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

[Tev]

It's probably not much different at all actually. The only major difference is that I never had skills checks structured like that in any of my 3.5 games ever. It was usually the GM going "Everyone make a *blank* check!" followed by four to eight people all rolling and whoever got the highest got the highest and the DM just told everyone everything anyway.

With this structure it just seems to flow better and allows the encounter to develop on its own. Plus while everyone is participating, everyone is doing something different or helping as best as their character can.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yeah that's how we've pretty much always done our skill checks, so laying it out explicility is good.
... 4th ed stole all our houserules!

[Tev]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

... 4th ed stole all our houserules!

And, in theory, since your house rules were good.....4th ed is good!

[krogothwolf]

We have those but we can't combine our skills together or at least none of us even thought of that....which is probably the case cause are DM wont tell us we can do something we have to ask or try lol. Damnit! Why didnt we think of that.

[Mirai Gen]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Yeah that's how we've pretty much always done our skill checks, so laying it out explicility is good.
... 4th ed stole all our houserules!

This was more or less why I loved 4th edition at first.

What made me like 3.5 more was actually the Beast Ranger kit introduced in PHB2. The fact that you or your beast could attack - indeed, bears did like a d8? d6? - and not both was just such a psyduck I felt the hatred rise.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by 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.

First, as to this, it works this way because 4E has a radically different "view" of what feats should be than 3.X. In 3.X Feats were the catch-all category that modified capabilities that a character otherwise would already have access to, but wouldn't actually grant new "power". Instead, a feat was effectively mundane - even those in which magic was altered, it was the skill of the magic-user (or psionic manifester) that was altered, not the power itself that was granted. Very few exceptions to this existed until late in 3.5 when they were already tinkering around with 4E mechanics (reserve feats) or the occasional "Jack of All Trades" or similar feats that allowed access to skills one normally didn't have (but could have gotten access to anyway). Otherwise, pure modification of abilities already moderately available to the character. That said, in 3.X feats were a much bigger deal: they were more rare, and usually if a chain was followed, it was significantly more powerful. In 4E, on the other hand, everyone has feats, and lots of 'em. Further, they exist to provide new powers and abilities as well as to modify old ones in some way. Despite their expanded utility, they've also been dialed down, power-wise. A given power granted is not as powerful as a feat-tree would have been comparitively. I grant, there are some trees that get pretty strong, but again, I'm comparing over-all power-effect in one game to the over-all-power-effect in the other (comparing direct bonuses would be meaningless).

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

This is pretty much correct with one exception: in 3.X you could gain bonuses with weapons (or at least the elimination of penalties) based on regular classes as well, depending on what you started as. In 4E, it's almost exclusively bonuses, thus comparing directly "bonus" to "bonus" isn't fair - it's more a comparison of "general bonus" in 4E to "mitagation of penalty" in 3.X.

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

This is something that's always bothered me. There seems to be a great deal of hatred and frusteration aimed at "munchkins". I am a "munchkin" (as proven by the methods I've devised of getting a character with +20 in all ability scores at first level, among other things), and indeed I enjoy it... alot. The fact that I create powerful characters in no way invalidates other players, however. My "uber" characters cannot do it all. There is literally no way in 3.X for a single character (barring Pun-Pun or the omnificer, the latter of which I actually created on my own, though it took me until level ten or so!) can do everything. They are built to need the other characters. Despite my earlier comment of how in 4E the game is designed to take the four roles into a dungeon and out safely, I can say from personal experience that without really min-max/munchkining, you can solo those WotC dungeons (not as easily, I grant, but seriously, you can). That's with a regular character, starting with the Kobold Manor (it's easiest with a cleric or fighter, but can be done with anything). I understand that WotC dungeons aren't the best bar to compare to, but making those same (or rather comparable) adventures in 3.X? No, there will be no soloing barring very special characters.

