[4e] Those lying liars.

[Psychic Robot]

I've been thinking a little bit about what I've read from pro-4e players (particularly on the WotC website), and something dawned on me: 4e's promotion is nothing short of a political campaign. It is based on hype, half-truths, and slander of 3e. It is one of the few things more intellectually dishonest than those “Mac vs. PC” commercials where Justin Long is the hip, cool, trendy Mac and John Hodgman is the stodgy, boring, out-of-date PC.

Let's examine a few of these, shall we?

1. The redefinition of “Core.”

In 3e, “Core” refers to the three main rulebooks—the PHB, the DMG, and the MM. Nothing outside of those things is considered Core, and it is generally assumed that anything within those three books is fair game. The 4e developers, however, rebranded “Core” to mean “pretty much everything.”

In terms of marking, this was brilliant. Since many 3e players gamed with the assumption that they could use pretty much anything in the Core books, those 3e players that decided to convert to 4e would still be under that mindset. “Fair game usually not requiring special DM approval” translates to “more sales.” (Compare the number of 3e games that used the XPH to the number of 3e games that were “Core only.”)

However, “brilliant marketing” does not preclude the descriptor of “intellectual dishonesty.” Rebranding something so that it is more palatable (from “splatbooks” to “Core rulebooks”) does not change what it is—a dialectical sleight-of-hand that could be likened to changing “extremely bad” to “doubleplusungood.”

2. The math “just works.”

No, it doesn't. Right out of the box, the math in 4e is bad. Not only are skill challenges completely broken—even after the errata—but the combat math is borked, too.

This is easy to see when one examines the underlying system of NPC generation in 4e. For the sake of ease, the 4e devs chose to make NPCs out of arbitrarium, where their numbers are based off of a chart in the book rather than basing them off of the PC creation system. While this has its merits, it also has its downsides, as evidenced by the massive failure of the 4e devs.

Monsters in 4e have their stats scale by level, so a monster might have a Fortitude defense bonus of 14 + level and an attack bonus of 6 + level. PCs, on the other hand, have their stats scale by half level, so a PC might have a Fortitude defense bonus of 14 + half level and an attack bonus of 6 + half level. You can see the problem here—at level 30, that monster will have a Fortitude defense of 44 and an attack bonus of 36 while the PC will have a Fortitude defense bonus of 29 and an attack bonus of 21. To rectify this issue, PCs have magical items and stat boosts to up increase their numbers. The problem? The 4e devs are incompetent.

Assuming that the average PC boosts his attack stat every chance he gets and grabs a +6 weapon/implement, he will have a total of +8 to his stat (so a +4 bonus) and a +6 bonus on attack rolls. That gives him a grand total of +10 plus half his level to his attack bonus, for a whopping total of +25. That sounds okay, right?

Wrong. Monsters get +30. That means that the PC has decreased in effectiveness by 25% over the course of his 30 levels. If he had a 65% chance to hit a monster at level 1, he has a 40% chance to hit a similar monster at level 30.

This also ignores the fact that he might not be increasing his defense stat each time he levels up. Suppose that a wizard neglects his Constitution and Strength scores as he levels up. He gets a +6 item and a total of +4 from stat increases (+2 bonus), meaning he has only a +23 to his Fortitude defense score from leveling. A monster with an attack bonus of 6 + level has a +36 bonus on his attacks at level 30. The poor wizard has his Fortitude defense at a meager 33 + base Strength or Constitution modifier. Even if he started out with a +5 Strength or Constitution, he has a Fortitude defense of 38. Auto-hits, here we come.

That is to say, the 4e devs screwed the pooch.

But wait! Aren't there attack and defense boosts in the game? There certainly are. Righteous Brand is an excellent example of this. A cleric in 4e can toss out a +9 power bonus on attack rolls like candy (assuming he can hit in the first place). Thus, the fighter whose attack bonus has fallen behind at level 30 (to +28 or so against a monster's defense score of 44-ish) can suddenly function with a +37 bonus on attack rolls.

Too bad that's terrible, terrible game design. Relying on your ally to successfully hit an enemy so that you, the guy whose job it is to hit things with your sword, can make a successful attack on an enemy is ridiculous. A sudden 45% increase in your attack efficacy means that the game is screwed in one of two ways.

