PDA

View Full Version : Important Points from 4.0



Taojeff
01-03-2008, 11:48 AM
Important points from 4.0

I do not know how many of you have been following 4.0, which will be coming out this May. But alot has changed, in fact the word alot does not really do it justice. The main points I will summarize here:

1. 4.0 is kind of what they wanted 3.0 to be, but they were afraid it was going to be to drastic of a change.
2. 3.0 & 3.5 suffered from both an imbalance between classes and their effectiveness, but also an imbalance between levels. Basically there was a sweet spot from 7-14 where the math just worked. 4.0 has made some changes to try and stretch this sweet spot to the entire level range.
3. The parties effectiveness hindered to much around the spells casters had at higher level. Many spells could make or break and adventure. 4.0 has removed many spells, and done away with the d6 spell staples. Casters are also still effective now after they run out of spells, and have abilities that they can still do. Many overpowered spells were removed.
4. For non-spellcasters many turns were boring as there was just not interesting options. In 4.0 EVERY class has per day and per encounter abilities. Every class, even melee draws on some form of power at higher levels (power is the term for a source (much like magic or psionics (both are sources).
5. Every level holds meaningful choices to make (more feats etc). No more waiting for the next two levels to get a feat etc.
6. Every class has some form of healing.
7. Many classes have changed and been rebalanced. Druids are now all about the wildshape ability. barbarians have totemic powers, warlords are a new class (much like a marshal), palidans have many different abilities (diff smites for example).

Basically all classes are viable at all levels. Every level has a meaningful choice. You have something interesting to do all the time with classes/races.

Now how this relates to DDO.

1. All classes are certainly not viable, especially melee and rogues at higher level.
2. Many classes do not have meaningful options compared to other classes at higher level.
3. There is a HUGE imbalance between the DPS of classes, which is important because killing stuff is the primary focus of 90% of the game.

I hope DDO can learn something from 4.0, but if not all is not lost. I am fairly certain that there is a 4.0 MMO on the horizon.

Ridag
01-03-2008, 11:57 AM
Can you post a link to this wealth of information about 4.0? I'd be interested in reading it for myself as I have found your interpretation of information to be a bit ... skewed in previous posts.

No offense, just having 3 high level melee and 1 high level arcane I just don't see the "power gap" that you have been constantly trol... er complaining about. Which leads me to believe there may be a flaw in either your builds, your play style, or you are singling out certain quests that are repeatedly farmed efficiently by casters. In all actuality there is not so much imbalance in classes as there is poor design choices in certain quests.

Aspenor
01-03-2008, 12:11 PM
Can you post a link to this wealth of information about 4.0? I'd be interested in reading it for myself as I have found your interpretation of information to be a bit ... skewed in previous posts.

No offense, just having 3 high level melee and 1 high level arcane I just don't see the "power gap" that you have been constantly trol... er complaining about. Which leads me to believe there may be a flaw in either your builds, your play style, or you are singling out certain quests that are repeatedly farmed efficiently by casters. In all actuality there is not so much imbalance in classes as there is poor design choices in certain quests.

OMG QFT X INFINITTYY!!!!!!!!11!one!!eleven!!1

Taojeff
01-03-2008, 12:12 PM
Can you post a link to this wealth of information about 4.0? I'd be interested in reading it for myself as I have found your interpretation of information to be a bit ... skewed in previous posts.

No offense, just having 3 high level melee and 1 high level arcane I just don't see the "power gap" that you have been constantly trol... er complaining about. Which leads me to believe there may be a flaw in either your builds, your play style, or you are singling out certain quests that are repeatedly farmed efficiently by casters. In all actuality there is not so much imbalance in classes as there is poor design choices in certain quests.

Um, ok let me explain it this way to you.

My dwarven fighter gets +2 dwarven axe enhancement for damage.

I also have taken feats weapon spec slashing and improved weapon spec slashing. for +6 to damage total, I can also take power attack, which makes it harder for me to hit, but no bother. +11 (or +15 using two-handed weapons).

I hit for around 45 on regular hits and around 140 on crits. I usually do not get a lot of hits in unless I am using cleave, great cleave, or whirlwind....basically because I can only intimidate some many times. The monsters are usually running around after a guy like my cleric below...

My cleric gets

Cleric Prayer of Smiting Line 9% chance to crit, which stacks with items (the current max is 27%), my cleric has a 18% chance.
Cleric Prayer of Incredible Smiting 2.25 normal damage (or with maximize 4.25 or with both empower and maximize 5.75)
Cleric Smiting (40% more damage then normal) add to superior potency you get 90% more damage.

Now, I might be wrong about some of the numbers, as I just started playing casters recently as melee is real boring now. I do know this, my cleric get regular hits of 100+ on his blade barrier and crits near 600.

Now, maybe it is u, who has been making you classes wrong. Maybe you casters is so poorly made that you do not understand how overpowered casters really are.

Btw, there is a book out in the stores. Races and Classes, I believe the name is, where you can read about 4.0.

Bogenbroom
01-03-2008, 12:24 PM
But you, as a melee, are going to hit 5+ times before that blade barrier hits a second time and you, as a melee, have no limit on the number of times you can swing.

In my mind the only over-powering issue casters have is being able to stack firewalls.

Lorien_the_First_One
01-03-2008, 12:30 PM
If 4.0 is as described I can see people grabbing an idea or two to add to their existing game but I can't see them moving to 4.0 in large numbers.

Khyron
01-03-2008, 12:31 PM
But you, as a melee, are going to hit 5+ times before that blade barrier hits a second time and you, as a melee, have no limit on the number of times you can swing.

In my mind the only over-powering issue casters have is being able to stack firewalls.

Not really. From what I understand they changed the basics of melee combat. The extra attack per 5 bab rule is gone from what I've heard. Never the less it sounds like the new system really favors melee casters are really taking a hit in PnP. Core Caster stuff like "Wish" are gone and casting is really getting nurfed. I don't trust the Dev team they got on 4th edition, they really come across like a bunch of those guys in 1st and 2nd edition who didn't see a problem with psionics.

The_Phenx
01-03-2008, 12:34 PM
Are they really that over powered tho?

Yes a disintegrate will land for 1000 pts of damage. Whats cooldown 5 sec?

BUT... my fighter swings 13 times a round fully boosted for 40-140 per hit. so 520 - 1820 pts.

Seems fairly balanced to me...one has one really big number one has a lot of smaller ones.

Yes there are ways to make a uber dps figther/barb and a uber dps wizzy/sorc both kick some serious #$&. Just like you can make an uber buffing bard or a high ac tank... there are lots of options.

But fighters never run out of swings and they are free :).

So if a Wizzy/Sorc wants to spend everything he has to buy mana pots so he can go nuts why not... as long as I get to loot the chest too.

Lorien_the_First_One
01-03-2008, 12:37 PM
Not really. From what I understand they changed the basics of melee combat. The extra attack per 5 bab rule is gone from what I've heard. Never the less it sounds like the new system really favors melee casters are really taking a hit in PnP. Core Caster stuff like "Wish" are gone and casting is really getting nurfed. I don't trust the Dev team they got on 4th edition, they really come across like a bunch of those guys in 1st and 2nd edition who didn't see a problem with psionics.

If traditional spells like Wish and all the "d6" spells (FB/LB/ect) are gone I think it's an indication they have dumbed it down to the point its not worth buying...

Yaga_Nub
01-03-2008, 12:39 PM
Btw, there is a book out in the stores. Races and Classes, I believe the name is, where you can read about 4.0.

First off, why do you even keep playing DDO since it is the most horribly out of balance game in the world (at by the way you carry on)?

Second, D&D has worked for over 30 years, don't change it any more.

This poster, his cries for "balance" and what Wizards is doing to 4.0 is just another example of America going down the drain. Morepeople worry about about equality than getting the job done.

First they change little league baseball games so that they no longer keep score and now every 4.0 character will have some healing. What is the world coming to!!!????

Lorien_the_First_One
01-03-2008, 12:45 PM
First they change little league baseball games so that they no longer keep score and now every 4.0 character will have some healing. What is the world coming to!!!????


Well as I recall when I read LOTR everyone could self heal....oh wait, that's wrong.

Oh, but Gandolf had unlimited spells...no wait that's wrong.

Um... Ok, well spiderman and superman were always well balanced....no wait...hmm...

Ok, everyone in my office has exactly equivillent abilities so that they can all contribute identically...no that's wrong too...

um... Ya... making everything 100% equal is stupid.

Give everyone a roll, now that make sense, but we don't want just the bard class and nothing else.

Yaga_Nub
01-03-2008, 12:48 PM
...

Give everyone a roll, now that make sense, but we don't want just the bard class and nothing else.

Not even .......... BATTLE BARDS!!!!??? ;)

sultro
01-03-2008, 12:48 PM
yes, there should be a large number of 3.5 players moving to 4.0. the rebalancing will draw some, and the interactive portions will draw a lot more. wizards made it quite clear at gencon that there be an emphasis on making 4.0 notebook friendly. templates for writing and runing adventures, quick links to pull up monster stats during combat, etc.

my guess would be that they feel it will attract the younger players, which is where they make most of their money anyhow. those of us who are old enough to have played first ed ad&d are getting a little tired of shelling out the cash for new books just to keep hasbro's stockholders happy, so expect to see plenty of older edition games still available. in fact, concentric convention company will be rolling out a new 1st ed campaign this fall at its conventions in the midwest.

Yukiko
01-03-2008, 12:49 PM
I would really like a link to your 4th eddition information soucre please

Tanka
01-03-2008, 12:52 PM
I would really like a link to your 4th eddition information soucre please
This (http://dnd4.com/) one ain't too bad.

Some of the information Taojeff put here isn't 100% correct or even confirmed for 4th Ed.

Impaqt
01-03-2008, 12:57 PM
Important points from 4.0

Now how this relates to DDO.



It doesnt.

DDO is based somewhere in between PnP 3.5 rules and whatever the devs can make up and provide.

Ridag
01-03-2008, 12:58 PM
Um, ok let me explain it this way to you.

[/Snip]

Now, maybe it is u, who has been making you classes wrong. Maybe you casters is so poorly made that you do not understand how overpowered casters really are.

Btw, there is a book out in the stores. Races and Classes, I believe the name is, where you can read about 4.0.

While I appreciate your concern for my caster, I assure you he is just fine.

You are posting about 4.0 and you can't remember where the info came from? Come on.

I really believe your melee vs. caster thing is a matter of perspective. There is little to no "power gap" in the actual classes, what you are seeing is the result of known vs. unknown. When every quest is static (for the most part) it allows all members of the party to play with less restriction, burning through resources. When every character is capped in a quest it leads to less concern over death, less worry about recalling out for sp. In this game there is no cure for that. You can add new content, but not at the pace required to prevent farming.

Here is something that would help: If a player recalls out of a quest (not releasing from death) prior to quest completion and re-enters the quest give that player (not the whole party) a -1 to all chest levels for each re-entry.

Encourage players to use their resources more wisely.

Just because a caster can run through PoP (which they have run 100+ times) and kill everything before you can swing at it, does not mean they are over-powered. I hate to use an internet meme but, correlation does not equal causation. You're missing the actual problem. Not seeing the forest for the trees etc.

You could remove wizards and sorcs from the game entirely and there would still be some class, some player zerging through a quest faster then someone else, performing better then someone else. It does not reflect poorly on another class, it does not reflect positively on said class, it is what it is, and it always will be.

Ridag
01-03-2008, 01:00 PM
This (http://dnd4.com/) one ain't too bad.

Some of the information Taojeff put here isn't 100% correct or even confirmed for 4th Ed.

Thank you. And I am not surprised.

Yaga_Nub
01-03-2008, 01:03 PM
This (http://dnd4.com/) one ain't too bad.

Some of the information Taojeff put here isn't 100% correct or even confirmed for 4th Ed.

Wow if this -


Gnomes are being removed as a core class and are confirmed to not be in the 4E players handbook (but are in the Monster Manual). Possible to have a new look, like a variation of brownie or sprite, and be the new hard luck race.

is true I know a few people that will be upset.

Missing_Minds
01-03-2008, 01:10 PM
My dwarven fighter gets +2 dwarven axe enhancement for damage.

*blah blah blah*

Now, maybe it is u, who has been making you classes wrong. Maybe you casters is so poorly made that you do not understand how overpowered casters really are.


let me know when your dwarf gets tired of swinging please. yeah... that is what I thought.

TunrikRylogar
01-03-2008, 01:48 PM
A few people have asked for the sources of this information or claimed it is untrue or inaccurate. Perhaps I can help the O/P and others out. As far as I know, these are the valid sources for the O/Ps information:


Important points from 4.0

1. 4.0 is kind of what they wanted 3.0 to be, but they were afraid it was going to be to drastic of a change.

Of everything here, this is the one thing I cannot confirm or did not hear myself. As it is meaningless and has no bearing on the rules anyway, it hardly matters.

2. 3.0 & 3.5 suffered from both an imbalance between classes and their effectiveness, but also an imbalance between levels. Basically there was a sweet spot from 7-14 where the math just worked. 4.0 has made some changes to try and stretch this sweet spot to the entire level range.

This was mentioned at the GenCon announcement, several videos of which are available at YouTube and on the Wizards.com website. Moreover, in David Noonan's D&D podcast (also available at Wizards.com), this was mentioned in Episode 15: 4th Edition Q/A and touched on briefly in the most recent Episode 17: Tell Me About Your Character.

3. The parties effectiveness hindered to much around the spells casters had at higher level. Many spells could make or break and adventure. 4.0 has removed many spells, and done away with the d6 spell staples. Casters are also still effective now after they run out of spells, and have abilities that they can still do. Many overpowered spells were removed.

I haven't heard about the removal of the d6 staples, but it has been confirmed that Save or Die effects have been removed. The most entertaining explanation/confirmation can be found at the Wizards.com site under Dragon>>Cartoons: The Beholder in which a beholder is interviewed about the upcoming release and mentions the loss of SODs.

4. For non-spellcasters many turns were boring as there was just not interesting options. In 4.0 EVERY class has per day and per encounter abilities. Every class, even melee draws on some form of power at higher levels (power is the term for a source (much like magic or psionics (both are sources).

5. Every level holds meaningful choices to make (more feats etc). No more waiting for the next two levels to get a feat etc.

Both of these have been mentioned as design goals for 4E. A better explanation of these can be heard in David Noonan's podcast Episode 17: Tell Me About Your Character. Power Sources for melee characters are described in several of the Design and Development Articles at the Wizards.com website.

6. Every class has some form of healing.

I cannot confirm this 100%. In the podcast Episode 17, one of the designer/playtesters mentioned that his human fighter did have some self-healing options. It was further mentioned that healing has been streamlined so that a cleric or healing character can heal without having to give up other options. In the past, a cleric who cast a Cure spell expended a spell slot that could have contained another spell. While a full explanation was not given, it was stated that now the cleric does not have to give up other options to be a healer.

7. Many classes have changed and been rebalanced. Druids are now all about the wildshape ability. barbarians have totemic powers, warlords are a new class (much like a marshal), palidans have many different abilities (diff smites for example).

The designers have not yet finalized the class list, but a rough number was given in Noonan's podcast that they are 80% sure about the class list. They have not, as yet, released any official lists and warned people to take any class list with a grain of salt. The design and development articles and the podcast have talked extensively about rebalancing the classes, primarily because spellcasting classes so far outstrip melee classes at high levels in PnP. It is important to note that part: 'in PnP'. The designers admit that fighters, rogues, rangers, and other nonspellcasters tend to end up marginalized by the versatility and power of spellcasters at medium to high levels.

They also noted that the primary limit on spellcasters (number of spells per day) does not really mean anything. Most parties adventure until the spellcasters run out of spells. Then they rest. So a spellcaster in PnP is rarely ever in a situation where they have run out of spells and thus the melee characters don't shine at high levels. This was discussed in Episodes 15 and 17 of the podcast and several times in the design and development articles. One of the goals of 4E, according to the designers, was to end the "Five-Minute Workday" in which parties adventure until the spellcasters blow all their spell slots and then retreat, rest, and start again.



I hope all of this has been informative. I heartily recommend that anyone who is curious goes right to wizards.com and signs up for D&D Insider, which is currently free. You will gain access to all of the design articles, interviews, podcasts, and videos I mentioned and see that almost all of the above information has been mentioned.

Please note, however, that nothing is final. Things are still being tweaked by the designers and many things may still change. Until you have the book in your hand, don't assume anything you hear is cannon.

TunrikRylogar
01-03-2008, 01:48 PM
~EDIT: Same post got sent twice. Don't know how. Cut the second one out.

Trok
01-03-2008, 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by Taojeff
Important points from 4.0

1. 4.0 is kind of what they wanted 3.0 to be, but they were afraid it was going to be to drastic of a change.

Ignoring this one as it has no relevence

2. 3.0 & 3.5 suffered from both an imbalance between classes and their effectiveness, but also an imbalance between levels. Basically there was a sweet spot from 7-14 where the math just worked. 4.0 has made some changes to try and stretch this sweet spot to the entire level range.

This has been pretty much stated right from the start when they announce it at Gencon. The new PHB will cover levels 1-30, and 1st level players will get some sort of bonus hp's (probably much like heroic durability in ddo)

3. The parties effectiveness hindered to much around the spells casters had at higher level. Many spells could make or break and adventure. 4.0 has removed many spells, and done away with the d6 spell staples. Casters are also still effective now after they run out of spells, and have abilities that they can still do. Many overpowered spells were removed.

This isn't the wording that I've seen used. All classes will now have At will, Per Encounter, and Per day abilities. They did state that they modified fireball, and that it was more of a control spell than a damage spell now. They also did remove Wish, and a few others that I don't remember off the top of my head.

4. For non-spellcasters many turns were boring as there was just not interesting options. In 4.0 EVERY class has per day and per encounter abilities. Every class, even melee draws on some form of power at higher levels (power is the term for a source (much like magic or psionics (both are sources).

They did mention that in most combats, that a typical melee char's first choice is just to swing in 3.5.

Magic isn't a term they use as a power source, they do mention Arcane, Divine and Martial power sources (they also mention psionic for forthcoming books, but not in PHB 4.0.
Take a look at the current Tome of Battle for a preview of the kinds of martial powers to expect. They have noted that they tweaked some stuff and put them into other classes, but these are the types of things you can expect.

5. Every level holds meaningful choices to make (more feats etc). No more waiting for the next two levels to get a feat etc.

DDO's current racial enchanment system seems to have been taken into account in 4.0, there are racial feats that scale as well as other feats available, but yes there are supposed to be new things to choose from at each level.

6. Every class has some form of healing.

I can't remember where exactly this was stated, one of the staff blogs I think, but yes, every class has some form of self healing.

7. Many classes have changed and been rebalanced. Druids are now all about the wildshape ability. barbarians have totemic powers, warlords are a new class (much like a marshal), palidans have many different abilities (diff smites for example).

All of the above has been mentioned, always with a grain of salt. They did say that the current path they were on was that druids would focus on wildshapes, and that Barbs were much more ferel (specific playtesting comments about the barb biting someone after his inital attack)


There is plenty of stuff he hasn't mentioned above, but there isn't space to list it all here.

Pretty much everything here can be found on either ENworld.org, or wizards.com, or in the races and classes book they just published.

Tanka
01-03-2008, 10:02 PM
Wow if this -



is true I know a few people that will be upset.
It is quite true, actually. Tieflings, Eladrin and Dragonborn are core, Gnomes and Half-Orcs are not, and Drow are core for FR campaigns.

Lorien_the_First_One
01-03-2008, 10:13 PM
It is quite true, actually. Tieflings, Eladrin and Dragonborn are core, Gnomes and Half-Orcs are not, and Drow are core for FR campaigns.

Removing races that have been core for 30 years....dumb dumb dumb... Fine add more, but why remove some of the oldest. They are so asking for it.

Taojeff
01-03-2008, 10:18 PM
Originally Posted by Taojeff
Important points from 4.0

1. 4.0 is kind of what they wanted 3.0 to be, but they were afraid it was going to be to drastic of a change.

Ignoring this one as it has no relevence.

Sure it does, this was said in interviews and in the Races and Classes books. It is a explanation by the developers that they wanted to do more with 3.0-3.5.

2. 3.0 & 3.5 suffered from both an imbalance between classes and their effectiveness, but also an imbalance between levels. Basically there was a sweet spot from 7-14 where the math just worked. 4.0 has made some changes to try and stretch this sweet spot to the entire level range.

This has been pretty much stated right from the start when they announce it at Gencon. The new PHB will cover levels 1-30, and 1st level players will get some sort of bonus hp's (probably much like heroic durability in ddo)

3. The parties effectiveness hindered to much around the spells casters had at higher level. Many spells could make or break and adventure. 4.0 has removed many spells, and done away with the d6 spell staples. Casters are also still effective now after they run out of spells, and have abilities that they can still do. Many overpowered spells were removed.\

This isn't the wording that I've seen used. All classes will now have At will, Per Encounter, and Per day abilities. They did state that they modified fireball, and that it was more of a control spell than a damage spell now. They also did remove Wish, and a few others that I don't remember off the top of my head.

Several times, in interviews and in the current literature, a parties limit was expressed in terms of its casters spell selection. In fact, some of the wording was very very very close to the above.

4. For non-spellcasters many turns were boring as there was just not interesting options. In 4.0 EVERY class has per day and per encounter abilities. Every class, even melee draws on some form of power at higher levels (power is the term for a source (much like magic or psionics (both are sources).

They did mention that in most combats, that a typical melee char's first choice is just to swing in 3.5.

Magic isn't a term they use as a power source, they do mention Arcane, Divine and Martial power sources (they also mention psionic for forthcoming books, but not in PHB 4.0.

Take a look at the current Tome of Battle for a preview of the kinds of martial powers to expect. They have noted that they tweaked some stuff and put them into other classes, but these are the types of things you can expect.

An example, if I remember right is Great Surge, which gives a plus to hit or damage, and heals the PC

5. Every level holds meaningful choices to make (more feats etc). No more waiting for the next two levels to get a feat etc.

DDO's current racial enchanment system seems to have been taken into account in 4.0, there are racial feats that scale as well as other feats available, but yes there are supposed to be new things to choose from at each level.

The word meaningful was used, as many of us can atest. Many of the enhancements we see are not meaningful. I have the feeling Wizards choices are closer to the word meaningful.

6. Every class has some form of healing.

I can't remember where exactly this was stated, one of the staff blogs I think, but yes, every class has some form of self healing.

Read the section on the clerics roles, it states right in there (Races and Class book), that all classes have some form of healing, alleviating the Clerics need to be the healer.

7. Many classes have changed and been rebalanced. Druids are now all about the wildshape ability. barbarians have totemic powers, warlords are a new class (much like a marshal), palidans have many different abilities (diff smites for example).

All of the above has been mentioned, always with a grain of salt. They did say that the current path they were on was that druids would focus on wildshapes, and that Barbs were much more feral (specific playtesting comments about the barb biting someone after his inital attack)

This stuff is all in the book.

There is plenty of stuff he hasn't mentioned above, but there isn't space to list it all here.

Pretty much everything here can be found on either ENworld.org, or wizards.com, or in the races and classes book they just published.

see red.

But seriously people, if you wanna know. Just go pick up the Races and Classes book. It is all there, you do not need to worry about who said what and where, you can read it for yourself.

