Arguments in favor of 4th Edition

[Crimson Lancer]

4E is only sterile to some players. I happen to think it's just as rich as 3.5, but aimed at a different demographic, is all.

I don't see how you can possibly argue that 4e is as rich as 3.x. I'll agree that it is aimed at a different demographic: one that doesn't care about having a rich, immersive roleplaying experience, doesn't care to look behind the curtain, and doesn't care if the game world makes sense.

What richness? I remember flavor that was forced on me at every turn. I remember having to be specific Alignments (which weren't very accurate to begin with, and actively punished the player) to be able to play Classes that had no actual basis in being that Alignment. The Greyhawk Setting was nifty; we almost never used it. Many people simply created their own flavor and settings and the like, but it was always hard trying to get newcomers to the table to understand that their Monk did not have to be Lawful, and that no, Johnny was not cheating by playing a Chaotic Monk.

Again, personal opinion, and yes, a different demographic: one that disagrees with you. My apologies that they've shifted away from where you feel they should be focusing their efforts, but I'm very much enjoying the current Edition, more than I did 3.5, which I didn't really think I could. Fortunately, I was wrong.

[RandomCasualty2]

3E wasn't really any better at creating a detailed world than 4E. In fact, 3E may well have been worse. It was still hard to explain how Forgotten Realms could even exist with wizards like Elminster being so powerful. Why there wasn't crazy Gate assassinations going on left and right is really not explained at all. 4E is just pretty much your basic low magic world and really I don't find that many problems with the simulation aspects. In 3.5 I have to explain why people don't just farm wall of iron and fabricate for money, and why they don't go to the plane of gems and get infinite gold. As far as consistent storytelling, 3.5 stretched suspension of disbelief to its limits.

What 3E did give you though is options. In 4E you are limited to one play style. You kick the door down and come in swinging. Seriously, that's all you can do. You can't sneak in, because monsters can't be taken down before they can sound the alarm. You don't have any world changing magic and your noncombat options are severely limited. You can't charm monsters to gain information or weave deceptive illusions to mislead. You really can't do much of anything besides kick down the door. And that's a major weakness of 4E.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Rules that break the game are bad, you are in fact better off without that rule. I'd rather the rules just be silent on an issue than present a rule and it fucks up the game.

I'd rather them fix the bad rule in the first place.

3E's economy shenenigans were bad and they hurt the game. The leadership rules added way too much power for the cost. The profession skill encouraged a montage of 'and then our elves spend 300 years being bartenders and then we buy a bunch of cool shit for our first-level adventurers'.

They were stupid, yes. But replacing them with no rule at all isn't an improvement.

[RandomCasualty2]

I'd rather them fix the bad rule in the first place.

Well yeah of course. I'd rather have a working rule than no rule or a bad rule. But they didn't fix the rule. So the choice is between bad rule and no rule. And honestly, replacing it with no rule is better. No rule can't break the game. A bad rule can.

All no rule means is that you have to talk it over with your DM and hopefully reach a decent compromise that lets you keep your character concept and also not break the game.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And honestly, replacing it with no rule is better. No rule can't break the game. A bad rule can.

Step back for a second and look at the contradiction you're making.

You just told CL that 4E is a poorer edition than 3E because there's only one style of play allowed for 4E while there were more options in 3E.

But do you know why 4E is that way? It's because the game designers thought that no rule was better than a bad one.

The non-combat interaction rules for 3E sucked, mostly because D&D spits on any method of problem-solving that isn't dungeon-based small-team short-range combat so doesn't pay attention to these rules. It did in 1st Edition and it still does now. So 4E's solution for these things was exactly your recommendation here; remove the stuff that they know they can't fix, focus exclusively on what they think is the most important part of D&D, and tell players to work something out with the DM if they have a problem with it.

Well, you got your wish here. How's that working out?

[Crimson Lancer]

What 3E did give you though is options. In 4E you are limited to one play style. You kick the door down and come in swinging. Seriously, that's all you can do. You can't sneak in, because monsters can't be taken down before they can sound the alarm. You don't have any world changing magic and your noncombat options are severely limited. You can't charm monsters to gain information or weave deceptive illusions to mislead. You really can't do much of anything besides kick down the door. And that's a major weakness of 4E.