1.You're on the RNG from that huge boost, which means that you're off the RNG without it.
2.You're off the RNG from that huge boost, which means that you're on the RNG without it.

There is no middle ground with an increase that large.

The second scenario is preferable because it means that characters can function without one particular class/build, and DMs could nerf Righteous Brand to good-but-not-overpowered status. The 4e devs, in a typical bumblefuck, managed to take option #1 and run with it, making the Battle Captain a paragon path.

3. “4e is about saying 'yes' to players!”

I have no idea how this meme got started, and I have no idea who is dumb enough to perpetuate it. You see, 4e takes the exact opposite stance in the game: 4e is about saying “no” to players.

I'll give you some examples of characters I could play in 3e with just the Core books that I can't play in 4e with the PHB, DMG, and MM:

Necromancer, summoner, enchanter. A guy with an animal companion. A druid, bard, barbarian, sorcerer, and monk. A guy with a familiar. A fighter with abilities outside of "stand in the front and get beat up." A divine spellcaster with the capability of using a ranged weapon to good effect. A gish. A character with a useful mount. A martial character with weak divine spellcasting, nature-oriented abilities, and the iconic "favored enemy" class feature.

Of course, 4e introduces a few new options to the game, including “guy who yells at people to heal them” and “magical enchantment fighter.” However, compared to the wealth of options available to 3e characters—even if those options weren't good options—4e has a paltry sum of nothing.

4. 4e is simpler than 3e.

This is a half-truth. Some things, such as the skill system, are greatly simplified from the 3e version However, as other posters have noted, 4e is by no means simple. A million little effects and modifiers make combat much more complex than in 3e.

I'll quote Josh on this issue:

Josh: Okay, so at the start of my turn I take 5 poison damage, I regen from Longtooth Shifting, I heal from Consecrated Ground, I spend an action point to use Astral Seal
Mike: Wait, I'm within 5 of you, you get to add my Int mod to the attack roll
Josh: Okay so I Astral seal at +5, it hits, that Gnoll takes -2 to all defenses until the end of my next turn. Now that I've lowered it's defenses, I hit it with Font of Tears so it's dazed (save ends) and at -2 to attack until the end of it's next turn.
Mike: My turn, I use Commanders Strike, Brian have your minotaur make a basic attack
Brian: Sweet. I hit the gnoll with a basic attack,
Josh: Remember that it's dazed and at -2 to defenses on top of that
brian: Okay I hit
Josh: Gain a bunch of HP, and did you remember to gain your HP from Consecrated Ground?
Brian: No, was that at the start of my turn?
Mike: It's not your turn, I had other stuff to do. I use Inspiring Word on Leon's character and I move back 5 squares.
DM: Okay, gnoll's turn
Josh: It takes consecrated ground damage
Aaron: And I had set it on fire - it takes continuing damage. Plus every time it takes fire damage it takes an extra 5
DM: Okay, Aaron, are you done? Because it's Brian's turn next
Leon: Wait, did I get skipped here?
DM: Oh sorry, my bad, this is all on the Gnoll's turn. He takes damage. He's dazed so he goes to attack the cleric
Brian: Sweet, I had marked him with the basic attack, so that triggers combat challenge, If I hit him, and his attack fails.
DM: Okay, Brian, are you done, because it's Aaron's turn next
Leon: wait, you're skipping me again
Brian: No, he's skipping me, I go after the Gnoll
Leon: but you just went twice in a row.
Brian: I roll a 1, so he gets to attack Josh.
Josh: He's dazed and at -2 from font of tears
DM: Okay, with the -2 he misses, his turn's over, he rolls to save against being on fire he fails, he rolls another one against the daze, he makes that one. Anything else he needs to save against? Going once? going twice. gone.
Brian: I remember to heal from the consecrate, I shift around to flank
Josh: To flank you need to move more than one, you can't shift
Brian: fine, I'll take the OA.
DM: He just hits you
Brian: Was that counting the -2 from Josh's daily?
Josh (looking it up) No, that ended at the end of his turn, when he saved against the daze.
Brain: Okay I take some damage. "That the best you can do?" I'll show you real pain!!!"
Brian: I rolled crappy. I think I miss if the -2 went away already.
Josh: No, he's still -2 to defenses that's until the end of *my*next turn, just the -2 to attack went away at the end of his turn.
Brian: Then I hit!

5. 4e gives players more options.

Again, a “'yes' with a 'but'” half-truth. While encounter and daily powers help mix things up for the non-casters, the casters themselves are crippled in terms of options. There are about fifty rituals in the PHB, and the casters get a grand total of like three spells at level 30. (A slight exaggeration, but bear with me.)

Furthermore, for the non-casters, there is little difference between an at-will power and a standard attack in 3e. Considering that you spend a good amount of time spamming at-will attacks in 4e—especially at higher levels, when combat really turns into a grindfest—you aren't actually doing anything differently than in 3e. The 4e memes claim that you're doing something different than in 3e, but you're really just doing the same thing. Allow me to demonstrate by quoting myself:

3e
Player: I swing with my longsword. Does a 17 hit?
DM: Yes.
Player: Sweet, 1d8 + 6 damage.

Player: I attempt to bull rush him. I rolled a 17.
DM: He rolled a 5.
Player: Sweet, I move him three squares.

4e
Player: I use Tide of Iron. Does a 17 hit?
DM: Yes.
Player: Sweet, 1d8 + 6 damage, and I move him one square.

1 square movement? Big whoop. Your basic attacks are almost as good.

Now, let us return to encounter/daily powers. Encounter and daily powers as “more options” are also based on falsehoods. Many 4e powers are based on the illusion of options.

See, going from “2[W] + Strength damage, and you push the target 1 square” to “3[W] + Strength damage, and you push the target 2 squares” isn't actually a new option. It's an upgrade to an old option. Most folks are fooled by this, though, especially when they see that their power has a shiny new name and slightly different fluff attached to it.

Cleave in 3e lets you make an additional attack against an enemy within reach whenever you drop an enemy, but you can only do this once per round. Great Cleave lets you do this infinity times per round. Is Great Cleave an entirely new version of Cleave? Nope, it sure isn't. Likewise, compare Warlord's Favor and Lead the Attack.

Warlord's Favor is an encounter power, Strength vs. AC. 2[W] + Strength damage. On a hit, one ally within 5 squares gains a +2 power bonus on attack rolls against that opponent. (1 + Intelligence mod if you're a Taclord.)

Lead the Attack is a daily power, Strength vs. AC. 3[W] + Strength damage. On a hit, you and each ally within 5 squares gain a +2 power bonus on attack rolls against the target. (1 + Intelligence mod if you're a Taclord.)

These are not different powers. Lead the Attack is just Warlord's Favor +1, usable once per day.

6. 4E reduces magic item dependency.

This was one of the developers' stated design goals, as evidenced here. What they did instead was keep everyone incredibly reliant on magical equipment. If you don't have that +6 item, you're screwed. You're going to miss your attacks and get hit constantly.

4e has nine magical item slots. (Clarification: I'm counting "rings," "weapon," etc. as a single magic item slot. Technically, there are more magical item slots if you count rings as two, weapons as two, and so on.) If I recall correctly, 3e had eleven. You know what reducing magical item dependency would actually do? First, they would nix all item bonuses to AC, NADs, and attack rolls. Then they would give everyone like three magical item slots to work with. Instead, the developers claimed they were reducing magical item dependency and then did just the opposite. You know why? In 3e, you could still hit a level-appropriate opponent with your non-magical sword a fair portion of the time because that's just how screwed up the RNG was. In 4e? You can't.

And yet people still buy it. It boggles the mind.

7. The game plays the same.

This is possibly one of the most distasteful lies that has ever been spoken about D&D.

4e plays nothing like 3e. 3e plays a lot like 2e, which plays a lot like 1e.

Here are a few of the differences. (Note that even if you support these changes, it changes the game from "playing the same.")

--Fixed HP per level; no more HD. As much as one might not have liked rolling for HP, it is just one of those things that is part of D&D.

--Saving throws have been changed to static defense scores. The "saving throw" mechanic has nothing to do with actual saving throws in past editions (save for the name).

--Vancian casting and spell levels are gone. Non-casters use the same system as spellcasters, and everyone has encounter powers. On top of this, spellcasters make attack rolls for their spells.

