Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

Man, that guy should file a letter of complaint against his parents.

[Neonivek]

I really wish they would update 3.5 already so I can stop seeing 3.5 games.

I love 4.e because it avoids most of the uttar stupidity that comes with 3.5 and doesn't punish me for chosing "Not a spellcaster". Not to mention that to my knowledge Traps arn't a "Rogues only" deal in 4e.

The time I see 3.5 at its weakest is reading a 3.5 guide.

[Sergius]

Man, that guy should file a letter of complaint against his parents.

Are we getting personal now? Because if we are, I would have to respond like this:

Oh sorry, you meant the totally made up strawman argument that people "write novels" when house ruling. Plus the assumption that I was part of said group that "write novels" which was neither stated or implied by me, you, or anyone in this thread. In fact, it hasn't been even hinted that I'm even in the group that bought the book and only likes 50% of the rules that you reference, that by your own statement, is composed of zero people.

But don't get facts get in the way of your bitterness or the application of Set Theory. Yeah. My nonexisting novel is going great. It's got 50,000 imaginary pages now, that's what it took to add a single per-encounter power to the Rogue.

But hey, personal insults mean YOU WIN D&D. I guess now I can say there aren't stupid questions, only stupid people.

If you weren't getting personal, then disregard

[nenjin]

I was actually commenting on this. I took you at your word you're writing a novel.

But since we're having fun with semantics anyways, I'll choose to not take it personally. It's much funnier watching you take it personally.

[Sergius]

I was actually commenting on this. I took you at your word you're writing a novel.

But since we're having fun with semantics anyways, I'll choose to not take it personally.

Yes, I actually assumed you could mean something like that, that's why I wrote the disclaimer But I don't like a good rant to go to waste...

[Neonivek]

...

[Grakelin]

Ad hominem flamewarring? In MY thread?


On Houseruling: I've houseruled most systems I have played with, with the exception of Mutants and Masterminds (where houseruling is DEFINITELY possible, but also quite hard to do without breaking everything). I don't mind doing it. If I was houseruling to the point of fixing the entire system, then I would. But it's generally just a tweak here and there.

Also, my players have a 'wishlist' of sorts (like the Warlock, who really wants a Rod of Corruption so he can munchkinslaughter those 1 hp minions en masse), so I like to sprinkle the stuff they want around the world as MacGuffins and rewards for their major victories. For instance, said Warlock also has a nemesis in his backstory, so I might make his Rod turn up in that Nemesis's hands as his primary weapon when he shows up later on.

It's good stuff.

[Vanigo]

I've always been of the opinion that the crux of the matter is design philosophy. 4e is a very good game. The classes are mostly balanced, the mechanics work quickly, nothing's too ambiguous, there's way less broken shit to worry about... It does lots of things better than 3.x. 3.x, however, is a much better world. The reasoning behind the rules is far more logical and consistent. 4e is all about game design, where 3.x says "Let's build ourselves a world." As a result, 4e's mechanics are much better from a game design perspective, but at the cost of making a coherent world. In a lot of areas, 4e is wacky (but streamlined and balanced) where 3.x is logical (but tricky and breakable). For instance, everything is 4e is tied to levels. Characters have levels, monsters have levels, magic items have levels, and these levels have direct mechanical effects and correspond perfectly to each other. It makes the game easier to run, but it's also arbitrary and weird. 4e's 'add half your level to all skill checks' might play better than 3.x's skill ranks, but it makes a whole lot less sense - how does a 20th level barbarian know more about history and religion than a third level religious scholar? 3.x monsters are just like characters with different racial abilities, and racial hit dice instead of (or in addition to) class levels. 4e PCs and monsters are fundamentally different, and if you want an ogre who knows more about fighting than most you have to make a whole new monster. People used to give 3.x's economy shit because, if you had a gigantic supercomputer run an entire world under those rules, the economy is the only part that would blatantly fail. 4e doesn't even have an economy.
Of course, having sacrificed making a coherent world in favor of making a better game, 4e, as a game, is much better. It's easier to learn, easier to run, plays faster, it's far more balanced... the list goes on, but there's a very real price to be paid.

[Cthulhu]

A 20th level barbarian has seen pretty much everything there is to be seen.  Even if he's not that smart, he has to have retained some of that.

[Sergius]

The low-level religious scholar may tell you that the dark tentacled god Toth Moon Ra feasts on the soul of those who hold secrets in their hearts, and can be repelled by a holy symbol cast from electrum.

The high-level barbarian will tell you that Toth Moon Ra gets really pissy when you don't put his Knight Templar action figures exactly the way you found them, and is lactose intolerant so don't offer him any milk from the sacred cow, cus then it starts to smell real bad.

[Vanigo]

I doubt it. Even at 20th level, I doubt he'll have run afoul of more than two, maybe three dark gods, and the cultists of a half-dozen more. He'll have picked up some very rare information, sure, but there are going to be lots of great gaping holes in his knowledge, especially when you start talking about non-evil deities.
And history? Forget about it. If he saw it happen, it barely counts as history.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I think most games break down at their extreme ends. They obviously tried to make things work right, but I find that the sweet spot is somewhere around level 1-14 in 1E to 3E. I haven't seen enough 4E to know. But arguing that the 20th level character doesn't make sense is silly - of course it doesn't make sense.

