On to business. I've played D&D once... when I was six. I don't know much about the game aside from the very basics, but it seems like fun. My friend is having a D&D party in a few weeks though, and I plan on attending. He's drawing up a campaign for us (it will be all newcomers to D&D there), and he was talking to me about it. After some investigation, I believe he's commiting a travesty in the world of D&D. For, you see, throughout this campaign there is not one single...
Show
tavern.
tavern.
Hello part of the forums I never visit. It feels nice to be in a new place, with your own trolls, your own leaders, your own moderators. How are you?
On to business. I've played D&D once... when I was six. I don't know much about the game aside from the very basics, but it seems like fun. My friend is having a D&D party in a few weeks though, and I plan on attending. He's drawing up a campaign for us (it will be all newcomers to D&D there), and he was talking to me about it. After some investigation, I believe he's commiting a travesty in the world of D&D. For, you see, throughout this campaign there is not one single...Show
tavern.
As long as there is an Inn you're good. Inns are much better.
Inn have beds and bards.
Taverns have barns and brawls.
PS Don't loose time with the maid. You're probably the 2,778th adventurers to try your luck. Chancea are she won't be interested.
Unless he's going to have Inns and pubs instead...I guess...
While you're here, I've decided to be a wizard so that I can cast magic missle (or so I hear). Should come in handy in the less illuminated dungeons. Is this the right choice? Are wizards the cool kids I hear they are?
Chancea are she won't be interested.
Unless she is a doppleganger, thief, assassin, polymorphed dragon etc.
Chancea are she won't be interested.
Unless she is a doppleganger, thief, assassin, polymorphed dragon etc.
So you are proposing another explaination for half-breeds: inns and taverns?
Well, Beer Googles do explain a lot.
Hello part of the forums I never visit. It feels nice to be in a new place, with your own trolls, your own leaders, your own moderators. How are you?
On to business. I've played D&D once... when I was six. I don't know much about the game aside from the very basics, but it seems like fun. My friend is having a D&D party in a few weeks though, and I plan on attending. He's drawing up a campaign for us (it will be all newcomers to D&D there), and he was talking to me about it. After some investigation, I believe he's commiting a travesty in the world of D&D. For, you see, throughout this campaign there is not one single...Show
tavern.
I've decided to be a wizard so that I can cast magic missle (or so I hear). Should come in handy in the less illuminated dungeons.
There is an elf in front of you.
Wait...nm, wrong game.
Not sure how I'm going to do that when the party is on the run with a bunch of refugees from an anti-human genocidal army of monsters though. Well, there's always a way ...
Alright team, good job! This thread has gotten him to add a tavern!
While you're here, I've decided to be a wizard so that I can cast magic missle (or so I hear). Should come in handy in the less illuminated dungeons. Is this the right choice? Are wizards the cool kids I hear they are?
a-Magic Missle is not a good choice
b-For the less illuminated dungeons, your light spell is quite useful.
c-Whether wizards are cool depends on your definition. My sorcerer easily hands out way more damage than the party mage, but the conditions he inflicts seriously annoy the enemy [also the party at times.]
Alright team, good job! This thread has gotten him to add a tavern!
While you're here, I've decided to be a wizard so that I can cast magic missle (or so I hear). Should come in handy in the less illuminated dungeons. Is this the right choice? Are wizards the cool kids I hear they are?
a-Magic Missle is not a good choice
b-For the less illuminated dungeons, your light spell is quite useful.
c-Whether wizards are cool depends on your definition. My sorcerer easily hands out way more damage than the party mage, but the conditions he inflicts seriously annoy the enemy [also the party at times.]
But magic missle is like the cornerstone of D&D. It's the spell you cast. Not choosing Magic Missle is like not having a tavern. Also, I was making a deadale wives reference.
How does magic even work in this? It has some odd "spell-per-day" system or something? The wizard recharges overnight like a hybrid prius or something?
Oh, and one more thing. My DM is telling me that it'll be a while before I can learn a strong enough fire spell to make some sort of hot tub. Is this true? What am I supposed to do without a hot tub, where will I meet all the babes? All the cool wizards have them.
(Yes, I will keep autocarding here like a tool)
If it's the Wizard casting a big spell the cleric calling on the big miricle or the fighter using his finisher combo it's all the same mechanically
Wizards can have a small fire explosion at-will at lv 1 so if the DM is flexible and allows improve you could heat up a brass tub if you had too.
They have changed magic missile since players handbook it is auto hit flat damage so it will not work with damage rolls or when you hit abillities.
If you play the mage from essentials you get magic missle in addition to the number of powers the PHB wizards gets
Sorry for all the serious mechanics talk will try to joke latter.
Not choosing magic missile is like having some clue how the game works and what your job is.
And my job, dear sir, is to have fun! What could be more fun than casting the most iconic spell in the game, I ask you?
Fun? Or is it "mirth" around here? Does D&D mean invoking old timey speak?
Show
...or is that just my avatar?
...or is that just my avatar?
What could be more fun than casting the most iconic spell in the game, I ask you?
More fun than casting magic missile? Literally anything.
Here's what magic missile does: it kills one guy, who was so weak that any damage would have killed him. And you do that instead of something interesting. Like, say, throwing a giant column of lightning down that will kill that guy and also do other things.
First, show me that level 0 collumn of lightning spell. Then we'll talk.
Also, btw, although this is humorous, everything I've said in this thread is true.
Wizard At-Will 1, Storm Pillar.
Why does magic missle even exist then if it's just strictly worse than this cool lightning thingy-ma-jigger?
It's kinda overpowered by design, well, the pre-4th ed, if not pre-3,X one. Auto=hit, and you can do a few mores with levels? win.
Wizard At-Will 1, Storm Pillar.
Why does magic missle even exist then if it's just strictly worse than this cool lightning thingy-ma-jigger?
Because it's iconic?
There are a lot of powers that are strictly worse than other options. Magic Missile happens to be one of them. If you really care, head on over to the CharOp forums and check out the class guides, where knowledgeable players have rated powers, feats, skills, and equipment on pure effectiveness for any given class.
CharOpping is, for all the crap it gets for "ruining" the game, really just a mental excercise and an acknowledgement of the inequities in the system. Ultimately, it serves to educate. No one is forcing anyone to build their character with only the best powers (though if you wanted to, you could). I view it as a resource.
If you envision your Wizard shooting bolts of magical energy unnerringly across the room, frying mooks in their tracks, then go ahead and pick Magic Missile. So what if it sucks compared to Storm Pillar (or pretty much every other At-Will spell available)? Magic Missile is the only Magic Missile, and if what you want is Magic Missile, you can't get it any other way.
Because it's iconic?.
Which is another way of saying 'no good reason'. 'Iconism' is meaningless.
Wizard At-Will 1, Storm Pillar.
Why does magic missle even exist then if it's just strictly worse than this cool lightning thingy-ma-jigger?
It's not strictly worse. It's merely statistically worse. One time in six, MM does more damage and there are cases where SP does no damage at all. That is more than balanced by the 2/3 of the time where it does more damage, plus its ability to hit several targets [It's rare, but I figure an ideal SP can do 50 hp at 1st level, or effects worth as much.], but there will be times when you would prefer to use MM.
Now the iconism value of MM is clearly above zero, but just like all the people who tell surveys they prefer to buy green, and then go to the store and buy the cheap non-green product, it's not a huge amount. We just aren't willing to to sacrifice more than a point or two of damage [if that] for tradition.
By contrast, the tavern we started with is outright useful. It may be a trite way to start an adventure, but nobody has come up with a better [which is one reason it is trite].
It's just "boom, 6 damage to this dude". Turn over. Extremely unexciting. I've seen it used in play, and most people didn't like it mostly because of that factor. Popping annoying minions with good cover was a useful feature for it, as was shooting stuff when you had penalties, but they ultimately got rid of it because it was anti-climatic and boring.
Wizard At-Will 1, Storm Pillar.
Why does magic missle even exist then if it's just strictly worse than this cool lightning thingy-ma-jigger?
Because some of the designers care more about letting people be classically ineffective than writing the game they work for.
nice way to state opinion as fact. nice way to assume you know the devs cares and worries. nice way to assume your preference is everyone else's. also, nice passive-aggressive way to claim the designers are subpar.
erachima, i value and respect your posts, especially when they refer to mechanical concepts. your knowledge of the game and rule set is amazing. however in other more opinionated posts, your blatant disregard for the way others play D&D is aggrivating. it's like you can't concieve of anyone playing differently from 'your way', which is obviously the 'right way'.
even if you view other's way of playing D&D as the 'wrong way' (tongue in cheek), why can you not let these people enjoy the game in thier own fashion ?
to some, the past informs the present, and the current incarnation would not be appealing without some nods to history. magic missile is one of these (edit: even if the current version really is quite crappy). this is D&D 4e. we would not be here without basic, 1e, 2e, and 3.x.
Would 4e be a great game on its own, without sacred cows and nods to the history of the game, with every inefficient power removed ? yes ! would it have the draw that 4e currently does, with the full force of the brand name behind it ? no, if only because of marketing value.
in summation: by slamming the designers, by slamming the history of the game, by slamming the way other players derive entertainment, what position are you actually advocating ?
all this from one sentence.
