06/09/2009 - capturing their stunt doubles.

[StruckingFuggle]

I've browsed through Pathfinder, and for every three or four changes I like, there's one that just sucks (Power Attack), or I can understand, but dislike anyway (if I understand correctly, so, I wild shape into a bear, but am not strong like bear? LAME.)

[ampersand]

I don't like how the wizard familiars in 4th edition are spirits, and not real animals, which is also very lame.

[Suppoko]

Played? No. I have read through the books, though, though I still prefer 3.5.

Way to avoid the question of how changing the terminology "dumbs the game down", though. Bravo. You're creating some sort of ironclad non-argument by welding on shields of "if you don't get it you don't get it". Seriously, even *I* could probably learn a lesson or two from you.

The only thing I can say is play the game and you will understand what I mean. Did you know that I can now charge from the ground? It's not just the spaces from feet, it's the every save is now a diff 10, it's the fact that there are no small weapons anymore, small creatures are now forced to use medium size weapons 2handed even if they don't want to, it's the fact that you no longer need to be armed to provide flanking, it's the fact that races no longer have minuses to stats at char creation, it's ANYONE can pick up a weapon and wield it they jsut don't get the profiencicy bonus (no more negatives) all these things taht no longer require the player to pay attention to detail bother me. Why do you prefer 3.5? It's like your jsut arguing because you want to yet you even prefer 3.5.

I don't like how the wizard familiars in 4th edition are spirits, and not real animals, which is also very lame.

This is one of the few things I do like, in game play it is quite good, they have a handful of HP sure but you no longer are adversly affected if it dies, you just pop it out next encounter and continue on.

[StruckingFuggle]

Did you know that I can now charge from the ground?

*shrug* ... Clarify, though: can you move 2x your speed with it, or just 1x? There's already precedent in 3.5, you can charge 1x your normal distance if all you have is a standard or move action already, so it'd be just a small extension of that, move action to get up, then a partial charge.

it's the every save is now a diff 10

"Save" there means something somewhat different in 4e than it does in 3.x, too, so it's not entirely an accurate comment. But yeah, it does make ongoing effects less a part of what's going on, but I'm still not seeing how this links up to dumbing it down. It 'weakens' certain effects, certainly, but "some effects are weaker" aren't the same as "dumbing it down."

it's the fact that there are no small weapons anymore, small creatures are now forced to use medium size weapons 2handed even if they don't want to

Yeah, that part is pretty lame, but "dumbed down"? It doesn't exactly make things simpler (if anything, it seems more of a hassle, especially if you're bringing in people who played 3.5), or really change much when it comes to gameplay. Besides, no one's telling you you can't call your halfling's 2-handed medium weapon a halfling-sized greatsword...

it's the fact that you no longer need to be armed to provide flanking

Given that you could flank with IUS, and the opponent magically knew you had it, I'd say that actually makes more sense. Besides, you can interfere with someone even if you don't have a weapon, enough to grant CA.

it's the fact that races no longer have minuses to stats at char creation,

But they still have opportunity costs associated with them and some choices are better than others for certain concepts (mechanically), and they get different pluses.

it's ANYONE can pick up a weapon and wield it they jsut don't get the profiencicy bonus (no more negatives)

Well, if the game is balanced on an attack bonus that assumes proficiency, then there IS still a penalty there for using a weapon you're not proficient with, even if it's not called such directly, you're still worse a hitting a target with a weapon you're not proficient with than you are with one you are.

Why do you prefer 3.5? It's like your jsut arguing because you want to yet you even prefer 3.5.

No, I'm arguing against your crazy arguments, not for the sake of arguing.


---

This is one of the few things I do like, in game play it is quite good, they have a handful of HP sure but you no longer are adversly affected if it dies, you just pop it out next encounter and continue on.

That's not "dumbing it down", too? I don't get how some of the stuff you cite is, but that isn't. Taking care of your familiar isn't a detail a player should pay attention to?

---

And I feel like I'm getting a bit of it, so I'd just like to say that I'm sick of this masterwork bastard sword bullshit "You like 3.5 therefore you must loathe 4e!" BS. I don't prefer 3.5 to 4e because 3.5 is a great game (it's really not), or because 4e is just awful and I want to avoid it. Mostly, 3.5 works for me, and I'm familiar with it, and I'm heavily invested in it, and it's fairly receptive to homebrew content within its mechanics... Plus, ToB rocks and Psionics is pretty fun.

They're two different games and my feelings for the two have as much linkage and influence on each other as my feelings on 3.5 and Shadowrun do for each other.

[Mav]

You would be a psionics fag, wouldn't you...

But seriously, if you want to talk about dumbing it down, it's the fact that every class now has a skill tree. Because people are apparently too stupid to choose from a feats and spells section, and need everything broken down into an "either/or" system. And that Wizards can cast an infinite number of magic missiles.

[StruckingFuggle]

You would be a psionics fag, wouldn't you...

A great system's a great system, and a spellcasting system more balanced than core Vancian spellcasting is more balanced, regardless of what it's called.

But seriously, if you want to talk about dumbing it down, it's the fact that every class now has a skill tree. Because people are apparently too stupid to choose from a feats and spells section, and need everything broken down into an "either/or" system.

Ugh, I dislike 4e's skill system, speaking of skill trees, though that's different things. Just, the word 'skill' reminded me. Though there is still a large selection of feats to choose from, so there still IS that. Though when it comes to class features / spells, yeah, the spellcaster-types lost of a number of different abilities they knew; but at the same time more martial-y ones like Paladins and Fighters actually have MORE choices to make then they did in 3e, so THAT got more complicated, not less.

And that Wizards can cast an infinite number of magic missiles.

Oh gee, they can use something that rapidly becomes ineffective an infinite number of times per day ... oh dear. Someone save me from the magic missiles!

God forbid the spellcaster be setting the pace because everything he does that uses his talents exhausts resources, even if they're to less effect in the average / long run than what, say, a fighter does. A fighter can swing his sword without reducing resources, a wizard SHOULD be able to spam cantrips and magic missiles. And unless you've invested feats, metamagic slot adjustments, and prc levels into it, generally, a wizard who can't count his levels on one normal hand who's using magic missile as a default spell is either REALLY clever and has set up some useful gambits (but not so many, since, IIRC, you can't use MM on an object to thus break something or set something off...), is scraping the bottom of the barrel of his resources, or just sucks at Wizarding^*.

... Granted in 3.5 you could make a somewhat brokenass wizard who could spam dozens of magic missiles a round from one spell slot, but even then I don't think you could get it down to a first level slot, and this was a late-publishing-history 3.5 wizard, so that's not saying much about how "bad" infinite Magic Missiles should be.


^*protip: if you're evocating, you're probably doing it suboptimally. A wizard wins through attacking things other than HP. This viewpoint, more than anything else, is why I dislike 4e, even if I can understand the balance concerns therein.

[Suppoko]

Did you really jsut call psionics balanced? Psionics is the most broken thing ever next to shapechange.

I say the examples I gave are dumbing it down because there is less math needed to figure out save DCs and such.

The wizards fmiliar is not dumbing anything down it actually makes the familiar usefull, how many times did you ever pull out your toad in 3.5? Yeah never fear of losing the HP and xp if it dies. here you can plop it out every combat

[StruckingFuggle]

Did you really jsut call psionics balanced? Psionics is the most broken thing ever next to shapechange.

... You know there's a lot of people who say this, and I'm not saying you're one of them, but most of the people who say this don't really follow the rules on Psionics. So, out of curiosity, what are your major objections?

You know, for example, that you can't spend more power points manifesting a single power than your manifester level (which is, also, generally, harder to jack up than your caster level), right? That's a big one that seems commonly missed, leading to the nova myth (Wizards and Sorcs are, also, actually, a lot BETTER at going Nova, with things like Arcane Fusion, etc)... I think the record is something like fifteen spells cast in a round, by a wizard; psionics can't even come close to that.

I say the examples I gave are dumbing it down because there is less math needed to figure out save DCs and such.

... So going by the logic that seems to be present, a game that needed spreadsheets and graphing calculators to run combat would be superior to 4e, right? Because clearly more math = "smartened up" = better, amirite?

The wizards fmiliar is not dumbing anything down it actually makes the familiar usefull, how many times did you ever pull out your toad in 3.5? Yeah never fear of losing the HP and xp if it dies. here you can plop it out every combat

But you just said previously that one version of "dumbing it down" is giving people less things to keep track of, worry about; so what makes the familiar an exception to that? Or is your argument not "less things to worry about / keep track of = bad"?


ETA:


I'm just gonna leave this here: Myth: 3.5 Psionics are overpowered.

[Mav]

Oh gee, they can use something that rapidly becomes ineffective an infinite number of times per day ... oh dear. Someone save me from the magic missiles!

God forbid the spellcaster be setting the pace because everything he does that uses his talents exhausts resources, even if they're to less effect in the average / long run than what, say, a fighter does. A fighter can swing his sword without reducing resources, a wizard SHOULD be able to spam cantrips and magic missiles. And unless you've invested feats, metamagic slot adjustments, and prc levels into it, generally, a wizard who can't count his levels on one normal hand who's using magic missile as a default spell is either REALLY clever and has set up some useful gambits (but not so many, since, IIRC, you can't use MM on an object to thus break something or set something off...), is scraping the bottom of the barrel of his resources, or just sucks at Wizarding*.

Well that's the fucking point I'm making, isn't it? That's what I liked about DnD's magic system. It wasn't "OH GEE LOOK AT THE LIGHTS I CAN SHOOT FROM MY FINGER TIPS WEEEEE MAGIC", it required some fucking forethought. Now, granted, I thought spell components and some of the preparations and all that got pretty out of hand, but the whole point was, if, IF you wanted to play a wizard, you better be ready to think, run, and think again. I LIKED playing a Rincewind or a Gandalf, not Dragon Ball Z. Hell, I liked that you could make magic in your campaign work the same as 16th century witchcraft, and have people trying to burn the party's wizard at the stake. I don't need nerds in their basements putting dragons and fireballs everywhere in an attempt to compensate for how "unique" they are. What I do need is a good story.

[Suppoko]

I quit, you're right 4th is great let's all play. I am wrong I really don't care at this point. You are just being an asshole for being an assholes sake now. I answered why I think it is and I am finished responding to you now on this topic. And for the record YES having less to calculate and keep track of IS dumbing it down. When people complain they can't keep track of all the numbers and it gets simplified in the next system it's getting dumbed down. sigh I am arguiing again. fuck this thread.

[StruckingFuggle]

I quit, you're right 4th is great let's all play.

... Man, I made you come to a conclusion I wasn't even advocating? Go go mighty gadget argument powers!

[Mav]

Going to rock that passive aggressiveness.

(and seriously Fuggle, you've become the inverse of Deacon in this thread.)

[StruckingFuggle]

Inverse Deacon? Howso?

[bagheadinc]

fuggle(deacon(x)) = x

[Miv]

x=penises?