--Everyone can heal himself, and non-casters can heal others. There's also the "wait six hours and call me in the morning" trauma inn healing system.

--Everyone advances at the same rate. This might work with the RNG, but older editions of D&D had differing save tables based on what the writers thought "made sense" for the classes. It also lead to player strategy in probing for weaknesses in enemies. (For instance, golems were immune to magic. The wizard would have to change his tactics to deal with them.)

--Magical items have largely been reduced to combat items. No more instant fortresses or lyres of building or anything that had a cool, non-combat use that could meaningfully affect the gameworld.

--A focus on gamism. As much as D&D failed to create a realistic world, 3e at least gave a nod to simulationism. 4e strips any attempt to simulate a fantasy world, instead filling the game with minions and enemies that don't use ranged weapons. Add into that mix a huge number of powers that make no sense (such as Come and Get It and Bloody Path) without metagaming, and you have something that doesn't resemble D&D in the least.

Feel free to correct me on any of these issues if I am incorrect.

[shadzar]

You forgot, "Ze game will remain ze same." But pretty much naild everything else.

I think also there is that everoyne can heal themselves, which neglect it really only works when you have someone else use your healing surges for you with their own abilities, rather than just trying to use second wind yourself.

Which add to the fact that "4th removes the accounting or resources" when in fact it really didnt, but gave you more thing you have to keep track of, in part shown by your combat example.

[RandomCasualty2]

The only one I really disagree with is the "4E says yes/no to players".


If anything the "says yes to players" myth is one that should be attached to 3E, not 4E.

The amount of viable characters in either edition are much smaller than the amount of possible characters. 4E simply does a better job of steering people in the right direction as to what character to make, where as 3E has this illusion that you can do anything, when in reality, you seriously can't... at least not without sucking.

[Roy]

The say yes thing mostly comes up because if you don't give all PCs all items that are exactly what they want at every level, you might as well play that Price is Right horn now because you Fail.

Even 3.5 non casters don't fail that badly... while there is a list of specific things that you need, and not getting them effectively removes you from the table that list of specific things is not drawn up in exact detail even for the gimp classes.

[Doom]

I'll add my vote for the missing "The game plays the same" line. Anyone who's tried running those D&D modules with DnD4.0 can see just how much simply does not translate.

[A Man In Black]

Most of this is good stuff, but...

1. The redefinition of “Core.”
However, “brilliant marketing” does not preclude the descriptor of “intellectual dishonesty.” Rebranding something so that it is more palatable (from “splatbooks” to “Core rulebooks”) does not change what it is—a dialectical sleight-of-hand that could be likened to changing “extremely bad” to “doubleplusungood.”

I always thought that "everything is core" meant that they won't stint from making add-ons for things published in add-ons, that gamerules material added in setting books will be covered outside of that setting where appropriate, and that everything is more or less as well-balanced as core. Those three things are actually true, if debatably good ideas.

Sure, if you define "everything as core" to be completely meaningless, it's dialectical sleight-of-hand! But it's not completely meaningless.

[Roy]

I'll add my vote for the missing "The game plays the same" line. Anyone who's tried running those D&D modules with DnD4.0 can see just how much simply does not translate.

Good catch. I never did get any bites from the tards at GitP when I challenged them to duplicate a relatively simple dungeon setup in 4.Fail, without gimping the mobs, and have the characters able to deal with it.

Pretty embarassingly simple too for high level. Just a fairly standard necromancer's lair.

Some Inflict type traps that are easy to find... because you're supposed to trigger them, thereby not setting off the real trap... an alarm.

Front door made of adamantine, surrounding wall stone, and oh yeah rogues are ranged touch sneak attacking you through arrow slits until you break the door down. Also, most of the undead in there take half damage from non bludgeoning weapons, are constantly being healed by negative energy, or both.

Then you get inside, and you can't teleport but the enemies can... which they will, as the PCs navigate through the place amidst lots of incorporeal guards that have that ghostly grasp feat so they can ring simple alarm bells as well. Lots of symbols of death about, and some constructs and such too, to mix it up.

All of the real enemies there have at least one really good trick that is hard to counter, and synergizes well with the others like mass debuff spam (render two people enfeebled, clumsied, exhausted, and dizzied a round, no save, or play pinball, or whatever) and a good amount of durability so they probably won't get one rounded.

And so forth. 4.Fail can't do it, no one can DPS hard enough to kill the mobs in time.

[Windjammer]

Feel free to correct me on any of these issues if I am incorrect.

I'm not going to, but I'd like to throw in a couple of points to the contrary (and no, I don't think these tip the scale).

1. The redefinition of “Core.”

It's actually only a minimal, if decisive, step up from the 3.5 philosophy prevalent in most groups "We'll play core only - and the Complete books". Which is why WotC gave us a (crappy) round of second Completes. It had nothing to do with content, let alone content quality. These books where pitched as "Complete's" though they didn't fit and, if anything, made the first round look bad (so not so 'complete' after all, ey?). They were so pitched to increase sales because WotC knew that most DMs were permitting these books at their tables. Which is the the whole gist behind 4E's "everything is core" philosophy.

While we're at it, this is my take on most issues you raise. 3.5 showed WotC do a lot of what pisses people off about 4E. The only difference, however, is that 4E is simply more blunt about it so that it's more widely noticed. That doesn't make what they're doing with 4E any better, and it also certainly doesn't cast a good light on 3.5 either.

2. The math “just works.”

It certainly doesn't work out of the book, and even die-hard fans understand that a thing like Weapon Expertise (PH2) is a stealth nerf to make up for some of the math errors in the system. Thing is though, 4E's math is extremely streamlined and such fixes are very easy to implement. MM2 brought a number of changes with regard to how you design the hp and damage output of solos and minions respectively. And you know what, they are dead easy to implement, whereas in 3.5 I found myself scrawling hideous pencilled notes into my books. The math in 4E isn't flawless but I find it very easy to implement and rectify when needed. That's not a merit of the game, but in practice I must say I appreciate it.

6. 4E reduces magic item dependency.

Again, that's missing from 4E as much as from 3.5 but much easier to fix. It's a three-line note in DMG 2 on how to get the system's expectations of which bonuses PCs pick up over 30 levels. And even that note is a more fiddly variation of something Mearls wrote earlier here:

you could also hand out a +1 attack and defense bonus at levels 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, and 28, dump all the enhancement bonuses from armor, weapons, and amulets, and make the entire issue [of PCs needing magic loot to remain viable] moot.

I dare you to write up the same with regard to 3.5 within those space constraints. See, there's been an quantitative reduction in how many items (and how varied) items a group of PCs need to remain viable at, say, level 15.

PS. I'm familiar with one of the things typed as 'fail' pro-4E arguments on this board, sc. of redeeming 4E by comparing it to 3.5. I want it to be understood that I don't offer the above considerations to redeem 4E from the criticisms made. I just find these considerations to mitigate the criticisms partially, far from wholly.

[ggroy]

[Username17]

Everything is Core so that they can make the statement that hundreds of thousands of Core books were sold in court and have that technically include all of their 4e products including such minor offerings such as Open Grave and Worlds and Monsters, and by doing so subtly imply to people who aren't good at math the Truth©, which of course is that the original 3 books sold over a million copies each.

On an unrelated note, how come Titanium Dragon hasn't been around lately?

-Username17

[Kaelik]

you could also hand out a +1 attack and defense bonus at levels 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, and 28, dump all the enhancement bonuses from armor, weapons, and amulets, and make the entire issue [of PCs needing magic loot to remain viable] moot.

I dare you to write up the same with regard to 3.5 within those space constraints. See, there's been an quantitative reduction in how many items (and how varied) items a group of PCs need to remain viable at, say, level 15.

Frankly Windjammer, this is dump as shit right here.

Yes, PCs need a crap ton of items to be viable at level 15 in 3.5

Of course, only as long as by "PCs" you mean "non casters."

And even that's ignore the facts that:

1) level 15 is effectively level 23 in 4e, and no math whatsoever works in 4e at that level, and parties actual won't be viable even with the listed bonuses at that level without also stacking eight billion magic item effects.

On the other hand a level 10 PC can actually just have no magic items but 8 +1/3rd level bonuses (or +1 level) as outlined in Book of Gears and be just fine in 3.5.

2) Take a real good look at what those level 15 required items actually do. Aside from provide bonuses (something that can be replaced as easily as the book of gears table) those effects are things like:

1) Teleporting
2) Flying
3) Healing
4) Seeing magic/invisible.

