Yep, if you don't like the idea of using miniatures (or some kind of counter on a square grid) you probably aren't going to like 4e. If you don't want to use miniatures you are probably better off using a different system.

To me 4e set out some specific design goals that included being the best miniatures based dungeon crawling game out there. To me they succeeded but if you don't want to play a miniatures based dungeon crawling game you probably won't like 4e.

3e tried to be more generic with the focus being more on making a generic system with D&D concepts (levels, hp, saving throws) at the core. So, not only can I run a miniature based dungeon crawl I can also run a game of royal intrigue or a modern crime game. The problem is 3e isn't going to be as good at dungeon crawls as 4e or royal intrigue as House of the Blooded.

Keep my quote in context. I was simply using a peasant as a benchmark to determine relative combat strength, which was the other poster's point...and your point if I'm not mistaken. You choose to use a different benchmark. Let's check it out.




Bards make better diplomats in either edition, but we'll stick with the rogue... I'm about to throw some logic around, so bear with me...

Without testing, I think it's safe to say that a level 5 charisma-centric rogue will probably not survive a CR3/DC3 encounter in either edition by himself (barring a nat 20 or two). So what you're really saying here is that a 4E diplomat-rogue will last longer before dying than a 3.5 rogue, right?

He won't. Here's why.

A level 5 character in both editions is scaled fairly well against any given CR3 encounter. That means that while the rogues (in either edition) may have different amounts of hitpoints or deal more/less damage, it doesn't matter because the encounter (monster's hitpoints, etc) is scaled right along with them. So the end result is the same. They'd both probably kick the bucket after a half-dozen rounds and would probably both deal (percentage wise) the same amount of damage to the creature.

Logic? A personal favorite, when being applied properly, however in this case, a fundamental misunderstanding of the systems in question is being brought to bear. Great for things like pointing out bizarre and irrational benchmarks.

In 3.5, a Rogue who focuses entirely on charisma and diplomatic skills can do precisely squat in combat. Her damage doesn't scale. Her damage doesn't scale, unless you count feinting to make a sneak attack every other round, or maybe getting a +1 sword (improving damage from 1d6-1 to 1d6). That charisma pretty much contributes nothing to combat ability.

In 4e, a Rogue can add charisma to damage at will at level 1, which is a huge step up in effectiveness, and inflicts meaningful status effects throughout. Damage scales, and the Rogue is constantly gaining new combat powers that expand combat versatility.

As for how long the fights last? The notion that the fights would go on just as long is, quite simply, laughable. After all, a typical 3.5 fight is won in zero to three rounds. An ogre deals 16 damage, average. 5d6 HP with max on the first HD is 20 HP. Even if you give 14 Con, it's an average of a two-hit kill. Meanwhile, 4e is a system where cutting everything's HP in half is a common houserule to keep the fights from being so excruciatingly slow. Though considering the fact that a 4e Rogue actually gets meaningful combat abilities pretty much no matter what you do, while the Rogue has to go out of her way to try and secure a way to get that sneak attack in?

But in the end, even making the comparison is ridiculous. 3.5 is about as close to Mutants & Masterminds as it is to 4e.

I'm sure that some bright person could come up with ways to use charisma in combat as a distraction tactic...but that's neither here nor there. I would need to see your character sheet to see how useless this rogue is.



Right. And combat encounters are scaled appropriately.




Man, we must be playing different games then. I mean, seriously, unless we're talking an underpowered enemy, I can't remember the last 3.5 battle that lasted just 3 rounds.



Right. IF the rogue is hit.



Why would they be slow? In 3.5 fights were over in 3 rounds or less. Right?

Regarding monster's hitpoints, etc... I can only say that the encounters are scaled appropriately. You seem to be saying that it's easier to survive in 4E. This is false. It's easier to bounce back after combat, yes, but not survive.



Now you're just being silly. You do bring to mind a valid point (though it's not the one you were making). The rogue (in 4E) is not the rogue in 3.5. The rogue in 4E is more like a 3.5 swashbuckler. The most comparable 4E class to a 3.5 rogue is the 4E bard. I believe a comparison between a 4E bard diplomat and a 3.5 rogue diplomat is far more reasonable.

Having said all that...I'm afraid I've lost track of what the point is here. This conversation has rabbittrailed far from my original point (see the other thread for that).

Bottom line: "mid-to-heavy-rules, class-based, fantasy rpg that emphasizes combat" applies equally well to all editions.

I said 'won.' Which side wins is irrelevant. The significant number in 3.5 is the number of rounds it takes to win a fight, not to kill the enemy, because there are so many effects that can individually screw the enemy to the point where they can't effectively fight.

3.5 is rocket tag. If you can't secure victory within three rounds against an actual threat, odds are someone on your team is dead. Across all levels, a fairly standard fighter against a stout melee foe at CR lasts about three rounds. Combat is dominated by effects like Solid Fog and Glitterdust and Dominate and Sleep that remove foes from the fight outright in a single shot.

Fights with dangerous enemies are won within three rounds, regardless of which side wins. Fights with extremely dangerous enemies are won within one round, regardless of which side wins.

That 4e left the realm of rocket tag is a massive shift in the game.

18 AC is decent AC for a level 5 charisma-focused Rogue. An ogre has +8 AB. Hit on 10 or better, meaning 55% accuracy, 8.8 damage/attack, average time to death of three rounds.

That makes no semantic sense. 3.5 combat moves far faster than 4e combat. The two rates are completely unrelated.

Er... a 4e Bard gets charisma both to hit and for damage, and a charisma Bard would still end up rather effective in combat as a matter of course.

And? That is an extremely general statement. I could say the same of Blue Rose, but that's a very different game from 3.5 or 4e. You could call Exalted class-based, in a manner of speaking, but it's a wildly different game from any edition of D&D. Lifepath systems are essentially a class system variant, but Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay isn't much like 3.X/4e at all, despite being a mid-to-heavy-rules class-based fantasy RPG that emphasizes combat.

Emrak, I understand that you are trying to make a point, but you are coming off as insulting and overly confrontational. This will not help you convince anyone. Frankly, I would not want to get into a discussion with you because I don't feel like there would be any "give and take" and that you would take the conversation too seriously. In short it wouldn't be fun.

That being said, best of luck.

First off, the benchmark I was suggesting was that any character made in 4e's base rules is going to be able to directly contribute to combat, regardless of whatever else he's designed to do.

But I rise to the challenge. Okay, let's go with this, then.

I'll even use your benchmark--the 3.5 "peasant".

First, our Diplo-Rogue. I'll craft him at 1st, 5th and 10th levels, using a 28-point build (the standard in Living Greyhawk, IIRC). We'll make him a human for simplicity's sake.

Since we're a diplo-monkey, he'll want maxed out Charisma--16 points for that 18. Other than that, a fairly even spread on the more necessary stats gives us...

Str 8
Dex 12
Con 12
Int 12
Wis 8
Cha 18

Stat bumps leveling up will go to Charisma.

For skills, for simplicity again, I'll assume we're getting max ranks in everything--which means we're going with a grand total of 8+4+1= 13 skills. We'll focus on those all-important face abilities first: Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate. We'll add in some basic spy skills: Appraise, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Disguise, Forgery, Knowledge (Local), Search. Finally, some all-around athletic skills: Climb, Swim. As noted, all at max ranks--this guy will be a demon at court, and even be able to slip out of the countessa's boudoir when the count returns from the hunt by climbing down the trellis and swimming the moat.

His Feats, starting at first level and going to 9th, are as follows:

Negotiator, Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Deceitful, Agile, Diligent. Swap any three of those for the three Saving-throw Feats if you prefer.

Note that the character is far from useless, save in combat. He can defeat traps, fuddle guards and get useful intel all night long, making the rest of the party's job easier.

Now, his opponent--a Commoner character. Let's make him a farmer with the non-elite array, shall we?

Str 13
Dex 11
Con 12
Int 9
Wis 10
Cha 8

Stat-bumps leveling up will go to Strength, Constitution, Dexterity and Wisdom in that order, then back to Strength.

Ol' Buford here has got two skill points per level, so let's make them appropriate--Profession (Farmer) and Handle Animal. For Feats, we'll take Skill Focuses, Alertness, and some other appropriate skill-bumps. Buford's all NPC levels, so he gets 2 for every one of Snidely's, per the encounter design rules in 3.X.

So now, we have Snidely and Buford, ready to roll.

Snidely will have BAB of +0, +3 and +7/+2 at 1st, 5th and 10th, respectively.

Buford will have BAB of +1, +5 and +!0/+5 at 2nd, 10th, and 20th levels.

Ouch. Already, things ain't looking too good for Snidely.

HP: We'll give Snidely max hp for the first two levels (another Living Greyhawk convention) and average-round-up hp every level thereafter. Buford gets average hp at every level.

Snidely: 7/29/54
Buford: 7/35/70

Hm... starting even, and then Buford pulls away.

Damage output, maybe?

Our best possible weapon for Snidely is probably the rapier: d6-1 with a crit range of 18-20.

We'll say Buford's one simple weapon proficiency is with the club: d6+1 damage in the first encounter, d6+2 in the other two (because of the Strength stat-bump).

So Buford hits better, harder, and can take more damage than his opponent. Things REALLY are looking poorly for ol' Snidely. The only thing going for him is gear--unlikely to be better than a chain shirt with some minor enchantments at the upper levels, and a bit of bonus damage for his rapier (not enough to matter once you factor in the strength differences, even at 1st level), since most of his nifty cool magic stuff will be aimed at helping him with his normal role in the party--so face gear, like a Cloak of Charisma, Hat of Disguise, Glamered Armor, and so forth. Note that I'm keeping Buford with his no armor and non-masterwork club, even at 20th level; he spends all his cash on masterwork pigs that he slaughters every year for the town's autumn festival.

Note: While I expect complaints about giving Buford advancing levels, please note that a moderately well-built Fy Tor at 5th level (max Strength, Power Attack, Greatsword Focus/Specialization, Improved Sunder, Cleave, Dodge) could mop the floor with 20th-level Buford, without any trouble whatsoever. Since, as I noted, my original claim was that you could make a character in 3.x that contributes to the party--which Snidely will--but is not at all effective in combat, I'm fairly confident that I haven't transgressed any rules here.

Or, if you prefer, you can take a look at the two of them at 1st level alone (since I was talking about initial creation): Buford's still got an advantage in damage output, but slightly fewer hp. They're both about 2 hits from dropping. At best, it's a fair fight, which is the definition of 'sad' (at 1st level, Buford isn't even CR 1, remember).

Now, please render Snidely and Buford in 4e, and see how they fare. I'm pretty sure that, at worst, Snidely doesn't end up at a numerical disadvantage to Buford.

Damn--miscounted Snidely's skills, giving him 2 too many--let's drop Climb and Swim.

You know what?

Fuck it.

I've slept one hour in the past twenty four. You know what that makes trolly edition war wank threads to me? Thread locked.