Ask the Guy Who's Seen DnD 4th Edition

The Game Room
61

Handful of dust? Bluff, please. Oh, you don’t have the skill? Guess you’ve got to try it on a charisma roll.

Simple.

Far as the 2nd level Detect Undead, if it’s a common and logical thing, I go, “Okay, you don’t know the spell/prayer. Who do you know that might?” And then I whip up a simple custom spell that handles it, based on rule of thumb. They find the guy, he knows the spell, then they get him to teach it to 'em. No problem.

If it’s more obscure, then they have to whip it up themselves and pay for the research.

62

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
GURPS is better in this, but has it’s own problems.
[/QUOTE]

True — but I think I like GURPS magic better than D&D 3.5, because spells have pre-requisites. It makes more sense to me, and seems better organized; and the spells seem like they have more general use than D&D.

63

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
No. The fact that you think a 3.5 DM would be caught speechless by this tactic and have no recourse but to look at his books is the insult. No game system is going to have this situation covered in it’s books. But somehow, GMs for other games would be able to come up with an answer no problem, but the 3.5 DM couldn’t? Why? 3.5 is a rigid absolute rules system yes. But only an idiot would run the game and not be able to make decisions on things not in the books. Hell, that applies to any game.
[/quote]

Oh, come now. You’re telling me any DM who isn’t an “idiot” could come up with the damage number based on any random circumstance. I suppose it’s true he asked how many die, but to be on the safe (and fair) side it could be worth it to look through the DM guide and potentially PH to check if there’s any specifics regarding getting clotheslined on thin metallic wire (or maybe apply similar rules for garroting or something minus the grapple check), and then check bonuses damage etc about heat damage (which probably should be in the description of heat metal, but whatever).

I have two separate voices here. One is telling me “why are the core rules tyhis dumb.” And my other one is telling me “why was the 3rd ed diplomacy system so dumb a 3rd level bard could wrap just about anyone around his finger with a 3gp bribe and charm person? Oh, right, because good DMs and players mod in house rules for crap like this.” I feel that’s really no excuse for making things so specific, but whatever anyone can throw dirt if the DM has a shred of competence. Really the only (almost) fully restricted means of attack in D&D is spells, and that’s a good thing… provided you’ve seen the spell compendium.

Or maybe even a single detect undead spell that can use different reagents or foci to alter the results, potentially getting more expensive as you get a more permanent effect. Well, at least there is researching spells, though that gets into all kinds of arguments (tou should’ve seen teh session where I researched Defenestrate, a spell that’s basically a mix of Dimension door and Bigsby’s hand. Opens two doors (windows) bottom and top, summons a hand to push them through the window so they take fall damage. There are so many easier ways to kill them, but this one was just so damned FUN I had to argue for about an hour to get it in).

64

[QUOTE=Fish]
True — but I think I like GURPS magic better than D&D 3.5, because spells have pre-requisites. It makes more sense to me, and seems better organized; and the spells seem like they have more general use than D&D.
[/QUOTE]

The prereqs are good, but the combat spells leave a lot to be desired. Any fighter with a weapon can deal damage every round easily, but with most spells a caster can only make an attack every 3 rounds or so. You have to be stupidly powerful before you can even hope to match any idiot with a weapon. And what’s the balance? Iron Arm. At least the new version of GURPS (which I haven’t actually played yet) help some of this.

65

[QUOTE=Jragon]
Oh, come now. You’re telling me any DM who isn’t an “idiot” could come up with the damage number based on any random circumstance. I suppose it’s true he asked how many die, but to be on the safe (and fair) side it could be worth it to look through the DM guide and potentially PH to check if there’s any specifics regarding getting clotheslined on thin metallic wire (or maybe apply similar rules for garroting or something minus the grapple check), and then check bonuses damage etc about heat damage (which probably should be in the description of heat metal, but whatever).
[/QUOTE]

Any decent DM would know that of course there’s nothing listed for what happens when something flies into a hot silver wire. Sure, look up Heat Metal. Maybe look up damage from ramming or something. But the GM is still going to have to make a call. And any decent DM could come up with damage and effects because that’s their job. Regardless of what’s in the book they DM has to say ‘This is what happens’. A good DM will make a good call, a bad DM will make a bad call, but only an idiot will sit there and make no call.

