The newest incarnation of D&D really disappointed me, and I was wondering if any others felt the same. I'm no purist, as I got my teeth into the 3.5 books when I started (and I feel was also the perfection of the d20 system/D&D) But the recent, edition just felt like I was playing WoW on a board. No more freedom to bash orc heads in with a pint. No more circumventing challenges through wit, muscle, and a dash of magic. Just unstoppable, no save powers. But, I need to stop my rant, and let you guys do the talking. So, got anything to share?

It's a pretty good gaming system. I'd play it if it wasn't called D+D. It is in no way shape or form Dungeons and Dragons.

I started DnD with that format, and my first DM was pretty bad with it.
I recently started DMing for my friends, and it's fairly easy to just make up rules for doing whatever.
Like, my friend will want to set a tree on fire, he uses a sunrod and sets it on fire. I'm not gonna prohibit something that is logical and makes the game more interesting.
In the same way, the "d20 system" is actually a very good idea, as it allows all the various actions that you could previously take your games, and simplifies the process. If my players want to try and murder the king, I'm not gonna make them go into combat with him, and make up rules for the king. I just ask what they do (block the door, silence him etc.) and just have them roll the d20 for each action, and modify it accordingly.

I think is what 2nd edition should have been not that 1.5 that they called 2nd.

I have both played and run it. The only limitation is the gaming group, if you are having problems with the skill challenges just have the characters bypass the challenge if they figure it out.

What the game does most is attempt to kill the DM vs. Player mindset and make it a whole group effort.

As far as playing like WoW, What’s so bad about that?

But the point is with Ludovic, if it wasn't called D&D, or better yet called WoW for the table!, I would be okay with it. It's the fact that they are giving the out-of-print sentence to all 3.5 material.

4th Ed has several big problems but after playing almost all the prior eds I can say that I like it. As a fighter player I was kind of tired that after the first few levels everybody could do my job better than me, even wizards!, so I like the additional options 4th Ed gives me.
Also a big misunderstanding in 4th Ed is the lack of detailed rules for anything but combat, it was not designed to limit the game but rather to expand the RPG options, now for any type of cool action you take it to the GM instead of searching through 7 rulebooks to see if you can do it or not. So if you are having problems by being unable to jump from walls and hang from chandeliers, it´s not the rulebook but your GM.

M.

Are there not Dungeons?

Are there not Dragons?

Actually, my main point is what was so DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS about 3.5? Comparing
the two systems to the game's origins shows you just how different the game has/had become.

Yes, it did. Then Pathfinder resuscitated it!

I feel like we've had this conversation before at least once.

No, 4th Edition did not ruin it for me. I have just as much fun as I ever have becuase it hasn't really been about the system but about the people you play it with. The greatest system in the world played with a bunch of jerk-offs will always suck compared to playing a 'meh' system with some awesome friends.

All valid points. I guess I should have thought more carefully about what makes the game, rules or good friends. Plus, maybe I should give it a second chance after shelling out for all the rulebooks. Thanks for making that more clear Dakkites.

4th finally gave me the abilitty to do many of the things I could not do in 2nd and only thought I could do in 3rd & 3.5.
But I'm one of those player/GM's who belives that the character sheet is only there so when the GM asks how do you get over the 3000ft canyon and you say spread my magic wings and fly he knows your not lying

As for the lack of heavly defined skills

Its Called Dungeons & Dragons not Barmainds & Blacksmiths

Anpu42 wrote:As for the lack of heavly defined skills

Its Called Dungeons & Dragons not Barmainds & Blacksmiths

True enough, true enough...now if we could just get our players to realize this

I don't know that D&D has necessarily become WoW with minis, but that is how it's presented through the core books (in my opinion).

Played by people just getting into the game and taking the core books as the be-all and end-all, it's nothing more than "combat-combat-combat, assign points, rinse, repeat."

That said, it still makes for a good game. It's just become more important than ever before to have a good group who understand the basic premise of an RPG, and especially a good DM who can both challenge and accommodate the party without restricting their actions solely to what the core books say they can do.

The Fox Lord wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:As for the lack of heavly defined skills

Its Called Dungeons & Dragons not Barmainds & Blacksmiths

True enough, true enough...now if we could just get our players to realize this

Make them read though some of these treads. More they do it the more they will beg you to stop and then they may get the point.

hungryp wrote:I don't know that D&D has necessarily become WoW with minis, but that is how it's presented through the core books (in my opinion).

Played by people just getting into the game and taking the core books as the be-all and end-all, it's nothing more than "combat-combat-combat, assign points, rinse, repeat."

That said, it still makes for a good game. It's just become more important than ever before to have a good group who understand the basic premise of an RPG, and especially a good DM who can both challenge and accommodate the party without restricting their actions solely to what the core books say they can do.

Good points but at least now with an even half decent DM you can go from 1st to 30th and never once draw a weapon, heck if youve got a really good DM you can go from 1st to 30th never pick up a die and maby crack open a core book once a level.

Here are some things to concider

All very, very true.

4th did kill official d&d for me. i wasn't a huge fan of 2nd but played it a bit and played the hell out of 3/3.5. when 4th came along, my entire group switched over and, to the last player, agreed it wasn't for us. it felt like a long drawn out minis game (i like minis games, mind you, but not THIS much in my d&d) where you knew the end result of 1st level combat but had to fight out another 45min of it because the stupid first level kobolds have 20+ hit points. combined with wotc discontinuing d&d skirmish and SWM/SWRPG, they'd basically abandoned me as a customer. i used to spend $30-60 a month on their products on months when no new minis set was coming out and $250 on months they did. now that sum will be zero. as for the variety of 4th edition, the characters all played the same. everyone now is a mage effectively and no one can choose to play the "simple" class like 1st/2nd/3/3.5 fighters. now we get to play a wide variety of classes with totally different powers like below.

Uh, those are basic first level attacks, and all three are different. The first one helps keep you alive, the second one messes with your enemies head and can be used with a ranged weapon, and the third one hits a weaker defense. Or are they all the same purely because they cause a similar amount of damage?

Yeah, it was as warboss points out there that killed it for me. I liked the variety. As opposed to, well, like the fighter, or rogue, or cleric, or monk, or etc., I have this attack I can do all the time that does 1 die of damage. Where's the versatility? When the powers or abilities really aren't that diverse, what's the point of different classes?

I also don't like the reliance on criticals the current edition has. I wasn't overly thrilled with them when they came in to begin with, but now being effective as a mage requires that you have them if you want to do more than 2 dice of damage to anything. It's bad enough that criticals in the game are bad for the PC's (you've got 4 pc's, vs how many npcs?, how often do you think your going to get as compared to how many the NPC's are going to get?), but requiring them for your spells to continue being potent 3 levels after you got them is ridiculous. Nor do I care for the at will, 1/encounter, 1/day bit. What if my character is a pyromaniac and wants to specialize in fireballs, and to be able to throw three or four every combat? Or at least 3-4 every day?

As for barmaids and blacksmiths, well, didn't really have the skill choices when I started out, and we made do if we wanted our characters to take up such a profession. But when it comes to it, is there a problem with having non-combat related skills or abilities? Backgrounds? Useful knowledges that aren't directly related to kobold slaying? It is a role-playing game.

dancingcricket wrote:Yeah, it was as warboss points out there that killed it for me. I liked the variety. As opposed to, well, like the fighter, or rogue, or cleric, or monk, or etc., I have this attack I can do all the time that does 1 die of damage. Where's the versatility? When the powers or abilities really aren't that diverse, what's the point of different classes?

I also don't like the reliance on criticals the current edition has. I wasn't overly thrilled with them when they came in to begin with, but now being effective as a mage requires that you have them if you want to do more than 2 dice of damage to anything. It's bad enough that criticals in the game are bad for the PC's (you've got 4 pc's, vs how many npcs?, how often do you think your going to get as compared to how many the NPC's are going to get?), but requiring them for your spells to continue being potent 3 levels after you got them is ridiculous. Nor do I care for the at will, 1/encounter, 1/day bit. What if my character is a pyromaniac and wants to specialize in fireballs, and to be able to throw three or four every combat? Or at least 3-4 every day?

As for barmaids and blacksmiths, well, didn't really have the skill choices when I started out, and we made do if we wanted our characters to take up such a profession. But when it comes to it, is there a problem with having non-combat related skills or abilities? Backgrounds? Useful knowledges that aren't directly related to kobold slaying? It is a role-playing game.

At first I was going to get and realy let into you for this but then I realized I'd just be having the same STUPID arguement I've been having with two of my players every time we played and desided it's just not worth the stress...So to all the 4th haters, not just you I'd Like to Say ... Ok I'm done, I feel better thank you and goodnight

2nd ed D&D killed it for me.

Haven't touched it since.

Back when I started in 2nd our DM was pretty good with moments of pure Awsomesause, but then there were some shifts in the group dynamic, few good, then 3rd came out and two of the player decided to stand against it from the moment it was anounced (almost two years before it actualy hit the shelves), that didn't help things and is why I jump on 3rd so quick (even though I've come to loath it now with a seathing and violent passion) and one of several reasons I'll deffend 4th till death.
Fight and arguments like this are part of the reason why the above DM's brain has been quickly becoming tapioca over the last decade and that just makes me sad.

I'd also like to aplogize for my above post, but that rant (and yes every word replaced by an Orkmoti started with an F) has been building for a while now...anyway sorry for yelling

If you don't see the inherent differences in those powers shown you either haven't played the game or you haven't really read the books. Each of those is different in a few ways. The way they are similar is that they are at-will abilities, which are the most common basic abilities. They aren't supposed to be flashy or overly powerful. It makes it more interesting than just saying "I attack".

There also seems to be a memory lapse as to the fact that you can houserule anything. It isn't new, people have been doing it since 1st edition. Want to make a fire focused mage? Work with your DM, change some of the spells to the fire keyword instead of lightning. Even in 3rd (or 2nd, or 1st) you couldn't cast spells willy-nilly so having limits isn't a new thing.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Yes, it did. Then Pathfinder resuscitated it!

Don't play DnD myself atm. I am still playing VtM and ignoring White Wolf's apocalypse...

However, I know about 15 DnD players and they have all switched to Pathfinder and love it. They ALL hated 4.0

My group never made the switch to 4E--we still play 3.5E every now and then. We didn't like the changes to the setting we normally play in (Forgotten Realms), and were happy with the 3.5E ruleset, so just didn't change.

I suspect that when I move away later this year, though, it's probably going to be very hard to find anyone else still on 3.5E in my new location. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised, or maybe I'll hold out a few more years for 4.5/5E!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:However, I know about 15 DnD players and they have all switched to Pathfinder and love it. They ALL hated 4.0

Well that is because people by and large hate change. There are still people who hate 3rd because it isn't 2nd edition. Just like that scenario as time goes on it will be harder to find a 3.5 game. Our 4th Edition (we use Living Forgotten Realms) group has about 20 active members at our store and 50 signed up on the website. There is also a 3.5 group of about 4 people.

