Why do they hold back the cool toys until level 25-30?

[MartinHarper]

D&D is the biggest game. More people will know how to play D&D than any other game. In many places of the Earth a game of D&D is literally the only game in town. So when they come out with a new edition of D&D it actually hurts people if that edition is not good.

There is the possibility that 4e will be sufficiently attractive to newcomers (players and DMs) that it will expand the overall market, and so help you indirectly.

[Nihlin]

Yeah, also we're talking about a game, and while sure, one shotting your enemy can be fun from time to time, getting killed in one shot is most certainly not fun, especially when you don't even get to act. It feels very cheap and most players are rather upset when it happens to them.

And further, this is a game where you want an ongoing campaign. Rocket launcher tag just isn't very useful for producing that atmosphere, because when combats are over fast, it means you're going to have big swings. The fewer instances of random chance, the less likely you're going to get stable outcomes. Play five hands of blackjack and your odds are actually pretty decent that you'll come out ahead. Play 1000 hands and you're almost certain to be a loser.

False dichotomy: this assumes that you only have the binary choice of "game-ending TPKs are likely" and "players never really lose." There are many other paths.

[RandomCasualty2]

False dichotomy: this assumes that you only have the binary choice of "game-ending TPKs are likely" and "players never really lose." There are many other paths.

Of course. But anything that's strong enough to prevent a risk of death in a rocket launcher tag game is going to be able to kill you, and given the short term volatility of the RNG, it's actually pretty likely at that during one battle you are going to accumulate enough bad luck to actually die.

I mean seriously, combine a wail of the banshee with a few bad saves, and half of the four man PC party is dead. This could well be before any of them even act. And with 50% of your firepower down that fast, it's very likely that you're not going to survive. Not to mention not being particularly fun for the guys who got taken out before they even got a turn.

[Voss]

D&D is the biggest game. More people will know how to play D&D than any other game. In many places of the Earth a game of D&D is literally the only game in town. So when they come out with a new edition of D&D it actually hurts people if that edition is not good.

There is the possibility that 4e will be sufficiently attractive to newcomers (players and DMs) that it will expand the overall market, and so help you indirectly.

How does this compare to the possibility of winged simians and rearward facing passages?

[Kaelik]

Of course. But anything that's strong enough to prevent a risk of death in a rocket launcher tag game is going to be able to kill you, and given the short term volatility of the RNG, it's actually pretty likely at that during one battle you are going to accumulate enough bad luck to actually die.

I mean seriously, combine a wail of the banshee with a few bad saves, and half of the four man PC party is dead. This could well be before any of them even act. And with 50% of your firepower down that fast, it's very likely that you're not going to survive. Not to mention not being particularly fun for the guys who got taken out before they even got a turn.

Of course, single deaths don't matter, and AoE save or loses usually have crippling disadvantages, such as being a death effect which pretty much all level 17 PCs can be immune to.

[RandomCasualty2]

Of course, single deaths don't matter, and AoE save or loses usually have crippling disadvantages, such as being a death effect which pretty much all level 17 PCs can be immune to.

Can be immune to, sure. Yeah you could have a death ward up, but that's by no means assured.

I mean, yes, it's possible to survive if you play perfect, but it just takes one mistake where the PCs happen to be tired from a long day at work or maybe their head just isn't in the game, and that one mistake means death. And when you die, those characters and that story, is effectively over.

And the PCs don't really even get to die putting up a good fight most of the time, it's just a devastating attack that wipes them out fast and ends it.

Hell if it's a blasphemy spamming balor then the entire group may not be able to act at all. They may just get slowly ripped apart.

[Kaelik]

Can be immune to, sure. Yeah you could have a death ward up, but that's by no means assured.

I mean, yes, it's possible to survive if you play perfect, but it just takes one mistake where the PCs happen to be tired from a long day at work or maybe their head just isn't in the game, and that one mistake means death. And when you die, those characters and that story, is effectively over.

And the PCs don't really even get to die putting up a good fight most of the time, it's just a devastating attack that wipes them out fast and ends it.

Hell if it's a blasphemy spamming balor then the entire group may not be able to act at all. They may just get slowly ripped apart.

