that way really isn't of any objective importance...
...then again, nothing in this thread is of objective importance. Pathfinder, 4e, Savage World, Warhammer 3e, Warhammer 2e, who cares. Its all personal taste, little more. The only objectivly awful game is FATAL. *shudder*
Wow, such passion RedJack. I honestly don't think discussing the parts of 4e that I have a problem with and backing it with rational argument is in any way slanderous.
Which part was the rational argument? The portion where you say it's more enjoyable when you don't think while playing it, the portion where you called it absurdity or the point where you said it wasn't fun because it was new? (which, while technically true as its newness is not the reason for its fun, but strongly implied it is not fun without including a personal and subjective qualification.)
And yes, you might say I am passionate. I love this game--and by that i mean every edition of it. I don't love it for a fake ideal of what it could be if I tore it down and broke it or refused to play as writtien, or some nostalgic memory of what I think it might have been, I love it for everything that it is and has been. There were beautiful things about the design from day one, and even its biggest flaws have become some amazing triumphs in the intervening years. You obviously love at least a part of it, am I'm down with it. We don't have to love the same things in the same way, and I wouldn't tinker with your brain and make you agree with me even if I could. On the other hand, misinformation doesn't help anyone.
New player looking for guidance should know what they're getting into no matter what edition they decide to play. Telling them that something that's obviously broken "works" and works is "broken" is more likely to result in them being disillusioned when they find that the actually broken mechanics are horrific and then not even being willing to try the alternative--if the other was "working" after all, how much worse will the thing they were told was "broken" be?
And then you have zero community growth when you could have had more members to contribute, all because you felt it was more important someone played what YOU liked, than what they would like.
There is a reason that a split happened in the D&D community.1 A reason that revenue that used to solely go to D&D is now split between D&D and D&D-Analog. I happen to think that dissociated mechanics and symmetrical class design (all in the name of balance) ruined the sense of verisimilitude2 for a lot of people that had felt the traditional verisimilitude2,3 playing the past versions of the game.
1.) There are several reasons for the split in the community. Attributing it to any one cause is disingenuous at best. Among those causes are:
- 3.5 encouraged system mastery and discouraged group play over design for grabbing individual power. As one example among many: feats, spells and other mechanics that worked better when taken with multiple individuals shared it were generally trap options, and provided far less benefit than similar powers that were for the individual only (and did not stack with the 'solo' analogues) and this sort of design encourages a specific type of behavior. Empowered by design that allowe dplayers to not only feel fantastically powerful within the game world, but outside of the game when compared to their fellow players. This was a social empowerment many players had not previously experienced, and often found that it was magnified when they engaged with antisocial behavior within the game, such as intentionally marginalizing the contributions of others, or simply 'lording' their knowledge of the game system over others. When faced with the prospect of a new game system that made this much more difficult to accomplish, they rejected the idea out of hand, and often clung to other, much more flimsy excuses for their dislike of the system, many of which were provably false.
- System mastery also encouraged a specific kind of elitism. It told the players they were special if they bought and memorized all the books and knew all the broken tricks to use, and thus they could make their characters powerful as well and "win" the game. "Knowledge is power," is something we're told our whole lives, and while it is not untrue, it was never so true as in 3.5. This allowed them a specific kind of escapism where they could gnore that knowledge wasn't the only power available, and knowledge about the things they were interested in knowing about was perhaps not as valuable in real life as it was in the game. Again, presented with a system where knowledge did not present such immense power over the system, and it was easy to create a character that worked well with a team, they were unhappy.
- Some individuals, who had heavilly invested in 3.5 felt they had paid enough, and were either owed a continuation of the system they had paid so much for, or were "owed" a free game.
- Some individuals were very used to mechanics working a specific way and telling them what kind of stories were acceptable. The fact that the new mechanics still held with their old story tropes in some cases but did not strictly forbid others was jarring and uncomfortable. Rather than accept broader options, the opted to stay with the comfortable and familiar.
- Very vocal @#$%bites on both sides. People who were not only not content to just play their game of choice, but wouldn't be happy until NO ONE was playing the other, or they had had a chance to mock and deride the "opposition." These kind of people are the folks that pop into 4e discussion boards and threads and talk about how horrible 4e is and how great their version of choice is, or go hop on pathfinder and 3e boards and talk about how crappy those games are.
- And many more.
2.) There's that word again. Yeah, seriously, just because you've explained that you are using this word in a way that is wholly in opposition to its actual meaning, doesn't mean I'm going to quit pointing out you're using this word in a way that is wholly in opposition to its actual meaning.
3.) And again. Even in the sense that you meant the word, you're not mentioning the many people who never felt that the old mechanics wer believable in any sense, or after more than 25 years of dealing with them had come to the conclusion they were not at all right, and incredibly confining, while generally not mimicking anything but a world where nothing made any logical sense whatsoever in spite of the system's protestations to the contrary. Given the choice, many of those people decided they'd rather deal with a system that was somewhat familiar but flexible than one that rigidly punished them for attempting to do anything with it that was not strictly within the bounds of tradition.
3.) And again. Even in the sense that you meant the word, you're not mentioning the many people who never felt that the old mechanics wer believable in any sense, or after more than 25 years of dealing with them had come to the conclusion they were not at all right, and incredibly confining, while generally not mimicking anything but a world where nothing made any logical sense whatsoever in spite of the system's protestations to the contrary. Given the choice, many of those people decided they'd rather deal with a system that was somewhat familiar but flexible than one that rigidly punished them for attempting to do anything with it that was not strictly within the bounds of tradition.
In real life, it is assumed, when using the phrase 'knocked prone' you are referring to knocking a bipedal creature into a position where it is lying down and the front of the body is turned toward the supporting surface. If you are knocked prone in the UFC for instance, you are much more susceptible to a rear naked choke than if you were standing. A swordsman in 1066 knocked prone would be more susceptible to an attackers blow
traditional fantasy convention, if a humanoid creature was "knocked prone" it would stand to reason that it would be knocked into a position where it is lying down and the front of the body is turned toward the supporting surface. It would be reasonable to assume that in this position, it would be more susceptible to an enemy's attack as well. It would be reasonable to assume that one never used the term knocked prone when referring to a ghost, or a rhemorraz, or an aboleth as it cofounds the mind as to how such could be knocked prone.
4e fantasy convention, knocked prone doesn't imply that it is describing a condition for humanoids, rather a condition for EVERY type of creature. You can knock a Kraken under the water prone and it is susceptible to attack, you can knock a Red Dragon Prone and it becomes harder to hit with an arrow (even though it is still as big as a barn) So then it becomes a matter of "well, it's not necessarily knocked "prone" something else happens to it that has nothing to do with the definition of prone so the mechanical effect can resolve. The only time knocking a creature prone in 4e maintains verisimilitude is when it is bipedal and actually gets KNOCKED PRONE.
In the real world, Arrows are slender shafts, with a pointed tip, shot from a bow. If I throw a boomerang in the real world, I don't describe that as shooting an arrow. I don't go outside, throw my boomerang and then come back inside and say "hey everyone, I was outside shooting arrows!"
In traditional fantasy convention if one is talking about arrows specifically, it stands to reason that they are talking about a slender shaft, pointed tip missile fired from a bow. If an ability is described as having arrow in the ability, it is assumed to be using the generally accepted definition of the word. You don't have a scene called out as using arrows and then have the arrows described in such a way that functionally they are tomahawks.
In 4e, a power like "confounding arrows" can mean any number of ranged things. I can wield a sling, or chatchka, etc. and still use my confounding arrows power. Only it's not arrows, it's something else entirely...but it's still called arrows. "I attack with confounding arrows! by throwing my chatchka with my hand at the enemy!" You may say "why would you take confounding arrows if you aren't using a bow? that's dumb" Well mechanically, confounding arrows may be the best option for my character, and under RAW, confounding arrows can mean sling/chatchka etc.
I could go on for days, but I am not the only one who has called out the reduction of verisimilitude in 4e as one of the drawbacks of the system. In my experience, it hasn't been the elitists or powergamers that have abandoned 4e entirely to play old D&D or PF, rather it has been all of the "words don't mean what they mean in truth, rather they change to accommodate mechanics that work regardless of target"
Your reasons given for the split I believe are completely wrong, much of the early sentiment was that the "classes are all the same" "It plays too much like WoW on paper" I haven't seen much evidence (on these boards/amazon reviews of PHB etc/Paizo boards) that your reasons for the split are valid.
Let me try an explain an example of verisimilitude and where it falls short in 4e.
In real life,
Everything after this is irrelevant in D&D. D&D is not real life. It doesn't try to be real life.
Let me try an explain an example of verisimilitude and where it falls short in 4e.
In real life,
Everything after this is irrelevant in D&D. D&D is not real life. It doesn't try to be real life.
way to completely miss the point...or ignore it. Real life is thrown in for a baseline of context, gravity exists in real life, in conventional fantasy, in 4e etc.
Let me try an explain an example of verisimilitude and where it falls short in 4e.
In real life,
Everything after this is irrelevant in D&D. D&D is not real life. It doesn't try to be real life.
way to completely miss the point...or ignore it. Real life is thrown in for a baseline of context, gravity exists in real life, in conventional fantasy, in 4e etc.
It is still not real life. It is heroic fantasy adventuring. There are no rules for gravity, it is just assumed. Prone is simply balanced as is in terms of the game context. Adding anything else would be overpowered considering how easy it is to knock something prone. Balance comes first in the design concept.
As far as knocking creatures prone is concerned, flavor it as you wish. "Prone" is a status effect, and nothing more. Just as "blind" does not = cannot see anything. It's nothing more than a name for a specific set of effects.
This is why I love 4e. It allows me to actually use my imagination, and not be tied down to flavor hardwired into mechanics. It's only a word. What matters is the effect.
I can play this, though. In real life, alignment does not exist. Nor can I target someone's alignment. The idea of it completely breaks immersion for me. Someone thinking about stepping on a kitten and sending the Paladin's spider sense going off.... yeah. No basis in reality there. Good and Evil are not physical substances in real life.
Let me try an explain an example of verisimilitude and where it falls short in 4e.
In real life,
Everything after this is irrelevant in D&D. D&D is not real life. It doesn't try to be real life.
way to completely miss the point...or ignore it. Real life is thrown in for a baseline of context, gravity exists in real life, in conventional fantasy, in 4e etc.
Really? Find me the rules for gravity. And before you say "falling rules", I don't mean falling damage rules, I mean rules defining gravity, its effect on the world, and how it originates.
See, you only take falling damage because the rules say so, not because gravity takes effect. Same way with prone - you only ever fall prone because the rules say so, not because you get tripped. Consequently, this is true of any game.
Let me try an explain an example of verisimilitude and where it falls short in 4e.
In real life,
Everything after this is irrelevant in D&D. D&D is not real life. It doesn't try to be real life.
way to completely miss the point...or ignore it. Real life is thrown in for a baseline of context, gravity exists in real life, in conventional fantasy, in 4e etc.
It is still not real life. It is heroic fantasy adventuring. There are no rules for gravity, it is just assumed. Prone is simply balanced as is in terms of the game context. Adding anything else would be overpowered considering how easy it is to knock something prone. Balance comes first in the design concept.
As far as knocking creatures prone is concerned, flavor it as you wish. "Prone" is a status effect, and nothing more. Just as "blind" does not = cannot see anything. It's nothing more than a name for a specific set of effects.
This is why I love 4e. It allows me to actually use my imagination, and not be tied down to flavor hardwired into mechanics. It's only a word. What matters is the effect.
I can play this, though. In real life, alignment does not exist. Nor can I target someone's alignment. The idea of it completely breaks immersion for me. Someone thinking about stepping on a kitten and sending the Paladin's spider sense going off.... yeah. No basis in reality there. Good and Evil are not physical substances in real life.
Actually I would have to agree with Warrant, unless specified otherwise, all fantasy worlds appear to mimic the same physics as our real world.
If the DM says it is raining then you can be pretty sure that it is water and the water is going to be wet, and that it is falling down from the sky. That is not to say that there could not be a world where it rained sunshine up from the sunflowers in the field but that would be the exception that proves the rule.
just saying.
Let me try an explain an example of verisimilitude and where it falls short in 4e.
Ok, my responses are in bold.
In real life, it is assumed, when using the phrase 'knocked prone' you are referring to knocking a bipedal creature into a position where it is lying down and the front of the body is turned toward the supporting surface. If you are knocked prone in the UFC for instance, you are much more susceptible to a rear naked choke than if you were standing. A swordsman in 1066 knocked prone would be more susceptible to an attackers blow
traditional fantasy convention, if a humanoid creature was "knocked prone" it would stand to reason that it would be knocked into a position where it is lying down and the front of the body is turned toward the supporting surface. It would be reasonable to assume that in this position, it would be more susceptible to an enemy's attack as well. It would be reasonable to assume that one never used the term knocked prone when referring to a ghost, or a rhemorraz, or an aboleth as it cofounds the mind as to how such could be knocked prone.
4e fantasy convention, knocked prone doesn't imply that it is describing a condition for humanoids, rather a condition for EVERY type of creature. You can knock a Kraken under the water prone and it is susceptible to attack, you can knock a Red Dragon Prone and it becomes harder to hit with an arrow (even though it is still as big as a barn) So then it becomes a matter of "well, it's not necessarily knocked "prone" something else happens to it that has nothing to do with the definition of prone so the mechanical effect can resolve. The only time knocking a creature prone in 4e maintains verisimilitude is when it is bipedal and actually gets KNOCKED PRONE.
Sure, all this is true (other than the "confounding the mind" part, but I will get to that in a bit). And if you have more fun playing in a system with many sub-rules, more power to you. I personally prefer a game in which something like "Prone" is just a name assigned to a certain set of mechanical conditions. If the Fighter takes a power that knocks the foe prone, why should he be punished because the DM only uses monsters that can't be knocked prone in the next adventure? Why should I have to remember that Prone does a certain thing for humanoids, unless they are large or larger, but a different thing if the creature has more than 2 legs, and very different if they are very stable, and another thing if they have no legs, or swim, or can fly, or are incorporeal, or...etc. I prefer simplicity. So, yes, the 4E take on "Prone" does not always fit with the dictionary definition, and if that bothers you 4E might not be for you. But it does keep things simple, and that maximises my fun.
As for picturing what happens, have your group apply some imagination. The gelatinous cube loses its "cubeness", collapsing into a messy pile on the ground. Ghost is easy...if you can hit it with a weapon you can knock it down. Aboleth? You smacked the thing so hard that it is floundering at the bottom of the sea for a bit until it can begin swimming again.
In the real world, Arrows are slender shafts, with a pointed tip, shot from a bow. If I throw a boomerang in the real world, I don't describe that as shooting an arrow. I don't go outside, throw my boomerang and then come back inside and say "hey everyone, I was outside shooting arrows!"
In traditional fantasy convention if one is talking about arrows specifically, it stands to reason that they are talking about a slender shaft, pointed tip missile fired from a bow. If an ability is described as having arrow in the ability, it is assumed to be using the generally accepted definition of the word. You don't have a scene called out as using arrows and then have the arrows described in such a way that functionally they are tomahawks.
In 4e, a power like "confounding arrows" can mean any number of ranged things. I can wield a sling, or chatchka, etc. and still use my confounding arrows power. Only it's not arrows, it's something else entirely...but it's still called arrows. "I attack with confounding arrows! by throwing my chatchka with my hand at the enemy!" You may say "why would you take confounding arrows if you aren't using a bow? that's dumb" Well mechanically, confounding arrows may be the best option for my character, and under RAW, confounding arrows can mean sling/chatchka etc.
This example is pure silliness. You take issue with the name of the power? This is slightly related to the Prone issue. You are mainly taking issue with the fact that the condition is called Prone. If they called it "staggered" would you have an issue? The names of powers are not linked to the mechanics; they are simply names because things have to have names. Or would you prefer everything to be Ranger Encounter Power Level 7b? The "problem" that you describe above is not a fault of the system. Take a look at what you say when your character uses the power: "I attack with confounding arrows by throwing my chatchka..." Why do you have to say the name of the power? Why can't you rename it, or simply decribe what you are doing? A good convention is to tell your group in advance what your powers are, and then explain how you imagine them. "Guys, for my new encounter power I took Confounding Arrows. I picture my dude throwing his chatchka right at the enemies face so he doesn't know what's what (for example).
I could go on for days, but I am not the only one who has called out the reduction of verisimilitude in 4e as one of the drawbacks of the system. In my experience, it hasn't been the elitists or powergamers that have abandoned 4e entirely to play old D&D or PF, rather it has been all of the "words don't mean what they mean in truth, rather they change to accommodate mechanics that work regardless of target"
Your reasons given for the split I believe are completely wrong, much of the early sentiment was that the "classes are all the same" "It plays too much like WoW on paper" I haven't seen much evidence (on these boards/amazon reviews of PHB etc/Paizo boards) that your reasons for the split are valid.
As I said before, if you prefer more complicated systems that you feel do a better job of representing the way you think reality would intersect with a fantasy world, 4E isn't for you. But taking issue with names seems a bit much.
As for powers names, sure, it may be kinda screwey to use blinding arrows with a boomerang or whatever, but the other option is to have everything end with, "projectile" or "projectile of choice" or whatnot.
