How many of us are out there? Please, if you play, POST!!
I play a dragonborn,
and as DM, my Dragonborn guiding the PCs asince two others are the only ones in the school.

I play 3.5, spent WAY too much money to convert to 4e. got about 90% of the good books

I did years ago.

Always a chaotic good mage....
I prefered original D&D to later versions (AD&D on) as it was so simple. May be that I was in high school at the time though.

What about the ten others who view this thread?

I´m painting a new figure for my character right now. I play a human fighter but I change figures almost on a game session basis. I even used a SScorpion Exarch once just for fun.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:I´m painting a new figure for my character right now. I play a human fighter but I change figures almost on a game session basis. I even used a SScorpion Exarch once just for fun.

M.

I'm new, what's an Exarch?

This guy



M.

I played D&D 3rd edition. DragonLance FTW (War of the Lance time period)

Miguelsan wrote:This guy



M.

Ohhh.... I knew that....I just didn't remeber/ thought of them as those snake people...

I recently started playing again. A buddy of mine had been lamenting for years about missing RPG's and found a group that plays regularly and asked me to go along. We play RPGA rules in 4th Edition. I've played the Red Box, AD&D, and 3rd edition in the past. Never had a regular game, just here and there.

After all the moaning and crying about it, I have to say that i really enjoy 4th Edition. The out of combat rules are streamlined to allow the players to actually have to roleplay and use their imaginations instead of having to have a stat in every minor ability/trait/proficiency and the combat rules are fairly easy to understand but have a great amount of variation in the details. Like MtG, reading the rules doesn't give a good sense of how they actually play. It isn't perfect by any stretch but it is fun, which is the point I think.


I have a Dragonborn Warlord, Genasi Swordmage, and a Warforged Wizard. I mostly use Reaper figs for my characters.

No DnD for me. Mostly shadowrun a few years ago. I think I enjoyed making characters more then the game. Still fun to hang out with and screw around with some friends!

My friends and I are starting up DnD 4th edition.

Should be very interesting!

I haven't played DnD in about ten years. I tried 3.0, but didn't care for it.

My group prefers Savage Worlds to anything else. My personal favorite is Wild Talents.

My group used to play D&D, but we found better systems than what Wizards came up with. We used to play 3.5 and 4e (Though much of the group grew to hate 4e for some reason) and then decided to give Pathfinder RPG a try. We're also currently playing around with Dark Heresy.

I started playing 3.5 at university. Used to play a human paladin.

Was pretty fun, but the rest of my gaming group was more interested in playing D20 modern (set in the Marvel universe). Now I have no gaming group, as I moved house and am no longer at university.

I played AD&D, but around 94 began creating my own system for fantasy, taking inspiration from AD&D and Warhammer fantasy and a load of my own ideas.

We tend to use this almost exclusively for Fantasy themed RPG's. Although do use Dark Heresy, World of Darkness etc for other settings.

We also tried D20, but where really put off by the feats system, felt it was way too limiting, and although I have the 4th books, they are for reference only. Plus I got them when I was mod of a RPG forum, thus I felt I should have all the main rulesets.

i used to. I don't anymore. 4e is terrible. I'd be inclined to play 3.5 again, but i tend to DM and I don't have time for it. I have most books going back to the beginning in pdf form.

Howlingmoon wrote:4e is terrible.

Could you be more specific. Just saying it doesn't mean much without saying why. Is it the ease of use? Or that you aren't pigeonholed into alignments? That melee characters can do more? That Wizards aren't OP?

My friends and I play 3.5 in between other games systems (All Flesh Must be Eaten and Mage are a couple of other systems we enjoy), it's a good system which allows for flowing Roleplaying and the fight scnes can be done either quickly and entirely through description and a couple of dice rolls, or with a quickly drawn map and some miniatures if we want to take our time over it.

We tried 4e a couple of times, but we didn't like it much. Everything felt clunky, you could still RP just fine, but when you hit a fight scene everything became too regimented, the list of powers made it feel more like a card game tacked into the middle of an RP and the fights took forever if people weren't intimately familiar with every power they and the rest of the party were fielding.

We went back to 3.5 pretty quick and haven't looked back.

I played a lot of 3.5. Always had a lot of fun with it. Then I graduated college, got married, had kids, 4.0 rolled out and I just didn't have the time or money to bother switching. The two big long running characters I had were a LE dragon disciple fighter and a Paladin/Weapons Master. With the first I made all kinds of trouble for the group, with the second I made the GM cry.

Ahtman wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:4e is terrible.

Could you be more specific. Just saying it doesn't mean much without saying why. Is it the ease of use? Or that you aren't pigeonholed into alignments? That melee characters can do more? That Wizards aren't OP?

If you want to turn this into a flame war I'd be more than happy to oblige you... via PM. Insulting people for not having your exact same tastes is not a nice thing to do.

I'll grant you that he said '4E is terrible' first. But I'd bet there's an unstated 'in my opinion' in there.

As for me... In my opinon 4E is terrible. Terribly sorry if you disagree.


Back to the OP:

Played through 3.5 editions of D&D. Obviously 4E is not my cup of tea. Generally I play either skirmish-type warriors (rangers and such) or sneak-thieves.

Not for ages. Lots of 2e back in the day, some 3.5 a couple years back.

Not interested in 4e, but want to try some Pathfinder 3.x

On fridays i play 3.5 and on wednesdays i play 4.0

I like 3.5 better. More room for customisation. BTW druids and cleric are OP in 3.0/3.5 Wizards are only op at epic level in 3.5

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:4e is terrible.

Could you be more specific. Just saying it doesn't mean much without saying why. Is it the ease of use? Or that you aren't pigeonholed into alignments? That melee characters can do more? That Wizards aren't OP?

If you want to turn this into a flame war I'd be more than happy to oblige you... via PM. Insulting people for not having your exact same tastes is not a nice thing to do.

Boy, talk about flying off the rails. I just asked him to be more specific in why he disliked it. I never said anything about any system being better than another. It is a silly argument as it is apples and oranges. If you like it I love it. All I did was point out some of the nice things about fourth.

You are an idiot. - THAT is an insult.

What was it that you didn't like? Here are some things that are good about it. - That is nowhere near the realm of insult.

I played first edition D&D then switched to RuneQuest and other games.

I play a chaotic neutral Barbarian.

Play 3rd Ed. Either DM or when i play i'm usually an insectile halfling rogue. Don't do much damage but some of the skill bonuses are cool. Managed to hide ON THE TOP of a guards HEAD once! haha!

oh yeah in 3.5 i play a human fighter/warblade, in 4.0 a dragonborn palladin.

We have 2 campaigns in 3.5 for 2 weeks my bro dm's his campaign so i play, Then i dm my campaigns for 2 weeks. Atm i am waiting for my players to show up so we can start in about half an hour.

Grtz
L.D.

"Retired from the game" after I landed a real job. Started in 2.0, DMed a lot in 3/3.5.

Most enjoyed playing a Knight w/ Cleric cohort under 100% control... that DM nearly cried (couldn't figure out how to legitimately challenge me in combat without killing the whole party).

Last character was a Cleric (Life/Death), and a sociopathic self-proclaimed god (being able to kill or revive with a touch? I mean, c'mon!). With memorable adventures such as beating down the party's paladin for claiming me a blasphemer, to fighting to the death with a custom campaign setting's Blood Goddess... he was fun too.

Ahtman wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:4e is terrible.

Could you be more specific. Just saying it doesn't mean much without saying why. Is it the ease of use? Or that you aren't pigeonholed into alignments? That melee characters can do more? That Wizards aren't OP?

How about we start at "they tried to make DnD a table-top MMO and failed miserably"?

Im in a couple campaigns depending on who the DM is. I'm either a Dwarf Defender, Half Elf Monk, or an Halfling Bard.

I've played 3.0 and 3.5. My wife and I have come to the opinion that 4.0 is the Windows Vista of the D&D world. It's okay in it's own way, but nothing we would use. Also, I like the proliferation of sourcebooks that exist for the 3.5 edition. So much more material to work from. I like to play wizards and rogues, with wizard being the definite favorite. I also DM'd a long running campaign that went for a year and was so popular among the local group that I went from three players to thirteen by the time it was done. The party was literally one cast spell level away from triggering localized armageddon at the end of the boss fight and ripping a hole right through the wards to bring the Plane of Madness coterminous (this was an Eberron campaign). The shocked faces all around when I showed them the spell level tally sheet after all was said and done were perfectly priceless.

Currently I'm starting a monk in a new Faerun campaign and DMing a Firefly campaign. The die progression system that setting uses is complicated to look at but once you use it a few times it's very easy and smooths out the mechanics allowing for more roleplay. I definitely recommend the setting to any fans of Firefly or Serenity who enjoy D&D.

Been playing since 1985, with the Frank Mentzer-edited boxed Basic D&D set. Moved onto 1st ed and 2nd ed AD&D, with a goodly number of house rules through the 90s. Got out in the late 90s, then got sucked back in shortly after 3rd edition came out, and have been playing consistently ever since. Am quite enjoying 4th edition right now, and enjoying running it, which 4th edition makes considerably easier and more streamlined than 3rd.

I like every edition. They all have their virtues and foibles. Things they’re good or bad at. 4th was a pretty radical step, and breaks with a lot of D&D traditions. But in doing so it also dumps a lot of headaches and problems and imbalances that had been problems for decades. I can absolutely understand folks who don’t like it. I’m tempted to try a game of Pathfinder at some point, too, as there are a few things about the 3rd & 3.5 designs that I miss.

That's good, let's see,... 184 views, 31 posts.
Maybe a poll will help the count?

But MMO's are DnD.

RPG's influenced the creation of online RPG's which in turn influenced RPG's. Do you believe that WoW came out before pen and paper RPG's? They adopted some of the language of MMO's, but MMO's did the same thing from them. How is a Paladin in WoW radically different DnD at it's core? In both they are holy warriors with lots of hitpoints and heavy armor. In both Mages/Wizards use magic and have low hit points. There are a lot of arguments to be made on why one prefers a system over another but this is a very poor one that doesn't hold up to even superficial scrutiny.

I know putting abilities in essentially card forms has made people think it is a card game, but it is not. They just used a format that keeps it simple. You could easily do the same thing in a spreadsheet format or any other way and get the same result. It also allows them to sell the prepackaged cards but I only know one guy in a group of 14ish that uses them. They aren't essential and you could write the abilities down in any way. On the other side you could make cards of all the spells and abilities in 3rd edition (or earlier) and get the same result.

Now one argument that certainly does hold some water, though it is entirely preferential and not mechanical, is that even at level 1 in 4th characters are pretty powerful. No more level 1 wizards with 2 hit points. It isn't good for more mundane settings. There are rules in DMG2 for scaling to play with no magic items, or very few.

I also think it requires to many books. You don't really need to buy the books as the Character Creator has everything in one location, but it isn't really the same. It is a little to geared toward multiple book purchases. The miniatures are not a very good deal either. I remember the boxes when they released at Gencon had 8 or 10 figs in them and now it is 4 random + 1 large you can see for $15.

They must not have failed that miserably because 4th Edition is doing quite well.

Mannahnin wrote:I like every edition. They all have their virtues and foibles. Things they’re good or bad at. 4th was a pretty radical step, and breaks with a lot of D&D traditions. But in doing so it also dumps a lot of headaches and problems and imbalances that had been problems for decades. I can absolutely understand folks who don’t like it. I’m tempted to try a game of Pathfinder at some point, too, as there are a few things about the 3rd & 3.5 designs that I miss.

This is basically how I feel. It doesn't bother me that someone prefers one system or another. If you don't have a good group they all suck, if you have a good one they can all be fun. My problem is when it isn't presented as a preference but a kneejerk reaction with no support and proclamations of why one is awful without actually saying why (they believe) it is.

From conversation I have had about Pathfinder is that it is 3.5 with all the flaws and bonus's but that the setting is fantastic. The book is also huge. I love the artwork for it to.

Pathfinder changed very little from 3.5, but the changes were worthwhile. Much less math is required, and grappling is much less confusing (I'm sorry if anybody else complains that it wasn't. My whole group refused to use it on virtue of it being complicated). I love what they did with skill points - rather than just having max ranks at +3 level, they made the max ranks equal to your HD. You also get far fewer skill points, but if you put a point into a class skill, you get a permanent +3 to that skill. It really made it easier to use cross-class skills.

Oh, and classes are far more balanced now. Every class gets more stuff as it levels up (Fighters don't just get moar bonus feats...although they are the only class to get a feat at every level). It's far more worthwhile to actually single-class in the system, rather than multiclassing.

As for 4th Edition, I really enjoyed it. Sure, it does need a lot of books, but the stack of 3.5 books my group has collectively is far larger than the stack of all 4e books ever released. 4e was really good for making the classes balanced out a bit more, with no more massive imbalance between Fighters and Wizards.

why can't everbody post? 229 views and only 36 posts?

leoaeris6789 wrote:I play 3.5, spent WAY too much money to convert to 4e. got about 90% of the good books

Same here (although no regular game at the moment). I would consider 4E, though, in the future--I figure 3.5E games will become increasingly hard-to-find over the next few years! I suppose there are plenty of other hobbies to spend my free time with anyway.

Ahtman wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:4e is terrible.

Could you be more specific. Just saying it doesn't mean much without saying why. Is it the ease of use? Or that you aren't pigeonholed into alignments? That melee characters can do more? That Wizards aren't OP?

