Chloe Sullivan
Subdefective
- Location
- 1630 Revello Drive, Sunnydale CA
I've long joked that D&D bards are more like the actual Druids, while D&D druids are more like Shamans.
but "correctly" is a bit of a loaded word here.
Dungeons and Dragons Megathread
- Thread starter Havocfett
- Start date
but "correctly" is a bit of a loaded word here.
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
In 3E, Saga Edition, PF, and all other D20 games, INT wasn't a good choice for a dump stat because it would reduce your number of skills, and thereby your versatility. I might end up absolutely having to put a low stat there because I'm playing a class that requires CHA and multiple other stats, but I'll be wincing while I do it. It's only in 5E where you can freely dump INT, since it doesn't add anything to the tiny number of skills that you get (because versatility is only for spellcasters, apparently).
Last edited:
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Uh, dumping INT in 4e didn't decrease your skills.
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
*checks the pdf* Fuck, you're right. I'd forgotten that. It's been like 16 years since I looked at 4E for any length of time.
Add this to the list of valid gripes about 4E: it actively encouraged dump stats. Each Defense (their equivalent of saving throws) even let you pick the better of two stats: DEX or INT for Reflex, STR or CON for Fortitude, WIS or CHA for Will.
Also, it seems like a recurring theme that 5E only kept the bad things about 4E while jettisoning any of the actual good ideas 4E had, since that seems to be where they got the idea to be incredibly stingy with skills.
EDIT: Although with 4E you still got a bonus of half your level to untrained skill checks, so that might compensate somewhat.
Last edited:
shepsquared
Erratic Aussie
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I mean, 4e was moving away from the 6 stat system in the only way it could, which I'd say was a good thing with how there's been ignorable stats from the start of D&D. Except for how 5e handled it afterwards.
4e also made it so most classes had a main stat and a choice of a secondary stat from two with how it did subclasses, or sometimes a set secondary stat and a choice of main stats, which helped make them feel distinct when you were building characters.
5e on the other hand has very samey feeling casters no matter what stat you use. Even though i still like how they handle spell prep now they didn't do enough to compensate spells known casters, or pay attention to how the different classes spells known actually compared, with Sorcerer having fewer spells known at 20 than paladins with no cha would have prepared (15 to 20, ignoring cantrips).
grommile
nasty-minded old cynic
- Location
- NERV-Mercia
- Pronouns
- Traditional/Animate
Druids needed a 15 and paladins needed a 17.
Chloe Sullivan
Subdefective
- Location
- 1630 Revello Drive, Sunnydale CA
I dunno how much that helps but certainly 4e needed all the help it could get on that score.
By far the most damning criticism of 4e I've heard was "I was playing off the wrong character sheet for a whole session and no one noticed."
As a combat engine, 4e is the best D&D, but well, you want more from an RPG than just that.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Never played 4e, despite owning like the first and second Player's Handbook (they're.. somewhere), could you elaborate on that? I kinda wanted to do a one-shot with my friend group to give the system a tryout so I'm a bit curious.
Is it an issue of every class essentially having similar abilities with a different coat of paint?
Chloe Sullivan
Subdefective
- Location
- 1630 Revello Drive, Sunnydale CA
Kinda, though I should be clear that it's not too bad. There is meaningful distinction, and the shorter ranges makes tactical positioning matter more.
But for people like me who were very into all the alt-magic systems in 3.5 (and which 3rd Party Studios dragged PF into), 4e lacks the breadth of options I enjoyed in 3e derivatives.
4e is quite good dev work, it's just that I think some of the design decisions that guided/constrained that dev work were … to be honest, outright insulting.
But then 5e's design decisions were too, and IMO backed by overall lower quality dev work (by all accounts the battlemaster rocks tho).
