Man that was a close call.

[koralas]

DaveyB wrote:
I fail to see how having balanced rules where everyone is on the same power level takes away roleplaying from the game?? Rules are there to adjudicate actions, it's up to the person playing the character how much effort they want to put into roleplaying that persona. 4e's rules set is light compared to 3e's or Pathfinders and allows for a lot more wiggle room as far as rulings and what-not, so if there's a lack of roleplaying, look towards the characters, not the rules. The only detailed rules in 4e are for combat, and even those are simplified beyond what 3e had. Everything else is a skill check or ability check for the most part.

I think one of the misconceptions of "balanced progression" for the classes, is that in the older editions, this resulted in characters progressing in power/ability at different paces. This is not true, it simply allowed for a variation in the way that those abilities progressed at a given level, true the level difference is there, but, well as an example, take a Thief character in contrast to a Fighter, looking at simply combat related skills at this point.

In 1st Ed, with "unbalanced" progression, at 10th level (160,001xp) a Thief has 10d6 HP (averaging 30-40 without Con adj.), is proficient with 4 weapons, has a BaB of +5, and x4 Backstab damage. The Backstab is just that, the opponent must be unaware of the character's presense, it is denied it's Dex Adj to AC and the Thief gains +2 to hit for attacking from behind, so this attack is at +7 for a SINGLE attack. A Fighter of the same XP is 8th level, with a BaB of +7 and 3 attacks every 2 rounds, is proficient with 6 weapons, and 8d10 HP (averaging 40-60 without Con Adj.). The fighter can use all armor, while the thief is stuck with only leather. The UA expanded on the Thief to allow studded leather and elfin chain, with penalties to their other thieving abilities.

In d20 (and I don't have the 4E books in front of me as I opted to not play the game after trying it) the fighter has a BaB of +10/+5 and the Rogue a BaB of +7/+2 with Sneak Attack doing +5d6 damage. The Fighter has 10d10 HP (50-70), the Rogue 10d6 (30-40) HP. However, the SNEAK attack only requires that the defender be denied his Dex Adj OR that the Rogue is flanking the opponent. Flanking gives a +2 modifier to hit, raising his BaB to +9/+4, and EVERY round allows the additional +5d6 damage.

So if we eliminate the non-combat related abilities, which of these scenarios is more balanced? Obviously, 1st Ed., surprising isn't it? In 1st Ed. assuming a hit on each attack, in three rounds, using a short sword, the rogue will do d6 x4 points of damage, leave combat and achieve stealth, return and sneak attack again or 4-16 points of damage. A Fighter using a long sword will do d8, d8, d8, or 3-24 points of damage. In d20 that rogue will attack twice every round doing d6+5d6 damage or 6-36 HP each attack or 12-72 HP each round, where the fighter will do 1-10 HP each attack or 2-20 HP each round.

Throw in the additional thieving skills, and the fast progression of a 1st Ed thief is to allow those to progress at an even pace, with the fighter getting a few other benefits (attacks = level vs 0 level, specialization). In d20 the thief skills also continue to progress, but these at a pace that generally out strips that of 1st ed by a wide margin. i.e. pick pockets in 1st ed at 10th level is +50% or +10 on a d20, where as in d20 it can be what is it 4 higher than your level, or +14 (+70%)...

So I would ask, which of the systems presents a more balanced progression?

[DaveyB]

Sir Ironside wrote:
I normally don't like to snip posts... but in this case I don't need an exhaustive reply.

I am not saying that you can't role-play in 4e, you can role-play with any system as role-playing comes from the players and not the book. But, when the rules don't support active role-playing and concentrate more on something like combat, in comparison to other rules sets, 4e focuses on combat. I have heard some 4e combats last hours. Combat lasting hours is not my cup-of-tea. It isn't wrong and there are much more people who are having a great time doing it.

You seem to contradict yourself here. First you state that roleplaying comes from the players not the book, but then go on to say that "the rules don't support active role-playing"? You said yourself that roleplaying comes from the players and not the book, so what rules do you need to support it?

As for combat lasting hours, that is not entirely true although it's nowhere near as quick as C&C or 2e and prior. Monsters are bags of HP and unless the DM takes steps to remedy then some larger fights could take a while, but I've never had fights last hours. Maybe 25 or 30 minutes tops. Combat lasting that long is not my cup of tea either, that's why I've taken steps to speed it up. Now it could be stated that one should not have to alter the rules to speed up portions of the game and I wouldn't argue that. Even the designers have pretty much admitted they fubar'ed the HP of monsters and offered various ways to speed up combat.

Quote:
To put it simply, I'll break it down in percentages. D&D 4e is roughly 70% combat centric and 25% other. I like to play 40 to 35% combat and the rest other. That is a significant difference in percentages. Add, the need for mini's, maps, terrain etc. It falls even further away from what I like.

I'm interested to know where you pulled those arbitrary numbers from as it would seem to me that the game is only as combat-centric as the DM running it makes it to be. There have been games where no combat has taken place and everyone still had fun. I will agree that having a need for minis, etc. does make it slightly more demanding, but a simple battle mat and some wet-erase markers solves that. As far as minis, we use coins and plastic 1" discs to represent characters and monsters, so it's not like you NEED WotC's minis to run the game; but I agree even the need for them is a pain sometimes.