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

Again, I understand your point, but you feed into mine: min-maxing was actually difficult. It wasn't automatic. You had to look and compare - something that was (and remains) fun for some people! Others really don't care, and that's fine too. Really, however, you're example isn't the strongest as a rogue and a ranger work rather well together, and the only real ability 'sacrificed' by partial-ranger levels is favored enemy, something that most campaigns don't focus around anyway (dual wielding or archery can be done on your own time). The real complaint you'd have with such a character is the lack of intense sneak-attack damage... again, not a really big issue if you're dual wielding or archerying anyway. Pardon the digression! It's min-maxing at work!

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

At the risk of contradicting myself, the power chosen - if it comes from another class - is, in fact, weaker, by far, than your own, unless the classes are similar. You really need to choose abilities that fit in with your character-idea to get the most out of them. That said, all of the capabities are considerably powerful in 4E. So, yes, while the power doesn't exactly 'level', and will technically be far outclassed by later levels, it's still quite useful, just by virtue of the fact that your power will always be, well, powerful.

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

This is partially true. That's why a person could be easily identified as a "rogue", say, rather than a "striker". In 4E, what made classes unique in 3.X has been stripped down into the four roles, and that's it. Now you've got a striker, a controller, a leader, and a tank. You never have a character that isn't one of those. Some might have hints of others (I'm looking at you, Paladin), but ultimately a character will fall into those roles. A rogue is very interchangable with a ranger. Whereas before they worked well together, now there's very little difference at all. They are both strikers, and you might as well have one or the other - it's irrelevant to have both*. I do see the value of your point, however, as 4E does enable a character to "have it all" in its own way. It seems that "having it all" is not as relevant to me.

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

When I first read this I was kind of "what are you talking about", but then I realized what you mean and agreed. While in 4E it's easy to just slap a new coat of paint on a creature and call it something "new" (thus my misunderstanding, as that's what they actually encourage), it's because everything feels so similar that you can get away with this. In the 4E rule system, it's very difficult to actually make something new without it completely destroying everything remotely resembling game balance. Because there's not much room for it in the rule-system. WotC is actually doing a pretty good job with their new releases. As previously mentioned, the Barbarian altered states (rages) seem different enough to warrent their inclusion. Nonetheless, it's really hard to make stuff at all that isn't simply a "repaint".

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

Agreed. They provided so many fascinating new toys in 4E and then made them unable to be touched!

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

Yeah, I'm with you here. It's actually pretty fun to experiment with base classes that multiclass for the express purpose of a very different (yet still worth-while) paragon path, and a rediculously different (yet still worthwhile) epic path.

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

What? I find character creation nigh instantaneous in 4E. "I want this concept. Sweet, it's already made! I'm done!" I mean, they already provide stats, feats, skills, and powers for whatever idea you've got. You want you're own thing? Ok! You have exactly four power choices to make (five if you're human), assign the static bonuses, and you're done! The only real issue you'd have is making higher-than-first-level, but all characters of a given level have the same number of powers, so it's still not too complicated. The only reason I can see it taking longer is just by being used to the older system.

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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

Nah. To me, it's 3.X: complicated, but very involved. 4E: character design (and battle) lite!

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

Yeah, it's still DnD, given that definition (which is a good enough one, although not, strictly speaking, accurate). A lot of people dislike 4E because it's a money-making "gimmick". If I've indicated that, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. As I've said elsewhere: a company's entire purpose is to make money. It's what allows its employees to eat and clothe themselves and their family. It's only normal. To me, I like it less than 4E (although I still enjoy it) because it's not as robust a system and doesn't handle anything other than what it's already got well. Other tacked on systems, again, are other systems that have been tacked on, not the system itself.

Originally Posted by Eldezar

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.

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..

I think that's actually Smarty's point. Even though Lawful Good isn't necessarrily the best, having it differentiated from "normal" Good indicates a step above, a kind of "super-good". Same thing with having "chaotic" evil. I do understand WotC's reasoning, however, as I've seen far too many people play "chaotic neutral" as "whatever the heck I feel like doing now" and "chaotic good" as "exercise in philisophy such that burning the orphanage is actually a good thing". It's not a valid arguement by any means, but that doesn't stop it from happening. I find their lack of lawful neutrals less than convincing, however, as Erathis is all about the law, but somehow shares the same lack of alignment as Kord or Melora, the latter of which is her arch enemy. Rather bizarre.

