I am not asking about the mechanical differences, but I want to have a discussion about what are the differences between 4th Edition and 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons. I am very much a crunch-oriented DM who thinks the rules can't get in the way of roleplaying because roleplaying doesn't need rules, but I also recognize that I'm not the only kind of DM or player that's out there. A few of my players do not like 4E. They have said it feels like a board game, that it feels like a combat simulator rather than a roleplaying game. Somehow I lack the perspective to see it that way. I want to look at the systems' differences imperically and see if that helps me to see what is changing the feel of the game.
I do not think the HP differentials, the way saving throws scaled, or any of those nitty gritty system mechanic changes have any real effect upon the way the game feels. I do think the skill system could have effected this feeling a bit; the "out of combat skills" are hidden away in other subsystems, or simply lack rules entirely. Not having "craft" on your skill list could be contributing to the feeling that the game is "all about combat".
I also worry that the nature of the ritual system, which I immediately loved, could be contributing a general feeling of "board game". With all of a Wizard's combat spells, for example, listed in their chapter, it may be asking a bit to then look back at the rituals. In the old game, you had to look back at all of your spells, and you could configure your character for all-out combat, non-combat, or a mix of the two.
The one problem I do have with 4E is that the classes aren't interesting to read. When I first picked up 3E, I read through the classes and got nothing but ideas. Now I have to read through a big list of powers ... and I find myself not caring. This could just be a formatting issue; I wonder what I would have thought if the powers were listed in full elsewhere, and only brief descriptions were in the class chapters.
What are your thoughts? I am sure we all play 4E here, but that does not mean we cannot have issues. I, and my group, are more than willing to house-rule the edition to unrecognizability if it makes for a more fun game. Currently, I am planning on adjusting the player side of the system but keeping the monster side, but I have no idea on how to tackle this. I'd like to keep combat and non-combat partitioned so it's harder to build a weak character, but I need perspective.
I do not think the HP differentials, the way saving throws scaled, or any of those nitty gritty system mechanic changes have any real effect upon the way the game feels. I do think the skill system could have effected this feeling a bit; the "out of combat skills" are hidden away in other subsystems, or simply lack rules entirely. Not having "craft" on your skill list could be contributing to the feeling that the game is "all about combat".
I also worry that the nature of the ritual system, which I immediately loved, could be contributing a general feeling of "board game". With all of a Wizard's combat spells, for example, listed in their chapter, it may be asking a bit to then look back at the rituals. In the old game, you had to look back at all of your spells, and you could configure your character for all-out combat, non-combat, or a mix of the two.
The one problem I do have with 4E is that the classes aren't interesting to read. When I first picked up 3E, I read through the classes and got nothing but ideas. Now I have to read through a big list of powers ... and I find myself not caring. This could just be a formatting issue; I wonder what I would have thought if the powers were listed in full elsewhere, and only brief descriptions were in the class chapters.
What are your thoughts? I am sure we all play 4E here, but that does not mean we cannot have issues. I, and my group, are more than willing to house-rule the edition to unrecognizability if it makes for a more fun game. Currently, I am planning on adjusting the player side of the system but keeping the monster side, but I have no idea on how to tackle this. I'd like to keep combat and non-combat partitioned so it's harder to build a weak character, but I need perspective.
4e is a story-generator
That's basically it. 3e was designed to let you make a living, breathing world, and then send people out to adventure in it. 4e was designed to let you make awesome stories with the players around the table being the main characters.
Each and every difference between the two can probably be brought back to this very concept.
living, breathing world
That phrase annoys me to no end. It's so cliche and, it doesn't even mean anything. Sorry, random tangent.Anyway, 3E is more simulationist with rules that bend towards realism, while 4E is more gamist with rules that bend towards balance. What will be better for you will depend on what sort of game you prefer. I personally have more fun with a balanced, gamist set of rules, but many in my group have more fun with a deep, simulationist set of rules.
Since many people know what the phrase means, I guess it does mean something ;) It's certainly cliché though. (which, on its own requires it to mean something, because you can't have a cliché if nobody knows the word or phrase)
What a cliche is is something that's so overused that it's lost its meaning. Could somebody who still remembers tell me what it means? Because I see that phrase used for every damn RPG nowadays, including every edition of D&D.
A living and breathing world has no main characters, it has no main story, it simply is. That's what 3e tried to build. A world where you could simulate everything, from the mighty wizards taking on the great Baalor to the lowly peasant planting the grass. And any of them could be the PC. Even the Baalor.
It's obviously why it failed, too. A living breathing world is ultimately not very suitable for telling heroic stories, because in a really living world the heroes tend to die. It's only in stories or with ridiculous luck that the heroes win the day.
Or something like that. It's indeed thrown around as a buzzterm (like so many others) and is often meaningless. But it is ultimately what WotC tried to enable by making 3e.
I am not asking about the mechanical differences, but I want to have a discussion about what are the differences between 4th Edition and 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons. I am very much a crunch-oriented DM who thinks the rules can't get in the way of roleplaying because roleplaying doesn't need rules, but I also recognize that I'm not the only kind of DM or player that's out there. A few of my players do not like 4E. They have said it feels like a board game, that it feels like a combat simulator rather than a roleplaying game. Somehow I lack the perspective to see it that way. I want to look at the systems' differences imperically and see if that helps me to see what is changing the feel of the game.
I do not think the HP differentials, the way saving throws scaled, or any of those nitty gritty system mechanic changes have any real effect upon the way the game feels. I do think the skill system could have effected this feeling a bit; the "out of combat skills" are hidden away in other subsystems, or simply lack rules entirely. Not having "craft" on your skill list could be contributing to the feeling that the game is "all about combat".
I also worry that the nature of the ritual system, which I immediately loved, could be contributing a general feeling of "board game". With all of a Wizard's combat spells, for example, listed in their chapter, it may be asking a bit to then look back at the rituals. In the old game, you had to look back at all of your spells, and you could configure your character for all-out combat, non-combat, or a mix of the two.
The one problem I do have with 4E is that the classes aren't interesting to read. When I first picked up 3E, I read through the classes and got nothing but ideas. Now I have to read through a big list of powers ... and I find myself not caring. This could just be a formatting issue; I wonder what I would have thought if the powers were listed in full elsewhere, and only brief descriptions were in the class chapters.
What are your thoughts? I am sure we all play 4E here, but that does not mean we cannot have issues. I, and my group, are more than willing to house-rule the edition to unrecognizability if it makes for a more fun game. Currently, I am planning on adjusting the player side of the system but keeping the monster side, but I have no idea on how to tackle this. I'd like to keep combat and non-combat partitioned so it's harder to build a weak character, but I need perspective.
A living and breathing world is one that does it's thing, even without the PCs interference, one that's not designed to accomodate the PCs, one that does not cease to exist because the players are gone, and one that's not limited to running a story.
In that case, every context in which I've ever heard it is a lie, especially when it comes to D&D.
[Incredibly biased answer]
Way to give one of those.
1) Reintroduce more basic combat maneuvers, like trip, as not being able to do these things without a power seems odd.
These actually do exist as powers.... just that they tend to only exist for martial characters. I know for fact that there is a Fighter power named Trip though. One could also flavor melee powers that knock prone as including the trip maneuver.
Yes, there is a fighter at-will that knocks people prone (str vs. fort, str mod damage + prone). My point is that it is such a ludicrously simple maneuver to perform (though not simple to make succeed) that I think anyone should be able to do it. Because I feel that at-wills are equivalent to feats (there are a few examples where the system agrees with me), I think a feat should allow someone to do this very thing. I also think that someone should be allowed to do str or dex vs. fort or ref to knock someone prone with no damage; the feat is then "improved trip" and it adds the damage to it.
