|
|
Post by Deekin on Jun 23, 2008 16:54:52 GMT -5
Just curious, what do you mean by that? Cause I'm running one right now on these boards, and haven't even felt the need to bother about math. Isn't it so that if you just leave the magical classes and items and such out, you're good to go to run a magicless campaign in 3.5? What essential elements as you say does 4th provide for that? I mean that as long as you factor in the magic item boni at set levels, you can throw an approtly leveled monster at the party, and they will still win. A 3rd ed party, at higher levels, without magic items is screwed. A 4th Ed party, on the other hand, can handle it just fine. It only kicks in after about 5th level as a problem in 3e though. Throw a CR 5 monster at a party without magic items, they'll have a hard time beating it. Throw a cr 10 monster at a 10th level 3e party without magic, and you are looking at a TPK. That and rather than having 3 heroic classes without magic, it has 5. |
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 23, 2008 17:25:21 GMT -5
2. Have the Math work at High and low levels. Run a game without magic without effecting the math. While this is true, some might think once you examine the reason why it works that the solution is just as bad as the problem. The reason the math works at high and low level is because everything does up the same rate for everyone and powers improve onlty in effectiveness, not function. What you end up with is characters, regardless of level, are functionally equivilent at different levels and don't change in relation the other characters as levels advance. It seems, at least to me, problematic that every classes advances identically and that those advances only make the numbers bigger and don't actually change the characters functionality. As you level up, your character doesn't improve in any way that is significantly different from any other character. The magic item thing is much more of a nice feature and one I didn't really read in detail so I can only speculate on this potential negative: if magic items don't provide enough to significantly effect a party's chances of winning an encounter, what do they do? |
|
|
|
Post by Deekin on Jun 23, 2008 17:52:05 GMT -5
2. Have the Math work at High and low levels. Run a game without magic without effecting the math. While this is true, some might think once you examine the reason why it works that the solution is just as bad as the problem. The reason the math works at high and low level is because everything does up the same rate for everyone and powers improve onlty in effectiveness, not function. What you end up with is characters, regardless of level, are functionally equivilent at different levels and don't change in relation the other characters as levels advance. It seems, at least to me, problematic that every classes advances identically and that those advances only make the numbers bigger and don't actually change the characters functionality. As you level up, your character doesn't improve in any way that is significantly different from any other character. The magic item thing is much more of a nice feature and one I didn't really read in detail so I can only speculate on this potential negative: if magic items don't provide enough to significantly effect a party's chances of winning an encounter, what do they do? In 4th Edition, only three magic items are important for your attacks and defenses to keep up with the escalating power of the monsters you face. These are your weapon, your armor, and your amulet or cloak (also known as your neck-slot item). Together, they enhance your attack rolls, damage rolls, and all four of your defense scores. The game assumes that the “plus” of each of these three items follows the normal enhancement curve of items in the game: +1 from 1st to 5th level, +2 from 6th to 10th, and on up to +6 from 26th to 30th. So rather than Give out magic items, the DM can Just give a flat bonus out. As for what the other magic items do, it's usually "kewl" stuff. Flaming weapons set people on fire, Boots of strideing let you teleport, but you can only use most of them 1/day/tier. |
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 23, 2008 18:07:20 GMT -5
