Print

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

[Neonivek]

Also WoW the RPG uses 3.5 rules

Made by Whitewolf and oddly makes the game looks small sometimes.

[Jakkarra]

its only a fiver, too.

it also become non-subscriptioning soon.

[E. Albright]

A lot of Marks also serve as ways to persuade enemies to act a certain way by including effects that have conditions (Which couldn't be done in MMOs).

That's exactly the point. Threat mechanics are a deterministic way of forcing enemies to behave in a certain manner. They're simple and flat because there's no GM (or complex AI) behind the curtain, so if foes are to behave predictably, they need to behave deterministically. Traditional P&P would have the more vulnerable characters be protected by physical interdiction; by setting marks to force certain behaviors, you wander into the realm of MMO logic whereby an enemy can be consistently persuaded to attack a less dangerous (and less vulnerable) opponent instead of a more vulnerable and dangerous one. Or the healer.

I just don't understand the extreme opposition. Have you played a 4.0 game with the intent of enjoying yourself?

In point of fact, I've not played D&D since the second edition. Reading the 4e rules was enough to convince me I couldn't enjoy such a game. It's not my cup of tea; the rules strike me as simplistic and cartoonish. I don't really need to try it to affirm this conclusion; it's plainly too far gone from what I'd enjoy* to merit the effort. Different strokes for different folks, but I personally will pass on borrowing large conceptual swaths from MMOs.

*As a point of reference, the single greatest RPG ever created: Powers and Perils. Different strokes, etc.

[Neonivek]

Threat mechanics are a deterministic way of forcing enemies to behave in a certain manner

No that isn't what it does exactly

It is "My focus is on you, if you move out of range I will get an attack of opportunity even if you shift" They can still move out if it is their best interest.

Or "You are all in my focus, if you attack a friend I will attack one of you assuming your within range"

Though those are only the marks that do so... A lot of others are "This is the enemy I or my team chose to be effective against"

[Sowelu]

People who say it's not wargamey, are not big wargamers themselves :/

[E. Albright]

No that isn't what it does exactly

It is "My focus is on you, if you move out of range I will get an attack of opportunity even if you shift" They can still move out if it is their best interest.

While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.

In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.

IOW, stay next to me and attack me, or I get an attack I otherwise wouldn't. The paladin challenge mark is even more explicit. Mind you, I wasn't saying the marks were deterministic. I was saying the MMO threat mechanics were, because there was no GM to mitigate their effects. While there's a justification for the mark mechanic to exist, there's no justification beyond a desire to support dedicated "tanks" to limit the mechanic to defenders.

[E. Albright]

People who say it's not wargamey, are not big wargamers themselves :/

Thanks for pointing that out. I had been wondering about my personal history and passtimes, so it was awfully decent of you to clear that up for me.

[Sergius]

IOW, stay next to me and attack me, or I get an attack I otherwise wouldn't. The paladin challenge mark is even more explicit. Mind you, I wasn't saying the marks were deterministic. I was saying the MMO threat mechanics were, because there was no GM to mitigate their effects. While there's a justification for the mark mechanic to exist, there's no justification beyond a desire to support dedicated "tanks" to limit the mechanic to defenders.

In real life, people don't stand in perfect squares waiting for their turn to act, and let everyone just do whatever they want around them in their respective turn. It looks to me that this mechanic has a very specific real life equivalent, which is basically taking a defensive (or annoyance) position against an enemy (circling, surrounding him, whatever, making his life a pain in the ass. Think Basketball) to prevent him from just getting past you and towards their objective. Which they still may attempt anyway if brave enough or if ordered to by a sufficiently scary leader.

I haven't even played 4E and I've read the rules and they strike me as elegant, realistic, balanced and much more less powergamey than 3.x. So I suppose my opinion is worth as much as yours (although both would be worth probably 1/10th of that of the people that have actually played it).

[Sowelu]

4e appears to give less freedom to any particular character build than earlier versions.  You basically have a menu of powers to choose from, and they interact with your stats in pretty limited ways.

Thing is, all they are doing is making that more visible.  It was always like that to begin with in earlier versions with feats and stuff.  This is just harder to powergame, yes.  But it also allows for less creativity, which is a problem...the GM has much less encouragement to fudge the mechanics when the mechanics are more orderly.

Specifically, it's more important than 3.5 to play on a grid, and tactics take the place of "rule of cool" when determining movement and stuff.  Very easy to play 3.5 with no grid, just freehand on a chalkboard or whiteboard, but near impossible in 4e.  It was pretty easy to allow characters to swing from chandeliers etc in 3.5.  In 4e, not so easy.

[Jurph]

It was pretty easy to allow characters to swing from chandeliers etc in 3.5.  In 4e, not so easy.

I understand the collective distaste for a game that requires the grid, but the DM still has a ton of freedom to essentially make shit up, especially when the game strays out of the neat-and-clean 2D space that most combat encounters are set in.

Player: "I'm halfway up the stairs, so I'd like to leap out, grab the chandelier, and come down in a square next to that orc with my weapon drawn.  How many turns will that take?"

DM: "Two athletics checks on the same turn at DC 17, and you'll have to burn an encounter power to be prepared to defend as soon as you land."

PC: "Which encounter power?"

DM: "Do you have Riposte left?  That's a good swashbuckly equivalent.  You can also just take your chances with being dazed on landing."

PC: "But... but I thought the rules said something about acrobatics being a standard when you're... and Riposte doesn't have anything to do with acrobatics, and..."

DM: "Do you want to debate the rules, or do you want to fly?"

PC: << Crosses off Riposte and starts digging around for dice. >>

DM: "That's the spirit.  Roll two checks.  Nail the second one and you can pick your landing square, otherwise we roll 1d8 to see which adjacent spot you land in.  We good?"

PC: "Got it.  I have a 16 and an 11, and I check acrobatics at +7."

DM: "16 + 7 is 23, and that gets you up safely with plenty of momentum.  18... huh.  That's gonna leave a mark."

Easy-peasy, as long as your players would rather enjoy the game than dissect it.  My GMs are all generally from the "if you want to try it, I'll make up a roll for it" school of thought.  When the game mechanic tells you a feat is nigh-impossible, but you knew a guy in school who could have done it on his first try, then the mechanics are wrong.  Roll d20 and liberally apply Handwavium. 

[E. Albright]

It looks to me that this mechanic has a very specific real life equivalent, which is basically taking a defensive (or annoyance) position against an enemy (circling, surrounding him, whatever, making his life a pain in the ass. Think Basketball) to prevent him from just getting past you and towards their objective.

Again, I had freely conceded that there's a real parallel for this - it's pretty basic to fighting. The issue I have with it is that it's a "defender thing", and only a defender thing. The "tank" exerts a zone of control that is difficult to escape - the "DPS" doesn't. Artificially imposing these distinctions doesn't add anything to the game besides making it cleave more closely to the MMO paradigm.

(Though it is worth noting that the paladin challenge mechanic lacks even the "real life parallel" justification that fighters and wardens enjoy - it's a straight-up "attack me or get a magical zap". To say it feels forced does not begin to describe it.)

I haven't even played 4E and I've read the rules and they strike me as elegant, realistic, balanced and much more less powergamey than 3.x. So I suppose my opinion is worth as much as yours (although both would be worth probably 1/10th of that of the people that have actually played it).

I do hope that no one got the impression that I thought anyone is wrong for liking 4e. I was expressing dislike for it for fairly specific reasons (which I expounded on only upon request), but I'd hoped my mantra-like invocations of "different strokes" and such would have clarified that I accepted that some would find it elegant and lovely, no matter how distasteful I personally find it.

[Neonivek]

4e appears to give less freedom to any particular character build than earlier versions.  You basically have a menu of powers to choose from, and they interact with your stats in pretty limited ways.

The thing is that if you eliminate every option in 3.5 that includes ineffectiveness and requiring TONS of books then 4.0's options are actually pretty large if not more so then 3.5 as long as your not a Wizard.

Much more enjoyable being a Fighter in 4e then 3.5 (unless you got access to a bunch of other books including the Complete Warrior). Having strategic options is always great.

I have little faith that 4.0 will last much longer given opposition so if they are going to go back to 3.5 as version 5 I hope they use the 4e fighters (actually almost any melee class)

Thing is, all they are doing is making that more visible.  It was always like that to begin with in earlier versions with feats and stuff.  This is just harder to powergame, yes.  But it also allows for less creativity.

Naw easier to fudge the rules for GMs (sorry I erased that from the quote by mistake) since there are a lot less stats to look at.

