Quote from: Peregrin;379511When I'm fighting something in 3.5 beyond, say, 7th level, and my means of damaging or doing anything to it are limited to such a degree that I'm useless 95% of the time, I'd say I'm pretty damn bored waiting for the mage or the person with the specific type of magic item/weapon to resolve things. In fact I won't even touch 3.5 beyond the first 5 or 6 levels for this very reason, especially since a lot of creatures start to get higher resistances, necessitating the Christmas Tree Effect just to remain competitive as a martial class.

Well that's a pretty lame reason, because what you're saying just sounds like word of mouth, not actual play. These are myths about 3.x that just got propagated by people who actually never even bothered to play beyond 8th or 10th level. It doesn't make any sense in practice. And yes, fighters do rely on magical items to be effective, but that's part of the deal, just like any character, any class, but for the odd weird rule or combo (Vow of Poverty, I'm looking at you), need magical items to perform their utmost in 3.x.

Sorry, but I call Bullshit on this one.

Quote from: Peregrin;379511At least now everyone has cool stuff to do, instead of waiting for the mage to resolve their spells so you can continue sucking or running away.

I don't need the rules to tell me I can do cool things. That's the reason why I basically gave up on 3.x and beyond. The logic that somehow, you can't do anything cool because the rules don't spell it out to you just doesn't compute with me. It's like keeping the training wheels on when biking because you might not reach your top speed without them. It doesn't make any sense either.

When I talk about 3.5 or 4e, I'm talking about design within the bubble of WotC's D&D and how it's changed, not how it relates to the rest of the industry.  My feelings are similar to yours when talking about RPGs in general.

As for the spellcaster things, I've experienced it firsthand, so kudos to you if your group was able to avoid it, but my non-min-maxing group started to find hangups once you got closer to the double digits, so I'm not sure the problem is really that hard to come by.  I'm not the only one, otherwise you wouldn't have the people producing both fantasy d20 "replacements" at Paizo and Crafty either nerfing spells or forcing casters to rely on multiple attributes and giving spell saves to everyone.  And these people have put in far more hours playing and observing playtests for d20 than anyone here.

Quote from: Peregrin;379531When I talk about 3.5 or 4e, I'm talking about design within the bubble of WotC's D&D and how it's changed, not how it relates to the rest of the industry.  My feelings are similar to yours when talking about RPGs in general.

If that's directed at me (I'm not sure), I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that you need the rules to tell you you can do cool things in the game with your character in a D&DWotC game, but that somehow this barrier disappears once you play other RPGs?

Your remark that "at least now everyone has cool stuff to do, instead of waiting for the mage to resolve their spells so you can continue sucking or running away" clearly wasn't about game design. It was about actual play. That means that somehow you need the rules to spell out what cool things you can do in the game.

Quote from: Peregrin;379531As for the spellcaster things, I've experienced it firsthand, so kudos to you if your group was able to avoid it, but my non-min-maxing group started to find hangups once you got closer to the double digits, so I'm not sure the problem is really that hard to come by.

I'm not talking about min-maxing particularly either. All things being equal, a fighting-type character isn't "useless" past 7th level. This is a gross exaggeration, at the very least.

Quote from: Thanlis;379477So how many encounters do you put in your day? I'm doing three fights, one skill challenge. Start the day with one AP. Pick up one milestone along the way; in two out of three fights, the PCs have an action point to spend. Since you can't spend more than one AP in a fight (excepting a couple of special cases), you are in fact spending APs more often than not.

Varies quite a bit, usually go 3-4 rests before an extended rest. After nearly 2 years of trying, I've recently given up skill challenges, they're just too broken no matter which of the four rule sets WotC has printed, and my players hate them.

Absolutely, you're spending APs more often than not. But, I'd like to think the heroic characters are fighting actual challenges, instead of just trampling hopelessly outclassed monsters, more often than not, too.

QuoteI do. That's why I said "Even if it takes 60 seconds to resolve an attack, that's a bit of a distance from the 2.5 minutes you're claiming a whole turn takes."