Personally, I believe this is because they placed the power to do these kinds of things back into the hands of the DM, rather than simply allow the Players to run amok according to RAW, and then relying on the DM to "fix" things if it all went to Hell.

Sneaking in and assassinating an enemy: Treat the enemy as a minion until he is aware of the PC (case-by-case basis, of course ).

Using Magic outside of Combat to affect terrain: DM Fiat, because if the Players have full reign, they can stop the Terrasque with Spells like those, much less equal-level challenges.

Charm/Illusions: Currently, there are a few very mediocre ways to do this, nothing as good as Dominate, but nothing in-between, either, and yes, that really hurts the game at the moment. Hopefully Arcane Power will help on this subject, as well.

[RandomCasualty2]

But do you know why 4E is that way? It's because the game designers thought that no rule was better than a bad one.

Well, no. A lot of things are in the rules, they just actually don't work. Like a stealthy mission in 4E isn't something that there aren't rules for. You can hide and sneak around. The Problem is that the combat rules prevent you from taking even weak monsters out quickly. So if you're trying to play 4E like Thief: Deadly Shadows, you're in for a surprise, because you hit the guard on the back of the head with a sap and he's still standing. Then he sounds the alarm and hell breaks loose. It's not that you can't hide in shadows or you can't hit people with saps in 4E, it's just not effective enough to make stealth attacking a valid strategy.

Diplomacy is as valid in 4E as it is in 3E, it's just up to the DM to determine its effectiveness, which is ok. Because the 3E system sucked and the 4E diplomacy skill challenge is probably a better idea.

The other options you lose are in terms of spellcaster versatility. You can't really disguise yourself with an illusion to gain access to points, you can't cast dimension door, you can't stone shape walls, you really can't do much of anything in that regard. Divinations are also weak sauce so you can't even use those to help gain information on the situation. But removing those rules was more a simplicity issue than it was a matter of the old rules not working.

So you're left with basically two mechanics, skill challenges and combat. The skill challenge system is pretty shitty and barely workable, and combat in 4E is just bland and boring.

[crazysamaritan]

Can I summarize this as "4e is so balanced it's sterile"?

No, please don't. 4E is not balanced. It's more balanced than 3rd Edition but its neutering of player power and interaction only resulted in a modest improvement.

Okay, what about, "4e has reduced same-level power variables"?

It gives you a formula for generating a community, a rough idea of the occupations for your demographics, and even gives a blurb about how much money a laborer earns.


You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the

How does hypocrite sound, then? You're using two different rules to determine how much a character earns in a week. How do you determine which rule applies?

DMG Page 137-140 (I've got my pre-revision book with me)
1) Doesn't cover the number of people who will go to your tavern. Only the population size.
2) Don't have "average laborer earns X" here, but I do know there's a blurb in the PHB, (page 80) Untrained: Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.
So, again; I cannot tell how much it costs to employ people.
3) You surmise, because you're trying to create a workable economy from this information. You're putting forth an effort into figuring out what the math means for the economy. But if the economy isn't workable, then there is no simulated economy.

DMG Page 149: Hireling chart. Okay, now I've got the cost for maids, entertainers, and... Well, there's cook, and... Where's my bartender? Where's my waitress? "Make it up"? You've got two choices: I can make stuff up (in which case, 4e can use 3e/2e/1e's hireling rules), or I can't make stuff up (in which case, 3e does not provide a realistic economic system).

DMG Page 151: Buildings: Simple House, Grand house.... There's Houses and Castles. Are you going to claim that a tavern is constructed the same way a house is? What about a museum? Does a barn use the same architecture as a mansion?

So put away that liar label. I don't appreciate it.

You should. Lying is the art of making stuff up. We're playing a game where we claim to be prancing fairies in chainmail bikinis waving our little wands around, and mostly men sleeping together in the forest. We have no right to claim any dignity with D&D.

Now 3E fucked up by letting some characters use a wild array of strategies while forcing other classes (sword-based people) to stick to the same strategy, but the solution to Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards is not Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards. Not in a supposedly epic 'heroic fantasy' game.

Not sure what you're saying here: 4e's design isn't Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards. It's Linear Characters.

4E failed miserably in this regard, too, by both reducing the special effects of high level characters and also increasing the number of levels to be had in the first place.

