So yeah, I had to stop reading 4th edition. I have never, NEVER been more dissapointed with anything in my entire life, and I have seen baseketball.
Things destroyed by 4th edition so far:
Class uniqueness - Check
Arms and equipment - Check
Combat as we know it - Check
Any last semblance of role play - Check
From what I can tell (From reading the books) 4th Edition has done exactly what 3rd edition did to 2nd edition, but to 3rd edition - ruin the crap out of the game by dumbing down the system... again. D&D is basically slowly becoming a video game on paper, now with streamlined attacks because nobody will ever just swing their weapon again because of the "free action" "infinite uses a day" powers that are the same as your weapon attacks but with a "kicker".
Baseketball. Basketball.
Not for me.
If I wanted to play Diablo II, I would reinstall Diablo II.
:D
Earlier today I created an anthromorphic telepathic ape, 4E in absolutely no way can allow this amount of freedom because it's sacrificed it to seem more accessible and easier.
How many splat books were required to pull that off? At least 2. How many splat books are available for 4th Edition? ZERO.
How many splat books were required to pull that off? At least 2. How many splat books are available for 4th Edition? ZERO.
Looks like we got a 4E lover boy's! lets run this here varmit out of town!
Honestly, while he does have a point on the splat book issue. the basic concept of character building has fundamentally changed for the worse.
First is the fact that 4th edition killed the uniqueness of characters. In 4th edition there's not much of a difference between Joe Fighter and Bob Fighter if they went down the same path. At least in 3rd edition Joe and Bob were much more unique even if they took similar paths.
Second is the fact that I can't shake the feeling that 4.5 will be out in two years or so and right now is not much more than a glorified playtest.
Third is that the customer service (or lack of) WotC and Gleemax has shown lately has really turned me off to 4th edition and other WotC products. I might like a car but I'm not going to buy it if the saleman is a real jerk.
Fourth is that 3.5 has tons of support and splatbooks right now while 4th edition only has the core. 4th need a few more splatbooks before I might make the plunge. I just don't have a strong incentive to learn a new system yet.
Fifth is that 4th edition just doesn't look as CO-friendly as 3.5 was. Part of the fun for me was to make broken and stupid PCs and you just can't do that in 4th.
I have to agree with the rest of the thread, while it does look like it has taken a direction that is both logical and best for the current market for RPGs I'm not totally liking it. I personnaly relized today the reason why I get ticked off at some of my friends in DnD is not because of the levels of optimization we play at but the amount of effort and soul we put into our characters. I put more effort into the thoughts and actions of the NPCs I give names to than they do to their characters.
4e due to a lack of splatbooks and variety of stuff at the moment takes much of the difference and uniquness out of the characters you can make, at least for now. So I probably won't buy it until a few splat books and a errata come out.
I'm hoping there is no 4.5 and judgeing from the CO unfreindlyness (Not to say you can't optimize or pick out stronger stuff easyish) of the system so far I don't see it happening in the future.
Damn you CO review and your two sided bladeishness.
I can safely say I'll stick with 3.5
Second is the fact that I can't shake the feeling that 4.5 will be out in two years or so and right now is not much more than a glorified playtest.
Third is that the customer service (or lack of) WotC and Gleemax has shown lately has really turned me off to 4th edition and other WotC products. I might like a car but I'm not going to buy it if the saleman is a real jerk.
Couldn't agree more.
And by the time hey get 4.5 out, 5.0 will be around the corner.
D&D v4.0 is, in its own right, a decent game. Not particularly good, not particularly bad. I haven`t played with it too much, so I can`t really say much about it, other then that, in my experience, it runs at a significantly slower pace.
So, as a stand alone game, it's fine. However, as a replacement for v3.5, it has absolutely no redeeming qualities about it. It's just not as good as it could be, or should be. Kinda reminds me of FF 10-2. Sure, it had the FF name, but was it anywhere near the quality of most other FF games? Not even close.
4.0 is more playable than 3.5.
It's easier to play, it's easier to pick up, and it's easier to run.
4.0 isn't for everyone. If you want to walk into a game with the promise of being a Swordsage 15/Warblade 2/BloodClawMaster 3 (or a barbarian or bard for that matter, until the appropriate books come out), doing great big gobs of damage while being able to evade everything that is, and teleport around the battlefield with impugnity, backed up by your malconvoker/focused conjurer, your Nightsticking Divine Meta-Chaining radiant servant of pelor, and your Stormguard Crusader 16/Warblade 4, then 3.5 is for you. If you want to start as one class and end up as anything you want, play 3.5.
If you're looking to play a Fighter, a Ranger, a Rogue, a Cleric, a Wizard, play 4.0. If you want to play a class and have it be THAT class and not some ubercharging, shadowpouncing, god-playing killer gnome, play 4.0. If you want to be the class you pick, and feel like you're playing *that class*, then play 4.0.
While I agree with the relative homogeny of fighter to fighter, rogue to rogue, I contest that when playing the game, the classes *feel* different. a fighter *feels* different from a rogue. A ranger feels like a ranger. A wizard feels like a wizard. A cleric feels like a cleric. And even in the PHB, before any splatbooks have come out, the limited nature of powers, how few you have at any given time, does actually give some degree of difference between two members of the same class, as each class does have two separate paths (for now, I would imagine there will be more). All I can say for the naysayers is go to your LGS, play the game a few times before you write it off completely. You might learn something about how you feel about it.
I think it's a simple grid-based combat system. To me, it *feels* like a simplified version of WoW. That's not what DnD *feels* like to me, so 4.0 is not DnD, to me.
Earlier today I created an anthromorphic telepathic ape...
...Grodd?
The change from advanced 2nd ed seemed more natural, since it had over the years become complex and confusing. This is not the fact with 3.5ed.
How many splat books were required to pull that off? At least 2. How many splat books are available for 4th Edition? ZERO.
It was an example. I don't think 4E has as much freedom and 3.5 does, even if we just use both editions core books.
You say you created an anthropomorphic telepathic ape? All these crazy things may be fun to be able to create, but honestly, how often are you actually going to play one for a long time? And I haven't looked at 4e books myself, but don't you still have the option to create your own class?
He's actually a villain in a campaign I plan to DM tomorrow. Would I plan this character for a long time? Sure, nothing stopping me. He has enough flavor for me to role play him well and the mechanics are there. So with that said, what were you really trying to get at by your question?
...Grodd?
Ssh....
I see 4th Edition as a great stepping stone for getting more players into the role-playing hobby (DnD or otherwise) as it's simple.
I see it not being good for anyone who chewed on 3/3.5... because it's simple.
Personally, I think they should've come up with 'DnD - Basic (Beginner's) Edition' with the base classes and classic spells, and leave the customization for the core books as we know them.
That said, Wizards is, as has been stated, in the business of selling books, and 4th edition isn't just more books to sell - it's a gateway to selling a bucketload of splatbooks, too. (Not that I have a problem with this - a man's gotta make a living.... but still)
I'm undecided. I don't personally like 4th Ed, but I suspect it'll be good for the industry. (As WoW was for MMORPG's in general)
D&D v4.0 is, in its own right, a decent game. Not particularly good, not particularly bad. I haven`t played with it too much, so I can`t really say much about it, other then that, in my experience, it runs at a significantly slower pace.
So, as a stand alone game, it's fine. However, as a replacement for v3.5, it has absolutely no redeeming qualities about it. It's just not as good as it could be, or should be.
This pretty much sums what I'm thinking at the moment. While 4th edition is in my opinion a very enjoyable system, it's fun and easy to both play and DM, it does that in a way that doesn't feel like what Dungeons & Dragons in my opinion should feel like. It feels more like a miniature wargaming product than a roleplaying one. While I'm going to be playing it, I'm going to keep using 3.5 for my own campaigns, which are always more about intrigue and non-combat situations than pure action.
At least for now, as I do think that 4th edition still has potential. We've only seen the core books, and a few years of splatbooks could make a huge impact on the game. And I'm sure the community is already working on giving the system what it lacks (true multiclassing is especially missed), and I can always house rule things the way I want them to be. But I'll stay with 3.5 for a long time.
[rant]I'm not really understanding the people who have been crying all over the net about 4E. It's not a bad system, and I understand why WotC (though I'm sure Hasbro is to blame more than them) made it the way it is. They wanted to make the game more accessible by first timers, and they wanted to attract people who don't usually play PnP games (video gamers, especially MMORPG fans). It's not the step a lot of us more experienced players wanted, but that doesn't make it a bad one from the business point of view. Personally I would have wanted them to spend a one more year to find ways to keep the things we most liked about 3rd edition in the game. It's not a reason to drop something only because there's not an easy way to make it balanced. Just take the longer road. I want options, even if some of them are good and some are bad. I don't want "balance for dummies".[/rant]
EDIT: Dark_and_Stormy, I couldn't agree more.
How many splat books were required to pull that off? At least 2. How many splat books are available for 4th Edition? ZERO.
Obligatory devil's advocate: an awakened ape wizard who knows Detect Thoughts is certainly possible without any splat books. (Add Polymorph Any Object to taste if that's not "anthropomorphic" enough.)
But to answer the original poster's question: Yes, you can optimize 4E and yes, people are interested in doing so. There's a whole message board devoted to it.
To the anti-4E grumblers: less 4E grumbling, more 3E optimizing, please.
They wanted to make the game more accessible by first timers, and they wanted to attract people who don't usually play PnP games (video gamers, especially MMORPG fans).
This is pretty much the same problem I had with the live action Transformers movie(oddly enough, Hasbro once more. Pattern of behaviour?). Trying to appeal to those who are not already at least somewhat predisposed to your product, while simultaneously alienating many members of your core group. You know, the people who actually got you rich enough to where you thought you could afford to drop them because you think you can get more new guys to make up for the loss of the old guys?
It's like what happened with New Coke. They decided to change the taste of old Coke into something sweeter in order to get more people (Pepsi drinkers) to buy Coke but by doing that they alienated the people really liked the old product since the old Coke drinkers now had no drink they really liked.
exactly .... i hope WOTC chokes on 4E and loses customers .... and is forced to produce a Classic D&D that is 3.5 compatable to try to get back gamers who enjoyed D&D:D
Psst, sarcasm does not work in text.
I don't beg to differ, but yes it does ... (maybe
).Except for the week of board biffs, CO has survived WotC's "Reckoning".
Or maybe it's the real world version of the Yugoloths migration from Hades to
Ouch, whoops, OK I won't bring it up anymore.
$4E will do a good job of filling in the lower levels of 3.5
4E will also do a good job a showing balance for non-9th level casters.
Similarly, 3.5 design will fill in details of 21st level and above in 4E.
I figure real cross talk will start up, when the eventual boredom kicks in.
I just wanna see how much psionics gets the "elevator" in the latest enstallment.
This is pretty much the same problem I had with the live action Transformers movie
There was a Transformers movie? I remember seeing a movie vaguely titled Megan Fox and the Robots, but nothing even remotely resembling Transformers...
There was a Transformers movie? I remember seeing a movie vaguely titled Megan Fox and the Robots, but nothing even remotely resembling Transformers...
Those were robots? I was too busy watching Megan Fox...
No morphing anything. So, no shapechanging abuse.
No way to adjust physical ability scores. This is a huge tilt backwards towards balancing melees, as spellcasters can't just wave their hands and get TH/DMG/AC bonuses better then melees.
Armor got ramped up...a lot. Heavy Armor is a cool thing to wear, now.
Took a lot of spells that might be marginal and made them rituals. took a lot of other spells and nerfed them bad so they are actually not abusable...or as abusable.
Fixed Crits, Power Attack, weapon dmg, Two handed stuff. Now, you get extra dmg from two handed weapons because they are two handed weapons.
Your crit dmg is wholly dependent on your weapon, not on your bonus dmg. You want a big crit, get a big weapon. +12 dmg from a great axe looks much nicer then +8 from a longsword. Power attack isn't doubled for a big weapon, you don't get +1.5 Str dmg. The extra dmg for a two handed weapon is the weapon. Everything else gets added after multipliers, not before.
Added shield bonuses to reflex saves, int optional for Dex for AC and reflex, Str for Con for fort, Cha for wis for Will.
Armor and natural armor are now the same thing, and don't stack. YAY!
Most of the other bonuses also went away...insight, luck, competence, circumstance, morale, blah blah blah stacking stuff that all got overblown or was too cheap and whatnot.
I do like the simplified idea of radiant and necrotic damage.
ability scores top out at 30. Uncapped ability scores were some of the most abusable things in the game, especially for replacing melee duties.
Skills are actually more usable, since everyone can use untrained skills. the difference is only 5 from a trained skill. And, of course, they shrank 40ish skills down to 17.
because everyone's saves increase equally by level, saves are better overall.
More starting Hit points.
Everyone has access to healing, to some degree.
Proficiencies give a bonus, they don't just remove a penalty.
bonuses TH and dmg tend to be small and hard to come by. Thus, even +1 TH from weapon focus is now precious. It's interesting that you usually get better bonuses from equipment then you do from skills.
No need for 'pounce'...everyone can move and attack.
There are no iteratives. Dmg simply goes up by level...which is basically all iteratives are, the chance to do more dmg. A +20/15/10/5 iterative mathematically is just 250% dmg, assuming you start with a 100% hit rate.
healing as part of another action helps clerics do the healbot job without impinging on their offense or buffing.
Encounter design is a lot easier. Jsut take a monster and advance it by role. I find the 'minion' role particularly amusing and useful. Ditto traps, and skill encounters...both handled VERY well.
===========
Things I dislike:
No movement modes beyond being afoot. the flying modes are basically monster only, or 1/day things limited to ONE FIGHT. Ugh. You can't even fly until the campaign starts getting around level 20.
You can pop around a battlefield a bit, but teleport is a late-game effect, not a midgame effect.
The sheer frequency of 'movement' effects, what we'd call bull rush, knockbacks, and the like. Since everyone is on foot, this is repetitious.
Magic items usable only once/day...and MAJOR magic items, at that, for what are basically in 3.5 minor effects. Note that such keeps them balanced...but still, it feels very different.