If you like it 3.5, that is fine, but I don't see the incessant need to denigrate something just because it isn't one's cup of tea. There are flaws and virtues to each of the systems, as none of them are perfect.

I remember all the complaining when 3rd edition 40k came out, and then 4th, ect ect.

I have not had a chance to play or even read 4e. I own a large number of 3.5 books though, and I got the free pdf version of the beta-Pathfinder 3.x, so I am more likely to use that to preserve my old books, if I play anything any time soon.

D&D never had good rules to begin with. Ever. But it was characterful and fun.

4E is a good skirmish game, but as an RPG it has all the soul and warmth of a hospital waiting room.

+1 for Pathfinder. 4thed says DnD on the cover but thats just false advertising to get sales.

Centurion.

Aduro wrote:Uh, those are basic first level attacks, and all three are different. The first one helps keep you alive, the second one messes with your enemies head and can be used with a ranged weapon, and the third one hits a weaker defense. Or are they all the same purely because they cause a similar amount of damage?

Yup. Additionally, they're keyed off two defenses (AC and Reflex), and use two stats (Dex and Strength).

Keying off different defenses is a big core tactical choice for combat: If you're fighting a sneaky ninja, you might want to go for powers that target AC as the opponent's reflex is likely to be high. An armored night might be the opposite: all armor, no reflex. From a design standpoint, at least at low levels, it's hard to get a full 'spread' of powers that target every defense (AC, Reflex, Will, Fortitude).

The abilities allow the powers to fit different types of rogues, really. The Strength based power works best for a 'thug' type rogue, while the Dex powers (the majority of rogue powers, I think) work best for the stereotypicial 'sneaky thief.'

Most classes have 2-3 'builds' that can be tweaked and customized. There's a few dud or no-brainer powers that make things a bit 'samey' at certain levels for certain classes. (I.E. the "Why would you ever take Wargear X?" situation from WH40k). After that, there's all the fun roleplaying stuff. Being a Paladin with Fearsome Smite just says you're probably capable of being a scary guy who hits things and gets hit a lot. Fleshing that out is up to the players, as it always has been. After all, shouldn't RPG players make chocies based off story, and not mechanics?

(There are some options for backgrounds and such. I haven't used them.)

Personally I love 4e. It combines the best of both D&D and a skirmish mini game. Back when I DM'd 2nd ed in college I always used a battlemat and mini's anyway so this plays no different to me than it did back then. Those of you who say it has to RPG soul are really not giving it a chance. I see ya'll sitting around the table with your arms crossed chanting "I hate this and I will not have fun" over and over till you "decide" that its "not D&D".

It's as much D&D and as much fun, as any previous version of the game. But to each their own, its not like all your 3.5 stuff was set aflame when 4e came out.

dancingcricket wrote:Yeah, it was as warboss points out there that killed it for me. I liked the variety. As opposed to, well, like the fighter, or rogue, or cleric, or monk, or etc., I have this attack I can do all the time that does 1 die of damage. Where's the versatility? When the powers or abilities really aren't that diverse, what's the point of different classes?

So you can't stand any edition of D&D? It's still a class-based system, after all, and most basic abilities (I.E. those that don't require the GM adjudicate) are pretty much 1-weapon hits, or maybe a spell with a couple.

I really don't understand this complaint of yours, but I'd be happy to hear more.

dancingcricket wrote:I also don't like the reliance on criticals the current edition has. I wasn't overly thrilled with them when they came in to begin with, but now being effective as a mage requires that you have them if you want to do more than 2 dice of damage to anything. It's bad enough that criticals in the game are bad for the PC's (you've got 4 pc's, vs how many npcs?, how often do you think your going to get as compared to how many the NPC's are going to get?), but requiring them for your spells to continue being potent 3 levels after you got them is ridiculous. Nor do I care for the at will, 1/encounter, 1/day bit. What if my character is a pyromaniac and wants to specialize in fireballs, and to be able to throw three or four every combat? Or at least 3-4 every day?

I'm a bit rusty and can't find my 2nd or 3rd edition books, but I think to throw 3 fireballs a day you'd need to be something like 8th level, right?

For 4th edition, as a Wizard:
1: Take "Scorching Burst" as a low-level flame attack. It's an at-will, so you can use it any time you aren't throwing something bigger.
1: Also, take 'Burning Hands' as an 'Encounter' power to continue the whole 'pyro' theme.
1: Finally, 'Flaming Sphere' is the obvious daily for a pyro.

2: Level 2 is kind of boring for a pyro.

3: The Encounter power 'Fire Shroud' seems obvious.

5: Fireball! which is a daily.

So, at 5th level, the pyro can toss one 'big' fireball a day, a couple close bursts of fire, and conjure a ball of fire that can be moved around. Not bad, eh?

Basically, the philosophy of this edition is to add more powers instead of encouraging spamming the old powers. Admittedly, you end up spamming the at-will powers.

The 4th edition 'Fireball' is far weaker than the 2nd edition, but I feel that's a good thing. I think 2nd edition still had the 'volume fillling' fireball, which meant that it was often suicidal inside a dungeon. If it wasn't suicidal, it tended to make the other party members yawn as the wizard took out half the opposition with one attack that took a long time to resolve.

The 4th edition game I'm at is still low level (we just hit 6th). I like that we aren't seeing a lot of classes that eventually end up getting a small spell-list added because no one thought up anything equivalent for higher levels. Now the Paladin gets unique abilities instead of getting access to spells the cleric considers nearly useless.

dancingcricket wrote:As for barmaids and blacksmiths, well, didn't really have the skill choices when I started out, and we made do if we wanted our characters to take up such a profession. But when it comes to it, is there a problem with having non-combat related skills or abilities? Backgrounds? Useful knowledges that aren't directly related to kobold slaying? It is a role-playing game.

Luckily, the game has these!
Non-combat skills are probably the least covered, as the game is focused on adventuring, not running businesses. Still, a lo can be done with knowledge skills an basic rolls, if you need to.

Backgrounds, if you need rules, are detailed in PHB 2. Basically, there's a list of backgrounds (some more generic than others) and you get an additional Trained Skill option for most. I think a few campaign settings enhance this with prerequisites for feats tied to backgrounds.

useful knowledges: The existing Knowledge skills are intended to be very broad to prevent the guy who spends a lot of resources building some skill then never uses it. My interpretation of the skill system resembles the way Savage Worlds handles knowledge skills: Anyone can make a roll based off their intelligence for anything that their background would indicate they should know, but you don't need to expend character-building resources on it unless you want to know more.

4e isn't perfect, and it still requires the GM and players to expend some effort, but it's not a bad system, as it does fix some of the annoying problems with previous editions, albeit adding a few of it's own.

Fl@nked wrote:But the recent, edition just felt like I was playing WoW on a board.

I felt this way about 3rd to be honest and that was even before WoW came out. Wizards and TSR before them are moving the game in a direction I really don't like, incorporating video game gimmics over old-school LotR style fantasy role playing. When I role-play a barbarian, I want Conan not the cartoon from Diablo II.

It didn't kill the game for me because I never really got into AD&D anyway.

I had a set of Basic D&D back in the late 70's.

Somehow or other I got much more into alternative games including Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, Stormbringer, James Bond, Cyberpunk and several others I can't even remember (Middle Earth Role-Playing). I just played the games other people wanted to play, mostly, and it took me away from the TSR path.

From my experience as a player and GM of a number of systems, the rules are less important that the group of people you play with. I haven't played any RPGs for years. What I read on the Internets makes me feel that a lot of modern young players treat it as a wargame between them and the GM.

Just a guess, I think this situation arose from the influence of the computer games called RPGs, which basically are tactical combat/strategic resource management games in which there is no "real role-playing" at all.

That's not a bad thing at all. There are plenty of games for people with different tastes. I wouldn't like to play the very freeform kind of "storytelling" game which involves almost no dice.

Fl@nked wrote: The newest incarnation of D&D really disappointed me, and I was wondering if any others felt the same. I'm no purist, as I got my teeth into the 3.5 books when I started (and I feel was also the perfection of the d20 system/D&D) But the recent, edition just felt like I was playing WoW on a board. No more freedom to bash orc heads in with a pint. No more circumventing challenges through wit, muscle, and a dash of magic. Just unstoppable, no save powers. But, I need to stop my rant, and let you guys do the talking. So, got anything to share?

Honestly, the game hasn't changed. It is no more a P'n'P WoW then it was before WoW even existed. Yes we just now have more "bling" to our "bang" but the core of the game hasn't changed. We still circumvent challenges with wit and sometimes smash it with muscles/magic. You can still smash orcs over the head with a pint and it is still just an improvised weapon like before.

Yes the combat is slower but there is a bit more cinematic feature to it that slightly makes up for the slowness. My only complaint about it, I am having a hard time seeing the creativity in character creation. I don't feel like there is the flexibility that used to be there with previous editions. Still, it won't stop me from playing.

4e has not been a game ender for me but it definitely has me hoping they know what they are doing and haven't painted themselves in a corner.

Short answer 4th ed is a horrible excuse for something called D&D, but Pathfinder is awesome.

You know people have to stop posting these threads. Yes its different. You know TV tropes wiki has something for this problem; its the Broken Base trope. No one agrees on anything.

Incidently I don't mind either 3.5 or 4th. 3.5 has a lot of wonderfully diverse elements and lots of content to feed off, nice little feat/class/gear combos up the wahzoo.

4th Edition makes Wizard not a one man apocalypse. The Powers system makes sense, its better than just rolling for attacks and the skills allow for more free-form role playing. Making Monsters is so much easier compared to 3.5.

Finally if you don't like any edition of 3.5 then don't obsess over it, or House-Rule. You can just turn around and say add the Power System to the 3.5 rules... Which actually makes 3.5 a hell of lot more fun and crazy.

i have played 3.5, pathfinder and 4e.

honestly 3.5 was full of broken save or die combinations that really made the game no fun after the first time an npc had improved grapple, and all you do for the rest of the fight is try to escape or die. so as a sorceress with a 8 strength escaping from the large humanoid meant my game was done on the first swing.

pathfinder, very good system, lots of neat stuff. great game to play.

4e a different approach to the game, and certainly its own game different than the ones before. no instant death, no one hit wonders, no reliance on critical hits and no instant death because someone got a x4 critical hit.


you want a game you can do almost anything try rolemaster, of course a simple combat can take 10 seconds or 4 hours depending on how people roll.

Balance wrote:So you can't stand any edition of D&D? It's still a class-based system, after all, and most basic abilities (I.E. those that don't require the GM adjudicate) are pretty much 1-weapon hits, or maybe a spell with a couple.

That's the major problem though. Anything worth doing is worth requiring GM adjudicate. It's one of the things that makes WoD great is that everyone goes into it with the expectation of it being freeform. There's just something about the D&D system (including Pathfinder) that encourages a boxed in mindset. In WoD, you have guidelines, in D&D you have rules. I've seen this happen with 3rd edition games, 3.5 edition, 4th edition, and Pathfinder, and I've played in Vampire and Mage tabletop games, so I've had plenty of exposure. This is all with the same set of people being DMs, so it's not personal playstyle. With this in mind, the systems that have more rules (3.5, Pathfinder) make for the better game because as long as the rules exist, the DM will use them. Another selling point for 3.5: it's the last vestige of Ravenloft, the greatest campaign setting that only I will run.

