The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

Quote from: Crippled Crowthe only thing which really annoys me is the cleric and the paladin: i can't even imagine how i would attempt to explain their abilities. (e.g. Shielding Smite where you hit an enemy and suddenly your friend is protected by a golden shield).

Also, warlocks and wizards are probably a bit too over-the-top for my setting, even though they are nice.

Taking a nice long look at the Cleric Powers list, I see that this is quite the trend.  I find it interesting that the Cleric has significantly fewer pure "Cure" spells.  What they do get is every few levels a power that allows them to attack AND cure AT THE SAME TIME.  The Cleric seems to me to actually be a much more fight-centered character than before--who also happens to cure his friends with his attacks.  His powers heal, but they do so when he attacks his foes.  The rest seem to confer some defensive bonus or other to accompany the damage dealing.  I suppose it's an attempt to give the cleric some amount of healing/buffing ability, when 4e requires that 3/4 of ALL characters' powers MUST be attack powers.

Well it's pretty much a closed book for me, as 40% of my races are no longer existent in my setting.

[spoiler=Lord Vreegs Self-Described Crankiness]And makes me cranky, or actually crankier, to be precise. I was not aware that when I joined up here and started putting time and effort that I was going to be dealing with a WotC spinnoff site, and makes me consider taking a long hiatus from the CBG[/spoiler]

[spoiler=What is listed at the bottom of every page on the site]The CBG (Campaign Builders' Guild) was first created on the WotC Message Boards.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=My response]This site is, by definition, a WotC spinoff.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Superfluous Spoiler]I like pie[/spoiler]

Quote from: the_takenIn 3.x, tactics layered on top of each other and unintentionally synergized. Levitate granted virtual immunity to dire bears, for instance.

Which tactics? You mean the wizard circumventing 99% of all encounters with his spells past level 9?

Quote from: the_takenAs the levels rise, tactic are continually created and negated as powers actually change.

Wrong. 3.5 rewarded specialization. Once you specialized in e.g. tripping, or control spells, or negative energy effects, you got a better reward to stick with your chosen tactic.

Quote from: the_takenIn 4e, your tactics amount to "I hit it. Again."

Which was everything classes other than cleric/druid/wizard/sorcerer could do in 3.5 because of a lack of options. Also, what wonderful tactics could you use in 3.5? Give me some examples to support your claim.

Quote from: the_takenStatus ailments are virtually meaningless as they often end in a round or two, and combat is designed to last longer as you rise in levels.

Icy Terrain + Ray of Frost == opponent moves one square per round (or two at most, depending on how you handle standard actions being substituted with move actions).

Quote from: the_taken3.x can be boring if the DM is boring, but 4e is boring by design.

And 3.5 is broken by design (*cough* polymorph *cough* shapenchange *cough* teleport *cough*). You point is... ?

Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumTaking a nice long look at the Cleric Powers list, I see that this is quite the trend.  I find it interesting that the Cleric has significantly fewer pure "Cure" spells.  What they do get is every few levels a power that allows them to attack AND cure AT THE SAME TIME.  The Cleric seems to me to actually be a much more fight-centered character than before--who also happens to cure his friends with his attacks.  His powers heal, but they do so when he attacks his foes.  The rest seem to confer some defensive bonus or other to accompany the damage dealing.  I suppose it's an attempt to give the cleric some amount of healing/buffing ability, when 4e requires that 3/4 of ALL characters' powers MUST be attack powers.

Actually, I believe it was an honest attempt to make the Cleric a more appealing class to the masses... Very few people like being the Band-Aid but many people like fighting... Its just a natural progression to put the two together and have a class that's willingly played more times than it is forced.

But everyone is right, it is odd to attack a monter and heal a friend at the same time but, its the price you pay to get an appealing band-aide :(

I haven't played 4E yet but from what I've read in the books and on the interwebs is that 4E is more of a miniatures wargaming game than a true/pure traditional RPG. This isn't necessarily bad, it will definitely attract new customers that enjoy MMOs and RPG video Games like Oblivion and etc.  