This is even harder for me to understand. What I read here is "Because 4e is different from 3e, you can't do that." Which, it should be obvious, isn't an argument. It's a reason why you can't enjoy 4e, but not a reason why other people can't enjoy 4e.

Enchanters, necromancers, and summoners are all classic fantasy tropes that appear in 3e. Animal companions and familiars are classic fantasy tropes that appear in 3e. 4e doesn't have these things. Therefore, it is missing huge chunks of a system.

Enchanter: a sorcerer or magician
(4e has spell-casting character. It even has a class who can specialize in manipulating the perceptions of a target, starting at level 1. 3e has "sleep" for level1 mind-control.)
Necromancer: sorcerer: one who practices magic or sorcery
OR one who practices divination by conjuring up the dead
(Core 4e doesn't give you the ability to create undead)
Summoner: 1 : to issue a call to convene : convoke
2 : to command by service of a summons to appear in court
3 : to call upon for specified action
4 : to bid to come : send for <summon a physician>
5 : to call forth : evoke —often used with up
(4e doesn't allow you to create new monsters in battle, true)

Animal companions and familiars: Correct, core 4th edition does not have rules for bonded pets.

Now, classic fantasy tropes that 4e has that don't appear in 3e:
Proud Warrior Race
At-will Teleportation
Non-magical combat first aid
Blasts of magical energy cast at-will
(that's just from going down the list of races/classes)

[Draco_Argentum]

Sneaking in and assassinating an enemy: Treat the enemy as a minion until he is aware of the PC (case-by-case basis, of course ).

You've just lost this thread hard. 4e is good because you houserule it to be good. Hai2u Oberoni Fallacy. Come back when you're willing to retract all statements of that form.

[Arcane-surge]

Well, I think we can chalk up dwarves as a proud warrior race, and warlocks have pretty much got the blasts of magical energy cast at will down pat.

[crazysamaritan]

I'm not saying that 3rd Edition was better than 4th Edition because the rules for running Lefty's Bar and Grill were better, but because they had rules for running Lefty's Bar and Grill.

And I'm telling you that those rules weren't complete. I don't care if you can use the available rules in 3e to create a system for handling a player-run tavern. If I wanted to, I could do the same in 4e.

Here's a list of other incredibly common shit 3E had rules for that 4E did not:

- Running a guild.
- Recruiting and controlling an army.
- Sailing a ship across stormy waters.
- Crafting a sword.
- Creating your own spells/powers.
- Hiring a team of scribes to help you research Demon King Roku's undead army.

No rules for running a guild.
If army is "Leadership feat", then yes; 4e lacks that mechanic.
No rules for sailing a ship.
The 4e rule is "I want to make a sword" >> "Okay. It costs the same."
No rules in 3e for creating your own spells/powers. However, 4e allows you to create a "spell" on the spur of the moment, which 3e does not allow.
I thought "scribe" meant someone who wrote things down, not researched in a library?

---

Are you aware that XP is a measure of how powerful a character is?
That all characters who have earned [x] XP are supposed to have roughly the same power level?
If character 'A' has twice as much XP as character 'B', then character 'A' has more power than character 'B' does.

---

I'll try to keep further responses shorter and more to the current point; I just didn't want to leave Samaritan alone to fight the Pack. [/i]

Heh, it's appreciated. Should we put something in our Sig to distinguish us from the rest of the posters?

4E is only sterile to some players. I happen to think it's just as rich as 3.5, but aimed at a different demographic, is all.

I don't see how you can possibly argue that 4e is as rich as 3.x. I'll agree that it is aimed at a different demographic: one that doesn't care about having a rich, immersive roleplaying experience, doesn't care to look behind the curtain, and doesn't care if the game world makes sense.

But there's good things about 3e, as well! It was the first time most of the abilities were standardized. The developers managed to move the system from a mix of d20 and d00 to a pure d20 system, where you always add the dice to your modifiers, and you always wanted a higher number. (except with the stabilization roll, but that varied between groups >> under 11% or over 89%)

[Kaelik]

Now, classic fantasy tropes that 4e has that don't appear in 3e:
Proud Warrior Race

Which one? Orcs, Dwarves both fit, and that's core without going into splats.

At-will Teleportation

You mean like every demon ever? Or how about the fact that in 3.5 Teleport was actually different from walking, because you could teleport to the other side of a wall, or 100s of miles. Instead of it just being a move action that doesn't provoke AoO.

Non-magical combat first aid

Crusader

Blasts of magical energy cast at-will

Oh you mean Warlocks and Demons and people who could actually get at wills that did something besides do 2d6 damage?

See the Complete Arcane Warlock is a weaksauce class in 3.5, because it does moderate damage and has a few moderately awesome at wills.

That also makes it 100 times better then any 4e class.

[Lago PARANOIA]

How does hypocrite sound, then?

I am seriously about to put you on ignore. I have never done this before but when someone I have never talked to before waltzes up in and calls me a liar and a hypocrite I see no reason to continue this conversation.

You should. Lying is the art of making stuff up. We're playing a game where we claim to be prancing fairies in chainmail bikinis waving our little wands around, and mostly men sleeping together in the forest. We have no right to claim any dignity with D&D.

Are you kidding me?? Are you seriously trying to tell me that playing pretend and lying are the same things?! THEY ARE TWO SEPERATE FUCKING THINGS ALTOGETHER! Furthermore, I resent your weaselling out of your insult because just up there you casually swapped 'liar' for 'hypocrite'.

See that? That was your last chance you'll ever get with me.

You're using two different rules to determine how much a character earns in a week. How do you determine which rule applies?

I used the profession rule. Which as I have said doesn't work because the result is independent of the circumstance in which you use it. But it's at least a rule!

DMG Page 137-140 (I've got my pre-revision book with me)
1) Doesn't cover the number of people who will go to your tavern. Only the population size.

I specifically brough that up.

2) Don't have "average laborer earns X" here, but I do know there's a blurb in the PHB, (page 80) Untrained: Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.
So, again; I cannot tell how much it costs to employ people.

It's just an assumption I made. In medieval times the vast majority of laborers were unskilled. As you can see from the hireling chart most unskilled labor earns about 1 sp a day anyway.

3) You surmise, because you're trying to create a workable economy from this information. You're putting forth an effort into figuring out what the math means for the economy. But if the economy isn't workable, then there is no simulated economy.

As you might have guessed, I give a lot of bonus points for the effort. Because to me having bad rules isn't the same thing as having no rules. And having no rules is not superior to having bad rules.

DMG Page 149: Hireling chart. Okay, now I've got the cost for maids, entertainers, and... Well, there's cook, and... Where's my bartender? Where's my waitress? "Make it up"? You've got two choices: I can make stuff up (in which case, 4e can use 3e/2e/1e's hireling rules), or I can't make stuff up (in which case, 3e does not provide a realistic economic system).

They have a maid listing of 1 sp. If you are really going to nickel and dime me to death that there aren't specific listings for 'goldsmith' or 'brewer' then I've lost interest in this conversation. That chart gives me a general idea of what kind of laborer earns what.

DMG Page 151: Buildings: Simple House, Grand house.... There's Houses and Castles. Are you going to claim that a tavern is constructed the same way a house is? What about a museum? Does a barn use the same architecture as a mansion?

House says a one to three room building. So yes, I'm going to go ahead and say that it's okay for a tavern. And no, a barn isn't the same architecture as a mansion; there are no barns out there as big as a mansion and if you do want an ultra-big barn then just use the mansion rules.

Not sure what you're saying here: 4e's design isn't Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards. It's Linear Characters.

Uh, YEAH. That's what I was complaining about! The problem in 3rd Edition was that some people were stuck with miserable boring characters and other people got to play awesome characters that advanced the plot. So what was 4th Edition's solution? Beat the awesome characters with the ugly stick until everyone became boring miserable characters! That sure sucked the interesting out of characters, but hey, at least they're balanced now, right?

This is even harder for me to understand. What I read here is "Because 4e is different from 3e, you can't do that." Which, it should be obvious, isn't an argument. It's a reason why you can't enjoy 4e, but not a reason why other people can't enjoy 4e.

I'm not sure at all what you're getting at here. I'm saying that 3E had things in it that I liked and 4E doesn't have them, so I dislike those omission on 4E's parts. I don't understand what exactly is so controversial about that statement.

[PhoneLobster]

No rules for running a guild.
If army is "Leadership feat", then yes; 4e lacks that mechanic.
No rules for sailing a ship.
The 4e rule is "I want to make a sword" >> "Okay. It costs the same."
No rules in 3e for creating your own spells/powers. However, 4e allows you to create a "spell" on the spur of the moment, which 3e does not allow.
I thought "scribe" meant someone who wrote things down, not researched in a library?