If you want to turn this into a flame war I'd be more than happy to oblige you... via PM. Insulting people for not having your exact same tastes is not a nice thing to do.

Boy, talk about flying off the rails. I just asked him to be more specific in why he disliked it. I never said anything about any system being better than another. It is a silly argument as it is apples and oranges. If you like it I love it. All I did was point out some of the nice things about fourth.

You are an idiot. - THAT is an insult.

What was it that you didn't like? Here are some things that are good about it. - That is nowhere near the realm of insult.

And you thought I flew off the rails....

Go back and read your post. You clearly imply, by pointing out things you think 4E does better, that Howlingmoon is somehow judgement-defective. And since I happen to disagree with your points... I suppose that make me judgement-defective as well?

My oldest brother has been making a paper and dice game similar to d&d for years. Its pretty damn good so far. But yea Ive played a couple times with him. The insanity that happens in a game just makes melaugh

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:4e is terrible.

Could you be more specific. Just saying it doesn't mean much without saying why. Is it the ease of use? Or that you aren't pigeonholed into alignments? That melee characters can do more? That Wizards aren't OP?

If you want to turn this into a flame war I'd be more than happy to oblige you... via PM. Insulting people for not having your exact same tastes is not a nice thing to do.

Boy, talk about flying off the rails. I just asked him to be more specific in why he disliked it. I never said anything about any system being better than another. It is a silly argument as it is apples and oranges. If you like it I love it. All I did was point out some of the nice things about fourth.

You are an idiot. - THAT is an insult.

What was it that you didn't like? Here are some things that are good about it. - That is nowhere near the realm of insult.

And you thought I flew off the rails....

Go back and read your post. You clearly imply, by pointing out things you think 4E does better, that Howlingmoon is somehow judgement-defective. And since I happen to disagree with your points... I suppose that make me judgement-defective as well?

I see you are still adding things to posts that just aren't there. I clearly don't think it is better, as I have written, I just enjoy it. I haven't made that value judgment specifically anywhere. I'm the only one that has been making any cogent argument about the subject. All I keep getting from the two of you is 'it sucks' and attacking me personally. Still have yet after all this to really address the issue at hand. I don't know if your judgment is deficient but your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

Ahtman wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:4e is terrible.

Could you be more specific. Just saying it doesn't mean much without saying why. Is it the ease of use? Or that you aren't pigeonholed into alignments? That melee characters can do more? That Wizards aren't OP?

If you want to turn this into a flame war I'd be more than happy to oblige you... via PM. Insulting people for not having your exact same tastes is not a nice thing to do.

Boy, talk about flying off the rails. I just asked him to be more specific in why he disliked it. I never said anything about any system being better than another. It is a silly argument as it is apples and oranges. If you like it I love it. All I did was point out some of the nice things about fourth.

You are an idiot. - THAT is an insult.

What was it that you didn't like? Here are some things that are good about it. - That is nowhere near the realm of insult.

And you thought I flew off the rails....

Go back and read your post. You clearly imply, by pointing out things you think 4E does better, that Howlingmoon is somehow judgement-defective. And since I happen to disagree with your points... I suppose that make me judgement-defective as well?

I see you are still adding things to posts that just aren't there. I clearly don't think it is better, as I have written, I just enjoy it. I haven't made that value judgment specifically anywhere. I'm the only one that has been making any cogent argument about the subject. All I keep getting from the two of you is 'it sucks' and attacking me personally. Still have yet after all this to really address the issue at hand. I don't know if your judgment is deficient but your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

I like quoting people.

The reason 4th ed "sucks" is because it removed pretty much everything that made D&D, well, D&D and turned into some generic rubbish with rules written for 4 year olds.

I myself play Pathfinder by Paizo Games. it is what 4th edition SHOULD have been. It is essentially 3.5 overhauled. All your 3.5 books and stuff is compatible with only minor tweaking as well. I definitely recommend anyone who likes playing good D&D to check it out.

Again, that isn't really an argument. What, praytell, is this everything that is missing. Without actually giving some examples of what rules make it for four year olds (where as other versions of D&D have always been srs bisness and would gain you the respect of your peers and the ladies). Give an example, not a blanket statement. All I'm still getting is that you can't tell the difference between not liking something and something being bad, because the two are separate things. People still get together and roleplay and drink Mtn. Dew, and kill enemies and save the princess, assuming she isn't in another castle.

How is a slightly improved version of 3.5 legitimately a new edition? That is like buying as sequel to a video game to find out that it is exactly the same game you bought before only with a few minor glitches fixed. That isn't a new edition, that is a FAQ or errata. There isn't enough difference to justify calling a different edition.

lord of the ghosts wrote:why can't everbody post? 229 views and only 36 posts?

Well I've posted once and viewed 4 times personally, and every view counts, not just one veiw per person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I liked the complexity of 3.x. Hell, I even liked the complexity of 1e and 2e. I miss THAC0!!!

I liked the skill system, I liked the feats. I liked the various prestige classes.

I dislike 4e because it is not D&D. Sure, make a new game, but don't call it D&D.

I played 2nd edition with a really good group. I dropped the game, though when the group broke up and we all went to different parts of the country.
After that, it seemed like the only people I could find that played, were a bit too into the game and not into hygene or reality.

This took the enjoyment out of D&D for me in a big way.

Fifty wrote:I dislike 4e because it is not D&D. Sure, make a new game, but don't call it D&D.

I've seen the books, they say D&D on the cover and are from the official publisher so I'm not sure what this means. It indeed is Dungeons and Dragons.

Wizards? Yes
Dungeons? Yes
Fighters? Yes
Different Races? Yes
Rangers dual-wieldan and bow shootan? Yes
Multiple books buying to have all options? Yes
Dragons? Yes
Allowed to house rule? Yes
Roll to hit? Yes
Skill checks/challenges? Yes
Saving Throws? Yes
Forgotten Realms? Yes
Dark Sun? Yes
Eberron? Yes

I still see people getting together and it seems just like any other D&D I've ever seen. Some of the rules are a bit different but at the core it is still the same game.

One of the funniest send ups of D&D I've ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhmUj9QJ9RM

followed up with part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9FMURHhgzc&feature=related

warning, may not be work safe.

Thing is Ahtman, you've made your mind up and won't accept any reasons why other people dislike 4e.

Gamma World, Shadowrun, GURPS, WFRP have many if not all of those same features, and look very similar, but they are not DnD.

Whether you agree with my reasons or not, they are the reasons I dislike the new version and prefer 3.x

Fifty wrote:Thing is Ahtman, you've made your mind up and won't accept any reasons why other people dislike 4e.

