D&D - Was 4th Edition meant to be a MMO?

[regomar]

4th edition was no more like a computer game than 3.5 is. I've played both editions extensively. I'm sorry but I am sick to death of the 5-year long rants of jaded 3.5 fanboys claiming that 4th edition is any more like a computer game than 3.5 . It's not in any way shape or form. BOTH systems are more focused on combat, BOTH use a grid system and minis.

The only thing 4th edition did differently other than minor rules changes, was to balance the classes which freaked 3.5 fans out because they could no longer have overpowered wizards that could clear out a room with a sneeze by 8th level or so. 4th edition dared to make all classes useful. In 3.5, classes like Fighters were useless in high levels. That's just bad design as far as Im concerned.

 

[SveNitoR]

I think the bigger question is how fun would it actually be in practice. [...] Done well, it might work, but I'll leave it to others to figure out how exactly to do that.

I agree with you. It could very well become a chore if done wrong.

 

[SveNitoR]

4th edition was no more like a computer game than 3.5 is. I've played both editions extensively. I'm sorry but I am sick to death of the 5-year long rants of jaded 3.5 fanboys claiming that 4th edition is any more like a computer game than 3.5 . It's not in any way shape or form. BOTH systems are more focused on combat, BOTH use a grid system and minis.

The only thing 4th edition did differently other than minor rules changes, was to balance the classes which freaked 3.5 fans out because they could no longer have overpowered wizards that could clear out a room with a sneeze by 8th level or so. 4th edition dared to make all classes useful. In 3.5, classes like Fighters were useless in high levels. That's just bad design as far as Im concerned.

Never played 3.5, only 3. I hardly remember how it was and can't compare it to 4. Just didn't like 4 very much due to a feeling of all characters of the same class feeling too similar. Too little customization and too much focus on combat at the cost of other things.

Edit: The combat in 4th edition is really well done. Lacks some things I like but the pacing and tactical possibilities.

 

[fadedc]

Never played 3.5, only 3. I hardly remember how it was and can't compare it to 4. Just didn't like 4 very much due to a feeling of all characters of the same class feeling too similar. Too little customization and too much focus on combat at the cost of other things.

Funny, I actually think that as a whole classes in 4e are much more distinct. Non spell casting classes like fighter, rogue and barbarian are much more interesting and distinct from each other then they were in 3e. My issue is just that there isn't that much of a flavor difference between say spell casting and physical attacks. Giving fighters and rogues and other classes special abilities just like casters did get job of making them more fun and distinct, but it also made magic feel less…..magical.

I also find that customization is definitely not a problem in 4e. I've played in many campaigns and seen many different versions of the same character class that play very differently from each other. Certainly spellcasters have fewer options in 4e then 3e, but non spellcasters have so many more options it's ridiculous.

 

[RampantCoyote]

I think 4E was influenced strongly by their successful miniatures game (which I really enjoyed). Which is kinda funny... full circle for D&D.

I will disagree on the point about high-level fighters, though. We had campaigns with characters up to epic levels at one point (mid teens for others), and fighters were the primary damage-dealers against single opponents in combat. We were more worried about the wizards and sorcerers being able to do anything (because at those levels it seemed like everything of "appropriate" CR had spell resistance and high saves).

 

[BillSeurer]

The current D&D 3.5e group I play in is in the 16-18 level range and the fighters are the primary damage dealers. Well, *if* they can get into the fight! Their big disadvantage is they have to be next to the foes and foes just don't last long enough for them to get full attacks where they can really shine.

 

[fadedc]

Yeah there are plenty of classes in 3rd edition that were weak or underpowered, but fighters are not one of them. The high strength power attacking fighter with a greatsword was the classic broken character. Of course it was never a single class fighter, it was always hogepodge of 5 different classes and prestige classes. They could be pretty broken on their own, but when they recieved magical support they moved from normal broken to kill a dragon in one round on their own broken.

 

[RampantCoyote]

We actually didn't use prestige classes all that much.

A fighter in their high teens will probably hit 3 of their 4 attacks, will have a strength in the mid-to-high 20s (w/ magic) and a weapon with a +4 or +5 bonus. Figure STR 26 and a +4 greatsword, with greater weapon specialization (+4) for a total bonus of +16, STR bonus multiplied by 1.5 for a 2-handed weapon (+12) for a total bonus of +20 damage, average d10 roll of 5.5, for 25.5 non-critical damage. Multiply by approximately +15% for critical hits and improved critical (your average fighter at this level will have it with a feat or with a weapon magic bonus), and your "average" 18th level fighter is dishing out an average of almost 90 points of damage per round. That's before he gets hit with magical buffs from his team. An offensive caster can be deadlier to a single target for one or two combats (using up their highest-level spells), or dish out more damage against a group of grunts, but in the long run (sustained battle or multiple fights) the fighters in our groups would really be the best in a straight-up fight.

(EDIT: Had to fix my math).