Geonis
01-03-2008, 11:37 PM
Um, ok let me explain it this way to you.

My dwarven fighter gets +2 dwarven axe enhancement for damage.

I also have taken feats weapon spec slashing and improved weapon spec slashing. for +6 to damage total, I can also take power attack, which makes it harder for me to hit, but no bother. +11 (or +15 using two-handed weapons).

I hit for around 45 on regular hits and around 140 on crits. I usually do not get a lot of hits in unless I am using cleave, great cleave, or whirlwind....basically because I can only intimidate some many times. The monsters are usually running around after a guy like my cleric below...



Let me know the first time you run out of swings, because casters sure run out of SP.



My cleric gets

Cleric Prayer of Smiting Line 9% chance to crit, which stacks with items (the current max is 27%), my cleric has a 18% chance.

False. The current maximum is 18%, items do not add together, you would get enhancements plus the best relevant item.



Cleric Prayer of Incredible Smiting 2.25 normal damage (or with maximize 4.25 or with both empower and maximize 5.75)


Again, false. You are adding base damage 3 times. Incredible smiting (not even sure if this affects Blade Barrier), would be Base plus 1.25 times base damage, plus 1 times base damage for Maximize, plus .5 times base damage = 1(base damage) + 1.25(Incredible smiting) + 1(Maximize) + .5(Empower) = 3.75

Now, this only happens once in a while, 18% of the time, and costs an extra 40 SP, which we have established are not infinite.




Cleric Smiting (40% more damage then normal) add to superior potency you get 90% more damage.

Still not sure this works, as I have never put any points into it, and consistently hit for 100+ with my Blade Barrier.




Now, I might be wrong about some of the numbers, as I just started playing casters recently as melee is real boring now. I do know this, my cleric get regular hits of 100+ on his blade barrier and crits near 600.

Not possible. Noone can hit for ~6 times base damage, or even 5 times base damage.

GlassCannon
01-03-2008, 11:53 PM
3. There is a HUGE imbalance between the DPS of classes, which is important because killing stuff is the primary focus of somewhere in the area of 90% of the game.

DPS over time yields that tanks are still more durable and powerful than casters, especially in no-rest zones, where a caster type is forced to either play a support role or nuke for a very small portion of noted adventure.

You seem to be ignoring this blaringly obvious fact.

Lorien_the_First_One
01-04-2008, 12:21 AM
see red.

But seriously people, if you wanna know. Just go pick up the Races and Classes book. It is all there, you do not need to worry about who said what and where, you can read it for yourself.

From the sound of it, I'm not looking to give them another dollar....

And even if I were interested, silly to buy one before they are all available since you won't be able to judge if its worth buying the set or not until you have skimmed them all...

Serpent
01-04-2008, 03:02 AM
AS some of you know i agree with the OP on some aspects. I personally think that meta magics should have a level number and combined numbers + spell level can't exceed your level. That is neither here nor there and others will disagree, even though it would not really hurt anyone, jsut take those that spam SP and force them to play more conservative (read smart).

As far as 4.0e is concerned I am still up in the air about it. having played PnP consistently ever week for almost 6 years and having been playing PnP on and off for 17 years I am concerned they are dumbing it down. As for information about 4.0e everyone should try here.

http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e

Great site that maps out a lot. Note there is a lot of information, I suggest reading it a few times before jumping to conclusions. After the third time I read it I found myself looking at things I disliked differently or at least bidding my time on them.

Serpent
01-04-2008, 03:30 AM
DPS over time yields that tanks are still more durable and powerful than casters, especially in no-rest zones, where a caster type is forced to either play a support role or nuke for a very small portion of noted adventure.

You seem to be ignoring this blaringly obvious fact.

Could you please elaborate on what "no-rest" zones exist in the content between levels 11-15, beside the abbot raid?

Xaxx
01-04-2008, 04:34 AM
Ok as for the proposed level adjustment for metafeats blah blah blah
umm.... why???

so you wish your fighter to be able to hit for what 30 to 150 per swing but wish wizy/sorc/cleric to use 30 mana to inflict 30 dmg to what 80 dmg..... woohooo we're back to the days of where magic missle was the best offensive spell a caster had... WOOHOO... yeah i remember those days... those days are less then a year old (see the battle of posts back in mod 3 where people said why take a caster at all, all they needed was 5 tanks a cleric and the only reason for a caster was haste) so casters went from your haste bots to equal kills and now the world must burn for it.... GROW UP GUYS.

I think its time to introduce some sort of non clenseable exhaustion system for the game to. I mean casters only have so much mana, I think its time tanks can only swing so long before they get tired and start to loose str/con/to hit/ac/dex. Its only fair isnt it. Oh yes and lets not forget time to balance weapons to, time to make them every 3 or 4 levs not every 2, this is also needed to balance the base dmg of casters versus the base dmg of mele...... oh what.... you mean you want casters to have low base dmg and only be able to do so much over time but cant exept the same of your lovely meles..... REEEEEEEAAAAAALLLLLLLLLYYYYY NOW.....

Sorry guys its not casters that need nerfed, its mele, its been like this for 2 years but they still havent done it yet.

Oh and as for 4.0 balancing and yada yada yada

hmm...

fighters practice by swinging a wooden stick around... whump hits himself in head.... headache... back at it next day

arcane pratices by study, study, study, and using magic...... muters wrong sylable at wrong time or gets distracted...... BOOOM... where'd the caster go.... oh that smoking hole was the caster..... NEXT CHARACTER......

and you wonder why arcanes are supposed to be more powerful then sword swinging guys.. you know your 3 foot pointy have to get within 5 feet of me sword versus oh i dont know.... raw power of FIRE and LIGHNING and you know the whole BOOM thing should really really be equal..... ROFLMAO.... NOT

Justicesar
01-04-2008, 05:06 AM
So they are trying to make leveling your character special based on race and class.....at a glance it seems like they are ripping out a page from DDO which currently has the same setup.

Serpent
01-04-2008, 05:23 AM
Ok as for the proposed level adjustment for metafeats blah blah blah
umm.... why???

so you wish your fighter to be able to hit for what 30 to 150 per swing but wish wizy/sorc/cleric to use 30 mana to inflict 30 dmg to what 80 dmg..... woohooo we're back to the days of where magic missle was the best offensive spell a caster had... WOOHOO... yeah i remember those days... those days are less then a year old (see the battle of posts back in mod 3 where people said why take a caster at all, all they needed was 5 tanks a cleric and the only reason for a caster was haste) so casters went from your haste bots to equal kills and now the world must burn for it.... GROW UP GUYS.

I think its time to introduce some sort of non clenseable exhaustion system for the game to. I mean casters only have so much mana, I think its time tanks can only swing so long before they get tired and start to loose str/con/to hit/ac/dex. Its only fair isnt it. Oh yes and lets not forget time to balance weapons to, time to make them every 3 or 4 levs not every 2, this is also needed to balance the base dmg of casters versus the base dmg of mele...... oh what.... you mean you want casters to have low base dmg and only be able to do so much over time but cant exept the same of your lovely meles..... REEEEEEEAAAAAALLLLLLLLLYYYYY NOW.....

Sorry guys its not casters that need nerfed, its mele, its been like this for 2 years but they still havent done it yet.

Oh and as for 4.0 balancing and yada yada yada

hmm...

fighters practice by swinging a wooden stick around... whump hits himself in head.... headache... back at it next day

arcane pratices by study, study, study, and using magic...... muters wrong sylable at wrong time or gets distracted...... BOOOM... where'd the caster go.... oh that smoking hole was the caster..... NEXT CHARACTER......

and you wonder why arcanes are supposed to be more powerful then sword swinging guys.. you know your 3 foot pointy have to get within 5 feet of me sword versus oh i dont know.... raw power of FIRE and LIGHNING and you know the whole BOOM thing should really really be equal..... ROFLMAO.... NOT

And civility heads out the window. Do you run around with all your meta magics on all the time? When was the last time you saw a melee solo trial by fire? Would a powerful wizard in PnP be able to do the same thing?

Gornin
01-04-2008, 07:43 AM
I personally do not see an imbalance of classes in DDO. Mostly it is the player who has the time to do all the metagaming to build the best and loot the best that makes it appear that way.

As for 4.0, they are really screwing the game up personally. And if you are a Realms fan, they are truly and completely doing a FUBAR. It seems to me that they are dumbing it down, requiring less team work and role concentric play and catering to the video game crowd. I haven't seen anything that will entice me to move to 4.0.

Yaga_Nub
01-04-2008, 07:47 AM
AS some of you know i agree with the OP on some aspects. I personally think that meta magics should have a level number and combined numbers + spell level can't exceed your level. That is neither here nor there and others will disagree, even though it would not really hurt anyone, jsut take those that spam SP and force them to play more conservative (read smart).

No, I don't read conservative as smart. They mean two different things.

Taojeff
01-04-2008, 07:56 AM
I personally do not see an imbalance of classes in DDO. Mostly it is the player who has the time to do all the metagaming to build the best and loot the best that makes it appear that way.

As for 4.0, they are really screwing the game up personally. And if you are a Realms fan, they are truly and completely doing a FUBAR. It seems to me that they are dumbing it down, requiring less team work and role concentric play and catering to the video game crowd. I haven't seen anything that will entice me to move to 4.0.

I think people will feel different when its out. There were people who did not like 3.0, or 3.5 etc. It will be adopted, I think they are moving in the right direction. Definitely moving towards where the money is...

Yaga_Nub
01-04-2008, 07:58 AM
I think people will feel different when its out. There were people who did not like 3.0, or 3.5 etc. It will be adopted, I think they are moving in the right direction. Definitely moving towards where the money is...

Exactly, the money they can get is from whiny teenagers that can't stand competition and if they aren't instantly UBER L33T they quit playing because they have no backbone to step up and actually TRY to get better.

Taojeff
01-04-2008, 08:17 AM
Exactly, the money they can get is from whiny teenagers that can't stand competition and if they aren't instantly UBER L33T they quit playing because they have no backbone to step up and actually TRY to get better.

It is not dumbed down, from what I have seen it is exactly the opposite. Btw you were a teenager once right? I started playing DDO when I was a kid....and many people do. I plan to get my son into it when he is old enough.

Anyway. Not dumbed down, streamlined...but also more complex. Let me explain.

Durations are gone for spells:
1. Per day and per encounter spells. The cleric throws a buff,....it last the whole encounter. No more timekeeping, always a pain and few DMs really did it.
2. Alot more complexity. More choices every level, more options every round. Tons of more ways to customize. I cannot understand exactly how you think more options and customization is dumbing stuff down.
3. Gone are the over-powered spells and immunities for PC and monsters....So actually less UBER and L33T all around.
4. And monsters get the new stuff too, exactly how are they going to be easy?

I think you need to see it first.

Yaga_Nub
01-04-2008, 08:30 AM
Btw you were a teenager once right?


No.

EinarMal
01-04-2008, 08:33 AM
Exactly, the money they can get is from whiny teenagers that can't stand competition and if they aren't instantly UBER L33T they quit playing because they have no backbone to step up and actually TRY to get better.

Sorry but this reminds me some 100 year old complaining about electricity or something! If you don't like it then quit playing D&D or stick with 3.5 or whatever version you like the best.

To make statements like this without even PLAYING the game even once though make you sound pretty silly.

Taojeff
01-04-2008, 08:40 AM
Sorry but this reminds me some 100 year old complaining about electricity or something! If you don't like it then quit playing D&D or stick with 3.5 or whatever version you like the best.

To make statements like this without even PLAYING the game even once though make you sound pretty silly.

Hehe, yeah

Yaga_Nub
01-04-2008, 09:58 AM
Sorry but this reminds me some 100 year old complaining about electricity or something! If you don't like it then quit playing D&D or stick with 3.5 or whatever version you like the best.

To make statements like this without even PLAYING the game even once though make you sound pretty silly.

I do stick with the version I like the best.

I have actually kept up with what is happening in 4.0 (I haven't read races and classes yet though) and IMHO with the information that I have seen, 4.0 isn't D&D except by name. Now I might change my mind after it has come out and I see the final product. I hope that I'm wrong.

But you didn't get the actual meaning which was that all the cries for balance in both DDO and 4.0 aren't in the spirit of D&D. I hope that Turbine doesn't give in to all of those calling for nerfs in the name of balance or even just changes in the name of balance. Wizards already gave in and that's a shame.

Xaxx
01-04-2008, 10:02 AM
And civility heads out the window. Do you run around with all your meta magics on all the time? When was the last time you saw a melee solo trial by fire? Would a powerful wizard in PnP be able to do the same thing?

a group of trolls would run screaming for the nearest swamp if a high level caster came calling in pnp... you know the whole FIRE thing

EinarMal
01-04-2008, 10:16 AM
But you didn't get the actual meaning which was that all the cries for balance in both DDO and 4.0 aren't in the spirit of D&D. I hope that Turbine doesn't give in to all of those calling for nerfs in the name of balance or even just changes in the name of balance. Wizards already gave in and that's a shame.

I guess I don't agree, a lot of revisons over the years have been to increase the balance of melee vs. caster. They have tried to make melee characters more fun to play by implementing a lot of new feats/prestige classes etc... to make them more interesting.

It really depends on what you mean by balance, I am all for making all classes fun, interesting, and useful in their own way from level 1-20. In 3.5 they did not do that, casters are just more fun (and powerful) at high levels. Just because you make them a little more even and equally interesting to play hardly violates the spirit of D&D in my opinion. To each his own I suppose.

Yaga_Nub
01-04-2008, 10:25 AM
I guess I don't agree, a lot of revisons over the years have been to increase the balance of melee vs. caster. They have tried to make melee characters more fun to play by implementing a lot of new feats/prestige classes etc... to make them more interesting.

It really depends on what you mean by balance, I am all for making all classes fun, interesting, and useful in their own way from level 1-20. In 3.5 they did not do that, casters are just more fun (and powerful) at high levels. Just because you make them a little more even and equally interesting to play hardly violates the spirit of D&D in my opinion. To each his own I suppose.

I completely agree with each class being useful IN THEIR OWN WAY. Giving all classes access to healing, giving all classes access to magic, etc. just makes them less individual IMHO.

I liked the fact that if I wanted to play a Paladin I knew I was giving up the choice to be any alignment other than LG. It's a trade off that I was forced to make. I liked that I could play a 18th level wizard and have great power but was susceptible to ONE hit from a raging barbarian. There are supposed to be trade offs for everything and so far what I have seen of 4.0 is the removal of a lot of those trade offs.

smatt
01-04-2008, 10:28 AM
While I appreciate your concern for my caster, I assure you he is just fine.

You are posting about 4.0 and you can't remember where the info came from? Come on.

I really believe your melee vs. caster thing is a matter of perspective. There is little to no "power gap" in the actual classes, what you are seeing is the result of known vs. unknown. When every quest is static (for the most part) it allows all members of the party to play with less restriction, burning through resources. When every character is capped in a quest it leads to less concern over death, less worry about recalling out for sp. In this game there is no cure for that. You can add new content, but not at the pace required to prevent farming.

Here is something that would help: If a player recalls out of a quest (not releasing from death) prior to quest completion and re-enters the quest give that player (not the whole party) a -1 to all chest levels for each re-entry.

Encourage players to use their resources more wisely.

Just because a caster can run through PoP (which they have run 100+ times) and kill everything before you can swing at it, does not mean they are over-powered. I hate to use an internet meme but, correlation does not equal causation. You're missing the actual problem. Not seeing the forest for the trees etc.

You could remove wizards and sorcs from the game entirely and there would still be some class, some player zerging through a quest faster then someone else, performing better then someone else. It does not reflect poorly on another class, it does not reflect positively on said class, it is what it is, and it always will be.

Wow, very nice points here! You show not only why there is imbalance AT LEVEL CAP, but also offer a fair soution to the problem AT LEVEL CAP, without the lower level caster taking a major hit. The balance betweenthe classes if oyu look at it thru-out the leveling process floats this way and that in DDO. But at level cap teh casters are far more powerful, solable, etc etc. Simply becasue they can kill many more thing while taking much less damage, far faster. And tyhe key to all fo this is the unlimited casting ability (mana )equation. Yet finding a way to limit mana availbility, without slowign the game down to much, nor causing non-level capped casters a real problem is a real issue. But your idea of dropping chest level per re-entry for each toon that has left and returned is a decent enough one. Just a discussion point, it may have many unintended consequinces though, as almost every single proposal I read on these forums would likely have. And that's the real dig, it's easy to say that "this" will solve these problems as I see it. BUT what will problem(s) will "this" cause that we're not seeing right now, and how many more "this(s)" LOL wilol be caused in anever ending chain of NEW problems.

Anyway, you put forth one of the most interesting proposals I've seen. I'm sure the major caster players out there will despise it though. But it would put some thinking and tactics back into the level cap game.....

EinarMal
01-04-2008, 10:32 AM
I completely agree with each class being useful IN THEIR OWN WAY. Giving all classes access to healing, giving all classes access to magic, etc. just makes them less individual IMHO.

I liked the fact that if I wanted to play a Paladin I knew I was giving up the choice to be any alignment other than LG. It's a trade off that I was forced to make. I liked that I could play a 18th level wizard and have great power but was susceptible to ONE hit from a raging barbarian. There are supposed to be trade offs for everything and so far what I have seen of 4.0 is the removal of a lot of those trade offs.

Yeah I am not saying it's great I haven't played it, I really don't know at this point I've read all I can find about the classes but it is pretty vague. You still might manage to get killed in one hit....

The problem is with "In Thier own way" and DDO, that is the real issue. We lack a human DM and the quests are all the same, kill loot repeat. Their really aren't very many "own ways" in the game.

TunrikRylogar
01-04-2008, 10:51 AM
I think one of the things getting glossed over in this thread is assuming that D&D 3.5 and DDO have the same issues and 4E is attempting to address both. DDO and D&D 3.5 are fundementally different games, by their very natures. And 4E is an attempt to fix problems and improve upon D&D 3.5.


But you didn't get the actual meaning which was that all the cries for balance in both DDO and 4.0 aren't in the spirit of D&D. I hope that Turbine doesn't give in to all of those calling for nerfs in the name of balance or even just changes in the name of balance. Wizards already gave in and that's a shame.

Game balance is an issue that has been around since first edition and it is central to PnP. Some of the developers of 4E referred to it as a fun imbalance. They pointed out that in many 3.5 games, including their own, melee classes were marginalized at higher levels because spell casters were so much more powerful. Likewise, at low levels, spell casters were marginal characters and melee characters outstripped them. At low levels, the melee characters are having all of the fun (in combat) and at high levels, the spell casters are having all of the fun. That is what game balance is about: ensuring that everyone at the table is enjoying themselves. It isn't about calling for nerfs. In some cases, some classes will be a little less powerful, true. But in other cases, classes will be a little more powerful.

David Noonan explained it very well in podcast. Essentially, he pointed out that: (A) Wizards and clerics continue to add more and more powers at every level (or every other level). They continue to gain many new, varied, and exciting abilities. Rogues have sneak attack and stealth skills right from the start, but their game never really changes. They continue to be sneaky and trap-disarmy and such, but compared with the spell casters, the rogue stays the same through his whole career. Likewise, the fighter stays the same through his career, relatively speaking. (B) Rogues start with Hide and Move Silently and can have a lot of fun with them. Once a wizard in the group gains the invisibility spell, however, and especially reaches a high enough level that 2nd level spell slots are a dime a dozen, the Rogue's stealth skills are rendered meaningless.

This is not meant to show spellcaster hate, of course, it simply shows the essential point of game balance. Every character and every player should have some fun things to do that no one else can do at every level.

Of course, DDO shows the game balance/fun balance thing in spades. Browse the forums and you can see many examples of the recent 'spellcaster hate' and pure Rogues are still posting about the same issues. AC becomes meaningless in high-level content so that a tank character can start to feel a little marginalized.

I've been in groups playing a tank of sorts and have been told to shield block in the doorway and let the spellcasters firebomb (or whatever) the mobs. Sure, we can win that way, but that isn't fun to me. I'd rather risk getting killed and feel like more than a mobile wall.

That is the core of the issue of game balance: it is a fun balance. Now, people can be funny when they are feeling useless or shoved aside. And that is where calls for 'nerf' come in. 'If my character is becoming useless,' they think, 'it is because other characters are just too darned strong. Weaken them!'

So I can't agree that game balance is not in the spirit of D&D. I think it is the very core of D&D because it is really about everyone having fun. As far as a new version of D&D, I am all for it. Not because I think 3.5 was terrible or broken or wildly imbalanced (it has its issues, like all editions), but because I think there is always room for any system to be improved. Besides, in the end the true spirit of D&D comes from the players and the DM working together to have fun.

Puke
01-04-2008, 11:36 AM
Are they really that over powered tho?

Yes a disintegrate will land for 1000 pts of damage. Whats cooldown 5 sec?

BUT... my fighter swings 13 times a round fully boosted for 40-140 per hit. so 520 - 1820 pts.

Seems fairly balanced to me...one has one really big number one has a lot of smaller ones.


During those thirteen swings the Fighter is getting pummeled. The caster has over 1,000 Spell Points which he can use for any spell in his inventory and can cast Disentegrate over and over and over again with no regard to lower-level spells. When, as I understand it, the caster is only supposed to have a couple castings of the really high spells and the fun is trying to decide if now is the time to cast it or save it for maybe a bigger fight later. But nope, as it is now, a caster can basically insta-death everything for as long as his mana holds up...which is way too much mana as it is then throw in DVs, a plethora of shrines, mnemonic potions and then spells supplemented by scrolls, wands and potions. And you know this. I really think Turbine screwed the pooch here and it's just going to get worse from here-on-out and will probably make things worse with some emergency quick-fix. My $.02.

Sure, a melee has a vorpal for insta-death but that is less than one chance in 20 (have to verify the crit) and isn't even on par.

Taojeff
01-04-2008, 11:37 AM
I guess I don't agree, a lot of revisons over the years have been to increase the balance of melee vs. caster. They have tried to make melee characters more fun to play by implementing a lot of new feats/prestige classes etc... to make them more interesting.

It really depends on what you mean by balance, I am all for making all classes fun, interesting, and useful in their own way from level 1-20. In 3.5 they did not do that, casters are just more fun (and powerful) at high levels. Just because you make them a little more even and equally interesting to play hardly violates the spirit of D&D in my opinion. To each his own I suppose.

This theme is what 4.0 revolves around. They did a lot of play testing and focus groups. And you know what people agree with you, all classes should be interesting and fun to play at all levels. D&D just like any other game needs balance. Sure a couple die-hard game 3.5 game mechanics might hold onto their books and scoff at the new stuff....but many many people will embrace the new better balanced system. I have a buddy of mine for years who has said that D&D was by far the most unbalanced PnP game he ever played. Looking back, I think I never agreed with him because I was such a fan I did not want to believe it. He was right though, and I for one and glad that D&D is moving in the right direction. Bravo Wizards!!!!

Taojeff
01-04-2008, 11:39 AM
I completely agree with each class being useful IN THEIR OWN WAY. Giving all classes access to healing, giving all classes access to magic, etc. just makes them less individual IMHO.

I liked the fact that if I wanted to play a Paladin I knew I was giving up the choice to be any alignment other than LG. It's a trade off that I was forced to make. I liked that I could play a 18th level wizard and have great power but was susceptible to ONE hit from a raging barbarian. There are supposed to be trade offs for everything and so far what I have seen of 4.0 is the removal of a lot of those trade offs.

You know, you can stick with 3.5. I do not think the rest of us will mind.

Taojeff
01-04-2008, 11:45 AM
During those thirteen swings the Fighter is getting pummeled. The caster has over 1,000 Spell Points which he can use for any spell in his inventory and can cast Disentegrate over and over and over again with no regard to lower-level spells. When, as I understand it, the caster is only supposed to have a couple castings of the really high spells and the fun is trying to decide if now is the time to cast it or save it for maybe a bigger fight later. But nope, as it is now, a caster can basically insta-death everything for as long as his mana holds up...which is way too much mana as it is then throw in DVs, a plethora of shrines, mnemonic potions and then spells supplemented by scrolls, wands and potions. And you know this. I really think Turbine screwed the pooch here and it's just going to get worse from here-on-out and will probably make things worse with some emergency quick-fix. My $.02.

Sure, a melee has a vorpal for insta-death but that is less than one chance in 20 (have to verify the crit) and isn't even on par.

Not to mention that casters can go back to town, mobs are not smart enough to get out of AOE. You cannot dispel AOE, many AOE spells go through doors, casters have several levels of stacking enhancements that multiply not add to their damage... the list goes on and on...

ghale
01-04-2008, 12:37 PM
Not to mention that casters can go back to town, mobs are not smart enough to get out of AOE. You cannot dispel AOE, many AOE spells go through doors, casters have several levels of stacking enhancements that multiply not add to their damage... the list goes on and on...

Just to make sure you see it...persistent AOE spells are dispellable by break enchantment. It is hilarious how fervently you argue for things as fact when you don't actually know what you are talking about.

Yaga_Nub
01-04-2008, 12:39 PM
I think one of the things getting glossed over in this thread is assuming that D&D 3.5 and DDO have the same issues and 4E is attempting to address both. DDO and D&D 3.5 are fundementally different games, by their very natures. And 4E is an attempt to fix problems and improve upon D&D 3.5.



Game balance is an issue that has been around since first edition and it is central to PnP. Some of the developers of 4E referred to it as a fun imbalance. They pointed out that in many 3.5 games, including their own, melee classes were marginalized at higher levels because spell casters were so much more powerful. Likewise, at low levels, spell casters were marginal characters and melee characters outstripped them. At low levels, the melee characters are having all of the fun (in combat) and at high levels, the spell casters are having all of the fun. That is what game balance is about: ensuring that everyone at the table is enjoying themselves. It isn't about calling for nerfs. In some cases, some classes will be a little less powerful, true. But in other cases, classes will be a little more powerful.

David Noonan explained it very well in podcast. Essentially, he pointed out that: (A) Wizards and clerics continue to add more and more powers at every level (or every other level). They continue to gain many new, varied, and exciting abilities. Rogues have sneak attack and stealth skills right from the start, but their game never really changes. They continue to be sneaky and trap-disarmy and such, but compared with the spell casters, the rogue stays the same through his whole career. Likewise, the fighter stays the same through his career, relatively speaking. (B) Rogues start with Hide and Move Silently and can have a lot of fun with them. Once a wizard in the group gains the invisibility spell, however, and especially reaches a high enough level that 2nd level spell slots are a dime a dozen, the Rogue's stealth skills are rendered meaningless.

This is not meant to show spellcaster hate, of course, it simply shows the essential point of game balance. Every character and every player should have some fun things to do that no one else can do at every level.

Of course, DDO shows the game balance/fun balance thing in spades. Browse the forums and you can see many examples of the recent 'spellcaster hate' and pure Rogues are still posting about the same issues. AC becomes meaningless in high-level content so that a tank character can start to feel a little marginalized.

I've been in groups playing a tank of sorts and have been told to shield block in the doorway and let the spellcasters firebomb (or whatever) the mobs. Sure, we can win that way, but that isn't fun to me. I'd rather risk getting killed and feel like more than a mobile wall.

That is the core of the issue of game balance: it is a fun balance. Now, people can be funny when they are feeling useless or shoved aside. And that is where calls for 'nerf' come in. 'If my character is becoming useless,' they think, 'it is because other characters are just too darned strong. Weaken them!'

So I can't agree that game balance is not in the spirit of D&D. I think it is the very core of D&D because it is really about everyone having fun. As far as a new version of D&D, I am all for it. Not because I think 3.5 was terrible or broken or wildly imbalanced (it has its issues, like all editions), but because I think there is always room for any system to be improved. Besides, in the end the true spirit of D&D comes from the players and the DM working together to have fun.

Very true. I've been hearing complaints from the days that Elves and Dwarfs were classes. I'll never forget the first time that my friends and I opened our booklets and started to roll our characters up. One guy, without even looking at the books, told the person that was going to be our DM that he wanted to be a magic-user. So the DM told him to roll his stats, including a d4 for his hit points, and to pick his spell. I read through the books and decided I wanted to be an Elf. So I rolled my stats, including a d6 for hit points, and the magic-user immediately started asking why I got to use a d6 instead of a d4 like him. The DM and I both said that it was the rules. Then he asked why I got a spell and he got the same reply. For at least 2 weeks all we heard from him was that he was weaker than everyone else.

The point here is that there will always be some kind of difference between classes/races/etc. You can decide whether it creates an unbalanced playing field or opportunities for each class/race/etc. to shine at different times.

Balance yes is part of the D&D in that there is a give and take for everything in the game but sometimes it's personal give and take not a party wide/game wide give and take.

You can never balance for fun. What I think is fun might not be what you think is fun. We might both agree on a monty haul campaign as fun but then we'll disagree on the AMOUNT or POWER of the loot. So you have to discount the "fun" factor a bit. Should the game be fun for all, yes it should. Can the game be fun for all, probably not every single minute but overall it is or you wouldn't come back to it. But if you're not having fun, move into a different group or go to a different quest. It's not the fact that a wizard can FoD an enemy that you aren't having fun. It really isn't. I promise you that.

You mention that you stand and shield block while the wizard firebombs the doorway. Why? If you really don't find that fun, then don't do it! If the whole party starts complaining then switch parties. But groups as supposed to work together not for one another. A lot of the complaining that I am see on the boards is situations just like the one you describe. Down deep you KNOW that it is the fastest, EASIEST way to kill the mobs but it's not fun for you. So do it the fun way and forget about doing it the easiest or fastest way. If the rest of your party doesn't see it your way then leave. If it's your own guild members then maybe you're in the wrong guild. Either way, you control your own actions including the ability to have fun. By shield blocking instead of charging in and fighting you are giving in to that "casters are over-powered" mentality. They aren't. I've already shown in another post that the real complaint with casters is that CAPPED casters have no reason NOT to blow through their mana and then recall.

Think of it this way, with the number of ways to rez in the game right now, there's no reason for melees to try to protect the casters at all. They can fend for themselves, you go do your thing and let them manage their own aggro. The only problem with that statement is that this is a team game so if you've played team sports or even just played D&D for a long time your instinct is to help your party not leave it to fend for itself. DDO is becoming like the NBA. 6 (5) people that have the same goal of completing a quest (winning a basketball game) but want to do it all by themselves instead of as a team.

Yaga_Nub
01-04-2008, 12:43 PM
You know, you can stick with 3.5. I do not think the rest of us will mind.

Taojeff, I don't really think that anyone here gives a rat's behind what anyone on these boards do. Whether I still with 1st Edition or you start with 4.0 most people don't care.

Taojeff
01-04-2008, 12:43 PM
Taojeff, I don't really think that anyone here gives a rat's behind what anyone on these boards do. Whether I still with 1st Edition or you start with 4.0 most people don't care.

Exactly.

Taojeff
01-04-2008, 01:04 PM
Very true. I've been hearing complaints from the days that Elves and Dwarfs were classes. I'll never forget the first time that my friends and I opened our booklets and started to roll our characters up. One guy, without even looking at the books, told the person that was going to be our DM that he wanted to be a magic-user. So the DM told him to roll his stats, including a d4 for his hit points, and to pick his spell. I read through the books and decided I wanted to be an Elf. So I rolled my stats, including a d6 for hit points, and the magic-user immediately started asking why I got to use a d6 instead of a d4 like him. The DM and I both said that it was the rules. Then he asked why I got a spell and he got the same reply. For at least 2 weeks all we heard from him was that he was weaker than everyone else.

The point here is that there will always be some kind of difference between classes/races/etc. You can decide whether it creates an unbalanced playing field or opportunities for each class/race/etc. to shine at different times.

Balance yes is part of the D&D in that there is a give and take for everything in the game but sometimes it's personal give and take not a party wide/game wide give and take.

You can never balance for fun. What I think is fun might not be what you think is fun. We might both agree on a monty haul campaign as fun but then we'll disagree on the AMOUNT or POWER of the loot. So you have to discount the "fun" factor a bit. Should the game be fun for all, yes it should. Can the game be fun for all, probably not every single minute but overall it is or you wouldn't come back to it. But if you're not having fun, move into a different group or go to a different quest. It's not the fact that a wizard can FoD an enemy that you aren't having fun. It really isn't. I promise you that.

You mention that you stand and shield block while the wizard firebombs the doorway. Why? If you really don't find that fun, then don't do it! If the whole party starts complaining then switch parties. But groups as supposed to work together not for one another. A lot of the complaining that I am see on the boards is situations just like the one you describe. Down deep you KNOW that it is the fastest, EASIEST way to kill the mobs but it's not fun for you. So do it the fun way and forget about doing it the easiest or fastest way. If the rest of your party doesn't see it your way then leave. If it's your own guild members then maybe you're in the wrong guild. Either way, you control your own actions including the ability to have fun. By shield blocking instead of charging in and fighting you are giving in to that "casters are over-powered" mentality. They aren't. I've already shown in another post that the real complaint with casters is that CAPPED casters have no reason NOT to blow through their mana and then recall.

Think of it this way, with the number of ways to rez in the game right now, there's no reason for melees to try to protect the casters at all. They can fend for themselves, you go do your thing and let them manage their own aggro. The only problem with that statement is that this is a team game so if you've played team sports or even just played D&D for a long time your instinct is to help your party not leave it to fend for itself. DDO is becoming like the NBA. 6 (5) people that have the same goal of completing a quest (winning a basketball game) but want to do it all by themselves instead of as a team.

People can dance around the issue all day.. it is still there

The facts are as I see them:

1. In PnP Casters are more powerful then Melee, yet they have a rather limited amount of spells. This has been reflected in just about every D&D computer game thus created with the exception of a couple console games and DDO. This includes the wildly popular NWN and NWN2 (which I mention because they stuck closer to PnP and have a larger fan base years after nwn came out then DDO ever did). Even if casters can cast instant death spells like Finger of Death, or Power word kill, they probably only memorized it once... so really it is not all the powerful.
2. Maximize was never suppose to double the casting power of a spell....this is confounded by the fact that a maximized spell is suppose to be 2 or 3 levels (I forget at the moment on is 2 levels and the other one is 3) higher then it is normally cast. So pretty much there are some spells that you can never maximize because they would be higher then 9th. The only level spells that you could maximize and empower are 4th or lower because you essential adding 5 spell levels (2+3). Yet again DDO does not have this hinderance.
3. Melee get several feats that can add to damage (like spec and impr spec), but we are talking about +2 here +2 there etc. Yes, some barbarians can get a crit range from 13-20, but that is a small percentage of overall melee...and at the expense of ac in most cases.
4. Casters get multiples of damage. First you can get up to 90% more of your 1d6, 1d8, or 2d6 a level spell. lets just take 1d6, for 14d6 at level 14. or 42 points average....thats about the average melee damage of my fighter. Except You can then maximize and empower it to 147 points of damage, that is not counting if you have superior potency or spell lines... then it would be
90% of 42 or 79ish i believe or about 280 max and empowered. Not much huh? You could do that to say a room full of guys on AVERAGE.... not counting crits. You can then crit up to 2.5 or so just off the enhancement spell line....for a crit on the average damage of about 700 points. That is a crit of your average damage. You can do that with an AOE spell to a room full of guys. Now fighters can hit around 150 crits without to much fuss, if you wanna get technical, a palidan with the sword of shadows can hit around 270, but that is rare, few and far between.
5. None of this would really be that bad if spell resistance worked as it should, and if mana was not unlimited. Now when I say unlimited.....You can leave a mission and come back (really its a mission....if you leave you should be out), Way too many shrines in most missions, Mana pots way to avaliable (thank the plat farmers for that one), etc, etc.

You can choose to ignore this, but it is only going to become more of a problem as time goes on....

Gornin
01-04-2008, 01:37 PM
Without spilling too much detail, I have been trying it. Tactics from the T in TSR(tm) are gone. No need to protect the cleric, the warlord can heal. That is what I mean by non role concentric play and by dumbing down.

Don't have to count rounds for spell effects? Another dumbing down and lack of need for tactics.

Limited spells per day. Not any more. No need for smart play there.

Does that mage have access to the right spells, and did he memorize it today? Rare are the mages in my games who have access to all spells in the rules. I have actually had a mage character that reached level 10, but had not found any scrolls, or had opportunity to get any spells above 3rd.

I never had a balance issue with DnD, except with a poor DM. Yea, mages are Kick Butt at higher levels, but so are the monsters and opponents. Got a high SR monster, who then shines? The Fighter or other melee type and then the mage is reduced to support and buff. Several times in my games the melee types make all the difference due to there inherent toughness and versatility. Same with the rogue, cleric, druid etc. If you create balanced encounters, the classes balance. Some times a class may not shine as much in one encounter, but is crucial in the next if the player is on his toes and makes good tactical decisions based on his abilities.

Balance issues in DnD are in the eyes of the players IMO.

3.0/3.5 were upgrades in the right direction. They codified a method to create non cookie cutter builds based on race, class, background and other things. It gave you more options and streamlined combat while keeping tactics and strategy. What is coming next is just a power fest that emulates a video game with out the restrictions of programming.

That being said, I will try the final product to see how it turns out because I have been playing since 1979 and want this game to stay around because I truly enjoy it. I hope my initial experiences turn out to be wrong.

redoubt
01-04-2008, 01:38 PM
Um, ok let me explain it this way to you.

My dwarven fighter gets +2 dwarven axe enhancement for damage.

I also have taken feats weapon spec slashing and improved weapon spec slashing. for +6 to damage total, I can also take power attack, which makes it harder for me to hit, but no bother. +11 (or +15 using two-handed weapons).

I hit for around 45 on regular hits and around 140 on crits. I usually do not get a lot of hits in unless I am using cleave, great cleave, or whirlwind....basically because I can only intimidate some many times. The monsters are usually running around after a guy like my cleric below...

My cleric gets

Cleric Prayer of Smiting Line 9% chance to crit, which stacks with items (the current max is 27%), my cleric has a 18% chance.
Cleric Prayer of Incredible Smiting 2.25 normal damage (or with maximize 4.25 or with both empower and maximize 5.75)
Cleric Smiting (40% more damage then normal) add to superior potency you get 90% more damage.

Now, I might be wrong about some of the numbers, as I just started playing casters recently as melee is real boring now. I do know this, my cleric get regular hits of 100+ on his blade barrier and crits near 600.

Now, maybe it is u, who has been making you classes wrong. Maybe you casters is so poorly made that you do not understand how overpowered casters really are.

Btw, there is a book out in the stores. Races and Classes, I believe the name is, where you can read about 4.0.

So thread number 3 or is this 4???

+2 attack and damage on dwarf axes
+2 attack from focuses
+2 damage from specializations
X2 crit range from improved crits
+4 crit confirm from feat
+8 crit confirm from enhancements
Power attack
THF/TWF
ITHF/ITWF
GTHF/GTWF

All of this can be applied to a large set of weapons that can affect a very broad range of mobs.

Should i start in about AC and hitpoints?

There are fewer options for casters. You cannot max spec out multiple lines as a caster, so you only get max damage from one elemental pairing. Melee can get max damage from ALL elemental types, alignments etc.

Now, I don't mind if you want to suggest ways to improve melee. But leave casters out of it and stop trying to nerf other people because you are not getting you way... pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaassssssssssseeeeeeeeee!

Raithe
01-04-2008, 01:39 PM
The changes in 4.0 are obviously a move away from roleplaying and an attempt to take D&D into a pure combat tactics and strategy arena. I'm sure it is an attempt to appeal to a larger, younger audience. It is doomed to complete and utter failure.

Here's why:

1) This particular experiment has already occurred. One such experiment is currently going by the name "Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach." It has been a miserable failure, and grows more miserable with each new attempt to capture that target demographic.

2) It is based on the faulty premise that dungeons, dragons, and wargaming go hand in hand. They don't. Wargaming is probably best without any magic system whatsoever. Dungeons and dragons are about fantasy, imagination, and roleplaying. You don't play it to swing a big sword and cleave enemies in two. You play it to talk about swinging a razor sharp falchion and cleaving thy enemies in twain. I hope that distinction isn't too subtle.

3) Better battle systems already exist. D&D is still a viable product because of the loyalty of its existing customer base. Backstabbing those people to get at the large video game market is going to backfire. (And remember, it already has... I know I won't be buying anything else with the D&D logo on it without careful validation of what that really means.) Which brings up item number 4...

4) People actually like roleplaying (...and yes I know that none of the people reading this post are in that category). Using a label that already has huge name value in the field of roleplaying for an entirely different type of product is just going to get some people really angry. People got really angry over DDO, and the word of mouth reputation has suffered severely.

wrightdjohn
01-04-2008, 01:39 PM
www.wizards.com/dnd <-- for 4.0 info.

It is my opinion that wizards has been using DDO as a testing ground from the beginning. Many of the options in 4.0 are very much in line with what is in DDO. They will of course do it better because they have more experience at game design than Turbine. Even so I think they will benefit.

While I agree that more options for fighter types is needed in 4.0 for fun reasons, I don't see at higher levels the wizard being overtaken.

As for the "Arcanes are more powerful" bla bla bla arguments, bullhocky. Until the metamagic change, arcanes were underpowered. Very few if any of their spells could equal even on round of swinging by a fighter. Arcanes are the somewhat infrequent heavy nukers. As such they need to be able to do 3 to 5 times what a fighter can do in the same time, given they are willing to expend the mana.

TunrikRylogar
01-05-2008, 06:14 PM
You can never balance for fun. What I think is fun might not be what you think is fun. We might both agree on a monty haul campaign as fun but then we'll disagree on the AMOUNT or POWER of the loot. So you have to discount the "fun" factor a bit. Should the game be fun for all, yes it should. Can the game be fun for all, probably not every single minute but overall it is or you wouldn't come back to it. But if you're not having fun, move into a different group or go to a different quest. It's not the fact that a wizard can FoD an enemy that you aren't having fun. It really isn't. I promise you that.

To a certain extent, I agree with you, though I was talking more about PnP than DDO. No rule set can be completely balanced for the fun of every possible player. In fact, the rule set of PnP does provide one key factor to balance every player's fun: a human DM. The DM's first and most important function is to ensure that every player is enjoying the game as much as is possible. Now there will always be some disagreements and thus every DM's style will necessarily be a compromise. As a DM myself, I have had to adjust the style of game play continuously over the years to ensure that every player is having a rewarding experience.

That being said, my point is that, while there are many different opinions about what IS fun, there are far fewer disagreements about what is NOT fun. The things that the majority of people agree are not fun are the things being addressed: clumsy, corner-case rules that slow down the game, character types being marginalized or being most effective in only a narrow level range, and so on.

I did say above that I recognize that calls for 'nerf' are not the solution, either in PnP or in DDO. It is an emotional response. I certainly would never claim that my fun is hurt because another character can cast FoD and all I can do is swing a sword. I would claim, however, that my fun is hurt by a system in which one character by virtue of the mechanics repeatedly outperforms another. Consider two characters built by two equally knowledgeable, reasonable players who differ only in class. If one of those characters could be removed from the game with a minimal effect on the outcome of the game, something is a little off. To say one of the two characters is too powerful and must be nerfed is a gross oversimplification. This is the melee/spellcaster imbalance that is being addressed in 4E. And it is not simply being tackled by nerfing the overpowered characters. It is being addressed by stripping down the system and rebuilding it from base concepts.


You mention that you stand and shield block while the wizard firebombs the doorway. Why? If you really don't find that fun, then don't do it! If the whole party starts complaining then switch parties. But groups as supposed to work together not for one another. A lot of the complaining that I am see on the boards is situations just like the one you describe. Down deep you KNOW that it is the fastest, EASIEST way to kill the mobs but it's not fun for you. So do it the fun way and forget about doing it the easiest or fastest way. If the rest of your party doesn't see it your way then leave. If it's your own guild members then maybe you're in the wrong guild. Either way, you control your own actions including the ability to have fun. By shield blocking instead of charging in and fighting you are giving in to that "casters are over-powered" mentality. They aren't. I've already shown in another post that the real complaint with casters is that CAPPED casters have no reason NOT to blow through their mana and then recall.

Think of it this way, with the number of ways to rez in the game right now, there's no reason for melees to try to protect the casters at all. They can fend for themselves, you go do your thing and let them manage their own aggro. The only problem with that statement is that this is a team game so if you've played team sports or even just played D&D for a long time your instinct is to help your party not leave it to fend for itself. DDO is becoming like the NBA. 6 (5) people that have the same goal of completing a quest (winning a basketball game) but want to do it all by themselves instead of as a team.

I certainly understand that I am responsible for my own fun. If I didn't enjoy the game, I wouldn't play DDO. And if I am in a party and not having fun, I know I can leave, and I generally do so politely at an appropriate moment. I consider myself a mature and considerate player in that respect. I also understand the teamwork aspect and I understand how to maximize the team's chances of success. I used this case simply as an example of one way a character might feel marginalized. And frankly, I do blame the system. Moreover, I see it as a problem that the best way to efficiently beat most quests, especially at high levels, is to use only one set of class abilities. Were it the other way, with melee being the most efficient and spellcasters relegated to the role of tacking on a few hp of damage here and there, I would still say there was a problem with the system.

I will say again what I said earlier: I do not think that this game is as broken or as unbalanced as some of the people on the forums would have you believe, nor do I believe that D&D 3.5 is wildly unbalanced or overcomplicated. I honestly believe, however, that both are evolving systems. The ultimate goal should be to continue to seek a perfect system, even if that system is unattainable. That is what I think the developers are doing. That is why I think things continue to be tweaked. The devs have proved that they continually pay attention to player feedback, as have the developers of PnP.

Shrazkil
01-06-2008, 01:54 PM
Didnt bother reading all the threads. But if it wasnt mentioned earlier, here is a link to rumored/experienced 4.0 INFO.

http://dnd4.com/rumors

Shrazkil
01-06-2008, 02:12 PM
The changes in 4.0 are obviously a move away from roleplaying and an attempt to take D&D into a pure combat tactics and strategy arena. I'm sure it is an attempt to appeal to a larger, younger audience. It is doomed to complete and utter failure.

Here's why:

1) This particular experiment has already occurred. One such experiment is currently going by the name "Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach." It has been a miserable failure, and grows more miserable with each new attempt to capture that target demographic.

2) It is based on the faulty premise that dungeons, dragons, and wargaming go hand in hand. They don't. Wargaming is probably best without any magic system whatsoever. Dungeons and dragons are about fantasy, imagination, and roleplaying. You don't play it to swing a big sword and cleave enemies in two. You play it to talk about swinging a razor sharp falchion and cleaving thy enemies in twain. I hope that distinction isn't too subtle.

