D&D Gold/XP Equivalency (is now general D&D playstyles thread)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yeah out of combat rules are there in 4th ed but not nearly as much of a focus as 3rd. The skill system particularly is a lot more streamlined now so it is much easier to use though we can't find the depth in it that we found in 3.5.
Personally I like the rules because it encourages people to play characters completely different from themselves. Our group tends to be pretty much all social with combat rare and we found a balance of fluid roleplaying/ rules usage-dicing that works very well incorporating bothtthe player and his character. I can see how that wouldn't be for everything.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

Ah I see. Well this has at least given me tons of more info on 4ed at least. How does Skill Challenge actually work?

Pretty simple. A goal is set (for medium difficulty it's usually that players need to aquire a total of 6 successes before 3 failures) and the skill challenge can begin.

Let's assume the players are talking with a diplomat of some kind and are trying to pump him for info. You go around the table in some form of "turn order" and allow the players to either roll for the challenge or elect to help the next person. Electing to help gives the next person a +2 to their roll. If the entire party passes a turn then they get an automatic failure. Using skills like Diplomacy, Bluff, History, or (depending on what's being discussed) Religion, Arcana, Dungeoneering, Nature...etc. If the diplomat can be intimidated then the players can use that skill too or it may cause an auto fail if the diplomat is not at all swayed by threats.

So around the table you go until the players accumulate 6 successes or 3 failures. Depending on how they did you can then move on with the rest of the story. The players can easily explain their reasoning for the skills they use and even RP out what's being said. All that really matters is that these encounters get to be more of a group effort. Yes, there are pretty much the same rules for solo encounters of this sort but Skill Challenges are a great way to involve all your players.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

Yeah he does. The CE would throw off the whole group if we could create them in terms of Campaign. We're dealing with a Demonic Invasion into our world and If I was CE i would backstab the lot and join the king summoning the demons so thats why we aren't allowed.

You'd actually do that? You make me sick! *(hurries away to go take notes on doing exactly that with a chaotic evil person)*

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

Yeah Tactics tends to type a crapload when he does. I think he likes making us read, or his Wife helps him edit and articulate his thoughts or something.

It's cause I care, dang it! Also because I'm a pompous windbag, but that really has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

At least it allows you to specialize the monsters in the end if you desire. Using a static template would probably have made the battles feel repetative. Why does it sound like 4E focuse so much on battles and less on Roleplaying though? I though D&D was about roleplaying and such. Hell RP even comes into my battles, I can blast people with a spell on my team and its okay because since it wouldn't harm them if they weren't evil or neutral its their own damn fault for getting hurt cause they weren't good enough.

Yeah, pretty much. The frustration for me with the standard 4E stuff is that it feels... well... standard. It's like "insert generic RPG tropes here" and we're done. The good thing about 4E is that you can totally replace the standard generic fluff text with non-standard un-generic fluff text, get identical game balance and have everything look shiney and new. Doesn't change anything, however.

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

So then its pretty much up to the DM if you're RPing within your allignment? adn the consequences of what would happen if you don't? Or does it even matter though?

This is really tricky. As Tev pointed out:

Originally Posted by Tev

Alignment is a lot more fluid in 4th. You are Lawful Good, Unaligned, or Evil.

There aren't really any powers that deal heavily in alignment and as a system the alignment system was a bad crutch that was never properly followed anyway. This new system allows for players to just play. If their actions are evil then that's up for the DM to decide.

EDIT: Note that Unaligned is not Neutral, but is made up of an amalgamation of all the alignments that you really don't see anymore (Chaotic good, neutral good, lawful evil......) All it means is that you aren't some paladin paragon of good or some horrid evil monster.

There are the following alignments that exist in 4E:
Lawful Good, Good, Neutral Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil.

This completely eliminates the "neutrals" as well as the chaotic good and the lawful evil - the three most difficult to deal with alignments of the system. It also reflects wizards' over-all desires expressed in the "buy our advertisment for the new system for $22 before the new system comes out" books to eliminate needless symetry (although symetry still there, they've done a heckuva lot to get rid of the endless symetry of, say, the Great Wheel). The alignment system is, as Tev put it, far more fluid. It seems that, although they need to reasonably demonstrate their alignment in order to be imbued, once the divine energy is thrust into a character, they can behave however they want.

