BTW I'm confident that everyone on this forum is more civilized the D&D crowd.
Its... blah. It would work fine if you wanted to make a bunch of nearly identical super heroes. Other than that, not so much.
Please support your claims. Have you bought the books or read the torrent PDFs? More importantly have you ACTUALLY played 4E.
nor have I bought any 4e books or pdf's ,
nor any 3.5 books for that matter.
So I am sure you understand my utter lack of excitement about some new consumer moneypit being released by the d20Modern parent company. From what I've heard, a lot of folks spent money on Magic cards, I can refer to them as a "them" rather than "us". This D&D thing is just more of the same.
Answering the question,
I dont see 4e affecting my d20 gaming at all.
Nor will it affect my D&D gaming either.
Please support your claims. Have you bought the books or read the torrent PDFs? More importantly have you ACTUALLY played 4E.
I have access to the books, I have a friend who bought them. I am reading the PHB. I have not played.
4e has a lot of issues.
1: everything is terribly abstract.
2: all the classes are nearly identical.
3: there is a 100% focus on combat.
4: they use SAGA style skills.
5: not only does everyone improve in every skill as they level (at the same rate too). But one adds half your level to ability score checks.
6: a lot of it breaks verisimilitude and leaves you wondering how to fit it into a world.
7: a lot of it just doesn't fit into anything that even tries to approach a likeness of reality or even cinematic reality.
8: a lot of the daily and encounter powers seem largely arbitrary.
9: there is no flavor text at all for most things.
With 3e I got excited reading the books, with d20 modern it was even better. But reading 4e just makes me sigh.
I have access to the books, I have a friend who bought them. I am reading the PHB. I have not played.
4e has a lot of issues.
*snip*
With 3e I got excited reading the books, with d20 modern it was even better. But reading 4e just makes me sigh.
-This is what happens when a game is dumbed down for the 'new gamers' (the ones that picked on US for gaming back in the day and now live on their xbox *gag*). Many games are getting lobotomized for Da Masses (Duh Masses, dumb*****es, or however you like it). I am a fan of the RTS (real time strategy) games for the computer and have sadly watched them roll down hill at a frustrating pace. All in all, I am with Backstabbist on this one...it should have no effect on my gaming at all.
Do I think they could do something neat with d20M? Sure. With the way that powers work, I could easily see action heroes being emulated in play. Do I think they dumbed down the system? Maybe a bit, but no more so than something like 1st ed AD&D. My only regret and something that I hope is eventually fixed is that there needs to be construction rules for powers ... just not enough in the main book to keep a good game going. If they made a new d20M as has been speculated, they need to give up the rules on construction for classes, powers and races beyond the thumb and eye technique
On a side note, my favorite 3.5 class is Bard, and they're gone in 4th Ed...unforgivable!
Does 4E give you tools to help you create story at the table with your friends? No, but no edition of D&D ever did that. If that's what you want you should play something like Burning Wheel, Sorcerer or Houses of the Blooded.
One last thing. As for the lack of flavor text, I say good. The core books should be rules texts, not collections of poorly written fiction.
Having said that, I hope that d20 Modern does not get the 4e treatment. From reading through the Player's Handbook, I see three things that would wreck a 4e-based Modern -
1. Classes - the substitution of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies for Advanced and Prestige classes doesn't work in Modern because the base classes are extensions of the core abilities. Advanced Classes add much more than specialized feats - the Wealth, Reputation, and Save progressions are different for each one, and with good reason. The simplification of saves and exclusion of Wealth and Reputation in 4e are a poor fit.
2. Skills - okay, maybe this doesn't wreck d20 Modern specifically; I just think it's a stupid idea. In fact, it's the largest break with reality that WotC could have come up with. If I choose to be trained in Acrobatics, it means that I'm equally skilled at balancing and swinging from a chandelier? Seriously?!? Diversification of skills is what truly sets characters apart. I appreciate the consolidation (there are way too many), but skill points has to stay.
3. Daily/Encounter/At-Will Powers - Hey, being a wizard is fun. Let's give everybody spells!
Overall, thumbs down.
It knows what it wants to be and does it very well. It's a game of exploring, dungeons, killing things and taking their stuff.
I use to play a ROLE playing game called Dungeons & Dragons.
Now what we have is a role playing system that lets you play any kind of role... as long as it involves combat. You can be a combat crafter, combat performer, or even a combat noble. Any roles you could possible want to play, as long as it is combat focused.
Combat superpowers enhance 4e is no good for a Cat Burgler, it's just plain wrong.
A good cat burgler should never see combat. If your 7th level "second story burgler" is in combat more than once every three missions... Tear his sheet up. He is not a burgler, because D&D has become a fight game.
They have made D&D to now stand for Diablo & DiabloII
Kill kill kill some more, player dialog is a bore.
Throw out all your books, they aint good no more.
You gotta buy new ones from our on-line store.
New super powers for plain fighters before,
low lethality, uber minmax <*harlot>
gaming system dumbed down more & more.
I use to play a ROLE playing game called Dungeons & Dragons.
Now what we have is a role playing system that lets you play any kind of role... as long as it involves combat. You can be a combat crafter, combat performer, or even a combat combat noble. Any roles you could possible want to play, as long as it is combat focused.
They have made D&D to now stand for Diablo & DiabloII
- You get a man hug!
- And a cookie-E- and a new WotC cadence too! LOLOL
My
is actually a 4E adventure hook.Which leads to this adventure:
DM "Look, here's a :coolcthul mini. It took the bite out of the
. Let's fight it." *PCs :rolldice:
GM :rolldice:
...
*paraphrase of a stabbist comment about the commercialisation of WoTC.
I think 4E is a pretty good product. It knows what it wants to be and does it very well. It's a game of exploring, dungeons, killing things and taking their stuff...Does 4E give you tools to help you create story at the table with your friends? No, but no edition of D&D ever did that.
Actually, D&D 3.5 had huge support for non-combative characters, especially with prestige classes that came out of the expansion books(Loremaster, for example, who had very high knowledge skills and very little combat ability). The DMG and DMG2 also provided tables for creating cities, magical items, a treasure hoard, and for managing chase scenes, mobs, hazardous dungeon environments, and more. Those extra options didn't write a story for you, but they opened up and provided inspiration for so many more possibilities.
Secondly:
It does an excellent job of supporting a gamist agenda, and that's the only agenda you should logically approach any D&D edition with.
Just what the hell is the "gamist agenda," and how does it enhance my enjoyment of role playing games? Stop using purple prose and make a real argument, dammit.
Just what the hell is the "gamist agenda"
I think he want 4e rules for playing Tic Tac Toe ;)
That said, 4e does manage to make the following improvements over 3e:
- there are no xp costs for item crafting.
- there are no xp costs for casting certain spells.. er using certiain powers
- removed some lame/problem spells.
- multiclassing- possibly. However, multiclassing is still better,imo, in d20 Modern just as d20Modern multiclassing is superior to 3e.
- no PrCs (however, I like Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies less and they are core rather than optional).
Just what the hell is the "gamist agenda," and how does it enhance my enjoyment of role playing games? Stop using purple prose and make a real argument, dammit.
I'll just pretend you said something like this instead of an unnecessarily hostile statement:
I'm not familiar with the term "gamist agenda." Could you explain it to me? Also, could you explain why you think this is a good thing? Please
Gamist is one of the three creative agendas (that is what people are after when they play RPGs) in the GNS theory of roleplaying. The other two are simulationist and narativist. A gamist agenda concerns itself primarily with the game aspect of play, while narativism is concerned with the story aspects. Simulationism is primarily concerned with being faithful to source material or accurately modeling an activity something (it's hard to pin down and means different things to different people).
That is a very short run down of GNS. There is no pure gamist or narativist game. Games are a mix of the three agendas and favor one agenda to some degree. For more information, check out the wiki article and if you really want to know more The Forge article.
It's my opinion that all editions D&D have mostly supported a gamist agenda. The reason I think 4E is a good product because it does it well and it doesn't pretend to offer something else. Other editions have not been so honest about what sort of play they really support. That's not to say people didn't have great story filled games, but that was not because of the rules. I some cases it may have been in spite of the rules.
Is 4E the product for you? That is up to you. Personally, I like the style of play it supports on occasion. When I'm in the mood for that it will be the product for me, other times not so much.
Is 4E the product for you? That is up to you. Personally, I like the style of play it supports on occasion.
But to say that, you have cede that it does have a intrinsic style of play.
Old School D&D didnt.
Back in the days of D&D having a third letter (AD&D)
we didnt have the cut & dry agenda and balance toward combat. They introduced non-combat proficiencies for guess what... not fighting every round of the campaign.
Just the fact that the Bard has been removed signals that the end of other than fighting play has been gimped/nerfed/stagnated while some new superpowers need to be given to enhance fighting...
Healing Surge?
My white bloodcells wake up from a nap or what?
Where is the Crafting Surge? Where is the Performace Surge? Where is the Lockpicking Surge for my catburgler?
Dashing Catburgler.
Could be the obsolete Bard, but where are the intrinsic boosts to a guy that dont want to kill things? Can we even play a Dashing Catburgler in D&D with this new edition.... or is it that we can, but it is plainly handicapped to Mongo Smash & Kazamm:SorcerorOfDeath
(which is one of the reasons I'm a bit peeved at WOTC at the moment-see posts in the 'to be or not to be' thread-I'm willing to give a new product a try but they won't support modern with this board).
My thoughts:
1. Rules are streamlined. For example: getting a critical hit used to take four die rolls: to hit, confirm crit, and two damage rolls. What was a crit roll depended on wpn and feats. Now any 20 is a crit and does auto max damage-one roll.
2. That also means less customization. Those of you that like to spend hours coming up with the perfect multi-class and feat combo to create that unique min-maxed character probably won't like 4E.
3. Characters are more powerful at 1st level: the demo 1st lvl Eladrin Wizard had some 20 hp, can cast magic missile every round (though it isn't an auto hit anymore), teleport once per combat, cast a minor 'mage-hand' like spell once per round, etc.
Compare that to the old first level magic user that had 4 hp and could cast ONE spell per DAY.
4. Characters seem like video game characters. Even the mage, as seen above, has a per round ranged magic attack. Characters feel more like cartoon figures than anything.
5. The DMG is a bit disappointing: it has more on how to dungeon master than actual reference material.
AS FOR A MODERN STYLE 4E:
6. 4E could translate into a nice superhero with superpowers game, but I'm not sure about it working with a military, espionage or 'poc setting.
7. The healing surges would have the biggest impact on a 2E modern: right now healing is limited and challenging, characters can take massive damage, etc. which forces characters to strategize and find non-combat solutions.
With healing surges, you'd just keep ploughing through everything.
But to say that, you have cede that it does have a intrinsic style of play.
That's my whole point. It knows what it wants to do and does it well. If you want it to do something else, it isn't a good product for you. That doesn't make it a bad product though.
Old School D&D didnt.
I don't agree.
Back in the days of D&D having a third letter (AD&D)
we didnt have the cut & dry agenda and balance toward combat. They introduced non-combat proficiencies for guess what... not fighting every round of the campaign.
Look at the reward systems in previous editions. Combat was the easiest and quickest way to advance in all of them.* Even the noncombat stuff was still very gamist. You had noncombat abilities and resources that you used to overcome noncombat obstacles. People did a lot more than what the systems supported, but that was what they brought to the table, not what the systems supported.
*Basic D&D you gained xp by getting gold, but the easiest way to do that was to take it from stuff you killed.
Just the fact that the Bard has been removed signals that the end of other than fighting play has been gimped/nerfed/stagnated while some new superpowers need to be given to enhance fighting...
Healing Surge?
My white bloodcells wake up from a nap or what?
Where is the Crafting Surge? Where is the Performace Surge? Where is the Lockpicking Surge for my catburgler?
Dashing Catburgler.
Could be the obsolete Bard, but where are the intrinsic boosts to a guy that dont want to kill things? Can we even play a Dashing Catburgler in D&D with this new edition.... or is it that we can, but it is plainly handicapped to Mongo Smash & Kazamm:SorcerorOfDeath
This just reinforces what I'm saying about the game doing what it wants to do well. This makes the game a good product, just perhaps not the product for you.
...This just reinforces what I'm saying about the game doing what it wants to do well. This makes the game a good product, just perhaps not the product for you.
That suggests that if the product meets its creators goals, that's more important than my needs as a consumer. I believe that only the consumer can finally say that a product is good, and that's based on whether they get some utility or enjoyment out of it. At this point, I get more of both from 3.5 and d20 Modern.
Back to the GNS roleplaying theory, could you provide some examples of Narrative-focused and Simulation-focused roleplaying to provide contrast to the Game-focused play of D&D, as you see it?
Just the fact that the Bard has been removed signals that the end of other than fighting play has been gimped/nerfed/stagnated while some new superpowers need to be given to enhance fighting...
Healing Surge?
My white bloodcells wake up from a nap or what?
Where is the Crafting Surge? Where is the Performace Surge? Where is the Lockpicking Surge for my catburgler?
Before I respond, I have a guest:
Hi! This is Layla, the bard who lends her illustrious nom de plume to this interweb chatboard account. I just wanted to give some heartfelt thanks for your comment. Nobody is more dismayed at the loss of the Bard class than I, and I really appreciate the support. Okay...bye!
She insisted.
The Healing Surge and Second Wind caught my attention as well, and it seems designed to take some of the healing duties away from the Cleric. So instead of having a Cleric to massage everyone's shoulders in combat, characters just do it to themselves on the fly. The result is the same: one character gets HP back, and one character stops his attack that round, only now it's the same character doing both. But I agree that this leads to homogenization of the classes and a greater focus on pure combat.1 - About ROLE-PLAYING : My generation (mid-40s) invented role-playing with nothing more than the red box Basic Set. We had all read LOTRs and wanted to live it! So pardon me if I don't buy the argument the 4E is only a combat game. Players and the DM bring the role play to the table. Some groups are heavily into it while others prefer basic role play with Hack & Slashing. My first gaming group split over this dicotomy that had nothing to do with the game in itself. Both groups still play today. To each his own...
2 - A new Era : WoTC dropped the «Advance» in term only with the 3rd edition. Now with the 4th they dropped «Advanced» from the rules... Its back to BASIC with twists for todays younger gamers. My little finger tells me WoTC is trying to recreate D&D history. First Basic rules. Then after a while when a new generation has been trained to RPGs they come out with Advance rules... If you read page 7 of the PHB#1 the say 4E "firmly establishes D&D for the next DECADE of play." They have a plan...
3- Modern 2.0 : Clearly 4E in its current state is not for Modern. It cannot take into account the complexity of situations of a modern world. But if you look at the back of the 3 books there is that D20 logo we Moderners like. In past communications many interviews have pointed towards a specific system for D&D and D20 for all other «settings/eras». Again the Modern community will benefit from the 4E experience (and SW Saga). Mouahahahaha!
Will I play D&D 4E? Of course ! The easy going, back to basic mechanics appeal to me at this point of my life.
WOW! This forum is far more civilised than the D&D one. Alote of very interesting insights. Okay, here my take...
...Will I play D&D 4E? Of course ! The easy going, back to basic mechanics appeal to me at this point of my life.
Interesting points. What I gather is that now we might get stuck into two player types: those who prefer the more basic 4th Ed game, especially if they have a long roleplaying history; and those who prefer the complexity of 3.5, especially if they may have started with that system (like I did.) Maybe it comes down to me not being ready to reboot the game. I like all of the options in 3.5, and I might have to wait to get those back in 4th Ed. I'll be waiting, of course.
I have yet to read the PHB and MM, but talking with a friend who has it, I'm not impressed yet. I'll wait a bit and read more before I finally decide for sure.
I will admit the idea of some of the per encounter powers is interesting.. I mean, a wizard/sorcerer (quite annoyed that there's no sorcerer anymore, in many of the games I played, the difference between sorcerer and wizard could be merely fluff until you start getting into prestige classes like rage mage and then fluff and mechanics come into play and make for good character flavour. I love my halfling rage mage.) that can cast something like magic missile every round is kind of nice. Gives them a little more standing power in a fight once they're main spells are gone. Although that means wands of magic missile are kind of useless now.
From what I've seen so far that.. overall, 4th Ed may not be for me. Some of the ideas though, I might take and use in 3.5 games.. like maybe the whole magic missile thing for wizards and sorcerers.. cut back a spell slot and can cast a weaker magic missile, or similar spell several times a day without problems.. Actually.. I think there's a feat that allows something like that in a book somewhere.. I'll have to double check. It does seem more combat oriented and not as much aimed towards non combat as 3.0/3.5 core books had.
Bottom line.. 4th Ed isn't for everyone, but I'm gonna try it, and may not like it, but might walk away with a few ideas for adding to 3.5.
Oh.. and this I found to be funny.
4th edition simply makes combat faster I have found (after you have gotten use to the rules) and that is a major thing in all the groups I play in. Our combats take -ages- simply from the amount of rules that come into play. 4th edition is simply faster, and like combat should be, gets your adrenaline pumping.
From a roleplaying point of view, nothing changes, because it really doesn't have anything to do with your character sheet (very rarely) other than you act in character.
Who do I think the game is aimed for? Those prefering rules light and don't mind overly gamist rules that lack any rational and the following
My generation (mid-40s) invented role-playing with nothing more than the red box Basic Set.
The easy going, back to basic mechanics appeal to me at this point of my life.
I don't think it is for the next generation. I work with 19-23 gamers, have 19-20 nieces that game, and game in another group that includes 19-23 year old gamers. None of them or their groups want anything to do with 4e. Granted it's not a scientific survey.
Who do I think the game is aimed for? Those prefering rules light and don't mind overly gamist rules that lack any rational and the following
The «next generation» is 12-16 of age and many have never played RPGs.... That's the target.
