Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xorial 03-24-06, 10:36 PM	I have been reading Monte Cook's comments on OGL & how it help's the RPG indutry as a whole. These are posted on his website. He raised the possiblity of a 4e coming out at some time in the future. He states that he has NO INSIDE KNOWLEDGE. Lets keep that in mind, as that isnt what I started this thread for. After reading his comments & thoughts about the reasons that WotC MIGHT release a 4e. Some of his comments made me think about this. The main thing is the OGL & if Wizards would keep 4e as open. While I dont think that 3e/3.5e is the "Perfect" system (far from it if you ever read any variations of classes that I have posted over the last few years on these boards), I also think that WotC needs to hold off on any talk of a 4e until they get a clear idea that we, the consumers, would even be really all that interested in it. I was wondering what everybody else thought about this. Remeber, I'm not trying to create a wish list for what I, or anybody else, wants in 4e. That has been discussed on here before.
narukagami 03-24-06, 10:50 PM	I wouldn't mind it if they did what AEG did with their Legends of the Five Rings 3rd Edition. See, in the game's second edition, so many different rulebooks and expainsions and errata for such were released that it was just confusing to find any rule or ability. So, to remedy this, they took ALL the rules and errata and compiled them, changing things here and there for sake of simplicity, and printed it all in one book under the moniker of a new edition. Considering Wizards is way passed the point of rules and cool stuff spread out among enough books to break a bookshelf, they're due for a compilation soon.
jokamachi 03-24-06, 11:06 PM	I have already invested in a very thorough and balanced system. Why would I need another one?
DungeonMaster 03-24-06, 11:10 PM	There are plenty of cracks in the 3rd edition (and easily more in 3.5) system. Everything from innocous yet irritating things like no bonus 0th level spells for high ability scores to game mechanical nightmares like shapechanging magic. There are problems with basic structure, such as magic item design where 80% of the items are "wondrous" yet that requires only one crafting feat. There are other issues, people want a return to more "flavor". Keep in mind as well there are plenty of people who bought 3rd edition and didn't buy into 3.5. The edition has had a good run. It's getting time for something new. Let's just hope it's a whole hell of a lot better than 3.5.
Kessalin Talira 03-24-06, 11:30 PM	No, I don't want to see it any time soon. 1E was, what... fifteen years long? Something like '73-'88. My dates might be wrong but it was over a decade. Then 2E was introduced, and lasted for another ten at least. 3E rolls along in 2000, and while it's been six years, they're not done yet. Eberron is just getting off the ground, I'm sure there are things left to cover in the Realms, and new generic material will always be coming. If 4E comes out before 2010, I'll be pretty irritated. That being said, I know what I'd like to see for another "Core book". Complete Feats, compiling, indexing, and updating the feats like the Spell Compendium is doing for spells. EDIT: I just noticed this line:I also think that WotC needs to hold off on any talk of a 4e until they get a clear idea that we, the consumers, would even be really all that interested in it.WotC really has tried to hold off on that talk. Everything you see on the boards is just speculation on the part of the posters. I don't know if it's still there, but I think WizO_Paradox, the "head WizO" as far as I know, had it in his sig that Wizards has no plans for 4E in the foreseeable future. Not that it stops anyone from posting. :rolleyes:
thorian 03-24-06, 11:44 PM	My wish for 4E... Release date 2099. I hope to god they do not release 4E any time soon. I think they risk upsetting a lot of the fan base who have invested hundreds if not thousands into 3E & 3.5E. I pretty much disagree with almost every point DungeonMaster brought up: There are plenty of cracks in the 3rd edition (and easily more in 3.5) system. This is true of almost any system. When you have 100s of spells, feats, PrCs, etc. It is almost impossible to foresee the interactions they may have upon one another. Any system with a plethora of possibilities risks this. Everything from innocous yet irritating things like no bonus 0th level spells for high ability scores to game mechanical nightmares like shapechanging magic. The 0th level bonus spells is easy to house rule. I don't think it is a worthy reason to create a new edition. As for the alter self, polymorph, and shapechange problem, there are some simple, elegant solutions people have created. I'm not so sure WotC has the capability to do this, however, even in a new edition. They haven't been able to figure it out in 3E or 3.5. There are problems with basic structure, such as magic item design where 80% of the items are "wondrous" yet that requires only one crafting feat. IMO, that is not correct. The wondrous items all require descriptions, but items like scrolls, potions, wands don't need descriptions, so the illusion of more wondrous items is created. It is the same with weapons. There is no need to list +1 dagger, +1 longsword, +1 halberd, etc. In fact, I’ll bet there are many more scrolls or wands or weapons than wondrous items. There are other issues, people want a return to more "flavor". I have personally seen more requests for less flavor on the various boards I frequent, but I think neither of us can substantiate our claims on this topic. The edition has had a good run. It's getting time for something new. Let's just hope it's a whole hell of a lot better than 3.5. This edition has barely scratched the surface of what it could be. How many of the materials for 3E and 3.5E have you used to their fullest extent. I don’t think anyone playing once or twice a week, every week, would have the chance to use 25% of it. It is definitely NOT time for 4E. WotC, please, please, do NOT release 4E any time soon! If you are thinking about it, do some market research first. You have a heavily traveled web site, and a large RPGA base from which to take surveys. If the surveys prove I am in the minority, I can accept that, but to move ahead without taking the time to do some proper market research could be very detrimental to D&D. To make a mistake and release 4E too early risks alienating many of your best customers who may not want to dump substantial investments they have made in the current edition.
Leatherwood 03-25-06, 12:13 AM	Right now, I am intent on collecting all the 3.5 material put out by WotC. While I realized a while ago that there is nearly an endless variation in the combination of rules and options to keep me satisfied just in the books I own now, there is no such thing as too many options. That being said, I really do not want to have to start over from the begining. If 4th edition came in the next couple of years, I wouldn't buy it. I'd finish collecting the WotC 3.5 material, but I wouldn't buy into the next edition. At all. Not because I believe that 3.5 is the end all and be all of all RPGs, and not because I would be angry or upset with WotC as a company, but because I really don't want a new edition. There is nothing that they could improve on right now that would convince me that we actually need a new edition. Now, could somethings be cleaned up? Certianly. Could new variations on the rules peek my interest. Definetely. Would I purchase compilation manuals? I purchased the Spell Compendium... There are a number of avenues that WotC could take to keep my business before investing in a new edition.
Chrono Nexus 03-25-06, 12:57 AM	Really, the only people that would buy 4e currently would be a very rules-structure oriented group. I think Wiz's needs to let some time pass before they can try selling a new edition again.
lastcurse 03-25-06, 01:18 AM	As one other guy here said, if they could release a complete update incorporating all the rules, eratta, and specialized rules like we see in the environment books, but still keep the same system, that would be great. I would like to see a class rebalancing though. Clerics and druids are too strong, wizards and sorcerers too fragile, and sorcerors just need help. We could finally get a fixed epic system, support for the optional base classes, and get all the updated material compiled. I'd buy a 3.75.
Baptor 03-25-06, 01:49 AM	There are problems with basic structure, such as magic item design where 80% of the items are "wondrous" yet that requires only one crafting feat. IMO, that is not correct. The wondrous items all require descriptions, but items like scrolls, potions, wands don't need descriptions, so the illusion of more wondrous items is created. It is the same with weapons. There is no need to list +1 dagger, +1 longsword, +1 halberd, etc. In fact, I’ll bet there are many more scrolls or wands or weapons than wondrous items. If you read the back of the DMG on creating magic items and look at the tables given, you'll realize he is right and you are wrong. You can make virtually any sort of item using Wondrous Item feat. Even charged items, enhancement items, luck bonuses, slotless items, anything, as long as it doesnt go on a finger, its pretty much fair game accordinf to the RAW. Ive had alot of problems with CWI, and if there is to be a 4th edition, I suggest that WotC take some advice from World of Warcraft on item creation abilities, including allowing non magic-users to make some magic items (such as a master smith making an enchanted sword).
Cadfan 03-25-06, 02:06 AM	If you read the back of the DMG on creating magic items and look at the tables given, you'll realize he is right and you are wrong. Magic item creation is an area where the DM is supposed to heavily involve himself. There is no automatic right to create magic items not in the dmg. They must be authorized by the DM. So, while there are a vast amount of options for a custom wondrous item, this is because the creation of a custom wondrous item is essentially a rule zero type decision. The wide latitude available is the DMs naturally wide authority.