I know very little about 4E, and frankly some of the stuff Lago was referring to is from the hazy bounds of 3.0 DMG material I've barely so much as glanced at.

But I know enough to see a 4E fan boy claiming to be familiar with 3E who clearly knows dick about 3E and it's actual content.

There are totally rules for all that shit.

And your "there isn't a rule if there isn't ANOTHER related rule!" and your "Some rules covering a field is exactly the same/worse than NO rules covering a field!" arguments are the kind of arguments that people who can't walk and live in "Cripple Town" call "Incredibly Lame".

You are not presenting an argument that defends 4E in a respectable manner, you don't even present an argument that suggest that guys who defend 4E (including yourself) know anything about anything, especially RPG rules.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Actually, I take that back!

I have Adventurer's Vault and inside are some very good vehicular rules.

It has rules on how many people are needed to steer a vehicle (including a sailing ship), it tells you it's average and maximum speed, and also tells you what happens if you're not controlling it. Mind, they're still stupidly incomplete in some areas--I seriously don't know if King Arthur is better at sailing a ship than Theseus in 4th edition. 3rd Edition had an answer or at least a way to test it, at least. But that's a totally unrelated problem and rains on the parade of there actually being good rules that only take about a minute's worth of reading to grok.

So I take back my statement about 4E's sailing ships.

[DeadlyReed]

If I wanted to represent taking out a guard by a sap to the back of the head ala Thief: Deadly Shadows, I would allow attack rolls to be made as a part of a stealth-based skill challenge (probably either at Moderate or Hard DC, depending on how hardcore the guards were).

[RandomCasualty2]

I still think the core issue isn't so much about the secondary mechanics. We can live without special mechanics to run a business or hire an army. That honestly just feels like rules bloat to me since we're playing a game about adventurers, not Sim-business or an army combat game. So all that stuff is background stuff, which should in my opinion remain in the background.

The main weakness of 4E is in the fact that it fails as a fun adventuring game. The combats are too long, and the tactics are minimal. Further, you just don't have many options beyond kicking the door down. And that's why people tend to not like 4E. It has nothing to do with the fact that you don't have rules to open your own weapons shop. Seriously, I don't even know a single group in 3E that even used those rules.

[crazysamaritan]

I'm not saying that 3rd Edition was better than 4th Edition because the rules for running Lefty's Bar and Grill were better, but because they had rules for running Lefty's Bar and Grill.

And I'm telling you that those rules weren't complete. I don't care if you can use the available rules in 3e to create a system for handling a player-run tavern. If I wanted to, I could do the same in 4e.

---

Are you aware that XP is a measure of how powerful a character is?
That all characters who have earned [x] XP are supposed to have roughly the same power level?
If character 'A' has twice as much XP as character 'B', then character 'A' has more power than character 'B' does.

---

Can I summarize this as "4e is so balanced it's sterile"?

No, please don't. 4E is not balanced. It's more balanced than 3rd Edition but its neutering of player power and interaction only resulted in a modest improvement.

Okay, what about, "4e has reduced same-level power variables"?

---

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretend
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie%5B3%5D
Common word: false

It's just an assumption I made. In medieval times the vast majority of laborers were unskilled. As you can see from the hireling chart most unskilled labor earns about 1 sp a day anyway.

Cooks, Porters, Laborers, and Maids are all unskilled...
But Valet/Lackey, Clerk, Teamster, Animal tender/groom are all skilled workers.

Not sure what your definition of "skilled" is.

As you might have guessed, I give a lot of bonus points for the effort. Because to me having bad rules isn't the same thing as having no rules. And having no rules is not superior to having bad rules.

Then you believe having bad rules is superior to having no rules.
Any system I recommend for you immediately has the implication of possessing bad rules.

Not sure what you're saying here: 4e's design isn't Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards. It's Linear Characters.

Uh, YEAH. That's what I was complaining about! The problem in 3rd Edition was that some people were stuck with miserable boring characters and other people got to play awesome characters that advanced the plot. So what was 4th Edition's solution? Beat the awesome characters with the ugly stick until everyone became boring miserable characters! That sure sucked the interesting out of characters, but hey, at least they're balanced now, right?

It is your opinion that characters in 4e are boring. Other players apparently have a different perspective.

This is even harder for me to understand. What I read here is "Because 4e is different from 3e, you can't do that." Which, it should be obvious, isn't an argument. It's a reason why you can't enjoy 4e, but not a reason why other people can't enjoy 4e.

I'm not sure at all what you're getting at here. I'm saying that 3E had things in it that I liked and 4E doesn't have them, so I dislike those omission on 4E's parts. I don't understand what exactly is so controversial about that statement.

It's not controversial. It's specific to you. What you don't like has no bearing on what Alice the Architect likes. What you like has no bearing on what Bob the Barber likes. So why bring it up as a flaw in the system?

Sneaking in and assassinating an enemy: Treat the enemy as a minion until he is aware of the PC (case-by-case basis, of course ).

You've just lost this thread hard. 4e is good because you houserule it to be good. Hai2u Oberoni Fallacy. Come back when you're willing to retract all statements of that form.

Except it isn't a house-rule. What's the stats for a guard? Go on, show me where they printed "NPC, Guard" in 4e.

So I take back my statement about 4E's sailing ships.

Adventurer's Vault is not part of the core three books. It is approximately the same as the Magic Item Compendium, but not quite.

Therefore, I cannot use it to argue anything in 4e's favour.

But I know enough to see a 4E fan boy claiming to be familiar with 3E who clearly knows dick about 3E and it's actual content.

There are totally rules for all that shit.

Then you should be able to cite which book, and the page numbers for me.
Tell me, in order to know "dick" about 3e, do I have to pass the 3.5 Herald test? Because I've only tried a couple times.
Can I know "dick" about 3e by DMing it? Because I've done that several times.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you don't have rules to open your own weapons shop. Seriously, I don't even know a single group in 3E that even used those rules.

Had a group where one of the party members got an "underground network" through purchasing a tavern. This was a little before the Stronghold Builder's Guide, so the DM was making most of the stuff up. The "cost" of the tavern was in favors, not gold.

The main weakness of 4E is in the fact that it fails as a fun adventuring game. The combats are too long, and the tactics are minimal. Further, you just don't have many options beyond kicking the door down.

Okay, so here's an argument.
4e is not a fun adventuring game because:
1) combats last too long
2) tactics are minimal
3) there is very little conflict-resolution aside from "kill them all"

Do I understand your beliefs?

[Lago PARANOIA]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretend
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie%5B3%5D
Common word: false

I tried arguing in good faith and this is what I get for it. I get called a liar and a hypocrite and then got patted on the head and told I wasn't that bad.

You all saw that, right? You saw how I tried to be reasonable, right? So I feel justified in never talking to this guy ever again.

[Username17]

If I wanted to represent taking out a guard by a sap to the back of the head ala Thief: Deadly Shadows, I would allow attack rolls to be made as a part of a stealth-based skill challenge (probably either at Moderate or Hard DC, depending on how hardcore the guards were).

Oh fuck no, you did not go there. The Skill Challenge rules are terrible. Let me break it down for you:

• Before Errata: You fail.
  After Errata: You succeed.

The system where you roll dice over and over again with no intermediate tactical changes or meaningful input just makes likely events more likely and unlikely events less likely. Before the errata the chances of succeeding were so minuscule as to not be worth attempting. After the errata they shifted the DCs so much that failing a skill challenge was something that did not happen.

You know what was a better default rule to cover random character actions? The 2nd Edition mechanic where you rolled a d20 and tried to roll under your stat. That was a stupid mechanic. But it was miles ahead of the 4e garbage skill challenge rules where you spam the same die roll 8 times and check to see if 6 of them were successes or not. All that does is tempt rules of statistical sampling to make the events essentially non-random while at the same time dragging action out until it is boring.

Skill Challenges were the worst thing that ever happened to D&D. Worse even than the old rules for Brbarians where they had to break magic items to keep their attribute bonuses.

-Username17

[Murtak]

Well, I can't claim to really understand 4E, but apparently that is not neded to discuss, soo ... from the previews I have seen 4E looks exactly like someone tried to stuff a MMORPG into a pen & paper RPG. Now, I happen to like MMORPGs - but I wouldn't dream of attempting to convert one to a medium where I lack the two most important aspects, namely a massive player base and a big pre-generated world to interact with.