I'm a bit rusty and can't find my 2nd or 3rd edition books, but I think to throw 3 fireballs a day you'd need to be something like 8th level, right?

Balance wrote:
For 4th edition, as a Wizard:
1: Take "Scorching Burst" as a low-level flame attack. It's an at-will, so you can use it any time you aren't throwing something bigger.
1: Also, take 'Burning Hands' as an 'Encounter' power to continue the whole 'pyro' theme.
1: Finally, 'Flaming Sphere' is the obvious daily for a pyro.

The fact that everything are these 3.5 Book of Nine Swords style encounter/at-will powers is where everyone gets off calling it tabletop WoW. Yes I play WoW sometimes. No, I don't want you to get your WoW in my D&D. Something I really like about 3.5 is that it forces you to be resourceful. You're a Pyro, but you're not a god. Deal with it. You want to be a Pyro? Act like one. Carry alchemist's fires, flaming quarterstaves, flasks of oil and many, many tindertwigs. In one game I was a 1st level mage who got in a barfight, doused someone with a bottle of scotch I smashed on them, and intimidated them, threatening to set them on fire with a tindertwig. 4th ed doesn't encourage that. It encourages "Right click enemy and hit the '1' key to cast fire bolt while spamming your 'Need heal' macro."

Balance wrote:
2: Level 2 is kind of boring for a pyro.

3: The Encounter power 'Fire Shroud' seems obvious.

5: Fireball! which is a daily.

So, at 5th level, the pyro can toss one 'big' fireball a day, a couple close bursts of fire, and conjure a ball of fire that can be moved around. Not bad, eh?

From memory:
3.5 Edition:
Evocation specialization.
1st level: Burning Hands, Orb of Fire, lesser
2nd level: spell compendium for another level 1 fire spell. (can't think of any more)
3rd Level: Scorching Ray
4th level: Produce flame (I think it's a 2nd level spell for wizards, if not, pyrotechnics)
5th level: Fireball.

I can get 3 Fireballs, 4 2nd level spells, and 5 1st assuming I have a 16 intelligence and my memory serves me on spells/day. I wouldn't call that spam of anything, and that's assuming I max out fireballs for my 3rd level spell rather than go with versatility (I go with versatility)

I think I get a bigger selection of powers this way.

Balance wrote:
The 4th edition game I'm at is still low level (we just hit 6th). I like that we aren't seeing a lot of classes that eventually end up getting a small spell-list added because no one thought up anything equivalent for higher levels. Now the Paladin gets unique abilities instead of getting access to spells the cleric considers nearly useless.

I never really thought that way about the Ranger or Paladin. I guess their powers are much more feeble than what a Cleric or Druid would have at that point, but at the same time, they fill a niche, like a Bard. Once you have low level healing powers on your Paladin, the Cleric no longer has to be a walking band-aid and can start doing interesting things with their spells. Some of them are outright awesome, but it feels like you never see them unless you're dealing with a very thematic (and usually slightly evil) cleric.

Balance wrote:
4e isn't perfect, and it still requires the GM and players to expend some effort, but it's not a bad system, as it does fix some of the annoying problems with previous editions, albeit adding a few of it's own.

I will concede this point to you. There are certainly things it fixes that are left unchecked in prior editions but I feel it's rife with things that just don't 'feel' right to me.

I've always seen RPGs as a spectrum from 'social games' to 'resource management/tactical challenge.'

In general D&D has leaned towards the resource and tactics side. This is a tendency more than an absolute rule: I'm sure someone can counter with tales of D&D games that went months without die rolls, but there's a lot of other players who play it for a sense of adventure which usually means lots of combat.

After all, many just like to see the numbers go up: Many players think they're "winning" by getting a higher level, better gear, etc. when it is, after all, really a concensual game as the DM can make the opposition overwhelming, but where's the fun in that?

(The 4th Edition DMG is, apparently, even aware of that as the recommended difficulty numbers for certain tasks are expected to level up with the character. This has often been misinterpreted as common objects like doors scaling like the monsters from the CRPG Oblivion, but it's more just a statement that a high-level adventurer isn't going to be checking simple wooden doors for simple mechanical traps, but is going to be dealing with fiendishly clever traps on ancient doors of obsidian and opal that menace with spikes of steel.)

I played 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5 editions and I was disappointed with 4th. Rather than list details of what I disliked I can sumarize it; the game in its attempts to simplify aspects of the game seemed compromised by the sense that they were trying to make a system designed to compete against computer games rather than letting it be a table top game.

daedalus wrote:
That's the major problem though. Anything worth doing is worth requiring GM adjudicate. It's one of the things that makes WoD great is that everyone goes into it with the expectation of it being freeform. There's just something about the D&D system (including Pathfinder) that encourages a boxed in mindset. In WoD, you have guidelines, in D&D you have rules. I've seen this happen with 3rd edition games, 3.5 edition, 4th edition, and Pathfinder, and I've played in Vampire and Mage tabletop games, so I've had plenty of exposure. This is all with the same set of people being DMs, so it's not personal playstyle. With this in mind, the systems that have more rules (3.5, Pathfinder) make for the better game because as long as the rules exist, the DM will use them. Another selling point for 3.5: it's the last vestige of Ravenloft, the greatest campaign setting that only I will run.

The point could be made that they screwed up Ravenloft after 2nd, though...
I've known a number of WoD players who were stricter about the rules than the guys I play D&D with. The WoD players were also very stubborn about the background perfectly matching the official fluff, which made it frustrating for me.

daedalus wrote:
The fact that everything are these 3.5 Book of Nine Swords style encounter/at-will powers is where everyone gets off calling it tabletop WoW. Yes I play WoW sometimes. No, I don't want you to get your WoW in my D&D. Something I really like about 3.5 is that it forces you to be resourceful. You're a Pyro, but you're not a god. Deal with it. You want to be a Pyro? Act like one. Carry alchemist's fires, flaming quarterstaves, flasks of oil and many, many tindertwigs. In one game I was a 1st level mage who got in a barfight, doused someone with a bottle of scotch I smashed on them, and intimidated them, threatening to set them on fire with a tindertwig. 4th ed doesn't encourage that. It encourages "Right click enemy and hit the '1' key to cast fire bolt while spamming your 'Need heal' macro."

I think a lot of those items still exist, though... And 'interesting stuff' can certainly still happen!

I've found the best fights in 4th edition to occur when the 'battlefield' has some scenery to chew. Not just the usual 'difficult terrain' but some neat stuff to interact with like pits, barrels, and other interesting shapes: A fun recent fight was in an ancient temple and we got some good use out of some non-combat skill use to allow the group to attack from two sides. Image the room as a big 'indoor swimming pool' with a wide ledge around a shallow pit. Our skilled exploration allowed us to get a few characters on the 'ledge' where we would have otherwise had to deal with guys attacking us from range as we dealt with threats down in the pit. I think we also had torches and some other weirdness cause problems in that fight...

Basically, for those not interested in the long paragraph above, I feel that boring 4th edition fights are the result of the GM and players not using the tools they're given.

daedalus wrote:
From memory:
3.5 Edition:
Evocation specialization.
1st level: Burning Hands, Orb of Fire, lesser
2nd level: spell compendium for another level 1 fire spell. (can't think of any more)
3rd Level: Scorching Ray
4th level: Produce flame (I think it's a 2nd level spell for wizards, if not, pyrotechnics)
5th level: Fireball.

I can get 3 Fireballs, 4 2nd level spells, and 5 1st assuming I have a 16 intelligence and my memory serves me on spells/day. I wouldn't call that spam of anything, and that's assuming I max out fireballs for my 3rd level spell rather than go with versatility (I go with versatility)

I think I get a bigger selection of powers this way.

Please note that I only picked the 'fire' powers available. I think the 4.0 wizard gets a few from each level and swaps them out, much like memorization in 3.5 and earlier.

Something that often gets forgotten by those who feel the 4.0 wizard is less flexible is Rituals: Many characters get access to Rituals, which is a somewhat generic set of rules that encompasses a lot of the non-combat spells. They generally take longer and have a material cost, but that's where a lot of the 'missing' spells are.

daedalus wrote:

Balance wrote:
The 4th edition game I'm at is still low level (we just hit 6th). I like that we aren't seeing a lot of classes that eventually end up getting a small spell-list added because no one thought up anything equivalent for higher levels. Now the Paladin gets unique abilities instead of getting access to spells the cleric considers nearly useless.

I never really thought that way about the Ranger or Paladin. I guess their powers are much more feeble than what a Cleric or Druid would have at that point, but at the same time, they fill a niche, like a Bard. Once you have low level healing powers on your Paladin, the Cleric no longer has to be a walking band-aid and can start doing interesting things with their spells. Some of them are outright awesome, but it feels like you never see them unless you're dealing with a very thematic (and usually slightly evil) cleric.

To be honest, if you're playing a (2.0-3.5) Ranger or paladin for the spell list, you're probably not power-gaming. But, yeah... The late-level abilities for these classes in many versions is adding a spell list. Getting some 1-4 level spells at high levels is certainly not a game change... Even the healing is minimal, and certainly won't reduce the need for a cleric. I have to admit, I do prefer the healing and such the 4th edition version, as there's a lot of 'attacks that heal a little' or similar.

4e lost a lot of the 'subsystems' of 3.0/3.5, even moreso than were lost from 2.0 to 3.5. The losses from 2.0-3.0 were definitely valuable: I really liked the loss of the percentile thief skills (Rolled into a common skill system, so a Fighter can pick locks if he really wants to) and the loss of the 2.0 psychic system was very definitely appreciated. 3.0-4.0 is a bit different, and I can understand that some people feel that some things were lost: Everything is very generalized, all powers are a variant of the core system.

4th edition really isn't that bad it feels like an RPG lite which unfortunatly puts alot of focus on the fighting. It really reminds me of Munchkin, go into the room, kill the monsters and take their stuff, rinse and repeat.

Overall i like it though, (i'm DM) its a great way to introduce people to RPGs, we for example have 3 players whose only exposeure to dnd is 4.0. The other 2 players and I also play in a 3.5 campagin and although i can't speak for them i think they would agree that 3.5 is too complicated for RPG noobs.

I also think its very difficult to compare 3.5 (or pathfinder) to 4.0, they're different games aimied at different generations


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joetaco wrote:4th edition really isn't that bad it feels like an RPG lite which unfortunatly puts alot of focus on the fighting. It really reminds me of Munchkin, go into the room, kill the monsters and take their stuff, rinse and repeat.

Overall i like it though, (i'm DM) its a great way to introduce people to RPGs, we for example have 3 players whose only exposeure to dnd is 4.0. The other 2 players and I also play in a 3.5 campagin and although i can't speak for them i think they would agree that 3.5 is too complicated for RPG noobs.