In 4th Edition, only three magic items are important for your attacks and defenses to keep up with the escalating power of the monsters you face. These are your weapon, your armor, and your amulet or cloak (also known as your neck-slot item). Together, they enhance your attack rolls, damage rolls, and all four of your defense scores. The game assumes that the “plus” of each of these three items follows the normal enhancement curve of items in the game: +1 from 1st to 5th level, +2 from 6th to 10th, and on up to +6 from 26th to 30th. So rather than Give out magic items, the DM can Just give a flat bonus out. As for what the other magic items do, it's usually "kewl" stuff. Flaming weapons set people on fire, Boots of strideing let you teleport, but you can only use most of them 1/day/tier. Well, I knew about the first part. It seems pretty redundant as you already get a level based bonus to those things, making you need to stack two flat bonuses when one would do, but I suppose it wouldn't be D&D without a +X longsword. The second thing I really have to wonder about whether its a good thing. Well, its a good thing that items aren't madatory to play the game, as 3e's wealth to power table was one of its least endearing features, but having magical items being functionally worthless doesn't exactly seem like a good compromise. It'd be nicer to have a curving level of power magic items add that is calculable. Like, a level 18 character with X magic items=a level 19 character with Y Magic items=a level 20 character with 0 Magic items. |
|
|
|
Post by VemuKhaham on Jun 23, 2008 18:50:24 GMT -5
Phew, I'm happy I never worry about the math. Things like CR and wealth per level, they should be taken with a grain of salt. Just give players the items that they are likely to find if they go to some place, and the monsters they are likely to come accross, if they go to dangerous places. If they go to a dragons lair and all they find there is a wyrmling just because they're only low level, that's not good. If the amount of orcs in an orc castle is attuned to the pc's power and not to what the orc chief can afford to keep as garrison, that ain't good either. I don't need CRs and math to tell me what my players are likely to come accross. I don't have to calculate how or if my players can win encounters, that's for them to do. Of course, that means they have to think before hitting someone.
Anyway, as such, I can play a game without magic in 3.5, luckily.
Well, that at least is a point, for me. I hate almost every hero being able to do at least some magic. I almost pity the ones that don't. Why does a ranger need to be able to cast spells? Yes, things like animal messenger and such are great things for a ranger, but they would better simply be left to skills and abilities. It's even quite sad that such a mundane thing is even to be considered sufficient to be a spell. Should there also be a spell for chopping wood, or cutting my toe nails? It makes magic almost seem more mundane than technology, while the very definition of magic is simply the opposite of mundane. In essence, I would be in favor of a system in which magic is simply not available at low level. You can't be a 1st level wizard, only a 10th level one. No cantrips, just magic.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiral on Jun 24, 2008 10:10:50 GMT -5
If I found a 4th ed game near home, that my girlfriend and I could go play in once a week with friends...well then, 4th edition and evil WotC or not .. I should go for it, right?  viva la thac0! |
|
|
|
Post by Japic on Jun 24, 2008 10:21:08 GMT -5
Barbarians Key off the Primal Powersource, and thus are going to be in the PHB II. So yes to Chunker's point. They're repackaging the old for new cost. ...hooray...  A 3rd ed party, at higher levels, without magic items is screwed. A 4th Ed party, on the other hand, can handle it just fine. It only kicks in after about 5th level as a problem in 3e though. Throw a CR 5 monster at a party without magic items, they'll have a hard time beating it. Throw a cr 10 monster at a 10th level 3e party without magic, and you are looking at a TPK. I'm going to have to disagree. A CR 10 monster in 3rd edition is jsut as nerfed in a NO MAGIC world as the PCs are. Point in fact KMan is running a Conan styled game in tabletop. With no magic things are nasty, but not TPK. Monsters and people alike have to play by the same rules. We're not going up against beholders with eye rays, we're going up agains nasty half giant guys on mammoths and that's enough for us. A good DM can make it equal without relying on the system to do it for him (or her). I'm willing to bet that a 4e 10th level party with no magic items is still going to be completely screwed against a magical being like a beholder or a litch or something. Don't tell me that they can handle it without. If so, then it's like Lin says, "if magic items don't provide enough to significantly effect a party's chances of winning an encounter, what do they do?" I just hope that there's a way to get rid of all magic in 4e without destroying their perfect leave-the-tabletop-friends-behind-and-live-behind-a-computer-screen world. The system that doesn't allow you to customize to your individual needs and wants is truly borken. It's about FLAVOR here people, and based on what I'm hearing about 4e they care more about roll-playing than role-playing. I'm still willing to ty it, but my group may be well put off by the time that anyone cares enough to try. Lets just say that we've got an aweesome thing going for us in 3.5e and are not going to be taking a break just yet to get frustrated by 4e. |
|
|
|
Post by spiral on Jun 24, 2008 10:33:14 GMT -5
See, now I just wish I could find a local 3rd ed game again. |
|
|
|
Post by Deekin on Jun 24, 2008 14:09:49 GMT -5
Barbarians Key off the Primal Powersource, and thus are going to be in the PHB II. So yes to Chunker's point. They're repackaging the old for new cost. ...hooray... A 3rd ed party, at higher levels, without magic items is screwed. A 4th Ed party, on the other hand, can handle it just fine. It only kicks in after about 5th level as a problem in 3e though. Throw a CR 5 monster at a party without magic items, they'll have a hard time beating it. Throw a cr 10 monster at a 10th level 3e party without magic, and you are looking at a TPK. I'm going to have to disagree. A CR 10 monster in 3rd edition is jsut as nerfed in a NO MAGIC world as the PCs are. Point in fact KMan is running a Conan styled game in tabletop. With no magic things are nasty, but not TPK. Monsters and people alike have to play by the same rules. We're not going up against beholders with eye rays, we're going up agains nasty half giant guys on mammoths and that's enough for us. A good DM can make it equal without relying on the system to do it for him (or her). I'm willing to bet that a 4e 10th level party with no magic items is still going to be completely screwed against a magical being like a beholder or a litch or something. Don't tell me that they can handle it without. If so, then it's like Lin says, "if magic items don't provide enough to significantly effect a party's chances of winning an encounter, what do they do?" I just hope that there's a way to get rid of all magic in 4e without destroying their perfect leave-the-tabletop-friends-behind-and-live-behind-a-computer-screen world. The system that doesn't allow you to customize to your individual needs and wants is truly borken. It's about FLAVOR here people, and based on what I'm hearing about 4e they care more about roll-playing than role-playing. I'm still willing to ty it, but my group may be well put off by the time that anyone cares enough to try. Lets just say that we've got an aweesome thing going for us in 3.5e and are not going to be taking a break just yet to get frustrated by 4e. I don't know about that. A beholder eye of flame is a level 13 elite artilliry. The thing is, in 4e monsters don't use the same rules as players, and no longer have a laundry list of abilties. A 4e human sample human lich has 2 attack options. Fireing a Shadow Ray, and Frostburn, an Area attack that deals some damage, and makes some difficult terrain. So a party, in 4e. can take on magical monsters, without magic, and win. It'll be hard without the bonuses that magic items give, but it is possible. Hand the bonuses out, and they can do it no problem. As for barbarian not being in the players handbook. The Book is already over half classes. 14 pages minimum per class. They are also being reworked as to not just be fighters that get angry. They channel the forces of nature, and use it to tear things apart. As for what magic items do, they provide options. A flaming +2 sword lets you chose to deal fire damage, and once per day set someone on fire. Gauntlets of Ogre power add a +1 bounus to Atheletics and Strength based ability score checks, and 1/day deal 5 points of extra damage on a melee attack. I would like to point out that those 1/day abilites? They are 1/day for all your magic items. You use your flaming sword to set someone on fire? You don't have enough magical energy left in you to power your Gauntlets of Ogre power. Also, I really hate it when people bring up roll-play vs roleplay. Why can't you do both? NOT TRUE TRUE |
|
anoba
Veteran of the War
Posts: 271
|
Post by anoba on Jun 24, 2008 15:08:15 GMT -5
... So yes to Chunker's point. They're repackaging the old for new cost. ...hooray... ... I have to get this off my chest (please don't take this personally, people seem to have this opinion all over the net). It's ok for WotC to try and make money. They're a company, that's what they're supposed to do! TSR failed to make money and went bankrupt. If WotC doesn't make money, they go bye-bye. I'm not saying one should play 4e to keep D&D alive, I'm just saying one should stop criticizing WotC for trying to make money. I bet a lot of people on this site (like me) would love to somehow make a living off role-playing. That usually means charging $$$ for a product or service. WotC can't force anyone to buy supplements. If the extra material is not worth $21 USD (@amazon.com) to one's self then one shouldn't buy it! It's a simple financial decision on one's own part. |
|
|
|
Post by VemuKhaham on Jun 24, 2008 15:20:42 GMT -5
Good point from Anoba.
I wish I lived in Denver...
As for the roll- and roleplay opposition, I too dislike it, but there's a truth behind it, for as long as there are tables in the core rulebooks with percentages about what treasure, monsters and environments the players are likely to come accross. I hope they ditched them in 4e, but I fear the contrary. Anyway, it would be a good start. I mean, they're large and cover a lot of pages, and that's in the end what you pay for. And they clutter up the useful information.
Another example would be the way that diplomacy is handled in 3.5, in that "neat" little table. I think that in the next game I run, I will prohibite that skill, and make it a houserule that for everyone a player character meets, he gets 1 roll, that will determine his initial impression of the player character, for example if he thinks he is ugly or if it is love at first sight. After that, it's all up to roleplay, not rollplay.
Just to show that there is really an opposition, supported by the 3.5D&D rules. Hopefully, 4e has solved some of that. I would like to know more about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheUdjat on Jun 24, 2008 15:57:26 GMT -5
Vemu, you may want to check out some alternative Diplomacy rules floating around out there. They're there. It's been a problematic skill for me, too, along with Intimidate. I haven't read 4e's version of social interaction, but I doubt it can solve the problems--they're basically not something that can be solved well mechanically.
I still don't get a lot of the hostility 4e gets. Sure, it doesn't have the vast library of stuff that 3.x does, and so it seems less customizable. But frankly, that's an idiotic argument. The fact that 4e is a much cleaner, more standardized system allows far greater potential for customization in my opinion. It's as easy to add and subtract from as legos. Yes, a lot of it's 'repackaged' material from before, but you'll find that very little in rpgs and games in general these days is original. Every idea comes from somewhere, and as most writers have accepted, everything is inspired by work that was done by someone else.
So they couldn't fit every possible thing into the first three books. That'd be ridiculously ambitious. What they've got is just fine.
As for the tables and other mechanical conveniences... take 'em or leave. Not everybody likes to customize or do things the long (but fulfilling) way around. Some just want to get the game going. 4e is a product that attempts to provide a game that provides a complete foundation--a setting, rules, and tools to customize, relelvant to whatever approach a person wants to take. And in that, it succeeds. But people want to complain that WotC isn't holding their hand through every step of adapting the new rules?
Hell, Vemu. You yourself greatly adapted 3.x for Rinascimento. Is 4e any better of a fit? No, not really. It'd still need to be adapted to suit your needs. But it's not worse, I think.
A game is as useful as you make it. I don't think it's really fair to say 4e is bad. It's different, and in being different it lends itself better to certain styles of play (I'm not even sure what those styles are, yet). Use 'em or not, but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that it sucks and has no redeeming qualities, just because it doesn't work like you expected it to.
And it could be that I'll wind up not liking it after I see it in action. Who knows? But 3.x had its vast and fair share of problems, and from what I can see, 4e has taken steps to eliminate those problems. That isn't to say that 3.x isn't a viable system--it is. But 4e will suit some people's needs better.
I'm rambling. But in short, I think a lot of people around here are being extremely hasty in judging 4e, most of them overlooking the core principle: standardization. It gives you a core set of mechanics, which makes modifying those mechanics, changing powers, adding powers, creating monsters, etc. so much easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by VemuKhaham on Jun 24, 2008 17:10:32 GMT -5
I'm not saying 4e is worse, as some do. First of all, because I don't know nothing about it. I'm just sceptical, because I don't want to spend money for my roleplaying, everytime a new edition hits the shelves. Of course, I'm clearly approaching this issue from my own needs, like you say, and if 4e is as ill-suited to them as 3.5, as you also say, then I don't need it. However, I am therefore asking about things that 4e may may provide that do suit my needs. Such as diplomacy rules, better flavor/rules for magic, etc. However, I would be the first to recognize that that may be an improvement. Creating your own monsters in 3.5, I tried it but once or twice, was so bad I'll not quickly do it again. But then, I have always disliked the Monster Manual. The players know it cover to cover, and sometimes you just want your own flavor and surprise them. Also, adding and removing your own abilities/powers sounds like something I may even be able to use for something like Rinascimento. Well, who knows, I just might give it a try.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deekin on Jun 24, 2008 17:18:45 GMT -5
Good point from Anoba. I wish I lived in Denver... As for the roll- and roleplay opposition, I too dislike it, but there's a truth behind it, for as long as there are tables in the core rulebooks with percentages about what treasure, monsters and environments the players are likely to come accross. I hope they ditched them in 4e, but I fear the contrary. Anyway, it would be a good start. I mean, they're large and cover a lot of pages, and that's in the end what you pay for. And they clutter up the useful information. Another example would be the way that diplomacy is handled in 3.5, in that "neat" little table. I think that in the next game I run, I will prohibite that skill, and make it a houserule that for everyone a player character meets, he gets 1 roll, that will determine his initial impression of the player character, for example if he thinks he is ugly or if it is love at first sight. After that, it's all up to roleplay, not rollplay. Just to show that there is really an opposition, supported by the 3.5D&D rules. Hopefully, 4e has solved some of that. I would like to know more about that. I love how 4e handles diplomancy Diplomacy (Charisma)
You can influence others with your tact, subtlety, and social grace. Make a Diplomacy check to change opinions, to inspire good will, to haggle with a patron, to demonstrate proper etiquette and decorum, or to negotiate a deal in good faith.
A Diplomacy check is made against a DC set by the DM. The target’s general attitude toward you (friendly or unfriendly, peaceful or hostile) and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC. Diplomacy is usually used in a skill challenge that requires a number of successes, but the DM might call for a Diplomacy check in other situations. As for treasure charts in the DMG, they take up all of 6 pages, for 30 levels worth of treasure. With no random tables. DMs are supposed to customize the treasure for players. |
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 24, 2008 19:57:21 GMT -5
I love how 4e handles diplomancy To be cynical for a second, I don't need a book to tell me to make some stuff up. The reason I buy the book is to tell me how to handle situations so that I don't have to just make stuff up. "Just make it up" isn't good design, its a lack of design. This does neatly do back to my previous point. If you want an answer more robust then "just make it up", 4e isn't good for you, because 4e is designed solely as a tactical skirmish wargame. There have been plenty of these over the years that you could have been playing if that was what you wanted and you could have "just made up" the rest. Further, if you didn't want a tactical skirmish wargame, D&D has as much value as freeform roleplaying. Except freeform roleplaying is free. The main question is whether or not D&D will turn out to be a good tactical skirmish wargame. Its definitely better then Mordheim! |
|
|
|
Post by Deekin on Jun 24, 2008 22:32:48 GMT -5
I love how 4e handles diplomancy To be cynical for a second, I don't need a book to tell me to make some stuff up. The reason I buy the book is to tell me how to handle situations so that I don't have to just make stuff up. "Just make it up" isn't good design, its a lack of design. This does neatly do back to my previous point. If you want an answer more robust then "just make it up", 4e isn't good for you, because 4e is designed solely as a tactical skirmish wargame. There have been plenty of these over the years that you could have been playing if that was what you wanted and you could have "just made up" the rest. Further, if you didn't want a tactical skirmish wargame, D&D has as much value as freeform roleplaying. Except freeform roleplaying is free. The main question is whether or not D&D will turn out to be a good tactical skirmish wargame. Its definitely better then Mordheim! Except that it points out that diplomacy is usually used in a skill challenge, which is covered in the DMG. Get X successes before Y failures, with the DC set by the level of the challenge. It is clear how you use it, it's just not covered in the skill. It's not a new mechanic, but it is one that works well. |
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 24, 2008 23:23:53 GMT -5
Well, from what you posted it says the following:
1) Check vs. DC set by DM
2) Subject to conditional modifiers (none are given)
That's basically making it up.
