So, here's the thing... We've been looking at taking a stab at RPG's, and wanted to go with more or less generic fantasy. D&D seems the obvious answer there, due to the sheer mass of stuff available for it, and the rather minuscule likelihood of it going away any time soon. The problem is, I've played exactly one game of D&D in my life, and that was back in 2nd edition.

So, I know 4th edition got a lot of bad press when it was released, due to things being generally streamlined (or 'dumbed down' if you're less of a fan of that sort of behaviour) .... but now that it's been around for a while, what's the general opinion? Is it actually that dire, or is it just different?

I had a look into Pathfinder (on the basis that it was basically D&D 3.5, but with continuing support) back when they were offering the Beta rules for free download, and the sheer amount of information to wade through to get started was a little bewildering. So if 4th edition D&D is a little more streamlined, it seems like it might be the better choice for a newbie gaming group...

Any thoughts?

To answer the first question, no it isn't. Every edition tends to draw ire from the earlier groups, it is just the nature of the hobby. There are still people who play 1st edition and will tell you why 2nd, 3rd (3.5, Pathfinder), and 4th are all crap. I've played them all and really enjoy 4th. It is different but like the others it has it's good and bad points.

Find out which one has the best support in your area and that is the way to go. If there is a large group of 4th edition, go there. If instead you have a decent Pathfinder group go with that. If it is even go with 4th because the support for it is much greater.

My only issue with 4th is that I really can't bring myself to spend the money on new D&D books when I have two bookcase shelves full of 3rd and 3.5.

Everyone I know that plays 4th likes it though. I'd say give it a chance.

I started playing with 3rd/3.5, and then switched over to 4th. I find that 4th edition you create a less specialised character. It's easier to DM, but there's less customization(such as templates and racial levels etc...) I will play either system, but I will not DM 3.5.

4th edition's greatest criticisms are the changes they made to the game since 3.5, which was what grew out of the end of 2.5.

4th edition streamlined the game as you mentioned. It makes the game faster, and it makes the DM's job a bit more enjoyable as it makes the rules simplier for them to work with. It gives all the players clearly defined rolls for what their characters do and what they should be building their characters as. It also "levels" the playing field by making all classes equally represented in terms of their powers and the way their classes now all operate under a similar ruleset (i.e. Warrior and Wizard spells all act as powers with certain uses each gaming session rather than warrior swings sword and wizard cases several hundred intricate spells in succession. It's "I activate this power and this happens" for everyone). So the transition from playing a warrior to a wizard is not as daunting.

The vices of the game:

1. Feels too much like WoW:RPG. However, DnD borrows from the current climate in terms of feel and game mechanics, so the 4th edition ruleset is encouraged to entice today's players to step into the game and be able to like playing rather then being forced to play.

2. Dumbed down classes. Wizards and clerics don't feel the same anymore, as their classes had huge resources of spells to call upon and thus you may feel between 3.5 and 4.0 that your options are limited. In a way, yes. However, as they expand 4th edition, the flexibility of your class becomes greater as they give you more options.

3. Multiclassing nerfed. One of the big things that 3.5 allowed was practically endless mutliclassing; kinda of a way to represent your character going through life changes and being able to change careers much like modern people do today. However, it got ridiculous when you saw Monk1/Paladin1/Fighter4/crazy number of prestige classes as players just picked the best stats and bonuses from each class and abandoned it when it didn't provide anything useful anymore. 4th edition multiclassing is a bit straightjacketed, but it makes the game more balanced.

4. Classes don't feel like themselves anymore...-this one is hard to describe, but with the newly defined roles and changes to classes, some classes don't feel like the traditional classes DnD used to represent them as. For instance, many wizard powers are "I shoot you with damage, get pushed X spaces." ....wut? Wizard spells now push people around? Wizards obviously have a bit more versatility to them, but some of the class powers made me scratch my head when I tried putting them in context to their older versions.

5. Books/RPG element are slimmed down- the older 3.0/3.5 books were perhaps some of the most fertile resources in regards to RPG elements related to their campaign worlds and how they used to be described. 3.0 and 3.5 introduced fairly large books that described worlds in great detail and gave you a lot of imagination fuel to kick start your own campaigns. By comparison, the 4.0 books feel neglected, and the novels have been reduced in terms of production, going so far as to re-release the old Dark Sun books rather than issue new ones for the new release of the Dark Sun campaign.