I also think its very difficult to compare 3.5 (or pathfinder) to 4.0, they're different games aimied at different generations

just so i can say this now, i've played and dm'd (thats the word right?) dnd 1, dnd 3, 3.5 and 4 and out of all of them i prefered 3.5 to play and 4.0 to dm

i loathe 4th ed. Been playing since 2nd ed. That being said a friend mentioned to me like allot of of you are saying that D&D 4th is a completely different game than 3rd. Its apples and oranges now. So I guess allot of my hostility for the game is because I loved third edition adn wish they hadn't changed it.

I have 1 real problem player and one player that is having problems with 4th [See Lord Fox above].
The problem with them is they walk into the game with the "I hate 4th edition" thinking before they ever get their. When you enter a game like that you cant enjoy the game.

The other thing is something I came up with

The System is Unimportant
The System is All Important

If you want to run around and bash monsters: you want 4e
If you want a game with dramatic over the top Hollywood moves: you want 4e
If you want a game where team play is the goal: You want 4e
If you want to run a game were it is all intrigue and simple skill usage: You want 4e

If you want a run around an possible kill monsters in one swing with your Min/Max Character: you want 3e
If you want a game with a complex skill system that can be easily abused: you want 3e
If you a random group of characters to go on adventures and one had better be a cleric: you want 3e
If you want to run a game were it is all intrigue and slow advancement unless the DM is really nice: You want 3e

It is all about the flavor

If you like 4e great, spread the word
If you like 3e [or any other edition] great, but relies that 4e is here to stay and quit giving us that like it grief.

BTW: if there are any groups in the Riverside aria that want a 30+ Veteran player who hates 4e let me know you can have him.

Been playing and DMing since 2ed was out and I have to say I LOVE 4ed from both perspectives. As a player the options available to characters even at low levels makes it very engaging and the combat is much more dynamic AND realistic. Nothing has really changed on the roleplaying side so I have no idea where all that whining comes from. As a DM 4ed has been a god send. Building complex, involved, and yet balanced encounters has gotten much simpler yet the combats are a much more enjoyable, tactical affair. With the different classes being alot more balanced planning for a high level game no longer involves worrying about a million different possibilites (wish anyone?) from the players or that a few bad saves vs insta-death spells would result in a TPK.

With all the books coming out 4ed has as many options for characters as 3.5 did and is a much better put together system. While I admit the list of mundane items is rather small, any DM worth his salt can overcome that. In short, much of my gaming group was skeptical towards 4ed but after playing my game for over a year, not one of them would go back.

Give it a chance, A REAL chance, and ask yourself if you don't like it because its not as good or because its different (and you can't play the same game breaking classes that you could in 3.5 (wizard, cleric, druid, etc).

Moving to the subforum which includes RPGs…

I quite enjoy 4th. Obviously the combat system gets the most attention, but that’s not really much of a change from earlier editions. The game systems have always been combat-focused. I wouldn’t say that 4th is any worse at handling non-combat stuff than 3rd. 3rd ed has a longer skill list, and a more detailed mechanic for assigning points/ranks for training in them, but speaking from experience, those additional details don’t necessarily lead to better task resolution. A lot of skills go unused frequently, or almost ALWAYS get used together (4th consolidates Move Silently & Hide into Stealth, consolidates Listen, Spot, and Search into Perception). And spreading out skill points usually hindered the character, because encounter design in published modules, and standard DCs in the rulebook, usually had to assume that players would be maxing-out skills. Of course a DM could adjust that, but it’s more work again. I quite like the skill system in 4th, and the Skill Challenge system, while still a bit rough in its initial form, got some more refinements in DMG2, and opens some other great possibilities for non-combat encounters, giving them more form, structure, and balance.

One of the features of 3rd and earlier editions is that casters and combat-types work very differently. Spells are often amazing game-changers. Now, this is not in itself a bad thing. One thing many people like about pre-4th D&D is how casters work in a totally different way. The power of casters is theoretically limited by their finite supply on any given day, but the problem which derives from the feature is that unless the DM forced the players, they would often choose to expend their spell resources very quickly to easily overpower encounters scaled for their level, and then rest to restore their abilities. The so-called 5 minute workday phenomenon.

The biggest issues with 3rd and 3.5 are with high-level play. Especially the ever-increasing number of options for characters, mostly in the spells and magic items departments, which make building and properly scaling encounters a very time-consuming and frustratingly inaccurate task. Then once you get into combat, it tends to run incredibly slow. I loved 3.x editions, and played them extensively from around 2002 until 4th came out, but high-level play got to be a serious PITA.

IMO the 3.x editions are the direct heirs to 1st ed, which was the first version of the game to take a shot at being a “simulationist” game, where verisimilitude was a primary concern. 4th in some ways hearkens back a bit more to Original D&D and to the D&D offshoot game (as distinguished from AD&D) in the 80s.

I've been playing D&D since D&D meant D&D and NOT 3.x.
I enjoyed every system up to 3e without reservation.
Initially, I was worried about 2e (since I liked the 1e system). When I saw that it was an updated 1e, which would still be compatable with my old stuff, I was giddy.

I played 3.0 as soon as it came out. I even have a copy of the pre-production PHB that came out an Gencon.
I played 3.5.
D&D 3.x turned me away from D&D. The focus of the RPG drifted away from Role Playing and directly towards combat.
Forgive me, but I think that a ROLE PLAYING game's main focus should be ROLE PLAYING (which is why "RPG" video games annoy me). D&D 3.x and 4 are BSG's (Battle Simulation Games). Like an RPG is a Role Playing Game with combat, a BSG is a battle siulation game with role playing.

I gave up 3.x and got rid of almost everything 3.x I had. I looked at the 4 ed books and find them -for my tastes- laughable.

My current (10 person) group plays 2e exclusively. If, as a group, they ever wanted to try a different edition, I'd be willing to play it (since you can get into that pretty inexpensively), but I would absolutely stop DMing.

If the game got too BSGish, I'd have to leave it. I can get BSG with my 40K games.

Just my $.02

Eric

So you have not tried it then

First off, though I'm not responding to it, I appreciate your reply Balance. Too many times do I feel like I post something that goes unanswered.

Anpu42 wrote:The problem with them is they walk into the game with the "I hate 4th edition" thinking before they ever get their. When you enter a game like that you cant enjoy the game.

I agree that walking in with a bad attitude is counterproductive. We have one like that in our group, and I've been considered "That skeptic" when it comes to the 4th, though I'm much more open-minded than the other one.

Anpu42 wrote:
If you want to run around and bash monsters: you want 4e
If you want a game with dramatic over the top Hollywood moves: you want 4e
If you want a game where team play is the goal: You want 4e
If you want to run a game were it is all intrigue and simple skill usage: You want 4e

If you want a run around an possible kill monsters in one swing with your Min/Max Character: you want 3e
If you want a game with a complex skill system that can be easily abused: you want 3e
If you a random group of characters to go on adventures and one had better be a cleric: you want 3e
If you want to run a game were it is all intrigue and slow advancement unless the DM is really nice: You want 3e

This is where I disagree. Well, okay, agree in part. I'll agree that the 3.x system was easy to break, but I bet I could break 4th probably just as easy if I had a weekend, booze, and felt enough malice in my heart. We used to make 40th level characters just to see how out of whack we could get the system. I made a wizard who could cast 9 spells a round WITHOUT using timestop, while wearing medium armor, could hurt himself to ignore enemy spell resistance, and he was one of the lesser of the broken monstrosities we played around with.

The way you make 3rd edition work is that everyone agrees not to powergame, and that anything you put on your character sheet happens because something happened in game to represent it, not the other way around. I've had dramatic hollywood-esque fights atop lighting trains in ebberon in 3.5 a la Mission Impossible. I've had games where we would have died fighting encounters with CR 4+ higher than our level if we didn't work as a perfect team and plan out the entire thing before hand. Honestly though, the biggest thrill in 3rd edition for me is making BAD characters. Like one of my other mages who had no necromancy or evocation, was an enchanter, who HATED undead and fought with a spiked chain of all things. This was actually one of my most memorable characters. Against anything living he would just hose their brains, and anything undead he sat there desperately tripping it until someone else could deal with it.

My final words: Teamwork occurs when you willfully make characters who are fun and have flaws. If your idea of roleplaying is number crunching, then it doesn't matter what system you're using, you're still just playing WoW.

For the many years I played 2E, we always used a grid for combat or a hexmap. 2nd ed was where a clear gridmap combat system originated, in the Players Option books, sometimes nicknamed 2.5 edition, though I never used them. Many of the rules (like opportunity attacks, and flanking) I found in 3rd ed were very close to house rules my groups had in 2nd ed.

Original D&D spelled almost nothing out for you. It was utterly dependent on DM judgment and improvisation or design ability for most task resolution. This can be great, but is extremely dependent on the DM knowing what he’s doing, and on the players’ being on the same page. Gygax found out fairly quickly that as soon as the game got popular he would never be able to personally teach all the DMs anymore. He used to get long-distance telephone calls to his home in the evening. There were a TON of small-press or fanzine publishers writing new rules in the 70s too. Steve Perrin’s famous Perrin Conventions for combat cleaned up and added a ton more detail to combat, and became the foundation for Runequest, IIRC, later standardized as Basic Roleplaying system, the core of Call of Cthulhu, Elfquest, and Stormbringer to name three others. Rolemaster started out as house rules for D&D too.

The above caused Gygax & TSR to realize that a lot of people needed or wanted a lot more of the game spelled out and explained for them. So came 1st edition AD&D, which (as I said above) is much more simulationist. Gygax, in his immortal and charming prose repeatedly rails about official rules and against unbalanced games and bad DMs in the 1st ed DMG. Of course 1st ed was a rushjob, and edited incredibly poorly. Ask anyone who’s ever tried to figure out the official initiative rules or rules for casting spells in combat. But it’s still a ton of fun once the DM and/or the group takes charge of it and makes the house rules they need to clean it up.

2nd ed is basically 1e with better editing and more consistency. The initiative rules are much clearer, for example, but the Individual Initiative rules are not that far from 3rd ed initiative. It also enshrines a bunch of house rules in the core rulebooks, but labels them as optional in most cases. It still keeps some awkward or illogical stuff for purposes of consistency with the older rules.

3rd ed was a big reboot, with a lot of nice new ideas, and a properly thorough take on following through on the idea 1e started. The chapter on magic is phenomenal, and the comprehensive and consistent list of conditions cleans things up enormously. Of course it’s a very detailed system, and requires a lot of constant practice or a lot of book reference. Sometimes both. It’s still got some legacy issues (like Vancian magic and the aforementioned 5 minute workday), and breaks down pretty badly at high levels, but is a great game.

4th ed is another big reboot, and less married to legacy concepts. They took some really bold steps here, and IMO mostly in response to things players want. They definitely simplified a lot from 3rd ed, and dispensed with pure simulationism wherever it interfered with balance. It also has the best DMG, from the standpoint of teaching and guiding a new DM, of any edition, of any roleplaying game I’ve ever seen or heard of.

All of the editions have their own virtues and flaws. All roleplaying games also share the common trait that a good DM and good players make a good game. The rules are secondary.