DarkDM 03-25-06, 02:44 AM	My two cents worth here. I am not opposed to the idea of a fourth edition. I look at my library and see the benefits of the OGL, D20 and 3.X and I note that 3E RPG revolution has quadrupled my RPG collection. Yes, there would be thousands of dollars spent over the years and admittedly this spending continues today, much to the ire of loved ones. What I would want from D&D 4.X is total compatibility with 3.5. I have so much material I don’t need another system and have enough adventures, source books and the like to last a lifetime. The other concern is that if I stopped DMing my group the players would drift away from D&D and that is six persons not purchasing D&D or WoC product. Demographically the group I play with are all late 20’ to late 30’s, professionals with family demands and incomes that can support the hobby without complaint. My group have purchased all the player books and number of source books too and of course the core three twice; 3.0 and 3.5. Like me, this group of five would be reluctant to purchase another series that would render their Completes, Spell Compendiums and other books useless. 4.0 must be totally backward compatible to 3.5. It (4.0) must simply slot into the current 3.5 collection. Cheers DDM :devil:
Kadasbrass 03-25-06, 03:04 AM	People keep talking about it, other people see "4th Edition" and think that its must be around the corner since people are talking about without looking at the facts, and they go off telling other people everything they (don't) "know" about 4th creating a endless cycle of chatter.
Arivia 03-25-06, 04:44 AM	People keep talking about it, other people see "4th Edition" and think that its must be around the corner since people are talking about without looking at the facts, and they go off telling other people everything they (don't) "know" about 4th creating a endless cycle of chatter. And those of us who have been around since at least 2e are just shaking our heads and sighing...damn those youngsters, no respect for their elders' wisdom...
DungeonMaster 03-25-06, 04:48 AM	I pretty much disagree with almost every point DungeonMaster brought up: Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Mine can be pretty harsh, try not to take it personally, it's not intended to be that way. This is true of almost any system. When you have 100s of spells, feats, PrCs, etc. Lord no, I was talking only about the core rules. The non-core rules are more often than not completely absurd and always have been regardless of edition. The 0th level bonus spells is easy to house rule. I don't think it is a worthy reason to create a new edition. As for the alter self, polymorph, and shapechange problem, there are some simple, elegant solutions people have created. I don't understand why you say this? It's obvious these are "chinks" in the system and there are plenty, plenty more. Advocating house rules and external solutions for core mechanics only validates those chinks. In fact, I’ll bet there are many more scrolls or wands or weapons than wondrous items. I've been DMing this game for half a decade now. There are more wondrous items than wands and weapons combined. It isn't even the raw number that is important - it's the diversity. Craft wondrous item gives you items that improve ability score bonuses, combat bonuses, saves and even allows you to cast spells from the likes of the helm of brilliance or the chaos diamond for instance. A better system is one which tiers items in accordance to their function. An even better system would list fantastic ingredients to make magic items. But I digress... The class of items does too much as is. As for flavor my reply is simple: to hell with this retarded splat edition. We need a new edition more than anything to curb the rampant number nonsense that is so pervasive you cannot mesh any two non-core books together without creating unholy mess. Really the munchkins have had their way, it's time for the next edition to favor text over broken numerics. We don't need a list of 10 different bonus types. Two or three - with caps no less - will do just fine. This edition has barely scratched the surface of what it could be. How many of the materials for 3E and 3.5E have you used to their fullest extent. There's nothing left for them to print. Every surface has been scratched, to the point of bleeding ulcers. That's another issue altogether. I've used my 3rd edition PHB, DMG and MM to a great extent. They are tattered and worn, barely clinging to their covers. I've used Deities and Demigods to craft a pantheon and the Stronghold builder's guidebook to make castles. The occasional MM2 monster for my 2E nostalgia. That's really all I need and care to use. A new edition is easily justified for me. In fact most gamers do not own anywhere near all the non core splat, so it's easily justifed for them as well. The reality is the "best customer" who buys 15 books is not worth the "average customer" who exist in a hundred times the other guys' number. Market surveys are not the only driving force - most likely the almighty buck will push harder than random message board complaints.
dungeonmasterblog 03-25-06, 07:27 AM	I'd prefer not to see a 4e, although that's personal preference. I didn't give up 2E until 3.5 came out and finally realized there's some nice things about the new systems. I'm just not sure what an entire revamp would accomplish. Yes, there's flaws, but there's always going to be flaws. One thing that a lot of board games do (ASL for one) is have published errata. Maybe that's what is needed. A website devoted to tweaks and fixes. I know it's not entirely effecient but it saves the need from doing a complete rewrite. Dungeon Master http://www.dungeonsdragonsblog.com
Rogue Shadows 03-25-06, 07:50 AM	Lord no, I was talking only about the core rules. The non-core rules are more often than not completely absurd and always have been regardless of edition. Allow me to refine what Thorian said. "Any time you have a complex role-playing system, your chances for glitches increases dramatically" Compare the core rules of Vampire: The Masquerade to that of Dungeons & Dragons. Vampire's core rules almost never clash. However, this is because all dice rolling is done with the d10 and nothing else; every single roll, regardless of whether it's attack, creating an item, driving a car, using a power, requires you to just roll d10s. This is verses D&D, which has a much more complex system that oftimes involves die that don't even exist. But, I don't really see any of the chinks you're poining out. Getting no bonus 0-level spells, for example, makes sense to me thematically. They're so friggin' basic, no one is going to take the time to learn the arcane secrets necessary to cast more of them. This is verses even 1st level spells, where someone is, if only for the chance to use magic missile more often. I don't understand why you say this? It's obvious these are "chinks" in the system and there are plenty, plenty more. Advocating house rules and external solutions for core mechanics only validates those chinks. No, it's only reveals group preferense. My group, for example, has no problem with the 0-level spell things. I've been DMing this game for half a decade now. There are more wondrous items than wands and weapons combined. It isn't even the raw number that is important - it's the diversity. Craft wondrous item gives you items that improve ability score bonuses, combat bonuses, saves and even allows you to cast spells from the likes of the helm of brilliance or the chaos diamond for instance. A better system is one which tiers items in accordance to their function. An even better system would list fantastic ingredients to make magic items. But I digress... The class of items does too much as is. Yes, but then this would require a ludicrous amount of feat-gaining that would waste slots. What Wizards of the Coast has essentially done is say, "You know what? There's a big difference between a Cloak of Resistace +1 and a Boots of Elvenkind...but they're still basically the same thing, insofar as magical casting is concerned. The differences between them are represented by Craft checks and spells cast. So you have Craft (Weaving) +23. w00t! You can make a Cloak of Reisistance +1. But good luck making those Gauntlets of Ogre Strength (which would be a Craft (Blacksmithing) check). As for flavor my reply is simple: to hell with this retarded splat edition. We need a new edition more than anything to curb the rampant number nonsense that is so pervasive you cannot mesh any two non-core books together without creating unholy mess. Really the munchkins have had their way, it's time for the next edition to favor text over broken numerics. We don't need a list of 10 different bonus types. Two or three - with caps no less - will do just fine. Maybe for you. Remember, as much as it is an RPG, it's also an RP[]b]G[/b]. I think that there's pleanty of fluff around, and pleanty of number-crunching goodness. I've always been able to find at least the basics of whatever I needed story-wise, and I'm imaginative enough to think up the rest. If anything, I could use slightly more numbers. Where's the stat block for the Minor Death, for example, that you can draw from the [i]Deck of Many Things?[/b] There's nothing left for them to print. Every surface has been scratched, to the point of bleeding ulcers. That's another issue altogether. Really? 1. Races of the Horde (Orcs and Goblinoids) 2. Races of Fey (Dryads, nymphs) 3. Infinite Worlds Series (a huge number of mircocampaign settings) 4. Blood & Fire: A Guide to the New World (Azteca and Native-American themed setting) 5. Map Compendium (A huge assortment of gridded battle-maps, as opposed to the map folio, which contains just small maps that you can't actually put miniatures on) 6. Heroes of Intrigue (A guide to intrigue and noir-style play) 7. A Third Campaign Setting (Eberron and the Realms are not enough) 8. Deities & Demigods II (With three 'real-world' pantheons in brief (Preferably Cathari (Duology), Native American (Animism), and Zoroastroan (Monotheism), as well as emphasis on how to build things other then polytheisms) That's just off the top of my head. I've used my 3rd edition PHB, DMG and MM to a great extent. They are tattered and worn, barely clinging to their covers. I've used Deities and Demigods to craft a pantheon and the Stronghold builder's guidebook to make castles. The occasional MM2 monster for my 2E nostalgia. That's really all I need and care to use. A new edition is easily justified for me. Okay, but not for everyone else. For one thing, I lack 2E nostalgia, having never played in it. Let's see, what do I regularly use...Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Deities & Demigods, Hero Builder's Guidebook, Map Folio I, Map Folio II, Hellspike Prison, Fane of the Drow, Red Hand of Doom, Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual I, II, and III, Stormwrack, Sandstorm, Oriental Adventures, BESM d20 (Best system to create classes and races...ever) In fact most gamers do not own anywhere near all the non core splat, so it's easily justifed for them as well. The reality is the "best customer" who buys 15 books is not worth the "average customer" who exist in a hundred times the other guys' number. True, but also, the 'average customer' that I know really wants more, as well. More prefabricated adventures and campaigns, more splat books, more everything. Market surveys are not the only driving force - most likely the almighty buck will push harder than random message board complaints. But of course...and right now, the Almighty Doller doesn't seem to indicate a 4th Edition is necessary. For cryin' out loud, 3.5 has only been out for something like 3 years! I don't want to have spent all that money just for it to be invalidated! I was ****** off enough with 3.5 after having spent all that money on 3.0.