Also known as, shit 4e characters can't even ever do ever.

So all that "item mandatory" part of 3.5 is just that you are playing a different game, one which requires you to stand on a different level against monsters that don't suck ass.

And it still only really applies to non casters anyway.

[ggroy]

[Windjammer]

So all that "item mandatory" part of 3.5 is just that you are playing a different game

I agree with that. I'd actually prefer utility items to be back in 4E even if they were made mandatory. But that's the problem. They aren't in 4E, not even as non-mandatory items, because there's no place for utility magic in 4E, whether item- or spells-generated. That's for me the biggest flaw of the system - the decrease in play versatility.

Also, above I said how some math fixes are fairly easy to implement in 4E. But trying to re-introduce utility magic into 4E is a fix that no DM can accomplish. Even a simple things like levitation spells would break the game. It's that fragile in terms of design (e.g. the movement rates of high level monsters). The math is easy, but only because the math deals with a very narrow range of phenomena.

But I don't see why the statement that 4E has reduced the dependency of PCs on items is wrong. Of course that statement, when compared to 3E, is relativized to the respective edition of those items and PCs.

[Kaelik]

But I don't see why the statement that 4E has reduced the dependency of PCs on items is wrong. Of course that statement, when compared to 3E, is relativized to the respective edition of those items and PCs.

Well how about, because it is in fact wrong.

A 3.5 party can get by just find with 8 arbitrary bonuses at every level from 1-20. A 4e party cannot get by even with "level appropriate" bonuses at higher levels.

[Josh_Kablack]

4e has nine magical item slots

That's incorrect

1. Weapon - primary hand (arguably this should be split melee/ranged)
2. Weapon - off hand
3. Armor
4. Cloak/Amulet
5. Shield/Arms
6. Gloves
7. Boots
8. Belt
9. Ring One
10. Ring Two
11. Implement -primary
12. Implement - secondary (you can take feats to double up bonuses)
13. Holy Symbol (at least per Lago this is different than the implement slot)
14. Mount or Figurine of wonderous power
15. Mount or Companion Slot Item (such as barding or magic horseshoes)
16. Unslotted wonderous (stuff like bag of holding)
17+ Expansion cheese slots (solitaires, tatoos, battle standards, ioun stones, furniture, potions/consumables, magic ammunition and more by the hour)

and that's off the top of my head, I'm likely missing a few.

[Windjammer]

And it still only really applies to non casters anyway.

I also concede this point, to the extent that if we compared two caster-only parties in both 3.5 and 4E at a level where both of these were viable in their respective editions, then the 4E group would arguably rely on a greater amount of magic items in total than the 3E group.

A 3.5 party can get by just find with 8 arbitrary bonuses at every level from 1-20. A 4e party cannot get by even with "level appropriate" bonuses at higher levels.

I haven't played epic tier campaigns in 4E, nor have I done an analysis of the game in that area. For lack of being able to offer an authoritative opinion to the contrary, I'm willing to concede that you're right on this.

[Username17]

But I don't see why the statement that 4E has reduced the dependency of PCs on items is wrong.

It's wrong because it has a truth value of zero. It's wrong because it is not true. It is wrong because people who say that are by definition mistaken or lying.

Across the board, the 4e character has more mandatory magic items at every level that the game is even playable at. A 3e warrior needs a +1 magic item by level 3 to keep from being auto-gibbed by allips. A 4e character needs a sword, a cloak of protection, and a suit of magic armor at that level to keep from falling behind the curve they are explicitly expected to stay on.

While 4e removed the Belt of Strength from the game, and thus one could argue that there are less standard magic items, this is definitely not the case since Iron Armbands of Power and Eager Boots and Salves of Power and such have all smoothly stepped into the void and made themselves just as essentially required as belts of strength ever were in 3e.

And lest we forget: a 3e character can actually hit enemies with a +1 sword. If they aren't incorporeal, he could be using a non magic sword, and the practical effect would be that it would go much slower because he'd power attack less. A 4e character without his sword seriously can't hit enemies with weapon attacks.

At any power level you care to mention, the 4e character is "entitled" to more magic items, and the experience of not having the magic items the character is entitled to is more futile than the 3e character. The claim that 4e made characters less magic item dependent by any measure is simply objectively false.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

I haven't played epic tier campaigns in 4E, nor have I done an analysis of the game in that area. For lack of being able to offer an authoritative opinion to the contrary, I'm willing to concede that you're right on this.

And the extent you are conceding it to be true is not the extent to which it is true.

The extent to which it is true is that a 3.5 party at any level consisting of any combination of Cleric/Wizard/Druid/Things of comparable spellcasting potential has a total magic item requirement of Zero to be viable in game.

Especially if you are going to hand out bonuses at specific levels, but even if you don't hand out any bonuses at all.

[Windjammer]

A 3e warrior needs a +1 magic item by level 3 to keep from being auto-gibbed by allips. A 4e character needs a sword, a cloak of protection, and a suit of magic armor at that level to keep from falling behind the curve they are explicitly expected to stay on.

Don't you see the discrepancy of the two cases as to what it means for a PC to be "viable"? In scenario one we got a PC who's chance to cause damage to the creature in question is nil. In scenario two we got a guy who's chance to hit a monster is lacking by a +1 bonus granted by the item, skewering his probability to hit foes by a solid 5% chance on a d20 roll (that's an approximation only). To say that both PCs "need" their respective gear to be viable in these scenarios seems to me to equivocate on the term at contention, "viable".

Sure, once we hit levels higher than 3 we get magic items in 4E with added effects which means the gap between characters which have them and those which don't is much wider than slight 'skewerings' in to-hit probabilities and their kin. I'm just wondering about the example you offered.

[Kaelik]

A 3e warrior needs a +1 magic item by level 3 to keep from being auto-gibbed by allips. A 4e character needs a sword, a cloak of protection, and a suit of magic armor at that level to keep from falling behind the curve they are explicitly expected to stay on.

Don't you see the discrepancy of the two cases as to what it means for a PC to be "viable"? In scenario one we got a PC who's chance to cause damage to the creature in question is nil. In scenario two we got a guy who's chance to hit a monster is lacking by a +1 bonus granted by the item, skewering his probability to hit foes by a solid 5% chance on a d20 roll (that's an approximation only). To say that both PCs "need" their respective gear to be viable in these scenarios seems to me to equivocate on the term at contention, "viable".

Sure, once we hit levels higher than 3 we get magic items in 4E with added effects which means the gap between characters which have them and those which don't is much wider than slight 'skewerings' in to-hit probabilities and their kin. I'm just wondering about the example you offered.

No, a level 3 fighter "needs" a magic weapon to fight and beat an enemy that is his equal.

A level 4-5 4e fighter (the equivalent) needs a +1-+2 bonus to defenses and armor and attack and damage to beat an enemy that is his equal.

If the level 3 fighter doesn't have a +1 weapon, he will go right ahead and lose to the Allip. But he will also beat many other level 3 challenge, far more than a level 4-5 fighter in 4e without any items.

And if you replace "Fighter" with "Druid" you end up with a character that can actually contribute to every possible level appropriate fight just fine without any items at all.

[erik]

The low level example isn't that great because the +1's aren't showing up in droves yet.

I've had to fight an allip once, so I suppose it does come up, but we had a well prepared party where some folks (me) had a +1 weapon, and other folks had various salves (potion) or scrolls of magic weapon which could be applied as needed. In general though that's a low level, very rare necessity. I went many, many years without ever having to care about Allips.

And in that stark situation of fail or win, it is obvious if you simply have to run away. It is not obvious that you are slowly sliding down the path to never winning when that those 5%'s keep slipping away.

That 5% comes up in every combat ever. In 4e since the RNG is so tight and precise, if you aren't on it, you are hosed. In character building it usually is demanded that you get your optimal class and weapon and stats all piled up perfectly from the get-go, otherwise that may be closer to a 20% ding at low levels. Oh, a dwarf rogue who uses a non-dagger weapon? Cool. Don't forget to stop by the buffet of eat a bag of dicks on your way out! If you don't keep up with your best possible item bonuses then that just exacerbates the problem. You may not notice when you are -2 to hit compared to your peers, but -8 means you rarely hit ever.