4E is part of a new movement in RPGs called «rules lite». Saying that the 4 edition has no rational is a bit extreme. When you read the books all the rules work nicely with each other. BUT they ARE a departure from the D&D we used to know. It seems either you like that or you don't.
Minions: Nice. Very nice. Anytime I can handle a combat between four player characters and nine monsters and not spend more time tracking hit points than concentrating on other things, it's good. Minions are regular monsters, just like their counterparts. The difference is, minions' weapons do a set amount of damage and they die after only a single hit. It makes for very quick larger-scale battles against hordes of lesser foes. Don't get the idea that just because they go down easy, they aren't dangerous, however. As the PCs came to discover, in large numbers, they can still inflict damage.
Critical Hits: You roll a natural 20, you've scored a critical and you automatically inflict the maximum amount of damage possible with your attack (assuming you didn't need a 20 to hit the foe). You can also score crits with powers (such as spells and prayers). Much faster and much simpler. It does upset my wife a little, since her crits do only half as much damage as they had the potential to inflict, but I think it is a good change.
Defense: A character has four different defense ratings now—Armor Class, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. A trap might roll an attack against Reflex, which takes into account the rogue's Dexterity. A spell might call for a roll against Will. Poison gas might attack a character's Fortitude. This may seem awkward at first, but as I was to discover, there is a reason for it.
Saving Throws: Roll a d20. On a 10 or higher, the save is successful. That's it. At first, I balked at this. It didn't seem right to ignore the rogue's great Dexterity in evading a trap, or the Barbarian's hardiness to stave off poison. Then it occurred to me; that's already written into the game (see above). The saving throw is just to determine how long the effect stays with the character. Unless you have a power that states otherwise, you roll each round at the end of your turn. If successful, the effect goes away. Simple and elegant.
Powers: Oh, yeah! The heart of the tactical combat system! Powers come in At Will, Encounter, and Daily uses. At Will means you can use it as often as you like, once per round. Encounter powers can be called upon once per encounter. They recover with a short (five-minute) rest. Daily powers are the heavy-hitters and can be used once before requiring six hours to "recharge." My group made excellent use of their powers in the playtest. In fact, the wizard made good use of his scorching burst, blasting minions right and left and keeping them off of his allies.
I like the powers system. For one thing, it just makes sense. Being able to blast foes with a magic missile is a ubiquitous wizard ability, and there is no reason they should not be able to do this once per round. Okay sure, fireball has become a daily power, which means that you can't pack away three or four of them, but it's still a far cry better than the outdated Vancian magic system that D&D lived by for so long.
I think it's great that the wizard no longer has to fire off his one spell for the day then cower behind the fighters for the remainder of combat. Wizards (and every other class) serve a purpose now! Everyone has something unique that they can do. Being a fighter means something!
Healing: I'll admit; I was skeptical about the new healing rules. Characters can take a standard action to use "second wind" and recover a certain amount of hit points (based on their total) instantly. It works well, actually, and is balanced by the fact that it requires a standard action and is usable a limited number of times per day. It also means that the cleric is free to concentrate on other worries, rather than being a field medic.
The fact that the cleric's ministrations now use your healing surges is a bit wonky, but I can deal with it. If you're so battered that you've used all your surges for the day, then it's probably time for an extended rest anyway.
Dependence on Miniatures: My group has used minis for some time now, not because we needed them, but because is made it a lot simpler to keep track of who was where. As the DM, I can glance at the layout and see who a monster is most likely to attack, and the players don't have to ask me constantly to remind them how far away "that guy" is. It's a bit irksome because it does increase the amount of space required, but I'm largely unaffected by the change. Ever since I found Skeleton Key Games' e-Adventure tiles, I've been hip to using minis in my games anyway (d20 or otherwise).
Incompatibility: As someone whose collection goes back to the White Box Set (and every edition since), I feel your pain. But I've decided that rather than trying to convert the letter of the rules, I'm going to try to recapture the flavor. 0one Games, for example, produces a series of products called Blueprints, very customizable maps done in both black and white and white-on-blue. Some of these are in the style of old favorites, such as the Caverns of Chaos. I've decided to take that particular map and slide it into my new D&D campaign as an homage to the father of all adventure modules, B2 The Keep on the Borderlands. Some of the players will not recognize it, but others will, and I think the campaign will be more enjoyable for it. I'm not recreating the original adventure, I'm capturing the flavor of the original and breathing new life into it.
GSL: We haven't seen this yet, so I can't comment on whether it is more or less restrictive than the OGL. Still, a company has a right to protect their intellectual property, and the fact that Wizards is even allowing other people to play with their toys shows good faith. Other companies *ahemPalladiumahem* are so protective as to come after even fans who dare to mention the idea of using their stuff in another setting.
Balance: The two games my group has played using the "lite" version of the rules has shown me that the game is quite balanced. As a GM, I particularly appreciate the simplification of the encounter system. No more long-winded charts and mathematical formulae to determine if an encounter is balanced; just count up the XP. The scaling monster system also means that I can easily adjust the level of a monster to fit the challenge I need for my players, allowing me to pit them against foes that would normally be more than a match for them.
Broken Combos: Like I said, we haven't played enough to determine how broken some of the rules may be, but if any player tried to strip off his armor in the middle of combat, he'd have a lot more to worry about than Orcus hitting him.
Missing Classes/Races: I will admit that the fact the half-orc has gone by the wayside is irksome, and that druids, bards, and other favorites will be covered "in future supplements." I can't say that I didn't see it coming. After all, the goal of any company is to make money, and this gives them the opportunity to separate us from our hard-earned cash.
Dragonporn: Why? Why, why, why, why, why do creatures that are, to all appearances, oviparous, need breasts?
Rituals: I like rituals. I like the idea behind them and the way that they work. In fact, resurrection, locate object, and certain other incantations have long been rituals (not a spell) in my D&D games, anyway.
Monsters: The one thing that does displease me is the lack of ecology for the critters. I don't like monsters that appear somewhere without any reason behind it. I will be creating a system of ecology for all of the monsters. Also, and I might have missed it, I admit that I've only scanned the Monster Manual, but where are the stats for normal beasties, like lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my!?
Experience: Though it's something else I've been doing for some time now, I like that it's finally documented and examples provided for gaining experience for something besides combat. It's always been something that has been mentioned in other editions, but never fully applied.
Combat: Wow! What a difference! My players are just getting used to the idea that not only do they no longer need to remain static, but that it can actually be to their advantage to roam the battlefield! Skills and powers breathe new life into the combat rules. Where many players used to simply stand and wait for the enemy to come to you, they now carry the fight to the foe! My wife's eladrin made great use of her fey step, teleporting behind opponents to strike with a flanking bonus (as well as granting such to her allies).
Hit Points: I'm undecided on fixed hit point. On the one hand, it does greatly simplify things, but on the other, all high-level characters would seem to be alike. I'll have to play with it a bit before I can accept it.
Overall, I'm a lot more pleased with the final product than I was when they first announced it. What I see before me, and what I heard in the interim are two different things and I think I could get to enjoy this.
I think some of the new combat rules could be usefull in a combat oriented d20M game.
Anyway, as I said, I haven't read anything yet, I'm just guessing.
That suggests that if the product meets its creators goals, that's more important than my needs as a consumer. I believe that only the consumer can finally say that a product is good, and that's based on whether they get some utility or enjoyment out of it. At this point, I get more of both from 3.5 and d20 Modern.
I mostly agree, except I see it as you're looking at a Louisville Slugger and saying it's a horrible tennis racket. Of course it is. It's a baseball bat. But, to be fair I think you were expecting a tennis racket. So stick with your old racket or look for another brand. If you feel like playing baseball you have a good bat. This analogy has been stretched too far. ;) Where I would criticize 4E, actually WotC, is I think a lot of people bought 4E simply because it's the new D&D. Wizards didn't do enough to inform them they may not be the target customer. That a flaw with the marketing and not the product though.
Back to the GNS roleplaying theory, could you provide some examples of Narrative-focused and Simulation-focused roleplaying to provide contrast to the Game-focused play of D&D, as you see it?
First, I'm far from an expert on the subject. Second, no game is purely one style, but a mix of the three that favors one to one degree or another. Finally the style of play reinforced by the rules is often different from what the players actually bring to the table. The is last point can be the source of many problems while playing a game.
As for examples, can you list some other games you have experience with? I can point out things better if we have a common reference.
In the mean time, I'll give an example of how people approach Call of Cthulhu with different agendas. For a narativist, CoC is all about the story elements. They are not concerns with surviving and advancing. On the contrary, they probably expect to die or go insane. What's important is the story being created at the table. For a simulationist*, CoC is about recreating and living in a Lovecraft tale. Being true to the source material is the primary concern. A gamist, probably isn't too happy with CoC. The rules are not easy to "game" and even when you do, you're still doomed.
Keep in mind there nobody is a gamist, simulationist or narativist, but a mix of the three who favors one style or another. Many, like me, may change what they favor based on mood or what they are playing.
*Sim play is the hardest to define means different things to different people. Example, Phoenix Command could be considered sim because of it's painfully detailed modeling of bullet wounds and such.
Edit: to add some to the first section.
I'm under the impression that characters of the same class and same level will be extremely alike.
At character creation you can choose of of two paths for your character. Much like talent trees in Modern. You also have the multiclass FEAT that permits to borrow a power of your choice from another class. We haven't tried it yet but it sounds promising.
I strongly suggest that you drop by your favorite gaming store and have a glance at the books. Alote of people on the D&D forum have the kill 4E at all costs agenda.
WhtKnt resume of the rules is very accurate.
- I can understand WotC wanting to restart DnD with the knowledge gained from many years of public 'playtesting'...but I guess it makes DnD feel less 'inherited' or 'earned' (bit too corny there ) and more like some xbox generation 'games for jonnny moron'
- I miss complex games with asinine learning curves and 'levels/missions' that where NOT designed to be beaten with repetition...it took skill and the ability to learn. - oh well...Even if you don't, 3.5 isn't going anywhere. Paizo (and other companies) are continuing to release material for it. Heck, I know people who still play 1E!
Myself, I play GURPS, True20, Savage Worlds, and Mutants & Masterminds on a pretty regular basis. 4E is not the "be-all, end-all" of games, by any means.
I mostly agree, except I see it as you're looking at a Louisville Slugger and saying it's a horrible tennis racket. Of course it is. It's a baseball bat. But, to be fair I think you were expecting a tennis racket. So stick with your old racket or look for another brand. If you feel like playing baseball you have a good bat
That is a great analagy if we just modify it a little bit:
I mostly agree, except I see it as you're looking at a CombatGame and saying it's a horrible RPG . Of course it is. It's a CombatGame . But, to be fair I think you were expecting a RPG. So stick with your old RPG or look for another brand. If you feel like playing CombatGame you have a good CombatGame.
I'm not looking to start playing some new "Warhammer By Wizzards"
or modified D&D Miniatures Game with a more invested backstory of the minis.
I want to play the RPG I have been playing since the Carter years.
But it seems you are suggesting that for me to continue playing the D&D RPG I need to stop buying new WoC product.
I accept your terms.
I will continue to play an RPG Cat Burgler (or bard) and NOT BUY WoC as you suggest.
See, win-win. I can still "RolePlay D&D" and you can "FightGame 4e".... the only difference is you are going to be diverting a major section of your paychecks to Hasbro while I buy a reem of paper & some 05HB leads a year.
But I am willing to admit when I have been mistaken.
Turns out the new 4e:FightGame does embrace playing a CatBurgler. Lets see just what great new stuff the 4e:FightGame thinks a cat burgler will be using to be a better cat burgler:
See, it is not all about combat. Clearly this power for cat burglery demonstrates just their commitment to a balance of power to Fighting and Non-Combat. To WoC, a cat burgler teleports in combat to get BackStabs for better damage. (yeah, I still call it backstab because I'm not going to dumb it down to Sneak Attack to be politically correct.)
Sure you can play a CatBurgler, as long as it is a cat burgler that goes around killing folks
.... dont bother taking the loot, there is no experience for a catburgler in stealing, just killing. Kinda like the poet, you gotta kill a lot of folks before you can write something like The Illiad. And dont get me started on how many folks WolfgangPuck had to kill to get that high level chef.
For the people who can't find the Bard, I assume you that it's coming. The Sorcerer, one of my favorite classes, isn't there either. That's because WotC is planning on releasing a new set of core books every six months ($$$), and they're saving certain things so those books are worth having. So, if you're on the 4e bandwagon, prepare to take out a second mortgage on the old house.
As far as marketing goes, I don't think it's helpful to define a particular target age group for 4e. Granted, it's more simple, and that's going to appeal to both the older and younger. But for WotC to tell people that 4e is intended for a certain age group is silly. Because as someone said, there are some people who are going to buy the new D&D because it's the new D&D.
I find myself in the group who thinks D&D and d20 Modern just take too long to play. And I welcome some of the simplification, if for no other reason that it speeds things up (Critical Hits are a good example, except they should have allowed more than max damage). But I guess it is what it is, and I don't necessarily fault WotC for trying to attract the next generation.
I accept your terms.
I will continue to play an RPG Cat Burgler (or bard) and NOT BUY WoC as you suggest.
See, win-win. I can still "RolePlay D&D" and you can "FightGame 4e".... the only difference is you are going to be diverting a major section of your paychecks to Hasbro while I buy a reem of paper & some 05HB leads a year.
4E is a roleplaying game. Being focused on combat does not mean you're not roleplaying. You still take on the role of a fictional character an d are concerned with more than just the tactical situation. You don't do that in Warhammer or minis. The roles you can effectively take on are limited to combat centered ones, but you are still roleplaying.
My interest in D&D (any edition) and d20 in general has always been what it offered for combat centered play. That was its strength and it's something I do like, sometimes. It was never my choice for cat burgler, bard or other noncombat centered play. I look else ware for that.
Right now, I don't see buying much beyond the core books. It's only a play style I like occasionally.
Edit to add:
battles14:
I don't think they'll be doing new core books every six months* **. There current plan of one supplement a month will suck in enough money for at least two years.
We can discus marketing ethics else ware if you like.
*I never considered 3.5 to be an edition, rather just glorified errata.
** I could be wrong, because I can almost see them launching a separate line and putting the A back into AD&D.
I mostly agree, except I see it as you're looking at a Louisville Slugger and saying it's a horrible tennis racket. Of course it is. It's a baseball bat. But, to be fair I think you were expecting a tennis racket. So stick with your old racket or look for another brand. If you feel like playing baseball you have a good bat. This analogy has been stretched too far. ;)
No, that's not what I'm saying. Tennis is not a successor to baseball, but 4E is meant to be a successor to 3.5. I agree that 4E is a solid, playable game, but I find it very feature-thin compared to 3.5. So even though its creators realized their goal in making an RPG, 4E still doesn't meet my needs in an RPG.
However:
Where I would criticize 4E, actually WotC, is I think a lot of people bought 4E simply because it's the new D&D. Wizards didn't do enough to inform them they may not be the target customer. That a flaw with the marketing and not the product though.
That may be a real issue.
Also, thanks for the comments about CoC. I haven't played it, but I've heard some stories from other players. That helped clarify the concept.
The roles you can effectively take on are limited to combat centered ones, but you are still roleplaying
I am happy to include combat roles to play in the next version of D&D.
Why cant y'all be happy to include non-comabt roles to play?
... in so far as to REMOVE them from 4e:FightGame?
While I am glad for you getting what you want,
please dont dismiss what others want as not needed because you dont want it.
You say D&D has always been about fighting.
More accurately is that D&D has always included fighting, along with the other roles since the Reagan years.
Sean Connery & Christian Slater were a couple of monks investigaing a death in the days of the sword. Combat focused? Heck no, yet folks paid good money to watch that movie. Same with Cadfael, a series of movies not about fighting in the days of swords.
I am not asking to remove combat from the next D&D,
why does non-combat have to be removed?
Do they think folks wont buy a fight game that allows folks to not fight if they choose?
Maybe it is the new WoC marketing plan of kicking the faithful long term customers. We see them kicking us d20Modern guys after we stayed here, now you say they dont need the guys that have been around since before DoubleSpecialized & Noched Arrows.
Dont get me wrong, I like new versions.
If it weren't for new versions of D&D my 18th level guy would still be a 5th level Fighter (Elf Racial Limit)
All said, if I wanted a fight game,
I'd dust off the LEG Phoenix Command and get downright gritty.
While I am glad for you getting what you want,
please dont dismiss what others want as not needed because you dont want it.
You say D&D has always been about fighting.
More accurately is that D&D has always included fighting, along with the other roles since the Reagan years.
I say D&D has always focused on fighting and included other stuff. We may just disagree here. I'm happy with 4E because it serves what I want out of D&D (which isn't what I want out of fantasy roleplaying in general). You're not happy with it because it doesn't serve what you want out of D&D. That's totally valid. I would argue another systems altogether serves what you want better than D&D, but that's another discussion.
Sean Connery & Christian Slater were a couple of monks investigaing a death in the days of the sword. Combat focused? Heck no, yet folks paid good money to watch that movie. Same with Cadfael, a series of movies not about fighting in the days of swords.
Was Cadfael the BBC/PBS series about a monk who was a detective? Any way, I would never had chosen D&D for these stories, or at least if the game was to focus on these type of stories.
If it weren't for new versions of D&D my 18th level guy would still be a 5th level Fighter (Elf Racial Limit)
Racial class level limits? Why I remember when elf was a class. Get off my lawn!
4E is part of a new movement in RPGs called «rules lite».
*coughcoughhackwheeze*
4e is not "rules lite." It isn't GURPS, sure, but it is far from being "rules lite."
Anyway, my take: if I wanted what 4e was selling, I'd play Guild Wars.