@daedalus: To me it sounds like you fixed your problems: not the system.

@Mannahnin:

It's people sitting around a table rolling dice and pretending to be fantasy characters. The only major difference is that now more people can share the experience. Any heavy complaints beyond that are the elitism that drives me insane. If a version of a product existing causes you to stop playing other versions then you complain about it, expect no sympathy.

How can you have a problem with 4e and not played it.
I sugest if you have not mgivien it a try yet, Got to the WotC sight, dowload the free PDF of Keep on the Shadowfell, print it and play it.
Then IMOHO, you can complain about it.

Keep isn't a great module, but it's still a fun time. I ran the first kobold battle five or six times (mostly for different groups of people, with some overlap) when it came out. The combat system is plain fun. Though combats do go more rounds, so you want to make sure those rounds go quickly and not let players spend too much time in analysis paralysis.

I have not played 4th ED DnD, and I don't plan to. However, it's not as if it has killed off the game for me - it's simply a choice that I make. Since I prefer 3.5 rules, my DnD group uses them. Simple as that. There's no reason why I should give up 3.5 for 4 - even if there won't be any "official" releases for 3.5, there's still more than enough source material to craft astounding amounts of unique campaigns, and if you really have to try something new, there's always Pathfinder.

Anpu42 wrote:So you have not tried it then

As I stated openly, I did not.
I did, however, devote about an hour to sitting down and looking over it.
I did not like it.

Also... and this was actually (oddly) a big turn off for me in 3.x AND 4.x, the art is horrendous.
I mean, it's WELL DONE, but it's not "my father's D&D" art. I like classic fantasy art and a classic, high fantasy feel.

I do not like the steampunk influenced look or the feel for it.

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anpu42 wrote:How can you have a problem with 4e and not played it.
I sugest if you have not mgivien it a try yet, Got to the WotC sight, dowload the free PDF of Keep on the Shadowfell, print it and play it.
Then IMOHO, you can complain about it.

I don't know who this was pointed at, if anyone, but I'll answer it for me.

It's easy to have a problem with a game you haven't played if you understand enough about how games work and take some time to study it.
As for complaining... I don't.
If a conversation comes up about feelings on it, I share mine... but they're far from complaints. Just opinions and reasons for them.

Eric

DiscoVader wrote:I have not played 4th ED DnD, and I don't plan to. However, it's not as if it has killed off the game for me - it's simply a choice that I make. Since I prefer 3.5 rules, my DnD group uses them. Simple as that. There's no reason why I should give up 3.5 for 4 - even if there won't be any "official" releases for 3.5, there's still more than enough source material to craft astounding amounts of unique campaigns, and if you really have to try something new, there's always Pathfinder.

I'm in a similar boat, though I run random bits of 4th as well. I just have so many 3.5 books already and there's so much untapped potential

Like I mentioned before. I'm thankful for all the input. Though I won't be giving up my 3.5 anytime soon, I now see that 4th ED deserves it's own respect and is good in it's own way.

MagickalMemories wrote:It's easy to have a problem with a game you haven't played if you understand enough about how games work and take some time to study it.
Eric

That sounds reasonable but I've seen it fail to many times to believe it anymore. I've known people who pretty much would say that and then eventually would be playing the game (in general, not just talking about 4th) and say they were wrong. Or they would actually give real reasons and not that they scanned the book and it didn't have instant appeal, which is basically what it comes down to. I wasn't a big fan of 4th when it launched either but I am having fun with it now. I'm also pretty sure that, as you stated yourself, an hour does not count as 'taking some time to study it'.

I don't know, Aht.
I think that, provided you're experienced enough to *see* how something will work just by reading the rules, if you sit down and actually devote an hour to looking at the dynamics of game-play and comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different classes, abilities, etc., you can get a pretty good idea of how it'll play out.

Now, I admit you're 100% right about people writing off a game, then later admitting they were wrong. It happens. I'm more prone to believe those people were initially looking at it with a jaundiced eye, though. Like, maybe, they didn't WANT to like it.

Also, TBH about 4e... If my group decided they wanted to shrug off 2e for 4e.... Well, first, I think I'd cry a little. LOL (I went out myself and specifically recruited the whole group for the sole purpose of playing 2e)
When the tears dried, however, I'd play 4e with them... and I'm certain I'd have a blast. That isn't about the game, though. It's about the group.
Saying I don't like the system doesn't equate with nerdrage over it. I don't *hate* it. It just isn't for me. KWIM?
I'd enjoy gaming with my group but, in the end, it would be enjoying THEM and not the system.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:I don't know, Aht.
I think that, provided you're experienced enough to *see* how something will work just by reading the rules, if you sit down and actually devote an hour to looking at the dynamics of game-play and comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different classes, abilities, etc., you can get a pretty good idea of how it'll play out.

Oh I'm not saying you can't get a sense of it, just that sometimes theory and practice don't always match up. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I can appreciate wanting to stick wth what you already know and like, it is just to often that instead of stating that fact it devolves into the other system being evil and everything that is wrong.

it is just to often that instead of stating that fact it devolves into the other system being evil and everything that is wrong

...And where would the internet be without THAT?
LOL


Seriously, though, you do make a good point.

Eric

And of course, people like what they like!

There's a famous quote by Churchill (I think!) about people, for the most part, being 'naturally' liberal/open to change when young and conservative when old...

So, when I was very young, back in the early 80's, I discovered 1E AD&D and loved it!

3rd edition killed it for me, and I'm still playing (or at least trying to play!) 1E AD&D today!

Alph,
Move to the St. Louis area, and I can probably fit you into a 2e campaign group.

LOL

Eric

My girlfriend in college was from St. Louis - I loved visiting that city!

But, I am a Massachusetts boy at heart!

Also:

"The quotation usually attributed to Churchill is, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." However, the attribution is false. There is no record of Churchill ever speaking these words, and it is highly unlikely that he would have because Churchill himself did precisely the opposite. He entered politics as a Conservative and was a Conservative at age 25. He switched to the Liberal Party at age 29 and was a Liberal at age 35. (He returned to the Conservatives at age 49.) Also, his beloved wife, Clementine, was a life-long Liberal, and Churchill would hardly have delivered such an indirect insult to her."

So, whatever - the quote still makes some sense.

Maybe.

4E was just an atrocity in my mind, i've only been playing it from 3rd edition. But yeah, like many others here, i've just turned to pathfinder.

RatherFatRat wrote:4E was just an atrocity in my mind, i've only been playing it from 3rd edition. But yeah, like many others here, i've just turned to pathfinder.

I keep hearing similar statements.
I'd love more information, so I started a thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288330.page


Eric

It pretty much killed it for me. I really want to like 4E. I saved up to preorder the boxed set off amazon. I loved the artwork and new rules and stuff, but after playing it and having the whole power system, I was really disappointed and totally agree that it's like WoW. With the power system and combat it feels WAY too much like a video game. I started with 3.5 as well and am still sticking with it like I have for the past four years.

oooooooooh, another one of these great "The majority of us haven't touched 4e but we're gonna bash it" threads. Can someone explain to me how the hell it is like WoW? Those comparing it to WoW, have you played WoW? If you want to roleplay you need to get a good group. If you don't have a good group, you aren't going to have fun with the game anyways. So you decided to instead of taking the blame upon yourselves and the group push it on the system because, as we all know, a game system can't defend itself. 3.5 was much more broken than 4e. you can do bits and pieces here and there to break 4e b but no where to the level of 3.5. As far as D&D is concerned, there is only one system I like on the same level as 4e and that is 2e.

Ohh and Pathfinder is interesting, better than 3.5, but still sucks. There has been no content for it and it has been out for approximately the same amount of time as 4e and they have what the PHB and MM? I lose interest when there aren't any new products and it is a fledgling system.

If you want GODLIKE roleplaying you get a good group, 90% of the time, the system has nothing to do with itaside from setting and mechanics. If mechanics dictate your roleplaying then you're doing it wrong. It is Roleplaying not Rollplaying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on the note about pathfinder: it seems to me the developers lost interest also because all they're releasing is little adventure books and the DMG is supposed to be out in some semblance of soon, correct? will they release new character content though?

I think the biggest turn off for most people about 4th isn't the mechanics, which to me work a lot better than 3.5 (seriously, how can you say the system doesn't encourage roleplaying? I just don't get it! The DMG is full of good advice for roleplaying, it's not in the player's handbook but it wasn't in the handbook for 3.5 either!).
It's the new art, and the fluff text for some of the monsters and powers. The base world for D'n'D has been changed a bit in look and feel, and that's something people don't like. Or at least, that's the only argument I find raitonal.
I think it's fair enough- I'm not a fan of the ludicrous power names and descriptions, myself. And while some of the new art is good (some of the landscapes are really cool I think) a lot of the stuff for the classes is over the top and does seem silly to me. That stuff bleeds into the entire perception of the game system, which is actually divorced from it. If I was running 4th ( as I plan to) I'd use my own descriptions, probably re-write power names and descriptions to be less OTT and so on. A bit of work, but considering how much easier the game is to run, I don't mind.

Da Boss wrote:I think the biggest turn off for most people about 4th isn't the mechanics, which to me work a lot better than 3.5 (seriously, how can you say the system doesn't encourage roleplaying? I just don't get it! The DMG is full of good advice for roleplaying, it's not in the player's handbook but it wasn't in the handbook for 3.5 either!).
It's the new art, and the fluff text for some of the monsters and powers. The base world for D'n'D has been changed a bit in look and feel, and that's something people don't like. Or at least, that's the only argument I find raitonal.

It is a bit 'sparkly' compared to previous editions. The stock flavor text for a lot of powers seems to suggest that most fights look like a cross between a rave and an explosion in a fireworks factory as everyone who doesn't have martial powers has effects go off with light shows.

OTOH, I don't know if it's explicitly stated anywhere in the actual rule books (I don't have the 4.0 DMG, and haven't deeply read the 4.0 PHB) but 'reskinning' seems very popular and well-supported by the community now. If, for example, you've got the PHB books 1-3 it's pretty likely that a lot of fantasy/sci-fi races can be represented reasonably well by a race write-up with a bit different description, maybe a power swap.

It's much the same for weapons, powers, etc. The base weapon table is a bit sparse, but people who really want to know what kind of long sword a character carries can elaborate, and it's considered a long sword for mechanical reasons. Powers can be rethemed: at the least, an evil Paladin's radiant effects are likely to be, well, more 'evil' looking or one from a pseudo-Chinese culture could be described as having translucent dragon-spirits attacking the enemy instead of ribbons of radiant light.

4e certainly isn't 'perfect' but it is, I have to admit, fun.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:oooooooooh, another one of these great "The majority of us haven't touched 4e but we're gonna bash it" threads. Can someone explain to me how the hell it is like WoW? Those comparing it to WoW, have you played WoW? If you want to roleplay you need to get a good group. If you don't have a good group, you aren't going to have fun with the game anyways. So you decided to instead of taking the blame upon yourselves and the group push it on the system because, as we all know, a game system can't defend itself. 3.5 was much more broken than 4e. you can do bits and pieces here and there to break 4e b but no where to the level of 3.5. As far as D&D is concerned, there is only one system I like on the same level as 4e and that is 2e.