At higher levels it simply gets worse as you are called upon to gather up more item bonuses and if you don't have your proper equipment you fall so far behind that really you aren't even on the range of the random number generator any longer and then you are well and truly fucked in every combat ever. In 3e you could slip a few attack points down the range and still easily hit targets.

[Doom]

Good catch. I never did get any bites from the tards at GitP when I challenged them to duplicate a relatively simple dungeon setup in 4.Fail, without gimping the mobs, and have the characters able to deal with it.
.

But it's not just an encounter here or there...very little works that can be translated.


Consider a 1d6 arrow trap. For first level D&D characters, this by itself is something to be avoided...completely meaningless in DnD4.0, where damage outside of combat is completely irrelevant.

A 'dangerous' pit trap, capable of critically injuring a character? Impossible in DnD4.0 unless you go way off the encounter scale.

Exploration is just irrelevant, nothing can happen that matters.

A poison that takes 4 hours to kill? Completely alien to the system, might as well have a spell last exactly 3 rounds, impossible without a house rule.

Random encounter? Just no chance of it being relevant in DnD4.0, since surges mean very little, then only at low levels, and then only matter if one player runs out. Such things just don't compute in the DnD4.0 system, with so much healing it's goofy.

Remember the single sleeping giant guard in the old Against the Giants module? Even this doesn't translate, since the heroes lack any way of killing a lone giant in his sleep (unless you turn him into a minion, another can of crap entirely), or even a single round, even with everyone using 'encounter' powers for a single-trivial-monster encounter. There's no good way to simulate this type of encounter in DnD4.0 without houserules.

Monsters with a surprisingly powerful or really good surprise attack? Gawd, how many DnD monsters had a great surprise round, with a minimal followup (Trapper, Piercer, Mimic, for example), or could really screw careless players? Nothing like that in DnD4.0. Now, it's "I've got 30 hit points, even though the monster is 5 levels above me, no way it can hurt me enough to matter, I'll just take the opportunity attack", even against monsters the players/characters have never seen.

But, you get the idea, not the same game at all.

[Orca]

you could also hand out a +1 attack and defense bonus at levels 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, and 28, dump all the enhancement bonuses from armor, weapons, and amulets, and make the entire issue [of PCs needing magic loot to remain viable] moot.

I dare you to write up the same with regard to 3.5 within those space constraints. See, there's been an quantitative reduction in how many items (and how varied) items a group of PCs need to remain viable at, say, level 15.

That's not actually sufficient even for 4e. Some magic items have other properties which depend on enhancement bonus, some don't, and you're going to have to do something to work out the prices or availability of these if you use this house rule.

[Psychic Robot]

I dare you to write up the same with regard to 3.5 within those space constraints. See, there's been an quantitative reduction in how many items (and how varied) items a group of PCs need to remain viable at, say, level 15.

I'm on the way out the door right now--well, not literally, but sort of--so I'm going to address this one quickly.

Attack boost: +1 bonus on melee attack/damage rolls at 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18.
Defense boosts: +1 bonus on saves and to AC at 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18.

Both of those account for +stat items and flat increases. It's not perfect, but this is something I'm writing up as I post. I could create a more comprehensive system if I spent about twenty minutes on it.

[Kaelik]

I dare you to write up the same with regard to 3.5 within those space constraints. See, there's been an quantitative reduction in how many items (and how varied) items a group of PCs need to remain viable at, say, level 15.

I'm on the way out the door right now--well, not literally, but sort of--so I'm going to address this one quickly.

Attack boost: +1 bonus on melee attack/damage rolls at 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18.
Defense boosts: +1 bonus on saves and to AC at 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18.

Both of those account for +stat items and flat increases. It's not perfect, but this is something I'm writing up as I post. I could create a more comprehensive system if I spent about twenty minutes on it.

PR, you don't even need to bother.

It already exists:

1) Pick any eight of "one stat, saving throws, attack and damage, AC armor, AC deflection, AC natural Armor" You get a bonus equal to 1/3rd your level rounded up to those eight.
2) You may replace any one of those eight with a +level to skill or +level in energy resistance.

That alone provides all the numeric bonuses that any character needs in 3.5, and it already exists, and it exists as a fully fleshed out and explained mechanic that isn't just Mike Mearls lying to us. It's even been actually tested and everything.