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

How does one deal with a Paladin say becoming fallen or something like that? I mean its obvious certain actions would make it happen of course but how does it go about doing that, is that also up for the DM?

Ultimately this is up to the DM. I actually wrote an email to wizards asking what the game-rule system is for a "fallen" Paladin. What happens when a paladin of evil becomes good, say? Or more importantly, when a Cleric dedicated to, say, Ioun (and has the requisite feat) instead switches alignment and worship to Bahamut? Their response: "It is not up to Wizards of the Coast to determine story-based outcomes. Please only email us for rules-related questions". It's worth noting that I recieved this email twice, from two different offices with two different "signatures" at the bottom. The same email. *shrugs* So, it's pretty clear that alignment, rules covering it, and the like are highly up to DM discression.

Quick funny note and I'm out (again):
In Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting/Player's Guide to FR:
Half Orcs: "sometimes there are orcish characters who display human-like intelligence, or human characters who display orcish-like strength."

PH2: "Half-Orcs are completely different from either human or orc parents! Much like Half-Elves, they are their own race! Here's there shiney new stats! Also, we couldn't ever be incorrect in not putting them in books or in attempting to write them out of canon. And look, gnomes! See? They aren't monsters! Shiney!*"

I pretty much found this hilarious. It was wise of WotC to accept the fan-base's demand for things like this, but it's funny nonetheless how much they back-peddled. The PH2 quotes aren't exact, but the other is.

*Not the mod, though he's welcome to the discussion if he wants.

Edit: 'cause I forgot

Originally Posted by Tev

But yeah, you have made some good points in there. I just don't think you are fully grasping some of the concepts you are bringing to the table.

First, Minions. Yes, they have one hit point. What of it? Minions are meant to represent the chafe players wade through on the way to meat of the encounter. It's like James Bond or Batman punching out goons by the truckloads to get at that main villain behind the podium. I bet some of those goons work out and train. Some of them are ninjas or even zombies. It really doesn't stop them from being the road bumps that they are in the end.

Also, I'd like to hearken back to the very roots of D&D. In the very beginning it was a table game played with miniatures on a map. The fact that we are doing it again just means we've finally come full circle. Sure, it's also a pretty lucrative business strategy for Wizards and I don't slight them for it, but it is most certainly not a change that I lament.

As for 4th Ed being all about combat. You are right, the rules for it are mostly about the thing in the game that needed the most rules. I'm not really sure why Wizards decided to save paper and let the players deal with out of combat flavor in their own way, but they did and I am glad for it. I like roleplaying out my encounters outside of combat free from a ton of rules telling me how I can or cannot deal with any given situation.

Other than that you are right, we all have our different play experiences. I'm just finding 4th to be a big breath of fresh air compared to what I had to endure under the 3.x regime.

EDIT:

They didn't remove them. Monster's just get their own brand of "stuff." I.E.: Instead of falling into the four main roles of Defender, Striker, Controller, or Leader, monsters fall into roles of Lurker, Brute, Artillery, Soldier, Controller (Again), and Minion. On top of that the DMG offers many templates to add to standard monsters to make them seem more special than normal if you so desire as well as offers you to make your own templates should you so desire.

Also, yeah I get it. I really, really do. I totally understand the reason for it: it's still not very sensible. Hit points have always been a bit of a sticky wicket (pardon the spelling errors, I don't play croquet) in that they're an abstraction, at best, of a character's ability to avoid serious injury. I find it very strange that powerful creatures summoned from heaven or hell (angels fit both, really) have a full one hit point... just because they're minions? They have no capability to avoid serious damage outside of their base defense? Really? And yet they've survived this long? It breaks down the consistent feel of the world, for me. Yeah, I get the 4E peeps are supposed to be heroes that go out and get stuff done. On the other hand, it's passing strange that the same angel you fought before who was such a big man on campus, when you come up against him again, later, and he's gotten stronger and more powerful... has one hit point. It's the kind of inconsistancy that bugs the daylights out of me. It works for 4E where you've only got a limited number of powerful manuevers that you have to stick with. But that, again, comes into different play styles.