1) I think it's pretty much assured that at least two people are going to be immune to death effects at any given time.

2) One mistake by every single PC at the same time? Seriously how often do all your PCs make mistakes at once?

3) Remember how Death doesn't matter? Seriously, you can just have a Gated Solar with a task to Res you all if he finds you dead. Or you can do all your adventuring by Planarbound Nightmare Astral Projection from level 9 on.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

mikal768,

You are so wrong on so many points that it not worth anyone's time to correct you. I'll just underscore the fact that there are many threads about 4e which have adequately explored many of the ideas you are struggling with. You have shown such an impressive misunderstanding of game design that the fact that you have identified yourself as a 4e playtester, and as a former Wizo, confirms our worst suspicions about WotC's practices. Either that, or you are a troll.

In regard to the Knock/door excerpt, I just can't help myself:

Except that said door will then be useless, and you may need to have said door not be useless. Remember, it's not as if there's a fabricate spell at hand or wall of iron, ready to seal up a portal you can break down.

To be honest, I love the fact that good old fashioned brawn can actually be more 'effective' then magic in circumstances like these.. provided, again, you don't need the door.

This all goes back to the point I originally made that you responded to: that it's not a flaw that a wizard can't be Batman anymore. It's a feature to allow everyone a chance to shine.

In other words you are saying the following:

It is a feature that a party of 5 lvl4 characters each get a chance to shine by taking turns unfailingly punching down 5 adamantine doors, with their bare hands, faster than it would take to cast a fallible lvl 4 Ritual five times that is specifically designed to open doors. In addition, it is a feature that punching down 5 doors is more effective because it is free, instead of costing the sale price of two level 4 magic items to cast the ritual 5 times.

[Voss]

But you're missing the point. Its not that you need to spend every day of your life slaughtering people. Its the mathematical fact that you can do all the killing you need to do in 3 months. At 18, an adventurer could seriously expect to set out, become a demigod, and seriously father/bear a child before they're 19, retired and set up a semi-divine dynasty.
And the pregnancy will take up 75% of that time!

You're missing the point. That's a fuckload of killing and there's a lot of downtime going to be mixed in between that, unless the world is just so completely in jeopardy that it experiences a crisis every day within a days journey of the last one.

I'm not missing the point at all. yes, there can be down time. But the downtime in 4e *doesn't matter*, becomes nothing noteworthy happens during it. By the ruleset, as written, you have 3 months of solid work to become an actual demigod. If you want to stretch them out over 3 seasons, 3 years or 3 decades, it really doesn't matter. The *point* is that becoming a demigod is, at best, a trivial time/work investment. Its seriously something you can pick up in your spare time. Its a hum-drum national guard assignment, one weekend a month and one week a year. And thats fucked up. In fact, its so fucked up, you'll probably spend more time having sex during your lifetime than you have to spend becoming a goddamn demigod!

And that's as easy as the DM saying, "And so you guys spend the next 2 months looking for another adventure."

And its just as easy for the DM not to say that.

I'm not sure why people think there shouldn't be any downtime.

See, this is the fundamental problem. It isn't what we (or more properly I) think. Its how the stupid fucking system is presented. Downtime only exists if the DM and/or players go out of their way to put it in. And it still doesn't matter because no one, not the players and certainly not the characters have anything to *do* with it. Its all off in handwaved Happyland, where nothing you do actually matters. Talk to the king and make him think you're awesome? Great, he gives you a quest. Back to the adventure! Rewards? Ok, but you won't get one of your scheduled rewards during the next adventure, because you got it early. There really isn't any point to doing anything but going off and killing shit.

If there isn't that's clearly a DM style choice. The DM can pace the adventure however he wants. if he wants a crazy video game reality where the adventurers do nothing but rest at the inn and then move onto their next fighting area, then sure... but that's not the fault of the rules.

Yes, it is. It seriously fundamentally is, because the rules do not allow you to do anything but fight or circle-wank. You can't polish your skills, because thats solely a function of level (and therefor XP, and therefor killing shit). You can't run a business, because you can't generate any profits, because you can't deviate from the 'This Is What You Are Allowed to Have' Tables. You can't own land, or be a noble or anything else, because that interferes with the 'adventuring or nothing exists' paradigm that is set up by 4e.[and if you handwave and say it does, you can't get anything for it, because that goes back to 'what you are allowed to have' problem]

Seriously would you rather have the rules such that it's basically impossible to ever get to level 30 through normal playing? Fighting 300 battles against stuff close to your level is actually pretty reasonable to get to demigod status. I mean seriously, that's about 30 adventures. That's a lot.

Really? By what standard? I've never seen any written publication by anyone that has an adventure with just 10 encounters. That would be both pathetic and sad. And quite a rip-off.

And yes, yes I would. 30 (or whatever you want to posit as a cap) should be way the fuck out there. It should be an actual achievement to fight your way up to the pinnacle, not a boring slog through an uninteresting, unviable 'setting as combat background' that makes no sense unless you just recognize the fact that you're fucking around with minis on a battle map rather than playing an RPG.

Watching Bob the fighter become a demigod before he can fucking shave makes the whole process a joke. Its mindless, light entertainment for the morons. And surprise, surprise, its one dimensional violence. {Meaningful violence is fun, mindless violence is dull}

I wouldn't mind playing a high level game from time to time, but if thats the focus, I'd rather just start at high level and have fun with that for a while, rather than slog all the way up the hard way. In previous editions that slog could be fun and rewarding, because you actually had options, but in 4e, its empty, hollow, meaningless and openly mocking, since you're doing the exact same things over and over and over again all the way up. Ok, magic missile, wall of ice, lightning bolt, other encounter power, other encounter power, utility shenanigan, magic missile x 7. Yay. Repeat x300. What joy. Why wouldn't I invest more time into something this fun? Its... wow. Its really dull.

Getting to high levels is still damn hard. Most people who try to do so die.

I'm not convinced of that. Everything I've seen of 4e suggests that you have to make a concerted effort to get killed. You have so few options, its actually hard to make a mistake. Andits actually hard to die, and as you level damage becomes so pathetic that you really have to not be paying attention at all to get killed.

[Psychic Robot]

To be fair, Orcus can deal out a bit of damage:

--Aura 20: People in range take 10 damage/round, 20 damage/round when Orcus is bloodied.

--Standard attack: 3d12+12.

--Recharge: Drops target to 0 HP or target takes damage equal to its bloodied value.

...Actually, that's really shitty. 3d12+22 per round. 3d12+32 is a little better, but that's when Orcus is at half HP and vulnerable to being bullied into surrendering.

The recharge ability is the only "scary" one, and healing surges kind of shit all over it.

Though, to be fair (again), Orcus is a leader (!1!11!) so his being a god pales in comparison to his class role. Which means that he can barely kill a level three goblin (53 HP).

[Voss]

Of course, by the time you encounter Orcus, [who still isn't a god, by the by. Only asmodeus got the promotion] you're already level 30, and have therefor already won D&D.

[Koumei]

In fact, its so fucked up, you'll probably spend more time having sex during your lifetime than you have to spend becoming a goddamn demigod!

That's not fucked up. No matter how long it would take to become a demigod, goddamn or otherwise, most characters played by me would still strive to spend more time having sex.

And they'd end up as very happy demigods.

[RandomCasualty2]

I'm not missing the point at all. yes, there can be down time. But the downtime in 4e *doesn't matter*, becomes nothing noteworthy happens during it. By the ruleset, as written, you have 3 months of solid work to become an actual demigod. If you want to stretch them out over 3 seasons, 3 years or 3 decades, it really doesn't matter. The *point* is that becoming a demigod is, at best, a trivial time/work investment. Its seriously something you can pick up in your spare time. Its a hum-drum national guard assignment, one weekend a month and one week a year. And thats fucked up. In fact, its so fucked up, you'll probably spend more time having sex during your lifetime than you have to spend becoming a goddamn demigod!

Well, it's assumed that your character is doing training and such during downtime, that's just not mentioned, because everyone hates training rules. It's not just assumed that your character can sit on his ass for 12 months doing absolutely nothing and retain his skills. It's pretty much given that during downtime wizards are studying their spellbooks, fighters are practicing swordplay and stuff like that.

I mean if it really bothers you, you can institute training rules, but most players prefer to just handwave training so long as it doesn't get ridiculous.

There really isn't any point to doing anything but going off and killing shit.

Well it is a roleplaying game. Or are all your characters just mindless flavorless killing machines with numeric designations instead of names? Most characters with interesting personalities have motivations beyond just "I'm da psycho who kills da monsterz!1!!"

And if your character doesn't, then honestly, I don't see why you even care about world verisimilitude. I mean, you're treating your PC like a playing piece anyway, so what does it matter how much time passes or if the story makes any sense. The story stopped being interesting the moment you made your character into a mindless killing machine.

Sure if your DM wants to create a world where quests just randomly pop up for you and you're questing every single day, then let him. But if you're running a game like that, obviously the flavor aspects of becoming a demigod quickly don't bother you.

Because really either your DM controls it or the rules have to get completely anal. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be adding up the amount of training my character needs to gain and maintain his skills. I really don't want to have to check off the fact that I practiced swording people at least 35 hours this week, because I don't play RPGs to be an accountant.

Yes, it is. It seriously fundamentally is, because the rules do not allow you to do anything but fight or circle-wank. You can't polish your skills, because thats solely a function of level (and therefor XP, and therefor killing shit). You can't run a business, because you can't generate any profits, because you can't deviate from the 'This Is What You Are Allowed to Have' Tables. You can't own land, or be a noble or anything else, because that interferes with the 'adventuring or nothing exists' paradigm that is set up by 4e.[and if you handwave and say it does, you can't get anything for it, because that goes back to 'what you are allowed to have' problem]

So would you rather have training rules? I don't get it.

Training isn't in the book because people hate training rules.

Watching Bob the fighter become a demigod before he can fucking shave makes the whole process a joke. Its mindless, light entertainment for the morons. And surprise, surprise, its one dimensional violence. {Meaningful violence is fun, mindless violence is dull}

Regardless of where you set the bar, you're always going to have this problem. In real life, combat is a lot of boredom and a few short moments of terror. And in truth the majority of any combat career is spent not in combat. Soldiers stationed during wartime aren't in perpetual combat, most of their time is spent standing guard or what not. You're just not going to get some weird scenario where a guy is fighting lots of back to back combats.

If you want to make the game a pain to play, you can institute training rules to force people to take downtime, but honestly, I don't see the advantage of getting that anal with rules. It doesn't make for a better game at all in my mind. But I guess YMMV. I guess it's a gamist versus simulationist argument.

In previous editions that slog could be fun and rewarding, because you actually had options, but in 4e, its empty, hollow, meaningless and openly mocking, since you're doing the exact same things over and over and over again all the way up. Ok, magic missile, wall of ice, lightning bolt, other encounter power, other encounter power, utility shenanigan, magic missile x 7. Yay. Repeat x300. What joy. Why wouldn't I invest more time into something this fun? Its... wow. Its really dull.

I really hate when people only see things from the damn wizard's perspective. In previous editions, yeah, the wizard had more options. But the other classes had WAY less options than they did in 4E. In 3.5, an effective fighter did nothing but spam one tactic. Uber-charge, trip monkey, straight power attack or whatever. But you just picked one thing and that's all you ever did. Yeah, theoretically you have all this disarm and grapple shit you *could* use, but if you ain't specialized then in 3.5, it's just a shit tactic. You have only a very small set of viable options.

I mean the barbarian, fuck man.. what did he do. I rage, I attack. I rage, I attack. Talk about dull. Playing a barbarian is dull.

In 4E, it's true that spellcasters just don't have as many options, but it's also true that fighters and rogues get more options and are more fun to play in 4E. Seriously I wouldn't touch a 3.5 ranger with a 10 ft pole. But the 4E ranger is actually pretty fun to play. I like having special attacks I can use instead of just using the same action every round. Yay, improved rapid shot full attack... again.

Even clerics don't really feel like they've lost much. Mostly because their buffs are built into their attacks. The wizard is about the only character that I think feels small in the pants, but that's one class out of 8. Comparatively the other classes end up being more interesting. There are lots of classes in 3.5 that I just would not bring my self to play ever. The 4E classes all seem playable. I haven't really seen anything that I think would be completely shit to play.