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
For me, the issue was more that within a class, there weren't a lot of options to individualize how your character played. And feats didn't feel like they added that much customization, either. When my gaming group tried out 4e, me and a friend both made fighters independently of each other and they turned out roughly identical. And we were coming from Star Wars Saga Edition, a game where every class had nearly infinite customization, to the point that the entire group could make characters of the same class that would all play entirely differently. A huge part of our disappointment was that 4E had quite a few mechanics that had been previously introduced in Star Wars, so we were basically expecting D&D Saga Edition and got something way less fun.
There was also the problem that they fucked up the math badly, so the monsters in first adventure module and first Monster Manual were all way overpowered, so combat during those early trial games was an absolute slog. Like, you do not feel heroic when every mook has got a higher attack bonus and AC than your fighter and you are constantly taking a beating, with only the constant use of healing surges keeping you upright. It was not fun for anyone but the strikers, who got to do all the damage while the fighters got the shit beaten out of them. Apparently later on they fixed this math, but by then it was years too late. We abandoned it after a couple attempts and went back to Star Wars, and then Pathfinder for our future D&D-esque games.
(MMOs might have based the tank/healer/DPS meta on D&D originally, but when ported back to tabletop RPGs it kind of sucks. It's not fun for anyone but the DPS.)
That said, since the release of 5E, I have come around to believe that 4E didn't get a fair shake. I mean, I still don't have much interest in playing it, but at least it tried to do something new and fix some of the perenniel problems of D&D instead of being lazy and relying on nostalgia from grognards and brand recognition.
Encounter powers, better balance between casters and martials, level-based bonuses to AC and damage so that you get cooler from your fighting skill instead of being entirely reliant on magic items... these were all good things that worked great in Saga Edition. But missing was the sheer amount of customization available, the move away from daily limits to keep players form having to stop and nap mid-dungeon, and the more defense-oriented balance for PCs that prevented a constant slog of taking damage and healing every round for the tanks and healers, and any sense that your characters were heroes instead of red shirts getting their asses handed to them by every goon they met. Really, I think the last two was what killed it for me. Combat was a slog and everyone who wasn't a striker just wasn't having fun.
I'm not saying don't run it, but you might need to compensate for the math problems that make monsters OP and turn combat into a chore. Maybe make sure that you're using monster stats from later in the game's lifetime after they rewrote them to be less potent. Maybe use monsters that are underleveled for your PCs. There are a series of Expertise feats that grant attack roll bonuses that are basically considered must haves to compensate for the math discrepancies; maybe just give them to everyone for free so they don't have to blow a feat just to keep up.
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
Since I ragged on 4E a bit more than I meant to in the previous post, I should also say that the thing that upset the grognards the most, giving martials cool powers so they could compete with spellcasters, was absolutely a good idea. I can't speak for the execution, however. Certainly playing a 4E fighter didn't give me the same sense of being a cool badass as using Path of War (a third-party martial powers system for Pathfinder that I absolutely love and intend to use in every PF1E game from now on if the GM will let me), but like I said, the strikers (Ranger and Warlock) seemed to have a better time than I did. And it might have felt better with more balanced monsters or at higher levels with more powers.
I still think that 4E has genuine problems that don't make me want to play it, but if I had to pick, I'd probably be more enthused to play 4E than 5E. 4E would at least be something new and different, while 5E is just a worse 3E with all the flaws of 4E and none of its merits.
I still think that 4E has genuine problems that don't make me want to play it, but if I had to pick, I'd probably be more enthused to play 4E than 5E. 4E would at least be something new and different, while 5E is just a worse 3E with all the flaws of 4E and none of its merits.
- Location
- Drachyench on Discord
4E also upset a lot of people because. Uh. Well.
It actually tried to toss out large chunks of Legacy Code. About as much as it thought it could get away with. Something sorely needed as even by AD&D 2E the edition was blatantly starting to buckle under the strain of keeping to the approximate conventions and expectations [hence so many modules that in many cases feel like entirely different games]. We've discussed how casting and its intersection with attributes drastically changed, and you've likewise on classes / powers, but the game practically wore on its sleeve "We are trying to adapt D&D to be a more cohesively and solidly built game".
It's just that a lot of those things are seen by a lot of people as integral to the experience in some capacity or another. Some people were obsessive about AD&D 2E's bean counting and Unlimited Logistics Work. Others were sold on all the options 3.5 had for Dollcrafting even if objectively at least half were traps. They liked that both the prior editions' Level 1 experience was Final Destination [or, alternatively, that nobody should start below 3rd level or so anyways and that Level Range was more for NPC's] so PC's starting as Heroic Individuals was an unwelcome change. Character progression was different in ways that could be more opaque than even AD&D 2E at times [let alone 3.5] with long learning curves of using the book. To say nothing of lore changes.
It's a rather well-built system. But it runs into snarls for the 'expected' D&D experience and is arguably the least D&D edition of D&D.
Out of curiosity, what did you think of Tome Of Battle?
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
It looked cool, from what I can recall. Never got a chance to actually use it in a game. I think we were already in a campaign when it was released in 2006, then Saga Edition dropped in 2007. I assume that playing with it would be roughly similar to playing with PoW.
Queshire
Wants a pink flamingo for their lawn.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
So, I'm looking at Howl of the Wild for Pathfinder 2e. Since I have the subscription I get access to the PDF earlier than normal. Now, if I'm understanding this correctly I could make an awakened mouse monk that at level 5 can travel 110 feet in a round and deliver a flurry of blows with just a few feat picks. I'm not sure how practical that level of speed actually is, but it sure amuses me.
shepsquared
Erratic Aussie
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Grumble, grumble shipping priority.
I know there's high level stuff with nonsense like 180ft fly speeds, but that's going to outstrip most enemies for quite a while. It's hard to kite without the rest of the party following you, but it does open up options for scouting I guess?
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
Speed is pretty important for a melee build, IMHO, not for kiting but to get close enough to attack. If your speed is 25 and you need to move 30 to get to the guy you want to hit, then that's two of your three actions gone just getting to the fight. So you can't hit him twice, or hit him with Power Attack, or hit him and the guy next to him with Swipe, or hit him and then raise your shield or Duelist's Parry to boost your AC.
Speaking of Legacy Code in D&D that I wish they'd get rid of: the speed penalty for medium and heavy armor. Heavy armor proficiency is supposed to be an advantage, but it's got so many penalties that it feels like a punishment. I always try to keep my characters in light armor so as not to have to be reduced to lumbering along like a doofus.
- Location
- Somewhere
Not even legacy code. That's a 3e thing. Not only was there no such thing in 2nd, Magic armor explicitly didn't count towards encumbrance from weight carried.
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
- Legacy code from 3E is still legacy code. It's been carried over into 4E, 5E, PF1E and PF2E for no other reason than because it was there before so devs keep assuming that it still should be.
- Unless you have magic armor (something that's entirely at the whim of the DM) or are very strong, the AD&D encumbrance rules have the same end result for anyone who wears heavy armor. Anyone who has light encumbrance has their speed reduced by 1/3, which is the same speed penalty that you suffer for wearing medium/heavy armor in 3E. You need at least a 16 STR to deal with the weight of full plate by itself without being into light encumbrance, and then picking up a weapon would immediately put you over the limit. Factor in all the equipment and supplies that an adventurer needs and I'm doubtful that anyone without an 18 STR is wearing heavy armor without being encumbered.
- The encumbrance penalties in AD&D are actually much more brutal once you hit moderate encumbrance: speed gets reduced even further and attack rolls and AC get penalized.
- Much like how AD&D didn't have Armor Check Penalty by that name but had armor penalties to the Thief Skills that served the same purpose and clearly inspired ACP, the fact that both light encumbrance in AD&D and wearing medium/heavy armor in 3E reduced your speed by 1/3 makes me think that the one was directly based on the other.
A lot of the complaints I saw were about changing the magic system. Which I'm all for: I've said before how I think that per-day spellcasting is bad for balance and fucks up the pacing. Quite a few other people were mortally offended by the idea of non-spellcasters having the power to do anything cool. I've been pretty clear that I disagree with that as well.