And you didn’t answer my question. Why is it only the 3.5 DM who sits there and can’t make a decision? Why is it only the 3.5 DM who needs his books to do so?

I find that trying to play things realistically rather than making up new rules is a better idea. Sure a bard is going to make friends easy, but there are limits. And a charm person is going make friends too, but everyone can see that guy just cast a spell. This is easily mitigated by a good DM.

Actually, spells aren’t the only restricted thing in the game. Attacks are limited too. The hit point system kind of requires a generic ‘I hit him’ approach to combat. You can tell the DM ‘I slash him across the chest and then bring the sword around and stab him in the gut’ but really you’re just rolling two attacks. There aren’t a lot of rules for called shots or stapling or things like that.

Yeah that would work too. The problem is balance. You have to make sure the new spell is balanced right or it can throw things off. If you give the players something you realize later is too powerful its a pain to yank it away from them.

66

[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
There, fixed that for you. The rules are there so the DM doesn’t have to make judgement calls. That way everyone knows how things should work. Every single thing the players do shouldn’t require a GM decision. Yes, if the players do wierd things, and they will, the GM makes a call. It’s a poor GM who can’t, and has to rely on the books like that.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but IMO the more specific and interlaced rules structure of the later 3.x editions makes it harder to be a good DM in that way, and easier for lazy DMing where the DM can simply say “you don’t have that feat, it fails” and stifle player creativity as a side effect. Or the game has more of a tendency to devolve into rules lawyering given the greater number and variability of sources of combat modifiers one has to refer to.

I wasn’t saying a 3.5 DM is prevented from improvising, but that the game is trending toward greater inflexibility and being less able to support house rules, especially if one plays with strict adherence to the rules (e.g. tournament style).

67

[QUOTE=GargoyleWB]
Agreed, but IMO the more specific and interlaced rules structure of the later 3.x editions makes it harder to be a good DM in that way, and easier for lazy DMing where the DM can simply say “you don’t have that feat, it fails” and stifle player creativity as a side effect. Or the game has more of a tendency to devolve into rules lawyering given the greater number and variability of sources of combat modifiers one has to refer to.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I’ve seen the rules lawyering. Big time. It’s hard to discourage too, cuz ‘its in the book’. The big thing I notice is that hard rulesets make players think a certain way. ‘My character can do X really well, and so I just need to figure out how I can do X and win.’ They’re only creative up to a point. The more focused the character, the bigger a problem it is. It’s annoying.

Possibly. This depends more on the DM & players than anything.

68

Wow, lotta negatives on 4E. Personally, I thought it sounded pretty awful when word first started coming out.

Now that I’ve read the PHB, I’m grudgingly optimistic.

Yes, it does do its damnedest to be like World of Warcraft. Yes it does omit the Monk, Druid, Bard, Barbarian and Sorcerer classes. Yes it does make characters somewhat similar to one another in ability and combat effectiveness. Yes, it does drop half-orcs and gnomes from the standard racial inventory and substitutes in fanboy-centric crap like “Dragonborn” and “Tieflings.” (Well, I happen to be a Tiefling fanboy, but I still think it’s dumb to make them a core race.)

However, none of those things really outweigh the fact that it also:

[ul]
[li]Removes spell memorization, and thus makes low-level spellcasters less of a bore to play, because they no longer run out of spells after a single fight and have to be carried through the rest of the game day til they can memorize spells again.[/li][li]Makes fighters less of a bore to play.[/li][li]Implements party leadership and tactics in ways that previous editions utterly failed to do (yes, by blatantly stealing from World of Warcraft, but still)[/li][li]Implements Turn Undead in one concise entry, about 120 words long (as opposed to 3E’s one-and-a-half-page entry that nobody could remember from one encounter to the next).[/li][li]Gets rid of the “meet all these weird prerequisites so you can take levels in this prestige class” crap, so you don’t have to take a level of Bard to become a Shadowdancer or something like that, replacing it with the ability to choose the equivalent of a prestige class at level 11.[/li][li]Gets rid of “spell levels,” so that a level 19 spell is one that you can (surprise!) learn at 19th level, as opposed to 3.5’s learning of third level spells at fifth level which has been an irritating semantics issue since the birth of D&D.[/li][li]Lays out all the information for a given class, including spells, abilities, etc, in a single place. You don’t read up on your class, then go to a different chapter to read up on spells, and then a different chapter to read up on turning undead and then a different chapter on how to level up, or how to take a paragon class, or whatever.[/li][li]Implements attack rolls and defenses more equitably.[/li][li]Lets characters who don’t happen to be rogues, rangers or bards actually have some skills.[/li][li]Makes taking an alignment optional for most characters.[/li][li]Doesn’t restrict a paladin to the Lawful Good alignment.[/li][li]Doesn’t gimp non-fighters with a ridiculously crappy Base Attack Bonus.[/li][/ul]

It’s not the greatest Pencil & Paper RPG I’ve ever read, but I think that the vast majority of the changes promote more fun game sessions and more streamlined play without sacrificing too much in the way of flavor.

True, the replay value of the game may suffer when you realize that most characters of a given class and level are going to be very similar, but it really doesn’t seem as bad as people seem to want it to be.

69

[QUOTE=Scupper]
…but it really doesn’t seem as bad as people seem to want it to be.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say it was per se bad. I said there was ultimately no real reason to play it unless you had some heavily modified version. It’s essentially an MMO/wargame hybrid, but fails in the one area it ougyht to be good at: encouraging exciting Role-Playing.

It is everything except a Role-Playing Game.

Which I find comic. If I wanted to play a wargame or a tactics game, I’d go get one of those. If this were just a game on its own, I probably wouldn’t mind. But DnD has history, and I think anyone who is going to go out and make a game for it ought to consider that. This is no longer recognizably DnD in any way.

70

Regarding “Defining an Encounter”

The DMG pretty much says that when all enemies are dead or fled, and characters have time to take a breather, even if it’s short, the encounter is over. If there’s any question about duration of effects, then “encounter” = five minutes.

71

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
I didn’t say it was per se bad. I said there was ultimately no real reason to play it unless you had some heavily modified version. It’s essentially an MMO/wargame hybrid, but fails in the one area it ougyht to be good at: encouraging exciting Role-Playing.

It is everything except a Role-Playing Game.

Which I find comic. If I wanted to play a wargame or a tactics game, I’d go get one of those. If this were just a game on its own, I probably wouldn’t mind. But DnD has history, and I think anyone who is going to go out and make a game for it ought to consider that. This is no longer recognizably DnD in any way.
[/QUOTE]
This.

It seems like a perfectly good game, one you could even play as a role playing game in a heavily modified form.

But. It. Isn’t. D+D.

I’d probably play it if they didn’t trounce the d+d name in the process of creating this MMO-like RPG-ish game.

Heck, I don’t even agree with the Vancian magic system, which is the weakest point of D+D, but nonetheless, it is one of the two fundamental characteristics of D+D. (The other is an abstract to hit system using a D20, Armor Class, Dexterity, and Strength, with armor modifying to hit rather than damage.)

If you don’t have those two in it, it just isn’t D+D.

72

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
It’s essentially an MMO/wargame hybrid, but fails in the one area it ougyht to be good at: encouraging exciting Role-Playing.

It is everything except a Role-Playing Game.

Which I find comic. If I wanted to play a wargame or a tactics game, I’d go get one of those. If this were just a game on its own, I probably wouldn’t mind. But DnD has history, and I think anyone who is going to go out and make a game for it ought to consider that. This is no longer recognizably DnD in any way.
[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, that’s nonsense. Did you even play third edition?

This version of the game actively encourages the players to define their characters’ backstories, and to contemplate the destiny to which they will aspire. There is a multi-page discussion of how to differentiate your character, how to imagine the decisions he will make and why, as well as character appearance and background. It also differentiates between “quests” that define what your characters are trying to accomplish and their motivation for doing so, and “encounters” which can be combat against hostiles, negotiation with non-hostiles, puzzles, or whatever.

It’s no more rules-heavy than third edition, and probably a bit less-so. The books are certainly shorter.

The DMG includes a simple one-page section called, “Actions the Rules Don’t Cover” which gives you some very broad guidelines about how to let the players improvise and at least attempt to do whatever the hell they want.

Monsters now have pseudo-classes and roles of their own, so they are less like simple stat blocks than they were in previous versions of the game. Now you can easily create encounters that involve, say, a ton of cannon-fodder minions accompanied by a leader directing their actions and a couple of dangerous skirmishers or soldiers for color. The PCs will rip through the minions and focus on the more important NPCs, as they would in a good cinematic battle sequence.

I’ve been playing D&D for going on 30 years now. This is no less a “roleplaying game” than any previous version, and I’d say it’s probably slightly more in line with your concept of what a roleplaying game should be than 3/3.5E was. It might be slightly more married to the idea of putting minis out on a grid when the arrows start flying than First or Second edition, but if that’s your main beef with it, you’re going on ten years too late.

73

Believe me, I had the exact same knee-jerk reaction to the news that they were making it more like an MMO, but that reaction is misplaced. If you can’t get over it, that’s unfortunate.

As a rules light, RP-heavy alternative, I’d suggest Savage Worlds, if you haven’t tried it out. It is a pretty decent system (albeit with a tendency toward pretty bland magic).

74

[QUOTE=Scupper]

True, the replay value of the game may suffer when you realize that most characters of a given class and level are going to be very similar, but it really doesn’t seem as bad as people seem to want it to be.
[/QUOTE]

What bothers me is that most characters of any given class, at the same level, are going to be somewhat similar.

75

E-sabbath invited me to the thread–thanks!

Unfortunately, I have very little opinion on the subject. I actually resigned from being a moderator for ENWorld; while the primary reason was that work was eating my brain, a secondary reason was that the feuds over 4th edition were totally uninteresting to me, and moderating umpteen threads about it somehow didn’t appeal.

I’ve ordered the set of books, and I hope they show up before Monday, when I leave on vacation. I’ve read a fan-created summary of the rules. I’ve not played it. I hope to run some sessions of it in July, when I return from vacation, and I hope it’s fun.

One thing I noticed in the fan-created summary that I really liked: the flexibility of the skills system. For skill checks, it seems, the DM says, “You need to roll 6 successes before you roll 4 failures,” or something like that. The awesome part is that the DM doesn’t specify what skills need to be rolled. It’s up to the players to choose skills and justify their use. Based on the appropriateness of the skill (or the creativity of the player), the DM can give bonuses.

The example I read involved PCs being chased through the streets, and one player requesting a History skill check to remember how an invading army once hid in the city’s sewers. Normally you wouldn’t think of rolling History in a chase scene, but a DM would be encouraged to accept this because it’s awesome.

That’s an excellent sort of rules flexibility: there are rough guidelines there to help in the adjudication, but it’s up to the player to justify the benefit, and creativity definitely helps.

Smiling Bandit, it does seem to me that every post I read from you about your gaming group constitutes a complaint about them. Respectfully, I’m not sure your gaming group offers any indication of whether mine will find the rules fun.

And for what it’s worth, the cleric is welcome to try that Heat Metal on the silver wire trick: he’s never heard of it before, and as with all such creative uses of magic, he’s not sure what’ll happen (although if he wants to make a relevant craft check he might get a hint). When he tries it, he finds that casting Heat Metal on a silver wire actually deserves a different spell name: Create Solder. Anyone caught under the dripping wire takes 1d4 fire damage from the spattering silver. Was that so hard?

Daniel

76

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Smiling Bandit, it does seem to me that every post I read from you about your gaming group constitutes a complaint about them. Respectfully, I’m not sure your gaming group offers any indication of whether mine will find the rules fun.
[/QUOTE]

There’s only one person whose opinion I listen to other than my own. My gaming group’s interests don’t count for much. Several of them are wargamers, and have so little imagination that this seems like the perfect game for them.

77

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
There’s only one person whose opinion I listen to other than my own.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah–I’d figured that out awhile ago :).

A lot of folks have opinions on this, a lot of negative opinions–but then, a lot of folks had strongly negative opinions of 3E when it came out, and 3.5E when it came out. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong this time, too, but it does mean I’m withholding judgment until I get to play it some.

Folks that have played with it: do those skill rules play out in a fun fashion?

Daniel

78

Interesting that all the stuff y’all are complaining about, is what prompted me to order 4e for myself. It’s en route, even now. I expect I’ll manage somehow to have fun.

[QUOTE=Kinthalis]
A friend of mine just told em that the player’s handbook will not contain all of the base classes? That to have all the base classes you’ll have to buy another book? Is this true?
[/QUOTE]

Since this really didn’t get answered anywhere…

Of the so-called “iconic” base classes, druid, bard, barbarian, sorcerer are not in the PHB being released now. (I’m dubious as to how “iconic” some of those are, though)

Apparently, each year another PHB and DMG (and MM, perhaps) will be released. New base classes will be in these PHBs. Each PHB will cover base classes using different power sources (current PHB covers martial, arcane, divine). Next up is tenatively Psionic, Primal, and Shadow power sources. Druids apparently fall under primal.

Each year they’ll also be releasing three books for one of their campaign settings – one setting book, one player’s book, one adventurish book. New base classes (and expanded player races) may be in these player’s books. FR is apparently up first, and thought to include Drow as player race (expanded beyond the MM stats), and perhaps the Bard base class.

The so-called “splat-books” will each cover one of the “power sources.” First up is Martial (i.e., for Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, Warlords). There are not supposed to be additional base classes in these. It’ll probably be additional martial powers, feats, paragon paths, etc. (and magic items, I’d guess).

edit: also, Dragon magazine on D&D Insider will be previewing races, classes, etc. before they’re published in books. next issue Warforged get the “fully realized” treatment.

79

[QUOTE=Lightray]
Of the so-called “iconic” base classes, druid, bard, barbarian, sorcerer are not in the PHB being released now. (I’m dubious as to how “iconic” some of those are, though)
[/QUOTE]

Interesting point. IIRC, second ed. didn’t have bards, barbarians, or sorcerers in the basic books, and 1E had bards only as a ridiculously expensive class to enter in an appendix somewhere (it was like an early prestige class, basically). It’s weird to me that they took out druids–it’s my favorite class–but whatever. At the same time, they added in some other classes, and these look somewhat interesting to me.

Daniel

80

Forgot one missing “iconic”: Monks. (possibly to be under the “Ki” power source)

Most of 'em were apparently delayed because the designers didn’t quite know how to make 'em work. Same reason the gnomes aren’t in this PHB.

Druids were seriously unbalanced in 3.X, same as the polymorph spells. Sorcerers are now kind of redundant, since their schtick got lost by virtue of wizards no longer relying on pseudo-Vancian magic. Bards apparently had a significant portion of their schtick stolen by the Warlord, although I’m hoping they’ll show up in Dragon relatively soon.

And most of these “iconics” that aren’t so were seriously odd in old AD&D. My bard character took painful forever (and kinda sucked if it weren’t for charming every monster in sight). My monk kept being subjected to DM-fiat random attacks of other monks coveting my level title. And we forbade barbarians, 'cause of the stupid class restrictions vs. magic-users and magic items.