Ohh and Pathfinder is interesting, better than 3.5, but still sucks. There has been no content for it and it has been out for approximately the same amount of time as 4e and they have what the PHB and MM? I lose interest when there aren't any new products and it is a fledgling system.

If you want GODLIKE roleplaying you get a good group, 90% of the time, the system has nothing to do with itaside from setting and mechanics. If mechanics dictate your roleplaying then you're doing it wrong. It is Roleplaying not Rollplaying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on the note about pathfinder: it seems to me the developers lost interest also because all they're releasing is little adventure books and the DMG is supposed to be out in some semblance of soon, correct? will they release new character content though?

Actually, for your information, me and my group got to level 15 in the 4.0 system before stopping. We did play it. And I will say what I have said before, I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND. 4.0 IS EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT. Stop getting so offended over game versions.

Fl@nked wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:oooooooooh, another one of these great "The majority of us haven't touched 4e but we're gonna bash it" threads. Can someone explain to me how the hell it is like WoW? Those comparing it to WoW, have you played WoW? If you want to roleplay you need to get a good group. If you don't have a good group, you aren't going to have fun with the game anyways. So you decided to instead of taking the blame upon yourselves and the group push it on the system because, as we all know, a game system can't defend itself. 3.5 was much more broken than 4e. you can do bits and pieces here and there to break 4e b but no where to the level of 3.5. As far as D&D is concerned, there is only one system I like on the same level as 4e and that is 2e.

Ohh and Pathfinder is interesting, better than 3.5, but still sucks. There has been no content for it and it has been out for approximately the same amount of time as 4e and they have what the PHB and MM? I lose interest when there aren't any new products and it is a fledgling system.

If you want GODLIKE roleplaying you get a good group, 90% of the time, the system has nothing to do with itaside from setting and mechanics. If mechanics dictate your roleplaying then you're doing it wrong. It is Roleplaying not Rollplaying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on the note about pathfinder: it seems to me the developers lost interest also because all they're releasing is little adventure books and the DMG is supposed to be out in some semblance of soon, correct? will they release new character content though?

Actually, for your information, me and my group got to level 15 in the 4.0 system before stopping. We did play it. And I will say what I have said before, I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND. 4.0 IS EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT. Stop getting so offended over game versions.

You could have stated this in your opening.
I am still trying to figure out why there is all of the "Hate" of the 4e System.
I have been playing since 1981.
I have tried probably 50 diferent Systems and 4th is not the best, its not the worst.
Just as you are feeling "Attacked" by your belief we are for ours.
I do not condone the attutude that he obove poster put out thier a lot of us who play 4th [and Pathfinder and 3.5 and 3.0 and 2nd] feel that way when we are told the OUR edition is bad. We can get a little shourt after be call "Tratiors" to the game. I am not saying you said that, but a lot in the comunity have.
It is getting to the point where it is getting to be more acceptable to Call myself a Furry that say that I play D&D 4th Edition
We just all need remember to respect the others persons beliefs.

Just Remember [Yes I know I have posted some of thies before.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:oooooooooh, another one of these great "The majority of us haven't touched 4e but we're gonna bash it" threads. Can someone explain to me how the hell it is like WoW? Those comparing it to WoW, have you played WoW? If you want to roleplay you need to get a good group. If you don't have a good group, you aren't going to have fun with the game anyways. So you decided to instead of taking the blame upon yourselves and the group push it on the system because, as we all know, a game system can't defend itself. 3.5 was much more broken than 4e. you can do bits and pieces here and there to break 4e b but no where to the level of 3.5. As far as D&D is concerned, there is only one system I like on the same level as 4e and that is 2e.

Amen! Brudda!

When 4E came out, my group was excited. I ran it and loved it. They were less enthusiastic. Pretty soon, they were all totally against it. Frustrated, I started digging through some old stuff. I was desperate for something besides 3/3.5 stuff, which was getting totally played out as far a I was concerned. I delved into a pile of 2E stuff with enthusiasm, thinking this might be what gets us back on track. But . . . no. Some things are better left to nostalgia.

The truth is that 4E is the most playable D&D yet released. People who say it's not D&D are expressing frustration with change and that's okay. Change can be disorienting and it is inevitably disappointing--namely, because the hype people create in their own minds rarely if ever pans out in reality. The way you really, really wanted 4E to be isn't the way it is. It's disappointing, I know. Personally, I was hoping for better production values. Le sigh.

But it's still a better, more fun, faster, and more cooperative game than 3.5--all that AND it is a lot easier on the DM to run.

4th definitely revitalized the two groups I play in, which have been playing pretty continuously for about nine years. I’ve stepped back up to the plate to DM again, which I only did once in 3rd, and that campaign only ran for a few months.

I just love that some of my players are complaning that Fireball is a Daily, "but its always been a Daily" I keep telling them.
I also have that is upset that magic missile now neets a to hit roll, and I keep teling him "But now it is no longer a Daily"

Of course they have been paluted by a Mana Point System and a 1" Binder of House Rules

Now every time they compain about something I find myself Saying "You complained about this in last edition and thier fix is almost the same as yours." I am actualy starting to get a sadistic glee from doing this.

BTW: I am still looking for a home for and old 1st-2nd Edition Player

Anpu42 wrote:I just love that some of my players are complaning that Fireball is a Daily, "but its always been a Daily" I keep telling them.
I also have that is upset that magic missile now neets a to hit roll, and I keep teling him "But now it is no longer a Daily"

Of course they have been paluted by a Mana Point System and a 1" Binder of House Rules

Now every time they compain about something I find myself Saying "You complained about this in last edition and thier fix is almost the same as yours." I am actualy starting to get a sadistic glee from doing this.

BTW: I am still looking for a home for and old 1st-2nd Edition Player

Funny, I'm still looking for a 1E AD&D gaming group!

I don't think I can ship him that far away

This link here:

http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othereditions&action=display&thread=3279

has some interesting things to say about 4E...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Don't play DnD myself atm. I am still playing VtM and ignoring White Wolf's apocalypse...

Nice, sounds about the same for me, although ours is Werewolf the Apocalypse. Mind you, I am playing a bit of Dark Heresy as well.


As to 4th I have the three main books for research purposes, but I haven't played D&D since 3rd, I disliked the feats system and other changes that much that we dropped the ruleset for good. I had already created my own fantasy system after getting bored with AD&D and have pretty much used that for the last fourteen years whenever we play fantasy related games.

(We where only using AD&D near the end for Dark Sun anyways, so 3rd was a test, but we prefered the system I had created.)

Fl@nked wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:oooooooooh, another one of these great "The majority of us haven't touched 4e but we're gonna bash it" threads. Can someone explain to me how the hell it is like WoW? Those comparing it to WoW, have you played WoW? If you want to roleplay you need to get a good group. If you don't have a good group, you aren't going to have fun with the game anyways. So you decided to instead of taking the blame upon yourselves and the group push it on the system because, as we all know, a game system can't defend itself. 3.5 was much more broken than 4e. you can do bits and pieces here and there to break 4e b but no where to the level of 3.5. As far as D&D is concerned, there is only one system I like on the same level as 4e and that is 2e.

Ohh and Pathfinder is interesting, better than 3.5, but still sucks. There has been no content for it and it has been out for approximately the same amount of time as 4e and they have what the PHB and MM? I lose interest when there aren't any new products and it is a fledgling system.

If you want GODLIKE roleplaying you get a good group, 90% of the time, the system has nothing to do with itaside from setting and mechanics. If mechanics dictate your roleplaying then you're doing it wrong. It is Roleplaying not Rollplaying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
on the note about pathfinder: it seems to me the developers lost interest also because all they're releasing is little adventure books and the DMG is supposed to be out in some semblance of soon, correct? will they release new character content though?

v

Actually, for your information, me and my group got to level 15 in the 4.0 system before stopping. We did play it. And I will say what I have said before, I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND. 4.0 IS EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT. Stop getting so offended over game versions.

I never accused you of anything. I never quoted ANYONE in my post so please don't assume as such. Also IIRC this is my first post involving 4th edition so how could I be getting offended over edition changes repeatedly?

don't remember who said it but for those that posted about still playing oWoD, to each his own. I've been disenchanted with oWoD by having an ST that sucked so much with oWoD that he couldn't put his own story together and had to run the metaplot at all times, plus, the majority of our players were just plain bad at roleplaying (I don't play with them anymore). If you are having fun with it, good for you. I personally prefer nWoD. and White Wolf isn't going anywhere, trust me.

Also, wanted to add: I've read soooooooo many of these damn threads over the last year and a half that I'm just tired of them.

Alpharius wrote:This link here:

http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othereditions&action=display&thread=3279

has some interesting things to say about 4E...

Good discussion! Though I utterly disagree with one poster and his Triumph analogy.

I have a question [This is from another sight I am on]

Do you think D&D 4e is one of the worst games to teach Roleplaying with, their are a few over there that think it is?

It depends on your concept of roleplaying, I guess.

For me it's a reason to get the guys (which incldues one woman at the moment) around a table, have some food and beverages, and add a bit of structure to what would otherwise just be goofing around. The actual game is, to me, a hybrid of a story everyone contributes to (as much or as little as they choose), a tactical challenge, and a little bit of watching numbers get bigger.

To me, 4th edition is great for this. So was 3.0, 2nd, Savage Worlds, and a lot of other systems. I don't think my group would get into White Wolf's systems if we tried, but I'd kind of like to try some short campaigns of Seventh Sea, Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader, or similar if the opportunity presented and I had the time.

This is very similar to the philosophical disputes over 'tournament mentality' vs. 'casual gamers' in the other Dakka forums. Not everyone plays the game the same, or for the same reasons.

I don't think starting on 4th edition will 'damage' someone... It just gets then accustomed to a specific style.

Note that even in the realm of 4th edition, I've heard of campaigns that cover a wide spectrum of 'sandbox' to 'railroad.' Sandbox games being those, like the Grand Theft Auto console games, are basically an open world for the players to explore: they can do an adventure, or spend a session trading, or something else. They can set their own goals. The other end, railroading, is when the players always know exactly where they need to go next. Think a lot of the Final Fantasy console games. Many (such as myself) enjoy this style as it can be much more cinematic and exciting. There's a sense of a clock ticking, the GM generally has something prepared, and the adventures are less generic 'dungeon crawls' and more associated with the characters. Some GMs really go to far with this, but good ones, even if it's a very plot-driven campaign, will realize that if the players are trying to break things it may be because they need a break. My group is generally somewhere in the middle, but a bit towards the 'railroad' side without going too far... A good GM can push that limit a bit, and we have a very good one.

Anpu42 wrote:Do you think D&D 4e is one of the worst games to teach Roleplaying with, their are a few over there that think it is?

