The Gaming Den

Let's face it. Even effective (for 4E) paragon paths are boring and kind of make us want to cry. Even for paths that hit the power jackpot like the the Pit Fighter don't make us feel Pit-Fightery; I mean, if you were fighting a Kensei and a Pit Fighter with the labels filed off you'd barely notice a difference.

Epic Destinies suffer the same problem, though they at least try go to the extra mile to make them feel different from each other. Problem is, they certainly don't feel epic. They have about 6 blank levels in them that don't amount to anything except that you might get a power swap or a feat shoved in there.

...

Hey, remember back in 3rd Edition where people strung classes together so you'd have something like a fighter 2 / ranger 2 / paladin 2 / templar 2 / knight protector 3? People did that partially because single-classes usually sucked with the exception of the beguiler, rogue, and druid. But then why did people snag PrCs for their clerics and wizards, even ultimately non-game breaking ones like the Stormlord?

It's because people hate empty levels! Every single level should be advancing your schtick. 4E 'prevents' this problem by forcing people to stick to the rails but that's just retarded. A level where you get a +1 to two stats and a feat,is not a fucking level. It's a waste of time that makes us wonder why they didn't just cut those levels from the game. Level 1 rangers shouldn't play essentially the same as level 8 rangers--that's stupid. Even 3E, as much as it hated rangers, in those seven levels you would see some spells, an animal companion, some hardoore tracking abilities, an advancement in your weapon schtick.

So what is the deal here? Why can't classes be loaded to the brim with stuff? Why does advancement have to be so boring?

Because 4.0 is made of Suck and Fail.

Lago: How much more (besides what 4e grants) is necessary for feeling "pit fightery"? There's only so many things that really exist as distinct abilities there - though having the game having more levels than it can find things worth caring about is still not a good thing.


So I favor the explaination that they ran out of ideas and didn't have the good sense to recognize that was a problem.

More stuff == More stuff to balance.

Most people only see combos or abilities as imbalance.

-Crissa

Lago: How much more (besides what 4e grants) is necessary for feeling "pit fightery"? There's only so many things that really exist as distinct abilities there - though having the game having more levels than it can find things worth caring about is still not a good thing.


So I favor the explaination that they ran out of ideas and didn't have the good sense to recognize that was a problem.

Check out the Pit Fighter in Sword and Fist. That class is poorly designed and kind of weaksauce, but after completing it you will definitely feel and play differently than a Cavalier or Warmaster.

Regardless, that's no excuse for levels 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 of Pit Fighter (or any PP) to do nothing to make us feel more Pit-Fightery. Hell, I would be glad if level 13 had something like this:

13 Staredown: Once per encounter, as a free action you can target creature that can see you within 5 squares of you and make an opposed Intimidate check. If you win the intimidate check the next time the creature takes a standard action as a free action you can shift your STR mod in squares and make a melee basic attack against them. If you fail the check then you take a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.

Level 14: Sand in the Eyes: If you strike an enemy with a power that was used as an immediate interrupt or reaction, as a free action make a basic attack at a +4 attack bonus. If it hits, this attack does no damage but enemy is blinded until the end of your next turn.

Level 15: Take All You Bitches On: You can take an unlimited number of immediate interrupts or reactions. You can still only take one immediate interrupt or reaction per effect that triggered it. If you are attacked by more than two enemies in a round then as a free action you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy and every enemy thereafter.

Level 17: Back to Back: If you are adjacent to large-sized or larger object that completely fills a square that you are adjacent to or at least one ally then any enemy in your melee reach counts as being flanked by you. You and your allies within three squares of you gain a +1 bonus to AC if two enemies are adjacent to you; this bonus increases by +1 for each additional enemy thereafter.

Level 18: Brave or Grave: One per round as a move and minor action you can expend a healing surge to heal your healing surge value + 1/2 your level. As a free action that can only be performed on your turn, you can count as bloodied even though you are not or not count as bloodied even though you are. This decision lasts until the next time you take a short rest. This class ability does not apply to any feat, class abilitiy, or power that has a racial component to it; you continue to use your actual condition for those.

Level 19: The Endless Battle: For every milestone you reach you recover one daily attack power and 1d4 healing surges. You can take a short rest while you're doing anything, even in the middle of combat, and short rests for you only requires one minute worth of time.

Mmhm. I don't know the 4e version, however - thus asking.

Back in 1st edition, all our levels were empty, and we liked it! You damn kids and your whining sense of entitlement!

Seriously though, this piles of special abilities crap is part of the problem, not a solution. The classes don't have to be a giant list of special crap- the basic framework of the game should be interesting in its own right, not hidden behind piles of shined up rabbit turds.

Seriously though, this piles of special abilities crap is part of the problem, not a solution. The classes don't have to be a giant list of special crap- the basic framework of the game should be ihnteresting in its own right, not hidden behind piles of shined up rabbit turds.

You have to be getting something new and relevant every unit of advancement, otherwise, what's the point of levelling?

If you have 20 possible advancement units and only 5 of those units have anything interesting in them, then why do we need 20 of them? Why can't we just have 5?

+1 (or whatever) to abilities that are based on your level?

Having eleven (gained by levelling up) abilities (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20) and having the even levels not gain any new abilities, if everyone used this mode, would be fine if you did that - that way, you did advance something, you just didn't have a new something every level.

That's not to sasy just having ten wouldn't work, but that means each level has to be a significant jump up from the next, which is not necessarily a good thing.

Having a 10th level guy be inferior (but capable of pulling off an upset) to a 11th level guy is a lot more appealing than a 5th level guy feeling a 6th level guy is going to win every time.

Having eleven (gained by levelling up) abilities (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20) and having the even levels not gain any new abilities, if everyone used this mode, would be fine if you did that - that way, you did advance something, you just didn't have a new so nmething every level.

Gaining numbers is not fucking advancement, because 1) Everyone gains those numbers and 2) so does your opposition.

And really, the difference between level 5 and level 6 should only matter insofar how many levels your system has and how much power relative to the setting you're supposed to gain. If you're emulating a system of advancement that tracks normal human beings up to Superman level in 8 levels, then hell yeah level 5 people should feel that they have no chance against level 6 people in a fair fight.

Gaining numbers is not fucking advancement, because 1) Everyone gains those numbers and 2) so does your opposition.

So? You still advanced. The fact that someone of equal level to you is still equal is a problem how again?

But if that doesn't work, how about having something like this:

Let's say you gain barbarian rage. At level 2, you gain +1 round (or something) to the duration of your rage.

That keeps your abilities advancing without adding new abilities.

And really, the difference between level 5 and level 6 should only matter insofar how many levels your system has and how much power relative to the setting you're supposed to gain. If you're emulating a system of advancement that tracks normal human beings up to Superman level in 8 levels, then hell yeah level 5 people should feel that they have no chance against level 6 people in a fair fight.

The point is, making it so that level 2 can fight (lots of) level 1 opponents, or 3 vs. 2 or 4 vs. 3 or whatever means that you're only in meaningful danger (as in, danger that doesn't require screwy dice rolls - being in danger if the guy rolls 3 natural 20s in a row is not the same as being in danger from him rolling a 12) from people of your level. That kind of limits the situations you can put PCs in.

Honestly, I'd rather have fewer abilities and have them be really interesting than have a new ability every level and have lower level be people be sword fodder, even if only 1 level lower.

So? You still advanced. The fact that someone of equal level to you is still equal is a problem how again?

You're always going to be fighting level-appropriate opposition, but if your probability of success is still the same and you haven't gained any new tactics, then what was the point of you advancing? There wasn't any, you were just wasting time.

Let's say you gain barbarian rage. At level 2, you gain +1 round (or something) to the duration of your rage.

That keeps your abilities advancing without adding new abilities.

And why exactly would anyone want to do that? How exactly does that change the nature of combat or what you're doing? What is so different about your character now as opposed to then?

The point is, making it so that level 2 can fight (lots of) level 1 opponents, or 3 vs. 2 or 4 vs. 3 or whatever means that you're only in meaningful danger (as in, danger that doesn't require screwy dice rolls - being in danger if the guy rolls 3 natural 20s in a row is not the same as being in danger from him rolling a 12) from people of your level. That kind of limits the situations you can put PCs in.

This is a completely arbitrary advancement point and isn't really worth discussing. In Shadowrun, you can load yourself to the brim with deltaware and become the biggest, baddest samurai in the country--and you are still seriously in danger when a squad of entry-level Lone Star security agents come a'knocking.

Similarly in D&D, a level 15 barbarian isn't all that more of a threat than a level 10 barbarian.

So I don't give a fuck about 2 vs 3 or 1 vs 14 or whatever the fuck, those are balance points completely different from what you gain in a level.

Honestly, I'd rather have fewer abilities and have them be really interesting than have a new ability every level and have lower level be people be sword fodder, even if only 1 level lower.

Okay, then what's the point of advancing your character at all?

Reiterating a point I've made before. Gaining only numbers can fuck off. If the system needs me to have a +10 level bonus at max level make it a 5 level system. Don't bullshit around with 5 empty levels.

You're always going to be fighting level-appropriate opposition, but if your probability of success is still the same and you haven't gained any new tactics, then what was the point of you advancing? There wasn't any, you were just wasting time.

You can take on bigger challenges, which may be important for your goals.

And why exactly would anyone want to do that? How exactly does that change the nature of combat or what you're doing? What is so different about your character now as opposed to then?

Not much - but you are a little better off.

Okay, then what's the point of advancing your character at all?

Having some advantage over lower level opponents, being able to take on bigger challenges when you need to, that sort of thing.

You don't need to have someone two levels lower than you be practically unable to hurt you to be able to beat them regularly. If you make each level a significant gain in terms of what you can do, then its pretty hard to avoid higher level people treating lower level people as unimportant.

The problem is that players can only really remember about seven or eight things in a list. To that extent, the fact that 4e has reduced the things you can do down to 4 encounters and 4 dailies is kind of defensible. If you just give people a list of 9+ special powers that they can call on, they won't remember what they do or even are.

The problem with this is that it's boring as shit. And the solution is to carve up the lists differently so that people have multiple lists of 5 or 6 rather than just a single list of eight. For example: card games do fine giving people 60 options or so, because the setup is discretized and an individual turn only sees you with 5-7 options. But since the game sees you with 60 options, it retains its interesting character.

But basically you can't make the game both interesting and playable if you retain 4e's insistence that you can activate any of your abilities whenever you want. It means that by the time enough options to keep the character interesting for more than a fight or two are introduced into the big list that the big list is too big to keep track of. It's an inherent problem with the compartmentalization that the human mind uses to keep track of complicated systems. If it doesn't subdivide into small and comprehensible tactical problems it's just an implacable wall of text.

-Username17

If your talking about working memory span Frank, then I think your a little off.

Wizards in 3.x did have 9+ special powers at a time, and while this was overwhelming for the beginner, for the veteran wizard player this was just fine. If you play characters with 9+ powers for the first time, you'll be overwhelmed, but if you work your way into it you'll probably be fine.

I also disagree that sheer options will ever be enough to keep fights interesting. I think the key to keep fights interesting is to change each fight.

Basically, fighting goblins 100 times will be boring no matter what, but if your fighting goblins on a volcano that last time, then that one may be interesting. If you want to keep a set number of powers interesting, you have to change the combats. This can work even better if some of your powers interact with the change in the combat.

The problem, Thymos, is 4e does have you fighting reskinned goblins for 100 fights. And after the third or fourth time you pull the volcano (or whatever equivalent) out of your ass to make a fight 'interesting', people are going to look at you funny. Its the problem of the Star Wars Stupidly High Railing-less Walkways that crop up in every Star Wars thing. It just creates a reaction of 'Build on the fucking ground, you morons.' The reaction quickly changes from 'Wasn't that cool and interesting' to 'Why are these fuckers so damn crazy stupid?'

Lago: interesting gets a little subjective. At the power level I like to play at, a (3e, not 4e) feat is an interesting gain. Your pitfighter example has a lot of pointless shit to keep track of, with all sorts of weird caveats, exceptions restrictions and trivial bonuses. Thats special crap purely for the sake of special crap.

You are right in a way, getting just numbers can be pretty pointless, especially in the 4e realm where all it means is every single thing scales and you stay in place relative to your opposition (and your opposition is merely a mook with a different color skin). Hell, you can climb a cliff at first level (if, of course, you can actually make the ridiculous DCs to actually do it) and when you come back to the same cliff at level 20, the DCs are magically higher, which is beyond stupid. But I think the problem is more this particular fuck up built into the 4e system rather than a glaring need for special shit.

But what I think really needs to happen is every subsystem needs a pile of actions you can attempt-
Combat:
disarm, feint, trip, bull rush, etc (probably 4-5 more)
Social:
bluff, intimidate, charm, seduce, etc. (again, probably around 8-9 total)
<Whatever subsystem seems important>
8-9 options for it

Magic gets a little complicated, but its time to move away from the giant pile of 100 different damaging spells with different flavor text- these aren't really options. Just have a scalable zap spell.

Then classes can either do special things with certain options:
a duellist (where class or speciality within a class) can be someone who happens to be really good with disarm. Not necessarily a big bonus to it, but, more importantly, with more _options_ when it comes to disarming- flipping the weapon into his own hand, sticking it in the wall, or at later levels, flipping into other foes.
But you don't need to give a duellist magical duelling powers every time he goes up a level. Then you're on the short bus to crazy town where D&D is the Naruto universe, and everyone has to have increasingly stupid gimmicks.

I think you missed my point Voss.

I'm saying that I don't care if you have 4000 powers, they aren't going to make the 100th fight against goblins anything but boring. A larger amount of powers won't make things interesting in the long run. Hell, novel things lose the interesting thing about them once they lose the fact that they are novel, which is pretty damn fast.

I think the way to vary up combat is to add some kind of depth, and then use something different in the interesting combats to vary up that depth.

Terrain is a good way to change things, having powers that interact with terrain amplifies this.

Trick monsters are also a good way to vary things, but I haven't really seen any good trick monsters in pen and paper rpgs. JRPGs are good at making trick monsters that have set attack patterns, so that's probably a good place to look for inspiration.

Also, not every fight needs to be tip of my seat interesting. Those should be reserved for boss and occasionally typical fights. I wouldn't worry too hard myself about varying up every single combat I throw at my players.

Thymos wrote: Also, not every fight needs to be tip of my seat interesting. Those should be reserved for boss and occasionally typical fights. I wouldn't worry too hard myself about varying up every single combat I throw at my players.

This was a huge flaw with 4E. Every fight wasnt' really designed to be interesting, but regardless of how minor it was, it still took you forever to get through it.

To their credit, they're getting better. The Paragon paths from Martial Power, while no more powerful than the good ones from the PHB, are way more interesting.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Thymos wrote: Also, not every fight needs to be tip of my seat interesting. Those should be reserved for boss and occasionally typical fights. I wouldn't worry too hard myself about varying up every single combat I throw at my players.

This was a huge flaw with 4E. Every fight wasnt' really designed to be interesting, but regardless of how minor it was, it still took you forever to get through it.

Indeed. If it's going to be about the top down auto attack, at least have the decency to make it fast (video games).

To their credit, they're getting better. The Paragon paths from Martial Power, while no more powerful than the good ones from the PHB, are way more interesting.

No, they aren't. With the exception of the Dreadnaught and a few warlord PPs (if you ignore the Battle Captain), every Martial Power PP is weaker than the material you get in the core books.

They're not flavorful or interesting. Just the same 50% frontloading in the first level of your PP and you getting the other 50% over the next nine levels. The basic design is fucked up and boring as shit.

PHBII seems to be following the same trend. I have yet to see a melee PC from the previews that hands out more ass-kicking than a Stormwarden or a Pit Fighter or a Kensei.

Lago, suppose that you make a five level system, as follows:

Level 1: Peasant.
Level 2: Fighting Man/Woman.
Level 3: Ninja Pirate.
Level 4: Bat Man.
Level 5: Super Man.

Whatever. So every time you gain a level you are getting really meaningful character evolution. And we'll have all the players in the same level by DM fiat, because letting one player become a Ninja Pirate while everyone else is a Fighting Man would be dumb.

Now, I'm running an adventure where a group of five Fighting People go kill the local Orc Warlord. So most of the opposition are level 2 orc grunts. How do I write an encounter with four orc grunts and an orc boss? What level is the boss? I can't make him level 3 because that's too powerful. If he's level 2, then he's no more dangerous than a regular orc.

I guess, if he's level 2.1, then that's fine. How is that different from multiplying all the numbers by ten and calling him level 21 - with 10 "filler levels" between level 2 and level 3 that "just make the numbers bigger".

Now, I'm running an adventure where a group of five Fighting People go kill the local Orc Warlord. So most of the opposition are level 2 orc grunts. How do I write an encounter with four orc grunts and an orc boss? What level is the boss? I can't make him level 3 because that's too powerful. If he's level 2, then he's no more dangerous than a regular orc.

Why should he be more dangerous? I mean, does he have superpowers? Did he train in Orcville Mountains for ten years to obtain enlightenment?

Or is he more dangerous just because he's bigger and has equipment made out of REAL city steel? If that's the case then I don't see why you just can't fiddle the numbers.

Or hell, even just do the level 2.1 thing.