Though as far as the party rogue was concerned, what the fighters were best at was presenting a flank opportunity.

In Pathfinder, higher-level versions of the base classes are even more potent… to offset the temptation to multiclass or choose PrCs.

 

[fadedc]

I've not infrequently seen fighter types in the low teens dish out over 200 damage in a round. Often the most effective thing a mage can do is to dimension door the fighter next to the opponent so that he can make a full attack on his turn.

Rogues on the other hand frequently prove much less effective as they level up. Not only do their sneak attacks not scale as well as a fighters power attacking, but there are many, many conditions under which a rogue cannot sneak attack and these conditions increase dramatically at higher levels.

 

[RampantCoyote]

Less so in Pathfinder, but that can be an issue. 18th level rogue in the above example, with, say, a 20 STR and a +4 d6 weapon is likely to hit twice for an average of 12.5 (normal) damage + 31.5 sneak attack damage, for an average of 88 points of damage per round. Pretty close to said fighter, but much more restricted in use. In theory, their other abilities (mainly skill-based) would kick in to offset this problem, though I don't know if 3.5 ever *quite* got there.

Pathfinder seems to have addressed this issue pretty well.

3.0 and 3.5 never did get post-20 "epic" levels right. So far Pathfinder's been kinda steering clear of that territory.

 

[fadedc]

Can fighters still power attack in pathfinder? That was a big part of how they got to such silly damage numbers in 3.5, and why they outdamaged rogues so badly. The other issue with rogues was the whole thing where they couldn't sneak attack a large selection of enemies, as well as anyone who had concealment in any way.

In 3.5 doing only 90 damage in a round at level 18 would be considered extremely weak. Even my bard could do more then that.

 

[RampantCoyote]

Pathfinder largely did away with the problem of rogues not being able to do sneak damage. Power attack, IMO, was of limited value in D&D 3.x, as it was only effective against creatures that were so easy to hit that sacrificing a 25% chance to hit (for example) for +5 damage was not a big deal. In Pathfinder, Power Attack is even more effective, with a -1 per +2 trade-off, but it's not so open-ended. The bonus is -1 to attack for +2 damage for ever +4 Base Attack Bonus.

But my example wasn't for how much you *could* do, it was for how much could be done *on the average* (but with all those bonuses, the variation wasn't that huge). I was taking a conservative approach to the numbers to show that high-level fighters weren't a slouch under 3.x. (And I just realized I brain-farted on the numbers and need to correct them).

With a good crit range, haste, some choice feat abilities and tactical moves, magical elemental damage (most will have some kind of magical damage type by that point, which would be an extra +3.5 damage per hit on the average) and power attack in 3.x, it'd not be too surprising to see a high-level fighter commonly dishing out damage in the 100 - 200 range each round. I always ran a campaign where acquiring magical items was a bit more challenging, which usually meant the fighters were probably a little closer to the conservative example, but triple-digit damage per round was pretty common.

In Pathfinder, though, fighters get quite a few more abilities, and 19th / 20th level fighters are freaking scary. I really like the new, improved paladin class in PF. We haven't played with it *extensively* yet, but the paladins really come into their own battling fiends, undead, and dragons. An 18th level paladin in the above example would open up on a demon with smite and do an ADDITIONAL +36 damage per hit, hit with higher accuracy, and automatically bypass the creature's D.R. So he'd likely be doing an *average* damage nicely over 200 / round.

Man, I'm such a geek.

 

[fadedc]

Power attack was -1 for +2 in 3.5 as well, as long as you were using a 2-handed weapon, which every fighter did. Being a geek as well and having played in a lot of "living" campaigns using 3.5, I can tell you that you are severely underestimating how broken power attack was. There were a lot of ways to get some some pretty insane bonuses to hit (or even to make your attacks touch attacks that ignore AC)and power attack let you convert every +1 to hit to +2 to damage. And I'm talking 200 damage a round on average, not potential damage. Potential damage against really low AC enemies was much higher. Limiting magic items helped, but the effects of a lot of magic items could be duplicated with spells. Plus there was always magic item creation.

Pathfinders change limiting power attack to 1 for every 4 BAB sounds like a very good change and limits how broken it is quite a bit.

 

[RampantCoyote]

Yeah, here's how it works in PF:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/power-attack-combat

It's -1 for +2 with a one-handed weapon, -1 for +1 for an off-hand weapon, and -1 for +3 for a 2-handed weapon (which seems to make perfect sense to me…)

We just never used it too much against significant threats because the penalty usually meant a miss rather than a hit on your last or second-from-last attack - and because of one-handed weapons.

 

[Couchpotato]

I don't play D&D much anymore but I do know one thing. They better make a pathfinder pc rpg.

 

[SveNitoR]

Funny, I actually think that as a whole classes in 4e are much more distinct. Non spell casting classes like fighter, rogue and barbarian are much more interesting and distinct from each other then they were in 3e.