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

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

You, sir, are odd. I know how to be evil, on a theoretical level, but it's insanely difficult for me to play an evil character. Sadly, mine always tend to go towards good, no matter what I do, unless I force myself to specificaly be evil now. Neutral characters are right out!

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

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.

Remind me never to play with you.

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

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"

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

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.

Eh, I think you misunderstood the whole druidic "neutrality" thing with the chaotic-good druid, comment! Otherwise, I think I agree with you.

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

We have those but we can't combine our skills together or at least none of us even thought of that....which is probably the case cause are DM wont tell us we can do something we have to ask or try lol. Damnit! Why didnt we think of that.

Probably because it's cheating and not a very interesting way to play. That's why I've always had skill-challenges-like-systems (though never as clearly denoted as 4E) and made each person do their own climbing, hiding, etc. It takes longer, but I usually have them all make several rolls in advance, right them down, and then use them (or not) as appropriate in game session. Often by the time we get to where the rolls are needed, they've forgotten which roll they made which time and I apply their skill modifiers individually. Fun stuff!

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

This was more or less why I loved 4th edition at first.

What made me like 3.5 more was actually the Beast Ranger kit introduced in PHB2. The fact that you or your beast could attack - indeed, bears did like a d8? d6? - and not both was just such a psyduck I felt the hatred rise.

Also, I found it fun that if you took your beast companion and put it in a bottle beneath the earth, your ranger is literally immortal. He can't die. Your beast-buddy is ok because he's got infinite food (thank you, ritual) and doesn't need air (rituals again!), and is impossible to find because there's no spell like that in 4E (and the ritual is iffy at best, especialy if you have counters and protections), while you can go and fight Orcus again, and again, and again, and again, and again, until you've re-slain every last friggin' undead he's ever raised and get to him if you need to, because you LITERALLY CAN'T DIE, without your beast also being killed. Traveling without your best friend: best way to survive forever, ever.

*It's irrelevant to have both given a standard party. You could make the case that their skill-selection validates having both in a party, but when you have a mage, especially one like a wizard, it's really irrelevant to have both a rogue and a ranger in the party, with all the skill-selection abilities. Plus those very common feats can just be taken to make it less relevant. Also, even the warlock is enough like the other two for its striking role that only one of the three are really needed at all.

[Mirai Gen]

Also, I found it fun that if you took your beast companion and put it in a bottle beneath the earth, your ranger is literally immortal.

I can legitimately say that if you did this in my game I'd kick you out forever, or at least kill your pet and have you try to figure out what happened.

[krogothwolf]

Wow, you really do write a lot tactics....and well, you don't really expect anyone to read all that do you? :p


Pfft, its so simple to be evil, you just have to remember that, if you're chaotic evil, nothing else matters but you and what you want. You want that piece of jewelry some NPC just bought? follow them home and at night rob and murder him. My guy in the end of the campaign got turned into a Lich though so it kinda sucked. And we just recently killed him in this current one about 500 years after he got turned it was a sad moment for me cause I loved that evil little bastard. Sniff. It was a great party cause our dwarf cleric got turned to the temple of vecna as well.

I'm fun to play with It hurts you would say such a thing! you're a mean friend! I would honestly like to play DnD with you *sniff*. I don't play evil anymore anyways cause I kinda get carried away with mass destruction.

Our DM would probably cause you to be crippled or worse if you did that. Seriously thats just wrong! Or a Volcano would erupt at the exact spot you buried the Beast. Not only that, you'd probably suffer some sort of allignment shift due to burying your best friend/traveling partner. Or make you suffer nightmares and hauntings if you weren't within a certain distance with him.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

I can legitimately say that if you did this in my game I'd kick you out forever, or at least kill your pet and have you try to figure out what happened.