I don't have a problem with people disliking it, as i have stated multiple times. What I still have yet to get from anyone here is a cogent argument as to why. I keep getting petty things that really aren't arguments. You haven't given reasons why, just that you don't like it. Saying it isn't D&D when it is, is not a reason, it is just a statement, and not a very good one. Why is is not D&D? Is it so hard to express your reasoning that you have to resort to the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you"?

I used to dabble in WHFR. Actually I still have the book stashed somewhere for occasional toilet reading. The missus would disown me if she found it. She already hates the 40k enough

Fifty wrote:Thing is Ahtman, you've made your mind up and won't accept any reasons why other people dislike 4e.

No, see there's the problem. No one has given any specific reasons for disliking 4.0. I've seen some vague generalities thrown around but nothing in the way of a detailed description of the problem. I've always been curious about why all the hate for 4.0 mostly because I've never bothered with it. I checked out of the game pre-4.0 but even now after all this time the most common explanations for why people don't like it are those same vague non-answers. Which has convinced me to a degree that most people with those kind of answers probably would have hated it even if the core rule book had included a bound and gagged drow female with purchase just because it wasn't 3.5 or 3.0 or whatever their version of choice may have been.

Tyyr wrote: No one has given any specific reasons for disliking 4.0.

The complete destruction of the Magic System, the Levelling System, the Alignment System and No Bards, Monks or Sorcerers.

And that is just as a start.

In My Opinion, 4E does not play like D&D.

4E fighters now have an array of special abilities that they can use.... in just the exact same manner as do wizards, rogues, and clerics. In short, now every class behaves exactly like every other class.

Sure, the specifics are different. But the core capabilites are all the same. This makes combat... boring. Even predicatable. "It's the big boss, now's the time to use those 1/day abilities we've been saving!" Whoo-hoo.

I like the way earlier editions made different classes play differently. The thug fighter could always plan on doing his thing. The wizard hordes his powerful spells for powerful foes. The cleric backstops the thug and puts the party back together. The rogue sneals around looking for a good place to stick a knife. In 4E... they all go with the 'at will' abilities routinely. Boss monsters catch the 1/encounter powers. Big bosses get the 1/day powers. All thought of tactics is lost in the struggle for a very computer-gamey style of resource management.

The thug fighter should... thug. His special ability is hit things really hard. He doesn't need some sort of power to do some semi-magical attack against everyone in a radius. That's the wizard's job!

(And this is separate from my complaint that the 4E rules seems to promote combat over... well, pretty much everything else. Look in the Monster Manual. Try looking for an entry for something you might encounter in an adversarial role, but not really want to straight-up fight. Say, pixies, for example.

3.x may not have put much in the rules to support roleplaying, but there is even less of it in 4E,)

I've got a friend that helped write the original monster manual and worked with Gary Gygax a bit. Just for a laugh I'll ask him what he thinks of the new edition and report it back.

Shameless plug time!

I don't own the book for it, but one system that I'm playing around with is Chaos 6010. A fairly dark RPG set in the far future, with a few fantasy elements still in there (There is, in fact a mage class). Check it out if you're interested in it:
www.chaos6010.com

/shameless plug

Well, no bards in 4E means I won't be playing 4E. I've been running some Dwarf Bards off and on for a while now..

Grab PHB2;it has Bards and Sorcercers (honestly, who played a sorcerer in 3.5 for non-fluff reasons? the wizard outclassed it so hard it disappeared from the next edition).

RustyKnight wrote:Grab PHB2;it has Bards and Sorcercers (honestly, who played a sorcerer in 3.5 for non-fluff reasons? the wizard outclassed it so hard it disappeared from the next edition).

So, in order to play a class that has been a core class since AD&D (yes, Bards had rules back then in the PHB, albeit as an Addendum) you have to shell out for another book that most likely doesn't have anything worthwhile?

No thanks, I'll stick to Pathfinder, which is not only decent, but it is also a lot cheaper.

I've been playing D&D off and on for... I don't even know. As long as I can remember. From the red box up through 4e, and everything in between. These days I even have an adventure writing credit for Paizo under my belt (it was for Pathfinder). I have to say that my favorite is 3e/3.5, for a lot of reasons. The level of customization is great. Maybe the biggest thing, though, is just that we seemed to consistently have more fun playing it than any other edition.

Oh, and a shameless plug! I'll be helping write (and possibly run, if work allows) another multi-group adventure for this year's Gen Con, tentatively titled Xorvintaal. You should check it out! And if you have any questions, PM me.

Edit: I'm a dummy.

Haven't played in ages. I started with D&D, tried star frontiers, gamma world. Later I tried some form of D&D again and Deadlands. I would like to try again.

I always played the classics, elven/ranger, halfling/thief, or dwarven/fighter

Sidenote- I just picked up the old D&D cartoon, all 27 episodes for $12. My boys are 4 and 2, I think that is old enough to start.

boogeyman wrote:My boys are 4 and 2, I think that is old enough to start.

You are a terrible Father.

Why did you wait so long?

That is an awesome acquisition, boogeyman. I need to find a copy of that.

I play 4th. Ive even done some DMing. After my first session, on every RPG that I play now Im always Elendial the Human Paladin.

@Gwar! I know, I know. It took me a long time to find the old vhs tapes I had them on.

The quality wasn't great, but managable. The video quality on the dvd is much better, but the sound seems a little low or changes volume on its own.

@Shane I got it online. I think Amazon. It was on sale normally I think it is $15.

I play/Dm 3.5 i play as a neutral good fighter/Palidian

What i also dont like in 4th is that you get 1/2 your level on everything. EVERYTHING!!. What use is adding half my level to my attack roll when my enemy gets half his level to his ac?

Or the loss of infinite customisability. Or the fact that i dont roll my own saves or hd. The fact that fighter 1 has the same hp as fighter 2 minus a little constitution modifier. The fact that then out of nowhere a lot of new races just pop up in established setttings.

Gnomes becoming a monster class. The level system the loss of prestige classes.

This is not dnd this is something else.

Its like calling a vw beetle a ferrari. Yes it has an engine 4 wheels and a steering wheel but it is still no ferrari. And no matter how you praise it it never will be.

Grtz
L.D.

I'm only familier with 3rd edition, and it seems sort of... bad. Like, Spellcasters can do everything better then everyone. Rogue? Worthless, just turn invisible or teleport through traps. Fighter? Just nuke everyone with fireballs, or disintigrate them. Even the "vulnerable to damage" argument seems awfully weak when you can fly, and reflect any ranged attacks, and make four illusionary copies of yourself zip around. And that's not even getting the billion things no other class can do at all; jump through dimensions, raise the dead, make magic items, summon demons, transform into anything, read minds, teleport across continents, make magic traps, know the future...

