# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Arguments in favor of 4th Edition

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

459 posts

- Page 13 of 19
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- …
- 19
- Next

RandomCasualty2
  Prince
  Posts: 3295
  Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RandomCasualty2 » Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:49 pm

> Crissa wrote:RC, there is one problem, though. Since the equipment the foes have literally dissolves, you lose the stories about the mercenary bands who go home, sell all the stuff for a really nice house or bath at the inn or whatever they want. You get to tea party any sort of looting instead.

Well I mean, I'm actually okay with that. Because it saves time. In stories about mercenary looters we don't know exactly what they loot unless the treasure is something truly prized and worth mentioning. So saying "you fill your wagon with stuff" is fine, and then the DM just determines what "stuff" is worth.

> I actually liked hauling back scrap in Mech Commander, hoping I didn't blow up all the really nice stuff while I was dealing with a limited time frame to get the recycled tin-cans redeemed at the mech bay.

Well in a computer game mechanics like that are fine, because computers track that shit fast. I like complicated equipment tracking in games like X-com and stuff, and I think it works well for that genre. But we're talking about heroic fantasy here as a tabletop game here, and I really don't think tracking every suit of chainmail is useful in that situation.
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:02 pm

> Roy wrote:Full fucking stop. Now, I'm for smiting 4.Fail as much as the next guy, but let's not start lying by pretending this is new.
> 3.5, 3.0, 2.0, 1.0, and anything earlier do the exact same fucking thing. Those last few may expect you to throw it away on bullshit like houses instead of things you actually care about, but as the DM is actively encouraged to start fucking with you if you don't, kill and loot.

Yes, D&D has always been about Hulk-smash, Hulk-loot, but even the bag of tricks in 4e is based around combat. And I believe the 3e DMG (or DMG 2) has rules for running a shop.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

Gelare
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 594
  Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:13 am

###

- Quote

Post by Gelare » Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:09 pm

> Psychic Robot wrote:Yes, D&D has always been about Hulk-smash, Hulk-loot, but even the bag of tricks in 4e is based around combat. And I believe the 3e DMG (or DMG 2) has rules for running a shop.

It was the DMG2, and they were kind of bad, which is why Frank and K wrote up some new ones in, what, Dungeonomicon?
Top

Roy
  Prince
  Posts: 2772
  Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Roy » Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:15 pm

Pretty much. They deliberately made the shop rules bad, because as they admitted if PCs actually had alternatives to killing things and taking their stuff to earn cash, they'd do that and stop 'adventuring'. And since D&D is all about killing things and taking their stuff, they simply couldn't have that.
Top

MartinHarper
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 703
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by MartinHarper » Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:25 pm

> Kaelik wrote:Except it doesn't explain why they have any items at all. Or why they aren't using the items that they carry. Or why adventurers go around killing inherently magic creatures and pulling magic swords out of their guts.

Enemy creatures can and should be using any magic items that they are carrying. If your DM is giving a Warlock's rod to the Orc Barbarian, for no reason, then your DM sucks, regardless of edition or game.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:33 pm

> MartinHarper wrote:

> > Kaelik wrote:Except it doesn't explain why they have any items at all. Or why they aren't using the items that they carry. Or why adventurers go around killing inherently magic creatures and pulling magic swords out of their guts.

> Enemy creatures can and should be using any magic items that they are carrying. If your DM is giving a Warlock's rod to the Orc Barbarian, for no reason, then your DM sucks, regardless of edition or game.

Well then maybe you should be arguing against this:

> Lago wrote:4E looting has four major problems you can't deny:
> 1) It makes the PCs look like complete wimps when they need to be blinged up in order to compete but the enemies don't.
> 2) If you want to give an enemy some magical gear, either you fudge the stats on the monster or they become overpowered--especially at higher levels.
> 3) The buy/sell paradigm is completely fucking ridiculous, even for D&D, explicitly designed to cheat players who dare to try to get what they want.

Cause you know, if that's true then all you are saying is, "TPKs in half of all fights are just fine."
Top

Parthenon
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 912
  Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:07 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Parthenon » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:55 am

As I understand 4e treasure system, when you defeat an encounter you get any equipment they were using as mundane equipment and one or more magical treasures rolled off a list. I haven't read about it for a while so I am just using my memory, so I might be wrong and this whole post might be stupid.
I don't know if 4e has it, but in 3e I think about 20% of magical weapons or armour glowed. The actual percentage might change, but a certain proportion of the enemies would be using glowing weapons.
If 4e does have this which is pretty likely, then within various fights you have glowing obviously magical weapons that suddenly become non-magical. WTF?
Then, you look at the fact that these enemies drop some phat loot, but can't actually use it. So, for example, you fight a group of greatsword wielding bandits, then they drop a magical greatsword that makes you spit acid and shoot rockets from your nipples. Why didn't they use it in the fight? Apart from the fact that rockets from your nipples would collide with any armour you're wearing. Obviously you need small holes where the nipples are. Oooh, kinky.
Converting mundane treasure to gold on the spot is silly because it makes no sense- where did the equipment go? Where did the gold come from?
There seem to be two issues here:
1: Several people don't want to work out what loot they are carrying and piss about as porters carrying lots and lots of shortswords back to sell. Alternatively they want to play a fast moving game where they don't bother picking up every single item.
2: Leaving behind loot which gives you power is stupid and weakens you compared to a group which takes the loot. This leads to a divergence in power which can help to break the game. Alternatively you may want a slow game where every piece of equipment is needed and recorded faithfully.
The only viable option I can see is to make weapons and armour practically worthless so its not worth carrying, and getting huge amounts of gold is almost useless. This way you just ignore the dead bodies because they are unlikely to have anything of use. By removing gold from power completely and making gold directly for fun or roleplaying then gp =/= power and various issues disappear. You can still collect everything if you want to but it doesn't affect the party's power.
Last edited by Parthenon on Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Gelare
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 594
  Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:13 am

###

- Quote

Post by Gelare » Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:02 am

This has maybe already said, but:
Abstracting the treasure you get from chopping through a legion of hell's defenders into manageable chunks and just casting Transmute to Gold Pieces on the vast piles of plate mail you come across will be a desirable thing to some groups, because it is faster than writing out everyone's equipment individually. This has the potential to greatly increase play speed (or rather, shorten downtime), and is therefore an important thing that we probably want a system for in a game.
However, some groups will not want to use the system, and that's fine too. In this case, there should be an entirely different system, separate from the above system, which does involve each monster having their own individual sets of equipment, reinforcing verisimilitude. Unless there's a compelling reason not to, both these options should be included in the game, and groups can choose between them as they see fit. The fact that 4E has, in fact, ruled out one of these systems entirely is a bad thing.
Top

RandomCasualty2
  Prince
  Posts: 3295
  Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RandomCasualty2 » Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:43 am

> Gelare wrote: However, some groups will not want to use the system, and that's fine too. In this case, there should be an entirely different system, separate from the above system, which does involve each monster having their own individual sets of equipment, reinforcing verisimilitude. Unless there's a compelling reason not to, both these options should be included in the game, and groups can choose between them as they see fit. The fact that 4E has, in fact, ruled out one of these systems entirely is a bad thing.

I'm not really seeing how the system is "ruled out". If your DM wants to give monsters more gear than normal, that's actually fine. He just has to consider some of your wealth by level to be from monster equipment instead of actual treasure. No reason you can't do that.
It was 3E that in fact ruled out such a system, because if you had the one player who wanted to load tons of shit into his portable hole and demanded to track it all, there was nothing rules wise that you could do to stop him from doing that. And you could be sure he'd drag out the balance sheet to add up all the value, because again, that was in the rules.
You couldn't really play abstract treasure in 3E at all.
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:44 am

> 2) If you want to give an enemy some magical gear, either you fudge the stats on the monster or they become overpowered--especially at higher levels.

IIRC, giving Orcus a +1 sword actually makes him weaker, according to the RAW.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

Gelare
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 594
  Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:13 am

###

- Quote

Post by Gelare » Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:52 am

> RC2 wrote:I'm not really seeing how the system is "ruled out". If your DM wants to give monsters more gear than normal, that's actually fine. He just has to consider some of your wealth by level to be from monster equipment instead of actual treasure. No reason you can't do that.
> It was 3E that in fact ruled out such a system, because if you had the one player who wanted to load tons of shit into his portable hole and demanded to track it all, there was nothing rules wise that you could do to stop him from doing that. And you could be sure he'd drag out the balance sheet to add up all the value, because again, that was in the rules.
> You couldn't really play abstract treasure in 3E at all.

It is my understanding - and I don't play 4E much so I'm no expert - that monsters that are explicitly written as having certain weapons do not always, in fact, drop these weapons when they die. Which seems a bit silly to the person who wants to keep exact record of drops - but which is fine to the person who likes abstract parcels. Indeed, with many humanoid enemies, it seems like they should be wearing certain gear, but the stat blocks don't list them, so there's no way of knowing. Thus, it seems to me that the treasure model of actually recording everything that drops is ruled out.
Now, the 3E abstract treasure system wasn't great, it's true, but they did have those CR-based treasure tables in the DMG that, to my mind, serve that purpose. Alternatively you could consult the wealth by level tables (page 135, DMG - my most frequented page in the book) and do a little bit of math to figure out how much they were supposed to get, although, to be fair, this is not an explicit system the designers built in, more of a house rule thing.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:58 am

> Psychic Robot wrote:

> > 2) If you want to give an enemy some magical gear, either you fudge the stats on the monster or they become overpowered--especially at higher levels.

> IIRC, giving Orcus a +1 sword actually makes him weaker, according to the RAW.

But what you are actually supposed to find when you kill Orcus is a +6 weapon. Which still doesn't matter, because if you can kill Orcus you already have everything.
Of course, someone has to be carrying all those Wizard Implements, and since there are basically no Wizards (cause you know, PC classes aren't monsters), it's weird every time you find one.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:23 am

> Parthenon wrote:I don't know if 4e has it, but in 3e I think about 20% of magical weapons or armour glowed. The actual percentage might change, but a certain proportion of the enemies would be using glowing weapons.
> If 4e does have this which is pretty likely, then within various fights you have glowing obviously magical weapons that suddenly become non-magical. WTF?

It's worse than that. In 4e D&D lots of magic weapons glow, and large numbers of enemies are depicted with glowing weaponry. Glowing, magical weaponry that becomes mundane and inert when they turn into treasure parcels.
Remember that Yuan Ti sharp eye who has the awesome magic poison arrows that you'd want? Those arrows glow with orange fire. And of course, they don't do anything when you collect them after the Yuan Ti has died. For no reason.
-Username17
Top

RandomCasualty2
  Prince
  Posts: 3295
  Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RandomCasualty2 » Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:34 am

> FrankTrollman wrote: It's worse than that. In 4e D&D lots of magic weapons glow, and large numbers of enemies are depicted with glowing weaponry. Glowing, magical weaponry that becomes mundane and inert when they turn into treasure parcels.
> Remember that Yuan Ti sharp eye who has the awesome magic poison arrows that you'd want? Those arrows glow with orange fire. And of course, they don't do anything when you collect them after the Yuan Ti has died. For no reason.

It's the old "powers did it" explanation. I mean even in 3.5 you had soulknives, duskblades and spellswords with all kinds of glowey mundane weapons that channel lightning, vampiric touches and all manner of shit. I've had people think "wow, that lightning sword is fucking awesome" when it was just really a duskblade with channeled shocking grasp, and they were disappointed to find a mundane sword. And that was 3.5.
The 4E treasure system isn't really that bad. While there are many good reasons to complain about 4E, the monster treasure drops are perfectly fine, and honestly I don't think they cause the game to lose anything. Most people only take magic items anyway, and 4E just makes the magic items that monsters carry be actual meaningful ones instead of petty magical baubles. And that's a good thing because it better simulates fantasy literature.
You hear about Conan picking up his enemy's sword of doom, not about him taking some minor magical amulet that slightly decreases the enemy's chances of hitting him.
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top

Fuchs
  Duke
  Posts: 2446
  Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
  Location: Zürich

###

- Quote

Post by Fuchs » Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:35 am

I am playing 3E with abstract wealth rules (aka "You've got enough income from your bardic performances/gambling/granted land/merchant house/etc. to afford your lifestyle and mundane stuff." Magical stuff is handled individually by the GM.)
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:45 am

> It's the old "powers did it" explanation. I mean even in 3.5 you had soulknives, duskblades and spellswords with all kinds of glowey mundane weapons that channel lightning, vampiric touches and all manner of shit. I've had people think "wow, that lightning sword is fucking awesome" when it was just really a duskblade with channeled shocking grasp, and they were disappointed to find a mundane sword. And that was 3.5.

All non-Core things. This is Core 4e. And those are mechanics used only by specific classes. In 4e? Everything does it.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

RandomCasualty2
  Prince
  Posts: 3295
  Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RandomCasualty2 » Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:49 am

> Psychic Robot wrote: All non-Core things. This is Core 4e. And those are mechanics used only by specific classes. In 4e? Everything does it.

Well core 4E is based on EBD, which means that monsters very well could have powers that do shit. Do fire giants carry naturally flaming swords or does their innate fieriness let them light their swords on fire?
Just seems like an issue of semantics to me.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:24 am

> RC wrote:The 4E treasure system isn't really that bad.

Yes it is.
Look, I'm in favor of having treasure systems where magic items are optional, where looting is optional, where there are no established magic sword markets, and so on. 4e D&D is not that game. Everyone is forced to play the sucker's game that is constantly stripping off every gold piece and astral diamond from every corpse and fallen fortress. And then it doesn't even let you do that in any real way.
If the rule tell me that I have to Greyhawk everything in the adventure and strip the opals off the Opal Gate to sell for vitamin tablets that's fine. It's often not my cup of tea, but a lot of people like sacking enemy towns with real sacks, so whatever. But if the game then turns around and tells me that I can't get any vitamin tablets for the opals off the Opal Gate because they are a fucking sprite and don't turn into carryable equipment, than fuck that game!
Either come up with a reason why I don't care - in game - about looting the corpses and scenery or let me loot the fucking corpses and scenery. Do not make looting the required action and then make most of the wealth in the setting non-interactive, because that's incredibly insulting.
-Username17
Top

RandomCasualty2
  Prince
  Posts: 3295
  Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RandomCasualty2 » Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:02 am

> FrankTrollman wrote: If the rule tell me that I have to Greyhawk everything in the adventure and strip the opals off the Opal Gate to sell for vitamin tablets that's fine. It's often not my cup of tea, but a lot of people like sacking enemy towns with real sacks, so whatever. But if the game then turns around and tells me that I can't get any vitamin tablets for the opals off the Opal Gate because they are a fucking sprite and don't turn into carryable equipment, than fuck that game!

But you can sell opals in 4E. Gemstones have value.
I seriously don't get your complaints. The things you can't sell tend to be mundane items like suits of chainmail and spare swords. But jewelry and gemstones are absolutely treasure, They're even in the DMG as treasure. I mean I get that you don't like 4E, but the treasure system complaints aren't even valid.
Gemstones are sellable and you even get full price for them (not the 20% value that you get from selling magic items).
The main treasure differences in 4E from 3E are:

- NPCs don't have minor magical items (they're generally replaced with just powers).
- Mundane equipment and items aren't sellable.
- Magic items sell for 20% instead of 50%.

Seriously that's it. So I don't know why you're going off on not being able to sell gems in 4E, because you seriously can, and by saying you can't it's only showing that you haven't actually read the 4E stuff.
Last edited by RandomCasualty2 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:07 am, edited 4 times in total.
Top

MartinHarper
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 703
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by MartinHarper » Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:19 am

> Parthenon wrote:As I understand 4e treasure system, when you defeat an encounter you get any equipment they were using as mundane equipment and one or more magical treasures rolled off a list.

I think that was a feature of earlier editions. I've not seen any 4e rules for rolling magic treasure. Perhaps they were in the "playing without a DM" section of the DMG that I didn't read?

> Psychic Robot wrote:IIRC, giving Orcus a +1 sword actually makes him weaker, according to the RAW.

As I recall, the +1 enhancement bonus from the sword is overridden by the innate +5(+6?) enhancement bonus of Orcus. He'd get any properties and powers of the +1 sword. The DMG would need to decide whether he can channel his innate powers through it.

> Kaelik wrote:Of course, someone has to be carrying all those Wizard Implements, and since there are basically no Wizards (cause you know, PC classes aren't monsters), it's weird every time you find one.

Lots of monsters can carry and use magic staves (or orbs, or tomes, or wands) without it being weird. Kobold Dragonpriests, for example.
Edit: fix mis-attribution - sorry Kaelik, PR
Last edited by MartinHarper on Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:49 am

RC, the complaint isn't that you can't sell gemstones that come in treasure piles, it's that you can't pick up gemstones that aren't in Treasure piles. You fight a githyanki warrior and he has a gem encrusted breastplate because that's awesome, but then when he's defeated there aren't any gemstones for you to pry out in his corpse treasure parcel.
That's the infuriating part. The part where the descriptions of things while you are fighting them are explicitly more valuable than the things you actually get once you defeat your enemies.
And it's completely unnecessary. If they are going to force you to collect money and run it through the sausage grinder just to keep from falling behind the curve, then they could make a world where money was actually hard to come by. Instead there are magic shops filled to the brim with every kind of jewel and magic blade your mind can imagine and you can't get them for no reason.
-Username17
Top

Draco_Argentum
  Duke
  Posts: 2434
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Draco_Argentum » Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:58 am

Worst of all is that this is D&D. I want there to be great condors as large as an aircraft made of gold. That is a frigging huge treasure parcel there. Fantastic wealth as part of the scenery is totally in genre, if the mechanics don't support that then they suck.
Top

Amra
  Knight
  Posts: 400
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Amra » Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:51 am

Damn right. If I lay the smack down on some Evil Overlord who opened the encounter chuckling maniacally from his gem-studded golden throne, that throne is Gold McNuggets ten minutes afterwards, or possibly just resprayed with the serial numbers filed off and magically shrunk. Either way I expect to see some hefty cash for it.
Top

Gelare
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 594
  Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:13 am

###

- Quote

Post by Gelare » Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:15 am

> Amra wrote:Damn right. If I lay the smack down on some Evil Overlord who opened the encounter chuckling maniacally from his gem-studded golden throne, that throne is Gold McNuggets ten minutes afterwards, or possibly just resprayed with the serial numbers filed off and magically shrunk. Either way I expect to see some hefty cash for it.

Bear in mind that in D&D wealth = power, and turning that gold throne into Gold McNuggets will snap the game right in half unless you also have another system whereby you can throw around that kind of money without significantly amplifying your personal power.
Top

Fuchs
  Duke
  Posts: 2446
  Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
  Location: Zürich

###

- Quote

Post by Fuchs » Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:17 am

"Wealth=Power" only can break the game if you can freely buy magic items.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

459 posts

- Page 13 of 19
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- …
- 19
- Next

Return to “In My Humble Opinion...”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS