4e is too complex.

[Tydanosaurus]

The rules encourage the DM to put gold into the pockets of creatures, including NPCs, that the PCs kill, where it is realistic to do so. If a player says "does the dead kobold have any grey crap", the DMG encourages the DM to say yes, and say what the grey crap is.
The 3e RAW don't tell me the price of the crown of the King of Nowhere, nor of a farmer's hoe. They do tell me the average second-hand price of kobold armour, just as the 4e rules do.

The RAW quite literally don't work once you start letting the PC's loot stuff from NPC's because then you're in the 3.5 land where, eventually, the PC's have a bucket of trinkets.

Is there a problem with the PCs having a bucket of trinkets in 4e? Worst case I can see: padded sumo isn't so bad, and they cast a couple more rituals. It'll be fine.

You're combining two different thoughts here.

First thought is that, unlike every other version of D&D, 4E effectively says that dead NPC's melt into mist and disappear w/o any loot. You can handwave all you want and nitpick all you want, but that's basically what 4E does. This sucks for a variety of reasons. The fact that Descent now has more treasure than D&D should point out some of those reasons.

Second thought is, so what? Treasure doesn't matter in 4E anyway, so you could just give them loot. There's no game-breaking magic anyway. True, but you're missing the point. Once you put in an economy, you then have made a lever with which the PC's, finally, at long last can affect the world around them. Now the PC's can go looting NPC's and suck up enough coin to buy themselves a mob of beggars.

Do you know what a mob of beggars is in 4E? A mob of beggars is ULTIMATE POWER. That dragon might survive my Cascade of Blades, but he is not surviving 300 thrown rocks a round, especially since some of those "useless trinkets" get rid of DR.

Do you see why 4E ultimately leaves people cold? A setting where ultimate power is finding a way to hire a bunch of beggars to throw rocks at a dragon is more impressive than anything a PC can do?

[Bigode]

Well 3.5 was really king of build mastery.

Most of your tactics were pretty simple there, because you were just doing what your character was made for.

Yeah, sure it had way more build mastery than it should, but Voss' talking about absence of play mastery. A) 4E seems to have less play mastery, and b) lessening play mastery isn't an objective except if you're making a game for actual idiots (which makes 4E be an actual success, but explains most Denizens' lack of interest in it). So, are you telling me a rogue/spellcaster party trying to figure how to kill a wyrm isn't complex (I am making the exception of wish engines, which's technically Oberoni, but whatever)?

[RandomCasualty2]

So, are you telling me a rogue/spellcaster party trying to figure how to kill a wyrm isn't complex (I am making the exception of wish engines, which's technically Oberoni, but whatever)?

Superior invisibility + maximized shivering touch.

Done.

[Bigode]

Superior invisibility + maximized shivering touch.

Sure, and no, I won't say "you fail", but the spell in question scales to/against character level in no meaningful fashion. Fix it.

[Tydanosaurus]

So, are you telling me a rogue/spellcaster party trying to figure how to kill a wyrm isn't complex (I am making the exception of wish engines, which's technically Oberoni, but whatever)?

Superior invisibility + maximized shivering touch.

Done.

(What sort of Dragon, RC?)

Let me explain the difference.

In 3E, you had to figure out the best thing to do. Options interact in odd ways. Whole series of tactics could disappear against certain opponents.

In 4E, you pick a power at random, which does pretty much what your other powers do, and hope it works. Which it does, 50% of the time, unless you use one of the few powers you have which change the RNG.

[Username17]

So, are you telling me a rogue/spellcaster party trying to figure how to kill a wyrm isn't complex (I am making the exception of wish engines, which's technically Oberoni, but whatever)?

Superior invisibility + maximized shivering touch.

Vs. Draconic Blindsight.

Done.

Yes. Yes you are.

-Username17

[ubernoob]

So, are you telling me a rogue/spellcaster party trying to figure how to kill a wyrm isn't complex (I am making the exception of wish engines, which's technically Oberoni, but whatever)?

Superior invisibility + maximized shivering touch.

Vs. Draconic Blindsight.
-Username17

Hell, scintilating scales makes touch ACs impossible for rogue/wizards it's only a second level spell.

[virgil]

I was unaware that draconic blindsight could see through superior invisibility. I thought that it was a 7th or 8th level spell that made you undetectable shy of true seeing.

[Kaelik]

1) Yes Superior Invisibility is the bee's knees.

It's also an 8th level spell.

So your choices are:
1) Face a Dragon without Superior Invisibility.
2) Face a Dragon capable of casting spells, including Scintillating scales, and has approximately the same wealth as a character.

Not to mention that if the dragon is white you fail.

Yes if you want to teleport ambush a dragon, and it isn't a CR 20ish one, you can do that. (unless it bothered to take Epic feats in which case you fail).

Of course if it ambushes you, then it has defenses easily (IE it will be buffed with Scintillating scales, and you can't superior invis the whole party, so you might as well not).

[Tydanosaurus]

I think I've seen some [Dragons] that don't have Blindsight, and assuming they aren't immune to whatever energy type you're attacking with, RC's plan might work. Point is, you need to think about it.

[Username17]

I was unaware that draconic blindsight could see through superior invisibility. I thought that it was a 7th or 8th level spell that made you undetectable shy of true seeing.

Oh we're talking about the 8th level spell superior invisibility? I thought we were talking about the 4th level improved invisibility because that's the one that anyone actually uses. The 8th level version is just an argument waiting to happen. We'll start with the fact that it's an 8th level spell and does not mention any of the effects or abilities above 5th level in its list of spank/don't spank. But more importantly, it specifically does prevent you from being seen with glitterdust and it specifically doesn't prevent you from being seen by leaving your impression in physical objects even though glitterdust is a Conjuration and thus those are exactly the same fucking thing.

So yeah. I've never seen or heard of anyone using superior invisibility for anything because literally not one person on the entire planet including the author of the spell actually knows what it does.

-Username17

[virgil]

I managed to get away with using it, though in retrospect I didn't get the spell until we were exclusively fighting true seeing 'TPK' monsters, so I just stayed 180'+ away (and flying) with the spell running; which meant greater invisibility would've done the same thing.

Those were the same DMs that would exclusively use Spot checks (would tell us Listen wouldn't work because there were birds in the jungle), and I don't think they've ever considered the idea of using Spot checks to notice invisible characters through physical traces; so the spell works great in their game, as it even explicitly states that blindsight is fooled by it.

[RandomCasualty2]

So yeah. I've never seen or heard of anyone using superior invisibility for anything because literally not one person on the entire planet including the author of the spell actually knows what it does.

That may be the case, but the spell specifically mentions blindsight so therefore we can be certain that the dragon won't see you coming.

Also scintillating scales and other counters like glitterdust don't last that long and would require that the dragon knewyou were coming. Since you were using superior invis and had a rogue along to disarm any alarm traps you may run into it... it would't have any means of knowing you were coming and you'd catch it completely by surprised.

Sure superior invisibility is a totally broken spell, but this is 3.5 we're talking about, the game where spellcasters are gods.

1) Yes Superior Invisibility is the bee's knees.

It's also an 8th level spell.

So? wish economy. I wish for a scroll of it. I think we've agreed that you can get into the wish economy before 10th level, so It's easy enough to just scroll cast it. If I get a scroll mishap, oh well.. I'll just try again, because I've got an infinite number of scrolls and it's an out of combat spell.

Not to mention that if the dragon is white you fail.

Not really. Shivering touch fails, but I've still got a party of superior invisible mages and rogues. It'll be dead before the end of the surprise round. It's just that if it's a white dragon, the rogues may actually have to do something beyond disarming traps.

But I don't think you need me to tell you what a surprise gangbang by a rogue/wizard glass cannon squad can do.

Most of the time though, I probably don't even need the rogues for the combat. Just the one mage can finish it.

[MartinHarper]

First thought is that, unlike every other version of D&D, 4E effectively says that dead NPC's melt into mist and disappear w/o any loot. You can handwave all you want and nitpick all you want, but that's basically what 4E does.

Where does it say that? If anything, I'm seeing the opposite: if you kill level-appropriate NPCs in 4e, you can expect to loot a "treasure package", and you can expect to loot their mundane equipment. Exception: if it makes no sense for the NPCs to have treasure or equipment, they won't have it.

The only difference I see is that 3e NPCs have a bunch of magic items (though fewer than 3e PCs). 4e, RAW, NPCs may have no magic items, and won't have more than a couple. Is this what you're on about?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Not to mention that if the dragon is white you fail.

Not really. Shivering touch fails, but I've still got a party of superior invisible mages and rogues. It'll be dead before the end of the surprise round. It's just that if it's a white dragon, the rogues may actually have to do something beyond disarming traps.

But I don't think you need me to tell you what a surprise gangbang by a rogue/wizard glass cannon squad can do.

You're trying to change the argument. No-one said that a wizard/rogue combo couldn't do it. Just that it wouldn't be simple.

[RandomCasualty2]

You're trying to change the argument. No-one said that a wizard/rogue combo couldn't do it. Just that it wouldn't be simple.

No I'm not.

You cast superior invisibility, you go in, you cast shivering touch or just open up with orbs of fire and sneak attacks from the surprise round. I don't really see what's not simple about that.

I mean the game becomes pathetically easy when you're completely undetectable. Seriously, how much thought do I really have to put into it?

Now if you want to kill that same dragon with some monks and the dragon is pretty tactical, then it may take some real strategy.

[Tydanosaurus]

First thought is that, unlike every other version of D&D, 4E effectively says that dead NPC's melt into mist and disappear w/o any loot. You can handwave all you want and nitpick all you want, but that's basically what 4E does.

Where does it say that? If anything, I'm seeing the opposite: if you kill level-appropriate NPCs in 4e, you can expect to loot a "treasure package", and you can expect to loot their mundane equipment. Exception: if it makes no sense for the NPCs to have treasure or equipment, they won't have it.

Mundane equipment that you can't sell. Keep up the handwaving. I'm done.

[Tydanosaurus]

You're trying to change the argument. No-one said that a wizard/rogue combo couldn't do it. Just that it wouldn't be simple.

No I'm not.

You cast superior invisibility, you go in, you cast shivering touch or just open up with orbs of fire and sneak attacks from the surprise round. I don't really see what's not simple about that.

I mean the game becomes pathetically easy when you're completely undetectable. Seriously, how much thought do I really have to put into it?

Now if you want to kill that same dragon with some monks and the dragon is pretty tactical, then it may take some real strategy.

How do you miss the complexity of 3.5? You have a group that:

1. took a mixed bag of spells to avoid immunities
2. carefully chose to use spells that would be most effective
3. chose specific tactics to get the best benefit of them.
4. etc.

Compare this to how I play my Wizard in 4E. I pick a spell at random and then look to see:

1. Are lots of monsters in the AoE? if yes, then:
2. Are any PC's? If no, then

BOOOM!

Occasaionlly, I use an Orb power or something. My only, and I mean only, decision is when to use my Daily's.

[Username17]

I mean the game becomes pathetically easy when you're completely undetectable.

Sure, but superior invisibility is only available in Crazy Town (being an 8th level spell), and also does not actually make you completely undetectable. You can't be seen or heard, but everything you touch still can. So you still alert enemies by walking around, they just can't hear you doing it? Or something? No one knows what the hell actually happens because it's a poorly written spell with contradictory examples from an expansion book. Pivoting any argument on an interpretation of that spell is spurious.

It would be like pivoting an argument in 4th edition on having a mount, despite he fact that the rules don't say how you'd manage to do that at all.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

How do you miss the complexity of 3.5? You have a group that:

1. took a mixed bag of spells to avoid immunities
2. carefully chose to use spells that would be most effective
3. chose specific tactics to get the best benefit of them.
4. etc.

But you're really not. Those tactics work at killing pretty much anything. The first time you used that combo it may have been creative, but now it's just standard operating procedure.

Yes, you have way more chaff to sort through in 3.5, because 3.5 presents you with lots of shitty options, so it may seem like you're making difficult choices, but you're really not. I mean that superior invis combo is good against almost everything, except for the rare shit with permanent true seeing, like balors and the like.

Sure, but superior invisibility is only available in Crazy Town (being an 8th level spell),

8th level spell sure. Crazy town, not so much. A scroll is well within wish value limits, meaning that it's easy enough to get ahold of it once you're in the wish economy (which is basically a given if you're fighting a wyrm of any kind and your DM isn't being totally sadistic).

I'm really not sure why most wizards don't just stock up on high level scrolls and cast them. Even if your'e say only 10th level, you've still got a pretty good shot of casting it. Seeing as you're casting it out of combat anyway though, it's a moot point. If you fail just cast another one. It's not really like you're paying for the scrolls in the first place.

As far as the inconsistencies in the wording of the spell, it says that creatures can't hear you, so they can't hear you. Now conceivably if you were to push over some heavy object, they may hear that, but they won't hear you walking or anything. Saying that they can still hear the dirt you're walking on would be a very douchebag DM interpretation.

[Psychic Robot]

As far as the inconsistencies in the wording of the spell, it says that creatures can't hear you, so they can't hear you. Now conceivably if you were to push over some heavy object, they may hear that, but they won't hear you walking or anything. Saying that they can still hear the dirt you're walking on would be a very douchebag DM interpretation.

That's the exact problem. The spell goes into "fuzzy wording" territory that 3e desperately tries to avoid.

[RandomCasualty2]

That's the exact problem. The spell goes into "fuzzy wording" territory that 3e desperately tries to avoid.

Sure but I mean planar binding does that too. Where it says "an unreasonable offer is automatically rejected."

Dominate person with "acts against a creature's nature are automatically resisted."

But we don't exactly ban those spells.

[Psychic Robot]

I don't consider that so much fuzzy wording as much as "DM make the best call." As Frank points out, a creature can't hear you...so what happens if you bang your sword on the ground? Or ring a bell? I mean, you can't be heard, right? And you're doing those things, so the enemies can't hear you...or can they?

[Username17]

The frickin spell gives your own footfalls as an explicit example of something your enemies can detect. We're way beyond "DM judgment calls" and into "batshit insanity."

We don't just need some common ground, we need FRONTIER PSYCHIATRY.

-Username17

[SphereOfFeetMan]

A few points:

-3.x is tactically divergent. It is as simple or complex as the Dm and players make it.

-Judging 3.x as simple by highlighting Shivering Touch would be similar to highlighting Blade Cascade in 4e. Since we are in fact mainly criticising 4e on its failed systems and not particular ability failings, it is a dishonest comparison.

-If you are stupid enough to allow Shivering Touch in the game, the dragons will simply get Mantle of Icy Soul, Energy Immunity, or some other effect to become immune to it.

-Harping on 3.x's rocket launcher tag is similar to harping on 4e's padded sumo. They both fail in opposing ways, so this particular point of comparison is a wash.