Why you would ever chose a party that's not Wizard, Wizard, Cleric, Druid is beyond me.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm only familier with 3rd edition, and it seems sort of... bad. Like, Spellcasters can do everything better then everyone. Rogue? Worthless, just turn invisible or teleport through traps. Fighter? Just nuke everyone with fireballs, or disintigrate them. Even the "vulnerable to damage" argument seems awfully weak when you can fly, and reflect any ranged attacks, and make four illusionary copies of yourself zip around. And that's not even getting the billion things no other class can do at all; jump through dimensions, raise the dead, make magic items, summon demons, transform into anything, read minds, teleport across continents, make magic traps, know the future...

Why you would ever chose a party that's not Wizard, Wizard, Cleric, Druid is beyond me.

That's what you need to check out Pathfinder

I play D&D 3.5, Dark Heresy, and Rogue Trader frequently. I dislike DnD 4e (its to much like playing WoW).

I've done my fair share of tabletop RP. My favorite characters were a CG Half-Elf Copper Dragon Shaman from 3.5, a NG Half-Elf Cleric of Corellon from 3.5 and a 4.0 N Cleric of the Raven Queen. I remember everybody making a stink about 4.0 when it came out. I played it and discovered something incredible: it's still a bunch of guys rolling dice and telling a story It did annoy me when in all the hype for 4.0 they said "it will be fun to play a Cleric for the first time!" Screw that, Blade of Blood let you do more damage at first level than a Raging Barbarian. Good stuff!

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm only familier with 3rd edition, and it seems sort of... bad. Like, Spellcasters can do everything better then everyone(Eventually, accept Monks). Rogue? Worthless(wrong. Grab lvls in shadow dancer and you can backstab like mad before the mage does crap all. Having more than one rogue just makes it even better as their skills compliment each other and buff each other passively.), just turn invisible(lvl 6, I can still hear you, smell you, touch you, ect. One bag of flour or emersion in a liquid means invisible people can be seen by the lack of substance in the air. Watch the predator movies for more examples.) or teleport(lvl 8 or 10) through traps (which you need to know are there). Fighter? Just nuke everyone with fireballs(lvl 6), or disintigrate(lvl8+) them. Even the "vulnerable to damage" argument seems awfully weak when you can fly, and reflect any ranged attacks, and make four illusionary copies(its 1D4+1 and they pop on a hit so one splash damage that hits them all takes them all out. Unless you are talking greater illusion which requires way higher level and can make better things than silly copies of yourself) of yourself zip around. And that's not even getting the billion things no other class can do at all(not true. Magic boots make anyone fly, Blink rings make anyone telport, etc.); jump through dimensions(item for this), raise the dead(item for this), make magic items(NPC for this), transform into anything(item for this), read minds(item for this), teleport across continents(item/portals for this), make magic traps(NPCs for this), know the future(items/NPS for this) ...

Why you would ever chose a party that's not Wizard, Wizard, Cleric, Druid is beyond me.(Besides the fact that depending on the gods of both the Cleric and Druid the party won't get a long well at all and constantly bicker over what to do, assuming any amount of roleplaying is involved ofcourse. At worst one of these two faith based characters will even lose favour with their god for going along with things when they shouldn't have making them totally useless until they attune.)

I've edited your message with comments on simple issues that pop to mind about what you say. Perhaps you just haven't played enough to realize the full scope of the classes and situations. Or your DM is sort of a one pony show and therefore your encounters always play out the same and you have found that party dynamic that bests it everytime.

Number one reason not to take lots of mages? You run out of fire power fast and will not survive any kind of extended battles (especially starting at lvl 1 to 6). Also you have to adventure long enough to develope your character to the point where you can even get any of those spells you sighted above like they were candy. A good DM will be able to challenge any party dynamic, so why you would take any one thing is irrelevent cause eventually you will get caught somewhere you can't handle(Any wild/dead magic zone for example, or coming up against any shadow born creatures or Sharrans, Beholder, etc. pawns magic users ). Fighters don't run out of what they are good at until they are dead. Same with rogues, monks, etc. In fact my group will be lucky to have more than one spellcaster period because they know they should spread out their clasess to improve their odds of surviving any one situation. If you need more of anyone class they can always higher an NPC.

Strimen wrote:(wrong. Grab lvls in shadow dancer and you can backstab like mad before the mage does crap all. Having more than one rogue just makes it even better as their skills compliment each other and buff each other passively.),

A rogue multiclassing in shadowdancer isn't a rogue, they are a rogue/shadowdancer. Shadowdancers are a class with supernatural abilties, are they not? While not a spellcaster per se, they are still magic users, and use the equivilent of spells to be as good spellcasters in their particular field.

just turn invisible(lvl 6, I can still hear you, smell you, touch you, ect. One bag of flour or emersion in a liquid means invisible people can be seen by the lack of substance in the air. Watch the predator movies for more examples.)

People can hear you, smell you, touch you, ect when you're a rogue. Only now they can see you as well. I don't know why there would be a "bag of flour" or a bucket of paint everywhere you are invisible, but in any case you are simply noting how much better invisibility is then stealth; you don't need to throw flour or paint on a rogue that you see, you see them, and they've lost all advantage. You can't disable invisibility in the methods you've described until you already know there is an invisible person around you, in which case they're already compromised to a huge degree (and if you were a rogue you would be compromised completely).

or teleport(lvl 8 or 10) through traps (which you need to know are there).

Don't rogues also need to make a search checks or something along those lines to detect a trap? With the ability to summon creatures to activate them (or get your animal friend/familiar to do it), use divination (such as Detect Magic) to search for them, and manipulate objects at a distance (opening a treasure chest or door with telekinesis) they put themselves at risk far less then a non magic user would have to be in.

If they aren't any better at detecting traps, that's still not great for the rogue, who doesn't have much besides that ability.

Fighter? Just nuke everyone with fireballs(lvl 6), or disintegrate(lvl8+) them.

At lower levels they have a little less ability, but the level that they can manipulate the environment or buff themselves is still quite an advantage. That's not even counting the Druid, with their pet wolf coming to every fight.

Even the "vulnerable to damage" argument seems awfully weak when you can fly, and reflect any ranged attacks, and make four illusionary copies(its 1D4+1 and they pop on a hit so one splash damage that hits them all takes them all out. Unless you are talking greater illusion which requires way higher level and can make better things than silly copies of yourself)

The specific illusion isn't as important as the general level of protection they can achieve with having them at their hands.

of yourself zip around. And that's not even getting the billion things no other class can do at all(not true. Magic boots make anyone fly, Blink rings make anyone telport, etc.); jump through dimensions(item for this), raise the dead(item for this), make magic items(NPC for this), transform into anything(item for this), read minds(item for this), teleport across continents(item/portals for this), make magic traps(NPCs for this), know the future(items/NPS for this) ...

Non spellcasters can use magic if spellcasters give them magic items (or they accidently drop them down a well or whatever), and non spellcasters can also ask spellcasters to cast spells for them.

This is further reason spellcasters are hugely superior to non spellcasters. When does a wizard need to fire a fighter to do something he cannot do, and will never be able to do so long as he remains a wizard? Never. When does he need an item crafted by a rogue, that will give him some of the rogue's ability, so that he can do something that only a rogue could ever do? Never.

Besides the fact that depending on the gods of both the Cleric and Druid the party won't get a long well at all and constantly bicker over what to do, assuming any amount of roleplaying is involved of course. At worst one of these two faith based characters will even lose favour with their god for going along with things when they shouldn't have making them totally useless until they attune.)

Why would a Neutral Good Druid fight with a cleric of Pelor? Or a cleric of, say, Obad-Hai fight with any Druid?

One big advantage is actually their ability to roleplay, as they are guaranteed to have at least one high mental stat, and can afford to bolster their others. A fighter needs Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and by that point they aren't going to have much left for Intelligence.

Perhaps you just haven't played enough to realize the full scope of the classes and situations. Or your DM is sort of a one pony show and therefore your encounters always play out the same and you have found that party dynamic that bests it everytime.

The more different situations I can think of, the more the absurd level of flexibility that spellcasters have helps them out. Wouldn't it be cool to have a battle in this fiery landscape? Oh yeah, just let me make myself immune to fire. Or make it so that I can fly over the lava while everyone else balances on the ledge dramatically. What if we want to go to another dimension? You can't do that at all without a spellcaster. Let's say there is an investigation into who killed the king. Well, let me just ask my god. Or begin reading the minds of all the suspects. Hell, even in what could otherwise be a pure diplomatic roleplaying situation you can fire off "charms" and such. What is the fighter supposed to do in all of these varied circumstances?

Number one reason not to take lots of mages? You run out of fire power fast and will not survive any kind of extended battles (especially starting at lvl 1 to 6). Also you have to adventure long enough to develop your character to the point where you can even get any of those spells you sighted above like they were candy.

So they get exponentially better while non spellcasters don't; that's part of the problem! It means as the game continues what seemed to be a balanced party when hacking at kobolds will go further and further in favor of the spellcasters. By level 15 or 16 your fighter will just look like the 5 year old kid who tags along to the battle where the wizard flies around throwing lightning bolts and summoning fire elementals everywhere he goes.

The ability to fight in "extended battles" isn't as important when you can Rope Trick yourself to safety. Or just leave, and go sleep in an inn, and fight tomorrow. An all spellcaster party won't have any problem with doing this whenever they can, and they will actively try to avoid getting into situations they can't get out of. To exploit this weakness requires the DM to railroad the party into having insufficient chances to rest; to make there always be some sort of ticking bomb, to make it impossible to leave the dungeon for whatever reason, and things like that. In a standard dungeon crawl it won't work, and this is rather constricting to possible challenges the DM wants to impose.

A good DM will be able to challenge any party dynamic, so why you would take any one thing is irrelevant cause eventually you will get caught somewhere you can't handle(Any wild/dead magic zone for example, or coming up against any shadow born creatures or Sharrans, Beholder, etc. pawns magic users ). Fighters don't run out of what they are good at until they are dead. Same with rogues, monks, etc. In fact my group will be lucky to have more than one spellcaster period because they know they should spread out their classes to improve their odds of surviving any one situation. If you need more of anyone class they can always higher an NPC.

Even enemies with anti-magic can still be fought with magic users, ridiculously enough, if they're prepared. If you throw a boulder at a beholder with telekineses antimagic won't slow it down. If you conjure an iron wall above them it won't disappear. Still, it is true that antimagic will screw them over to a large degree. The problem here is that fighting magic requires a constant supply of magic specifically made to stop magic itself. You will never be able to have a traitor in the party's midst without a ring that masks their alignment from Detect Evil. You will never be able to force them to find the key for a lock unless the door is magically warded against the magic of the party wizard. Magic must be used to defeat magic, while both magic and mundane abilities can defeat mundane ability. In this case, the solution proposed is simply to to make the setting more magic based, so that magic possessed by the party isn't as unbalancing. While it's certainly true that the DM can negate any power the players acquire for themselves, I maintain that for most campaigns - built for a mixed party and administered without regard as to the party's composition - a party of all spellcasters will do significantly better than a mixed party, and much better than a party with no spellcasters at all. Or at least, it will for the last 4/5 of the game.

Now, the wild magic idea is one that I've always liked. I haven't heard of it being particularly common, though, except in some crazy foreign planes or whatever. To make it more prominent throughout the setting (sort of like the risk of miscasting in WHFB) would certainly make for an interesting game. (It would be, however, something of a houserule nerfing magic in that use.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:That's what you need to check out Pathfinder

Unfortunately, I don't even think I have my old 3rd ed books any more.

What's the deal with this 4th ed thing? I hear the combat structure is more like WoW. Which doesn't sound great...

Orkeosaurus wrote:Unfortunately, I don't even think I have my old 3rd ed books any more.

And therein lies the beauty of pathfinder, you don't need them! Pathfinder is completely self contained. 3.0 and 3.5 books are compatible with a little work, but you do not need them at all to use Pathfinder

Hmm. Interesting; is the setting more high magic than normal or less? (Or pretty much the same?)

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. Interesting; is the setting more high magic than normal or less? (Or pretty much the same?)

It's pretty much the same. Of course, a DM can make it as high or low fantasy as he/she (lol she, as if ) wants.

What I like about it too is that it comes in Linked and Bookmarked PDF form, which makes searching for stuff so much easier, and that it is only 2 rulebooks, the core rulebook (which is PHB and DMG in one) and the Bestiary (the MM), so it's cheaper

If you want linkage: Main Site and Errata, Character Sheets, 3.5 conversion guide and Free Bestiary Preview

Hmm. I may look into this, especially if I decide I don't really like 4th ed.

I'll admit, I really don't like too high of magic settings, especially when magic is not only powerful but makes for a solution to nearly any problem; I'm probably a little embittered against spellcasters because of that.

I still need to check out Dark Heresy as well.

What system gives you the greatest variety and customization for character creation? Like half halfling and half fairie dragon. I know that was one crazy night still can't remember most of it. It doesn't have to be that crazy. However, I do like to have freedom of choice.

My guess would be that 3rd edition is better for that than 4th. Tons of different sourcebooks lying around, although it may be tricky to get your hands on all of them.

The Forgotten Realms included an absurd degree of magic. I think it relates to the inherent nerd bias of role-playing; ie. the intellectual elements of fantasy tend to be highlighted in pastimes which are targeted at people who style themselves as intelligent. Ebberon is superior in my mind because it actually attempts to codify magical abilities. There is less whimsy to it.

As for my experience: I've never been involved in D&D as a player. I've always been a DM, and generally for people I didn't know well (I have very few gamer friends). In general I found 3e to be unwieldy. People got too bogged down in the technicalities of combat and interaction, rather than focusing on the narrative. But then I've always seen RPGs as a form of interactive novel, as opposed to competitive enterprises.

I've not yet been involved in 4e, but I like what I've heard. It seems to allow social interaction to be social, rather than mechanical. A vast improvement to my mind.

I've always thought something like that myself. It's also more difficult to use intelligence in a realistic manner in a fantasy setting (where scientific knowledge is limited for flavor) where physical combat is the most important aspect in play (instead of, say, religious, political, or economic challenges) and in such a medium where there simply isn't as much to analyze as there would be in real life (you can't know anything about the setting the DM hasn't thought of yet, you can't analyze a person's actions and be sure that it isn't just poor roleplaying/railroading behind them, etc).

I also hear Exalted is rather DBZ like in what they throw around, although I think there's a more spiritual/mythical form of magic behind it.

@dogma: I've been wanting to get a via e-mail or dakka group going for a long time; for me the emphasis is on collaborative narration rather than mechanic; crunch is only to balance the possible, IMO, not constrain it (although I am not referring to magic, on which topic I full agree with you); let me know if you're interested--you, too, Orkeo

onT (sort of) 4E is a solid game, better in many ways than 3.5; 3.5 has notalgia on its side and, to be fair, a better quality line of books background and layout-wise; I wish wizards had adapted the "D&D3.8" of SW Saga edition to be 4E

I'd probably be up for playing something. God knows I've got the time.

Orkeosaurus wrote: It's also more difficult to use intelligence in a realistic manner in a fantasy setting...

Not to mention the issues inherent in having people of low intelligence RP those of high intelligence. It isn't something that can be readily simulated.

@Manchu: I'd be down, as with Orkeo I have immense amounts of time (I work a lot, but my job is a joke). At least I will until my career changes start coming to fruition.

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote: It's also more difficult to use intelligence in a realistic manner in a fantasy setting...

Not to mention the issues inherent in having people of low intelligence RP those of high intelligence. It isn't something that can be readily simulated.

You can say the same of people with high intelligence RPing those of low intelligence. At least, it never works out in my games :(

That's true, Gwar!. It isn't easy to present an accurate model of something you are not. That's why acting is so difficult!

dogma wrote:I've not yet been involved in 4e, but I like what I've heard. It seems to allow social interaction to be social, rather than mechanical. A vast improvement to my mind.

Oh it is. Of course that gets turned around and criticized as being all about the combat since every little non-combat stat isn't specifically ruled. The reality of course is that you can do the same thing as before (there are rules after all) but it is up to the players to, you know, roleplay, to work things out. It's a very liberating feeling.

I saw some complimenting 3rd for having lots of sourcebooks. In a nutshell, here is what 4th has at the moment, or will shortly:

Players Handbook 1, 2, 3
DM's Guide 1, 2
Martial Power 1, 2
Divine Power
Arcane Power
Primal Power
Dragonomicon 1, 2
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
Eberron Players Guide
Eberron DM's Campaign setting
Dark Sun Campaign Setting
Dragonborn Players Guide*
Underdark

That doesn't include adventure modules or accessories. The Players Handbooks really aren't any different than having to buy the Psionics book and the "Power" guides are essentially the same as things like Sword and Fist in 3rd. The names have been changed but the amount of supplements isn't radically different. It is about the same amount as when 3rd was this old, or AD&D when it the same age. I do agree that the layout of the books could be better, no doubt. Of course 4th doesn't have Oriental Adventures yet, which I imagine will be Players Handbook 4.

What is funny to me is that recall hearing many of the same arguments about 3rd when it was released. I know I heard several times that 3rd "wasn't D&D" because it didn' use THAC0. Of course there are still people that complain that 1st edition was truly the best.

As for fighters having similar hit points, I'm guessing you aren't taking into consideration healing surges. A fighter with a CON of 12 will, in essence, have one extra healing surge whereas a fighter with a CON of 18 week have 4 extra healing surges. Let's say they have 40 hit points, meaning their healing surge value is 10hp. The fighter with 12 has 10 extra hit points where the 18 has 40. There isn't unlimited healing anymore so it can get fairly squirrelly in a long adventure near the end.

Many of these complaints seem to be coming from a place of ignorance i.e. not having actually played the game any decent amount of time or at all. To say things like fighters and wizards are the same is something that can only be said if you have very little to no experience with 4th, for example. Having played it for a few months now I can tell you they don't play alike at all.

"Hey king guy, why don't you get your guys to kill all the orcs, 'cause they're evil. And also give me your magic sword."

Roll: 20!

I play some 3.5 D&D with my friends - we're starting a new campaign soon, and I've decided to go the simple route of big-guy-who-bashes. Not sure which class exactly, but eh. Most of my characters have been Rouges or similar - my most recent was a Gnome Bard who was going to eventually level up to be a Dread Pirate, if we got that far (we didn't).

Ahtman wrote:
Oh it is.

Honestly, that's a sufficient endorsement for purchase.

I don't actively play D&D anymore but I still keep up on the rules/lore. I got into it right around the time 3rd edition was new. Although I did play the game Baldur's Gate, which used 2nd edition rules. I was so happy when they did away with THAC0.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Oh it is.

Honestly, that's a sufficient endorsement for purchase.

Truth in advertising is job #1!

The major trouble with 4E has nothing to do with its rules, which are very good. Unfortunately, they're not doing enough to flesh out the setting. This isn't so much a criticism of the core books--3/3.5 never bothered to tell us much about Greyhawk--as it is of the Campaign Settings/Players Guides. These books offer very little about the Realms or Eberron and rely to heavily on prior knowledge. I came to this conclusion after reading all four of the 4E FR and Eberron. I had spent a lot of time in the Realms but never played Eberron. After reading, I knew almost nothing more about the Realms despite the massive changes and still very little about Eberron. This doesn't bode well for the impending re-release of Dark Sun, a setting which hasn't been out since AD&D. TBH, if Dragon and Dungeon were still printed rather than cosigned to digital obscurity, this problem might not be so acute. Anyway, the rules themselves are superior to 3.5--as long as you're at the recommended party size--but 3/3.5 definitely had a much more worthwhile set of books in terms of both content and style.

By the way, Ahtman, I wonder if Oriental Adventures will be the next setting. I doubt it. After Dark Sun, I'd like to see the return of Spelljammer.

Right, D&D40k. That setting always looked sort of half-formed, but with a lot of potential.

Giant Space Hamsters!

Is there any chance of a 4e DragonLance?

@my fellow Richmonder: I doubt it since the 3/3.5 setting books were published by Sovereign, which was owned by Margaret Weis. Her other company, Margaret Weis Productions, seems to be focused on the Cortex System with games like Serenity and Battlestar Galactica.