The problem is with balance though. Why should a character need to take 2 feats to drop someone prone and deal damage when with those two same feats they can enchance their at-wills to allow for knocking prone (ie polearm momentum, flail expertise) or merely take encounter powers or themes (trip up and mercenary theme respetively) that allow people to be knocked prone.
Heck a Polearm Momentum+ some way of increasing pushes (not hard to come by)= Bull Rush knocking prone.
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying Trip, in my games, will be a basic maneuver akin to Bull Rush; Str vs. Fort or Dex vs. Ref to make someone prone. A single feat, "Improved Trip" can be purchased to allow someone to deal Str/Dex damage and gain "proficiency" (to make up for it not being a weapon attack). This single feat is akin to spending a feat on buying a new at-will attack, as it is identical to the fighter's at-will prone attack.
Ahhh, yeah for some reason I was buying it as a feat and then another feat to make it deal damage. If your players are cool with it... then cool.
A big thanks to the majority of the posters here. This thread expanded fast, and has been fairly limited in the personal attacks; there will always be some with the anonimity of the internet.
First, to offer my opinion towards a few of the poster conflicts, I am perfectly fine with subjective opinions; half of this topic is about subjective opinions.
Second, what I meant by "not talking about the rules differences" is I didn't want to get into the small stuff and talk about how the save progressions differed from the defense progressions, for instance.
What I am gathering is that, for some players, having your choices as focused and codified as 4E does makes people feel like their choices are limited. Very interesting. The lack of simulationist rules, such as rules for crafting, makes some people feel that it is a combat board game and not an rpg because they like having rules for those things; I like having rules for those things do, as I think "forge a flametongue to slay the white dragon" is a fun challenge for a character to undertake (this could be done as a skill challenge in 4E of course).
Here are a list of things I think I'm going to try to incorperate into 4E to bring my 3E players back (they still play 4E, but they're not fully engaged):
1) Reintroduce more basic combat maneuvers, like trip, as not being able to do these things without a power seems odd.
2) Encourage the usage of Essentials Martial classes, possibly make Essentials styled versions of the remaining 3E core classes (Barbarian, Bard, Sorcerer), as well as the Warlord.
3) Quantify skill DCs in such a manner as to make them feel like they are based on the world and not the players. This is really in the 4E rules already, but the focus is on the Skill DC table. For instance, when using Acrobatics to balance on a narrow surface, that surface should get narrower as the player rises in levels (a level 30 rogue is balancing on a piece of string).
4) Refer to distances in feet and not squares.
5) Explore ways of opening up multiclassing, and adjust the feats so FANBNR reigns supreme (again?)
And here's a question brought about by some of the posts: What does "more realistic" mean to you, in comparison between 3E and 4E?
Let me go ahead and go over a bit of what you are talking about...seeing as how I am one of the ones who prefers 3e over 4e....and at least give you some ideas on what all of these will do.
1: While I like the idea..do realize that some of the maneuvers were instead moved to individual powers. The fighter has a 'trip' power for instance, its called knockdown assault. Str vs Fort, tiny damage, but prone on a hit. A few others have encounter or daily 'trip' actions as well, or take specific feats in order to be able to trip. Do realize that if you arn't careful with trying to bring in trip...you could easily make it too powerful..or of too little use. Other similar abilities also suffer from this...their mechanics now a power, feat, etc. Making it so if you include that mechanic, you make what they change less valuable.
2: I...I honestly hate Essentials, most people who complain about 4e having less options will also hate Essentials. Those classes are bore a minute..though if you are looking for something for a person who loved playing a powerful charge build and ignored most other roleplay...or who always played the simple 'I hit him' fighters..Essentials works. I'll give more on that in a moment.
3: Very good idea..and can really help with things. But most beefs are with skill challenges and DM's who stick to skill challenges as the only way to do it..and don't consider what all is being done (some actions can negate a skill challenge, let the skill challenge be negated, instead of forcing them to make the roles). I've run into this a few times running 4e...we have one who has done his best to make an effective non-combat character...and whenever he gets going...sometimes we just gotta drop all 4e rules...because he's taken a combo of skills and powers that just...smash the rules with a sledgehammer. And its honestly the most fun way to handle those situations.
4: It can help....squares making counting much easier..and even when I play pathfinder I sometimes convert the feet number into squares...because it is easier. But if you can keep the opposite conversion in your head...it can help with keeping people in.
5: I...yeah I have no idea how that can even work...unless you feel like writing up completely new things. 4e is not designed with heavy dipping into other classes in mind, its why multiclassing and hybrids are as restricted. 4e classes are extreemly front loaded..and not being careful with dipping...can really reak havoc.
As for realistic..its a question about consistancy, and making descriptions and mechanics fit. By default 4e is horrible at this...again they purposefully tried to not worry about this. On the other hand..what they plan to happen is just what you can do. Wizards idea was to make it so you had balanced rules, mechanics, etc. And then they stuck in a tiny amount of fluff..the real preference is for the DM and Players to make their own 'fluff'. So with realism..you need to figure out what certain mechanics exist..and give a reasonable in world explination, you may need to also alter a mechanic...or always keep in mind a mechanics limitations when trying to make things make sense. Heavy Obscurement is such an issue....and most of the people I talk with get headaches due to it...because it makes game sense..instead of logical sense.
Obscurement gives benefits that relate to providing concealment..for anyone inside of it. Heavy obscure for instance says if you are inside of an area of heavy obscurement, you have full concealment from anyone who isn't standing right beside you. Then it mentions things like heavy fog...heavy foliage..the recent playtest change to poisonous and stinking cloud, etc, as all examples of heavy obscurement.
This breaks realism..unless you pay attention. Now most people will auto apply verisimilitude to this...and of course if you are on one side of heavy fog...and someone else is on the other side of heavy fog...of course you have full cover. By the rules? If it just makes heavy obscurement (such as the new stinking cloud playtest), then it does nothing at all to your line of site. You can see someone perfectly. To most people if something makes it so you can't see someone inside of it...then of course you can't see someone on the other side of it. Also heavy obscurement dosn't affect anyone who is inside and looking out...so if you are on the inside of that heavy fog/stinking cloud/etc. Right in the middle of it....if you try to shoot out you don't suffer any penalty from the cloud.
That has broken the minds of so many people...because it makes no sense whatsoever in most situations. Many other effects also have similar problems, because they are ment to have balanced effects instead of being realistic. In fact changing them to make sense may break the balance of the game in some cases. Or may ruin powers that rely on them. So you'll wind up making a ton of special cases to keep things balanced.
Now I mentioned I'd touch up more on the reply to number 2. A thing to realize here is...some of the changes to the way classes made affect people in different ways. Anyone who says 4e has increased options..has increased choices..allows you to do more, etc. Probably played mostly fighters, monks, and other melee monkeys. Anyone who sees 4e as loosing options probably played the more complicated casters. And both are 'correct' in a sense. Anyone who played casters...had options gutted from them..choices they could make are just gone..the number of abilities at their disposal has diapeared. Melee on the other hand suddenly have a swath of powers to choose from...many of them mimicing spells from their caster allies. Some who miss the old powers do miss being broken..but some just miss being able to have so many choices of what to do.
Some other tricks you might consider. Look at some rituals..find a way to make some quicker or more hidden..without breaking stuff. Many hate the truth spells...because they are so obvious to most people and require so much prep time..its hard for anyone to use them without someone knowing. Many of the best spells turned rituals were useful because they could be cast quickly. Because they had effects that could touch multiple people or because they were fun to use.
Also consider combat and involvement. 3e had extreemly quick combats due to how it worked. Mind you set up time took forever..but the actual combat was over really quick. 4e has extreemly long combats....due to higher hitpoints compared to damage..a more codified way of handling defenses, the removal of death effects. Now you add in so many characters can (or do) have interupts..ways of gaining opportunity attacks. Powers that grant others movement or attacks. Powers that trigger during everyones turn. Powers that constantly change damage or defenses or to hit or resistance...etc. making for a mess of stuff to keep up with. I've actually seen a single turn take around 30 minutes of time..because the character aoe'ed...had miss and hit effects....attacked multiple targets..had to make sure he had his bonuses counted up correctly. had to choose where to apply an extra to hit effect. The DM had to make sure what all the effects on a monster ment (we used Alea tools to mark effect colors). had to apply all the different effects to monsters. Other characters chimed in with their own interupts or free actions. And just tracking all of that took forever. I'm also reminded of the 3 way stack...where a character was attacked..which triggered someone interrupt to try an stop it..which triggered someone elses interupt...then at the end of it because he was missed..the character in question also had their own interrupt go off.
Basically 4e combat is designed to be 'interesting' to have stuff going on..to be tactical with forced movement, new effects applied...etc. All of these effects winds up making combat take quite a bit of time. In 3e sometimes you could have the wizard go 'cloudkill, combat over..lets get back to the non-combat part of this session'. In 4e...combat often takes up much more time.
A good way to simulate that is to use minions more often though...minions are technically save or die creatures..if ya hit em they die :P.
For crafting skills..again its hard to know how to add them....best I can suggest is make it so unused backgrounds actually mean something..so if someone has a craft/profession background...let them make 'profession roles'. Basically pick a stat (based on the profession) and do half level, plus stat, +5 (basically gives you training in the profession). And try to keep the craft/profession type backgrounds reasonable in amount. That'll at least fake with as little change to the system as possible.
But really...if you want to get back the old 3e feel...it can be quite hard..the games just play very differently..and...each person is different..what one person misses..another person may be glad its gone. I know the alignment grid and the mechanical effects based on roleplay it had is such a point.
A big thanks to the majority of the posters here. This thread expanded fast, and has been fairly limited in the personal attacks; there will always be some with the anonimity of the internet.
First, to offer my opinion towards a few of the poster conflicts, I am perfectly fine with subjective opinions; half of this topic is about subjective opinions.
Second, what I meant by "not talking about the rules differences" is I didn't want to get into the small stuff and talk about how the save progressions differed from the defense progressions, for instance.
What I am gathering is that, for some players, having your choices as focused and codified as 4E does makes people feel like their choices are limited. Very interesting. The lack of simulationist rules, such as rules for crafting, makes some people feel that it is a combat board game and not an rpg because they like having rules for those things; I like having rules for those things do, as I think "forge a flametongue to slay the white dragon" is a fun challenge for a character to undertake (this could be done as a skill challenge in 4E of course).
Here are a list of things I think I'm going to try to incorperate into 4E to bring my 3E players back (they still play 4E, but they're not fully engaged):
1) Reintroduce more basic combat maneuvers, like trip, as not being able to do these things without a power seems odd.
2) Encourage the usage of Essentials Martial classes, possibly make Essentials styled versions of the remaining 3E core classes (Barbarian, Bard, Sorcerer), as well as the Warlord.
3) Quantify skill DCs in such a manner as to make them feel like they are based on the world and not the players. This is really in the 4E rules already, but the focus is on the Skill DC table. For instance, when using Acrobatics to balance on a narrow surface, that surface should get narrower as the player rises in levels (a level 30 rogue is balancing on a piece of string).
4) Refer to distances in feet and not squares.
5) Explore ways of opening up multiclassing, and adjust the feats so FANBNR reigns supreme (again?)
And here's a question brought about by some of the posts: What does "more realistic" mean to you, in comparison between 3E and 4E?
Let me go ahead and go over a bit of what you are talking about...seeing as how I am one of the ones who prefers 3e over 4e....and at least give you some ideas on what all of these will do.
1: While I like the idea..do realize that some of the maneuvers were instead moved to individual powers. The fighter has a 'trip' power for instance, its called knockdown assault. Str vs Fort, tiny damage, but prone on a hit. A few others have encounter or daily 'trip' actions as well, or take specific feats in order to be able to trip. Do realize that if you arn't careful with trying to bring in trip...you could easily make it too powerful..or of too little use. Other similar abilities also suffer from this...their mechanics now a power, feat, etc. Making it so if you include that mechanic, you make what they change less valuable.
To a degree a trip is mentioned as an example of a page 42 effect make an athletics check or ironically your DM might llow any skill with which you plausibly launch an effect for instance your mage hand using wizard could get an arcana check .. which would enable an attack to knock them prone.... perhaps somebody will have a quote is it in the DM Kit? See also the fighter link under Dynamic Flavoring in my sig as to just how flexible existing powers can be.
The key from your above post being that your group made it work fine, it didn't "just" work fine. Any flaws the games has, you patched up with your group. That's great for your group, but points to a very flawed game mechanically.
I didn't say anything about "making" it work fine. Now your just putting words into my mouth. You really need to accept the fact that there are people who played the game just fine and enjoyed it.
The key from your above post being that your group made it work fine, it didn't "just" work fine. Any flaws the games has, you patched up with your group. That's great for your group, but points to a very flawed game mechanically.
I didn't say anything about "making" it work fine. Now your just putting words into my mouth. You really need to accept the fact that there are people who played the game just fine and enjoyed it.
AMEN
4e zealots are dull.
If you don't see how it's a mechanical issue that selecting "Fighter"without knowing the game in and out from years of experience means you'll have a **** time... well then you're not a very good game designer
You're most likely ignoring how many games you played that didn't work out before you managed to get in the flow where they did. All that time? You were learning to make the system work. Because out of the box, with unexperienced players? It doesn't. Really. I've seen this happen plenty of times, having played with many new players, where games just completely collapse without any kind of spiteful attempts to make it collapse.
It's not newbie-proof. And that's a mechanical failing.
I don't buy that you played the game by the book, with no people holding back, no DM spending weeks to prepare adventures, and everyone was relevant and had fun. 3e can be broken without trying. You have to be an expert in the game in order to have fun as a Fighter.
If you don't see how it's a mechanical issue that selecting "Fighter"without knowing the game in and out from years of experience means you'll have a **** time... well then you're not a very good game designer
You're most likely ignoring how many games you played that didn't work out before you managed to get in the flow where they did. All that time? You were learning to make the system work. Because out of the box, with unexperienced players? It doesn't. Really. I've seen this happen plenty of times, having played with many new players, where games just completely collapse without any kind of spiteful attempts to make it collapse.
It's not newbie-proof. And that's a mechanical failing.
I'm sorry to tell you this but it doesn't matter if you buy it or not. A fact is still a fact and I just feel like you may be a bit angry because we were able to enjoy a game that you apparently did not. Seriously Lad, you need to drop it and just accept the fact that our group enjoyed the game.
It takes a lot of effort to make the game work. I had players that played the game dozens of times and still needed help making a character every time because they were simply unable to build a character that worked. It took me a dozen campaigns to get something working that didn't fall apart hours into the game for some reason or another.
Might be that you're old enough and play with old enough people that you entered 3e with years of experience and skipped over a lot of this because you already experienced it with older versions of the game, but I've seen what 3e does to new players. It's horrible.
On the other hand, I've had one of those players who never managed to understand 3e to the point of being able to make her own character pick up the DM'ing hat in 4e and we had a blast.
I'm not annoyed that you like the game. I'm just saying it's a mechanical mess. It's like me stating that MacDonalds is kinda unhealthy and then you being all pissed off because you enjoy the taste. That's not the point. The point is that it's unhealthy, even if it can taste good.
Similarly, 3e as a purely mechanical constraint requires large amounts of careful playing, system mastery, preperation of adventures, lots of experience and a bit of finger crossing to work. And that's mechanically bad design, even if at the end of all that time investment you can run a good game in it.
just because you enjoyed the game doesn't mean it's well developped... it just means you enjoyed the game. i'm sure someone out there likes FATAL but few people will say it's a well-made game.
But there are a lot of people out there who think that 3.5 and Pathfinder are both well made games so your argument really doesn't hold up. If there weren't then Pathfinder wouldn't be doing as well as it is.
Look at Justin Bieber.
I played the game for years. I really enjoyed a lot of it. I'm just objectively stating that the game is mechanically easy to break, even on accident, unless you make an effort not to. That you can't understand this simple fact because you're so used to the way you play that you probably don't even remember the actual rules anymore...
It takes a lot of effort to make the game work. I had players that played the game dozens of times and still needed help making a character every time because they were simply unable to build a character that worked. It took me a dozen campaigns to get something working that didn't fall apart hours into the game for some reason or another.
Might be that you're old enough and play with old enough people that you entered 3e with years of experience and skipped over a lot of this because you already experienced it with older versions of the game, but I've seen what 3e does to new players. It's horrible.
On the other hand, I've had one of those players who never managed to understand 3e to the point of being able to make her own character pick up the DM'ing hat in 4e and we had a blast.
I'm not annoyed that you like the game. I'm just saying it's a mechanical mess. It's like me stating that MacDonalds is kinda unhealthy and then you being all pissed off because you enjoy the taste. That's not the point. The point is that it's unhealthy, even if it can taste good.
Similarly, 3e as a purely mechanical constraint requires large amounts of careful playing, system mastery, preperation of adventures, lots of experience and a bit of finger crossing to work. And that's mechanically bad design, even if at the end of all that time investment you can run a good game in it.
Every game has it's flaws including 4th edition so what's your point? Every game has it's breaking point the only difference with 3.5 and 4th edition is the fact that 4th edition is currently being covered so some things that are currently broken or have been broken are currently being fixed. Pathfinder has fixed a good bit of what was wrong with 3.5 and they continue to fix what is currently wrong with the game. Pathfinder has errata as well.
A lot of what you apparently have a problem with isn't about faulty mechanics. Spellcasters didn't dominate our games and just because they did with yours doesn't mean they did with ours.
Just because some random dude thinks it's well made, doesn't make it so. Just because a lot of people play the game, doesn't mean they even think it's well made, and just because something is downright bad doesn't mean it won't sell.
Look at Justin Bieber.
or Nickelback
Just because some random dude thinks it's well made, doesn't make it so. Just because a lot of people play the game, doesn't mean they even think it's well made, and just because something is downright bad doesn't mean it won't sell.
Look at Justin Bieber.
Perfect example.
Random adult male assumes Bieber sucks because they dont know anything about him and aren't into boy singers.
Huge population of people that actually listen to his music, watched Never Say Never, love him.
Just because YOU think something is bad, doesnt make it so.
Just because some random dude thinks it's well made, doesn't make it so. Just because a lot of people play the game, doesn't mean they even think it's well made, and just because something is downright bad doesn't mean it won't sell.
Look at Justin Bieber.
What random dude are you talking about? Whether you accept the fact or not is actually irrelevant but Pathfinder is a very popular and well made game with the fans and the sales to back it up.
Just because some random dude thinks it's well made, doesn't make it so. Just because a lot of people play the game, doesn't mean they even think it's well made, and just because something is downright bad doesn't mean it won't sell.
Look at Justin Bieber.
Using Justin Bieber is not a good example. Personally I think Justin Bieber is a prat but being a fellow musician I can see that the boy can actually sing. Just because I don't care for the person or their music doesn't mean they suck at it.
Pink Floyd is my favourite group of all time but there are people out there who do not like Pink Floyd. There is a difference between taste and ability.
Every game has it's flaws including 4th edition so what's your point? Every game has it's breaking point the only difference with 3.5 and 4th edition is the fact that 4th edition is currently being covered so some things that are currently broken or have been broken are currently being fixed. Pathfinder has fixed a good bit of what was wrong with 3.5 and they continue to fix what is currently wrong with the game. Pathfinder has errata as well.
A lot of what you apparently have a problem with isn't about faulty mechanics. Spellcasters didn't dominate our games and just because they did with yours doesn't mean they did with ours.
The thing is, when you have a game where you can ruin it by using the actual mechanics, then the game is bad. The fact that you have run games that worked is far less relevant then the fact that you can run games that didn't work.
It mostly just points out that you ignored the broken parts, for some reason or another. If the game enables a strategy that then proceeds to break the game, then the game is broken. This is simple game design theory 101. Any game that has strategies that spoil everyone's fun, is badly designed.
Just because you ignore those options doesn't make the game better. This should not be hard to understand. By the rules, spellcaster can dominate games. This is bad design. Just because in some games they don't does not in any way fix this problem.
It's like saying a bridge isn't poorly designed when it allows 20 cars on it, but collapses with 10. The bridge is fine. You just should not have driven that 10th car on it.
Gah. Can't believe you made me listen to Justin Bieber just to see if he could sing.
The key from your above post being that your group made it work fine, it didn't "just" work fine. Any flaws the games has, you patched up with your group. That's great for your group, but points to a very flawed game mechanically.
I didn't say anything about "making" it work fine. Now your just putting words into my mouth. You really need to accept the fact that there are people who played the game just fine and enjoyed it.
AMEN
4e zealots are dull.
So are 3e zealots. Zealots are dull in general.
I am so sorry you don't like hearing the actual problems with 4e.
The fact that the rules in 4e is nothing but a combat simulator is the truth. It purposefully tries to get rid of anything not to do with combat, and anything left it tries to somehow make it into something similar to combat. That is the rules for 4e.
Everything else it says 'make it up on your own'. You do realize that was, yaknow, touted as the big thing about 4e? Just because I say it in a not as nice way, and use the same sort of wording that people use when talking about 3e or pathfinder, dosn't make it any less true.
LoL, roll out the victim card much in your trolling? The fact is 4E went away from rules minutia for non-combat situations and moved it back to where D&D was for (at least, depending on view) two previous, original editions: in to actual role playing and DM adjudication. Moving to skill trees and the go-awful rollplaying minutia of 3E was one of it's biggest failings. That, item dependence, prep time and imbalance.
4E streamlined a number of things, balanced the classes, pushed the class in a more social direction (vs. My uber character r0xxors pwns all you newbs!) and puts more emphasis on playing than prep. That's all mechanical.
Zealots are dull in general.
Except in Starcraft II. There they are awesome. Cutting dudes in half and everything.
Just because some random dude thinks it's well made, doesn't make it so. Just because a lot of people play the game, doesn't mean they even think it's well made, and just because something is downright bad doesn't mean it won't sell.
Look at Justin Bieber.
In fairness, though, 'Well Made' is subjective. Thus what is 'well made' for one random dude is going to be 't3h complete suckage' for another. Both are right.
Every game has it's flaws including 4th edition so what's your point? Every game has it's breaking point the only difference with 3.5 and 4th edition is the fact that 4th edition is currently being covered so some things that are currently broken or have been broken are currently being fixed. Pathfinder has fixed a good bit of what was wrong with 3.5 and they continue to fix what is currently wrong with the game. Pathfinder has errata as well.
A lot of what you apparently have a problem with isn't about faulty mechanics. Spellcasters didn't dominate our games and just because they did with yours doesn't mean they did with ours.
The thing is, when you have a game where you can ruin it by using the actual mechanics, then the game is bad. The fact that you have run games that worked is far less relevant then the fact that you can run games that didn't work.
It mostly just points out that you ignored the broken parts, for some reason or another. If the game enables a strategy that then proceeds to break the game, then the game is broken. This is simple game design theory 101. Any game that has strategies that spoil everyone's fun, is badly designed.
Just because you ignore those options doesn't make the game better. This should not be hard to understand. By the rules, spellcaster can dominate games. This is bad design. Just because in some games they don't does not in any way fix this problem.
