* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Giving 4e a chance Started at 03-10-08 06:18 AM by True_Atlantean Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1001989 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-10-08 06:18 AM Thread Title : Giving 4e a chance Hi guys, I finished reading the documents from the DDXP yesterday and wanted to share a few thoughts about 4e. I was very happy to give 4e a chance, but now, I've firmly become entrenched in 2nd ed and the Rules Cyclopedia. 1. Bards and Druids didn;t make the cut into the PhB. I have been told, via the Living Forgotten Realms list that designers have said that they'll most likely be in either PhB II, or one of the Power Source books (Primal, Arcane or Divine) due to be released at some point soonish. 2. The sheer amount of hp on the playtest characters is astounding. Coupled with Healing Surges, I can't see the point. A Healing Surge is a pre-determined number of self-heals per day. The Fighter (at 1st level) starts with 33hp; and 13 surges. Each time a surge is used, they heal 8hp. These healing surges refresh daily. 3. The number of powers available are amazing. The same fighter has 6 race/class abilities and 4 Exploits, or fighter powers, which do 1d10+5hp damage and have an effect. Imagine what the spellcasting character have - I've seen it and it's not pretty. My point is thus - back in day, 1st level was something that made you think about how you were keeping your 4hp-frog-toting Mage alive long enough to second level and get another spell. The fighter, with his sometime 8+ hp was a meat shield, but needed healing after a couple of solid hits from the average orc. Now, it seems, by comparison as though those lower-levels of play and associated challenges are gone. I had a friend comment that "they've probably upped the damage done by everything to balance it" (but why, I ask?). On a mechanics level, I think that it is not terribly new-player-friendly, with so much to keep track of. I will admit freely that 2nd ed was not a game for the faint-hearted newbie, and THAC0 took a lot for some poeple to get their heads around (as well as "Where do I find the Bend Bars info on my sheet?"), but this seems a little extreme. This has put the nail in the coffin for me. I'll watch the reactions when it hits the shelves, with a somewhat morbid curiousity, but its back to the Old School for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-10-08 11:07 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance 1. Bards and Druids didn;t make the cut into the PhB. I have been told, via the Living Forgotten Realms list that designers have said that they'll most likely be in either PhB II, or one of the Power Source books (Primal, Arcane or Divine) due to be released at some point soonish. Yes, that's likely a marketing strategy to get (a) wider adoption of some newer classes and (b) wider adoption of subsequent PHBs. 2. The sheer amount of hp on the playtest characters is astounding. Coupled with Healing Surges, I can't see the point. A Healing Surge is a pre-determined number of self-heals per day. The Fighter (at 1st level) starts with 33hp; and 13 surges. Each time a surge is used, they heal 8hp. These healing surges refresh daily. Indeed, the net effect is that 4e 1st level characters feel more like 6th level characters or so. Apparently, this was intedended, as 3e didn't work well below 5th level. My point is thus - back in day, 1st level was something that made you think about how you were keeping your 4hp-frog-toting Mage alive long enough to second level and get another spell. The fighter, with his sometime 8+ hp was a meat shield, but needed healing after a couple of solid hits from the average orc. Now, it seems, by comparison as though those lower-levels of play and associated challenges are gone. I had a friend comment that "they've probably upped the damage done by everything to balance it" (but why, I ask?). Most likely, to get combat last slightly longer -- standard Kobolds in 4e have some 27 HPs, but average damage is only slightly higher than in other editions. This means it takes more time to kill the Kobold, and therefore the Kobold can return more damage, etc. On a mechanics level, I think that it is not terribly new-player-friendly, with so much to keep track of. The developers said that, with levels, the PCs will have the opportunity to upgrade powers rather than adding new ones. All in all, it's a very different game than D&D, but it was the same with 3e already. For people like me, who play mostly at 1st-10th level, it's not terribly friendly, indeed. The main difference for what concerns combat is that 4e is a tactical (skirmish) game, while *D&D it's mostly concerned with longer-time strategy (since HPs, spells and magic item charges are all scarce). G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-11-08 06:36 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Most likely, to get combat last slightly longer -- standard Kobolds in 4e have some 27 HPs, What are 27 hp Kobolds doing outside of Dragon Mountain? Has anyone told Infyranna? She's going to be upset. Seriously though - 27hp? I'm now afraid of roaming tribes of those irritating little guys. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Alas Date : 03-11-08 10:35 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance 2. The sheer amount of hp on the playtest characters is astounding. Coupled with Healing Surges, I can't see the point. A Healing Surge is a pre-determined number of self-heals per day. The Fighter (at 1st level) starts with 33hp; and 13 surges. Each time a surge is used, they heal 8hp. These healing surges refresh daily. Also, hit point accrual in 4th edition is fixed instead of random; for example, a rogue gains 5 hp for every level after the first, rather than 1d6+Con. They front load the hit points with the intention of providing a bigger "cushion" in early adventures, followed by a smoother growth curve. The healing surges are intended to take the "heal-bot" pressure off of the cleric, and also make it more likely that a character starts off a combat close to full hit points. I've played with a similar system in the most recent edition of WW's Werewolf, in which characters basically regenerate to full health between fights. The net effect of such healing in my experience has been that the DM/GM is unafraid to throw full force behind every attack; rather than trying to whittle our hp down one encounter at a time, the opposition tries to outright kill us. It's a different approach from before, but one I confess to liking. 3. The number of powers available are amazing. The same fighter has 6 race/class abilities and 4 Exploits, or fighter powers, which do 1d10+5hp damage and have an effect. Imagine what the spellcasting character have - I've seen it and it's not pretty. My point is thus - back in day, 1st level was something that made you think about how you were keeping your 4hp-frog-toting Mage alive long enough to second level and get another spell. The fighter, with his sometime 8+ hp was a meat shield, but needed healing after a couple of solid hits from the average orc. Now, it seems, by comparison as though those lower-levels of play and associated challenges are gone. I had a friend comment that "they've probably upped the damage done by everything to balance it" (but why, I ask?).I found the new wizard and warlock powers very pretty indeed. :) I'm going back through my old 1st edition books for fun just now, and they're still neat, but I always found it rather frustrating that a low-level magic-user spent most of an adventure not using magic. The 4th edition wizard that they've previewed has at-will cantrips and relies on the Intelligence attribute during combat; that has a very magic-using vibe to me. I also found keeping the first level characters alive more a challenge for me as the DM than for the players. The PCs were obliged to play with what they had-- it was upon me to stock the dungeon with assorted rats and giant centipedes if I didn't want to blow the momentum of the game by killing them with a lucky goblin or orc during their first half-dozen battles. A bigger hit point buffer and a wider selection of powers at first level suggest that I can now put more serious toe-to-toe fights in those early dungeons. It is a different kind of challenge, yes, but fortunately it's one I prefer. This has put the nail in the coffin for me. I'll watch the reactions when it hits the shelves, with a somewhat morbid curiousity, but its back to the Old School for me.The name of my old school is Ollamh... ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Varl Date : 03-11-08 12:50 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Hi guys, 1. Bards and Druids didn;t make the cut into the PhB. I have been told, via the Living Forgotten Realms list that designers have said that they'll most likely be in either PhB II, or one of the Power Source books (Primal, Arcane or Divine) due to be released at some point soonish. A PHB 2 again? Figures. I'm so tired of their 'fleece me' marketing plan. I'm sorry, but if they have so many rules it takes 2 PHBs and DMGs (or more), it can hardly be called a simple or easy to learn system. 2. The sheer amount of hp on the playtest characters is astounding. Coupled with Healing Surges, I can't see the point. A Healing Surge is a pre-determined number of self-heals per day. The Fighter (at 1st level) starts with 33hp; and 13 surges. Each time a surge is used, they heal 8hp. These healing surges refresh daily. LOL. It's like hitting the healing potion macro! As long as you've got 20 Potions of Greater Healing in your inventory, just hit F3 and you'll be good as new! :rolleyes: They've really got a real fixation against character death don't they? Why else would they be inflating hps to the point where fighters have the equivalent of a 4-5th level AD&D fighter? And this doesn't count their ridiculous healing surges. My players experienced their first TPK last session, and it was truly an eye opener for some. Everyone shrugged and laughed it off as part of the risk of taking up the adventuring life. With this system they're proposing, 104 bonus hps for an already 33 hp 1st level fighter is ridiculous. Do they even realize the massive amounts of damage a DM would have to bring in order to even challenge a 1st level group? The creatures must be truly horrific, even beyond what I thought was my excessive penchant for using horrific creatures. 3. The number of powers available are amazing. The same fighter has 6 race/class abilities and 4 Exploits, or fighter powers, which do 1d10+5hp damage and have an effect. Imagine what the spellcasting character have - I've seen it and it's not pretty. Amazing? That's not the word I'd use. If everything you said is true, this is escalation on a unprecendented level. My point is thus - back in day, 1st level was something that made you think about how you were keeping your 4hp-frog-toting Mage alive long enough to second level and get another spell. The fighter, with his sometime 8+ hp was a meat shield, but needed healing after a couple of solid hits from the average orc. Now, it seems, by comparison as though those lower-levels of play and associated challenges are gone. I had a friend comment that "they've probably upped the damage done by everything to balance it" (but why, I ask?). Of course they have. They'd have to in order to make it challenging, but all it's really done is increase the math across the board. Like you said, why bother? This has put the nail in the coffin for me. I'll watch the reactions when it hits the shelves, with a somewhat morbid curiousity, but its back to the Old School for me. Good. Where'd you experience this exposure to 4e at, btw? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Mock26 Date : 03-11-08 12:51 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance What are 27 hp Kobolds doing outside of Dragon Mountain? Has anyone told Infyranna? She's going to be upset. Seriously though - 27hp? I'm now afraid of roaming tribes of those irritating little guys. First level characters, though, have something like 4x the old "regular" number of hit points at 1st level. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-11-08 02:29 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance What are 27 hp Kobolds doing outside of Dragon Mountain? Has anyone told Infyranna? She's going to be upset. Seriously though - 27hp? I'm now afraid of roaming tribes of those irritating little guys. Ok, there are also weaker Kobolds that go down with a single hit (the "Minion" variant). But the general trend is that both monsters and PCs have many more HPs than in other editions. Thus, Kobolds should remain viable opponents at relatively higher levels. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Ferns Date : 03-11-08 04:49 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Hmm I wonder what this discussion would look like if the hitpoints of monsters and pc's had been reduced instead of increased? Does it really matter, in the end, what number of hitpoints something has, as long as the game is balanced and fun? I still play 2nd ed because i love this game and with all our houserules implemented it works great for our little group. But i know friends around me has converted to 3.x and loved it the same way. I think the same will happen for players who tries the 4th edition, the 5th, 6th and so on. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-11-08 06:15 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Hmm I wonder what this discussion would look like if the hitpoints of monsters and pc's had been reduced instead of increased? Does it really matter, in the end, what number of hitpoints something has, as long as the game is balanced and fun? To some extent, yes. Not that it matters per se, but the impact on gameplay of the ratio HP/damage is rather important, IMO, as it gives the length of the average combat. 4e is designed to allow each monster to exert a limited number of powers (let's say 2-5) before being killed by the PCs. If, however, the HP/damage ratio goes beyond, say, 10, then the monsters' powers will be exhausted well before the end of the combat, making the remaining round a sequence of more or less identical basic attacks -- which is what 4e strives to avoid in the first place. Thus, even a seemingly irrelevant element may be important to the overall gameplay. The point of the whole 4e seems to be a major revision of the gameplay, at least in the following ways: Making all the levels have the same "feel" of the Expert (to use an OD&D term) levels, thus removing the extremes. Removing the strategic element (management of the daily allotment of spells) and replacing it with a tactical element (management of per-encounter powers), and making the gameplay more homogenous in this sense (thus, in 4e all character classes have the same management goals/issues). These may or may not be improvements -- mostly matter of tastes, I suppose. I do think, however, that these will affect the gameplay in a significant game. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Varl Date : 03-11-08 06:43 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Ok, there are also weaker Kobolds that go down with a single hit (the "Minion" variant). But the general trend is that both monsters and PCs have many more HPs than in other editions. Thus, Kobolds should remain viable opponents at relatively higher levels. Greater hit points shouldn't be the only criteria of a system to make lesser creatures viable opponents against higher level PCs. Tactics, tricks, traps, and sheer numbers of kobolds can be enough. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : RealmsRunner Date : 03-11-08 09:05 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Wow. Or should I say WoW? Thanks TA. You saved me the time and money I would have spent checking this out myself. Yep, the ol' "double PhB" trick. I have yet to fall for that one, and I still don't feel inclined to. So when does this PhB2 come out? Do 4e suckers have to wait a few extra months to be able to play all the classes? Fighters that heal themselves, huh? Do they have a rationale behind this? Are all 4e Fighters really Fighter/Priests? Does every 4e character come with a Bag of Neverending Healing Potions? How the hell do they heal themselves!??:confused: And don't get me started on the 27hp kobolds. Great Scott! The little guys will be sacking villages all over. Well, I take that back. No amount of 27hp kobolds could ever take on a group of 4e 1st levels, apparently. Thanks again, TA, for saving me some trouble. Post-Script For Realms Players: I guess we now know why they killed all the gods in the Realms. Because the PCs are now the new pantheon. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Extempus Date : 03-11-08 09:43 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Wow. Or should I say WoW? Thanks TA. You saved me the time and money I would have spent checking this out myself. Yep, the ol' "double PhB" trick. I have yet to fall for that one, and I still don't feel inclined to. So when does this PhB2 come out? Do 4e suckers have to wait a few extra months to be able to play all the classes? Not only that, they have to fork out lots of $$$ to buy precisely the same books all over again that they did for 2e, 3e and 3.5 e... what was that saying about a fool and his $$$??? Not only that, 4.5e will be out around 2012, and it'll "fix all the (intentionally designed) problems with 4e." And guess which fools are going to have to rush out and buy precisely the same books all over again??? Fighters that heal themselves, huh? Do they have a rationale behind this? Are all 4e Fighters really Fighter/Priests? Does every 4e character come with a Bag of Neverending Healing Potions? How the hell do they heal themselves!??:confused: I wondered that myself. It sounds more like the old arcade game Gauntlet than anything else... in order to heal damage, all you had to do was get a bag of food and presto! You suddenly had more health!!! Either that, or everyone is automatically considered a wild talent had has cell adjustment or something... And don't get me started on the 27hp kobolds. Great Scott! The little guys will be sacking villages all over. Well, I take that back. No amount of 27hp kobolds could ever take on a group of 4e 1st levels, apparently. Thanks again, TA, for saving me some trouble. Instead of using tougher monsters, they make weaker monsters tougher to make them more of a challenge??? That makes as much sense as marrying the wrong person and trying to change him/her to be what you want them to be, instead of choosing the correct partner in the first place! "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is one of my mottos. 1e was never broken, didn't need fixing, I'm still playing it 27 years later and am more than happy with it. The best part is I don't have to waste any of my hard earned $$$ on buying precisely the same books all over again that I bought back in the 1980's, and can use that $$$ instead to round up the old stuff I never did get back in the day... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 03-11-08 10:17 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Not only that, they have to fork out lots of $$$ to buy precisely the same books all over again that they did for 2e, 3e and 3.5 e... what was that saying about a fool and his $$$??? Not only that, 4.5e will be out around 2012, and it'll "fix all the (intentionally designed) problems with 4e." And guess which fools are going to have to rush out and buy precisely the same books all over again??? I wondered that myself. It sounds more like the old arcade game Gauntlet than anything else... in order to heal damage, all you had to do was get a bag of food and presto! You suddenly had more health!!! Either that, or everyone is automatically considered a wild talent had has cell adjustment or something... Instead of using tougher monsters, they make weaker monsters tougher to make them more of a challenge??? That makes as much sense as marrying the wrong person and trying to change him/her to be what you want them to be, instead of choosing the correct partner in the first place! "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is one of my mottos. 1e was never broken, didn't need fixing, I'm still playing it 27 years later and am more than happy with it. The best part is I don't have to waste any of my hard earned $$$ on buying precisely the same books all over again that I bought back in the 1980's, and can use that $$$ instead to round up the old stuff I never did get back in the day... Harrumpf. I'll have you know I'm up to-I think-15 1e PHBs just so I can sucker players into actual D&D without making them spend any time and money coming up with the rule books. "My" PHB I paid $9 for at Toys R Us once upon a time, I haven't got more than $8 in any other copy, and at least one cost me $1. I've got 7 or 8 2e PHBs for the same reason, and at about the same prices. Just for the record, there is a darn good reason for several identical books. Just don't ask me to explain the five 1e DMGs, or ...:rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-12-08 06:08 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance A PHB 2 again? Figures. I'm so tired of their 'fleece me' marketing plan. I'm sorry, but if they have so many rules it takes 2 PHBs and DMGs (or more), it can hardly be called a simple or easy to learn system. Good. Where'd you experience this exposure to 4e at, btw? To address boht of these points: 1. It won't just be a second PHB, but three additional "Power Source" books, for Primal, Arcane and Divine whihc gives more options/powers. You're in for at least three sourcebooks (PhB 1&2 + Power Source) to play. In essence, you can argue the last two are optional (and they are) but there is a difference between optional and "optional" 2. If you go onto the main D&D section of WotC and click on the DDXP link on the toolbar (you'll see the main picture turn to one of a massive red dragon). From there, you'll be taken to the DDXP page and there are a list of links on the red dragon picture. There is a Rules Primer and all the sample characters. Enjoy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-12-08 06:12 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Wow. Or should I say WoW? Thanks TA. You saved me the time and money I would have spent checking this out myself. Yep, the ol' "double PhB" trick. I have yet to fall for that one, and I still don't feel inclined to. So when does this PhB2 come out? Do 4e suckers have to wait a few extra months to be able to play all the classes? Post-Script For Realms Players: I guess we now know why they killed all the gods in the Realms. Because the PCs are now the new pantheon. My intent was to express my opinion - not necessarily drive people off. You make your own mind up RR, if we happen to be in agreeance, that's cool - if not, that's cool too. I'd be very interested to hear a counterpoint - it makes life interesting and opens up all sorts of possibilities. As for the FR Pantheon - that's already been done. It was called the Avatar Trilogy :D (which incidently, I enjoyed - one of the only FR gamers I know who did) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 03-12-08 04:20 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Fighters that heal themselves, huh? Do they have a rationale behind this? Are all 4e Fighters really Fighter/Priests? Does every 4e character come with a Bag of Neverending Healing Potions? How the hell do they heal themselves!??:confused: They don't, the heal-bot heals them. Everytime the cleric uses a prayer to heal another PC, that PC loses a daily healing surge. No more healing surge, no more healing. Once per encounter a non-healer can spend a healing surge to get their "second wind", and heal a few hp, but that's a far cry from fighters casting spells to heal themselves. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : vaikanen Date : 03-14-08 01:20 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Fighters that heal themselves, huh? Do they have a rationale behind this? Are all 4e Fighters really Fighter/Priests? Does every 4e character come with a Bag of Neverending Healing Potions? How the hell do they heal themselves!??:confused: And don't get me started on the 27hp kobolds. Great Scott! The little guys will be sacking villages all over. Well, I take that back. No amount of 27hp kobolds could ever take on a group of 4e 1st levels, apparently. There doesn't need to be any rationale for self-healing. It could be described in any number of ways, but it doesn't really need to be (although I'm guessing it will be). But given that 1st and 2nd Edition D&D were rife with purely arbitrary pulled-out-of-someone's-butt rules that made absolutely zero sense, I fail to see why you'd obsess over this particular point. The surges, healing, and the math behind it all are far sounder -- and support speedier and better gameplay mechanics and game balance-- than any grognardian BS from previous editions of D&D. (And yes, I've played them all over the course of the last 30 years or so). Viva la 4E. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Mock26 Date : 03-14-08 02:47 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance There doesn't need to be any rationale for self-healing. It could be described in any number of ways, but it doesn't really need to be (although I'm guessing it will be). A lot of people want things explained to them, even if the explanation isn't a real one (such as divine power of that fighters are trained to use mental powers to heal themselves). Just saying "fighters can heal themselves x amount per day" is just arbitrary and without sense. But given that 1st and 2nd Edition D&D were rife with purely arbitrary pulled-out-of-someone's-butt rules that made absolutely zero sense, I fail to see why you'd obsess over this particular point. Would you care to name some of these zero sense rules? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-14-08 04:51 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Ok, there are also weaker Kobolds that go down with a single hit (the "Minion" variant). But the general trend is that both monsters and PCs have many more HPs than in other editions. Thus, Kobolds should remain viable opponents at relatively higher levels. GP yep, they've got minions *cough'pets/allies'cough*. They have regular ones *cough'solo mobs'cough*. And they have bosses *cough'elites'cough*. But hey, at least they are not emulating MMOs in design. Any pro 4ther will tell you that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-14-08 04:54 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Wow. Or should I say WoW? Thanks TA. You saved me the time and money I would have spent checking this out myself. Yep, the ol' "double PhB" trick. I have yet to fall for that one, and I still don't feel inclined to. So when does this PhB2 come out? Do 4e suckers have to wait a few extra months to be able to play all the classes? Fighters that heal themselves, huh? Do they have a rationale behind this? Are all 4e Fighters really Fighter/Priests? Does every 4e character come with a Bag of Neverending Healing Potions? How the hell do they heal themselves!??:confused: And don't get me started on the 27hp kobolds. Great Scott! The little guys will be sacking villages all over. Well, I take that back. No amount of 27hp kobolds could ever take on a group of 4e 1st levels, apparently. Thanks again, TA, for saving me some trouble. Post-Script For Realms Players: I guess we now know why they killed all the gods in the Realms. Because the PCs are now the new pantheon. They threw out any sense of realism/simulationism in the pursuit of what they call 'Fun'. Unfortunately they don't understand that this new definition is not the universal definition of 'fun'. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-14-08 04:59 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance There doesn't need to be any rationale for self-healing. It could be described in any number of ways, but it doesn't really need to be (although I'm guessing it will be). But given that 1st and 2nd Edition D&D were rife with purely arbitrary pulled-out-of-someone's-butt rules that made absolutely zero sense, I fail to see why you'd obsess over this particular point. The surges, healing, and the math behind it all are far sounder -- and support speedier and better gameplay mechanics and game balance-- than any grognardian BS from previous editions of D&D. (And yes, I've played them all over the course of the last 30 years or so). Viva la 4E. Bwahahahah -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-14-08 05:29 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance But hey, at least they are not emulating MMOs in design. Any pro 4ther will tell you that. Actually, they are copying quite a lot from MMOs -- and that's good: 4e is even less D&D than 3e, but at least it doesn't pretend to be the "restoration of 1e" as the 3e marketing did. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Extempus Date : 03-14-08 05:45 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance But the general trend is that both monsters and PCs have many more HPs than in other editions. Thus, Kobolds should remain viable opponents at relatively higher levels. GP What exactly then is the point of giving PCs many more hp and then having to do the same for monsters so that things remain challenging? Why not just keep things precisely as they were originally designed 34 years ago??? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Etarnon Date : 03-14-08 10:21 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance It's so that a new player can feel uber from the gate. There's no sense of working up from zero, you start at 100, and stay there. I'm all for having it be tough. If it's hard to die, there' little risk, and less drama. I'm also an instructor at the Save or Die school of DMing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-14-08 10:34 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I'm also an instructor at the Save or Die school of DMing. :heehee -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Extempus Date : 03-14-08 10:43 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance It's so that a new player can feel uber from the gate. There's no sense of working up from zero, you start at 100, and stay there. I'm all for having it be tough. If it's hard to die, there' little risk, and less drama. I'm also an instructor at the Save or Die school of DMing. That reminds me of something Gary Gygax once wrote (1e DMG, p. 92): ... so many campaigns are little more than a joke, something that better DMs jape at and ridicule--rightly so on the surface--because of the foolishness of player characters with astronomically high levels of experience and no real playing skill. These god-like characters boast and strut about with retinues of ultra-powerful servants and scores of mighty magic items, artifacts and relics adorning them as if they were Christmas trees decked out with tinsel and ornaments. Not only are such "Monty Haul" campaigns a crashing bore for most participants, they are a headache for their DMs as well... If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Etarnon Date : 03-15-08 05:01 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Yep, I read that last week, as a matter of fact. That book was my bible when I was all of 13 years old Dming for the first time, back in 1979. Making artifacts, and such from the charts. Figuring it all out. How confusing that first printed adventure in the DMG was. How incredibly simple now, with 30 years of experience. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Extempus Date : 03-15-08 06:09 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance We had copies of the MM, PHB and DMG at the library, and I borrowed them over the summer break (December-January in Australia) between 10th and 11th grades (dad being a teacher was nice, they knew they'd get them back), so I got to know the game pretty damn well... and it was fun afterwards because everyone knew it, and so they'd always ask me for advice on the game, rules, etc... and I still read and refer to the 1e DMG a lot all these decades later... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-15-08 08:11 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance What exactly then is the point of giving PCs many more hp and then having to do the same for monsters so that things remain challenging? Why not just keep things precisely as they were originally designed 34 years ago???. Uh, like... selling another book and keeping the income high? That's the primary motivation for WotC. OTOH, myself, I prefer things as they were designed about 10 to 24 years ago, so I definitely would not keep things precisely as they were 34 years ago. To me, the primary benefit of 4e lies in getting rid of 3e ;) If 4e is more distinct from *D&D (in contrast to 3e, which aped 1e topoi to appeal to the older crowd), then it is much less of a competitor to any D&D edition. That said, the rationale given by the 4e developers for upping the HP counts is that 3e "works better" at levels 5 to 10. At higher levels, PCs get too many powers and at lower levels, they have too few. As I get it, they basically dropped the first five levels (indeed, the HP count for 4e 1st level PCs is more or less the same as for 3e 5th or 6th level PCs). I don't know what they did for high levels. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Grovel_hits_it_yes Date : 03-15-08 07:53 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Prediction: 4e will suck so far beyond WOTC's ability to recover that they will go back to making 3.5e books just for the money. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : Extempus Date : 03-16-08 02:36 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I predicted months ago when I first heard the bad news that 4e was coming out that 4.5e will be out around 2011-13 or so to "fix" all the (purposely designed) problems with 4e. They won't have anything to do with 3.5e anymore, just like they could care less about 1e and 2e... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Etarnon Date : 03-16-08 03:43 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Pretty much. And since so many, many books of 3.X have been sold, many many DMs out there have more than centuries worth of gaming on thier shelf already...with experience enough to rewrite the rules to be as "Simple" as 4.0 is purporting itself to be. Why buy something you can write yourself? Sure, many people don't have thew time. But many others do, and already have piles of house rules to fix what was wrong in 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. Good luck to the WOTC designers. I personally think they should keep supporting 3.5, along with 4.0..but it's their corporation, their future. GDW died, and The Traveller community is now utterly impossibly fragmented, because of too many incompatible editions. I've got my 2e rules, 1e nostalgic mighty tomes, and 3.X for source for 2e. I'm pretty much set for AD&D, until they put me in the ground. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-16-08 06:44 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Prediction: 4e will suck so far beyond WOTC's ability to recover that they will go back to making 3.5e books just for the money. I'm going to have to disagree on this one (and I'm not pro-4e so this is a strange stance for me to take). WotC won't ever 'go back' and edition and support it - it isn;t their style. The same happened when TSR went to 2nd edition, there was no longer support for first edition. What made it easier to bear was the level of compatibility of the two editions (at least in my eyes). 2nd to 3rd ed was a big jump due to the compatability factor and the move away from the 'feel' of the earlier editions. Yet, beyond a single article, once a year, in Dragon, there was no support for the previous edition. Despite requests form the community for reprints, and an obviously large fanbase ofr the earlier edition material - it hasn;t happened. Spend some time over in the 4e forum and see the level of enthusiasm for the new product. Mind the lack of etiquette and manners, though, they are a tad less civilised than we tend to be and on the whole I've noted a lack of compassion towards those 'not in the know' and been on the receiving end. I think the market plan to the younger MMO crowd, plus an increasing obsession I've seen in gamers for 'the next best thing" means that they should easily sell a bucketload based purely on hype. Let's face it - some of us might even buy it on morbid curiousity (I'll not be in their number, but I have seen people indicate this course of action on this forum). So, on the whole, I don;t see edition reversion as part of their gameplan at all. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 03-16-08 12:36 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Prediction: 4e will suck so far beyond WOTC's ability to recover that they will go back to making 3.5e books just for the money. I'm going to have to be dubious here, myself. I have almost no idea what "4th Edition" will be like, and even less interest in finding out--Wizbro simply hasn't impressed me enough with their past products to worry about their future ones. Still let's assume "4e" sucks, possibly even worse than "3.x" did. So what? The question is a red herring, as past experience proves. Unfortunately, the question is not whether it will be good, but whether it will sell. There are so many people who basically like 3.x but have noticed that "support" has absolutely mangled the system beyond use that you have a viable player base once you add in the MMORPG target audience and the people who just have to have the newest system rather than the best. Alternately, Wizbro can just ram it through by sheer market share. Either way, 3.5 is dead, eulogized, and buried. I'll call it best forgotten, you'll (I assume) cherish the memory and carry it with you for a while, but that's about the only room for disagreement I can see here. Look at the bright side: In four years, when they come out with 4.5 you can snicker at all the suckers who downgraded and now have to buy a whole new set of "fixes" for design flaws. Four years after that, you can have fits of hysterical laughter when 5.0 comes out and all the "4th Edition" stuff is obsolete. Meantime, get your butt into used book stores (they sell "old systems nobody wants" while the FLGS sells "highly collectible gaming curiosities" and prices reflect it) and buy the 3.5 stuff you apparently like CHEAP, cruise Ebay for material you've heard good reviews on, talk to your gaming friends who insist on "upgrading" and see if they'll sell you their "3.x" stuff. Buy a few copies of the PHB especially. Good luck, -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Grovel_hits_it_yes Date : 03-16-08 01:03 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I have played all versions of D&D from the little white box to 3.5, and I have to say that 3.5 is pretty much the best of all of them. That is, once you get passed the feeling that Wizbro intentionaly puts mistakes in their work so that they can sell more books later to supposedly correct said mistakes. As I tell my players with just the 3 core books I have an unlimited amount of DMing left in me. And with 3.5 being basically ignored by Wizbro the books WILL be a bargain. Perhaps I should have said 'whoever continues to make new material for 3.5(if it's legal or if they have sold the rights to it) will be more popular and have a larger audience/customer base than Wizbro with its new 4ed'. As always we can/do disagree, I'm just interested in seeing this play out. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-16-08 02:05 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Perhaps I should have said 'whoever continues to make new material for 3.5(if it's legal or if they have sold the rights to it) will be more popular and have a larger audience/customer base than Wizbro with its new 4ed'. That's more reasonable, but still very unlikely. Due to the OGL, third party publishers will be able to keep putting out new 3e-compatible stuff. However, there are few third parties strong enough to support a game by themselves. Several third party companies will be jumping over to 4e (Necromancer Games and Goodman Games, for example) or simply leaving the D&D market (Green Ronin and Mongoose will likely support their own games rather than stick with either 3e or 4e; Malhavoc is not especially active anymore). Some companies (Open Design Project, Paizo) seem uncertain on what to do, basically because their following is split in half between people who are staying with 3e and people who are moving to 4e. My feel is that, in the end, 3e following will lower as the fan base grows older and 4e gets more support. It's possible that one or two companies will either support both edition or stay with 3e, but it doesn't seem an especially viable path for a publisher. Kenzer, for example, had the opportunity to release clearly AD&D compatible stuff, and was almost a monopolist, yet nothing especially good came from them. Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, and other OGL-based old edition clones don't produce any significant market, for the simple reason that old edition players (like 3e players) already have enough stuff many more campaigns that they could actually play. You yourself say: As I tell my players with just the 3 core books I have an unlimited amount of DMing left in me. And with 3.5 being basically ignored by Wizbro the books WILL be a bargain. Then how could 3e be a viable market for a third part publisher? G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Grovel_hits_it_yes Date : 03-16-08 07:47 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Then how could 3e be a viable market for a third part publisher? G. Well, 'I' have unlimited DMing left in me, that's not to say that everyone creates their own campaigns nor would be inclined to, that's kind of the point I was getting at. I believe that the game system of 3.5 is so far superior to every other incarnation of D&D that it has the ability to continue on. Perhaps it won't (I could always be wrong)...only time will tell. But this thread isn't about me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : Extempus Date : 03-17-08 03:21 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance That is, once you get passed the feeling that Wizbro intentionaly puts mistakes in their work so that they can sell more books later to supposedly correct said mistakes. Why do you think it's only a "feeling"? Wasn't 3e playtested enough to iron out the bugs? Just remember that it lasted what, 3-4 years before they had to come out with 3.5e, and hot on the heels of that is 4e? In comparison, 1e lasted from 1974-1988 (IIRC), and 2e from 1988-2000, but I personally don't think there was really all that much substantive difference between the two considering their compatibility. So... we have 2 editions that lasted 26 years... and 2 subsequent editions that lasted 8, which is less than one third the time. There are really only two possibilities here: flaws were intentionally designed into the game so that a "fix" would become necessary, meaning everyone had to run out and buy all the same books all over again just a few years later. Either that, or the designers just slapped a system together, thought it looked good but couldn't really be bothered to properly playtest it, and rushed it out to the public so they could make lots of $$$. I guess a third possibility is that there was a little of both at work... but we'll see who's right in a few short years when 4.5e is out... Oh, and "planned obsolescence" is not a new concept, and I think we're all seeing that at work here... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-17-08 04:26 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Well, 'I' have unlimited DMing left in me, that's not to say that everyone creates their own campaigns nor would be inclined to, that's kind of the point I was getting at. There is so much existing material that it is unrealistic to think that any Dungeon Master would be stranded without campaign material for new campaigns, unless they did nothing but play -- which is unlikely for older people. I believe that the game system of 3.5 is so far superior to every other incarnation of D&D that it has the ability to continue on. IMO, 3e (and 3.5e) is vastly inferior to about any other edition -- I'll just point to Mike Mearls' analysis of 3e issues, which is mostly correct (regardless of whether the corrections he proposes are actually effective). The only reasons why it got so popular IMO were the OGL, aggressive marketing, and the later TSR's mis-management. Of these, only the OGL has any actual merit, but it doesn't seem enough to keep 3e going. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-17-08 06:08 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Why do you think it's only a "feeling"? Wasn't 3e playtested enough to iron out the bugs? ... No it wasn't. Call me conspiracy-minded, but the first run of 3e were the cheapest on the market. I was finally swayed to buying them not only because my party wanted to move that way, but also because of the dollars. As an aside, no matter what the exchange rate is, Australian pay USD x 2 for all gaming gear and comics, no matter where you shop. As such, 3e was AU$40, compared to an average of AU$60-$80 for the average main rulebook. We enjoyed 3e for a while and then 3.5 was launched with an AU$60 tag on each book. Inside was a neat marketing blurb that told us that they'd responded to all the feedback from people playing 3.0, as well as their own internal processes and released a better product. Methinks they allowed us to buy books and do the playtesting for them, with 3.5 on the cards all along. Also, if any of you want a look at an agressive marketing strategy aimed directly at 4th ed, check: http://www.white-wolf.com/exalted/index.php?line=news&articleid=901 Hmmm..... Cat among the pidgeons indeed... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Etarnon Date : 03-17-08 02:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Yeah, that's hard core. Cut off the old supply, free, new game. Hoping the 4th ed release will stumble. Fractionated players of WOTC Games split along system lines, plus editions. Plus they've got books in hand, Free, after dumping the old. Sharp. Man, those guys should be running a game company. (I hated VtM). But their tactics are direct, and sound, it seems. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-18-08 06:19 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Yeah, that's hard core. Cut off the old supply, free, new game. Hoping the 4th ed release will stumble. Fractionated players of WOTC Games split along system lines, plus editions. Plus they've got books in hand, Free, after dumping the old. Sharp. Man, those guys should be running a game company. (I hated VtM). But their tactics are direct, and sound, it seems. It is limited to 2500 copies and only for the US and Canada (so I'm out, but I already own - and love- Exalted). Still, its about as aggressive a stance as I've ever seen. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-18-08 03:04 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance No it wasn't. Call me conspiracy-minded, but the first run of 3e were the cheapest on the market. I was finally swayed to buying them not only because my party wanted to move that way, but also because of the dollars. As an aside, no matter what the exchange rate is, Australian pay USD x 2 for all gaming gear and comics, no matter where you shop. As such, 3e was AU$40, compared to an average of AU$60-$80 for the average main rulebook. We enjoyed 3e for a while and then 3.5 was launched with an AU$60 tag on each book. Inside was a neat marketing blurb that told us that they'd responded to all the feedback from people playing 3.0, as well as their own internal processes and released a better product. Methinks they allowed us to buy books and do the playtesting for them, with 3.5 on the cards all along. Also, if any of you want a look at an agressive marketing strategy aimed directly at 4th ed, check: http://www.white-wolf.com/exalted/index.php?line=news&articleid=901 Hmmm..... Cat among the pidgeons indeed... LOL, welcome to public beta. Not just for MMOs anymore! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Mock26 Date : 03-18-08 07:07 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I have played all versions of D&D from the little white box to 3.5, and I have to say that 3.5 is pretty much the best of all of them. That is, once you get passed the feeling that Wizbro intentionaly puts mistakes in their work so that they can sell more books later to supposedly correct said mistakes. A lot of people said that 1st was great and didn't need change. More people liked 2nd edition and it was successful. A lot of people said that 2nd was great and didn't need change. More people liked 3.x edition and it was successful. A lot of people are saying that 3.x is great and doesn't need change. I think that more people will like 4.0 and it will be successful. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : Grovel_hits_it_yes Date : 03-18-08 11:50 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance A lot of people said that 1st was great and didn't need change. More people liked 2nd edition and it was successful. A lot of people said that 2nd was great and didn't need change. More people liked 3.x edition and it was successful. A lot of people are saying that 3.x is great and doesn't need change. I think that more people will like 4.0 and it will be successful. Roleplaying games have a special thing that almost nothing else in this world has, they can re-invent themselves whenever they feel like it. Most people will give in to the pressure of being left behind and will buy the newest version. I am not one of them. Imagine if football changed its rules every 4 years, it would have no impact. Now imagine if you needed to buy the new changed rules to play football. That's where Hasbro makes its money, off the changing of the rules. At an absolute minimum you will need, I'm guessing, 3 books to play 4e...PHB, DMG, MM. You might very well be right. I can't see the future. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-19-08 01:40 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Which is funny because in the last big article I read that summed up TSR's journey into D&D, the co-creators were quoted as saying that they made a lot more money off of modules than any of the rule books. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-19-08 05:55 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Some companies (Open Design Project, Paizo) seem uncertain on what to do, basically because their following is split in half between people who are staying with 3e and people who are moving to 4e. As an update to this analysis, Paizo has cast its die, going for a 3e-compatible OGL game. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-19-08 06:46 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance On the Paizo front, has anyone looked at Pathfinder? It looks like a very good game world, but I'm rationalising my purchasing nowadays with the question "Will I actually ever use it?" Doesn't mean though, that I'm not interested. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-19-08 01:37 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Good for Paizo. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : xyzchyx Date : 03-19-08 02:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance One is compelled to wonder, if a game needs to change its rules every few years in order to be successful, then what's the deal with games like Monopoly? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : Varl Date : 03-19-08 03:50 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance On the Paizo front, has anyone looked at Pathfinder? It looks like a very good game world, but I'm rationalising my purchasing nowadays with the question "Will I actually ever use it?" Doesn't mean though, that I'm not interested. You have to take anything d20 with a grain of salt. I find the Pathfinder adventures just fine. We just finished up running Crown of the Kobold King Saturday, and it was a quite the success. It took two groups to complete (the first was almost a complete TPK-one survivor), required very little conversion to 2e (seeing how most creatures, except for the Glick, were open-the-book creatures), and was a lot of fun. I don't know how much crunch their new Pathfinder system will contain from a world perspective, but it can't be any worse than ignoring what we OOPers have to ignore as it is already. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Mock26 Date : 03-20-08 03:34 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance You have to take anything d20 with a grain of salt. So, three attacks in a single round is not 3d20 but rather 3d20 + salt? :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : Extempus Date : 03-20-08 05:29 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance One is compelled to wonder, if a game needs to change its rules every few years in order to be successful, then what's the deal with games like Monopoly? Games don't need to change rules every few years... unless the game designers want to make more $$$ by putting out the same books every few years at higher prices with slightly different rules than the previous editions, which of course makes the previous editions "obsolete"... this is called "planned obsolescence." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : xyzchyx Date : 03-21-08 02:02 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Games don't need to change rules every few years... unless the game designers want to make more $$$ by putting out the same books every few years at higher prices with slightly different rules than the previous editions, which of course makes the previous editions "obsolete"... this is called "planned obsolescence."You seem to have missed my main point... that *other* games can be perfectly successful without changing the rules every few years. Given that, why should D&D require it? The argument that the designers might make more money that way doesn't quite cut it on the basis that many other games have long-lived success stories without making any changes to their rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : Extempus Date : 03-21-08 04:23 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance No, I didn't miss your point... what I was getting at is there was no need to drastically alter the game for any reason whatsoever, because as you quite rightly pointed out, other games have been around with precisely the same rules for decades and are still selling quite well. However, once you have bought Monopoly, for instance, you won't have to go and buy another one for many, many years (assuming you take good care of it). However, with D&D, there will always be a certain customer base (as evidenced by various posters here on this board) who will run out and buy as much as they can of each new edition as they come out every few years. There will be a large percentage (such as myself) who see this as nothing more than a transparent scheme to separate us from our hard-earned $$$ and will be happy with previous editions, even though they are no longer "officially" supported; however, there are always more than enough new players introduced to the game that more than makes up for those of us who don't fall for the scam, and they will drive profits up. Think about it: more than a quarter of a century ago, I bought the 1e MM, PHB, DMG, FF, and DDG. I later bought UA, MMII and a few others, and have been quite happy with them, taken good care of them, and expect them to last at least another quarter century. How then does the company make $$$ if people like me don't keep buying expensive books? Answer: churn out the same books in a new edition, convince everyone that the previous edition sucked and is no longer officially supported, that the new one is better and everyone will be happy! I have to wonder how many of us old-timers ran out and spent more of their hard-earned $$$ on the more expensive 2e MM, PHB, DMG etc, then the more expensive 3e MM, PHB, DMG etc, then the more expensive 3.5e MM, PHB, DMG etc, and now the more expensive 4e MM, PHB, DMG etc, and in a few years, the more expensive 4.5e MM, PHB, DMG etc??? Then there are those who were introduced in later years who fell into the same trap. And with 3.5e, what are they up to? Five Monster Manuals (or more)??? In almost 27 years of play, and with only the 1e MM, MMII and FF, there are so many monsters that we have only ever encountered a fraction of them, and there are some that we never will! Why publish 5 books of monsters then? Answer: create a need where none existed before in order to make more $$$!!! That's all this is about... it was never about the game, it was about profit. Not that there's anything wrong with that, that is what made this country great; at the very least, I would've hoped that they'd be honest about their true motives for churning out newer, unnecessary editions. Anyway, that's just my perspective on this. In a nutshell, there was never any reason to alter the game, it was done for money. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Varl Date : 03-21-08 12:35 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance How then does the company make $$$ if people like me don't keep buying expensive books? They could make supplementary products to support the existing game rather than variations on the same rules every 3 years or so. Answer: churn out the same books in a new edition, convince everyone that the previous edition sucked and is no longer officially supported, that the new one is better and everyone will be happy! LOL. That accurately describes the business model for WotC. Talk about a deadend business model. Your only hope of continuing viability is to recreate already-existing products after a few years with a new cover and shiny new rules. Where has creativity, originality, and diversification went in roleplaying products? It's been displaced by rules compendiums. I have to wonder how many of us old-timers ran out and spent more of their hard-earned $$$ on the more expensive 2e MM, PHB, DMG etc, *raises hand* then the more expensive 3e MM, PHB, DMG etc, then the more expensive 3.5e MM, PHB, DMG etc, and now the more expensive 4e MM, PHB, DMG etc, and in a few years, the more expensive 4.5e MM, PHB, DMG etc??? Then there are those who were introduced in later years who fell into the same trap. Welcome to the rules rodeo. Round em up, ship em out! Yeehaw! ;) And with 3.5e, what are they up to? Five Monster Manuals (or more)??? In almost 27 years of play, and with only the 1e MM, MMII and FF, there are so many monsters that we have only ever encountered a fraction of them, and there are some that we never will! Why publish 5 books of monsters then? Answer: create a need where none existed before in order to make more $$$!!! This is what I like (not 3.5, mind you, but the idea of supplements). Supplemental products (like MMs!) that give DMs more options, even if it's more options than we'll ever need or use. Spell compendiums, priest spell tomes, new psionics, magic items, etc. I'd buy these products. Anyway, that's just my perspective on this. In a nutshell, there was never any reason to alter the game, it was done for money. I'll never begrudge them, or anyone else, for wanting to make money. They just have to make products I want to buy, which now that they've moved on from 2e, are only very select products that I can convert. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : Extempus Date : 03-21-08 08:41 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance They could make supplementary products to support the existing game rather than variations on the same rules every 3 years or so. Precisely! Why didn't they? It's obvious someone at the top didn't believe that it was a viable option (at least, not as far as boosting profits is concerned)... it's this same bizarre and unfounded opinion that was behind the cancellation of Star Trek: The Next Generation, AFAIK. After 7 seasons, some idiot suit somewhere decided that the fans wouldn't be interested in more new episodes, so they went straight into movies, believing that they'd make more $$$. Instead, they made only 4 more, the last 2 of which sucked so bad that the movie franchise was all but destroyed (so much for making more $$$, eh??? LOL). Most of the actors and the fans wanted TNG to continue as a series, but, as usual, the suits said "F you!" This is what I like (not 3.5, mind you, but the idea of supplements). Supplemental products (like MMs!) that give DMs more options, even if it's more options than we'll ever need or use. Spell compendiums, priest spell tomes, new psionics, magic items, etc. I'd buy these products. Actually, I do like the idea of supplements, but some of said supplements these days are essentially the same things that were already published 30 years ago and have been republished several times already since then with new, "updated" rules, and will be out yet again in a few months and again in a few years. I don't mind the idea of more monsters, but seeing multiple Monster Manuals with the same (and yes, even some new) monsters being churned out every few years because there's a new edition coming out... it's shameless profiteering, it has nothing to do with making the game better. I'd have more respect for them if they'd be honest and call it what it truly is. I'll never begrudge them, or anyone else, for wanting to make money. They just have to make products I want to buy, which now that they've moved on from 2e, are only very select products that I can convert. As I mentioned in my prior post: Why publish 5 books of monsters then? Answer: create a need where none existed before in order to make more $$$!!! That's all this is about... it was never about the game, it was about profit. Not that there's anything wrong with that, that is what made this country great; at the very least, I would've hoped that they'd be honest about their true motives for churning out newer, unnecessary editions. Five books of monsters is cool (and the point I was making was that the 1e books I already had was more than enough for a quarter century of play), but publishing the same books with every new edition every few years (with a few new monsters and new artwork to make it look "different," even though it isn't really) is not. 4e is the third new edition in only 8 years, and there will be a 4.5e/5e in 3-5 more years with all the same books being republished yet again... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : RedWizard Date : 03-22-08 08:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance There doesn't need to be any rationale for self-healing. This pretty much says it all from the standpoint of the newest generation of gamers. Like a fast paced video game, the emphasis is on getting powerful and loaded with kewl loot as quickly as possible, not on the story itself. I'm surprised when they level the DM doesn't go "BING! A shimmering light surrounds you, you just leveled!" I mean that how it goes in D&D Online... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : RedWizard Date : 03-22-08 08:25 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance On the subject of WOTC and their marketing program, eh, they bought the game fair and square and they are in business to make money. Promoting earlier editions just cannabalizes their newest product. I am not saying I like that they keep churning out new editions mind you, I'm just saying that from a pure profit driven angle it makes sense for them. True-Atlantean is correct when he states that there is obviously excitement over 4th edition brewing. It will sell. They will make a profit. They look at it the same way video game designers look at a popular game, new version updates sale, look at Madden Football or Grand Theft Auto and how many versions of those games they have successfully churned out. In the end though, there is still a lot of material floating around for the first two editions, more then enough to allow for multiple long lasting campaigns. I will give 4E a chance but even if I really like it I doubt I will ever really run it, therefore I doubt I will ever feel a need to buy anything other then the PHB, if that. It is interesting to note though that with so many rules for every occurence the newer gaming generations seem almost unable to do anything without a book that details precisely how a certain action or encounter will work rules wise. I mean I have seen several posts in the out of print area where a poster asks questions like, "How do I calculate challenge levels in 1st/2nd edition." or "How do I know if a character can do a particular action if he doesn't have skills?". In our day we didnt worry about this because we just used common sense and ruled on the fly. But with 3rd and 4th they micro manage every aspect of creating and running a game to the point that when no new products come out for 3.5, what will one of these GMs do when faced with a situation not covered yet? Oh, I know, buy 4th edition. Pretty sneaky sister... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-22-08 09:36 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance WoTC is starting to feel like the EA of the RPG industry. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : xyzchyx Date : 03-23-08 03:17 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance How then does the company make $$$ if people like me don't keep buying expensive books? Answer: churn out the same books in a new edition, convince everyone that the previous edition sucked and is no longer officially supported, that the new one is better and everyone will be happy!That's not the only answer to your (presumably) rhetorical question, however. An alternative answer is exactly same way the company keeps making money off of games where the rules _don't_ change every few years... by a continually expanding customer base. Heck, I think that early first edition AD&D marketing had the right idea... make decent modules that anyone can easily join in for a one-off session and the people who want to continue to play the game will go out and buy their own books. Meanwhile, of course, there's also some people who, as DM's, allow players without a PH to reference theirs or other materials that the players might not own the sourcebooks for, and all the getting passed around takes its toll on even a hardcover book and it begins to fall apart. Some of these people (such as myself) might feel the need to buy new replacement copies whenever their old ones start looking a bit ragged. I have to wonder how many of us old-timers ran out and spent more of their hard-earned $$$ on the more expensive 2e MM, PHB, DMG etc, then the more expensive 3e MM, PHB, DMG etc, then the more expensive 3.5e MM, PHB, DMG etc, and now the more expensive 4e MM, PHB, DMG etc, and in a few years, the more expensive 4.5e MM, PHB, DMG etc??? Then there are those who were introduced in later years who fell into the same trap.While I did buy a moderate amount of 2e stuff, I know I spent more money on first edition. I bought only a handful of 3rd edition stuff and played it for about 6 months before I started to realize that TSR really had it right the first time. I will not be spending one dime on 4th edition or 4.5, or any later edition, unless WotC revives the original rules and gameplay in some future edition of the game (which I figure isn't going to happen, but I state it nevertheless because such an action on WotC's part would still be sufficient for me to purchase their new stuff). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : Varl Date : 03-24-08 12:42 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Precisely! Why didn't they? It's obvious someone at the top didn't believe that it was a viable option (at least, not as far as boosting profits is concerned)... it's this same bizarre and unfounded opinion that was behind the cancellation of Star Trek: The Next Generation, AFAIK. After 7 seasons, some idiot suit somewhere decided that the fans wouldn't be interested in more new episodes, so they went straight into movies, believing that they'd make more $$$. Instead, they made only 4 more, the last 2 of which sucked so bad that the movie franchise was all but destroyed (so much for making more $$$, eh??? LOL). Most of the actors and the fans wanted TNG to continue as a series, but, as usual, the suits said "F you!" I know. There must be thresholds these shows and products cross over rendering them obsolete, and therefore, cancelled. Expenses for the manufacture of products must greatly exceed demand for those products to cause cancellation. In the case of RPG products, salaries, printing costs, and distribution must be exorbitant in comparison to the number of units expected to be sold. That's the only viable reason why a company would cancel a line. It can't be because they've moved on to a new edition because edition shouldn't play a role in whether they make money on something. It has to be the costs involved. I refuse to believe they wouldn't make 2e products solely on the reason it's no longer mainstream, particularly (and hypothetically) if their precious profit margins were heavily into the black. Actually, I do like the idea of supplements, but some of said supplements these days are essentially the same things that were already published 30 years ago and have been republished several times already since then with new, "updated" rules, and will be out yet again in a few months and again in a few years. I know. That's the edition treadmill they're on, and I don't see that trend changing any time soon, at least not until the vast majority of gamers say enough is enough and tire of the perpetual rules bloat they flood the market with. I'm actually very surprised a LOT more people aren't tired of it by now, but some sheeple are dedicated no matter how many times they're fleeced. I don't mind the idea of more monsters, but seeing multiple Monster Manuals with the same (and yes, even some new) monsters being churned out every few years because there's a new edition coming out... it's shameless profiteering, it has nothing to do with making the game better. I'd have more respect for them if they'd be honest and call it what it truly is. Well, for me, monsters tomes are the only thing left even worth considering, worth even comtemplating adding to my AD&D game. The rest is WotC trying to sell me the trendy rules to run my game with. Rules that will somehow make my DMing easier. After 28 years, I think I have a pretty good grasp on rules that make the game flow. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : Jakk9999 Date : 03-24-08 02:29 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Well guys I think we just need to list the cons and the pros and everyone and pick if they can sacrifice the cons. First the Pros. The new 4th ed will inevitably bring new people in thus allowing us to turn them to more games and helping them find a game that fits them even better. Down time in 4th ed will be reduced with healing surges (where they come from is up to the player I think) unless ya wanna play test and see how well the game runs with out it and see if that makes it easier for old gm tactics. Combat might be brutal due to all the new techs that can now be employed (making Hero classed villains nastier). Now just running it you will only need the main 3 books the others are fluff. Now for the Cons. We will end up with people who will only play 4th ed and because of it the have closed all notions to playing other games. It is a new system we have to learn new things (*sarcasm* oh poop). It might not be balanced due to it being new and all. Cost wise it is expensive because its new core books. Healing Surge seems to be scaring people and so do the increased hit points. It is more fast paced and the characters start out buff and GMs can't whittle the player's stash of powers down as they used to do. Now for the Neutral. If ya buy it you are supporting WotC and saying we do want new games every so often and/or .5 eds. WotC has the cash to advertise more and the reputation (though damaged). Now that Gary G. is gone who knows what will happen to D&D will it be better since they will start getting new ideas and people or will we end up with D&D the MMO wanna be? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-25-08 12:55 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Well guys I think we just need to list the cons and the pros and everyone and pick if they can sacrifice the cons. First the Pros. The new 4th ed will inevitably bring new people in thus allowing us to turn them to more games and helping them find a game that fits them even better. Down time in 4th ed will be reduced with healing surges (where they come from is up to the player I think) unless ya wanna play test and see how well the game runs with out it and see if that makes it easier for old gm tactics. Combat might be brutal due to all the new techs that can now be employed (making Hero classed villains nastier). Now just running it you will only need the main 3 books the others are fluff. Now for the Cons. We will end up with people who will only play 4th ed and because of it the have closed all notions to playing other games. It is a new system we have to learn new things (*sarcasm* oh poop). It might not be balanced due to it being new and all. Cost wise it is expensive because its new core books. Healing Surge seems to be scaring people and so do the increased hit points. It is more fast paced and the characters start out buff and GMs can't whittle the player's stash of powers down as they used to do. Now for the Neutral. If ya buy it you are supporting WotC and saying we do want new games every so often and/or .5 eds. WotC has the cash to advertise more and the reputation (though damaged). Now that Gary G. is gone who knows what will happen to D&D will it be better since they will start getting new ideas and people or will we end up with D&D the MMO wanna be? I wont enter this discussion with you until you can prove that you can come here with a realistic representation of our 'Cons'. Until then, your probably in the wrong room. The Pro conference room is that way ============> Just listen for the 'Ding!' sound. You can't miss it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 03-25-08 08:57 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Well guys I think we just need to list the cons and the pros and everyone and pick if they can sacrifice the cons. First the Pros. The new 4th ed will inevitably bring new people in thus allowing us to turn them to more games and helping them find a game that fits them even better. Down time in 4th ed will be reduced with healing surges (where they come from is up to the player I think) unless ya wanna play test and see how well the game runs with out it and see if that makes it easier for old gm tactics. Combat might be brutal due to all the new techs that can now be employed (making Hero classed villains nastier). Now just running it you will only need the main 3 books the others are fluff. Now for the Cons. We will end up with people who will only play 4th ed and because of it the have closed all notions to playing other games. It is a new system we have to learn new things (*sarcasm* oh poop). It might not be balanced due to it being new and all. Cost wise it is expensive because its new core books. Healing Surge seems to be scaring people and so do the increased hit points. It is more fast paced and the characters start out buff and GMs can't whittle the player's stash of powers down as they used to do. Now for the Neutral. If ya buy it you are supporting WotC and saying we do want new games every so often and/or .5 eds. WotC has the cash to advertise more and the reputation (though damaged). Now that Gary G. is gone who knows what will happen to D&D will it be better since they will start getting new ideas and people or will we end up with D&D the MMO wanna be? Not to jump on you, but you've listed some of the cons under the pros. For example, less "down time" means no resource management, which is a huge negative. You've also neglected the elephant in the room, that Wizbro will (based on their business model) publish enough splatbooks to utterly break the system under its own weight in about 6 months through a 12' stack of supplements which were never playtested individually, let alone together. As for the pros, it really doesn't have any compared to D&D or at least two game systems from a competing company named for the masters of the regenerating 8+HD critters. Never mind the system that is "twice as good as the other guys' 3.5." One of the alleged "4E" system's biggest selling points is that I understand it has serious elements of the second-best Star Wars game system, which might make it nearly as good as a fantasy game based off the best Star Wars game system, which also already exists. Sure, it claims to fix problems from Wizbro's first two bad systems, but at best it's fixing problems D&D never had in the first place. Put another way, "Yes, but what does it DO?" And the answer is "Not a darn thing." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : elondir Date : 03-25-08 10:09 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance IIRC, Monte Cook, posted in his blog a few years ago about how he split from WotC because 3.5 was planned from the onset of 3e, because they predicted a lull in sales at that point, and it would be a good time to fix any problems in the system that cropped up. That alone wasn't what made him split; it was all the little changes like horses with 10x10 facing and the emphasis on miniatures that he didn't like. But my point here is that he said that 3.5 was planned from the start to boost revenue at a predicted point. Now, ask yourself, how could they predict a lull at that point? Because they knew they would release all the main rulebooks, which were released in every previous edition, and the 3.0 version of the AD&D "complete" books. So they made enough changes that 3.5 was a completely different edition instead of the "revision" it was originally intended (a la the black border revised 2e PHB & DMG vs the 1989 printing), to boost sales and provide customer impetus to buy a new round of "complete" books. Now, I will shift topics slightly. I have always been against the commercialization of D&D to the point that it is. I feel that all D&D really needs is a stable, well written, balanced, jam-packed Rules Cyclopedia, in the vein of the OD&D tome (more on that in a bit), a few campaign settings like the old AD&D boxed sets, only without the junk adventures, novels, etc. Now from what I understand, the 4e long-term strategy is the core, and then each year they will release a new campaign setting, and DMG, PHB, and MM expansions, similar to the old AD&D Monstrous Compendium Annuals. To me that sounds like a really good strategy. As long as they don't splat the market with crappy adventure modules and overpowered supplements. However, I still don't like the idea that you need three core books. I would prefer a single Rules Cyclopedia in a 1e DMG look and feel, with all the rules in the game, including mass combat and ruling a kingdom, advancing up to level 40, with divine ascension, with epic spells, with 2e-style psionics from the start, with a starter monster manual (keep the entries as simple as they were in AD&D 1e). Sell it for $30. Then release a single 320-page $30 annual addendum, with three classes, three races, and fill out the rest with equipment, magic items, spells, and monsters, in the 3.5 "compendium" format. After 5 years integrate the best of the addendums into the core book, but don't change the mechanics. Also, don't errata the crap out of the rules like what happened in 3.5. Basically, I don't want to have to buy a bunch of books. I want one book that does it all, including things that were left out of 3e and 3.5. Actually, though, I think I don't even need any more D&D books. It wouldn't take much to add what I like from every edition and mix them to my taste. Just don't expect me to buy the 4e core. I do know this: I don't want magazine-like rulebooks. I want 16th-grade-level writing, in tiny print, with tiny margins, with minimal artwork (but what art there is should be spectacular), and it should "feel" like reading a grad student's textbooks. Now I'm probably the only person who prefers that, because as far as I can tell, I'm the only person I've ever met who reads General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory textbooks just for fun. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 03-25-08 09:56 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance IIRC, Monte Cook, posted in his blog a few years ago about how he split from WotC because 3.5 was planned from the onset of 3e, because they predicted a lull in sales at that point, and it would be a good time to fix any problems in the system that cropped up. That alone wasn't what made him split; it was all the little changes like horses with 10x10 facing and the emphasis on miniatures that he didn't like. But my point here is that he said that 3.5 was planned from the start to boost revenue at a predicted point. Now, ask yourself, how could they predict a lull at that point? Because they knew they would release all the main rulebooks, which were released in every previous edition, and the 3.0 version of the AD&D "complete" books. So they made enough changes that 3.5 was a completely different edition instead of the "revision" it was originally intended (a la the black border revised 2e PHB & DMG vs the 1989 printing), to boost sales and provide customer impetus to buy a new round of "complete" books. Now, I will shift topics slightly. I have always been against the commercialization of D&D to the point that it is. I feel that all D&D really needs is a stable, well written, balanced, jam-packed Rules Cyclopedia, in the vein of the OD&D tome (more on that in a bit), a few campaign settings like the old AD&D boxed sets, only without the junk adventures, novels, etc. Now from what I understand, the 4e long-term strategy is the core, and then each year they will release a new campaign setting, and DMG, PHB, and MM expansions, similar to the old AD&D Monstrous Compendium Annuals. To me that sounds like a really good strategy. As long as they don't splat the market with crappy adventure modules and overpowered supplements. However, I still don't like the idea that you need three core books. I would prefer a single Rules Cyclopedia in a 1e DMG look and feel, with all the rules in the game, including mass combat and ruling a kingdom, advancing up to level 40, with divine ascension, with epic spells, with 2e-style psionics from the start, with a starter monster manual (keep the entries as simple as they were in AD&D 1e). Sell it for $30. Then release a single 320-page $30 annual addendum, with three classes, three races, and fill out the rest with equipment, magic items, spells, and monsters, in the 3.5 "compendium" format. After 5 years integrate the best of the addendums into the core book, but don't change the mechanics. Also, don't errata the crap out of the rules like what happened in 3.5. Basically, I don't want to have to buy a bunch of books. I want one book that does it all, including things that were left out of 3e and 3.5. Actually, though, I think I don't even need any more D&D books. It wouldn't take much to add what I like from every edition and mix them to my taste. Just don't expect me to buy the 4e core. I do know this: I don't want magazine-like rulebooks. I want 16th-grade-level writing, in tiny print, with tiny margins, with minimal artwork (but what art there is should be spectacular), and it should "feel" like reading a grad student's textbooks. Now I'm probably the only person who prefers that, because as far as I can tell, I'm the only person I've ever met who reads General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory textbooks just for fun. Having picked up some of the BECMI books, I keep thinking about the Rules Compendium. I've been an AD&D guy for longer than I care to admit, but the RC is really, really appealing. My big complaint is that I have enough trouble finding an AD&D group. D&D? Yikes. I must admit that it's fairly easy to read the product over the years and plot the transition at TSR from "a bunch of gamers publishing what they loved" to "a bunch of suits selling widgets." It must also be admitted that the proofreading got better, but the content really suffered, and I loved the literacy involved in the early books. E.G.G. taught me so many Latin abbreviations, and I'm not the only one who learned algebra in elementary school so he could play Traveller. Having said that, and as much as I love things written by intelligent people who understand that the English language is the richest on the planet, I've got to stick up for a fairly simple, concise, clear writing style as a better way to bring people to the hobby and give them an instruction manual for getting started. With that in mind, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the "grad student textbooks" argument, much as it does appeal to me. Granted, I don't read General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory textbooks for fun. I read Codes of Federal Regulations. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : elondir Date : 03-26-08 09:44 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Yeah, I figure (hope) I can take the 4e SRD and format it to my taste. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : Mock26 Date : 03-27-08 01:19 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Having picked up some of the BECMI books, I keep thinking about the Rules Compendium. I've been an AD&D guy for longer than I care to admit, but the RC is really, really appealing. My big complaint is that I have enough trouble finding an AD&D group. D&D? Yikes. I must admit that it's fairly easy to read the product over the years and plot the transition at TSR from "a bunch of gamers publishing what they loved" to "a bunch of suits selling widgets." It must also be admitted that the proofreading got better, but the content really suffered, and I loved the literacy involved in the early books. E.G.G. taught me so many Latin abbreviations, and I'm not the only one who learned algebra in elementary school so he could play Traveller. Having said that, and as much as I love things written by intelligent people who understand that the English language is the richest on the planet, I've got to stick up for a fairly simple, concise, clear writing style as a better way to bring people to the hobby and give them an instruction manual for getting started. With that in mind, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the "grad student textbooks" argument, much as it does appeal to me. Granted, I don't read General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory textbooks for fun. I read Codes of Federal Regulations. :D Let's not forget the very important cartoons in the Dungeon Master's Guide (and a VERY funny lynx cartoon on the Monster Manual!)! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 03-27-08 07:36 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Let's not forget the very important cartoons in the Dungeon Master's Guide (and a VERY funny lynx cartoon on the Monster Manual!)! Whaddaya mean we have to include the cartoons? The last cartoon... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : elondir Date : 03-27-08 10:40 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance You know what? From what I have seen of 4e, it doesn't look THAT incompatible with 3.5. Sure it's different, but to be honest, it doesn't look like it's much different from the 2e->3e change. Skills are handled differently and stuff. I bet as long as your character is core only (and not a draconic changeling/bard/recaster/war weaver), you could update just fine, with only a few tweaks like converting your skill points, selecting new feats, and stuff like that. On a completely unrelated note, off topic, has anyone ever tried running a 3e/3.5 campaign completely without feats? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : Mock26 Date : 03-27-08 12:47 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Whaddaya mean we have to include the cartoons? The last cartoon... ...we included ate half our party! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-27-08 02:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance You know what? From what I have seen of 4e, it doesn't look THAT incompatible with 3.5. Sure it's different, but to be honest, it doesn't look like it's much different from the 2e->3e change. Skills are handled differently and stuff. I bet as long as your character is core only (and not a draconic changeling/bard/recaster/war weaver), you could update just fine, with only a few tweaks like converting your skill points, selecting new feats, and stuff like that. On a completely unrelated note, off topic, has anyone ever tried running a 3e/3.5 campaign completely without feats? I don't like 3rd, so I would have no reason to run it. Although I don't see how you can run it without feats. Everything is centered around them, even monsters abilities. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : elondir Date : 03-27-08 03:36 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I figure it would be a lot like 2e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-27-08 03:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I figure it would be a lot like 2e. How? Your monsters can't do anything without their feats. You'd have striped down PC's hitting punching bags called monsters. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : Mock26 Date : 03-27-08 05:35 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I figure it would be a lot like 2e. From every sneak peak I've read about 4th edition it sounds less like 2nd edition than 3x is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-27-08 09:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance From every sneak peak I've read about 4th edition it sounds less like 2nd edition than 3x is. Aint that the truth! When I heard 4th was comming out I had hoped they realized they went too far with 3rd and was going to pull it in a little bit. NOPE! They went even further and completely polarized the game so there is no flexibility in the system what so ever. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : elondir Date : 03-28-08 11:15 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance From every sneak peak I've read about 4th edition it sounds less like 2nd edition than 3x is. I meant playing 3e without feats would be a lot like 2nd edition, not 4e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : elondir Date : 03-28-08 11:16 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance How? Your monsters can't do anything without their feats. You'd have striped down PC's hitting punching bags called monsters. Which is pretty much what 2e monsters are - a big wad of xp, hp, ac, and claw/claw/bite with a few special abilities and some fluff, which is exactly how I prefer monsters. They exist to be killed by PCs. And remember, the PCs wouldn't have feats either. So it would be pretty balanced. You can still use your sword or cast spells, so I don't understand how feats would be so important. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 03-28-08 12:15 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Which is pretty much what 2e monsters are - a big wad of xp, hp, ac, and claw/claw/bite with a few special abilities and some fluff, which is exactly how I prefer monsters. They exist to be killed by PCs. And remember, the PCs wouldn't have feats either. So it would be pretty balanced. You can still use your sword or cast spells, so I don't understand how feats would be so important. True to a certain extent, but remember also how many of the standard class features were considered feats in 3.x. Followers? Leadership feat. Weapon proficiencies? Feats. Armor and shield proficiencies? Feats. It does work if you DM fiat your way out of these things, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. As always, YMMV. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-28-08 02:13 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Which is pretty much what 2e monsters are - a big wad of xp, hp, ac, and claw/claw/bite with a few special abilities and some fluff, which is exactly how I prefer monsters. They exist to be killed by PCs. And remember, the PCs wouldn't have feats either. So it would be pretty balanced. You can still use your sword or cast spells, so I don't understand how feats would be so important. Except mosnter abilities are defined by feats. So all your monsters would just be HP, AC, standard claw claw attack and nothing else. All monsters would be the same and flavorless. I'm not advocating for the feats system. Personally I think its sucks. I'm just pointing out where I think your analogy breaks down at. Nothing personal. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Author : dead_pool Date : 03-28-08 08:38 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance anyone who buys 4e is foolish.the current system is only what like 6 years old. we have all been buying the supliments since then spending hundreds of dollars, and many of the most interesting roolbooks and compindiums have only come out in the last year or so,meaning that most of us have only beganto explore their true gameing value. now you are going to go out and start buying a whole new set spend hundreds more dollars for new mechanics that from what I have read limit the amount of individuality of your base characters. I am a prudeish purist eventually I will move to what ever edition is out when I feel i have fully explored all that 3.5 can offer,but this just feels like a bumbling attempt by new owners (hasbro) to make a quick buck off of their shiney new toy at our expense. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Author : Extempus Date : 03-28-08 09:29 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Many posters (including myself) see 4e for what it truly is and have been saying this for months. Myself and others have already predicted the release of 4.5e in the next 3-5 years, which will "fix" all the (intentionally designed) problems with 4e... it's so transparent, it's rather amusing, I think, especially watching the vast majority of the players following the herd animal instinct and running out to spend more of their hard-earned $$$ on the same books they already bought, in some cases, FOUR TIMES already!!! LOL -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 03-28-08 09:30 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance anyone who buys 4e is foolish.the current system is only what like 6 years old. we have all been buying the supliments since then spending hundreds of dollars, and many of the most interesting roolbooks and compindiums have only come out in the last year or so,meaning that most of us have only beganto explore their true gameing value. now you are going to go out and start buying a whole new set spend hundreds more dollars for new mechanics that from what I have read limit the amount of individuality of your base characters. I am a prudeish purist eventually I will move to what ever edition is out when I feel i have fully explored all that 3.5 can offer,but this just feels like a bumbling attempt by new owners (hasbro) to make a quick buck off of their shiney new toy at our expense. Eh. Eight years ahead of ya. :cool: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-29-08 06:36 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance anyone who buys 4e is foolish.the current system is only what like 6 years old. we have all been buying the supliments since then spending hundreds of dollars Actually, I wouldn't assume that all people in the OOP board did spend hundreds of dollars on 3e books. Myself, I didn't buy any 3e book at all. his just feels like a bumbling attempt by new owners (hasbro) to make a quick buck off of their shiney new toy at our expense. You're right indeed... Hasbro bought WotC in 1999, and 3e got out in 2000. Apparently, the bumbling attempt did succeed :devil: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Author : Extempus Date : 03-30-08 02:50 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Actually, I wouldn't assume that all people in the OOP board did spend hundreds of dollars on 3e books. Myself, I didn't buy any 3e book at all. I bought a handful, because at the time, I assumed it wasn't going to be purposely designed to be incompatible with 1e and 2e, but I did know there were going to be some major changes. After buying them (and they are still in mint condition since they've never been used) and reading them a bit, they were shelved and promptly forgotten. When 3.5e came out, I laughed and refused to buy any of them (except for the psionics stuff, which IMHO is the only good thing that came out of 3e). I ain't buying anything 4e, and will probably pick up a few cheap old 3.5e books people will be frantically trying to unload on ebay (I think it's called Drow of the Underdark that has a map and description of Erelhei Cinlu, which may come in handy in my campaign)... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Author : Mock26 Date : 03-30-08 03:50 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I meant playing 3e without feats would be a lot like 2nd edition, not 4e. I see that as only being slightly true. To me a fair number of the core feats were either direct copies of non-weapon proficiencies in 2nd edition or were covered by some non-weapon proficiencies. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-01-08 06:36 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance If people are put off by the Healing Surges, the extra hit points and the fact that first level seems to equal fifth in the new system, here is another one for you all from the D&D Podcast: 30th level spells. It has been decided that Spell Progression Tables were too complicated (what sort of idiots complained about that? How hard are they to decipher?) and as such, a spell-caster casts spells equal to their level; ie tenth level wizards cast tenth level spells. My only question is thus - how do you work out how many spells you have? Surely this would involve a table? Maybe its simplified too. :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Author : elondir Date : 04-01-08 09:14 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Sounds like RIFTS back in the 90's. I'm all for it if the system makes sense in the context of the rest of spellcasting. I think it makes more sense for a 9th level wizard to cast 9th level spells than a 9th level wizard casting 5th level spells. Here's where I figure the spell levels came from: in AD&D, there were Nine Hells and nine arcane spell levels, and Seven Heavens and seven divine spell levels. Correlation does not determine causality, though, so it may just be a coincidence. If the theory is right though, then they would have removed any mention of it from the books pre-publication. From what I've gathered, you have at-will, per-encounter, per-day, and ritual spells. You get at least two ritual spells per day. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Author : Varl Date : 04-01-08 12:28 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Deleted due to the day. Nice one True Atlantean. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Author : Extempus Date : 04-01-08 03:41 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Actually, this concept dates back at least to the 80's. I have a copy of Spell Law from Iron Crown Enterprises (copyright 1981 & 1984), and there are spells for each level from 1-20, then a 25th, 30th and 50th level spell, meaning you had to reach 50th level before you could cast that last spell (they were basically the same as 7th/9th level spells for priests/wizards). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Author : Oxlar Date : 04-01-08 08:13 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Actually, this concept dates back at least to the 80's. I have a copy of Spell Law from Iron Crown Enterprises (copyright 1981 & 1984), and there are spells for each level from 1-20, then a 25th, 30th and 50th level spell, meaning you had to reach 50th level before you could cast that last spell (they were basically the same as 7th/9th level spells for priests/wizards). I've got several copies of spell law, arms & claw law, and even the character & campaign law. We use the crit charts from arms & claw and from spell law still in our home brew 2nd ed games. We just devide all hits in half (round up). It makes for really flavorful combat. We were using the fumble charts as well, but decided to tone them down a bit so I re-wrote them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-02-08 04:15 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I recall in 1984 when Rolemaster hit the streets, revolutionary. Good times. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-02-08 06:02 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Deleted due to the day. Nice one True Atlantean. Varl, I wasn't kidding. David Noonan and Mike Mearls of the D&D Podcast covered this in the last episode. Perhaps this whole 4e business is an April Fools joke too? :D (If so, it isn't very funny) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Author : Varl Date : 04-02-08 11:50 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Varl, I wasn't kidding. David Noonan and Mike Mearls of the D&D Podcast covered this in the last episode. Perhaps this whole 4e business is an April Fools joke too? :D (If so, it isn't very funny) I'm still not buying it. They couldn't be so stupid as to make spell levels equal character level, could they? If so, for me that really is the final nail in any glimmer of hope I may have had. Bah. Who am I kidding? The game's been dead since 1999. It's just been the matter of rot has finally overtaken their brain. Welcome to Juju land. :twitch: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Author : Extempus Date : 04-02-08 05:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance This really sounds like just another example of how much the game has been dumbed down so that your average 21st Century high school student can understand it (and that isn't saying much for the school "system" here in the US). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Author : Oxlar Date : 04-02-08 08:25 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance This really sounds like just another example of how much the game has been dumbed down so that your average 21st Century high school student can understand it (and that isn't saying much for the school "system" here in the US). Yeah, I think a 50% drop out rate in some areas says plenty. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Author : Oxlar Date : 04-02-08 08:27 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Oh and I'll tell ya something else. D&D made me a much more intelligent person than I would have been otherwise. It did wonders for my vocabulary, early mathematics, and problem solving & logic skills. They shouldn't be making it 'dumbed down'. It should hook kids and then get them to expand their minds so they learn more. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Author : Extempus Date : 04-02-08 08:57 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Precisely! I absolutely KNEW things were going downhill way back when and would only get worse when I saw the word "expend" replaced with the term "paying the cost" (or something similar), ie, instead of expending PSPs for a psionic ability, you had to pay the cost to maintain it. WTF??? Oh (I'll probably get flamed for this), and all this PC revisionist crap with the generic masculine term "him" and "his" (which has always referred to both male and female) replaced with the feminine "her" and "she." I'm not sure which one I found more insulting to my intelligence (they were both equally offensive, actually)... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 04-02-08 09:23 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Precisely! I absolutely KNEW things were going downhill way back when and would only get worse when I saw the word "expend" replaced with the term "paying the cost" (or something similar), ie, instead of expending PSPs for a psionic ability, you had to pay the cost to maintain it. WTF??? Oh (I'll probably get flamed for this), and all this PC revisionist crap with the generic masculine term "him" and "his" (which has always referred to both male and female) replaced with the feminine "her" and "she." I'm not sure which one I found more insulting to my intelligence (they were both equally offensive, actually)... You must really love it when these people get confused about how to avoid specifying masculine or feminine and use "their" as a pronoun to refer to a singular individual, and then manage to include a homophone problem. E.g. "The wizard takes they're action..." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-03-08 06:35 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance ...and all this PC revisionist crap with the generic masculine term "him" and "his" (which has always referred to both male and female) replaced with the feminine "her" and "she." I'm actually very much accustomed to this as all White Wolf games since their Vampire 1st edition used the feminine pronoun. I don;t really have an opinion on that; but changing the entire pronoun specifically to be P.C. is annoying as it just swings everything in the polar opposite. I don't see White Wolf being a P.C. company so I can take it from them. As for the educational standards, I'd have to say Australia isn;t much better off. I've dealt with high school students for quite a while and the concept of common sense and accountability are alien to them (but this is turning into a whole different tirade). I'd have to say that my vocabulary, mathematics skills and even map-reading are the better for having played D&D. There are also precious few chances for creative outlets like the ones offered by the collaborative storytelling of D&D, so I remain steadfast in my love of the hobby. It engages the brain unlike most other hobbies and creates a social experience at the same time. There are shared experiences in my group that they see as special, storylines that have been created that are seen as "theirs". It's quite interesting to watch - very much like military buddies reminiscing (as odd as that sounds). Its a type of experience that only others who have played can appreciate. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-03-08 06:38 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Bah. Who am I kidding? The game's been dead since 1999. It's just been the matter of rot has finally overtaken their brain. Welcome to Juju land. :twitch: Agreed - I've not seen anything yet to convince me why I should abandon my 2nd ed books. Tomorrow night we continue a Forgotten Realms campaign which started out as 3e, but just didn't feel right. I've convinced everyone to do a rewrite of characters to 2nd ed and I've never been this excited about a game. I'll let you know how it turns out. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Author : Varl Date : 04-03-08 06:08 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I've dealt with high school students for quite a while and the concept of common sense and accountability are alien to them (but this is turning into a whole different tirade). Still, I'm right there with you on this one. While it may not initially appear to be on topic, the lack of accountability today is but one reason why we're seeing the games we're seeing. Failure and loss is slowly being bled out of gaming. When 'healing surges' are soon to be standard adventurer life rings, and 'second winds' keep character in the action longer than ever before, it's going to take a tremendous amount of damage to overcome all the character-saving advantages they'll have. Of course, that's just theoretical conjecture, but what else are we to think when we hear the terms healing surge and second winds? The proponents of this style of gaming would give you a wave of the hand and say it's not all that, or it's not as life saving as you think it is. Well, I don't care how much they laud its benefits, the undeniable fact is it magnifies the playing field in such a way as to make characters harder to kill, and that would automatically increase the creature and risk potentials accordingly, that is, if you still want risk and danger for the characters to be a viable thing anyway. What's funny about all this for me is I think the amplification of creature stats and damage potentials in 3e+ is a great thing. Granted, they can get very easily carried away with it, but overall, I think 3e put the monster back into monsters by making them truly fearsome in size, hps, damage potentials, and the rest. And that's also why I think they're compensating for that augmentation with 4e and its character-saving excesses. Mark my words: it's only a matter of time before we see a legitimate 10,000+ hp creature in D&D, and the characters that fight those creatures, will be able to withstand almost everything it can bring to bear, and still have a few healing surges to spare. :rofl: That's the path D&D game development is heading down. I'd have to say that my vocabulary, mathematics skills and even map-reading are the better for having played D&D. There are also precious few chances for creative outlets like the ones offered by the collaborative storytelling of D&D, so I remain steadfast in my love of the hobby. Same here. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 104] Author : RedWizard Date : 04-03-08 08:07 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Whenever I hear the arguement that the increased HP and healing surges and what-not will not make the game any less challenging because the monsters will have these perks too, I am always reminded of a quote from Spinal Tap... "This one goes to eleven." "Why not just make 10 louder?" "(pause) But this one goes to eleven." :confused: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 105] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 04-03-08 08:16 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Whenever I hear the arguement that the increased HP and healing surges and what-not will not make the game any less challenging because the monsters will have these perks too, I am always reminded of a quote from Spinal Tap... "This one goes to eleven." "Why not just make 10 louder?" "(pause) But this one goes to eleven." :confused: Why do I have a sudden urge to write a letter to Wizbro? You know what I want. You know what I need. Do I have to come right flat out and tell you everything? Give me some D&D? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 106] Author : RedWizard Date : 04-03-08 08:54 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Sex, drugs and D&D! Well actually as long as I have the sex and drugs I dont really need the D&D... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 107] Author : WizO_Kwai_Chang Date : 04-03-08 09:10 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Let's keep things clean, please. Thanks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 108] Author : Mock26 Date : 04-03-08 09:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Still, I'm right there with you on this one. While it may not initially appear to be on topic, the lack of accountability today is but one reason why we're seeing the games we're seeing. Failure and loss is slowly being bled out of gaming. When 'healing surges' are soon to be standard adventurer life rings, and 'second winds' keep character in the action longer than ever before, it's going to take a tremendous amount of damage to overcome all the character-saving advantages they'll have. Of course, that's just theoretical conjecture, but what else are we to think when we hear the terms healing surge and second winds? The proponents of this style of gaming would give you a wave of the hand and say it's not all that, or it's not as life saving as you think it is. Well, I don't care how much they laud its benefits, the undeniable fact is it magnifies the playing field in such a way as to make characters harder to kill, and that would automatically increase the creature and risk potentials accordingly, that is, if you still want risk and danger for the characters to be a viable thing anyway. What's funny about all this for me is I think the amplification of creature stats and damage potentials in 3e+ is a great thing. Granted, they can get very easily carried away with it, but overall, I think 3e put the monster back into monsters by making them truly fearsome in size, hps, damage potentials, and the rest. And that's also why I think they're compensating for that augmentation with 4e and its character-saving excesses. Mark my words: it's only a matter of time before we see a legitimate 10,000+ hp creature in D&D, and the characters that fight those creatures, will be able to withstand almost everything it can bring to bear, and still have a few healing surges to spare. :rofl: That's the path D&D game development is heading down. Same here. Reading this makes me ponder how long it will be before D&D does away with damage and instead switches to hugging your opponents into submission. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 109] Author : Extempus Date : 04-03-08 11:39 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Mark my words: it's only a matter of time before we see a legitimate 10,000+ hp creature in D&D, and the characters that fight those creatures, will be able to withstand almost everything it can bring to bear, and still have a few healing surges to spare. :rofl: I remember a time when the most powerful of the gods had only 400 hit points... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 110] Author : havard Date : 04-04-08 11:49 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance While I'm not convinced 4E is the second coming, I really don't get why old schoolers have this hang up on higher HP. Does that really say anything about whether the game is good or not? It's like those guys who were complaining about 3E because it had things like "cleave" and then showing that they had no idea what cleave was, beyond having convinced themselves that cleave was an overpowered über ability... :rolleyes: Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 111] Author : RedWizard Date : 04-04-08 01:35 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I really don't get why old schoolers have this hang up on higher HP. Does that really say anything about whether the game is good or not? I think what many old schoolers seem to have against the higher starting HP is it seems to be just another example of nerfing the game in favor of the players. In the old days characters made due with low hit points starting out and because there was no challenge rating for monster encounters, they often made due in some pretty tough circumstances. That was part of the fun though and it meant that the players were forced to use their wits as often as their swords. Not every fight could be handled head-on like in so many video games. Now though it would seem that the game has been designed in such a way that when properly ran by the rules no encounter should be so tough that the party cannot handle it purely through force of arms. It seems to us older grognards (and bear in mind I am not saying this is true but just that it seems) that part of the thrill of the game, the part about using one's wits to stay alive, is being removed from the game. So while you may not agree with the older players, you did ask why so many of us were skeptical of the increase in hit points and there is your answer. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 112] Author : Varl Date : 04-04-08 02:18 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance While I'm not convinced 4E is the second coming, I really don't get why old schoolers have this hang up on higher HP. Does that really say anything about whether the game is good or not? No, it has nothing to do with whether the game is good or not. I'm the grogger that said I like the idea of increased hps. But I also realize by choosing to embrace that greater magnitude of hps concept in 3e, damage from sources automatically becomes lessened. I mean, think about it. You Fireball a 2nd edition creature, and depending on what it is, there's a reasonable chance it dies, or is so badly crippled it might as well be dead. You Fireball the same 3rd edition creature, and again depending on what it is, now your Fireball just doesn't seem to explode with the same magnitude as it used to because of the greater hps overall that 3e uses. Personally, I'm okay with that because that's part of making the monsters monstrous again, but I know that it can be overdone. It's like those guys who were complaining about 3E because it had things like "cleave" and then showing that they had no idea what cleave was, beyond having convinced themselves that cleave was an overpowered über ability... It's not? Just kidding. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 113] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-05-08 06:24 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance While I'm not convinced 4E is the second coming, I really don't get why old schoolers have this hang up on higher HP. Does that really say anything about whether the game is good or not? It's like those guys who were complaining about 3E because it had things like "cleave" and then showing that they had no idea what cleave was, beyond having convinced themselves that cleave was an overpowered über ability... :rolleyes: While there are always people that get stuck on specific points like those, this does not mean that there aren't real issues with the game rules. In 3e's case, cleave per se is obviously not an issue -- OTOH, the proliferation of feats and skills is a big issue as testified by the difference in size between OD&D/AD&D NPC/monster stat blocks and 3e stat blocks. In 4e's case, high initial HP is not an issue per se, it's just part of a major difference w.r.t. older editions: 4e PCs start at a much higher (relative) level than equivalent OD&D/AD&D characters -- much like Dark Sun characters start at 3rd level and with higher ability scores in AD&D 2e. This is obviously a feature of the system -- the designer mentioned that one of their goals is to restrict the game to the feel of the intermediate (Expert, in old school parlance) levels. However, it is not necessarily desirable, since many people in the old school camp prefer the Basic level feel. Of course, the mistake is to exclusively link this general problem to the specific point of increased starting HPs. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 114] Author : dave_the_DM Date : 04-05-08 03:23 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance While there are always people that get stuck on specific points like those, this does not mean that there aren't real issues with the game rules. In 3e's case, cleave per se is obviously not an issue -- OTOH, the proliferation of feats and skills is a big issue as testified by the difference in size between OD&D/AD&D NPC/monster stat blocks and 3e stat blocks. In 4e's case, high initial HP is not an issue per se, it's just part of a major difference w.r.t. older editions: 4e PCs start at a much higher (relative) level than equivalent OD&D/AD&D characters -- much like Dark Sun characters start at 3rd level and with higher ability scores in AD&D 2e. This is obviously a feature of the system -- the designer mentioned that one of their goals is to restrict the game to the feel of the intermediate (Expert, in old school parlance) levels. However, it is not necessarily desirable, since many people in the old school camp prefer the Basic level feel. Of course, the mistake is to exclusively link this general problem to the specific point of increased starting HPs. GP Let me 'splain it to you. :D You start with a weak character... whereby a cool breeze kills him.:P With skill and intellect you manage to attain some level of power, and ultimately can challenge the gods themselves! There is a feeling of accomplishment in that. There is something to talk about. In this new game, they have tried to "fix" it so that there is little chance of your character dying (and that is a quote from the designers themselves). For us "oldskoolers" the possibility of death at any instant is one of the most stimulating parts of the game! Where's the excitement? If your opponents are never really a threat, than what is the point of the game at all???? Yes, I enjoy role-playing, but at the end of a hard work week, I need to take off the tie, strap on a sword and face death with sword in hand and wreak some havoc on the bad guys.... This 4E thing is a corporate attempt to translate some of the billion dollar MORPGs to the "paper and pencil" side of things. Thats what this digital initiative is about... World of Warcraft.... period, the end. I wish them luck, but this is not they way I want to play, so I don't. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 115] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-05-08 04:51 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Yes, I enjoy role-playing, but at the end of a hard work week, I need to take off the tie, strap on a sword and face death with sword in hand and wreak some havoc on the bad guys.... I find it hard to follow your reasoning: if your goal is to do some hack and slash, you should actually prefer the "immortal PCs" approach of 4e rather than the old school approach, as the 4e approach certainly favors a more light-hearted approach to combat. The old school style, OTOH, would favor a more careful approach to adventures. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 116] Author : dave_the_DM Date : 04-05-08 06:18 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I find it hard to follow your reasoning: if your goal is to do some hack and slash, you should actually prefer the "immortal PCs" approach of 4e rather than the old school approach, as the 4e approach certainly favors a more light-hearted approach to combat. The old school style, OTOH, would favor a more careful approach to adventures. GP .....Yes, I enjoy role-playing, but at the end of a hard work week, I need to take off the tie, strap on a sword and face death with sword in hand and wreak some havoc on the bad guys.... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 117] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-06-08 06:30 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Let me 'splain it to you. :D You start with a weak character... whereby a cool breeze kills him.:P With skill and intellect you manage to attain some level of power, and ultimately can challenge the gods themselves! There is a feeling of accomplishment in that. There is something to talk about. In this new game, they have tried to "fix" it so that there is little chance of your character dying (and that is a quote from the designers themselves). For us "oldskoolers" the possibility of death at any instant is one of the most stimulating parts of the game! Where's the excitement? If your opponents are never really a threat, than what is the point of the game at all???? Yes, I enjoy role-playing, but at the end of a hard work week, I need to take off the tie, strap on a sword and face death with sword in hand and wreak some havoc on the bad guys.... This 4E thing is a corporate attempt to translate some of the billion dollar MORPGs to the "paper and pencil" side of things. Thats what this digital initiative is about... World of Warcraft.... period, the end. I wish them luck, but this is not they way I want to play, so I don't. :D I tried to pare this quote down for clarity, but I agree with all of the points, so let me thorw a few thoughts out to add to the conversation. I like the terror instilled in every challenge whilst playing a low-level character. To me, 1st-5th are some of the most exciting levels in the game. By challenge, I don;t necessarily mean combat. I define a challenge as any situation where the resources you have at your disposal may be inadequate to emerge victorious from the encounter. I like having to select resources strategically, roleplay my way through encounters and generally connive my way out of ending up dead every time I sashay out of the Inn. Admittedly, the Hit Point problem is not the only concern I have about the new edition. Having not seen the rules (and I know I'll be called on this one :D ), I've been reading as much as I can about the new edition yet cannot warm to it. It seems to have moved away from the classic D&D and AD&D I recall, and still run. It seems to be mirroring the MMORPG environment, something I'm not interested in. In WoW, I'm told there is no such thing as true character death - where is the fun in that? I like to face a game of D&D with uncertainty - knowing that death lurks just about everywhere, but not quite being able to spot him before the DM puts on a voice that must be recorded in capital letters only (for the Pratchett fans). Therein lies that challenge. My character is not as powerful as the King, or even most of his Court, but I may need to outwit some of them to foil a plot or recruit a contact. Sure, the average orc band will ride roughshod over my Wizard, but can my team out-think them and still win. That is what stories are made of. So that I'm not accused of focusing on a single game mechanic or aspect, here are my grievances: - The game is now a "Tactical Skirmish Game", not a role-playing game, meaning that everything seems to revolve around "the encounter" - Druids and Bards don't make the cut to the PhB, but may be included within the first four other Player Books (PhB II or the Power books) - There are plans for the PHB II (at least) a DMG II and numerous Monster Manuals (I can forgive the last, as an avid collector of Monstrous Compendium sheets) - The advanced nature of the first level characters and wondering where the challenge is - if it in the advanced monsters, why did power level need increasing? - Healing Surges. There seems to be no rationale for these and it cheapens the role of the Priest (was every party crying out "We need a Cleric?"). The only parrallel I can see is in video games - the power up. - The reliance on miniatures and the fact that all powers, descriptions, and ranges refer to squares. Sure I can multiply number of squares by five to calculate feet, but why should I have to? - The fact that said minis are sold in randomised packages - this means I have to buy large quantities or trade (good luck in the size of my town) to get what I'd like for the game; whilst accruing vast numbers of useless minis (my last box contained a Pig Farmer, I kid you not). - The alteration of the spell progression to thirty levels because Spell Progression Tables were "too complicated"; which doesn't sound like simplication, but rather 'dumbing-down'. - The entire Feats system (which isn't a 4e creation, but 4e is still obviously using) If I think of anything else, I'll add it ot the list. Sorry if this comes across as too negative, guys, I'm just clarifying my position on the issue, as I've not seen a codified list anywhere yet. Thanks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 118] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-06-08 06:36 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I find it hard to follow your reasoning: if your goal is to do some hack and slash, you should actually prefer the "immortal PCs" approach of 4e rather than the old school approach, as the 4e approach certainly favors a more light-hearted approach to combat. The old school style, OTOH, would favor a more careful approach to adventures. GP It does really depend on how you like to play. If you prefer the "light-hearted approach" then you follow what you like. If you like the "careful approach" then go with the older editions of D&D. If you aren't careful, you end up with your head on a stick. "Immortal PCs" would definately not factor into my games as it does remove the challenge. I prefer an element of danger to make the game more exciting. What is the point in playing unless there is an element of the unknown? Why try unless there is a chance to fail? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 119] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-06-08 06:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance .....Yes, I enjoy role-playing, but at the end of a hard work week, I need to take off the tie, strap on a sword and face death with sword in hand and wreak some havoc on the bad guys.... So, your point is actually to have an equal challenge, where your chance of victory is circa 50%. However, this means your adventure will not last long, since your PCs will have a 50% probability of dying in the first "face death", 75% within the second, 87.5% within the third, and more than 90% within a single session (regardless of level and starting HPs). In the end, your games don't seem much different than the "delve" of the D&D Experience (which, accordingly to the reports, led to a good number of TPKs). Really, I don't see how your style is better catered for by old school editions than by 4e. It's just matter of what type of encounter you put in your adventures -- using Risky encounters in BECMI/RC would be the same as using an encounter of 3+avg party level in 4e. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 120] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-06-08 07:41 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance To me, 1st-5th are some of the most exciting levels in the game. That's exactly one of the problems with 4e and old school gamers. 4e simply doesn't support that level range. It seems to have moved away from the classic D&D and AD&D I recall, and still run. It seems to be mirroring the MMORPG environment, something I'm not interested in. 4e does attempt to market the D&D brand to MMORPG players, and is a definite move from OD&D/AD&D -- much more than 3e. - The game is now a "Tactical Skirmish Game", not a role-playing game, meaning that everything seems to revolve around "the encounter" Everything revolves around encounters in every RPG. The point is how encounters are defined, and how they play. The AD&D DM's guide defines as "Encounter", any scene where the PCs have to make a significant choice. If 4e focuses on tactical combat rather than on making choices, then it is going basically to merge with the miniature game. - Druids and Bards don't make the cut to the PhB, but may be included within the first four other Player Books (PhB II or the Power books) This is frankly irrelevant. Druids and Bards do not appear in BECMI since later books (Companion and a later DM article), yet the game is perfectly viable. Also, the absence of Bard and Druid is mostly a marketing tool, not a change to the game (the Bard class, according to the designers, was one of the first designed for 4e, but was delayed to, probably, PHB II). - There are plans for the PHB II (at least) a DMG II and numerous Monster Manuals (I can forgive the last, as an avid collector of Monstrous Compendium sheets) Another point I don't really get. BECMI comes in 5 boxes: is it a problem? AD&D has at least 14 Monstrous Compendium and MC Appendices, and a dozen class/race splatbook. - The advanced nature of the first level characters and wondering where the challenge is - if it in the advanced monsters, why did power level need increasing? That has been answered several times: the designers chose to dismiss the early (1-3) levels of the game. Basically, 4e is designed to give the same gameplay of levels 5-10 of the earlier editions. Assuming the actual result meets the design goal, your question would have the same answer as "where the challenge is in an OD&D/AD&D campaign running from 5th to 10th level"? - Healing Surges. There seems to be no rationale for these and it cheapens the role of the Priest (was every party crying out "We need a Cleric?"). The only parrallel I can see is in video games - the power up. Actually, it does cheapen the role of the Priest -- it was designed to that end, so that parties without Priests could more or less have the same gameplay as those with one. Another part of the rationale is that Healing Surges move the resource management of healing from a single character class to all characters -- the Cleric is still more effective a healer than other characters (from what is seen in the sample characters, characters healed by a Clerical power recover circa twice as many HPs as they would using a Healing skill or a Second Wind), but he does not use his own resources to heal. - The reliance on miniatures and the fact that all powers, descriptions, and ranges refer to squares. Sure I can multiply number of squares by five to calculate feet, but why should I have to? It is clear that 4e is pushing for miniature use even more than 3e. - The fact that said minis are sold in randomised packages - this means I have to buy large quantities or trade (good luck in the size of my town) to get what I'd like for the game; whilst accruing vast numbers of useless minis (my last box contained a Pig Farmer, I kid you not). That's an issue with the D&D miniature line, not with 4e. It was the same in the past years -- and you'll note that 3e pushes for miniatures quite a lot as well. - The alteration of the spell progression to thirty levels because Spell Progression Tables were "too complicated"; which doesn't sound like simplication, but rather 'dumbing-down'. This is another irrelevant point. It's more or less like the AC debate eight years ago. Is 3e-style AC easier to use? Sure. Is this difference significant enough to warrant a new edition (or to save an otherwise badly done edition)? Not at all. The same goes for the thirty levels of spells. It's indeed a simplification (you don't need to have a spell progression table, since the spellcasting system is non-Vancian anyway), but it's not large enough to mean anything. - The entire Feats system (which isn't a 4e creation, but 4e is still obviously using) Yes, the Feats system is indeed one of the bad points of 3e. However, 4e is at least not using it for monsters and NPCs (which, if you read any of the recent Dungeon Magazine adventures, might be a major improvement). So, in the end I think your issues with 4e boil down to: - 4e does not cater to the low level OD&D/AD&D gaming style - 4e is moving towards a tactical combat game - Some 3e constructs (Feats) are still around in 4e Myself, I definitely agree on the first point, and, with respect to OD&D/AD&D, also on the second (with respect to 3e, OTOH, I don't think there will be a significant variation in this sense -- actually, it's even possible that the 4e non-combat encounter rules will be better than the equivalent 3e). For the third point, I haven't seen enough -- the fact that Feats are there per se doesn't tell much: equivalent mechanics are present in good games as well (Unisystem, Fuzion) as in bad ones, and many 3e Feats are actually equivalent to special skills or class features present in OD&D or AD&D (e.g., Whirlwind Attack is an high level AD&D 2e skill, Power Attack is an OD&D fighter class feature). OTOH, I think 4e also has some advantages for old school gamers: - 3e is now OOP :devil:; serious, this is the main advantage, IMO. - 4e is really different from OD&D/AD&D, and, contrary to 3e, doesn't make an effort to hide it (apart from using the same brand). - 4e may be fit well some AD&D campaigns and sub-games that focused on medium to high level PCs (Dark Sun and Dragonfist). GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 121] Author : Extempus Date : 04-07-08 02:54 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance - The alteration of the spell progression to thirty levels because Spell Progression Tables were "too complicated"; which doesn't sound like simplication, but rather 'dumbing-down'. It is indeed dumbing the system down, but that's been happening for at least 20 years now, it's just gotten quantum levels worse in the last few. I suspect the real reason spell progression was changed was because one of the designers couldn't understand how the original system worked and dumbed it down for him/herself. It's kinda like how one of the idiot suits at NBC almost changed the name of Star Trek to Star Track because not only did he not know what the word "trek" meant, he couldn't be bothered to crack open a dictionary to find out for himself... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 122] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-07-08 06:16 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Everything revolves around encounters in every RPG. The point is how encounters are defined, and how they play. The AD&D DM's guide defines as "Encounter", any scene where the PCs have to make a significant choice. If 4e focuses on tactical combat rather than on making choices, then it is going basically to merge with the miniature game.GP - You're arguing my point for me here. I've made the distinction of encounters and challenges in another post in this thread - where I said that a challenge was anything wherein the resources of the PCs may be insufficient to triumph; and then go on to mention the non-combat challenges. 4e seems to be content to only highlight how many neat ways there are to kill things and not get yourself killed. This may be incorrect - but it is my percpetion of the game at this point. This is frankly irrelevant. Druids and Bards do not appear in BECMI since later books (Companion and a later DM article), yet the game is perfectly viable. Also, the absence of Bard and Druid is mostly a marketing tool, not a change to the game (the Bard class, according to the designers, was one of the first designed for 4e, but was delayed to, probably, PHB II).GP Irrelevant? It isn't if they are your two favourite classes - which they are in my case. I can't play my favourite classes with the Core Books - reason enough not to bother upgrading. Another point I don't really get. BECMI comes in 5 boxes: is it a problem? AD&D has at least 14 Monstrous Compendium and MC Appendices, and a dozen class/race splatbook.GP They then re-released as the Rules Cyclopedia which was a PhB, DMG and MM as well as Campaign Setting all in one book. Doubtful we'll see value like that again. That has been answered several times: the designers chose to dismiss the early (1-3) levels of the game. Basically, 4e is designed to give the same gameplay of levels 5-10 of the earlier editions. Assuming the actual result meets the design goal, your question would have the same answer as "where the challenge is in an OD&D/AD&D campaign running from 5th to 10th level"?GP I'm not interested in a game that 'dismisses' early levels of play in favour of jumping the power of starting PCs. If I want that sort of experience, I'd run Exalted (which I own and like). Actually, it does cheapen the role of the Priest -- it was designed to that end, so that parties without Priests could more or less have the same gameplay as those with one. Another part of the rationale is that Healing Surges move the resource management of healing from a single character class to all characters -- the Cleric is still more effective a healer than other characters (from what is seen in the sample characters, characters healed by a Clerical power recover circa twice as many HPs as they would using a Healing skill or a Second Wind), but he does not use his own resources to heal.GP This makes me less and less interested in 4e if it is correct. Dividing up the role among a party and then still claiming that everyone has a defined role seems to be a dichotomy. This is another irrelevant point. It's more or less like the AC debate eight years ago. Is 3e-style AC easier to use? Sure. Is this difference significant enough to warrant a new edition (or to save an otherwise badly done edition)? Not at all. The same goes for the thirty levels of spells. It's indeed a simplification (you don't need to have a spell progression table, since the spellcasting system is non-Vancian anyway), but it's not large enough to mean anything.GP I hardly see the irrelevance at all. I am making a point about the progression of a game mechanic and my belief that it is simply 'dumbing down'. We start with a table system that requires some thinking to use and move to a system that is far simpler - thus my opinion that it has been oversimplified. Added that the games designers themselves have stated it was because the Spell Progression tables were deemed 'too complicated', hence I was backing up my assertion with what I considered was evidence. Your call of 'irrelevant' is therefore somewhat nonsensical. So, in the end I think your issues with 4e boil down to: - 4e does not cater to the low level OD&D/AD&D gaming style - 4e is moving towards a tactical combat game - Some 3e constructs (Feats) are still around in 4eGP In a very simple way, this is a legitimate list, mine just addressed my concerns with more detail. I'll not be convinced at this point that 4e is the way to go for my playing and DMing style. You may see one persons' views as 'irrelevant' but this is a forum to share ideas. On the flip side, writing this reply did force me to do some reflection on whether these views are knee-jerk, nostalgia driven foolishness - so a great deal of good did come from your reply. :) However, after said reflection, my views actually remain the same. I'm certainly not taking the stance that I'm right - just that my views are right for me. If you, or anyone else are going to have fun with 4e, that's cool. It is what the hobby is about and what we're all here for. There is no such thing as bad fun. It did bring to mind the conversation between Morpheus and Cpt Locke in one of the Matrix movies where Locke points out that he doesn't share the same beliefs as Morpheus. Morpheus merely replies "my beliefs do not require you to." Same applies here. Have fun, and once 4e does come out and you've played a bit, I'd appreciate an update. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 123] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-07-08 07:55 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Irrelevant? It isn't if they are your two favourite classes - which they are in my case. I can't play my favourite classes with the Core Books - reason enough not to bother upgrading. Irrelevant as in "it doesn't define the quality of the rules set" and "it doesn't say anything about the rules set ability to represent the old school game experience". For example, you would not bother upgrading even if you were currently playing 3e. I hardly see the irrelevance at all. I am making a point about the progression of a game mechanic and my belief that it is simply 'dumbing down'. We start with a table system that requires some thinking to use and move to a system that is far simpler - thus my opinion that it has been oversimplified. Added that the games designers themselves have stated it was because the Spell Progression tables were deemed 'too complicated', hence I was backing up my assertion with what I considered was evidence. Your call of 'irrelevant' is therefore somewhat nonsensical. Actually, I see your argument as utterly nonsensical: you're assuming that a given progression (spell per level table) for a game mechanic should be present where said game mechanic (Vancian spellcasting) is not. Now, either your point is "4e doesn't have Vancian spellcasting", and then it is not correctly stated, or it is a moot point, since you could easily change the spell levels in AD&D/OD&D to match the character levels (level 2 wizard spells become level 3, etc.), without actually changing the game mechanic of spellcasting. In a very simple way, this is a legitimate list, mine just addressed my concerns with more detail. I'll not be convinced at this point that 4e is the way to go for my playing and DMing style. You may see one persons' views as 'irrelevant' but this is a forum to share ideas. I see as irrelevant points that are not based on actual game mechanics -- mere changes of scales in numbers and editorial/marketing choices are irrelevant, as far as the rules set is discussed (obviously, these may still be legitimate reasons to make buying purchase, as would be, say, the cost of the books). It is irrelevant whether the spells accessible to a 3rd level Wizard are called 3rd level or 2nd level. What matters is which effects are accessible: for example, 3rd level Wizards in 4e will not have access to invisibility effects -- which indeed affects the gameplay. Have fun, and once 4e does come out and you've played a bit, I'd appreciate an update. Uhm, where did I say that I was going to play 4e? Actually, I'm currently playing Rules Cyclopedia, and I'm most likely going on with that or AD&D 2e, depending on the type of campaign. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 124] Author : Varl Date : 04-07-08 01:27 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I tried to pare this quote down for clarity, but I agree with all of the points, so let me thorw a few thoughts out to add to the conversation. A well thought out post, I must say. I'll hit on a few of the points that caught my eye the most. In WoW, I'm told there is no such thing as true character death - where is the fun in that? There isn't. Concerned about PvP? Who cares. You don't lose anything when you die, except time in performing the corpse retrieval run, so there's really no risk at all. Not to get on too large a WoW rant, but combat in WoW is all about the 70s. This whole Alliance vs. Horde thing is a farce; even if one or the other attacks a settlement in WoW, it's VERY rarely with any characters other than level 70s. Why waste the time? It's already enough of a time sink. I see attacks being committed upon Alliance locations all the time, but why should I bother getting involved if I know it's going to be a group of 70s my weakling 54 has to go up against? Answer? I won't bother because I know THEY have absolutely nothing to lose. Nothing. And neither do I, really. So, we get lucky and take one or two of them out. Big deal. Have they really felt the sting of death? Will dying make them think twice about attacking again? Did the deceased lose valuable items in their raid as a consequence to dying, which will make them weaker in the overall scheme of things? All no. I got into an interesting debate with someone ingame the other day while an attack was happening. He or she was wondering why no one was coming to help repel the Horde assault. I responded because there's no reason for them to. There's no risk in what they were doing, and there's no reward either, for either side. To seque this back to D&D, if this is the gaming model and style approach they're trying to capture for 4e in whatever capacity, they've already badly missed the mark IMO. - The fact that said minis are sold in randomised packages - this means I have to buy large quantities or trade (good luck in the size of my town) to get what I'd like for the game; whilst accruing vast numbers of useless minis (my last box contained a Pig Farmer, I kid you not). Heh. That's supposed to be a really good miniature in the skirmish game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 125] Author : havard Date : 04-07-08 03:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Hey, don't mess with the pig farmer miniature! ;) I have that one too, its kewl :cool: Seriously, if you are looking for more useful miniatures buy from another company, like Citadel. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 126] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-08-08 04:10 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Uhm, where did I say that I was going to play 4e? Actually, I'm currently playing Rules Cyclopedia, and I'm most likely going on with that or AD&D 2e, depending on the type of campaign. GP My apologies, I misinterpreted the nature of your post. I assumed that it was in defence of 4e, causing me to make the further assumption that you were pro-4e and wanting to play. Teaches me for making too many assumptions.:( -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 127] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-08-08 04:13 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Hey, don't mess with the pig farmer miniature! ;) I have that one too, its kewl :cool: Seriously, if you are looking for more useful miniatures buy from another company, like Citadel. Havard I was amazed mostly by the fact that the paintjob on him is actually better than most of the other D&D minis I have. For when I rarely do use minis, I'm starting to collect a small number of Reaper Miniatures. They do have a good range and represent an awful lot of the character classes with a wide range of weapons and armour styles. I'm also using their line to flech out my Mordheim warbands. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 128] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-08-08 06:48 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance My apologies, I misinterpreted the nature of your post. I assumed that it was in defence of 4e, causing me to make the further assumption that you were pro-4e and wanting to play. Teaches me for making too many assumptions.:( Apologies accepted :) GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 129] Author : havard Date : 04-08-08 07:28 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I was amazed mostly by the fact that the paintjob on him is actually better than most of the other D&D minis I have. Yeah you're right. Mine looks pretty good too :D I'm seriously considering touching up some of the other ones though, if only to give them a personalized look. For when I rarely do use minis, I'm starting to collect a small number of Reaper Miniatures. They do have a good range and represent an awful lot of the character classes with a wide range of weapons and armour styles. I'm also using their line to flech out my Mordheim warbands. I don't own any of theirs yet, but judging from their website they look good. I am also thinking about ordering some from Lance and Laser since they produce Blackmoor miniatures :cool: Apologies accepted :) http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1997/star.wars.anniversary/where.are.they/darth.vader.lg.jpg ;) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 130] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 04-08-08 08:00 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Yeah you're right. Mine looks pretty good too :D http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1997/star.wars.anniversary/where.are.they/darth.vader.lg.jpg ;) Havard You do realize Wizbro finds our lack of faith...disturbing, right? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 131] Author : elondir Date : 04-08-08 09:07 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance It is indeed dumbing the system down, but that's been happening for at least 20 years now, it's just gotten quantum levels worse in the last few. I suspect the real reason spell progression was changed was because one of the designers couldn't understand how the original system worked and dumbed it down for him/herself. It's kinda like how one of the idiot suits at NBC almost changed the name of Star Trek to Star Track because not only did he not know what the word "trek" meant, he couldn't be bothered to crack open a dictionary to find out for himself... I disagree that 3.5 is a "dumbing down" of the system. I remember DMing 2e and it was nowhere near as complicated as 3.5. In fact, if you wanted to use minis in 2e (which was RARE), you used a ruler to see how far you could move (which IMHO is much simpler and more realistic than squares or hexes). Also, a question about WoW. I don't play it and I don't plan to, but just how much playing does it take to hit level 70? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 132] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-08-08 09:34 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance You do realize Wizbro finds our lack of faith...disturbing, right? "I feel the conflict within you - let go your hate - buy 4e." :D WotC eyeing off my stack of 2nd ed product "You play with that junk - you're braver than I thought" Warning to a DM about to run Tomb of Horrors "No disintegrations" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 133] Author : Extempus Date : 04-08-08 02:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I disagree that 3.5 is a "dumbing down" of the system. I remember DMing 2e and it was nowhere near as complicated as 3.5. In fact, if you wanted to use minis in 2e (which was RARE), you used a ruler to see how far you could move (which IMHO is much simpler and more realistic than squares or hexes). My previous post was regarding the 4e spell progression concept, not the rules of 3.5e in general (although that did exist also). However, while 3.5e may have had more rules (so yes, "complex" in that sense), the language of the system was dumbed down starting with 2e (unfortunately, though not to a great extent), where we started seeing them move away from certain words not commonly used in everyday speech, such as "paying the cost" instead of "expend." In 3e, one of the first things I noticed was "cumulative" was replaced with "stacking," which is even simpler language that even a kindergartner can understand and, quite frankly, I found that insulting to my intelligence (a rules-complex game written at what, 4th grade instead of 12th grade level???). As far as the rules go, I seem to recall that spells such as fireball no longer expanded to fill a resticted space (such as casting it in a small room) which would therefore engulf the caster if he was not careful. It had a set blast radius that nothing could change, no matter what got in the way. Personally, I find that dumbed down... how long does it take to calculate the volume of the blast versus the volume of a room and realize that it will expand and possibly hit the caster? Or don't school students these days know the basics of math, like the formula to calculate the volume of a sphere (I suspect that is quite likely... can't confuse them with useless information like that now, can we)? Anyway, this spell progression idea for 4e is so simplified that kindergartners can understand it, but the game was not exactly designed for them. Not only that, the original concept was not difficult either... my suggestion that one of the designers couldn't understand it is probably the main reason it was changed (using the word "level" in so many different ways is very confusing, LOL). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 134] Author : Oxlar Date : 04-08-08 02:33 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance So, your point is actually to have an equal challenge, where your chance of victory is circa 50%. However, this means your adventure will not last long, since your PCs will have a 50% probability of dying in the first "face death", 75% within the second, 87.5% within the third, and more than 90% within a single session (regardless of level and starting HPs). In the end, your games don't seem much different than the "delve" of the D&D Experience (which, accordingly to the reports, led to a good number of TPKs). Really, I don't see how your style is better catered for by old school editions than by 4e. It's just matter of what type of encounter you put in your adventures -- using Risky encounters in BECMI/RC would be the same as using an encounter of 3+avg party level in 4e. G. No it means stupid players will have to 'learn to adapt' or perish. I can't tell you how many roll players I've brought into my well oiled group and they have gone from complete cheese to very thought out and creative players after a few months. Good role playing rubs off on to new players. Foster a system that caters to the lowest common denominator and you don't get much growth. So that whole 50/50% thing is very abstract and gets mitigated with a good group. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 135] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-08-08 02:46 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance So that whole 50/50% thing is very abstract and gets mitigated with a good group. I don't see how this applies to the original post I was replying to. The poster stated he wants to "face death", meaning that if the 50%/50% got mitigated (by a good group, by a lenient DM or by the rules), he would not enjoy the game as much. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 136] Author : Oxlar Date : 04-08-08 04:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Hey, don't mess with the pig farmer miniature! ;) I have that one too, its kewl :cool: Seriously, if you are looking for more useful miniatures buy from another company, like Citadel. Havard Well I'd only go with citadel if when you blow your nose, diamond dust comes out. Then you may actually be rich enough to afford figs from them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 137] Author : Oxlar Date : 04-08-08 04:37 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance I don't see how this applies to the original post I was replying to. The poster stated he wants to "face death", meaning that if the 50%/50% got mitigated (by a good group, by a lenient DM or by the rules), he would not enjoy the game as much. GP Well actually the original post you were replying to didn't state a %. You did. I also think the numbers you posted were quite unfair. D&D was meant to exact punishment on stupid players and reward creative intuitive players. The new system seems to provide a large buffer and eventually make it damn near impossible for them to die as they level. I also agree that levels 1-5 are the most fun levels in the game. It really brings the group together in order to manage resources. Skipping that 1-5 feel in 4th is a mistake IMO. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 138] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-09-08 05:42 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance Well actually the original post you were replying to didn't state a %. You did. I also think the numbers you posted were quite unfair. D&D was meant to exact punishment on stupid players and reward creative intuitive players. The percentage is just my interpretation of the original post, not a statement on how D&D should be played. Actually, I don't play the way the original poster appears to do, nor I do advocate that style of play. So, the percentage is just meant to give some substance to the otherwise fairly ambiguous statement of the original poster: how do you quantify the "I want to face death" statement? Just to clear the field of further ambiguity, note that you need to quantify that statement if you are going to evaluate a game design, since fuzzy statements (e.g., "the lethality of the system is mitigated by a good group") are applicable, mutatis mutandis, to any game system (e.g. "the leniency of the system is mitigated by an evil DM"). Skipping that 1-5 feel in 4th is a mistake IMO. Indeed, but does this equate to the statement in the post I was quoting, i.e. that, regardless of any other factor, the PCs should routinely face major risks of death? Myself, I don't think so -- the Master Set actually recommends Risky encounters only as campaign climax, i.e. at the end of a whole series of adventures, while the post I was quoting seems to refer to a gaming stlye where PC death is routine. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 139] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-10-08 05:04 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance It doesn't have to be a certain percent. The thing is, if you've got a PC with all of 4 Hit points, as a LVL 1 wizard in 1e, any goblin force that shows up with shortbows and arrows that do 1d6 is a serious threat. Not that the DM must target your specific wizard PC, or should, but just the idea of imagining that your PC can be pierced by something, that has a 33% chance of knocking him out at least, and perhaps wors, on a single, hit combined with the idea that in older editions, wizards could not wear armor, that makes for a hell of an exiting and dramatic encounter, even if youre pc is never actually shot at. Contrast that with proposed 4e /SAGA style, with some 20+ hit points to start with. Your PC can take on average 2 full hits, and not break con, and 3-4 or more till danger is near. That, essentially, is the point. It dsoesn't have to be 50 / 75 / half again of that TPK. But it should be, "Wow, we have a significant chance to lose a PC here." What is that %? Varies by player, by DM, by Campaign. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 140] Author : Agathokles Date : 04-10-08 10:47 AM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance It doesn't have to be a certain percent. The thing is, if you've got a PC with all of 4 Hit points, as a LVL 1 wizard in 1e, any goblin force that shows up with shortbows and arrows that do 1d6 is a serious threat. Not that the DM must target your specific wizard PC, or should, but just the idea of imagining that your PC can be pierced by something, that has a 33% chance of knocking him out at least, and perhaps wors, on a single, hit combined with the idea that in older editions, wizards could not wear armor, that makes for a hell of an exiting and dramatic encounter, even if youre pc is never actually shot at. Contrast that with proposed 4e /SAGA style, with some 20+ hit points to start with. Your PC can take on average 2 full hits, and not break con, and 3-4 or more till danger is near. That, essentially, is the point. Not at all. The fact that PCs need 4 hits to go down instead of 1 doesn't fundamentally alter the scenario: in the above case, three goblins will, on average, kill the 1st level wizard in the first round. If the wizard had 8 HPs instead of 4, it would take six goblins instead (or two rounds). Where is the difference then? Most likely, in the length of the combat. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 141] Author : Oxlar Date : 04-10-08 12:57 PM Thread Title : Re: Giving 4e a chance The percentage is just my interpretation of the original post, not a statement on how D&D should be played. Actually, I don't play the way the original poster appears to do, nor I do advocate that style of play. So, the percentage is just meant to give some substance to the otherwise fairly ambiguous statement of the original poster: how do you quantify the "I want to face death" statement? Just to clear the field of further ambiguity, note that you need to quantify that statement if you are going to evaluate a game design, since fuzzy statements (e.g., "the lethality of the system is mitigated by a good group") are applicable, mutatis mutandis, to any game system (e.g. "the leniency of the system is mitigated by an evil DM"). Indeed, but does this equate to the statement in the post I was quoting, i.e. that, regardless of any other factor, the PCs should routinely face major risks of death? Myself, I don't think so -- the Master Set actually recommends Risky encounters only as campaign climax, i.e. at the end of a whole series of adventures, while the post I was quoting seems to refer to a gaming stlye where PC death is routine. GP Ah but now we get into some good stuff. I good DM will create an illusion of death around every corner and make it feel like nearly every encounter may very well be lethal. I'm not advocating that DMs just put together something designed to kill the PCs without regard for the story or purpose of the game. The problem with the new system is it puts so much into the PCs court that it makes it hard for a DM to keep the perceived threat at a decent level. The players seem to be holding the cards and not the DM. Its like spoiled kids getting the upper hand over their parents these days. I was also adding a couple other IMOs in that post that were not directly related to your post. I wasn't trying to twist your words or what you said. :tiphat: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.