With any other sub-par option you'd have had a point, but not this one. This one really is just as bad as it's being made out to be.
By contrast, the tavern we started with is outright useful.
Yes, it does much more damage when you hit someone with it.
Well, if you can name one thing that's fun about using Magic Missile in an actual game that is not "it reminds me of that time when", I'll give you a point. Until then, the current Magic Missile is the most boring power in the game and it has literally nothing going for it other then iconic value and nostalgia.
With any other sub-par option you'd have had a point, but not this one. This one really is just as bad as it's being made out to be.
First, a caveat. I vastly prefer the original 4e incarnation of MM over the current "more classic" version that never misses. That said...
Sometimes I want a spell that evokes a bolt of magical force that erupts from my hand and streaks across the battlefield, striking with unerring accuracy at my foes. I might jazz it up a bit (perhpas it screeches like I imagine a real-world missile does as it flies through the air, or explodes with a puff of fine wispy magical mist on impact, or something like that), but it remains to my knowledge the only super-high accuracy force damage long range spell, weak and generic as it is.
Sometimes I don't mind the weakness, and sometimes I'm explicitly after the generic-ness for reasons unrelated to nostalgia.
But yes, speaking on pure mechanical effectiveness, it is utter crap.
Even just making it 1d4+Int mod would go a long way towards making it fun. (Of course it'd also be broken with damage bonusses, that's the downside)
The "never misses" character might sound like fun, but I doubt it is for more then 3 battles or so.
Actually another point about why Magic Missile is no fun, and it's not mechanical or iconic or whatever but far more tangible and easy to understand: you don't get to roll any dice.
It's just "boom, 6 damage to this dude". Turn over. Extremely unexciting. I've seen it used in play, and most people didn't like it mostly because of that factor. Popping annoying minions with good cover was a useful feature for it, as was shooting stuff when you had penalties, but they ultimately got rid of it because it was anti-climatic and boring.
This is entirely the real problem with Magic Missile. The desire to roll dice (and roll your own dice, in the case of being dominated) is a very strong impetus to what people consider fun. Stun and Dominate (And Unconscious, Petrified, and if you're a Melee class - immobilized) are constantly being derided as "making the game not fun" (ignoring the fact that the people who complain about this never complained about 3.x where you could be removed from combat for 1d4 hours).
I'm sure it's been said before, but I'm taking credit for coming up with this phrase:
No Dice? No dice.
Magic Missile is the spell you cast at darkness. That's just how it is. Light? Pfft! Don't gimme that cantrip nonesense! That's not gonna do any damage at all to the darkness. Magic Missile, though... that's some sweet guaranteed damage there, even if you have been utterly unable to roll above a 5 the whole evening.
As for the lack of tavern, that is distressing... but there is also something to be said for starting off naked and captured by kobolds. Not that I've done that as a DM or anything. What? Why are you looking at me like that?
Well, if you can name one thing that's fun about using Magic Missile in an actual game that is not "it reminds me of that time when", I'll give you a point. Until then, the current Magic Missile is the most boring power in the game and it has literally nothing going for it other then iconic value and nostalgia.
With any other sub-par option you'd have had a point, but not this one. This one really is just as bad as it's being made out to be.
I have a person in my game who loves his magic missile. Of course, he mostly uses it with the daily that makes it a minor action for the rest of the encounter, but he does love it.
I think making it a minor action, and a class feature for the arcanist, just like the mage, would make it worthwhile and fun.
I actually have on group that's on a "Not allowed to roleplay within 10 miles of a city" restriction. Because they'd try to burn it down.
You are an epic dungeon master indeed.
People bashing magic missile and people that like magic missile seems silly. Maybe people enjoy that they have the magical power to just point and do damage. For them, magic missile is a great spell. Which means they'd also love Wizard's Fury (D1), Arcane Bolt (E3), Arcane Arrows (E13), and Arcane Volley (E23). And hopefully such a person enjoys their gaming immensely. Sure he might not carry his own weight or do his role's job, but maybe that doesn't bother anyone else at the table. That's when optimizing fun choices is what counts.
Wizard At-Will 1, Storm Pillar.
Why does magic missle even exist then if it's just strictly worse than this cool lightning thingy-ma-jigger?
Because some of the designers care more about letting people be classically ineffective than writing the game they work for.
nice way to state opinion as fact. nice way to assume you know the devs cares and worries. nice way to assume your preference is everyone else's. also, nice passive-aggressive way to claim the designers are subpar.
But in the case of the revised Magic Missily, the designers were suppar. There may be more polite ways of saying they messed up bad, but doing nothing would have been so clearly superior here.
[author=57309598 post=512605845]
to some, the past informs the present, and the current incarnation would not be appealing without some nods to history. magic missile is one of these (edit: even if the current version really is quite crappy). this is D&D 4e. we would not be here without basic, 1e, 2e, and 3.x.
And we want to preserve the good parts of that. The auto hit feature of MM is not one of those. It has been recognized as game flaw since 1e or so. Rather popular game flaw, but that is one of the most dangerous kinds for just that reason.
[author=57309598 post=512605845]
in summation: by slamming the designers, by slamming the history of the game, by slamming the way other players derive entertainment, what position are you actually advocating ?
The critic does not need to be advocating any position at all. One often does, if only at the implied level, but saying MM does 6 damage while other choices average 10 is simply stating facts and does not need to be joined with a preference for any spell.
Well, if you can name one thing that's fun about using Magic Missile in an actual game that is not "it reminds me of that time when", I'll give you a point. Until then, the current Magic Missile is the most boring power in the game and it has literally nothing going for it other then iconic value and nostalgia.
With any other sub-par option you'd have had a point, but not this one. This one really is just as bad as it's being made out to be.
I have a person in my game who loves his magic missile. Of course, he mostly uses it with the daily that makes it a minor action for the rest of the encounter, but he does love it.
I think making it a minor action, and a class feature for the arcanist, just like the mage, would make it worthwhile and fun.
I'm often considered a buzzkill because when people are excited and happy about things that are worse, detrimental, based on lies, or just plain bad, I have a tendancy to point out how absurd their joy is. "Yeah wow, that's really cool that you just did 24 Damage at level 11. I bet it would be cooler if you had used sleep instead and let the ranger Coup de Grace that dragon for 150 though."
Also, it needs to remain a standard action, Wizards should not get a class feature that does more damage, more reliably, than any striker. It just needs to do 1d4 damage and have an attack roll again, there was literally nothing wrong with it before; currently it's either completely useless, or can be used as part of a level 30 build to do 5000 damage as a daily AP bomb, or as part of a level 16 build that prevents your allies from ever getting hit by melee/close attacks.
Just doing one's job leaves room for fun things. You can carry your weight without using every turn to optimize. My PCs aren't Oped, and they have fun. They also work very well together with their "not-CharOped" characters, and as a result our combats last 45 minutes so far.
Optimizing leaves no room for fun, only room for math. I can't see playing a game just to squeeze out that extra 5%.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
Turns out we're playing 3.5ed. I didn't really know, so I guess this is posted in the wrong forum, but we'll go with it. I think I still get to roll for my magic missles, so that's cool.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
Raging debate is a fair way to put it. Though nerdraging debat is closer. basically, it comes down to systems, who likes what kind of gaming styles, and really, it's a completly subjective debate. For myself, I won't get near D&D 3.whatever with a ten-foot-pole (yes, the reference was intended, peoples), but that's just me.
And trying to figure out the majority in something like this is like trying to decide anything based on a small sample group of people: fruitless and frustrating for either side. ;)
Well, if you can name one thing that's fun about using Magic Missile in an actual game that is not "it reminds me of that time when", I'll give you a point. Until then, the current Magic Missile is the most boring power in the game and it has literally nothing going for it other then iconic value and nostalgia.
With any other sub-par option you'd have had a point, but not this one. This one really is just as bad as it's being made out to be.
I have a person in my game who loves his magic missile. Of course, he mostly uses it with the daily that makes it a minor action for the rest of the encounter, but he does love it.
I think making it a minor action, and a class feature for the arcanist, just like the mage, would make it worthwhile and fun.
I'm often considered a buzzkill because when people are excited and happy about things that are worse, detrimental, based on lies, or just plain bad, I have a tendancy to point out how absurd their joy is. "Yeah wow, that's really cool that you just did 24 Damage at level 11. I bet it would be cooler if you had used sleep instead and let the ranger Coup de Grace that dragon for 150 though."
Also, it needs to remain a standard action, Wizards should not get a class feature that does more damage, more reliably, than any striker. It just needs to do 1d4 damage and have an attack roll again, there was literally nothing wrong with it before; currently it's either completely useless, or can be used as part of a level 30 build to do 5000 damage as a daily AP bomb, or as part of a level 16 build that prevents your allies from ever getting hit by melee/close attacks.
Um...outside of level 30 cheese build AP bomb, what the hell are you talking about? MM is less damage than sneak attack, and sneak attack doesn't cost a minor action, use of a daily, nor is it once per round. Hell, pre-feat tax assassins can shell out more extra damage than MM. It's a perk. It should be made a minor action class feature granted power and have the later game cheese errata'd in some way. Hell, if you're really going to raise a stink, it could stay a normal power, but get minor action. Then all it's got going for it as a choice is that it's a minor action RBA.
Not choosing magic missile is like having some clue how the game works and what your job is.
And my job, dear sir, is to have fun! What could be more fun than casting the most iconic spell in the game, I ask you?
Fun? Or is it "mirth" around here? Does D&D mean invoking old timey speak?
Dude - dont ya know that DnD is serious business?
Not choosing magic missile is like having some clue how the game works and what your job is.
And my job, dear sir, is to have fun! What could be more fun than casting the most iconic spell in the game, I ask you?
Fun? Or is it "mirth" around here? Does D&D mean invoking old timey speak?
Dude - dont ya know that DnD is serious business?
Look who is talking.
Pot is calling kettle black? Hm?
Look who is talking.
Pot is calling kettle black? Hm?
Ubergeek is right - in this day and age of modern appliances, stainless steel, electric stoves and heat resistant plastic that can be of any colour there is no need for the pot to call the kettle black.
Turns out we're playing 3.5ed. I didn't really know, so I guess this is posted in the wrong forum, but we'll go with it. I think I still get to roll for my magic missles, so that's cool.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
You will get answers all over the place. My own: I prefer 4e, but 4e is D&D only because the lawyers say so. There are likely a dozen games on the market that are more D&D than 4e. Nobody is releasing any reliable information, but 4e is probably the majority game. However, I fear that Pathfinder [3.7?] is replacing it.
Turns out we're playing 3.5ed. I didn't really know, so I guess this is posted in the wrong forum, but we'll go with it. I think I still get to roll for my magic missles, so that's cool.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
You will get answers all over the place. My own: I prefer 4e, but 4e is D&D only because the lawyers say so. There are likely a dozen games on the market that are more D&D than 4e. Nobody is releasing any reliable information, but 4e is probably the majority game. However, I fear that Pathfinder [3.7?] is replacing it.
No prooves of it, as companies like WOTC don't disclose sales. And others, like Paizo, maybe exagerate theirs.
4e IS D&D, and to say otherwise is an insults to the old fans of D&D who picked later this edition, because they know the real deal when they see it. It have all the deep marks of it, all over - including still some weaknesses.
CharOpping is, for all the crap it gets for "ruining" the game, really just a mental excercise and an acknowledgement of the inequities in the system. Ultimately, it serves to educate.
It also serves to locate and identify overpowered combinations that COULD ruin the game, so they can be fixed. When a consensus forms on CharOp that something is overpowered, it's a pretty good bet that an update will change that thing fairly soon.
On at least one occasion CharOp has caught a flat-out error by WotC, in just a couple hours after release, and quickly reached a consensus to just pretend it had not been made. (The error was omitting "as an encounter power" from a revised multiclass feat. It was fixed in the next updates a month later.)
You will get answers all over the place. My own: I prefer 4e, but 4e is D&D only because the lawyers say so. There are likely a dozen games on the market that are more D&D than 4e. Nobody is releasing any reliable information, but 4e is probably the majority game. However, I fear that Pathfinder [3.7?] is replacing it.
Hey, if TSR wanted to keep control over their intellectual property they should have had the decency not to screw up their finances! WotC saved D&D, therefore they get to decide what will be in a new edition. If you don't like it, you can always fire up the Delorean and head back to Lake Geneva in 1985 to prevent Lorraine Williams from gaining control of the company.
Whether it is your favourite edition is of course up to you.
Also, damn, there's a lot of spells to choose from. How am I supposed to decide? Like, how will I know if I'm ever going to need to feather-fall something, or like whisper long distances and stuff? Is it just a guessing game?
I always like spider climb for utillity and magic missle for combat.
You will at first be picking the spells that start in your spell book that you get to pick from each day as you adventure and level up more can be added to the book. So you do not NEED to start with a messanger spell you might be able to buy a copy from the first non adventuring wizard you meet. Or if he is evil kill him and loot his library.
This is one of the things we fans of 4E like. in 4E you have the attack spells and some utillity spells as your powers and then in your ritual book you have all the 10 minuets to cast and 50gp worth of newt eyeball spells that are for travel, permenant enchantments and long rang scrying/communication .
Find out what books are allowed complete mage has feats that can let you throw magic zap damage at will instead of throwing 3 or 4 spells and then shooting your crossbow until you have a good rest
So I met with my friend and we started off making my character. He wanted to make it for me and just have it ready for when the party happened but I would not be denied the chance to roll dice. I got some pretty cool stats, it was like 15, 15, 15, 11, 12, 10 as my numbers, so I hear that's average or slightly above. I decided to be neutral/neutral so that I wouldn't have to do anything, like save a princess who won't then date me.
Also, damn, there's a lot of spells to choose from. How am I supposed to decide? Like, how will I know if I'm ever going to need to feather-fall something, or like whisper long distances and stuff? Is it just a guessing game?
Are you playing 4E? It sounds more like some prior edition.
Assuming you're playing 4E D&D:
Those stats are a little high in total (assuming racial bonuses are not included) BUT rather flat and limiting. What may save them is racial bonuses. Most races get +2 to one specific stat and then another +2 to one of two others. Some don't get any choice at all; humans only get one +2 bonus but can put it anywhere. Don't worry if that seems a bit short; all the races in the PHBs are extremely well balanced.
Strong recommendation though: NEVER AGAIN roll stats for your character. Use the point-buy system instead.
Alignment - neutral/neutral is gone, replaced by Unaligned. Half of the rest of the alignment system is gone too. In fact, 4E has one of the lamest alignment systems I've seen in any RPG that bothered to even pretend to have anything in that portion of the design space - fortunately, it doesn't really matter. Except for Evil characters, and that's because some DMs reject them - mostly because of the prevalence of Stupid Evil and Immature Evil.
(I've played evil characters, sometimes under DMs that I later learned automatically rejected evil characters - apparently they didn't notice the notation on the character sheet. I've never had a problem. Here's the ONE rule you MUST follow - breaking it is pretty much the definition of the Stupid alignment: DON'T EFF UP THE PARTY!)
As for picking powers, in 4E you really don't have as many to choose from as you think. First off you're class-restricted, and second you're level-restricted. There are 7322 powers (assuming you have access to *all* 4E materials, which means a DDI subscription) that contain "a" but a first-level wizard is already down to 54 to choose from. And those 54 come in three groups: you'll pick two or three at-will powers out of 21, one encounter power out of 15, and two (for the wizard, one for everyone else) daily powers out of 18.
(Wizard is one of the classes with the most powers to choose from. Fighter is the other. I don't know which has more. Most classes have significantly fewer. In some Essentials and post-Essentials classes, you have very little choice at all at level 1.)
Then you get to think about what your character will do in combat. In most classes that will eliminate a substantial share of the powers - they favor a weapon or implement you won't use, or do something different from what you intend to focus on.
It's nothing unusual to find no power available that fits a character concept.
Turns out we're playing 3.5ed. I didn't really know, so I guess this is posted in the wrong forum, but we'll go with it. I think I still get to roll for my magic missles, so that's cool.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
You will get answers all over the place. My own: I prefer 4e, but 4e is D&D only because the lawyers say so. There are likely a dozen games on the market that are more D&D than 4e. Nobody is releasing any reliable information, but 4e is probably the majority game. However, I fear that Pathfinder [3.7?] is replacing it.
No prooves of it, as companies like WOTC don't disclose sales. And others, like Paizo, maybe exagerate theirs.
4e IS D&D, and to say otherwise is an insults to the old fans of D&D who picked later this edition, because they know the real deal when they see it. It have all the deep marks of it, all over - including still some weaknesses.
4e may be the superior game. I think so anyway. But to call it D&D is correct only in the legal sense. You can take a PC from any of the previous editions and, with more effort than it is worth, play it in any other previous edition. With 4e, you don't even bother trying. The games are just that different.
4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
Just because it's mechanically different doesn't mean the feeling has changed, and if the feeling has changed odds are the previous thing you played wasn't D&D, because D&Ds attempted goal has always been what 4e does so well: Heroic Adventurers Doing Heroic Adventures.
Turns out we're playing 3.5ed. I didn't really know, so I guess this is posted in the wrong forum, but we'll go with it. I think I still get to roll for my magic missles, so that's cool.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
You will get answers all over the place. My own: I prefer 4e, but 4e is D&D only because the lawyers say so. There are likely a dozen games on the market that are more D&D than 4e. Nobody is releasing any reliable information, but 4e is probably the majority game. However, I fear that Pathfinder [3.7?] is replacing it.
No prooves of it, as companies like WOTC don't disclose sales. And others, like Paizo, maybe exagerate theirs.
4e IS D&D, and to say otherwise is an insults to the old fans of D&D who picked later this edition, because they know the real deal when they see it. It have all the deep marks of it, all over - including still some weaknesses.
4e may be the superior game. I think so anyway. But to call it D&D is correct only in the legal sense. You can take a PC from any of the previous editions and, with more effort than it is worth, play it in any other previous edition. With 4e, you don't even bother trying. The games are just that different.
4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
I can take any of the characters I've played in 4e and make that same character in 3.5. Some things will use different parts of the game to accomplish something, but the same is true between any two editions.
Mechanical likeness is not something to judge sameness on. It'll only get you into annoying situations. Would you call a modern Mercedes "not a Mercedes" because modern ones have on-board computers and are mechanically so different that an old-timer "Mercedes mechanic" wouldn't be able to guess where to start fixing one?
The mechanic in question likely would, and depending on how it changed performance, it would also be said by the drivers [whether complaining or praising doesn't matter here.]
Just because it's mechanically different doesn't mean the feeling has changed,
True and false. Feeling is a distinctly nebulous term that allows massive differences in evaluation. But when we start to clear up what is meant, we find that there are a dozen or so games around that provide more of the old feeling than 4e does.
and if the feeling has changed odds are the previous thing you played wasn't D&D, because D&Ds attempted goal has always been what 4e does so well: Heroic Adventurers Doing Heroic Adventures.
Now you are saying that 4e is different, that it works and previous editions didn't. That 4e is true D&D and earlier versions are false. I am not arguing which deserves the title. I am merely pointing out that there is a massive difference, and that you are now agreeing with me about.
But either way, 4e is very much still DnD. You're still swinging swords/casting spells/some combination at the same old monsters in the same worlds/kinds of worlds. The gods haven't really changed, and there just isn't that much of a jump from "Zerrin casts burning spray at the orc leader, [describes effect]." to "Zerrin uses burning spray on the orc leader, [describes basically similar effect]."
In any edition, the party goes back to town to the praise of it's folk, the bard retells the story with some amount of embellishment, and beds the mayor's lovely daughter, while the rogue and paladin engage in a lively Kantian/Moral Relativism debate and the dwarf cleric/fighter/who-cares-he's-a-dwarf drinks with the rowdy tavern patrons.
I can tell you, from spending the last year working at an automotive repair shop, that most drivers and old mechanics don't think like that. New Mustangs are very much Mustangs, and 4th gen trans ams are still trans ams.
Your experience of repair shops is likely superior to mine, but I suspect you are confusing silence for consent here. The mechanic deals with a stream of minor parts and has no call to evaluate how much the car has changed from model to model. It is a Mustang because he needs to get the replacement parts from certain people, not because it is different or the same as previous models.
Now when I look at car evaluation magazines, I do find "different" used when the model was no longer the same as previous years. [I think it was Pontiac that was involved when they tried putting the shell of one car model over the engine of another, but I don't recall which way.] And I of course recall the reverse, where the model was deemed not different. ["This is not your father's Olsmobile." caused a number of critics to respond "Yes, it is.".
But either way, 4e is very much still DnD. You're still swinging swords/casting spells/some combination at the same old monsters in the same worlds/kinds of worlds. The gods haven't really changed, and there just isn't that much of a jump from "Zerrin casts burning spray at the orc leader, [describes effect]." to "Zerrin uses burning spray on the orc leader, [describes basically similar effect]."
In any edition, the party goes back to town to the praise of it's folk, the bard retells the story with some amount of embellishment, and beds the mayor's lovely daughter, while the rogue and paladin engage in a lively Kantian/Moral Relativism debate and the dwarf cleric/fighter/who-cares-he's-a-dwarf drinks with the rowdy tavern patrons.
The problem with this definition is that it means that a whole lot of other games are also D&D. Just about every alliteration title game becomes part of the family. And when we ask which of all these games is the most different from the others, 4e ranks quite high in being different. A game that brags about killing all sorts of sacred cows doesn't have a beef when it is considered different.
Don't confuse "mechanically different" with "not the same game". D&D is still trying to be the same thing (and in many ways, succeeding more) but that doesn't mean the games are suddenly different games. They have the exact same goals as they always have, they merely walk different paths to it.
He already said he's playing 3.x, I don't know why this thread hasn't been deleted yet.
Hey, lets not all get excited! The thread merely needs to be moved to the wildlife reserve on the other side of the fora (aka the Previous Editions boards).
4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
David, you are aware that OD&D was designed by a pair of wargamers, using a houseruled version of a wargame's combat rules, right? There have been enough spells printed for 1E, 2E and 3.X to raze a dozen forests. TSR and Ral Partha released offical D&D miniatures in the 80's and 90's. Player's Option: Combat and Tactics was published by TSR in 1995, and a lot of its rules made their way into 3.0.
There is probably a technical term for the fallacy you committed in your post, but it boils down to: I never used miniatures, tactics, or advanced options in previous editions. Therefore any edition which uses miniatures, tactics or advanced options is not really D&D.
The problem with this definition is that it means that a whole lot of other games are also D&D. Just about every alliteration title game becomes part of the family. And when we ask which of all these games is the most different from the others, 4e ranks quite high in being different. A game that brags about killing all sorts of sacred cows doesn't have a beef when it is considered different.
I would consider Pathfinder to be a form of D&D, or at the very least a kindred spirit to D&D. Pathfinder is built on the same game mechanics of 3.X, and it adheres to the style of D&D.
I would not consider d20 Modern to be a form of D&D, despite using the d20 system rules, because the style of the game is too different. On the other hand, I would consider Gamma World (and Metamorphosis Alpha) to be a form of D&D. Gamma World is all about fighting for your life, and taking the loot of those you kill; if that is not the essence of D&D, then I don't know what is.
I would definitely consider Tunnels & Trolls to be a form of D&D. The game mechanics are not the same, and it is a little bit more lighthearted, but the spirit of the game is not far removed from D&D's.
I would never in a million years consider GURPS to be a form of D&D; the game's mechanics are too different and the feel of the game is to variable.
I do not consider any of the Palladium games to be a form of D&D, despite the mechanical similarities to OD&D. Something about the Palladium games' style just seems different enough, that I have difficulty considering it to be a different iteration of the same game. (I am sure there may be others who disagree with me.)
The Computer wishes to inform the citizens of Alpha Complex that Paranoia (the darkly humorous roleplaying game) is not and has never been a form of any other non-fun game, roleplaying or otherwise. The Computer has decreed that comparing Paranoia to other non-fun games is Treason. Please report any citizens comparing Paranoia to other non-fun games (even if it is in a positive and non-critical manner that makes Paranoia appear better than any other non-fun games) to the Computer.
Mechanical likeness is not something to judge sameness on. It'll only get you into annoying situations. Would you call a modern Mercedes "not a Mercedes" because modern ones have on-board computers and are mechanically so different that an old-timer "Mercedes mechanic" wouldn't be able to guess where to start fixing one?
Just because it's mechanically different doesn't mean the feeling has changed, and if the feeling has changed odds are the previous thing you played wasn't D&D, because D&Ds attempted goal has always been what 4e does so well: Heroic Adventurers Doing Heroic Adventures.
This. So much this. D&D was never D&D before 4th edition.
D&D was always D&D
Every edition was D&D, every players has different tastes. No one edition or view is right for everyone.
4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
David, you are aware that OD&D was designed by a pair of wargamers, using a houseruled version of a wargame's combat rules, right? There have been enough spells printed for 1E, 2E and 3.X to raze a dozen forests. TSR and Ral Partha released offical D&D miniatures in the 80's and 90's. Player's Option: Combat and Tactics was published by TSR in 1995, and a lot of its rules made their way into 3.0.
There is probably a technical term for the fallacy you committed in your post, but it boils down to: I never used miniatures, tactics, or advanced options in previous editions. Therefore any edition which uses miniatures, tactics or advanced options is not really D&D.
Now we can start with the quibble that miniatures are in fact older than D&D and have been featured in every edition. So a game that did not feature them would be open to challenge as not D&D, not that a game that did feature them would not be D&D.
POCT can also be dismissed as of little import here. It was a rarely used book, designed for special cases, and thus not a part of the definition of the game.
Now the massive lists of spells are of interest, but what we see is lots of differences between earlier editions and 4e. What was half the book and of interest to only a couple of classes is now either a tiny fraction of the book, or a much larger majority, depending on the definition used. For most classes these spells could be ignored. In 4e, each and every player has a given set of tactics of considerable conplexity. So we are seeing great differences between 4e and earlier editions.
I can tell you, from spending the last year working at an automotive repair shop, that most drivers and old mechanics don't think like that. New Mustangs are very much Mustangs, and 4th gen trans ams are still trans ams.
Your experience of repair shops is likely superior to mine, but I suspect you are confusing silence for consent here. The mechanic deals with a stream of minor parts and has no call to evaluate how much the car has changed from model to model. It is a Mustang because he needs to get the replacement parts from certain people, not because it is different or the same as previous models.
Now when I look at car evaluation magazines, I do find "different" used when the model was no longer the same as previous years. [I think it was Pontiac that was involved when they tried putting the shell of one car model over the engine of another, but I don't recall which way.] And I of course recall the reverse, where the model was deemed not different. ["This is not your father's Olsmobile." caused a number of critics to respond "Yes, it is.".But either way, 4e is very much still DnD. You're still swinging swords/casting spells/some combination at the same old monsters in the same worlds/kinds of worlds. The gods haven't really changed, and there just isn't that much of a jump from "Zerrin casts burning spray at the orc leader, [describes effect]." to "Zerrin uses burning spray on the orc leader, [describes basically similar effect]."
In any edition, the party goes back to town to the praise of it's folk, the bard retells the story with some amount of embellishment, and beds the mayor's lovely daughter, while the rogue and paladin engage in a lively Kantian/Moral Relativism debate and the dwarf cleric/fighter/who-cares-he's-a-dwarf drinks with the rowdy tavern patrons.
The problem with this definition is that it means that a whole lot of other games are also D&D. Just about every alliteration title game becomes part of the family. And when we ask which of all these games is the most different from the others, 4e ranks quite high in being different. A game that brags about killing all sorts of sacred cows doesn't have a beef when it is considered different.
Cars. I work in a shop that does both repairs and performance work. We have a full performance dyno, and the boss builds and races dragsters. We have things like Panteras and early 60's Corvettes. We even have a 41 Ford pickup. I assure you, when I say that the people who know what they're talking about don't talk about cars in the way you've described, I'm not blowing smoke. As always, this is just my personal experience, of course. Other groups of mechanics may differ.
Another thing, though. Two of the mechanics with which I work (one being the owner) have been doing this for over 40+ years, since they were kids. They know the entirety of the car on which they're working, most of the time. I also often hear them refering to car "behaviors" as being common to certain makes, even from 60's or 70's models to recent models. Trust me, it was a bad example for your side of the argument.
DnD. I'm not sure that it would be innacurate to say that both 4e and Pathfinder are DnD. 4e is more DnD, IMO. It's got the gods, the worlds, etc. I'd say it's more accurate to say that Pathfinder is also DnD, in all but name, than it is to say that 4e is only DnD in name.
tangent:
I have a friend right now who is trying to convince me that Pathfinder is somewhere close to being as balanced as 4e. I laughed the first time he said it.
4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
David, you are aware that OD&D was designed by a pair of wargamers, using a houseruled version of a wargame's combat rules, right? There have been enough spells printed for 1E, 2E and 3.X to raze a dozen forests. TSR and Ral Partha released offical D&D miniatures in the 80's and 90's. Player's Option: Combat and Tactics was published by TSR in 1995, and a lot of its rules made their way into 3.0.
There is probably a technical term for the fallacy you committed in your post, but it boils down to: I never used miniatures, tactics, or advanced options in previous editions. Therefore any edition which uses miniatures, tactics or advanced options is not really D&D.
Now we can start with the quibble that miniatures are in fact older than D&D and have been featured in every edition. So a game that did not feature them would be open to challenge as not D&D, not that a game that did feature them would not be D&D.
So taking this argument to its conclusion, that means that 2E, which did not require miniatures (despite the fact that TSR was producing minis in partnership with Ral Partha, minis that had the D&D 2E logo on them), may or may not have been D&D. Why not? Because some players did not use minis, and the PHB didn't go out of its way to encourage their use. By contrast, in the 1E PHB, Gygax does encourage the use of minis, though he allows that coins, chess pieces and buttons are suitable, if inferior, stand-ins for minis.
Likewise, tactics were a part of 1E. The name of Gygax's company was "Tactical Studies Rules", a hint about his view of tactics. (And rules. And having to study the rules.
) The options available to players in 1E were not that different from the optins available to players in 2E. As of 3.0, the focus stopped being options for players, and become options for player characters. That is a greater paradigm shift than Wizards and CoDzillas getting powerful spells, to everyone gets powers.4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
David, you are aware that OD&D was designed by a pair of wargamers, using a houseruled version of a wargame's combat rules, right? There have been enough spells printed for 1E, 2E and 3.X to raze a dozen forests. TSR and Ral Partha released offical D&D miniatures in the 80's and 90's. Player's Option: Combat and Tactics was published by TSR in 1995, and a lot of its rules made their way into 3.0.
There is probably a technical term for the fallacy you committed in your post, but it boils down to: I never used miniatures, tactics, or advanced options in previous editions. Therefore any edition which uses miniatures, tactics or advanced options is not really D&D.
Now we can start with the quibble that miniatures are in fact older than D&D and have been featured in every edition. So a game that did not feature them would be open to challenge as not D&D, not that a game that did feature them would not be D&D.
So taking this argument to its conclusion, that means that 2E, which did not require miniatures (despite the fact that TSR was producing minis in partnership with Ral Partha, minis that had the D&D 2E logo on them), may or may not have been D&D. Why not? Because some players did not use minis, and the PHB didn't go out of its way to encourage their use. By contrast, in the 1E PHB, Gygax does encourage the use of minis, though he allows that coins, chess pieces and buttons are suitable, if inferior, stand-ins for minis.
Your example is technically true and effectively false. Whether we were officially required to or not, we were using minis all the way thru 2e. There was no effective difference between 1, 2, 3, and 4 here. Now we might note that there has been a much greater formalization of the board, but all have attempted to measure just what distances were involved.
Likewise, tactics were a part of 1E. The name of Gygax's company was "Tactical Studies Rules", a hint about his view of tactics.
Names can be misleading. Iceland is much warmer than Greenland. And of course tactics have been part of the game from the start. The point is the amount of tactics. Prior to 4e, the majority of players could do fine with "I move and attack." The 4e player has to consider how he attacks, and considers the board a lot more too.
(And rules. And having to study the rules.
Please explain how that is not just a change in verbalage.
(And rules. And having to study the rules.
Please explain how that is not just a change in verbalage.
In 1E, movement was measured in inches. Humans, Elves, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs could move 12 inches per round, anyone shorter could only move 6 inches. That's because the author of the game (an avid wargamer) used a battle grid where each square was a one inch cube. If that doesn't indicate that Gary Gygax wanted you to use minis, I'm not sure what does. You are correct that 1E did not require you to use minis; neither does 3.X or 4E. Rather the rules of game place the players at a disadvantage when they can't use a grid and miniatures (or buttons, coins, M&M's, chess pieces, etc.) to help visualize movement during combat. In my opinion, the main difference between 1E and 3.0 and later editions, is that the rules were more easily ignored if the DM did not understand or like them. (This goes double for 2E, where the rules were barely consistent from page to page.)
3.0's rules were more integrated (after all they were the handiwork of Skip Williams who had been answering questions from confused DMs and players about the 2E rules for years), and while some parts could be ignored, others could not. A DM might not use the Attack of Oppurtunity rules, but I can only remember a single DM who was so upset with the 3.0 initiative rules that he junked them in favor of the 2E initiative rules. When I asked the DM how the old rules were supposed to be compatible with my Rogue's Improved Initiative feat, he looked at me like a deer caught in the headlights. The initiative rules are not modular, and if you remove them, the rules start to break down. (I am using this anecdote as an example. I am not trying to change the subject to initiative.
)I have played 3.X with DMs who did not bother with minis or a grid. Only one of those DMs could pull it off, without sacrificing the rules or details, and not waste time. (That DM is Sam Weiss. He lives in the Bronx, and is one of more awesome DMs I encountered while playing Living Greyhawk.
Just to clarify, Sam did not do this all the time, but he could pull it off.)As for the options for players v. options for player characters bit, please take a look at the various posts Mike Mearls and Monte Cook have written. Basically in 1E the DM to challenge the players. If the players knew how to concoct gunpowder, how to hollow out a log and then used the gunpowder, the log and some diamonds to blow a hole in a lizardman, that would be okay. In 3.X and later, the PC's skills and knowledge is important. Even if a player can't spell portcullis to save his life, if his PC has ranks in Knowledge (Architecture/Engineering) or Dungeoneering, and the player rolls well, the PC will be able to rig the portcullis to drop when the lizardfolk comes in the room.
The use of a grid has always made the game better. Further, it's not required in DnD. You can just as easily keep a mental image of things. I actually find it easier in 4e than in 3.5. I know that each unit takes up about 5 feet squared, and we just verbally translate "square" to "5 feet", and then we're all imagining the scene using nothing but dice, sheets and communication.
It can be fun, with the right group. But most of the time, it's better to have the minis and battlemat.
Especially the awesome flipmats (the Tavern one? love!) they're selling, and the fold outs that come with various box sets and adventures and stuff. My fiance wants to get molds and make 3d stuff, and suddenly I'm remember what got me into this hobby.
Hero Quest. boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/699/heroques...
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
Turns out we're playing 3.5ed. I didn't really know, so I guess this is posted in the wrong forum, but we'll go with it. I think I still get to roll for my magic missles, so that's cool.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
Raging debate is a fair way to put it. Though nerdraging debat is closer. basically, it comes down to systems, who likes what kind of gaming styles, and really, it's a completly subjective debate. For myself, I won't get near D&D 3.whatever with a ten-foot-pole (yes, the reference was intended, peoples), but that's just me.
And trying to figure out the majority in something like this is like trying to decide anything based on a small sample group of people: fruitless and frustrating for either side. ;)
Well, if you can name one thing that's fun about using Magic Missile in an actual game that is not "it reminds me of that time when", I'll give you a point. Until then, the current Magic Missile is the most boring power in the game and it has literally nothing going for it other then iconic value and nostalgia.
With any other sub-par option you'd have had a point, but not this one. This one really is just as bad as it's being made out to be.
I have a person in my game who loves his magic missile. Of course, he mostly uses it with the daily that makes it a minor action for the rest of the encounter, but he does love it.
I think making it a minor action, and a class feature for the arcanist, just like the mage, would make it worthwhile and fun.
I'm often considered a buzzkill because when people are excited and happy about things that are worse, detrimental, based on lies, or just plain bad, I have a tendancy to point out how absurd their joy is. "Yeah wow, that's really cool that you just did 24 Damage at level 11. I bet it would be cooler if you had used sleep instead and let the ranger Coup de Grace that dragon for 150 though."
Also, it needs to remain a standard action, Wizards should not get a class feature that does more damage, more reliably, than any striker. It just needs to do 1d4 damage and have an attack roll again, there was literally nothing wrong with it before; currently it's either completely useless, or can be used as part of a level 30 build to do 5000 damage as a daily AP bomb, or as part of a level 16 build that prevents your allies from ever getting hit by melee/close attacks.
Um...outside of level 30 cheese build AP bomb, what the hell are you talking about? MM is less damage than sneak attack, and sneak attack doesn't cost a minor action, use of a daily, nor is it once per round. Hell, pre-feat tax assassins can shell out more extra damage than MM. It's a perk. It should be made a minor action class feature granted power and have the later game cheese errata'd in some way. Hell, if you're really going to raise a stink, it could stay a normal power, but get minor action. Then all it's got going for it as a choice is that it's a minor action RBA.
Not choosing magic missile is like having some clue how the game works and what your job is.
And my job, dear sir, is to have fun! What could be more fun than casting the most iconic spell in the game, I ask you?
Fun? Or is it "mirth" around here? Does D&D mean invoking old timey speak?
Dude - dont ya know that DnD is serious business?
Not choosing magic missile is like having some clue how the game works and what your job is.
And my job, dear sir, is to have fun! What could be more fun than casting the most iconic spell in the game, I ask you?
Fun? Or is it "mirth" around here? Does D&D mean invoking old timey speak?
Dude - dont ya know that DnD is serious business?
Look who is talking.
Pot is calling kettle black? Hm?
Look who is talking.
Pot is calling kettle black? Hm?
Ubergeek is right - in this day and age of modern appliances, stainless steel, electric stoves and heat resistant plastic that can be of any colour there is no need for the pot to call the kettle black.
Turns out we're playing 3.5ed. I didn't really know, so I guess this is posted in the wrong forum, but we'll go with it. I think I still get to roll for my magic missles, so that's cool.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
You will get answers all over the place. My own: I prefer 4e, but 4e is D&D only because the lawyers say so. There are likely a dozen games on the market that are more D&D than 4e. Nobody is releasing any reliable information, but 4e is probably the majority game. However, I fear that Pathfinder [3.7?] is replacing it.
Turns out we're playing 3.5ed. I didn't really know, so I guess this is posted in the wrong forum, but we'll go with it. I think I still get to roll for my magic missles, so that's cool.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
You will get answers all over the place. My own: I prefer 4e, but 4e is D&D only because the lawyers say so. There are likely a dozen games on the market that are more D&D than 4e. Nobody is releasing any reliable information, but 4e is probably the majority game. However, I fear that Pathfinder [3.7?] is replacing it.
No prooves of it, as companies like WOTC don't disclose sales. And others, like Paizo, maybe exagerate theirs.
4e IS D&D, and to say otherwise is an insults to the old fans of D&D who picked later this edition, because they know the real deal when they see it. It have all the deep marks of it, all over - including still some weaknesses.
CharOpping is, for all the crap it gets for "ruining" the game, really just a mental excercise and an acknowledgement of the inequities in the system. Ultimately, it serves to educate.
It also serves to locate and identify overpowered combinations that COULD ruin the game, so they can be fixed. When a consensus forms on CharOp that something is overpowered, it's a pretty good bet that an update will change that thing fairly soon.
On at least one occasion CharOp has caught a flat-out error by WotC, in just a couple hours after release, and quickly reached a consensus to just pretend it had not been made. (The error was omitting "as an encounter power" from a revised multiclass feat. It was fixed in the next updates a month later.)
You will get answers all over the place. My own: I prefer 4e, but 4e is D&D only because the lawyers say so. There are likely a dozen games on the market that are more D&D than 4e. Nobody is releasing any reliable information, but 4e is probably the majority game. However, I fear that Pathfinder [3.7?] is replacing it.
Hey, if TSR wanted to keep control over their intellectual property they should have had the decency not to screw up their finances! WotC saved D&D, therefore they get to decide what will be in a new edition. If you don't like it, you can always fire up the Delorean and head back to Lake Geneva in 1985 to prevent Lorraine Williams from gaining control of the company.
Whether it is your favourite edition is of course up to you.
Also, damn, there's a lot of spells to choose from. How am I supposed to decide? Like, how will I know if I'm ever going to need to feather-fall something, or like whisper long distances and stuff? Is it just a guessing game?
I always like spider climb for utillity and magic missle for combat.
You will at first be picking the spells that start in your spell book that you get to pick from each day as you adventure and level up more can be added to the book. So you do not NEED to start with a messanger spell you might be able to buy a copy from the first non adventuring wizard you meet. Or if he is evil kill him and loot his library.
This is one of the things we fans of 4E like. in 4E you have the attack spells and some utillity spells as your powers and then in your ritual book you have all the 10 minuets to cast and 50gp worth of newt eyeball spells that are for travel, permenant enchantments and long rang scrying/communication .
Find out what books are allowed complete mage has feats that can let you throw magic zap damage at will instead of throwing 3 or 4 spells and then shooting your crossbow until you have a good rest
So I met with my friend and we started off making my character. He wanted to make it for me and just have it ready for when the party happened but I would not be denied the chance to roll dice. I got some pretty cool stats, it was like 15, 15, 15, 11, 12, 10 as my numbers, so I hear that's average or slightly above. I decided to be neutral/neutral so that I wouldn't have to do anything, like save a princess who won't then date me.
Also, damn, there's a lot of spells to choose from. How am I supposed to decide? Like, how will I know if I'm ever going to need to feather-fall something, or like whisper long distances and stuff? Is it just a guessing game?
Are you playing 4E? It sounds more like some prior edition.
Assuming you're playing 4E D&D:
Those stats are a little high in total (assuming racial bonuses are not included) BUT rather flat and limiting. What may save them is racial bonuses. Most races get +2 to one specific stat and then another +2 to one of two others. Some don't get any choice at all; humans only get one +2 bonus but can put it anywhere. Don't worry if that seems a bit short; all the races in the PHBs are extremely well balanced.
Strong recommendation though: NEVER AGAIN roll stats for your character. Use the point-buy system instead.
Alignment - neutral/neutral is gone, replaced by Unaligned. Half of the rest of the alignment system is gone too. In fact, 4E has one of the lamest alignment systems I've seen in any RPG that bothered to even pretend to have anything in that portion of the design space - fortunately, it doesn't really matter. Except for Evil characters, and that's because some DMs reject them - mostly because of the prevalence of Stupid Evil and Immature Evil.
(I've played evil characters, sometimes under DMs that I later learned automatically rejected evil characters - apparently they didn't notice the notation on the character sheet. I've never had a problem. Here's the ONE rule you MUST follow - breaking it is pretty much the definition of the Stupid alignment: DON'T EFF UP THE PARTY!)
As for picking powers, in 4E you really don't have as many to choose from as you think. First off you're class-restricted, and second you're level-restricted. There are 7322 powers (assuming you have access to *all* 4E materials, which means a DDI subscription) that contain "a" but a first-level wizard is already down to 54 to choose from. And those 54 come in three groups: you'll pick two or three at-will powers out of 21, one encounter power out of 15, and two (for the wizard, one for everyone else) daily powers out of 18.
(Wizard is one of the classes with the most powers to choose from. Fighter is the other. I don't know which has more. Most classes have significantly fewer. In some Essentials and post-Essentials classes, you have very little choice at all at level 1.)
Then you get to think about what your character will do in combat. In most classes that will eliminate a substantial share of the powers - they favor a weapon or implement you won't use, or do something different from what you intend to focus on.
It's nothing unusual to find no power available that fits a character concept.
Turns out we're playing 3.5ed. I didn't really know, so I guess this is posted in the wrong forum, but we'll go with it. I think I still get to roll for my magic missles, so that's cool.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
You will get answers all over the place. My own: I prefer 4e, but 4e is D&D only because the lawyers say so. There are likely a dozen games on the market that are more D&D than 4e. Nobody is releasing any reliable information, but 4e is probably the majority game. However, I fear that Pathfinder [3.7?] is replacing it.
No prooves of it, as companies like WOTC don't disclose sales. And others, like Paizo, maybe exagerate theirs.
4e IS D&D, and to say otherwise is an insults to the old fans of D&D who picked later this edition, because they know the real deal when they see it. It have all the deep marks of it, all over - including still some weaknesses.
4e may be the superior game. I think so anyway. But to call it D&D is correct only in the legal sense. You can take a PC from any of the previous editions and, with more effort than it is worth, play it in any other previous edition. With 4e, you don't even bother trying. The games are just that different.
4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
Just because it's mechanically different doesn't mean the feeling has changed, and if the feeling has changed odds are the previous thing you played wasn't D&D, because D&Ds attempted goal has always been what 4e does so well: Heroic Adventurers Doing Heroic Adventures.
Turns out we're playing 3.5ed. I didn't really know, so I guess this is posted in the wrong forum, but we'll go with it. I think I still get to roll for my magic missles, so that's cool.
Also, it seems what edition is the best is subject to some hot-button rage around here, but that's just at a glance. Is it true? Is there a raging debate? Who is the majority? Is infect OP!?
You will get answers all over the place. My own: I prefer 4e, but 4e is D&D only because the lawyers say so. There are likely a dozen games on the market that are more D&D than 4e. Nobody is releasing any reliable information, but 4e is probably the majority game. However, I fear that Pathfinder [3.7?] is replacing it.
No prooves of it, as companies like WOTC don't disclose sales. And others, like Paizo, maybe exagerate theirs.
4e IS D&D, and to say otherwise is an insults to the old fans of D&D who picked later this edition, because they know the real deal when they see it. It have all the deep marks of it, all over - including still some weaknesses.
4e may be the superior game. I think so anyway. But to call it D&D is correct only in the legal sense. You can take a PC from any of the previous editions and, with more effort than it is worth, play it in any other previous edition. With 4e, you don't even bother trying. The games are just that different.
4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
I can take any of the characters I've played in 4e and make that same character in 3.5. Some things will use different parts of the game to accomplish something, but the same is true between any two editions.
Mechanical likeness is not something to judge sameness on. It'll only get you into annoying situations. Would you call a modern Mercedes "not a Mercedes" because modern ones have on-board computers and are mechanically so different that an old-timer "Mercedes mechanic" wouldn't be able to guess where to start fixing one?
The mechanic in question likely would, and depending on how it changed performance, it would also be said by the drivers [whether complaining or praising doesn't matter here.]
Just because it's mechanically different doesn't mean the feeling has changed,
True and false. Feeling is a distinctly nebulous term that allows massive differences in evaluation. But when we start to clear up what is meant, we find that there are a dozen or so games around that provide more of the old feeling than 4e does.
and if the feeling has changed odds are the previous thing you played wasn't D&D, because D&Ds attempted goal has always been what 4e does so well: Heroic Adventurers Doing Heroic Adventures.
Now you are saying that 4e is different, that it works and previous editions didn't. That 4e is true D&D and earlier versions are false. I am not arguing which deserves the title. I am merely pointing out that there is a massive difference, and that you are now agreeing with me about.
But either way, 4e is very much still DnD. You're still swinging swords/casting spells/some combination at the same old monsters in the same worlds/kinds of worlds. The gods haven't really changed, and there just isn't that much of a jump from "Zerrin casts burning spray at the orc leader, [describes effect]." to "Zerrin uses burning spray on the orc leader, [describes basically similar effect]."
In any edition, the party goes back to town to the praise of it's folk, the bard retells the story with some amount of embellishment, and beds the mayor's lovely daughter, while the rogue and paladin engage in a lively Kantian/Moral Relativism debate and the dwarf cleric/fighter/who-cares-he's-a-dwarf drinks with the rowdy tavern patrons.
I can tell you, from spending the last year working at an automotive repair shop, that most drivers and old mechanics don't think like that. New Mustangs are very much Mustangs, and 4th gen trans ams are still trans ams.
Your experience of repair shops is likely superior to mine, but I suspect you are confusing silence for consent here. The mechanic deals with a stream of minor parts and has no call to evaluate how much the car has changed from model to model. It is a Mustang because he needs to get the replacement parts from certain people, not because it is different or the same as previous models.
Now when I look at car evaluation magazines, I do find "different" used when the model was no longer the same as previous years. [I think it was Pontiac that was involved when they tried putting the shell of one car model over the engine of another, but I don't recall which way.] And I of course recall the reverse, where the model was deemed not different. ["This is not your father's Olsmobile." caused a number of critics to respond "Yes, it is.".
But either way, 4e is very much still DnD. You're still swinging swords/casting spells/some combination at the same old monsters in the same worlds/kinds of worlds. The gods haven't really changed, and there just isn't that much of a jump from "Zerrin casts burning spray at the orc leader, [describes effect]." to "Zerrin uses burning spray on the orc leader, [describes basically similar effect]."
In any edition, the party goes back to town to the praise of it's folk, the bard retells the story with some amount of embellishment, and beds the mayor's lovely daughter, while the rogue and paladin engage in a lively Kantian/Moral Relativism debate and the dwarf cleric/fighter/who-cares-he's-a-dwarf drinks with the rowdy tavern patrons.
The problem with this definition is that it means that a whole lot of other games are also D&D. Just about every alliteration title game becomes part of the family. And when we ask which of all these games is the most different from the others, 4e ranks quite high in being different. A game that brags about killing all sorts of sacred cows doesn't have a beef when it is considered different.
Don't confuse "mechanically different" with "not the same game". D&D is still trying to be the same thing (and in many ways, succeeding more) but that doesn't mean the games are suddenly different games. They have the exact same goals as they always have, they merely walk different paths to it.
He already said he's playing 3.x, I don't know why this thread hasn't been deleted yet.
Hey, lets not all get excited! The thread merely needs to be moved to the wildlife reserve on the other side of the fora (aka the Previous Editions boards).
4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
David, you are aware that OD&D was designed by a pair of wargamers, using a houseruled version of a wargame's combat rules, right? There have been enough spells printed for 1E, 2E and 3.X to raze a dozen forests. TSR and Ral Partha released offical D&D miniatures in the 80's and 90's. Player's Option: Combat and Tactics was published by TSR in 1995, and a lot of its rules made their way into 3.0.
There is probably a technical term for the fallacy you committed in your post, but it boils down to: I never used miniatures, tactics, or advanced options in previous editions. Therefore any edition which uses miniatures, tactics or advanced options is not really D&D.
The problem with this definition is that it means that a whole lot of other games are also D&D. Just about every alliteration title game becomes part of the family. And when we ask which of all these games is the most different from the others, 4e ranks quite high in being different. A game that brags about killing all sorts of sacred cows doesn't have a beef when it is considered different.
I would consider Pathfinder to be a form of D&D, or at the very least a kindred spirit to D&D. Pathfinder is built on the same game mechanics of 3.X, and it adheres to the style of D&D.
I would not consider d20 Modern to be a form of D&D, despite using the d20 system rules, because the style of the game is too different. On the other hand, I would consider Gamma World (and Metamorphosis Alpha) to be a form of D&D. Gamma World is all about fighting for your life, and taking the loot of those you kill; if that is not the essence of D&D, then I don't know what is.
I would definitely consider Tunnels & Trolls to be a form of D&D. The game mechanics are not the same, and it is a little bit more lighthearted, but the spirit of the game is not far removed from D&D's.
I would never in a million years consider GURPS to be a form of D&D; the game's mechanics are too different and the feel of the game is to variable.
I do not consider any of the Palladium games to be a form of D&D, despite the mechanical similarities to OD&D. Something about the Palladium games' style just seems different enough, that I have difficulty considering it to be a different iteration of the same game. (I am sure there may be others who disagree with me.)
The Computer wishes to inform the citizens of Alpha Complex that Paranoia (the darkly humorous roleplaying game) is not and has never been a form of any other non-fun game, roleplaying or otherwise. The Computer has decreed that comparing Paranoia to other non-fun games is Treason. Please report any citizens comparing Paranoia to other non-fun games (even if it is in a positive and non-critical manner that makes Paranoia appear better than any other non-fun games) to the Computer.
Mechanical likeness is not something to judge sameness on. It'll only get you into annoying situations. Would you call a modern Mercedes "not a Mercedes" because modern ones have on-board computers and are mechanically so different that an old-timer "Mercedes mechanic" wouldn't be able to guess where to start fixing one?
Just because it's mechanically different doesn't mean the feeling has changed, and if the feeling has changed odds are the previous thing you played wasn't D&D, because D&Ds attempted goal has always been what 4e does so well: Heroic Adventurers Doing Heroic Adventures.
This. So much this. D&D was never D&D before 4th edition.
D&D was always D&D
Every edition was D&D, every players has different tastes. No one edition or view is right for everyone.
4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
David, you are aware that OD&D was designed by a pair of wargamers, using a houseruled version of a wargame's combat rules, right? There have been enough spells printed for 1E, 2E and 3.X to raze a dozen forests. TSR and Ral Partha released offical D&D miniatures in the 80's and 90's. Player's Option: Combat and Tactics was published by TSR in 1995, and a lot of its rules made their way into 3.0.
There is probably a technical term for the fallacy you committed in your post, but it boils down to: I never used miniatures, tactics, or advanced options in previous editions. Therefore any edition which uses miniatures, tactics or advanced options is not really D&D.
Now we can start with the quibble that miniatures are in fact older than D&D and have been featured in every edition. So a game that did not feature them would be open to challenge as not D&D, not that a game that did feature them would not be D&D.
POCT can also be dismissed as of little import here. It was a rarely used book, designed for special cases, and thus not a part of the definition of the game.
Now the massive lists of spells are of interest, but what we see is lots of differences between earlier editions and 4e. What was half the book and of interest to only a couple of classes is now either a tiny fraction of the book, or a much larger majority, depending on the definition used. For most classes these spells could be ignored. In 4e, each and every player has a given set of tactics of considerable conplexity. So we are seeing great differences between 4e and earlier editions.
I can tell you, from spending the last year working at an automotive repair shop, that most drivers and old mechanics don't think like that. New Mustangs are very much Mustangs, and 4th gen trans ams are still trans ams.
Your experience of repair shops is likely superior to mine, but I suspect you are confusing silence for consent here. The mechanic deals with a stream of minor parts and has no call to evaluate how much the car has changed from model to model. It is a Mustang because he needs to get the replacement parts from certain people, not because it is different or the same as previous models.
Now when I look at car evaluation magazines, I do find "different" used when the model was no longer the same as previous years. [I think it was Pontiac that was involved when they tried putting the shell of one car model over the engine of another, but I don't recall which way.] And I of course recall the reverse, where the model was deemed not different. ["This is not your father's Olsmobile." caused a number of critics to respond "Yes, it is.".But either way, 4e is very much still DnD. You're still swinging swords/casting spells/some combination at the same old monsters in the same worlds/kinds of worlds. The gods haven't really changed, and there just isn't that much of a jump from "Zerrin casts burning spray at the orc leader, [describes effect]." to "Zerrin uses burning spray on the orc leader, [describes basically similar effect]."
In any edition, the party goes back to town to the praise of it's folk, the bard retells the story with some amount of embellishment, and beds the mayor's lovely daughter, while the rogue and paladin engage in a lively Kantian/Moral Relativism debate and the dwarf cleric/fighter/who-cares-he's-a-dwarf drinks with the rowdy tavern patrons.
The problem with this definition is that it means that a whole lot of other games are also D&D. Just about every alliteration title game becomes part of the family. And when we ask which of all these games is the most different from the others, 4e ranks quite high in being different. A game that brags about killing all sorts of sacred cows doesn't have a beef when it is considered different.
Cars. I work in a shop that does both repairs and performance work. We have a full performance dyno, and the boss builds and races dragsters. We have things like Panteras and early 60's Corvettes. We even have a 41 Ford pickup. I assure you, when I say that the people who know what they're talking about don't talk about cars in the way you've described, I'm not blowing smoke. As always, this is just my personal experience, of course. Other groups of mechanics may differ.
Another thing, though. Two of the mechanics with which I work (one being the owner) have been doing this for over 40+ years, since they were kids. They know the entirety of the car on which they're working, most of the time. I also often hear them refering to car "behaviors" as being common to certain makes, even from 60's or 70's models to recent models. Trust me, it was a bad example for your side of the argument.
DnD. I'm not sure that it would be innacurate to say that both 4e and Pathfinder are DnD. 4e is more DnD, IMO. It's got the gods, the worlds, etc. I'd say it's more accurate to say that Pathfinder is also DnD, in all but name, than it is to say that 4e is only DnD in name.
tangent:
I have a friend right now who is trying to convince me that Pathfinder is somewhere close to being as balanced as 4e. I laughed the first time he said it.
4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
David, you are aware that OD&D was designed by a pair of wargamers, using a houseruled version of a wargame's combat rules, right? There have been enough spells printed for 1E, 2E and 3.X to raze a dozen forests. TSR and Ral Partha released offical D&D miniatures in the 80's and 90's. Player's Option: Combat and Tactics was published by TSR in 1995, and a lot of its rules made their way into 3.0.
There is probably a technical term for the fallacy you committed in your post, but it boils down to: I never used miniatures, tactics, or advanced options in previous editions. Therefore any edition which uses miniatures, tactics or advanced options is not really D&D.
Now we can start with the quibble that miniatures are in fact older than D&D and have been featured in every edition. So a game that did not feature them would be open to challenge as not D&D, not that a game that did feature them would not be D&D.
So taking this argument to its conclusion, that means that 2E, which did not require miniatures (despite the fact that TSR was producing minis in partnership with Ral Partha, minis that had the D&D 2E logo on them), may or may not have been D&D. Why not? Because some players did not use minis, and the PHB didn't go out of its way to encourage their use. By contrast, in the 1E PHB, Gygax does encourage the use of minis, though he allows that coins, chess pieces and buttons are suitable, if inferior, stand-ins for minis.
Likewise, tactics were a part of 1E. The name of Gygax's company was "Tactical Studies Rules", a hint about his view of tactics. (And rules. And having to study the rules.
) The options available to players in 1E were not that different from the optins available to players in 2E. As of 3.0, the focus stopped being options for players, and become options for player characters. That is a greater paradigm shift than Wizards and CoDzillas getting powerful spells, to everyone gets powers.4e borders on being a tactics game, not a roleplaying game. For most players, previous editions rarely had tactics more complex than "I hit for X damage." Even the mages didn't have that many different options. But with 4e, everybody is deeply involved in tactical options that vary widely. It is chess vs checkers. One can prefer either, but they are not the same.
David, you are aware that OD&D was designed by a pair of wargamers, using a houseruled version of a wargame's combat rules, right? There have been enough spells printed for 1E, 2E and 3.X to raze a dozen forests. TSR and Ral Partha released offical D&D miniatures in the 80's and 90's. Player's Option: Combat and Tactics was published by TSR in 1995, and a lot of its rules made their way into 3.0.
There is probably a technical term for the fallacy you committed in your post, but it boils down to: I never used miniatures, tactics, or advanced options in previous editions. Therefore any edition which uses miniatures, tactics or advanced options is not really D&D.
Now we can start with the quibble that miniatures are in fact older than D&D and have been featured in every edition. So a game that did not feature them would be open to challenge as not D&D, not that a game that did feature them would not be D&D.
So taking this argument to its conclusion, that means that 2E, which did not require miniatures (despite the fact that TSR was producing minis in partnership with Ral Partha, minis that had the D&D 2E logo on them), may or may not have been D&D. Why not? Because some players did not use minis, and the PHB didn't go out of its way to encourage their use. By contrast, in the 1E PHB, Gygax does encourage the use of minis, though he allows that coins, chess pieces and buttons are suitable, if inferior, stand-ins for minis.
Your example is technically true and effectively false. Whether we were officially required to or not, we were using minis all the way thru 2e. There was no effective difference between 1, 2, 3, and 4 here. Now we might note that there has been a much greater formalization of the board, but all have attempted to measure just what distances were involved.
Likewise, tactics were a part of 1E. The name of Gygax's company was "Tactical Studies Rules", a hint about his view of tactics.
Names can be misleading. Iceland is much warmer than Greenland. And of course tactics have been part of the game from the start. The point is the amount of tactics. Prior to 4e, the majority of players could do fine with "I move and attack." The 4e player has to consider how he attacks, and considers the board a lot more too.
(And rules. And having to study the rules.
Please explain how that is not just a change in verbalage.
(And rules. And having to study the rules.
Please explain how that is not just a change in verbalage.
In 1E, movement was measured in inches. Humans, Elves, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs could move 12 inches per round, anyone shorter could only move 6 inches. That's because the author of the game (an avid wargamer) used a battle grid where each square was a one inch cube. If that doesn't indicate that Gary Gygax wanted you to use minis, I'm not sure what does. You are correct that 1E did not require you to use minis; neither does 3.X or 4E. Rather the rules of game place the players at a disadvantage when they can't use a grid and miniatures (or buttons, coins, M&M's, chess pieces, etc.) to help visualize movement during combat. In my opinion, the main difference between 1E and 3.0 and later editions, is that the rules were more easily ignored if the DM did not understand or like them. (This goes double for 2E, where the rules were barely consistent from page to page.)
3.0's rules were more integrated (after all they were the handiwork of Skip Williams who had been answering questions from confused DMs and players about the 2E rules for years), and while some parts could be ignored, others could not. A DM might not use the Attack of Oppurtunity rules, but I can only remember a single DM who was so upset with the 3.0 initiative rules that he junked them in favor of the 2E initiative rules. When I asked the DM how the old rules were supposed to be compatible with my Rogue's Improved Initiative feat, he looked at me like a deer caught in the headlights. The initiative rules are not modular, and if you remove them, the rules start to break down. (I am using this anecdote as an example. I am not trying to change the subject to initiative.
)I have played 3.X with DMs who did not bother with minis or a grid. Only one of those DMs could pull it off, without sacrificing the rules or details, and not waste time. (That DM is Sam Weiss. He lives in the Bronx, and is one of more awesome DMs I encountered while playing Living Greyhawk.
Just to clarify, Sam did not do this all the time, but he could pull it off.)As for the options for players v. options for player characters bit, please take a look at the various posts Mike Mearls and Monte Cook have written. Basically in 1E the DM to challenge the players. If the players knew how to concoct gunpowder, how to hollow out a log and then used the gunpowder, the log and some diamonds to blow a hole in a lizardman, that would be okay. In 3.X and later, the PC's skills and knowledge is important. Even if a player can't spell portcullis to save his life, if his PC has ranks in Knowledge (Architecture/Engineering) or Dungeoneering, and the player rolls well, the PC will be able to rig the portcullis to drop when the lizardfolk comes in the room.
The use of a grid has always made the game better. Further, it's not required in DnD. You can just as easily keep a mental image of things. I actually find it easier in 4e than in 3.5. I know that each unit takes up about 5 feet squared, and we just verbally translate "square" to "5 feet", and then we're all imagining the scene using nothing but dice, sheets and communication.
It can be fun, with the right group. But most of the time, it's better to have the minis and battlemat.
Especially the awesome flipmats (the Tavern one? love!) they're selling, and the fold outs that come with various box sets and adventures and stuff. My fiance wants to get molds and make 3d stuff, and suddenly I'm remember what got me into this hobby.
Hero Quest. boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/699/heroques...