But those definitely aren't the only complaints that can be leveled at 4E.
Legacy Code is the biggest albatross around the neck of D&D's game design. I was gobsmacked when I found out that characters in 5E don't add their proficiency bonus to AC. Adding proficiency bonus to the things that you're proficient in is how everything else in 5E works, but not armor, solely because Gygax decided in 1974 that a skilled warrior couldn't possibly have learned how to defend himself and must just stand there letting people hit him. The fact that AC doesn't increase with level has bugged me since the first time I played D&D, because it makes no fucking sense: what conception of a badass swordfighter doesn't include using fighting skill to to avoid getting hit? And 4E fixed it! They gave everyone a bonus to everything equal to half your level, including AC and damage. And then 5E unfixed it! For no fucking reason except because that's how it used to be. So every player character in 5E has to run facefirst into the monster's fist every round because of a decision in the '70s that defense should only increase based on getting magic items (which are distributed arbitrary and inconsistently at the whim of the GM) and not from experience.
This was a big one for me and most of the people that I play with. For some of us, character creation is fun in its own right. Trying out new ideas. Putting pieces together to build something new and unique.
Not all the options in 3E were optimized, or even good, but at least there were options. That's something that 4E and 5E both lack. After you pick a subclass, there's not a lot you can do to individualize your character. Even the number of feats has been reduced in 5E, and getting one requires sacrificing your Ability Score Increase, which is pretty much the best thing you can do for a character, given how ability modifiers outweigh everything else. Like I said, when we played 4E, we wound up with a lot of very same-y characters because there just weren't a lot of options. Not only the two fighters, but the strikers, despite being different classes, were basically the same, because the best feat choice was obvious for both: the one that increased the bonus die of damage that they got from their class feature from d6 to d8.
I mean, I already commented on how playing a 1st level character in 4E didn't feel very heroic for me, but more like being a punching bag. That might be because those early monster stats were overtuned and they could beat us up, because playing a defender mostly involves getting beat up instead of doing the beating, or because my point of comparison was Saga Edition where even a 1st level PC is supposed to be a cool badass who can waste stormtroopers. You don't feel like a badass when every generic monster has better stats than you do. PCs did start with extra hit points at 1st level (although not as much as Saga Edition's triple max hit die), but the powers just didn't feel strong enough to turn the tide. "Once a day, do two extra dice of damage" just doesn't feel very potent when Saga Edition or even D20 Modern would let you take the Burst Fire feat and do two extra dice of damage for as long as your ammo lasted.
Last edited:
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm pretty sure I remember 4e having a shitton of customization options.
The Narrator
Disembodied Voice
- Location
- Somewhere Offscreen
In the PHB, or in splatbooks? Because there was only the PHB at the time, and it sure didn't seem very customizable to us.
EDIT: And at 1st level, specifically. Because we never made it to 2nd.
EDIT #2: Because the last time someone tried to sell me on 4E having lots of choices, they started talking about Paragon Paths, and that's at 11th level. Most D&D games don't even get to 11th level.
Last edited:
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Well, in the core books, there's Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, picking races and classes, picking powers, a shitton of feats, and a smorgasbord of magic items.
Queshire
Wants a pink flamingo for their lawn.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
So question for those more experienced with Pathfinder 2e.
For this;
If you take 3 movement actions do you need to land after all three or do you have to land between each action?
For this;
If you take 3 movement actions do you need to land after all three or do you have to land between each action?
FaeGlade Plural
Semper Legens
- Location
- Land of Bureaucracy
- Pronouns
- Plural/They
Good Question!
I'm comparing this to other effects with a similar clause, such as Fledgling Flight or Marvelous Mount. Those also require ending on a surface, but do so on a turn basis. This - whatever it is, don't have access to Howl of the Wild yet - states that you "immediately fall". That strikes me as different enough that it might be intended to be after each Fly action, but it might be a mistake on the writers part.
- Location
- Somewhere
Could you provide the name of the spell or ability, so that we can check it directly and/or see if there's been an official ruling?