No Vancian casting to speak of. Some like it, some hate it, but it's gone. even the 'access to a whole spell list, with controlled spells' wasn't used, which really helped stop a lot of the spell abuse stuff.
The screws were really put down tight on class options. That's a control factor. I marvelled how much they ended up looking like ToB martial adepts. Fewer things they can do makes it much easier to balance and control things.
They still can break the system...CO already worked out how to do 2000 hp dmg to Orcus in one round. heh.
Feats suck, for the most part. the early promise of nice feats was not delivered on. This is a control factor...but I got tons of sucky feats in 3E. they are better in 4E because bonuses are so rare, but still. Skill Focus is actually a really strong 4E feat!...
I can do things every round, regardless of class...but still the same things over and over. I'm reminded of my MMORPG experiences, where I'd spam the same combinations over and over, subject to mana and stamina...sure, they'd get pretty names as I levelled, and dmg might go up, but it was basically the same thing...I do about three different things, and I repeat them.
=====================
4e Simplified a lot of stuff. they just chucked a lot of the stuff that caused unneccessary problems and complexity, and made them base effects.
It IS easier to play and build out of the box...you've got fewer options.
on the other hand, there's no CoDzilla. there's no heap of broken spells, feats, combos and effects...yet.
It's basically a pure combat game. There's no utility items to speak of, because utility isn't required yet (for instance, no water-breathing magic items).
It's a miniatures wargame variant. It's not 3E, 2E or 1E, which all had some basic similarities. It's faster and easier to play out of the box, and to learn, especially if you have no experience with the games.
Is it what I call D&D? No. It's basically giving me a very good idea of what to lean my 3.5 game towards to start balancing it out.
I personally would have liked the designers to take a good long look at 3.5 and axed all the stuff tht was most abused...the stuff that the CO boards can point out the most readily.
yes, they would have trashed the spell lists. Nobody would have cared.
Yes, they'd have eliminated the stupidest magic items and feats. Nobody would have cared. CO would have said, "Finally, they are listening to us!"
Instead, they abandoned the history of the game and came out with something completely new, and slapped the name on it.
No, I'll not be buying 4E. I'll watch it, and see how it goes, especially as they come out with new stuff and make their design errors and the CO people pounce on them...just to see if they DO try to keep control of their game, as they lost control of 3.5.
It should be entertaining, at the least.
===Aelryinth
The pictures are pretty....
:evillaugh
Ahem, anyway. I just got into a 4E game to 'playtest' it. Hurray for good ol' dwarven fighters!
The history of the game IS miniatures based wargaming...
I should be able to run a Dungeons and Dragons campaign involving high intrigue at the local cheese factory.
Can 4E offer this to me better than 3.5 can?
I've looked over the new books, and don't really see anything that I like more than 3.5 (it does not help that some of my favorite classes are not even repressented in 4E yet, and that the only setting we play is not/probably will not, be given any attention).
Now Pathfinder has a lot of interesting stuff, that we have allready put into play.
I really have no interest in going to 4E.
I should be able to run a Dungeons and Dragons campaign involving high intrigue at the local cheese factory.
Can 4E offer this to me better than 3.5 can?
The high intrigue part - probably not. That doesn't make 4E better or worse than 3E - just different, or more specific.
The choices in 4E have nothing to do with optimizing your PC, you optimize your party and the tactics you use in game.
This is a forum all about character building, I'm not surprised most of the folks here aren't into 4E.
Tell that to the 4E Character Optimization forum.
Good stuff.
I bet sticking v3.5 on almost directly at 6th level and up
at
v4.0 from 21st level on up
might
be balanced enough to play right out the gate.
Call it the "Hybrid" game.
Those were robots? I was too busy watching Megan Fox...
But that annoying guy (he was a kender right?) kept getting in the way.
Second is the fact that I can't shake the feeling that 4.5 will be out in two years or so and right now is not much more than a glorified playtest.
That's my biggest concern. Generally, I dislike more of what I see than what I like. Then, whenever I see something potentially cool, I think "how long will it last".
Honestly, WotC has little incentive not to just use 4.0 as a playtest before rolling out 4.5. What's more? They've done it before!
I'd like to actually see a game of 4e (or two) in session first before I pass judgment on it. I am *highly* skeptical of a lot of the criticisms (if I can roleplay without any rules at all, I can roleplay with 4e, c'mon) and haven't had the time for D&D lately.
I've played two sessions. I've got a few big complaints:
1. It seems to take longer than 3.5 to level. This was one of the major draws for me, and I'm not happy about it.
2. Equipment seems really subpar. Its still a very equipment dependent game, and it seems like the equipment doesn't really keep up.
3. Optimization is necessary for everyone; its going to look very cookie-cutterish until the first splats come out.
4. Some encounters are ridiculous. Skill challenges, for example. A DM that isn't careful will have TPKs frequently, b/c the monster categories don't all fit as well into their subcategories as given in the DMG.
It also has some good points:
1. Definitely a much easier learning curve. This hasn't really come into play as my group are all experienced 3.5 people, so haven't seen a new player in a while.
2. The classes are very balanced w.r.t. each other (though my Wizard controller was getting more kills than the others, it still wasn't a landslide, and it may have been my tactics).
As for the rest, well, it still feels like dnd to me, but I won't be selling my 3.5 library anytime soon. I would've liked a "dnd:saga edition" game, though. I like the customization of 3.5, and it seems like this has been removed, to me, which has been disheartening. On the other hand, maybe I won't get so involved in the game!
That said, I am stoked about 4.0. The reason behind this is because I highly doubt that a company with interest in making more money, would spend that much time and money developing a system of rules (which it basically only is) that is worse than its predecessor.
I bought the books the day they came out and like many other people, i got the feeling that it was much more simpler and had a distinct "WoW"-feeling. But you know what? I don't care. Because no matter what, it's not the rules that make the game.
That said, this is a forum dedicated to said rules and boy, do i love the 3.5 rules. I spend days and days finding ways to build interesting and amazing characters. And I know that in a few months, maybe six, I'll have that oppertunity again. Because the more books that WotC wants to sell, the more they'll open up the game for people like me and you.
I'm a FR player/DM and I am looking forward to all the changes (some i like and some i dont like as much but still like) that 4.0 brings. It is an amazing world being presented to me and I wish that more people would see that.
I also get it if they dont. I'm not an easy one to win over. You should have seen me with the New World of Darkness. Now, there is no way im going back to the old.
4e posts too though, or you will have a biased croud. Perhaps place a link to a 4e post?
I guarantee you that CO will open up as more books are produced and more powers, feats (particularly powerswap feats), heroic traits, paragon paths, and epic destinies are added. And there's nothing preventing you from working on creating such things with your DM. Your DM could even choose to lighten up a restriction or two in regards to multiclassing.
Regarding weapons, yes they're not as powerful. Why? Because your characters are what are lending the power to the weapon now instead of uber weapons that magnify an already out of control character.
Yes 4e is more of a miniatures-friendly game, but D&D has always been a miniatures game, it's only natural that the two be made to mesh better.
Why does 4e tend to focus more toward battles? The reason is 3-fold: 1) Battling is more canned and thus easier, allowing you to move through the battle process more quickly. Making the game less about the battle and more about accomplishing your goals, which actually tends to put you into more battles. 2) The system is returning to the dungeon crawl hack & slash of first edition, but roleplaying is still a vital process (See below). 3) Battles are the primary means by which you gain XP. If you don't battle, you don't gain much XP. Conversations won't do it. But then, without conversations, you can't accomplish your goal (If the DM does her job; see below).
Why are battles taking so long right now? Because you're not used to them and also because the characters and the encounters are more evenly matched. It is the DM who now has the power to make those encounters easier and more quick or longer and more difficult. Blame your DM [1] if the battle is taking too long. Your DM also has the power to up XP earnings. So if you're not leveling up as fast as you would like, again, blame your DM [2]. Just because you don't get XP for every single conversation doesn't mean you can't roleplay. Roleplaying is something the DM has to make a part of your acheiving your goal, and if you aren't getting enough opportunities to roleplay, guess what? It's the DM's fault [3] [4]. Regarding rote battle steps, I think a little creativity on the part of the DM could force the players to change up their actions from round to round. Finally, you don't have to use the 4e revised story elements if you don't want to; that is in the purview of the DM. Another fact that doesn't get passed around much is that the Monster Manual makes it so that the creatures can be played as characters using the templates and class templates if the DM allows it. Something which 3.5 didn't have.
It all boils down to this: If you don't have fun with this system, there's just one element to blame: the DM. Right now there's a lot of inexperience with this radical new system, so DM's have a ways to go before they're comfortable enough to make the decisions necessary to show the adroitness and game control that this system was made for. You all say you like the crunch in 3.5, but what more crunch is there than in learning a new system? I'd say it has more to do with fear of change and a slacker's lack of motivation than any of the uninformed complaints that have been lodged here. You all don't want crunch; you want familiarity.
PS: Ranks and Skill Points SUCK!
Edit: This isn't to say 4E is "right" and 3.5 is "wrong." 3.5 is still a great game, and if you like it better than 4th and find a group that suits you, more power to you. I'm just saying those who have the attitude that 4E is "wrong" aren't the type of people I'd really want to hang around with very much, whatever edition they're playing.
You choices in any given combat are absurdly few. You typically have about 8 things you can do, 6 of them only once before you're down to just the same thing over and over and over.
My god are dragons boring to fight now. A dragon fight before was something to behold. It had so many ways it could unfold that you could give the fight itself flavor and build upon the personality of the dragon with it's tactics and spells. Not anymore.
There's too much simplicity in character building. The classes are basically 2 roles (if that), and everyone will fill the same role in the class. There are not enough powers or feats to different yourself significantly from someone else of the same class.
I do like a lot of the concepts of 4th edition, but I find the execution very, very bad. I've been trying to like it, I picked up the books, I've run games, lurked on the 4th forums, but it's just so limited of a system.
There's a whole lot of bitterness and misinformation in this thread. Go try it yourself, and do so with an open mind. Do not believe anyone who tells you "4E forces you to play nothing but hack and slash style" or similar nonsense. I'm not here to defend 4E - that'd obviously be a waste of time with this crowd - but you should really give it a chance yourself and not rely on people who frequent a message board that is focused on 3.5.
Edit: This isn't to say 4E is "right" and 3.5 is "wrong." 3.5 is still a great game, and if you like it better than 4th and find a group that suits you, more power to you. I'm just saying those who have the attitude that 4E is "wrong" aren't the type of people I'd really want to hang around with very much, whatever edition they're playing.
Yeah, I have to second that. Try posting on the 4e boards as well so you can hear the oppinions of both crouds. You would probably have a landslide of 4e support there. As I mentioned above, however, Im not shelling out until at least afew splat books come out. I would sure like to get my hands on the 4e books to compair the two systems, though.
Another point is that anybody who says you can't role play with the new systems is ignorant. You can, infact, roleplay with ANY set of rules that they happen to stamp into the latest rulebooks. Finally, you can still INVENT classes for now, with dm consent, to get around the lack of splat books. You can still make any sort of character you want to, the only difference is you can't have total customisation yet. Give it time, it should blossom into a great edition.
I'm actually extremely disappointed in 4th edition. It's simpler yes, it's also mind numbingly boring and repetitive.
As I pointed out above, if it's this boring and repetitive, don't blame the system, blame the DM's lack of familiarity with the system and perhaps even their own lack of ability.
You choices in any given combat are absurdly few. You typically have about 8 things you can do, 6 of them only once before you're down to just the same thing over and over and over.
My god are dragons boring to fight now. A dragon fight before was something to behold. It had so many ways it could unfold that you could give the fight itself flavor and build upon the personality of the dragon with it's tactics and spells. Not anymore.
There's too much simplicity in character building. The classes are basically 2 roles (if that), and everyone will fill the same role in the class. There are not enough powers or feats to different yourself significantly from someone else of the same class.
I do like a lot of the concepts of 4th edition, but I find the execution very, very bad. I've been trying to like it, I picked up the books, I've run games, lurked on the 4th forums, but it's just so limited of a system.
Again, all DM's responsibility to create diversity. The new system simply reduced complexity and removed meaningless extras. The DM must still help the players to diversify their characters, creating new character options and story elements. The DM should also press the characters to take advantage of the new battle strategies and must herself take advantage of battle strategies. If all you all are doing is casting spells and striking blows, then there's something wrong in how it's being run, and not the system itself.
As I pointed out above, if it's this boring and repetitive, don't blame the system, blame the DM's lack of familiarity with the system and perhaps even their own lack of ability.
Again, all DM's responsibility to create diversity. The new system simply reduced complexity and removed meaningless extras. The DM must still help the players to diversify their characters, creating new character options and story elements. The DM should also press the characters to take advantage of the new battle strategies and must herself take advantage of battle strategies. If all you all are doing is casting spells and striking blows, then there's something wrong in how it's being run, and not the system itself.
.. right. D&D should be a sandbox game in which the books give you an idea of what the outskirts of the sandbox should look like. 4th Edition makes me feel like I'm stuck in a baby crib with mommy and daddy telling me what to do. We played a couple of games and it feels like the game was made for online play. It also gave me the impression as if I were playing WoW or Diablo 2, both gaming using somewhat the same system. 4th Edition stinks. It wasn't made purely and solely for sandbox roleplaying tabletop gaming and that's the reason why.
What I'm seeing are players and DM's alike who don't seem to understand the role of the DM. Where there are no supplements to provide what you need, the DM and the player must work together to provide those materials. If you need more diversity in skills, powers, feats, and traits, then the DM and player must work together to make them. If you're combat is repetitive, then the DM needs to develop some tricks to keep you on your toes utilizing 4e's combat strategy system. If your DM refuses to do these things, blaming all your problems on the system, then you need a new DM. It's a new system, and the DM and the players need to get used to it before making sweeping statements about the system.
Again, that's something the DM can work out easily. More powers, power trading feats, heroic traits, paragon paths, and epic destinies will come with later supplements, opening up the sandbox more. But there's still going to be a bit of the control aspect because, as pointed out, 3.5 got rediculous in its CO. So having gotten used to a set of brakes that are extremely loose and then having them tightened can cause some hard breaking, but you'll get used to it and optimization would be fun again and not out-of-control. People around here seem to have gotten hard-ons for breaking classes rather than making great characters. The PHB is the foundation of the game, not the whole of everything that will ever be included.