This example is pure silliness. You take issue with the name of the power?
All the examples are trite and utter silliness
Fantasy conventions or tropes are things like the fighting man with heroic and sometimes quirky luck who defeats the evil sorceror being the central and most significant character type in heroic fantasy and not the handmaiden and baggage carrier whose every problem out of combat is fixed by the wizard.
Something most previous editions of D&D were utter fails on.
Anybody remember Flight of Dragons? Cartoon from the 80s? They went over that trope, as well as why Dragons have hoards.
Tangent, relating to dragons flying:
Anybody remember Flight of Dragons? Cartoon from the 80s? They went over that trope, as well as why Dragons have hoards.
Fabulous cartoon. Based loosely on The Dragon and The George by Gordon R. Dickson. One of many 80's cartoons that put today's animation to shame.
I think it just boils down to the use of 'verisimilitude' etc by D&D fans is usually really conveying something more like "What my favorite edition X did was the height of perfection and was THE WAY. Anything that isn't that 'lacks verisimilitude'." It is a crap argument.
And to go a bit further than Red-Jack explicitly has in his excellent post I'd just go on to say that IMHO 4e can handle practically anything that earlier editions could, do it better, and do quite a bit of stuff that you couldn't do with previous editions or which required a lot of house ruling/home brewing to hack the system into making it work. As RJ noted this would cover pretty much everything except perhaps "wizards are monstrously more powerful than any non-casting class." I'd venture to say you could do a fair job of making casters inordinately powerful as well if you really wanted to. The core engine of 4e would certainly support that. You'd simply have to provide a set of additional feats, powers, and items usable only by said casters that gave them a whole different level of power. Doing the opposite in 3.5, as an example germane to this thread, would be MUCH MUCH harder and would require rewriting large parts of the system to the point that it would barely be recognizable as 3.5 and wouldn't be compatible with it. You can easily see how this is so simply by going back over the development history of Pathfinder. At first the PF devs DID suggest a much more radical makeover of 3.5. I'm not sure it would have put all classes entirely on an equal footing but it certainly suggested a desire to make deep changes. They abandoned that course pretty quickly when it became apparent that the resulting game would have to be almost as radically different from 3.5 as 4e is. This didn't align with their business interests and they retreated to a design which makes a fairly half-hearted attempt to make non-casters relevant while maintaining backwards compatibility and sticking pretty close to 3.5.
I know I've also said this in a few other threads, but I'll point it out here too. Pathfinder is in a serious bind. The core game system has some serious limitations and is somewhat antiquated in some ways. If Paizo plans to go forward with a more modern and flexible system that can ultimately stand the test of time they're in a rough spot. It ISN'T going to be PF/3.5 compatible. It could easily be a d20 variant and closer in some ways to older editions than 4e is, but it WILL be a radical reworking of the game, or it won't really accomplish the goal of moving forward. This is going to be a big problem with their fan base, and they may simply not be able to pull it off. In that case they're stuck with a system that will not age well IMHO. They'll also be stuck competing with a WotC that can simply move forward with even more interesting and improved games based on variations of 4e. I think this is really the core of the reason 4e exists. Pathfinder is a perfectly good game and obviously appeals to a lot of people and probably has bitten into 4e's market share a decent amount, but in the grand scheme of things WotC has the upper hand with 4e. They are a whole generation of game ahead of Paizo and they have a customer base which has already demonstrated its willingness to absorb big changes. It is going to be a LOT easier for WotC to tweak 4e or 5e to cater a bit more to PF fans than it is for Paizo to get their customers to accept a game as modern as 4e or some 5th edition to come. People can argue all they want for tradition, but the reality is you have to be able to evolve your product to meet changing times. We already KNOW WotC can do that and do it well.
Yeah, I have to pretty much side with Red-Jack 100% on this.
I think it just boils down to the use of 'verisimilitude' etc by D&D fans is usually really conveying something more like "What my favorite edition X did was the height of perfection and was THE WAY. Anything that isn't that 'lacks verisimilitude'." It is a crap argument.
And to go a bit further than Red-Jack explicitly has in his excellent post I'd just go on to say that IMHO 4e can handle practically anything that earlier editions could, do it better, and do quite a bit of stuff that you couldn't do with previous editions or which required a lot of house ruling/home brewing to hack the system into making it work. As RJ noted this would cover pretty much everything except perhaps "wizards are monstrously more powerful than any non-casting class." I'd venture to say you could do a fair job of making casters inordinately powerful as well if you really wanted to.
If the world is aknowledged to be populated by mostly minions Wizards are already horribly spooky.... This is very much in accordance with certain genres that initiated D&D - S&S of Conan and Elric for instance
Actually the ooze being tripped ordeal was a DM's call.
Only to the extent that everything is the DM's call, in any edition. But there's no specific rule saying trip works differently on oozes than it does on anything else.
"Go ahead B*&%!, knock me prone"
"Just remember, you asked for that B$%^# When you pull yourself together again, I'll be waiting for the encore."
OMG
OMG
Heh, I enjoyed myself on that response.
A picture is worth 1000 words (or what, 480 posts?)
Only to the extent that everything is the DM's call, in any edition. But there's no specific rule saying trip works differently on oozes than it does on anything else.
If you told someone you tripped a snake, they'd look at you like you're a moron.
If they meant unsteady or shaken or staggered, they should have called it that.
Only to the extent that everything is the DM's call, in any edition. But there's no specific rule saying trip works differently on oozes than it does on anything else.
If you told someone you tripped a snake, they'd look at you like you're a moron.
If they meant unsteady or shaken or staggered, they should have called it that.
Yeah, so when I, you know, knock that goblin on its ass it will be 'staggered'. LOL, then you'd complain about that. So I guess actually the smart thing to do would be to make TWO IDENTICAL conditions, just you know for the heck of it. While we're at it lets add a condition for every other adjective in the English Language that might be descriptive of something that can happen in combat. Having 200 or so conditions MUST be better after all! lol.
Only to the extent that everything is the DM's call, in any edition. But there's no specific rule saying trip works differently on oozes than it does on anything else.
If you told someone you tripped a snake, they'd look at you like you're a moron.
Point is .... you wouldnt describe it that way... now would you?
unless you were trying to I dont know seem rediculous on purpose...
Words and their definitions have great value, which WoTC apparently forgot or disregarded when they wrote prone in 4e.
Game mechanics are not their descriptions they are a shorthand ... You the player and DM are the describers. Interpretting natural language is incredibly inconsistant thing.
Now you when you never play 4e you will know there is no Oportunity attack when recovering from it.
- You grant combat advantage to enemies making melee attacks against you.(Belly Up?)
- You can’t move from your space, although you can teleport, crawl, or be forced to move by a pull, a push, or a slide. (snakes always crawl not an issue)
- You get a +2 bonus to all defenses against ranged attacks from nonadjacent enemies.(not in a good position to bob or weave when I jab at it)
- You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls. (not in a good position to attack)
Riddle me this. How does a snake that is on it's back for a small fraction of a second grant you combat advantage? It isn't on its back long enough for you to even swing. Since a snake is always crawling, how is it unable to move? You have not changed its method of movement. Why would a snake that didn't get a bonus of +2 against range when it was on its stomach, suddenly gain it while on its back? It has the same height as it did before. The only one of the four that remotely makes any sense is the -2 to attack, but then you still have the problem of the snake not actually being any more prone while on its back than it was while it was on its stomach, at least not by any actual (not WoTC fake definitions) definition of the word.
Words and their definitions have great value, which WoTC apparently forgot or disregarded when they wrote prone in 4e.
Game mechanics are not their descriptions they are a shorthand ... You the player and DM are the describers. Interpretting natural language is incredibly inconsistant thing.
Now you when you never play 4e you will know there is no Oportunity attack when recovering from it.
- You grant combat advantage to enemies making melee attacks against you.(Belly Up?)
- You can’t move from your space, although you can teleport, crawl, or be forced to move by a pull, a push, or a slide. (snakes always crawl not an issue)
- You get a +2 bonus to all defenses against ranged attacks from nonadjacent enemies.(not in a good position to bob or weave when I jab at it)
- You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls. (not in a good position to attack)
Riddle me this. How does a snake that is on it's back for a small fraction of a second grant you combat advantage? It isn't on its back long enough for you to even swing. Since a snake is always crawling, how is it unable to move?
So it is a doesnt matter... the unable to move is over-ridden by the ... is able to crawl.
You keep assuming the snake is gonna be flat on the ground - when in attacks stances in a fight
which seems quite wrong same as it is wrong to assume an ooze would be.... Heck a snake that wasnt at minimum rolled up in a coil or similar just wouldnt be in a position to make any defense or attack.
Hmmm a minotaur wearing flip flops.
Who'd of thunk it? Horses can have boots! Now, I haven't ever seen a COW boot, but still...
There are a lot of forms things in this world can take. A 'longsword' could represent several similar forms of weapon for instance. They all do the same damage, require the same training to employ, and generally perform in the same way. They don't all have to look alike, and if a player wants to for instance fluff their longsword to look somewhat different from the average, so what? The term 'longsword' simply maps to a specific set of game mechanics. There's no doubt it is intended to represent a general class of similar weapons, but if it works perfectly well for something that is different from what the designers thought of that doesn't make it wrong to use those mechanics for it.
Likewise the name of a condition is simply a label for some mechanics. Sure, 'prone' is intended to depict what happens when a biped or similar creature is knocked off its feat, but is it REALLY THAT BIG A FRIGGIN DEAL if it can also cover the mechanics of a blob of living jelly or a snake? Seriously, there are actually people who play D&D who have such circumscribed flexibility of mind that they can't deal with that? I guess there are...
Okay then... I guess we should take away all Arcane abilities to charm, dominate, stun, daze, etc. And any Primal power that does the same, even if to animals... animals have brains and now that's Psionics territotry.
That's not the point at all. Psionic telepathy is specifically about forging a link with the intellect of the opposing creature and then rendering an effect based upon the relationship. I agree that arcane magic that charms a creature with no intellect should fail as well. But since the whole premise of telepathic power is forging that link intellectually, and is described as such, it reduces the specialty of the powersource if you can use it to intellectually engage mechanically with a creature with no intellect.
Wait, there's telekinesis! No more Force powers for anyone else.
And Pyrokinesis. It's not special if anyone else can use fire, that's psionics only now.
Hrm... Cold snaps in the air aren't uncommon in literature describing use of powerful psionic type abilities, so I guess those are psionic now too.
Missing the point again, or interpolating it to mean something else. Why would creatures be immune to mind-effects in other versions, and then have that immunity retracted in this edition? Well because we can't have the poor psion be in ANY encounter where his/her chosen power might not be equal with everyone else's even if he is trying to forge an intellectual bond with a creature that has no intellect.
What doesn't it make sense for Arcane ("magic") to be able to do?
Simple, anything that it wouldn't make sense for Arcane magic to do.
1. Ignite a fireball underwater
2. destroy an ice wall with an illusion
3. Charm an ooze
4. Dominate an ooze
5. Blind an ooze
6. detect alignment...................
Okay then... I guess we should take away all Arcane abilities to charm, dominate, stun, daze, etc. And any Primal power that does the same, even if to animals... animals have brains and now that's Psionics territotry.
That's not the point at all. Psionic telepathy is specifically about forging a link with the intellect of the opposing creature and then rendering an effect based upon the relationship. I agree that arcane magic that charms a creature with no intellect should fail as well. But since the whole premise of telepathic power is forging that link intellectually, and is described as such, it reduces the specialty of the powersource if you can use it to intellectually engage mechanically with a creature with no intellect.Wait, there's telekinesis! No more Force powers for anyone else.
And Pyrokinesis. It's not special if anyone else can use fire, that's psionics only now.
Hrm... Cold snaps in the air aren't uncommon in literature describing use of powerful psionic type abilities, so I guess those are psionic now too.
Missing the point again, or interpolating it to mean something else. Why would creatures be immune to mind-effects in other versions, and then have that immunity retracted in this edition? Well because we can't have the poor psion be in ANY encounter where his/her chosen power might not be equal with everyone else's even if he is trying to forge an intellectual bond with a creature that has no intellect.What doesn't it make sense for Arcane ("magic") to be able to do?
Simple, anything that it wouldn't make sense for Arcane magic to do.
1. Ignite a fireball underwater
2. destroy an ice wall with an illusion
3. Charm an ooze
4. Dominate an ooze
5. Blind an ooze
6. detect alignment...................
Warrant is right in this case Red. My group enjoys things with immunities because lets face it, not everyone is prepared to handle every situation. I enjoyed undead, oozes and constructs being immune to critical hits and sneak attacks because it made sense. Making it so in order for the the rogue to not feel left out is stupid. If one type of power won't work then you try something else.
Forcing things that wouldn't normally be able to work actually work and then give a lame ass axcuse as to why it would is horrible.
That's not the point at all. Psionic telepathy is specifically about forging a link with the intellect of the opposing creature and then rendering an effect based upon the relationship. I agree that arcane magic that charms a creature with no intellect should fail as well. But since the whole premise of telepathic power is forging that link intellectually, and is described as such, it reduces the specialty of the powersource if you can use it to intellectually engage mechanically with a creature with no intellect.
And all psychic powers are telepathy? How does telepathy hurt anyone at all?
I guess even Psionics shouldn't use Psychic damage.
Missing the point again, or interpolating it to mean something else. Why would creatures be immune to mind-effects in other versions, and then have that immunity retracted in this edition? Well because we can't have the poor psion be in ANY encounter where his/her chosen power might not be equal with everyone else's even if he is trying to forge an intellectual bond with a creature that has no intellect.
Sorry, no, you're interposing your own baseless preconcieved notions on things again. That's okay, though.
Psychic damage isn't "telepathy damage." If it was, they'd have called it "telepathy damage."
Simple, anything that it wouldn't make sense for Arcane magic to do.
1. Ignite a fireball underwater
2. destroy an ice wall with an illusion
3. Charm an ooze
4. Dominate an ooze
5. Blind an ooze
6. detect alignment...................
What about arcane magic makes sense in the first place? o.0 I waggle my fingers, say some words, and lick a pile of bat guano and all of a sudden I have a micro-nuke? Yeah... No.
1. Why not? It's magic fire, not real fire. Real fire doesn't spring up from nowhere for no reason and then spread out in a large radius before dissapating without setting things on fire, nor are their rules for using it in atmospheres that do not contain enough oxygen for proper combustions, so why can it not?
2. Wait, so he can summon light energy and kinetic energy well enough and with enough precise control to create noise and images, but cannot manage to create enough kinetic energy to shatter ice?
3. Okay, so he couldn't summon a force effect around to ozze to contain it and move it as if it was under his control? That sounds magic to me.
4. See 3.
5. Well oozes can't be blinded anyhow, so you're saying he can't specifically break other rules already in place. That's good to know.
6. Why not? He can't divine their past and future and judge their actions? Wizards can't use divination now? That doesn't sound very magical to me.
In addition, for every interpretation that results in you saying, "That doesn't make sense", there is another interpretation that results in someone else saying, "That makes sense". In other words, we are talking about subjective versimilitude or whatnot, not objective.
For example, take using the fireball spell underwater. To you that makes no sense, because (I presume) you imagine the spell creating a normal ball of fire. It is magic because you are doing something that normally can't be done, igniting a huge ball of fire. However, to me, it makes perfect sense because I imagine the spell creating a magical ball of fire. In fact, "fire" is what we call it because we mundane individuals have no word for the burning hot ball of something that is a Fireball.
All that said, there is nothing wrong with you giving certain monsters resistances or immunities to certain effects. There is nothing wrong with you saying that certain powers are ineffective in certain situations. As long as the Players know these things in advance, so they can pick their class and powers accordingly.
Stuff that makes sense
That makes sense. I'm not sure why I thought the numbers were higher than they were for the untrained individuals, but if I had an actual reason for my belief, I can't remember it now :P
Here is your problem, Warrant: you are labeling certain creatures as "mindless" when in 4E they are not in fact, mindless. Skeletons, Zombies, Oozes, Golems...all of them have minds of some kind or another in 4E. Otherwise, how could they interact with the environment?
Oh dear, if that is the case, then there is a whole new issue to contend with. So you are saying that all of these previously mindless creatures are now able to think? That the mythology has been completely rewritten to allow prior non-sentient beings to now be sentient?
I don't accept that. I think the 1 Int for the ooze represents the ultimate lowest of the scale and as such is nil, as in having no intellect.
Warrant is right in this case Red. My group enjoys things with immunities because lets face it, not everyone is prepared to handle every situation. I enjoyed undead, oozes and constructs being immune to critical hits and sneak attacks because it made sense. Making it so in order for the the rogue to not feel left out is stupid. If one type of power won't work then you try something else.
This is where I disagree with you. Golems have vulnerable joints that can be struck for additional damage and undead can also be struck in ways to increase the damage. Chopping off limbs or breaking bones, etc. It makes sense to me for golems and corporeal undead to be subject to sneak attack and criticals, but not incorporeal undead or oozes.
I completely agree with you that there should be challenges and that not everyone will always be able to be 100% against everything and those times when you are disadvantaged can be very fun, but not everyone enjoys that kind of challenge.