It was pretty easy to allow characters to swing from chandeliers etc in 3.5.  In 4e, not so easy.

3.5: Roll Athletics, Roll Climb, Take penelty to attack and lose two turns in combat.
4.0: Roll Athletics, No Penelty, Move Action

I do hope that no one got the impression that I thought anyone is wrong for liking 4e.

Truthfully it was closer to "4e is steamlined mainstream lowest common denominator". So it isn't that someone is "Wrong" it is more that they are "Tasteless" which is really the mindset of the 4e arguements right now.

Though I never took it personally because I heard it all before and I don't think anyone would take it offensively.

Hmm, I don't think there was anyway to put that better other then to not say it at all... if I get a private message Ill take it down.

To say it feels forced does not begin to describe it

For a Paladin it makes perfect sense. Your basically setting a divine mandate that combat must happen or else the heavens will carry out a penelty or a rage towards the Paladin so great that resisting cause holy flame to wash over you. This coincides with the Martyr aspect of the Paladin as well.

If anything Id think some of the Ranger marks or Spellswords make less sense.

[E. Albright]

Truthfully it was closer to "4e is steamlined mainstream lowest common denominator". So it isn't that someone is "Wrong" it is more that they are "Tasteless" which is really the mindset of the 4e arguements right now.

There's a problem with this line of reasoning: you're reading an opinion into what I'm writing that simply isn't there. My opinion is my own; I form it because of my preferences and experiences. You or someone else would have a different point of reference, so you'd reach a different opinion, or the same one for different reasons.

Look, something being "streamlined", "mainstream", or even "lowest common denominator" doesn't make it bad. It makes it... different. Is e.g., Crawl (very streamlined and accessible) worse than Incursion or ADoM? Is it better? No, it's different. If you want something that's got a tight UI and low complexity, it's better. If you're willing to sacrifice usability and cleanness for increased intricacy, it's worse.

I dislike the rigid, oversmooth MMO-esque structure of 4e. I'd be willing to sacrifice things it does well (accessibility and succinctness) for greater freedom and a rule structure that feels more organic to me. Some people wouldn't. I'm willing to avoid cheesy imba powergaming based on the honor system, so 4e being "well balanced" is a non-starter of a selling point for me. For other people, it's a welcome and refreshing change of vital importance. Someone who disagrees with my conclusions has different tastes than me, not no taste. Different strokes, and all that.

For a Paladin it makes perfect sense. Your basically setting a divine mandate that combat must happen or else the heavens will carry out a penelty or a rage towards the Paladin so great that resisting cause holy flame to wash over you. This coincides with the Martyr aspect of the Paladin as well.

Yes... but. This is, again, what I don't like. It makes perfect sense if you buy into the MMO paradigm whereby the rules define a carefully interwoven set of exceptions rather than a solid set of rules that all parties play by. If a fighter "focuses" on engaging someone, and they try to attack someone else, the fighter will opportunistically attack them. A wizard, for example, couldn't do that. Fine, they're not trained to interdict people. That idea is forced, but the argument can be made. But why won't a paladin who is so trained attack them, in addition to the divine zap? They won't because their class does things fundamentally differently to achieve the same outcome. The important thing is equality of outcome, even if it's achieved by a cobbled-together jumble of special cases and exceptions. It's forced and inelegant, even if it's very functional. If you don't mind that, fine. But it's not my cup of tea.

[Neonivek]

you're reading an opinion into what I'm writing that simply isn't there

I am only saying what your projecting not meaning. So take what I am saying as more of a warning that you are likely not saying what you mean.

"streamlined", "mainstream", or even "lowest common denominator" doesn't make it bad. It makes it... different.

Problem is that these all carry Negative connotations and create a "Us against them" atmosphere.

why won't a paladin who is so trained attack them, in addition to the divine zap?

Training Focus. a Paladin isn't a fighter.

[pilgrimboy]

When the game mechanic tells you a feat is nigh-impossible, but you knew a guy in school who could have done it on his first try, then the mechanics are wrong.  Roll d20 and liberally apply Handwavium. 

Couldn't agree more.  The problem is when the rulebook gets into the hands of someone with OCD.  The rules, in the hands of a good DM are guidelines.  It's a role-playing game.  The key is having fun, doing whatever you want (that's the advantage of tabletop games compared to programmed games), and hanging out with friends.