Quote from: A little off topic of the thread, but I feel I need to get it off my back

Quote from: Elemental ElfI haven't played 4E yet but from what I've read in the books and on the interwebs is that 4E is more of a miniatures wargaming game than a true/pure traditional RPG. This isn't necessarily bad, it will definitely attract new customers that enjoy MMOs and RPG video Games like Oblivion and etc.  

To answer the question posed by the thread: I don't have a system, but I am actively merging 3.5 and 4e for a 3.75e.  Not to mention throwing in a few things I came up with myself (see the thread on Haphazzard casting, if you can find it).  I like the way 4e makes the "stabby oriented" people more on par with the spellcasters, but I think it makes the spellcasters too flashy.  So, in summary: Nothing is without a combination of good and bad, though one must really look in order to find the good at times.

I didn't design my setting for any particular game world, though it's fantasy flavour lends itself most to D&D. Truth is I've been wanting to find other game systems before 4th edition came out, and now that 4th is out and looks thoroughly unappealing, it's probably going to be the kick in the butt that actually gets me to shift. I'll still give 4e a try sometime though.

QuoteI haven't played 4E yet but from what I've read in the books and on the interwebs is that 4E is more of a miniatures wargaming game than a true/pure traditional RPG. This isn't necessarily bad, it will definitely attract new customers that enjoy MMOs and RPG video Games like Oblivion and etc.

This sentiment always makes me chuckle, because I switched to Pen and Paper RPGs when computer RPGs on the whole turned into combat simulators. I've always said that computer games should move in the direction of P&P, not the other way around, but I guess I'm in a minority of computer gamers with this opinion.

Incidentally, I keep hearing about tanking mechanics in 4e, but I can't find anyone who's described how this works. Is there really a tanking system in D&D now?

Quote from: MinaIncidentally, I keep hearing about tanking mechanics in 4e, but I can't find anyone who's described how this works. Is there really a tanking system in D&D now?

Sort of?

There's a thing called "marking." It works like a condition-- that is, you can be marked by an attack, much the same as you can be dazed, blinded, stunned, or any of that stuff. Several classes have powers that can mark enemies, but fighters and paladins do it best. (Specifically, paladins can mark an enemy every turn as a minor action, and fighters have the option of marking enemies-- for free-- whenever they hit them with any attack.) A marked character has a -2 penalty on all attack rolls that don't include the character that marked them as a target. This is unimpressive by itself, but paladins and fighters get extra advantages against marked enemies that make these kinds of reckless attacks. (Specifically, the paladin-mark does damage to a character that ignores it, and the fighter-mark gives the fighter free attack against a character that ignores it.)

So, combatants can always attack whatever they want to, even if they're marked. But marked combatants who pick their targets poorly can be in trouble.

I moved my game to 4E whenever my group was chosen to playtest last year. It wasn't all that difficult to integrate the rules into a new campaign, since we were closing out our 10 year game as one of the major character's player was moving out of state.

I love the mechanics, in that as a DM it puts fiat back into my hands (as with 1st and 2nd edtion) and clearly defines a lot of the more "loose" rules where there was no clear resolution in previous editions how to handle it.

There's definitely an Iron Heroes approach on this edition, and for specific reasons. I like it. :)

I was burned out on D&D 3.5, and from what I've heard, I have no interest in 4th edition at all, let alone converting my Marth Ice World to 4th.  http://marth.bravehost.com  I tried to pick up a players guide to look at it (even with my utter distaste up to that point) and I flipped several pages, and just put it down.  Bleh...  No thanks, it didn't even LOOK appealing.  I am going to spend my money on other systems, or use my white wolf inspired rules lite fantasy game I came up with.  H.A.R.P. (High Adventure Role Playing) from I.C.E. is a nice change from D&D, with a nice flexible system that is fun to houserule to make it perfect.  HARP doesn't produce little cookie-cutter clones.  I didn't realize how restrictive D&D was, until I saw the other more flexible systems.

So no I won't translate anything to 4th.  This incarnation of D&D can suck on my big toe.  :)