I meant compared to other game systems, not necessarily 3rd edition D&D.

My issue is just that there isn't that much of a flavor difference between say spell casting and physical attacks. Giving fighters and rogues and other classes special abilities just like casters did get job of making them more fun and distinct, but it also made magic feel less…..magical.

Agreed. To a certain extent it felt a bit like ability "mashing". All classes have so many abilities that standard attacks are rarely used. To be honest it was more fun in theory than I thought at first and I did like playing 4e. Just not enough.

I also find that customization is definitely not a problem in 4e. I've played in many campaigns and seen many different versions of the same character class that play very differently from each other. Certainly spellcasters have fewer options in 4e then 3e, but non spellcasters have so many more options it's ridiculous.

I guess that this could be a result of me not playing long enough to get to higher levels. To me it felt like all characters were just a number of daily, encounter and at-will powers with X amount of healing surges, at least at first. Maybe the problem was more how the book was written (meaning it was not obvious enough for me to get a feel for what would come at later levels)?

I miss playing pen and paper RPGs

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

The only thing 4th edition did differently other than minor rules changes, was to balance the classes which freaked 3.5 fans out because they could no longer have overpowered wizards that could clear out a room with a sneeze by 8th level or so.

We were more worried about the wizards and sorcerers being able to do anything

TDE has very similar problems - right now, Wizards cost very, very much during creation (point-buy-system) and during play, but in the end, a lot of people say, they could do almost anything.

Others argue : Okay, if they can do anything, then just use "hurdles" or "obstacles" which hinder them ! In the end, it's the game master's responsibility to make a game fun for *all* !

I don't play D&D much anymore but I do know one thing. They better make a pathfinder pc rpg.

Yeah.

 

[xSamhainx]

The only thing 4th edition did differently other than minor rules changes, was to balance the classes which freaked 3.5 fans out because they could no longer have overpowered wizards that could clear out a room with a sneeze by 8th level or so. 4th edition dared to make all classes useful. In 3.5, classes like Fighters were useless in high levels. That's just bad design as far as Im concerned.

You havent played 4th edition if you think "minor rules changes" sums up the differences between 3.5 and 4. If that was the case, I'd probably still be playing it right now.

- Is the new Action Point mechanic where you basically get a freebie action during an encounter a "minor change" in gameplay?
- Is the 4e "healing surge", in which any player can magically heal themselves, a "minor change" in gameplay?
- is completely restructuring the classes with at will/encounter/daily powers a "minor change" in gameplay?
- Speaking of powers, are the multitude of powers available to players right from the get-go and heaped on you as time goes on a "minor change" in gameplay?
- Is essentially doubling (and then some) the hitpoints that characters get (even starting characters) compared to 3.5 a "minor change" in gameplay?
- Is reducing the cost of equipment so drastically that you for instance have level 1 characters running around in full plate right out the gate a "minor change" in gameplay?
- What about the class tiers (paragon, etc), another "minor change" in the rules?

When it comes to the video game mentality, how about dumbing down the main unit of measure to "squares", as if players cannot comprehend that one square is 5'? Shardminds?? Fuckin lame. It's stuff like that which helps to turn a bad taste in the mouth to utter dislike.

I'm sorry, 4E tries to take the power away from the DM as much as possible and make a bunch of nigh-invincible video game characters plowing thru monsters as easily and efficiently as possible. The only thing missing is being able to hotkey your at will/encounter/daily powers.

 

[BillSeurer]

I've not infrequently seen fighter types in the low teens dish out over 200 damage in a round. Often the most effective thing a mage can do is to dimension door the fighter next to the opponent so that he can make a full attack on his turn.

Oh most definitely. We often have high level fighters who can dish it out like this. I think the record was 400 in a single round though that was with an admittedly totally broken (albeit technically legal) build. The biggest dragons "only" have 700-ish hit points!

I play a mage in my current group and I consider myself most effective when I beef up the fighters. Why would I waste a spell to give a chance at maybe doing some damage to a foe when I can pump up the fighters for the whole battle? Haste, Greater Magic Weapon, Greater (or Superior) Invisibility, ... Fortunately I enjoy doing this though I know other people who play mages want to get more directly in the fight themselves.

Rogues on the other hand frequently prove much less effective as they level up. Not only do their sneak attacks not scale as well as a fighters power attacking, but there are many, many conditions under which a rogue cannot sneak attack and these conditions increase dramatically at higher levels.

The other problem with rogues is that they have to get on the "other side" of the bad guys in order to be most effective. In a battle with a lot of foes that means they will be off by themselves and possibly the target of many, many attacks which they are not sturdy enough to take.

 

[BillSeurer]

BTW, this stuff shows one of the weaknesses of the 3.X system. If you are clever and know the rules very well you can build a MUCH more "effective" character than someone who is not. We see this all the time in our group so much so that we've had to ask some people to tone down their characters.