I have no problem with Wizards trying to make money. I prefer 3.X, and I'm fine with admitting that. 4E has great concepts... I just don't like it as well because it's not as homogenous: it just doesn't gel as well, to me. Now I'm away! For a week (or three days, whichever comes first)!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The alignment thing just annoys me. I wish they had got rid of lawful and chaotic rather than half get rid of them which is much worse. It totally enshrines the lawful good as the best good, chaotic evil as the worst evil which many people had and doesn't really work. If you are going to keep lawful and chaotic in the game they need to work on thier own system, not tacked on as an extra dose of good or evil.
And the old alignment system was fairly easy to understand. Lawful evil is like a fascist or the big organisational bad guy running a huge bad guy network. Chaotic good is like a liberal or a druid, they'll help you out and don't like bad guys but it's not worth it to mandate and control everyone to eliminate goodness.

[krogothwolf]

I would play a really good Evil character but I dont cause it's to easy.

Like checking for traps before we invaded a temple of vekna in this city we were in. I would test out to see what the traps did by telling a poor homeless urchin that I'd give him 1g if he did a certain thing, but I can't cause I'm good. I always find being good harder then evil so I tend to play that. I did play one evil character once and found an Item I really wanted to i vaporized the 3 party members there to get it. They didn't like me doing that lol. I've also contsantly robbed the party while I was on watch, and once sold out another member of the group to this bounty hunter that was chasing him so he would pay me money then helped kill him to get his really cool sword. He shouldnt have given me payment upfront.

I find the response for WoTC incredibly lazy that you got from them in regards to that question. It sounds more like to me "we'll sell books to give them guildines on how to fight, trademark that system so no one can steal it while making them do all the hard work in figuring out out of counter ideas" Sounds cool and all but also extremely lazy. Could at least provide help for aspiring DM's to keep them in the new system instead of going "its all up to you, now have fun"

[Eldezar]

There's a lot here, so I'm just going to give my opinion based off of the first 20 or so posts I read.

First and foremost is that 4e is just as modular as 3rd, it just has a different way of going about it. Right from the start in 4e you have at least two very different options to build your character in how they fight or what they fight with, and more so with the Power books, which almost always add at least two more completely different options for building a character.

A 3rd edition, first level fighter has the option of feat, feat and possibly another feat. The feats chosen can vary to an extent, but you are more than likely to end up taking the same feats regardless eventually. In 4e the fighter chooses between Two-Handed, One-Handed, Ravager (lots of health) or Tempest (duel-wield) and THEN they choose their feats.

You even get bonuses depending on the weapon itself, which is supplemented mostly by powers and occasionally by feats, whereas 3rd the only way to get bonuses with a specific weapon is in very few feats, or very specific prestige or non-core classes.

The biggest difference is the balance, which for me is what puts it above and beyond 3rd. With both editions, you can make anything you want. However, in 4e, you can make anything you want AND not have to worry about them being munchkins to the rest of the party.

If I want a Ranger that can sneak attack and pick locks, I sacrifice an entire level for only a few things that this class has that I want. Things which will never get better without further sacrificing another feat or level. Even if I decide to take more levels of Rogue, I then risk never being able to get the best Ranger abilities at the end, which means I am stuck with both Ranger and Rogue class features and skills that won't see their full potential.

4e let's you choose a single power from the class you want by spending one feat. Everything else levels normally, and that power you chose will advance as you reach the next tier as well, so you never worry about having an underpowered ability. The feat is also worth it as there are many powers that are just as good as having a feat, if not better.

Basically, in 3rd, every single class feature can only get better if you take more levels in that class, or another class that has the same feature. In 4th, the power levels on it's own without you having to take anything specific to make it better.