Warrant is right in this case Red. My group enjoys things with immunities because lets face it, not everyone is prepared to handle every situation. I enjoyed undead, oozes and constructs being immune to critical hits and sneak attacks because it made sense. Making it so in order for the the rogue to not feel left out is stupid. If one type of power won't work then you try something else.
I'm sorry, that's a bit insulting.
Allow me to ask a question:
Which seems more "stupid" to you--
- A highly proficient master of anatomy being completely unable to find weak spots such as joints that are inherent mechanical weak points for any creature that has them, especially when those joints are clearly visible.
- A highly proficient master of anatomy being able to damage joints and disrupt creatures with them, although the lack of feeling means that the overall effect is about equal when the fleshy bits get in the way.
or
- I waggle my fingers and lick some poo and a volatile chemical reaction happens 250 feet away which is somehow able to easily burn bone (a difficult material to combust, actually) or damage dead flesh despite its lack of feeling.
- I waggle my fingers and lick some poo and everyone looks at me like a freak.
- I waggle my fingers, lick some poo, and a volatile chemical reaction happens 250 fett away with zero effect on bone material, and dead flesh charrs slightly but it doesn't slow the zombies down because they can't feel it anyways.
or
- I stab a living being 32 times with a 6" blade in various places, and they continue to function as normal because hitpoints always represent actual damage.
- I stab a living being 32 times in various places and they're functioning at increasingly diminished capacity with each one, and probably dead after the first few.
Here is your problem, Warrant: you are labeling certain creatures as "mindless" when in 4E they are not in fact, mindless. Skeletons, Zombies, Oozes, Golems...all of them have minds of some kind or another in 4E. Otherwise, how could they interact with the environment?
Oh dear, if that is the case, then there is a whole new issue to contend with. So you are saying that all of these previously mindless creatures are now able to think? That the mythology has been completely rewritten to allow prior non-sentient beings to now be sentient?
I don't accept that. I think the 1 Int for the ooze represents the ultimate lowest of the scale and as such is nil, as in having no intellect.
Well, good news, because (as I also said in my last post) you don't have to accept it. You can change whatever you like! And I appreciate the fact that you expressed your opinion as a personal subjective view, as that was the main point I was trying to get across. For you, an important feature of oozes, many undead, golems, and other creatures is that they are mindless. As a result, they are immune to many effects. For me, it makes just as much sense for all those creatures to have minds. And the best part about all this: we can both play and enjoy the game!
Here is your problem, Warrant: you are labeling certain creatures as "mindless" when in 4E they are not in fact, mindless. Skeletons, Zombies, Oozes, Golems...all of them have minds of some kind or another in 4E. Otherwise, how could they interact with the environment?
You don't need a mind to perceive and act. Bacteria have no minds, yet they interact with their environment just fine. Mindless things ARE mindless.
All that said, there is nothing wrong with you giving certain monsters resistances or immunities to certain effects. There is nothing wrong with you saying that certain powers are ineffective in certain situations. As long as the Players know these things in advance, so they can pick their class and powers accordingly.
I agree.
And all psychic powers are telepathy? How does telepathy hurt anyone at all?
I guess even Psionics shouldn't use Psychic damage.
Psychic damage isn't "telepathy damage." If it was, they'd have called it "telepathy damage."
Ok, so ravening thought is specifically described as being telepathic in nature. It does psychic damage and is described specifically as forging a link with the foes' mind. Telekinetic Anchor is specifically described as using metaphysical force to cause the effect, rather than relying upon intellect. Yes, it also does phychic damage.
It would make sense to me for telekinetic anchor to work against an ooze because you are using metaphysical force against it. It would not make sense for Ravening thought to damage the ooze because it is using telepathic linkage to cause the effect.
Allowing both to function equally as well in every situation doesn't make sense.
What about arcane magic makes sense in the first place?
A whole mythology and game system set up around the premise that it does. Just as the premise has previously allowed mindless creatures such as oozes to be immune to intellectual effects.
This debate is like playing a previous edition. I am attacking with my intellect, trying to forge an intellectual link to which you appear immune. If this debate was under 4e rules, you would just fall to my argument as easily as if I struck you with my sword, or the bard's song of dischord.
Oh dear, if that is the case, then there is a whole new issue to contend with. So you are saying that all of these previously mindless creatures are now able to think? That the mythology has been completely rewritten to allow prior non-sentient beings to now be sentient?
I don't accept that. I think the 1 Int for the ooze represents the ultimate lowest of the scale and as such is nil, as in having no intellect.
That is your personal choice.
There are many gradations between "mindless" and "sentient."
It may surprise you to find that many things we associate as being "mindless" are in fact capable of learned behavior.
This does not imply higher congnitive functions or sentience, but it does imply that they are nto wholly mindless in some senses of the word.
The fluff clearly describes zombies and skeletons and other "mindless" undead as being animated by a type of energy that has an innate (and generally "evil") sort of cognition to it.
Oozes, I would assume, function similar to plants and single celled organisms, etc. Even "formless" creatures like amoeba can be terminally disrupted by attacking specific parts of their cellular structure.
Oh dear, if that is the case, then there is a whole new issue to contend with. So you are saying that all of these previously mindless creatures are now able to think? That the mythology has been completely rewritten to allow prior non-sentient beings to now be sentient?
Yes, that's exactly what we're saying, or at the very least what I'm saying. The lore of a previous edition is meaningless to the new one. Besides, if they were truly mindless, they'd be objects. They'd just sit there like a rock.
I don't accept that.
Your inability to accept the truth is your problem, not ours.
Yes, that's exactly what we're saying. The lore of a previous edition is meaningless to the new one.
So the truth is that D&D is a completely different game, not an evolution of the game? The only thing that it shares with the previous game is a namesake?
And the wonderment why there was a great schism in the community that used to be unified under D&D.
Also, if that is the case, why do the publishers keep dredging up old D&D lore?
Ok, so ravening thought is specifically described as being telepathic in nature. It does psychic damage and is described specifically as forging a link with the foes' mind. Telekinetic Anchor is specifically described as using metaphysical force to cause the effect, rather than relying upon intellect. Yes, it also does phychic damage.
Seize and Stab is specifically described as grabbing a creature with a free hand and stabbing with another weapon. Can I not use it if i have a blunt weapon? What if I have two free hands? Must i wait for Wizards to publish "seize and punch" and "seize and slash" and "seize and hit it with a heavy thing"? No.
Default descriptions are no more than that. A simple, given description that functions well enough if you choose to never use your imagination, but can also be used as a starting point to inspire you on what else to do with the mechanics.
You just listed two separate powers that use psychic damage and both have wildly varying default descriptions. Didn't you say "all psychic damage" earlier? The second sure sounds like (even in a game of very strictly limited imagination) it would function under the cases you described it not being able to because you were unable to imagine how it would.
It would make sense to me for telekinetic anchor to work against an ooze because you are using metaphysical force against it. It would not make sense for Ravening thought to damage the ooze because it is using telepathic linkage to cause the effect.
And why is the ooze completely unposessed of any intellect? Even its score of "one" means it has some. One is not zero. Thinking that "one" means "zero" requires a whole lot more willingness to ignore reality than "prone" meaning "Destabilized," and "psychic" meaning "energy, or mental inavsion, as the case specifically requires."
Allowing both to function equally as well in every situation doesn't make sense.
Why not?
A creature with astoundingly weak mental faculties would likely be very simple and easy to dominate, although there is less there to dominate. In essence, the user would be able to apply much more mental force with less resistance to the target, although the target takes a lessened effect, resulting in the exact same net effect. Imagination. Use it. You'll even enjoy your 3.5 games more.
A whole mythology and game system set up around the premise that it does. Just as the premise has previously allowed mindless creatures such as oozes to be immune to intellectual effects.
No, there was an old mythology, which the old game system frequently ignored whenever it was convenient to let wizards and other spellcasters do neater **** than the fighters.
This debate is like playing a previous edition. I am attacking with my intellect, trying to forge an intellectual link to which you appear immune. If this debate was under 4e rules, you would just fall to my argument as easily as if I struck you with my sword, or the bard's song of dischord.
I have many, many many responses to this, all of which amuse me greatly, but I think you might be a bit touchy about it.
You may want to avoid these sorts of analogies in the future.
You don't need a mind to perceive and act. Bacteria have no minds
Actually, bacteria have no brains. Whether they have minds or not depends entirely on your definition of "mind".
Mind: "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc."
Do bacteria perceive? Yes they do, simply by responding to stimuli, as you admit when you state that bacteria "interact with their environment just fine". There's no reason that psionicists could not manipulate a bacterium's ability to react to stimuli as easily (heck, even more easily) than an elf's ability to react to stimuli. An elf's mind is much more complex than a bacterium's. One would expect it to be easier to manipulate a bacterium than an elf.
If it reacts to stimulus, it has a mind, within the definitions 4e uses, which are completely reasonable definitions. If it does not react to stimulus, then it's an object, which cannot be targeted by any attack that targets a Will defense (and is thus immune to mind-affecting psychic attacks)
You don't need a mind to perceive and act. Bacteria have no minds
Actually, bacteria have no brains. Whether they have minds or not depends entirely on your definition of "mind".
Mind: "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc."
Do bacteria perceive? Yes they do, simply by responding to stimuli, as you admit when you state that bacteria "interact with their environment just fine". There's no reason that psionicists could not manipulate a bacterium's ability to react to stimuli as easily (heck, even more easily) than an elf's ability to react to stimuli. An elf's mind is much more complex than a bacterium's. One would expect it to be easier to manipulate a bacterium than an elf.
If it reacts to stimulus, it has a mind, within the definitions 4e uses, which are completely reasonable definitions. If it does not react to stimulus, then it's an object, which cannot be targeted by any attack that targets a Will defense (and is thus immune to mind-affecting psychic attacks)
Would you allow someone to Intimidate or use Diplomacy on an Ooze?
Ok, soThis debate is like playing a previous edition. I am attacking with my intellect, trying to forge an intellectual link to which you appear immune. If this debate was under 4e rules, you would just fall to my argument as easily as if I struck you with my sword, or the bard's song of dischord.
I have many, many many responses to this, all of which amuse me greatly, but I think you might be a bit touchy about it.
You may want to avoid these sorts of analogies in the future.
Well, they may grab an ORC's attention and a ban/boot/close/censor.
I would be entertained seeing your D&D analogy in a thread dedicated to "using in-game analogies to rib your debate oponent" As to my analogy, I couldn't resist, it came to me in a stroke of psionic brilliance. Also, I am not analogizing that you are intellectually on par with an ooze, rather just immune to my psionics...an immunity you wouldn't have if we were debating under 4e rules.
Actually the description for the Ochre Jelly says it all. "MM pg 202 An ochre jelly relies on instinct". That is where your 1 for INT would come from, instinct.
And a powerful psychic capable of bending complex minds to his will, shattering consciousnesses spawned over decades and subvert their strong inclinations, instincts and desires to replace them with his own is...
Somehow baffled by a creature with a much more simple structure.
He can set a mansion ablaze, but can't even get a house of cards to smolder a little?
You don't need a mind to perceive and act. Bacteria have no minds
Actually, bacteria have no brains. Whether they have minds or not depends entirely on your definition of "mind".
Mind: "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc."
Do bacteria perceive? Yes they do, simply by responding to stimuli, as you admit when you state that bacteria "interact with their environment just fine". There's no reason that psionicists could not manipulate a bacterium's ability to react to stimuli as easily (heck, even more easily) than an elf's ability to react to stimuli. An elf's mind is much more complex than a bacterium's. One would expect it to be easier to manipulate a bacterium than an elf.
If it reacts to stimulus, it has a mind, within the definitions 4e uses, which are completely reasonable definitions. If it does not react to stimulus, then it's an object, which cannot be targeted by any attack that targets a Will defense (and is thus immune to mind-affecting psychic attacks)
Would you allow someone to Intimidate or use Diplomacy on an Ooze?
Yes, If diplomacy or intimidate cannot be used on the ooze, than someone who is trained in that skill will be left out.
Also, I am not analogizing that you are intellectually on par with an ooze, rather just immune to my psionics...an immunity you wouldn't have if we were debating under 4e rules.
I'm not immune to debate or discussion... it's just that your points aren't particularly relevant, accurate or effectively made, no matter the rule system.
Actually the description for the Ochre Jelly says it all. "MM pg 202 An ochre jelly relies on instinct". That is where your 1 for INT would come from, instinct.
And a powerful psychic capable of bending complex minds to his will, shattering consciousnesses spawned over decades and subvert their strong inclinations, instincts and desires to replace them with his own is...
Somehow baffled by a creature with a much more simple structure.
He can set a mansion ablaze, but can't even get a house of cards to smolder a little?
Actually what would make an ochre jelly function would be very very complex. You have something that doesn't have a brain, but it can still some how perceive it's surroundings, it can move even though it has no muscles or a brain to tell it to move, it has to eat even though it doesn't have a brain to tell it it's hungry etc.....
Also, I am not analogizing that you are intellectually on par with an ooze, rather just immune to my psionics...an immunity you wouldn't have if we were debating under 4e rules.
I'm not immune to debate or discussion... it's just that your points aren't particularly relevant, accurate or effectively made, no matter the rule system.
You tend to miss the whole point. The point has been "even though something is written mechanically, it still doesn't always make sense even from a fantasy point of view".
Every thinks their opinion is right but you need to realize that your opinion isn't always going to be fact. I see you have a tough time accepting when you try to bring your opinion off as fact.
Would you allow someone to Intimidate or use Diplomacy on an Ooze?
Would you deny someone the ability to use Diplomacy or Intimidate on someone that's not a genius?
Applying psychically generated energy, overloading sensory and cognitive (even for very primitive cognition) aparatus, and psychokinesis are not the same as changing someone's attitude via speech.
And actually, I might well allow intimidate on an ooze, although the check would likely be astoundingly high. If it's smart enough to know to find food and pursue it, it's smart enough to sense threats and avoid them, you just have to find a way to make yourself seem like a threat.
Would you allow someone to Intimidate or use Diplomacy on an Ooze?
Yes, though there's a -5 penalty for nonverbal communication, and oozes are hostile, so there's another -10 penalty (though I guess if you can get an ooze into a bottle, you can take your time). But do you want to make a Diplomacy check at a -15 penalty against a moderate DC? Go for it!
Intimidate induces fear into the target. Are oozes immune to fear? Nope. So, yes, they can be intimidated. Diplomacy makes a target more friendly (and since it starts out hostile, it can't get more unfriendly). Can an ooze be manipulated into being, say, indifferent to the intimidator? Sure. Why not?
Diplomacy and Intimidate only give a creature new stimulus to react to. So of course you can convince an ooze that you might be more trouble than you're worth (Intimidate) or that you are no threat to them and they should go elsewhere for food (Diplomacy). I don't know you'd think that shouldn't happen.
Also, I am not analogizing that you are intellectually on par with an ooze, rather just immune to my psionics...an immunity you wouldn't have if we were debating under 4e rules.
I'm not immune to debate or discussion... it's just that your points aren't particularly relevant, accurate or effectively made, IN MY OPINION no matter the rule system.
fixed that for ya.
You don't need a mind to perceive and act. Bacteria have no minds
Actually, bacteria have no brains. Whether they have minds or not depends entirely on your definition of "mind".
Mind: "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc."
Do bacteria perceive? Yes they do, simply by responding to stimuli, as you admit when you state that bacteria "interact with their environment just fine". There's no reason that psionicists could not manipulate a bacterium's ability to react to stimuli as easily (heck, even more easily) than an elf's ability to react to stimuli. An elf's mind is much more complex than a bacterium's. One would expect it to be easier to manipulate a bacterium than an elf.
If it reacts to stimulus, it has a mind, within the definitions 4e uses, which are completely reasonable definitions. If it does not react to stimulus, then it's an object, which cannot be targeted by any attack that targets a Will defense (and is thus immune to mind-affecting psychic attacks)
Would you allow someone to Intimidate or use Diplomacy on an Ooze?
Yes, If diplomacy or intimidate cannot be used on the ooze, than someone who is trained in that skill will be left out.
techincally according to the rules you are right. You could do this even though it is very much absurd. I wonder which one is going to try and jusity how to Intimidate an ooze first.
Would you allow someone to Intimidate or use Diplomacy on an Ooze?
Yes, though there are penalties for not being able to speak to the creature, and ozzes are hostile, so there's another penalty, and a -10 penalty for doing it in combat (though I guess if you can get an ooze into a bottle, you can take your time).
Intimidate induces fear into the target. Are oozes immune to fear? Nope. So, yes, they can be intimidated. Diplomacy makes a target more friendly (and since it starts out hostile, it can't get more unfriendly). Can an ooze be manipulated into being, say indifferent to the intimidator? Sure. Why not?
Diplomacy and Intimidate only give a creature new stimulus to react to. So of course you can convince an ooze that you might be more trouble than you're worth (Intimidate) or that you are no threat to them and they should go elsewhere for food (Diplomacy). I don't know you'd think that shouldn't happen.
Ok, how would you rationalize bluffing said ooze?
You tend to miss the whole point. The point has been "even though something is written mechanically, it still doesn't always make sense even from a fantasy point of view".
Every thinks their opinion is right but you need to realize that your opinion isn't always going to be fact. I see you have a tough time accepting when you try to bring your opinion off as fact.
I'm sorry, but I think you've wholly missed the point.
