Okay, I'm going to kick the hornet's nest on this one...
I've been playing 4th Ed. and am using a Wizard (mage-variation), but with 5th Ed. on the horizon and people online compairing 5th ed. to 2 thru 3.5 Ed.s, I've gotten some of the 3.0 and 3.5 Ed. books to learn how the Wizard class was played then (I already owned 2nd Ed. books, but played it rarely and never played 3.0 or 3.5).
Besides the use of powers in 4th, the wizard feels like a much different class in the 3s, what with what seems like a lower number of combat spells and the concentration mechanic (which I honestly don't like very much), but they seem to be able to use more spells per day than a 4th Ed. Wizard.
So, if you wanted to play a wizard and were given a choice of edition to play him in, which edition would you choose, and why?
Also, how does the 5th Ed. Wizard play in compairison (for those who've had a chance to playtest)?
You're trying to compare something in a vacuum that cannot be so easily analysed as a single strand of info. Earlier edition wizards, at higher levels, are dieties, while their melee buddies are good enough to carry the loot and gear. I think 4e mechanics were developed as a result of that.
baldhermit wrote:
Directed at me? 'Cause I loathe the wizard in all version.
I'd play 3.5.
the 3.5 wizards gets fun toys, and not all the classes do. Thats a big problem of the edition. The solution was not to take away everyone's fun toys. The solution is to give fun toys to everyone. 2nd ed is annoying to play in any aspect, and I basically refuse to do so. So that gets thrown right out.
Krusk wrote:
The more I read on 3.0 Ed. wizards, the less playable they seem. Components, concentration rolls, spell level affecting difficulty, no re-usable spells (onless you 'prepare' the same spell multiple times per day). It feels like they did everything they possibly could to make sure that spells had a high chance of failing to take effect. If that's so, then melee classes seem to be the only playable ones of that Ed. if you want a chance to actually hit monsters in battle. I haven't read 3.5 Ed. yet (still reading the chapters on spells in the 3.0 PHB). but if it's the same and 5th Ed. plays the same, then it sounds like 4th Ed. spellcasters are the only really effective ones. 
I base a lot of this on the fact that my luck when it comes to die rolls is nightmarish. My Lvl. 7 Mage in 4th Ed. has the maximum accuracy I can possibly squeeze out of him. 3.0 Ed. seems to make sure that accuracy increases are far, tiny in size, and few.
If 5th Ed. plays like the 3s, then I don't think I'll want to bother playing it as spellcasters seem to be treated rather unfairly.
Sorry if that sounds pissy, but 3.0 spellcasters seem to be designed to have their spells fail as often as possible, from what I've read so far.
samcifer wrote:
Centauri wrote:
samcifer wrote:
samcifer wrote:
Well, if all that is the case, I think I'd be willing to give 3s wizards a try. I currently have the PHB1 and DMG1 for both 3.0 and 3.5, as well as Unearthed Arcana, Complete Arcane and Complete Mage (I'm also trying to snag a copy of Spell Compendium for my collection. Are there any other books I should look for for Wizard spells? Is there some online resource I could use for selecting spells?
samcifer wrote:
[quote="Centauri"]
samcifer wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Like I said, you're overthinking it. But do whatever you enjoy doing, and make sure you talk to your DM so that the spells you like don't get turned into being "okay" during actual play.
Centauri wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Personally, I hate most of the Essentials builds in 4th Ed. I don't like the idea of giving up a type of powers (usually Encounter powers) for a fixed upgrade. Mage is the only Essential build I've found that I like and use it for my Wizard.
Plus, the Hunter Ranger really gets screwed over badly in upgrades, plus it has an essentially 'dead' level at 19 where you get... abosulutely nothing!
samcifer wrote:
Centauri wrote:
On all of the other levels, you get some minor improvement, such as a skill boost, a lesser ability or an upgrade to a class feature or power. Every Essentials character gets this on every level except Hunters at Lv. 19.
samcifer wrote:
I remember my 4e fighters being really capable in combat, but I also remember wishing I could do anything but combat. Thats my big complaint. Its also why I pointed out getting items that give fun stuff in 3.X instead of 4e where all/most items give stat bonuses and/or combat boosts.
I have not played since essentials was released, so it may have changed since then?
I will say that sans items, and sans prestige classes/paragon paths the 4e fighter is probably a better choice for a new player, or someone who doesn't feel like optimizing. Thats also probably a better designed class, and better design point to look for. BUT If you get to prestige class, or take items in 3.5 you can basically play a fighter for a few levels and then take a cool class. Which wins out over the 4e fighter and any paragon path/ED combo (aka never taking a cool class).
A cool fighter would be able to do things like gather and lead armies, wrestle dragons without his weapon, climb impossible cliffs, swim across oceans, actually here is a list of some american and european folk heroes who have feats the fighter should be able to emulate. (Ill ignore japan because people get up in arms over anime)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur Or any of his buddies
And that should be what we emulate for the halfway point of people's careers. The top end should look like
Krusk wrote:
Centauri wrote:
samcifer wrote:
My unoptimized wizard in a particular game frequently outshines everyone else. But that's because everyone else sucks. Bad. Plus it's a pre-MM3 module.
samcifer wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Lol skill challenges...
I've personally read like 6-7 competing official versions and none of them worked. I also haven't read what essentials does with them, because by that point my group had decided that there was no chance future versions would be good.
BUT SURE, skill challenges. What skills are used in a skill challenge to recruit an army or wrestle a dragon. (is wrestling not covered under the relatively minor grab rules?)
Please remember the fighter has the following skills: Atheletics, Endurance, Heal, Intimidate, and Streetwise. None of those skills has any rules for getting an army.
He also gets 3 of them. Intimidate and Streetwise are not stat favorable for him (cha is his dump stat) and skill challenges penalize the group if you fail your check. So if he attempts and fails, he makes it worse. Meaning he probably took atheletics, endurnace and heal.
In practice skill challenges should consist of finding out what skills apply, finding out who has the best modifier, and letting him roll until he gets enough passes while everyone else sits in a corner, maybe aide another. This sucks and is boring.
-----------
Krusks Houserule to help fix 4e.
Skill challenges should be used as a time based measurement. You need X successes as a group. As soon as you get them you pass, and failure on a check doesn't matter. The more rounds it takes the longer it takes for you to be successful (Each round could be a round, minute, day, month or year even).
Thats not how the rules work, but the.... I now have no productive comments to make about that design team.
I noticed you said other editions don't have rules for this. You are wrong, and here are some reasons.
In 2nd edition fighters get a class feature called followers. When they hit 9th level they just automatically get a bunch of dudes to pal around with them. There are charts and everything for how many, what level, and what classes they are.
3.X - 3 main ways I can think of from the PHB
- a fighter can take the leadership feat if he wants. (hard to get a cha 13 fighter, but not impossible if you roll stats and are into army building. I can see dumping int or wis instead)
- He can also get some buffs to his diplomacy score and attempt to make rolls that he will probably fail at. I mean, it sucks he won't be good at it without leadership, but he can still attempt it without screwing the party or making everyone/everything hate him. There is even a chart in the PHB about how well you need to do to get people to love you.
- The fighter can also jjust pay dudes to follow him and prices are in the PHB. This is probably the best/most realistic method for a 3.X fighter.
Older editions also have rules for followers, but I don't have the book on hand.
***EDIT - Jesus... my point was that no edition of fighters get cool things and its crappy in every edition. Not that 4e took them away. Then you managed to pick examples of something cool 4e did take away.
Krusk wrote:
Leadership is not army building. It's also impractical for the player and DM and 4th Edition rightfully did away with it.
Diplomacy, as you point out, isn't going to get him anywhere, and the rules for it don't cover "army building" anyway. I don't see what you're saying about making rolls that screw the party or make everyone hate him. It seems like you have a lot invested in not failing. That's a shame, but it's understandable.
"Paying dudes to follow him around" works (or rather, doesn't) in any edition. It's also not army building.
None of the ideas for skill challenges "compete." Any of them can and do work.
You've read them, but you don't seem to have even a basic understanding of them. Any skill can potentially apply to any skill challenge, and if the players can simply put their best skill forward then there's not enough going on in the scene to challenge them.
Failing a skill challenge is also not a "penalty," inherently, so there's no reason not to attempt checks, especially if the first stringers are otherwise occupied.
A skill challenge doesn't need to involve every character. A fighter recruiting an army, climbing a cliff, swimming a sea, or wrestling a dragon might be doing any of those by himself.
So, yeah: skill challenges. The point being that the 4th Edition fighter who wants to do something mythologically heroic can be given a skill challenge to accomplish it. He might fail it horribly, but since skill challenges simply take the story in a new direction, that's not really a failure you have to worry about. Past editions could have used and can still use skill challenges, but at least 4th gave them some actual thought, even if most people feel they don't work.
Fear of failure and of being sidelined seems to drive your optimization and everyone else's. You can't assume the DM won't waste your time if you fail, and historically they will, so you route around that. It's understandable, but it's really quite unfortunate. If I did fly out to DM you, you wouldn't have to worry about failure. It might still occur, but you'd by on-board with it, because you would have set stakes you were willing to lose. Which doesn't mean your character is having a good time, but you still would be.
iserith wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Leadership was directed at centauri.
Look, you ignored my math above, but Ill try again.
You need to pass 4 before failing 3. you have a 50-50 shot of passing or failing. Which one happens first? Now lets scale that to a complexity 5 one. You need 12 passes before 3 fails. You have a 50-50 shot. Go flip some coins and tell me how many times you can get 4 heads before 3 tails. Now lets do it for 12 heads and 3 tails. (Note that for 12, its actually not a 50-50 shot for 8 of the attempts, its more roll a d4 and count how many 4's you get. Depending on the level, you may not even be alllowed to roll)
This discourages people who don't have a great chance of passing from trying.
I understand that you and probably centauri are pretty solid story tellers who have a lot of mutual trust with their players. The rules shouldn't be written for you. You will run a decently solid game with whatever you are given. The rules should be written for the 15 year old kid who just bought a box and is excited to play, the 45 year old guy getting back into it with his kids, the guy who saw an ad at a con and always wanted to give it a try, and the beer and pretzles crowd who haven't really analyzed them very well and just wants to get into it. Bad rules penalize these players. They lead to the DM accidentally tanking their game because "I was trying to follow the rules". You are arguing that bad rules are better than good rules. You are by definition wrong.
And no, that "The DM should just make passing or failing both fun" bit doesn't magically make the mechanic work. Thats a patch to say "Crap people found out these suck, and are mad that they keep failing. Lets just tell them to be a good DM". Any good DM is going to make failure interesting, you don't need to point it out constantly over every section of the rules that sort of sucks. You put that in the DMing advice section as some sort of "And if your players fail at something, instead of mocking them and gloating, try turning that into a complication or redirecting it into a different encounter so they can try again. Telling people to just "Don't be a bad DM" doesn't negate the fact that they wrote bad mechanics that lead to failure and discourage participation. People are bad DMs. Through inexperience, or through simply messing up once in a while (and thus not being a great DM every portion of every session). We shouldn't have rules that make it easier to mess up.
Krusk wrote:
It may be worth noting in relation to 4e fighters, that it's a TEAM GAME. The fighter may not have many skills applicable to building an army - although I'd dispute that - but the TEAM does. The Fighter shouldn't be building his own personal army unless the whole team are each getting their own similar resources.
Right, and good point. The individualist mindset speaks much more to previous editions of the game. So add to my bulletpoints above about "conveniently ignoring" the four other people in the party and the skills they bring to the table.
I get that its failing forward. Failing forward in games is "You always eventually succeed" and thats annoying. Its the "participation trophy" of playing a game. "You couldn't succeed, and so ill let you succeed in a different way". It makes any actually successes you have meaningless, because you'd have gotten them anyway. All your cool stuff you did? Turns out you could have just written a novel on your own and decided what worked or didn't.
And here is the real kicker. Only average or OK DMs can manage to do it. Most DMs? They hit "You failed" and go "Crap.... uhhh... umm... " and throw out some lame/bad scenario because they were forced to improvise. The average DMs can at least roll with it and say "You failed, so now this happens and thats a less good succees". The good DMs can make it so its "You fail, but thats OK and interesting too". You are trying to put rules in that encourages OK at best DMing, and really hurts the lousy DMs. Put in rules that encourage good DMing.
