The Campaign Builder's Guild

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
2
3

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: brainface

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

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. ;)

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?