It's like saying a bridge isn't poorly designed when it allows 20 cars on it, but collapses with 10. The bridge is fine. You just should not have driven that 10th car on it.
Your examples are not comparing like for like. Engineering a bridge is a lot different than creating a game. A bridge has certain aspects that have to must be sound because of safety issues. A game does not have to abide by this. There is no game on the market that is perfect.
By the rules spellcasters can't dominate games as well as can I'm afraid. If I wanted to as a DM I could counter anything a spellcaster can and do it by the rules. There are no specific rules as to which monsters are supposed to come after you and what kind of tactics they have to specifically use. Creatures use the same rules as PC's do and so they are susceptible to the same things.
Again, you are trying to argue that it's some sort of actual rules problem. If you take nothing but fire spells and I come at you with creatures that are all immune to fire that's not breaking the rules.
Justin can do much more than sing... Watch the movie then get back to us.
Ugh, that'll take too long. Doesn't he have any music that isn't a tacky pop-song? I'll listen to that and judge his artistic ability.
In fairness, though, 'Well Made' is subjective. Thus what is 'well made' for one random dude is going to be 't3h complete suckage' for another. Both are right.
Sometimes. But there are also things that aren't very subjective. There are things you can identify in games are just objectively poorly designed. Plenty of people will enjoy those games despite these flaws, but they're still bad design.
From a game design point, Monopoly is pretty poorly designed, for example. It would never hold up against games currently on the market these days. It's mostly played for nostalgic and sentimental value.
There's a difference between how much fun you had with something (which is entirely subjective, I understand, and I'm not going to say that people are doing it wrong for enjoying 3e) and how well that thing was designed (which contains some objective parts that should be recognised by most designers to have been a bad idea in retrospect)
Look at candyland for example. It's sold as a game, and kids enjoy it, but mechanically? It's not even a game. It's just a chore where you move pawns and draw cards and then in the end you find out who was predetermined to be the winner when you shuffled the deck.
The cardgame "war" is the same way.
They might be fun, but they're not very well designed.
By the rules spellcasters can't dominate games as well as can I'm afraid. If I wanted to as a DM I could counter anything a spellcaster can and do it by the rules. There are no specific rules as to which monsters are supposed to come after you and what kind of tactics they have to specifically use. Creatures use the same rules as PC's do and so they are susceptible to the same things.
By the rules, spellcasters can utterly and completely destroy the plot of any DM that's not at least twice as experienced as the spellcaster, by accident. The requirement that "the DM should be playing for at least a few years to understand the game well enough to be able to run a campaign that doesn't break down" is never communicated anywhere. The only way to get that experience, is to actually fail, and fail again, and continue failing, until you get that experience.
You might not have seen this before, but entire plots can be unraveled in seconds by one well-used Divination spell. The only protection against this is having more experience then the spellcaster and predicting the move. Yet this is supposed to be discovered by the DM through experience because the game doesn't teach him this (extremely neccesary) skill. That's a game design failure.
The game fails to teach the players how to run the game properly. They have to find out on their own. That's not correct.
By the rules spellcasters can't dominate games as well as can I'm afraid. If I wanted to as a DM I could counter anything a spellcaster can and do it by the rules. There are no specific rules as to which monsters are supposed to come after you and what kind of tactics they have to specifically use. Creatures use the same rules as PC's do and so they are susceptible to the same things.
Again, you are trying to argue that it's some sort of actual rules problem. If you take nothing but fire spells and I come at you with creatures that are all immune to fire that's not breaking the rules.
This is true. The DM can counter anything spell-users can do, and can do so while staying within the rules. However...and this where people get bent out of shape...if the game forces you to counter everything a particular class does to avoid ruining the game for everyone else, then it's poor game design. Period. This is not a refutable statement.
Yes, I can throw up anti-magic fields and send in only monsters equipped to resist what the PC spell-users might use, but then you're unfairly punishing the players of said spell-users. It's not their fault the game rules allow them to become uber-gods and far surpass their peers in short order. The DM is having to single them out, and take away their ability to perform. That is poor game design. Period. This is also not a refutable statement.
I am not 4E's biggest fan, but I do recognize the lengths the designers went to to put everyone on more-or-less equal ground. The rules do not force you to gimp or target specific characters so that other characters can actively perticipate. The rules do not punish players of any specific classes for having the nerve to not pick the one that will be overpowered within a few levels. For all of 4E's faults, this is not one of them, and that alone deserves a nod of respect.
By the rules, spellcasters can utterly and completely destroy the plot of any DM that's not at least twice as experienced as the spellcaster, by accident. The requirement that "the DM should be playing for at least a few years to understand the game well enough to be able to run a campaign that doesn't break down" is never communicated anywhere. The only way to get that experience, is to actually fail, and fail again, and continue failing, until you get that experience.
You might not have seen this before, but entire plots can be unraveled in seconds by one well-used Divination spell. The only protection against this is having more experience then the spellcaster and predicting the move. Yet this is supposed to be discovered by the DM through experience because the game doesn't teach him this (extremely neccesary) skill. That's a game design failure.
The game fails to teach the players how to run the game properly. They have to find out on their own. That's not correct.
Could you detail how the divination spell could ruin the plot of the DM's story? Which spell, and how and how would it break the plot?
Also, could you point out why the DM can't on-the-fly deal with said spell without years of experience?
This is not a nitpick question, I honestly don't know the spells from 3E well enough to know how your situation would happen.
Cheers
And so the 4e answer was to remove all useful spells and make all spells only be combat orientated with x damage where x damage = the fighters x damage.
Seems like a major cop out.
Whereas so many people with DMs that were quite happy with making house rules and acting like a traditional Dungeon Master were able to run the games just fine.
Sure there will be jilted kids with limited imagination and experience who will balls up a game - there will always be good DMs and bad DMs - no amount of rules will fix that - unless you reduce the game down to just Warhammer miniatures and say you cant do anything else except a limited few skill checks.
By the rules, spellcasters can utterly and completely destroy the plot of any DM that's not at least twice as experienced as the spellcaster, by accident. The requirement that "the DM should be playing for at least a few years to understand the game well enough to be able to run a campaign that doesn't break down" is never communicated anywhere. The only way to get that experience, is to actually fail, and fail again, and continue failing, until you get that experience.
You might not have seen this before, but entire plots can be unraveled in seconds by one well-used Divination spell. The only protection against this is having more experience then the spellcaster and predicting the move. Yet this is supposed to be discovered by the DM through experience because the game doesn't teach him this (extremely neccesary) skill. That's a game design failure.
The game fails to teach the players how to run the game properly. They have to find out on their own. That's not correct.
Could you detail how the divination spell could ruin the plot of the DM's story? Which spell, and how and how would it break the plot?
Also, could you point out why the DM can't on-the-fly deal with said spell without years of experience?
This is not a nitpick question, I honestly don't know the spells from 3E well enough to know how your situation would happen.
Cheers
I could fabricate an example - but we played for years and despite trying divination whenever prudent - it never broke a plot.
And so the 4e answer was to remove all useful spells and make all spells only be combat orientated with x damage where x damage = the fighters x damage.
l fix that - unless you reduce the game down to just Warhammer miniatures and say you cant do anything else except a limited few skill checks.
*Looks at Rituals, utility spells, catnips, etc.*
Are we playing the same game?
This is true. The DM can counter anything spell-users can do, and can do so while staying within the rules. However...and this where people get bent out of shape...if the game forces you to counter everything a particular class does to avoid ruining the game for everyone else, then it's poor game design. Period. This is not a refutable statement.
Yes, I can throw up anti-magic fields and send in only monsters equipped to resist what the PC spell-users might use, but then you're unfairly punishing the players of said spell-users. It's not their fault the game rules allow them to become uber-gods and far surpass their peers in short order. The DM is having to single them out, and take away their ability to perform. That is poor game design. Period. This is also not a refutable statement.