The players try to gather an army. Throw out a skill challenge. They succeed and get an army. They fail and dont. The don't option shouldn't be "You can still get an army, but it takes longer and they want more money". Maybe thats a degree of failure we want, but you options shouldn't be A+ or Gold Star.
Right. A Team game. So if the fighter can't contribute to any encounters you have (raising an army, fighting dudes, talking to the king) and is encouraged to just play his DS your game has failed. I don't think mechanics that encourage some or any of the group to go play gameboy are a good thing.
Regardless of what you may think about failing forward, that's the basis for the skill challenges RAW and thus why it's utterly pointless for you or the people you know to let their fear of failure cause them not to engage with game content in the form of skill challenges. The rules work. The math works. Failing forward works (and all the cool games are doing it). Players shouldn't let their failure mitigation rule them. I can think of few things worse than that mindset at the table.
As well, you present the failure of a skill challenge as rather binary. That's not terribly interesting. Skill challenges are about playing for the stakes everyone can agree to and for which failure moves the adventure forward. To that end, you could most definitely agree with the players that failing the skill challenge does not result in gathering an army as long as there was something more to it. Otherwise it's just a binary dead end. Skill challenges are specifically designed to obviate such dead ends. "Takes longer" can really matter as can "costs more money." We would need context attached to that. Perhaps Lord Darkevil now occupies the capital because you couldn't rally defenders in time and that presents future interesting complications to deal with. A lot of this comes down to goal and intent and structuring the stakes around those in a collaborative fashion.
You may have a point somewhere in your rant about DMs, but your blind and seemingly uninformed hatred for a functional and simple mechanic may be getting in the way.
Krusk wrote:
This is how I viewed Skill challenges until I learned better: Players and DMs roll skill checks instead of actually roleplaying. For me, I just couldn't see why I needed rules, and more importantly rolls, for playing out a scene. Skill Challenges, it seemed, were rules getting in the way of role playing. Sadly, the 4e DMG rule set for skill challenges was not clear at all. In short I had no clue what a skill challenge was, how to run one or what it was used for.
Later, I learned, I had it all wrong. Skill Challenges are tools to help foster role play by using the various skills to encourage players to get into the action. The fighter is an athletic guy with no diplomacy, yet he needs to help the party get by the guards? No problem, because via the skill challenge system he can use his athletics to try just that, get by the guards. The result (be it success or fail) is a spearhead for role play as it guides one through possible course(s) of action. Also, his meager +3 in diplomacy can help too, so the fighter isn't sitting out the whole scene (should his athletics contribution be already played). The important thing about about skill challenges is that they require an open mind for both player and DM alike, and all at the table has to use their *gasp* imaginations to really make them work well.
I have to thank Iserith for showing me the light on Skill Challenges via reading his examples he has presented to various posters in multiple threads.
That said, D&D Next will most likely not have skill challenges. It is general consensus that they are not used, not neccessary or are too confusing. So far, none of the play test packets have included them. Of course, it would be easy to adopt them in, or they may be included as a module, but it seems that the concept of skill challenges has largely failed to grab traction with the gaming public.
Yep, you nailed it. And thanks for the kind words. It's a shame to hear Next may not have them. I just Tweeted at Wizards to ask.
I suspect some confusion with skill challenges comes down to scene framing difficulty. Lots of DMs struggle with this in my experience so they look at skill challenges and fail to see how to even get them started or what to do round over round. The mechanic is meant to create a clear pacing framework to replace what we've been doing for years already - taking actions and rolling dice until the DM is satisfied the characters achieved (or failed) at their goal. Rather than be based on the DM's bias (which can totally be gamed), it's replaced with clear mechanics (# successes before 3 failures plus DCs by level) that can't be gamed.
iserith wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Krusk wrote:
iserith wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Totally cool to dislike something. Totally not cool to dislike something based on bad information or erroneous conclusions and then spread said information and conclusions. For my part, I played D&D 3.Xe for 8 years, but damned if I can be arsed to remember all the rules, which is why I won't go into a thread about those rules and offer help. Or offer opinions on 3.Xe based on any rules I definitely don't remember well.
untrained - I just honeslty had not noticed 4e (in general, regardless of skill challenges) doesn't have trained only uses of skills and I was commenting that I liked that.
I'm not sure I do. My snark-free assessment of your position is thus:
- Minimal investment in a skill should guarantee success.
- If you don't have at least a 90% chance of success, don't try.
- Failing a skill challenge shouldn't result in getting what you want with a cost - it should mean you don't get what you want.
Is that accurate?
Krusk wrote:
By the way, since 3.x dudes usually love their simulation games: ever been to boot camp? Don't tell me intimidation does not make for a loyal army, that is just plain BS.
Don't quote machiavelli as good advice to follow. Its satire consisting of the worst advice he could think of. That a lot of people missed the joke is not his fault.
Fair enough point on intimidate to get an army. Maybe you do that. This is why I said key words in my arguement like probably , and " It might, it might not, that would depend on the circumstance."
I've never been to boot camp. Most people I know who have are not intimidated into being loyal. They are intimidated often, and they are loyal. The intimidation is to break them down, so as to force them to build themselves up and forge bonds with their fellow intimidatee's. Thus becoming a band of brothers who have gone through hardship together. This forges the loyalty, the intimidation does not, and can actually turn a group of newly forged and bonded mean against the drill sargent, as shown when everyone hates the drill sargent. You occasionally hear of sargents who drop the intimidation routine and goes out of his way to help the group. Those men forge bonds of loyalty with the group over the few non-intimidation methods they use.
Also I hate simulation in games, so thats not really a strong stance to take with me.
Krusk wrote:
Someone wants to use intimdation to build an army, I'm going to open with "Why intimidation? I think there are probably better skills for it, have you looked at diplomacy" and if the answer is "Well, I want to do intimidation because I'd like to intimidate the leader of a group of mercenaries into following me so by proxy I get his army" the response is "Oh that makes sense then, lets go ahead".
If the answer is "Well i didn't put ranks in diplomacy, but think intimidate should work good enough" my response will probably be more in line with "Ok, but no one appreciates it and they aren't super loyal. Remember, intimidate generally carries a 'and then they hate you' rider on it". You know, like the rules say it does. I generally try to follow the rules, unless someone presents a good argument why we shouldn't. Thats generally how games are played.
The dice decide if something works, not your estimation of how troops are forged into a "band of brothers."
Krusk wrote:
Krusk wrote:
It's clear that DMs can and should allow skill uses, as long as the use of the skill makes sense. The point of contention (and I wish this had its own thread, perhaps I'll make one) is what bar the DM should set for the skill to make sense. Some DMs have a high bar, some have a low bar. I've had a high bar myself, but having it didn't give me as much control as I wanted (or thought I wanted), and what control I had came at too high a price anyway. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, so now I have a low bar, and I help the players get over it. They still have to roll, but I don't sweat it if they want to find a way to roll their highest skill, and I help them find that way.
At the same time, though, I encourage the players to roll other skills. I set up the fiction in a way that would appear to encourage certain skills from certain characters, and I make sure that failure is interesting.
All of the above tends to give me a good mix of players feeling cool because they're using the skills they invested in, and looking cool because they took some risks that got them into interesting trouble.
Not even the spirit of the lake? Or the fishermen floating on top of it?
Krusk wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Krusk wrote:
1. "Dumb" is very subjective. The person who came up with the idea (assuming it wasn't malicious) probably didn't think it was dumb. And there's no need to "shut them down" even if the idea is "dumb." If the idea causes an issue, the answer isn't to block it, but to figure out the issue.
Krusk wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Something tells me Krusk isn't actually interested in having a discussion about these topics. He's just being combative. Off you go, Krusk - much respect lost for you here in this thread. Be like all the rest and keep on blocking, man. Demonstrate your control.
Centauri wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Krusk wrote:
Krusk do you lay down on the floor when you read the replys in this thread so its easier for the posters to talk down to you?
Centauri. I've seen/heard iserth use them in play (via some podcast he posted a bit ago. IIRC It was him). IF you could do a short youtube video of you using them I think it would help highlight any differences I am seeing. From every written description of how to do them I have seen, the 4e design teams youtube videos, and multiple in person DMs I have played under, I run them the same way. Ill believe that you've got some different twist to it that we are having a hard time getting down on (electroinc) paper.
What if you didn't ask for the clarification, and just went with it?
warghoul wrote:
samcifer wrote: