Quote from: PhoenixI'm thinking the next chance I have to run a game it will be pretty core D&D 4e rather than one of my fiction settings. I've run D&D, but I've never embraced its ethos or feel before, and I'm inclined to try by-the-book now (because for the first in any edition I like the books).
I saw this on another thread and I thought I might talk a bit about 4e.
First off, it's too early for a 4e. A third edition was needed when 3e came out. 2e had suffered major rules bloat over the course of ten or more years. I disliked the direction taken with 3e, but I will concede that a third edition of some sort was inevitable at the point that 3e came out.
3e has managed to duplicate 2e's rules bloat in quicker time. I don't think it was bad enough to necessitate 4e, though.
That was my opinion before I ever heard any details about 4e or saw the rulebooks.
Now, I've had time to page through the new PHB at a local bookstore. I did not like what I saw. I disliked 3e for being too many changes to the basic system of 2e too quickly. This looks like more of the same.
The other thing that failed to sell me on 4e: $34.95 cover price for that PHB. 3e at least had $20 core rulebooks at the start as a loss-leader to get people in the door.
I may eventually buy one or more of the core rulebooks, if I can find them used at a reasonable price. Used because I do not want to line the pockets of WotC.
In case you're curious as to why there's a 4 in the thread title:
1 (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?26065)
2 (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?27857)
3 (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?27857)
Soooo... do you have any solid criticisms of the system, or do you just not like change (and price)?
Khyron, I'd recommend getting in on one of the PBP games here or elsewhere. I don't like how 4E reads (the books are very boring and text-booky), but combat is incredibly fun and prepping DM work is much faster.
The 4E books remind me a lot of how the Warhammer RPG rules work. They'tr strikingly similar, and takes a lot of influence from World of Warcraft.
Not a bad thing, as I love how streamlined the system is now and the number of options without inflating the basic mechanics.
I generally feel the same way as khyron1144, too much was changed. 4e feels more like a completely new game than just a new edition. They strip mined what I loved about 3.5 and left me with WoW. Now grated i enjoy WoW (love it to pieces) but its just not the experience I´m looking for at the table.
I will be sticking with 3.5 for now... Maybe 4e will grow on me (Spongebob did) but I doubt it.
3.5 core books (and many others) were above 40 at major book chains...
I never saw the core books cost that much at a major chain here in Minnesota. The dragon book is the only one I recall being that much.
Higgs - yes, the 3.5 revisions were $39.95, but the original 3E core books, in 1999, were $19.95 a piece when I bought them, and stayed that price for some time. I'm looking at the price marked on them now for confirmation. :)
Quote from: RaelifinSoooo... do you have any solid criticisms of the system, or do you just not like change (and price)?
A little bit of both.
I like Half-orcs. I did not see Half-orcs in the PHB. Admittedly, this also the one flaw of 2e.
I didn't understand the alignment system at a glance. It looked like they defined three alignments: Lawful Good, Unaligned, and Chaotic Evil. D&D (or OD&D or BECMI D&D or whatever your favorite term is) had three alignments, but the names were Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral. The existence of a Lawful Good implies a Lawful Evil. The existence of Chaotic Evil implies a Chaotic Good.
Arrays as default attribute generation. This is acceptable in a variant PHB, like Iron Heroes, but not for standard D&D. In standard D&D some dice-rolling method for attribute generation is always supposed to be the default.
I don't like the Tiers system.
QuoteAdmittedly, this also the one flaw of 2e.
dumbfounded awe[/i] at the druid experience chart, and thinking "well, it's a good idea i wasn't planning on going over level 10
anyway."
Quote from: khyron1144[...] I don't think it was bad enough to necessitate 4e, though. [...]
Sure?
Standard action. Move action. Free action. Immediate action. Swift action.
Alternative skill uses. Skill tricks.
Tactical feats. Combat focus feats. Multiple feats affecting Power Attack (-> 16:1 exchange rate before errata).
Vancian casting. Spontaneous casting. Psionics. Shadow magic. Truenaming. Pact magic. Incarnum.
Full casting prestige classes. Dual casting prestice classes. Dual casting prestige classes with powerful bonuses.
Spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells.
Have you taken a look at the tactical nuke (aka "Locate City" spell)?. I pretty much think when you're able to deal some thousand d6s damage to everything within a few hundred miles of you, on a regular basis, multiple times per day, something's gone horribly wrong. ;)
Quote from: brainfaceQuote from: Ra-TielQuote from: khyron1144[...] I don't think it was bad enough to necessitate 4e, though. [...]
Sure?
Standard action. Move action. Free action. Immediate action. Swift action.
Alternative skill uses. Skill tricks.
Tactical feats. Combat focus feats. Multiple feats affecting Power Attack (-> 16:1 exchange rate before errata).
Vancian casting. Spontaneous casting. Psionics. Shadow magic. Truenaming. Pact magic. Incarnum.
Full casting prestige classes. Dual casting prestice classes. Dual casting prestige classes with powerful bonuses.
Spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells.
Have you taken a look at the tactical nuke (aka "Locate City" spell)?. I pretty much think when you're able to deal some thousand d6s damage to everything within a few hundred miles of you, on a regular basis, multiple times per day, something's gone horribly wrong. ;)
This is only if you own a good percentage of splat books and use them. I own a lot and I do consider them usable together, however I bleieve heavily in the ideals of:
1) If the rules are confusing, ingore the rules.
2) Just because by the rules some combo of metamagic feats, items, and whatnot, you ought to be able to do something doesn't mean you can do it. Pun Pun works by written rules, but if someone tried pulling that stunt at my table, I'd say no that doesn't work.
3) The rules are what the DM says they are at any given moment. RPGs are Calvin Ball with funny shaped dice.
I agree to an extent with Khyron; the splat books are not the edition. 3.5e is a solid set of rules as laid out in the PHB/DMG/MM core. It even works with a few splatbooks. But if you incorporate all the bric-a-brac that wizards has put out, at once, into a campaign and expect it to work, you'll not be happy with 4e in a few months either.
QuoteStandard action. Move action. Free action. Immediate action. Swift action.
You have problems with that? I don't. Five rigid, well defined action types seems fine by me. The problem I have is when these actions get muddied up by special attacks and items, which are in splat books.
QuoteAlternative skill uses. Skill tricks.
splatbooks.
QuoteVancian casting. Spontaneous casting. Psionics. Shadow magic. Truenaming. Pact magic. Incarnum.
Again, the issue here is...?
What's wrong with several different types of magic? Again, pare it down to the original core, and everything works fine.
QuoteFull casting prestige classes. Dual casting prestice classes. Dual casting prestige classes with powerful bonuses.
splatbooks.
QuoteSpells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells.
splatbooks, splatbooks, splatbooks, splatbooks, splatbooks, splatbooks, splatbooks, splatbooks, splatbooks, splatbooks, splatbooks, splatbooks.
So it's not that 3.5e was broken, it was that wizards broke its back under the immeasurable amount of crap they were expecting it to carry without problems. If you tried to haul a loaded cement mixer with a compact car, tried to run Mass Effect on a Packard Bell, attempted to break the land speed record on a child's tricycle, or delay twilight with a penlight, would you fault the device for not performing?
I found 3.5 to be very annoying to play at med-high level, where fighters and rogues were basically there to keep watch and to distract other spellcasters.
Note: I don't like 4E very much, but I didn't like 3rd much either.
@SG & khyron1144: Ok, so it was time for 3E to appear because 2E was bloated with splats, but it was not time for 4E to appear because 3E was bloated with splats.
:huh: Double standard? 2E was also only bloated because of all the splats that were published.
If you go beyond core in 3E it becomes a messed up pile of spells and prestige classes that basically catered only to spellcasters, and introduced countless unnecessary subsystems for basically the same thing (*cough*magic*cough*). You had to learn a new set of rules if you went from cleric to psion, from psion to crusader, from crusader to binder, from binder to totemist, from totemist to truenamer, or from truenamer to shadowcaster.
High level game was a mess, especially for the DM. Tracking spells with durations measured in
* fixed rounds
* rounds per level
* fixed minutes
* minutes per level
* multiple minutes per level
* fixed hours
* hours per level
* multiple hours per level
was unnecessary bookkeeping. You could basically break it down to 1 round, 1 encounter, 1 day and be done with it.
Some special maneuvers (grapple, trip) were practically useless (compare a level 12 fighter against a purple worm, for example), while others (sunder) were equivalent to shooting yourself into the leg (destroying loot). The only way was utterly specializing on them, which made you basically a one trick pony (Chaingun gatling tripper, uberERcharger, et al).
Even the core game was broken beyond repair already (*cough*druid plus natural spell*cough*). If you wanted a character that was able to meaningfully contribute to highlevel encounters, you basically had to play a spellcaster (anything with spells higher than spell level 4). Everything else was reduced to sidekick status.
Save-or-Dies were crap. High level combat boiling down to a fantasy version of russian roulette isn't fun. It's not even interesting. Even worse were No-Save-and-still-Dies. Take forcecage. If you create the windowless version, the target will start to suffocate in around 17 to 20 minutes (you can extrapolate the exact time from the time you have in a portable hole which is 6x6x10 feet). The spell allows neither a save nor SR and lasts for 2h per level.
Not to mention the completely disfunctional CR system. According to the rules, 16 beholders are an average encounter for a level 20 party. Yeah, sure. Sure, the wizard made 16 saves against disintegrate (which was probably still enough to kill him - 16*5d6 = avg 280), and the rogue made 16 saves against flesh to stone, and the cleric made 16 saves against dominate. It boiled down who rolled a natural 1 first. Same thing goes for groups of medusas, bodaks, catoblepas, mohrgs, etc.
The skill system was - regarding Perform, Craft, Profession - also messed up. Profession allowed you to earn money in a job without actually being able to do what's necessary in the job. E.g. Profession (sailor) allows you to earn money as a sailor, without being able to climb the rigging (Climb), tying knots (Use Rope), staying on your feet in storm (Balance), or saying if the clouds would brew into a storm (Survival).
Why do you think everyone and his dog tried to mess with the rules? Why do you think "fixes" for the fighter, the paladin, and the ranger were popping up over the place? Why do you think did people introduce alternative feat and skill progressions?
I had no idea "splatbooks" were such a problem. I've always regarded supplements to the core rules as wastes of money and this existential hatred of splatbooks makes me feel smart and vindicated. :) Part of it is that I've never played with players who knew more about D&D than I did, and never had the oft-quoted occurrence of a splatbook-equipped player pleading with me to introduce this-or-that feat/spell/class.
At any rate, I'm not sure what the proper measure would be for determining if a new edition was "due" or not. If 4th ed is better, why not publish it now? If it's not better, why not just keep playing 3rd and wait for 5th? I'm uncertain why the timing of an edition would even be an issue. If WotC wants to produce good products quickly, that's a good thing, and if you don't think this is a good product then I don't know why you'd care about the release date anyway.
Quote from: Polycarp!I had no idea "splatbooks" were such a problem. I've always regarded supplements to the core rules as wastes of money and this existential hatred of splatbooks makes me feel smart and vindicated. :) Part of it is that I've never played with players who knew more about D&D than I did, and never had the oft-quoted occurrence of a splatbook-equipped player pleading with me to introduce this-or-that feat/spell/class.
Splatbooks are, as with most things in D&D, only a problem if the DM allows it to be a problem. Every campaign i have ever run came with a Campaign Standard, detaling rules for character creation, including which books are legal and which are not. Most often I simply restrict it to Core + PHB 2 + Completes. I have never really had a problem with players begging to use this and that... except for the anything goes 20th level campaign... That was a major disaster... 3 players came in with SRD only equiped characters, the other three scowered every 3.x book we own (which is nearly the entire 3.5 line and a good portion of the 3.0 line) and made 3 amazing characters... i had to throw a Mythril Golemn at them just to get them to break a sweat, lol!
Anyways, as I said, its only a problem if you let it to be one, lol. (so uhh, feel vindicated mighty Carp).
@RT;
I've been a 3e guy my whole career, so I have no opinion on 2e. However, my guess is that 2e core had problems exactly like that too and that 4e... I admit, 4e probably won't, but that's because it's a tactical combat game and not roleplaying as we know it. Quite a few people are already poking holes in the skill mechanics and other sub-systems.
Quote from: Stargate525[...] it's a tactical combat game and not roleplaying as we know it.
Why keep people saying that? Seriously, I don't get it. :huh:
Is it because you no longer have a number on the sheet that says that your character can weave baskets better than any other character? Or is it because casters no longer have spells that can completely replace any other noncaster class in a moment's notice?
If you think about it, why would anything
outside of combat need regulation and controlling in a
roleplaying game? From that perspective 3E was even
less a roleplaying game than 4E because it tried to nail everything with stats and rules, including things that did not require such a treatment.
If 4E was no longer a roleplaying game, why the heck would WotC put all that "how to roleplay" and all the other chapters regarding exactly this topic in the PH and DMG?
Quote from: Stargate525Quite a few people are already poking holes in the skill mechanics and other sub-systems.
I know. But they are not poking holes in the "skill mechanics", but rather in the "skill challenge" system whose difficulties and complexities are off. I don't think it will be too long before we're going to see an errata to skill challenges.
And even if not, compared to what needed fixing in 3E, skill challenges are a minor issue. :P
Quote from: Ra-TielWhy keep people saying that? Seriously, I don't get it. :huh:
Because other than those sections of unmitigated and obvious fluff, there is not a single rule in the entire system that does not directly relate to combat. Want to find out how much making that sword will cost you? Can't, there aren't crafting rules. What about building a house? Sorry. Buying a friggin piece of chalk? Nope, it doesn't exist.
The reason non-combat situations need rules structure is the same reason that combat does; to prevent piss-off contests where players argue over who's better at weaving baskets.
It's a matter of emphasis. 4E emphasizes the game aspect of the activity, which tends to reduce the acting aspect (in my eyes).
In The Riddle of Steel, for instance, much of the system actually penalizes combat, and I find that my games are much more dramatic and interesting because "you meet a warband of goblins" isn't usually followed up with "I roll initiative" as much as "I dive for cover."
Quote from: Stargate525Because other than those sections of unmitigated and obvious fluff, there is not a single rule in the entire system that does not directly relate to combat.
And that's the good thing of 4E.
Quote from: Stargate525Want to find out how much making that sword will cost you? Can't, there aren't crafting rules.
Why would an
adventuring hero want to make a sword? Because it's fun to find out that you need 7 weeks to make a frigging mw greatsword? Crafting should be something the DM gives the players as an opportunity to use, not something the players can force into the campaign at any time.
"I want to craft a sword." - "You can't, you need to find the princess in less than three days or she'll die from dehydration." - "But I really want to craft something." - "The king will make you personally responsible for his daughter's death if you start crafting something now." - "Man, you suck as DM, you won't let me craft anything." :-/
Crafting trivia: Take a smith that can forge a normal shortsword in his smithy with his assistants in a single day. Now place that smith with his smithy and his assistants on Athas. Suddenly he needs a crapload of time longer to craft the same frigging shortsword just because it's worth 100 times as much on Athas as on his homeworld.
Quote from: Stargate525What about building a house? Sorry.
Again. Why should an
adventuring hero want to build a house?
Just to drive the point home: what's the Profession (architect) DC to design a solid two-story stone house? What's the Knowledge (architecture and engineering) DC I need to hit to make sure it won't collapse in the next storm? What's the Craft (Houses) DC to actually build that thing? I'm totally sure you can quote the 3.5 PH on that, can't you?
Quote from: Stargate525Buying a friggin piece of chalk? Nope, it doesn't exist.
Because knowing that a single piece of chalk costs 1 copper was so worth that table in the 3.5 PH.
How often did the additional bookkeeping of tracking the costs of firewood (per day), flasks, single mugs of ale, single loafs of bread, torches, or whetstones add something to the game? Anything worth less than a silver piece is prolly not worth the space in the book, much less the bookkeeping on the players' part, because the cost is so insignificant.
If you're not playing a "will adventure for food because we're frigging broke all the time" campaign I bet no character actually keeps track of his wealth in coppers past level 3 - if not right from level 1.
Quote from: Stargate525The reason non-combat situations need rules structure is the same reason that combat does; to prevent piss-off contests where players argue over who's better at weaving baskets.
I really wonder why "use common sense" and "roleplay that stuff" was never a valid option when it doesn't fit one's argument. ;)
// Edit: Oh and, 4E is no longer a roleplaying game because there are chapters about roleplaying in the books? Indeed, "fer cryin' out loud." *facepalm*
Quote from: Ra-TielAnd that's the good thing of 4E.
Your opinion. Granted, the opposing side is also my opinion. so this entire thing is really nothing more than a richard-waving competition in either case.
QuoteWhy would an adventuring hero want to make a sword? Because it's fun to find out that you need 7 weeks to make a frigging mw greatsword? Crafting should be something the DM gives the players as an opportunity to use, not something the players can force into the campaign at any time.
Who says I want to play an
adventuring hero campaign? Look at the commoner campaign for an instance of how the D&D rules can support things that aren't adventuring campaigns. By making 4e support one type of game and one alone, they've effectively destroyed their chances of selling anything to the people who use 3rd edition for anything but their vision of what D&D should be.
Quote"I want to craft a sword." - "You can't, you need to find the princess in less than three days or she'll die from dehydration." - "But I really want to craft something." - "The king will make you personally responsible for his daughter's death if you start crafting something now." - "Man, you suck as DM, you won't let me craft anything." :-/
I'm calling you on this. You can't use an idiot player and an idiot DM as a valid example.
QuoteCrafting trivia: Take a smith that can forge a normal shortsword in his smithy with his assistants in a single day. Now place that smith with his smithy and his assistants on Athas. Suddenly he needs a crapload of time longer to craft the same frigging shortsword just because it's worth 100 times as much on Athas as on his homeworld.
Since you're inserting supply/demand issues that are not inherent in the market system of D&D (an issue which 4e hasn't addressed except to remove players from the supply end of the economy altogether, btw.), you need to consider the fact that someone working with materials this valuable would take longer simply to make certain he doesn't completely ruin them.
QuoteAgain. Why should an adventuring hero want to build a house?
See my answer above.
QuoteJust to drive the point home: what's the Profession (architect) DC to design a solid two-story stone house? What's the Knowledge (architecture and engineering) DC I need to hit to make sure it won't collapse in the next storm? What's the Craft (Houses) DC to actually build that thing? I'm totally sure you can quote the 3.5 PH on that, can't you?
You know as well as I do that those aren't in there. However, by laying down a skill system with DCs for differently-rated tasks, I can make a relatively educated guess.
QuoteBecause knowing that a single piece of chalk costs 1 copper was so worth that table in the 3.5 PH.
How often did the additional bookkeeping of tracking the costs of firewood (per day), flasks, single mugs of ale, single loafs of bread, torches, or whetstones add something to the game? Anything worth less than a silver piece is prolly not worth the space in the book, much less the bookkeeping on the players' part, because the cost is so insignificant.
If you're not playing a "will adventure for food because we're frigging broke all the time" campaign I bet no character actually keeps track of his wealth in coppers past level 3 - if not right from level 1.
Which is a diametrically opposed view to the one you just took above. Which is it; the economy must be accurate, or we play the game with wealth marked in scientific notation?
I've played both methods, and I actually prefer the bookkeeping. I see this as a negative shift in 4e.
QuoteI really wonder why "use common sense" and "roleplay that stuff" was never a valid option when it doesn't fit one's argument. ;)
I could say the exact same thing about combat.
Quote// Edit: Oh and, 4E is no longer a roleplaying game because there are chapters about roleplaying in the books? Indeed, "fer cryin' out loud." *facepalm*
Just because an encyclopedia has a section on cooking does not make it a cookbook.
Quote from: Ra-Tiel@SG & khyron1144: Ok, so it was time for 3E to appear because 2E was bloated with splats, but it was not time for 4E to appear because 3E was bloated with splats.
:huh: Double standard? 2E was also only bloated because of all the splats that were published.
You are correct that I was applying a double standard.
2e was bloated with quality supplemental material that could enhance the experience for players and DMs alike and also enhance roleplaying. When 3e was first announced we were hoping to see the good stuff from supplemental materials pulled into the core books. Basically another switch not entirely unlike the 1e to 2e transitition.
3e was bloated with a power-gamer wishlist of powers and nifty stuff for my character. The one good thing about 4e is that it sets that clock back to zero.
I like 4E. Here's my thought, though: 4E isn't really meant to be "THE BEST." It's meant to be simple. You can house rule and add as much as you want. At it's core, it's meant to be a game that any video game junkie who wants to work outside the restrictions of said video games can pick up and play. It makes things run (pretty much) smoothly and easily. That's not for some people, though, and I totally understand why. I just like it because I sometimes have a hard time dedicating the time and focus needed.
Quote from: Stargate525[...] Who says I want to play an adventuring hero campaign? Look at the commoner campaign for an instance of how the D&D rules can support things that aren't adventuring campaigns. By making 4e support one type of game and one alone, they've effectively destroyed their chances of selling anything to the people who use 3rd edition for anything but their vision of what D&D should be.
Don't blame the tool if you're using it wrong. If you want to play a nonadventuring commoner campaign don't play DnD. I don't hear people complain that nWoD doesn't support hard SciFi alien campaigns, or that Shadowrun doesn't support steampunk fantasy campaigns.
If you want an extremely low magic commoner campaign with a workable economy, play Hârnmaster. :P
Quote from: Stargate525I'm calling you on this. You can't use an idiot player and an idiot DM as a valid example.
You think that's more idiotic that "4E sucks, because it doesn't do what I want"? :-/
Quote from: Stargate525Since you're inserting supply/demand issues that are not inherent in the market system of D&D (an issue which 4e hasn't addressed except to remove players from the supply end of the economy altogether, btw.), you need to consider the fact that someone working with materials this valuable would take longer simply to make certain he doesn't completely ruin them.
Wrong. It's the exact same process, the exact same smith. That's the BS with the craft skill, that the time required to complete the item is based on its market price.
And you're saying that a professional smith does shabby work because the material isn't expensive? That's houseruling that is not supported by the rules. Please use the crafting rules as written without your personal modifications and justifications to answer my questions.
Another question: I have Craft (Woodworking) 20. I rolled and got a total of 34. How many quarterstaffs can I make that day?
Quote from: Stargate525See my answer above.
See my reply above. Pick a system that's more suitable for the campaign you want to run. If you want a sports car, you buy a sports car and not a truck you have to pimp and tune.
Quote from: Stargate525You know as well as I do that those aren't in there. However, by laying down a skill system with DCs for differently-rated tasks, I can make a relatively educated guess.
So 4E is bad because it requires houseruling and handwaving, while 3E is good because it requires houseruling and handwaving?
But I'm still curious to hear your DCs for the checks I wanted to make to build a house. How long does it take to come up with the plan? To come up with the structural calculations for the building? And how long does it take to build that thing? How many helpers do I need to build it? Just imagine I'm you and
want to build a house.
In 4E the DM could just say: "You see a professional architect who makes the plans for you in three days. To build the house you need the help of at least five other men, and it takes you a bit longer than a whole month of working each day."
