Quote from: Edsan;221010Why?

Cause I think that the comparison is in part to say that 4e is some robotic non human endeavor, at least more so than other D&D's. The ironic part to me is that WOW must be PVP to even resemble 4e combat, WOW must become more social and human in order to approximate 4e combat. In my opinion even then it does a worse job.

Quote from: Trevelyan;221033Insofar as the 4E DMG contains specific advice, enocuragement and examples for adjudicating character actions ooutside of their power list (the example giving being a character who swings from a chandalier to kick a monster into a burning brazier) and AFAIK the 3E DMG contains no such advice, I'm not seeing how 4E is worse at this than the previous edition.

Its the attitude of the game designer IMHO. In 3.x, when a player did something not covered by the rules then it was assumed that the DM would use his natural imagination and ingenuity to handle the situation (hopefully with his God given Viking Hat perched at a jaunty angle on his head).

In 4E, there is a page of suggestions on how to handle things not covered by Powers in combat. And surprise, surprise, it shows the DM how to take the player's unexpected non-standard maneuver and turn it into something using a Power format. The feel I get from this, I know personal preference rearing its ugly head, is that not only did the game designers not expect players to choose to do something that wasn't a Power but want whatever they do to be shoehorned back into a Power.

So my take on it is this, where 4E has rules sections for when a player doesn't do something already thought up by the game designer, 3.x automatically assumes that the players will most likely do something not thought up by the game designer and doesn't try to limit the players.

Quote from: jeff37923;221046So my take on it is this, where 4E has rules sections for when a player doesn't do something already thought up by the game designer, 3.x automatically assumes that the players will most likely do something not thought up by the game designer and doesn't try to limit the players.

This seems like a lose/lose situation. If 4e didn't include suggestions for how to accommodate player ingenuity, you could say that is evidence that powers are meant to be used non-creatively; since it does, you can say it reduces GM ingenuity.

Personally, I don't see any difference in the amount of possible ingenuity in either version. Could you perhaps give some examples of Powers whose 3e counterparts allow more ingenious action?

This is a really interesting discussion.

I think it's worthwhile to hash this argument out at the text level, but for me the proof is going to come out in play and I suspect that 4e play will trend more and more towards the kind of pre-programmed, repetitive actions that Jeff37923 is not liking in the text.

But I found this in 3.x as well, so I'm not seeing a huge difference between the two editions as much as a refining of principles started in 3.x (though Melan's comparison evidence is pretty damning, and chilling if I were a big fan of 3.x for it's open-endedness).

It's good to have rules covering non-standard options and trying to fit them into a template is really the only way to go once you have Powers that use a template and do much the same thing.

I wonder if there is a risk though. If I as a creative and pretty pursuasive player can convince the DM to allow me to perform ad hoc powers type actions then isn;t there a risk that the player that has obtained this becuase of their class/level choices is being short changed.

Say a rouge has a power that enables them to push a MOB back their charisma bonus in squares (the now much maligned Zoolander look ability) supposing I as a Fighter ask the DM if I can use the dining table in the orc soldiers mess as a barrier and force the orcs back towards the firepit say 2 squares approx. Aren't I basically spoling the game balance by being able to do things that are replicated by other powers?

Personnaly I would have relegated all the move stuff round the grid type powers to a single mechanic like the one described that allowed anyone to try and backflip off a table or over a pig or push the orcs back or whatever. Ithink once you define some of these as powers that have to be bought or earned it creates an issue for their use by other people (you could also fudge stuff that is less specific which means the rules can be used in a non-mini supported game more easily as no one expects a try to push them back with teh table manuver to move them exactly Str bonus -1 per combatant squares)

Quote from: Engine;221048Could you perhaps give some examples of Powers whose 3e counterparts allow more ingenious action?

Sure, we'll compare the Wizard at first level between 3.x and 4E.

The 4E wizard has 2 At-Will Spells, 1 Encounter Spell, and 1 Daily Spell but have only two to choose from for each slot out of 5 At-Will, 5 Encounter, and 4 Daily (it should be noted that all of these are attack spells).

The 3.x Wizard has 3 0-level spell slots and 1 1st-level spell slots, unmodified by high intelligence, but can choose between 19 0-level spells and 3 out of 39 1st-level spells. Not to mention any scrolls that the Wizard has made to provide extra spells that can be used without taking up a slot.

While many of the 3.x spells can be used in combat, only about half of them are combat-specific. The variety of spell choices for the 3.x Wizard makes that class more versatile and thus better able to handle different situations than the 4E Wizard which is heavily weighted for combat.

That's an excellent example; the movement of so many non-combat spells into rituals leaves the spellcasters with fewer non-combat spells to make ingenious actions in combat, although they can certainly still use their combat spells ingeniously.

On the other hand, this is pretty specific to spellcasting, and is more an indictment of the movement of noncombat spells to rituals [and the elimination of several of them from the core books, if I recall] than an overall tendency to make combat non-creative. Is, for instance, Cleave somehow less able to be used creatively in 4e?

Quote from: jibbajibba;221065Say a rouge has a power that enables them to push a MOB back their charisma bonus in squares (the now much maligned Zoolander look ability) supposing I as a Fighter ask the DM if I can use the dining table in the orc soldiers mess as a barrier and force the orcs back towards the firepit say 2 squares approx. Aren't I basically spoling the game balance by being able to do things that are replicated by other powers?

