RandomCasualty2 wrote:
I mean lets look at just statting up the wizard.
-You need to assign ability scores.
-You need to assign levels, and roll for hit points. This probably means getting PrCs too.
-You need to choose what he has in his spellbook.
-You need to choose what spells he has prepared.
-You need to assign skill points.
-You need to assign feats.
-You need to buy his magic items.
That takes an immense amount of time. It's like making a PC wizard. Actually, it's the exact same process.
I was discussing this same topic this afternoon with my brother and his girlfriend.
The complexity of making new characters is the biggest turnoff for most new players to D&D.
I don't know what suggested time limit would be best, but my experience proved to me that far too many new gamers either become painfully bored or lose interest completely after working on their character for more than an hour.
I'd say about 20 minutes tops, 5-10 for NPCs. If a game requires anything more, it's entering Boredom Danger Zone.
-You need to assign ability scores (3).
-You need to assign levels
-You need to choose powers (split in to spells for Mind, techniques for Body, talents for Speed, and optional skills as desired)
-You need to assign feats.
-You need to buy his magic items (maybe, depends on setting; characters won't depend on them as much as in D&D).
RC is right as far as the full RAW of 3.x is concerned. It takes a long time to make an NPC wizard. Claiming that a decent DM will ignore the RAW and cut corners is pretty much Oberoni Fallacy territory.
I have to agree. The problem with 4e isn't that they created a simpler, different system for NPC/monster design. The problem is that their system is so simplistic that it can't handle some common types of fantasy combat actions, even when they've designed powers that do those things. (Exorcism of Steel comes to mind).
There are certainly quite a few problems in 4e.... and I'm trying to keep up with the overwhelming amount of threads that talk about the problems, but the topics keep changing and I'm not sure what I'm looking at.
Would someone be able to send me a message that contains a list of problem rules? (and possibly the page number of the manual that the rule appears in) That way I can observe them for myself and try to modify the rule. Like I said, I'm bouncing around the various threads here and I'm having a hard time keeping up.
Porrage wrote:There are certainly quite a few problems in 4e.... and I'm trying to keep up with the overwhelming amount of threads that talk about the problems, but the topics keep changing and I'm not sure what I'm looking at.
Would someone be able to send me a message that contains a list of problem rules? (and possibly the page number of the manual that the rule appears in) That way I can observe them for myself and try to modify the rule. Like I said, I'm bouncing around the various threads here and I'm having a hard time keeping up.
Skills don't work.
Rituals don't work.
Combat takes too long (you resort to at wills for 5-6 rounds every combat).
Combat has a crit fetish.
Powers don't really effect the world.
Just about every power does the same thing (extra damage or to hit, push back, one round status effect).
sigma999 wrote:
The complexity of making new characters is the biggest turnoff for most new players to D&D.
Well, there are actually a lot of players who like the complexity of making characters too.
And there's really not that big a problem with having high level PCs take awhile. IF you want simple, just play a lower level. PC construction can take a long time since PCs only need to do it once in awhile, also if you want an indepth game with a lot of options that's also balanced, I think you've got to have char creation take awhile.
NPC creation on the other hand must be quick for the game to work at all.
Ubernoob's list is pretty good, but it's missing the economics portion. 4e economics are even more jacked up than 3e's for some reason. It's part of the 4e design philosophy that the game should assume perfect min/maxing. In order to get level appropriate gear, you have to find exactly what you're looking for. If you end up having to trade stuff in, you only get 1:6 on your investment and unlike 3rd edition the treasure accumulation system does not cover for that with future treasure gains. Every lost gold piece is lost forever and the game expects you to set fire to 84% of your gold pieces every time you swap your equipment around.
This all through a set of traders who apparently have all magical goods you'd ever want and at the same time are sufficiently weak that it still falls on you to complete all the quests - leaving a great head scratching as to why the players don't just rob the peddlers. However, this fits very nicely into the rest of the unbelievability of the economics - where dead monsters don't actually "drop" equipment just because they had it while they were alive.
So conducting any trade permanently fucks the party, and if your DM doesn't give you exactly the equipment you need trading is required. The trade network doesn't "exist" in any real sense of the word and only takes effect to drop magic items on you in exchange for money. The money stops existing in the world once it's spent, and the magic items don't really exist until they have been bought.
It's... very anti-immersive. It's supposed to be very "gamist" but the game itself is unfair six fold.
I blame the reduced selling price on design by committee
I think they just heavily wanted to discourage video game syndrome where you buy and sell your best weapons, since most people didn't like how most of your crap in 3.5 was store bought instead of won on an adventure.
Of course other people really liked buiyng and trading items, so they put in the rules for that specifically for them, but made it so they were hosed badly enough that most of your good shit has to be found on adventures, but you can buy some stuff.
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FrankTrollman wrote:So conducting any trade permanently fucks the party, and if your DM doesn't give you exactly the equipment you need trading is required. The trade network doesn't "exist" in any real sense of the word and only takes effect to drop magic items on you in exchange for money. The money stops existing in the world once it's spent, and the magic items don't really exist until they have been bought.
Score.
This is 4E in a nutshell:
1. The 3.5 economic system is broken because PC's can too easily game the system and possess infinite wealth and, therefore, infinite power.