Breaking a game by finding loopholes isn't too hard. In some games it happens by itself (Rifts I'm looking at you). I don't think there's a problem with the game having vulnerabilities like that. The groups that want to play a game with loophole exploits will use them and have fun. The groups that don't like them, and want to play the game as it seems like it was intended, will just have a gentleman's agreement to not do those crazy things.

In 2E a common one was Fire Trap. You cast Fire Trap on a chest, and if someone else opens it the chest sends out a burst of flames. But if you busted open the chest it made sense that the flames would go off then too. Else what good is the trap? So you cast Fire Trap on a flask of oil. That way when you throw it, if the flask breaks then it lights the oil automatically and does the magical fire damage too. That was fine. The scam came in when you had someone make you little clay jars, ten to a small bag that you could throw one-handed like a river stone. The jars are each corked with pitch-soaked rags and all have Fire Trap. When you throw, if even one breaks, all will "open" because their corks burn apart, so you get 10 Fire Traps. That was a TON of damage, for free, at Level 3.

Spoiler: Math (click to show/hide)

A monster would have 1-8 HP per level. The Fire Trap does 1d4 damage +2 HP per caster level, saving throw halves damage, 5' diameter. This means at level 3 Cleric, your Fire Trap is 1d4+6, average 8.5, or 4.25 with a successful saving throw (which was probably around 40% chance at that level for a monster). But with 10 Fire Traps at once, it's 10d4+60, average 85, or 42.5 with save. A 5th level monster of maximum HP would die automatically regardless of the saving throw, and you only had to hit the ground at his feet (a 60-70% chance and if you missed you might still catch him in the area of effect).

Anyway, this is an example of something that the rules seemed to allow, but which made the game less fun. Vorpal Holy Avengers for all? Not as fun as you'd think.

Some players enjoy powergaming. Many don't necessarily enjoy having a powerful adventuring group - they want to be the most powerful character in the group regardless of what adventures they go on. Eventually players in that camp may mature enough to realize that success is easy and less enjoyable if you have a powerful character. In fact, success against difficult circumstances could be said to be a basis for gaming in general. Loopholes, rules lawyering, powergaming, etc. are just "Easy Mode" and eventually people may grow out of that.

[nenjin]

Breaking a game by finding loopholes isn't too hard. In some games it happens by itself (Rifts I'm looking at you).

Rifts is kind of interesting in relation to the above argument/debate. It's one of those rule systems that has clear design problems. I tried figuring out one day some range issues, which led me to re-examining turn initiative, and suddenly I started re-reading the whole book and realizing there were holes you could drive a truck through in it. That's one you kind of have to house rule....but the setting and some of the systems make up for it.

On the other side of the chart is like....DBZ Fuzion. A game so badly designed you pretty much have write your own roll system just to make one round playable.

[forsaken1111]

On Magic Items: We've houseruled the levels on magic items out

Why? The level is just a handy indicator for the DM when making appropriate treasure parcels, it has no gameplay meaning whatsoever. If the DM hands you a level 30 item at level 1, you can use it just fine by the rules. The only other thing I can think of which item levels control is when you can create them via the 'create magic item' ritual, which is also in 3.5 edition as the minimum caster level required.

That's how the most recent edition of 4th ed has been described to me. Players require specific gear in order to advance up their class scheme. They make wishlists for the gear they want. The DM's guide (or its equivalent) recommends giving them x pieces of treasure off their wishlist per adventure. You can see it sort of like Badges of Justice (or whatever they're called now) in WoW.

You've been misinformed a bit. The 4th edition DM guide suggests that you can poll your players for gear that they want as ideas for seeding treasure, but it is an option. Nothing in the rules says "Fill out gear request for level 4 adventures. It will be placed in the goblin area for your convenience. DM is still free to seed whatever the hell he wants, it just gives you some suggested loot distribution rules in the book which you are free to ignore. Using them will ensure an even loot disbursal IF YOU WANT THAT, but again it is optional.

I doubt it. Even at 20th level, I doubt he'll have run afoul of more than two, maybe three dark gods, and the cultists of a half-dozen more. He'll have picked up some very rare information, sure, but there are going to be lots of great gaping holes in his knowledge, especially when you start talking about non-evil deities.
And history? Forget about it. If he saw it happen, it barely counts as history.

At level 20 he has been around his smart ass elven wizard buddy for 20 whole levels. Barbarians may not be smart or eloquent, but they do love good stories. Imagine all the stories they've told around the campfire... some of them are likely historical references which the barbarian would remember later. It doesn't have to be personal experience, but he has picked up tidbits and assorted facts over the campaign which he can recall. He still won't be as good as an Int based character trained in history.


I'd say the single greatest addition to 4th edition is page 42. Page 42 is the answer to everything. The entire page is entitled "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" and it goes on to explain some examples, but the real meat is the chart. This chart has saved my life as a DM.

[Cthulhu]

I doubt it. Even at 20th level, I doubt he'll have run afoul of more than two, maybe three dark gods, and the cultists of a half-dozen more. He'll have picked up some very rare information, sure, but there are going to be lots of great gaping holes in his knowledge, especially when you start talking about non-evil deities.
And history? Forget about it. If he saw it happen, it barely counts as history.

But are you going to be the one to tell the 20th level barbarian that he's dumb and ill-informed?