See? You see the hatred I recieve? This is prejudice, this is! Also, I did nothing but logically extrapolate based off of what was already written. They explain, quite clearly, regardless of where the two of you are, that so long as you or your beast-buddy are alive, the other one can't die. Seriously. What were they thinking?* Nonetheless, I wouldn't do this to you. I'd just use the spell-plague infected (plus rituals) to recreate Mystra by starting with any given arcanist**. And then we're back to 3.X! Whee!

*Ok, ok, so I know what they were thinking: "hay, yoo geyes, let's make this whole death-saving-throw thing easier at epic levels for Rangers, and here's a great idea how!" Nonetheless, it's a glaring hole they punctured in their otherwise very balanced world and rule systems.
**I've worked out how to do this too. Seriously. The plague-cleansing ritual, when combined with... ok, I won't bore you guys with the details, but yeah.

Edit:
Ok, krogo and Mirai, you want it? It's on, now! What about putting it at the center of my own created floating island (rituals) that I then place in my own pocket dimension (several rituals) that are then placed outside of time-space (ritual) that is only accessable via a gate (ritual that requires a ritual to access) that's only accessable from certain places in certain planes (ritual) that can only be activated by my corpse (contengency ritual), that can't exist because I can never die so long as my Beast-buddy is alive? Gods could get at me, theoretically, if they really wanted to, OH WAIT, NO THEY CAN'T 'CAUSE THEY SUCK IN 4E, TOO! MY BAD! The DM's only option is to arbitrarily throw me out of the game in a fit of envy and rage. All the other rituals are real stuff, you just have to look at the other supplements. Seriously - the Beast Companion is a very, very bad idea from the get-go.

@krogo: see, the thing is, I look at these things very heavily from the beginning, and then I know exactly what to do when a player tries to pull crap and the exact ways to shut me down. For example, in the thing above, my beast has a limited life-span. A patient enough creature can outlast me. A player tries to pull this? Homie don't play that way! If I were <insert a given deity and/or demon-prince who'd made an enemy of the ranger here> I'd simply get out of the way for a couple of decades then smack the fool when he wasn't looking... if I knew he was coming and was limitedly-immortal. It'd kind of suck to end a campaign that way for other characters, but jerk-face himself wouldn't fly very far. Nonetheless, I wouldn't pull that on my gaming crew. Another fallacy with the immortal-ranger technique is that it says that he can't be killed, whereas it says nothing about him being unable to be disabled or maimed. Further, he'd have to have spent a fortune on getting his contengencies in place (and other rituals) at any given event it could have been stopped along the way. Myself? I'd let him get away with it. Why? It's fun. Plus, if it were me, I'd seriously use said immortality responsibly. Get my buddies' bodies out of there and save peoples' lives, because mine can't end. Just because a character is "uber" doesn't mean he's at odds with the rest of the party... something most normal players don't see ("Why is his character so much "cooler" than mine? *whine*) and most "munchkins" don't help with ("Story? What story? Imma superman, suckah!"). I don't see a conflict because when munchkinized characters are built to go along with the party and story (as mine inevitably are) instead of at odds with the party and story (as most are) there really isn't a problem outside of character jealousy. I generally get around that by giving away much of my magical treasure. My half-Green Dragon troll with the Cryo-hydra template added (or barring that, my dragon-disciple troll with a single ring he built himself) is there to help his buddies out, not to make himself be captain awesome for their n00bish nothing. If he looks really cool while doing it, so much the better. But with me and my uber characters, everyone wins (except the DM, but that's kind of the point of being a player: to defeat the DM's clever traps and enemies).

[Mirai Gen]

A dragon cleric steps on you and Miracles you out of existence.

Hah.

The point is that DMs have final call and they don't have to care what the rules say. Sorta like playing in Faerun and calling on names and locations as a player cause you played Baldur's Gate.