What I'm seeing are players and DM's alike who don't seem to understand the role of the DM. Where there are no supplements to provide what you need, the DM and the player must work together to provide those materials. If you need more diversity in skills, powers, feats, and traits, then the DM and player must work together to make them. If you're combat is repetitive, then the DM needs to develop some tricks to keep you on your toes utilizing 4e's combat strategy system. If your DM refuses to do these things, blaming all your problems on the system, then you need a new DM. It's a new system, and the DM and the players need to get used to it before making sweeping statements about the system.
I'm sorry, unlike you, I expect to not have to WRITE MY OWN GAME SYSTEM when I BUY A GAME. And it sure as heck isn't my job as a DM.
Quite frankly coming in here and calling us all bad DMs basically only shows that your ego is apparently running rampant, and you've decided to shove your opinion of what we want down our gullets.
By the way, if 4e players visit the 4e forums, they'll find lots of stuff that other people have done for multiclassing and for all the powers and feats and things that are needed to expand characters. So they don't have to do the work themselves if they don't want to. They can just tweak someone else's offerings.
I'll write that bait off as a consequence of being in the lion's den. It still comes down to being a young system with no supplements. Until those supplements exist, the DM has to accept more work. When the environment is rife with supplements, then the DM won't have to provide those things I pointed out (except he still has to be familiar with the system, utilize the combat strategy system, and create roleplay opportunities just as in any system) and CO will be easy again.
Missing the point completely. I didn't have to make things up in 3rd edition. I could run a very interesting game with just the core rules, which had plenty of options. Again, compare everything a dragon can do in 3.5 in a round of combat and everything a dragon can do in 4th edition in a round of combat.
By the way, if 4e players visit the 4e forums, they'll find lots of stuff that other people have done for multiclassing and for all the powers and feats and things that are needed to expand characters. So they don't have to do the work themselves if they don't want to. They can just tweak someone else's offerings.
Yeah, because multi-classing is clearly so well thought out that no multi-class can take the ranger Pargon Paths. Again, why am I going back and having to fix this?
Oh, some other poor player(s) has already worked out a fix. Great, someone else had to do the work, and if I use that fix, I can't assume that anyone here on the boards (or in other games) will be using the same fix.
But then we're just making up our own rules and game basically, and why should we bother to buy 4th edition?
The people here are used to the 3.X rules, and their style of gaming has most likely been accustomed to the way 3.X is playing out. 4th edition does things in a completely different way, and a lot of people don't like that way, preferring the previous one. Why should people spend hours of time to change 4th edition to the system they'd like to play, when they already have that system on their shelves?
1) Control of some of the more... unbalanced aspects of the game should be controlled by suggestions and common sense, not with an axe. It seems to me that one of the things that WotC decided to do was simply remove anything that was fuzzy, possibly unbalanced, and/or required major DM interpretation - things like Polymorph/shapechanging, Wish, Miracle, free multiclassing, etc...
Now, I can understand why they took the route they did - I just disagree with it. If I play a wizard, I play a wizard because a) I want to be able to do weird things like fly, change the weather, and fix broken wagons with a wiggle of my fingers, and because b) Eventually, I want to know that reality itself with bend to my whim. Of course, having reality bending to my whim requires that both myself and the DM have imagination, which is notoriously hard to use without open options like Polymorph/wish/miracle/etc...
2) Having just yesterday coached somebody who had started in 4e in how to play 3.5e, I am struck by the lack of player ingenuity required. I started playing in 1e, and played my first Wizard in 2e... to this day, Wizards are overall my favorite class. Now, helping this kid translate his "Eladrin Wizard" into an Elven Sorcerer taught me a lot about the way 4e works - and I'm not happy about it. In 2e, 3e, and 3.5, playing a wizard requires ingenuity and imagination. You have to be able to think about what you're going to do to be useful at low levels, and at high levels there are boundless options for creativity and imagination. This meshes a little bit with point 1, but how does a wizard use imagination, creativity, or ingenuity when all he has to do to be successful is cast magic missile every round?
Some of my favorite memories of 3e and 3.5e are of low-level (1st level, especially) wizards, coming up with creative uses for the small number of cantrips and first level spells, and combining them with their nonmagical resources. I can understand how this is still possible, to an extent, but there's no longer any incentive to do it.
...
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this: What are the moments in your historical D&D games that you remembered? That you told stories about for months, or even years? Were they the times where you followed the blueprints and did the normal stuff, or were they the times that you used your creativity and came through against all odds - being successful through unusual methods in the face of difficult situations that weren't necessarily just tough monsters and/or traps.
I'm not sure how many of those good rping memories are going to come out of 4e games. And I'll be honest - that's what really matters to me. When all is said and done, in 20 years when I'm not playing D&D anymore, and I look back: will I be proud of the number of goblins I killed, or the characters that reached epic level? No, probably not. What I'll remember are those stories, those all-to-rare moments where somebody did something completely unexpected, creative, and effective, and came through where they weren't expected to.
If the DM runs it as one side versus the other, and the players do the same, then yes, it's going to be very repetitive and no one will be forced to have to become creative. Once again, it's the DM who needs to shake it up. He needs to move his monsters around. Check out the new Dragon Magazine article "Creature Incarnations: Kobolds". That article shows the kind of variation that is being handed to the DM. If that doesn't shake up your party, then nothing will. If all you did was toss a bunch of kobalds of the same level without any tactics, then yes, you will only need one type of spell or one type of attack, but as you can see, the DM is being instructed to move the kobolds around and utilize their shifty ability. There should be plenty of stories coming from encounters like this.
:D
Besides trying to run with the chess comparison, what you just said is that if you don't want to change anything, continue to play 3.5. I think that pretty much goes without saying. This thread is asking if there's anyone interested in 4e. That's me and a few others here.
If there's something new you want to contribute, then contribute it. Otherwise declarations about others don't have to change if they don't want to serve no purpose. A good conversation demonstrates two sides with varying informed views. If a person shows no hint of being informed, then they should probably find a conversation they can demonstrate more prowess in. You know about 3.5, then a conversation about 3.5 would probably be more suited to you.
You make it sound like I said 4e is a type of chess. That's not what I said. However, perhaps you got the wrong idea by the words "chess-like set of combat rules". All I meant, as I explained, was that you need to move and get into advantageous positions. It is actually adding dimension to the battle.
Which already existed in 3.5. Again, what has 4th edition brought to the table that we didn't have in 3.x or has it improved upon? I can think of a great many things it has removed and nothing that it has really added.
Besides trying to run with the chess comparison, what you just said is that if you don't want to change anything, continue to play 3.5. I think that pretty much goes without saying. This thread is asking if there's anyone interested in 4e. That's me and a few others here.
Your first post in this thread called our opinions about how we wanted the game and why we were not interested in 4th edition a "a lot of paroting and hoohawing in this thread, but no real informed analysis from anyone else."
You then felt the need to to say: "What I'm seeing are players and DM's alike who don't seem to understand the role of the DM."
Hey, guess what, there's a lot of us that are not interested in 4th edtion and are saying so. The difference is that we are doing it without putting down other people as you are.
If there's something new you want to contribute, then contribute it. Otherwise declarations about others don't have to change if they don't want to serve no purpose. A good conversation demonstrates two sides with varying informed views. If a person shows no hint of being informed, then they should probably find a conversation they can demonstrate more prowess in. You know about 3.5, then a conversation about 3.5 would probably be more suited to you.
If there's something new you want to contribute, then contribute it. Otherwise declarations about others not having enough experience to have an opinion that you don't agree with serve no purpose. A good conversation demonstrates two sides with varying informed views. If a person shows no hint of being informed, then they should probably find a conversation they can demonstrate more prowess in.
So Corjay, how can 4th E handle this campaign better then 3.5E?
For a campaign I am currently constructing the players are sent to an "inescapable" prison to skin a map off the back of one of the inmates and get out. Through intrigue, deception, and treachery they need to align themselves with certain gangs/organizations throughout the prison. There is to be little combat (and if it does it will be backstabbing mostly) as that can mean instant death in a prison.
So Corjay, how can 4th E handle this campaign better then 3.5E?
The question that has arose before now isn't that 4e is or isn't better at doing such things, but the accusation has been that 4e CAN'T do such things. Whether it's better at such things only time and each person's personal experience will tell. But it can definitely do it. 4e doesn't just focus on combat. It simply improved it. I already pointed out that there are rules provided to allow and encourage roleplaying. My point: yes, 4e can do it. Is it better? I can't say whether its better at it or not.
As I said in another forum, 4e is compartmentalized, and I think that's where the biggest objection comes from. I'll just quote myself:
Well-categorized and thus well-distributed. That's how I would describe 4e.
Spells were split into combat-active Spells and non-combat Rituals. Why? Because class development requires that you have Spells that you need in combat and thus won't be stuck sitting back doing nothing.
It is categorized into class types and monster types so that encounters can be planned out and controlled more easily by the DM with less need for DM fiat [aka, die roll fudging].
Battle rounds are more predictable and need less rules searching, making combat flow more easily.
Every character is given dailies and keywords to help keep them alive, further reducing the need for DM fiat [aka, die roll fudging].
Compartmentalization is what keeps 4e balanced...and it makes 4e predictable... But the drawback is that the character optimization crew that enjoys breaking the system at every opportunity will find it harder to break 4e for the very reason of its categorization. That compartmentalization is exactly why I like everything I've seen in 4e. A bonus is that it allows you to more easily create the things you need without breaking the system. I think ultimately people are going to love the system. It's just right now the system is completely foreign to the people and will therefore alienate many for a while until they begin hearing enough stories about game play and customization.
Zig-zag! zig-zag! Zig-zag!
So without evading my question like before, in your opinion as a dungeons and dragons player, which edition (3.5 or 4) of Dungeons and Dragons would be better suited for my campaign idea?
Since I'm the only one discussing the facts and there is very clearly nothing being offered here except false accusations against me, I will now withdraw from this conversation.
Those that know more about 3.5 are posting why they think 3.5 is better than 4.0, while you (who probably knows more about 4th than most of us) are posting why you think that 4.0 is better.
Each is contributing their own ideas to the thread, most of which come from a heavily 3.5 informed crowd.
Personally, I think I might give 4.0 a chance, but I'm not ready just yet to spend the 100+ dollars necessary to start a new ruleset. It seems like it has decent potential and a new take on combat. This "new take" helps balance out everyone, but it also makes exotic characters (besides races, which I've heard you can be any of em with no LA) almost impossible to create.
Your last statement said:
but it also makes exotic characters (besides races, which I've heard you can be any of em with no LA) almost impossible to create.
I addressed that here. Remember, what is in the 4e core books is the core information. More character options will be provided later through Dragon Magazine articles and supplements. Powers, Feats, Spells, and Rituals will all multiply, opening up opportunities for more exotic characters. Classes will also multiply. Having been involved with Saga for a year now, I can say with confidence that these things are indeed the creation plan.
I stated earlier in this thread that I have never played 3.5. The reason I never played it is because my study of the rules showed that there was little redeeming value in them to me. But I made an informed decision based on a study of the rules. Not just parroting other opinions.
So you've never played 3.5, just looked at the rules... and the declared it not worth the time. But that makes you a better judge than those of us that have been playing it for years....
You looked something over (3.x) and said no without ever trying it, and them come here and think we can't do the same, despite the fact that most of us have already tried it and do not like it?
I'd respond to your opinions (I do not think it improved combat, or any of the things you claim), but really at this point, it would be pointless. Anything I say, you won't be able to respond to based on your experience playing in 3.x.
Remember, what is in the 4e core books is the core information. More character options will be provided later through Dragon Magazine articles and supplements. Powers, Feats, Spells, and Rituals will all multiply, opening up opportunities for more exotic characters. Classes will also multiply. Having been involved with Saga for a year now, I can say with confidence that these things are indeed the creation plan.
A comparison of only the core books PHB, MM and DMG from 3.5 and 4th edtion:
Races: 4th has 1 more.
Classes: 3.5 has 3 more, and the classes are not stuck in 2-3 very limited roles.
Multiclassing: 3.5 has a workable system in place, 4th edition produces completely unusable scenarios.
Feats: 4th has more, but fewer options on a per character basis (there are fewer feats you can take due to race/class restrictions).
Skills: 3.5 has more, but is about the only case where more isn't better.
Spells: 3.5 has more.
Equipment: 3.5 has much more available.
Magic Items: 3.5 has much more available.
Out of combat spells/abilities: 3.5 has absurdly more.
Options for creatures: the 3.5 Monster manual has more creatures, and all have more abilities than the 4th edition equilvents, and a system in place that at least roughly indicates how to modify and upgrade them.
3.5 starting out had much, much more variety than 4th edition does in all respects.
Core only, the variety between a 3.5 rogue and 4th rogue is crazy. There are so many more ways you can take the 3.5 rogue, both in and out of combat.
What is the dragon going to do in 4th edition on it's round? What is it going to do in 3.x?
What options does 4th give that compare even remotely to the number of things that have uses outside of combat in 3.5?
I think we might want to try a bit less defensive attacking, and more debating. I know tempers flare in every debate, but we're all friends here. :D Let's get along, hehe...
So you've never played 3.5, just looked at the rules... and the declared it not worth the time. But that makes you a better judge than those of us that have been playing it for years....
You looked something over (3.x) and said no without ever trying it, and them come here and think we can't do the same, despite the fact that most of us have already tried it and do not like it?
I'd respond to your opinions (I do not think it improved combat, or any of the things you claim), but really at this point, it would be pointless. Anything I say, you won't be able to respond to based on your experience playing in 3.x.
Yes. Because I feel the more complex a game is, the less ingenious it is (See my signature). Despite all the fixes it made by lining everything up in a row, it still suffered the unnecessary complexity of 2e. I've played 1e. I've played 2e (though it drove me away). I've studied (not just read) 3e/3.5 (I have the books). I have played and written materials for other roleplaying games. I have enough knowledge to know what I'm talking about.
A comparison of only the core books PHB, MM and DMG from 3.5 and 4th edtion:
Races: 4th has 1 more.
Classes: 3.5 has 3 more, and the classes are not stuck in 2-3 very limited roles.
Multiclassing: 3.5 has a workable system in place, 4th edition produces completely unusable scenarios.
Feats: 4th has more, but fewer options on a per character basis (there are fewer feats you can take due to race/class restrictions).
Skills: 3.5 has more, but is about the only case where more isn't better.
Spells: 3.5 has more.
Equipment: 3.5 has much more available.
Magic Items: 3.5 has much more available.
Out of combat spells/abilities: 3.5 has absurdly more.
Options for creatures: the 3.5 Monster manual has more creatures, and all have more abilities than the 4th edition equilvents, and a system in place that at least roughly indicates how to modify and upgrade them.
3.5 starting out had much, much more variety than 4th edition does in all respects.
Core only, the variety between a 3.5 rogue and 4th rogue is crazy. There are so many more ways you can take the 3.5 rogue, both in and out of combat.
You're preaching to the choir. I have already said there's less variety, as it is focusing on the rules and not the diversity. You've provided evidence for something that needs no evidence. No one here is denying that.
What options does 4th give that compare even remotely to the number of things that have uses outside of combat in 3.5?
The dailies, keywords, and rituals provide this stuff, and as I said, more variety in these things will be provided later. And if you're referring to roleplaying, then as I said earlier, the challenges and quests take care of encouraging it.
I'll answer the dragon question later when I find the article(s) that discuss them (I don't have the Monster Manual).
My god are dragons boring to fight now. A dragon fight before was something to behold. It had so many ways it could unfold that you could give the fight itself flavor and build upon the personality of the dragon with it's tactics and spells. Not anymore.
The best I can answer is that each monster has its own list of abilities, dailies, feats, spells, and rituals that have little to nothing to do with those listed in the PHB (Go to the Monster Manual page for articles demonstrating this). Not only this, but they also have tactics showing how to deal with them. As far as I can tell, there is plenty of diversity and challenge in the monsters.
However, we can look at another example. When comparing the Succubus from MM 3.5 to the one in the Demon article, you can see that it has 4 well-defined abilities as opposed to 3.5's 1 ability and spellcasting. However, the 4e Succubus has no spellcasting ability and only 3 skills. However, all 3.5's spells have been accounted for in 4e, except for Ethereal Jaunt, which could have been taken care of by a Shifty ability. However, the DM could easily add Shifty if they think it important, but that would throw off the balance that has been carefully determined by the designers and playtesters.
in 4e, you can build... let's see a buff character that deals damage... a striker that deals damage, a controller that deals damage, and... oh wow i'm playing world of warcraft aren't i....
in 3.5 and 3.0... base 3 books. i'm going to build a character who focuses only on attacking weapons and sundering or on grappling, or who really has o combat ability and is just a sneak, or someone who's all about non lethal takedown, using web and hold person and all that.
now don't get me wrong 4e is a beautiful combat system. it's streamlined, it's balanced and it's effective. i mean web now deals damage for crying out loud.
but that's never been what i look for in an RPG, as someone else already said, if i wanted to play diabalo II, i'd go re-install diabilo II
It speaks of psychic damage in those 4 spells. So I'm not sure if that has any relation at all with their plans for psionics.
I'm sure such non-combat choices and classes will arise to appease those who prefer them (In the meantime, you could easily create your own). It's just a matter of time. You also have to remember that, as a business, they have to cater to the most popular concepts first, and then give attention to less popular (or as someone said, more "exotic") concepts in other supplements.
Give it time isn't an acceptable answer. It's clear that they had enough previous material to draw from to make the base system have enough variety in it.
Heck, this isn't really a Role Playing game if I have to wait for non-combat options. We're not talking about a small portion that does role playing here, we're talking about what separates D&D as we know it from things like Warhammer.
I really don't think a rogue two-weapon fighting with a pair of long swords was that exotic of a concept.
The best I can answer is that each monster has its own list of abilities, dailies, feats, spells, and rituals that have little to nothing to do with those listed in the PHB (Go to the Monster Manual page for articles demonstrating this). Not only this, but they also have tactics showing how to deal with them. As far as I can tell, there is plenty of diversity and challenge in the monsters.
Strawman and misinformation. Monsters do not have their own dailies, nor their own feats, nor their own rituals. Additionally 3.x books also covered tactics.
The truth: the 4th edtion dragon will have melee attacks, a breath weapon and 2 other abilities on average that it can use. In 4th edition, seen 1 black dragon, seen them all.
The 3.x dragon will have melee attacks, breath weapon, a plethora of spells (choosen on an individual basis by the dragon to match their personality and individual tactics, and between 2-10 special abilities depending on it's age, not including feats for things such as fly-by attack.
However, we can look at another example. When comparing the Succubus from MM 3.5 to the one in the Demon article, you can see that it has 4 well-defined abilities as opposed to 3.5's 1 ability and spellcasting. However, the 4e Succubus has no spellcasting ability and only 3 skills. However, all 3.5's spells have been accounted for in 4e, except for Ethereal Jaunt, which could have been taken care of by a Shifty ability. However, the DM could easily add Shifty if they think it important, but that would throw off the balance that has been carefully determined by the designers and playtesters.
Well, the Succubus in 3.x does NOT have spell casting, but spell-like abilities, huge difference on a number of levels. The 4th version also lacks:
• Tongues making it much less useful
• Greater Teleport
• Detect Good
• Detect Thoughts
• Telepathy
• Suggestion
• The ability to summon
• Anything equivalent to Mobility
In addition to lacking Etheral Jaunt.
Did you even look at the 3.x Succubus? Because It looks to me like you have no idea what you're talking about.
3.x Tactics sections:
Combat
Succubi are not warriors. They flee combat whenever they can. If forced to fight, they can attack with their claws, but they prefer to turn foes against one another. Succubi use their change shape ability to assume humanoid guise, and can maintain this deception indefinitely. Their preferred tactic when dealing with heroes is to feign friendship and create an opportunity to be alone with one of them, whereupon the succubus applies her life-draining kiss. Succubi are not above taking on the role of a damsel in distress when encountered within a dungeon.
4th tactics section
Succubus Tactics
When exposed for what it is, a succubus can be a deadly foe. It can manipulate the emotions of mortal adversaries, turning them against each other or making them slavishly loyal to it with a mere kiss.
A succubus that is confronted uses dominate on a worthy adversary. It then uses charming kiss on a dominated foe, keeping him or her nearby while it attacks other enemies with its corrupting touch.
3.x is clear more comprehensive, and covers not only combat, but out of combat. 4th edition is basically only the second paragraph (which is only 2 sentences) for actual tactics.
I almost forgot. The new Wizard web enhancement gives spells for Illusionists. One of your non-combat classes. Only 4 of the 9 spells do any direct damage. The other 5 affect your opponents in the way you are talking about. So clearly such classes and features are planned and already being made.
It speaks of psychic damage in those 4 spells. So I'm not sure if that has any relation at all with their plans for psionics.
What Illusion spells?
• Illusory Ambush - Only useful in combat.
• Grasping shadows - Only useful in combat.
• phantom Chasm - Only useful in combat.
• phantasmal Terrain - Only useful in combat.
• phantasmal Assailant - Only useful in combat.
• maze of mirrors - Only useful in combat.
• spectral hound - Only useful in combat.
enemies Abound - Possibly useful outside of combat, but only to start a combat.
• Illusory Wall - Useful out of combat, but limited by the fact that you must sustain it.
Of the illusion spells, 1 has some limited use if you are not in combat. The rest are either completely useless outside of combat, or of such non-use to be pointless if you are not in combat.
Give it time isn't an acceptable answer. It's clear that they had enough previous material to draw from to make the base system have enough variety in it.
Heck, this isn't really a Role Playing game if I have to wait for non-combat options. We're not talking about a small portion that does role playing here, we're talking about what separates D&D as we know it from things like Warhammer.
I really don't think a rogue two-weapon fighting with a pair of long swords was that exotic of a concept.
Strawman and misinformation. Monsters do not have their own dailies, nor their own feats, nor their own rituals. Additionally 3.x books also covered tactics.
The truth: the 4th edtion dragon will have melee attacks, a breath weapon and 2 other abilities on average that it can use. In 4th edition, seen 1 black dragon, seen them all.
The 3.x dragon will have melee attacks, breath weapon, a plethora of spells (choosen on an individual basis by the dragon to match their personality and individual tactics, and between 2-10 special abilities depending on it's age, not including feats for things such as fly-by attack.
Well, the Succubus in 3.x does NOT have spell casting, but spell-like abilities, huge difference on a number of levels. The 4th version also lacks:
• Tongues making it much less useful
• Greater Teleport
• Detect Good
• Detect Thoughts
• Telepathy
• Suggestion
• The ability to summon
• Anything equivalent to Mobility
In addition to lacking Etheral Jaunt.
Did you even look at the 3.x Succubus? Because It looks to me like you have no idea what you're talking about.
3.x Tactics sections:
4th tactics section
3.x is clear more comprehensive, and covers not only combat, but out of combat. 4th edition is basically only the second paragraph (which is only 2 sentences) for actual tactics.
You really need to learn the difference between attacking someone and posing a better argument. You want to start using logic terms, I have one for you: ad hominem. Look it up brighteyes.
You are correct on some, and not seeing enough on others. Concerning the Succubus, if you notice, several of those spells are unnecessary in light of the 4e abilities and encounter structure. The teleport spell is essentially similar to the jaunt, so again just add Shifty in 4e. Yes, I overlooked telepathy, but they have said they also considered what spells and abilities actually suit the monsters. Telepathy is not a traditional ability of Succubus so its exclusion is not a surprise. Mobility is simply moving around, which it can do, but since it is a controller and not a solo creature, it doesn't need mobility.
What Illusion spells?
• Illusory Ambush - Only useful in combat.
• Grasping shadows - Only useful in combat.
• phantom Chasm - Only useful in combat.
• phantasmal Terrain - Only useful in combat.
• phantasmal Assailant - Only useful in combat.
• maze of mirrors - Only useful in combat.
• spectral hound - Only useful in combat.
enemies Abound - Possibly useful outside of combat, but only to start a combat.
• Illusory Wall - Useful out of combat, but limited by the fact that you must sustain it.
Of the illusion spells, 1 has some limited use if you are not in combat. The rest are either completely useless outside of combat, or of such non-use to be pointless if you are not in combat.
4e Spells are for combat. But the concern that was had earlier by FireDrakeK concerned only that all the spells do damage in combat. I listed 5 that don't. So your point here is moot.
All in all, what I see as the problem to people isn't that there are fewer spells or not, but that many of the old spells have been rendered unnecessary, and therefore you have fewer actions that you need to concern yourself with during the round. In my opinion that's a bonus, not a drawback. Also the fact that the spells have become at-will abilities is another plus, instead of a drawback. The DM doesn't have to concern themselves with tracking every spell use, thus simplifying combat.
therefore you have fewer actions that you need to concern yourself with during the round. In my opinion that's a bonus, not a drawback.
So you are happy with sacrificing freedom for ease of play?
Arguing for or against an edition doesn't mean personal attacks need to get involved.
You are correct on some, and not seeing enough on others. Concerning the Succubus, if you notice, several of those spells are unnecessary in light of the 4e abilities and encounter structure. The teleport spell is essentially similar to the jaunt, so again just add Shifty in 4e. Yes, I overlooked telepathy, but they have said they also considered what spells and abilities actually suit the monsters. Telepathy is not a traditional ability of Succubus so its exclusion is not a surprise. Mobility is simply moving around, which it can do, but since it is a controller and not a solo creature, it doesn't need mobility.
Because it's meant to show the tempting, controllish side of demons, it doesn't obviously need Read Thoughts either, that it could use from shadows to learn the thoughts of the party in advance, to better manipulate them against each other. Right?
Greater Teleport isn't needed because succubus would never escape from the combat totally, leaving PCs confused.
Because the whole creature's goal is to create dissent within the party, which works really well by talking language with some that the others don't understand, creating distrust, succubus doesn't really need tongues either. Right?
So you are happy with sacrificing freedom for ease of play?
If you want to call it that (I wouldn't call it that because it's actually freeing you up instead of enslaving you to rules-heavy actions), then yeah. But those are not mutually exclusive and in fact go hand-in-hand. I'll take ease of play over book referencing any day. Ease of play means freedom to roleplay.
Because it's meant to show the tempting, controllish side of demons, it doesn't obviously need Read Thoughts either, that it could use from shadows to learn the thoughts of the party in advance, to better manipulate them against each other. Right?
Greater Teleport isn't needed because succubus would never escape from the combat totally, leaving PCs confused.
Because the whole creature's goal is to create dissent within the party, which works really well by talking language with some that the others don't understand, creating distrust, succubus doesn't really need tongues either. Right?
I take it this is an attempt at sarcasm. I have made few if any such excuses, but if you really need them...
Like I said, if you think the Succubus needs such abilities as teleport, then the DM can give it the Shifty ability. The telepathy isn't needed because of its other control abilities. With telepathy you're just getting redundant (and then there's the point I made about the succubus was never known to be telepathic in legends). Read thoughts goes along with that. If she can control a character, then what's the point in read thoughts? It's just an unnecessary shtick. And having at-will abilities to do such things is just better than spells. Besides, since the succubus is a deceiver, there's no point in telepathy or read thoughts, because she can simply change shape, infiltrate as a seductive woman (or man as the case may be), and acquire information. Then the DM is required to roleplay it (That should not be an in-battle ability for a succubus). If the Succubus has telepathy, there's no point to such things. So roleplay is actually encouraged by removing it.
EDIT: By the way, you all can attack the fact that I provide an answer for everything, but whether you get them from one person or a dozen different people, you're still going to get answers. Sure, my answers are different than what other people will post, and my answers aren't always perfect. But making fun of the fact that I have answers doesn't make them any less worthy of consideration.
I take it this is an attempt at sarcasm. I have made few if any such excuses, but if you really need them...