I am not 4E's biggest fan, but I do recognize the lengths the designers went to to put everyone on more-or-less equal ground. The rules do not force you to gimp or target specific characters so that other characters can actively perticipate. The rules do not punish players of any specific classes for having the nerve to not pick the one that will be overpowered within a few levels. For all of 4E's faults, this is not one of them, and that alone deserves a nod of respect.
Hocus, I am very much aware that you are not 4e's biggest fanboy. I vageuly remember multiple occasions when I felt you were being entierly too harsh on 4e. However, I find myself in complete agreeance with you here.
I never got how dropping anti-magic fields left or right, or throwing enemies with loads of SR or immunities at the players just so the spellcasters couldn't dominate anything was a good idea. I mean, in order to mitigate a caster's contributions, the DM has to drop AM fields, use SR, and use immunities (SR, though, can be ignored by some spells). Very broad, heavy-handed things, that (in the case of AM fields) can screw over the entire party. So, if you have to drop the hammer to reign in the wizard/cleric/druid/what'eer, but you can screw over the Rogue by just tossing....well, you can't toss undead at the party, 'cause the Cleric would just make them go away, so we'll say plants, or constructs, or what have you...how is that good design? Its kinda like saying, "Ok, we're going to bring the Fighter back in line with the rest of the party by taking away his sword."
This is true. The DM can counter anything spell-users can do, and can do so while staying within the rules. However...and this where people get bent out of shape...if the game forces you to counter everything a particular class does to avoid ruining the game for everyone else, then it's poor game design. Period. This is not a refutable statement.
Yes, I can throw up anti-magic fields and send in only monsters equipped to resist what the PC spell-users might use, but then you're unfairly punishing the players of said spell-users. It's not their fault the game rules allow them to become uber-gods and far surpass their peers in short order. The DM is having to single them out, and take away their ability to perform. That is poor game design. Period. This is also not a refutable statement.
I am not 4E's biggest fan, but I do recognize the lengths the designers went to to put everyone on more-or-less equal ground. The rules do not force you to gimp or target specific characters so that other characters can actively perticipate. The rules do not punish players of any specific classes for having the nerve to not pick the one that will be overpowered within a few levels. For all of 4E's faults, this is not one of them, and that alone deserves a nod of respect.
Hocus, I am very much aware that you are not 4e's biggest fanboy. I vageuly remember multiple occasions when I felt you were being entierly too harsh on 4e. However, I find myself in complete agreeance with you here.
I never got how dropping anti-magic fields left or right, or throwing enemies with loads of SR or immunities at the players just so the spellcasters couldn't dominate anything was a good idea. I mean, in order to mitigate a caster's contributions, the DM has to drop AM fields, use SR, and use immunities (SR, though, can be ignored by some spells). Very broad, heavy-handed things, that (in the case of AM fields) can screw over the entire party. So, if you have to drop the hammer to reign in the wizard/cleric/druid/what'eer, but you can screw over the Rogue by just tossing....well, you can't toss undead at the party, 'cause the Cleric would just make them go away, so we'll say plants, or constructs, or what have you...how is that good design? Its kinda like saying, "Ok, we're going to bring the Fighter back in line with the rest of the party by taking away his sword."
Agreed on both accounts.
And to append to those thoughts, 3E really takes away a lot more from DM creativity. In order to challenge a party, the DM had to build encounters specifically to counter the characters' strengths. In 4E, I can create an encounter specifically how I want to create it, knowing that any appropriately levelled party can find it challenging. With the expectation of a balanced party, I don't need to know anything about the characters except their level.
Justin can do much more than sing... Watch the movie then get back to us.
I don't think anyone is saying Justin can't sing, he just sings crap aimed at 12-year-olds. That's marketing and style, not what he's capable of. It makes him good money now but someday he'll want/need to move on. Just like 3E's marketing and style was towards a more self-centered, out-of-combat minutia, longer prep time market of less-busy (socially or otherwise) group.
4E showed the game was capable of more by ditching the needless skill tree minutia and the scads of prep time/pre-encounter buff time and gets on with the game using more dynamic tactical elements to put the complexity in the here & now vs. the alone before the game.
Justin's also a decent child psychopath. He was pretty creepy in CSI/NCIS/L&O or whatever show he guested on.
This is true. The DM can counter anything spell-users can do, and can do so while staying within the rules. However...and this where people get bent out of shape...if the game forces you to counter everything a particular class does to avoid ruining the game for everyone else, then it's poor game design. Period. This is not a refutable statement.
Yes, I can throw up anti-magic fields and send in only monsters equipped to resist what the PC spell-users might use, but then you're unfairly punishing the players of said spell-users. It's not their fault the game rules allow them to become uber-gods and far surpass their peers in short order. The DM is having to single them out, and take away their ability to perform. That is poor game design. Period. This is also not a refutable statement.
I am not 4E's biggest fan, but I do recognize the lengths the designers went to to put everyone on more-or-less equal ground. The rules do not force you to gimp or target specific characters so that other characters can actively perticipate. The rules do not punish players of any specific classes for having the nerve to not pick the one that will be overpowered within a few levels. For all of 4E's faults, this is not one of them, and that alone deserves a nod of respect.
Hocus, I am very much aware that you are not 4e's biggest fanboy. I vageuly remember multiple occasions when I felt you were being entierly too harsh on 4e. However, I find myself in complete agreeance with you here.
I never got how dropping anti-magic fields left or right, or throwing enemies with loads of SR or immunities at the players just so the spellcasters couldn't dominate anything was a good idea. I mean, in order to mitigate a caster's contributions, the DM has to drop AM fields, use SR, and use immunities (SR, though, can be ignored by some spells). Very broad, heavy-handed things, that (in the case of AM fields) can screw over the entire party. So, if you have to drop the hammer to reign in the wizard/cleric/druid/what'eer, but you can screw over the Rogue by just tossing....well, you can't toss undead at the party, 'cause the Cleric would just make them go away, so we'll say plants, or constructs, or what have you...how is that good design? Its kinda like saying, "Ok, we're going to bring the Fighter back in line with the rest of the party by taking away his sword."
Agreed on both accounts.
And to append to those thoughts, 3E really takes away a lot more from DM creativity. In order to challenge a party, the DM had to build encounters specifically to counter the characters' strengths. In 4E, I can create an encounter specifically how I want to create it, knowing that any appropriately levelled party can find it challenging. With the expectation of a balanced party, I don't need to know anything about the characters except their level.
And unfortunately this is one of the great flaws of 4e. Combat is entirely predicatable and can be quite dull.
And unfortunately this is one of the great flaws of 4e. Combat is entirely predicatable and can be quite dull.
Sounds like some flaws or creativity issues with the DM that may be contributing to this. I don't seem to have that issue in any of the three 4E campaigns I run.
Whatever the case it is definitely not something that is caused strictly by 4E.
And so the 4e answer was to remove all useful spells and make all spells only be combat orientated with x damage where x damage = the fighters x damage.
l fix that - unless you reduce the game down to just Warhammer miniatures and say you cant do anything else except a limited few skill checks.
*Looks at Rituals, utility spells, catnips, etc.*
Are we playing the same game?
No somebody is spouting ignorance
"You are lost in the woods and must find your way to civilisation!"
Ok, Find the path. There, one Ranger that just lost his purpose for this quest.
"Someone died in this room, someone is lying about it and nobody leaves until we find out who!"
Ok, Discern Lies. So much for the murder mystery.
"We have the legendary sort of Vorpal McHackenslash, but now we must travel to the Place of Evil to find out how it works."
Nah, Legend Lore.
"The crown jewels were stolen, we have to find out where they are and bring them back!"
Cool, Locate Object.
"Ok, but the imposter diplomat who stole them got away... we'll never find him!"