Prove to me that the "fluff" skills that failed at ~66% of their applications in 3E are superior to the freeform approach in 4E.
Quote from: Stargate525Which is a diametrically opposed view to the one you just took above. Which is it; the economy must be accurate, or we play the game with wealth marked in scientific notation?
No. My comments above were poking holes in your argumentation. As a DM I don't require my players to keep track of every copper when they are already carrying hundreds of gold pieces around. And as a player I ask the DM if I need to track every copper I spend at a tavern, or if I can just say "I'll pay 7 silvers for the room and the meal and drink I had this evening". That's exactly the reason why in d20 Modern you have wealth checks, so that the millionair doesn't have to keep track of every cent in his wallet.
Quote from: Stargate525I've played both methods, and I actually prefer the bookkeeping. I see this as a negative shift in 4e.
And what does prevent you from houseruling it? Also, don't blame the tool...
Quote from: Stargate525I could say the exact same thing about combat.
Wrong. Combat is the only thing that can be mathematically expressed in a system. Everything else is dependent on DM interpretation. Combat has to be "fair" to the players, otherwise it boils down to a "roll a new character each session", which is kinda bad.
Therefore, the only rules that are absolutely necessary are those dealing with combat. Anything else is nice but not required.
Quote from: Stargate525Just because an encyclopedia has a section on cooking does not make it a cookbook.
No, your statement was more like "It's not an encyclopedia because it has sections on cooking. Cooking is superficial fluff that nobody needs in a real encyclopedia".
You know, one point of note - it's fairly easy to use 4E as a modular system to omit magic and magic items all together as long as you give PCs a +1 bonus every level, instead of half level, for the level modifier. The math works out surprisingly well.
Quote from: MonikerYou know, one point of note - it's fairly easy to use 4E as a modular system to omit magic and magic items all together as long as you give PCs a +1 bonus every level, instead of half level, for the level modifier. The math works out surprisingly well.
You also have to omit feats if you do that; see the "Level Bonus and Magic Item Threshold" sidebar on page 187 of the 4eDMG for the basis of my reasoning.
Quote from: Ra-TielDon't blame the tool if you're using it wrong. If you want to play a nonadventuring commoner campaign don't play DnD. I don't hear people complain that nWoD doesn't support hard SciFi alien campaigns, or that Shadowrun doesn't support steampunk fantasy campaigns.
Bullocks.
If you're going to re-invent a hammer, people sure as hell have a right to complain if it can't be used for deconstruction anymore. Simply berating us because 'we aren't using the tool right' does not invalidate the fact that the tool works in that method, and by re-inventing that hammer, you prevented us from using it in the method we chose.
In fact, you're de-humanizing us by saying that our point of view, our choice of usage doesn't matter and is, in fact, wrong. By labeling it like that, you are associating us with a whole slew of negative connotations, which I find offensive and repugnant. By simply calling us the bad guys and attacking our moral standpoint, you're reduced this entire argument to name-calling. Good for you.
Quote from: Ra-TielIf you want an extremely low magic commoner campaign with a workable economy, play Hârnmaster. :P
Or, you know, I'll stick with 3rd edition.
EDIT: Contentious content removed.
Just my two cents to those who say DnD is not good for commoner campaigns...
I think you should read this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=763260)
Ok! i go camping for a week and a war against 4e starts without me. However after reading the tread it seems most of the arguments are just invalid... heres what i see as wrong judgments so far:
1) 4e must be compared to 3.0 not 3.5, the edition has not been playtested by the entire gamming community for 3 years after being developed. Generally i think found "exploited or mini maxing" is out of realm anyway as each system has it and 4e just came out, its fair at this early to wait for some errata. At the same time, as 4e came out after 3.5 we all should expect some evolution or improvment from the previous system, not a step back.
2) Its an RPG!! How many different systems are published? how many are not published but still played every year? how many different genres are RPGs played in?? There will never be a holy grail of RPGs, DnD isnt it, and it never was, its just the father to the rest... the oldest, the most supported and recognised... there is no such thing as a perfect RPG and DnD shouldnt be expected to be the perfect system for all. it cant be done. take the system that works best for you and play it (kinda like the take the rules that work best for you apporach in DnD since INCEPTION)
Quote from: Kapn XeviatI don't like how 4E reads (the books are very boring and text-booky), but combat is incredibly fun and prepping DM work is much faster.
I agree, i like the old 2nd edition FR and other books like them. they should look OLD not new... but i would like to balance that with easy to find informatn on the fly. they could have done better balancing them both. I like combat being quick, interesting, and i dont have to be scared to improv and still pull out a good adventure.
Quote from: MonikerNot a bad thing, as I love how streamlined the system is now and the number of options without inflating the basic mechanics.
How did this get missed?? 4e trump card over previous editions is its modularness, everything bolts ontop of the core basics, or slide right into already established parts of the core mechanic. the same core mechanic as 3.x only streamlined with all the loose parts ripped off. d20 + modifications VS target number representing difficulty. 4e makes everything fit this mechanic. Attack with a weapon, ranged spell, battle quirk (what i call at will powers), skill check in combat or out, opportunity attacks, everthing is the same.
Quote from: khyron1144A little bit of both.
I like Half-orcs. I did not see Half-orcs in the PHB. Admittedly, this also the one flaw of 2e.
I didn't understand the alignment system at a glance. It looked like they defined three alignments: Lawful Good, Unaligned, and Chaotic Evil. D&D (or OD&D or BECMI D&D or whatever your favorite term is) had three alignments, but the names were Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral. The existence of a Lawful Good implies a Lawful Evil. The existence of Chaotic Evil implies a Chaotic Good.
Arrays as default attribute generation. This is acceptable in a variant PHB, like Iron Heroes, but not for standard D&D. In standard D&D some dice-rolling method for attribute generation is always supposed to be the default.
I don't like the Tiers system.
no half orc in the PHB, but if you look at the back of the MM you will find uhh 16 more race templets for PC use, some are a little more powerful than stock (doppleganger, shader-kai) but you will also find, orc, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, drow, gnoll, githyanki, githzerai, gnome, kobold, minotaur, two shifters, and warforged. now a reason to buy more MM and it dosnet feel wrong having the PC race conversions for the wild races in the MM with the monster versions.
Alignments always been a problem for DnD, and i think they may have made it worce in 4e, its simpler (=good) but incomplete (=bad). Kind of a dead horse after 20 years of people arguing over it. I use the 7 behavioural alignments from old rifts and have been with DnD for about 6-8 years now. had to change god alignments and that was all and it ended up removing the LG paladin anyways getting side tracked.
As far as the arrays... rolling is the third option... how hard would it have been for WOTC to make it the first and keep it right? let the point buy and standard array (i have used it for PCs and detailed NPCs its not bad) be in the book but as the second and third options. but you cant say 4e sucks because of the way half a page is layed out. Its read able.
Tiers area just alright to me. It alows speciallisation like prestige classes, they seem alittle awkword tho but i havent gotten there yet so i am reserving judgement on them.
Quote from: khyron1144
This is only if you own a good percentage of splat books and use them. I own a lot and I do consider them usable together, however I bleieve heavily in the ideals of:
1) If the rules are confusing, ingore the rules.
2) Just because by the rules some combo of metamagic feats, items, and whatnot, you ought to be able to do something doesn't mean you can do it. Pun Pun works by written rules, but if someone tried pulling that stunt at my table, I'd say no that doesn't work.
3) The rules are what the DM says they are at any given moment. RPGs are Calvin Ball with funny shaped dice.
[/quote]
Well this preatty much kills the argument on both sides. This can fix most rules and problems in ANY system, just watch rule #3 "any givin moment" turns the game back into a pissing match.
Quote from: RaelifinI found 3.5 to be very annoying to play at med-high level, where fighters and rogues were basically there to keep watch and to distract other spellcasters.
Note: I don't like 4E very much, but I didn't like 3rd much either.
A very respectable complain or 3.x, and something they have tried to focus on to fix for 4e it may not be a perfect end fix, but it is an improvment.
Quote from: Ra-Tiel@SG & khyron1144: Ok, so it was time for 3E to appear because 2E was bloated with splats, but it was not time for 4E to appear because 3E was bloated with splats.
:huh: Double standard? 2E was also only bloated because of all the splats that were published.
The only difference is WOTC bloated 3.x in less that 6 years, it took TSR alot longer to bloat 2nd.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfSplatbooks are, as with most things in D&D, only a problem if the DM allows it to be a problem. Every campaign i have ever run came with a Campaign Standard, detaling rules for character creation, including which books are legal and which are not. Most often I simply restrict it to Core + PHB 2 + Completes. I have never really had a problem with players begging to use this and that...
Anyways, as I said, its only a problem if you let it to be one, lol. (so uhh, feel vindicated mighty Carp).
Another solution to the problem and resone not to argue about the splat. splat is by choice i thought we are comparing the core of 3.x to 4e, 4e has no splat and i think the core is designed to handle splat better. most of it will be new add ons, not messing around with whats there (ie more powersorces and new powers for old sorces)new sorces will packeaged into a pair of classes, and after 3.x i really think they will pay more attantion to not creating an arms race, power inflation situation and keep it balanced with the core.
Quote from: Stargate525... I admit, 4e probably won't, but that's because it's a tactical combat game and not roleplaying as we know it. Quite a few people are already poking holes in the skill mechanics and other sub-systems.
WTF? this is the dumbest thing i have heard about 4e (and have heard it befour) so how does a system that most critics admit streamlines and quickens combat so it takes less time at the table to do, make a combat heavy game? you can spend less time doing combat, while still having the fun, leaving more table time for story telling and roleplaying. Wow rules designed to spend less time Rolling dice makes it a combat tactical game... BA HA HA!
The only valid point you have is the lack of craft skills and the argument of "why would an adventuring hero want to craft something?" is utter carp. There are lots, if GMs ever stopped telling the PCs "ok you go back to town for supplies, healing and rest, and leave in the morning" and start telling the PCs their in town for say 4 days at a time or over a week if a PC needs to get something done, the other PCs can use craft or profession to stop the bordum, make a little money, or to have a side-job or hobby to do on "time off". the term adventuring hero becomes 2 dimentional if all you do is crawl-and-haul. this is just a personal tiff with DMs in RPGs in general. 4e dosent help me, but it WIDE open to add in crafting using a DC check from 3.x thats still used in 4e or the new skill challenges new in 4e giving me variaty of how i want to handle the situation those times that the PC says "so we are in town for 5 days before the cleric is ready to leave? well i go outside of town to the farm we stayed at, and help the family build their barn for 4 days, what can i do with the skills i have?" i could do a DC X check for each day, or use a skill challenge to build a DC success with secondary skills if you dont have "Craft - Wooden Building". It all takes 5 minutes at the table, and the PCs have more to their character than adventuring.
Quote from: Ra-TielQuote from: Stargate525[...] it's a tactical combat game and not roleplaying as we know it.
Why keep people saying that? Seriously, I don't get it. :huh:
Is it because you no longer have a number on the sheet that says that your character can weave baskets better than any other character? Or is it because casters no longer have spells that can completely replace any other noncaster class in a moment's notice?
If you think about it, why would anything outside of combat need regulation and controlling in a roleplaying game? From that perspective 3E was even less a roleplaying game than 4E because it tried to nail everything with stats and rules, including things that did not require such a treatment.
If 4E was no longer a roleplaying game, why the heck would WotC put all that "how to roleplay" and all the other chapters regarding exactly this topic in the PH and DMG?
Quote from: Stargate525Quite a few people are already poking holes in the skill mechanics and other sub-systems.
I know. But they are not poking holes in the "skill mechanics", but rather in the "skill challenge" system whose difficulties and complexities are off. I don't think it will be too long before we're going to see an errata to skill challenges.
And even if not, compared to what needed fixing in 3E, skill challenges are a minor issue. :P
I agree totaly.
Quote from: Stargate525Quote from: Ra-TielWhy keep people saying that? Seriously, I don't get it. :huh:
Because other than those sections of unmitigated and obvious fluff, there is not a single rule in the entire system that does not directly relate to combat. Want to find out how much making that sword will cost you? Can't, there aren't crafting rules. What about building a house? Sorry. Buying a friggin piece of chalk? Nope, it doesn't exist.
The reason non-combat situations need rules structure is the same reason that combat does; to prevent piss-off contests where players argue over who's better at weaving baskets.
Did you even look at the skill list? lots of non combat skills just no craft skills, and all your examples are all crafting. you can negotiate with 4e and 3.5 using skills, just 4e has the option of doing in better (in some situations)with skill challenges. would like so see more nagivigation skills in BOTH editions... but seriously that was a non point.
Quote from: RaelifinIt's a matter of emphasis. 4E emphasizes the game aspect of the activity, which tends to reduce the acting aspect (in my eyes).
I think thats totall DM controllable at the table, not system specific.
Quote from: Ninja D!I like 4E. Here's my thought, though: 4E isn't really meant to be "THE BEST." It's meant to be simple. You can house rule and add as much as you want. At it's core, it's meant to be a game that any video game junkie who wants to work outside the restrictions of said video games can pick up and play. It makes things run (pretty much) smoothly and easily. That's not for some people, though, and I totally understand why. I just like it because I sometimes have a hard time dedicating the time and focus needed.
Thank you i thinhk you hit the nail on the head exacatly. its ment to be modualar (=simple) and to be easily taken appart and rebuilt using different addo=-ons and options.
There are just too many damn things wrong with Epic Meepos post to add to this long post, but if i were to correct everything he said it would probebly double the length. Meepo you clearly have the books but not played 4e at the table yet, most of it is wrong interperation of what is written means. example:
'¦Vancian casting. Spontaneous casting. Psionics. Shadow magic. Truenaming. Pact magic. Incarnum.
Arcane power. Divine power. Martial power. Warlock pacts. (4ePHB) Elemental power. Ki power. Primal power. Psionic power. Shadow power. (4ePHB sidebar)
ALL of the power sorces use that same rules (the core mechanics) each just represents a different flavour list of spells, not new ways of working magic. There are differences in the effects of the powers, not in how the PLAYER uses those powers mechanic wise.
1* Until the end of your next turn.
2* Until the end of the target's next turn.
3* Until the end of the encounter.
4* Until the target successfully saves.
4* Until the target successfully saves, then a secondary effect with a new duration.
4* Until the target successfully saves, with a failed save resulting in a secondary effect.
5* Until you activate another stance.
6* Sustained minor.
6* Sustained standard.
6* Sustained minor up to three times.
6* Sustained minor unless the target successfully saves.
6* Sustained standard unless the target successfully saves.
6* Sustained minor unless you fail your attack roll upon sustaining.
6* Sustained standard unless you fail your attack roll upon sustaining.
1, 2, and 3 cant agrue with you need them. 4 is "untill save" some powers have different effects... like save for half damage is such a new complicated timeing... 5 is very rare but really its sustained untill action. 6 is ALL sustained, some are sustained minor actions some are standard, some are sustained untill choice, some are sustained untill trigger/action i dont know what your point was, it looks like you just wanted to make it look worce than it is, skipping over logic along the way. they are all ongoing effects untill canceld.
To me 4e is a good core block, it uses the d20 mechanic from 3.x and more things are covered under it. removes the side-kick satus from non-magic classes, powers are messured in at will, once every few minutes (encounter), once per day, and very often but takes a long time to do (rituals), which works better for me than the Vanctian system. book layout is very clear and easy to navigate. lots of races in the MM to use, classes organised by power sorce are good too. Less crunch for roleplaying is great to me, alows it to just expand at the table with breaks for structured combat.
To me 4e is missing crafting skills, a major part of the game, however designed for splat, its just a matter of time befour it too will be overwealmed but that is ultimatly controlled by the players and DM. I dont like the pick and forget skills, with no progessions "getting better". Alignment looks worce than it did befour. half the classes missing from PHB have to wait for PHB II is carp. Flashy magic users, at will magic missles, kills low magic potential wihough nearfing magic classes, thus nerfing combat classes or you will get the opposite of 3.x
I can stand for someone who dosent like 4e or prefers something else. but please dont call 4e a tactical combat game, or a WoW clone or a simplistic videogame, or even a roleplaying game or medival simulator... it can be all of them its just up to how you chose to use it. and by 4e embrassing this Idea more than any other concept is what makes me think 4e just might be the spiritual successor to the origianl DnD in 2nd and 3.x... the crunch got in the wayof that... as a DM look at your books less, and your players more even at the expence of the rules.
Quote from: Epic MeepoOh, and just to be controversial for the sake of controversy: :P
Oh, smart. Baiting just for the sake of baiting without even the intent to contribute to the discussion.
Quote from: Epic MeepoStandard action. Move action. Free action. Immediate reaction. Minor action. Immediate interrupt. Opportunity action. (4ePHB)
You label immediate actions and opportunity attacks (which were part of 3.5 as well) as 4E only? Even if 3E and 4E were even on action types, in 4E those are much more equally distributed amongst all classes. How many classes got to use swift and immediate actions in 3E (excluding casters)?
Quote from: Epic MeepoAlternative skill uses. (GSL, 4eSRD) Rogue utility powers. (4ePHB)
Interesting. Please show me where 4E introduced subsystems working off a different mechanic than the basic skill rules like the skill tricks did.
Quote from: Epic MeepoWarlord utility powers. Fighter utility powers. Multiple powers affecting damage output. (4ePHB)
Apparently the difference between "feat categories introducing a subsystem that works completely different from the rest" (like tactical and combat focus feats did) and "powers that all follow the same system" is too difficult for some.
Quote from: Epic MeepoArcane power. Divine power. Martial power. Warlock pacts. (4ePHB) Elemental power. Ki power. Primal power. Psionic power. Shadow power. (4ePHB sidebar)
As is the difference of "a whole load of completely incompatible subsystems regarding special abilities" and "power sources that grant powers that work following exactly the same set of rules".
Quote from: Epic MeepoParagon paths with spells. Paragon paths with non-magic powers that work like spells. Epic destinies. (4ePHB)
"Warriors don't get to have nice things". Or you failed at understanding the basic principal behind the powers system and why it was implemented.
Quote from: Epic MeepoPowers, powers, powers, powers, powers, powers, powers, powers, powers, powers, powers, powers, powers, powers, powers, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals, rituals. (4ePHB, 4eMM, 4eDMG, at least one of each in every other WotC 4e product ever published, garaunteed.)
Which coincidentally follow exactly the same rules regarding their respective category, no exceptions.
Quote from: Epic MeepoIf you stick with Core in 4e, it will become a messed up pile of powers, rituals, base classes, paragon paths, and epic destinies, since all future PHB's are designated part of the Core. (WotC website definition of Core.)
May I borrow your crystal ball?
Quote from: Epic MeepoAlso called "exception-based design." (4eDMG)
And why couldn't Incarnum work with a reflavored version of power points? Why couldn't binding magic work with a reflavored version of spontaneous casting? Why did everything require a new set of incompatible rules?
Quote from: Epic Meepo* Until the end of your next turn.
* Until the end of the target's next turn.
* Until the end of the encounter.
* Until the target successfully saves.
* Until the target successfully saves, then a secondary effect with a new duration.
* Until the target successfully saves, with a failed save resulting in a secondary effect.
* Until you activate another stance.
* Sustained minor.
* Sustained standard.
* Sustained minor up to three times.
* Sustained minor unless the target successfully saves.
* Sustained standard unless the target successfully saves.
* Sustained minor unless you fail your attack roll upon sustaining.
* Sustained standard unless you fail your attack roll upon sustaining.
Coincidentally,
none of these requires you to track the remaining duration of their effects because they all either had a fixed duration of one round or were ended by a specific action, while in 3.5 you always were required to track the remaining duration of your buff/debuff spells in rounds.
Quote from: Epic MeepoIf you want a character to contribute to high-level encounters, you have to have spells or supposedly-non-magical powers that accomplish magic-like effects. Examples: the fighter exploits come and get it and warrior's urging, both of which are very magic-like charm effects. (4ePHB)
Again, "warriors don't get to have nice things".
Quote from: Epic MeepoFor more on high-level fantasy versions of Russian roulette, see the cleric power seal of binding,
Which can very well be a suboptimal choice. While the target cannot do anything, it is completely protected from all other attacks and suffers only 2d10 + Wis mod damage
which you suffer as well. If you take a look at the typical HPs for monsters of level 25, you'll probably drop to 0 before you get your target bloodied.
Quote from: Epic Meepoand the warlock powers curse of the dark delerium
Sweet. You must sustain the power with your standard action, must make attack rolls for each round, can force the target only to make basic attacks, not use any powers, and not make the target perform any suicidal options. Now compare those limitations to
dominate monster and tell me the slight difference. Also, tell me at what level you can use
curse of the dark delirium, and at what level you can use
dominate monster.
Quote from: Epic Meepoand hurl through hell. (4ePHB)
And? So, the power deals 7d10 + Con mod damage and
at most removes a target for 4 rounds from combat? Ever seen
Time Hop?
Quote from: Epic MeepoSee also, "How to Kill Orcus in Ten Seconds" (WotC Character Optimization Boards).
How to kill every living non-spellcaster opponent of size large or smaller: metamagic rod of quicken +
dimensional lock +
forcecage.
How to completely replace the fighter:
shapechange into marilith +
transformation.
How to gain an infinite army of titans completely under your control:
gate.
How to make infinite money:
shapechange into balor.
How to gain infinite number of
wishes without XP cost: a single lawful evil candle of invocation.
Quote from: Epic MeepoNot to mention the completely nutty minion rules. Applying these rules, 16 beholders are a below-average encounter for a level 19 party. (4eDMG)
On which page in the MM is the minion level beholder? On which page in the DMG are the rules or templates to make minions out of normal monsters?
I'm using 3E rules as written, while you need to completely circumvent the rules of 4E to get a bad result? Telling...
Quote from: Epic MeepoNow, nothing allows adventurers to earn money except finding loot. (4ePHB)
Level 10 bard. Perform (Singing) 13 ranks. Charisma 16 (base) + 2 (level increases) + 4 (cloak of charisma) = 22/+6 (total). Masterwork instrument. Skill Focus (Perform (Singing)). Total Perform (Singing) skill: +24.
Take 10 on Perform (Singing): 34. Earned money: 3d6 per day, average 10gp 5sp. Costs for food and lodging per day: meals (common) 3sp, stay at inn (common) 5sp, total 8sp. Net gain per day: 9gp 7sp. Net gain per year: 3540gp 5sp.
What was the reason for people to take up adventuring again? Even at level 1 (assuming max ranks in Perform, Skill Focus, and Charisma 16), taking 10 would still yield 3d10sp per day, average 1gp 6sp 5cp for a net gain of 8sp 5cp per day. Without the risk of a violent and painful death by some monster, as I might add.
Quote from: Epic MeepoWhat skills are used in a skill challenge for designing a solid two-story house? What skills are used in a skill challenge for making sure a roof won't collapse in a storm?
You really do understand the point behind skill challenges. Because Terminator 2, Last Action Hero, or Blade would have been better movies if the protagonist just started buying some wood and building a house...
Also, you seem to have a really great skill at discussion, answering a valid question with a counter question.
But if you insist...
Quote from: Epic MeepoDitto with 3e.
Wrong. 3E has rules for that. Why handwave something you have exlicit and hard and perfectly valid rules for?
Quote from: Epic MeepoYou don't have to be broke all the time for prices to matter. You only have to be broke once. Example: pixies steal your gear and you have to venture into a dungeon to get it back.
How did pixies with their heavy load of 52.5lb get away with the whole party's equipment without being noticed? Invisibility does not make them completely silent, or cover the full plate 8 times their size.
Quote from: Epic MeepoThankfully, you use your Profession skill to earn some quick, non-loot funds, which you use to buy a limited list of things like chalk and torches.
Excuse me? The party is fine with spending a
full week working as "something" before trying to get their valuable gear back? And even then, the least possible amount you can earn with a Profession check is 1 gold piece per week (one half of 1 rank + 1 rolled). The cost of a single piece of chalk is still insignificant.
Quote from: Epic MeepoI agree. D&D is an adventuring game, and should be designed to handle adventuring heroes, specifically. For example:
You should be able to infiltrate an orc lair using a clever disguise;
Ahhh, bypassing a lot of problems with a single skill check. If you have to, Bluff handles that now.
However, a skill challenge consisting of either Athletics, Bluff, Endurance, Intimidate, and Streetwise (to pass off as orcs) or Insight, Perception, Stealth, and Thievery (to sneak into the camp) would be much more interesting and cinematic.
Quote from: Epic Meepoadventure alongside your trusty animal companion;
Who brings his pet dog to war? Trained animals are always either mounts, or trained for a very special purpose (such as following a trail by scent).
Quote from: Epic Meepolead the barbarian tribe you inspired with your heroic deeds;
A healthy mixture of Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, and Intimidate, depending on what you want the tribe to do.
Quote from: Epic Meepotransform your foes into swine;
Which was, ironically, done with two magic items in a non-combat situation.
Quote from: Epic Meeposummon otherworldly allies to stand beside you as you battle the forces of evil;
And to bind your shoes, and to carry your gear, and to polish your weapons, and to trigger traps, and to dance for you, and to ...
Economy of actions, et al.
Quote from: Epic Meeposhapechange into a monster to wreck havoc on your foes;
And gain powers that are not meant to be used by a PC and make other members of your party completely obsolete.
Quote from: Epic Meepobrave a dungeon to recover a sentient sword that becomes your signature weapon;
Artifacts are alive and kicking in 4E. The few in the DMG are only examples to give you a feel on how fleshed out artifacts look like and what powers they can have. You could quite surely have an artifact start out as +1 and gain an additional +1 for each 5 levels (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, +4 at 20th, +5 at 25th, +6 at 30th), for as long as you behave according to its requirements.
Quote from: Epic Meepoor take part in an epic, career-spanning quest to destroy the One Item that threatens the world.
And what exactly would prevent such a campaign in 4E?
Quote from: Epic MeepoToo bad 4e doesn't have rules for any of the above adventuring-hero-specific activities.
Sure? Apparently you haven't read the books, or horribly misinterpreted them.
Also, that you require rules for such things doesn't place you in the best light as a DM, imho.
Quote from: Epic Meepo(Or rules against them, in the case of career-spanning artifact quests; 4eDMG)
Page?
this is the best thread ever![spoiler]not[/spoiler]
Watching a bunch of people I genuinely like and respect nastily arguing over which pile of shit smells better.
*sigh*
as if your shit dont stink too vreeg :)
EDIT: Contentious content removed. The part with the gorgeous women and heavy drinking retained!
[spoiler=The part with the gorgeous women and the heavy drinking...]
Quote from: Ra-TielHow did pixies with their heavy load of 52.5lb get away with the whole party's equipment without being noticed? Invisibility does not make them completely silent, or cover the full plate 8 times their size.
polymorphed[/i] into gorgeous women, drugged the party with spiked wine, then carted everything off with the help of allies while everyone slept.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=A minor suggestion]
Would it be too much to cut with the bickering and flame baiting in here? Reminds me of some very nasty communities I had the displeasure of being a part of. The CBG has always been more of a place to keep things light and fun. Sure criticism exists, but its supposed to be constructive.
[/spoiler]
Really hope that isn't asking too much.
Thankfully, they happen only once in a blue moon, and everyone shuts up quick enough.
Certainly a good thing.
I understand where you all are coming from, I really do. Its part of being human, someone says something a bit too harshly and then you feel insult and the need to throw it back at them. Everyone just needs to remember that everyone else has different opinions and the right to express them here.
Now let us all be happy together and eat delicious cake.
[spoiler=cake]the cake is a lie[/spoiler]
On 4e... it's okay I guess. But I've got 3e and an assload of splats that do everything 4e does and then some. It's not easy, but... I'm accustomed to it to the point where it doesn't need to be.
The powers are neat in some ways lame in others. Neat for magic to be cool again. Neat for combat feats to be balanced (many of the martial powers look like old feats, except that you can't pile the benefits of ten of them onto a single attack... nice balancing mechanic, and lets them de-gimp the individual powers a little). Not as neat because fighters etc. can't do two weapons, and a billion other (admittedly petty) things that'll irk a 3.5er like myself.
The multiclassing fix is likewise a yes and a no. A yes because multiclassed spellcasters are de-gimped. A yes because it's not optimal to cherry pick your first six to eight levels of non-spellcaster before prestige classing. A no because it's just not as intuitive (yet... and let's be honest, neither were the old xp penalties for multiclassing).
The monsters as players bit is again yes and no. Yes they covered all the reasonable bases in the appendix at the end. No I can't play stupidly gonzo monster campaigns like I used to (say what you will about LA... sometimes Savage Species stupidity was awesome).
The big yes for me is the skill challenge rules. Maybe just the skill challenge rules in general. Pretty easily portable into 3x, though.
The big no for me is the "if it's a problem give it the axe" fixes that seem to have happened way too often (for my tastes). Summoning, creating undead, changing shapes, compulsions and charms, etc... it isn't easy to fix that either, at least from the looks of it.
Quote from: beeblebrox[...] Not as neat because fighters etc. can't do two weapons, and a billion other (admittedly petty) things that'll irk a 3.5er like myself.
Which is because fighters aren't the vanilla bottom of the barrel any longer regarding martial characters. In 4E fighters have a specific role to fullfil, and that just doesn't work when you could only pick abilities that have nothing to do with that role.
However, many other classes gained in flexibility and roleplaying freedom what the fighter lost.
The paladin is no longer the goody two-shoes character, but changed into the chosen champion of a specific deity. No matter if you want to play a holy warrior of Bahamut, Pelor, the Raven Queen, or Vecna - they're all paladins.
Similar to the ranger: he's no longer a militaristic pseudo-druid who automatically got a pet and spells shoved down his throat. He's more commando style in 4E, allowing you play a wide array of characters who just didn't fit the 3E version of the ranger.
Therefore, you should look beyond the name of the class when looking at your character. Want to play a master of melee combat? Fighter. Want to play a master with two-weapon fighting or archery? Ranger. Want to play a master of a "dirty" combat style with light and quick weapons and who exploits his enemies' weaknesses? Rogue.
Quote from: beeblebrox[...] The monsters as players bit is again yes and no. Yes they covered all the reasonable bases in the appendix at the end.
The conversions in the back of the MM are not meant as fully compatible PC races, but as a help for DMs to create NPCs of a given race. That's why they seem lacking in some aspects when compared to the PH races.
Quote from: beeblebroxNo I can't play stupidly gonzo monster campaigns like I used to (say what you will about LA... sometimes Savage Species stupidity was awesome).
Sometimes, yes. :D
Quote from: beeblebrox[...] The big no for me is the "if it's a problem give it the axe" fixes that seem to have happened way too often (for my tastes). Summoning, creating undead, changing shapes, compulsions and charms, etc... it isn't easy to fix that either, at least from the looks of it.
The point is, how many of those things do players have to do? Enhancement is going to be a major domain of psionics, which we likely won't see until PH3. Shapechanging is probably going to be in PH2 with the druid. Summoning demons or creating hordes of undead... well... just because the Empire got to build starships that made Imperial IIs look like a child's toy, doesn't mean the Rebells automatically get that too. ;)
I know that summoner and necromancer are classic staples of fantasy, but the occasions when those were protagonists and not antagonists is kinda small.
Quote from: Ra-TielWhich is because fighters aren't the vanilla bottom of the barrel any longer regarding martial characters. In 4E fighters have a specific role to fullfil, and that just doesn't work when you could only pick abilities that have nothing to do with that role.
The paladin is no longer the goody two-shoes character, but changed into the chosen champion of a specific deity. No matter if you want to play a holy warrior of Bahamut, Pelor, the Raven Queen, or Vecna - they're all paladins.
Similar to the ranger: he's no longer a militaristic pseudo-druid who automatically got a pet and spells shoved down his throat. He's more commando style in 4E, allowing you play a wide array of characters who just didn't fit the 3E version of the ranger.[/quote]The conversions in the back of the MM are not meant as fully compatible PC races, but as a help for DMs to create NPCs of a given race. That's why they seem lacking in some aspects when compared to the PH races.[/quote]The point is, how many of those things do players have to do? Enhancement is going to be a major domain of psionics, which we likely won't see until PH3. Shapechanging is probably going to be in PH2 with the druid. Summoning demons or creating hordes of undead... well... just because the Empire got to build starships that made Imperial IIs look like a child's toy, doesn't mean the Rebells automatically get that too. ;)[/quote]I know that summoner and necromancer are classic staples of fantasy, but the occasions when those were protagonists and not antagonists is kinda small.
[/quote]
I can say the same for fiendish pacts and infernal bloodlines, no? I like the assumption that I can play a badguy, so that's not a criticism per se, but... I'm still going to miss necromancy and summoning and such.
Quote from: Epic MeepoThey polymorphed into gorgeous women, drugged the party with spiked wine, then carted everything off with the help of allies while everyone slept.
Good that pixies aren't actually able to polymorph: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm ;)
Quote from: Ra-TielQuote from: Epic MeepoThey polymorphed into gorgeous women, drugged the party with spiked wine, then carted everything off with the help of allies while everyone slept.
Good that pixies aren't actually able to polymorph: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm ;)
This falls under the rules of DM fiat. If the DM says they can, then they can. :P
Quote from: NomadicThis falls under the rules of DM fiat. If the DM says they can, then they can. :P
It's also in the first printing of the 3.5 MM.
Vreeg weighs in a year later. I had to think on this. Here is a response from myself on another (inferior, of course) site.
[ooc]
Well, I don't like being dragged into ane edition wars, as I stopped playing D&D years ago.
But a few niblets.
WotC (or anyone) spending money to advertise rpgs and growing the industry is a good thing. ANd they need to make money to spend money. So 4e spending money and being the gateway drug to the better/harder stuff is fine by me. Consider it 'college beer', if you will, a cheap and available low-end product. I and my other gamers all drank some version in highschool and college, and 25 years later we all collect, share, and enjoy wine.
J Arcane might like the analogy that 4e is the Nattylite of the RPG world.
Quote from: Originally Posted by BeejI was under the impression that D&D was written by and for older geeks with extremely eclectic interests (sci-fantasy lit, wargaming, lots and lots of polearms) but happened to really appeal to the kids. 4e we know is actively trying to make a game for kids. Kids are ready for more adult stuff than adults give them credit for anymore. It's the old folks that have changed; kids just are what they are.
That's the thing I see... old school D&D let kids be what they actually are. New school is written for what a bunch of adults think kids are like these days.
from here
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14573,
where the edition wars are an ongoing conflict. Funny stuff, but I learned a lot in the past year and digested a lot. Thought I'd give a different perspective.
Wow, in a single year my opinion of the system has changed completely. Not only do I believe 4E's monster manuals are superior to 3.5's in every way (save flavor) but the 4E system is actually much better than what I first believed. 4E isn't WoW on paper, it's D&D.
My personal feeling about 4e is that I'm just not interested in combat-by-numbers or tactical placement. I don't really care if one person has a +2 more to hit with a certain weapon or has a power that can slide someone X squares, nor am I interested in combat I need to have any visual representation for. When I first heard about 4e I was hoping that they were going to move away from the tactics and numbers, but instead they moved further in. I'm not so sure I care that much about the lack of mechanics minutiae defining the non-combat game, as I'm not sure there was all that much more in 3.X, but having the occasional non-combat class/PrC/race/etc. mechanic made things interesting and felt more inspiring.
So I don't object to 4e as being a bad game, I just don't like it on personal grounds that it just seems like a lot of numbers and tactics that don't inspire what happens outside their realm.
I bought 4e but I'm sticking to 3.0/3.5. I stick mainly to the core rulebooks and it works for me and my players. I like the fact that you can have Commoner campaigns, and campaigns focussed on skills rather than combat. I originally agreed with you Elemental Elf, and personally I still think you were right a year ago.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf4E's monster manuals are superior to 3.5's in every way (save flavor)...
That may be true, but check out the free Pathfinder Bonus Bestiary (http://paizo.com/store/paizo/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88x4) from the company that published
Dungeon and
Dragon magazines when they were still in print. Based on that PDF, I suspect that the Pathfinder (edition 3.75) bestiaries are going to be better than either 3.5 or 4e.
Plus, the PDF of the 572-page
Pathfinder core rules will be available for only $9.99 when it goes on sale in August. Just based on price alone, it's a 3.75 system worth checking out.
I humbly apologize for my past posts in this thread. I refine my opinion to the following.
4e is ok. It has parts worth "snipping" but in the end I have sold my 4e books so that's my opinion on the system.
WOTC is a necessary evil. We don't like them but they have a purpose.
I am buying Pathfinder and converting my homebrew and houserules to Pathfinder.
Quote from: Epic MeepoQuote from: Elemental_Elf4E's monster manuals are superior to 3.5's in every way (save flavor)...
That may be true, but check out the free Pathfinder Bonus Bestiary (http://paizo.com/store/paizo/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88x4) from the company that published Dungeon and Dragon magazines when they were still in print. Based on that PDF, I suspect that the Pathfinder (edition 3.75) bestiaries are going to be better than either 3.5 or 4e.
Plus, the PDF of the 572-page Pathfinder core rules will be available for only $9.99 when it goes on sale in August. Just based on price alone, it's a 3.75 system worth checking out.
I think its a good hybrid however IMO the 4E system is just easier to utilize out of the book. Having said that, I will pick this bestiary book up if for no other reason than to send more delicious monsters at my poor, poor PCs.
Wow... ooooold discussion necro'd with a post that quotes me on another board... weird.
I don't know that my opinion has changed significantly. I'm still a 3x/pathfinder/star wars saga fan, still disinterested in running 4e (but I'll play if it comes up), still writing a system like the ones I like, with a few add-ons and cuts to suit my tastes better.
Admittedly edition wars are little comical. I've felt each edition from second on was an improvement. They tried to use what they learned and what people requested to create a better game. In some ways each moves forward, in some back, but I see a general trend of forward.
After playing the game, I do not see any less emphasis on roleplaying than before. Making the combat rules cleaner and more balanced didn't magically stop me from having a personality when playing. And skill challenges give DMs a way to be consistent and less arbitrary when trying non-combat challenges.
Now if only we can get more TRoS support!
For those who haven't seen: link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azcn84IIDVg&feature=related).