I'm not convinced of that. Everything I've seen of 4e suggests that you have to make a concerted effort to get killed. You have so few options, its actually hard to make a mistake. Andits actually hard to die, and as you level damage becomes so pathetic that you really have to not be paying attention at all to get killed.

I've seen quite a few TPKs thus far in my 4E games, and this was following the XP guidelines for normal difficulty battles. 4E won't TPK you in one round, but it can certainly get pretty lethal.

Have you actually played 4E yet? Because really if you're just doing this from looking at it on paper, then I think you're missing out on a lot of factors.

If anything 4E has a lot closer fights than 3.5 does. Unless you've got a very efficient party setup, you're likely to get a PC dropped each battle if it's at all close to your party's XP budget. I've seen underbudget encounters TPK a group before. Granted their tactics sucked, but they weren't actively trying to die either.

4E really kind of does assume you know what you're doing. It's based off min/maxed characters being played relatively well.

[Psychic Robot]

It's based off min/maxed characters being played relatively well.

I thought 4e was based around lessening the gap between gimped and non-min/maxed characters.

Also, I understand Voss's point about the wizard: why should that class become less fun because 3e did a shitty job with fighters?

[Voss]

RC, you're making so many assumptions that its ridiculous. You aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with a fictional version of me and my arguments that you've made up in your head.

I'm not arguing for any of those things, I'm saying thats how the game as presented works. Everything except combat is handwaved, including all social 'encounters' because that system flat out doesn't work.

Nor am I just talking about the wizard- I pulled an example out of my ass (and clearly got bored with it, which is why I stopped filling in random powers). Spamming anyone's set handful (or double handful) of powers over and over again against encounter after encounter of the same kind of shit, hundreds of times, is pretty much the definition of tedium. No one has more things to do, they have *less*, because you can't really take any action that isn't predefined for you. There is no room for creativity or thought.

And yes, I have played it a little. A very efficient min-maxed set up is pretty much the expectation, because yes, if you don't have it, you can fail. But it is frankly stupid not to min/max the characters and the party because its blatantly obvious that wins, and winning the mini battles is all that matters since thats all the game entails.

[Talisman]

If anything 4E has a lot closer fights than 3.5 does. Unless you've got a very efficient party setup, you're likely to get a PC dropped each battle if it's at all close to your party's XP budget. I've seen underbudget encounters TPK a group before. Granted their tactics sucked, but they weren't actively trying to die either.

Interestingly enough, I ran Treasure of Talon Pass (the Free RPG Day adventure) for my game crew: a party of only 3, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, with no modifications. They did quite well; no fatalities, and only one that was even close (fighter vs. 3 kobold dragonshields + kobold wyrmpriest).

The next session, another player joined us playing a warlord. Again, the team did well with no fatalities or near-fatalities...until they found the &*!@ spinning blade trap. Even that might not have been lethal if not for the "I stop it with my face" plan. :shock:

[RandomCasualty2]

RC, you're making so many assumptions that its ridiculous. You aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with a fictional version of me and my arguments that you've made up in your head.

I'm not arguing for any of those things, I'm saying thats how the game as presented works. Everything except combat is handwaved, including all social 'encounters' because that system flat out doesn't work.

Honestly, this is how most RPGs work though anyway. Everytime 3E did a noncombat thing that wasn't handwaved, it was generally broken. Check out diplomacy or the rules for running a business for instance, or the rules for buying traps or any number of other things.

I guess they learned that it's hard writing general rules for noncombat stuff, so they just decided to hand wave it. A good move actually if you ask me. Nobody I've seen, on these boards or anywhere has produced a good social system, or a good system for running a business. I mean probalby the best solution is Frank's for businesses where gold simply doesn't matter by the time you get up in level, but that's basically the equivalent of saying that businesses don't really give you anything and at that point, you might as well handwave them, because the amount of gold you get just isn't that important and I don't see why there's a point to having rules for it.

I mean some things are better left just handwaved.

Nor am I just talking about the wizard- I pulled an example out of my ass (and clearly got bored with it, which is why I stopped filling in random powers). Spamming anyone's set handful (or double handful) of powers over and over again against encounter after encounter of the same kind of shit, hundreds of times, is pretty much the definition of tedium. No one has more things to do, they have *less*, because you can't really take any action that isn't predefined for you. There is no room for creativity or thought.