2. This must be fixed.
3. Therefore, 4E will not have an economic system.
* * *
Frank, IMO you understate the problem. Imagine any possible way in which the 4E economic system could possibly work for anyone other than a PC. Or, imagine why those Kobold bandits even exist in a world where killing a guy gets you a rusty dagger.
Tydanosaurus wrote:Imagine why those Kobold bandits even exist in a world where killing a guy gets you a rusty dagger.
Killing a guy gets you the stuff they carry. All 4e says is that most monsters (and NPCs) don't have magic items, and most shops don't take second-hand mundane equipment. That isn't a problem for kobold bandits, that I can see.
Basically the 4E drop system just wanted to eliminate the problem of PCs wasting time collecting trivial gear in a bag of holding.
Because really, nobody wants to waste time during a session adding up the relative cost of 25 suits of chainmail, 38 longswords, 23 daggers, 5 rings of protection +1, 9 +1 swords, and 5 suits of +1 leather armor.
I'm actually fine with plus gear existing just for the PCs and that's it.
Of course, I'd rather not have plus gear at all, but that's one sacred cow that I don't think D&D will ever drop.
RandomCasualty2 wrote:Because really, nobody wants to waste time during a session adding up the relative cost of 25 suits of chainmail, 38 longswords, 23 daggers, 5 rings of protection +1, 9 +1 swords, and 5 suits of +1 leather armor.
I guess I'm lucky...after the vry low-levels, my PCs never bother looting mundane gear unless it's unusual or something they specifically want.
Of course, I'd rather not have plus gear at all, but that's one sacred cow that I don't think D&D will ever drop.
DEATH TO THE SACRED COW!
I frikkin' hate plus gear. It's utterly counter to the concept of magic stuff = fun and cinematic.
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
Tydanosaurus wrote:Imagine why those Kobold bandits even exist in a world where killing a guy gets you a rusty dagger.
Killing a guy gets you the stuff they carry. All 4e says is that most monsters (and NPCs) don't have magic items, and most shops don't take second-hand mundane equipment. That isn't a problem for kobold bandits, that I can see.
I didn't think I needed to spell this out, but if I have to, I will. Using your own words, since they're handy.
What, exactly, do you think bandits take, and what, exactly, do you think they sell, and where do they sell it? "Killing a guy gets you the stuff they carry." "hops don't take second-hand mundane equipment."
So:
1. They take stuff from guys they kill. This is is "mundane stuff."
2. They then sell "mundane stuff."
3. They sell this "mundane stuff" to shops. The shops, initially, are dubious, but eventually are end up being Joe's Mundane Mart, where all the finest peasants shop.
4. But shops don't buy "second hand mundane stuff."
Therefore, no bandits.
* * *
This actually happened in the US for TV's. Burglaries are down now b/c there's no second-hand market for TV's b/c new TV's are essentially free w/ instant credit. In 4E, there's no conceivable environmental niche for bandits. Anywhere.
RandomCasualty2 wrote:Basically the 4E drop system just wanted to eliminate the problem of PCs wasting time collecting trivial gear in a bag of holding.
Because really, nobody wants to waste time during a session adding up the relative cost of 25 suits of chainmail, 38 longswords, 23 daggers, 5 rings of protection +1, 9 +1 swords, and 5 suits of +1 leather armor.
.
Except for people who actually do that and enjoy it. But naturally, since it isn't your experience, it doesn't exist.
Voss wrote:
Except for people who actually do that and enjoy it. But naturally, since it isn't your experience, it doesn't exist.
Well sure, but that's one guy out of the entire group. The rest of the PCs and the DM are sitting there bored wasting time while the one guy crunches numbers.
Because those PCs are never happy with the DM just eyeballing the cost of all the random shit. They actually want to tabulate it all for the official worth, and that's wasting everyone else's time. Most people come to adventure in dungeons and to roleplay, not to add up a big column of numbers to try to gain more gold. That style of play can be better left to Diablo 2.
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tydanosaurus wrote:[What, exactly, do you think bandits take, and what, exactly, do you think they sell, and where do they sell it?
Human bandits take gold (and other monetary treasure). They also take gems, art objects, and fine goods. They also take trade goods and such. They sell this stuff to the same shops/fences/contacts as PCs. This is sufficient to make a living. They don't take mundane armour, mundane weapons, and mundane adventuring equipment, except for their own purposes. They can't sell that stuff, by the default "economy". If this is unsatisfactory, it is a standard 4e option for them to be able to sell that stuff at 20% price.
Tydanosaurus wrote:Which would be lovely, if 4E allowed NPC's to possess a little thing called money.
There are no rules in 4e preventing NPCs from having money.
RandomCasualty2 wrote:
Well sure, but that's one guy out of the entire group. The rest of the PCs and the DM are sitting there bored wasting time while the one guy crunches numbers.
Because those PCs are never happy with the DM just eyeballing the cost of all the random shit. They actually want to tabulate it all for the official worth, and that's wasting everyone else's time.
It doesn't waste anyone's time. The guy doing the calculating does the calculating, the only thing anyone needs to worry about is the end result, which takes literally seconds to disseminate.
Why do you assume that the action can't continue over there while I'm adding over here? It's a really dumb assumption.