As far as I'm concerned, d20 Modern is fine as-is. Tweaking FX would be nice, but not necessary, and I already have a fan-made improved psionics system.
I don't think they'll be doing new core books every six months
This is a quote from Rich Baker himself...
Second interesting tidbit: One of the really fun things I've had a chance to play with in the last couple of weeks is a little bit of development assistance on the Player's Handbook II. The part that I got to get my hands dirty on is the sorcerer--an old friend, since I created the first draft of the sorcerer back in the early days of my work on 3rd Edition.
This is a quote from Rich Baker himself...
A PHBII would be a supplement, not a core book.
4e is not "rules lite." It isn't GURPS, sure, but it is far from being "rules lite."
Okay let me rephrase that : Its WoTC attempt to address the «Rules lite» movement. Its a good thing they didn't go any «liter» some 3.5 die hards would have immolated themselves in public squares....
Forget Thaco, we need OldSchool D&D brought back
Okay so 4E is out. Some of you have read the books. What's your take on how this is going to affect Modern? Do you like the concept of Daily, Encounter, At-will Powers? How do you explain Healing Surges in a Modern world? etc
BTW I'm confident that everyone on this forum is more civilized the D&D crowd.
well I was lucky enough to get a quick flick through of the 4E D&D books thanks to a friend of mine yesterday but haven't seen d20 yet. i haven't had much chance to read them compleatly but what I've read there are some intresting points (I especially like the new races) but there are also some points that I'm not a great fan of like the "at will powers", "race powers" and so forth they would be good for some races and classes but I feel they make the players seam like superheros, maybe it should be limited to number of times it can be used other wise in my oppinion players would be useing the abilities constantly. for example the tiefling - a very intresting race in my oppinion with the whole good/evil internal strugle posibilities ect but they have a racial power where they gain a +1 hit an opponent that has hit them in the previous round, or the hafling who can force an opponent to re-roll an attack that hits them.
I admit that I haven't read the books compleatly so I may have it wrong but in my oppinion 4E has some intresting points that can be used but I like the older rules better for most things so for me I feel that the older rules are better but some of the 4E rules could be intergrated.
lol backstabbist I have to agree I liked the old class hit tables from 1st ed as well as the THAC0 rules, though THAC0 can easily be worked out either by using THAC20 or by reversing the armour bonuses (like in the old versions where AC bonuses were subtracted and penilties were added)
BRING BACK ToHit TABLES FOR CLASSES!!!
Forget Thaco, we need OldSchool D&D brought back
Bah, we need to go back to when every class used the same table!
Bah, we need to go back to when every class used the same table!
Sure, and while you're at it, let's bring back the unarmed combat rules from 1E. You know, where the mechanics were completely different from the ones used to play the game and you had to have a slide rule and calculator to compute your chances of knocking someone out? I felt like I was preparing for a calculus final every time we went into unarmed combat. It got to the point that, as DM, when a character would announce they were pummeling and grappling, they would be paralyzed by a bolt from the blue until the urge passed.
The DMG is literally a guide on how to Dungeon Master and is very sparse on materials. The Planes get nary a description, and no rules or guides on how to handle planar movement, combat or even survival. My guess is a new manual of the planes is coming out.
It's a little disappointing to pay 34.95 per book just to find out you'll need more books.
If you want the core classes, you gotta buy a whole lot more books.
But yeah, it sounds disappointing to open your book just to read that you're gonna need more books.
As for me I mistakenly bought the 4E players handbook, because I enjoyed the quick play module. however, upon discovering that character customization and any form of non-combat interactions have been abandoned, I have given up on WOTC. with the exception one Saga edition source book I'm waiting for, the only RPG books I will be buying from now on will be Paizo's Pathfinder, and White-wolf's World of Darkness.
Skill challenges and rituals tell me that this version is not only there for combat. Heck it's more as any D&d did before it.
Actually its nothing different than any D&D did before it. No, really its less than previous editions, IMHO.
Rituals are just watered down utility spells (and there are a lot less of them now, too). And skill challenges just treat non-combat situations like combat.
Anyway, my opinion on 4e: We played it this weekend. It is a lot of fun, but its not really that... spectacular.
I also order 4e rules to stay 500ft away from d20 Modern at all times.
Please explain the use of Skill Challenges & Rituals that the Elf CatBurgler would use.
Well, just off the top of my head, rituals useful to catburglars would include...
Arcane Lock
Comprehend Languages
Detect Object
Detect Secret Doors
Drawmijj's Instant Summons
Eye of Alarm
Eye of Warding
Hallucinatory Creature
Hand of Fate
Knock
Observe Creature
Passwall
Sending
Silence
Tenser's Floating Disk
View Location
Wizard's Sight
Skill Challenges? Oh, I don't know, maybe...
Picking a difficult lock
Disarming a particularly nasty trap
Talking his way out of trouble if he's caught in the act
Eluding the guards in a chase through the merchant's manor
The possibilities are endless.
For the Elf Catburgler thief ,
how do these Rituals & Skill Challenges work?
Now after 20years of me trying to pick locks, the new THEIF guys can just Knock? I dunno. Explain it to me.
I took this weekend to carefully read over the rules, and found everything that I think makes this worse than any edition of D&D. Let me start at the top:
1) No maxes! Well, other than level which is permenantly WotC limited at 30, by an "epic destiny."
2) Epic levels! Really, why did we need epic levels in a core book? Isn't that best covered by additional books, or *gasp* DM intervention?
3) +1/2 level! Anyone else get really tired of reading that? Hey look! My Level 10 Paladin gets a +5 to picking locks and pick pocketing. WTF? What's next? A half orc Barbarian with a +5 to reading bedtime stories and tucking in?
4) HP, HP, and more HP! My first level fighter that I rolled up has 31 hit points, and the ability to heal 84 hitpoints of his own per day. Yeah...this isn't power gaming.
5) +2 for being Human! Oh good grief. And to think, these past 20 years of D&D have taught me that humans are the standard, the norm by which we judge things. I guess that normal would be ...what? Kobolds?
6) Class Roles! Isn't it great when they think of everything for you? So that all you have to do is point to the pretty pictures, like ordering dinner at Denny's?
7) Of topics order in books out! No really, all the topics in the book seem out of order, and only placed in that order to mimic the 3.5 book. I had to go 200+ pages to find out what the Dwarf's saving throw is for resisting being knocked prone.
8) No saving throws, other than saving throws! WotC removed the traditional saving throws, and made them defenses, but kept saving throws that were far simpler to understand: 50/50 rolls. Why didn't they just keep the saving throws in the first place, and give the +1/2 level they gave everything else? (At least save vs death came back, in a incredibly more Disney-esque fashion.)
9) Tieflings, Eladrin, and Dragonborn! We gave up the Gnome and Half Orc, staples of D&D since the dawn, in favor of a new elven race, a demonic race, and a race for players who want to be related to dragons? Isn't this something for an expansion book?
10) Nonmagical weapons give you bonuses! ....no words....should've sent a poet....to describe the awful.
11) Critical hits! They're even more confusing now than they've ever been, and aren't even that impressive. A critical hit used to be defined as a nearly lethal blow. Now, it's a side effect that can be duplicated with lucky rolling.
12) MOAR GOLD PLEASE! The world must be chock full of gold, gems, and jewelry, because the purchase price of some of this stuff is outrageous. Not only that, but there's a new Astral Diamond that only the super rich and powerful can use. And here, I was thinking that gems and jewelry filled that role.
And, if all of that didn't inspire an upchuck reflex...
13) POWERS!! Each character gets a laundry list of powers and feats they have to maintain, but they only get so many per level. And after a few levels, they're allowed to 'retrain', sacrificing some powers for other ones. So they spontaneously forget how to do something in favor of something else?
In short, I bought the books...all three. I've been a fan since close to the beginning (started playing first edition in 1987), and so this is part of my collection. But in 15 years, these books will be in mint condition, because I will have never used them.
Actually its nothing different than any D&D did before it. No, really its less than previous editions, IMHO.
Pray tell, what did 3.5e do for non-combat?
Rituals are just watered down utility spells (and there are a lot less of them now, too). And skill challenges just treat non-combat situations like combat.
Rituals are a better way to do utility spells imho. No more overpowered wizards running around. So it's more about combat and then they introduce something for non-combat(Skill challenges) and it's still wrong, what should they do?
I also order 4e rules to stay 500ft away from d20 Modern at all times.
I agree with this, if there is going to be a new modern it should base itself from SW Saga imho.
I like the focus on teamwork for combat. Understanding what the other PCs can do and how your abilities synergize adds a deeper layer to the game. Sure, it helps in any RPG, but Fourth Edition brings it to the spotlight.
I also like everybody having at-will, encounter and daily powers.
In general, I like how combat works in Fourth Edition, and everybody in my gaming group agrees so far.
My gripes about Fourth Edition are about world-building. I know exactly how to build a level n NPC in 3.5 and d20 Modern. Maybe there is something in the DMG -- I don't have it yet -- but I want NPCs to play by the same rules as PCs.
It seems that most of the arguments here are about the new combat focus. When we bought 4E, we expected new classes, races, spells, and rules IN ADDITION TO the rules we were used to. Instead, we are given "Here are some things to fight with, please insert another $40 for more content" It has been realigned towards combat, but the problem most of the people arguing against it though seem to have been people who expected more role-playing, which requires several more payments of $40 over the next decade.
Our issues with 4E is the elimination of:
1: RULES: We found ourself searching the book for a good 3 hours to find the statistics for a condition, then spending 30 minutes trying to understand this condition.
2: Alignment: This is proof of the combat game that 4E was designed as. They now have; Good, Evil, Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Jackass, and I-Don't-Care. These replace, Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil. They have reduced the importance of alignment to, what kind of uber-god do I want to make?
3: Classes: The removal of several classes, only to be told to pay more money for them, is jut proof of the greed of WotC. This is not "We are still adapting them" or "These are new classes to the system". This is "**** you. Give us your money and we'll release some of your favorite classes."
4: Races: We admit, we HATED gnomes and half-orcs, but this is ridiculous. These are races that have a clear following and role. They are replaced with the Uber-Elf and the Dragon-Freak. We are somewhat happy that the tiefling was finally made a core race, but are disheartened by the removal of the aismar (sp?), which provides an equal and opposite race to the tiefling.
5: Spells and Class Features: The power system now gives one a choice, this once a day class feature/spell or this once a day class feature/spell. No more things like the monks slow fall, the higher level spells of divine and arcane casters, the druids wild shape, things that motivated us to level up and choose classes
6: Monsters: It took us days to complete our first monster manual. There were so many monsters, all standing out from one another. But we read through the 4E MM not because it lacked pages, but because it gave us no reason to fully pay attention. There were no real differences from one monster to another.
Am I the only one who get's offended when people infer the simplification of a system as being "Dumbed Down". I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm not the dullest either.
Even from what little I've seen and done, I can tell I will be able to homebrew just about any power or ability from D20 Modern into 4e. Classes will also be simple to make in my very humble opinion.
4E is about combat, modern should fit very well within it's rule structure.
Also, I like the multiple successes and failures on skill checks that first appeared in Unearthed Arcana.
Now that I have my hands on the 4e books and have started to run Keep on the Shadowfell I am starting to get a better handle on what 4e is and isn't.
1. The character sheets and character creation is just as screwy as it ever has been. There isn't room on the sheet to record all the information you need and what you do include isn't easy to reference. Finally the book isn't any help at all guiding you through how to put your character together. You either know how to do it or you don't.
I just made up my own character sheet, wrote my own character creation rules, and moved on. WotC should package the powers in a card set, that in and of itself would save a ton of headache and transcription.
2. 4e advertised a lot more customization and selectibility than what it delivered. For example a dwarf would give you various feats and powers that you could select instead of what your class offered, or you could stick with your class; a dwarf fighter would be significantly different from a human one.
eh, not so much. Non-human races are still front-loaded with extra goodies and race specific feats are like maybe 2 or 3 per race. A race power is a given, not chosen in place of a class power. At least the humans get some front-end goodies now.
3. Once I sorted out the mess into something manageable, the core mechanics are smooth. My first session only lasted an hour and included set-up, character creation (aided by my custom character sheets and creation edits), and first encounter. If we hadn't been strapped for time we would have played longer, we hated quitting. My job as DM was extremely easy and we were all able to have a lot of fun.
Secondly, I agree, Modern 2e should be Saga based, not 4e based (unless it's the missing Spectaculars supplement, then 4e would work perfectly).
I like 4e, mainly because it simplified the combat rules (grab I'm looking at you), simplified spells (no longer do I need to look through hundreds of pages of PHB for a spell, I only have to look through 12), and finally embraced the cinematic fantasy influenced by eberron and d20 Modern (yes, 4e has a bit of the modern in it).
I have a few problems with it though, particularly multiclassing (not enough of the class features granted), and sneak attack/rogue powers (no more elven bow-rogues, they have to use crossbows now, what a piece of carp).
Oh, and to someone who griped about the proficiency bonus on weapons. Consider that they got rid of the -4 penalty from nonproficiency, so they had to replace it with something.
Also, to those that are worried, the Bard isn't gone, not really. It seems that most bards were multi-classing into Marshal anyway, so they replaced the bard (singing? in combat?) with the warlord (orders? in combat?). Best thing they could have done, IMHO.
so climbing the wall & shimming the lock is now some kind of combat? Does the window latch do lethal or non-lethal damage to me while I fight it?
::makes save vs. sarcasm::
No, but a lock with multiple redundant mechanisms could require more than a single skill roll to open. A skill challenge represents a situation where too many failures before achieving a certain number of successes could prematurely end the encounter. For example, as the DM, I might rule that your cat burglar needs to achieve 4 Thieving successes to jimmy a particularly intricate lock on the home he is attempting to enter. If you fail 2 times before those 4 successes are achieved, you are spotted by a guardsman before you can finish the task.
Could I have simply said, "Make a Thieving check against DC 25?" Sure, but that isn't as much fun as having your character struggle with the lock a little. Also note that failure doesn't prevent the adventure from moving forward, it just adds an obstacle or complexity.
It's hardly a new ideas; I used it as far back as 2nd edition. Personally, I was glad to see it added to the core rules.
For the Elf Catburgler thief , how do these Rituals & Skill Challenges work?
Now after 20years of me trying to pick locks, the new THEIF guys can just Knock? I dunno. Explain it to me.
Well, yes, with the appropriate feat, they can do just that. Rituals require the Ritual Caster feat (which clerics and wizards receive for free). Rituals are basically utility spells that anyone of the appropriate level can learn. The Knock ritual, for example, is a 4th level ritual (you must be at least 4th level to master it; you can also acquire it on a scroll and use it regardless of level and even if you lack the Ritual Caster feat). Each ritual also requires certain components (35 gp worth of alchemical ingredients, in the case of Knock) and has a set amount of time required to perform the ritual (this is halved if using a scroll). You simply perform the Knock ritual and you can unlock any arcane or physical lock.
In most cases, simply picking the lock would be far simpler and faster, which is why most rogues don't bother with rituals, but if it's a tough nut to crack, then it's nice to have a ritual to fall back upon.
Again, rituals are hardly new. Raise Dead has been a ritual in my campaign since the release of Unearthed Arcana for 3.5. It made much more sense.
My first impression was vomit! But, fortunately, it's modified attack bonus didn't get through my fortitude defense after I grabbed my Bag of Anti Vomit +3.
I took this weekend to carefully read over the rules, and found everything that I think makes this worse than any edition of D&D. Let me start at the top:
1) No maxes! Well, other than level which is permenantly WotC limited at 30, by an "epic destiny."
News flash! There weren't limits in 3.5, either. Epic levels would allow you to progress as far as you and the DM wanted to take it.
2) Epic levels! Really, why did we need epic levels in a core book? Isn't that best covered by additional books, or *gasp* DM intervention?
Except that about one-third of the fan base screamed for epic rules in the core books so, yes, in a sense, we did "need" it.
3) +1/2 level! Anyone else get really tired of reading that? Hey look! My Level 10 Paladin gets a +5 to picking locks and pick pocketing. WTF? What's next? A half orc Barbarian with a +5 to reading bedtime stories and tucking in?
It makes sense to me that as you progress in life, you naturally get better at some things. A paladin that picks locks and pockets? A modern police officer comes to mind, there (well, maybe not pockets, but there is more to Thievery than those two abilities). Also remember that paladins are no longer bound to the Lawful Good alignment. Yes, evil paladins are possible.
4) HP, HP, and more HP! My first level fighter that I rolled up has 31 hit points, and the ability to heal 84 hitpoints of his own per day. Yeah...this isn't power gaming.
You'd rather have 10 hit points, when the average kobold has 20?
5) +2 for being Human! Oh good grief. And to think, these past 20 years of D&D have taught me that humans are the standard, the norm by which we judge things. I guess that normal would be ...what? Kobolds?
The idea that there are only bonuses, no penalties, is unique, but hardly game-breaking.
6) Class Roles! Isn't it great when they think of everything for you? So that all you have to do is point to the pretty pictures, like ordering dinner at Denny's?
I had the very same opinion (one of the reasons I like True20), but on talking to a player of mine, I found that some people want exactly that. He told me that he disliked games that did not have specific classes, telling him exactly how his character should progress. His complaint about d20 Modern is that the classes aren't rigid enough. He hopes that Modern 2E will use these rules and create tight classes for every possible career path (police officer, doctor, etc.). Takes all kinds, I guess. Me, I just ignore the suggestions and build the character I want.
7) Of topics order in books out! No really, all the topics in the book seem out of order, and only placed in that order to mimic the 3.5 book. I had to go 200+ pages to find out what the Dwarf's saving throw is for resisting being knocked prone.
Here, I agree. The design of the books is not intuitive and could be much improved.
8) No saving throws, other than saving throws! WotC removed the traditional saving throws, and made them defenses, but kept saving throws that were far simpler to understand: 50/50 rolls. Why didn't they just keep the saving throws in the first place, and give the +1/2 level they gave everything else? (At least save vs death came back, in a incredibly more Disney-esque fashion.)
I was taken aback by this at first, but then I realized that by making Fortitude, Reflex, and Will into Defenses, the saving throws are already factored into the mechanics. This makes it much simpler and easier.
9) Tieflings, Eladrin, and Dragonborn! We gave up the Gnome and Half Orc, staples of D&D since the dawn, in favor of a new elven race, a demonic race, and a race for players who want to be related to dragons? Isn't this something for an expansion book?
Again, we agree here. Personally, the loss of gnomes doesn't bother me; I never played them and I don't know anyone who did. I don't see the need for dragonpor... ehr, dragonborn (why does an egg-laying species need breasts?), but think that if you are going to have tieflings, then aasimar should have also been included.
10) Nonmagical weapons give you bonuses! ....no words....should've sent a poet....to describe the awful.
How is this different from the way it's always been?
11) Critical hits! They're even more confusing now than they've ever been, and aren't even that impressive. A critical hit used to be defined as a nearly lethal blow. Now, it's a side effect that can be duplicated with lucky rolling.
More confusing? You roll a natural 20, it's a crit (assuming you didn't need a 20 to hit). Do your maximum possible damage. The end. Couldn't be simpler. Less impressive? A little, but I'll sacrifice that for ease of play.
12) MOAR GOLD PLEASE! The world must be chock full of gold, gems, and jewelry, because the purchase price of some of this stuff is outrageous. Not only that, but there's a new Astral Diamond that only the super rich and powerful can use. And here, I was thinking that gems and jewelry filled that role.
Heh heh. Yeah, my group was pointing that out too. But the mundane gear is far more reasonable, and the world shouldn't be full of magical sweatshops anyway.
13) POWERS!! Each character gets a laundry list of powers and feats they have to maintain, but they only get so many per level. And after a few levels, they're allowed to 'retrain', sacrificing some powers for other ones. So they spontaneously forget how to do something in favor of something else?
Is this any different from a laundry list of over 50 spells? And you could divest yourself of spells and replace them with new ones in the previous edition, as well. So why should not other classes be able to do it?
I used to be able to program in DOS, but I stopped using that skill and forgot it because it was no longer useful to me, but replaced it by learning how to program in XML.
In short, I bought the books...all three. I've been a fan since close to the beginning (started playing first edition in 1987), and so this is part of my collection. But in 15 years, these books will be in mint condition, because I will have never used them.
Your loss. I'm not saying that 4E is perfect (a far cry from it), but it is different enough to be enticing. I'll give a try at the table before I make final judgment.
We are surprised that the removal of several alignments has not been mentioned yet, but more on the later.
It seems that most of the arguments here are about the new combat focus. When we bought 4E, we expected new classes, races, spells, and rules IN ADDITION TO the rules we were used to. Instead, we are given "Here are some things to fight with, please insert another $40 for more content" It has been realigned towards combat, but the problem most of the people arguing against it though seem to have been people who expected more role-playing, which requires several more payments of $40 over the next decade.
Our issues with 4E is the elimination of:
1: RULES: We found ourself searching the book for a good 3 hours to find the statistics for a condition, then spending 30 minutes trying to understand this condition.
Annoying, but hardly proof of a bad system; just bad organization.
2: Alignment: This is proof of the combat game that 4E was designed as. They now have; Good, Evil, Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Jackass, and I-Don't-Care. These replace, Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil. They have reduced the importance of alignment to, what kind of uber-god do I want to make?
No loss. I got rid of alignment right after d20 Modern introduced me to the idea of allegiances; much more realistic and less restrictive.
3: Classes: The removal of several classes, only to be told to pay more money for them, is jut proof of the greed of WotC. This is not "We are still adapting them" or "These are new classes to the system". This is "**** you. Give us your money and we'll release some of your favorite classes."
Can anyone honestly say they did not see this coming? It isn't greed, it's the need to have something to offer later to keep the industry alive. I agree that it is annoying and a blatant marketing tactic, but I understand why they did it.
4: Races: We admit, we HATED gnomes and half-orcs, but this is ridiculous. These are races that have a clear following and role. They are replaced with the Uber-Elf and the Dragon-Freak. We are somewhat happy that the tiefling was finally made a core race, but are disheartened by the removal of the aismar (sp?), which provides an equal and opposite race to the tiefling.
As noted above, I agree. The aasimar needed to be included; dragonborn did not.
5: Spells and Class Features: The power system now gives one a choice, this once a day class feature/spell or this once a day class feature/spell. No more things like the monks slow fall, the higher level spells of divine and arcane casters, the druids wild shape, things that motivated us to level up and choose classes
It's called flexibility. It means that every 10th level fighter does not look and act like every other 10th level fighter.
6: Monsters: It took us days to complete our first monster manual. There were so many monsters, all standing out from one another. But we read through the 4E MM not because it lacked pages, but because it gave us no reason to fully pay attention. There were no real differences from one monster to another.
I disagree; there are plenty of differences. What I don't like is that monsters have been reduced to a bunch of stats with no ecology or reason to exist beyond providing a challenge to the heroes.
Annoying, but hardly proof of a bad system; just bad organization.
No loss. I got rid of alignment right after d20 Modern introduced me to the idea of allegiances; much more realistic and less restrictive.
Can anyone honestly say they did not see this coming? It isn't greed, it's the need to have something to offer later to keep the industry alive. I agree that it is annoying and a blatant marketing tactic, but I understand why they did it.
As noted above, I agree. The aasimar needed to be included; dragonborn did not.
It's called flexibility. It means that every 10th level fighter does not look and act like every other 10th level fighter.
I disagree; there are plenty of differences. What I don't like is that monsters have been reduced to a bunch of stats with no ecology or reason to exist beyond providing a challenge to the heroes.
1: We cede to bad organization, but they also got rid of certain rules
2: We don't really care about alignment normally, as we prefer allegiances, but when we played D&D, we would base our invisible "allegiances" on our character sheet based on our alignment or vise-versa
3: No, keeping the industry alive is coming out with new material that people want. This is greed. They take away old things, so they can be reintroduced for a sum of money. People want druids and barbarians, but they already have them. If they came out with books with new classes, that would be some what acceptable, but this is holding some cherished classes hostage. They don't even try to hide that fact.
4: Flexibility, right
. This "flexibility" is simply a new version of a wizard picking spells. Some spells are more common and powerful than others and are therefore used more often. A fighter was not the most diverse, but that is what made it a good class, you knew exactly what to expect when playing or fighting one. Introducing "powers" to classes just splits the fighter into piercing fighter, slashing fighter, or bludgeoning fighter. None of the "powers" provide a use out of combat. The wizard could have cast a spell and made an enemy his friend, a ranger had a RP hook in his feature (favored enemy), the bard could use suggestion. Now, a wizard can kill a goblin, but can't open a locked door without 10 minutes of casting time, a ranger now suddenly grows immense hatred for someone in the course of 6 seconds, but can't know anything about him, a bard is now a rouge who sings, the rouge can now be Hug-And-Stab or Stab-And Twist.5: The monsters are statistically different, but in all other forms the same. a goblin is now no more described than a flea. What really bugs us though is the fact that under the names of animals, they don't stat the animal.
Player: OK, I'm going to go hunt for wild boar for dinner
DM: Ok, after an hour you find a fey boar
Player: I can't fight that! I spend another hour
DM: you find a shadow boar
Player: I spend another hour
DM: You find a herd of fey boars
Player: WHY THE HELL ARE THERE PLANAR BOAR BUT NOT ANY REGULAR WILD PIGS?!
Or
DM: Ok, you see an encampment
Player 1: I walk up and shout a greeting
Player 2: I sneak around
Player 3: I stay back and cover PC 1
DM: Ok (rolls dice), a goblin, a gnoll, and a balor attack you
Players: But they don't live near each other
DM: Thats not what the book says
4: Flexibility, right. This "flexibility" is simply a new version of a wizard picking spells.
Yes, flexibility. Wizards finally got balanced with other classes. In 3.5e the Wizard could abandon the party at 10th level and do better as the other random classes. Fighters, Monks and Paladins were the worst off, swinging their weapon(or their fists)as a full attack every round and not doing something really important. Heck that Wizard could just gate a powerfull being in that did the job for that fighter over there.
3: No, keeping the industry alive is coming out with new material that people want. This is greed. They take away old things, so they can be reintroduced for a sum of money. People want druids and barbarians, but they already have them. If they came out with books with new classes, that would be some what acceptable, but this is holding some cherished classes hostage. They don't even try to hide that fact.
4e core != 3e core, Just like 3e core != 2e core. Just like it has always been.
What really bugs us though is the fact that under the names of animals, they don't stat the animal.
I agree, and I actually meant to mention this earlier. But, I'm sure it will be rectified in 2009, when they release Monster Manual II: Everyday Critters.
1) Characters could take more punishment: current starting HP is around 6-15 hp depending on class and con.
In 4e, starting HP are anywhere from 18 to 38. (The 18 is for a Wizard with an 8 Con, the 38 for a fighter with an 18 con).
2) Skills would be combined and streamlined: : In modern, sleight of hand and disable device are two separate skills.
In 4E, they are combined, along with pick pocketing and detecting traps, into one skill called 'thievery.'
3) Characters healing ability would be better: In modern, ability to restore HP is limited to one treat injury per day, surgery, and recovering a few hp a night with rest. Massive damage can drop someone to -1.
In 4E, you get 6-10 healing surges a day, which allow you to recover 25% of your HP at a time. You can do it once per encounter (combat) as well. And, if I'm reading the rule correctly, a night's rest (extended 6 hours) gets you back to full HP. There are no massive damage rules.
4) Multiclassing would be limited: In modern, switch character classes as many times as the GM will grudingly let you do it, picking up unique class talents along the way.
In 4E, you remain, one class, but you can pick up abilities and powers from other classes via race or feats.
5) No more multiple attacks w/o a special ability: Modern allows multiple attacks based on your BAB, weapon, and fighting with two weapons.
4E doesn't allow for two weapon attacks or double weapons unless you have a specific power that allows you do to so. Instead, attacking with two weapons lets you do +1 damage with your main weapon. So far I haven't found any rules that allow for multiple attacks based on BAB.
6) Action points are slightly different: In modern, action points either let you activate a talent or add to a (usually bad) die roll. You get around five per level.
In 4E, Action points are sometimes also used to activate powers, and are also used to allow a player to take an extra action (such as two standard actions) during his or her turn. You get one point per day and may get more if you get in a lot of fights.
7) Actions are different: In modern, you typcially get standard, move and free actions during your turn. You can also ready actions.
In 4E, you get Standard, Move, MINOR and free actions. You can also ready actions. MINOR actions are for drawing a sword, maintaining an ongoing spell, drinking a potion, etc.
8) Powers:: 4E has special class and race-based powers that allow characters to take special actions in combat. The powers are essentially divided into:
'At will', which can be used once per round. Example: Wizard casting a magic missle or a fighter trading damage for a more accurate to hit roll;
'Encounter', that can be used once per combat. Example: a cleric turning undead or a fighter taking swings at two adjacent opponents with one standard action;
'Daily', that can be used once per day. Example: a fighter being able to do triple damage if he hits, a wizard casting a sleep spell.
9) Saving throws are different: In modern, you have will, reflex and fortitute saving throws to avoid certain adverse effects. If a bomb goes off, you make a reflex save to avoid damage.
In 4E, you have defenses that must be overcome with an attack roll by the spell caster. Thus the bomb would make an attack roll vs. the target's reflex defense score
The only time you roll saving throws is to avoid a continuing (ongoing) effect, and then you don't add modifiers, it's a 55/45 chance in favor of the player.
10) You can become bloodied: In modern, you can act just as easily at max hit points as you can at 1 HP.
In 4E, when either you or your opponent gets to 50% HP, you become BLOODIED. Your opponent may have powers that work better when you are bloodied, making you more vulnerable. You may have powers that work better, making you more powerful. Also, certain conditions in the adventure may not be triggered until someone is bloodied.
11) Non-lethal is different: In modern, you can grapple, trip and throw non-lethal punches to knock someone out.
In 4E, there is no such thing as non-lethal damage. If you want to knock an opponent unconcious, simply declare that as they drop to zero HP.
Instead of grapple, there is grab, which simply allows you to hold an opponenent in the square they are in. The PHB doesn't have any rules for pinning that I saw.
12) I could go on and on and on: dying is different. Weapon proficiency is different. Character advancement is different. Instead of detailing them all, I'll end with a few observations:
4E HP rules would make characters more powerful and harder to kill.
4E healing rules would make it easier for characters to continue on their mission rather than return to base and rest. Those same rules would take the lethality of of gun combat.
4E class rules would make it next to impossible to customize characters and create unique multi-classing options.
4E class encounter, daily and at will powers lends themselves to a superhero an action movie type game where characters can get shot many times but still pull off that Jet-Li Like 'Dancing Democratic Donkey Sytle' kung fu kick.*
*Allows you to kick every adjacent opponent and lay them prone even though you are at 0 HP, outnumbered 100-1 by Super Villians and villians alike and every single one of your allies is saying to give up and go home.
FYI, the ritual knock spell takes 10 minutes to cast and doesn't guarantee a result: you must still make an arcana check to open something.
You also have to sacrifce 35 gold pieces in components and a healing surge to even get a chance to open a door.
Traditional lockpicking can still be done with standard action thievery check.
The neat thing is thieves can get access to the knock ritual via the ritual casting feat and have both methods of safecracking at their disposal.
It's not even going on my Download list.
Doug
The fighter and rogue powers remind me a lot of the special attacks video game figures use when you press the right combination of keys (down twice while pressing the A button and Kung Fu Master exectutes a spinning pinky punch.
But now you don't have to possess the fine motor coordination necessary to pull that off in a video game.
4E isn't DnD lite: it's Mortal Kombat without complicated joystick/button combinations.
It wouldn't surprise me if 4E isn't a transition game designed to bridge DnD over to a completely online/computer system.
I will, however, attempt to keep an open mind as I eat my green eggs and ham. What I envision is blending the better parts of 4E into 3.5 for my own campaigns.
What I'm finding frustrating here is refusal to acknowledge that 4.0 is a NEW game. There seems endless frustration about how it ISN'T 3.5. Complaints about learning the rules, etc.
Be realistic with yourselves. My group played 3.5 since release. We still were looking up rules or just B.S.ing them on a regular basis. The system was complicated and non-intuitive. But we became used to it. It was sink or swim, (some of us) were young and ambitious. We became involved in its strange expression of a system caught between gritty fantasy and unbelievable heroism. We grew to like it.
Now, though, 4e is learnable within an hour. Character creation (for me and my friends at least) takes 15 minutes. By the end of two days, I have most of the system's rules completely internalized, and with photocopies of just 2 tables form the DMG (Dm's Best Friend, and Monsters By level) I could run a whole session off the top of my head without EVER opening a book.
So what's good? The game is self-contained. It is organized (despite complaints of others seeing it as un-organized. I wish you guys could erase your minds and try to re-learn 3.5 and compare that experience to learning 4e, and dispell this romantic fantasy of the ease-of play of 3.5). The game is fun, well at least combat is. 3.5 had many many stand-and fight encounters, with the exception of spell-casters and later classes like scout. Now you have strong motivations for tactical movement and positioning, and can relocate your enemies to places that are advantageous to you, or find yourself caught vulnerable. This deeper layer of tactics isn't a possibility like it was in 3.5, it's an inevitability. At least currently, there are no builds or classes that are "off limits," either through being over-powered or utterly useless.
What's bad? In the homogenizing of the system, the chunky character of 3.5 is gone. As a system that didn't know what it wanted to be with mediocre rules to express varying styles of play, you did gain just that; many styles of play. Players with different goals could coexist in a group and find something they enjoyed, though there was often complaining about a lack of descriptiveness or a lack of compatibility between different game elements. The detail of 3.5 was unbridled; but that built up over time! With a completely new game, they would have to convert ungodly amounts of material before seeing if their new system will sell. That is over-investing themselves economically with an unrealistic timetable before seeing any results of their efforts.
In short, 4e is NOT 3.5 improved. It's a completely new game, with completely different advantages. If you don't like 4e because it doesn't suit your needs, then be happy with the thousands of dollars worth source books for 3.5, including third party support that will continue for at least another year or so (not even including Pathfinder). There is no need to violently hate a new gaming system for not being the old game, when you STILL have the old game!
I'm saying it isnt true to D&D rpg.
It is changing from a RPG to a fight game.
From a Pencil & Paper game of imagination to a Mini's & Mats hobby of purchasing newer powercreep material & supplies
Power creep?
I dunno.... but for some reason we have fighters casting spells now, and 20hp 1st level mages, and everyone has a little surge of cleric in them to just will those sword stabs healed.
No, that isnt accurate.
They dont have a little cleric in them.
They have A LOT. A 4e:Fightgame 1st fighter can do more surge healing than a 3.5 1st cleric can heal.
Power Creep doesnt fit it,
it is Power RunAway Freight Train pickin up speed
I'm not saying it isnt true to the spirit of 3.5
I'm saying it isnt true to D&D rpg.
It is changing from a RPG to a fight game.
From a Pencil & Paper game of imagination to a Mini's & Mats hobby of purchasing newer powercreep material & supplies
Power creep?
I dunno.... but for some reason we have fighters casting spells now, and 20hp 1st level mages, and everyone has a little surge of cleric in them to just will those sword stabs healed.
No, that isnt accurate.
They dont have a little cleric in them.
They have A LOT. A 4e:Fightgame 1st fighter can do more surge healing than a 3.5 1st cleric can heal.
Power Creep doesnt fit it,
it is Power RunAway Freight Train pickin up speed
One of the largest complaints I ever experienced from casual DnD players was the exorbitant amount of downtime required to do "hardcore" adventuring. Many players liked running the gauntlet, liked drawn out battles with lots of tactical choices, and then having some roleplay do dress this up and give it all a sense of meaning. This is exactly what 4e offers, and it is trying to reach people with those expectations, because truth is, they outnumber most of us 10 to 1. (well don't include me because i can enjoy those kinds of campaigns too). In 3.5, combat would take forever because of the clunkiness of rules, yet at the same time, would typically be over in only a few rounds. You had to have a full-time healer party ******, which was a role that only the most serious of players ever enjoyed. A player would be forced to choose between making an immediate difference in the battle and doing something "cool," or simply trying to undo the damage caused by the enemy. Some people like that, survey says most people don't.
4.0 therefore, has MUCH higher HP to make battles more exciting and tactical, allowing players to take more turns. Yet, combat is far smoother, so those turns are shorter, so combat goes by faster. You do more things in less time. The damage creep only catches up to the HP creep in certain daily abilities, which is meant to be an exciting event.
No one is stuck with the sole responsibility of healing the party and choosing between supporting the 'stars' and being able to have fun of your own (well, excepting those people who truly find supporting roles rewarding, cuz they do exist). This was a purposeful design decision, and that's why cleric got mixed into every class. Clerics and Paladins still help with healing, it's just not entirely their own responsibility.
As far as fighters being wizards: this is entirely inaccurate. Wizards have battlefield altering abilities, with a sense of purpose and control very different than a fighter's ability to mess with at-hand opponents. Sure everyone uses a power-choice system, but what makes one class different from the other IS the actual powers. A 3.5 fighter was the most straight-forward, unexciting, and underpowered class in the game, excepting monk. You had to seriously tweak both monk and fighter to get them as effective at their jobs as un-twinked characters. Fighters were front heavy, only being valuable at low levels, monks being mid-heavy, and both classes becoming obsolete in high level play.
Now fighters are given a range of options that make their turns more meaningful than deciding who to stick a sword inside of. Sure, wizards have very similar decision making mechanic, which might make the two look similar. The deal is though, their options are definitely not the same.
4.0 therefore, has MUCH higher HP to make battles more exciting and tactical
Razoreface had a saying, to folks that kept getting killed:
"Try getting shot less"
There is nothing TACTICAL about becoming more impervious to geting killed. It reduces the need to be tactical- why develope a smart way to do it, when every situation can be resolved with Frontal Assault. Why not, its not like a few spears & swords can seriously hurt even the 1st Mage anymore.... and if they do, just SURGE it away.
No, TACTICS have been reduced in importance in the land of reduced risk & superpowers.
Although, you have captured the core problem.
Too many folks refer to the Role Playing of the game as "DownTime" that has to be suffered between sword stabbing times.
You guys dont want a role playing game,
you want D&D Minis with really indepth backstories of your piece and the ability to buy additional splatbooks that powercreep your mini above the others.
Why dont ya'll just name the chess pieces & play that.
You wont be saddled with the burden of playing roles... everyones role is to fight.
Razoreface had a saying, to folks that kept getting killed:
"Try getting shot less"
There is nothing TACTICAL about becoming more impervious to geting killed. It reduces the need to be tactical- why develope a smart way to do it, when every situation can be resolved with Frontal Assault. Why not, its not like a few spears & swords can seriously hurt even the 1st Mage anymore.... and if they do, just SURGE it away.
No, TACTICS have been reduced in importance in the land of reduced risk & superpowers.
Although, you have captured the core problem.
Too many folks refer to the Role Playing of the game as "DownTime" that has to be suffered between sword stabbing times.
You guys dont want a role playing game,
you want D&D Minis with really indepth backstories of your piece and the ability to buy additional splatbooks that powercreep your mini above the others.
Why dont ya'll just name the chess pieces & play that.
You wont be saddled with the burden of playing roles... everyones role is to fight.
Strategy before the battle is reduced, I'll agree. But there is more mutability and decision making involved once the battle occurs.
As far as your interpretation of my use of the word "down-time," let's be realistic.
I was NOT referring to roleplaying. That was a projection you cast upon my words out of assumptions of my playing style. Down time refers to stopping action and decision making for maintenance. Heal up the party after the fight, taking an 8 hour rest to regain the healing spells you need, in addition to players regaining a marginal amount of hit points "naturally." Etc. etc. This is not roleplaying, it's a series of numerical events abstracted over time that are required before your character is in any shape to put himself at-risk again.
Roleplaying is the act of interacting with NPCs. Interacting with each other. Making decisions for your character based upon how he might think. Does he trust that mysterious man who promises to help them to safety? Or does he decide to look after himself because he's been betrayed before?
I play World of Darkness at times, if that gives you any hint as to my opinion of what roleplaying is. That's a game that is terrible with combat and is mostly played entirely through character decisions with fewer dice rolls.
And as to this myth about DnD being some super-involved roleplaying game? They didn't include non-combat skills until 2nd edition. It's heritage is tactical miniatures with cooperative gameplay, an interesting story with mutable outcomes, and focusing on a single player per character so he feels more involved in the action.
Meant to post this quite awhile ago^ yay for the boards breaking!
We had a better post, but the ****ing website crashed. (damn gleemax)
And as to this myth about DnD being some super-involved roleplaying game? They didn't include non-combat skills until 2nd edition
Thats right
before they clearly spelled out that everyone can do nothing with out "proficiency" or ranks, it was a simple
"You wanna ride a horse and take a wagon to the next town.. ok."
2e & 3e made it so now we have to worrky about nobody knows how to take a wagon to the next town.
Back in the day,
D&D was about being able to do things. We didnt have the metagame munchies of skillmonkeys able to do things and others cant. By 5th level, every task you try has to have some silly DC to make sure it is still a challenge, when it obviously shouldnt be a challenge anymore... which make it impossible for a fighter just to feed himself a ham sandwich because the party has a 5th level CombatChef with +18Cooking making all food DCs stupidly high to look needed.
Now it is about selling Feat & Class Splatbooks to define just how impossible things are to do without these feats.
This is not roleplaying, it's a series of numerical events abstracted over time that are required before your character is in any shape to put himself at-risk again.
and yet are not required to do the plethera of activities that dont involve stabbing eachother.
I again harken to my CatBurgler. It is amazing how I dont suffer the "DownTime" between activities.... because my activities are not solely combat. I dont HAVE TO heal up & buy more disposable combat/buff magic between outings, because the few HP I might have taken from a trap wont interfere with the next activity that isnt combat focused. There is actually an entire life going on the other 23hrs a day that are not inside the Buff Durations & StabFests.
Fighters suffer DownTime - "I sell this stuff & heal overnight" "OK, you get 2700 & 13hp"
Bards & Catburglers dont. "I go down to the tavern, who looks like they would good GatherInfo on me finding a fence for this stuff"
I again harken to my CatBurgler. It is amazing how I dont suffer the "DownTime" between activities.... because my activities are not solely combat. I dont HAVE TO heal up & buy more disposable combat/buff magic between outings, because the few HP I might have taken from a trap wont interfere with the next activity that isnt combat focused. There is actually an entire life going on the other 23hrs a day that are not inside the Buff Durations & StabFests.
You must have been facing some wimpy traps if the worse you took was a few hit points of damage. And here's an interesting point to make:
If the cat burglar never suffered downtime, why should you be angry with the steps to remove it? You never were attached to it in the first place. Players have a right to want to fight things, and not be punished for doing so, just as you have the right to not fight things and not be punished for doing so.
If I am not mistaken, more than afew fights have taken place inside the framework of AD&D, 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5. I have not said we need to take combat out or reduce the availability and usability of combat. Nor have I labled combat as burdensome DownTime between role playing times.
No, I am pretty sure that it is the ProCombat crowd that is Dis'ing what I do and praising the gimp/nerf/death of things outside combat.
I can say "Hey 4e, Leave both Combat AND Non-Combat roles in D&D"
Can you say it with me?
Or will you join the crowds looking the other way when some folks complained about what was happening in Poland in 38. "Its just Poland, why should we care, wer're not polish"
I'm glad folks can see Germany getting out of its socio-ecconomic slump as a good thing. But I dont see losing poland over it as acceptable, even though I'm not polish.
But I am a non-combat Role Player.
I do see losing non-combat role playing as a bad thing.
You dont see a problem with losing non-combat roleplaying because you're not polish... I mean not one of the guys getting run over with 4e tanks.
I'm glad folks can see Germany getting out of its socio-ecconomic slump as a good thing. But I dont see losing poland over it as acceptable, even though I'm not polish. But I am a non-combat Role Player. I do see losing non-combat role playing as a bad thing. You dont see a problem with losing non-combat roleplaying because you're not polish... I mean not one of the guys getting run over with 4e tanks.
WOW backstabbist you really like to go over the top! But I think all your Huff & Puff as really nothing to do with 4E... You remind me of Cervantes favorite knight....
As a veteran player of D&D (1982) I have Role-played through all the different incarnations of the game. Regardless of the EDITION we always play the same way. I suspect a vast majority of D&D players and DMs does the same:
1- At the time of character creation I ask the player how he sees his character. Together we hammer out details of his early life and some story hooks for later on in the campaign - see 4E PHB page 23-24
2- We always use «figurines» to visualize combat. Using a grid for combat as always been part of the game since OAD&D - see OAD&A (1979) DMG page 69. Whether you use pennies, pweter figs or Wotc D&D minis is up to you. If you are not using a grid your are not playing D&D.
Interesting statistic:
4E PHB combat chapter : 32 pages - font size 10pts
3.5 PHB combat chapter : 33 pages - font size 7pts - now ain't that funny
3- We bring role-playing to the table Claiming that role-playing is gone from D&D in 4E is dishonest. The 4E PHB has a initiation to role-playing section JUST like any other edition. WAIT incredible the 4E PHB offers more tips and help on fleshing you character than 3.5!!! 4E : 7 pages. 3.5 : one paragraph lost at the bottom of page 5 of the PHB.
I could go on like this but I think I made my point here. I'm not blindly saying that everything in 4E is good. I think alote of D&D players are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after reading 4E. They were expecting the same old, same old with a little tweak here and there (and new artwork). What they got instead is a new incarnation of the game with sweeping changes.
THIS TREAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOW YOU SEE 4E INFLUENCING MODERN. IT WILL HAPPEN WHETER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. LETS GET BACK ON TOPIC !
Sure you can fight things.
If I am not mistaken, more than afew fights have taken place inside the framework of AD&D, 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5. I have not said we need to take combat out or reduce the availability and usability of combat. Nor have I labled combat as burdensome DownTime between role playing times.
No, I am pretty sure that it is the ProCombat crowd that is Dis'ing what I do and praising the gimp/nerf/death of things outside combat.
I can say "Hey 4e, Leave both Combat AND Non-Combat roles in D&D"
Can you say it with me?
Or will you join the crowds looking the other way when some folks complained about what was happening in Poland in 38. "Its just Poland, why should we care, wer're not polish"
I'm glad folks can see Germany getting out of its socio-ecconomic slump as a good thing. But I dont see losing poland over it as acceptable, even though I'm not polish.
But I am a non-combat Role Player.
I do see losing non-combat role playing as a bad thing.
You dont see a problem with losing non-combat roleplaying because you're not polish... I mean not one of the guys getting run over with 4e tanks.
I don't see a problem with losing non-combat roleplaying because you didn't lose it. You still have 3.5, and you have other roleplaying systems that many people would argue are superior to DnD for non-combat. This isn't some epic war on your and your game agenda.
I roleplay. I'm classified as an "actor" according to the new rules, and a "psycho-drama" according to the DMG II. But I also enjoy combat. So seeing combat (in my opinion) improved and streamlined was a great thing. I do agree that non-combat has been reduced significantly in the new system, but it's not completely gone.
I refuse to classify 4e as a failure of a product because it reduced non-combat, because it made what I perceive as forward strides in other areas. And I also refuse to see it as a fascist act against non-combat roleplayers.
If you are so upset with the new system, I'm sure you've been told many times: no one is forcing it on you.
4e definitely has a greater mechanical focus on combat, but in our two sessions so far we haven't roleplayed any more or less than we did in any other game system, D&D or otherwise. Regardless of how much you and your group roleplay, though, it can be argued that in the manner in which the books are written, roleplaying gets glossed over. Its there, but combat gets most of the spotlight.
???Am I even reading the same books as everyone else?
Well I guess that depends on your deffinition of role playing. Or is it roll playing?
Role playing is what you bring to the table. DM narration. Player interactions and responses. On that note no single D&D product has ever been a role playing book, maybe White Wolf, but not D&D. The most D&D ever offered for role playing was some fluff text when describing the various races and classes and maybe asking you to think about your character's background.
Roll playing is having tables and charts and various things to roll for/against. Need to make a decision, roll on you character's decision table for his class/alignment. Need to undertake a journey, roll on the journey table to see what happens. Need to pick the opponent you want to hit, roll to see which of the 8 goblins before you gets the axe. So no, 4e is not a roll playing game.
To wit the structure of the books is no different than previous editions, the only change is that the last 1/4 to 1/2 of the book filled with spells has been moved to the middle and have become class powers. Combat, adventuring, creation, and so forth comprise about the same amount of space and text and cover the same subjects. The only real change was the removal of a bazzillion (I exagerate, sorta) skills into a more manageable number. Really how much did anyone really use even half the 3.5 skill set, you had to weed that down into something manageable and usefull for your character. And that was just the 3.5 PHB. Over half the 4e DMG is entirely devoted to the roleplaying aspects of the game, 1/4 to mechanically running the game, and the last bit concerns world building and gives you a ready to use city and adventure.
You have me at the argument that Wizards is cynically releasing product purely for profit. The betrayal of acquiring all that 3.5 material only to have Wizards flush it down the toilet and abondon an future support in favor of 4e. And how you have little interest in converting to 4e because you happen to actually like a previous edition. These arguments I entirely understand and agree with.
You lose me with the histrionics about how 4e ruins the game, is D&D-lite, is for ADD addled kidz, is PnP Warcraft, and so on. All I've found in 4e is that it cleans up some messy mechanics from previous editions and better conforms to the d20 game mechanic. Structurally it is no different from previous editions.
Classes are now useful through their entire adventuring career. In previous editions fighting classes like well the fighter, paladin, ranger, and so on were great in the early levels but had to multiclass or became dramatically useless in the later levels. Conversely spell casting classes like the wizard and sorcerer were next to useless in the early levels and absolute gods by the later levels. And don't get me started on how hopeless bards ever were...
Mechanically, gripes against the 4e classes seem to boil down to individual notions of what a class should be. More specifically that the optimizations of previous editions no longer really work with 4e. Mostly it seems that the main complaint is from power gamers who see their favorite power class taken down a step, the other classes moved up a step, and previous optimization strategies aren't supported. I mean seriously, if your whole point of playing D&D is for your character to become the only one that counts, go play by/with yourself! The rest of us have a game we want to enjoy.
Lastly, just reading the book or forming opinions based on previews and other poster's opinions doesn't really scream objectivity. It only shows that preconcieved notions are only finding evidence to reinforce that original opinion. For me, my final opinion won't be cast until I finish running Keep on the Shadowfell. Thus far I think 4e does some things well (even better than before) and some things I am still trying to decide how I feel about them.
Would it be too much to cite honest reasons for liking/disliking 4e rather than trying to make things up that have nothing to do with anything? Oh wait, I forgot, this is the internet, if it isn't shrill it isn't worth posting
4e a reduction in role playing
Am I even reading the same books as everyone else?
Well I guess that depends on your deffinition of role playing. Or is it roll playing?
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head with that one.
IMNSHO:
Role-playing is where your character acts in accordance with the personality you have developed for him or her. It is unaffected by the system that is being used. 4E does not lead to a reduction in role-playing. Role-playing is independent of mechanics.
Roll-playing is what happens when people forget about things like role-playing and characterization and vie to create the most powerful character they can, without regard for game balance or the enjoyment of the other players.
To wit the structure of the books is no different than previous editions, the only change is that the last 1/4 to 1/2 of the book filled with spells has been moved to the middle and have become class powers. Combat, adventuring, creation, and so forth comprise about the same amount of space and text and cover the same subjects. The only real change was the removal of a bazzillion (I exagerate, sorta) skills into a more manageable number. Really how much did anyone really use even half the 3.5 skill set, you had to weed that down into something manageable and usefull for your character. And that was just the 3.5 PHB. Over half the 4e DMG is entirely devoted to the roleplaying aspects of the game, 1/4 to mechanically running the game, and the last bit concerns world building and gives you a ready to use city and adventure.
I agree with much of this analysis, though not that the structure of the books is unchanged. I think that the books are less organized than previous editions, leaving one to wander aimlessly, seeking a particular entry that should logically fall one place, only to find it buried elsewhere. The index helps a lot, but in a role-playing manual, designed to be referenced during the action, intuitive organization is a big help.
You have me at the argument that Wizards is cynically releasing product purely for profit. The betrayal of acquiring all that 3.5 material only to have Wizards flush it down the toilet and abondon an future support in favor of 4e. And how you have little interest in converting to 4e because you happen to actually like a previous edition. These arguments I entirely understand and agree with.
I think that everyone is in agreement on this point, but really, who didn't see it coming from the moment a new edition was announced? We saw that they dropped the monk (I knew that was going to happen, same as in 2E), the druid, the bard, the barbarian, the sorcerer, and the half-orc. Who could not possibly have guessed that future supplements would offer versions of the druid, the bard, the barbarian, the sorcerer, and (probably) the monk? The half-orc may or may not be gone. He disappeared in 2E, then re-emerged in 3E, then disappeared again in 4E.
You lose me with the histrionics about how 4e ruins the game, is D&D-lite, is for ADD addled kidz, is PnP Warcraft, and so on. All I've found in 4e is that it cleans up some messy mechanics from previous editions and better conforms to the d20 game mechanic. Structurally it is no different from previous editions.
I disagree. It is a different game altogether, in the same way that True20 is different from the d20 System. There are similarities, but several of the mechanics have changed. Death, for example, is now closer than it has ever been for a character "bleeding out." We realized this on Saturday night, when the rogue dropped to 0 in a single round and nearly died.
Classes are now useful through their entire adventuring career. In previous editions fighting classes like well the fighter, paladin, ranger, and so on were great in the early levels but had to multiclass or became dramatically useless in the later levels. Conversely spell casting classes like the wizard and sorcerer were next to useless in the early levels and absolute gods by the later levels. And don't get me started on how hopeless bards ever were...
Agreed, and I couldn't be happier. Finally, the front-loaded ranger is gone, replaced with a class that lives up to the reputation. At last, being a fighter means something! And dare I say; finally, paladins get to follow the dictates of their faith, not an artificially-imposed alignment!
Mechanically, gripes against the 4e classes seem to boil down to individual notions of what a class should be. More specifically that the optimizations of previous editions no longer really work with 4e. Mostly it seems that the main complaint is from power gamers who see their favorite power class taken down a step, the other classes moved up a step, and previous optimization strategies aren't supported. I mean seriously, if your whole point of playing D&D is for your character to become the only one that counts, go play by/with yourself! The rest of us have a game we want to enjoy.
Teamwork is the new watchword. No one character can do it all him/herself, and that is as it should be! My group discovered the value of teamwork during this weekend's sessions. The Friday night saw people still trying to handle things by themselves, while on Saturday, they began working together to set up targets for one another and complimenting one anothers' abilities.
Lastly, just reading the book or forming opinions based on previews and other poster's opinions doesn't really scream objectivity. It only shows that preconcieved notions are only finding evidence to reinforce that original opinion. For me, my final opinion won't be cast until I finish running Keep on the Shadowfell. Thus far I think 4e does some things well (even better than before) and some things I am still trying to decide how I feel about them.
Hear, hear! If you haven't actually sat down and played a game using the new rules, then you don't know how good or bad they are. I was a huge skeptic, and vocally outcried 4E when the announcement was made. I'm happy to say that I was wrong and it is actually a lot better and more fun that I had expected.
Would it be too much to cite honest reasons for liking/disliking 4e rather than trying to make things up that have nothing to do with anything? Oh wait, I forgot, this is the internet, if it isn't shrill it isn't worth posting
You can't set extended illusory walls, you can't set magical traps or explosive runes, you don't get very many abilities that help you at being stealthy outside of raw skill bonuses, etc. etc.
Don't get me wrong, there are still mechanical "roll-playing" non-combat options in 4e that I see, but it seems to have much less of a diversity than it did in 3e.
Over all, as I expressed earlier, I'm still excited at what 4e has to offer. Might be running a game this weekend.
It has some good ideas but... it has been designed to be focused mainly for the miniatures game and future videogames. 4th Ed is perfect for a d20 Hero Quest, a d20 Diablo, d20 World of Warcraft but... I miss some things like the wizard´s familiars or the class specialty in the team.
A good system of combat? Perfect! combat is the specialty of WotC but...a true rpg can not be only combat, combat and combat.
I wonder if future d20 Modern 2.0. will be created to be a miniature adaptation of Counter-Strike and other shooter videogames (Call of Duty, Batlefield, Wolfstein, medal of honor, brother in arms, Halo, Half-life, Tom Clancy´s Rainbow six..)....and superheroes campaings (it isn´t a joke. I wouldn´t be surprised by a official Marvel Superheroes d20 rpg published by WotC). I´m sure we will posibly see a transformers d20 rpg and G.I.Joe rpg (who doubts it?) and II.W.W campaing (perhaps the return of pulp heroes from d20 past)..
But if the new d20 Modern is too focused combat (with firearms and military vehicules)...what´s happens if I want a investigation campaing like X-Files or Lovecraft´s myths?
...
You can't set extended illusory walls, you can't set magical traps or explosive runes, you don't get very many abilities that help you at being stealthy outside of raw skill bonuses, etc. etc...
Actually that's what RITUALS (PHB page 300 to 315) are for. Rogues have access to these by purchasing Ritual Scrolls. When you use a scroll the casting time drops by 50% (5 minutes instead of 10 on average).
Useful rituals for rogues that offer plenty of ROLE-PLAYING opportunities : Arcana lock, detec object, detect secret door, discern lies, forbiddance, hallucinatory creature, hallucinatory item, knock, linked portal, observe creature, passwall, secret page, sending, silence, true portal, view location, view object, water breathing, water walk, wizard's sight.
If that's not enough you can always ask you DM about «discovering» new rituals...
I don't see how something with a 5-10 minute casting time is going to help a rogue on the job at all.
Maybe your rogue has to learn how to «prepare the terrain» before going on a mission... Going «in» without any type of preparation will most probably get you hanged. The target must be studied carefully.
If you want fast effects during the mission you will have to buy a Multiclass Wizard - Arcane Initiate feat and Power-Swap Feats.
Going «in» without any type of preparation will most probably get you hanged.
So will loitering around some place casting magic spells around it that open doors and move walls and otherwise mess around with the area.
Guard A: "That guy has been sitting next to that wall for the past couple of minutes chanting something..."
Guard B: "He's probably another thief messing around with those newfangled rituals. They keep popping up every once and awhile."
Guard A: "*sigh* Let me go get my crossbow."
Whatever ... You clearly don't get my angle on this. No offense taken. ;)
No, apparently we don't. Can you elaborate?
Illusionist powers...
Level 1 Wizard At-Will
Illusionary Ambush
You create an illusion of swirling spectral assailants that swarm over your enemy.
At-Will ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 1 Wizard Encounter - Wizard Attack 1
Grasping Shadow
At your command, the shadows reach out, grab hold of your foes, and wreath the area in darkness.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 1 Wizard Daily - Wizard Attack 1
phantom chasm
You create the image of a bottomless chasm that opens beneath your foes, convincing them that they are plummet*ing to their deaths.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 2 Wizard Utility - Wizard Utility 2
phantasmal terrain
You make already treacherous terrain even more difficult for your enemies to traverse.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 3 Wizard Encounter - Wizard Attack 3
maze of mirrors
You envelop your enemies in an illusory labyrinth made of mirrors, which conceals the world around them.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Standard Action Area burst 1 within 10
Level 5 Wizard Daily - Wizard Attack 5
phantasmal assailant
You craft an elaborate image of a deadly assassin whose blade cuts deeply into your foes.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 6 Wizard Utility - Wizard Utility 6
spectral hound
You summon the ghostly image of a powerful mastiff that follows you protectively.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 7 Wizard Encounter - Wizard Attack 7
enemies abound
You weave a veil of illusion over the eyes your enemies, causing them to view their allies as threats.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
standard Action Area burst 1 within 20
Level 10 Wizard Utility - Wizard Utility 10
illusory wall
A seemingly solid wall materializes before your foes, divid*ing the battlefield with your convincing illusion.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
----------------
As I was trying to say earlier - for fast effects a rogue must take the multiclass feat and grab some of the powers mentionned above.
Ritual casting is possible on the job. Now do I have to tell you that if you are going to cast a 5 minute ritual standing next to a fortification you need a diversion? Its elementary really. All you have to do is stop thinking in 3.5 terms and wrap your mind around the way things work in 4E.
Regards
Atanakar
While we are waiting look out for the flying pigs migrating from hell to warmer climates.
All the complaining about not being able to this or that appears to be premature. New powers available for free on DDI. Dragon #364
Illusionist powers...
Level 1 Wizard At-Will
Illusionary Ambush
You create an illusion of swirling spectral assailants that swarm over your enemy.
At-Will ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 1 Wizard Encounter - Wizard Attack 1
Grasping Shadow
At your command, the shadows reach out, grab hold of your foes, and wreath the area in darkness.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 1 Wizard Daily - Wizard Attack 1
phantom chasm
You create the image of a bottomless chasm that opens beneath your foes, convincing them that they are plummet*ing to their deaths.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 2 Wizard Utility - Wizard Utility 2
phantasmal terrain
You make already treacherous terrain even more difficult for your enemies to traverse.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 3 Wizard Encounter - Wizard Attack 3
maze of mirrors
You envelop your enemies in an illusory labyrinth made of mirrors, which conceals the world around them.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Standard Action Area burst 1 within 10
Level 5 Wizard Daily - Wizard Attack 5
phantasmal assailant
You craft an elaborate image of a deadly assassin whose blade cuts deeply into your foes.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 6 Wizard Utility - Wizard Utility 6
spectral hound
You summon the ghostly image of a powerful mastiff that follows you protectively.
Daily ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
Level 7 Wizard Encounter - Wizard Attack 7
enemies abound
You weave a veil of illusion over the eyes your enemies, causing them to view their allies as threats.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
standard Action Area burst 1 within 20
Level 10 Wizard Utility - Wizard Utility 10
illusory wall
A seemingly solid wall materializes before your foes, divid*ing the battlefield with your convincing illusion.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Illusion, Implement
----------------
As I was trying to say earlier - for fast effects a rogue must take the multiclass feat and grab some of the powers mentionned above.
Ritual casting is possible when inserted in the new SKILL CHALLENGE system of successes and failures. DMG p72. Now do I have to tell you that if you are going to cast a 5 minute ritual standing next to a fortification you need a diversion.... Its elementary really. All you have to do is stop thinking in 3.5 terms and wrap your mind around the way things work in 4E.
Regards
Atanakar
These abilities mainly function within an encounter as a reaction, and most of them don't accomplish actual effects, they just accomplish damage/debufs like any other power could, with a different descriptor (psychic damage, illusion). They don't ACTUALLY make a hall of mirrors which opens the door for all sorts of things to happen, it just makes rough mathematics that vaguely represent the effects of dealing with the mirrors.
This is far less immersive and open ended as compared to 3.5 illusions, you must admit. That being said, the simplification makes the powers more balanced; the open-ended-ness of many 3.5 illusions let them be extraordinarily powerful when abused.
This is far less immersive and open ended as compared to 3.5 illusions, you must admit. That being said, the simplification makes the powers more balanced; the open-ended-ness of many 3.5 illusions let them be extraordinarily powerful when abused.
I agree that illusions can be highly abusive. My favorite class as always been Illusionist. Unfortunetly, it can also be a very weak class if the DM doesn't let you do anything interesting with your spells. I welcome the new synthetic form of the spells because, as you say, they are more balanced (one way or the other).
As for the immersion you can still narrate what your illusion looks like before applying the power effect. Its less grand, I admit, but it works and removes alote of «arguing» with the DM about what you can do with the illusion...
-Firstly
The "superhero-isation" of the classes is not actually giving many of them any actual mystical, psionic, or mutant abilities. This arguement is terribly specious. What are called powers is frequently just interesting maneuvers or techniques that allow the character to be functional in combat, in a way that is on par with their fellow adventurers.
For those of you who don't think D&D should have a combat focus, I have good news, they are per-encounter powers and aren't usable outside a combat encounter. As for the arguement that an at-will power like Eldritch Blast or Magic Missile is usable at will; so is the warrior's axe or the ranger's bow. A class' basic attack is a basic attack, there is nothing more special about a magic missile than an arrow from a longbow.
-Secondly
The new skill system lets a character lvl all their skills. I know people say a lot about skill diversity, but the skill point system has never worked properly, leaving many characters with too few skill pts or a wealth of them. This system, though not without imperfections, lets a character lvl all the skills that matter to his character class. And the character is assumed to accumulate a smattering amount of experience with the other skills as well, probably from associating with their friends who are heavily trained in those skills.
As for the consolidation of skills, I have no problem with this. People who tout the virtues of AD&D may recall that each class only had a handful of non-combat proficiencies to choose from, and they were so tacked-on as to be of only marginal merit. To claim that system is more advanced than the 4e system is rediculous.
-Thirdly
The elimination of xp costs for spells and magic item creation. This has always been a pet peev of mine. If we were to examine the magical items of legendary fantasy with this system, Sauron must have lost 20 or 30 lvls to dump enough xp into making that freaking ring. And don't give me that "it's an artifact" argument because characters can't make artifacts.
-Fourthly
Goodbye negative levels. Man those sucked, and not just getting hit with one. The math was a pain, though the simplified for combat form was easy enough, and it often could leave a party off-balance with 2 or 3 members 1 or 2 lvls out of whack.
-Fifthly
Useful multi-classing. In 4e, a 20th lvl rogue who wants to dabble in magic will actually get something more functional than 4 uses of magic missile in a day. Seriously, how useful was magic missile to a lvl 20 char against an encounter of commensurate lvl?
-Sixthly
Dropping useless powers. "screw magic missile, I got fireball now". That's how I felt the first time I hit lvl 5 as a mage, then once I used it I was bummed. "you mean all I have left is this crappy magic missile and acid arrow?"
-Sevently
Bare-bones rules. I hear a lot of people say 4e is dumbed down, but no one ever seems to remember that older editions did the same thing. Those editions weren't dumbed down, they were trying to keep the rules from interferring with a DM's creativity. If you love complexity, you are free to create it. 4e is an undiscovered paradise for house-rulers.
I have other reasons, but I think you get the point. 4e does a lot of things well. Some of these things would work really well in a cinematic D20 Modern game as well.
The only thing I've found that I like so far are the Skill Challenges.
Everything else was done better in Saga.
:thumbsdow
The only thing I've found that I like so far are the Skill Challenges.
Everything else was done better in Saga.
I'd add making many of the nonbiological aspects of race into feats to be another. Otherwise, I'd agree with the above statement, but with one small addition "and done even better yet in both d20M and various third party products".
:thumbsdow
The only thing I've found that I like so far are the Skill Challenges.
Everything else was done better in Saga.
If you have a legitimate point other than "me no likeee" I would be glad to hear it and consider what you have to say. I gave specific points about things I liked, and why I liked them. You effectively gave the whole debate a raspberry.
They've completely changed the feel of D&D above and beyond setting up a different campaign world. A lot of those changes feel arbitrary and unnecessary.
The pointless changes to the alignment system overly simplifies something that worked rather well, and has been a mainstay of D&D since the early editions. No more chaotic good/lawful evil? Those are some of the most abundant mindsets in the world right now! No more mixed neutral, instead going with a plain vanilla neutral alignment which doesn't really work?
The way the classes work now seems more restrictive than 3.5 was! Why bother with creativity when you can just play the designers' ideas of class builds?
The changes to the core races. Again, unneccesary and IMO not well implemented. Who wants to play a halfling anymore, now that they've been totally gimped? Large-sized creatures had an advantage already in 3.x, now in 4e they've neutered smaller creatures even more! Beyond that, Dragon-born? Can we say munchkiny WoWish race?
You're right, I did give a raspberry. I don't like what has been done with 4e. That being said, I'm not one of the whiny "just say no to 4e, because I feel betrayed that WotC made a new product" types. I think change can be good. Just look at Saga. It runs well, it's simple, it captures the feel of an action-adventure space opera very well. 4e simply doesn't do it for me. It doesn't feel like D&D. It feels like WoW on paper.
As for the consolidation of skills, I have no problem with this. People who tout the virtues of AD&D may recall that each class only had a handful of non-combat proficiencies to choose from, and they were so tacked-on as to be of only marginal merit. To claim that system is more advanced than the 4e system is rediculous.
Nor is Wizards the first to do this. Green Ronin did it with Mutants & Masterminds, and again with True20, both of which are fabulous games.
The elimination of xp costs for spells and magic item creation. This has always been a pet peev of mine. If we were to examine the magical items of legendary fantasy with this system, Sauron must have lost 20 or 30 lvls to dump enough xp into making that freaking ring. And don't give me that "it's an artifact" argument because characters can't make artifacts.
Minor quibble; Sauron was not a player character; more of a demi-god. But I agree that losing XP to create magical items was not the way to go.
Useful multi-classing. In 4e, a 20th lvl rogue who wants to dabble in magic will actually get something more functional than 4 uses of magic missile in a day. Seriously, how useful was magic missile to a lvl 20 char against an encounter of commensurate lvl?
As a primary attack from, not very, but as a backup when steel failed, it had its uses. But you're right, I do like the new multiclassing rules. I do not like that you are limited to two classes.
Bare-bones rules. I hear a lot of people say 4e is dumbed down, but no one ever seems to remember that older editions did the same thing. Those editions weren't dumbed down, they were trying to keep the rules from interfering with a DM's creativity. If you love complexity, you are free to create it. 4e is an undiscovered paradise for house-rulers.
You're right, and this from someone who originally thought that 4E represented a dumbing down of the rules.
Mainly the changes to the class system and the fluff.
They've completely changed the feel of D&D above and beyond setting up a different campaign world. A lot of those changes feel arbitrary and unnecessary.
But no one said that it was a new campaign world. From the very beginning, it was stated that 4E was a new version with different rules. Arbitrary and unnecessary changes you may argue, but don't try to say that they gave you something other than was advertised.
The pointless changes to the alignment system overly simplifies something that worked rather well, and has been a mainstay of D&D since the early editions. No more chaotic good/lawful evil? Those are some of the most abundant mindsets in the world right now! No more mixed neutral, instead going with a plain vanilla neutral alignment which doesn't really work?
Honestly, I'd have liked it better if they had finally dumped once and for all the shoehorn that is alignment. I got rid of it in my 3E and 3.5 games a long time ago, replaced by Allegiances from d20 Modern. Alignment never seemed to me to be anything other than a restrictive system designed to force you into a role.
The way the classes work now seems more restrictive than 3.5 was! Why bother with creativity when you can just play the designers' ideas of class builds?
To an extent, I agree. But I should point out that you can easily ignore the designers' recommendation (in most instances). I was originally upset by this notion, but on talking to one of my players, I found that this is exactly what he wanted; step-by-step instructions for building his class. He even complained that d20 Modern was too freeform and that he wanted to see a class for every possible role (police officer, firefighter, soldier, etc.). Me, I prefer the simplicity of True20; three classes and enough flexibility that you can create anything you desire.
The changes to the core races. Again, unneccesary and IMO not well implemented. Who wants to play a halfling anymore, now that they've been totally gimped? Large-sized creatures had an advantage already in 3.x, now in 4e they've neutered smaller creatures even more! Beyond that, Dragon-born? Can we say munchkiny WoWish race?
Eh, what can I say? Yeah, dragonp0rn are munchkiny, but no more so than drow were in previous editions.I don't appreciate that the halfling (long my favorite race) has been gimped, but it does balance the game. In 3E and 3.5, I seldom played anything but a halfling, simply because they were almost impossible to hit and got huge bonuses with skills and thrown items.
You're right, I did give a raspberry. I don't like what has been done with 4e. That being said, I'm not one of the whiny "just say no to 4e, because I feel betrayed that WotC made a new product" types. I think change can be good. Just look at Saga. It runs well, it's simple, it captures the feel of an action-adventure space opera very well. 4e simply doesn't do it for me. It doesn't feel like D&D. It feels like WoW on paper.
And if that is your opinion, then there is no reason you should not be able to express it. I think that people were just looking for more specifics, which you provided here.
But no one said that it was a new campaign world. From the very beginning, it was stated that 4E was a new version with different rules. Arbitrary and unnecessary changes you may argue, but don't try to say that they gave you something other than was advertised.
I didn't say it was a new campaign world, what I meant was that they just erased away decades of fluff just to make changes to the "default" D&D setting for no apparent reason.
Honestly, I'd have liked it better if they had finally dumped once and for all the shoehorn that is alignment. I got rid of it in my 3E and 3.5 games a long time ago, replaced by Allegiances from d20 Modern. Alignment never seemed to me to be anything other than a restrictive system designed to force you into a role.
I agree that the Allegiance system from d20 Modern is much more flexible/realistic, and use it myself. However, for them to merely reduce the alignment choices, again for no apparent reason smacks of paycheck justification. A lot of people don't like the alignment system because they find it too restrictive, but I think it should be viewed as a character's basic moral standpoint, not a limitation on how they should behave. Let's use an extreme example: Religious Fundamentalists. In most cases Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil (good in their own minds, but that's a different story), but they also tend to behave in a very chaotic manner when it serves their purpose.
To an extent, I agree. But I should point out that you can easily ignore the designers' recommendation (in most instances). I was originally upset by this notion, but on talking to one of my players, I found that this is exactly what he wanted; step-by-step instructions for building his class. He even complained that d20 Modern was too freeform and that he wanted to see a class for every possible role (police officer, firefighter, soldier, etc.). Me, I prefer the simplicity of True20; three classes and enough flexibility that you can create anything you desire.
I have yet to try True20, mostly I play d20 Modern and Saga, both of which use my personal favourite system of character design with Feats and Talents, which can be chosen by the player to create the character they want. My main complaint about 3.x was that the characters were all really the same within their classes. A monk was a monk was a monk. Now they've decided to do more or less the same thing with ALL the classes. EVERY 10th level Cleric now will have the exact same spells/prayers/whatever you call them now. And to figure that out, how many pages of the Cleric class did I just read? FOURTEEN! I don't want to have to look through a dozen or more pages for EACH class.
I'll stick with making my character based on my own concepts (whether they're original or not), rather than roleplay-by-numbers, thanks.
Also, the notion that each 4e cleric is the same is somewhat facetious. You are allowed to retrain your powers as you lvl, and no 2 clerics must choose the same powers as they advance.
I personally also agree with the allegiance system over alignment. Alignment has always been a forced method of saying "Hey! You're supposed to be good guys. You can't just take what you want cuz you're uber powerful."
I will have to take another look at the halflings. I don't usually play them, so I kinda glossed over them. For the time being I will simply say, you may be right on that subject.
I don't know if I agree with Dragonborn being munchkiny. I think they got a lot of good stuff in the PHB to make them appealing, but it is just as likely that racial feats and powers will apprear in later materials that will be just as good for the other races. Perhaps there is even good halfing stuff on D&DI right now (I don't know. I don't subscribe to DDI).
P.S.: Thank you for giving specifics. Often when I ask for clarification, all I get is a hissy fit.
i think it is almost exclusively combat oriented, and made so death is an almost impossibility for the "good guys". which brings up my next point of lack of support or out right denial of players being bad guys ....in the form of polite "suggestions" from the creators...LAME A**.
also the fact that anyone and i mean ANYONE can make magic items makes them kinda lack luster....
oh hey look its a +5 sword!
yeah woopty do i made 2 of those last week.
but your a fighter?
yeah so, 2 feats and im also a magic item enchanter....yeah how bout them apples......magic apples that is.
i do kinda like the fact that fighter has a little more depth than it did before but i think it all seems a but dumbed down and built for hack and slash players.
i mean the game does have its selling points, my friends and i can play just as well now when intoxicated...as thinking is not required....although i could just break out my old hero quest stuff....or play diablo on my computer if i wanna click a button alot instead of roll dice alot.
as far as its affect on modern i think it will do nothing for me, i will just use true 20.
I would like to point out Jolt, than in 3.5 you had a lot more than 14 pages to descibe the cleric's abilities. It would be hard to forget the massive chapter on spells, and how many of them you had to read to see what you wanted to memorize each day. Many of my players just used the brief desciptions in the list of spell names and were often bummed when they learned the actual details of how the spell worked.
Well, I was just using the Cleric for example, but even the Fighter and Rogue are both 14 and 13 pages, respectively. IMO, that's too much to have to read just to make a choice of what character you're gonna play.
P.S.: Thank you for giving specifics. Often when I ask for clarification, all I get is a hissy fit.
... I thought that's what I was doing! :P
Well, I was just using the Cleric for example, but even the Fighter and Rogue are both 14 and 13 pages, respectively. IMO, that's too much to have to read just to make a choice of what character you're gonna play.
I will agree with you that it is a bit of reading, but in 4e (in many cases) the low lvl powers are indicative of how higher lvl powers behave. It should be easy enough from those powers to decide what kind of character you want to make. Especially when this is added to the class roles, which should already narrow the field of classes you're looking at.
The only time I have seen thus far that a lot of reading comes into play is when you multiclass, or play a half elf, enabling you to get a power from another class.
For my money, one of the largest influences on what kind of warlock (or other class) you want to play is the paragon paths. Those paths should be examined, along with the low lvl powers, to see what class you want to play. Of course, this is no different than looking at the prerequisites of prestige classes to determine what class gets into them as early as possible. Again, the reading is approximately equal.
I know a lot of people will say this isn't so. They will say that fighters have as many powers as wizards, and that all of them have to be read to see if that's what you want. I have to confess that I, for one, will not complain about a wealth of special abilities; especially given the dearth of them in previous editions.
Background: Played and DMed 3e, homebrew 3.1415e, D20 Modern & Future, one session of SW Revised Edition. Heavy hack-n-slasher and moderate to heavy character optimizer (ie, enough to break the game if I utilize all of my character's abilities, not enough to read the CharOp boards), fan of gnome wizards and half-orc barbarians. Pet systems: D20 Warheart slightly modded, Iron Heroes, D20 Twilight (Here or here) with some serious modifications. DMed a playtest of sorts of 4e with my brother; ran a couple of combats, tried things out with Human Wizard, Dragonborn Paladin, and Elf or Half-Elf Cleric.
4e playtest conclusions: It does combat really well, where well=easy. Character building, the same; choices simplified. Personally, I don't like that much... my brother, who minmaxes somewhat less than I do, was also slightly offput by this. Disliked removal of iterative attacks (though at high levels your last one or two are fairly useless anyways...). Was unable to make any sense of the loot parcel system. Monsters were notably easier to run, but the section on creating new ones was... cryptic. Also, checked some MM entries and found that they did not adhere to the monster creation rules in the DMG and PHB (internal consistency lacking). Playtest report conclusion: Discontinued playing.
On Modern: Never was a huge fan of modern... the classes just didn't do it for me, and wealth confused the heck out of my players. Prefered point-based systems (d20 twilight) or stealing 3.0/.5 nonmagic classes (worked pretty well) or using the classes from the older versions of CYD20. I liked the principle, but not the execution. Same with future; good idea, lots of stuff that went wrong. Personally, my family (dad, brother, and I) are working on a two-class modern system (Brain and Brawn) with talent trees and bonus feats...
Still, as much as I disliked the execution of Modern, I don't think I would want it touching 4e with a figurative ubiquitous 10-foot pole. Modern+4e=Supers (or maybe d20 Matrix, but at will). The massively increased durability of 4e style characters moves lethality away from the low to decent-hp, high-damage, burst-firing/double-tapping (even if the lethality of these options was reduced to below a realistic level), massive-damage combat style of modern. Additionally, Modern has a fairly heavy focus on toys (as does the actual modern world); your enemy may be lower level than you, but if he is better equipped, you may be toast (especially with the gadget system). This was (if memory serves) something 4e tried to correct in D&D; the excess of high-powered toys that PCs accumulated. However, in a Modern setting, accumulating high-powered toys is a smart and realistic thing to do for combative characters (to a point.... "Why can't I buy a tank again?"). Plus, in Modern, items replace magic. Magic carpet->SUV. Wand of fireball->grenade machine gun. Meteor storm->tactical nuke. "Magic" is already available to all of the characters. Adding extra powers on top is... a bit much.
As for combining skills in Modern, I thought that combining Open Lock and Disable Device was great, since locks are devices... but overcombination is as bad as overspecification. I'd much rather they go the Iron Heroes route of granting Skill Groups instead of class skills (ie, the Barbarian can put ranks in Athletics and use it as Climb, Jump, and Swim, but characters whose classes do not have access to Athletics have to take ranks in those separately (or if you don't want Climb or Swim for RP/background reasons, you can still put ranks in Jump)). So, not a huge fan of 4e skill changes. I do like Perception and Stealth, and had used them previously.
On class page lengths: You may have had to read many more pages of cleric spells in 3.5e, but at least there was a free searchable d20srd.org to help you out... and if you really, really didn't want to read lots of spells, you could play a fighter or paladin....
Alignment and Allegiance: I use neither. If I play a character for any length of time, they have motives (power, gold, uniting the tribes of the Shadow Marches, etc) and means that they are willing to use to achieve those ends (honorable combat, poison, explosive rune letters, etc). I don't think of alignment until the DM asks about it when dropping Chaos Hammers on the party (or, if I'm DMing, I don't think about it, since my players play Druids as healers instead of Clerics). As for allegiances... meh. An interesting substitute for alignment, but still... why? Why restrict my means of defining my characters to owing allegiance to organizations or concepts when I can just as easily define them better myself?
On Similarities between 3.0/.5 characters of the same class and same level: Wait, what? Since when? My spiked-chain trippermonkey, my sword and boarder (or two swords and floating board), and my archer are all fighters (maybe dipped into other classes, but still doable as singleclass fighters). Is the optimal build for a certain class at a certain level for a certain purpose the same in all cases? Mostly... for example, by 20th level, melee fighters should probably go double sword (keen & improved crit (those stack where I come from)) and animated shield. But the trippermonkey sure doesn't... Are most barbarians mechanically homogeneous? Yeah... greataxe or greatsword, power attack, cleave, weapon focus, improved crit, and rage feats. But there are exceptions; my feral giantblooded dworg (half-orc half-dwarf) barbarian from Midnight who specialized in improved grabbing with his claws and throwing his enemies at each other, or sword and board barbarians (have seen them) or crazy multiclass Barbarian/Druids ("You thought dealing with a buffed intelligent dire bear was bad? Try dealing with a raging one."). Spellcasters, naturally, are defined by their spell selection; clerics, by their deities; rangers, by their enemies and weapon style (though you end up with a simple dychotomy there; you have two flavors of identical rangers instead of one). Yeah, monks and paladins are all pretty similar... but you knew that when you decided to play a paladin or monk over a more variable class, which was readily available.
As for monks being underpowered... my group played a 20th level campaign once, had way too much fun. My dwarven monk specialized in killing wizards, though he also kicked serious butt against mook types (thanks, Sword and Fist for the Knockdown feat). Once we added magic items, he went through the roof... AC of >40, nuts saves, and +something haste level-draining bracers of armor (Defenders of the Faith and Arms and Equipment Guide). Ergo, six attacks a round (with flurry and haste attack), 1d4 negative levels bestowed per hit. He held his own in a party with a 20th level Barbarian and a 20th level Fighter with equivalent gear values. So, Monks may not be as weak as you might think... you just have to go looking for the right gear for them.
As for core monks being underpowered at high levels... yeah, probably. There's a reason nobody plays strict core D&D. Maybe with expansions, 4e will get better... but I'm skeptical. A skyscraper built on a cracked foundation out of scrap metal in the middle of a swamp cannot long endure (alternatively, Adding more feces to a pile of **** isn't going to make it smell better, to use a rather more extreme metaphor than I was looking for).
On non-magical maneuvers for fighters: See Iron Heroes, page 205 through 209: rules for Challenges and Stunts (gaining bonuses through penalties and skill checks, respectively). While not quite up to 4e power level, at least these make more sense from a realism standpoint. Or, for those without IH, see D20 Warheart's Called Shot rules. Or Modern's Burst and Autofire rules, terrible as they were (See CYD20 v2.5's, if you have it... more random, but better anyways. Arsenal (Perpetrated Press, ISBN 0-9721358-0-4) had even better ones, but is harder to find). And then there are feats... basically, the Powers of the 4e Fighter are there to maintain balance after the removal of iterative attacks and the reduction in importance and power of feats. Fighters had nonmagic powers before... we just called them feats, and other people could get them, too. And mostly, they were weaker than the 4e powers (except for the Epic feats). Which brings me to...
Epic: I suppose 4e's take on epic levels probably can't be worse than 3e's, though I haven't tried 4e's yet (and probably won't, barring some seriously positive feedback on it). Personally, I'm for abolishing epic in 3e and granting divine ranks instead. Much more fun and flavorful.
And now I wait for the firestorm that follows...
It's been a while since I posted in d20 Modern so hello to all again. I haven't read through all 5 pages of posts, but I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents.
So, 4e has been out for over a month and I do own the 3 books. I have to say that I am starting to enjoy 4e and think it will be a fun game to play. I think the mechanics bring about something new to D&D and that's balance across the board. Every class has something to offer in and out of battle at every level. Fighters are fun to play past level 4, there is no more level dippping for that 1 useful ability a class offers at 1st level, and the way multiclassing works is really interesting IMO. I could go on but this is about how 4e will affect my d20 Modern game.
In a sense, I think it will becuase I'll have to scrap the whole thing and start anew. I don't believe that WotC is going to support the Modern genre and that disappoints me but I'm inventive enough to make my own changes. And since i'm a firm believer that the setting is just a backdrop for the rules, the setting can be altered to fit those rules, which brings me to my newest idea called....Armageddon.
Basically in this modern/futuristic setting Armageddon has begun. The reaping takes place (vast amounts of people vanish and the 10 plagues sweep the earth) but after that, when the dust settles there are still suvivors. These people (the PCs) will have to fight for their souls against the armies of the abyss/nine hells and the fast growing plague of Undead that are quickly consuming the living. But all is not lost, the celestial gates have opened and angels walk among the mortals, giving aid, healing, advice, wisdom, and strength to those in need. And from the recesses of our world, the magical creatures, once thought as folk tales and childrens stories, have come at man's gravest time......
So that's what I think i might plan to use with only the core books given to me. PCs will be allowed to play eladrin, elves, humans, and tieflings (i'm working on a way to get Dwarves in) as well as pressing the PCs into character classes. As for modern weapons, I was thinking of making certain firearms have their own powers, not something inherent within the PC. It'll have different abilities depending on what type of gun your using. For example, Pistols will have the Basic Ranged attack (standard, at-will) as well as the Double Tap feature (standard, at-will) which will allow two shots at a penalty and so forth. Still a work in progress though.
It's been a while since I posted in d20 Modern so hello to all again. I haven't read through all 5 pages of posts, but I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents.
Likewise.
I think the crux of D&D 4e is very much a codifying en masse of different areas of play.
I completely disagree that D&D 4e is a pure-combat system, although I do agree that there is a definite focus in the rulebooks on combat. A few thoughts on this issue, then:
First up, the fact is that the name of the game is Dungeons and Dragons - simply put, the game has a strong devotion to exploring dungeons and battling terrible monsters, with an eye to acquiring fabulous wealth. Combat is pretty much guaranteed from the moment you hear the name, regardless of which edition you play under.
Secondly, following the pattern I suggested a moment ago, I believe that combat is now a codified segment of the game - a discreet portion of play, identified as different to other segments of the game. In this manner, the game is not pure combat. Non-combat encounters are now distinct from combat encounters in that they use an entirely separate set of rules. This could include the Skill Challenge rules presented in the Dungeon Master's Guide, or it could be simple role-play. In many ways, this clears up the mess that 3.5 made of the combat / non-combat distinction - there wasn't one. Now, with two distinct modes of play, the game can focus on each independently rather than attempting to grapple both at once with a single, monolithic rules set.
Thirdly, I would argue that although the rulebooks undeniably focus on combat, this is because combat requires the most rules. It's difficult to construct a meaningful and fun set of rules for discussing the terms of a treaty without turning the GM into what is for all intensive purposes a "processor" in a computer game. It's so much more sensible for the rules in this role play game to accept that the game revolve around a story told by the GM - and that the roles in that story are best supported by the GM, who knows the motives of NPCs, knows the background to the situation and has a vested interest in the players having fun. 4e effectively hands the story and the game back to the GM, breaking off the complicated rules for combat from the rules governing the rest of the game.
By my reckoning, the way D&D 4e works is by making all sections of the game fun, and by identifying the fact that ultimately the rules should not impede this fun - they should assist it. Sure, combat is less "realistic" (although if you're looking for realism, you're in the wrong place - the d20 system has NEVER been truly 'realistic', and cannot be), but who cares? Realism rather impedes the fun found in a combat encounter because let's face it - in reality, a sword to the gut will tend to kill you pretty quickly, and a group of four or five people going around and picking fights with foes who are bigger, stronger and often better armed than they will quickly find themselves pushing up daisies. Attempts at realism in the rules also make things rather tedious - the practice of counting diagonal squares of movement on the battlegrid as 1.5 is a good example. What, ultimately, does it achieve? Yes, the game is more realistic. However, it is slower. The rule doesn't really have a purpose - it doesn't add anything significant to the game (realism, in this scenario, is a little pointless - buildings tend not to have five-foot or ten-foot wide corridors anyway) other than a rule, and it's a pain in the backside to remember. In this sense, abstraction actually achieves the purpose of the game: It cuts back on the grey fuzz and lets you get at the fun faster.
You could call it an "instant gratification" system, but if you were to then I'd be forced to call your "deferred gratification" system masochistic. I've played in D&D 3.5 games where the wizard has been reduced to throwing articles found at the bottom of his backpack because he foolishly blew his single decent spell too early in the adventure (most memorable kill ever - Goblin, with a cowbell, 20 feet - but that's not the point), games where the fighter has actually told everyone that he's taking a perpetual total defense action and has gone to get a cup of tea because he's become useless in combat in comparison to the Wizards and Clerics, games where the entire party is human - in a fantasy setting - because mechanically the feat and skill points are better, games where nobody can hit the skill check DCs because unless you max out your skills (rather than spreading the skill points out into more interesting things) you're completely useless at them, games where half the party has left the room because they're utterly useless out of combat. Good God but there was a lot of masochism in 3.5e, and thank God that 4e came along and made life more fun for the Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, etc, etc, etc. 4e gives us useful skills for noncombat situations, allows off-the-wall skills to become a bit more helpful in a non-combat situation where before it would have been diplomacy, diplomacy, DIPLOMACY (or climb, swim, jump, whatever). I don't care if it's less customizable - the system doesn't punish you for not min-maxing to the most extreme possible extent, and any customisation of character can easily be done in story terms. My Dragonborn Rogue is agoraphobic. He's fallen out with his father. His best friends are a halfling with a drinking problem and a half-elf Cleric who is determined to solve the homelessness problem in the campaign's central city. I will bet you any quantity of gold pieces you like that there's nobody else in the world anywhere with characters quite like them. How many spiked-chain-wielding-combat-reflexes-monster stories have you heard from 3.5e, I wonder? How many greatsword-wielding fighters?
I couldn't give a rat's arse about the removal of the Barbarian, Bard, Druid and Monk.
Why, you ask?
Because frankly, the Bard was a niche class at best. Nobody EVER played one, despite my best efforts to make it a good idea, in a game I ran, and only once was one played in a game I played in - a Dark Sun game, it so happens, where the Bard has different abilities. I've played in a lot of high role-play, low combat games, and in all of them the Rogue has been more popular than the Bard. Why, you ask again? Because fundamentally, the idea of someone playing music in the middle of a battle to aid his or her comrades is pretty ludicrous. You can quite imagine the fighter shouting, "Yes, it's inspiring, but couldn't you pick up a sword and lend a hand?!". You can still have a musical character - just say you play the lute and it's done. If you really must - and whoever you are, I really hope you have a patient DM and party - you can play your music during a battle, incorporating it into the descriptions of your powers (Warlord, anyone?), but I suspect you'll find yourself stabbed in the gut as an obvious target very, very swiftly, and that's assuming the monsters like your music.
The Barbarian is incredibly easy to emulate using the existing classes, and at worst the GM can do some tinkering between classes (moving some Fighter and Ranger abilities around, tweaking them etc) to make a better fit. I say no more on the matter.
The Druid is easily represented by a Cleric of a nature God with a pet or a mount. Don't like it? Wait a while, there'll be one out sooner or later.
The Monk, I will admit, is the hardest to emulate as far as the rules go right now. I would suggest a modified fighter with some Rogue abilities, but again, down to the GM. Frankly, I think the class being cut is actually a good thing - it was never particularly good at its job in comparison to the Barbarian, Fighter and Rogue, and led to a whole host of extra bits and pieces - the Monk weapons, for example - that were never used because the straight-up unarmed monk was better. Plus, it led to a perpetually bored player when magic item loot time came around (something else that's been overhauled in 4e) because weapons and armour were meaningless - all that mattered was getting your Str, Dex, Con and Wis up.
I think all the advantages of 4e pale beside the improvements in the life of the DM, however.
I could write books (indeed, as you can see, I'm already well on the way) about the ease - indeed, the joy - of planning encounters, cackling evilly away to myself as I pile up a stack of Goblin minions in ambush positions and a couple of apparently exposed snipers behind a pit trap. That's one of the best things about 4e - yeah, the PCs are hard, but 1st level monsters are meant to maul 1st level PCs. No more pussyfooting around the mage because a stray crossbow bolt (hell, a stray shuriken) could actually kill - not wound, or render unconscious, KILL - him. The monsters are great fun to run, with a host of vile and delectably evil new powers along the lines of those held by the PCs to deploy at crucial alternatives. So your Kobolds and Goblins look statistically too similar? Upgrade to 4e. Kobolds - the shifty little so-and-sos - will run rings around your PCs before luring them into trap-filled corridors that will have even the rogue running for cover. Goblins are actually cowardly and conniving. Dragons - here's the best part - can appear as early as level 1, and they ain't no snuffling wyrmling only 18 inches long - we're talking Large here, and fully decked out with Draconic nastiness. And yet, for all this, the PCs can - and will - take the bad guys. There's nothing quite like watching your friends discussing the best strategy to take down the Kobolds who have them pinned down behind a fallen pillar and having fun in the process. They will talk about your games for weeks - every GM's dream - and, if my experience is anything to go by, will actually somehow beat you to the gaming table for the next session (this, incidentally, never happens. One of my players became something of a legend to my group for being four hours late to a game, so perhaps you'll appreciate my joy at finding that they actually want to play and are there early - not on time, early).
Of course, 4e has got its little niggling points of annoyance, like every system. The alignment system is illogical, although much easier to work with - none of that Chaotic Neutral nonsense, you're unaligned, plain and simple. The Monster Manual is missing a few old favourites (including the Iron Golem, to my irritation). There aren't a lot of magic items in the books, although more are released with every web article and hopefully a pile of new goodies will arrive with the Adventurer's Guide (or whatever it's called now - that book of shiny stuff due in the Autumn). There will doubtless be more as time goes by, but right now it's all pretty sweet.
I do agree that there aren't as many options for the players at the moment, but I reckon that even if you have a phenomenal turnover of characters you will be hard-pressed to try everything before some new supplement arrives with more things to add to the list. Here's the thing: With 30 levels to get under your belt, it's quite a hike from 1st to the top. Better start climbing now - those Kruthiks ain't going to catch themselves, and I hear there's a new breed of Soul-rending Giant worth slaying these days. It will be a long time before anyone can truly say they've done everything, and I'm quite looking forwards to actually playing a campaign through. Campaigns suddenly feel easier to maintain in 4e. I've played in a great many 3.5e campaigns, and I note with some distaste that all of them - all, you hear - ended at level 12-13ish, never satisfyingly. The players got bored of all the math, and even the Wizards with their new-found plane-rending power got a bit sick of it all. Play is just so damn slow - it starts taking a couple of months real world time to complete a dungeon. 4e does away with this, as although there is slowdown at higher levels, it's much less serious than it was in 3.5, and crucially it remains fun.
I think that's the key to all this: 4e is fun. A lot of fun. 3.5 was too, but in a different way. 4e is satisfying fun. 3.5e is fun to play as a roll-player, whilst 4e means I can be both roller and role-er, if you catch my drift. I no longer have to put hours worth of creation time into each character to excel at combat, and if I want to focus on my story and non-combat abilities and the like I don't have to sacrifice combat capabilities. The system, it would appear, likes players and likes to be played, unlike 3.5 which had a remarkable capacity to feel like punishment.
Anyway, I've said enough.
(Edit) Ok, maybe I haven't. I reckon that the 4e system isn't for Modern. It's fun and all in D&D, but the two games have always had a different play style. I reckon d20 Modern as it stands is pretty good, but I feel that a modified Saga system would serve its purposes better than 4e, as it incorporates many of the lessons of 4e but in a more modern-friendly system.
That, and I like Saga edition, but what can I say?
What I had the idea for was to have each player pick two abilities to describe their character with. Strength and Con, Intilligence and Dexterity, Wisdom and Charisma, ect. These two become your class for the length of your career. Each one has esentially half a class's worth of abilities, so the two together create a full class for your character. Using DnD's 2 at-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily formula, one of your at-will powers will come from one class, the second comes from the other. For your encounter and daily power, you can choose either from either class's list.
At 11th level, you can take your advanced class, like DnD's Paragon Path. Though the game might end at 20th level, because lets face it, epic level is a bit much for a D20 modern setting. Unless it was Urbane Arcana or the like.
I have however, played and read the Saga Edition for SW book, and as an old school gamer I love it.
There are some things that take a little getting used to, but fo'shizzle I love the skill systems. Combat is much faster and the method of using powers is an upgrade.
Please keep in mind that I run high rpg, low skill dependent, heroic style games.
I just wish they would update d20 Modern, I think it could use some simplification and consolidation.
From the demo that is available at the link, I can see that backgrounds now provide bonus skills and base amount of wealth (instead of a wealth modifier), the six core classes (renamed as powerhouse, speed freak, tank, brainiac, empath, and star) use occupations in the manner of advanced classes, skills are more broad (in the manner of 4E) and targeted rolls replace opposed skill checks when possible, certain ranged weapons require a minimum strength to use effectively or the firer suffers a penalty, and perks permit you to specialize in certain skills. Overall, it looks pretty sweet!
Right now they have a bundled special for $40 in which you get:
- Modern^20
- Martial Arts^20
- Supers^20
- Soldiers and Spellfighters^20 (an alternate history of WWI)
- Three supplements for Fantasci^20 (a sci-fi fantasy setting)
- Five supplements featuring new occupations, skills, and campaigns
However, to the question at hand, does 4e work well for a Modern game? I don't know. The base 3.5 system doesn't work well for a Modern game to be honest. d20 Modern introduced a number of alterations to the 3.5 mechanics in order to make the game work well with a Modern world... and even so, I required a lot of house rules to make the system run better. Star Wars Saga does the job a lot better than d20 Modern ever did... admittedly, with some house rules. Can the basic 4e system be modeled to create a Modern style game? I think so. It might even make for a very fun game. However, due to the nature of the 4e rules, such a game will be (by definition) heroic. Will such a system of rules require a lot of alternation from the base 4e rules? Absolutely. For starters, an entirely new list of classes will be required. Moreover, I am not certain that 4e allows for certain elements of d20 Modern's flavor. It is not possible, under the base 4e rules, to have combat and non combat oriented characters. All characters are balanced to equally effective in both combat and non combat scenarios. This is a huge advancement for a D&D game. I don't know if it will work as well for a Modern game. It might... but it will certainly change the flavor of the current Modern system (which features strong/fast/tough combat characters, and charismatic/smart/dedicated non combat characters).
So, my final verdict, I don't know if 4e will work well for Modern. I hear that next year a 4e Modern is supposed to be released... if its true, I will certainly look at the product. If I like it as much as I like 4e D&D and Star Wars Saga, I will purchase it. If not, I will keep using 4e for my fantasy games, and Star Wars Saga for my sci-fi games.
This will probably surprise many posters, considering how simulationist many of my house rules are, but I love D&D 4e. All these claims that 4e is "dumbed down," is somehow "all about combat," or is in some way inferior for role-playing, are in my opinion bologna. I have played almost every iteration of D&D. I have to say, 4e does a lot more for role-playing than either AD&D (either edition) or 3.5 ever did. It also does a lot for balancing the classes, and making the game more fun, mechanically, for all classes. However, it is true, the edition is far more narrativist and gamist than 3.5 edition, and veers very far from simulationism.
I really like your dicotomy between narrativist and simulationism. You've made me realize that I've been in the narrativist «camp» since the beginning (1981). Never much cared for rules that emulated reality closely. IMHO (and I stress this stongly) they always bog down the FLOW game in endless discussions... Sad.
However, to the question at hand, does 4e work well for a Modern game? I don't know ... Star Wars Saga does the job a lot better than d20 Modern ever did... admittedly, with some house rules.
True in my experience.
Can the basic 4e system be modeled to create a Modern style game? I think so. It might even make for a very fun game. However, due to the nature of the 4e rules, such a game will be (by definition) heroic. Will such a system of rules require a lot of alternation from the base 4e rules? Absolutely. For starters, an entirely new list of classes will be required. Moreover, I am not certain that 4e allows for certain elements of d20 Modern's flavor. It is not possible, under the base 4e rules, to have combat and non combat oriented characters. All characters are balanced to equally effective in both combat and non combat scenarios. This is a huge advancement for a D&D game. I don't know if it will work as well for a Modern game. It might... but it will certainly change the flavor of the current Modern system (which features strong/fast/tough combat characters, and charismatic/smart/dedicated non combat characters).
I think its a matter of perspective. The question remains «how do you transfer the power mechanics of 4E to Modern?». First «power sources» have to be defined:
- Technology
- Martial
- Bio-social
- Mutant
etc .. You get my drift.
Powers could be adapted to emulate technical skills. For exemple the techies could have (I'm off on a limb here) ... Example :
Computer use
At-will • Electronic
Standard Action
Target : Computer terminal
Attack : Intelligence VS Operating System Level
Success : You bypass the computer's protection. You can upload info, download a virus, install a spy program, etc...
This would be very cinematic. Much like Mission Impossible, for example. Your powers could be used during combat or encounters with great efficiency at the expense of simulationism ...
So, my final verdict, I don't know if 4e will work well for Modern. I hear that next year a 4e Modern is supposed to be released... if its true, I will certainly look at the product. If I like it as much as I like 4e D&D and Star Wars Saga, I will purchase it. If not, I will keep using 4e for my fantasy games, and Star Wars Saga for my sci-fi games.
Same here !
First of all, I really, really, hope Wizards knows that there is still a fanbase of Modern. I just finished acquiring the remaining books (I have them all now, Muahah) for it, and I've loved every one.
Secondly, I also hope Wizards realizes they have a good opportunity here to develop a more standalone product. Basically, I will be VERY dissapointed if they make it "d20 Modern 4E", not because I dislike 4E, I think it fits DnD quite well, but powers and, well, most of 4E has no business being in Modern. Sometimes, a designer has to realize that something that came before may just well be better suited for something than a new idea.
Example: Cover Rules.
Modern uses 3.0 cover rules. While I love 3.5 DnD, I am so very glad they did not import the simplified rules from it into Modern. What worked great for DnD may or may not work well for other games.
With that said, I really hope they do not bring total combat balance to Modern 2, but improved combat balance is welcome. I hope they do not bring powers in as the main features of classes and retain a closer to 3.5 style of class progression, especially since Modern got around "Dead" levels with bonus feats, a great idea. Multiclassing, as it stands in 4E, would ruin Modern for me.
I do hope they import weapon properties, or at least somehow flesh out weapon differences, something the current Modern rules can't do very detailed. I wouldn't mind some simplified skills, but would be weary of globally advancing ones like in 4E (Or global increases that all characters get in general).
But to be honest, I don't want it upgraded to 4E, as much as I want it to be improved as it's own product.
Edit @ the computer example above: While possible those kind of things would work, but they seem more like a work around than a fix. I personally disliked that In-combat abilities and out of combat ones, the rogue is a perfect example in 4th, were put together. It made them feel... I dunno, like a stand-in system. A workaround, like I said.
Edit 2!: Just realized Skill Challenges are actually something that might just work better in Modern than DnD. Hacking Skill Challenges? Seems like it's made for complex skill checks.
The answer to your question is, No.
You have Hasbro and the Game Designers to thank for that answer. Here’s why.
4E (torn whether I should use $ symbol) is Epic Fantasy. Its rules are geared towards it. Its over-all theme is geared towards it. The whole design/marketing plan is aimed at the Epic Fantasy group.
D20 Modern is not Epic Fantasy…even with both Urban Arcana and Dark Matter its still not Epic Fantasy.
Thus the answer can only be no. Well, with the exception of a more Super-Hero game (since they are practically the same).
And I believe it was said somewhere (Blobs aren’t they called) that all upcoming products will be based on the 4E($?) rule-set and I’m not sure whether this applies only to fantasy or if it really means ALL future-products. Any Intel anyone?
And Opening Poster, it may be my overanalyzing but it sounds like your trying to convert people to 4E($?), not sure if that was intent or not…just sounds like it; that’s all.
D&D 4E has the new D20 system logo on the back! You should brace for impact in regards to Modern 2.0.
---------
For the record I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I happen to find 4E refreshing after 27 years of DM/GMing. After 6 sessions that total close to 40 hours of actual game play I'm impressed with this new system and I'm not the only one. That got me thinking, again, at how Modern will be influenced. Thus the attempt at the techie power in the 4e style... ;)
True20 from Green Ronin is my system of choice for modern gaming. It's familiar enough that anyone who knows d20 can jump right in with a minimal learning curve, while still being flexible enough to support any setting.
But who knows, I have been wrong before.