Like I said, if you think the Succubus needs such abilities as teleport, then the DM can give it the Shifty ability. The telepathy isn't needed because of its other control abilities. With telepathy you're just getting redundant (and then there's the point I made about the succubus was never known to be telepathic in legends). Read thoughts goes along with that. If she can control a character, then what's the point in read thoughts? It's just an unnecessary shtick. And having at-will abilities to do such things is just better than spells. Besides, since the succubus is a deceiver, there's no point in telepathy or read thoughts, because she can simply change shape, infiltrate as a seductive woman (or man as the case may be), and acquire information. Then the DM is required to roleplay it (That should not be an in-battle ability for a succubus). If the Succubus has telepathy, there's no point to such things. So roleplay is actually encouraged by removing it.
EDIT: By the way, you all can attack the fact that I provide an answer for everything, but whether you get them from one person or a dozen different people, you're still going to get answers. Sure, my answers are different than what other people will post, and my answers aren't always perfect. But making fun of the fact that I have answers doesn't make them any less worthy of consideration.
Read thoughts makes those things EASIER. You can find out what people dislike each other and why, and use those to create more dissent. This means that DM doesn't have to metagame against the characters to be able to create a feeling of mischief in the whole party.
Shifty allows you to move IN COMBAT. The point of teleportation is to escape the combat totally, get you to 500 miles away from the party. To inform superiors, or to do long-distance messaging during night-time when the other party sleeps. It's not meant to be used mostly in combat, it's really functional out-of-combat as well.
Telepathy actually only allows you to speak with one target at a time, you know what telepathy does in 3.5E? Mental conversation. How does that make RP useless?
Infact, in none of the stories about succubi, those don't have Dominate Person. Instead they work in secret, confusing and slowly gaining power over the people. They don't just come and wrestle for mental control, they make the target believe that they are friends and slowly corrupt the target, forcing them to evil acts and stealing their souls once they die.
Read thoughts makes those things EASIER. You can find out what people dislike each other and why, and use those to create more dissent. This means that DM doesn't have to metagame against the characters to be able to create a feeling of mischief in the whole party.
Shifty allows you to move IN COMBAT. The point of teleportation is to escape the combat totally, get you to 500 miles away from the party. To inform superiors, or to do long-distance messaging during night-time when the other party sleeps. It's not meant to be used mostly in combat, it's really functional out-of-combat as well.
Telepathy actually only allows you to speak with one target at a time, you know what telepathy does in 3.5E? Mental conversation. How does that make RP useless?
Infact, in none of the stories about succubi, those don't have Dominate Person. Instead they work in secret, confusing and slowly gaining power over the people. They don't just come and wrestle for mental control, they make the target believe that they are friends and slowly corrupt the target, forcing them to evil acts and stealing their souls once they die.
It's very clearly an aesthetic argument. DM's can adjust things they disagree with. It's not a rules or playability concern. Succubus is just one of many creatures. Chances are there are going to be creatures you like what were done with them and others you don't. Arguing aesthetics isn't going to get this discussion anywhere.
Your answers seem to be lacking for me. Before this thread went up I was kinda 4e is alright I perfer 3.5e over it but I haven't had enough exp with the 4e system to know it too well. After this thread went up I started to hate 4e more and more. There were some huge holes ripped open in my view in 4e in this thread and now I'm at the point of waiting to Martial power comes out before I stamp it as irredemable.
The major part that stuck me though was your answers. Many of them involved calling things personal attacks and trolling (you might have not said trolling out right but it seemed heavily hinted at.) this realy made your answers seem less reputable and then you said if you miss those powers just make your own class and the stuff. Making a class is a real pain in the ass and trying to make it balanced in a new system just adds to that difficulty on top of the fact that most peopel who by 4e have 3.5e and can just play it without forking out any more money. Also, I fail to see what is so rules intensive as useing spells in RP situation, such as makeing crappy food taste and smell better with prestidigitation and useing illusion spells to both get your way and pull pranks. The spells were open ended with few to little rules to control it and was realy up for the dm to decide it.
I could go through this thread and identify every point of attack against me, but it's not going to accomplish anything but my own defense. I could also go through and point out how I answered each and every point or question that was asked, but again, I'd simply be treading water. Experience has taught me that if a person didn't get it the first time through, they're not likely to get it the thousandth time through.
Point being that I can't help you or change your view. You feel how you're going to feel. Thank you for warning me that it sounded worse than you meant it to be.
For the record, I got involved in this thread because I was seeing a lot of misconceptions and misinformation. I corrected those misconceptions as best I could, but ultimately it comes down to people being comfortable with 3.5. In my view it's just like the turtle that doesn't know it's boiling until it's dead. A gamer may not know another system is better until they give it a genuine chance.
It's very clearly an aesthetic argument. DM's can adjust things they disagree with. It's not a rules or playability concern. Succubus is just one of many creatures. Chances are there are going to be creatures you like what were done with them and others you don't. Arguing aesthetics isn't going to get this discussion anywhere.
It is EXACTLY a playability concern and argument.
The 4th edition succubus is less useable as anything but a combat encounter. It is also less interesting in combat because it has fewer abilities. I'd go in to how you butchered what the abilities do, but that's already been pointed out, and really I wouldn't expect someone with no 3.x experience to get it right. I would in fact expect someone to get it wrong exactly like you have.
This isn't aesthetics. It's massive playability concerns. And once again, you provide no facts to back up you position, just hand waving. "Oh, you disproved me, well, that doesn't count, I'm sure there's something else that does make me right!"
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word aesthetic too, because teleporting at will to ANYWHERE on the same plane isn't an aesthetic thing. Neither is being able to read thoughts, telepathy or summoning other demons.
For the record, I got involved in this thread because I was seeing a lot of misconceptions and misinformation. I corrected those misconceptions as best I could, but ultimately it comes down to people being comfortable with 3.5. In my view it's just like the turtle that doesn't know it's boiling until it's dead. A gamer may not know another system is better until they give it a genuine chance.
The only misconceptions and misinformation I see here are coming from you. I haven't seen you make a single factual correction yet. You keep assuming we haven't tried the other system, and that *gasp* someone may not like it for valid reasons after having tried it. Some of us like creatures being useful in more than just combat, and not being dumbed down.
One monster does not prove that the game is unplayable or suffers in any way. We could go through every monster, but it's a waste of my time. I've addressed everything I feel needs to be addressed. If you have a new concern then provide a new concern. Otherwise we can go around in circles on the succubus all day long. It's not going to get us anywhere.
I'm on the defensive here once again. Previn, it is clear that you have no concern with actually discussing 4e. You habitually want only to attack my views and how I present things. That's your problem, not mine. Until you have something new to discuss, I will no longer address you, specifically.
One monster does not prove that the game is unplayable or suffers in any way. We could go through every monster, but it's a waste of my time. I've addressed everything I feel needs to be addressed. If you have a new concern then provide a new concern. Otherwise we can go around in circles on the succubus all day long. It's not going to get us anywhere.
Except that we can do this for any monster and the results will be the same. In fact you would have to do is find one or 2 monsters that have more abilities or options in 4th edition compared to 3.x. But I'm relatively sure that none exist (granted I've only been through about 3/5 of the 4th MM).
The fact is, many of use do see the simplification of monsters, and removal of out of combat abilities as making the game suffer. You can't tell us that it doesn't because that's our opinion. But you insist on doing so anyways, forcing your opinion on us and then refusing to back it up with any facts, and calling everything a personal attack, or due to inexperience.
I'm on the defensive here once again. Previn, it is clear that you have no concern with actually discussing 4e. You habitually want only to attack my views and how I present things. That's your problem, not mine. Until you have something new to discuss, I will no longer address you, specifically.
• Please show me where the monster daily powers, feats and rituals are?
- I called you on the fact that there are none, and you never responded.
• Please show me how a 4th edition creature has more options or is more interesting or usable (both in and out of combat) than the 3.x version?
- You pulled out the succubus claiming it had everything and I called you out because it was missing a lot of abilities.
• Please explain why 3.x base books (PHB, MM and DMG) had more variety and content than the 4th edition books do despite 4th having a larger variety of ideas and material to draw upon?
- I called you out on the fact that the base 3.x books when released had far more content and options than the 4th books do, so "wait" makes no sense.
• Please explain why you are a better judge of 3.x and 4th edtion despite having not played 3.x at all?
- Again you have no experience or reasonable perspective to argue from. Have you had 4th edition longer than all of us, and thus you are more experienced?
• Please answer with anything that's factual as a part of your argument.
I'd say I have a great deal invested in discussing 4th edition, I've pointed out numerous differences between 3.x and 4th. I've made actual comparisons between the two backed up with facts to support my opinion. I've asked questions that should have been simple to answer many times, and you've failed on every front to do so, in many cases you've failed to even get the basic facts rights (i.e. what abilities the succubus has in 3.x compared to 4th).
This isn't a matter of personal attacks, but that you've offered nothing to argue against besides saying we're wrong and don't know it.
here is another similar thread http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1050677
:D
So without evading my question like before, in your opinion as a dungeons and dragons player, which edition (3.5 or 4) of Dungeons and Dragons would be better suited for my campaign idea?
For the record, I'm not sure what to think of 4e yet. That's one reason I started this thread. I'm looking for opinions from rules gurus. Having said that...
darksamuari, either system should work just fine. You're suggested adventure is skill based and roleplay focused. Using it as a means to challenge system flexibility (or Corjay to be more precise) is almost moot.
You can never use roleplaying as a determining factor. That rests solely on the players. It is system neutral.
You still have skills and task resolution in 4e. Though the list is smaller, it works just the same. Pick a few skills, roll a few dice, determine results.
I can't imagine not running that adventure successfully with either system.
Those aren't new concerns and are once again designed to put me on the defensive. I am not perfect. If you don't like my answers, I'm not going to pretend that my answers are perfect. I'm not going to be baited any further. Anyone else?
Come to think of it. This thread is most definitely NOT about me. The "Anyone else" question was a little too me-focused. Please follow carnivore's and GEEKAZOID's lead to pull out of the tunnel vision to get the thread back on track. I'm sure someone else could answer your questions better than I've been doing.
i agree with Previn .... and as per OP... am not even interested in 4E
here is another similar thread http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1050677
:D
My thing is that I am actually interested in it (I started a game under 4th edition when I got my books early, jumped right in). I really was excited to see what the new system had to offer. But as I'm DMing it, it seems that it's just so limited in what it does. It feels way too much like a miniature game about combat than it does as a role playing game.
It doesn't feel like I'm building a character anymore as much as I am choosing a piece for my miniature war game. In my games combat has always been part of moving the story along. Now I find it difficult to move anything without combat. Everything revolves around combat now.
Which leads to the problem again that combat is so much less than what it was in 3.x. While you have most of the same basic combat rule (charging, grappling, moving, attacking etc) the actual things that you will do during a combat the come from your character... is about 8 things, probably 2 powers (your at will ones) will make up 80% of what you do from level 1-30. Well, 1-21 probably, at which point Demi-god or Archmage come up.
The same goes for monsters, they're simplistic in abilities and tactics. Indeed, most can fit on a miniature card with all of their abilities intact. This is compound by the fact that the stripped out just about any, if not all, abilities that don't have to do with combat from creatures. They really have become just things for players to smash in combat.
Could I go through and fix all of this? Sure. I could go through and add abilities to all the creatures, create new powers and feats to give my players more options, making usable out of combat abilities, be they feats or power or something new, and fix anything else. But really, that's not a small amount of work, and given the choice to stick with 3.5, or make my own (which may not be much more work), there's not much incentive for a move to 4th edition.
Is 4th edition bad? No. 4th is what it is, and what it is is not what I want out of my RPG system. It does not cover what I expect it to, and represents a great amount of effort for marginal gains at best for moving over to it.
Now, I find the idea that 4e has somehow turned D&D into a ROLLPLAYING GAME as opposed to a ROLEPLAYING GAME (OH MY GOD, THAT LINE NEVER GETS OLD!!!), I personally don't see how a system affects the way in which you can, well, play a role. Your character won't have the same amount of mechanical choices, sure, but I can see that given enough time the splatbook-bloat will allow one to build almost any monstrosity one desires, but you STILL have the same amount of different character traits that you can bring into your character. I don't see how the 3.5 system encourages roleplaying any more than 4e does.
Also, I'm troubled by the dichotomy of hack 'n' slash vs. roleplaying. D&D has always, at its heart, been about killing people and taking their stuff. I find the implication that some people would think of combat within the game as somehow a roleplaying-free zone extremely strange. Suppose your character is a great warrior: what better situation to PLAY that ROLE than to imagine yourself in the heat of battle, making decisions that might cost you your very life? Shouldn't those situations, when your character's life is on the line, be the defining moments of the character as a person and not simply as a bunch of statistics on a piece of paper? Roleplaying doesn't end when combat begins. It didn't with OD&D, it doesn't with either edition of AD&D, it doesn't in 3.0/3.5 and it most certainly doesn't in 4e.
All in all, I would like to rehash my point that no, I'm in no way a 3.5 hater. Some of my best gaming experiences have been with 3.5. I feel that 3.5 is superior in some ways to 4e, but that 4e is much superior to 3.5 in many other ways. I'll play either 3.5 or 4e depending on what's on the menu.
Now, I find the idea that 4e has somehow turned D&D into a ROLLPLAYING GAME as opposed to a ROLEPLAYING GAME (OH MY GOD, THAT LINE NEVER GETS OLD!!!), I personally don't see how a system affects the way in which you can, well, play a role. Your character won't have the same amount of mechanical choices, sure, but I can see that given enough time the splatbook-bloat will allow one to build almost any monstrosity one desires, but you STILL have the same amount of different character traits that you can bring into your character. I don't see how the 3.5 system encourages roleplaying any more than 4e does.
If I may:
Can you point out where the profession/crafting/performing skills have gone?
Can you point out the abilities that classes have that would be useful out of combat that are not just incidentally useful?
Yeah you can say you can role play anything any time, and that's true. I can role play chess. That doesn't mean chess is an RPG. By the same token, just because I [i]can[/] role play in 4th, doesn't mean there's any support for it.
I can call my fighter a master swordsmith, and act the role. But I can never craft a sword unless we make up the rules for it. How long does it take to make a sword? A day, a week? A month? What do I need? How good is the sword if I can make it?
If I may:
Can you point out where the profession/crafting/performing skills have gone?
Can you point out the abilities that classes have that would be useful out of combat that are not just incidentally useful?
Yeah you can say you can role play anything any time, and that's true. I can role play chess. That doesn't mean chess is an RPG. By the same token, just because I [i]can[/] role play in 4th, doesn't mean there's any support for it.
I can call my fighter a master swordsmith, and act the role. But I can never craft a sword unless we make up the rules for it. How long does it take to make a sword? A day, a week? A month? What do I need? How good is the sword if I can make it?
"I can say that my character goes out and urinates, but I can never know how well he does it or whether he contracts urinary infection if we don't make up rules for it!" (Actually, just ignore that, because it reminds me too much of FATAL)
I'm personally of the school of thought that you don't necessarily need mechanical support for everything your character might be able to do outside of the game's scope. I do understand your concern and it is a valid one, but I personally lean more into the social consensus side of things on this matter. If a player wants his character to be a master swordsmith/performer/chartered accountant and it jibes with the rest of the group, sure. That doesn't necessiate a need for a mechanical representation of those abilities.
One argument which could be made is that in a game which is so obviously about killing monsters and taking their stuff the focus should be on making a balanced system for those kinds of encounters. Skills like Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate are useful to keep around because they can be used within the scope of combat or occasionally to avoid combat when it's not optimal for the party. Now, if you have a game where the focus is mainly on combat do you really need characters with Profession (fishmonger)? While it can surely breathe some air into the character concept it also takes away resources from where they could be better spent: the very practical job of doing nasty things to monsters during combat.
So, unless you're running an extremely simulationist game (for which D&D simply feels very wrong) I don't see any need for skills and abilities outside of the game's focus as more than character background.
I'd also like to point out the irony of you pointing out the lack of Perform/Profession/Craft in 4e on the Character Optimization board. From the point of view of CharOp, who ever takes ranks in Perform (unless a Bard), Profession (unless a basketweaver) or Craft (unless it's an integral part of the character's chosen role, such as the Artificier)? Besides, I feel that forcing character's to spend resources on things that their character's should be capable of doing based on their chosen profession (Bards and Perform, Artificiers and Craft) is simply a way of slightly gimping those classes.
And to return to the above point, I don't necessarily see how the presence of Craft/Perform/Profession plus a number of abilities that aid the character outside of combat (which do, by the way, exist in 4e too) serve the purpose of encouraging roleplaying, since they are in the end just mechanical representations of what you can do within the system.
You know, I can say that my dragon slayer is really good at playing the flute (hey, everyone needs a hobby) but unless I have the mechanics to back it up then we are kinda playing freeform... No?
Let me hit you with this. Say my dragon slayer gets challenged by a local musician in town to an instrumental duel (an act which pulls upon something the player has invested in his character so he'll probably enjoy it). Who wins? How do you know who wins?
And if you say this doesn't belong in Dungeons and Dragons than what does? I like my roleplaying games to be able to add substance to all areas in case I may want to change up to routine. Variety is the spice of life as they say but what you are advertising is a strict one meal only dinner with 4th edition's hack n' slash model.
You know, I can say that my dragon slayer is really good at playing the flute (hey, everyone needs a hobby) but unless I have the mechanics to back it up then we are kinda playing freeform... No?
What's wrong with that?
Let me hit you with this. Say my dragon slayer gets challenged by a local musician in town to an instrumental duel (an act which pulls upon something the player has invested in his character so he'll probably enjoy it). Who wins? How do you know who wins?
Skill Challenge (with appropriately set DCs
- who screwed that one up?) with CHA+5+level/2 as your check modifier. Oops, did I just invent the Perform skill?You know, I can say that my dragon slayer is really good at playing the flute (hey, everyone needs a hobby) but unless I have the mechanics to back it up then we are kinda playing freeform... No?
Let me hit you with this. Say my dragon slayer gets challenged by a local musician in town to an instrumental duel (an act which pulls upon something the player has invested in his character so he'll probably enjoy it). Who wins? How do you know who wins?
And if you say this doesn't belong in Dungeons and Dragons than what does? I like my roleplaying games to be able to add substance to all areas in case I may want to change up to routine. Variety is the spice of life as they say but what you are advertising is a strict one meal only dinner with 4th edition's hack n' slash model.
I admit, I have been using the hack n' slash example a bit too liberally. I'll concede that point. But what you seem to be assuming is that the 4e system is completely incapable of anything beyond combat. Heck, in many ways the new system is superior to 3.5 in handling things such as diplomatic negotiations ("Okay, you talk for a minute... roll a Diplomacy check... wow, what was your bonus again? I guess the king really fanatically loves your outlaw half-elf bard now...") and unlike some would like to claim it actually provides support for out-of-combat situations. Heck, some of the races in the PHB have skill bonuses to Diplomacy, Bluff, History and other skills that rarely see implementation within combat. (Bluff is a borderline example and even in that case there are easier ways to get combat advantage)
But you are right, one of the losses from 3.5 to 4e was the lack of rules for bardic rock-offs, which was personally one part of 3.5 which I'll miss, but not a part integral to my enjoyment of the game. With 4e I'll come up with new interesting ways to make my character shine out of combat, but with 3.5 I'll still be able to challenge devils into fiddle-playing contests.
EDIT: Or, yeah, you could just do it the way 22_Over_7 suggested. :D
What's wrong with that?
Ever play cops and robbers as a kid?
"I shot you."
"You missed!"
"It bounced off the wall and hit you"
"But I blocked it with my gun!"
"But that made your gun explode!"
"But it blew up away from me!"
And on and on and on and on. Would you play combat that way?
Skill Challenge (with appropriately set DCs
Well, does it cover just the flute, or all forms of performance? How good would a typical person be at it? What classes have it as a skill? If I do really good can I make money or influence crowds? Can I use it in combat as a distraction or to bolster my allies? Can I get a magical instrument in help improve it? If I can use it to influence crowds and it goes bad, can I try again, and if so how does it work?
And the real kicker... I'm also really good at cooking, and scripting, and make jewelry, and fishing... so I get all those at a +5 trained too, right?
No you did not just invent the perform skill. You copied a skill check (which have their own issues in 4th), but didn't think any thing at all about the consequences.
Ratpick, I don't think anyone is saying you can't role play. We are saying that the tools we would have expected for non-combat encounters just are not there.
Imagine if there were at best 20 pages in the PHB dedicated to combat and the rest to non-combat stuff. Would be as quick to defend it because you could still do combat?
Ever play cops and robbers as a kid?
"I shot you."
"You missed!"
"It bounced off the wall and hit you"
"But I blocked it with my gun!"
"But that made your gun explode!"
"But it blew up away from me!"
And on and on and on and on. Would you play combat that way?
I wouldn't but there are others who would
Well, does it cover just the flute, or all forms of performance? How good would a typical person be at it? What classes have it as a skill? If I do really good can I make money or influence crowds? Can I use it in combat as a distraction or to bolster my allies? Can I get a magical instrument in help improve it? If I can use it to influence crowds and it goes bad, can I try again, and if so how does it work?
And the real kicker... I'm also really good at cooking, and scripting, and make jewelry, and fishing... so I get all those at a +5 trained too, right?
No you did not just invent the perform skill. You copied a skill check (which have their own issues in 4th), but didn't think any thing at all about the consequences.
Yawn. I can add all that in later. But if suddenly, I decided I wanted to pit the previously described hypothetical character, or vice versa, in a musical showdown, the rules are robust enough to ad lib it for a while.
I wouldn't but there are others who wouldYawn. I can add all that in later. But if suddenly, I decided I wanted to pit the previously described hypothetical character, or vice versa, in a musical showdown, the rules are robust enough to ad lib it for a while.
"My character is an expert warrior but he is also proficient in every style of performance, has a background in numerous careers, and can construct any item with ease."
No problem with that, right?
"My character is an expert warrior but he is also proficient in every style of performance, has a background in numerous careers, and can construct any item with ease."
You just asked about a play-off, which I was able to replicate. You didn't ask about:
1) having a Craft skill
2) the full details behind a hypothetical Perform skill
I mean, if you want to hate 4E, whatever. Don't spew it around.
You just asked about a play-off, which I was able to replicate. You didn't ask about:
1) having a Craft skill
2) the full details behind a hypothetical Perform skill
I mean, if you want to hate 4E, whatever. Don't spew it around.
Nah.. What you gave was a function but didn't elaborate on any way which to handle it. What I was referencing was this:
And the real kicker... I'm also really good at cooking, and scripting, and make jewelry, and fishing... so I get all those at a +5 trained too, right?
So how about you tell me what's to stop me, mechanically, from getting away with the character I just mentioned above?
And the real kicker... I'm also really good at cooking, and scripting, and make jewelry, and fishing... so I get all those at a +5 trained too, right?
So how about you tell me what's to stop me, mechanically, from getting away with the character I just mentioned above?
I guess if that's how your DM wants to do it, then sure. Why the
not?I wouldn't. But I guess the DM's judgement has no place here, huh?
I guess if that's how your DM wants to do it, then sure. Why the
I wouldn't. But I guess the DM's judgement has no place here, huh?
You're right with the whole "DM's judgment" thing, that's why I included "mechanically" to my question above.
So, you'll concede that in Dungeons and Dragons 4 Edition, my character, in addition to having a combat role, can be excellent in almost every single non-combat task/role? And this is achieved by simply, oh so simply, saying, "Just cause."
Ratpick, I don't think anyone is saying you can't role play. We are saying that the tools we would have expected for non-combat encounters just are not there.
And on this point we'll just have to agree to disagree, because as I already pointed out the tools for non-combat encounters are there and are superior to the ones in 3.5. This is all just IMHO, though. The system isn't perfect, of course, since it doesn't cover things like, well, fiddle-playing contests with devils, but in those cases I'm just willing to wing it. I already mentioned that to me RPGs are about social consensus within the small playgroup, and I'm willing to let certain character decisions slide even if they can't be mechanically represented within the game. It's all about player/DM trust in the end.
As an aside, have you ever had a situation in 3.5 that a player wanted to play, say, a member of the nobility? We've had a number of those and even though it, in my opinion, can lead to lots of interesting roleplaying but combined with an obnoxious player it can lead into an out-of-control player character. 3.5 doesn't have explicit rules for playing a member of the nobility, but does that mean a player shouldn't be able to play one? Then again, if you do allow a player to have a character with a noble title even though there's no mechanical representation for it, aren't you just playing free-form? ;)
Furthermore, returning to your point of "My character is a master swordsman and proficient in all different modes of performance!" well, if that was a player in my group I would play the social consensus card and say "Look, man, I'm not just your DM, I'm also your friend. So stop being an idiot." Or then I could play the passive-aggressive card and say "Sure, I can totally see how that's going to help you now that the dragon is chomping you into bits/now that you're in the middle of volatile negotiations."
The main point here is that if a player comes up with a reasonable (and as my players will attest, I have a very liberal definition of reason) character trait, be it a hobby, mastery or skill, that is not represented under the system, I won't say "NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T RULES FOR IT IN THE SYSTEM!!!" If it doesn't break the game and the player doesn't abuse it, it's all cool.
You're right with the whole "DM's judgment" thing, that's why I included "mechanically" to my question above.
So, you'll concede that in Dungeons and Dragons 4 Edition, my character, in addition to having a combat role, can be excellent in almost every single non-combat task/role? And this is achieved by simply, oh so simply, saying, "Just cause."
That is "every single non-combat task/role not already represented under the system"!
Because, you know, no matter what you say, 4e still has non-combat stuff. It won't go away no matter how much you try to say your mantra. ;)
EDIT: By the way, I don't think we should derail this thread anymore with our system-battle. In the end we can all agree to disagree, and returning to the topic at hand I'm glad that there's still support for 3.5 optimization as it is still one of my systems of choice.
So, you'll concede that in Dungeons and Dragons 4 Edition, my character, in addition to having a combat role, can be excellent in almost every single non-combat task/role? And this is achieved by simply, oh so simply, saying, "Just cause."
If by "just because", you mean it can be left to the DM to determine, yes. Frankly, there is nothing wrong with that.
Given that these are the CO boards, it is safe to say that the majority of posters have a good, solid grasp of the rules of 3.X and are sufficiently aware of the possibilities for brokenness that they, as DM's can tailor the level of character for the game they're going to run. I know I've certainly done that in the past.
Given all of that, what does 4.0 do better than 3.X that means we should upgrade? Assume we all have 3.5, and know the rules well enough that we never get confused in the middle of the game as to how they work.
Rather than arguing back and forth about which is better, as if choosing to purchase one or the other, wouldn't it be better to figure out what the point of upgrading is?
Given that these are the CO boards, it is safe to say that the majority of posters have a good, solid grasp of the rules of 3.X and are sufficiently aware of the possibilities for brokenness that they, as DM's can tailor the level of character for the game they're going to run. I know I've certainly done that in the past.
Given all of that, what does 4.0 do better than 3.X that means we should upgrade? Assume we all have 3.5, and know the rules well enough that we never get confused in the middle of the game as to how they work.
Combat runs quicker, as do the majority of the things the game system actually covers. Other than that, if you already have a good grasp of 3.5, there isn't a compelling reason to switch over.
I wouldn't but there are others who would Yawn. I can add all that in later. But if suddenly, I decided I wanted to pit the previously described hypothetical character, or vice versa, in a musical showdown, the rules are robust enough to ad lib it for a while.
But shouldn't a good RP game cover more than just combat? Shouldn't it have rules that also ease the play of non combat related situations that are not always cut and dried? Shouldn't the BASE SYSTEM books have the ground rules for combat AND non combat systems that make up the core of the full RPG experience?
Not only do I not like how limited the creativity is in the new core books, I dislike what the exclusion of the non combat rules implies about what D&D is supposed to be. By puting in primarily combat related mechanics and excluding the greater depth presented in previous editions of the game, it is implicitly endorsing that primarily combat or solely combat oriented games are what an RPG is supposed to be. And the whole point of the role playing game, the thing that made it revolutionary and exciting and special in the first place, was the role playing. The assumption of the character, their personality and all that implies.
Just saying 'free form it' or 'ad lib it for now' is a clear indication that the game is lacking something. In the end a ROLE PLAYING game is not supposed to cover ONLY combat. It's rules should facilitate any action that can occur in a game situation that does not have a clear cut, easily recognized automatic outcome or where degree's of skill or luck can and do affect the action to an extent that it is not an easy call to the end result.
If all you have are rules on combat and abilities related to it, then you don't have a role playing game. You have a combat system and while some people like that, it should not then be called a role playing system.
If you can answer 'free form it' to an RPG question then you may as well free form the entire game. Sometimes this works and sometimes not. But RPG systems exist to give concrete frameworks to normally intangible concepts so that the aforementioned example of Cowboys and Indians is not what people encounter in their RP experience.
4.0 is not a role playing game. It is an action game set in a sword and sorcery mileu. While it's simplified and steamlined combat and resolution systems may attract new audiences to the hobby, I am saddened by exactly what they are going to be experiencing as an RPG compared to what used to be.
I can only hope that 4.0 as it stands now, is truly only the most basic of introductory material, as the old red box Basic D&D was back in the day, for a game that will expand it's rules and horisons into a more full system in the future.
But even if that IS the case it still seems as if the new core books and systems are far less engrossing and versatile than the 3.5 core versions that came before it.
4.0 is not a role playing game. It is an action game set in a sword and sorcery mileu. While it's simplified and steamlined combat and resolution systems may attract new audiences to the hobby, I am saddened by exactly what they are going to be experiencing as an RPG compared to what used to be.
From Wikipedia: "A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create or follow stories."
By that definition, 4e is a role-playing game. The stories created may have more in common with fantasy action movies than you'd like, but you're still assuming the identity of a fictional character and are in control of his or her actions.
I'd also be interested in hearing what you have to say about the very first iteration of Dungeons and Dragons that had very little in the way of rules for social interaction. Does that mean that by your definition the very first role-playing game in the world was not, in fact, a role-playing game? ;)
As for 4e not being able to support anything except for combat, how about all the non-combat uses for skills presented in the Player's Handbook? The system might not be perfect for all the non-combat interaction that you'd like, but I think the given model is certainly somewhat more elegant than some 3.5 material. (Such as the Diplomacy skill which is all too easy to break if you play by the rules as written. I can say this as having played a Half-Elf Bard who would've been capable of making anyone Helpful at 6th level had we been playing by RAW. Thankfully, we were using Rich Burlew's alternate rules for Diplomacy, so my character didn't dominate the game with his social-fu.)
But to return to my earlier point: the very first iterations of D&D were not much more than miniature-based combat games set in the sword and sorcery milieu where players took the role of one single character and where social interaction by the rules usually took the form of rolling for the monster's initial attitude. Does that mean that OD&D was not a role-playing game in spite of the fact that its players were taking up the roles of fictional characters and probably having a really good time while doing it? :D
Speaking of having fun, some testimonies I've read from people who were original members of Gary Gygax's gaming group suggest that a lot of game elements were simply added because players thought they'd make for cool character options. Apparently the idea for Half-Elves was born out of one player's desire to play a Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric. (Which was originally impossible since only Elves could be Fighter/Magic-Users and only Humans could be Clerics) :D
From Wikipedia: "A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create or follow stories."
By that definition, 4e is a role-playing game. The stories created may have more in common with fantasy action movies than you'd like, but you're still assuming the identity of a fictional character and are in control of his or her actions.
I'd also be interested in hearing what you have to say about the very first iteration of Dungeons and Dragons that had very little in the way of rules for social interaction. Does that mean that by your definition the very first role-playing game in the world was not, in fact, a role-playing game? ;)
As for 4e not being able to support anything except for combat, how about all the non-combat uses for skills presented in the Player's Handbook? The system might not be perfect for all the non-combat interaction that you'd like, but I think the given model is certainly somewhat more elegant than some 3.5 material. (Such as the Diplomacy skill which is all too easy to break if you play by the rules as written. I can say this as having played a Half-Elf Bard who would've been capable of making anyone Helpful at 6th level had we been playing by RAW. Thankfully, we were using Rich Burlew's alternate rules for Diplomacy, so my character didn't dominate the game with his social-fu.)
But to return to my earlier point: the very first iterations of D&D were not much more than miniature-based combat games set in the sword and sorcery milieu where players took the role of one single character and where social interaction by the rules usually took the form of rolling for the monster's initial attitude. Does that mean that OD&D was not a role-playing game in spite of the fact that its players were taking up the roles of fictional characters and probably having a really good time while doing it? :D
Speaking of having fun, some testimonies I've read from people who were original members of Gary Gygax's gaming group suggest that a lot of game elements were simply added because players thought they'd make for cool character options. Apparently the idea for Half-Elves was born out of one player's desire to play a Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric. (Which was originally impossible since only Elves could be Fighter/Magic-Users and only Humans could be Clerics) :D
i Played D&D when it first came out... i had a boxed set.... and at that time, Role-Playing games were just starting to become popular. as time went on... the game was modified and adjusted to encompass more elements of the Game World Environment... it grew and changed and became better as time went on.
but 4E is going backward...
:D
i Played D&D when it first came out... i had a boxed set.... and at that time, Role-Playing games were just starting to become popular. as time went on... the game was modified and adjusted to encompass more elements of the Game World Environment... it grew and changed and became better as time went on.
but 4E is going backward...
:D
Some would say that it's going back to a better, simpler time! (I wouldn't, since I have no firsthand experience of D&D before 3.0) ;)
:D
Simpler is not always Better
:D
Then again, "Better" is an entirely subjective term. Some people can enjoy a simpler RPG and still get the same roleplaying mileage as a group playing with a more complex system and vice versa. What it eventually boils down is different strokes.
Also, on the other side of the coin, greater complexity doesn't necessarily equate to a better game. Just ask almost anyone who's played Rolemaster. ;)
My group has always been pretty heavy on the homebrew so any errors or things we don't like we just change. Done. Everyone is happy.
I have the 4.0 PHB, and while I liked a small percentage of what I have seen (probably around 15%), I think I will stay with 3.5 for a while. Plus, there are a lot of 3.5 books that I still need, like Heroes of Battle, Dungeonscape, and the list goes on lol. It will probably end up with me updating with one book a year just like the transition from 3.0 to 3.5. (Heck, I just bought the 3.5 MM1 about 6 months ago. I will remain a 3.5 fan for a long time to come.:D
This is a valid point. If you've already spent a fortune on a game system you might as well get the greatest mileage out of it instead of converting to another one which doesn't support all the material you have. Heck, I never made much of an investment into 3.5 (I only have the Core but my gaming group collectively owns the entire 3.5 library) but I still feel that it'd be disrespectful towards them if I refused to play 3.5, if only for all the money and effort they've put into the game.
For the moment 4e will be my game of choice for pick-up games and for trying to get noobs into the hobby, but with my regular gaming buddies I'll still play 3.5 simply because they've made such an investment into the game... and because I happen to love 3.5 for all the crazy character choices it gives me. Heck, there are so many different characters out there that I've yet to be able to try out.
i Played D&D when it first came out... i had a boxed set.... and at that time, Role-Playing games were just starting to become popular. as time went on... the game was modified and adjusted to encompass more elements of the Game World Environment... it grew and changed and became better as time went on.
but 4E is going backward...
:D
My thoughts exactly.
Lets see, we started with Basic D&D thru Basic Imortals, then 1st edition AD&D, then 2nd edition AD&D, then for those that count it 2.5 AD&D, then 3.0 WOTC D&D, then 3.5 WOTC D&D, then BASIC 4.0 D&D. :D
I' ve started playing D&D after reading Elminster and Raistlin, like lots of other kids did in the past. And in my mind wizards (spellcaster in general) _should_ be 4 feet above the other classes.
Wizards _should_ be very powerful. The fact that players abuse their powers isn't a problem of the game, it's a problem of these players (cause they'll need another playing group). It was just amazing what a good player could do with a silent image at level 1. It was just pure skill/imagination of the player. I loved the wizards doing pretty much nothing during the whole combat and then resolving the situation with one single spell. I'm not talking of polymorph abusing or crap like that, just a very well placed wall of stone for istance.
That was a powerful wizard.
Now, this is the thing I'm missing most in 4th ED. I don't want my wizard to spam 24/7 the same stupid trick.
Now I can understand the fact that combatant classes were too weak, but I thought Tome of battle really gave a new taste to these.
I've played for years D&D and I never met a single "balance" problem in any 3.5 campaign we played, even if we are all used to optimization of our characters. Probably because we are all mature people.
So 4th ED really didn't fix anything for us, just took away by far too many options.
My 2 cents.
There will ALWAYS be some problems. That doesn't make the new problem worse...it means the learning curve is steeper.
====
The whole thing with rituals is one of those good/bad things. Clearly, it's meant to take the place of a spellcaster's unlimited spell selection. It's also meant to take care of utility spellcasting out of combat. you need to do X thing OOC? Make it a ritual.
However, the HUGE shift in utility casting is almost breathtaking in the amount of power it removes from spellcasters. Teleport...at level 15+ only...and 1/day? Flying...1/day...and only for 1 combat?
I don't have any problem with the removal of Wish, Shapechange, Gate, and similar spells and effects. Many of the rules associated with 3.5E clearly were not meant to be used together, but they are.
4E is maintaining a very meticulous balance. The whole PrC thing about handing about abilities right and left is gone. Now, everyone gets the same amount of abilities, only the abilities change...and the abilities are kept very, very tight together.
Single classing is now strong again. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. PrC'ing is just 'part of' single classing. Many of the extreme damage situations, the places where the numbers could just be blown apart, no longer exist.
Those are also good things.
Condensing skills down is a good thing. Ranks, by the way, are not a bad thing...the problem with the skill system is similar to the Feat system. Ranks were never treated as what they are...actual things learned. Likewise, acheiving things were never part of the Rank system at all for skills..>DC's were static, so the only thing important were the bonuses to get there.
Skills could have been corrected with very little problem by simply redefining what Ranks were and what bonuses did. I conceive as Ranks as knowledge, and making certain things attainable. Bonuses only helped you attain them more easily or to work faster...that's it. Meaning that if you didn't have, say, 15 ranks in Armorer, it didn't matter how high your check was, you don't know how to make Adamantine Full Plate. Without ten ranks, you couldn't make masterwork full plate. You could make normal full plate, and with bonuses, make it VERY quickly...but the good stuff? Not a prayer.
Much of the stuff they instituted/fixed in 4E should be applied to 3.5. Once that was done, they had a great system and style in place they could have built on and rebalanced. Unfortunately, they chose another method to pursue, and I don't really LIKE it.
Simplicity is good and easy to learn. 4E will be far easier to learn then 3.5 was. Repitition, however, is boring, and arguing about 'chess board' matchups on 4E being more important then 3.5E is really downplaying the intelligence of players, especially tactical casters.
Some other points:
4E has very much the right idea on restricting ability scores and buffing. This sends power back to the melee side of things.
4E did a much better job handling the value of armor and shields.
4E does a much better job handling the idea of big weapons adn criticals. I also like the basic way magic weapons work overall.
The elimination of many types of bonuses goes hugely towards balancing stuff.
I believe many of the rules in 4E can and should be adapted to 3.5E to help balance things out. I'm betting many DM's are doing just that.
However, the robustness and variety of the classic Engine does completely put 4E to shame, especially comparing Core. 3.5 definitely appeals more to your more intelligent gamer with imagination. Should spellcasters be able to completely overawe melees? That's an opinion question. I feel no...but they should be far more versatile. A high level melee should be a terrible foe, especially one on one...it's simply what they do. This overshadowing by mages isn't a problem in 4E, and more of that should have been brought to 3.5.
===Aelryinth
I have loads of 3.5 modules left in my bookshelf and I just don't have time for 4E right now.
And how will they handle FRCS and the other campaign settings? Will they AGAIN be converted???
4E is a mess, and I haven't even read it yet!
Also I think a combat-only D&D system is an aweful idea. Half of the fun of 3.5 is deciding what you will be doing with your character the next round, which, depending on your class, build, alignment, items, or other variables, can be one of 5 things, or one of hundreds of things. Maybe you're in a fight because of a misunderstanding, in which you could possibly talk your opponent down, and discuss what's going on. Maybe you want to discuss the future of your party with the mayor of a small village as it portains to your mercenary group, while on the side you are actually working for the bandits who have been raiding the town regularly. From what I've read, 4.0 isn't about your character's ability to do normal things which a person may be doing during their life, it's about the ability to fight, and not much else.
And don't even get me started on how 3.5 practically just came out. 4.0 may be finished without being ready for release, jeeze.
i have had to look for food(our Supplies were stolen)
we had to work for different merchants(for income and Info(undercover))
we had to craft a variety of items
we had to Discover locations by using Gather Info and Diplomacy
we had to make friends of Nobles and Commoners
etc......
there was a lot more than just "Wacking stuff, and grabbing loads of treasure"..... we had random encounters(Diplomatic)... we had to search for monster Lairs After we defeated them(then bypass thier security) ....
if you want to just "Wack stuff" .... play Arenas(we also did that)... then you have nonstop combat
if you want to Explore a World, see new creatures, discover interesting places, find hidden secrets.... thats what D&D is really about.... in the course of doing that, there are many combat situations... but its not Just about combat
:D
my games arent like that .... in games i have played:
i have had to look for food(our Supplies were stolen)
we had to work for different merchants(for income and Info(undercover))
we had to craft a variety of items
we had to Discover locations by using Gather Info and Diplomacy
we had to make friends of Nobles and Commoners
etc......
there was a lot more than just "Wacking stuff, and grabbing loads of treasure"..... we had random encounters(Diplomatic)... we had to search for monster Lairs After we defeated them(then bypass thier security) ....
if you want to just "Wack stuff" .... play Arenas(we also did that)... then you have nonstop combat
if you want to Explore a World, see new creatures, discover interesting places, find hidden secrets.... thats what D&D is really about.... in the course of doing that, there are many combat situations... but its not Just about combat
:D
Sounds like you have a pretty good DM. Our D&D revolves around encounters, yes, but in every 4-6 hour session we have, there is usually only one or 2 tops, and most of those are "you are minding your own business during a trip and (x) attacks you.
Sounds like you have a pretty good DM. Our D&D revolves around encounters, yes, but in every 4-6 hour session we have, there is usually only one or 2 tops, and most of those are "you are minding your own business during a trip and (x) attacks you.
its how i DM and how some of the better DMs i have played with run thier games as well
:D
It's also much more of a CO game than 3.5, in the sense that much more of the game is now quantifiable. If you're actually into the math of the system, you can spend hours playing with different powers and effects. It's much like Tome of Battle in this regard, which was one of my favorite 3.5 books. Instead of CO'ing to create Pun-Pun, you're CO'ing to figure out how to increase your dpr from 17 to 20. That may not be as much fun for people who'd rather optimize on a larger scale, but it's still quite a bit of fun to try to eke every last bit of optimization out of a 4th character.
I really don't understand the negative criticism of 4th edition at all. Try playing it. It's met with universal acclaim from both my groups, which contain all types of players (non-optimized pure rp'ers, combat-loving tacticians, power gamers, etc.) Not one of them wants to go back to 3.5 after trying out 4th.
It's also much more of a CO game than 3.5, in the sense that much more of the game is now quantifiable. If you're actually into the math of the system, you can spend hours playing with different powers and effects. It's much like Tome of Battle in this regard, which was one of my favorite 3.5 books. Instead of CO'ing to create Pun-Pun, you're CO'ing to figure out how to increase your dpr from 17 to 20. That may not be as much fun for people who'd rather optimize on a larger scale, but it's still quite a bit of fun to try to eke every last bit of optimization out of a 4th character.
I really don't understand the negative criticism of 4th edition at all. Try playing it. It's met with universal acclaim from both my groups, which contain all types of players (non-optimized pure rp'ers, combat-loving tacticians, power gamers, etc.) Not one of them wants to go back to 3.5 after trying out 4th.
If I wanted to figure out the best way to increase my dpr by 3 points I would go play WoW or LOTRO or any of the hundereds of MMORPS out there. Then I would never have to leave my house and I could optimize my character to my hearts content. The main point of RPing, at least for my group, is that it is a fun way to get together with a group of friends once a week and try not to die and solve some puzzles. The main part of the game is the social aspect of RPing with guys I have known for at least a decade and in some cases since I was 5. If all we do is go through and waste things I mean why not just log on and go grind XXXXX valley and hope I can get that super awesome ultra rare rooster ring drop? For me the RP is it in my campaign we have one fight a game maybe and sometimes none at all, and you know what those are usually the best games.
a) I'd also be interested in hearing what you have to say about the very first iteration of Dungeons and Dragons that had very little in the way of rules for social interaction. Does that mean that by your definition the very first role-playing game in the world was not, in fact, a role-playing game?
.......
b) Also, on the other side of the coin, greater complexity doesn't necessarily equate to a better game. Just ask almost anyone who's played Rolemaster. ;)
a) Well, as with the initial version or prototype of ANYTHING it was crude and basic and developed more afterwords, blossoming into something truly special. Yes it was an RPG by the standards of the day. Those standards have refined and advanced and changed in the 25+ years since then.
I personally find it hilarious that folks are defending 4.0 by comparing it to D&D's very first published rules. Doesn't that sound like a step BACKWARDS to anyone?
Are there some realy good idea's in 4.0? Yes. Some I will definately be incorporating into my 3.5 game. But in the end it still seems like a combat adventure game to me, not a true roleplaying system.
b) Played a RM campaign for 15 years with 4 close friends and it was great. D&D 3.X liberally utililized a lot of concepts from RM and that is what made 3.X great, in my opinion.
The class based skill mechanic was pioneered in RM for example. It was also the first game I am aware of that combined a level AND skill based game system to allow real character custimization. In RM no 2 fighters were ever the same, no 2 rogues or wizards, etc.
People focus on the charts from RM. Those who played it knew that most of the charts were never even used and were mainly there to give you choices in combat.
I find that Charm Person makes sense across all of them.
And it's not just one spell, it's alot of stuff.
THAC0 got turned into 10 + X, just like alot of other stuff.
It was a good idea.
Fast Forward to 4th Ed.
Carnivore, you are ~wrong, there are "only" 9400 round left over for whatever the rules are missing.
Yeah, combat takes ... t h a t ... long.
I'll second the Wizards nerfing.
It's like Dorf on Wizards ; too bad Fighters weren't brought up ...
oh wait, Fighters are improved now, yet the casters are castrated.
Being semi-equal but different is nice and all; yawn.
I'm still trying to figure out how to make the Divine Mind work, and roll rocks up hills over and over.
;)
For me the RP is it in my campaign we have one fight a game maybe and sometimes none at all, and you know what those are usually the best games.
I totally agree with this sentiment. My comments were directed more towards the combat side of things. I don't see the difference between 4.0 and 3.5 for noncombat. If you're not into combat, I don't see why 4.0 is any worse than 3.5, and, when you do get into combat, it's just a lot more fun.
I totally agree with this sentiment. My comments were directed more towards the combat side of things. I don't see the difference between 4.0 and 3.5 for noncombat. If you're not into combat, I don't see why 4.0 is any worse than 3.5, and, when you do get into combat, it's just a lot more fun.
Please, PLEASE tell me that you are just joking around with us all. When we get to out of combat situation, my Wizard 20 alone can do more stuff than your whole 4E group, including charming magic, disguise-spells, invisibility (MORE THAN 1/LIFETIME!!) and a LOT of other stuff. So much, infact, that listing them is harder than listing what he can't do.
Please, PLEASE tell me that you are just joking around with us all. When we get to out of combat situation, my Wizard 20 alone can do more stuff than your whole 4E group, including charming magic, disguise-spells, invisibility (MORE THAN 1/LIFETIME!!) and a LOT of other stuff. So much, infact, that listing them is harder than listing what he can't do.
I just don't see how not having those things makes 4.0 inferior. If anything, it encourages more roleplaying, and having to actually use mundane means to solve problems instead of just bypassing things with spells. 4.0 is like the start of the Wheel of Time; 3.5 is like the end.
I don't think one is any better than the other, though I can see that some might have a preference for the spell-dominant game of 3.5. Personally, I am glad to be rid of 9th level spells, power attack+wraithstrike, divine metamagic:persistent, arcane thesis, and everything else I found completely imbalancing in 3.5.
Please, PLEASE tell me that you are just joking around with us all. When we get to out of combat situation, my Wizard 20 alone can do more stuff than your whole 4E group, including charming magic, disguise-spells, invisibility (MORE THAN 1/LIFETIME!!) and a LOT of other stuff. So much, infact, that listing them is harder than listing what he can't do.
That's very deliberate and an equalizer. Wizards and other spellcasters shouldn't get to outshine everyone, all the time, and it IS a problem with 3.5.
You still have vast utility with the ritual function, it's just not as dominating or quick as 3.5. And as for top end dmg dealing...eh, all classes got the nerf. I happen to LIKE the removal of the Save or Die mechanic (or Save or Suck, same thing). No more instant removal of the main enemy when he rolls a 3 for his save.
===Aelryinth
That's very deliberate and an equalizer. Wizards and other spellcasters shouldn't get to outshine everyone, all the time, and it IS a problem with 3.5.
I agree here, but removing a lot of interesting options that might cause fun plot chances, such as clever use of illusions. (I have ended combats with use of stuff like major image alone..). The removal of options from casters wasn't the right way to go, right way to go would've been adding options to other classes. Stuff like Innuendo etc.
You still have vast utility with the ritual function, it's just not as dominating or quick as 3.5. And as for top end dmg dealing...eh, all classes got the nerf. I happen to LIKE the removal of the Save or Die mechanic (or Save or Suck, same thing). No more instant removal of the main enemy when he rolls a 3 for his save.
Ranger: "The enemies are coming, can you cast that spell that stucks that door!"
Wizard: "Allright, wait 10 minutes. Oh, and I need a random ingredient, could you go to shop for it for me?"
It's just not.. Working. Often those spells were used only in situations where you didn't have 10 minutes to spare. I mean, how often during an adventure do you have 10 minutes to spare? More rarely than never. Obviously, If your DM plays dungeon crawls and doesn't roll listen checks for other creatures in dungeon, sure, you can just wait 10 minutes behind that door to get your stuff done. Every DM I play with would roll the listen checks though, and after first combat we most probably have overwhelming group of enemies after us.
===Aelryinth
===Amadi
I agree here, but removing a lot of interesting options that might cause fun plot chances, such as clever use of illusions. (I have ended combats with use of stuff like major image alone..). The removal of options from casters wasn't the right way to go, right way to go would've been adding options to other classes. Stuff like Innuendo etc.
When you start adding stuff to other classes, you up the power curve. That's not what they wanted to do. They wanted to bring the power curve DOWN. THe other classes were already at the sweet spot...they had to bring spellcasters back there, too.
Ranger: "The enemies are coming, can you cast that spell that stucks that door!"
Wizard: "Allright, wait 10 minutes. Oh, and I need a random ingredient, could you go to shop for it for me?"
So, what you're saying is you have rituals and don't keep the materials for them on you? Or that you wouldn't, say, blow an Action Point to cast the ritual really fast? Not all rituals need be 10 minutes long, you know.
It's just not.. Working. Often those spells were used only in situations where you didn't have 10 minutes to spare. I mean, how often during an adventure do you have 10 minutes to spare? More rarely than never. Obviously, If your DM plays dungeon crawls and doesn't roll listen checks for other creatures in dungeon, sure, you can just wait 10 minutes behind that door to get your stuff done. Every DM I play with would roll the listen checks though, and after first combat we most probably have overwhelming group of enemies after us.
Now you're getting into DM style. In 3.5, you should be making liberal use of silence spells and Sound Bubble to stop the alarm from spreading, or stealth and really fast killing. Why? Because each encounter is considered seperate, and stacking them up can kill you quick. You MUST take each encounter seperately.
In 4E, the DM should be considering that the alarm is going to spread, and everyone who comes to pitch in the fight is considered all part of the same encounter, and it should be balanced that way.
So, the NEED to have all those utility spells shouldn't be there, as a hard and fast rule.
It's all in how you consider the play style. In 3.5, I would most definitely make you expend the silence spells, or hand you your ass. It's a useful trick, it expends resources, it makes the casters feel good, it helps the party.
For 4E, it's all just one encounter, and should be balanced for it.
Note: It's more fun to make the players learn a hard lesson and hand them their ass. heh!
===Aelryinth
true be told, I think the D&D 3.X sistem (or more acurately the open d20 sistem) is superior in it´s core to hat of 4 edition.
4 edition does have some good points, it handles better the AC, cap stats, and other things, but th base and customization avaiable in the d20 sistem just overshadow this, plus most fo those improvement can be easily traslated to 3.5
just to give and exampel af wath I say, I mastered a couple of introductory games to D&D, and this bagan with an easy question to the player, wath setign do you preffer?, I can easily take the current 3.5 core rules and aply them to renasentist or wild west seting, god i even did a FF7 module with the core rules, the secodn part was a bit harder I asked the player how they char lived his live, a few dice rll laters the char was done, wa sunique and fited the image the person had in mind perfectly, if it was a thief it was good at stealing stealth or could be a brute, a mercenary of soem rank with diplomacy, the owner of a burdel with an aura of leadership, taking the basic arquetipes playing with the skils and feats the char wa sunique, no way you can do that with the current 4 ed core mechanics.
remember, while this is the char optimization board it dosn´t mean people try to play with the most absurd powerfull build at hand, also the numbe rof books dosn´t matter if some restrictiosn are put in place or the DM ask for a good reason for the player for having that feat or class...
in myown case,I m currently playing with a wizard specialist in transmutation, I gave up abjuration and evocation and gave my char a good craft alchemist rank because he is first an alchemist and that interest make it study some magic for his items, also is not a combat char, is taking almost no direct damage spells (save the acid ones after all he loves acid XD ), I want to take the alter self and polimorph not because they are powefull, but because they are fun.
finally the nerf to mages in 4 edition, is a hot topic, most people say mages where too good in 3.5, I think that´s not the right choice of word, is more like the mage is not a mage at all, is just a warrior that hit with magic, someone above said "it encourages more roleplaying, and having to actually use mundane means to solve problems instead of just bypassing things with spells." but waht the... , I m taking the ROL of a mage, if I can do somethign using magic instead of mundane ways i will do it, and that most of the time dosn´t include combat casting but mundante things like mage hand to grab that, mount to avoid running for hours or mending to fix something
all the talk about the wizard being able to do everithing and outshine the other class is just not true, sure the wizard can be better than most classes at doing somethign with the right spells and only a limited numbers of time a day, unlike a thief that can pick as many locks as he wants, or a fighter that can cleave any number of foes in a single day, ok some optimized wizard builds are nasty but that dosn´t mean a well played wizard has to be... (btw casting enlarge person over a barbarian is fun too XD)
about the spell dependant thing, the true is the game is still spell dependant for doing anithing out of the ordinary, or are you going to tell me some char can breath underwater without a spell?, the only diference is that we don´t have these spells yet, come on is a fantasy game with lots of magic, if you wanted to make the wizards shine a bit less limit them just a bit, 1 less spell a day or some exp cost for some spells or soem clarification, maybe axing some feats or restrictingthem more.
4 edition also killed the mage with the rituals, not only because all of them take 10 minutes to use, but any person with a simple feat can take them, and they killed the skill sistem by makign so that the diference betwen 2 chars with the same ability score and level or similar have a diference of only 5 in a given skill (you mean my mage lvl 8 str 10 has get jump 4 while a thief lvl 6 str 11 get´s jump 9), ok you can fix that with a feat for crafting that make it count as trained or something lieke that, but then you limit the char feats
my conclusion, IF I want to play a pen and paper rol game, i play 3.5 with some friends and have a great time with osme laughts, if I want to play diable 2, well i would reinstall diablo 2, or maybe play 4 edition, or warhammer or warmachine (btw warmachine is really similar to 4 edition)
sorry for the grammar wrothe in a rush, hope you have some ranks i ndechiper script ;)