I understand that skills will be used in skill challenges, but that's a generic statement that can apply to any skill and doesn't cut to the heart of the matter as to how the diplomacy skill works specifically. If the answer is "It can be used in skill challenges", then how do we differentiate different skills? It sounds like we are back in the realm of total DM discretion.
Otherwise known as "make it up yourself."
|
|
anoba
Veteran of the War
Posts: 271
|
Post by anoba on Jun 26, 2008 16:53:59 GMT -5
Lin, let me start by saying that it sounds like you have far more gaming experience than me. And your post a while ago on the philosophy of RP is way over my head. But please elaborate on your whole "making it up" argument. Surely you're not saying that a set of die rolls should allow the DM to know exactly what to say/do in all social situations? Surely your not expecting some kind mega reference with die roll charts for acceptable responses to every possible social situation!?
Perhaps if you gave some examples of how other games handle diplomacy well. Or brainstorm a solution yourself? It doesn't have to be a perfect example, I won't critique it [nobody else critique the example either, that would be a digression], I just want to get a general feel of what you're looking for. I've only played D&D (1st,3.5e) and am trying to get into a CoC game here so the breadth of my game experience is very limited.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 26, 2008 17:39:58 GMT -5
Lin, let me start by saying that it sounds like you have far more gaming experience than me. And your post a while ago on the philosophy of RP is way over my head. But please elaborate on your whole "making it up" argument. Surely you're not saying that a set of die rolls should allow the DM to know exactly what to say/do in all social situations? Surely your not expecting some kind mega reference with die roll charts for acceptable responses to every possible social situation!? Well, a skill is a mechanic in the game. In third edition, the diplomacy skill has an explanation of what that number means. It tells you what a diplomacy roll does explictly. Other games don't have strict tables, but instead provide you benchmarks as to what different levels of a skill mean, by giving common knowledge examples of people who possess that level of the skill or a list of actions that someone with a certain skill level could do. Fourth Edition gives you no indication as to what the skill means. Indeed, with the sliding scale of challenges whereby the DC of tasks increase based on your level, it is extremely difficult to extract what a skill modifier means and is capable of. It only has meaning in relationship to what the DM thinks it means as how it works and is reflected in the campaign is completely under the DM's purview. You can't use it to describe what your character can do or how he would be perceived by his peers, because there's no mechanic or benchmark to go by. I think of 3rd edition's diplomacy mechanic as a failure, not because its rigid, but because its unclear (in that the attitudes chart is unclear) and doesn't seem to represent what "diplomacy" entails. I think a benchmark system is the best way to handle skills, because you can really understand what they mean that way. |
|
|
|
Post by Fangor the Fierce on Jun 26, 2008 17:44:34 GMT -5
The main question is whether or not D&D will turn out to be a good tactical skirmish wargame. Its definitely better then Mordheim! No, seriously, I do like Mordheim and have not been able to play anymore since my friend moved to Florida, and the other got hooked on WoW. Needless to say, that didn't stop me. I taught my son, now he's pretty damned good. Then his two friends came over, saw it, and they play as well now. Then I got back into the hobby of crafting buildings, dioramas, and conversions on models. I have a whole slew of partially finished buildings, monsters, people, and dioramas. Then they got busy with school, and now I am missing my Mordheim again... There needs to be a way to play it online via PbP... SORRY for hijacking this thread, now back to the discussion. Yes, I agree that the main purpose of purchasing a module, for me, was so that I didn't have to rack my brains with options, scenes, dialogue, etc. Now, with the comment of make stuff up according to the success/fail rate, that takes the whole concept of purchasing the info null and void. If I wanted to think, I would write the stuff out and sell it... |
|