Jhaelen 03-25-06, 07:51 AM	I'd prefer not to see a 4e, although that's personal preference. I didn't give up 2E until 3.5 came out and finally realized there's some nice things about the new systems. Same here. A 4th edition wouldn't make me stop using 3.5 for at least another two years. There are lots of things I'd like to see fixed or improved upon, but it's not that bad, that I'd want to see a new edition, a couple of errata would be sufficient. There's one thing I am totally convinced of: Even if a new edition was absolutely perfect, balanced, etc. it would still become broken as soon as the first non-core supplement came out for it.
Davenan 03-25-06, 08:50 AM	Gotta agree with the Dungeonmaster on this one. The munchkins have had their way, now lets get back to a system thats quicker and easier to design adventures for. By the the way, the names Dave. I have played since early to mid 80's, and loved every version including 3.0/3.5. I also love WFRP, and have just picked up Savage Worlds. I have DMed for on/off for about 15 years. Also, I'm Ds Da Man on Enworld. My wish list for 4E: More conditional modifiers for skills (instead of flat DCs), optional spell system (maybe MPs), optional table-top battle system, less core classes (I don't need four different names for a spellcaster), and WP/VP options in the PHB. Just my .02. :D
Mnky 03-25-06, 09:17 AM	I would appreciate a 4th addition, in about 15 years time. It's too much to ask for them to stop making splatbook after splatbook and to put more effort into making the core rules worthy. What we don't need is anything coming out any time soon, further splitting those who switch to it and those who don't.
Nefir Falken 03-25-06, 10:07 AM	I fall completely on the side of not needing a brand new edition of the D&D game anytime soon. Not to say that the current incarnation of the game doesn't need to pruned a bit, in an effort to bring all of the disparate branches back to a point where they actually make sense when compared to each other and not just to the core rules.
jokamachi 03-25-06, 10:18 AM	There are plenty of cracks in the 3rd edition (and easily more in 3.5) system. Everything from innocous yet irritating things like no bonus 0th level spells for high ability scores to game mechanical nightmares like shapechanging magic. There are problems with basic structure, such as magic item design where 80% of the items are "wondrous" yet that requires only one crafting feat. There are other issues, people want a return to more "flavor". Keep in mind as well there are plenty of people who bought 3rd edition and didn't buy into 3.5. The edition has had a good run. It's getting time for something new. Let's just hope it's a whole hell of a lot better than 3.5. Either you're new to D&D or your memory is rather short, because compared to AD&D (or even OD&D), 3.5 is the best thing to come along in ages, So much so, that many feel little to no need for another edition. Besides, most of your complaints are marginal and not aimed at an overall mechanical balance, just flavor. See you in twenty or so posts.
Quietus_Silivren 03-25-06, 11:25 AM	I'm all for a fourth edition. I have no problem with seeing the game evolve. Now that the rules have been fleshed out to the point that for anything not covered, the precedent has been set to allow players themselves to expand the RAW to encompass it, I'd like to see those qualities worked into a system that doesn't cause those fleshed-out rules to get in the way of the roleplaying. Because on the flipside of that coin, the rules have been fleshed out to encompass everything, and every player who wants to do anything has to worry about the mechanical implications and the numbers. There are more figures to work out than actions possible in the game, because every action spawns a dozen different numbers to be worried about. That is, if you're doing more than swinging a sword or casting a fireball. That said, this has been discussed to death. People have screamed back and forth, things like "WotC, please don't release a 4th edition!" and "3.5 Ed. is broken! We want 4th Ed. now!" and "If 4th Edition is released, I will never buy another WotC book again!" on a message board that, if I'm not mistaken, WotC employees aren't even allowed to read. But people, facts are facts. One very significant fact to be noted is that Wizards' "best customers" who buy every damn book from here to infinity...don't matter. There are so few people who are willing and able (key economic concept of demand, there, willingness and ability) to spend thousands of dollars eating up every product that comes their way that such people are largely insignificant to WotC's sales. When Wizards puts out a new product, particularly a radical new product, it's two things: a cash grab, and a test of the market to see what will sell to the largest number of people. You might think that would mean, with all the people yammering for no 4e around here, that that would be the way things would go. Something you must realize, however, is that hardcore fans who buy every book exist in much higher density on the D&D message boards than they do in the world at large. And those hardcore fans are just going to have to bite the bullet and accept that Wizards is intent on selling to the largest number of people, period, and marketing to those relatively few people who've already each given them thousands of dollars simply is not a part of that. The truth is, it's very likely that the time is not far off when far more people will buy a new edition than will continue to buy material for the old one. And when that time comes, you can bet that there will be a new edition so long as Wizards of the Coast is still around. Oh, and by the way, 3.5e is broken. :P
SOPI 03-25-06, 11:54 AM	To be straightforward, no.
PunkRockBard 03-25-06, 12:12 PM	nahhh....no need for a 4th edition yet. the things id like to see in the system (a book on yugoloths..lets hope fiendish codex III is such!....more story/fluff/thematic aspects, More Planar books, etc.) could easily be done in 3.5.
Cainne 03-25-06, 02:18 PM	At this juncture there really is no need for a whole new edition, I mean they come out with a new edition, rerelease all the books that they've just released... it would just be a mess really. Especially since 3.5 is still going pretty strong with the official support and the OGL support. To release a 4th edition now, after only 6 years of 3.0/3.5, well they'd really just be shooting themselves in the foot because they'd have to re tool EVERYTHING they've done up until now, and that would seem like a wasted effort at this point. One of the earlier posters even said D&D and AD&D spanned what? some 20-25 years total together? why would we need a new edition after only 6?
Mortepierre 03-25-06, 02:33 PM	No Nuff said
Wilds 03-25-06, 02:37 PM	no
Elven Doritos 03-25-06, 03:07 PM	\ One thing that a lot of board games do (ASL for one) is have published errata. Maybe that's what is needed. A website devoted to tweaks and fixes. I know it's not entirely effecient but it saves the need from doing a complete rewrite. Um... you mean like this (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a)? The plan's so brilliant, it just might work. ;) -Elven Doritos
Millennium 03-25-06, 03:09 PM	Although I wouldn't be averse to seeing things rebalanced in a more modular fashion, I don't really see the need for a completely new edition of D&D. My biggest problems would likely be solved with little more than a variant PHB, and truth be told, it probably wouldn't take more than a variant list of classes.
DungeonMaster 03-25-06, 04:15 PM	Either you're new to D&D or your memory is rather short, because compared to AD&D (or even OD&D), 3.5 is the best thing to come along in ages, So much so, that many feel little to no need for another edition. The same was said about 1E, 2E and 3E - I know, I was there. You can read it in Dragon magazine too if you have the collection. From my experience 3.5 was arguably the most reviled change, largely because it happened too soon and was not much more than terrible house rules for 3rd edition put in print. Besides, most of your complaints are marginal and not aimed at an overall mechanical balance, just flavor. You're joking right? 3.5 balanced? There are absurdities in the core rules like rogues weilding staffs of holy word that can kill gods let alone non-core monstrosities like the hulking hurler that can destroy planets in one blow. Furthermore and perhaps more importantly discounting flavor is not a good argument. It's a very bad argument actually. I'll have time later for more replies.
Jhaelen 03-25-06, 04:56 PM	You're joking right? 3.5 balanced? There are absurdities in the core rules like rogues weilding staffs of holy word that can kill gods let alone non-core monstrosities like the hulking hurler that can destroy planets in one blow. Fascinating! However, if you'd like me to agree, I'd need a bit of additional information: - What's a 'staff of holy word'? Where in the Core Rules can I find one? How can it be used to kill gods? Where in the Core Rules can I find stats for gods? - Where in the non-core rules can I find stats for planets? How many HP or what saves does a planet have? Unless you've got some satisfying answers for these questions, I think, I'll just ignore anything else you've got to say, since we don't seem to share the same plane of reality ;)
Rogue Shadows 03-25-06, 05:13 PM	Well, in his defense, you could both be on Limbo.
jokamachi 03-25-06, 05:18 PM	Yeah, you can say that again. Besides, if you really want to be a munchkin extraordinaire (something your comments seem to reflect), then yes, the potential to break any system exists within the rules as written no matter how well they are balanced. But that's where the DM comes in. Once again... no 4e for me thanks.
VictorC 03-25-06, 05:20 PM	You're joking right? 3.5 balanced? There are absurdities in the core rules like rogues weilding staffs of holy word that can kill gods let alone non-core monstrosities like the hulking hurler that can destroy planets in one blow. Furthermore and perhaps more importantly discounting flavor is not a good argument. It's a very bad argument actually. What? I'll have time later for more replies. Please start with what a hulking hurler is and how exactly it can destroy a planet in one blow. If you don't want to like 3.5 that's ok, but your somewhat ridicules attacks are really unnecessary.
Rogue Shadows 03-25-06, 05:25 PM	Please start with what a hulking hurler is and how exactly it can destroy a planet in one blow. Hmm. Well...if you were to take a Sphere of Annihilation...ram it into the ground...and make sure that it never stops absorbing, then theoretically, you could destroy the planet, and since it never stops, it'll technically count as 'one blow.' Hmm. That's all I can think of from the Core Rules, unless you've got a really bad DM and a really screwed-up player making a Wish or asking for a Miracle. Or you build a Sphere of Fear...a Orb of Destruction...a Deathdical... the Death Star. But that might take awhile, even with a couple dozen natural 20s on Craft (What the Hell?) checks.
VictorC 03-25-06, 05:45 PM	Well...if you were to take a Sphere of Annihilation...ram it into the ground...and make sure that it never stops absorbing, then theoretically, you could destroy the planet, and since it never stops, it'll technically count as 'one blow. On what page of what core book can I find this Sphere of Annihilation
Rogue Shadows 03-25-06, 05:56 PM	Dungeon Master's Guide. As memory serves, it's a major artifact, so look in that section. Specifically, I'm fraked if I can tell you where it is, because sadly, my DMG is in storage. And is 3.0. Near its entry it should have a black-and-white picture of a guy getting sucked into it.
Ranger REG 03-25-06, 06:05 PM	I wouldn't mind it if they did what AEG did with their Legends of the Five Rings 3rd Edition. See, in the game's second edition, so many different rulebooks and expainsions and errata for such were released that it was just confusing to find any rule or ability. So, to remedy this, they took ALL the rules and errata and compiled them, changing things here and there for sake of simplicity, and printed it all in one book under the moniker of a new edition. More importantly, they drop[-kick]ed d20. YES!!! Thank you AEG for stopped ruining my OA, even though you have already scarred me for life. Now, WotC, let's get on the business of reviving Kara-Tur.
Elven Doritos 03-25-06, 06:05 PM	Dungeon Master's Guide. As memory serves, it's a major artifact, so look in that section. Specifically, I'm fraked if I can tell you where it is, because sadly, my DMG is in storage. And is 3.0. Near its entry it should have a black-and-white picture of a guy getting sucked into it. I read this post without reading the one above it-- and I thought you were referring to the 3.0 DMG itself. I laughed. -Elven Doritos
VictorC 03-25-06, 06:12 PM	Dungeon Master's Guide. As memory serves, it's a major artifact, so look in that section. Specifically, I'm fraked if I can tell you where it is, because sadly, my DMG is in storage. And is 3.0. Near its entry it should have a black-and-white picture of a guy getting sucked into it. Uhhhuhhh, there it is. It would take longer than the span of most races lives to destroy a planet even the size of earth with a Shere of Annihilation. But even if some type of immortal was to be the one to carry out this brilliant plot, they would have to stop to rest it couldn't be considered one blow it would be hunderds of thousands (at the least). But I'm still curious what a hurling hulker (or whatever) is, and how it would be able to destroy a planet with one blow.
Rogue Shadows 03-25-06, 06:25 PM	A Death Star, once he succeeds at 20000 consecutive Craft (What the Hell?) checks with a DC of 100 over the course of some ten thousand years. Game time, of course. I read this post without reading the one above it-- and I thought you were referring to the 3.0 DMG itself. I laughed. No, the DMG is just a minor artifact.
VictorC 03-25-06, 06:26 PM	Wait, I found it right in Complete Warrior, which is not Core, or capable of destroying the world in one blow.
Rogue Shadows 03-25-06, 06:31 PM	What? The Death Star, or the Sphere of Annihilation? 'Cause I'll be mighty confused if you found the Death Star in Complete Warrior.
VictorC 03-25-06, 06:37 PM	What? The Death Star, or the Sphere of Annihilation? 'Cause I'll be mighty confused if you found the Death Star in Complete Warrior. No no the hurling hulker is found in the Complete Warrior, and I venture a guess that it's ability to deal dammage capps at about 12291 d6 + 55, Average 43073.5 hp of damage, which I also find very likely to destroy the world in one blow. But as I said earlier if you think 3.5 is broken that's fine, but don't attack it in such a silly manner.
Rogue Shadows 03-25-06, 06:39 PM	What the Heck?! How would one go about dealing that much damage? Also, I don't think so. I'd estimate a planet to have a good 1000000 hp, at least, and one heck of a lot of damage reduction (we're talking like 10000/-), and this is just for a small, Pluto-sized one.
VictorC 03-25-06, 06:46 PM	What the Heck?! How would one go about dealing that much damage? http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-142565.html It's a complex build. Also, I don't think so. I'd estimate a planet to have a good 1000000 hp, at least, and one heck of a lot of damage reduction (we're talking like 10000/-), and this is just for a small, Pluto-sized one. Agreed
VictorC 03-25-06, 06:47 PM	What? The Death Star, or the Sphere of Annihilation? 'Cause I'll be mighty confused if you found the Death Star in Complete Warrior. Well I found it there once, but I was very Drunk.
Rogue Shadows 03-25-06, 06:51 PM	Masterfully Drunk, to a point where Bruce Lee couldn't touch you, or just plain ol' smashed?
VictorC 03-25-06, 06:58 PM	Masterfully Drunk, to a point where Bruce Lee couldn't touch you, or just plain ol' smashed? Little bit of column A. little bit of column B.
Rogue Shadows 03-25-06, 07:34 PM	Coolio. Getting back on topic...new editions are released based on problems. As I've said before in other threads, the problems with 1st Edition were Legion. The problems with 2nd Edition were Legion^2, and on top of that, the rules system was confusing and difficult to interpret to begin with. 3rd Edition and 3.5 both prevent much simplified systems. Not World of Darkness simple, but still simple, and accessable to everyone. The problems, meanwhile, are laughable compared to the problems of 1st Edition and 2nd Edition. Personally, I don't believe a new edition will ever be necessary. Flawed or no, the only real way to improve upon D&D would be to completely change the way everything works...that is to say, start building a whole new RPG, something that isn't Dungeons and Dragons. The game is fine as is. There is no need anymore to make the fundemental changes that warrent a new edition, as there was with 1st Edition and 2nd Edition. And, most importantly, THERE IS NO SPOON.
Seeker of Undeath 03-25-06, 08:53 PM	I agree that I wouldn't want to see 4e until at least 2010, but more likely later than that. For one thing I've invested too much in 3.5 for it to be replaced so soon. For another I find 3.5 such a massive improvement over 3.0 that I'm just rather content. So far my only desires after I nab Complete Psionic and probably Complete Mage will be a Feat Compendium and maybe a Class Compendium.
Gilganarz_the_reporter 03-25-06, 10:52 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-142565.html It's a complex build. People should be rewarded for putting together a good build, besides, any DM who lets it into their game is either stupid or very drunk. The more freedom you give a system, the more broken its going to be. Just look at Heroes 5th ed. Then take a look at a system like Brave New World. Vive la Differance.
VictorC 03-25-06, 11:14 PM	People should be rewarded for putting together a good build, besides, any DM who lets it into their game is either stupid or very drunk. I was putting more thought into the whole thing. A colassal dragons weight is 1,280,000Lb's, it's flying around and decides to drop on a person it deals only 4d8 points of damage. Not to mention I tend to think a dragon would be more leathal with his weight completely under it's control, then some shmo hurling a big rock. But on this point, even if the dragon did more damage (which it does not) it never damages the planet in any relevant manner.
VictorC 03-25-06, 11:16 PM	I keep posting things completely off topic for the thread (sorry), no I feel that 4th edition would be a big mistake. The only forseeable reason I would have to buy any of the books would be if someone else I knew was to run 4th and I don't know anybody that would want to do that.
beaver1024 03-25-06, 11:50 PM	No I don't want more imbalanced biased material for clerics and druids. No I don't want to buy anymore erratta that should have been free to begin with. So no, I won't be buying 4e.
Antioch 03-26-06, 12:36 AM	Since my library is currently at 60 or so books (not counting duplicate core books), I would be very, very loathe to do so unless they had made some spectacular changes that go above and beyond pumping errata-filler into them and repairing minor infractions that involve various shapechanging elements (since fixes do about that can be utilized right now, for free). It would also have to be cheaper than the current books, since while I have money that I could theoretically spend on it, it is currently a very flexible, very playable game. If the system were drastically overhauled, that would severely reduce my chances of picking up a new edition because as has been said, its already currently very playable (currently my favorite gaming system) and I really do not want to relearn yet another gaming system.
Yumaddar 03-26-06, 02:36 AM	I JUST bought about 120 bucks worth of supplies for 3.5, and will no doubt end up buying more. Theres no way I'd buy something new. Not yet. Perhaps in five years, but not yet. And yes, even someone as inexperianced as myself can see problems in the rules. These problems can be solved by the DM. That's one of your responsibilities, or, atleast I concider it one of mine.
Kursk 03-26-06, 02:55 AM	4e: Does anybody want it? I haven't finished making the house rules to finish plugging the holes in 3.X! Give me a few more years...
DungeonMaster 03-26-06, 03:19 AM	This is verses D&D, which has a much more complex system that oftimes involves die that don't even exist. This sentance makes not a drop of sense. But, I don't really see any of the chinks you're poining out. Getting no bonus 0-level spells, for example, makes sense to me thematically. They're so friggin' basic, no one is going to take the time to learn the arcane secrets necessary to cast more of them. That the arch wizard of doom can cast 7 9th level spells but only 6 cantrips does not make sense thematically. At all. It is downright "dumb". What Wizards of the Coast has essentially done is say, "You know what? There's a big difference between a Cloak of Resistace +1 and a Boots of Elvenkind...but they're still basically the same thing, insofar as magical casting is concerned. This makes no sense either. What are you trying to say? Items that give you numerical bonuses are alike? What of rings of protection? The differences between them are represented by Craft checks and spells cast. So you have Craft (Weaving) +23. w00t! You can make a Cloak of Reisistance +1. But good luck making those Gauntlets of Ogre Strength (which would be a Craft (Blacksmithing) check). What game are you playing? You don't need a craft skill whatsoever to make magic items in 3rd edition. You need a feat, gold and the appropriate spell. That's all. Where's the stat block for the Minor Death, for example, that you can draw from the [i]Deck of Many Things?[/b] I'm imaginative enough that I can open my MM and read the spectre entry. Stat blocks are not the mechanical glut of the game either. 1. Races of the Horde (Orcs and Goblinoids) .*snip* All crap. Very very specialised topics for which you don't need anything approaching the extent of a 100+ page book. Really representative that it's just a train wreck of pointless topics from here on in. I don't want to have spent all that money just for it to be invalidated! I was ****** off enough with 3.5 after having spent all that money on 3.0. This is your real motivation for not wanting a new edition, you made an investment and think it's going to be invalidated. Beleive it or not you can keep playing 3.5 when 4th edition comes out. I'm still playing 3rd edition, not 3.5. No one will hold a gun to your head. I know if Andy Collins works on 4th edition in any large capacity I likely won't play it either. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a 4th edition, soon.
Silverthumb128 03-26-06, 03:19 AM	Honestly, my preference actually goes in order of 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5th at the end, as far as enjoying the rules. Back in 2e, there weren't things like ECL, and the classes were balanced pretty fairly. The rules were pretty simple, and you could just get right into gameplay. Whereas, with 3.5, there's too much pressure to choose a PrC, scour book after book for good feats, buy your magic items, convince your DM that you should be able to play an Ogre Paladin so you can do really high damage, its just too much. The way it seems, the game is getting more and more rules-only, and that's ok, but it only works if everyone has the same books so that you don't have to explain every new rule you intend to use. I like just punching out a character's stats, then getting to the game. Seems like the trend wold be 4e being a crapload of source material. Like I'll have enough money as it is. :rolleyes:
DungeonMaster 03-26-06, 03:30 AM	Getting back on topic...new editions are released based on problems. As I've said before in other threads, the problems with 1st Edition were Legion. The problems with 2nd Edition were Legion^2, and on top of that, the rules system was confusing and difficult to interpret to begin with. You didn't even PLAY these editions and you feel entitled to comment?!? :nonono: Trust me, I've played these editions and they are workable game systems. Just like 3.5 is a workable game system. There is arguably nothing more broken/confusing/timeconsuming/disgusting than the "prestige class" oxymoron cancer that 3.5 non-core has become. New editions are released largely as a result of financial pressure - not underlying game mechanics. 3.5 is a perfect example of that.
Arivia 03-26-06, 03:49 AM	New editions are released largely as a result of financial pressure - not underlying game mechanics. 3.5 is a perfect example of that. *throws 1998-2001 era Dragon issues at you* READ. That is not why 3e was created, although I'm sketchy on 2e's reasoning.
DungeonMaster 03-26-06, 04:11 AM	I own all the old dragon issues thank you. The gripes brought forward in that day and age are not dissimilar than today's ten trillion damage hulking hurler or word of chaos + moment of prescience caster level 60+ rogue killing Thor in one round without save or SR. I likewise don't have a childish idealistic impression of the game industry. Certainly not after 3.5. This thread is inspired by a Monte Cook article - ever read his article on 3.5? 3.5 was planned from the start for when sales lagged. I'm not making this up.
Luminosity 03-26-06, 04:18 AM	I'm waiting on your stats for a planet, Dungeonmaster, as well as the means by which a Hulking hurler would destroy it in one hit. And the rogue in question is level SIXTY? I'm not sure you're aware of this, but rash hyperbole does not convince people.
DungeonMaster 03-26-06, 04:50 AM	Does a planet have more hp than an object of similar size made entirely out of iron? Radius of the Earth ~ 6 000 km = 2.4*10^8 inches. At 30 hp per inch of thickness a completely iron Earth sized planetoid is very easily busted by a 10 trillion damage HH in one blow. Really people had all sorts of lighthearted fun with the absurdly broken HH. Here's the thread. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=142565&page=16&pp=50 The rogue doesn't need to be level 60. He merely needs to use the use-magic-device rules for emulating a class ability, that way he can substitute his skill check for his caster level. A level 20 rogue with max ranks has minimum 24 in the skill. With a moment of prescience he can have minimum 44. A good roll easily puts him at 60+. You can then get stat increasing items, luckstones, ioun stones, circlets of persuasion, bard song, yadda yadda to push this number into beyond the beyond ridiculous it already is. Holy word and similar in 3.5 are the most broken spells in D&D ever. Simply have a staff with holy word in it and apply the above and bingo. You can kill anything in the MM, Deities and Demigods in one shot. No save, SR checked at the same insane level. *poof* all gone. These are extreme examples of how the rules break, and there are many many more. I don't consider them representative of anything, they're simply there to shut people up who have some underlying need to think the rules are perfect. The reality is as people have said no ruleset is perfect - and the other reality is the current ruleset has significant room for improvement. The improvement I'm alluding to has little to do with things that an intelligent human DM quickly disregards (like hulking hurlers).
DungeonMaster 03-26-06, 05:18 AM	Rather than bulk reply to everyone in an endless cycle of message board glut here's a simple example of what I'm alluding to in terms of improvement to the game that 4th edition can/should do: Currently many spells have "descriptors", these classify them as a particular type of spell, such as [Fire] or [Evil]. However there's this dumb rule that spell damage is not subject to DR. Even when it's say, evard's black tentacles that are grappling the life out of you in a very physical way. Or say ice storm. What we should look forward to in 4th edition is a [Physical] descriptor. Spells with this descriptor would do damage just like a sword blow. It would clear up a lot of confusion with spiritual weapons, mordenkainen's sword, EBT, etc... in a simple and elegant way using the established framework of descriptors. Descriptors are not a "new" concept either, a 10+ year old video game called Ogre Battle already had them well established, with a [Physical] descriptor for certain spells no less.
Shavit 03-26-06, 05:44 AM	I think it's highly unlikely that anyone from my group will want to see a fourth edition in the next five years. We had enough problem changing from 2nd to 3rd and from 3rd to 3.5, we're still getting use to 3.5 and I prefer that WotC will develop the 3.5 and not a new 4th edition.
Thurbane 03-26-06, 05:50 AM	I really don't like this cycle of "hey, we've got a lot of supplements out now - lets recap it into a new edition!". Then the whole cycle starts over agin, with supplements for the new edition. Lets just let supplements be supplements, and any conflicts be settled by errata and FAQ. No need to push out a new edition each time the supplement quotient reaches whatever magical number is deemed to be "too many"... My 2 cents: I can see no real need for 4E in the immediate future.
Lina_Inverse 03-26-06, 07:18 AM	Im looking forward to 4E. Though not for awhile. 3rd edition was a major upgrade and i hope 4e is just as major without changeing the core d20 too much. d20 is pretty solid and simple for its customization level.
Jhaelen 03-26-06, 07:33 AM	Really people had all sorts of lighthearted fun with the absurdly broken HH. Here's the thread. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=142565&page=16&pp=50 I'm not impressed. You still didn't directly address any of my questions. The thread you are referring to is using non-core material, 3.0ed stuff and even material from sources that aren't even part of the D&D sourcebooks. But I'd be more interested in an example for 'brokenness' just using the core rulebooks, anyway. And please don't refer to some obscure 60-page discussion thread.
Michael Hopcroft 03-26-06, 12:19 PM	Someone on one the the d20 Modern mailing lists posted a rather perturbed "friend-of-a-freind" stament about a 4th edition that was imminenet, radically different, and non-Open Content. Although I didn't believe it, it does raise a few questions about the content of a potential 4th Edition. 1. How valuable has the Open gamiong License actually proved for Wizards? it's been nearly five years now, which should be enough to give them a good sense of what tehy've gained from it as well as what they've lost. 2. One of the original intentes of 3e was to create a play style somewhat similar to the console RPGs that were in vouge at the time. Now D&D has to competre for the attention of their fanbase with MMORPSs, console games and the like. Is this goign to mean further changes in the next edition? 3. Is there a chance that 4e would be a MINIATURES game, with the roleplaying aspect a side matter at best?
VictorC 03-26-06, 12:42 PM	Does a planet have more hp than an object of similar size made entirely out of iron? Radius of the Earth ~ 6 000 km = 2.4*10^8 inches. Well let's start here, where exactly is a Hulking hurler going to find this object on a planet that is practically the same size of that planet? But lets say it was there, someone or thing that was capable of picking it up wouldn't even get a chance to throw it dew to the fact that suddenly all the weight of the object and the being focused on the feet would cause the being to be driven straight into the groung. O.k., O.k. I'll even give him the magical platform of stupidity. I'll say it again incubus12-04-03, 07:44 PM Originally posted by incubus Hmm, if we go with a centaur half-dragon (9 levels worth!), barbarian 1, war hulk 8, hulking hurler 2, we end up with 67 strength, but we get a x3 carry capacity instead of x2. Ok, taking this build, but adding righteous might (erm... centaur half dragon, cleric of luck and travel 2, war hulk 7, hulking hurler 2) Medium load = 1064448 Diameter of a ball of lead of that weight = 14.18671829 Price of a ball of lead of that weight = 21288.96 Price of a +1 returning, ghost touch, seeking ball of lead of that weight = 37588.96 Damage of said ball of lead when hurled = 5325d6+50 Average 18687.5 The load this guy is throwing is still less then the weight of of a colossal Dragon, however when it does crush damage it's 4d8 and a dragon can drop that on you with more control than someone throwing less then that at you. Again if you don't like the less broken then 3.0 version, fine.
Xorial 03-26-06, 05:54 PM	I haven't finished making the house rules to finish plugging the holes in 3.X! Give me a few more years... I hear you. On a side note, would DungeonMaster & Jhaelen puh-leeeze quit hashing out totally off topic content. Bottom line, if anybody tried such a "purposely broken" conept in my game, I would be forced to apply an equally broken rulling of the Sphere of Anialation would malfunction, no matter what skill check you roll (nat 20s are NOT automatic success in skill checks) and the Hulking Hurler & the Sphere would wink out of existance & the other players would not be bothered by anymore absurtity. :teach: My point here is that most people here would propably be put off by a 4e. This is because we have all been spending money on the current edition. Monte Cook had made an observation that certain things in the marketing aspects of Wizards seems to be reflecting the tentative idea that they may be considering a 4e. The problem I have with that is TOO SOON. I also enjoy alot of the 3rd party stuff under the OGL. If you dont like d20 in particular, I just seem baffled that you even bother to hang around these boards. If the system is so broken, please leave us alone that like it enough to play it & go play another system that you do like. Enough of my own off topic rantings.
Gothargaroth 03-26-06, 09:31 PM	There are plenty of cracks in the 3rd edition (and easily more in 3.5) system. Everything from innocous yet irritating things like no bonus 0th level spells for high ability scores to game mechanical nightmares like shapechanging magic. There are problems with basic structure, such as magic item design where 80% of the items are "wondrous" yet that requires only one crafting feat. There are other issues, people want a return to more "flavor". Keep in mind as well there are plenty of people who bought 3rd edition and didn't buy into 3.5. The edition has had a good run. It's getting time for something new. Let's just hope it's a whole hell of a lot better than 3.5. Just felt compelled to comment on this. Where exactly is 3.5 inferior to 3.0? I personally like the fact that rangers are playable, I don't have to deal with varying degrees of DR/magic, and the move towards more templates. True many problems exist with 3.5, but nearly all of them existed in 3.0 as well. I don't intend this as a flame or anything, I'm just curious as to the basis of your 3.0 bias.
Luris_Blear 03-26-06, 10:18 PM	Keep in mind as well there are plenty of people who bought 3rd edition and didn't buy into 3.5. I'm one of them. I will buy another D&D edition when WotC or anyone else who owns the rights to it give their solemn oath that they will make one edition. That edition will have to last for many years. New printings with new errata added should be rare - preferably, only typoes would even be changed in the printings so that everyone would be allowed a simpler list of errata'd rules. There's a major fantasy/cyberpunk game out there whose errata looks like a Choose Your Own Adventure book due to several different printings with different changes in each. That's not good. Just stick the .pdf on the site. Big changes can perhaps take the form of optional supplements. Most of these big changes seem to come as a result of internet democracy. That term in itself is an abbreviated way of saying the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The 3.0 DMG already tells DMs to adjust classes to fit their own campaigns; DMs demanded the books be changed for all. Optional changes would give those DMs books to hide behind. It would give us homebrewers an easier time. It would give all of our wallets a break. A $20 sourcebook of alternate, nerfed, more powerful and new classes will cause some internet democracy to take place. Sure. All new books will. If we players could rub a gaming book and get three wishes from it, we'd still find something to be angry about. That's what gamers do and we do it ten times as much while on the internet. A playtested supplement of options will put that trust back in the DMs, give these complaining parties a playtested alternative, cost less, and ultimately give all of us more options instead of making us pay for a different set of constraints. Die-hard gaming clubs with dues and world-wide metaplots might take issue with options presented instead of a full revision. Too bad. Like any good DM they'll have to choose which versions fit in their game too. I play on-line primarily. I moved away from my RL group, have a child, have a job, and just can't make the time to play tabletop. Sub-editions that render a nearly hundred dollar investment nearly useless within months are hurtful. For all this ranting, I love D20 Modern. But again, that game trusts its GMs. Trust is a big thing here. The OGL was mentioned a lot in this thread. A lot of what the OGL originally meant was "WotC won't sue fans who post their homebrew material online." That was the ultimate trust in DMs who wanted their monsters, worlds and bad guys to be shared with others. Before WotC, the owners of the D&D property became known as They $ue Regularly for their heavy-handed policies. The DMG and Deities & Demigods were full of advice for DMs to solve problems. This advice included the adjustment of class features for their own games. 3.5 was the ultimate lack of trust in my eyes. It seemed to come from a belief that a DM was incapable of homebrewing for his own players. Print Rule 0 in D&D 4. Trust the DMs. Present options instead of financial burdens. Stick to one edition. Until then, my kobolds will be found in the Modern/Future game lines. (Er, this isn't to say that I'm angry - but that I found WotC to have also offers a product which was in nearly every way a game. D20 Modern/Future just clicks with me, as much friendlier to my new-parent budget, and really speaks to my gaming philosophy as both player and GM.)
Ricardo Martinez Garza 03-26-06, 11:02 PM	No, I don't want to see it any time soon. 1E was, what... fifteen years long? Something like '73-'88. My dates might be wrong but it was over a decade. Then 2E was introduced, and lasted for another ten at least. 3E rolls along in 2000, and while it's been six years, they're not done yet. I would like to add that the changes between 3.0 and 3.5 are similar in scope to the changes between 1e and 2e. Since 3.5 was released in 2003, IMHO they should be thinking about releasing 4e in ~2013. Any prior date will be rushing it (like in "KOTOR 2 was a rushed game"). Also, if 4e is not OGL I will not buy it. There is so many creative third party material out there it would be crazy to buy a system that will only have in-house supplements. It would be like installing windows and only using windows software, once you taste the diversity there is no going back.
Lina_Inverse 03-26-06, 11:42 PM	I'm one of them. I will buy another D&D edition when WotC or anyone else who owns the rights to it give their solemn oath that they will make one edition. That edition will have to last for many years. New printings with new errata added should be rare - preferably, only typoes would even be changed in the printings so that everyone would be allowed a simpler list of errata'd rules. There's a major fantasy/cyberpunk game out there whose errata looks like a Choose Your Own Adventure book due to several different printings with different changes in each. That's not good. Just stick the .pdf on the site. Big changes can perhaps take the form of optional supplements. Most of these big changes seem to come as a result of internet democracy. That term in itself is an abbreviated way of saying the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The 3.0 DMG already tells DMs to adjust classes to fit their own campaigns; DMs demanded the books be changed for all. Optional changes would give those DMs books to hide behind. It would give us homebrewers an easier time. It would give all of our wallets a break. A $20 sourcebook of alternate, nerfed, more powerful and new classes will cause some internet democracy to take place. Sure. All new books will. If we players could rub a gaming book and get three wishes from it, we'd still find something to be angry about. That's what gamers do and we do it ten times as much while on the internet. A playtested supplement of options will put that trust back in the DMs, give these complaining parties a playtested alternative, cost less, and ultimately give all of us more options instead of making us pay for a different set of constraints. Die-hard gaming clubs with dues and world-wide metaplots might take issue with options presented instead of a full revision. Too bad. Like any good DM they'll have to choose which versions fit in their game too. I play on-line primarily. I moved away from my RL group, have a child, have a job, and just can't make the time to play tabletop. Sub-editions that render a nearly hundred dollar investment nearly useless within months are hurtful. For all this ranting, I love D20 Modern. But again, that game trusts its GMs. Trust is a big thing here. The OGL was mentioned a lot in this thread. A lot of what the OGL originally meant was "WotC won't sue fans who post their homebrew material online." That was the ultimate trust in DMs who wanted their monsters, worlds and bad guys to be shared with others. Before WotC, the owners of the D&D property became known as They $ue Regularly for their heavy-handed policies. The DMG and Deities & Demigods were full of advice for DMs to solve problems. This advice included the adjustment of class features for their own games. 3.5 was the ultimate lack of trust in my eyes. It seemed to come from a belief that a DM was incapable of homebrewing for his own players. Print Rule 0 in D&D 4. Trust the DMs. Present options instead of financial burdens. Stick to one edition. Until then, my kobolds will be found in the Modern/Future game lines. (Er, this isn't to say that I'm angry - but that I found WotC to have also offers a product which was in nearly every way a game. D20 Modern/Future just clicks with me, as much friendlier to my new-parent budget, and really speaks to my gaming philosophy as both player and GM.) Your method would be the death of roleplaying. Most people dont buy every supplement. Thus new editions are a must to keep roleplaying alive. Furthermore as time goes on new systems are created, new systems with new ideas, theorys and roleplaying technology. If the old games dont adapt to those new ideas, then that system will die. All things must evolve or die.
StarMartyr 03-27-06, 01:09 AM	In no way shape or form do I want to see a 4th edition. 3.5 has at least another 3 - 5 years of product cycle left, IMHO. What ever problems there are with 3.5 are easily fixed with an intelligent DM applying a bit of common sense. I myself use a lot of the variant rules from Unearthed Arcana with no support from Wizards! And love every second of it. To some people, we aren't even playing DnD anymore we've strayed so far from what is considered "canonical". I always hated Vancian magic so I don't use it. I prefer a gritty, Noirilistic style of rules and world were everyone has backup characters because you're gonna die. The players know and understand this and keep playing! When they win, then by the Elder Eyes, they won on their own merits; they earned that victory. And when they die.........it's usually because they did something stupid and expected to die when they did it! I myself am currently working on a classless, levelless skill-based sytem that will let you grow a character overtime as s/he matures. Wish me luck. I have a feeling I'll need it. One more thing. No matter what it is; if you push it to the extreme it will usually break. That's why they call it "Extreme".
MisterWicked 03-27-06, 10:47 AM	Good god, any fourth edition in the near future would be a ploy by wizards to make more money. I mean come on, we could play advanced D&D for like 20 years without much modification, but with the need to compete, we 3e gamers now have to be a dynamic (and somewhat wealthy) demographic?? Is that what we are? The answer is yes, of course. Or we suffer the consequences of further splitting into sleeper cells of dungeon crawlers who eventually fade away from the game because everyone plays a different version. so in order to keep up we have to keep shelling out the cash. I will make this vow, never will I buy a fourth edition book. Save a tree and tell these guys to leave it alone for another five or ten years.
OravennasBrother 03-27-06, 01:42 PM	I have already invested in a very thorough and balanced system. Why would I need another one? Because you cannot find enough players for Harnmaster? OR did you Mean GURPS (another balanced Thorough system) as you can invest a lot more in that one, given all the setting/genre supplement available. As far as 4th edition - isn't the 3.5 PHBII and DMGII pretty close to a 4th edition anyhow? OTOH sales of the complete lines (Complete Fighter etc) have probably peaked/started to slide, and how many poeple really will get "Complete Basketweavers Handbook" (for the game D&D not the actual craft fans) so a 4th edition would have the EXTRA advantage of requiring an update of all those Complete series books. Sort of like what happened between 2nd and 3rd edition or 3.0 and 3.5. Oh yeah I want 4th edition almost as much as I wanted 3rd. OF course all my friends are aware how little interest I had in 3rd edition D&D - after all I had a copy of Harnmaster.
DungeonMaster 03-27-06, 02:33 PM	I'm not impressed. You still didn't directly address any of my questions. But I'd be more interested in an example for 'brokenness' just using the core rulebooks, anyway. And please don't refer to some obscure 60-page discussion thread. I think I addressed all of your questions, you might not like the answers or they might not fit your subset criterion but they're perfectly inline with what I proposed. There are innumerable examples of munchkinism and rule breaking you can do with 3.5 core rules. You need only read the forums regularly and they crop up. Take for instance the hydra rogue. Cast improved invisibility or blink on the rogue of the party (he can/needs do this himself if he has scroll or wand for instance). Then polymorph said rogue into a hydra, preferably lernean so you can cut the heads off and get even more heads (use "enlarge person" if your DM is a 3rd edition veteran). A 9th level rogue has 4d6 sneak attack damage and 9 attacks for 36d6 sneak attack damage per round, while charging no less. A 20th level rogue can have 10d6 sneak attack damage with 24 heads or 240d6 sneak attack damage, per round. You can make all of these touch attacks if you apply non-core wraithstrike. :P Here's another: Cleric 15/Hierophant 5, spell power level 5. caster level = 20 +5 (spell power) +1 (orange ioun stone) +4 (bead of karma) + 1 good domain = 31. Holy word will kill any number of Titans, Pitfiends, Balors without save or SR. *poof* all dead. No rolls necessary. Entire armies of the abyss. *poof*. Now no more, since it clearly irritates people, I'll let you find/figure out free infinite vorpal swords through shapechange and absurd telekinisis damage all on your own.
DungeonMaster 03-27-06, 03:02 PM	Where exactly is 3.5 inferior to 3.0? I personally like the fact that rangers are playable, I don't have to deal with varying degrees of DR/magic, and the move towards more templates. True many problems exist with 3.5, but nearly all of them existed in 3.0 as well. That's a large subject to abridge and definitely off topic so you'll have to pm me if you really want more than my short reply. I don't dislike 3.5 on balance grounds - both systems can be broken in various ways, although some 3.5 are more spectacular than 3rd edition. I dislike it on design grounds - it's quite literally house rules for 3rd edition by a small group of people who really didn't know what they were doing. 3.5 spells and spell system are far worse in design than 3rd edition spells - the update was literally incompetent. Everything from lesser geas being stronger in effect than geas to the moronic wording of 3.5 "darkness" that lights up pitch black rooms. Moronic spells like "overland flight" the same level as teleport to compensate for perceived "problems" that never existed. There's a pervasive lack of insight and experience built into the 3.5 spells system: Take for instance caping the distance on Teleport. This was and I quote "to prevent people from teleporting to the moon or wherever". However anyone with any experience with the rules will merely plane shift, plane shift to within X miles of the moon and then teleport. Changes to magic items were not done with a whole lot of foresight in my opinion. The 3.5 vorpal effect is basically useless and the weakest vorpal effect in the history of the game for instance. 3.5 traps are absurd. Go hit your level 7 party with destruction. Or your level 9 party with disjunction or wail of the banshee. The average rogue has almost no chance to search these traps and even less to disable them. The non-magical traps right beside these are um, not quite the same CR in my opinion... There are no rules for starting an encounter in 3.5, or you can never meet anything on an open plain because the spot DC suggested is 50+. The MM is the best book of 3.5 though, some changes were very well done (most likely Skip William's hand) but some monsters were terribly weakened (take the titan for instance). 3rd edition rangers are very deadly - I recently had a ranger vampire strike panic in a campaign of mine. They get absurdly deadly at high levels when they can polymorph self, a spell that was taken off their list for 3.5, dramatically weakening them. Anyhow, the list goes on and on, I'm looking forward to 4th edition because I don't think we can do much worse than 3.5.
Xorial 03-27-06, 03:06 PM	I think I addressed all of your questions, you might not like the answers or they might not fit your subset criterion but they're perfectly inline with what I proposed. There are innumerable examples of munchkinism and rule breaking you can do with 3.5 core rules. You need only read the forums regularly and they crop up. Take for instance the hydra rogue. Cast improved invisibility or blink on the rogue of the party (he can/needs do this himself if he has scroll or wand for instance). Then polymorph said rogue into a hydra, preferably lernean so you can cut the heads off and get even more heads (use "enlarge person" if your DM is a 3rd edition veteran). A 9th level rogue has 4d6 sneak attack damage and 9 attacks for 36d6 sneak attack damage per round, while charging no less. A 20th level rogue can have 10d6 sneak attack damage with 24 heads or 240d6 sneak attack damage, per round. You can make all of these touch attacks if you apply non-core wraithstrike. :P Now no more, since it clearly irritates people, I'll let you find/figure out free infinite vorpal swords through shapechange and absurd telekinisis damage all on your own. Violating my own wish, but here it goes. First off, a rogue only gets to use the SA ONCE per round, no matter how many heads he has. The only way around this is thru the Oppurtunist Special Ability, where it will give you a total nukmber of chances to makes a SA equal to your Dex Bonus. You will not have a polymorphed rogue making 24 sneak attacks in one round. That will only come from attacks of oppurtunity even then. Normaly, no matter how many attacks per round you have, you will only get one SA. After that, the target IS aware that you are there & will have their Dex bonus to AC, which makes your attack a normal attack. Heaven help you if it was an attempt against a Barbarian that you didnt realize was one.
DungeonMaster 03-27-06, 03:09 PM	Violating my own wish, but here it goes. First off, a rogue only gets to use the SA ONCE per round, no matter how many heads he has. You are ill informed. SA is per attack, and always has been. Read the rules. High level rogues can be very deadly, even without silly Hydra morphing. Unless you can see invisibility a blinking/improved invisible rogue can SA you with every single attack.
Xorial 03-27-06, 03:41 PM	You are very, very ill informed. SA is per attack, and always has been. Read the rules. High level rogues can be very very deadly, even without silly Hydra morphing. Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. Dont see that anywhere. The only way you can munchkin that, is by the flanking rule. The FAQ states that as long as the conditions are met. Unless flanked, or invisible, the rogue will not meet the conditions after the opening attack. I am informed becuase I do read the books & FAQ. I just dont let rules lawyers ruin my game when they pruposely try to break the game going after every nit picky thing they can dream up. Rule 1 applies. The DM has the final say. I say it aint gonna happen. You can break any system out there. If you cant, then you havent played that game. As I have said before on the boards, if this game bothers you soooo much, then please stop playing it & go find something you like. That includes getting off these boards. If you think d20 sucks so much, then I would think just being here would be against your beliefs. So do usa all a favor & go somewhere else. These boards are for D&D. We all tweak the rules here. We all have our littl tiffs about the game. But those are from LIKING this game. Everybody has one issue they would change about the game if they could. Who am I kidding, we DO change them. They are called house rules. There isnt a system out there that doesnt have a bizillion house rules made up by people to tweak it into something they like. If you think everybody likes your rules, then sell them as a PDF. There are a million of those poorly produced PDFs out there that dont sell, because somebody thought that their house rules where what everybody was looking for. There are alot of good PDFs too, I own quite a few of them (Luv that OGL). These are professionaly done, as if for print. For those that dont like D&D, I fell sorry for you, since you seem to spend so much time here. About 4e. I dont want to see a new version out till about 2010 myself. That being said, I have no problem with a book that tweaks existing material, or supplants it somehwhat. To be compatible with the existing version, it doesnt have to keep any sacred cows, such as the nerfed sorcerer.
Ricardo Martinez Garza 03-27-06, 03:58 PM	Anyhow, the list goes on and on, I'm looking forward to 4th edition because I don't think we can do much worse than 3.5. Now that is rich. The team that did 3.5 sorely disappointed you and yet you expect them not only not to disappoint you again, but to learn from what you (and only you) calls "mistakes"? Humans *are* a fascinating species :rolleyes:
DungeonMaster 03-27-06, 04:20 PM	Now that is rich. The team that did 3.5 sorely disappointed you and yet you expect them not only not to disappoint you again :turkey: No, I expect a different design team my friend. You know, new people? Like 1st to 2nd to 3rd? And playtesting. Actual playtesting like 3rd edition had with a page of credits rather than, well, nothing but Andy Collin's "good opinion".
DungeonMaster 03-27-06, 04:29 PM	The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. The rogue's attack. The rogue's attack . Any attack. Not 1/round. As for the rest of your post, I'm at a loss to make sense out of it. Kind of a senseless stream of consciousness rant. I feel sorry for you too seeing as someone simply pointing out broken aspects of your game would make you come to pieces like that. Learn to cope, then read what I offered about the [physical] descriptor in a more lucid mindset. Good day.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 03-27-06, 05:40 PM	Does a planet have more hp than an object of similar size made entirely out of iron? Radius of the Earth ~ 6 000 km = 2.4*10^8 inches. At 30 hp per inch of thickness a completely iron Earth sized planetoid is very easily busted by a 10 trillion damage HH in one blow. Really people had all sorts of lighthearted fun with the absurdly broken HH. Here's the thread. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=142565&page=16&pp=50 If you read the thread you'd know that your method of calculating the earth's hp is totally off. The earth has over 6 quintillion hp when someone who knows the rules calculates it, not someone who apparently thinks that the earth is ten feet by ten feet by 6,000 km. Also, the Hulking Hurler build caps at 4 trillion damage. Not that I expected much from someone who thinks that the 3.5 Pit Fiend is weaker than the 3.0 one.
Ricardo Martinez Garza 03-27-06, 05:49 PM	:turkey: No, I expect a different design team my friend. You know, new people? Like 1st to 2nd to 3rd? And playtesting. So until WotC fires *all* the people involved in 3.5 *and* does some massive playtesting (you know, the kind that can't be kept secret), you should by default prepare yourself to be dissapointed *again*
Arrowhen 03-27-06, 06:35 PM	I have already invested in a very thorough and balanced system. Why would I need another one? So have I, but I still play D&D too, sometimes.
WizO_Cat 03-27-06, 07:15 PM	And with the usual barrage of one line zingers, this brings a swiftful conclusion to our thread. In the future, please keep the posts polite and to the subject of the thread.