We’ve had this discussion on the boards before, but I argue that 4E has made every class into a caster class. Rogues have spells, called ‘exploits’. Fighters, ‘maneuvers’.
I actually like running pre-3 games more for this simple fact. I’ve found that in the earlier editions I get less arguments and people tend to be more willing to fudge rules in favor of story.
I actually ended a few games within 20 minutes till the hardcore rules lawyer I had got it through his head that if I’m fudging a rule, it’s not our of ignorance, but to keep it enjoyable and keep it from me throwing out a weeks prep on the second choice they made.
For those reading that and thinking I’m trying to endlessly rail road my players, I end up off my notes more often than on and winging it, and players need to remember that the DM is trying to have fun as well. (types out a huge rant on raging Chaotic Neutral players that use their alignment as an excuse instead of a guideline then snips it so as to not rant)
Oh, I agree totally with that. I won’t say they pulled it off anywhere near flawlessly, or even really well considering the amount of confusion marking a target added and the different things a mark could mean. I just think that the non-casters needed a chance to shine without having to min/max feats, or start doing overly exotic things. I always worked hard in 3 and 3.5 to get the most depth I could in my fighters, my favorites really required using source book feats to escape the simplistic I attack X, roll Y attacks, and do Z damage.
I’ll also agree that a lot of combat magic falls into that formula, but it was always more satisfying when I had a DM that ruled Grease made flammable grease that I would usually set on fire with Burning Hands to get best effect on a prone target flailing about ineffectively in my puddle. It really is the little things that count in those.
Yeah, I was thinking of Arcana Evolved. Not that that’s* simpler.* Still, I miss the fecundity of the OGL/3.x period.
I haven’t played 4E very much but by all accounts I’ve heard it’s terrible. My friends are switching back to Pathfinder (which uses 3.5 rules).
Combat plays like a computer game, without a computer to do the heavy lifting on the modifiers and other math. If that’s your sort of thing, and you enjoy very technical gaming, it’s not bad. One of the groups I play with, rarely, got tired of Battletech finally and we’ve been using it for primarily battle scenarios.
3rd edition has that, too (it’s called “Rule Zero”). I don’t know why it is that it’s not invoked as much as it used to be.
Actually, there are a lot of things that people complain about in D&D (of various editions) that just isn’t actually part of D&D itself, just the way people play it. Another complaint I’ve heard a lot is that there’s no way to earn XP without killing monsters, but that’s flat-out contradicted by the rules. But for some reason, a lot of people houserule that away, usually without even realizing that it’s a houserule, and then turn around and complain about it.
I started playing World of Warcraft after I played D&D 4E and I was amazed at home much the table top RPG reminded me of a computer game. Every time I played D&D after that I could picture myself pressing the buttons on my keyboard and waiting for the spell cool down to pass so I could press the button again.
Yes, that’s exactly the impression I got (from reading the PHB and 1-2 short sessions). No where near enough role-playing, not enough stuff to do out of combat.
I love 3.5 except for the magic system. However, some clever DMs I’ve seen have come up with ways to improve it. One thing that is good about 4.0 is the at-will/encounter/daily power system, and I’ve seen some decent ways to incorporate that in to 3.5.
Agreed, and I wouldn’t have had a problem if that’s what he’d been doing (or using the aforementioned Attack of Opportunity). As it was, though, his methods in that example were just the final straw that made me bow out of the game. Aside from the rule problems, it was just becoming plain to me that he had a mad-on for “magic users” (he always used that old term). I mean, there was a reason I always ended up playing the arcane spellcaster: none of his other players, who were more familiar with him, wanted to. They all knew how hard he was on those classes. (Like, “It’s just good strategy to take out the spellcaster first!” “Sure, but my wizard is dressed in basic traveling clothes, is armed with nothing but a crossbow and a plain wooden staff, and hasn’t cast a spell yet. How does every random group of enemies we meet immediately know he’s a wizard?”)
OTOH, nobody familiar with the DM wanted to play a melee class, either. Because the one part of the 3.x rules he clearly had read were the grappling rules, and if you got in melee range of a monster, by god you were going to get grappled. And lose.
Anyway, I could go on all day about this DM, but in the interest of not further hijacking the thread, I’ll stop here.
Everyone knows that no one, but no one, who carries a staff is anything but a spellcaster. Gandalf did it, and so it’s law. Staff=caster. There shall be no arguments.
Seriously, what a pain in the ass. Unless your characters are 20th level and everyone who’s not a moron in the world is already aware of them, this is pretty silly.
I’ve heard it proposed that the best use for a monk in a 3.x party is for the monk to wear a robe with stars and a pointy hat, and for the wizard to wear a gi with a colored belt, so the enemies will ignore the real threat and go after the guy whose only ability is being hard to kill.
I’m nit-picking I know, but I think what you’re describing is the *gamist *stance rather than the simulationist. The simulationists are concerned about how well the rules model the real world (even if that real world is a fantasy world) than about internal consistency.
Of course, as a narrativist myself, I find both those stances a little sterile … . 
I prefer running rule systems that are deliberately designed to be open-ended and ambiguous. I don’t want players trying to figure out how to max-min their way through encounters. I want them thinking creatively about how their characters would react to a situation. Which sometimes means cobbling together rules on the fly to cover the unexpected: “I grab the chandelier and swing through the middle of combat, snatching the wand of fireballs from the evil wizard as I pass him!”
The more rigid and comprehensive a rule set becomes, the more it tells the players that the only actions available to them are those that are officially sanctioned. It tends to shut down the loosy-goosy creative play that, for me, has delivered my most memorable RPG experiences.
After trying to run a 4th edition campaign for my kids for a while, I’m actually in the middle of cobbling together a home-brew system that’s more or less "cleaned-up 2nd edition’. Combat and spell casting are simpler and more streamlined than true old-school AD & D, but the rules as a whole are kept light and open with a lot of referee discretion.
Amusingly, the encounter/daily power part of that are some of the things I get the most complaints about. But that’s mostly because my wife is a fireball junkie. My very pregnant wife. Fireball junkie. People still wonder why I’m so incredibly nice to her while she’s pregnant.
I like the system for two reasons:
-
At will powers: Magic-users lack any useful thing they can do every turn. They can either use a limited resource item (a spell) or use a crossbow (weak) or melee (stupid). So they have a lot of trouble with large numbers of small-to-medium encounters.
-
Encounter powers: In the 3.5 magic system a caster can go from broken as shit when there’s one encounter per day to useless when there are tons. Encounter powers balance that out a little bit.
I could do without once a day powers honestly, they just scream “SAVE ME FOR THE BOSS FIGHT”.
Overall at-will and encounter powers provide a middle ground that I think 3.5 magic-users lack, where they are either totally broken or useless.
I like daily/encounter/at-will, especially now that the group is 11th level - they have a fair amount of stuff to choose from, including multiple dailies. The labels help players figure out which powers are the big ones and which are the small ones, which warms my optimaxing heart.
Their usual playstyle is to plan to rest often, so they burn through dailies fast and use action points a lot, which makes combat faster. In the current arc (based on Revenge of the Giants), they’re in the past and can’t take a long rest or they’ll return to the present, losing the chance to gather skymetal and make cool weapons and other stuff. So they’re actually having to think about when to use dailies, and conserving action points and healing surges. It’s a fun change.
I liked how martial adepts from late 3.5 have only encounter powers. 4E’s once-daily powers feel so restrictive.
That’s not just D&D, either–my LARP monk character’s combat role can best be described as “damage sponge” or “deployable decoy”, depending on the exact circumstances. I have even been known to start waving my hands and chanting to draw people off target. (Metagaming plays into that–most people know my mage character better than my monk, so the NPCs tend to jump to “Oh, shit, he’s casting” even if I’m in the wrong costume.)
Also, it has been my standard tabletop procedure to dress my low-level wizards like down-at-the-heels thieves for 30 years now.
I think the general idea of will/encounter/daily powers is fine, but it should have been dressed up better.
That reminds me of one of my characters, a halfling paladin who was a little concerned about being bite-sized. Her solution was to get a glass flask and fill it with a dose of dark reaver powder and five doses of retch.
Wait wait wait… cards? Grid thingys? wtf?
The last time I played D&D, all I needed was some dice, paper, and a pencil.
Also Pizza and Mt. Dew, but those were supplimentary.