The distinction seems to be that the powers inflict damage in addition to doing "x", where "x" is the ability that another character might want to replicate. I see no reason why it would be imbalanced to allow another character to attempt "x" without the chance of adding direct damage. And where "x" might result in damage anyway (say from the fire) then the character with the power still has the advantage if he can do power damage plus "x" damage rather than just "x" damage.

You can't worry about treading on the toes of a particular character or class by replicating their powers because the whole point is that we're looking to find a way of ensuring that certain obvious feats of skill aren't the exclusive domain of a given class in the first place.

Quote from: Engine;221075Is, for instance, Cleave somehow less able to be used creatively in 4e?

I'd say that the 4E Cleave is less flexible and useful than the 3.x Cleave. The 3.x Cleave can be used against a secondary target that is within reach and may do damage equal to the weapon used with modifiers while the 4E Cleave can only be used against a secondary target that is adjacent to the first and only does damage equal to the attacker's strength modifier.

So 3.x Cleave allows you more target choices based upon your weapon and does more damage.

Quote from: jeff37923;221072The 4E wizard has 2 At-Will Spells, 1 Encounter Spell, and 1 Daily Spell but have only two to choose from for each slot out of 5 At-Will, 5 Encounter, and 4 Daily (it should be noted that all of these are attack spells).

The 3.x Wizard has 3 0-level spell slots and 1 1st-level spell slots, unmodified by high intelligence, but can choose between 19 0-level spells and 3 out of 39 1st-level spells. Not to mention any scrolls that the Wizard has made to provide extra spells that can be used without taking up a slot.

The 4E wizard also has 4 cantrips usable at will, none of which are combat powers but which might be used creatively in a combat situation or non-combat situation. Plus the 4E wizard has 3 rituals taken from what is currently a short list but will no doubt expand before too long ("The BIG WotC Book of Rituals" is an obvious suppliment).

So while a 3E wizard can perform 3 minor spells and one more interesting effect per day (realistically that'll be two per day due to intelligence), the 4E wizard can perform an unlimited number of minor effects per day, gratly enhancing the likihood that the character will break out flavourful uses of prestidigitation, and can perform non-combat rituals until his cash runs out while still being able to fight as well as a character from another class.

Quote from: Trevelyan;221081You can't worry about treading on the toes of a particular character or class by replicating their powers because the whole point is that we're looking to find a way of ensuring that certain obvious feats of skill aren't the exclusive domain of a given class in the first place.

This also changes the playstyle in a way I'm not happy with. Each individual class used to be more differentiated and thus to be an effective adventuring group you would need a mix of classes all working together as a team. The balancing of the classes in 4E has created so much overlap between them that you no longer have a team of individuals that are stronger working together, instead you have a homogoneous group of adventurers that are just minor variations on a theme (combat) and practically interchangeable.

Those who say there is no danger in 4e combat haven't played it, and probably haven't read many play reports. They see the higher hit point levels and second wind and think "wow, nobody can die." Every demo report and playtest report I've heard involves at least one character dying. Our groups first foray into the Shadowfell adventure ended with the entire party dead or captured.

The last session of our paragon level campaign would have been a TPK except the warlock can teleport through walls and the GM didn't want to have to run the combat again, so he let it slip that the main enemy was almost dead. Instead of trying hopelessly to escape, me and another player went back down and killed it. By all rights it should have been a TPK. As it is we still lost 3 out of 5.

Quote from: Melan;221009

The Tyranny of Fun in data: three examples

[/SIZE]

Those are excellent examples. Ain't it great! 4e went back to a stronger roleplaying base for out of combat encounters. Glad you liked it as much as I did.

Quote from: Trevelyan;221087The 4E wizard also has 4 cantrips usable at will, none of which are combat powers but which might be used creatively in a combat situation or non-combat situation. Plus the 4E wizard has 3 rituals taken from what is currently a short list but will no doubt expand before too long ("The BIG WotC Book of Rituals" is an obvious suppliment).

This arguement is weak because if I included all the 1st-level spells that are not in the PHB 3.x, they would number in the hundreds easily. Also there are only 8 rituals which can be used by a 1st level 4E Wizard in the 4E PHB.

QuoteSo while a 3E wizard can perform 3 minor spells and one more interesting effect per day (realistically that'll be two per day due to intelligence), the 4E wizard can perform an unlimited number of minor effects per day, gratly enhancing the likihood that the character will break out flavourful uses of prestidigitation, and can perform non-combat rituals until his cash runs out while still being able to fight as well as a character from another class.

And yet the 3.x 1st level Wizard still has more choices of spells and thus more versatility than the 1st-level 4E Wizard. 3.x allows more options than 4E for players and DMs.

I won't even go into the better equipment choices 3.x has over 4E in the PHBs alone.

Quote from: jeff37923;221082I'd say that the 4E Cleave is less flexible and useful than the 3.x Cleave. The 3.x Cleave can be used against a secondary target that is within reach and may do damage equal to the weapon used with modifiers while the 4E Cleave can only be used against a secondary target that is adjacent to the first and only does damage equal to the attacker's strength modifier.

Hmm. Still doesn't seem like a real ingenuity-killer. I can still, you know, jump off shit and whatnot, yeah? That it restricts your number of targets means you have fewer options in terms of who you hit, but not how. And that it does less damage has nothing at all to do with player ingenuity.

As far as using magic in ingenious ways, a 1st level 4e wizard has some pretty powerful open ended cantrips that can really fuck shit up if the GM isn't paying attention. Those cantrips are almost like spontaneous magic in specific domains.

They cover quite a bit of ground and I was taken aback by them at first.