Quote:
Having an obsession with balanced rules means, almost demands that you play the rpg as RAW. Your notion of stretchable rules is probably not what I think stretchable rules are. With games like OD&D or AD&D and others the unbalanced classes where hardly a problem and I hardly heard any complaints because we had groups that compensated, naturally, for the difference. We didn't need level challenge numbers, we could throw a dragon at 1st level characters without batting a eye. It was up to the players to decide if their character does something stupid or something smart to determine the outcome. The shoehorn comes in with all the talk about "defenders", "leaders" and whatever else they are classifying "fighters", "magic-users" etc. Modules run in 4e tell you what you need to run the game successfully, in my day the players could all roll up four magic-users, or two thieves, a Paladin and a bard, and it could all be used for the same adventure. Much more flexible than it is now.

Defenders, leaders, whatever have always been there, it's just now they are actually given a name other than "tank, meatshield, etc". I've never felt shoe-horned playing a cleric which is classified as a "leader". My cleric plays that same as his 3e or 2e counterpart, although with a lot less variety in spells, which is irksome and another gripe I have with 4e.

There is also nothing stopping you from throwing a 29th level red dragon at a 1st level party. Obviously things aren't going to fair well for our intrepid adventurers, but nowhere does it state that you have to prepare encounters that are "just right" so that your PCs don't die. Also while I've never used a Wizards adventure (because all of the 4e ones are atrociously bad), nowhere have I ever seen anything in any of them that says "You must have 1 leader, 1 controller, 2 strikers, and a defender to successfully play this module."....I don't know where you got that misconception.

As for balance, I'm not calling for balance. I don't like the balanced classes of 4e anymore than you. It doesn't make sense that a guy who swings a sword operates at the same power level as a guy who can open doors to other planes of existence or call meteors down from the heavens with a few gestures. I've never experienced anyone complain about being unbalanced or feeling their class was inferior to the wizard or whatever other class. That's a player issue not a rules issue and seems to be prevalent with today's younger players more than the older players. Did Wizards go to far in their zeal to balance things out? Yes, in my opinion.

Quote:
I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with 4e as it is played. But, there are things it turned away from and other areas the focused more on. And, to suggest it does things just as well as past games is disingenuous and trying to argue that 4e is the end all be end all of rpg's. Its not and it is weak in places and strong in other places... just like any other rpg.

Please quote or reference where I said that 4e was the "end all and be all" of RPGs? If you read my previous posts you would understand that 4e is not my preferred system either, but as my group is keen on that at the moment, it is what we play. I have a laundry list of problems with the system from the ber balanced classes to the flavorless writing to the powers being different in name only; to name just a few. So please do not take it that I somehow adore 4e and am a 4e fanboy. Is it the same D&D that I started with? No. Does it provide a fun game that my buddies and I can play for a few hours and kill some time having fun? Yes. Would I prefer that we play 2e or C&C? YES!

The biggest gripe I have and the one of the places where I can agree with you that the game is too focused on combat at the cost of RP are some artifacts and magic/wondrous items. Instead of having cool, imaginative powers useful outside of combat, almost all of them grant a combat bonus or healing. This is one of my bigger gripes of 4e. The treatment given to these items is clinical almost to the point of being a copy and paste, and unfortunately is a nod to the absurd lengths Wizards has gone to balance the system, which again, is not needed in my opinion. Now there is nothing stopping me from using the old artifact descriptions with a bit of work, but one should not have to do that when one pays $35 or so for a book (not that I've ever paid that much for anything 4e yet).

I think if you haven't played 4e yet, and it seems as though you haven't though I could be wrong, I think you would find it to be fairly similar to what you've played before, providing you have a good DM that knows the system and knows how to come up with an engaging story.

[DaveyB]

koralas wrote:
I think one of the misconceptions of "balanced progression" for the classes, is that in the older editions, this resulted in characters progressing in power/ability at different paces. This is not true, it simply allowed for a variation in the way that those abilities progressed at a given level, true the level difference is there, but, well as an example, take a Thief character in contrast to a Fighter, looking at simply combat related skills at this point.

In 1st Ed, with "unbalanced" progression, at 10th level (160,001xp) a Thief has 10d6 HP (averaging 30-40 without Con adj.), is proficient with 4 weapons, has a BaB of +5, and x4 Backstab damage. The Backstab is just that, the opponent must be unaware of the character's presense, it is denied it's Dex Adj to AC and the Thief gains +2 to hit for attacking from behind, so this attack is at +7 for a SINGLE attack. A Fighter of the same XP is 8th level, with a BaB of +7 and 3 attacks every 2 rounds, is proficient with 6 weapons, and 8d10 HP (averaging 40-60 without Con Adj.). The fighter can use all armor, while the thief is stuck with only leather. The UA expanded on the Thief to allow studded leather and elfin chain, with penalties to their other thieving abilities.

In d20 (and I don't have the 4E books in front of me as I opted to not play the game after trying it) the fighter has a BaB of +10/+5 and the Rogue a BaB of +7/+2 with Sneak Attack doing +5d6 damage. The Fighter has 10d10 HP (50-70), the Rogue 10d6 (30-40) HP. However, the SNEAK attack only requires that the defender be denied his Dex Adj OR that the Rogue is flanking the opponent. Flanking gives a +2 modifier to hit, raising his BaB to +9/+4, and EVERY round allows the additional +5d6 damage.

So if we eliminate the non-combat related abilities, which of these scenarios is more balanced? Obviously, 1st Ed., surprising isn't it? In 1st Ed. assuming a hit on each attack, in three rounds, using a short sword, the rogue will do d6 x4 points of damage, leave combat and achieve stealth, return and sneak attack again or 4-16 points of damage. A Fighter using a long sword will do d8, d8, d8, or 3-24 points of damage. In d20 that rogue will attack twice every round doing d6+5d6 damage or 6-36 HP each attack or 12-72 HP each round, where the fighter will do 1-10 HP each attack or 2-20 HP each round.

Throw in the additional thieving skills, and the fast progression of a 1st Ed thief is to allow those to progress at an even pace, with the fighter getting a few other benefits (attacks = level vs 0 level, specialization). In d20 the thief skills also continue to progress, but these at a pace that generally out strips that of 1st ed by a wide margin. i.e. pick pockets in 1st ed at 10th level is +50% or +10 on a d20, where as in d20 it can be what is it 4 higher than your level, or +14 (+70%)...

So I would ask, which of the systems presents a more balanced progression?

While I've never broken it down like that, it doesn't surprise me in the least. The younger crowd cries when they aren't doing 100 pts. of damage every swing so they're thrown bones like this to make them feel better. Sad as it is, this much damage is almost necessary to take down some of the walking bags of HP disguised as monsters in 4e. For instance, compare an umber hulk in 4e at 248 HP vs. the old umber hulk of 2e, which at max, had about 72 HP! Big difference and one that I don't particularly like.

Again, to be sure, I do not advocate the balanced approach 4e has taken but I see where certain styles of players would like it. I'm indifferent to it, but I DM more than play, so to me it doesn't really matter as long as everyone is having fun.

[Omote]

DaveyB wrote:
...walking bags of HP disguised as monsters in 4e.

I like that. And very much the truth.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Treebore]

In the 3 modules I played through using 4E and going by every one of the half dozen game day scenarios I have played through I would say 4E is 90% combat.

So out of my approximately 70 hours playing 4E about 65 hours of it revolved around combat.

So when ran as "intended" by how the modules and Game Day scenarios are written up, 4E is all about the combat.

As for when do yo need a rule book to role play? When your a beginner, and have no idea how things are supposed to be done.

Be aware that WOTC added some strong rules elements for role play in the DMG 2, so they are finally addressing it.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[DaveyB]

Treebore wrote:
In the 3 modules I played through using 4E and going by every one of the half dozen game day scenarios I have played through I would say 4E is 90% combat.

So out of my approximately 70 hours playing 4E about 65 hours of it revolved around combat.

So when ran as "intended" by how the modules and Game Day scenarios are written up, 4E is all about the combat.

When you're playing strictly WotC modules and GD scenarios, unfortunately it's going to end up that way as the modules are poorly written with only the thinnest guise of RP'ing in them. I agree that 99% of it is combat. I never argued that 4e isn't combat heavy, especially if played strictly from official modules or at GD events. My argument is that even though it gives a bad first impression, when played like any other addition of D&D where the DM's emphasis is more on RP than combat, it's not much different from past versions.

One thing I haven't touched on yet are the awful skill challenge mechanic that they saw fit to introduce. What mostly should be resolved through RP is now crammed into a nonsensical series of skill checks; hence why I don't go near them with a 10 ft. pole (no pun intended). The only place I could see skill challenges working would be if you had to pick a complex lock that requires a series of checks or some other event where cooperation and skills could come into play. Maybe figuring out how to fit together all 7 parts of the Rod of Seven Parts or something like that. Even then it could be done strictly through RP, but alas, that seems to be a dying art.

Quote:
As for when do yo need a rule book to role play? When your a beginner, and have no idea how things are supposed to be done.

I don't really see this as the case. What could a rulebook teach a person trying to learn the game about roleplaying? The usual introduction to roleplaying where it gives a sample of play is usually more than sufficient to teach people the basic idea of roleplay. Perhaps the word rule is the wrong word though, perhaps guidelines would be a better word. Guidelines on fleshing out your character, character concepts to fit the archetypes, etc. The PHB is definitely light on that kind of stuff, but it tries with a small section in the beginning. WotC would go a long way if they were to use the examples from the 2e PHB where it gave not only a better description of each class but also examples from myth and the real world to give one ideas.

Quote:
Be aware that WOTC added some strong rules elements for role play in the DMG 2, so they are finally addressing it.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that earlier. I'm glad someone did though. Still, as good as that is, it should not require someone to buy another book when it should have been in the original set to begin with!