And there is in 3E for anyone except a spellcaster?

You sound to me like you're kidding yourself that 3E was better, because you're viewing things entirely through the spellcaster's viewpoint, which is a very specialized viewpoint. Take any martial character from 3.5 core and compare him to his 4E counterpart. I think you'll find that the 4E counterparts have more options. While it's true that you have only a handful of options in 4E, a handful is way more than just *one* which is pretty much precisely what you've got in 3E for many classes. Hell you can even take ritual casting in 4E to get more options out of combat.

And yes, I have played it a little. A very efficient min-maxed set up is pretty much the expectation, because yes, if you don't have it, you can fail. But it is frankly stupid not to min/max the characters and the party because its blatantly obvious that wins, and winning the mini battles is all that matters since thats all the game entails.

I'm still not sure why winning the mini battles is all that matters. Seriously I mean, one could say the same thing about 2nd edition D&D, or even 3E. I mean 4E at least gives you XP for completing quests. In prior editions, you pretty much had to defeat the monsters to get the XP. Yeah, you could sneak by them or whatever too if you wanted, but it was still about bypassing monsters.

Really in an RPG the other stuff is supposed to be extra. You aren't supposed to get tons of XP for roleplaying a scene in the tavern, that's just for fun. I mean if all you care about is character advancement then yes, killing monsters is all you'll ever want to do. But if all you want is to get from level 1 to 30 as fast as possible, then you really should just be playing WoW, where the entire game is about just fighting monsters. There's more fun to be had in RPGs than just hack and slash.

[Username17]

I thought 4e was based around lessening the gap between gimped and non-min/maxed characters.

In 4e, if you are not min/maxed your stuff doesn't work at all.

If you play a Rogue and use Multiclass feats to get Magic Missile for your ranged attack, you suck. By the time you get to high level, none of your shit works. You don't do level appropriate damage and you probably can't even hit with your attacks.

By high level, your inherent stats and equipment are only making you hit 40% of the time against actual enemies, and that's assuming that all your stat bonuses ever went into making you better at hitting with all your attacks. It is assumed that you've done some kind of crazy min/max techniques or you don't even stay current with the base to-hit scores.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Even that might not have been lethal if not for the "I stop it with my face" plan. :shock:

I do believe we have a contender for the "Eleven Testicles" feat. Of course, at the cost of "having a face", but nevertheless, that's the kind of approach taken by Vance Motherfucking Stubbs.

[Ravengm]

Hell you can even take ritual casting in 4E to get more options out of combat.

Wait... what? Rituals are specifically designed to not be used in combat.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

He means "outside of combat." Still, it seems kind of crazy that non-spellcasters have to get into casting a form of spell in order to have legit things to do outside of the dungeon.

[Psychic Robot]

There are only like seven skills. Can't be that hard to get all of them.

[Ravengm]

He means "outside of combat."

Leave it to me to misread things.

Even so, it still seems odd to me that non-caster classes can use the rituals. It's not a bad thing, it just is weird.

[virgil]

Did they ever say if that was their official answer to all of the fighter/mage concepts, just be a fighter that took the Ritual Casting feat?

[Voss]

Really in an RPG the other stuff is supposed to be extra. You aren't supposed to get tons of XP for roleplaying a scene in the tavern, that's just for fun. I mean if all you care about is character advancement then yes, killing monsters is all you'll ever want to do. But if all you want is to get from level 1 to 30 as fast as possible, then you really should just be playing WoW, where the entire game is about just fighting monsters. There's more fun to be had in RPGs than just hack and slash.

Yes, yes there is. And 4e actively refuses to support any of it.

And going back to the flaws of 3e (like fighters and other warrior types), and using that as a comparison doesn't make 4e good. Older editions have a lot of flaws. There are literally 1000s of pages written on the flaws of fighters... but that doesn't make 4e good. Its not even a passable basis for an argument.

And wait. Fuck the spellcasters view point. Go make a 8th level 3e fighter and 8th level 4e fighter. Take meaningful feats for the 3e fighter, and keep in mind all the stuff he can do anyway.
Compare them. Who really has more options?