Again, no, but I'm tired of repeating myself repeatedly on why assuming the use of many action points in an encounter that has absolutely positively no risk just doesn't make sense for normal people, and also tired of repeating myself repeatedly how even if the players were this stupid, it'd take a 119 minute and turn it into a 114 minute fight anyway, at theoretical best.

QuoteUm, no, it's not. You said "First, your group fights, say, two level 15 monsters. Then, they fight 4 level 14 monsters. Then, they have a 2/1 skill challenge. Then, they have a 'level' fight pretty much as described."

Heh. Bottom line, the fights you give are woefully unchallenging for a group of 5 players at your level. A same level monster and 4 minions? In a design where characters are massively front-loaded for damage? Not even close to challenging, sorry.

 

QuoteNeither of the paladins had Certain Justice, actually.

Weird.

QuoteI think that if a player tends towards making all defensive choices, it will slow the game down. I think that if you tilt towards more offensive choices, you can wind up with a faster game. That's all I'm saying. You, on the other hand, were saying that it's impossible by the math to get encounters done in less than 2.5 hours.

Now, you're putting words in my mouth. You can absoutely have pathetically irrelevant fights, such as the ones you gave as examples, in 2 hours (like I showed, in detail), less if they're even weaker than the example I gave (such as yours). You can have cakewalk fights in about 2.5 hours.

Challenging fights, fights where a character might seriously be killed because the monsters are strong, by design, will require at least that much...I could go into detail why this must be the case based on design (basically, there's so much healing and hit points that a party can always negate the first 6 or so rounds of damage completely, meaning a challenging fight will require much over 6 rounds), but I just don't see the point in doing so here.

Ironic.
The threadwar battle about the length and pointlessness of 4e combat appears to be jamming due to length and pointlessness...

Quote from: Doom;379541Varies quite a bit, usually go 3-4 rests before an extended rest. After nearly 2 years of trying, I've recently given up skill challenges, they're just too broken no matter which of the four rule sets WotC has printed, and my players hate them.

OK. So you're not actually playing the game as written. Be aware that one thing that will slow your games down is if your players are short on action points; if you're not using skill challenges, they're short on action points. Also, there are different approaches to using action points. Some will speed up fights, some won't. No idea how your players tend to use them.

QuoteHeh. Bottom line, the fights you give are woefully unchallenging for a group of 5 players at your level. A same level monster and 4 minions? In a design where characters are massively front-loaded for damage? Not even close to challenging, sorry.

Except that wasn't the fight. The fight was a level 16 elite and 4 minions, but they stop fighting once the elite goes bloodied and it transitions into a fight against 3 level 16 normal monsters and another level 16 minion, plus a level 16 hazard.

So I agree. A fight against a same level monster and 4 minions isn't challenging at all. But that's not the fight I described.

QuoteChallenging fights, fights where a character might seriously be killed because the monsters are strong, by design, will require at least that much...I could go into detail why this must be the case based on design (basically, there's so much healing and hit points that a party can always negate the first 6 or so rounds of damage completely, meaning a challenging fight will require much over 6 rounds), but I just don't see the point in doing so here.

Well, sure. You've been wrong on everything from average AC to average hit points. You think my sorcerer's piddling 20-25 expected DPR is ultra-optimized. You assumed the paladins must have had Certain Justice to be as effective as they were. You've been calculating the length of combats based on using nothing but at-wills, even though by your own figures a smart player would use encounters more often than at-wills. I would not particularly want to keep playing either, if I were you.

Quote from: Benoist;379533If that's directed at me (I'm not sure), I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that you need the rules to tell you you can do cool things in the game with your character in a D&DWotC game, but that somehow this barrier disappears once you play other RPGs?

Your remark that "at least now everyone has cool stuff to do, instead of waiting for the mage to resolve their spells so you can continue sucking or running away" clearly wasn't about game design. It was about actual play. That means that somehow you need the rules to spell out what cool things you can do in the game.

If those are the assumptions spelled out by the game, then yeah, I go along with the designers' assumptions.

Would you let fighters do half of the things they could through powers in 4e, and would those be as mechanically interesting as spells?

QuoteI'm not talking about min-maxing particularly either. All things being equal, a fighting-type character isn't "useless" past 7th level. This is a gross exaggeration, at the very least.

Exaggeration, maybe, but I think it's enough of an issue that nearly every company dedicated to doing something with d20, WotC or not, has decided that spellcasting as implemented in 3e is a problem when it comes to overshadowing everything else and have taken varying measures to try to curb or get rid of the problem.

It's not like it's a farfetched thing.  Spellcasters in older editions had significantly fewer slots, less (or no) spells given to them for "free" at every levels, and generally had to work harder and be lucky enough to get to higher levels.  When they boosted caster powers to make up for the "boring" low-level MU play, they half-assed the rest with feats for martial classes, which didn't significantly boost their abilities.  If anything, the balance between magic using classes and martial classes in older editions was better.

Well, anyhow. I just got back from the game I played in Frederick last night. I felt the game ran a little long, and it was my first time with this DM (who I think was really good, but we were 6, and my GF is somewhat new, along with at least one of the other players). So there was one battle that was a bit slow..

The entire game ran from just after 6PM to right at 10:30. We only did three battles, and two skill challenges. Oh, somehow 3 entire battles fit into a mere 4.5 hours. We also gathered clues, interviewed witnesses, investigated a warehouse robbery, tracked some goblins.. figured out that they were goblins, and uncovered a conspiracy involving a high-placed merchant guild-master and the Church of Torm.. a typical night of D&D.  

As a side point, we met a player from Germany in the group! His name was Alex. I asked him about dice cups, and he said "older players, maybe..". I'm still thinking about getting one.

Here's my character: Coppervault, Dwarf Agent of the Drow.

And here's Annemarie's: Ilmdiira Melar, Siege Captain of House Rilyntel

We have identical armor and crossbows now!

Quote from: Peregrin;379547If those are the assumptions spelled out by the game, then yeah, I go along with the designers' assumptions.

See, that's my problem with the logic that took over D&D: I don't accept these assumptions. I think the logic that pretends that choices have to be rules to even *exist* is dumb and counterproductive, an anathema to what role playing should be, IMO. Game rules shouldn't be obstacles to imagination. They should blow they up, set them of fire! I reject games that sustain this type of attitude, and reject the play styles that surrender to it.

Quote from: Peregrin;379547Would you let fighters do half of the things they could through powers in 4e, and would those be as mechanically interesting as spells?

Options don't have to be mechanical to be interesting, or to exist. Choices don't have to be hardcoded into rules. The point of the game isn't the rules, to me. It's the make-believe. The question, the way you're asking it, is nonsensical to me.

Quote from: Peregrin;379547Exaggeration, maybe, but I think it's enough of an issue that nearly every company dedicated to doing something with d20, WotC or not, has decided that spellcasting as implemented in 3e is a problem when it comes to overshadowing everything else and have taken varying measures to try to curb or get rid of the problem.

Didn't it occur to you that game companies are fixing problems they just made up to sell their books? That they answer to players who whine, and that players who whine are generally people who would whine at a game table no matter the circumstances? The guys who are eternally unsatisfied, who bitch because the game's "not fair", or this guy as 2 more points in ability scores, therefore the game sucks? I have a few choice words for people like this:
WHINERS. BAD PLAYERS. LOSERS.

Show them the door. Don't reinvite them. Problem solved!

Sorry. Just ranting a little bit too.

Quote from: Peregrin;379547It's not like it's a farfetched thing.  Spellcasters in older editions had significantly fewer slots, less (or no) spells given to them for "free" at every levels, and generally had to work harder and be lucky enough to get to higher levels.  When they boosted caster powers to make up for the "boring" low-level MU play, they half-assed the rest with feats for martial classes, which didn't significantly boost their abilities.  If anything, the balance between magic using classes and martial classes in older editions was better.

Putting aside the concept of Balance which is a rules thing, and is a concept that really pisses me off to no end, I disagree that fighting classes would be somehow left in the dust in 3.x mainly because fighting classes benefit from a lot of mechanical versatility (the fighter, in particular), can indeed combine feats with magic items in ways that are devastating on the battle field, are still the tanks and the buffers, etc etc. I think that's a tempest in a teapot, a myth that's been talked about over and over on message boards that never actually was true, since most of the people bitching about it actually didn't play games past 8th or 10th level.