I think the exact opposite. I've been going through games like CthulhuTech and Eclipse Phase lately with an eye to getting friends interested and one thought keeps recurring: "No one who hasn't played D&D would know where to begin on this stuff!" If anything, 3.5 was much more accessible than AD&D thanks to its emphasis on rules that made it clear what PCs can/can't do (rather than relying so heavily on the DM) and its being based on a physically interactive level, i.e., mat and minis. Fourth Edition does both of these things even better than 3.5, IMO. I think the toughest thing for people new to RPGs is getting the hang of RPing. Having a strong ruleset allows them to begin immersion into the game's world as they struggle to figure out their character's "voice"--or, hell, even what a "voice" is and why it's important to the experience. I think RuneBound or Descent or even the upcoming D&D board games may be even a better starting point.

...or Munchkin

What else makes for any game to teach others is somthing nobody ever thinks of, the GM knowledge of the Game/Adventure.
I use the Village of Homlet as my Teaching adventure. I have probably ran it 8-10 times in 1st-4th eds, Oriantals Adventures, Furry Outlaws and I even have a version of it writen for Shadowrun, but I have not run that one yet.
I can run it in my sleep, which means I can concintrate on teaching the rules not what is going to hapen next in the adventure.

I started with 2E. Then moved to 3E didn't like it too much so tried my hand at 3.5 which was not better. I started playing oWoD then our group went stupid and that died then we went to 4th and nWoD, both of which are going strong.

Help me out here...

oWoD and nWoD?

They stand for old World of Darkness and new World of Darkness; or, as I call them, Vampire the Masquerade and Vampire the Requiem.

Ah, I see.

I never could get into those games...

Me, either. I like my RPGs a tad crunchier.

I played Vampire (and a smattering of Werewolf and Mage) a lot in the 90s. The crunch of the rules was pretty badly designed, but the setting had a lot of flavor. If you had a good GM/storyteller and 2-4 intelligent players capable of maintaining a dramatic tone, it could be really excellent.

I always found the books for those systems to be a bit smarmy for want of a better word. Also, it always annoyed me how normal people were refered to in Vampire and Mage, and how mage went out of it's way to take away any actual innovation from normal people. (Man did not discover fire, Mage conjured fire!).

Looked like it could be good if you ignored all that though.
In Nomine was a system I got a lot of fun out of in college. It requires a good GM, because the rules aren't even close to balanced, but I found it very interesting and the setting very very fun to play around in.
These days we seem to be mostly about D'n'D.
Edit: Just saw that Balance mentioned 7th sea! That game is brilliant fun!

I started with 4th edition D&D.

It's fine for the most part, battles take FOREVER because the DM and all of us are new at it, which is fine.

What gets me really are the players and maybe I think that they are my problem. I am a fighter and am constantly told to "go tank" which is an MMO term. I'm pretty sure that D&D did not invent this. If it did, well I'm wrong but until otherwise I'm convinced that it's purely an MMO.

Then the wizard is told to use her "AoE" and it's just frustrating. Then I feel like I am playing a WoW boardgame.

Honestly it's really not all that fun as it is cracked up to be. We barely do any sort of roleplaying of the sort. It's more like fight, sleep, fight, sleep, ad nauseam.

Any suggestions?

It is actualy Easy to "Force" Roleplay.
It starts is town when you all gather around looking for you next adventure, just start engaging the other players and NPCs in conversation. Go and research the Dongeon, buy asking questions of the locals about the "Haunted Keep".
As far as the "Tank" and "AoE" coments, learn what the others powers are called and do. Sugest to them specific Powers, and when the sugest you go and "Tank" ask them what Power you should use. After while they will start saying "Use your Rain of Blows".
It is actualy not that hard to "Train" a group.

The Original term for tank was brick

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:
I personally prefer nWoD. and White Wolf isn't going anywhere, trust me.

Whoa, where is that coming from, getting fed up of folks bad mouthing the system in other forums? As unless I'm going mad, me and MGS are the only two who mentioned WoD here and I don't think either of us rubbished nwod at all.

Not that it doesn't deserve it mind you now that you've mentioned it.. but thats for another day. Oh and I'm really glad you didn't have a guy introduce you to 40K who was rubbish, otherwise you might dislike that too.

Manchu wrote:They stand for old World of Darkness and new World of Darkness; or, as I call them, Vampire the Masquerade and Vampire the Requiem.

To those of us who played the World of Darkness back when it was worth a damn, we like to refer to it as the 'Original World of Darkness.'


On a side note regarding the nwod, I'm pretty sure that by the time the MMO final gets out, I can see White Wolf burying the whole Pen and Paper side of their nwod buisness, well depending if their MMO does well ofc.

Personally after some of the things Ethen Skemp did and said leading up to the release of Werewolf the Forsaken, I wouldn't shed a tear if the whole company went belly up, but thats just me. I can abide a lot of things, but not being conned into buying a product they knew most of the WtA players would dispise with cussing fake pics and dodgy web comments/info that had no place in their 'new' system. Yeah it still annoys me, apologies for the rant.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Don't play DnD myself atm. I am still playing VtM and ignoring White Wolf's apocalypse...

Nice, sounds about the same for me, although ours is Werewolf the Apocalypse. Mind you, I am playing a bit of Dark Heresy as well.

this is what I was referring to.

Theres nothing in that quote that has anything to do with nwod.

In MGS case he's just noting he's avoiding the whole Gehenna book, while I am agreement but noting I am ignoring the Apocaypse book for our respective games.

Both are owod books. So yeah, nothing to do with the nwod.

The nwod came after that sorry situation.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:
I personally prefer nWoD. and White Wolf isn't going anywhere, trust me.

Whoa, where is that coming from, getting fed up of folks bad mouthing the system in other forums? As unless I'm going mad, me and MGS are the only two who mentioned WoD here and I don't think either of us rubbished nwod at all.

Not that it doesn't deserve it mind you now that you've mentioned it.. but thats for another day. Oh and I'm really glad you didn't have a guy introduce you to 40K who was rubbish, otherwise you might dislike that too.

Manchu wrote:They stand for old World of Darkness and new World of Darkness; or, as I call them, Vampire the Masquerade and Vampire the Requiem.

To those of us who played the World of Darkness back when it was worth a damn, we like to refer to it as the 'Original World of Darkness.'


On a side note regarding the nwod, I'm pretty sure that by the time the MMO final gets out, I can see White Wolf burying the whole Pen and Paper side of their nwod buisness, well depending if their MMO does well ofc.

Personally after some of the things Ethen Skemp did and said leading up to the release of Werewolf the Forsaken, I wouldn't shed a tear if the whole company went belly up, but thats just me. I can abide a lot of things, but not being conned into buying a product they knew most of the WtA players would dispise with cussing fake pics and dodgy web comments/info that had no place in their 'new' system. Yeah it still annoys me, apologies for the rant.

To each his own with P&P games. The thing that turned me off of oWoD was the combination of the ST and all the players playing the same exact characters in every game. I tried oWoD out for a couple years and it just didn't do it for me. I'm guessing you tried nWoD. I'm not a Foresaken player or a WtA player myself. I prefer Promethean and Hunter myself. I played 1 VtM game (sabbat) and all it boiled down to was secret blood bonds, angry diablerie and gakky roleplaying with the "want to be cute" malkavians. That doesn't make the system bad but it makes the group suck and all they play is VtM.

nWoD has been nothing but good experiences for me. May I inquire as to what turned you off of nWoD



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Theres nothing in that quote that has anything to do with nwod.

In MGS case he's just noting he's avoiding the whole Gehenna book, while I am agreement but noting I am ignoring the Apocaypse book for our respective games.

Both are owod books. So yeah, nothing to do with the nwod.

The nwod came after that sorry situation.

ahhh then this is a miscommunication. I thought he was talking about the doomsday speak that there has been quite a bit about involving WW due to less books than usual. Sorry.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:
To each his own with P&P games. The thing that turned me off of oWoD was the combination of the ST and all the players playing the same exact characters in every game. I tried oWoD out for a couple years and it just didn't do it for me. I'm guessing you tried nWoD. I'm not a Foresaken player or a WtA player myself. I prefer Promethean and Hunter myself. I played 1 VtM game (sabbat) and all it boiled down to was secret blood bonds, angry diablerie and gakky roleplaying with the "want to be cute" malkavians. That doesn't make the system bad but it makes the group suck and all they play is VtM.

Tbh the actual update to the ST system was really good, I didnt mind Requiem when it came out (I did still prefer the Masquerade backstory, but Requiem was okay) I've also heard that the Hunter game is probably stronger in nwod, but as you may have guessed we mainly play Werewolf and Forsaken was rubbish. Thus we dropped the whole of the nwod as their was no point doing parts of it.
I like to run my Wod games as fully combined, with the correct rules mashing against one another. Thus when my Vamps fight Werewolves, they use their Celerity etc not rage as a stand in as noted under the Werewolf book rules.

Sounds like you had a group that wasn't to your tastes which is a pity, some of the other systems played very differently, and even Masquerade can be a awesome game if the ST is right for the job.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:
nWoD has been nothing but good experiences for me. May I inquire as to what turned you off of nWoD

Werewolf the Forsaken, basically unlike the other systems that had a lot of connections with the owod equivilents, Forsaken drops most of the connecing stories and ideas that made Werewolf the Apocalypse a great game. I seriously didn't know anyone from my core group, the two groups that spawned from my group, and several friends in the LRP scene that also played Apocalpyse that liked Forsaken, they all dumped the system.

From forums I heard plenty of folks who didn't like Apocalypse loved Forsaken, but tbh that was like a kick in the teeth to many of us who had been hardcore fans of WtA.

The whole setting up the game prior to release didn't help either, making out Crinos form was going to play like the first game with folks holding weapons in pics, and showing emotion, and then when the book came out, you where not allowed to do anything but charge and tear into nearby threats. You had no control in Crinos. I still struggle to understand how someone who claimed to love the setting of WtA (Ethan Skemp) could get the basic reason folks loved the game so wrong.

So yeah all my dislike of nwod come from Forsaken, its build up, background and rules system. I dumped all my nwod books (think I had already got to about ten) within two months of WtF coming out.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:
ahhh then this is a miscommunication. I thought he was talking about the doomsday speak that there has been quite a bit about involving WW due to less books than usual. Sorry.

Yeah no worries, thats what threw me tbh, apologies for disliking nwod, of course like you said to each his own, but for me the bridge was burned by White Wolf a long time ago.

yeah the ST always ran the minimal story and never attempted to come up with his own game (every game was based around the apocalypse with WtA, and Pentex) so every game he tried to run boiled down to use being Captain Planet with the people playing the same characters every single time. When I say they played the same characters I don't mean identical I mean same exact mannerisms, attitudes, emotional responses. This was a good example of what I posted earlier about a bad group doesn't mean bad game. I would honestly give WtA and VtM another chance (never tried MtAs, WtO, MtR, DtF, or CtD) if I knew that I wouldn't have anything to do with this group. I am however, still interested in playing Wraith, Demon and Mummy.

Wraith sounds like an extremely interesting game to give a go. Very bleak, but very interesting. Possibly the most interesting White Wolf concept I've heard of.

Reminds me a bit of Kult.

yeah I would totally love to try Wraith, Mummy and Demon from oWoD. Other than those, very very little interest in oWoD for me.

