The Campaign Builder's Guild

Just my two cents to those who say DnD is not good for commoner campaigns...

I think you should read this

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-Tiel

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

I agree totaly.

Quote from: Stargate525

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.

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-Tiel

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 ;)

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.