Quote from: Benoist;379563Options don't have to be mechanical to be interesting, or to exist. Choices don't have to be hardcoded into rules. The point of the game isn't the rules, to me. It's the make-believe. The question, the way you're asking it, is nonsensical to me.

Then why have rules for dungeon exploration?  Or encumbrance?  I'm sure with a reasonable group you could work out all the details without having to use the rates of movement from any of the rulebooks. Why have detailed spell or monster descriptions?  Or variable weapon damage?  Or just increasing the complexity of the game beyond OD&D or Basic?  

The answer is that rules can make choices interesting.  They're not the whole of the game, but they're part of the game, and give the players and the DM a framework with which to build.  How little or how much they intersect with play, how much rubber hits the road, is just a matter of preference.

I agree that rules should enhance the make-believe, and that's why I think it's important to have mechanical options relevant to the focus of the game, whether it's dungeon-crawling, social intrigue, or tactical set-piece battles.  Choices make people's heads tick, and can give people jumping off points for further engagement with the imagined play space and inspiration for creativity.  I don't think that all choices should be explicit like they are in 4e, but that's a matter of taste, not a matter of good or bad design.

That's only my opinion, though, so that viewpoint may mean nothing to you.

God, I'm sorry Peregrin. It's not you. It's just that the logic you're mimicking here is completely retarded. It's like you've been brainwashed into thinking that one rule equals one choice, that without the rule, then you don't have choices, and more over that rules themselves, by their very nature, can't spawn different degrees of emergent complexity in the actual game as it is being played.

In other words, it's not about rules light vs. rules heavy, or how many choices the rules actually spell out. Not at all.

It's about this: "IF it's not specified by the rules, you CAN'T do it". It's about the way rules codify all the going ons at the game table, and phagocytize the game itself to then build walls around it, walls that need to be blown up for the game to be a role playing game.

Anyway. I'm not trying to convince anyone. You like 4e, that's fine.
Just don't ask me to agree with you.

Quote from: Peregrin;379564I don't think that all choices should be explicit like they are in 4e, but that's a matter of taste, not a matter of good or bad design.

When we are playing "Products of our Imagination", that the very identity of the game implies the use of one's imagination, I do believe that making ALL choices explicit constitutes ABYSMAL game design.

A Black Hole of RPG game design, as it were.

I never said that one rule has to equal one choice.  I prefer complexity derived from broad rulesets.  I prefer skill-based classless systems, and I love stunt systems that rely on player description rather than hard-coded actions.  It's not about the number of rules, it's about the way those rules influence assumptions about how the game should work.

I'm just saying I don't think that for the type of game 4e is, that the power rule-set is not necessarily a bad one.  It puts forth a set of assumptions about how players interact with the game-world and sets a precedent for the GM and the group to use.  It's not about telling people they can't do things, it's about telling people what they can do so they understand what their character is capable of regardless of how the DM thinks of the character or how fighting "should" work.

Think of it this way.  The maneuvers and other things fighters perform in 4e are more like the minutiae of martial arts rulesets in other games rather than a "These are the ONLY things you can do."  They aren't there to set limits on what's feasibly possible, they're there to guarantee that a player understands their character's capabilities at the start of play.

Personally, I don't see the power system much differently than I see the skill trees in things like Dark Heresy.  Both list things your character is trained/skilled in so that you know you can pull off certain things regardless of how the GM is feeling that day.

Quote from: Peregrin;379577Think of it this way.  The maneuvers and other things fighters perform in 4e are more like the minutiae of martial arts rulesets in other games rather than a "These are the ONLY things you can do."  They aren't there to set limits on what's feasibly possible, they're there to guarantee that a player understands their character's capabilities at the start of play.

That's a pretty awesome way to think of it. One of my big hopes for D&D Essentials is that it does a better job of explaining that you can go outside the powers -- but yeah. Exactly what you said.