3) Better battle systems already exist. D&D is still a viable product because of the loyalty of its existing customer base. Backstabbing those people to get at the large video game market is going to backfire. (And remember, it already has... I know I won't be buying anything else with the D&D logo on it without careful validation of what that really means.) Which brings up item number 4...

4) People actually like roleplaying (...and yes I know that none of the people reading this post are in that category). Using a label that already has huge name value in the field of roleplaying for an entirely different type of product is just going to get some people really angry. People got really angry over DDO, and the word of mouth reputation has suffered severely.

I would disagree , completely.

I PnP every week, and after reading the info for 4.0 i was so impressed and relieved. It seems like they are doing everything right. Streamlining battles, making them more fun. Putting sound rules in place for diplomatic battles, thak make Roleplaying MORE viable. There will be a level of classbalance unseen in other versions. Rules will be much simpler and easier to make things go quicker. Map builders and dungeon builders are a welcome addition.

Sure DDO might be a failure in terms of PnP translation, but it is the nicest, most realistic of its kind.

Rragnaar
01-06-2008, 02:24 PM
4.0 is the attempt by wizards to Kill D&D.

They tried to kill it the first time by making 3.0, then making 3.5 6 months later.

How much more can they dumb this down to make more money is all that 4.0 is about.

Serpent
01-06-2008, 02:27 PM
4.0 is the attempt by wizards to Kill D&D.

They tried to kill it the first time by making 3.0, then making 3.5 6 months later.

How much more can they dumb this down to make more money is all that 4.0 is about.

We just won't know this till spring. They are being so hush hush about the actual fundamentals of the system that we are in no position to speculate. We should all stay on the fence till its release.

Aesop
01-06-2008, 02:40 PM
We just won't know this till spring. They are being so hush hush about the actual fundamentals of the system that we are in no position to speculate. We should all stay on the fence till its release.

Yeah I pretty much agree here... though some of it has me a little blah and some of it has me a little ahhh

we'll see how it goes though

Aesop

Tanka
01-06-2008, 04:33 PM
4.0 is the attempt by wizards to Kill D&D.

They tried to kill it the first time by making 3.0, then making 3.5 6 months later.

How much more can they dumb this down to make more money is all that 4.0 is about.
Try three years later, not six months.

And the game is far from dead. It's the introductory roleplaying system for many, many individuals.

Ever go to any gaming store or even a bookstore and see how many d20 rulebooks they have on hand?

If anything, the "simplified" rules that we've had with 3.5 and the further simplification will make more people less hesitant to play the game. Because it doesn't take advanced knowledge of the game to not gimp a character right off the bat.

Lorien_the_First_One
01-06-2008, 05:06 PM
Without spilling too much detail, I have been trying it. Tactics from the T in TSR(tm) are gone. No need to protect the cleric, the warlord can heal. That is what I mean by non role concentric play and by dumbing down.

You have described my fears well.

Yes, there will likely be things worth stealing from 4.0 for modified 3.x games, but overall it appears to be the idiots version from what I've read.

And given the number of people here who regularily complain about this not being D&D without Half-Orc and Gnomes I can't wait to see how they react when those are no longer core races in 4.0.

Lorien_the_First_One
01-06-2008, 05:07 PM
If anything, the "simplified" rules that we've had with 3.5 and the further simplification will make more people less hesitant to play the game. Because it doesn't take advanced knowledge of the game to not gimp a character right off the bat.

Yup, increasingly "stupid sells". We have a population that doesn't want to (and isn't expected to) think. That means that 4.x may in fact sell more than 3.x. Doesn't mean its a better game...

Invalid_86
01-06-2008, 07:06 PM
4.0 is the attempt by wizards to Kill D&D.

They tried to kill it the first time by making 3.0, then making 3.5 6 months later.

How much more can they dumb this down to make more money is all that 4.0 is about.


I don't know about that. 3.0 got rid of alot of clunky old 1st ed and 2nd ed rules. Thaco, Odd save charts, that sort of thing. It made clerics far more interesting to play, brought back monks- and made them more of a balanced class, introduced Prestige Classes. Rangers were beginning to become a real class. Straightforward critical hit rules were introduced. We saw the beginnings of skill interplay, and the coolness of feats (hey, fighters can actually do something other than roll a D20!).

I have played D&D for about 25 years now. I look at 1st edition now like I look at Pong- it was fun at the time but now we have better.

Yaga_Nub
01-06-2008, 11:39 PM
I don't know about that. 3.0 got rid of alot of clunky old 1st ed and 2nd ed rules. Thaco, Odd save charts, that sort of thing. It made clerics far more interesting to play, brought back monks- and made them more of a balanced class, introduced Prestige Classes. Rangers were beginning to become a real class. Straightforward critical hit rules were introduced. We saw the beginnings of skill interplay, and the coolness of feats (hey, fighters can actually do something other than roll a D20!).

I have played D&D for about 25 years now. I look at 1st edition now like I look at Pong- it was fun at the time but now we have better.

I've played for over 25 years and I look at all the different editions and think just that- they are different. I still prefer one of the other but they are pretty much the same. From what I'm reading about 4.0, I'm not sure I'll still be able to say that but I'm going to wait until they actually come out before making up my mind.

Lifespawn
01-07-2008, 09:02 AM
Um, ok let me explain it this way to you.

My dwarven fighter gets +2 dwarven axe enhancement for damage.

I also have taken feats weapon spec slashing and improved weapon spec slashing. for +6 to damage total, I can also take power attack, which makes it harder for me to hit, but no bother. +11 (or +15 using two-handed weapons).

I hit for around 45 on regular hits and around 140 on crits. I usually do not get a lot of hits in unless I am using cleave, great cleave, or whirlwind....basically because I can only intimidate some many times. The monsters are usually running around after a guy like my cleric below...

My cleric gets

Cleric Prayer of Smiting Line 9&#37; chance to crit, which stacks with items (the current max is 27%), my cleric has a 18% chance.
Cleric Prayer of Incredible Smiting 2.25 normal damage (or with maximize 4.25 or with both empower and maximize 5.75)
Cleric Smiting (40% more damage then normal) add to superior potency you get 90% more damage.

Now, I might be wrong about some of the numbers, as I just started playing casters recently as melee is real boring now. I do know this, my cleric get regular hits of 100+ on his blade barrier and crits near 600.

Now, maybe it is u, who has been making you classes wrong. Maybe you casters is so poorly made that you do not understand how overpowered casters really are.

Btw, there is a book out in the stores. Races and Classes, I believe the name is, where you can read about 4.0.

Absolute bs there is no way that you can hit a bladebarrier for 600 damage i'm not even sure u can actually crit a bladebarrier i have all the smiting and sup pot 6 items max+empower and the kukri from the queen for arcane lore and i've NEVER seen a hit over 300.


If this is what you "know" ...hence your sure about this then i call bs on everything you've posted because thats saying everything else might be slightly speculated but this 1 thing you know for sure(which is absolutley wrong) is the way it is.

Nevthial
01-07-2008, 09:15 AM
4.0 IS NOT D&D no ifs ands or buts about it. 4.0 is advanced Pokemon. When the tabletop video game version is released it will kill D&D as well all knew it. ( As if it wasn't dead already)

Taojeff
01-07-2008, 09:18 AM
Absolute bs there is no way that you can hit a bladebarrier for 600 damage i'm not even sure u can actually crit a bladebarrier i have all the smiting and sup pot 6 items max+empower and the kukri from the queen for arcane lore and i've NEVER seen a hit over 300.


If this is what you "know" ...hence your sure about this then i call bs on everything you've posted because thats saying everything else might be slightly speculated but this 1 thing you know for sure(which is absolutley wrong) is the way it is.

You do not even know that blade barrier can crit, chuckle

samagee
01-07-2008, 09:50 AM
Important points from 4.0

I do not know how many of you have been following 4.0, which will be coming out this May. But alot has changed, in fact the word alot does not really do it justice. The main points I will summarize here:

1. 4.0 is kind of what they wanted 3.0 to be, but they were afraid it was going to be to drastic of a change.
2. 3.0 & 3.5 suffered from both an imbalance between classes and their effectiveness, but also an imbalance between levels. Basically there was a sweet spot from 7-14 where the math just worked. 4.0 has made some changes to try and stretch this sweet spot to the entire level range.
3. The parties effectiveness hindered to much around the spells casters had at higher level. Many spells could make or break and adventure. 4.0 has removed many spells, and done away with the d6 spell staples. Casters are also still effective now after they run out of spells, and have abilities that they can still do. Many overpowered spells were removed.
4. For non-spellcasters many turns were boring as there was just not interesting options. In 4.0 EVERY class has per day and per encounter abilities. Every class, even melee draws on some form of power at higher levels (power is the term for a source (much like magic or psionics (both are sources).
5. Every level holds meaningful choices to make (more feats etc). No more waiting for the next two levels to get a feat etc.
6. Every class has some form of healing.
7. Many classes have changed and been rebalanced. Druids are now all about the wildshape ability. barbarians have totemic powers, warlords are a new class (much like a marshal), palidans have many different abilities (diff smites for example).

Basically all classes are viable at all levels. Every level has a meaningful choice. You have something interesting to do all the time with classes/races.

Now how this relates to DDO.

1. All classes are certainly not viable, especially melee and rogues at higher level.
2. Many classes do not have meaningful options compared to other classes at higher level.
3. There is a HUGE imbalance between the DPS of classes, which is important because killing stuff is the primary focus of 90% of the game.

I hope DDO can learn something from 4.0, but if not all is not lost. I am fairly certain that there is a 4.0 MMO on the horizon.


So basically they cheesed it for those who couldn't handle it. BTW "balance" is all about getting rid of diversity, which I am adamently against. It stifles creativity and makes everything a "cookie cutter" aproach.

Taojeff
01-07-2008, 09:53 AM
So basically they cheesed it for those who couldn't handle it. BTW "balance" is all about getting rid of diversity, which I am adamently against. It stifles creativity and makes everything a "cookie cutter" aproach.

LOL they did not cheese it. 3.0 and 3.5 had many issues, people constantly complained about stuff on the DDO forums. What they did was get focus groups and play testers, and test it for years.

btw. 4.0 is about more customization and meaningful play. Not less, if anything it cuts down on cookie cutter builds.

Yaga_Nub
01-07-2008, 10:03 AM
I will have to say that I do like the removal of critical confirmations. I hate having to confirm crits.

chemonz
01-07-2008, 10:16 AM
I am unsure of the 4.0 changes yet and I will take a wait and see attitude. Some things I like, some things seem misguided at least as they are currently presented but nothing seems totally final yet.

As far as the OP is concerned I am growing a bit tired of seeing so many posts by the same person trying to say the same basic thing in many different ways. I have tried to see things from his point of view but I must say that really I think he just wants caster to return to the good old days when they were the pocket buffer to his uber melee character. I never see any real suggestions to improve things so that all character types can have fun I just see "nerf casters".

I would have no problems with upping the power or dps of melee but the constant calls for nerfs to casters smacks of wanting to return to "the good old days" when the caster cast hast, blur, and maybe some cc everyone now and then and let the melee have all the fun no thanks!

No nerfs. Improve some melee enhancements, possibly add some enhancement PrCs? Sure.

sultro
01-07-2008, 10:38 AM
I certainly understand that I am responsible for my own fun. If I didn't enjoy the game, I wouldn't play DDO. And if I am in a party and not having fun, I know I can leave, and I generally do so politely at an appropriate moment. I consider myself a mature and considerate player in that respect. I also understand the teamwork aspect and I understand how to maximize the team's chances of success. I used this case simply as an example of one way a character might feel marginalized. And frankly, I do blame the system. Moreover, I see it as a problem that the best way to efficiently beat most quests, especially at high levels, is to use only one set of class abilities. Were it the other way, with melee being the most efficient and spellcasters relegated to the role of tacking on a few hp of damage here and there, I would still say there was a problem with the system.


sorry, guess i didn't realize that fighter types don't shield block better than casters. guess we really don't need the fighters anymore, we'll just get 5 wiz/sorcs and a heal bot and do all the quests that way. maybe we'll add a rogue once in a while. to say that only one skill set is being used is just plain wrong. and its not just the arcanes setting back behind the shield blockers, my rogue does it too. i get a lot more dps when someone else has agro.

and as far as fun goes. i play my wiz because its my original character, and i do it better than most(plus i've had time to pick up decent equip on him). yes, i'll gladly switch to cleric, rogue, or fighter if thats what is needed and another good arcane is available. because i enjoy playing those other chars too. why did i start a wiz first? because i always played the wiz. have for almost 30 years. and what did i tell my friends? ddo wizards are ****, turbine has them all wrong. finally with mod 5 we can do some decent damage, and some people just can't seem to get over that. finally, i don't mind recommending a wiz or sorc to play to my friends.

MysticTheurge
01-07-2008, 10:43 AM
I will have to say that I do like the removal of critical confirmations. I hate having to confirm crits.

I also like dropping critical multipliers.

Max damage is a nice system.

Yaga_Nub
01-07-2008, 10:45 AM
I also like dropping critical multipliers.

Max damage is a nice system.

I must have missed that one. Yeah I think that will be nice as well.

Montoya
01-07-2008, 10:48 AM
The problem with saying casters in PNP are less powerful than casters in DDO is that you have to ignore the fact that in PNP a caster is only really limited by imagination. Summon spells can conjure a variety of minions suitable for the situation. Combinations of spells like web then burning hands are really not possible in DDO. A caster in PNP can read minds , see rooms without actually going in, fly, walk through walls, possess someone and fight with their body at little to no risk of their own, cast contingencies to protect from a huge variety of situations, make spells permanent on themselves and others, and the list goes on. In DDO we can exist in our own AoE spells and we get more damage. With the extra HP that Mobs get I would already expect casters damage to scale and over all an imaginativley played caster in PNP is way more powerful than any version in DDO in my opinion. I have read alot of the ops opinions on why casters are so overpowered, and I agree they are powerful, but this is just D&D tradition. My PNP wizard could solo almost anything , with the right research , and imagination.

MysticTheurge
01-07-2008, 10:51 AM
I must have missed that one. Yeah I think that will be nice as well.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080104 (login required)

Summary via EN World:


Critical hits are the subject of the latest article to be found on the official site. So, what does it tell us?

As we'd already figured out, the confirmation roll is gone.
Critical hits don't deal double damage.
Instead, when you roll a critical hit, all the dice are maximized.
Magic weapons deal extra damage on crits.
Monsters don't get this benefit, so PC crits outclass monster crits most of the time.
Weapons can have the high crit property, giving extra dice on a crit.

Also interesting is the sample weapon stat block:

Weapon: War Pick
Prof: 2 [what does this mean?]
Damage: d8 [note, just one damage roll listed]
Range: -
Cost: 15gp
Weight: 6lb.
Category: Pick ["Pick" is a "category" of some kind]
Properties: High crit, versatile ["high crit" is mentioned above; "versatile" is something else]

Yaga_Nub
01-07-2008, 11:01 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080104 (login required)

Summary via EN World:

I read the article but one thing that was missing is this - How do you deal with mobs that are immune to crits?

I'll assume you just roll damage as normal but then you could still do the same damage as you could with a crit if you rolled the highest number on your damage die. That sort of takes away the coolness/fun factor of a crit (at least it does for me).

MysticTheurge
01-07-2008, 11:06 AM
How do you deal with mobs that are immune to crits?

What mobs that are immune to crits?

;)

Almost nothing in 4th edition is immune to crits. The theory is that you can hit even undead and constructs in the right place(s) to deal more-than-normal damage.

I think this is covered in Wizards Presents: Races and Classes. I'll see if I can find an exact quote when I get home.

dragonofsteel2
01-07-2008, 11:53 AM
My cleric gets

Cleric Prayer of Smiting Line 9&#37; chance to crit, which stacks with items (the current max is 27%), my cleric has a 18% chance.
Cleric Prayer of Incredible Smiting 2.25 normal damage (or with maximize 4.25 or with both empower and maximize 5.75)
Cleric Smiting (40% more damage then normal) add to superior potency you get 90% more damage.

Now, I might be wrong about some of the numbers, as I just started playing casters recently as melee is real boring now. I do know this, my cleric get regular hits of 100+ on his blade barrier and crits near 600.

Time to correct your poor math again. First off math is a sequence if do it out of order it works out wrong. Second there no way to get 27% crit on any spells and blade barrier has only 9% because nothing for no type damage yet. Items do not stack with potions or clickies. So must you can get is 9% from enchantments and 9% from items or potions. Second can not just add maximize with empowered and crit damage do the math. If you were correct in doing so never see 600crit. First lets work out avg. damage for the spell 14d3+42=140-210 damage(with empower and mazimize on). Now its time add your potency item 140-210x1.5=210-315. Finally lets add your crit damage 1.25 for the best item avg. and 1.5 for reg crit damage, there is no type damage enchantments yet so no need. max crit for blade barrier is 551 low crit would be 367 ranges from 367 to 551. If did it your math way have take 5.75 + .9= 6.65 or 5.75 + 1.9 = 7.65 times blade barrier avg damage without no empower or maximize is 56-84=428 to 489. Funny part is yours is lower damage with more items, that impossible to have with blade barrier at present time. All these done with assumption you have made the saving throw.


Absolute bs there is no way that you can hit a bladebarrier for 600 damage i'm not even sure u can actually crit a bladebarrier i have all the smiting and sup pot 6 items max+empower and the kukri from the queen for arcane lore and i've NEVER seen a hit over 300.


If this is what you "know" ...hence your sure about this then i call bs on everything you've posted because thats saying everything else might be slightly speculated but this 1 thing you know for sure(which is absolutley wrong) is the way it is.

Your right can not get to 600, but with the right items you can crit into the 500's. Greenblade is one of them items. His math is way off though. Cone of Cold with all items and enchantments would have 13.05 when crit over base damage not. and 4.75 without crit and just maximize and empower. Weak mobs against the cone of cold would have more though 26.1 times base damage if they weak vrs cold spells. max crit would be 2192 against mobs weak for double damage agianst cold spells.

Taojeff
01-07-2008, 01:09 PM
What mobs that are immune to crits?

;)

Almost nothing in 4th edition is immune to crits. The theory is that you can hit even undead and constructs in the right place(s) to deal more-than-normal damage.

I think this is covered in Wizards Presents: Races and Classes. I'll see if I can find an exact quote when I get home.

That is right, in 4.0 they did away with a lot of immunities when they were rebalancing player vs. monster. Sure they took out a lot of SOD and nerfed some spells, but they fixed monsters also. Doing it right all the way around. Hope DDO does the same.

BillBob
01-07-2008, 01:24 PM
Methinks they are streamlining Dungeons & Dragons to be simpler and easier for game developers to implement. I've played the PnP for years, mainly in the 2nd Ed. AD&D era, and most all the D&D rpg games. Honestly, in every video game iteration of D&D, the game mechanics were horrifyingly unbalanced. I mean, of course the D&D mechanics don't work when you strip down all the story, circumstance and DM tweaking that goes into a PnP session. Especially in the 'run and gun' environment that is the video game world...

Sadly, the simplified system may lead to more boring and restrictive PnP experiences but maybe the money and future is in the licensing of video games. ;)

MysticTheurge
01-07-2008, 01:29 PM
Methinks they are streamlining Dungeons & Dragons to be simpler and easier for game developers to implement.

And for DMs to run. ;)

Taojeff
01-07-2008, 03:39 PM
And for DMs to run. ;)

Although harder to plan I think, not that I mind. Just because of the wide range of abilities characters will have, there will be more of a chance for a player to pull off a "wow was not counting on that, now I have to totally re-write the adventure mid-stream"

MysticTheurge
01-07-2008, 03:59 PM
Although harder to plan I think, not that I mind. Just because of the wide range of abilities characters will have, there will be more of a chance for a player to pull off a "wow was not counting on that, now I have to totally re-write the adventure mid-stream"

It's kind of moot to debate this before we know what abilities are released, but I expect it'll be easier.

Anecdotal example: I like to pace my adventures a lot more. There isn't so much of the dungeon crawling, but there is a lot more travel here to meet with A guy, get jumped by B, then meet with C and head off to D where you're going to fight with E.

In order to fit the 3.5 4-encounters-per-day paradigm that (and one more encounter) all has to happen in 1 day! Which just doesn't make sense, since traveling to meet with C takes three days. Inevitably this ends up meaning that my PCs are overpowered compared to their encounters because it's the only actual combat encounter in the day.

The new system of per-encounter abilities with a few per-day abilities means it'll be a lot easier to plan adventures, since you don't have to have a certain number of encounters per day.

Overall, I don't get the impression that most of the abilities will be "Wasn't counting on that... now for a total rewrite" kind of abilities. But again, that's just speculation until we see an actual PHB.

TunrikRylogar
01-08-2008, 09:47 AM
It's kind of moot to debate this before we know what abilities are released, but I expect it'll be easier.

Anecdotal example: I like to pace my adventures a lot more. There isn't so much of the dungeon crawling, but there is a lot more travel here to meet with A guy, get jumped by B, then meet with C and head off to D where you're going to fight with E.

In order to fit the 3.5 4-encounters-per-day paradigm that (and one more encounter) all has to happen in 1 day! Which just doesn't make sense, since traveling to meet with C takes three days. Inevitably this ends up meaning that my PCs are overpowered compared to their encounters because it's the only actual combat encounter in the day.

The new system of per-encounter abilities with a few per-day abilities means it'll be a lot easier to plan adventures, since you don't have to have a certain number of encounters per day.

Overall, I don't get the impression that most of the abilities will be "Wasn't counting on that... now for a total rewrite" kind of abilities. But again, that's just speculation until we see an actual PHB.

I agree wholeheartedly and, from what I have heard, it will be a big improvement. There were always only two choices when it came to the 'one random encounter on the road' scenario: give the party an encounter of about their level that they could trounce because they could be fresh for it and completely recover afterwards or bump up the difficulty which makes the encounter more swingy and have someone potentially die. Some time ago, I bumped up the 'only encounter of the day' a little bit while the party was lost in a desert. While most of the party survived, their survival skill/create water spellcaster/navigator died. One dead character from a slightly more challenging encounter was effectively a TPK (EL was about 2 above the party, but used several weaker creatures rather than one tough one). The story is a bit more complicated than that, of course.

One of the things that I, as a DM, feel most positive about is the streamlining of encounter creation, such that it is easy to throw together a tactically interesting encounter very quickly. While Dungeonscape (great book) has helped me find new ways to keep every encounter interesting and exciting, I spend way too much time on encounter design lately. It is easy enough to say 'three medium fire elementals in this 10' diameter cave' for a EL 6 group, but it takes more time to say 'average salamander with his advanced hit-die magmin buddy scavanging for treasure on the shore of this lava lake' for an EL 6 group. I am also happy to see emphasis on encounters in which the party fights equal numbers of enemies rather than party of five against one creature.