A: This doesn't ever make sense! It's wrong!
B: Here is a situation in which it makes sense, and would do so for people not of your exact opinion or people who are but are willing to use their imagination in even the most fractional sense.
A: NO IT'S WRONG. IT CAN NEVER BE RIGHT.
B: If you mean "it can never be right for you," then that is likely so, but that is not a failure on the part of anyone but you, and is specifically a failure to apply an ability you have shown you already have. You have that ability and are selectively applying it in such a way that is illogical and strongly represents an unfounded negative bias.
A: YOU CAN'T TELL ME I'M WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG. IT'S WRONG. IT CAN NEVER BE RIGHT.
Would you allow someone to Intimidate or use Diplomacy on an Ooze?
Yes, though there are penalties for not being able to speak to the creature, and ozzes are hostile, so there's another penalty, and a -10 penalty for doing it in combat (though I guess if you can get an ooze into a bottle, you can take your time).
Intimidate induces fear into the target. Are oozes immune to fear? Nope. So, yes, they can be intimidated. Diplomacy makes a target more friendly (and since it starts out hostile, it can't get more unfriendly). Can an ooze be manipulated into being, say indifferent to the intimidator? Sure. Why not?
Diplomacy and Intimidate only give a creature new stimulus to react to. So of course you can convince an ooze that you might be more trouble than you're worth (Intimidate) or that you are no threat to them and they should go elsewhere for food (Diplomacy). I don't know you'd think that shouldn't happen.
LOL!!! WOW you actually tried to justify the rule. Oozes function to feed and nothing else, they don't reproduce and they don't seek to better their lives. Their instinct drives them to feed and nothing else.
Please explain, as a gamer with an example, as to what you would do and say using the Intimidate skill in order to Intimidate an ooze.
techincally according to the rules you are right. You could do this even though it is very much absurd. I wonder which one is going to try and jusity how to Intimidate an ooze first.
I'm sorry, could you show this to me in the rules? I seem to be unfamiliar with the passage on diplomacizing oozes.
As for bluffing oozes? The same way I bluff my dog.
"You wanna stick?! I got the stick!!! You see the stick!?! You wanna stick!?! Lookit the stick!!!!"
*pretends to toss the stick, but doesn't*
*dog runs, and is confused when no stick is to be found.*
I would think this might actually be simpler to fool an ooze, assuming I could find something it wanted as much as my dog wants a stick.
Ok, how would you rationalize bluffing said ooze?
Depends on the bluff. Are you making a diversion to hide? That seems simple enough. Toss something somewhere so the ooze thinks there's suddenly another creature to deal with, and while it adjusts to the new stimulius, you hide.
Are you feinting to gain combat advantage? You move faster than the ooze can react to the stimulus, so it is momentarily disoriented. You have combat advantage.
Other than that, you can only use Bluff to convince a creature that something that they believe to be true is untrue. And since I don't think oozes "believe" anything, there's nothing left to bluff them about. But if an ooze had a belief, then yes I would allow someone to try to bluff the ooze, again with penalties for nonverbal communication and the fact that the ooze is hostile.
If you want to put it in a real world sense? Us real-life humans never leave "heroic" tier at best.
In the sense of the lower level having almost no chance against the higher? Real life extends into triple epic, if not further.
A veteran(Level 10, +0 Training, +0 Stat, +5 half-level) can match any skill a fresh but untalented rookie(Level 1, +5 training, +0 Stat) was trained in. That same veteran though can't match a trained and talented rookie(Level 1, +5 training, +5 stat) in his field though.
The problem is that our untrained veteran has much the same chance compared to a trained veteran as the untrained novice has vs the trained novice. Watching the party rogue pick a lock will improve my skill at it, but not as much as it improves the rogue's skill, and the rogue presumably spends practice time as well while I am studying a book of arcane lore. The idea that I keep up with his level of skill is laughable and 4e is distinctly less realistic on this point than 3.5 where you left things to the party expert after a few levels. That may make 4e the better game since all can take part at all levels and an adventure is not automatically ruined for lack of one skill, but it does make 4e less realistic.
Would that be a fair assessment of 4e?
Oozes function to feed and nothing else, they don't reproduce and they don't seek to better their lives. Their instinct drives them to feed and nothing else.
Not true. They are not immune to fear. They can flee from danger. Single-celled organisms do that all the time.
Please explain, as a gamer with an example, as to what you would do and say using the Intimidate skill in order to Intimidate an ooze.
Sure. I remove my cloak and weave it in a way that barely brushes against the ooze's many cilia, giving the impression that it is suddenly surrounded by a plethora of animals it cannot seem to reach. At the same time I make odd noises to confuse the ooze into thinking other threats are on the way. Remember that the ooze has to already be bloodied for this to work, so the ooze can sense that it's in danger, as it's lost a lot of protoplasm/ichor.
I'm at a -15 on my Intimidate check against the creature's Will defense. The chances of me actually convincing the ooze to flee are slim. But I see no reason to think someone trained in Intimidate couldn't figure out a way to cow a bloodied ooze into fleeing. After all the oldest instinct in the book is fight or flight.
LOL!!! WOW you actually tried to justify the rule. Oozes function to feed and nothing else, they don't reproduce and they don't seek to better their lives. Their instinct drives them to feed and nothing else.
you seem to be familiar with the rules in a way in which i am not.
First, I am unsure about where the rules specifically state you can do so. I merely stated I would allow my players to do so, because I prefer to award, rather than punish, creativity. It makes our games much more enjoyable for everyone. If you're saying the rules do say you can, could you point me to that section?
Secondly, I am also unfamiliar with a section on the motivations and detailing all behavior and life cycles of oozes definitively. Could you point me to this?
Please explain, as a gamer with an example, as to what you would do and say using the Intimidate skill in order to Intimidate an ooze.
Just off the top of my head? Likely swing around a torch or even pour out flamable material between the ooze and myself and set it ablaze, creating an obvious hazard, and then work to make the hazard advance to be more threatening to the ooze in some fashion.
If it doesn't work? Oh well.
I don't think I could really "say" anything that would be effective unless my Dm has ruled that oozes have languages.
techincally according to the rules you are right. You could do this even though it is very much absurd. I wonder which one is going to try and jusity how to Intimidate an ooze first.
I'm sorry, could you show this to me in the rules? I seem to be unfamiliar with the passage on diplomacizing oozes.
As for bluffing oozes? The same way I bluff my dog.
"You wanna stick?! I got the stick!!! You see the stick!?! You wanna stick!?! Lookit the stick!!!!"
*pretends to toss the stick, but doesn't*
*dog runs, and is confused when no stick is to be found.*
I would think this might actually be simpler to fool an ooze, assuming I could find something it wanted as much as my dog wants a stick.
All you have to do is read page 186 of the PHB. Mechanically there is nothing that wouldn't allow you to intimidate an Ooze. If all you are doing is rolling the dice then yes. Just try and explain how you are doing it is the bad part. Same way with Diplomacy page 183.
So the point is: nothing is broken because everything can be expained, and therefore fixed.
Nothing you've identified is broken, as it has been explained, and therefore is not in need of fixing. What needs to be fixed is your confusion that how things used to work is the only sensible way for things to work going forward.
So the point is: nothing is broken because everything can be expained, and therefore fixed.
Would that be a fair assessment of 4e?
Nope, and certainly not an accurate one.
"Nothing is broken"
Actually there are some mechanics that do not work as they should, they are broken.
There are no broken descriptions. i'm not sure how you would even have one aside from perhaps spelling or grammatical errors.
"everything can be explained"
This part would actually be the most technically correct. I'm not sure "everything" could really be adequately "explained," but the system doesn't do "everything." you've not presented me with anything that couldn't be explained, other than things that function exactly as they do in 3.5 where they also cannot be explained.
"And therefore fixed."
Fixing it means it is broken to begin with, making the first part invalid.
So the point is: nothing is broken because everything can be expained, and therefore fixed.
Nothing you've identified is broken, as it has been explained, and therefore is not in need of fixing. What needs to be fixed is your confusion that how things used to work is the only sensible way for things to work going forward.
Ok, using the logic you used to explain away bluffing/diplomatically engaging/intimidating said ooze, why does it have immunity to blind/gaze effects? Presumably the ooze can "see" in the same way it can "think" even though it doesn't have eyes. Maybe it uses cillia to percieve the world around it, maybe it senses electromagnetic radiation, or thermal radiation and so "sees" the target.
Maybe all effects that cause blindness don't affect only the eyes, maybe the effect on an ooze interrupts the electromagnetic pulses that travel from its sensory organs to its stimulus response mechanism. Why does it make sense for an object with no eyes to be blinded, but an object with no brain is still subject to telepathy?
All you have to do is read page 186 of the PHB. Mechanically there is nothing that wouldn't allow you to intimidate an Ooze. If all you are doing is rolling the dice then yes. Just try and explain how you are doing it is the bad part. Same way with Diplomacy page 183.
I'll check that out when I get home in a minute.
And yes, players can come up with horrible descriptions or fail to come up with any at all...
Or wholly refuse to even try because they don't want to use their imaginations.
Now, would you say that it is possible to intimidate a human? Yes, of course it is. that's the most obvious use of the skill and most commonly described.
Is it possible to intimidate a human by threatening to grant them their most fond desires, including wealth, women, fame, and a lifetime of prosperity and happiness? Not generally, no. Although it may if the individual has sworn a lifetime of penitence in fear for their immortal afterlife or something.
Presenting a poor explanation should mean more than the dice. So should a good one.
Ok, using the logic you used to explain away bluffing/diplomatically engaging/intimidating said ooze, why does it have immunity to blind/gaze effects?
Not all oozes are immune to those effects, such as the blue slime, spawn of juiblex (sludge dredge, ooze horror, and plague hurler), blood demon, carpet of flesh, and slime devil. So, actually, I can blind or use gaze attacks against oozes, unless they are specifically immune to such attacks.
Ooze means one thing only -- the creature is amorphous. Frankly, I'm not even sure we need the subtype anymore. Nothing in the glossary is triggered by the fact that your enemy is an ooze. Oozes are just brainless monsters. Their ooziness comes in the form of their powers, not their immunities.
Unless you're arguing that monsters in 4e are prone (liable to suffer the condition of0 to becoming prone (lying down), your argument fails. That defintion of prone does not match what 4e does.
You are wrong. The text of the game tells us so. The prone condition, in 4e, only knocks a creature down if it can be knocked down. What the prone condition does is make something liable to suffer from, or experience something, unwelcome. In other words, it makes the creature prone to ill effect by imposing penalties on the creature (which make it more likely that the creature will suffer from an attack aimed at it).
So you're arguing that the prone condition in 4e only makes something liable to suffer from something else. That's not what 4e prone does.
I am saying that the prone condition makes someone prone to suffering the ill effects of future attacks made by adjecent enemies. In other words, it imposes penalties that make it easier for adjecent targets to hurt the creature that has become prone to being injured. The only time that means that a creature is lying down is when the creature is physically capable of lying down. And that is exactly what the prone condition in 4e does.
Which is NOT the defintion of prone that you've been trying to use in this post. That above sentence is a result, not a situation which makes something liable to suffer something else.
It is EXACTLY the definition I have been using, not trying to use, in this thread. It is also the definition used by 4e. When something has lost its sense of balance it has become prone to suffering the ill effects of future attacks made by adjecent enemies. I have described the means by which the prone condition makes someone prone to ill omen.
Not even close.
No, actually, it is bang on. The prone condition has not damaged verisimilitude at all. The only thing it has done is used a different definition of prone than that typically used by D&D. In the past, prone only caused a creature to become prone to further ill effects from adjacent enemies by knocking the creature down. In 4e, a creature does not have to be knocked down to be made prone to further ill effects from adjacent enemies. A creature is only knocked down if it can be knocked down. Otherwise, it is merely off balance, in a state that makes it prone to further ill effects from adjacent enemies.
The inability to deal with that has to do with a lack of imagination, and an inability to deal with changes to the games mechanics and presentation, and nothing to do with a lack of verisimilitude.
You don't need a mind to perceive and act. Bacteria have no minds
Actually, bacteria have no brains. Whether they have minds or not depends entirely on your definition of "mind".
Mind: "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc."
Do bacteria perceive? Yes they do, simply by responding to stimuli, as you admit when you state that bacteria "interact with their environment just fine". There's no reason that psionicists could not manipulate a bacterium's ability to react to stimuli as easily (heck, even more easily) than an elf's ability to react to stimuli. An elf's mind is much more complex than a bacterium's. One would expect it to be easier to manipulate a bacterium than an elf.
If it reacts to stimulus, it has a mind, within the definitions 4e uses, which are completely reasonable definitions. If it does not react to stimulus, then it's an object, which cannot be targeted by any attack that targets a Will defense (and is thus immune to mind-affecting psychic attacks)
That makes sense. The question then becomes, what is a bacteria or ooze capable of perceiving. If it is not capable of visual perceptions, then such mind powers would simply fail. If it is only capable of sensing say motion, hunger and pain, then that would be all that could be done to it.
If you want to put it in a real world sense? Us real-life humans never leave "heroic" tier at best.
In the sense of the lower level having almost no chance against the higher? Real life extends into triple epic, if not further.
Wait, what? This was meant to explain the "experience" difference between humans IRL as a guess. That 1/2 Level bonus to skills, is what I think of as experience from watching/doing.
The problem is that our untrained veteran has much the same chance compared to a trained veteran as the untrained novice has vs the trained novice.
Sounds about right. In this example, neither veteran or novice is specializing in the trained skill and assumes the same talent (Ability Modifier and Racial Bonuses) between them and neither putting further effort into working on the skill, but still getting some experience. Now if the trained veteran had focused on improving his talent in the skill (Ability Score), researched beyond what he normally has (Skill Focus), and spent money on gear to help with said skill (Item Bonus), then he is specializing in that skill and starts leaving you behind.
Watching the party rogue pick a lock will improve my skill at it, but not as much as it improves the rogue's skill, and the rogue presumably spends practice time as well while I am studying a book of arcane lore. The idea that I keep up with his level of skill is laughable and 4e is distinctly less realistic on this point than 3.5 where you left things to the party expert after a few levels.
You keep up with his skill level in theory, but your chance of success is always much worse then his. If you succeed where he doesn't, its more like the real life "Stroke of genius or Beginner's Luck" that pops up, followed by a look of utter hatred from the Rogue for being outshined by the talentless hack.
As for your wizard studying arcane lore? Thats why you most likely already know it when the roll is called on a hard piece of knowledge. Later, that rogue may recall what the missing wizard mumbled about or spoke of in interest during your studies.
In 4e, you still leave that skill to the party expert. Just if the party expert is captured/missing/unconscious, maybe, just maybe, you picked up enough hints to get the job done.
Take a level 30 Int/Wis Wizard at the height of his power, his untrained Thievery check is +16 (10 Starting Dex). He can pick a lock 55% of the time, that his Rogue ally used to pick at level 8 at the same success about. All by remembering little tricks and details the Rogue mentioned all throughout their travels. Said wizard goes and shows his friend his accomplishments...
Only for said Rogue to stare dumbly at the wizard, then the lock. Then proceeds to kick the chest, causing it to unlock and open without any trouble. What was the wizard so happy for, it was just a stupid simple lock (+37 Thievery from 28 Dex, Training, Focus, +6 Item bonus).
Its not so much as "Keeping Up" with the Rogue exactly, especially any that goes and specializes in said skill.
That may make 4e the better game since all can take part at all levels and an adventure is not automatically ruined for lack of one skill, but it does make 4e less realistic.
I find it less realistic that through experience, you never pick up small tricks and knowledge of things you constantly face. Which every 4e skill directly relates to things adventurers always stumble across. That a Fighter never gets better at say...Diplomacy, no matter how many times he has to talk to the Sheriff, Nobles, Kings, Demigods, and Gods...but still hasn't learned an ounce of tact to talk with the Sheriff he first got in trouble with well. (Note, not learning isn't the same as not trying)
The question then becomes, what is a bacteria or ooze capable of perceiving. If it is not capable of visual perceptions, then such mind powers would simply fail.
Well, that's what the "blind" subtype is for. Obviously if I try to Intimidate a blind creature (whether it's an ooze or not) with visual gestures, I should fail.
If it is only capable of sensing say motion, hunger and pain, then that would be all that could be done to it.
Well, blind doesn't mean deaf. A blind ooze (or any other blind creature) may respond to audial stimulus, temperature, touch, smells, and other stimuli.
There are two things being argued here. The first is the literal definition, and the second is a D&D keyword or a specific power. The first usually has some basis in reality, the second does not. What I mean is this: It does not matter if you cannot "realistically" trip/prone/bluff/whatever something. All that matters is by the rules of D&D, it happens. Flavor it however you want, come up with whatever rationale for it you need to, but the end result remains the same - the creature suffers the effect.
It irks me to no end when somebody comes along and starts to change rules for no reason other than their own lack of imagination as to how something could happen in a fantasy world that doesn't adhere to physical laws anyway. Whether it's using a power that says "The target is knocked prone" on an Ooze, or using a power that says "The target is pushed 2 squares" with no other restrictions against a Giant, or stopping a Dragon mid-flight because you're a Fighter and you have that attack that stops a creature that moves if you hit it with an OA is irrelevant, the game effect happens; how that effect happens is left to your imagination, but you are wrong (yes, I am invoking badwrongfun) to arbitrarily decide "That doesn't make sense, so I'm not allowing it to happen" on a whim. The rules of the game dictate that it does happen.