I played the Original Werewolf when it came out [We even Pre-Ordered the Books] and most of us loved it. I even ran a 1890's compleatly diceless Yukon gane set is Dawson City.
Now I use the Orginal WoD Univers for parts a Modern Game that I am running [Using the Shadowrun 4 Mechanic]. Some of the players do freak out a little when I had a Garuo Pack help the PC's take out another one and one of the PC's has a Pair of Vampiers as contacts [She does not relise it at the moment]

Back to the D&D 4e.

One of our peaple were talking about it and we all started discusing the WoW conection and we actually agree with him now
It plays more like Final Fanatasy than WoW.

For me, WoW and FF are NOT selling points for a game of D&D, but then I realize that I'm nowhere near their target "sell to" demographic.

The main thin, to me, is that the various games (D&D, FF, and WoW) are pretty much at a stage now best referred to as 'cross pollination.' They all borrow bits and pieces of rules mechanics and design ideas from each other left and right.

The 'roles' of 4th edition are not a new thing, and go back further than MMOs. I heard them used informally for classless RPGs (mainly superhero ones) years before even Everquest shipped. It was a quick way to describe a character's combat role before diving into details.

The powers are a bit more unique, but I can completely understand why they exist as an outgrowth of complains that Fighter-types from earlier editions were 'boring[' as they generally were reduced to some variant of "I attack with my weapon" for most of their combat rounds. 3.0 tried to make this more interesting with feats to allow more tactical options (making bull-rushing and grappling a bit more useful) but this was still limited.

4.0 is a bit heavy on the 'particle effects lightshow' in the default descriptions, though.

Balance wrote:
4.0 is a bit heavy on the 'particle effects lightshow' in the default descriptions, though.

Good points all around!

That particular comment made me laugh out loud, hard!

I never found 'plain' fighter types all that boring.

They are spiced up with various arms and armor, as well as items, of magical nature.

And they were ABSOLUTELY necessary to the survival of the party, especially at the early, low levels.

But, that might be the old schooler in me...

Balance wrote:4.0 is a bit heavy on the 'particle effects lightshow' in the default descriptions, though.

I prefer the phase
"OOOOH How Spealbergian!"

I've had fun with 'plain' fighters, but it depends on the GM. My comments were based partially on sources like rpg.net where the edition wars are much more prevalent.

Last time I played a fighter in 3.0 I had fun, but only rarely because of the mechanics. It was more because of being involved in the story and having some fun characters to interact with. The combat tricks we were using were mostly the 1st wave of 3.0 'class books' from WotC, so we had some options but not the weirder stuff that was added later.

My 4th edition paladin has gotten a bit boring as he is so focused on spamming a few powers every action. I've worked at it to try to get a bit more creative with powers, but it cans till be boring. I'm working with my Gm on some possible solutions.

For those used to miniatures games where there either is no referee or they are purely there for rules-disputes, RPGs are very different as the GM has to be concerned with making sure everyone has fun.

GMing an RPG is a lot of work. I'd love to be running a game, but I don't have the bandwidth these days.

I dunno man, 3.5 paladin was even more limited. More boring than Fighter I reckon. I'm enjoying my paladin so far.

My Paladin issues may be my build. This was our first 4.0 game, and the 4th edition Paladin is almost more of a 'Jedi' in some ways, as it should be based around Wisdom and Charisma, with Strength as a tertiary stat at best. I didn't quite follow these guidelines, so I've got some great Charisma based abilities and some near-useless Wisdom based abilities.

Plus, I do like that a lot of other classes have some interesting stuff to do in combat besides being a 2nd rate healer.

But Paladins have always been 3rd rate healers.

After a fashion I suppose you could say that 4th Ed did kill D&D for me. However 3.5 was suffering a slow death at the hands of a thing called college graduation anyways. The real reason 4th booted me from the game was that I wasn't going to pay for a new set of books for a game I was already losing the time to play. So really it was more of an assisted suicide than murder.

Tyyr: that sucks. I think I would go insane if I couldn't play D&D or WoD anymore.

Eh, priorities in life. I always enjoyed D&D but it's a hell of a time sink. In terms of enjoyment per hour there's better ways to spend my limited free time.

When we moved from 3.5 to 4th edition most of us thought it was a refreshing change -- the rules seemed much less cumbersome but after about a year or so we became bored with 4th ed (since the characters are so "samey") so we decided to take a break from RPGs.

We are currently thinking about trying Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd edition but haven't started yet

Please post a detailed review when you do start, duncana. I'm very interested to see what your group thinks.

For me D&D 4th and 3rd Ed have many similarities and only one big difference.

They're similar because they both have the same potential for role play, but you have to do it, don't rely on books and dice to do it for you.

They're different in the area of combat. 3rd Edition rules treat combat like a simulation, while 4th Edition rules treat combat very much like a game.

I play in two games, one 3.5 and one 4th Ed. I like both. I originally refused to play 4th Ed, because I had so many 3.5 books and resented WOTC not supporting 3.5 anymore. Then I gave 4th Ed a go. I didnt like it, which just confirmed my preconceptions about the game.

Then earlier this year some friends wanted to learn the game, and it was too hard to track down 3.5 players handbooks for them, so we played 4th. And I surprised myself. I enjoyed it. Having given 4th Ed a decent go this time and with a different attitude I now appreciate the differences and enjoy the similarities. I just needed more time to understand that its not about the rules, its about the people you have fun with. I still love my 3.5 game, but now I also love playing with my 4.0 group.

I like 4E.

If nothing else, the new rules made it easy to pitch to my boardgaming buddies. What if they didn't like role-playing? Well, then worse case scenario is they have some fun killing monsters.

They liked it, and so we had some fun with 4E. 4E combat is a game, but I like games, and I don't think it intrudes or interferes with role-playing. Maybe if you had a really dark and gritty setting where combat should be feared and lethal, 4E isn't your system. But other than that, you should be fine.

The more I hear about 4E, the less I like.

Though, to be fair, I'd really have to see it in action to be able to accurately and fairly render my Final Judgment*.

*That's one of my special powers.

Alpharius wrote:The more I hear about 4E, the less I like.

Though, to be fair, I'd really have to see it in action to be able to accurately and fairly render my Final Judgment*.

*That's one of my special powers.

this is a 4E game. looks just like D&D. BTW this is our local group. The picture is a little old but yeah.

wow, the bearded hat guy is channeling some serious 1940's and civil war timetravelling mashup vibe...

@alph,

definitely try it out. most people seem to either love or hate it (with few in between). give it a try before sinking $$ into it.

warboss wrote:wow, the bearded hat guy is channeling some serious 1940's and civil war timetravelling mashup vibe...

@alph,

definitely try it out. most people seem to either love or hate it (with few in between). give it a try before sinking $$ into it.

lol that's Brett. I'm the dude sitting beside him scratching my head. I was like really really tired that day so yeah.

I don't like 4e. But then that's partially due to me being a Dragon subscriber who was left holding the bag by WotC when they forced that publication to be closed in favor of an ezine.

The other part was due to me not liking how it's played. I LIKED the ability to really customize my character. Now we have cookie cutter builds.

BaronIveagh wrote:I don't like 4e. But then that's partially due to me being a Dragon subscriber who was left holding the bag by WotC when they forced that publication to be closed in favor of an ezine.

The online Dragon/Dongeon are actuly useful alot of the time.

The other part was due to me not liking how it's played. I LIKED the ability to really customize my character. Now we have cookie cutter builds.

Now that alot of the suplements have come out the "Cookie Cutter" has gone away.
I know a lot of the power Mechanicaly work simalar, but to me that is one of the strengths now. No more is the 20th Level Mage doing 20d6 while the 20th Level fighter does 1d8+15.

BI makes a good point not yet mentioned on Dakka. I think the biggest, legitimate, remaining complaint about the 4E takeover is that the magazines got canned. Ezine just doesn't cut it, IMO.

... yes, and at 25-40 dollars a supplement, you too, can play the characters you used to play right out of the box!

Tell them what they've won Johnny!

You've won a fabulous antique bridge! Situated in Brooklyn, New York, New York, this one of a kind stone and steel landmark is the perfect site for a vacation getaway!

But that's not all!

We're tossing in the patented Midas Limestone Exanguinator! This jiffy product is used by WotC executives the world over to get just a little bit more of your money while telling you what a deal your getting! Got a product that's not worth the paper it's printed on to move? Don't sweat it! The Limestone Exsanguinator can take a coveted brand name and apply it to your worthless scrap, driving millions of unrepentant morons to buy it!

Edit: I will never, ever, ever, forgive WotC for destroying Dragon. I will continue to buy Pathfinder from now on. People say that you have to vote with your wallet. I'm practicing what I preach.

Manchu wrote:BI makes a good point not yet mentioned on Dakka. I think the biggest, legitimate, remaining complaint about the 4E takeover is that the magazines got canned. Ezine just doesn't cut it, IMO.

I'm still pissed about that one. I would love to get a in print magazine back.

I also miss the magazines. Don't see why they couldn't have had a magazine AND a website subscription service.

BaronIveagh wrote:... yes, and at 25-40 dollars a supplement, you too, can play the characters you used to play right out of the box!.

It was like that when 3rd came out.

One of things that got me to change philosophies was this Question

What it a Character Sheet?















It is a physical representation of your Character that you envision in a mathematical formula to be used with a specific set of rules.

That is how I started to look at things. When I write or rewrite a character in 4e I don’t look at the mechanics of the power, I read the fluff first and see if that fits the character and then look at the mechanics. I have had to make some changes with converting. I have a Cleric that is now a Paladin, A Cat-Girl Samaria that is now a Razorclaw Shifter Rouge and a Bard who was into martial arts that is now a monk.

Sometimes you need to stand back and look at a character and go what is the most appropriate.

The people I play with, still play 3.5, though we really don't get to p lay often, sadly.

I haven't tried 4th yet, but I'm willing to give it at least a fair try before I give it my verdict.

Trickster wrote:For me D&D 4th and 3rd Ed have many similarities and only one big difference.

They're similar because they both have the same potential for role play, but you have to do it, don't rely on books and dice to do it for you.

That's something most people seem to miss. Most RPG set ups aren't there to do the roleplaying for you. They exist to give a framework and mechanic for character development while providing hard and fast impartial rules to resolve situations like combat, bluffing, picking locks, etc. without simply say, "I want to pick this lock," and then waiting to see if the GM will let you.

Da Boss wrote:I also miss the magazines. Don't see why they couldn't have had a magazine AND a website subscription service.

Because according to Paizo when they asked WotC asked the same question, Dragon was 'too much content for the cover price".

Given how much all the RPGs sell for (including Pathfinder stuff), I believe WotC may have had a good point. Trouble is, of course, that the magazine content was pretty hit or miss. Some of it was amazing . . . a lot was not so amazing. I think I miss the art more than anything. Even as an e-zine the art does not seem to have decline. If anything, I'd say it's done better than the rather ugly 4E books.

... given how many of the better artists that WotC has driven away since the old days of M:tG that's not a surprise...