How much of the anti-4E sentiment is actually justified?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
Plebian
Knight
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:35 am

Post by Plebian »

shadzar wrote:
Doctor Kenny Loggins wrote:Shadzar, if you think Luke didn't learn anything... wow.
Luke learned nothing that gave him any Jedi powers to help him win the war.

The only thing he learned that helped win the war was that Vader was his father, and stuff about him.

No force power was used by Luke or Anakin to defeat Palpatine.

That was a point of the "light side", and not fully understood by the "dark side".
actually, ideally, the Jedi teachings are about setting aside more violent emotions that lead to bad decisions. so what Luke learned from Yoda was in every way instrumental in defeating Palpatine.

but since you only believe in powers I really don't expect you to understand this

edit: Force 'powers' in the push/pull/grip/whatever sense are silly representations of what one can accomplish with only power and little understanding. the Force itself, as understood in the OT when Lucas wasn't trying to upstage his ex-wife, was more about understanding that power was not one's ability to perform actions but rather in ones ability to not perform actions. thus Luke deactivating his lightsaber during the duel with Vader. which directly led to Vader's own epiphany.
Last edited by Plebian on Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
shadzar
Prince
Posts: 4922
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:08 pm

Post by shadzar »

Doom wrote:Can someone tell me if Kenny has been right on any level yet?
dungeon, spell, character, or some other level? which one?

he may be on the right dungeon level, if he is prone and the dragon is ready to attack both him and Plebian.
Play the game, not the rules.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Plebian
Knight
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:35 am

Post by Plebian »

actually Kenny's been pretty right on every level, it's just that you, Doom, don't want to actually acknowledge any argument so you try to spin everything as you being the voice of reason when you're pretty obviously just being biased against 4e for no apparent reason other than it's not 3e
FatR
Duke
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 am

Post by FatR »

CCarter wrote:Just to address a few misconceptions here...
Earlier version grew out of a wargame, but actual grognards (not me but there's a few real ones left) describe this as being about exploration rather than combat. Alot of effort went to avoiding monsters that are going to TPK the party or otherwise screw them over (the rust monster), with combat running a lot faster. There's a lot of space spent on traps (something 4E does particularly badly since at worst they'll just cost you a healing surge and you'll be fine in 5 minutes), searching, light sources, diseases and whatnot.

Also, fighters in 1st or 2nd weren't that bad. 3E is when spellcasting went nuts.
Actually no, I'm not a big specialist in early editions, but I can see, that arcane magic dropped all claims to being remotely fair and balanced somewhere between Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D 2E.

You are correct, though, that in early versions of DnD the goal was not "run a gauntlet of tactical combats", but "get through the dungeon alive and with loot". Which often involved avoiding combat.

I've never used maps, save for those hand-drawn on the spot to illustrate for the players how a complex room or cavern lools like, nor will I ever intend to. Even in 3.X they hold the game back more than they help. When combatants fly, burrow and teleport around, counting 5-ft. squares hardly makes sense.
CCarter
Knight
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:41 pm

Post by CCarter »

Technically I'm not sure there was a "between" when comparing Rules Cyclopaedia and 2E. 'Dungeons & Dragons' ("Basic") and 'Advanced Dungeons & Dragons' (2nd ed.) existed at the same time and were supported independently. They were considered at the time to be wholly different games - though in hindsight the two are much more similar to each other than either is to 3rd edition.

1st ed. and 2nd ed. had pretty similar spell lists and game mechanics for magic from what I've seen, though I didn't actually start until the 2e era myself. I guess warriors got some nerfs between 1e and 2e (e.g. no double-specialization, no barbarians or cavaliers) so wizards perhaps got a little stronger comparatively.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1730
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

My group has recently started using the projector from the ceiling method for maps, and it is awesome. With a little bit of preparation, you can have really detailed maps, spell AoEs, and monster locations all set up before the game.
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by tzor »

TheFlatline wrote:
Doctor Kenny Loggins wrote:D&D has always required a map to run properly. That we use the map for other things at the same time shouldn't be a strike against the system.
Demonstrably false. I actually never used a map system until 3rd edition, and even in 3rd edition maybe only 50% of combat required being mapped out.
Not to nit pick but 2nd edition was the only edition where you could play without a battlemap. 1st edition definitely required a battlemap in order for the facing rules to work. Not only that, but the rules had options for square battle maps (mostly indoors) and hex battle maps (mostly outdoors). The real reason why 1E used "inches" was that the "scale" of spells was different indoors and outdoors, so you could define an inch indoors and an inch outdoors. Not only was 1E map and mini dependent, it also had a suggestion to use only approved TSR minis so you could be sure your figures were to the correct scale.

We had another name for 1E (in hindsight) ... the "age of mapping" and the "age of paper thin (or pencil thin) walls." Seriously, with all the time spent mapping dungeons precisely ("there has to be a 5' x 5' secret closet around here somewhere") and the combat where every round took one minute, characters had a very busy working day.
Doom
Duke
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:52 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Post by Doom »

shadzar wrote:
Doom wrote:Can someone tell me if Kenny has been right on any level yet?
dungeon, spell, character, or some other level? which one?

he may be on the right dungeon level, if he is prone and the dragon is ready to attack both him and Plebian.
Needs to be a red dragon, though, or other dragon with fire breath. Trolls regenerate, after all.
Doctor Kenny Loggins
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Post by Doctor Kenny Loggins »

The troll is the one claiming to win the argument without actually making a cogent point ever.
Plebian
Knight
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:35 am

Post by Plebian »

just to be clear: if you ever showed up to a debate and your arguments were "well, I think my point has been successfully argued before, just go read the summary of some other debate" you would lose. especially if what you're pointing people to is just another case of "well, this point has already been proven in my mind, see some other debate, so I don't have to prove it" repeating ad infinitum

oh and any game of D&D without a battlemat? more "Mother May I" than anything else. because all it is is the DM deciding arbitrarily if you are in range, if things are grouped up for a silly evocation caster, and so on. because after that first round of combat the DM has to just make shit up unless he has his own tactical map he's drawing on. yes, of course you can play any edition without a map. it's still a bad idea unless you just really want combat to be repeatedly asking the DM to make shit up about monster positions.
Aharon
Master
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:55 am

Post by Aharon »

@Plebian
Any answer/comment to my points on page 21?

=> losing a debate
Depends. People here aren't going out to a debate and trying to convince you. You are coming here and trying to tell them their opinion is wrong. They didn't invade SA, after all :tongue:
And wether you win a debate largely depends on your audience. Dawkins will have a hard time at Bob Jones University, for example.
Doctor Kenny Loggins
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Post by Doctor Kenny Loggins »

If pointing out factual errors in the mechanics isn't arguing and is just telling people they're wrong, I can't ever convince you guys of anything.
Aharon
Master
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:55 am

Post by Aharon »

Because nobody here wants to be convinced of anything? There's a firm consensus, that is based partly on facts (skill challenges suck) and partly on preferences (4e balances classes by reducing overall power compared to 3e).

Plus, there's the fact that Darwinism explicitly came here to troll. Did you honestly come here to make people change their mind, and not just to troll?

If that's the case, please point me to your posts, so I can reread them. I assumed per default that all of the SA crowd just wants to provoke hilarious answers that can be copy-pasted to the grognards.txt-thread.
Doom
Duke
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:52 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Post by Doom »

It's kind of hard to convince someone through trolling and whining, although I rather appreciate their "efforts" in a way.

Quite a few factual errors in the mechanics have been pointed out...theirr feelings just won't accept that, which is fine.

And, gee whiz, the 'arguments' have already been proven and discussed quite thoroughly...it's not 2008, which they (or their keepers) may or may not know.

They're basically coming here and saying "you people are all morons for thinking the pythagorean theorem actually works, or can be proven." They're aren't the first to do so, and we've long since realized they generally can't follow such arguments. Since their kind has been dealt with many a time, we'd rather just ask them to read...if they can't read, there's no point, after all, as they've well demonstrated here.

So yeah, SA guys, if you don't think the pythagorean theorem can be proven, we're just going to say "uh, it's already been done many times, go look it up." Cry all you want, but, hey, you could always just read a bit.

And I'm not seeing anything on Grognards.txt to indicate they're cross posting their embarrassing behavior here.
Last edited by Doom on Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:24 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Plebian
Knight
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:35 am

Post by Plebian »

Aharon wrote: But since you care so much about objectivity/subjectivity, Plebian: For me, subjectively, 4e manages to make the same effects 3e has sound far, far more bland! That is because they are all very generic - every class gets the same. I think the other thread had Kaelik's Star Craft example, and it is an apt comparison. 4e managed to balance the game by making 3 Terran factions. I know defenders of 4e claim that this appears only so, and isn't the case when you actually play, but the APPEARANCe of this blandless is enough to put me off from actually playing the game.
in my mind that's a silly way of putting it; every class in 3e appears extremely similar, just looking at the text entries, because of the class template. all spells appear extremely similar because of the spell template. this doesn't in any way make them similar in action.

the argument you're making here seems to be one of format, where everything is laid out in a precise and identical manner for all classes, which only increases ease of use both for new users and veterans of the system. but you don't like the look, which is understandable; every power is boxed up and color-coded for ease of use but that can look pretty silly.

Aharon wrote: Plus, objectively, in 4e, you are permanently punished for using rituals that do cool things, by losing money. In a game, I don't want to have this tradeoff. 3e had it to, with WBL that forced everyone to be a murdering hobo with equipment worth the equivalent of multiple nations, but you got some story effect - like Mage's Magnificent Mansion or Heroic Feast - for free.
by this logic you are punished every time you go to the store and buy anything beyond basic staples; you don't need these things, but you want them. if you're willing to pay the price for them it's hardly a punishment, it's you deciding that the benefits outweigh the costs. and, personally, I like that it takes a bit more effort to perform rituals. a guy in a dress waving his hand and creating a mansion quickly loses any awe it may have when you realize he can do it over and over with no cost beyond a spell slot.

and spell components sort of fill the same role, though they vary so incredibly wildly as to be just fluff. I can't think of any party that ever tracked components except in cases like Raise Dead/Resurrection or plot-required spells.
Plebian
Knight
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:35 am

Post by Plebian »

Doom wrote: Quite a few factual errors in the mechanics have been pointed out...theirr feelings just won't accept that, which is fine.
feel free to list any with an actual example
Doom wrote: And, gee whiz, the 'arguments' have already been proven and discussed quite thoroughly...it's not 2008, which they (or their keepers) may or may not know.
awesome there you go claiming that because you think a point has been proven that you are exempt from addressing it
Doom wrote: They're basically coming here and saying "you people are all morons for thinking the pythagorean theorem actually works, or can be proven." They're aren't the first to do so, and we've long since realized they generally can't follow such arguments. Since their kind has been dealt with many a time, we'd rather just ask them to read...if they can't read, there's no point, after all, as they've well demonstrated here.
you are seriously comparing your subjective dislike of 4e to believing in a mathematical proof

you have hit new levels of dumb.
Doom wrote: So yeah, SA guys, if you don't think the pythagorean theorem can be proven, we're just going to say "uh, it's already been done many times, go look it up." Cry all you want, but, hey, you could always just read a bit.
if you refuse to address a point you forfeit the point.
Doctor Kenny Loggins
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Post by Doctor Kenny Loggins »

Aharon wrote:Because nobody here wants to be convinced of anything? There's a firm consensus, that is based partly on facts (skill challenges suck) and partly on preferences (4e balances classes by reducing overall power compared to 3e).
Changing overall power levels so that wizards don't trivialize every encounter (this doesn't just mean monsters) from level 3 onward is a positive change, it promotes innovative thinking instead of one size fits all magic answers. Yes, the math on skill challenges isn't great, but it's an attempt to add in a conflict resolution mechanic for D&D on a larger scale than one check->one result, and is an attempt to give what has always been a game about killing goblins into a game with working noncombat encounters.

That it doesn't work well as written doesn't make it a bad idea, just bad implementation, which given the amount of work people are willing to put in to making a system work here should be exactly the kind of thing you'd work on as a group.

Plus, there's the fact that Darwinism explicitly came here to troll. Did you honestly come here to make people change their mind, and not just to troll?

If that's the case, please point me to your posts, so I can reread them. I assumed per default that all of the SA crowd just wants to provoke hilarious answers that can be copy-pasted to the grognards.txt-thread.
Can't it be both? Honest arguments get ridiculous "I can't be arsed to actually formulate a response" answers which are entertaining. If anyone is willing to actually discuss things, that's great, too! There's not been much of that though, especially from your own personality cult, Frank Trollman, who goes out of his way to say how cool he is because he can't participate in a reasonable discussion.
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

while their stat blocks may not interact well with the world their stat blocks are merely combat representations of the monsters; when they are not in combat those stat blocks do not apply and they act as the DM wishes them to act. just like any monster, only with less room for players to metagame and say "that contradicts the entry in the MM!"
no, combat abilities don't exist outside of combat. what's so hard to understand about this? outside of combat there are no needs for combat abilities. combat abilities do not exist outside of combat.
no, because no combat is happening within the system. while from a narrative perspective it is using abilities that are relevant in combat, from a system perspective it doesn't exist because it would be a pointless time sink to actually run a combat encounter that didn't involve the party.
NEVER FORGET 9/11/2001
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
Doctor Kenny Loggins
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Post by Doctor Kenny Loggins »

Psychic Robot, do you really run encounters between two NPCs?
Doom
Duke
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:52 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Post by Doom »

I, and many others, have noticed, however, that you're completely unwilling to discuss points, which rather makes it difficult for anyone to take you seriously.

I mean when you say "I ask you to show me a complicated example" just gets responded from you with "that doesn't count because it's complicated, and an example, and that's not what I asked for", you're not exactly demonstrating much honesty in willing to talk, eh?

There is no reasonable discussion. The only ones willing to talk to you are those that are bored and willing to waste time on trolls.

But, let's give you a chance to fail, again:

Which point do you want to discuss. Just one point.
Last edited by Doom on Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Doctor Kenny Loggins
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Post by Doctor Kenny Loggins »

You make up an example, leave out half of the factors and manipulate the data to look like it is an order of magnitude more complicated than it is, then complain when I say "That's a ridiculous way to attempt to make a point."

If you were interested in reasonable discussion you would participate in one.
Aharon
Master
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:55 am

Post by Aharon »

@Plebian
in my mind that's a silly way of putting it; every class in 3e appears extremely similar, just looking at the text entries, because of the class template. all spells appear extremely similar because of the spell template. this doesn't in any way make them similar in action.

the argument you're making here seems to be one of format, where everything is laid out in a precise and identical manner for all classes, which only increases ease of use both for new users and veterans of the system. but you don't like the look, which is understandable; every power is boxed up and color-coded for ease of use but that can look pretty silly.
I guess some of the perceived blandness also comes from the difference in amount of fluff. An example: Compare the 3e cleric entry
The handiwork of the gods is everywhere—in places of natural beauty, in mighty crusades, in soaring temples, and in the hearts of worshipers. Like people, gods run the gamut from benevolent to malicious, reserved to intrusive, simple to inscrutable. The gods, however, work mostly through intermediaries—their clerics. Good clerics heal, protect, and avenge. Evil clerics pillage, destroy, and sabotage. A cleric uses the power of his god to make his god’s will manifest. And if a cleric uses his god’s power to improve his own lot, that’s to be expected, too.
Adventures: Ideally, a cleric’s adventures support his god’s causes, at least in a general way. A good cleric, for example, helps those in need. If, through noble acts, he can improve the reputation to his god or temple, that’s even better. An evil cleric seeks to increase his own power and that of his deity, so that others will respect and fear both. Clerics sometimes receive orders, or at least suggestions, from their ecclesiastical superiors, directing them to undertake missions for the church. The clerics and their companions are compensated fairly for these missions, and the church may be especially generous with the casting of needed spells or divine magic items as payment.
Of course, clerics are people, too, and they may have any or all the more common motivations for adventuring.
Characteristics: Clerics are masters of divine magic, which is especially good at healing. Even an inexperienced cleric can bring people back from the brink of death, and an experienced cleric can bring back people who have crossed over that brink. As channelers of divine energy, clerics can affect undead creatures. A good cleric can turn away or even destroy undead; an evil
cleric can bring undead under his control. Clerics have some combat training. They can use simple weapons, and they are trained in the use of armor, since armor does not interfere with divine spells the way it does with arcane spells.
Alignment: Like the gods they serve, clerics can be of any alignment. Because people more readily worship good deities than neutral or evil ones, there are more good than evil clerics. Clerics also tend toward law instead of chaos, since lawful religions tend to be more structured and better able to recruit and train clerics than chaotic ones. Typically, a cleric is the same alignment as his deity, though some clerics are one step away from their respective deities in alignment. For example, most clerics of Heironeous, the god of valor (who is lawful good) are lawful good, but some are lawful neutral or neutral good. Additionally, a cleric may not be neutral (that is, neutral on both the good–evil axis and the lawful–chaotic axis) unless his deity is neutral.
Religion: Every reasonably well-known deity has clerics devoted to him or her, so clerics can be of any religion. The deity most common worshiped by human clerics in civilized lands is Pelor (god of the sun). The majority of nonhuman clerics are devoted to the chief god of the appropriate racial pantheon. Most clerics are officially ordained members of religious organizations, commonly called churches. Each has sworn to uphold the ideals of his church. Some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power. These characters wield magic the way clerics devoted to individual gods do, but they are not associated with any religious institution or any particular practice of worship. A cleric devoted to good and law, for example, may be on friendly terms with the clerics of lawful and good deities and may extol the virtues of a good and lawful life, but he is not a functionary in a church hierarchy.
Background: Most clerics join their churches as young adults, though some are devoted to a god’s service from a young age, and a few feel the call later in life. While some clerics are tightly bound to their churches’ activities on a daily basis, others have more freedom to conduct their lives as they please, as long as they do so in accordance with their gods’ wishes. Clerics of a given religion are all supposed to get along, though schisms within a church are often more bitter than conflicts between religions. Clerics who share some basic ideals, such as goodness or lawfulness, may find common cause with each other and see themselves as part of an order or body that supersedes any given religion. Clerics of opposed goals, however, are sworn enemies.
In civilized lands, open warfare between religions occurs only during civil wars and similar social upheavals, but vicious politicking between opposed churches is common.
Races: All the common races are represented in this class, since the need for religion and divine magic is universal. The clerics of most races, however, are too focused on their religious duties to undertake an adventurer’s life. Crusading, adventuring clerics most often come from the human and dwarf races. Among the savage humanoids, clerics are less common. The exception is troglodytes, who take well to divine magic and are often led by priests, who make a practice of sacrificing and devouring captives.
Other Classes: In an adventuring party, the cleric is everybody’s friend and often the glue that holds the party together. As the one who can channel divine energy, a cleric is a capable healer, and adventurers of every class appreciate being put back together after they’ve taken some hard knocks. Clerics sometimes clash with druids, since druids represent an older, more primal relationship between the mortal and the divine. Mostly, though, the
religion of a cleric determines how he gets along with others. A cleric of Olidammara (god of thieves), gets along fine with rogues and ne’er-do-wells, for example, while a cleric of Heironeous (god of valor) rankles at such company.
Role: The cleric serves as a typical group’s primary healer, diviner, and defensive specialist. He can hold his own in a fight but usually isn’t well served by charging to the front of combat. The cleric’s domains and spell selection can greatly affect his role as well.
with the 4e one:
Clerics are battle leaders who are invested with divine power. They blast foes with magical prayers, bolster and heal companions, and lead the way to victory with a mace in one hand and a holy symbol in the other.
Clerics run the gamut from humble servants of the common folk to ruthless enforcers of evil gods. As a cleric, the deity (or deities) you choose to
revere goes a long way toward defining you, or at least how other people in the world see you. You could be a platinum-garbed envoy of Bahamut seeking justice throughout the land, a shadowy follower of Sehanine with a roguish streak, a burly disciple of Kord who believes the virtue of strength is sufficient for all challenges, or a dwarf cleric of Moradin bringing honor to the denizens of your mountain home. Will you protect what is sacred to your god, quest for legendary holy artifacts, pursue a life of evangelical adventuring, or attempt all these deeds and more?
CLERIC OVERVIEW
Characteristics: You are an extremely good healer. You have a mix of melee and ranged powers. Most of your attacks deal only moderate damage, but they safeguard your allies or provide bonuses to their attacks.
Religion: A cleric can choose to worship any deity, but steer clear of choosing an evil or chaotic evil deity unless you have permission from your DM to choose one.
Races: Humans and dwarves make ideal clerics. Elves, half-elves, and dragonborn are good clerics too, but they rarely have the same values of piety and reverence found in many human and dwarven cultures. Certain gods attract a preponderance of clerics of a particular race—for example, many (but not all) clerics of Moradin are dwarves—but in general, all races respect all gods to at least some degree. The race you play and the deity your character worships have little effect on your cleric’s ability to utilize divine powers.
Clerics and Deities
All clerics choose a specific faith to which they devote themselves. Usually this faith is the worship of a specific patron deity—for example, Moradin, Pelor, or Erathis. Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of deities or even philosophies. As a cleric, your deity does not directly grant you powers. Instead, your ordination or investiture as a cleric grants you the ability to wield divine powers. Clerics are usually formally ordained by existing clerics who perform a special ritual to do so, but on rare occasions a
deity moves to directly ordain a worthy worshiper without any sort of priestly hierarchy involved. What you do with your powers once you are ordained is up to you, although if you flagrantly and openly defy your deity’s tenets, you quickly earn the enmity of the faithful.
by this logic you are punished every time you go to the store and buy anything beyond basic staples; you don't need these things, but you want them. if you're willing to pay the price for them it's hardly a punishment, it's you deciding that the benefits outweigh the costs. and, personally, I like that it takes a bit more effort to perform rituals. a guy in a dress waving his hand and creating a mansion quickly loses any awe it may have when you realize he can do it over and over with no cost beyond a spell slot.

and spell components sort of fill the same role, though they vary so incredibly wildly as to be just fluff. I can't think of any party that ever tracked components except in cases like Raise Dead/Resurrection or plot-required spells.
=> Buying only staples:
This logic applies if you have very limited ressources and a set way of getting them. Real life isn't as harsh in that aspect on most people in industrialized nations.
=> Benefits outweighing the costs
But the benefits of a flying invisible fortress never outweigh the costs of dying because you have 600000 gp less to spend on equipment you need.
Spell Components indeed filled the same role in 3e, which was why, for example, Stone Skin saw a sharp drop in being used after it got an expensive material component in the shift from 3e to 3.5e.
=> High cost making effects more impressive
Yes, but only if the effects themselves, and the costs, have impressive fluff. There's nothing impressive about "So, I spent 600000 gp on residue to cast the "Raise Land" ritual."

@Doctor Kenny Loggins
That it doesn't work well as written doesn't make it a bad idea, just bad implementation, which given the amount of work people are willing to put in to making a system work here should be exactly the kind of thing you'd work on as a group.
Which is what those people on this board who play 4e despite its' properties did, for example

here.
Last edited by Aharon on Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5202
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

Doom wrote:I, and many others, have noticed, however, that you're completely unwilling to discuss points, which rather makes it difficult for anyone to take you seriously.

I mean when you say "I ask you to show me a complicated example" just gets responded from you with "that doesn't count because it's complicated, and an example, and that's not what I asked for", you're not exactly demonstrating much honesty in willing to talk, eh?

There is no reasonable discussion. The only ones willing to talk to you are those that are bored and willing to waste time on trolls.
Fuck. Why doesn't everyone just put him on ignore? The problem will solve itself pretty quickly.
Doctor Kenny Loggins
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Post by Doctor Kenny Loggins »

There's two actual suggestions in that thread (doing a quick search) one involves not giving XP and just making up the DCs and two other things which are actually how skill challenges are supposed to be run and one which suggests going to ENworld and using their fix.

Along with that is pages and pages of misinformation and arguing about how a real world economy is more important than game balance.
Doctor Kenny Loggins
Journeyman
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Post by Doctor Kenny Loggins »

RobbyPants wrote:Fuck. Why doesn't everyone just put him on ignore? The problem will solve itself pretty quickly.
I haven't ruled out the possibility that he might have something to say. Plus holding my hands over my ears and shouting LALALALALALA doesn't make me any more right.
Locked