Okay, here's the deal as this is a personal pet peeve of mine:
There are two things being argued here. The first is the literal definition, and the second is a D&D keyword or a specific power. The first usually has some basis in reality, the second does not. What I mean is this: It does not matter if you cannot "realistically" trip/prone/bluff/whatever something. All that matters is by the rules of D&D, it happens. Flavor it however you want, come up with whatever rationale for it you need to, but the end result remains the same - the creature suffers the effect.
It irks me to no end when somebody comes along and starts to change rules for no reason other than their own lack of imagination as to how something could happen in a fantasy world that doesn't adhere to physical laws anyway. Whether it's using a power that says "The target is knocked prone" on an Ooze, or using a power that says "The target is pushed 2 squares" with no other restrictions against a Giant, or stopping a Dragon mid-flight because you're a Fighter and you have that attack that stops a creature that moves if you hit it with an OA is irrelevant, the game effect happens; how that effect happens is left to your imagination, but you are wrong (yes, I am invoking badwrongfun) to arbitrarily decide "That doesn't make sense, so I'm not allowing it to happen" on a whim. The rules of the game dictate that it does happen.
Quick question: Do you DM?
Quick question: Do you DM?
I have in the past, yes, and when I do I am 100% by the book unless there's something that is hurting game balance or serves no real purpose (e.g. in 3.5 I houseruled away the favored class nonsense and the Paladin/Monk multi-class restrictions). I usually play, and when I do am the "Rules Expert" (not to be confused with Rules Lawyer, who argues minutiae to gain an advantage; a Rules Expert just knows the rules very well and helps clarify or explain things) which is why things like arbitrary changes based on "I don't like the fact that works that way" don't sit well with me.
You are wrong. The text of the game tells us so.
Um. YOU were arguing that the dictionary definition applied. The text of the game is irrelevant to your original declaration or my response to it.
What the prone condition does is make something liable to suffer from, or experience something, unwelcome.
Incorrect. The creature instantly suffers (past tense) the penalties applied by the prone condition.
In other words, it makes the creature prone to ill effect by imposing penalties on the creature (which make it more likely that the creature will suffer from an attack aimed at it).
I read prone in 4e and it does not say this. Prone is itself a status effect. That is its entire purpose.
I am saying that the prone condition makes someone prone to suffering the ill effects of future attacks made by adjecent enemies. In other words, it imposes penalties that make it easier for adjecent targets to hurt the creature that has become prone to being injured. The only time that means that a creature is lying down is when the creature is physically capable of lying down. And that is exactly what the prone condition in 4e does.
You are wrong. When you read prone, it is entirely a singular status effect that applies a few penalties and one bonus. Anything further is NOT a part of prone.
It is EXACTLY the definition I have been using, not trying to use, in this thread. It is also the definition used by 4e. When something has lost its sense of balance it has become prone to suffering the ill effects of future attacks made by adjecent enemies. I have described the means by which the prone condition makes someone prone to ill omen.
This is most certainly NOT the 4ed defintion. You are inventing one to justify your position. In 4e, prone is a status effect accompanied by penalties and a bonus. That is it. Anything further is not a part of the prone status effect. Your future attacks are a separate issue entirely.
Quick question: Do you DM?
I have in the past, yes, and when I do I am 100% by the book unless there's something that is hurting game balance or serves no real purpose (e.g. in 3.5 I houseruled away the favored class nonsense and the Paladin/Monk multi-class restrictions). I usually play, and when I do am the "Rules Expert" (not to be confused with Rules Lawyer, who argues minutiae to gain an advantage; a Rules Expert just knows the rules very well and helps clarify or explain things) which is why things like arbitrary changes based on "I don't like the fact that works that way" don't sit well with me.
Well when you run a game as a DM how do you explain the unexplainable?
Well when you run a game as a DM how do you explain the unexplainable?
To be perfectly honest, I don't. All I care about is if the rules allow it or not; if the rules say that Ooze is knocked prone, then it's knocked prone. Exactly how it ends up prone is irrelevant - all that matters is that it suffers the in-game effects under the "Prone" condition. Perhaps the magic holding it together (because something is holding the mass of goo together) becomes partially undone. Maybe it's knocked off balance and starts to wobble (like a jello mold). The details don't matter to me, all I need to know is the Ooze is prone and needs to spend a Move action to not be prone, whatever that might entail (stop wobbling, regain the sense of where its prey is, etc.)
The only time I will arbitrarily rule on something is if there's a discrepancy as to how it works, if it's something that's obviously broken or can turn out broken (e.g. many of the high level Wizard spells in 3.5, or if someone tried to play Pun-Pun, etc. things that are obviously not the intent of the rules), or if it's in the interest of not bogging the game down (e.g. player wants to do something odd, rather than waste 15 minutes looking up a rule give it a DC, tell him to roll, and see what happens)
...In 4e, prone is a status effect accompanied by penalties and a bonus. That is it. Anything further is not a part of the prone status effect...
I ran 1st & 2nd AD&D, OD&D, 3e, 3.5, Palladium Fantasy, Rifts, Nightbane, Beyond the Supernatural, Heroes Unlimited, White Wolf (from 2nd edition Vamp right up to everything they published before NWOD--which I didn't run simply because I hadn't the money to reinvest), Shadowrun (1st, 2nd & 3rd), BESM (2nd and 3rd), All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Firefly, GURPS, d20 Modern, and once we had a lot of fun with Paranoia. I don't recall ever having trouble with "loosing track" of any moving parts.
Thousands would not believe you, but I do. Honestly.
...In 4e, prone is a status effect accompanied by penalties and a bonus. That is it. Anything further is not a part of the prone status effect...
Maybe it's just the fact I've played a lot of video games, but I don't see how this is even a relevant point of contention. The word in D&D is a keyword and an in-game effect yet people are trying to argue that the definition of it is X, and X can't be applied to Creature Y so therefore X shouldn't apply to Y, when we aren't talking about the word, we're talking about the status effect.
That makes sense. The question then becomes, what is a bacteria or ooze capable of perceiving. If it is not capable of visual perceptions, then such mind powers would simply fail. If it is only capable of sensing say motion, hunger and pain, then that would be all that could be done to it.
Just because it's described as a mind power by default doesn't mean it needs to be. You can easily reflavor your power on the fly to be affecting stimuli instead of thoughts, whether they be audio, thermal, or whatever.
Well when you run a game as a DM how do you explain the unexplainable?
When you come across the unexplainable, as a good DM, you are about to shift the border of what is unexplainable a bit further and your party is going to have a lot of fun with your explanation
Agreed with Maxperson; the details of how something ends up prone isn't relevant at the table, because "Prone" in D&D is a status effect. It doesn't necessarily mean the creature has been knocked on its butt - the only thing that matters is that it suffers the Prone status effect and all the penalties and such that entails. Same with any other D&D effect, the word used is irrelevant just the game effect which occurs.
Maybe it's just the fact I've played a lot of video games, but I don't see how this is even a relevant point of contention. The word in D&D is a keyword and an in-game effect yet people are trying to argue that the definition of it is X, and X can't be applied to Creature Y so therefore X shouldn't apply to Y, when we aren't talking about the word, we're talking about the status effect.
To be fair. I don't think that the rules should allow the prone status effect to include effects that do not actually involve things being prone as per the definition. I'm a big believe in the value of words and changing defintions the way WoTC did undermines the English language which in my opinion disrupts the flow of the game by throwing people off.
My disagreement with Cyber-Dave is that he is including things that are not part of the 4e status effect in order to claim that the 4e status effect does in fact match the dictionary definition of prone. It does not.
Now you seem like a man of the world. You appear to be literate and well read. But surely you do not expect me to believe that we are limited to just two definitions per word? That seems a little restricted and possibley even un-realistic.
Take the word "prone" for example. It seems to have 3 definitions on dictionary.com and yet none of them appear to match with the definiton used in 4e, so is it little wonder that some people are confused and even have their verisimilitude broken when a fighter knocks a ooze prone. By your argument, 4e should have chosen a different word to match with their combat description.
Wow. We have been over this in this thread. You are now officially a hypocrite. You try and use multiple definitions of a word to justify your argument, and then try and claim that the use of prone in 4e breaks verisimilitude? Except, in this very thread, I pointed out that one of the definitions of prone is: "liable to suffer from, do, or experience something, typically something regrettable or unwelcome." Guess what the prone condition in 4e does? It makes someone liable to suffer from, do, or experience something, typically something regrettable or unwelcome. Specifically, it destabilizes a creatures sense of balance, making it lie down if possible. Guess what that doesn't break? If you guessed verisimilitude you are correct; because really, 4e is using the word prone in an acceptable, and believable, manner.
Bologna! Pure and utter Bologna!
Not that I would expect you to actually check your facts before you started to rant but there is only one definition of verisimilitude that I have used, which is:
the semblance of reality in dramatic or nondramatic fiction. The concept implies that either the action represented must be acceptable or convincing according to the audience's own experience or knowledge or, as in the presentation of science fiction or tales of the supernatural, the audience must be enticed into willingly suspending disbelief and accepting improbable actions as true within the framework of the narrative.
taken from dictionary.com.
In the section that you quoted, I specifically stated that it would be unrealistic to expect us to limit ourselves to two definitions per word and then continued to point out that the word "prone" as used in 4e combat conditions does not fit within that overly strict imaginary limitation.
Now I under stand that Redjack is a friend of yours, and that you feel that he may need some assistance in his butchery of the english language, but maybe you should the massive chip on your shoulder off, and try to actually read the statements that you quote. As they say: Reading comprehension for the win!
Well when you run a game as a DM how do you explain the unexplainable?
What, by the way, have you presented thusfar that was unexplainable?
Everything posited thusfar as "unbelieveable" has been believed by someone else. Everything that has been presented as "inexplicable" has been explained. Everything you've claimed was "impossible" as been shown to, indeed, be possible.
"I don't believe" and "I don't like" are subjective statements. They have no bearing on what is or is not. They demonstrate only a personal unwillingness, an individual refusal to use your imagination. In a game that is centered around the use of imagination, I find this to be odd. Still, at your table, you are welcome to play and do as you wish.
I have not told you that you were wrong for doing so. You, on the other hand, have said that my imagination is "stupid" because it grasps things you cannot. That seems a little ironic, along with being rude.
Thousands would not believe you, but I do. Honestly.
Belief is immaterial. I appreciate your belief, (if sincere) but it doesn't alter the facts any more than people who are skeptical of what some random guy on the internet has to say about himself.
On the other hand, I didn't insinuate you were incapable of processing mechanics. You seem to be quite good at it. You do seem to have quite a bit of trouble using your imagination to process descriptions as well as compose them, but I attribute this more to an unwillingness to look beyond what you've been told is "right" than an inability to do so.
A system that encourages other people to do what you are unwilling to do is not "bad."
That makes sense. The question then becomes, what is a bacteria or ooze capable of perceiving. If it is not capable of visual perceptions, then such mind powers would simply fail. If it is only capable of sensing say motion, hunger and pain, then that would be all that could be done to it.
Just because it's described as a mind power by default doesn't mean it needs to be. You can easily reflavor your power on the fly to be affecting stimuli instead of thoughts, whether they be audio, thermal, or whatever.
Meh. It's PSIONICS. By definition those are mind powers. I am currently running a 3.5 campaign for some friends and one of the new players picked a psionic class. He chose all mind affecting powers and ran into a problem when he hit an undead encounter. I did not realize prior to that what he had done, so before last game I drew him aside and told him that if he kept things as they were, he woul have a ton of trouble given the number of things in the game that are immune to mind affecting powers. I then told him that he should think about swapping some of them out for non-mind affecting powers so that he would be able to function in encounters with undead and other things. He did and things are fine now. It never occurred to me to make things not immune to mind affecting powers. Although, since that time I have been wondering why the heck intelligent undead are immune to them. They have minds. I think I will change that immunity
Meh. It's PSIONICS. By definition those are mind powers.
Yes, but it's the psionicist's mind, not the target's mind that powers it. A psionicist can generate sound (thunder), fire, cold, matter (acid), etc. Does damage get a psychic damage type because it damages the psyche?
Well, let's see... does fire damage cause damage to the target's fire? Does thunder damage cause damage to the target's thunder? Does necrotic damage cause damage to the target's necroses? No, no, and no. Fire, thunder, and necrotic are all types of energy (in D&D).
So why do we think psychic damage causes damage to one's psyche, rather than being damage caused by psychic energy? And if it's psychic energy, well, energy can conceivably affect anything, right?
That said, psychic damage is described in the glossary as targeting the "mind". This means psychic powers should not get to target things than have no mind -- i.e., objects. Just rule that psychic attacks cannot target objects. (Oddly, some psychic damage attacks do target Fortitude and Reflex, like the Warlock power Wield the Warp and Fortune Binding, the Cleric power Death Surge, and others). I don't have a problem with that, as long as they only target creatures.
It never occurred to me to make things not immune to mind affecting powers. Although, since that time I have been wondering why the heck intelligent undead are immune to them. They have minds. I think I will change that immunity
Make all undead subject to mind attacks. Skeletons and zombies have to choose which victim to attack. They are brainless (well, I guess zombies have brains... and want more), but not mindless. Why couldn't a psionicist use his powers to reprogram the "mindless" undead? Sounds great.
Bologna! Pure and utter Bologna!
Incorrect. I choose to define bologna as lunchmeat, and I refuse to believe an internet posting can be lunchmeat, and any argument you present that lunchmeat might mean anything else is ridiculous and poorly made, and breaks my lunchmeat verisimilitude.
Am I doing this right?
the
semblance of reality in dramatic or nondramatic fiction. The concept implies that either the action represented must be acceptable or convincing according to the audience's own experience or knowledge or, as in the presentation of science fiction or tales of the supernatural, the audience must be enticed into willingly suspending disbelief and accepting improbable actions as true within the framework of the narrative.
taken from dictionary.com.
Actually, it's from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Aside from that, no, it's not the only definition you've used. It's the only definition you've claimed to use.
"the semblance of reality in dramatic or nondramatic fiction," would not include "mechanics" as the mechanics are not a description. The description applied to the mechanics is the description.
By claiming otherwise, and the way in which you've done so, you've presented the definition as "mechanics that do not resolve in such a way that defies description in any way I do not personally find to be enjoyable based on a series of long-established biases."
In the section that you quoted, I specifically stated that it would be unrealistic to expect us to limit ourselves to two definitions per word and then continued to point out that the word "prone" as used in 4e combat conditions does not fit within that overly strict imaginary limitation.
Actually, I'd missed this somehow.
Allow me to rebut now:
Limiting oneself to two definitions of every word is uneccessary. However, when two definitions are in obvious conflict, it behooves one to clarify. Beyond that, when you invent brand new definitions, (like "verisimilitude" means "having mechanics that defy description not in keeping with my personal biases") you should expect people to be confused or upset when you try to convince them that what you are saying is the real and valid use of the word.
Beyond this, using a word in a very unclear manner not even in keeping with the least common usage, and presenting as if it means something else, all while attempting to present fatuous and inaccurate arguments while attempting to "educate" someone who is unknowledgeable to the subject on which you're speaking is wholly different than using a word as a convenient reference word to show the most common use.
Considering your later arguments, I'd say that Dave's estimation of your character is somewhat accurate.
Now I under stand that Redjack is a friend of yours, and that you feel that he may need some assistance in his butchery of the english language, but maybe you should the massive chip on your shoulder off, and try to actually read the statements that you quote. As they say: Reading comprehension for the win!
Dave and I actually frequently disagree. Just because we both think that in this case you've been highly disingenuous and self-servingly biased does not mean we are best friends.
I think his appraisal actually shows he's managed to glean quite a bit from your posts.
Yes, but it's the psionicist's mind, not the target's mind that powers it. A psionicist can generate sound (thunder), fire, cold, matter (acid), etc. Does damage get a psychic damage type because it damages the psyche?
I would think so. But a mind power that generates physical or energy damage would not be a mind targeting power.
Well, let's see... does fire damage cause damage to the target's fire? Does thunder damage cause damage to the target's thunder? Does necrotic damage cause damage to the target's necroses? No, no, and no. Fire, thunder, and necrotic are all types of energy (in D&D).
So why do we think psychic damage causes damage to one's psyche, rather than being damage caused by psychic energy? And if it's psychic energy, well, energy can conceivably affect anything, right?
Because that's the way it has always been for powers targeting the opponant's mind.
That said, psychic damage is described in the glossary as targeting the "mind". This means psychic powers should not get to target things than have no mind -- i.e., objects. Just rule that psychic attacks cannot target objects. (Oddly, some psychic damage attacks do target Fortitude and Reflex, like the Warlock power Wield the Warp and Fortune Binding, the Cleric power Death Surge, and others). I don't have a problem with that, as long as they only target creatures.
I would look at each power individually and see whether it seems like it should target the mind like a mind blast, or if it should not, like a mind power that generates energy of some sort.
Make all undead subject to mind attacks. Skeletons and zombies have to choose which victim to attack. They are brainless (well, I guess zombies have brains... and want more), but not mindless. Why couldn't a psionicist use his powers to reprogram the "mindless" undead? Sounds great.