@Orkeo: Spelljammer in AD&D2nd was more of a "how to get between campaign settings" campaign setting. And then Planescape superseded it, I guess. Giant manta ray flying through space with a city built across its back? Yes please!

Talked to some people that got to read/demo/go to seminars about Dark Sun at the D&D XP convention this last weekend. Only one of them had much experience, or even heard of it and they all thought it sounded pretty cool, if not a bit cut-throat (well duh). I agree they need to do more for people who have no idea what some of the campaign settings are.

It seems kind of lame to go fight in some dungeon, then FLY THROUGH SPACE IN A MAGIC SHIP, and then go fight in another dungeon, though.

I think there needs to be some more SPESS LAZERS!

I think Spell Jammer would work especially well in 4E because of the cosmology re-work. No more planes as such or crystal spheres or phlogiston or even planets. Just one great sheet of material world with the astral sea above and the elemental chaos below, as I understand it. Also, I think spelljamming helms have already been mentioned in the 4E Planes book.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:Is there any chance of a 4e DragonLance?

*jaw drops showing an inter jaw*
DragonLance has a game?

lord of the ghosts wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:Is there any chance of a 4e DragonLance?

*jaw drops showing an inter jaw*
DragonLance has a game?

*shakes head*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dragonlance_modules_and_sourcebooks

Martial Power 2 is giving melee characters something akin to arcane/divine rituals. Basically things like meditation before the battle and other things that can give various effects. Which really isn['t the point of the post. The point is another thing about 4th that it flawed: rituals. Some of them are fine and work well integrated into the storytelling, but some just make no sense or head-scratching. For example "Knock" is a ritual now. It takes 10 minutes to perform the ritual. This just seems odd. Knock should be a Utility spell. There are a few others like that.

4E really gave casting a total revamp. Once complaint is that Rituals are the only real magic anymore period.

Holy crap!! 101 posts!! thank you people I'll make a tally of player who have posted!!

Manchu wrote:4E really gave casting a total revamp. Once complaint is that Rituals are the only real magic anymore period.

I haven't heard that one. Fireball, Magic Missile, Mass Fly, Shield, Feather Fall, Ice Storm, True Seeing, ect... all still seem pretty magical to me and aren't rituals.

I agree that they are magical. The complaint from my old group, who sadly refused to keep playing 4E, was that other classes' powers felt like magic as well.

I fail to see what is sad about that...

I fail to see what's so bad about 4E that wasn't already a problem in 3.5 . . .

4TH Ed DM over here!

I feel That d20 modern is slightly better than 4th Ed Though.

Yeah, as I've said I would have preferred a Saga Ed. D&D over 4E but I know they wanted a bigger change. I've got Blue Rose coming in the mail, so we'll see how that is.

I own the 4e core books, although I haven't had a chance to play it yet (my group refuses to switch, for mostly monetary reasons, which I'm perfectly alright with). I have to say that my major objection is in character creation - they all seem very similar. It does seem like it might allow for more cinematic combat, something that will seem more familiar to people just getting into the hobby, than previous editions.

Like I said though, I don't know for sure. I haven't got to try it yet.

I think character differentiation should primarily be a function of personality rather than mechanical capability. That's what works for me at least. I know some people get more enjoyment out of the mechanics.

Ahtman wrote:For example "Knock" is a ritual now. It takes 10 minutes to perform the ritual.

They probably should have changed its name.

It sort of seems like one of those ironic nicknames now.

Manchu wrote:I think character differentiation should primarily be a function of personality rather than mechanical capability. That's what works for me at least. I know some people get more enjoyment out of the mechanics.

I'm one hundred percent with you, but with an emphasis on "primarily." I couldn't count the number of times I've seen some aspect of a personality take hold due to a little mechanical quirk, or seen it work in reverse - a mechanical trick that perfectly complements an established part of a character's personality. Not to mention mechanics as a source of inspiration from the very beginning, when designing a character.

I suppose that, at the end of the day, I want to be able to make my character unique in as many ways as possible.

That's a very good point, Shane. More often than a major part of my character concept has been creating a twist on a mechanic. I want to play a character in 4E that is a drow rogue/druid who can shape shift into a shadowy spider thing, for example. Finding a voice for this devotee of the Underdark ecosystem would be very interesting to me. I just know too many people who don't look beyond the mechanical aspect. All they seem to see are ways to increase the numerical bottom line.

It's LOCATE CITY BOMB TIME!

I have played through 2nd, 3rd and now 4th Ed and I think some things have improved greatly while others are badly designed as is.

The good, more balance among classes. It appears that Wizards might cave with the coming books to power gamer pressure but right now my lvl 9 human fighter is on par with the other classes of my group and my hated half drow/bugbear/ant rogue/wizard/fighter/prestige chef prevalent in 3 and 3.5 are not allowed (but already the hybrids classes are lurking their way back in)
Less rules that hamper role playing with stupid rolls (nice Gettysburg Address to the council but what a pity you rolled a 1) but this is by itself a problem because the absence of rules makes most GM turn to skill challenges or more combat intensive campaigns where they don´t have to go into small detail designing NPCs and situations.

The bad Magic items and rituals, some balance was required to avoid the acumulation of tons of magic items but the daily limit to uses is annoying specially when some items designed for flavor eat the uses of the useful ones, requiring lots of house ruling to rebalance that using my Hunter´s Flint to set up a camp eats the use of my Cloak of the Cautious for no real gain as the random encounter will still happen if the GM wants it. With rituals the same thing happens, the requirement to sing for 10 minutes in front of the guards before making them fall sleep of use knock on the door kind of defeats the purpose of the stealthy approach unless the GM rules otherwise, rituals need to be rethought (actually other than rise dead I think we haven´t used a ritual yet)
Less options for the magic classes, face it at lvl 30 you have around 20 various level severely limited powers, that´s nothing to a kitted 3.5 ed wizard/something with unlimited wishes/miracles... plus magic items I think most critics come from this type of player that sincerely thinks that the flexibility he had in prior editions now is limited.

Anything else I forgot?

M.

I just found out last week that if you spend a Healing Surge during a brief rest you can recharge a daily power in an item.

I always felt that item dependency for mechanical character development was a cop-out. I've known people to design character builds around a specific item or list of items (reducing arcane spell failure, anyone?). It's more of a problem in 3rd, as far as I can tell, than 4th. Generally, I get the impression that 4th is meant for throw away fun fests rather than introspective story lines that last for a year or more, which might be too much to ask out of any RPG. I find myself really frustrated with RPGs at this point, however, so maybe that's why I like 4E: the goal is realistic--have fun for a while; forget about producing "literature".

I feel like a MOD is going to pop out and lock this thread.