It takes a lot of work to do the 4 encounters of the party level per day adventure and make it interesting, well-plotted, and well-paced and, without a lot of artificial contrivance, you still run the risk that your party is going to blast one encounter to slag with all of their resources and then retreat, rest, and repeat, thereby removing half the challenge and fun.

bellack
01-08-2008, 11:05 AM
Important points from 4.0

I do not know how many of you have been following 4.0, which will be coming out this May. But alot has changed, in fact the word alot does not really do it justice. The main points I will summarize here:

1. 4.0 is kind of what they wanted 3.0 to be, but they were afraid it was going to be to drastic of a change.
2. 3.0 & 3.5 suffered from both an imbalance between classes and their effectiveness, but also an imbalance between levels. Basically there was a sweet spot from 7-14 where the math just worked. 4.0 has made some changes to try and stretch this sweet spot to the entire level range.
3. The parties effectiveness hindered to much around the spells casters had at higher level. Many spells could make or break and adventure. 4.0 has removed many spells, and done away with the d6 spell staples. Casters are also still effective now after they run out of spells, and have abilities that they can still do. Many overpowered spells were removed.
4. For non-spellcasters many turns were boring as there was just not interesting options. In 4.0 EVERY class has per day and per encounter abilities. Every class, even melee draws on some form of power at higher levels (power is the term for a source (much like magic or psionics (both are sources).
5. Every level holds meaningful choices to make (more feats etc). No more waiting for the next two levels to get a feat etc.
6. Every class has some form of healing.
7. Many classes have changed and been rebalanced. Druids are now all about the wildshape ability. barbarians have totemic powers, warlords are a new class (much like a marshal), palidans have many different abilities (diff smites for example).

Basically all classes are viable at all levels. Every level has a meaningful choice. You have something interesting to do all the time with classes/races.

Now how this relates to DDO.

1. All classes are certainly not viable, especially melee and rogues at higher level.
2. Many classes do not have meaningful options compared to other classes at higher level.
3. There is a HUGE imbalance between the DPS of classes, which is important because killing stuff is the primary focus of 90% of the game.

I hope DDO can learn something from 4.0, but if not all is not lost. I am fairly certain that there is a 4.0 MMO on the horizon.

I was hoping that DDO could learn something from 3.5 like maybe following more of the 3.5 rules but they did not. My group has had no problem with balance since 3.5 came out so I'm not sure what your talking about.
I will tell you one thing 4.0 is not impressive at all. I do not like that they are taking many spells away that allowed D&D to be challanging. I don't like it that every class is basically identical now. I don't like that they dumb down and weakened magic. So far there is just not much going for 4.0.

MysticTheurge
01-08-2008, 11:06 AM
I will tell you one thing 4.0 is not impressive at all. I do not like that they are taking many spells away that allowed D&D to be challanging. I don't like it that every class is basically identical now. I don't like that they dumb down and weakened magic. So far there is just not much going for 4.0.

So you're playtesting it huh?

Or were you just making a bunch of assumptions about what you think it's going to be like?

bellack
01-08-2008, 11:17 AM
Not really. From what I understand they changed the basics of melee combat. The extra attack per 5 bab rule is gone from what I've heard. Never the less it sounds like the new system really favors melee casters are really taking a hit in PnP. Core Caster stuff like "Wish" are gone and casting is really getting nurfed. I don't trust the Dev team they got on 4th edition, they really come across like a bunch of those guys in 1st and 2nd edition who didn't see a problem with psionics.

And that is why I will stick with 3.5. It is the best rule set for PnP D&D so far and 4.0 does not sound much better that 1.0 or 2.0. It sounds like they are taking a step back in the wrong direction.

bellack
01-08-2008, 11:21 AM
It doesnt.

DDO is based somewhere in between PnP 3.5 rules and whatever the devs can make up and provide.

But it is mostly 'whatever the devs can make up and provide.' So this translates into
3.5 about 20%
Made up **** 80%

samagee
01-08-2008, 12:58 PM
I will have to say that I do like the removal of critical confirmations. I hate having to confirm crits.

The games I ran, I removed the crit confirmations because if you roll a crit then its yours.

samagee
01-08-2008, 01:04 PM
It's kind of moot to debate this before we know what abilities are released, but I expect it'll be easier.

Anecdotal example: I like to pace my adventures a lot more. There isn't so much of the dungeon crawling, but there is a lot more travel here to meet with A guy, get jumped by B, then meet with C and head off to D where you're going to fight with E.

In order to fit the 3.5 4-encounters-per-day paradigm that (and one more encounter) all has to happen in 1 day! Which just doesn't make sense, since traveling to meet with C takes three days. Inevitably this ends up meaning that my PCs are overpowered compared to their encounters because it's the only actual combat encounter in the day.

The new system of per-encounter abilities with a few per-day abilities means it'll be a lot easier to plan adventures, since you don't have to have a certain number of encounters per day.

Overall, I don't get the impression that most of the abilities will be "Wasn't counting on that... now for a total rewrite" kind of abilities. But again, that's just speculation until we see an actual PHB.

Come on! The amount of encounters is basically dependant on the build up of enemies in an area. Also, those encounters are chances to have an encounter. The DM can, because he has the authority, decide not to have the encounter depending on what kind of a feel he wants the party to have of the area. I ran one campaign that was HEAVILY built up of undead because of what was going on. If I rolled that there wasn't an encounter, I would put something small in instead.

People must learn to think for themselves rather then rely on the computer to give them the answer.

samagee
01-08-2008, 01:08 PM
What mobs that are immune to crits?

;)

Almost nothing in 4th edition is immune to crits. The theory is that you can hit even undead and constructs in the right place(s) to deal more-than-normal damage.

I think this is covered in Wizards Presents: Races and Classes. I'll see if I can find an exact quote when I get home.

That is non-sense. I had such high hopes for version 4. I didn't think they would be taking steps backward in development.

MysticTheurge
01-08-2008, 01:08 PM
Come on! The amount of encounters is basically dependant on the build up of enemies in an area. Also, those encounters are chances to have an encounter. The DM can, because he has the authority, decide not to have the encounter depending on what kind of a feel he wants the party to have of the area. I ran one campaign that was HEAVILY built up of undead because of what was going on. If I rolled that there wasn't an encounter, I would put something small in instead.

People must learn to think for themselves rather then rely on the computer to give them the answer.

But the 3.5 encounter design set up forces me to put in 3 throw-away encounters any time I want to run an actual encounter.

I don't want "random encounters" or at the very least I want as few as possible. I want all my encounters to be meaningful. If they don't advance the story they should at least be related to the story.

samagee
01-08-2008, 01:09 PM
But the 3.5 encounter design set up forces me to put in 3 throw-away encounters any time I want to run an actual encounter.

I don't want "random encounters" or at the very least I want as few as possible. I want all my encounters to be meaningful. If they don't advance the story they should at least be related to the story.

Then you as a DM would do that. It's called being prepared.

samagee
01-08-2008, 01:10 PM
That is right, in 4.0 they did away with a lot of immunities when they were rebalancing player vs. monster. Sure they took out a lot of SOD and nerfed some spells, but they fixed monsters also. Doing it right all the way around. Hope DDO does the same.

If DDO follows suit, I will stop and go back to some other game. Most likely I will be using d20pro and playing 3.0/3.5 rule sets with folks.

MysticTheurge
01-08-2008, 01:11 PM
Then you as a DM would do that. It's called being prepared.

...

Did you read my initial example?

I don't want my stories to artificially have to have 4 encounters in a single day. That forces you to work in a way that may not make the most sense or tell the best stories.

Taojeff
01-08-2008, 01:57 PM
...

Did you read my initial example?

I don't want my stories to artificially have to have 4 encounters in a single day. That forces you to work in a way that may not make the most sense or tell the best stories.

Exactly, the story, not some rule should be paramount in any campaign or module, many rules are meant as guidelines for the DM to follow and can be implemented when needed. I always felt modules/campaign that had needless random encounters seemed silly in the extreme. Especially when said encounters seem to not fit in with the story whatsoever. Of course, on the flip-side, it is nice to throw in a weird random encounter every once in a while to break the monotony of a campaign. For example, maybe a ancient crypt guarded by viscous ghasts, in the middle of a war waging vs. gnolls...etc

farsight
01-08-2008, 03:50 PM
But the 3.5 encounter design set up forces me to put in 3 throw-away encounters any time I want to run an actual encounter.

I don't want "random encounters" or at the very least I want as few as possible. I want all my encounters to be meaningful. If they don't advance the story they should at least be related to the story.

im missing something here. if, like so many others, your campaigns are about the storytelling, and it sounds to me as if thats important to you, then change/modify/ignore whatever elements are forcing you to do this.

i sound so astounded because i really feel like ive missed something important somewhere in the 3.5 rules if there is such a strong arming of the dm into a set number of encounters.

MysticTheurge
01-08-2008, 03:55 PM
im missing something here. if, like so many others, your campaigns are about the storytelling, and it sounds to me as if thats important to you, then change/modify/ignore whatever elements are forcing you to do this.

i sound so astounded because i really feel like ive missed something important somewhere in the 3.5 rules if there is such a strong arming of the dm into a set number of encounters.

That's a bit difficult.

D&D 3.5 "per day" abilities (most notably spells) are all balanced around the concept of 4 EL-equal-to-your-level encounters per day.

You can't get rid of that without entirely reworking how all the classes work. And that's more... work than I want to do.

I mean, you can completely ignore that fact if you want to. But spellcasters are going to be a serious force to reckon with (even more so than normal) in your game, because they're going to have all their best spells in all your encounters. Which is not how the game is designed.

farsight
01-08-2008, 04:01 PM
That's a bit difficult.

D&D 3.5 "per day" abilities (most notably spells) are all balanced around the concept of 4 EL-equal-to-your-level encounters per day.

You can't get rid of that without entirely reworking how all the classes work. And that's more... work than I want to do.

I mean, you can completely ignore that fact if you want to. But spellcasters are going to be a serious force to reckon with (even more so than normal) in your game, because they're going to have all their best spells in all your encounters. Which is not how the game is designed.

okay, i can see what youre saying there. but i spose random encounters for me meant random encounters. something that in most cases can be trounced on the way to somewhere else. a side dungeon or quest would be different for me. i will say this though i remember a certain invasion campaign a friend dm'd and the encounters (patrols, transport caravans, etc.) always seemed fairly well balanced to our abilities at that moment in time, even if there was only one during that day.

more importantly for me, storytelling again, the people that play in my campaigns typically know when to bow out of a weak encounter because it will eat up spells, or when to use certain spells or not, because, again they might need them later. it just seems to me that there is more at issue than what you have mentioned. and if im right than the work arounds for my friends and i have been fairly easy on the workload.

Lorien_the_First_One
01-08-2008, 04:10 PM
That's a bit difficult.

D&D 3.5 "per day" abilities (most notably spells) are all balanced around the concept of 4 EL-equal-to-your-level encounters per day.

You can't get rid of that without entirely reworking how all the classes work. And that's more... work than I want to do.

I mean, you can completely ignore that fact if you want to. But spellcasters are going to be a serious force to reckon with (even more so than normal) in your game, because they're going to have all their best spells in all your encounters. Which is not how the game is designed.

You deal with that by giving them encounters that are 1 or 2 ELs higher, either through higher CR monsters, more monsters per encounter, or giving the monsters circumstance advantages. No biggie.

MysticTheurge
01-08-2008, 04:22 PM
You deal with that by giving them encounters that are 1 or 2 ELs higher, either through higher CR monsters, more monsters per encounter, or giving the monsters circumstance advantages. No biggie.

As someone else mentioned earlier, yes you can do this. But then there's always more chance for things to rapidly swing bad.

I don't want to kill my PCs, just challenge them.

And it's actually kind of remarkable how little challenge a EL +1/2 encounter is for a fully rested party.

Aesop
01-08-2008, 04:29 PM
As someone else mentioned earlier, yes you can do this. But then there's always more chance for things to rapidly swing bad.

I don't want to kill my PCs, just challenge them.

And it's actually kind of remarkable how little challenge a EL +1/2 encounter is for a fully rested party.


Nah kill them. TPK FTW :D

That's what we do... we call it a learning curve. Just don't make it completely one sided by having effects they can't possibly resist go off continuously. They'll start thinking more and try to overcome these types of challenges. My pnp group frequently runs various types of games that involve placing the pcs at a severe disadvantage in order to see if we can get around work our ways around the limitations of the characters. Fight smarter not harder and all that


Aesop


ps: though we sometimes have a pc or two that constantly charge the gun implacements ... they die and roll new characters... often. You'd figure the negative reinforcement would get through to them,,, but somepeople are a little thicker than others

MysticTheurge
01-08-2008, 04:32 PM
Nah kill them. TPK FTW :D

That's what we do... we call it a learning curve. Just don't make it completely one sided by having effects they can't possibly resist go off continuously. They'll start thinking more and try to overcome these types of challenges. My pnp group frequently runs various types of games that involve placing the pcs at a severe disadvantage in order to see if we can get around work our ways around the limitations of the characters. Fight smarter not harder and all that

That's all well and good, if you like that sort of gameplay.

But neither I nor my players like a style of game that involves a lot of PC death.

And all that aside, thanks for the DMing tips everyone, but I was simply trying to point out why I'm going to prefer a system that doesn't have a "standard number of encounters per day."

Yes, there are workarounds for such a system, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.

TunrikRylogar
01-08-2008, 11:36 PM
Nah kill them. TPK FTW :D

That's what we do... we call it a learning curve. Just don't make it completely one sided by having effects they can't possibly resist go off continuously. They'll start thinking more and try to overcome these types of challenges. My pnp group frequently runs various types of games that involve placing the pcs at a severe disadvantage in order to see if we can get around work our ways around the limitations of the characters. Fight smarter not harder and all that

Which is fine in a combat heavy game where the players don't mind watching their characters die. But there are other styles of play. I understand MT's point because he seems to match my style. I like to run story-driven games, particularly political games and mystery games. I've had many sessions with a single combat encounter or none at all, notwithstanding the occasional encounter that wasn't intended to be a combat encounter but turned into one once my players had their say. The combats that did happen were always exciting, meaningful affairs; they were climaxes. 3.0 and 3.5 actually forced a change in my DMing style to some degree. Whereas before my players might figure out the chancellor's plot against the king, expose him, and then confront the chancellor him in a battle royale as he tried to assassinate the king and then his loyal lackey in the royal guard suddenly turned on the king just as the party had the chancellor wrapped up; now I am struggling to drain the PCs for the final encounter so it can be properly balanced for their level without potentially killing someone with one bad die roll. So, the party might storm the palace and discover the chancellor has put his own loyal elite guards in place. They have to fight their way through the castle as quickly as possible to stop the assassination and warn the king that he is surrounded by agents of the chancellor. Of course, that second story might be just as good, if not better than the first, but it is still a marked change. My combat encounters have become a little less memorable as a result.

I have also noticed that my groups in 3.5 have become a little blase' about resource management and I am not sure what this stems from. Unless there is some explicit time constraint or other contrivance, my groups don't really think the way they used to about burning resources in the first encounter of the session/adventure. The strange thing is that the structure of the game hasn't really changed resource management from earlier editions to 3.5. Wizards still get X fireballs a day and Clerics still get X Cure Moderate spells. It is no easier or more difficult to leave an adventure and rest than it used to be. Its a weird shift and I wonder if I am the only one who is seeing it at his table or if there is some nebulous quality in 3.5 that says: 'there will always be more resources, that is what more means.'

Taojeff
01-09-2008, 06:40 AM
Which is fine in a combat heavy game where the players don't mind watching their characters die. But there are other styles of play. I understand MT's point because he seems to match my style. I like to run story-driven games, particularly political games and mystery games. I've had many sessions with a single combat encounter or none at all, notwithstanding the occasional encounter that wasn't intended to be a combat encounter but turned into one once my players had their say. The combats that did happen were always exciting, meaningful affairs; they were climaxes. 3.0 and 3.5 actually forced a change in my DMing style to some degree. Whereas before my players might figure out the chancellor's plot against the king, expose him, and then confront the chancellor him in a battle royale as he tried to assassinate the king and then his loyal lackey in the royal guard suddenly turned on the king just as the party had the chancellor wrapped up; now I am struggling to drain the PCs for the final encounter so it can be properly balanced for their level without potentially killing someone with one bad die roll. So, the party might storm the palace and discover the chancellor has put his own loyal elite guards in place. They have to fight their way through the castle as quickly as possible to stop the assassination and warn the king that he is surrounded by agents of the chancellor. Of course, that second story might be just as good, if not better than the first, but it is still a marked change. My combat encounters have become a little less memorable as a result.

I have also noticed that my groups in 3.5 have become a little blase' about resource management and I am not sure what this stems from. Unless there is some explicit time constraint or other contrivance, my groups don't really think the way they used to about burning resources in the first encounter of the session/adventure. The strange thing is that the structure of the game hasn't really changed resource management from earlier editions to 3.5. Wizards still get X fireballs a day and Clerics still get X Cure Moderate spells. It is no easier or more difficult to leave an adventure and rest than it used to be. Its a weird shift and I wonder if I am the only one who is seeing it at his table or if there is some nebulous quality in 3.5 that says: 'there will always be more resources, that is what more means.'

Just a side note of how well 4.0 can deal with alot of combat. All classes have per encounter abilities. One comes to mind is the Palidans Renewing Smiite which does double damage plus char and heals a allied target within 5 squares. There will be a lot of healing to go around...with many being per encounter. So even if you out of healing one encounter, you can be full up the next... or close to it. What it sounds like to me, as the class abilities, feats etc will help characters be more self-reliant without having to worry so much about gear. Sure gear is there and important in many ways, its just not the only thing.. I think this gives 4.0 a better balance all around.

bellack
01-09-2008, 07:07 AM
I guess I don't agree, a lot of revisons over the years have been to increase the balance of melee vs. caster. They have tried to make melee characters more fun to play by implementing a lot of new feats/prestige classes etc... to make them more interesting.

It really depends on what you mean by balance, I am all for making all classes fun, interesting, and useful in their own way from level 1-20. In 3.5 they did not do that, casters are just more fun (and powerful) at high levels. Just because you make them a little more even and equally interesting to play hardly violates the spirit of D&D in my opinion. To each his own I suppose.

I guess I don't agree with you here. I have a blast playing melee types as well as casters in 3.5. I have through out the years played every class that 3.5 had to offer and I like them all. My least favorite is the Ranger but then I never cared much for playing a Ranger but this has nothing to do with mechanics, It is just not my style.

bellack
01-09-2008, 07:14 AM
I completely agree with each class being useful IN THEIR OWN WAY. Giving all classes access to healing, giving all classes access to magic, etc. just makes them less individual IMHO.

I liked the fact that if I wanted to play a Paladin I knew I was giving up the choice to be any alignment other than LG. It's a trade off that I was forced to make. I liked that I could play a 18th level wizard and have great power but was susceptible to ONE hit from a raging barbarian. There are supposed to be trade offs for everything and so far what I have seen of 4.0 is the removal of a lot of those trade offs.


I totally 100000000000% agree with this statment

Geonis
01-09-2008, 07:44 AM
I don't want to kill my PCs, just challenge them.

And it's actually kind of remarkable how little challenge a EL +1/2 encounter is for a fully rested party.

Then what you do, is the next time they "blow their wad", so to speak, you bring up something semi-harmless almost immediately after.

Watch your big, bad characters go screaming in panic from kobolds or goblins when they(PCs) are at 10th level, and out of spells/rages/whatever. This reinforces the "never blow your load" theory, 'cause you never know. :D

Geonis
01-09-2008, 07:53 AM
This (among others) is about the 10th post on "balancing" casters vs. melee (albeit this one is veiled in a 3.5 vs. 4.0 argument).

Let me explain my thoughts on this argument.

The person who sticks or slashes things with a pointy metal stick, is and never should be, the equal of the person who rearranges the building blocks of the universe at their whim.

Understand?

Edit: Oh, and the point of 4.0 is not to "fix the problems with 3.5", if it was, they would not be charging $20 for "preview books" of what 4.0 is all about. It is a blatant money grab.

MysticTheurge
01-09-2008, 08:17 AM
The person who sticks or slashes things with a pointy metal stick, is and never should be, the equal of the person who rearranges the building blocks of the universe at their whim.

Understand?

No.

Aside from not really having any real justification (magic has to follow rules; those rules can be whatever you make them), it's bad game design.


Edit: Oh, and the point of 4.0 is not to "fix the problems with 3.5", if it was, they would not be charging $20 for "preview books" of what 4.0 is all about. It is a blatant money grab.

Why can't it be both? ;)

But then, I've never understood why people get up in arms about companies trying to make money (I mean who'd have thunk it!?). Do you not want D&D to be a successful brand?

bellack
01-09-2008, 09:56 AM
During those thirteen swings the Fighter is getting pummeled. The caster has over 1,000 Spell Points which he can use for any spell in his inventory and can cast Disentegrate over and over and over again with no regard to lower-level spells. When, as I understand it, the caster is only supposed to have a couple castings of the really high spells and the fun is trying to decide if now is the time to cast it or save it for maybe a bigger fight later. But nope, as it is now, a caster can basically insta-death everything for as long as his mana holds up...which is way too much mana as it is then throw in DVs, a plethora of shrines, mnemonic potions and then spells supplemented by scrolls, wands and potions. And you know this. I really think Turbine screwed the pooch here and it's just going to get worse from here-on-out and will probably make things worse with some emergency quick-fix. My $.02.

Sure, a melee has a vorpal for insta-death but that is less than one chance in 20 (have to verify the crit) and isn't even on par.

That is why they should have kept to the D&D rules on spells or reduce the spell points per reset.

Talon_Moonshadow
01-09-2008, 10:47 AM
I hate the fact that they are producing yet another version of D&D. Making all my old books useless and forcing me to spend tons of money if I want to keep playing. (reality is I haven't played PnP consistantly for years, so maybe it doesn't matter)

I also hate any of the changes I have heard about.

D&D was based on fantasy books and movies.....so were the classes.
Conan swung a sword or an axe......and sometimes hated magic and wizards. He use no magic himself.
Gandolf and Merlin claimed to possess formidible magic....although for some reason seemed reluctant to cast their spells.
And Bilbo seemed to be the stealthy halfling with few martial skills.

Warriors (to barrow a 2nd addition term) should be normal knight with no magical powers....other than the items they aquire.
Rogues were a good concept.....allowing for a wide variety of characters.
Wizards should use magic.....not wear armor (in general) and have some kind of limit on how often they use their spells.

These are coree D&D rules that should not be changed.

Now, you can always improve on something, and you can always strive to make the classes more equal in power.
There should be access to healing without a cleric (but we already have that.....just a little too expensive I think)
There should be ways for melee types to get extremely powerful (eventually)...without being arcane magic weilders.

Also something you all should keep in mind about 4.0. When 3.0 started it didn't have all the spells we used to have or many other things from earlier editions of D&D.....
But as the greed of WotC and players grew, we eventually had sall the uper powerful spells and prestige classes that we have come to love and/or hate.

bellack
01-09-2008, 10:54 AM
The changes in 4.0 are obviously a move away from roleplaying and an attempt to take D&D into a pure combat tactics and strategy arena. I'm sure it is an attempt to appeal to a larger, younger audience. It is doomed to complete and utter failure.

Here's why:

1) This particular experiment has already occurred. One such experiment is currently going by the name "Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach." It has been a miserable failure, and grows more miserable with each new attempt to capture that target demographic.

2) It is based on the faulty premise that dungeons, dragons, and wargaming go hand in hand. They don't. Wargaming is probably best without any magic system whatsoever. Dungeons and dragons are about fantasy, imagination, and roleplaying. You don't play it to swing a big sword and cleave enemies in two. You play it to talk about swinging a razor sharp falchion and cleaving thy enemies in twain. I hope that distinction isn't too subtle.

