Bump for ITS MY THREAD AND I WANT A FUCKING ANSWER

Logical error: implying that switching to pathfinder will compensate for roleplaying deficiency.

Conclusion:troll or moron. Either deserves a sage.

Pathfinder is pretty awesome. Its like 3.5 with a few nice tweaks.

But as a fellow lazy ass DM, I think I'd take a lot for me to switch to DMing something more DM intensive than easy mode 4.0.

Since editions do not have rules for roleplay, switching them will most likely have no effect on your players. Just talk with your players, tell them to be more creative, reason with them. They should listen. If not, then switching systems won't help either.

But yeah, edition won't change the amount of RP, that depends entirely on the DM and players themselves.

There would be a lot more precon adventures that you could use from Pathfinder/3.5. From my limited experience with precons, Pathfinder/3.5 were better than 4.0 ones. If anything precons would be good practice for the DM.

OP here. Same players, but something changed. And I don't think it's me; I feel like I've improved greatly as a DM>

>>9710216
Samefag OP

>>9710312
3/10

This is a troll thread.

Still OP. Not trollan. Also, not >>9710216. I've never played Pathfinder.

>>9710341

That post wasn't OP. Your troll detection needs to be recalibrate.

>>9710312

Maybe there is a preconception that "4.0 is limiting". Do you have any examples?

Pathfinder's pretty okay, but if you had problems with 3.5, I wouldn't recommend it.

4e is awesome, but as an RPG it makes a lot of bold statements concerning what RPGs should and shouldn't be. There are dozens of reasons why 4e might not be your cup of tea, and the fact that you can't put your finger in them doesn't make them invalid.

That said, Pathfinder really is just a spitshine of 3.5. The designers were fairly conservative (sure, they literally doubled the power of the Fighter class, but at high levels that's still not enough): they make their real money on the Pathfinder adventure line, which is excellent, and keeping some form of the core rules in print was just something they had to do to stay in business.

>>9710372
Case in point: My PCs rarely do called shots any more, or describe their attacks with as much variety, since the flavor text for at-wills more or less dictates what they do. Furthermore, the mage classes have more combat abilities and few utility/useless in combat but cool for other shit powers.

>>9710435
OP still. (I was >>9710501, too)
I loved 3.5; It was just a crapton of work to DM, what with homebrew, etc. I've retro-activated some 3.5 stuff into 4.0, nonetheless. (Weapon types, i.e. piercing)

>>9710439
What is your opinion on what sucks about 4.0?
>fighters
Dude, Fighters end up dealing over 200 damage in a round at the end of the game. As far as damage and combat utility goes, Fighters are pretty well boss. The only thing Fighters are missing are things that do not belong in the Fighter class(The ability to fly, summon monsters.)

>>9710518

Pathfinder is going to be about the same amount of work as 3.5 (there are several changes that make the game run smoother but none that have a huge effect).

But, like I said earlier, Golarion is a cool world with some really great adventure paths. Maybe you should look into those?

>>9710181

It's not a bad idea if 4e isn't doing it for your players. Sometimes a system simply doesn't work for a group of players. This doesn't imply the system has failed(though it may be at fault), but that it's not a good fit for your party. There's nothing wrong with this. Try Pathfinder and see if it fixes things.

Very good idea OP. The sooner shit edition gets dumped the better, heck we've only got 2 years until 5th edition rite guise?

>>9710439
This. 4e is what is it and makes no apologies. This is great if you like it! If you don't, it's a miserable edition to try and play.

>>9710501

Well called shots are bad news in any system. "I call shot face, hoping to take out an eye" -> now every baddy is also call shotting everything. Its assumed that the attacks are being aimed at the most vulnerable part anyways... hence critical hits. However sometimes called shots would be more viable/less deadly, like sundering weapons, disarming, etc (which 4.0 does not have, to my knowledge).

As to mages not having as many utility powers. True, that is one of the central aspects of 4.0, everyone is balanced for combat... while non-combat mechanics don't get as much rules attention (not necessarily a bad thing, and doesn't mean that it is restricted to only combat... just you have to use more imagination for non combat and less imagination for combat).

Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. It might be best to talk it over with your players and talk about what they like and dislike about each system.

>>9710501
>and few utility/useless in combat but cool for other shit powers.

RITUALS.

YES, EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO RITUALS.

NO, THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING.

>>9710610
It's not necessarily a good thing, either.

>>9710626

THIS IS TRUE. IT'S MERELY A TRAIT OF THE SYSTEM.

I PERSONALLY LIKE IT. THE MAGE IS ROOTING THROUGH HIS BACKPACK, LOOKING FOR THAT DAMN SCROLL. THE BARBARIAN STANDS UP AND BELLOWS "I GOT THIS!" AND STARTS CHANTING GOBBLEDYGOOK.

>>9710658
I personally dislike it, as D&D is a class based system and this erodes it. I'm all for variety, but if I want that I'll play a more freeform system that doesn't shoe horn things into class builds. If I'm playing D&D, I want the wizards and clerics doing that since I want the stereotypical D&D time.

OP here.
We have yet to use rituals, to be honest.

man I've never used a ritual

... and I'm a wizard

>>9710679

Also that kinda leads to the "all the classes are the same" argument that I run into all the time.

>>9710546

I didn't say that anything sucked about 4e, but its focused tightly on some game design theories that not everyone agrees with. The reason I don't play it personally is that it dissolves the illusion of a world existing independently of the PCs. Everything about the system tells the heroes "you are special and the world revolves around you". I run game worlds that are full of heroes- the PCs aren't special unless they MAKE themselves special.

That doesn't mean that putting the heroes on a pedestal is bad game design, though. It just isn't for everyone.

Also, see: >>9710217
4e takes the stance that mechanics should not influence roleplay, should not inform and encourage your desired genre, and should not be an integrated part of your game world.

"Roleplaying has nothing to do with system", a 4e fan will tell you, "And therefor 4e is just as good for roleplaying as any other game on the market". Which is absolutely true, provided that your expectations for a system always line up with theirs.

>>9710679

FAIR ENOUGH. I FOUND MY SPOT IN THE TRICKY-DICK SEMI-CLASS-BASED SYSTEMS, SO IT APPEALS TO ME WHEN A CLASS CAN TAKE A LITTLE BIT FROM ANOTHER, AT THE COST OF A FEAT AND NOT BEING AS GOOD AT IT AS ITS HOME CLASS.

I love the idea of 4e rituals, but they feel just so damn useless most of the time.

>>9710706

Our group played nothing but 4.0 for an entire year after it came out. We used a total of 2 rituals over that entire time... and they were both used at the same time, so really we only used rituals once.

Been covered already, but it's pretty unlikely that changing back to 3.5 is going to appreciably change the amount of arpee in your group.

>>9710720
Yeah, when I play D&D these days we play 2nd edition or 3.5 with limited multiclassing. Maybe I'm just old, but I have a very defined idea of what a D&D session should be.

>>9710720

Personally, I like my class-based systems to be as agile as possible. I like and encourage multiclassing, for instance. A class is not something you should feel confined by, it's just a tool for making your character.

However, that doesn't mean I want to run a world where anyone can do magic just because they're the protagonists. Magic should be more special and exclusive than that.

Try FantasyCraft? It smooths a lot of the rough bumps on 3.5, and presents a solid, consistent system. I'd say the weakest point is the mounted combat rules, but those are rarely done well. Plus, it has a dedicated system for chase scenes!

>>9710824

Ugh, I loathe FantasyCraft. Overhyped as hell.

>>9710734
Same here.

Keep in mind, WotC was trying to fix a system that often degenerated into "lol, I solve it with magic." It's better to have rituals that aren't always useful to rituals being the only reasonable solution.

>>9710765

It's also been said already that this isn't really true.

One of the big reasons WHY the 4e crowd play 4e is that it is a good system if you aren't the sort of player who lets the system cramp your style or influence your experience. It runs smoothly, it's well balanced, and it makes for fun-awesome fight scenes, which for some players is really all they've ever wanted from a system.

Not all players are like that, though. For some, the game system can have a HUGE influence on the tone and mood of a game and no one who knows anything about game design would say otherwise.

OP. I gotta be honest, I'm not even sure what exactly a fucking ritual is. Does the wizard hold the fighter's hand in a magical seance and teach him how to cast Magic Missile? Like seriously, I don't know the mechanics, or the fluff.

>>9710824

I was going to recommend Fantasy Craft until OP said that 3e took too much prep time.

FC would be a step in the wrong direction for him. It has rules for EVERYTHING, and not all of them are good.

>>9710845
OP here. Well said, especially on that last part. That's why 4E feels a little flat to me sometimes.

>>9710856
Rituals are spells that take too long to be cast during combat. They require expensive components and have hard limits. Only ritual casters may use them, such as wizards. Scrolls imitate rituals, but anybody can use them.

>>9710845

As a branch off from that, the game system effects world design, too. A world designed with 3.5 rules in mind is going to be different from a world designed with 4e rules in mind.

>>9710888
So, like Create Item type stuff? Does it go by level, or some kind of progressive check, or what?

4e has martial practices and and magic rituals, so there are plenty of out of combat stuff that a creative mind will latch onto.

The problem is that in combat creativity is not as rewarded as it is in 3.5, though not for the reasons you might be thinking. In 3.5, you're encouraged to fight one tough monster at a time. This means that if you do pull off something creative and deal a significant amount damage, that creative move is going to be a significant part of the battle. Of course, 3.5 has pretty much zero rules for stunts and such, so this is all up to your DM, but even a reasonable advantage or bonus will feel significant because the combat is going to be over so soon and you'll have around 3 or 4 turns total.

Now, 4e on the other hand encourages you to fight multiple monsters at the same time. It also provides rules for stunts. At level 20, a super creative and interesting stunt will deal 4d12+7 damage. However, a level 18 fire giant--a regular, standard monster--has 174 hp. That means that whatever awesome thing you did dealt less than 1/5th that monster's hp in damage, and it's only one monster out of many. The stunt is a drop in the bucket.

Compounding this is that 4e encourages options. Lots and lots of options for a character to pick from during combat. 3.5 is all about the one-trick ponies. That means that a player isn't going to be distracted by having to think tactically and can let their mind wander to doing more creative things.

So, yeah. 4e has less creative combat because it makes combat exciting and makes the players think tactically.

>>9710919

That, and the rewards for creative actions are usually super low, which is something a DM can do something about. Increase the damage dealt by stunts like this: Get rid of the normal damage expressions, replace it with the limited damage expressions. For limited damage, make the damage relative to the monster's hp and type.

Standard Monster: Normal damage deals 1/4 the monster's max hp. High deals 1/2.

Elite: Normal deals 1/5, high deals 2/5.

Solo: Normal deals 1/10, high deals 2/10.

And don't forget status effects. Dealing damage alone is nice, but stunning a monster for a round is a gamewinner.

Wee, rambling is fun.

>>9710856
Rituals are a 4E system for handling magic which is not combat appropriate. This would encompass things like a massive a plot-centric city-destroying spell, permanent illusions, and Wish.

The problem is, none of those are rituals... the rituals they do have are terrible.

>>9710992

Over correction from 3.5. 4e is nothing but a big overcorrection to 3.5, thinking about it.

>>9710919

A way to get around the giant boring sacks of HP may be to cut down each monster's HP. Maybe even increase their damage as well.

Monsters having hundreds of hit points and only dishing out a couple d6's worth of damage a turn really started slowing down the combats in my experience.

>>9710992
OP here. Well, that sucks.
Also, ITT: A civil discussion about 3.5 and 4E and Pathfinder. Whoa.

>>9711024
Sometimes you roll a 20-20-20 crit.

>>9711005
Honestly, I just think that whoever they had in charge of writing the rituals was just not very good, or had to rush it. It's not like the system's un-fixable, but the rituals as written are so bad.

>>9711085
I dunno. They made such a big stink about 'fixing' D%D that I'm more inclined to see it as an intentional nerfing. Super powered casters were 3rd edition, it's obvious they wanted a new edition with 4e.

>>9710861
Good point - FC has many virtues, but it does have its flaws, and one of those is that it does take a lot of prep time.

For easymodo DM, 4e really is the best, and can easily be adjusted - I've houseruled all sorts of scenarios for my players to expand the scope of the system, and it's easy because it has a template and guidelines for most things.

>The problem is that in combat creativity is not as rewarded as it is in 3.5, though not for the reasons you might be thinking.

The reason I quit 3e is because I had the opposite opinion: that combat did not reward creativity.

Consider the game warcraft 3. WC3 is a real time strategy game in which the player commands multiple units on the battlefield . There are various automated processes to assist in this, the most prevalent is "attack-move," which is a subroutine that causes a unit to move to a point or unit, and attack everything it sees along the way.

When I played a fighter in 3e, I found that any attempt at using tactics would not perform better than "attack-move."

WC3 also allows you to set certain spells to autocast by right-clicking them so that the unit will "heal-move." When I played a cleric, I had two options, "heal-move," using no thought at all, and using divine metamagic exploits to turn myself into a better fighter, who would be best played using "attack-move."