And whats more, the 4E designers then went and changed 3E to fit their vision of this conversion would work out and every single change was a change for the worse. 3E was such a huge improvement over 2E it is hard to describe. 3.5 was mostly change for the sake of change, but at least they didn't make the game worse. But I can honestly say that I have yet to see a single 4E change that was for the better.

Frankly, when I am supposed to shell out a couple hundred bucks for a new edition I expect substantial improvements. 4E doesn't even deliver minimal improvements.

[PhoneLobster]

Then you should be able to cite which book, and the page numbers for me.

Lago did that and you acted like a moronic asshole and denied it in the face of direct references.

Tell me, in order to know "dick" about 3e, do I have to pass the 3.5 Herald test? Because I've only tried a couple times. Can I know "dick" about 3e by DMing it? Because I've done that several times.

So you passed a remarkably easy online quiz, and you have played the game "several" times. ("Several", really? That's your "HAH!, totally l33t experience credentials in your face!", really?)

Congratulations. Sadly doing something, and being a complete idiot about it are not actually mutually exclusive. I mean I could tell YOU stories that would make YOU think the guys I was talking about were morons who knew nothing about 3E and THOSE guys played it all the fucking time.

Also. You are either not arguing in good faith or you don't know the difference between rules and "making shit up" this...

Except it isn't a house-rule. What's the stats for a guard? Go on, show me where they printed "NPC, Guard" in 4e.

Indicates you are a total prick who is arguing in bad faith and trying to pull a total lie and distraction from the argument you are actually defending.

Because it is ENTIRELY a house rule to literally transform a monster to a minion and back to simulate a replacement stealth and ambushing system because the existing one is mostly non existent and full of utter suck.

But why should I argue? This is Lago's thing, he has any amount of energy for this and would argue with you all day if you presented anything but "Nuh AAAAH!" as your position.

[Murtak]

In regards to skill challenges: I can make up a better system in two minutes. Seriously.

Format:
[Label]
[Description]
Required:

• Auxiliary:
  • Mechanics:
    "Required" lists a number of skill checks (with DCs) the characters need to pass to beat the challenge. No character may take part in more than two of these checks. A failure in any check means the challenge fails. Succeeding at all checks means the challenge is a success.
    
    "Auxiliary" likewise lists a number of skill checks. Any character may attempt these checks after a different character fails one of the required skill checks to negate the failure.
    
    
    Example:
    Audience with the King
    To convince the King to send reinforcements to the northern garrison you will need to outmaneuver several other factions at the royal court, deal with their reprisals and then, having been granted audience, convince the king you are not lying.
    Required: Diplomacy 12, Diplomacy 20, Intimidation 15, Sense Motive 16, Innuendo 15
    Auxiliary: Forgery 14, Sneak 15, Intimidation 12, Listen 16
    
    
    Voila, now your entire party takes part in the challenge, not just a single person. Heck, you might even have to think about whom to send to handle which part of the challenge. 4E skill challenges are obviously shitty and it is so incredibly easy to design a better system its an insult they even included them in the game.

[DeadlyReed]

Within the framework of 4E (which I don't DM), I was just suggesting how I would handle a situation. Did it really warrant all that?

Edit: Also, I find Murtak's setup very interesting.

[Caedrus]

Well, okay.

4e is sterile compared to the huge weirdness possible with 3.x rules. I invite you to look into what Frank and Keith have done, such as The Wish and The Word, and Balor Mining, and so on. Those power loops were bad for the game, but they were FUN to read about.

And this constitutes a seriously minor error in the game, besides. There is the simple practical fact that Pun Pun and similar things are never actually going to be in a real game, because the house rules to fix it are so simple they're practically automatic. You can think of it as a removable discontinuity and seriously just ignore it. Or are people going to come forth with stories about someone actually breaking their game with Pun Pun?

It's when an error takes more than 0.01 seconds to solve that I might actually care about it.

4E skill challenges are obviously shitty and it is so incredibly easy to design a better system its an insult they even included them in the game.

QFT. It's like they were seriously trying to make the skill challenge system as bad as possible. To even think that such a monstrosity is the result of careless blunder has staggering implications for the competence of the designers responsible.