3) Better battle systems already exist. D&D is still a viable product because of the loyalty of its existing customer base. Backstabbing those people to get at the large video game market is going to backfire. (And remember, it already has... I know I won't be buying anything else with the D&D logo on it without careful validation of what that really means.) Which brings up item number 4...

4) People actually like roleplaying (...and yes I know that none of the people reading this post are in that category). Using a label that already has huge name value in the field of roleplaying for an entirely different type of product is just going to get some people really angry. People got really angry over DDO, and the word of mouth reputation has suffered severely.

1) I agree here

2) This I do not agree with you at all. D&D started out as a war game then the RP elements were added. The current 3.5 is the best blend of Wargaming and RP which for me is much better than a RP only game (boring.) And there is no reason why magic should be taken out. Been RPing and Wargaming at the same time for years (D&D D20, Gurps, Fantasy Trip, White Wolf, Star Frontiers, Top Secret etc.)

3) Agree with D&D being a viable product.

4)Yes People do like role-playing but people like different types of RP. Some like both the RP and Game (war game) elements in the game. For my group the game is just as important as the RP. Others like RP only with little to no game play (I don't see the point in this style but some like it.) Now as I have stated in previous post, I do not like the direction of 4th edition and I agree that it will not draw in the player base that is currently covered by 3.0 and 3.5. I believe that it will be a big disappointment for D&D fans as DDO is.

MysticTheurge
01-09-2008, 11:08 AM
I hate the fact that they are producing yet another version of D&D. Making all my old books useless and forcing me to spend tons of money if I want to keep playing. (reality is I haven't played PnP consistantly for years, so maybe it doesn't matter)

This is silly. You don't have to switch to a new edition unless you want to.

I'm sure there are still some people playing by the original D&D rules.

bellack
01-09-2008, 11:26 AM
4.0 is the attempt by wizards to Kill D&D.

They tried to kill it the first time by making 3.0, then making 3.5 6 months later.

How much more can they dumb this down to make more money is all that 4.0 is about.

Well I would not go that far. They are going from the best rule set for D&D 3.5 to something that looks as bad as 1st edition rules for D&D. A step in the wrong direction.
Rule sets listed from Best to worst (1 being the best)

1. 3.5
2. 3.0
3. 4.0 (so far based on reading about the rules)
4. 2.0
5. 1.0

Talon_Moonshadow
01-09-2008, 11:28 AM
This is silly. You don't have to switch to a new edition unless you want to.

I'm sure there are still some people playing by the original D&D rules.

I doubt there really are.....but if so, I'm willing to sell my books to them. :)
I held out on 3rd edition for a long time........but I was constantly preasured into adopting more and more of 3rd edition until I switched altogether.
Everyone wants what's new......even if it is junk.
I don't have a regular group....haven't had on for years.....but unless i get hooked up with somre real oldtimers, I know that I will need the latest and greatest rules to play with them.

Read any forums and you will see a huge number of people demanding the new or oprional rules being impemented. These forums and this post is a perfect example.......4.0 is still being designed, but already people are pushing to implement it in DDO.

I fear DDO as we know it is already doomed just by the annoucenment of 4.0 D&D.

I'll give it two years tops before we switch.
Which means we will never get the 3.0/3.5 stuff we've been promised from the devs.

Of course this will probably make a lot of people happy......scratch eveything and start over is the American way.

Invalid_86
01-09-2008, 11:46 AM
This is silly. You don't have to switch to a new edition unless you want to.

I'm sure there are still some people playing by the original D&D rules.

Now I am of the approach that I will see how it is once it comes out.

I also don't mind paying for quality, and realize that everything eventually gets upgraded. I don't drive the same car as I did X years ago, or play the same computer games, or use my VCR, or listen to my cassettes. That's just the way of the world. Throwing a hissy fit about it is pointless. Can anyone really say that the money they invested in their couple of core books hasn't paid off tenfold in entertainment value over the past couple of years? Books are a bargain that way, and you can share them.

If 4.0 really is **** like some people want to say it is then people won't buy it, it will phase out, and life will go on.

Tanka
01-09-2008, 11:56 AM
This is silly. You don't have to switch to a new edition unless you want to.

I'm sure there are still some people playing by the original D&D rules.
In fact. If you go to rpg.net and ask around, there are several people who'd chime in that they still play 1e.


If 4.0 really is **** like some people want to say it is then people won't buy it, it will phase out, and life will go on.
That's what we Shadowrun players said about 4th Ed. It's yet to happen.

Taojeff
01-09-2008, 11:59 AM
I doubt there really are.....but if so, I'm willing to sell my books to them. :)
I held out on 3rd edition for a long time........but I was constantly preasured into adopting more and more of 3rd edition until I switched altogether.
Everyone wants what's new......even if it is junk.
I don't have a regular group....haven't had on for years.....but unless i get hooked up with somre real oldtimers, I know that I will need the latest and greatest rules to play with them.

Read any forums and you will see a huge number of people demanding the new or oprional rules being impemented. These forums and this post is a perfect example.......4.0 is still being designed, but already people are pushing to implement it in DDO.

I fear DDO as we know it is already doomed just by the annoucenment of 4.0 D&D.

I'll give it two years tops before we switch.
Which means we will never get the 3.0/3.5 stuff we've been promised from the devs.

Of course this will probably make a lot of people happy......scratch eveything and start over is the American way.

I doubt DDO will ever fully adopt 4.0. There is simply just to much to change. More likely you will see a DDO2 or another game based on 4.0

Invalid_86
01-09-2008, 12:06 PM
That's what we Shadowrun players said about 4th Ed. It's yet to happen.

Then again Shadowrun has always been the funnest game with an embarassingly bad rule set ever. You can't really expect much there!

Tanka
01-09-2008, 12:09 PM
Then again Shadowrun has always been the funnest game with an embarassingly bad rule set ever. You can't really expect much there!
Oh no, there's worse.

Much worse.

I personally like the ruleset, but that's just me.

Invalid_86
01-09-2008, 12:16 PM
Oh no, there's worse.

Much worse.

I personally like the ruleset, but that's just me.


But is it as much fun?
It still remains my wife's one and only favorite RPG- even if she can't figure out what's going on half the time with the piles of dice you have to roll and the insanely slow combats. Don't even get started on decking- we had a standing NO DECKERS rule after a while. Somehow though it works.

Perhaps it's the setting and the cool characters that you can make that really sells the game?

Yaga_Nub
01-09-2008, 12:17 PM
2) This I do not agree with you at all. D&D started out as a war game then the RP elements were added. The current 3.5 is the best blend of Wargaming and RP which for me is much better than a RP only game (boring.) And there is no reason why magic should be taken out. Been RPing and Wargaming at the same time for years (D&D D20, Gurps, Fantasy Trip, White Wolf, Star Frontiers, Top Secret etc.)

I miss Top Secret!

Tanka
01-09-2008, 12:18 PM
But is it as much fun?
It still remains my wife's one and only favorite RPG- even if she can't figure out what's going on half the time with the piles of dice you have to roll and the insanely slow combats. Somehow though it works.
Fair enough that the game is more fun. Then again, I'm a cyberpunk at heart. I'm not a huge fan of fantasy settings, but I'll play it if it's the only thing my group is running.

To this day, I kill all ants I see because of a campaign one of my GMs ran in Bug City.

That campaign was five years ago. Bugs creep me right the frag out.

Yaga_Nub
01-09-2008, 12:19 PM
In fact. If you go to rpg.net and ask around, there are several people who'd chime in that they still play 1e.

Once I started playing DDO, I actually went out, got the books for 3.5 and found old and new friends to play with. Within 3 months we were back to 1e (with a few votes for basic and expert).

Invalid_86
01-09-2008, 01:25 PM
Fair enough that the game is more fun. Then again, I'm a cyberpunk at heart. I'm not a huge fan of fantasy settings, but I'll play it if it's the only thing my group is running.

To this day, I kill all ants I see because of a campaign one of my GMs ran in Bug City.

That campaign was five years ago. Bugs creep me right the frag out.


Oh yeah I am a Shadowrun player from waaaay back. I remember waiting in the lines of doom at Gen Con to pick up my 1st ed and 3rd ed rulebooks when they came out!

I used to run the game alot in the early days because I was the only one that could figure out the rules. They were a mess. I eventually quit telling people that I ran Shadowrun because if I even hinted that I knew how to run it people came out of the woodwork with characters they'd made!

Tanka
01-09-2008, 01:33 PM
Oh yeah I am a Shadowrun player from waaaay back. I remember waiting in the lines of doom at Gen Con to pick up my 1st ed and 3rd ed rulebooks when they came out!

I used to run the game alot in the early days because I was the only one that could figure out the rules. They were a mess. I eventually quit telling people that I ran Shadowrun because if I even hinted that I knew how to run it people came out of the woodwork with characters they'd made!
I dunno, I didn't think most of the rules were that hard to figure out. Decking is still up there in "...uh, what?" moments, but that's the only part I have difficulty with.

bellack
01-09-2008, 02:00 PM
I will have to say that I do like the removal of critical confirmations. I hate having to confirm crits.

They are taking away crits? Yet another mark against 4.0 in my book.

Tanka
01-09-2008, 02:11 PM
They are taking away crits? Yet another mark against 4.0 in my book.
They're taking away critical confirmations. If you roll a 20, you do max damage. No multiplier garbage that we had before, no annoying "oooh, a natural 20! C'mon, confirmation roll" hoopla that we had before.

MysticTheurge
01-09-2008, 02:18 PM
They are taking away crits? Yet another mark against 4.0 in my book.

Reading comprehension for the win. :rolleyes:

Invalid_86
01-09-2008, 02:29 PM
I dunno, I didn't think most of the rules were that hard to figure out. Decking is still up there in "...uh, what?" moments, but that's the only part I have difficulty with.

Yeah you'd think, right? But that's what I kept running into, players who were overwhealmed by the rules but figured out how to make the Coolest Character Ever and were looking for somebody to say "Yeah I've run Shadowrun before. Why do you ask?"

I'd long since quit telling people when I'd be running a game and I'd still have like a dozen people show up on game night- a couple of which I'd never met before but had characters in hand. When it came time to play people constantly had no idea what they were doing. It was amazing. But they were all salivating to play. That may be why I have the "it's the setting" theory- people wanted to play even when they had no idea how to.

Tanka
01-09-2008, 02:38 PM
Yeah you'd think, right? But that's what I kept running into, players who were overwhealmed by the rules but figured out how to make the Coolest Character Ever and were looking for somebody to say "Yeah I've run Shadowrun before. Why do you ask?"

I'd long since quit telling people when I'd be running a game and I'd still have like a dozen people show up on game night- a couple of which I'd never met before but had characters in hand. When it came time to play people constantly had no idea what they were doing. It was amazing. But they were all salivating to play. That may be why I have the "it's the setting" theory- people wanted to play even when they had no idea how to.
The setting is one of my favorite parts. Which reminds me, I gotta go back and read over some of the sourcebooks again soon. My memory's getting foggy.

It doesn't really take a math wiz to figure out how to play. A few parts here and there might be a bit confusing, but they're worded fairly straightforward.

Trok
01-09-2008, 02:50 PM
They are taking away crits? Yet another mark against 4.0 in my book.

They aren't taking away crits, just the second confirmation roll.

Yaga_Nub
01-09-2008, 03:42 PM
Reading comprehension for the win. :rolleyes:

I just easily confuse people. I'm like a walking, talking jedi mind trick.

Taojeff
01-09-2008, 04:58 PM
They aren't taking away crits, just the second confirmation roll.

Right and adding critical failures :P

Arianrhod
01-09-2008, 05:55 PM
Right and adding critical failures :P

Well, some DMs used critical failures already anyway - one of my favorite moments in a D&D game was when the rogue got a critical failure on a move silently roll, got her foot tangled in the curtains, and pulled them down, rod & all with a terrific crash :D

And, of course, there were always the "you give your weapon a mighty swing and get it stuck fast in a tree" criticals. Those could be kind of comical too.

samagee
01-10-2008, 02:03 PM
Just a side note of how well 4.0 can deal with alot of combat. All classes have per encounter abilities. One comes to mind is the Palidans Renewing Smiite which does double damage plus char and heals a allied target within 5 squares. There will be a lot of healing to go around...with many being per encounter. So even if you out of healing one encounter, you can be full up the next... or close to it. What it sounds like to me, as the class abilities, feats etc will help characters be more self-reliant without having to worry so much about gear. Sure gear is there and important in many ways, its just not the only thing.. I think this gives 4.0 a better balance all around.

I am reading through all of these and I still don't understand why people have such a phobia to thinking and planning. They add these per encounter abilities rather than per day abilities, so that people don't have to concern themselves with things. They will always look good in an encounter rather then be forced to adlib a bit. I feel for them and their inherent imcompetence as a gamer that will be engrained in them from this sort of play style. They will always have the number of phantasmal killers spells ready when they neeed it, so they can look L33T.

MysticTheurge
01-10-2008, 02:06 PM
I am reading through all of these and I still don't understand why people have such a phobia to thinking and planning. They add these per encounter abilities rather than per day abilities, so that people don't have to concern themselves with things. They will always look good in an encounter rather then be forced to adlib a bit. I feel for them and their inherent imcompetence as a gamer that will be engrained in them from this sort of play style. They will always have the number of phantasmal killers spells ready when they neeed it, so they can look L33T.

Out of curiosity, what do you guys have against a system that works regardless of how many encounters you have per day?

And as far as being "leet" let's pause a moment and see who's casting aspersions on other's abilities and take a guess at who really considers themselves the most "leet."

samagee
01-10-2008, 02:12 PM
Right and adding critical failures :P

We already had critical failures in the game. In some instances it added some comedic relief.

samagee
01-10-2008, 02:19 PM
Out of curiosity, what do you guys have against a system that works regardless of how many encounters you have per day?

And as far as being "leet" let's pause a moment and see who's casting aspersions on other's abilities and take a guess at who really considers themselves the most "leet."

Let's say you know you have to face off against a certain party when you meet up. You are looking for some artifact that in the wrong hands will bring ruin to the nation. You are determined to kick the other parties rear and save the nation. You have done some research into the other party, and have a pretty good idea on how you want to be going into the confrontation.

The day you know you are going to come face to face with them, you stumble on a war party of giants that this other party ****ed off. They decide to warm up on you, and your party uses up a good deal of resources (prepared spells and what not) trying to stay alive. As you slay the last giant you are sprung upon by the opposition, you would really like to have had your discentigrate spell ready for that cheesy castor who likes to put up a wall of force in particular patterns. However, you are now forced to think on your feet and use what you have left at your disposal.

Tanka
01-10-2008, 02:24 PM
Let's say you know you have to face off against a certain party when you meet up. You are looking for some artifact that in the wrong hands will bring ruin to the nation. You are determined to kick the other parties rear and save the nation. You have done some research into the other party, and have a pretty good idea on how you want to be going into the confrontation.

The day you know you are going to come face to face with them, you stumble on a war party of giants that this other party ****ed off. They decide to warm up on you, and your party uses up a good deal of resources (prepared spells and what not) trying to stay alive. As you slay the last giant you are sprung upon by the opposition, you would really like to have had your discentigrate spell ready for that cheesy castor who likes to put up a wall of force in particular patterns. However, you are now forced to think on your feet and use what you have left at your disposal.
Considering they still have per day and per encounter abilities, as well at-will abilities, I doubt it'll be like you're making it out to be.

So they blow all their big abilities (almost certainly their per day abilities) on the big fight and get ambused. That means they have some lesser abilities (per encounter -- assuming the GM counts an immediate surprise attack after another battle a new encounter -- and at-will).

MysticTheurge
01-10-2008, 02:41 PM
Let's say you know you have to face off against a certain party when you meet up. You are looking for some artifact that in the wrong hands will bring ruin to the nation. You are determined to kick the other parties rear and save the nation. You have done some research into the other party, and have a pretty good idea on how you want to be going into the confrontation.

The day you know you are going to come face to face with them, you stumble on a war party of giants that this other party ****ed off. They decide to warm up on you, and your party uses up a good deal of resources (prepared spells and what not) trying to stay alive. As you slay the last giant you are sprung upon by the opposition, you would really like to have had your discentigrate spell ready for that cheesy castor who likes to put up a wall of force in particular patterns. However, you are now forced to think on your feet and use what you have left at your disposal.

Yeah.... and?

farsight
01-10-2008, 02:55 PM
I miss Top Secret!

ZOMG! Top Secret! great rpg. i had boot hill back in the day too, though i didnt know much of what to do with it.

Yaga_Nub
01-10-2008, 03:19 PM
ZOMG! Top Secret! great rpg. i had boot hill back in the day too, though i didnt know much of what to do with it.

I sort of miss Gamma World and Traveller too.

Kromize
01-10-2008, 06:04 PM
Hmm, maybe the reason for having so few quests in mod 6 is right on front of us! Maybe they are making a DDO2 of some sort, or expansion, which goes along with 4.0!


Maybe.

Taojeff
01-10-2008, 06:31 PM
Hmm, maybe the reason for having so few quests in mod 6 is right on front of us! Maybe they are making a DDO2 of some sort, or expansion, which goes along with 4.0!


Maybe.

That would be awesome!!!!!!!

Gornin
01-10-2008, 06:40 PM
I am reading alot of people talk about balance issues and stuff with PnP. I agree that 2.0 was somewhat clunky, but it was still fairly good and with some reworking of some mechanics and using the guidelines, my groups and I regularly created mechanics to cover situations not covered in the rules. We even had a working monk class that was very balanced. Alot of what we used is very similar to what 3.5 became, so the transition was fairly smooth for us. Planning encounters or coming up with randoms on the spot was never a problem for me. I never went out of my way to kill PC's, but it happened with some regularity. My players expected it and are ok with it. Not everyone who aspires to be a hero makes it. The bad guys get good rolls too. I also roll all of my attack rolls out in the open so the players see what happens. They never had to wonder if I was fudging dice rolls to accomplish story lines. My players trust me and that allowed us to have fun no matter what happened. I have rarely had a TPK, but there was never any hard feelings and the group just said, OK - lets roll up some newbies - and the game continued on.

My groups did not feel that 3.5 dumbed down the game, but streamlined mechanics that didn't bog down the game, and codified abilities and also made alot of options available for customization, and are very happy with it.

My groups only real problems with 2.0 to 3.5 was what they did to the bard class. 1st edition bard was much closer to the Welsh/Celtic/English bard of history. The bards of today are kinda flashy rogues that sing. But that is our opinion and we all know what opinions are like :D.

What I have read and tried from 4.0 just feels like a video game like FF, EQ, WoW; not a RP/ War/ Tactical/ Strategy game like DnD. I am sure it will be popular with the younger crowd that grew up on video games, but I think us experienced people will not be as happy with it. Maybe I will be wrong and we will like it and I will reserve judgement until I see the final product.

I liked playing alot of the games listed by others above and others like Role/Spacemaster, GURPs, Battletech, RiFTS, Paranoia, Traveller; but we always came back to DnD because the mechanics were always better and more fun.

TunrikRylogar
01-11-2008, 02:37 PM
What I have read and tried from 4.0 just feels like a video game like FF, EQ, WoW; not a RP/ War/ Tactical/ Strategy game like DnD. I am sure it will be popular with the younger crowd that grew up on video games, but I think us experienced people will not be as happy with it. Maybe I will be wrong and we will like it and I will reserve judgement until I see the final product.

I liked playing alot of the games listed by others above and others like Role/Spacemaster, GURPs, Battletech, RiFTS, Paranoia, Traveller; but we always came back to DnD because the mechanics were always better and more fun.

I've heard this from several people (not just here on the DDO forums): D&D is becoming like a video game. And of course, when people say this, they always say it is becoming like WoW. I don't understand what that really means and why it is a bad thing. In PnP, characters choose a race and class, buy weapons, gain mystical abilities as they gain experience, move about the battlefield, and make decisions about which abilities and skills to use to best effect. In a video game, though, they... umm... well,... uhh... do the same thing? Yes, games vary in the level of customization and in the level of strategy and tactics required, but at their heart they are the same thing. From the standpoints of mechanics of the simulation, PnP is pretty much a video game.

The only difference between PnP and most video games is the lack of constraint. In a video game, you can only do the things you are programmed to be able to do. The story will progress as it was programmed to and if you can't get passed an obstacle, the story stops dead. Now, video games are getting better all the time. Freeform worlds are becoming the norm, multiple plot lines are common. Anyone remember when it was a big deal that Chrono Trigger had 10 different endings?

The lack of constraint in PnP comes from the fact that a human being is arbitrating and if he doesn't have something planned, he can make it up. The players can try to do the craziest things they want. The human DM will respond appropriately and logically.

Now, I didn't see anything about them doing away with the DM in 4.0 or changing the basic structure of the game as an ongoing narrative. So, I'm curious:

A) What does it mean that 4.0 is turning D&D into a video game?
B) Why would it be a bad thing if it were true?

Yaga_Nub
01-11-2008, 03:03 PM
The lack of constraint in PnP comes from the fact that a human being is arbitrating and if he doesn't have something planned, he can make it up. The players can try to do the craziest things they want. The human DM will respond appropriately and logically.

Or illogically depending on the DM. :)

Gornin
01-11-2008, 03:58 PM
It basically comes from the lack or need to really think strategically. Every one has cool powers, and can do everything. It is really hard to explain without coming off sounding like a geezer complaining about "these kids nowadays". What really bothers me is the blurring of class lines. Remember the old FF games where only the fighter could use Masamune and only the Black wizard could only use Necro and debuff type spells etc. But now the later FF games every one does a little of everything and are not at all specialized or really good at a single job, which reduces critical thinking and just makes everyone kind of Uber. PnP should be a balance of RP and combat. I have stated before my opinions on game balance and ease of mechanics. I just never really had those kind of issues.

Also what I have seen concentrates on combat and cool powers. I understand there is supposed to be better and new RP mechanics, but the focus is on combat and being cool. I never heard anything about kill counts until I started playing this game and found it is a common subject in MMO's. Never had that in my PnP games, and that mentality seems to be apparent in the new system.

I hate that they are taking away the SoD spells and Wish. Now it is easier to not die. You don't have to think and plan so much now because death is not the looming spectre that it is now. Others have admonished me about challenge vs. reward, or how if it isn't challenging it isn't fun, when I said I didn't like the first version of the new death penalty, even though I wasn't complaining about how tough the monsters are or anything, but about dying due to bugs. Well, no bugs in this system and you don't have to save or die now, so where is the challenge?

There is not any thing wrong with the Vancian magic system used in PnP. You had to find or earn new spells and marshal your resources and use them smartly. Now with pick you power and you get it so many times a day or encounter, you build your Uber character from the ground up without doing the RP work to get them. This one is hard to explain, so I am going to quit while I am ahead.

I hope that gives you a little better picture of what I am trying to say.

That being said, I will still try it. I just don't think it will feel like DnD. The first RP video games used to try to be like DnD. Now it seems like the other way around.

I may like it, but it seems similar to the other games and their systems that I tried and found them lacking in something that made DnD unique. That Je' ne' se quoi.

MysticTheurge
01-11-2008, 04:18 PM
It basically comes from the lack or need to really think strategically. Every one has cool powers, and can do everything. It is really hard to explain without coming off sounding like a geezer complaining about "these kids nowadays".

I find it hard to believe that you won't still need to think strategically in 4th edition.


What really bothers me is the blurring of class lines. Remember the old FF games where only the fighter could use Masamune and only the Black wizard could only use Necro and debuff type spells etc. But now the later FF games every one does a little of everything and are not at all specialized or really good at a single job, which reduces critical thinking and just makes everyone kind of Uber.

See, and I've play non-class based systems and they can be very interesting. From everything I've read about D&D 4E it still remains firmly in the class-based camp. Abilities are a bit more spread about, but if anything class roles seem more defined.


PnP should be a balance of RP and combat. I have stated before my opinions on game balance and ease of mechanics. I just never really had those kind of issues.

Also what I have seen concentrates on combat and cool powers.

The D&D rules have always strongly favored combat. Most everything else has always seemed like an after thought. Any improvement here seems like a step in the right direction to me. But overall, given that people RPed fine with the 3.5 rules, I suspect they'll continue to do so with the 4E rules.


I hate that they are taking away the SoD spells and Wish. Now it is easier to not die. You don't have to think and plan so much now because death is not the looming spectre that it is now. Others have admonished me about challenge vs. reward, or how if it isn't challenging it isn't fun, when I said I didn't like the first version of the new death penalty, even though I wasn't complaining about how tough the monsters are or anything, but about dying due to bugs. Well, no bugs in this system and you don't have to save or die now, so where is the challenge?

I'm going to disagree that it's easier to not die. Or at least qualify it by saying "it's easier to not die in a stupid way." I mean, really, where's the fun in rolling a 1 on your save and then oops, that's it, game over?


There is not any thing wrong with the Vancian magic system used in PnP.

This is one of those topics that simply polarizes people. Either you like Vancian magic or you don't. Regardless, I think no system is perfect (which is to say, every system has something wrong with it). In reading about 4th edition they give plenty of examples of "problems" they had with the Vancian system. You may disagree, but it's fairly clear that the system doesn't work for everyone.

(One of the examples they give is having to choose between Fireball and Phantom Steed. Sure you might view it as careful planning, and marshalling your resources, but to me it just kind of seems silly. Either you're going to memorize fireball cause your DM is running a kick-in-the-door style campaign or you're going to pick phantom steed on the off-chance that you need a steed. But then when it turns out you really needed a fireball and you've still got Phantom Steed memorized at the end of the day you just kind of feel stupid. That's not fun.)


That being said, I will still try it. I just don't think it will feel like DnD. The first RP video games used to try to be like DnD. Now it seems like the other way around.

That's one way to view things. Another might be to assume that D&D pioneered the RPG and the first video games were based off of that. But since video games get created/updated/modified more often, they evolved faster in terms of refining gameplay to something that's fun for people to play. And now, as D&D continues to update itself, it's following in the footsteps of those games which evolved faster than it did.

Invalid_86
01-11-2008, 06:46 PM
The D&D rules have always strongly favored combat. Most everything else has always seemed like an after thought. Any improvement here seems like a step in the right direction to me. But overall, given that people RPed fine with the 3.5 rules, I suspect they'll continue to do so with the 4E rules.


Amazingly people can RP just fine without any rules! I don't think edition makes much difference there.

TunrikRylogar
01-12-2008, 12:17 AM
It basically comes from the lack or need to really think strategically. Every one has cool powers, and can do everything. It is really hard to explain without coming off sounding like a geezer complaining about "these kids nowadays". What really bothers me is the blurring of class lines. Remember the old FF games where only the fighter could use Masamune and only the Black wizard could only use Necro and debuff type spells etc. But now the later FF games every one does a little of everything and are not at all specialized or really good at a single job, which reduces critical thinking and just makes everyone kind of Uber. PnP should be a balance of RP and combat. I have stated before my opinions on game balance and ease of mechanics. I just never really had those kind of issues.

First of all, in FFI, every character could wield the Masamune. That was what made it so desirable. But I understand what you are saying. I don't quite agree. In the early FF games, there was no character customization at all (or very little). Aside from the ability to gain a few extra hidden summons, Rydia always gained the Virus spell at 18th level and Rosa learned Cure 4 at 20th (or whatever, I don't remember the numbers).

FFX and FFXII (ignoring X2 and XI) certainly did allow you to create a character who was good at everything. And if you were willing to grind for spheres or license points, you could make the ultimate character who did everything well. But, for the normal gamer, each character was a blank slate with some slight predispositions, especially on the license grid system in XII. Wakka from FFX had agility, aerial weapons, and could inflict lots of status effects. I could move him elsewhere on the sphere grid and make him a black mage, but I'd be moving him away from the status-inducing special abilities. He wasn't good at both, I had to trade one for the other. In FFXII there was a lot more freedom in character development, but there was still the trade off. I could make Vayne a heavy armor wearing axe wielder or I could make him a mystic armor wearing staff wielder, but if I wanted to do both, it took a long time and a lot of grinding. The grid was laid out so that as I developed my skills in white magic higher and higher, I was moving farther away from combat abilities, but it was a little easier to cross over into green or black magic.

Yes, I admit that you could unlock every spell, ability, and weapon type for every character, but that meant a huge amount of grinding time. If I wasn't hardcore, my 'good at everything' character was underpowered everywhere because I was all over the grid. The best way was to make a balanced party and decide that Vayne would be my light armor skill user, Basch would be my melee tank, and Fran would be my black mage. Someone else might do it differently. It really didn't make every character good at everything. It let you tailor build a powerful class, but you still had to pick areas to focus on. So one person could create a heavy armor wizard, but that wizard probably wouldn't hit so hard with melee weapons or have any special skills like Steal.

I would say that takes more critical thinking than the old FF system of 'Cecil is a paladin, end of story'. It was rough when the difficulty jumped and you discovered that your characters were underpowered because you took the 'little of everything' approach. The best part though was that the systems could appeal equally well to two different styles of gameplay. The hardcore grinder could make superpowered characters who could do everything. The critical thinker could make rational resource management decisions and build a well balanced group of powerful specialists.

It all comes down to what you mean by 'class' and 'class lines'. Yes, FFXII did not have your grandfather's classes. To play the game efficiently, though, you had to select roles for your characters and select the abilities and powers that best fit those roles.

Lorien_the_First_One
01-12-2008, 09:09 AM
Out of curiosity, what do you guys have against a system that works regardless of how many encounters you have per day?

Part of the challange of the old system is that with limited rages, spells, and other special abilities, it forced you to hold back on the big guns until you were sure you needed them. If after this battle everything resets, not much reason not start every battle with the biggest spell in the book. I find that to be a reduction in challenge and skill.


This is one of those topics that simply polarizes people. Either you like Vancian magic or you don't. Regardless, I think no system is perfect

Yup yup.



I'm going to disagree that it's easier to not die. Or at least qualify it by saying "it's easier to not die in a stupid way." I mean, really, where's the fun in rolling a 1 on your save and then oops, that's it, game over?

I'm really of two minds on this one...Dying on a 1 does suck, and yet at the same time having those tools to use against the bad guys is fun...




(One of the examples they give is having to choose between Fireball and Phantom Steed. Sure you might view it as careful planning, and marshalling your resources, but to me it just kind of seems silly. Either you're going to memorize fireball cause your DM is running a kick-in-the-door style campaign or you're going to pick phantom steed on the off-chance that you need a steed. But then when it turns out you really needed a fireball and you've still got Phantom Steed memorized at the end of the day you just kind of feel stupid. That's not fun.)

See thats the stategy part I like about a 3.x Wizard. Now you want kick in the door, roll a sorc...

MysticTheurge
01-12-2008, 09:39 AM
Part of the challange of the old system is that with limited rages, spells, and other special abilities, it forced you to hold back on the big guns until you were sure you needed them. If after this battle everything resets, not much reason not start every battle with the biggest spell in the book. I find that to be a reduction in challenge and skill.

There are still per day abilities. At least from everything I've read.

There are just more per encounter abilities.

And, honestly, it seems to me that even with X number of abilities that you can use every encounter you still have some important decisions to make about when and how to use those abilities within the encounter. The game is still going to require strategy.

Kingfish
01-12-2008, 10:34 AM
I skimmed through most of these post(I really did!!! Honest), and someone a few posts back mentioned the best to worst versions of D&D/AD&D…system wise I think.

The fact of all of this is how does the ruleset mesh with what the DM is going to run and how does it help her run the game.

With the original AD&D, ver1.0…if you had a BAD ASS DM, it was the BEST system to play in. Ver. 2.0 made it a little easer for the average DM to shine so I really believe that this might be the best system for storytelling and RPing(at least in my experience).

Ver. 3.0 had holes and was SO different that honestly I didn’t give it more than a year of testing and then I took my group back to 2.0. 3.5…whatever. Now they are telling me there will be a 4.0.

I for one now look at D&D the same way I do at Microsoft. I don’t change to the new ___ until Service Pack 2 is out. I will wait two years to see if there is a D&D 4.1 or 4.5 or 5.0 coming out.

Its sad really. The end of AD&D happened when the business people took control and kicked out most of the creative gamers on staff. Can’t believe there are that many gamers on the board of directors at Hasblow.

Gornin
01-12-2008, 04:07 PM
1st to MT.

Sorry you disagree with me. On the other hand, I am only giving you a review on not only what has been published, but also what I have experienced. I am giving out first hand impressions of the new systems. Granted these are rough ideas and mechanics and will change from what I have tried and the rules are incomplete.

Thinking strategically will not be the strong suit of what I have seen. You will pretty much get a bunch of cool powers and then get to pick some more. Of course the best and uber powers that can be used alot will be picked first. Start every encounter with your best ability that can be used every encounter, follow up with your next best, then next. Oh don't forget the automatic powers you don't even have to decide to use, they just happen, so you heal yourself or others in party, or damage enemies that attack you as a defensive power. No thinking when is the best time to use them, it happens. This leads to power/metagaming and munchkinism IMO, and I outgrew that a long time ago.

I see the need to think strategically declining. Not disappearing, just not as tactical as the earlier systems.

As to non class based systems, none of them IMO, none were worth a darn. You were just a plaything of the DM and you had very little control over your PC. Which leads into the SoD thing. You liked Vampire, Werewolf and the Ravenloft and Darksun settings? I hated (but loved the Thri- Kreen PC) them because the DM/GM controlled everything "for the good of the story progression". Not saying that they are not viable settings/systems, and they have their fans, but you have to admit they are a minority of players. Personally that was a huge turnoff. At least in DnD I get a save,(sometimes if the DM felt like in Ravenloft and Darksun) I can roll my own dice and find gear or train in abilities to help make my save better. The purpose of the dice is to add the random factor. I drive alot in my job, hence I am a better driver than average due to experience, but another guy loses control and I die in a car crash. That is real and just bad luck, just like rolling a 1. No, it is not fun to have your PC die due to bad luck, but it happens, and you can choose not to go on the adventure, not take the risk and not get the rewards. The good thing in a game is you get to try it again. Don't play RP games if you don't think dying is not part of the equation. Not trying to be snotty, just explaining how my groups over the years handled it. It was part of the risk. It is not stupid. The random factor is real, and all you can do to try and mitigate it is to train/educate yourself and get experience to make the randomness of life affect you less. We can argue this one forever, but I know what I have lived and experienced, and that is what I put into my stories, and I have had few players ever leave my group due to dissatisfaction. In fact they left because I did not cater to the power gaming mindset and was "too realistic", even though I play a high magic world similar to FR, and I use a lot of info from that setting. Answer me where the challenge is if you don't have to worry about the lich casting FoD ( if he has that spell ) or saving against disintegrate. That tension as the player rolls is priceless in my games and is the source of alot of fun for my groups. The reason it is fun is because they know I am not out to get them, but I will challenge them, and sometimes their own decisions screw them. Since they trust me, it is all fun. And like Lorien said, the bad guys roll ones too. So it is balanced for both sides.

Focus on combat? I don't know, there is alot of information in those books about terrain, movement, governments, cultures, equipment, and abilities not related to combat. Yes, I know the roots of DnD and remember playing Chain Mail. Yea, you can RP without reading all the rules, but what about consistancy. If you aren't consistant with in a cultures means, your players won't trust you, and we are creatures of habit, so things tend to work the same way in given cultures and settings. There are alot of mechanics for navigating relationships with NPC's. Staying consistant with the mechanics, given variations for cultural moraise, is an important factor in my campaigns. There is a lot of good info in all of those books.

Vancian magic system. I have yet to find any other system that handles magic in a way that seems logical. Ha Ha, logic and magic don't go together. Sorry, but I disagree. Component + ritual = effect. More experience = more powerful effects. Mortal limits to control the stuff of the universe = daily limit to power manipulation. Neither GURPs, I.C.E., Rifts or anyone else had a clear and concise method for adjudicating spells and magic. I do enjoy GURPs ( especially the Black Ops ) and I.C.E., but DnD has always been better at this. But I do agree, you either like it or don't. Just thought I would give you my view.

That is right, DnD pioneered the RP set and is still the best. The rest combined do not sell nearly a quarter of what DnD does. They kept revising and tweaking and changing and people got bored and frustrated. DnD does not need to be like everyone else. They are the standard and no one has ever come close. Why are they getting away from the things that made them unique and the best? To be like everyone else? Not the way to go, personally.

And remember, I did say I would give it a try and that it was my thoughts and impressions based on what I have experienced so far. This is an honest critique, and I am keeping an open mind about it, not a grumpy old guy complaining about how things are changing.

Oh, and talk to your buddy Baker about what he is doing to the Realms, would ya? :D

For TR,

Thanks for the reply, actually helped get my thoughts clearer on this.

Take my 2 teenage sons. Avid video gamers (just like Dad ), but finally wanted to try DnD. There was alot of complaining in the beginning of why can't my PC do this or that? They always referred to the video games to make their point. Video games are unrealistic in scope and abilities. You can say that having magic and other things is unrealistic. But DnD does a very good job at taking the unrealistic and fitting it into a realistic mechanic that works "realistically". Now they prefer to play in a "realistic" setting with cool things and abilities that they can learn and train to do. Still like video games, but take them for what they are. Just how I view DDO. Like this game alot and it took me awhile to stop being disappointed how over the top it was, but now I just enjoy it for what it is. I think 4.0 is losing that "realistic" feel, and that is what bothers me.

TunrikRylogar
01-12-2008, 06:33 PM
One of the examples they give is having to choose between Fireball and Phantom Steed. Sure you might view it as careful planning, and marshalling your resources, but to me it just kind of seems silly. Either you're going to memorize fireball cause your DM is running a kick-in-the-door style campaign or you're going to pick phantom steed on the off-chance that you need a steed. But then when it turns out you really needed a fireball and you've still got Phantom Steed memorized at the end of the day you just kind of feel stupid. That's not fun.

I really like this example, MT. Kudos. To a certain extent, I like Vancian magic, but there is a point when it becomes a little bit strange and silly. The idea of choosing spells is a strategic planning decision and generally rewards the characters/players for doing some homework. If the party discovers that the ancient crypt is occupied not just by undead, but by shadows, the party wizard could leave the fireball at home and toss a few metamagic magic missiles into the loadout instead. I use that sort of strategy all the time to reward my players for taking the time to do research and legwork before they start kicking in doors.

At the same time, some of the decisions become a bit ridiculous. Deciding between different forms of attack spells to exploit your enemies' weaknesses is cool and rewarding. Choosing between a combat spell and something completely unrelated like phantom steed, floating disc, or speak with animals loses some of the strategic planning edge. It got easier when scrolls became easily available and easy to make, but it still seemed a little silly. If the party did come on a non-combat situation that required a certain spell to circumvent, they generally just 'retreat, rest eight hours, circumvent the obstacle, rest eight hours, move on'. Or else, 'retreat, buy/scribe a scroll, move on.' I can't even fault that thinking. Realistically, it is what I would do lacking time constraints. There are few situations in which you will need a corner case spell that are urgent and will kill you if you have the wrong spell. Combat is generally urgent, deadly, and punishes poor planning.

MysticTheurge
01-12-2008, 10:27 PM
As to non class based systems, none of them IMO, none were worth a darn. You were just a plaything of the DM and you had very little control over your PC. Which leads into the SoD thing. You liked Vampire, Werewolf and the Ravenloft and Darksun settings? I hated (but loved the Thri- Kreen PC) them because the DM/GM controlled everything "for the good of the story progression".

We may not be discussing the same thing in terms of non-class based systems. Especially since you mention Ravenloft and Dark Sun. Since both of those settings were for D&D games, they definitely used classes. By non-class-based, I mean an actual game system where you didn't have classes, so much as a set of skills/powers/abilities chosen from a larger pool. Werewolf and Vampire, to the small degree that I'm familiar with them seem to use this system. You might have a "type" that means you favor certain abilities, but you don't have a class which is the primary deciding factor in what you can do.

As for the rest of your complaint, it seems more based on a particular DMing style than any particular system.


Vancian magic system. I have yet to find any other system that handles magic in a way that seems logical. Ha Ha, logic and magic don't go together. Sorry, but I disagree. Component + ritual = effect. More experience = more powerful effects. Mortal limits to control the stuff of the universe = daily limit to power manipulation. Neither GURPs, I.C.E., Rifts or anyone else had a clear and concise method for adjudicating spells and magic. I do enjoy GURPs ( especially the Black Ops ) and I.C.E., but DnD has always been better at this. But I do agree, you either like it or don't. Just thought I would give you my view.

The things you describe can just as accurately be reflected by an SP system or a skill-based magic system. They don't necessarily require the Vancian "memorize spells in spell slots and then cast them" system.


That is right, DnD pioneered the RP set and is still the best. The rest combined do not sell nearly a quarter of what DnD does. They kept revising and tweaking and changing and people got bored and frustrated. DnD does not need to be like everyone else. They are the standard and no one has ever come close. Why are they getting away from the things that made them unique and the best? To be like everyone else? Not the way to go, personally.

D&D doesn't need to be like everyone else, but it does need to evolve. If there are things that "everyone else" is getting right, there may be some merit in taking aspects of that on yourself. Even if you were the pioneer.


Oh, and talk to your buddy Baker about what he is doing to the Realms, would ya? :D

I got awfully tired of the Forgotten Realms at one point several years ago, and haven't really cared for them much since. That said... what they're doing seems awfully radical and it'll be interesting to see whether Realms Fans are going to accept it or not. I mean, it's not as though the realms have never gone through radical change (Time of Troubles) but what they're doing seems like it might be a bit too much. Of course, that's from very much an "outside" perspective as I haven't even kept up with Realmsian events over the last 4-6 years.

(And you're not confusing Keith Baker and Rich Baker are you? Not that I'm actually buddies with either...)

Gornin
01-13-2008, 02:18 PM
We may not be discussing the same thing in terms of non-class based systems. Especially since you mention Ravenloft and Dark Sun. Since both of those settings were for D&D games, they definitely used classes. By non-class-based, I mean an actual game system where you didn't have classes, so much as a set of skills/powers/abilities chosen from a larger pool. Werewolf and Vampire, to the small degree that I'm familiar with them seem to use this system. You might have a "type" that means you favor certain abilities, but you don't have a class which is the primary deciding factor in what you can do.

As for the rest of your complaint, it seems more based on a particular DMing style than any particular system.

Not really, the 2 DnD settings I referred to were specifically structured to keep the PC's ability to change their environment to minimum along with the sytems for Vampire and Werewolf. That is why I lumped them together.

The things you describe can just as accurately be reflected by an SP system or a skill-based magic system. They don't necessarily require the Vancian "memorize spells in spell slots and then cast them" system.

Um, then why haven't they done it anywhere else effectively? I repeat that NO other system has even come close to adjudicating spell and magic better than TSR. And I have played just about every game out there for periods of time to gain a full assessment of their systems. They are all cumbersome at the best.

D&D doesn't need to be like everyone else, but it does need to evolve. If there are things that "everyone else" is getting right, there may be some merit in taking aspects of that on yourself. Even if you were the pioneer.

So who is getting it right? Only DnD so far. Again, no other company holds a match to DnD's popularity and loyalty. Most of the competition went out of business.

I got awfully tired of the Forgotten Realms at one point several years ago, and haven't really cared for them much since. That said... what they're doing seems awfully radical and it'll be interesting to see whether Realms Fans are going to accept it or not. I mean, it's not as though the realms have never gone through radical change (Time of Troubles) but what they're doing seems like it might be a bit too much. Of course, that's from very much an "outside" perspective as I haven't even kept up with Realmsian events over the last 4-6 years.

Trust me, it is a total FUBAR and completely unnecessary. They are killing alot of the things that make the Realms what they are and making it more "generic", kinda like what they are doing to DnD.

(And you're not confusing Keith Baker and Rich Baker are you? Not that I'm actually buddies with either...)

DOH! My bad. Long day on the road. Meant it to be a joke. :(Answers in red.

MysticTheurge
01-13-2008, 09:03 PM
Not really, the 2 DnD settings I referred to were specifically structured to keep the PC's ability to change their environment to minimum along with the sytems for Vampire and Werewolf. That is why I lumped them together.

Yes, that can be a failing of those settings, but it really does boil down to the DM. The Prism Pentad, for example, changed a lot of the Dark Sun setting, and you could, in theory have your PCs play a part in those events. Likewise, several of the adventures centered around the return of one of the first Avangions.

There was room in Dark Sun for a campaign where the PCs changed the world, and the potential for "World Changing" in the face of such overwhelming adversity was always one of the things that drew me to it.


Um, then why haven't they done it anywhere else effectively? I repeat that NO other system has even come close to adjudicating spell and magic better than TSR. And I have played just about every game out there for periods of time to gain a full assessment of their systems. They are all cumbersome at the best.

In your opinion. In my opinion, the Vancian system is obnoxious and cumbersome. But that doesn't change the fact that there are other systems that fit the formula you provided "Component + ritual = effect. More experience = more powerful effects. Mortal limits to control the stuff of the universe = daily limit to power manipulation."


So who is getting it right? Only DnD so far. Again, no other company holds a match to DnD's popularity and loyalty. Most of the competition went out of business.

Again, in your opinion. In my opinion, there are several things that other systems get right that D&D gets wrong. And I'm not limiting that to tabletop RPGs either. I originally brought up the concept because you were saying that D&D was becoming more like a video game, and I pointed out that that might be because video games evolve faster and so get more shots at getting things right (and can refine them faster). And thus D&D can stand to learn some things from the video games that are out there.

And don't take commercial success as the sole indicator of a good game system.

Attomic
01-13-2008, 09:45 PM
yes, there should be a large number of 3.5 players moving to 4.0. the rebalancing will draw some, and the interactive portions will draw a lot more. wizards made it quite clear at gencon that there be an emphasis on making 4.0 notebook friendly. templates for writing and runing adventures, quick links to pull up monster stats during combat, etc.

my guess would be that they feel it will attract the younger players, which is where they make most of their money anyhow. those of us who are old enough to have played first ed ad&d are getting a little tired of shelling out the cash for new books just to keep hasbro's stockholders happy, so expect to see plenty of older edition games still available. in fact, concentric convention company will be rolling out a new 1st ed campaign this fall at its conventions in the midwest.

Mmm, no, I'm gonna have to disagree on this. Everyone I play with is in that "old enough to have played first edition" group, and none of us are at all worried about shelling out the cash for new books... IF (a big "if" there) they're that much of an improvement. The shifts from 1st to 2nd, from 2nd to 3rd and from 3rd to 3.5 were quantum-leap improvements, so we didn't balk about buying a whole passel of new books - it took some of us a while, but it happened for the most part (with a sizeable minority who stuck with old editions, true). Besides, the group Hasbro REALLY wants to get on their side IS our age category - we're the ones with enough discretionary income to buy the whole damn line if we like it enough. :D

And that's what has me worried about 4e. Everything we're hearing about is a complete revamping of the game, whereas the previous editions were each an incremental improvement over their respective previous editions. Dammit, we LIKED the game from the get-go, and these editions took what we liked and enhanced it, minimized what we didn't like and added SOME new things that were to the good; doing what appears to be chucking out the entire system is not going to appeal to people (remember, the ones with the wallets) who've been with this game as it's grown over three decades.

That being said, I'm still not going to refuse 4e out of hand, but it's going to have a lot to prove to me and pretty much all the D&D fans I've ever known. Not to mention that my group is currently on a 1st-to-epic campaign arc that our DM designed in Eberron and 3.5 - we're at least going to stay with the present system until that campaign's finished. When that time comes, we'll have gotten the whole skinny on 4e and will be able to make an informed decision. I'm just afraid that WotC is on the verge of alienating lifetime fans of the game, and I hope that's just a "sky is falling" knee-jerk reaction on my part.

Gornin
01-14-2008, 07:33 AM
Yes, that can be a failing of those settings, but it really does boil down to the DM. The Prism Pentad, for example, changed a lot of the Dark Sun setting, and you could, in theory have your PCs play a part in those events. Likewise, several of the adventures centered around the return of one of the first Avangions.

There was room in Dark Sun for a campaign where the PCs changed the world, and the potential for "World Changing" in the face of such overwhelming adversity was always one of the things that drew me to it.

I guess my group didn't stay with it long enough to see that. I did like that it was psionic focused and some other things, but there were just too many other things that were wrong with it.

In your opinion. In my opinion, the Vancian system is obnoxious and cumbersome. But that doesn't change the fact that there are other systems that fit the formula you provided "Component + ritual = effect. More experience = more powerful effects. Mortal limits to control the stuff of the universe = daily limit to power manipulation."

Name one please. I have played just about every game out there. Haven't seen one that wasn't a PITA or extremely unbalanced or limiting. The only reason I can see that some don't like it is that you just can't use any spell when you want. People had to make choices on what they made available to themselves that time period by study and spending the time in game to do so in research and money. That is exactly why it was balanced. And also what allowed for spells like wish, which are a staple in any fantasy setting. If you don't do this, the game quickly becomes unbalanced. That is not MY opinion. It is a large majority opinion, or it wouldn't have been so successful.


Again, in your opinion. In my opinion, there are several things that other systems get right that D&D gets wrong. And I'm not limiting that to tabletop RPGs either. I originally brought up the concept because you were saying that D&D was becoming more like a video game, and I pointed out that that might be because video games evolve faster and so get more shots at getting things right (and can refine them faster). And thus D&D can stand to learn some things from the video games that are out there.

And don't take commercial success as the sole indicator of a good game system.

Not just my opinion. If it wasn't the opinion of most, DnD would not be as nearly successful as it is. Reread my earlier post where I talked about this. Video games have enormous power scaling, and they have too to keep the people buying the next installment. RP games should not follow suit because they should be taking place in a persistant world. And if commercial success is not the most important factor, then why does every other company use it to tout their company/brand? Because that means it may not be the sole indicator, but it sure is the best indicator of what people like, because they vote with their dollars. And if people keep voting over and over for many years, that sure is pretty much the defining factor that people really like the product and will continue to be loyal. I mean, that is what the video game companies use to see if it worth sinking money into a sequel, right?

Yaga_Nub
01-14-2008, 08:02 AM
Amazingly people can RP just fine without any rules! I don't think edition makes much difference there.

Actually there is very little, IMHO, in any edition of DnD about RP. That is what I love actually about it. They leave it up to us and we seem to do very well at it. I know that people in this post have said bad things about 1e and 2e but I think they were the best for straight RP because they had less rules so the DM and players had to think through situations more and come to an agreement about how a problem might be solved.

I also think that more rules means slower play because people will bring out the books to argue a point instead of RP'ing. So if 4e moves back to less rules I think it will speed up play significantly from 3.5.

Anyway, I'll buy the 4.0 books and make an assessment after I've played it a few months. I think I owe it that shot.

Cold_Stele
01-14-2008, 08:29 AM
There are still per day abilities. At least from everything I've read.

There are just more per encounter abilities.

Yeh, from reading my Classes & Races book the designers claim the intention is to bring resource management choices into every single encounter for every single class (something not present in 3.5 unless you include chugging potions).

Tome of Battle, for example, is quoted as having a huge impact on the development of 4.0 Ftrs (for anyone not aware this introduced melees with per encounter combat manoeuvers which were acivated in a similar way to spells).

As well as correctly utilising their per encounter powers, players will also have to plan if and when to use per day powers.

In essence their intention is to increase the tactical element of the game.

Whether they're actually going to pull that off or not /shrug.

Gornin
01-14-2008, 09:34 AM
Just to be clear on some things, I want to be sure that people who are reading my posts know that I will buy at least the 3 core books and give it a try. I really want to support a company that has given me much entertainment over the years. I do not think change is bad, and I really think that the game has done nothing but improve over the years. I just don't understand why they think they have to make such radical changes when the system they have has done so well and has always been the industry leader. I don't believe they need to be like everybody else, especially when no one else has been able to compete with them in this genre. Maybe they are going to appeal to a wider group, but possibly at the risk of the group that has kept them going for so long. Maybe I am just too dumb to see the why. I can admit it, but so far, I have seen much that puts me in with the majority. Meh, we will see.

I have seen some things I like. The monsters seem to be more basic so it is easier to customize them and they have stopped the hard lines of alignment for dragons and many other monsters. I had been doing this for years in my campaigns. Alignments were generalities, and the majority may have followed it, but not all, and that is how we played it.

One thing that they are gonna have to do though is allow unlimited access to the online gaming table instead of only 3 x month to get me to pay $10 a month if I decide to use the new rules.

Invalid_86
01-14-2008, 10:39 PM
Actually there is very little, IMHO, in any edition of DnD about RP. That is what I love actually about it. They leave it up to use and we seem to do very well at it. I know that people in this post have said bad things about 1e and 2e but I think they were the best for straight RP because they had less rules so the DM and players had to think through situations more and come to an agreement about how a problem might be solved.


See that is what I was getting at. It's the people that bring in the RP, not the books. Sometimes you just want to sit in the tavern all night hitting on the halfling chicks, sometimes you just want to bash things. Well mostly bash things. Like 95% bash things. Unless there are halfling chicks- my halfling has a thing for hairy feet and toe rings. That's the good stuff.

Attomic
01-20-2008, 09:48 AM
See that is what I was getting at. It's the people that bring in the RP, not the books. Sometimes you just want to sit in the tavern all night hitting on the halfling chicks, sometimes you just want to bash things. Well mostly bash things. Like 95% bash things. Unless there are halfling chicks- my halfling has a thing for hairy feet and toe rings. That's the good stuff.

I think I just threw up a little bit in my beard.

Invalid_86
01-21-2008, 12:21 AM
I think I just threw up a little bit in my beard.

...then you probably would not like to know what my dwarf likes to see in a female dwarf's beard!

Remember, a female dwarf without a beard is just a fat gnome!

MysticTheurge
01-21-2008, 12:27 AM
...then you probably would not like to know what my dwarf likes to see in a female dwarf's beard!

Remember, a female dwarf without a beard is just a fat gnome!

Dwarven Women don't have beards.

At least not in Eberron (or D&D 3.5 for that matter).

Hvymetal
01-21-2008, 04:18 AM
...then you probably would not like to know what my dwarf likes to see in a female dwarf's beard!

Remember, a dwarf with or without a beard is just a fat gnome!There fixed :)

Attomic
01-21-2008, 06:08 AM
I'm fixed :)

Corrected free of charge. ;)

MT, Eberron dwarves can be anything they want to be! So dwarven women can choose to stop shaving if they want! :p :D

Seneca_Windforge
01-22-2008, 03:01 PM
Removing races that have been core for 30 years....dumb dumb dumb... Fine add more, but why remove some of the oldest. They are so asking for it.

Gnome and Half-Orc were not originally in DnD (and while we're on the subject, neither were bards).

In the red and blue boxes, you had Humans (which could be Fighters, Thieves, Magic Users, or Priests) and Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. The latter three were classes as well as races. Elves were a combination of Fighters/Magic Users and took a very long time to level up. Dwarves and Halflings were essentially Fighters and Thieves who couldn't go past level 10 or so (don't remember the exact numbers).

Furgulder
01-22-2008, 03:33 PM
If 4.0 is as described I can see people grabbing an idea or two to add to their existing game but I can't see them moving to 4.0 in large numbers.

yep. that and the fact that WotC doesnt charge $9.99 for its sourcebooks...it charges $39.99+ for them....and they put about 20 out per year....

sorry but $500+ Ive spent on 3.5 addition books will have to hold my D&D crew over, unless they decide to buy me 4.0 stuff.

muffinlad
01-22-2008, 03:34 PM
If traditional spells like Wish and all the "d6" spells (FB/LB/ect) are gone I think it's an indication they have dumbed it down to the point its not worth buying...

Here here.

I have no problem with White Wolf type games (where everyone can get every power, etc. as long as it makes sense for them to have it via concept), and I play them on occasion. The game as described by the OP pretty much goes against what I want, and expect from D+D. No worries, if people don't buy it, they will just come out with 4.5


muffintreker

Invalid_86
01-22-2008, 05:39 PM
Dwarven Women don't have beards.

At least not in Eberron (or D&D 3.5 for that matter).

Those are just fat gnomes.

Scholar
01-22-2008, 06:59 PM
Gnome and Half-Orc were not originally in DnD (and while we're on the subject, neither were bards). But, that still doesn't change the fact that they have been basically core for 30 years (well, actually, 30 years this summer). Pulled out my 1978 1st edition AD&D Players Handbook. Gnomes, Half-Orcs and Bards are all contained in its pages. To remove them at this juncture doesn't seem right to me. Oh well, we'll just have to wait and see about 4.0.

Seneca_Windforge
01-22-2008, 08:40 PM
It basically comes from the lack or need to really think strategically. Every one has cool powers, and can do everything. It is really hard to explain without coming off sounding like a geezer complaining about "these kids nowadays". What really bothers me is the blurring of class lines. Remember the old FF games where only the fighter could use Masamune and only the Black wizard could only use Necro and debuff type spells etc. But now the later FF games every one does a little of everything and are not at all specialized or really good at a single job, which reduces critical thinking and just makes everyone kind of Uber. PnP should be a balance of RP and combat. I have stated before my opinions on game balance and ease of mechanics. I just never really had those kind of issues.

Also what I have seen concentrates on combat and cool powers. I understand there is supposed to be better and new RP mechanics, but the focus is on combat and being cool. I never heard anything about kill counts until I started playing this game and found it is a common subject in MMO's. Never had that in my PnP games, and that mentality seems to be apparent in the new system.

I hate that they are taking away the SoD spells and Wish. Now it is easier to not die. You don't have to think and plan so much now because death is not the looming spectre that it is now. Others have admonished me about challenge vs. reward, or how if it isn't challenging it isn't fun, when I said I didn't like the first version of the new death penalty, even though I wasn't complaining about how tough the monsters are or anything, but about dying due to bugs. Well, no bugs in this system and you don't have to save or die now, so where is the challenge?

There is not any thing wrong with the Vancian magic system used in PnP. You had to find or earn new spells and marshal your resources and use them smartly. Now with pick you power and you get it so many times a day or encounter, you build your Uber character from the ground up without doing the RP work to get them. This one is hard to explain, so I am going to quit while I am ahead.

I hope that gives you a little better picture of what I am trying to say.

That being said, I will still try it. I just don't think it will feel like DnD. The first RP video games used to try to be like DnD. Now it seems like the other way around.

I may like it, but it seems similar to the other games and their systems that I tried and found them lacking in something that made DnD unique. That Je' ne' se quoi.

Actually, any character could equip the Masmune (there was not enough room for the second "A"). You could hand it to a black mage to create an extra fighter, or give it to a fighter and cast Fast on him to make him deal crazy damage. Just sayin'. :)

Different people find different things fun, but honestly I never thought that save or die was fun at all. All it did was dump a huge load of fear in your lap, and if you failed you suddenly had to sit doing nothing for the rest of the fight. There's still plenty of strategy -- if not more strategy -- without them. Cone spells (I think this was mentioned in R&C) might have a chance to knock down those caught in the blast, while a big explosion like a Fireball could cause Stun. So, do you go for the knockdown or the stun? In 3.0/3.5, the difference between Cones and Bursts was just the template you laid down on the battlemat to see what gets hit, and maybe the flavor of damage you deal.

As far as "earning" powers go, we don't really know what it takes to get powers in 4th edition, so I don't think you can really criticize that effectively. Neither Races and Classes nor Worlds and Monsters (I have both) mention the specifics of that...and even if powers are easy to get, you can always alter that for your own home games. Most people have several house rules anyway (particularly people that sing the praises of early editions of DnD!), so I tend to take complaints like that with a grain of salt. Even though the 3rd edition books don't really say this enough, you can always alter things to suit your own game -- though always, ALWAYS make sure that your players are on board with any major changes.

Tanka
01-22-2008, 10:11 PM
yep. that and the fact that WotC doesnt charge $9.99 for its sourcebooks...it charges $39.99+ for them....and they put about 20 out per year....

sorry but $500+ Ive spent on 3.5 addition books will have to hold my D&D crew over, unless they decide to buy me 4.0 stuff.
Well, y'see, if you want to start on 4.0, all you really need are the first three books -- PHB, DMG, MM1 -- everything else is optional.

It's when you start thinking you need an optional sourcebook that it gets expensive.

I started a core-only (PHB, DMG, MM1) game and it was working just fine. Had it continued, I would've considered slowly bringing in new sourcebooks to flavor the world more, but not just thrown everything in and said "to frag with game balance!"

TunrikRylogar
01-22-2008, 11:22 PM
Well, y'see, if you want to start on 4.0, all you really need are the first three books -- PHB, DMG, MM1 -- everything else is optional.

It's when you start thinking you need an optional sourcebook that it gets expensive.

I started a core-only (PHB, DMG, MM1) game and it was working just fine. Had it continued, I would've considered slowly bringing in new sourcebooks to flavor the world more, but not just thrown everything in and said "to frag with game balance!"

My current D&D campaign (actually former, I am on DMing hiatus until June) runs using the PHB, DMG, MM, Eberron Campaign Setting, and that's really it. We have cherrypicked a few minor things from PHBII and DMGII and use a few other Eberron sourcebooks for history and flavor, but we're still a Core Rules campaign in Eberron. We don't have any duskblades or warlocks or goliaths or anything and we are all very happy. Hell, right now, the only PC in the group that has pulled any options from Eberron is the shifter barbarian aberration hunter from Eldeen (aberration hunter being his personal quest, not a bizarre prestige class or something). Eleven classes + Artificer, Core Races + Shifters, Warforged, and Changelings ... we don't even bother with psionics.

sigtrent
01-23-2008, 12:13 AM
But, that still doesn't change the fact that they have been basically core for 30 years (well, actually, 30 years this summer). Pulled out my 1978 1st edition AD&D Players Handbook. Gnomes, Half-Orcs and Bards are all contained in its pages. To remove them at this juncture doesn't seem right to me. Oh well, we'll just have to wait and see about 4.0.

From what I understand they arn't exactly gone, just not featured in the players handbook. Aparently rules for gnome PCs are in the mosnter manual entry for gnomes kind of like how drow and other races are listed currently. So you can play them just fine. Half orcs might be the same way but I hadn't heard specificaly.

Invalid_86
01-23-2008, 12:39 AM
Well, y'see, if you want to start on 4.0, all you really need are the first three books -- PHB, DMG, MM1 -- everything else is optional.

It's when you start thinking you need an optional sourcebook that it gets expensive.

I started a core-only (PHB, DMG, MM1) game and it was working just fine. Had it continued, I would've considered slowly bringing in new sourcebooks to flavor the world more, but not just thrown everything in and said "to frag with game balance!"

I do that too. Only use what you actually need. There comes a point where you just end up with too many books. Call me old school but I just bring a notebook full of notes, some graph paper, a couple of core books, and a few odd models to throw on a mat. Too many bells and whistles just starts to slow you down, and frequently the excess books just start throwing in alot of unbalancing factors.

Vormaerin
01-23-2008, 02:22 AM
There are a lot of mechanical and flavor improvements in 4.0. There are also a lot of new ways of crimping gamers' styles. Wizards are much more like 3.5 warmages now: they mainly do big blasting attacks and have lesser access to other styles of magic like enchantment/charms. Illusions and Necromancy will be very limited or not existant for wizards. They will be the basis for other classes later on.

Overall, the game is generally moving towards a more anime/wuxia style of action. You aren't Conan swinging a big sword powered by your muscles. You are pulling off some dramatic supernatural power swing that damages your foes and heals your buddies or some other side effect. Its actually been stated that fighters have the most self healing in the game (clerics enhance others' self healing, as well as have special heal others options).

Prestige classes are gone. Instead you get special feat "trees" to choose from at lvl 10 and 20 to customize yourself in a similar fashion.

The big change seems to be that feats and especially magic items are a much weaker part of the system. You get more feats (one or more per level), but they individually do a lot less if the examples given are any basis for analyzing the wider game. And magic items seem to be getting a serious nerf bat hit. They give an example of a +1 frost sword. In the current game, it gives +1d6 damage per hit. In 4.0's example, it gives that bonus damage per critical.

I like wuxia style game play in small doses, but it does not suit the majority of my campaign worlds and I'm quite concerned that the dramatic increase in 'supernatural' type abilities will be a non starter for my gaming style. The other REALLY offputting thing about 4.0 is that they are dramatically changing the "fluff" that the game has had in common since AD&D1e. The inner and outer planes are being totally redefined, as are their inhabitants. Eladrin (like we are fighting in that one Mod 6 quest, apparently) didn't turn up until 2.0 IIRC, but they were chaotic good angels and have been for 20 years or so. Now they are a type of elf with faerie flavor. Devils are getting a "Fall of Satan" style backstory to replace the existing one. Succubi are being changed from demons to devils.

The designers are all veterans of the industry and have a lot of previous success. So I bet the game systems are going to be just fine. But it really sounds like they are moving the game from "mainstream do any kind of swords and sorcery style you want" to a more focused, but more limited, genre. That doesn't really float my boat. Further, many of the problems they are fixing are not with 3.5 per se. I only use the PHB, DMG, MM and a few cherry picked things from a smattering of other books. But once you factor in the huge range of books and the general rules bloat, 3.5 becomes a real nightmare. I wonder what is going to keep the same thing from happening to 4.0.

Tin_Dragon
01-23-2008, 02:31 PM
Important points from 4.0

I do not know how many of you have been following 4.0, which will be coming out this May. But alot has changed, in fact the word alot does not really do it justice. The main points I will summarize here:

1. 4.0 is kind of what they wanted 3.0 to be, but they were afraid it was going to be to drastic of a change.
2. 3.0 & 3.5 suffered from both an imbalance between classes and their effectiveness, but also an imbalance between levels. Basically there was a sweet spot from 7-14 where the math just worked. 4.0 has made some changes to try and stretch this sweet spot to the entire level range.
3. The parties effectiveness hindered to much around the spells casters had at higher level. Many spells could make or break and adventure. 4.0 has removed many spells, and done away with the d6 spell staples. Casters are also still effective now after they run out of spells, and have abilities that they can still do. Many overpowered spells were removed.
4. For non-spellcasters many turns were boring as there was just not interesting options. In 4.0 EVERY class has per day and per encounter abilities. Every class, even melee draws on some form of power at higher levels (power is the term for a source (much like magic or psionics (both are sources).
5. Every level holds meaningful choices to make (more feats etc). No more waiting for the next two levels to get a feat etc.
6. Every class has some form of healing.
7. Many classes have changed and been rebalanced. Druids are now all about the wildshape ability. barbarians have totemic powers, warlords are a new class (much like a marshal), palidans have many different abilities (diff smites for example).

Basically all classes are viable at all levels. Every level has a meaningful choice. You have something interesting to do all the time with classes/races.

Now how this relates to DDO.

1. All classes are certainly not viable, especially melee and rogues at higher level.
2. Many classes do not have meaningful options compared to other classes at higher level.
3. There is a HUGE imbalance between the DPS of classes, which is important because killing stuff is the primary focus of 90% of the game.

I hope DDO can learn something from 4.0, but if not all is not lost. I am fairly certain that there is a 4.0 MMO on the horizon.


How does any thing from the PnP 4.0 have a dang thing to do with DDO?

DDO is based off 3.5

DDO is POORLY/Loosely based on 3.5

DDO is Nothing like PnP

DDO is not afaik upgrading to 4.0

DDO is not able to keep up with the players wants and 'needs' now.

So without anything further, may I ask what your question here is?


Or what were your
Important points from 4.0 about DDO?

MysticTheurge
01-23-2008, 02:48 PM
Or what were your Important Points from 4.0 about DDO?

The important points were "D&D 3.5 had some flaws that they're addressing in 4.0. As DDO is based off of D&D 3.5 it also suffers some of these flaws and could probably stand to make some of the same upgrades."

Yaga_Nub
01-23-2008, 03:12 PM
The important points were "D&D 3.5 had some flaws that they're addressing in 4.0. As DDO is based off of D&D 3.5 it also suffers some of these flaws and could probably stand to make some of the same upgrades."

There were some actual points to the thread?

ViVid7th
01-23-2008, 11:44 PM
I do have a question about 4.0 though. Did they fix the gimpyness of thrown weapons?

Aside from Shurikens, there was no point to using throwing weapons over a bow or even a crossbow.

Vormaerin
01-24-2008, 08:09 AM
Ummm... should there be? I would think a bow or crossbow should be better than a throwing knife in just about all circumstances other than perhaps point blank range and getting the attack off at all.

Seneca_Windforge
01-24-2008, 01:43 PM
I do have a question about 4.0 though. Did they fix the gimpyness of thrown weapons?

Aside from Shurikens, there was no point to using throwing weapons over a bow or even a crossbow.

Actually, that's not true.

For a fighter type (particularly a low-ish level one) who needs an easy ranged attack, a thrown weapon was a great choice because you get to add your strength modifier to damage rolls without paying lots of gold for a Mighty Composite bow. Also, you don't have to have both hands free, so you don't have to give up your shield, nor do you have to drop your bow when something closes to melee. Even a 1st level fighter can easily grab a few javelins or throwing axes.

For the serious ranged attacker though, bows are superior -- this is fine, IMO, because bows *should* be better. If thrown weapons were just as good as a bow, bows never would have been created.

ViVid7th
01-24-2008, 02:08 PM
Wasn't asking for bows to become pointless, only that throwing weapons actually become useful other than on a Throwing Master/Rogue halfing, no str mod. Thrown weapons do and should have a shorter range than other choices, but being only able to throw one a round due to weapon swapping and the higher cost...

And I've never had a problem with the shield issue. I normally use a Buckler on my warriors, and take quickdraw as one of my first feats (mostly because of my bad habit of throwing away weapons), so I can us thrown weapons like a bow, but why not just a bow then?

Plus, getting thrown weapons enchanted is like getting arrows enchanted, except worse, cause you have to pay the cost for each one, not bundles...