In 4e, every character has multiple things to do and resources to manage. Even the fighter can do something interesting that shows off their talent as a master of arms in combat.

>>9711085

Also there seems to be a lack of combat related, but not cast in combat spells/rituals. There isn't any sort of "day long spells you cast when you wake up" sort of things ala mage armour, contingencies, magic weapon, etc. But even if there were rituals for those type of things, unless there is some other components other than buckets of gold no one would ever use these spells/rituals.

>>9711024

All you have to do is ignore the trolls and the people claiming that you are a troll. This sort of discussion is something everyone benefits from. Fuck fanboys.

>>9711137

Oh that must be where all the trolls and fanboys are. In that case I wish the trap thread a long life. Keeps them out of our hair.

>>9710907

This really gets to the heart of the issue, I think.

Because many 4e fans will say that, "No, the rules shouldn't limit the kind of world you play in." World = flavortext, system = mechanics, and never the two shall meet.

Bringing things back to N/G/S (for what little THAT's good for), 4e manages to be an excellent game for both narrative and gamist play: but it does so by making a total trollface at simulationism (i.e the relationship between system and gameworld), thus freeing up the narrative parts and the mechanical parts to go their separate ways unhindered by eachother.

A 4e player can describe his character's victories in the most evocative and awesome terms that he can come up with, without worrying about "contradicting" the rules. If he wants to say that THAT HAND OF HIS IS BURNING RED, he bloody well can, and he doesn't have to be playing a monk/wizard to do it.
He should likewise feel free to do whatever awesome thing he wants mechanically; I don't think I've EVER heard anyone call a character "cheesy" in 4e, which is damnwell remarkable.

I think that this is all awesome and that 4e players should go on having fun with their game. All I ask is that they recognize that not everyone shares their values. For some of us, the best part about roleplaying games (as contrasted with non-roleplaying games, or with rules-free roleplaying) is the interesting and complex interactions between the narrative/gameworld elements and the rules/system elements. And if you're that kind of gamer, then 4e just doesn't have much to offer you.

>>9711233

Yeah, exactly. I like having a set of rules that effects and intertwines with the world. I like having set boundaries; if I wanted more freeform I'd just play a diceless system altogether. 4e often feels like a rejection of what D&D was for a long time because of that.

>>9711012
The monster hit point totals are actually a consequence of the role system combined with the three-tiered attack system.

An at-will is one man-round. An encounter power is two, and a daily is three. A striker deals damage equal to approximately 1.5 times that of a non-striker.

This means that a monster has to have at least 4 man-rounds of hit points to not be consistently wiped out by strikers, but at the same time, it can't be any higher because a non-striker still needs to be able to end encounters.

The problem is that the first generation monsters were designed to survive five to six man rounds at heroic, with an extra round for paragon and epic. The monsters from the monster manual two are designed much better.

I like Pathfinder because it just allowed me to play the sort of characters I like. I like playing a part-aberrant sorcerer (inb4 CASTER EDITION HURR DURR) with freakish proportions who has all these spells that are simply useful for other stuff than combat. While 4e does have that (and to say it doesn't would be trolling hard) it just doesn't feel the same for me. Hence I prefer Pathfinder, though 4e isn't a bad game, it's just not for me.

We totally need to archive this thread and repost THE WHOLE THING every time an edition war flares up again.

>>9711263
I think that's why there's a lot of edition wars, or at least one reason. This inherent change and possible rejection cuts deep.

>>9711310
Archived.

>>9711266

Yeah I definitely noticed that (MM1 < MM2). I once used an encounter combining both MM1 and MM2 monsters: the players assumed that the non tanky looking (MM1) monsters would be the easiest to take down... they ended up fleeing the encounter because they used up all their encounters + remaining dailys on the MM1 hit point bags.

Also they fought a dragon once... it ate all their encounters and dailys, and in the end it was just an At-Will beat down (with the potential for the monster to regain his powers on a lucky roll).

True the group didn't really have any strikers at the moment... but that is one of my favourite parts about 4.0, a bad party composition will make it more challenging, but not impossible. Its not like a 3.5 party without a cleric or anything.

>>9710181
Play this.

>>9711323

There are a lot of misconceptions on both sides. To be fair, there were (and to a lesser extent still are, in spite of the 4rries best efforts) a lot of 3e grognards who had never read 4e and had no intention of doing so, but were still more than willing to parrot the silly rumors ('no skill system') and faulty criticisms which they'd heard from other 3e grognards. Same with Pathfinder- most of the people making specific criticisms haven't so much as read the SRD.

>>9711301
To expand, there's just this feeling of having done something awesome when you're being chased by undead to the top of a tower, and the fighter and ranger have to hold them off while you and the cleric find a way to use your magic to get the lot of you out of there safely without simply resorting to teleportation, which has been nullified. Every single spell is always there, while in 4e it sometimes feel as if you have access to a certain set of powers while bad guys are there and another when they're not. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but I don't know how else to get the point across. By having rituals separate from the rest it sort of feels like different rules apply in and out of combat, which kind of ruins the feeling for me.

The rules are no longer cold, hard facts, they just sort of float about. While it allows you to customize yourself in a completely different way in 4e, that's not really what I want. When I want customization, I'll play Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS or Savage Worlds. D&D/Pathfinder for me is nostalgia. It's playing generic fantasy, because it feels like going back to when you were 16 and Lord of the Rings was the coolest thing ever.

OP here. I'm proud to have begun this thread, fa/tg/uys.

>>9711467
>By having rituals separate from the rest it sort of feels like different rules apply in and out of combat, which kind of ruins the feeling for me.
pardon the cliche, but have you tried NOT feeling like different rules apply in and out of combat? That seems like an arbitrary reaction due to what amounts to an organizational decision. 3e has spells with long casting times as well, and yet this does not appear to bother you as much as rituals do.

>>9711551

Same thing crossed my head when I read his post. 3e definitely has non-combat spells two. I don't think that invalidates his point, though- it's not just an organizational decision, it was a design decision.

In 4e, there are very few combat options which are applicable outside of combat, and very few non-combat options which are applicable in combat. This was done 100% on purpose. The designers are trying to tell you that what happens outside of combat should not be constrained by a system which is basically designed for fighting.

>>9711551
Hey, I'm going to be the first to admit it may just be me feeling awkward about an organizational decision rather than actually being a problem with the game. Maybe it's the exact same thing. But even if it is, if it feels different for me, at the end of the day it still feels different. Sort of like a placebo effect, I guess.

I don't really know what I'm saying anymore, so I'll just leave it at that before I look like even more of an insane douchebag. 4e feels different, and I want D&D to feel the same. To me it's nostalgia, safety, whatever you want to call it and 4e doesn't feel like that. If I wanted different, I'd play something radically different and not sort-of-the-same-but-not-really.

>>9711551
I think the dichotomy mostly stems from how the combat is designed - it lasts only a few rounds, unless you're stuck on a MM1 solo. A ritual would take several dozen rounds to cast. While in 3e you could actually have fights that draw out stupidly (this brings to mind a tank battle I was once stuck in, with wizard out of spells and four high AC fighters that could only hit each other on 20) and a 10 minute ritual could be enacted, in 4e the battle would have long since been decided, if nothing else then by attrition. You have to intentionally design an encounter that would last that long, while in 3e you could make one by randomly selecting a MM entry.

>In 4e, there are very few combat options which are applicable outside of combat, and very few non-combat options which are applicable in combat.
Utility powers. As a character levels up, nearly 40% of their powers will be utility powers. Every splatbook with powers has non-combat powers for every class at every appropriate level. Also consider skill-based utility powers.

>The designers are trying to tell you that what happens outside of combat should not be constrained by a system which is basically designed for fighting.
Not being constrained doesn't mean it shouldn't matter. There are tons of things that are important that happen outside of combat, and the characters have many ways to interact with them. That being said, I do agree to an extent.

Remember OD&D, where charisma did almost nothing? Sometimes when people say that D&D is all about rules, what they are really saying is that they have only played 3e.

>>9711721
I can hardly see this change as anything but a good thing.

>>9711722
Aren't utility powers just combat powers that don't deal damage?

What utility powers are intended to be used outside of combat?

>>9711832

The wizard has, in the phb1, Feather Fall, Jump, Dimension Door, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Levitate, Arcane Gate, Fly, Greater Invisibility, Mass Fly, and Mordenkein's Mansion.

>>9711721

3eeaboo here, I really don't know what you're talking about. What the hell was going on with those fighters that they could only hit eachother on a 20? It's REALLY hard to get your AC 20 points over your attack bonus; as a straight-classed fighter I'm actually not sure if it's possible. Maybe if you spent all your cash on magic armor and shields and none of it on magic weapons or str-boosts.

>>9711902

Thanks bro, it's appreciated. My experiences with 4e were pretty brief.

That said, try to list the spells in the 3e phb that have both in-combat and out-of-combat utility and you're going to go crosseyed. I still say it was a design goal to try to keep non-combat play from being determined by a character's combat powers.

>>9711832

>>9710501

This is easily fixed, and I say so as someone who likes 3.x better than 4e. People complain that all 4e powers are the same with different fluff and power stat, but having the mechanics divorced from the descriptions can really be a character creation plus.

As long as the end result is mechanically the same, encourage your players to rename and re-each of their powers. This alone could put a lot of flavor distance between two characters of the same class in a party (4e doesn't really support two of's but still...) even if the two characters technically have the 60%+ the same power selection.

You can even allow them to change certain similar damage types if they like to tailor a character that only does cold/lighting-thunder/fire. Because all the pieces are so modular in 4e a player can, DM willing, create a lot of variety in 4e without relying on another edition's more expansive rules/spell lists.

The game is about fun, story, characters. If the rules at any point get in the way of these 3 goals, then change or ignore them. So many people act like published material is word of God but really the core books are just leaping off points for adventure.

Have fun.

Now to stick with my 3eaboo credo, I'm planning on buying some Pathfinder soon and running through some of their adventures. I played one not too long ago and I think their's are well written and fun. The 4e stuff I've played through did little to interest me.

Happy gaming my friend.

>>9711957
I think that's true. Everyone has equal access to out of combat spells, which means everyone has out of combat utility. It prevents one class, or set of classes, from doing everything, leaving others with nothing.

As well, I don't think 3.5 had a whole bunch of out of combat spells that would be used in combat. I mean, what use does Knock, or Light, or whatever have in the everage 3.5 combat?

>>9712237

I don't want to negate earlier comments about different strokes etc. If a game doesn't workfor you, then it just doesn't work for you, and you aren't obligated to keep trying it when your group could be having more fun elsewhere.

That said, this is good advice.

>>9712237

>re-each

re-fluff each of their powers. It's easy and fun. Causes you to be more invested in your character. I made a druid who worshipped a Death Bear so I renamed each of power to reflect the theme. There was like a cone of cold type power which I described as a bear made of icy wind that projected from the character and lashed out wildly at those in the area of effect.

Pathfinder sucks.

>>9712313

>check /tg/
>see "hurf durf 4E makes my players dum, i r want play pathfinder" thread
>half of thread is measured and reasonable discussion about 4E/3.5
>mind blown

>>9710181
A better question is do you already own it or 3.5 because its half assed "fix" didn't fix the problem and sure as hell didn't fix "caster edition" it just made non casters do a bit more damage.

>>9712389
He inb4'd Edition War.

I can't, in good conscience, violate the Treaty of Inb4.

We lost a lot of good men in that war.

>>9712260

Knock not so much. But just in the last couple Pathfinder sessions I've had we've used the following "non-combat spells" in combat: light, detect magic, ghost sounds, message, and mage hand.

Also, I could see a Hold Portal spell being much more combat useful than the respective 4.0 ritual to lock doors. One in a standard action, the other digs into your gold and takes longer than a standard action.

But once again, different does not mean that one system is better/worse than the other.

>>9712411

Aaaaand now the faggots are out of the Trap thread.

Well it was fun while it lasted.

>>9712454
Spells take spell components.

Spell components cost money.

I'm gonna start charging for these things.

>>9712492

>spell component pouch

Grasshopper legs, pinches of dirt, dead fireflies, etc don't cost much.

I'm not paying thousands of gold for grasshopper legs.

>>9712313

Imagine you're running a spies-and-commandos game using d20 modern or a similar system. Now imagine one of your players says "Hi, I've built a special forces guy with a bazooka, but I want to refluff him to be a DBZ style martial artist. His ranged attack represents his Kamehameha beam, and his body armor represents his natural toughness."

That's the way some roleplayers feel when you start talking about 'refluffing'. Cone of cold is cone of cold- magic works a specific way, which doesn't change based on player whim.

Personally I wouldn't take it THAT far. I think that magic is maliable to an extent and is an expression of its wielder; I like it when my players describe spectral bears rather than just blasts of cold. Hell, the 3e PHB encourages that kind of 'refluffing'. But where that boundary lies is a matter of taste. When you refluff something you're actually worldbuilding- changing the game world in order to fit your character.

>>9712454
>Knock not so much.

Clearly you have never run an escape scene.

As for light, the first thing subterranian monster should do (when fighting creatures from above ground) is stalk them until they find an opportunity to steal their light source. When I play a caster I ALWAYS have this prepared, and now so do my players.

>>9712552
>d20 modern or a similar system
>"Hi, I've built a special forces guy with a bazooka, but I want to refluff him to be a DBZ style martial artist.

the problem here is that you have chosen an intentionally awful character

additionally, the problem is also that you think of the game mechanics as a representation of a real world somewhere, as opposed to game mechanics

if someone says "i want to run a warforged who is powered by some cthulu chunks scraped off of that boat that kicked cthulu's ass, and refluff the spells as various megaman cannons," that's fucking great and you should stop whining you whiny whiner

>>9712637

Correct, haven't done much running/escaping.

Also light, much too useful not to have ready.

>>9712680

>intentionally awful character

>refluff the spells as various megaman cannons," that's fucking great

Megaman < DBZ

Argument invalid.

>>9712732
the problem with selectively quoting to make me look bad is that people can scroll up two posts and read mine

refluffing owns, warforged own, lasers own

>>9712766
Depends on the setting, really. Not all games benefit from having MAJIKK ROBOT LAZORS.

>>9712680
>additionally, the problem is also that you think of the game mechanics as a representation of a real world somewhere, as opposed to game mechanics

That's not a problem. That's a difference of opinion between yourself and I.

There is nothing "intentionally awful" about a DBZ character- that's a copout on your part. That sort of character WOULD be appropriate for some games. Just not for the one I described.
Likewise, using a warforged to represent some kind of eldritch cthulhu-construct might go over just fine in some games. But that isn't what they are in Eberron, and to include such a character in Eberron is to change the game world to suit your character rather than the other way around.

Which isn't wrong, but it isn't right either. When such shenanigans are or aren't appropriate is a matter of taste.

>>9712766

>refluffing owns, warforged own, lasers own

Re fluffing owns, homoerotic super powerful men own, kamehameha's own

>>9712797
True dat.

I had a warforged psychic warrior once. There were a race of vikings in the setting, and no warforged. I refluffed him so he was a full suit of armour, not an armour-person. He was forged in hell and occupied by the ghosts of a dead viking clan. His psychic powers were the spirits lending their aid. Sole initial goal: seek vengeance on the betrayers of the clan.

>>9712846
Actually, his explanation of a warforged mage as something forged from metal tainted by the daelkyr would go down a storm in Eberron, it fits perfectly.

>>9712846
but you keep assuming that refluffing requires destroying the setting

if someone wants to be a ninja, do you homebrew a ninja class, or do you say "rogue, short sword, movement powers, multiclass sorcerer if you're the magical kind of ninja, done"

yeah, you could go say "but sorcerers don't work like that" but who gives a shit, you have a set of mechanics that accurately represents the magical kind of ninja, go fucking roleplay

>>9712876
i'm not too familiar with eberron

i'll add this as an edit though, if i played that character it would be lawful good and played super straight and not for laughs

>>9712876

Your right, my bad. I first read his post as implying that warforged stats were being used to represent something that did not actually come out of a creation forge.

Point stands with regard to megamn lazers, though. To say that DBZ homages are never appropriate but megaman homages are always appropriate is to be intentionally thick-headed. What is or isn't appropriate is up to the group in question.

To refluff something is to engage in player-end worldbuilding. Sometimes that's okay, sometimes it isn't.

>player-end worldbuilding.

it's possible that i am weird in that i play in settings that are as generic as possible to encourage this

also, [green]implying dms can't refluff[/green]

>>9712991
He's not implying that.

>>9712912
>do you homebrew a ninja class, or do you say "rogue, short sword, movement powers, multiclass sorcerer if you're the magical kind of ninja, done"

There's really nothing wrong with either approach. Or, for that matter, both approaches at once.

The only problem (with both approaches at once) is that it MIGHT be inaccurate, from an in-game perspective, to describe your guy as a ninja. You're a magic-powered guy who can become invisible by chanting and gesturing; 'ninjas' are chi-powered guys who can go invisible in the blink of an eye by doing nothing. They aren't the same thing.

>>9712991
>it's possible that i am weird in that i play in settings that are as generic as possible to encourage this

It's not weird, especially post-4e. It's not bad, either. It's awesome. But it's different.

That's my point. It's not for everyone.

>>9712991
>>9713026

I did take it for granted that we were discussing things from a player's point of view. If a GM takes the stats for a halfling and says "I'm using these to represent humans cursed to always be children".. I guess you COULD call that 'refluffing', but to me, that's just general worldbuilding.

"Refluffing" is when a player then says "I want to play a midget who's good at throwing things, and I want to use halfling stats for it".

>you're a magic-powered guy who can become invisible by chanting and gesturing; 'ninjas' are chi-powered guys who can go invisible in the blink of an eye by doing nothing. They aren't the same thing.

i think this is where we are having difficulty because i perceive chanting, gesturing, and chi as fluff

>>9713173
>>9713173

In this case, they actually aren't. A ninja can become invisible underwater, in a zone of magical silence, while his hands are tied behind his back, etc. And he can do it as a swift action, rather than a standard action.

>>9713531
i'm pretty sure that the refluffing discussion started about 4e, in which everything is unique and diverse powers and thus you can change the names of stuff without it ruining anything

>>9713654

That's just using the "all 4.0 classes are the same" argument, but in support of the system though :/

>>9713654

Totally, yup. 4e is made to be refluff-friendly. It's made to give players more narrative control, and it's made to avoid associating specific powers with specific 'fluff' (see also: >>9711233 ).

Even in 4e, however, the degree to which players should be refluffing depends on the DM and what kind of world he wants to run. Some DMs are perfectly content to let a player stat up a wushu fighter as a swordmage. Others will say "No, your character is still drawing on the arcane powers source, and anyone who sees him fight can tell that. If you want chi, play a monk."

>>9713689
i don't actually think all classes are the same, it's extremely obvious if you actually play that you have to use them differently to be effective

but unified mechanics definitely encourages refluffing and imagination which is probably confusing to people who are used to mechanics and fluff relating (see: the difference between the magical rogue and the ninja)

>>9713929

I'm pretty sure this is the first time one of your posts has confused anyone. I'm not sure what you are trying to say anymore.

>>9714051
nothing that hasn't been said previously

goodbye, thread, you are clearly over

>>9714097

If you say so.

>>9714051

That's about all I got out of that post as well.

>See 4e vs. 3.5e vs. 3e thread.
>Click, expecting trolls and huge flamewar
>Civilised discussion
>My face

>>9714552
Summer's just ending. It'll start again in a few weeks.

Pathfinder: Making peace between 3.5beards and 4Ebeards since May 2010.

>>9714566

Now why did you have to remind us. I was content in my delusion that /tg/ has rose above that.

everyoen saying that the game has no hold on how your players roleplay is a noob. yes their acting orlarping is up to them. but when the game system limits your actions what is the point, why do i want to play a game were i can only use attack spells during battle, rather then have fun and use knock an the target... full plate + knock = fun. attack spell + damage = same, over, over, again. the rules have alot to do with how much your players have fun and what they do. when the rules are to tight the players lack the will to try. you all know this is true

>>9714682
but knock wouldn't do anything unless they were using a locked gauntlet and even still.

>>9714714
depending if the armor was latched or not

>>9714819
Unless your opponent is wearing armor made from locked doors that wouldn't be very effective.

>>9714819
>>9714981
Eh? Eh?

>>9714981
Read the 3.0 knock spell, and then post repost. if you pay attetion it dose not say what you cannot do, it is telling you the kind of things it dose. thus armor with any kind of buckles to hold it together would fall off.

>>9715227
how far can you take knock?
can you say for instance that chemical bonds lock things like bodies together and disolve stuff?

>>9715227
also what happens if I cast knock on a doorforged

>>9715324
Taking knock and using it against a latch is no different then using it on a chest.. Using the chemical bonds as an example to prove me wrong makes me feel that you have no structure for your argument. If a can knock open chests, shekels, door, I can also use it to open clasped armor.
Look at it in another light. You’re saying a fireball cannot be used to light things on fire because it does not say so, even though it is very obvious and unless your trolling not even you can say this is wrong.

>>9715607

>>9715607

Fireball sets fire to combustibles in the area. It says so in the spell's description.

Back on topic, knock unlocks doors. It also also "loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold closures shut)". The straps and buckles which fasten your armor on are not "holding a closure shut".

Likewise, the target is "One door, box, or chest with an area of up to 10 sq. ft./level".

Creativity is good, and I hate to ruin your fun. But you're wrong, and the spell would be broken if you were right.

>>9715324
I never played atomic dnd. The only elements are fire, earth, water and air, Gods make things and they're either there or not. Knock opens doors and chests and other locks.

*casts knock on knotted rope*

>>9716048

No effect on ropes or vines (even if they're tying a chest shut).