Sure we do, Locate Creature
"You're caught in a blizzard! You must hurry and find shelter before you freeze to death."
Meh, Tiny Hut. We'll stay right here.
1) Don't hang the entire adventure on being lost. They cast the spell, find their way, and move on to the next challenge. Why not allow PCs to move along to the next point easily?
2) Lots of ways to handle this. One, people lie about all kinds of things and you don't know if it's about the killing or not. Two, people don't lie, but never answer in a way to reveal if they did it. Three, don't make it so all the suspects are trapped in a room with the caster. Four, a fight breaks out and people escape in the confusion. Five, someone is under the effect of a spell (can't recall the name) that make Discern Lie not work. Etc.
3) Legend Lore simply imparts legends to the caster, not specific details. Not a recipe for saving the trip. Althought it might, so the story moves on.
4) Locate Object only works on specific items you have seen personally. Thin lead container stops tracking, outside range, and other spells can protect its location. Also, simply changing the object would do it.
5) Similar to Locat Object answers.
6) Tiny Hut -- Why not allow the mighty PCs to handle something simple like a blizzard? Heroes should have that level of ability, eventually. But, if you need it to be an issue, have two storms, the second arrives after the first hut goes away.
None of these are Rule 0 answers. These are also not something that took more than a moment to come up with, and I'm not a 30 yr master DM. I consider myself a newbie.
Plus, I didn't answer with, well, they find it, but then, how do they retrieve the item? For example, locate object works on the crown jewels. Fine, but turns out, it's a mighty cabal dedicated to a dragon lord, and oh, he showed up to take posession of said item. Hmm, could be a challenge even though they found the item.
I dunno, players with divination doesn't seem like it's too easy for them. And if people feel it is too easy, why so?
Regarding the scry, teleport, violence, teleport scenario. True, it's doable, however, why is it that the folks at that level don't know how to stop it, set a trap, etc? Seems to me that sometimes the tactic should work, sometimes it should be a holy terror to the party when they do it.
Remember too, if the players can do it, so can the NPCs. Players retrieve said stolen item, kidnapped person, NPC locates object/person with spell, scries on location/person, teleports in, violence, teleports out.
Spell Resistance isn't a kludge necessarily, it follows many stories where creatures shrug off powerful magic. Recall, older editions were designed based off stories. Stories do all sorts of things that bugger up a game system.
Just saying it may come out kludge like, but I think there's a story precedent.Overall, seems to me like that if your PCs can do stuff, let them. If you want to make it challenging, get creative to deal with their abilities. Strikes me as a fun challenge for the DM.
Also, to those who say the NPC/Monster design in 3E is overly complicated. I agree, if all you view the creature's information is for combat. If you want to have it be a well rounded element of the story, it's not such a pain. Is it well balanced, planned, executed for good, challenging, scaled combat? No. But then, D&D is much more than combat.
Cheers
yes it's not rule 0.
it's playing dirty.
Well in 2e there was a percentage chance teleport landed you under the ground - instant death - so my players only used it as a last resort.
In 3.5, Teleporting to a "studied carefully" location (which specifically mentions scrying) has a 94% chance of landing exactly where you want. There is a 1% chance for mishap, but the rules for that do not stipulate instant death.
As to a level 9 wizard killing 20 level 1 creatures, sure same in 4e. But those are daily spells so there is a finite number he can destroy, especially if they are spread out before he will be overwhelmed. In the Two Towers there were thousands of orcs so good luck with a level 9 wizard - hed be obliterated.
Who said anything about destroying hordes of creatures? Wizard scried the leader, 'ported in, obliterated him (and, depending on what he was doing, some followers, or nobody else), and ported out. Its like the definition of a surgical strike.
Unless, of course, "don't ruin the story" DM states that....uh...noooo....the Orc functions like....a Dimensional Anchor! Or an anti-scrying thingie! Yeah!
so in other words the only way to play 3.5 in any reasonable way is to not use the toys the books give you (because the GM will jump through hoops to make them not work or have them effectively be used against you back & forth, creating an ever-rising scenario of "who-can-out-wizard-who") and simply follow the hooks the GM gives you in the way the GM wants you to.
yes it's not rule 0.
it's playing dirty.
Well said.
1) Don't hang the entire adventure on being lost. They cast the spell, find their way, and move on to the next challenge. Why not allow PCs to move along to the next point easily?
Being lost can be an adventure. Well, when you don't have this spell, anyway. Effectively "you are lost" is no longer valid as a plot option because some guy who is definately not a wilderness expert can cast a spell that gives him an infinitely better version of the Ranger's whole schtick; pathfinding.
However, it is a possible plot for a fun adventure that is instantly impossible by spell. "Just don't use that plot" does not excuse it.
2) Lots of ways to handle this. One, people lie about all kinds of things and you don't know if it's about the killing or not. Two, people don't lie, but never answer in a way to reveal if they did it. Three, don't make it so all the suspects are trapped in a room with the caster. Four, a fight breaks out and people escape in the confusion. Five, someone is under the effect of a spell (can't recall the name) that make Discern Lie not work. Etc.
Yeah. Coming up with all of that stuff on the fly is not something a new DM is going to be able to do, I think. I certainly don't see any of the new DMs I've played under come up with it. It requires considering smoothtalking skills and improvisation on behalf of the DM to get out from under the simplest questions any player can ask.
Option 5 is basically "ban the spell".
3) Legend Lore simply imparts legends to the caster, not specific details. Not a recipe for saving the trip. Althought it might, so the story moves on.
So basically "the spell does nothing useful". Again.
4) Locate Object only works on specific items you have seen personally. Thin lead container stops tracking, outside range, and other spells can protect its location. Also, simply changing the object would do it.
Putting it in a lead container, outside of range, or under the protection of another spell all require you to know this spell exists beforehand and how to counter it. Which means it's unlikely to be done with a new DM who never saw this spell before.
5) Similar to Locat Object answers.
Same response.
6) Tiny Hut -- Why not allow the mighty PCs to handle something simple like a blizzard? Heroes should have that level of ability, eventually. But, if you need it to be an issue, have two storms, the second arrives after the first hut goes away.
The mighty PCs are 5th level, which basically means there's nothing mighty about them. As for the second storm arriving; at that point the Wizard has had enough time to prepare new spells; Hut lasts for 2 hours per level.
It's also funny that it's the bookworm who saves everyone from the blizzard, not the wilderness expert.
None of these are Rule 0 answers. These are also not something that took more than a moment to come up with, and I'm not a 30 yr master DM. I consider myself a newbie.
How newbie? As in "first time playing the game" newbie? As in "second campaign" newbie? Or as in "only a few years of experience newbie"? Because that last one is far too much experience to be calling yourself a newbie. You'll be quite adapted to the system after a year or so. It's that first year that's the issue. Someone who picks up the DMG for the first time, gives it a read through, and builds an adventure should be able to run it. Odds are pretty good he's going to fail badly at around 5th level unless he has spent a huge amount of time preparing for all the things that can go wrong with his campaign, which is a very big thing to ask of someone.
Plus, I didn't answer with, well, they find it, but then, how do they retrieve the item? For example, locate object works on the crown jewels. Fine, but turns out, it's a mighty cabal dedicated to a dragon lord, and oh, he showed up to take posession of said item. Hmm, could be a challenge even though they found the item.
So basically the "mystery" part of the plot is irrelevant. Just because you can hide the item with some super powerful folk doesn't change the fact that all the mystery of finding where the item is, has been obviated by a spell. Any plot of "the butler took it, and them hid it, and now you can't find it" is practically impossible. You need to include some powerhouses that need to be killed for the plot to work.
Regarding the scry, teleport, violence, teleport scenario. True, it's doable, however, why is it that the folks at that level don't know how to stop it, set a trap, etc? Seems to me that sometimes the tactic should work, sometimes it should be a holy terror to the party when they do it.
It's fairly hard to do unless the opponent is also a high level spellcaster and even then it's usually a case of rocket-tag. Which is little fun, especially for the Fighter, whose entire experience of the adventure is "the Wizard vanishes, and then he returns, and he says the quest is over" unless the Wizard brings him along, which is basically introducing a giant liability into the system because the Wizard is better off on his own (or bringing another spellcaster for combat support)
Remember too, if the players can do it, so can the NPCs. Players retrieve said stolen item, kidnapped person, NPC locates object/person with spell, scries on location/person, teleports in, violence, teleports out.
"I can do what you can do" doesn't deal with the underlying issue of "what you can do makes the game less fun for those involved". "All your abilities don't work" isn't a very fun concept either.
Overall, seems to me like that if your PCs can do stuff, let them. If you want to make it challenging, get creative to deal with their abilities. Strikes me as a fun challenge for the DM.
First off, you mean "if your spellcasters can do things", and second off the DM only has so much time to prepare. Preparing a single session shouldn't take three times as long as the session lasts, and shouldn't require the DM to know every single spell by heart.
Also, to those who say the NPC/Monster design in 3E is overly complicated. I agree, if all you view the creature's information is for combat. If you want to have it be a well rounded element of the story, it's not such a pain. Is it well balanced, planned, executed for good, challenging, scaled combat? No. But then, D&D is much more than combat.
But there's plenty of things that are just a monster to be used for combat, and designing those is a pain. It's great that every one of those 15 Orcs you just battled had 5 lines dedicated to his regular profession, who his wife was and what his favorite color is, but in the end the DM spent time on stuff that doesn't come up.
Preparing spells for a 19th level Spellcaster creature that only has time to get 1 spell off is a huge waste of time for the DM. I gave up on that long ago during 3e and turned all my spellcasters into "he has prepared whatever sounds like fun" because I didn't have the time for all that stuff and it was pointless anyway.
If I want a monster to have non-combat info, I'll add it. If I don't want a monster to have non-combat info, please don't bother me with it because at that point it's just wasting time to come up with. I'll improvise if it's ever neccesary.
Divination
Level: Clr 4, Knowledge 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: Instantaneous
Similar to augury but more powerful, a
divination spell can provide you with a
useful piece of advice in reply to a question
concerning a specific goal, event, or
activity that is to occur within one week.
The advice can be as simple as a short
phrase, or it might take the form of a cryptic
rhyme or omen.
For example, suppose the question is
“Will we do well if we venture into the
ruined temple of Erythnul?” The DM
knows that a terrible troll guarding 10,000
gp and a +1 shield lurks near the entrance
but estimates that your party could beat
the troll after a hard fight. Therefore the
divination response might be: “Ready oil
and open flame light your way to wealth.”
In all cases, the DM controls what information
you receive. If your party doesn’t
act on the information, the conditions may
change so that the information is no
longer useful. (For example, the troll could
move away and take the treasure with it.)
The base chance for a correct divination
is 70% + 1% per caster level, to a maximum
of 90%. The DM adjusts the chance if
unusual circumstances require it (if, for
example, unusual precautions against
divination spells have been taken). If the
dice roll fails, you know the spell failed,
unless specific magic yielding false information
is at work.
As with augury, multiple divinations
about the same topic by the same caster
use the same dice result as the first
divination spell and yield the same answer
each time.
Material Component: Incense and a sacrificial
offering appropriate to your religion,
together worth at least 25 gp.
Don't really see where this spell could be plot breaking in any way.
As for how that spell could be plotbreaking; it's very easy for a new DM to give away critical information because he's not good at coming up with riddles on the fly. I know I'm not.
It would also help to not ask a ridiculously open-ended question like the one in the example, but more something contained like "Did the butler kill the high consul?". Try riddling your way out of that one.
so in other words the only way to play 3.5 in any reasonable way is to not use the toys the books give you (because the GM will jump through hoops to make them not work or have them effectively be used against you back & forth, creating an ever-rising scenario of "who-can-out-wizard-who") and simply follow the hooks the GM gives you in the way the GM wants you to.
yes it's not rule 0.
it's playing dirty.
I think this gets to the point of the issue with 3E. If the players do something smart (use the spells as written), it's a broken game. If the DM does something smart (deals with spells as written), it's dirty play. I would be interested in knowing how my answers to the "game breakers" above is dirty. For example, just because someone can detect a lie does not mean the guilty party magically glows from said guilt. The players must smartly get the suspect to lie about killing the poor victim (assuming the killer is clever.) Otherwise, it doesn't matter they can detect a lie.
I think this is the fun part. Players and DMs pitting PC vs NPC in highly creative and imaginitive ways. Like combat, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Just because a spell exists does not mean it resolves the entire plot automagically.
A DM has to jump through hoops to stop something from being effective if they have a poorly crafted story. For example, the Discern Lies spell. So, set it up that the players do quickly find out who the killer is. Maybe the story is more about being able to capture the person once they learn who they are. Could be it's a dragon in disguise and taking it in will be quite the adventure. Maybe the PCs learn later that the dragon killed in self defense, or that he saved the king from assassination. There are any of a number of ways that the ID of the killer is not the end all, be all of the story. So, as I said before, the fact that the spell is used in play is not necessarily game breaking.
Cheers
Yeah. Coming up with all of that stuff on the fly is not something a new DM is going to be able to do, I think. I certainly don't see any of the new DMs I've played under come up with it. It requires considering smoothtalking skills and improvisation on behalf of the DM to get out from under the simplest questions any player can ask.
Option 5 is basically "ban the spell".
If I want a monster to have non-combat info, I'll add it. If I don't want a monster to have non-combat info, please don't bother me with it because at that point it's just wasting time to come up with. I'll improvise if it's ever neccesary.
Regarding defending against known quantities. Would you be mad if I gave the NPC armor to defend against the PCs weapon? If so, I agree to your statement. If not, why get upset when the NPC has a defense against the PC's ability/spell/etc?
I've found it easier to ditch what I don't need than to add it. To me, it's easier to pair down 3E stuff than to add to 4E stuff. As before, I like both systems. Just trying to understand why 3E is so hard to deal with.
I'm a veteran player, however, I've only run 4E as a DM for about a year. Never DM'd a prior edition successfully. I'd have to say I learned a lot from the 4E DMG and DMG2 books. However, that advice trancends editions. Recall that you should always say yes, but that doesn't mean just hand over the end of the adventure and resolve from a spell.
You should always challenge the players at their capability. For example, the DM always trumps the players if it goes head to head. What should be interesting and a challenge, is the NPC vs the PC. However that happens, that is the goal. If it's too easy, no fun, if it's too hard, no fun. Somewhere lies the Goldilocks balance and that is what we strive for. 4E, it's easier because it's more balanced by design. Well, easier for combat. For roleplay, that's always a challenge for the DM and players no matter the edition.
This also assumes all the people at the table like the same style of play. Add in a variety of play styles and things get difficult quickly, especially if there's no give by the players to accept other styles of play. This is also edition independent.
Cheers
I was talking about the Divination school not the spell. I assume you knew that and are just being an [redacted], but clarifying just in case.
As for how that spell could be plotbreaking; it's very easy for a new DM to give away critical information because he's not good at coming up with riddles on the fly. I know I'm not.
It would also help to not ask a ridiculously open-ended question like the one in the example, but more something contained like "Did the butler kill the high consul?". Try riddling your way out of that one.
I think 2e, 3e just was not suited to you - move on...
I'm not sure that my players miss the imbalance between casters and non-casters. I'm talking with the players in question, and I will post their thoughts and observations when they have quantified them.
I love when people apply words like "simulation" or "realism" to magical effects with a straight face. It makes me laugh.
hilarious isnt it!!!!