What I like about 3rd, and really miss, is it is much easier to make monsters, make brand new classes, make magic items (combining them, too), basically all the stuff the DM would like to add to the game. It is still possible in 4e, and some things you have more options and some things you have less than in 3rd, but 3rd is far easier.

I'm kind of annoyed that 4e doesn't have a way to make a flaming/frost weapon without it being considered too powerful, but I like the near endless option of magical properties and ways to combine them all.

Making a brand new class is pretty simple in 3rd, whereas 4e you have so many more things to consider, especially in giving them a suitable amount of powers, AND creating Paragon classes for each, and balancing all of that together. Luckily I am still having fun experimenting with all of the different classes, and so far it looks like there is enough customization that I won't need to worry about making a specific class.

Lastly, I miss being able to make a level 20 3rd edition character in ten minutes. It takes an extremely long time to make even a first level a character in 4e, which kind of negates the fact that battles can go so much quicker.

3rd edition: Quick character creation, long battles.
4e: Quick battles, long character creation.

There was a comment about 4e not being DnD, which is funny because the very first comment I heard was from a friend who does not like DnD, and he said it was still DnD. My favorite comment about this is from either Brian or Sosa on the front page of old NP.com, that DnD was a chance for like-minded friends to get together and goof off while pretending to fight dragons with spell and axe. The true spirit of DnD to me is the witty banter going on out of character, or in even in character, about whatever is going be it in or out of the game.

EDIT @SMB: I don't have that alignment problem all. For me, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil still mean the same thing as before, but now Good encompasses both Good and Chaotic Good, and Evil is both Evil and Lawful Evil.

It totally enshrines the lawful good as the best good, chaotic evil as the worst evil

I don't see this at all. Lawful Good can never be the best Good because somewhere the law will be wrong, and Chaotic Evil will never be the worst evil cause so many times using the law to do evil deeds is much worse than wanton destruction, or in many other cases the law will allow for the destruction to continue as it is..

[Tev]

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

Could at least provide help for aspiring DM's to keep them in the new system instead of going "its all up to you, now have fun"

Well to be fair, that's how roleplaying works. You buy the book that covers the basic rules and then you make shit up from there.

I got about the same response from White Wolf when I sent them a barrage of emails requesting more information about a sect of Vampires that only get like a paragraph mention in the Vampire: Dark Ages book. Essentially they told me that it was up for me to work out on my own. They didn't have rules concerning a dead sect nor did they ever plan on expanding the story for me. It was on me to do the work if I wanted them in my game.

[krogothwolf]

True, it is the point of it. One of the reasons i'll probably never DM is I don't have the ability to really think about enough things like that or plan rules out and such. It good for those who can but without a guideline for out of combat rules I wouldn't know where to begin.

I do like the Skill Challenge thing you explained. It seems to actually reflect things better, its like having an aid during negotiations, you still ask them for info on things or have them had you stuff which would help you out.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

I do like the Skill Challenge thing you explained. It seems to actually reflect things better, its like having an aid during negotiations, you still ask them for info on things or have them had you stuff which would help you out.

Really I like that you can use them for just about anything to help spice up wandering around.

So far I've used them for my players finding shelter in a deadly storm (Nature, Perception, and History checks mostly), negotiating information about a bandit lord from a local magistrate (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, History, and Insight), and helping a village put out a raging fire that threatened to consume the city (Endurance, Acrobatics, Perception, Insight, and Diplomacy).

All you have to do is vary the difficulty depending on how hard you want it to be. The number of failures is always half the number of successes and you can even scale the DC of the checks if your players start to over-rely on certain skills. After all, a person can only be Intimidated or Bluffed so much before things start getting fishy and you can only rely on your Historical knowledge until you run out of notable things to remember.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't see how the skill challenge system is any different from the 3rd ed rules. I mean it's just aid another which has been a rule from way back.
I guess it's more clear now but the skill challenge sequence type thing is what we've been doing all along from 3rd ed. None of it seems new to me.
Your DM should be running those types of things anyway, with different skills coming in handy and changing events depedning on your successes/failures.
I'm sure in the 3rd ed handbook it talks about the types of situations that require multiple skill checks in a way similar to 4th ed.