My skeletons and zombies don't make that choice. I have them attack the nearest PC until one of them is dead. They are mindless after all ;)
That said, the re-programming idea sounds like a good one and I'll have to give it some thought. Maybe there are certain powers I will let affect the "mindless" undead.
I already had my share trying to discern where I and another differed on the debate about Extra Damage and Keywords. Turns out it was due to how we each read "is in addition to". I read it as "is added to", while he reads it as "is apart from". The thing was, we both realized where the other was coming from, saw no way to sway the other because of it, nor was swaying from our own sides. The argument dropped, but at least we know where it occurred.
-It was that point, and only that point where our reasonings and logic grew apart. No where else supported for or against, thus it can't be resolved for now.
On verisimilitude? It seems to be used earlier as a word for "universal verisimilitude of D&D/Fantasy" rather then "my verisimilitude of D&D/Fantasy." Yes, thats important because the later is specific style of saying "In my opinion" while the former constantly shifts and can never really be defined or set.
The verisimilitude of various fiction will be different from person to person, just as an opinion is.
Heck, knocking prone an ooze was for some in this very topic was outside their verisimilitude of D&D until a joke image broke past the disbelief.
On that new Prone definition tangle...I'm not going to bother entering. Ugh, I've had enough research today.
Ugh. English. We all read the same thing, but comprehend it differently.
I already had my share trying to discern where I and another differed on the debate about Extra Damage and Keywords. Turns out it was due to how we each read "is in addition to". I read it as "is added to", while he reads it as "is apart from". The thing was, we both realized where the other was coming from, saw no way to sway the other because of it, nor was swaying from our own sides. The argument dropped, but at least we know where it occurred.
-It was that point, and only that point where our reasonings and logic grew apart. No where else supported for or against, thus it can't be resolved for now.
On verisimilitude? It seems to be used earlier as a word for "universal verisimilitude of D&D/Fantasy" rather then "my verisimilitude of D&D/Fantasy." Yes, thats important because the later is specific style of saying "In my opinion" while the former constantly shifts and can never really be defined or set.
The verisimilitude of various fiction will be different from person to person, just as an opinion is.
Heck, knocking prone an ooze was for some in this very topic was outside their verisimilitude of D&D until a joke image broke past the disbelief.
On that new Prone definition tangle...I'm not going to bother entering. Ugh, I've had enough research today.
Heh. I don't blame you and I wasn't trying to draw you in. I was just trying to clarify for you since you seems a bit lost
But, yeah, I see English interpretations as the cause of many of the arguments here and I am in no small number of them due to the importance I place on words and meaning.
Arguing about whether or not you can knock an ooze prone strikes me as being like asking why a thimble has to pay rent.
Oozes don't own property?
if it's psychic energy, well, energy can conceivably affect anything, right?
Because that's the way it has always been for powers targeting the opponant's mind.
So what? "the way it always has been" is not a very good justification for anything in a new edition.
I would look at each power individually and see whether it seems like it should target the mind like a mind blast, or if it should not, like a mind power that generates energy of some sort.
Psychic damage is a sort of energy, but it can only target creatures with minds. However, it can target Fortitude (cleric's Sacred Word power), Reflex (Bard's Bond of Malediction power), or AC (avenger's Executioner's Justice power).
I have them attack the nearest PC until one of them is dead. They are mindless after all ;)
Do they attack statues of PCs if they are closer than live PCs? Do they attack flies if a fly is closer to them than the PC? Can I protect myself from zombies by dropping marbles and watching as the zombies start hacking at the little marbles on the ground that are closer to them than I am? I'm going to guess that skeletons and zombies are not entirely mindless in your world -- they make evaluations and choices.
But, yeah, I see English interpretations as the cause of many of the arguments here and I am in no small number of them due to the importance I place on words and meaning.
You need to get over it. If words weren't malleable, my forum handle's meaning would be well known to all, instead of an obscure word from Beowulf.
Thousands would not believe you, but I do. Honestly.
Belief is immaterial. I appreciate your belief, (if sincere) but it doesn't alter the facts any more than people who are skeptical of what some random guy on the internet has to say about himself.
On the other hand, I didn't insinuate you were incapable of processing mechanics. You seem to be quite good at it. You do seem to have quite a bit of trouble using your imagination to process descriptions as well as compose them, but I attribute this more to an unwillingness to look beyond what you've been told is "right" than an inability to do so.
A system that encourages other people to do what you are unwilling to do is not "bad."
It probably explains why you do not have very good system mastery over previous versions of the game. It must be hard to remember which game is which.
But, yeah, I see English interpretations as the cause of many of the arguments here and I am in no small number of them due to the importance I place on words and meaning.
You need to get over it. If words weren't malleable, my forum handle's meaning would be well known to all, instead of an obscure word from Beowulf.
Words change over time as society begins to use them differently. They are not something that one person can just declare changed and make it so. They aren't THAT maleable.
Words change over time as society begins to use it differently. They are not something that one person can just declare changed and make it so. They aren't THAT maleable.
Nobody is saying that one person can declare something and make it so. But words are malleable and the malleability starts with a single new use. Just as one person alone cannot change a word -- it requires other to accept the change -- one person alone cannot insist that a word's usage is not changing, even in such a small context as a game term in a roleplaying game.
You're not the boy with his finger in the dike, Max. You're a boy standing underwater and insisting that he can hold his breath until the dike has been rebuilt around his finger.
Bologna! Pure and utter Bologna!
Incorrect. I choose to define bologna as lunchmeat, and I refuse to believe an internet posting can be lunchmeat, and any argument you present that lunchmeat might mean anything else is ridiculous and poorly made, and breaks my lunchmeat verisimilitude.
Am I doing this right?
Yes, although I believe the new prefered term currently being used is being "internally consistant"
4th edition is full of Technobabble which essentially has no meaning outside of the game. Trying to explain how you can trip an ooze is all technobabble.
Actually, "trip an ooze" is 3e's technobabble. 4e doesn't use "trip" as a defined game term.
Meh. It's PSIONICS. By definition those are mind powers.
Yes, but in 4e everything has a mind. So if you truly believe that, then there's no issue with a Psion using his mind powers on an ooze. Apparently the Psion just works with what he finds. If it's a simple mind, only using basic categorisation of "feed on / flee from / ignore" then he can somehow move items from one category to the next in the mind of the ooze.
Sure, he can't send it a complex stream of thought that changes its emotions and perception of the world, the way it interacts with things around it, but it could certainly for example:
- Move that one rock back there to the top of the "feed on" box, thereby making the ooze go there as fast as it can to feed on it
- Move allies of the Psion into the "ignore" box, making it ignore them in favor of different targets
- Move whatever the Psion doesn't (even others) like into the "feed on" box, making the Ooze target its old allies
- Move the very air around the Ooze into the "flee from" box, thereby confusing it to the point where it tries to move in all directions at once, essentially falling apart on the spot (ie; Prone)
- Move the Ooze itself into the "feed on" box, thereby making its internal structure start consuming itself (essentially, "psychic" damage)
The trick (for the Psion, the player, and the DM) is to work with what the Ooze offers. Its mind might be rudimentary and simplistic, but the Psion's isn't and if he puts his 18+ Int to work I'm sure he can find a way to make something simple and instinctive twist to his will.
I mean; if we can take 10 billion dumb as bricks logic gates and construct from them a powerful supercomputer, I'm sure a Psion can take 10 billion dumb as brick organic cells and guide them into a powerful living weapon.
Words change over time as society begins to use it differently. They are not something that one person can just declare changed and make it so. They aren't THAT maleable.
Nobody is saying that one person can declare something and make it so. But words are malleable and the malleability starts with a single new use. Just as one person alone cannot change a word -- it requires other to accept the change -- one person alone cannot insist that a word's usage is not changing, even in such a small context as a game term in a roleplaying game.
You're not the boy with his finger in the dike, Max. You're a boy standing underwater and insisting that he can hold his breath until the dike has been rebuilt around his finger.
I don't think so, Wrecan. I seriously doubt that the new definition for prone that WoTC has decided to use will be picked up by the public at large and added to the official definitions of the word. Until and unless that happens, the WoTC definition is a false one.
Meh. It's PSIONICS. By definition those are mind powers.
Yes, but in 4e everything has a mind. So if you truly believe that, then there's no issue with a Psion using his mind powers on an ooze. Apparently the Psion just works with what he finds. If it's a simple mind, only using basic categorisation of "feed on / flee from / ignore" then he can somehow move items from one category to the next in the mind of the ooze.
Sure, he can't send it a complex stream of thought that changes its emotions and perception of the world, the way it interacts with things around it, but it could certainly for example:
- Move that one rock back there to the top of the "feed on" box, thereby making the ooze go there as fast as it can to feed on it
- Move allies of the Psion into the "ignore" box, making it ignore them in favor of different targets
- Move whatever the Psion doesn't (even others) like into the "feed on" box, making the Ooze target its old allies
- Move the very air around the Ooze into the "flee from" box, thereby confusing it to the point where it tries to move in all directions at once, essentially falling apart on the spot (ie; Prone)
- Move the Ooze itself into the "feed on" box, thereby making its internal structure start consuming itself (essentially, "psychic" damage)
The trick (for the Psion, the player, and the DM) is to work with what the Ooze offers. Its mind might be rudimentary and simplistic, but the Psion's isn't and if he puts his 18+ Int to work I'm sure he can find a way to make something simple and instinctive twist to his will.
I mean; if we can take 10 billion dumb as bricks logic gates and construct from them a powerful supercomputer, I'm sure a Psion can take 10 billion dumb as brick organic cells and guide them into a powerful living weapon.
I'm not so sure. If those organic cells could work that way, there would be intelligent oozes that would have figured it out by now. Sometimes things just can't work the way we'd like them to.
I seriously doubt that the new definition for prone that WoTC has decided to use will be picked up by the public at large and added to the official definitions of the word. Until and unless that happens, the WoTC definition is a false one.
Its a false definition outside of D&D.
Inside of D&D, its explicitly defined for their rules and uses.
Similar to how vocabulary in certain fields needs to adopt or make up words for their terminology. Like say, IT.
I seriously doubt that the new definition for prone that WoTC has decided to use will be picked up by the public at large and added to the official definitions of the word. Until and unless that happens, the WoTC definition is a false one.
Except we're not discussing the world at large. We're discussing the specific context of the game.
When you insist 4e's definition of "prone" is wrong because it doesn't match the dictionary, you're arguing nonsense. You're not defending the purity of the English language. The game can define a word however it likes. "Hit points" don't indicate a "hit" (never did). "Initiative" doesn't indicate "a readiness to act", but rather "order of attack" ("Priority" would have been a more accurate term.)
That's why these arguments with you always devolve into meaninglessness. You think you're defending some sort of linguistic purity, but you're not. If 4e (and 3e) defines prone to encompass oozes, who give's a rat's patootie? It doesn't affect the dictionary, and if it someday will, nothing you can do here on the forums is going to change that.
The word "prone" has changed in D&D. It changed 11 years ago. Do you know how many words have had their definitions altered in the last 11 years? Thousands. You're not accomplishing anything except making the people you're talking with unnecessarily irate, and making yourself look like someone completely out of touch with the game.
If you want to preserve the meaning of words in English in general, leave these forums and spend every waking moment trying to stop actual word dilution. By god, we've already decided that "really" and "truly" mean "very" as opposed to "actually". Soon we're going to lose "literally." Join the fight, Max. Stop words that are actually getting diluted in English vernacular and stop worrying about a technical definition in D&D that is more than a decade old.
I am sure most of America can't tell you what prone means at all (or many other words as most Americans have terrible vocabularies).
I seriously doubt that the new definition for prone that WoTC has decided to use will be picked up by the public at large and added to the official definitions of the word. Until and unless that happens, the WoTC definition is a false one.
Its a false definition outside of D&D.
Inside of D&D, its explicitly defined for their rules and uses.
Similar to how vocabulary in certain fields needs to adopt or make up words for their terminology. Like say, IT.
A new word to represent something not done before is a necessity. Acronyms like IT are not actual words, but are representative of multiple other words with set definitions.
My issue with altered/new defintions for old words is this. It throws people off. If you walk up to someone who is new to the game or doesn't play and talk to him about knocking a pile of goo or sand prone, you are going to garner some strange looks and confusion. Even among people who know of the changed definition, many of them still won't like the change as it "bothers" them because it just doesn't mean that.
My issue with altered/new defintions for old words is this. It throws people off.
I doubt that very much. People seem to have an amazing ability to grasp new and expanded definitions of words. To illustrate, nobody seems to be thrown off by the fact that people now use "literally" to mean "very" except for English-language purists.
If you walk up to someone who is new to the game or doesn't play and talk to him about knocking a pile of goo or sand prone, you are going to garner some strange looks and confusion.
Not because of your use of the word "prone" but because you're some stranger approaching them about knocking around piles of sand or goo. That's just weird, Max.
I'm not so sure. If those organic cells could work that way, there would be intelligent oozes that would have figured it out by now. Sometimes things just can't work the way we'd like them to.
But there are. If you search through the Compendium for "Ooze" you'll notice that about half of them have an Intelligence of 4 or greater. That puts them on par with Ogres, which, while dumb as a sack of bricks, certainly have a mind. Few DMs would have any trouble with Ogres being targetable by mind powers.
In fact, I've found a few Oozes that have an Intelligence score ranging into the 15+ category.
So apparently they can be smart; just not all of them do. Kinda like normal wildlife; they all have the brain there, just some species use it better then others... but that doesn't mean that a good trainer can't make a wild dog behave to his wishes, even if by nature that dog wouldn't do such a thing. Such is the power of pitting the bigger brain against the smaller one.
A new word to represent something not done before is a necessity.
Were you very put off when someone first suggested you "click a mouse"? Or did you quickly surmise whan was actually meant?
I have a feeling you were not mortally offended that a "trackball" (which is the original name for the device) was eventually called a "mouse". I think you, with your all too human brian, immediately adjusted for the new definition. Even though there was another word that worked perfectly fine for the device. Even though this meant that a word that for more than a thousand years had only ever meant the small rodent, would now suddenly have a brand-new definition.
No, I think you give people too little credit with respect to how quickly we can adapt to new and specialized word usages.
Um. YOU were arguing that the dictionary definition applied. The text of the game is irrelevant to your original declaration or my response to it.
The dictionary definition does apply. The text of the game informs us that the game is not using prone in the sense of something lying down. The dictionary definition includes the condition of being liable to suffer from, or experience something, typically something unwelcome. This is the sense of the word that the game uses.
Incorrect. The creature instantly suffers (past tense) the penalties applied by the prone condition.
No, correct. The penalties applied by the prone condition make one prone to suffer further injury from adjacent foes. Those penalties make it more likely that an adjacent foe will be able to hurt you. That makes you prone to further injury. The fact that you suffer some penalties immediately in order to make you liable to suffer from, or experience something, unwelcome is irrelevant. It does not make the usage of the word prone less applicable.
I read prone in 4e and it does not say this. Prone is itself a status effect. That is its entire purpose.
Indeed. It is a status effect that makes you prone to further injury.
You are wrong. When you read prone, it is entirely a singular status effect that applies a few penalties and one bonus. Anything further is NOT a part of prone.
No, I am not. It applies penalties that make you statistically more likely to suffer further injury from an adjacent foe. That makes you prone to further injury from an adjacent foe. When that foe can physically lie down, the assumption of the condition is that the foe is lying down.
This is most certainly NOT the 4ed defintion. You are inventing one to justify your position. In 4e, prone is a status effect accompanied by penalties and a bonus. That is it. Anything further is not a part of the prone status effect. Your future attacks are a separate issue entirely.
I think the main problem is that the mechanics are dissociated from their descriptions in the english language. There is much more rationalization of effects/concepts in 4e than was required in prior editions of the game.
Maybe it is due to the generally accepted conventions not being the norm anymore. I submit to you that if you started playing an older version of the game and were told that you could not telepathically commune with a blobby mass of goo, it wouldn't take much thought or rationalization to figure out why, no one would probably ask. Now you have to flip that convention on its head and rationalize all sorts of reasons why it COULD happen, irregardless of how absurd or contrived the rationale is behind the argument. If someone has a high diplomacy skill, they are going to use that to their advantage because it CAN be done under the rules. Tell me a DM who wouldn't get upset about the party diplomatically solving their differences with the ooze....The story starts to fall apart, unless you don't think too much about it. Then diplomacy becomes just another mechanical resolution dissociated from the narrative in which it is applied.
It's similar to how the martial power source follows the AEDU system. Why would a fighter only be able to use a certain non-magical exploit once per day? (The sole reason is to balance the game mechanically, not anything associated with the game world or narrative) A wizard is fine because the tradition of wizards in D&D is that the memorize spells, the spells take time to memorize and require the wizard to be well rested, hence casting once per day.
Bologna! Pure and utter Bologna!
So, hold on, you didn't say: "...surely you do not expect me to believe that we are limited to just two definitions per word? That seems a little restricted and possibley even un-realistic."
Oh, wait, you did.
But then, since what I am saying is bologna, surly you didn't suggest that 4e's use of prone doesn't match the dictionary definitions of the word, and thus damage verisimilitude?
No, no, you did that to. We can see you do that right here, where you say: "Take the word "prone" for example. It seems to have 3 definitions on dictionary.com and yet none of them appear to match with the definiton used in 4e, so is it little wonder that some people are confused and even have their verisimilitude broken when a fighter knocks a ooze prone."
Except, the dictionary definition of prone includes the definition that something is "Likely to or liable to suffer from, do, or experience something, typically something regrettable or unwelcome." And, the penalties imposed by the prone condition make one likely to or liable to suffer additional injury from adjacent enemies. In other words, the prone condition follows one of the dictionary definitions of the word prone by making a someone prone to suffer additional injury from adjacent foes. And, I already pointed that out earlier in this thread.
And yet, here you are telling Red-Jack that he is not taking into account all of the definitions of the word verisimilitude right before you sympathize with those who state that 4e lacks versimilitude due to its use of the word prone even though its use of the word prone does match one of the dictionary definitions of the word.
I stand by my original statement. You are being a hypocrite. In fact, I will add to my original statement and say that you are not only being a hypocrite, you are also being disingenuous. You follow your sympathy for those who say that 4e lacks verisimilitude due to its use of the word prone with the statement that: "By your argument, 4e should have chosen a different word to match with their combat description." This sentence, alone, might give the impression that you think 4e use of the word prone is perfectly acceptable, and that Red-Jack's argument is the only thing that suggests that it is not. However, you had just said "is it little wonder that some people are confused and even have their verisimilitude broken when a fighter knocks a ooze prone", and "Take the word 'prone' for example. It seems to have 3 definitions on dictionary.com and yet none of them appear to match with the definition used in 4e." Not only is your statement false, because one of the definitions on dictionary.com is applicable (--having a natural inclination or tendency to something; disposed; liable--), but you obviously do sympathize with those who believe that 4e's use of the word prone breaks verisimilitude regardless of Red-Jack's argument.
Indeed, "reading comprehension for the win."
A new word to represent something not done before is a necessity. Acronyms like IT are not actual words, but are representative of multiple other words with set definitions.
Not the acronyms in IT, but the words used in it. Ethernet (Ether and Net), Login (Log and In), Online, Debugging, Scroll, etc. Then there is other terminology I take for granted, but completely CONFUSE other people especially the older generations. Click the mouse for instance...
Even gaming terms comes up, take Tank as an example.
4e took a word similar to what they meant in most cases, defined it in their game, and here we are. If D&D influence is large enough, prone's use outside 4e terminology may eventually bleed out if used enough, giving it a new definition. If not, it stays just inside D&D.
Of course...how often has something just simply stayed inside D&D?
In the end, it works. D&D specifically mentions what happens to creatures that don't fit the word prone being applied to in the current usage. End result.
If it breaks someone's verisimilitude of the game, it doesn't break everyone's verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is to each person, just as an Opinion is.
Thousands would not believe you, but I do. Honestly.
Belief is immaterial. I appreciate your belief, (if sincere) but it doesn't alter the facts any more than people who are skeptical of what some random guy on the internet has to say about himself.
On the other hand, I didn't insinuate you were incapable of processing mechanics. You seem to be quite good at it. You do seem to have quite a bit of trouble using your imagination to process descriptions as well as compose them, but I attribute this more to an unwillingness to look beyond what you've been told is "right" than an inability to do so.
A system that encourages other people to do what you are unwilling to do is not "bad."
It probably explains why you do not have very good system mastery over previous versions of the game. It must be hard to remember which game is which.
Redjack claims to have more knowledge and experience then he really does.
Look at the example were he waxes on about how 3e does not let players describe their attacks or spells.
Or the example where he disputes the recommended method of creating characters in 2e (because he never used it).
Except we're not discussing the world at large. We're discussing the specific context of the game.
When you insist 4e's definition of "prone" is wrong because it doesn't match the dictionary, you're arguing nonsense.
It's not as bad as Microsoft putting shutdown on the button labeled "start" but it's certainly up there.
For a game based on words that uses words to describe things, tell a story, set mood, present puzzles etc. using the word trip when you aren't tripping, prone when you aren't prone is stupid. It's WHY this thread keeps cropping up. THEY ****ED UP. Accept it fanboys. It's one of many, many, many mistakes they've made.
Bologna! Pure and utter Bologna!So, hold on, you didn't say: "...surely you do not expect me to believe that we are limited to just two definitions per word? That seems a little restricted and possibley even un-realistic."
Oh, wait, you did.
Please show me where I said that we are limited to 2 definitions per word.
If it breaks someone's verisimilitude of the game, it doesn't break everyone's verisimilitude.
It breaks enough prior D&D fans' sense of verisimilitude to facilitate a defection to an older, seperate brand of D&D-analog.
I doubt that dissociated mechanics will be the direction WotC takes moving forward to the next edition (should there be one) I think that it will be relegated to the trash heap of game design. Just as alignment will make the inevitable march towards obsolescence.
EDIT: BTW that sig rocks.
No, correct. The penalties applied by the prone condition make one prone to suffer further injury from adjacent foes. Those penalties make it more likely that an adjacent foe will be able to hurt you. That makes you prone to further injury. The fact that you suffer some penalties immediately in order to make you liable to suffer from, or experience something, unwelcome is irrelevant. It does not make the usage of the word prone less applicable.
So does standing next to an enemy. So does combat period. The bolded sections have nothing to do with the prone condition. They are outside the scope of the actual prone condition which is ONLY the effects applied directly by the prone condition.
Indeed. It is a status effect that makes you prone to further injury.
Combat does that. Standing next to an enemy does that. The prone effect is purely the effects stated in the rule book. Anything else is you house ruling the effect to suit your purposes here.
It applies penalties that make you statistically more likely to suffer further injury from an adjacent foe. That makes you prone to further injury from an adjacent foe. When that foe can physically lie down, the assumption of the condition is that the foe is lying down.
That simply doesn't matter. No matter how you want to twist it, you simply cannot add that house rule to the actual game definition of prone. The game definition of prone does not include future damage.
Again, yes, it is 4e's definition. Those penalties make you more likely to suffer injury from an adjacent foe. They make you prone to further injury from an adjacent foe.
Prove it. Put your money where your mouth is and quote me the page number and paragraph that says additional injuries are a part of the prone condition and game definition.
For a game based on words that uses words to describe things, tell a story, set mood, present puzzles etc. using the word trip when you aren't tripping, prone when you aren't prone is stupid. It's WHY this thread keeps cropping up. THEY ****ED UP. Accept it fanboys. It's one of many, many, many mistakes they've made.
I can't speak for other editions, but no. No they have not ****ed up as you put it. Nor has the condition name used for powers and resistances MUST meet what it actually is written as.
An example for 4e.
Winter Soveriegn's level 30 feature, Frozen in Ice. Creature fails a saving throw vs. cold keyword, they become Restrained (Save Ends). If the fail against the Restrained condition, they become Petrified (Save Ends).
Please note, Petrified never has been "Frozen Solid" in any sense.
The conditions can be reflavored to match the circumstances. They have specific names so that Resistances, Immunities, and more are easier to track, write, and use so there aren't specific conditions for specific creatures. You are even advised to do so. They just use the words on the conditions they have for the most common use. Those words make writing powers, resistances, immunities and more EASIER.
[The conditions can be reflavored to match the circumstances = house-ruling
bolded part mine.
And again, nothing is broken because I can fix it (to match the narrative, irregardless how preposterous it may be)
Bologna! Pure and utter Bologna!So, hold on, you didn't say: "...surely you do not expect me to believe that we are limited to just two definitions per word? That seems a little restricted and possibley even un-realistic."
Oh, wait, you did.
But then, since what I am saying is bologna, surly you didn't suggest that 4e's use of prone doesn't match the dictionary definitions of the word, and thus damage verisimilitude?
No, no, you did that to. We can see you do that right here, where you say: "Take the word "prone" for example. It seems to have 3 definitions on dictionary.com and yet none of them appear to match with the definiton used in 4e, so is it little wonder that some people are confused and even have their verisimilitude broken when a fighter knocks a ooze prone."
Except, the dictionary definition of prone includes the definition that something is "Likely to or liable to suffer from, do, or experience something, typically something regrettable or unwelcome." And, the penalties imposed by the prone condition make one likely to or liable to suffer additional injury from adjacent enemies. In other words, the prone condition follows one of the dictionary definitions of the word prone by making a someone prone to suffer additional injury from adjacent foes. And, I already pointed that out earlier in this thread.
And yet, here you are telling Red-Jack that he is not taking into account all of the definitions of the word verisimilitude right before you sympathize with those who state that 4e lacks versimilitude due to its use of the word prone even though its use of the word prone does match one of the dictionary definitions of the word.
I stand by my original statement. You are being a hypocrite. In fact, I will add to my original statement and say that you are not only being a hypocrite, you are also being disingenuous. You follow your sympathy for those who say that 4e lacks verisimilitude due to its use of the word prone with the statement that: "By your argument, 4e should have chosen a different word to match with their combat description." This sentence, alone, might give the impression that you think 4e use of the word prone is perfectly acceptable, and that Red-Jack's argument is the only thing that suggests that it is not. However, you had just said "is it little wonder that some people are confused and even have their verisimilitude broken when a fighter knocks a ooze prone", and "Take the word 'prone' for example. It seems to have 3 definitions on dictionary.com and yet none of them appear to match with the definition used in 4e." Not only is your statement false, because one of the definitions on dictionary.com is applicable (--having a natural inclination or tendency to something; disposed; liable--), but you obviously do sympathize with those who believe that 4e's use of the word prone breaks verisimilitude regardless of Red-Jack's argument.
Indeed, "reading comprehension for the win."
How many pages are you and Maxperson going to argue back and forward before you come to the realisation that some people may find the term "prone" to be confusing?
Bologna! Pure and utter Bologna!So, hold on, you didn't say: "...surely you do not expect me to believe that we are limited to just two definitions per word? That seems a little restricted and possibley even un-realistic."
Oh, wait, you did.
Mmm, more of that foul smelling, gut retching bologna!
Please show me where I said that we are limited to 2 definitions per word.
While I wait I'll just enjoy some more of that rancid bologna that you cook up.
Unbelieveable.
You know that reading comprehension skill you talked about earlier? You need to exercise it. You never said that we are limited to only 2 definitions per word. And, I never said that you said that we are limited to only 2 definitions per word. What you said is, "...surely you do not expect me to believe that we are limited to just two definitions per word? That seems a little restricted and possibley even un-realistic." That is a direct cut and paste from one of your posts. And, that is what I said that you said. Except, right after you said that you tried to narrow down how the word prone aught to be used, by sympathizing with those who claim that 4e's use of the word damages verisimilitude, despite the fact that 4e's use of the word prone matches one of the definitions found in every English dictionary. In other words, first you trumpeted the ability to use any of a word's multiple definitions and then you sympathized with those who claim that only one very specific usage of prone aught to be used (else verisimilitude is damaged); you made a hypocritical set of statements.
It breaks enough prior D&D fans' sense of verisimilitude to facilitate a defection to an older, seperate brand of D&D-analog.
I doubt that dissociated mechanics will be the direction WotC takes moving forward to the next edition (should there be one) I think that it will be relegated to the trash heap of game design. Just as alignment will make the inevitable march towards obsolescence.
Said defection was going to happen, just as with any other edition of D&D.
What I can't argue is if it broke enough prior D&D fans' sense of verisimilitude to be a true problem. I don't have the statistical information of those that broke just for that reason, in comparison to those that didn't change due to not wanting to buy new books, not wanting to learn new rules, due to the sacking of Vancian Magic System, and such.
Mostly Dissociated conditions, are likely to stay. It makes it easier for resistances, immunities of monsters and for it to be written into powers. (See earlier reference to Winter Sovereign's ability to freeze someone solid...using the Petrify condition in place of a new one, but flavored otherwise.
EDIT: BTW that sig rocks.
[The conditions can be reflavored to match the circumstances = house-ruling
bolded part mine.
And again, nothing is broken because I can fix it (to match the narrative, irregardless how preposterous it may be)
I thought house-ruling changed game mechanics, not fluff?
I do not think that is a valid excuse, however for dissociating the mechanics from the game narrative. I think having those mechanics act the way that makes sense and allows for an easy suspension of disbelief is part of what makes immersing oneself in a fantasy world a rich and inviting experience. The disconnect that occurs when a dissociated mechanical feature of the game intersects with the gamer's expectations of what should occur (or verisimilitude) you start to see a problem.
Also, I do not see any defection in the history of D&D that mirrored the defection from 3.5 to 4th edition. New companies didn't spring up to cater to the disenfranchised fans of prior versions of the game, nor did the company continue to support those older versions for grognards.
So does standing next to an enemy. So does combat period. The bolded sections have nothing to do with the prone condition. They are outside the scope of the actual prone condition which is ONLY the effects applied directly by the prone condition.
The first part of your statement is irrelevant. The fact that multiple conditions and situations in the game make one prone to further injury does not change the fact that the prone condition is designed to make one prone to further injury from adjacent foes. The second part of your statement is false. The sections of text you bolded are not outside the scope of the prone condition. The mechanical effects of the prone condition increase the statistical probability that an adjacent foe will be able to injure/harm you and as such, according to the English language, make the recipient of the prone condition more prone to injury from an adjacent foe. As such, the title of the condition is appropriate. It in no way, shape, or form, breaks verisimilitude.
Combat does that. Standing next to an enemy does that. The prone effect is purely the effects stated in the rule book. Anything else is you house ruling the effect to suit your purposes here.
Again, the fact that combat and standing next to an enemy also do that is irrelevant. That fact is not mutually exclusive to the fact that the prone condition makes one prone to injury from adjacent foes. Stating that the prone condition makes someone prone to injury from adjacent foes is not a house rule, it is an accurate description of what the mechanics of the prone condition do.
That simply doesn't matter. No matter how you want to twist it, you simply cannot add that house rule to the actual game definition of prone. The game definition of prone does not include future damage.
It does matter, no matter how many times you say it does not. The mechanics of the prone condition makes one more prone to take future damage from adjacent foes. As such, the title of the condition is an appropriate usage of the word according to the English language.
Prove it. Put your money where your mouth is and quote me the page number and paragraph that says additional injuries are a part of the prone condition and game definition.
Check your rules compendium. It states that "When a creature is prone...it grants combat advantage to enemies making melee attacks against it." Melee attacks potentially cause additional injury. Combat advantage grants a +2 bonus to attack. A +2 bonus to attack equates to +10% chance of hitting your target (and, potentially, the ability to apply certain effects that a power only applies to targets granting combat advantage). In the English language one can describe that condition as being prone to further injury from melee attacks, as the word prone can mean liable to suffer, and an increased percentile chance of being injured by melee attacks means that one is liable to suffer further injury from melee attacks.
I mean, really?
People, please. Please tell me you all have something better to do with your lives than argue whether a game mechanic in a fantasy game causes some people to break their suspension of disbelief in the fantasy of the game, while others can easily explain it.
People, some of you don't like something what to you seems dissociative mechanics, considering what experiences you have had before with D&D. You believe that realism rules over fun in a game, and indeed that the realism is the fun in some cases. There are those that don't agree with you. Or that find the current rules which you find to be dissociative are actually very reasonable, and allow for verisimilitude and fun all at once. For reference, I am using the concept of verisimilitude that designates a consistent definition of how a world works.
Now, 4th edition rules are consistent in an overarching manner with other 4th edition rules. They make for a coherent rule set. I can accept that older gamers might have had older rules, and that those rules had continued on into other editions of the game for any number of reasons, from legacy to soundness of mechanical veracity. Those rules made for verisimilitude for the current game world, and sometimes for a future edition by no more or less virtue than the 4th edition rules make sense within the scope of 4th edition.
For those that feel that the old editions had more of what you want, the reply is clear: play what you enjoy.
For those who are quite happy with the new rules, and the bits of legacy that still exist therein, or have been reworked, or changed entirely like any new edition of anything ever? Play what you enjoy.
Dammit, people. Why must we argue over something we should all be enjoying? Isn't that what a game is? I personally couldn't care less if you can knock a ****ing ooze or a snake prone. And unless you happen to ever play at my table, you shouldn't care either.
What you all should care about? We still have fighters, there are still dragons, and dungeons, and beholders, and planes of elements and gods and a ton of other things that tie what we love together. Are we all religious fanatics? Or are we fans of a game, a game that brings people together to play at a table and have a good social experience? Why does it matter what anyone chooses? You know what? Play what you want. Just enjoy the fact that the game you love is, in one form or another, evolving even now. From it's near board game/war game roots of obscurity, Dungeons and Dragons is known around the world. Good, bad, and everything in-between, we all, no matter whether our oozes are knocked prone, or our PCs shifting on a battle mat, or our heroes being led through a dungeon in our own damned minds, we are all D&Ders.
Let's act like a god damned group of people, and not a bunch of singular nasty nitpickers who hate everything new, or everything old, or anything different. God, no wonder popular culture portrays P&P gamers the way it does. Maybe, just maybe we could show people we aren't a bunch of intolerant elitists who only think we are right? Maybe? For like, 5 minutes even?
I happen to think that Associated mechanics were part of the fun of D&D. I agree, it is ABSOLUTELY harder to design balanced mechanics that associate mechanical actions in game with the story and narrative inherent within.
I do not think that is a valid excuse, however for dissociating the mechanics from the game narrative. I think having those mechanics act the way that makes sense and allows for an easy suspension of disbelief is part of what makes immersing oneself in a fantasy world a rich and inviting experience. The disconnect that occurs when a dissociated mechanical feature of the game intersects with the gamer's expectations of what should occur (or verisimilitude) you start to see a problem.
Also, I do not see any defection in the history of D&D that mirrored the defection from 3.5 to 4th edition. New companies didn't spring up to cater to the disenfranchised fans of prior versions of the game, nor did the company continue to support those older versions for grognards.
You obviously don't know much about the history of D&D. Check out Castles and Crusades by Troll Lord Games. It is to 3e what Pathfinder is to 4e; in other words, its a retro clone of 2e D&D. If you look on their website you will fine the following quotes under the "why play castles and crusades" section of the website:
It's the closest thing to Gygaxian D&D since OAD&D.
C&C is the resurrection of 1st Edition AD&D only with some brilliant improvements...
You will also find people talking about how they grew disillusioned with 3e D&D. For example:
My first love was Classic D&D. When I grew disillusioned with 3.X D&D (as so many of us did), I went back to my gaming roots, to my first RPG ever.
The existence of retro clones designed to cater to grognards upset with the subversion of their expectations is nothing new.
You know that reading comprehension skill you talked about earlier? You need to exercise it. You never said that we are limited to only 2 definitions per word. And, I never said that you said that we are limited to only 2 definitions per word. What you said is, "...surely you do not expect me to believe that we are limited to just two definitions per word? That seems a little restricted and possibley even un-realistic." That is a direct cut and paste from one of your posts. And, that is what I said that you said. Except, right after you said that you tried to narrow down how the word prone aught to be used, by sympathizing with those who claim that 4e's use of the word damages verisimilitude, despite the fact that 4e's use of the word prone matches one of the definitions found in every English dictionary. In other words, first you trumpeted the ability to use any of a word's multiple definitions and then you sympathized with those who claim that only one very specific usage of prone aught to be used (else verisimilitude is damaged); you made a hypocritical set of statements.
Let me get the quote since you are so lazy to actually do your own work:
a) an incorrect (or perhaps not a full and complete) definiton of verisimilitude1 or, b) your argument B which did not actually address point A.2
1.) Actually I was citing the two most commonly accepted definitions of the word. The third (which you found at the bottom of the page and is actually a reference to an article within the Encyclopedia Britanica,) is not the common usage, and is actually at cross purposes with the common usage.
Now you seem like a man of the world. You appear to be literate and well read. But surely you do not expect me to believe that we are limited to just two definitions per word? That seems a little restricted and possibley even un-realistic.
Take the word "prone" for example. It seems to have 3 definitions on dictionary.com and yet none of them appear to match with the definiton used in 4e, so is it little wonder that some people are confused and even have their verisimilitude broken when a fighter knocks a ooze prone. By your argument, 4e should have chosen a different word to match with their combat description.
Please read again, but this time try to do it with some actual comprehension on what is being said.
There will be an exam at the end.
As for your claim that prone = make one prone to suffer further injury from adjacent foes. You could apply that same definition to almost every condition in 4e.
Are you marked? Well you are prone to suffer further injury if you ignore the person who marked you.
Are you slowed? Well you are prone to suffer further injury because you can not retreat from your foes.
Are you restrained? Well you are prone to suffer further injury because you can not shift/move away from adjacent foes.
Your definition of prone is worse then useless, it makes the situation even more confusing.
I happen to think that Associated mechanics were part of the fun of D&D. I agree, it is ABSOLUTELY harder to design balanced mechanics that associate mechanical actions in game with the story and narrative inherent within.
I do not think that is a valid excuse, however for dissociating the mechanics from the game narrative. I think having those mechanics act the way that makes sense and allows for an easy suspension of disbelief is part of what makes immersing oneself in a fantasy world a rich and inviting experience. The disconnect that occurs when a dissociated mechanical feature of the game intersects with the gamer's expectations of what should occur (or verisimilitude) you start to see a problem.
True, hence not a complete dissociating of narrative from mechanics. There is a default narrative given for what it is, but its still able to be easily reused for other narratives as well. Just some of the conditions didn't have a nice general word to use in its place, specifically Prone and Petrified. Prone being the bigger cause of trouble, due to how common it is, is merely due to there was no other word to use that got similar meaning across.
Of course the fact they didn't dissociate conditions from narrative is why we are currently discussing prone on this topic anyway.
I also do agree, a complete dissociation of narrative to mechanics would be a horrible result as well. Just imagine if they went "Str modifier damage and Effect C on the target" for Knockdown Assault...*Shudders*.
Also, I do not see any defection in the history of D&D that mirrored the defection from 3.5 to 4th edition. New companies didn't spring up to cater to the disenfranchised fans of prior versions of the game, nor did the company continue to support those older versions for grognards.
Again, I don't have the data comment on that.
I personally would trade a good many future "Game of Thrones" episodes to play a game of D&D with the posters in this thread. I am picturing the cast from Dorkness rising and their uncanny ability to disagree almost all the time on all topics.
I think we would all have a good time playing even if we don't agree. I have a guy in my group that is on the opposite end of the spectrum from me as far as the dissociative mechanics go...He is a RAW fanatic. So we compromise and I really make him WORK to justify why something he does fits into the narrative through role play. Sometimes he backs off because he would either have to twist the narrative into absurdity, or twist the intent of the story. Sometimes I have to eat my words and give him his way and an RP bonus to boot for explaining it.
WOLead is a prime example of it, If we were gaming together and I came at him with scenario A: Ooze cannot be knocked prone, and he showed me within the framework of the narrative that it could, then I would back down.
Otherwise, I think it is somewhat entertaining to debate this issue. It is a debate that needs to happen at WotC should they hope to recapture some lost audience.
I think for the mosts part this debate has been civil (a few jabs here and there, but nothing overtly hostile) and people are genuine in their opinions.
I would be curious if HJS102 is reading this thread still.
I happen to think that Associated mechanics were part of the fun of D&D. I agree, it is ABSOLUTELY harder to design balanced mechanics that associate mechanical actions in game with the story and narrative inherent within.
I do not think that is a valid excuse, however for dissociating the mechanics from the game narrative. I think having those mechanics act the way that makes sense and allows for an easy suspension of disbelief is part of what makes immersing oneself in a fantasy world a rich and inviting experience. The disconnect that occurs when a dissociated mechanical feature of the game intersects with the gamer's expectations of what should occur (or verisimilitude) you start to see a problem.
Also, I do not see any defection in the history of D&D that mirrored the defection from 3.5 to 4th edition. New companies didn't spring up to cater to the disenfranchised fans of prior versions of the game, nor did the company continue to support those older versions for grognards.
You obviously don't know much about the history of D&D. Check out Castles and Crusades by Troll Lord Games. It is to 3e what Pathfinder is to 4e; in other words, its a retro clone of 2e D&D. If you look on their website you will fine the following quotes under the "why play castles and crusades" section of the website:It's the closest thing to Gygaxian D&D since OAD&D.C&C is the resurrection of 1st Edition AD&D only with some brilliant improvements...
You will also find people talking about how they grew disillusioned with 3e D&D. For example:My first love was Classic D&D. When I grew disillusioned with 3.X D&D (as so many of us did), I went back to my gaming roots, to my first RPG ever.
The existence of retro clones designed to cater to grognards upset with the subversion of their expectations is nothing new.
Never heard of 'em, I think you could be nearly 100% ignorant and still know of Paizo and PF. Also, how are those companies doing these days? Hiring? Publishing new content on a continuous basis? Having their own gaming Cons? (PaizoCon is coming here soon...next month) Is there a lot of local gaming groups running those games (Paizo has at least 70 local groups in larger metro areas on their society board alone)
No, I do not see the scale of defection nor success of the interloper as you do today.
Except we're not discussing the world at large. We're discussing the specific context of the game.
When you insist 4e's definition of "prone" is wrong because it doesn't match the dictionary, you're arguing nonsense.
It's not as bad as Microsoft putting shutdown on the button labeled "start" but it's certainly up there.
For a game based on words that uses words to describe things, tell a story, set mood, present puzzles etc. using the word trip when you aren't tripping, prone when you aren't prone is stupid. It's WHY this thread keeps cropping up. THEY ****ED UP. Accept it fanboys. It's one of many, many, many mistakes they've made.
Right, so again they should have emulated that paragon of game design, d20, and had a practically endless series of terms for conditions, cluttering the game with identical (or even worse not quite identical) states which differ with each other only in some obscure semantical sense. All in the name of exceedingly fragile sensitivity of gamer's imagination which is obviously not up to the task of supplying some trivial explanation for how an ooze can get -2 to-hit etc. Color me not convinced. This was a deliberate and measured design decision which makes the game just that much easier to deal with and is actually a considerable strength of 4e. Not to even mention the fact that it helps take care of the purpetual and annoying "the rogue is now useless" syndrome.
Note, 4e is not shy about providing ways by which you CAN disadvantage certain characters when you desire to do so for any reason. You can customize monsters or simply use appropriate existing ones should you need to do that. A swarm for instance will quite effectively put the melee characters at a disadvantage. Undead will quite handily put the cleric or other radiant damage equipped characters at an advantage. These are only 2 easy examples, but there are plenty more of them in 4e. It is also quite easy to do this in other situations, though the exact means will vary from one set of characters to another. For instance placing many intricate traps will probably show up the rogue's strongpoints quite nicely.
Nothing was F****D up as you put it. Far be it for anyone to say that one person's preferences are superior to anothers, but one thing is clear, a cleaner game design is superior to one which is less clean. I highly suspect the devs felt that would be a much greater advantage to all players at all times vs the slight possibility that someone can't imagine an ooze becoming disoriented or falling flat to the ground.
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Never heard of 'em, I think you could be nearly 100% ignorant and still know of Paizo and PF. Also, how are those companies doing these days? Hiring?
Kenzer & Co. was to 2e what Paizo is to 3e. It's doing fine. It's not as big as Pathfinder is right now, but I guess we'll see how big Paizo is in 2018 if it sticks to the d20 system for all that time.
Castles & Crusaders was actually published in 2004, so it doesn't really count as a Paizo-like replacement for 1st edition. Than game would have been Dangerous Journeys written by Gygax himself in 1992, and published by Game Designers Workshop. But TSR (under Lorraine Williams) litigated them into submission and the company eventually folded in 1996.
No, I do not see the scale of defection nor success of the interloper as you do today.
Right, and 10 years ago, we'd all be talking about how Kenzer was going to overcome TSR. Let's wait and see how it all turns out, okay?
PnP games have a few advantages - one of them is imaginative freedom
Here is what I have been confused about: it has been mentioned several times (at least), that in Pathfinder you can trip an ooze, thus knocking it prone. Not one of the people who can't accept the 4E definition of prone have commented on this (that I have seen).
I don't have Pathfinder, but I went through my old 3.5 books. Nothing under Ooze traits mentions anything about resistance or immunity to being prone. Nothing in the Prone description says that really big creatures don't get the +4 bonus to AC against ranged attacks. Nothing in the section on Tripping says that some creatures can not be tripped.
So then I started thinking. I wonder how many of the other issues were the same under 3.5? Are people just remembering the way they played, and not the actual rules? Could it be that 4E is not so different?
Someone brought up the fact that in 4E, contrary to what, to them, makes sense, you can use Fire Arcane powers underwater. So I looked up the 3.5 rules on this. DMG had this to say: Spells with the fire descriptor are inefective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). [Emphasis mine]. So it seems that a sufficiently talented or lucky Wizard can indeed cast a fireball spell underwater, even in 3.5.
In Pathfinder an ooze cannot be tripped. Now according to Pathfinder: Prone - The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a -4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks. Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Could you link to a rule where oozes cannot be tripped? someone linked in info for the ooze keyword from PF and it doenst have anything in that.
Here is what I have been confused about: it has been mentioned several times (at least), that in Pathfinder you can trip an ooze, thus knocking it prone. Not one of the people who can't accept the 4E definition of prone have commented on this (that I have seen).
I don't have Pathfinder, but I went through my old 3.5 books. Nothing under Ooze traits mentions anything about resistance or immunity to being prone. Nothing in the Prone description says that really big creatures don't get the +4 bonus to AC against ranged attacks. Nothing in the section on Tripping says that some creatures can not be tripped.
So then I started thinking. I wonder how many of the other issues were the same under 3.5? Are people just remembering the way they played, and not the actual rules? Could it be that 4E is not so different?
Someone brought up the fact that in 4E, contrary to what, to them, makes sense, you can use Fire Arcane powers underwater. So I looked up the 3.5 rules on this. DMG had this to say: Spells with the fire descriptor are inefective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). [Emphasis mine]. So it seems that a sufficiently talented or lucky Wizard can indeed cast a fireball spell underwater, even in 3.5.
In Pathfinder an ooze cannot be tripped. Now according to Pathfinder: Prone - The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a -4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks. Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Could you link to a rule where oozes cannot be tripped? someone linked in info for the ooze keyword from PF and it doenst have anything in that.
I was just about the ask the same question. I see nothing that says oozes are immune to prone, cannot be knocked prone, or anything of that nature.
Here is what I have been confused about: it has been mentioned several times (at least), that in Pathfinder you can trip an ooze, thus knocking it prone. Not one of the people who can't accept the 4E definition of prone have commented on this (that I have seen).
I don't have Pathfinder, but I went through my old 3.5 books. Nothing under Ooze traits mentions anything about resistance or immunity to being prone. Nothing in the Prone description says that really big creatures don't get the +4 bonus to AC against ranged attacks. Nothing in the section on Tripping says that some creatures can not be tripped.
So then I started thinking. I wonder how many of the other issues were the same under 3.5? Are people just remembering the way they played, and not the actual rules? Could it be that 4E is not so different?
Someone brought up the fact that in 4E, contrary to what, to them, makes sense, you can use Fire Arcane powers underwater. So I looked up the 3.5 rules on this. DMG had this to say: Spells with the fire descriptor are inefective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). [Emphasis mine]. So it seems that a sufficiently talented or lucky Wizard can indeed cast a fireball spell underwater, even in 3.5.
In Pathfinder an ooze cannot be tripped. Now according to Pathfinder: Prone - The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a -4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks. Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Could you link to a rule where oozes cannot be tripped? someone linked in info for the ooze keyword from PF and it doenst have anything in that.
All you have to do is look under Trip.
All you have to do is look under Trip.
thanks for the link.
While I dont know 3.5 that well but are there any spells or abilities that knock prone without a trip attack? Because I dont see anywhere in prone that rules out Oozes.
All you have to do is look under Trip.
thanks for the link.
While I dont know 3.5 that well but are there any spells or abilities that knock prone without a trip attack? Because I dont see anywhere in prone that rules out Oozes.
No problem. I'm not really sure how many effects can knock a person prone in Pathfinder. I don't really remember a whole lot that would in 3.5.
All you have to do is look under Trip.
I stand corrected. Oozes cannot be tripped in Pathfinder.
While I dont know 3.5 that well but are there any spells or abilities that knock prone without a trip attack? Because I dont see anywhere in prone that rules out Oozes.
Clearly, I'm no expert in Pathfinder mechanics, but a quick search of the Pathfinder SRD reveals the following ways a PC can render a creature prone without tripping:
- The overrun action.
- A blood knight's blood slick power.
- The crushing rocks druid/sorcerer/wizard spell
- The shield slam feat.
- The minotaur's charge feat.
- The punishing kick feat.
- The Touch of Gracelessness bard/sorcerer/wizard spell.
- The sirocco druid/sorcerer/wizard spell.
- The hurricane blast druid/sorcerer/wizard spell.
- The stomp psychic warrior power.
- The ground breaker barbarian power.
- The alchemists' force bomb.
I ignored any mechanics that appeared to be based on trip mechanics liek hte Up and Over feat) or to which the ooze would otherwise be immune (such as mind-affecting spells like Forced Repentance).
All you have to do is look under Trip.
thanks for the link.
While I dont know 3.5 that well but are there any spells or abilities that knock prone without a trip attack? Because I dont see anywhere in prone that rules out Oozes.
No problem. I'm not really sure how many effects can knock a person prone in Pathfinder. I don't really remember a whole lot that would in 3.5.
A significant point might be
Here is how 4e would handle a trip:
There isnt a trip maneuver in 4e a DM might be responding to a description of the action and so making a ruling on page 42 and the player says well I stick out my foot the DM looks at him like he is from mars and says I dont think so. OR The PC comes up with some plauseable idea about trying to push a log so it runs over squashing the ooze at just a moment its trying to attack... and The DM decides thats an athletics move or maybe an improvised weapon attack roll and the log isnt going to really hurt the ooze but will inconvenience it.. by making it have to balloon back out...etc and the DM decides to use prone for the condition induced by the effect.
OR
The PC has knockdown assault which makes him awesome at doing this kind of thing in effect Knockdown Assault should be seen as knowing a fantasy form of Judo and being an expert at using forces and mass of your enemy and the environment against them - and the player describes how his character does it and hopefully in a cool way (or maybe identical to the page 42 method I just mentioned) and gets to deal damage as well as prone condition (maybe the log was given a latteral spin that twists and squashes the ooze).