Also, as apart of my 5th criticism, as 3.0 and 3.5 continued, the game still evolves by toning down the story aspect of the story for just simply another game of number crunching and monster bashing. Well, yeah that is what DnD is...make powerful heroes and beat up monsters for lewt. But DnD 4.0 has continued the trend where you simply get a quest and go hunt monsters rather than the more complex social interactions and challenging and engaging stories that are concocted by home grown campaigns.

With this in mind, 4th edition is a polished by-product of today's modern gamer. It stripped away the crazy do whatever you want spirit of 3.5 to give it more focus and ease to play.

It is for you to decide if the game is worth playing.

Go for it. 4th ed took a lot of the annoying book-keeping out of D&D and made it so that you can just play.

Yes, some of the customization left (although that is returning with new books), but it is overall very solid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and rebuttals:

1) D&D 4th Ed doesn't feel like WOW. Wow feels like D&D 4th Ed. Almost everything that WOW is came from D&D which came from numerous things before it. Yes, some of the mechanics are simplified, but that is the direction that D&D has been going for years (think back to 1st). I think the WOW'ization is coincidental and overplayed.

2) This is true. The option glut has been removed. But it was pretty crazy to try to manage in previous editions. Clerics literally had every spell. That's a lot. Wizards could have every spell. Again, a lot. But no one used EVERY spell. I think they cut it down to where it is manageable. That being said, you did lose the crazy-pull-it-out-of-your-arse versatility.

3) Multiclassing in 3.5 was broken. Fun, yes. Broken though. I had a 17th level character with 9th level mage spells, 6th level bard spells, 4th level paladin spells, platemail a summoned horsey and sick melee damage. It was insane. MC was so open and there were so many books that the options were bound to break at some point. It is simpler now and I enjoy that.

4) Wizard spells have always been weird. They aren't that much different. Sure there are a couple, pushpullslide spells but there are also mostly old classics gussied up for 4th.

5) Absolutely true. 3.5/3.0 had TONS of fluff. The fluff has been cut down to allow DM's more customization. I personally loved the fluff, not for my games, but for reading. The lack of fluff doesn't harm my games because I just make it up anyways. But I do miss the reading material.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, I am a rampant 4th ed apologist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I missed your last point. The social interactions actually have mechanics to help out now instead of just being 'DM figure it out'.

Still, social and plot are always going to be the DM's providence. That didn't really change with 4.0 vs 3.5. Just now there are fewer individual skills and a new skill challenge system to work with.

4th edition is more about combat nd less about role playing.

If you want something thats more into actual role playing then I suggest pathfinder, as it closely resmebels 3.5

Catyrpelius wrote:4th edition is more about combat nd less about role playing.

If you want something thats more into actual role playing then I suggest pathfinder, as it closely resmebels 3.5

That seems more a like a personal problem and less of a reality. A person can roleplay all day without any kind of rules at all, so the inclusion of rules won't determine your level of roleplaying, the player will. Any system can be turned into a numbers crunch with little roleplaying. Fourth Edition does make combat more accessible and streamlined, but that doesn't mean you can't roleplay. I mean, if you don't want to roleplay while you are playing 4th, more power to you, but that isn't an inherent flaw in the system.

From a GM standpoint, it is miiiiles better. So much easier to design your own monsters and classes, and the "out of the box" stuff runs in a way that is both simple and provides depth. Example, Orcs and Gnolls in 3.5 were both basically just humanoids with some minor stat bumps. They didn't play particularly well. Whereas now, Orcs get an extra healing power, making them resilient, tough foes, and Gnolls get bonuses against bloodied enemies, re-inforcing their savage predatory nature. I think 4th did really well with a lot of that stuff.
Roleplaying is independant of system, so I don't think that comes into it too much. What I will criticise is the overall "feel" which is much more cartoony and OTT than my personal taste, and has led to a lot of my gaming buddies refusing to take the game seriously at all. The power descriptions and artwork are often garish and OTT. I think you can work around that (I always did my own descriptions of spells and stuff anyhow, and I don't feel constrained to the art) but it is sad that the production values have slipped.

On the fluff note, I think the basic books have actually got more fluff in them than the 3.5 core (look at the Fallcrest sample starter they give you, for example).
If you pick up a book like "Underdark" you'll find page upon page of pretty cool background, and very little in the way of rules stuff. I think the fluff has just been separated from the rules, for the most part, in terms of publications. I really like 4th edition, and am looking for a group to run a campaign. I think Pathfinder didn't go far enough to fix the problems with 3.5, and I remain unimpressed by it. (although, the artwork in the books is for the most part gorgeous, which is why most people like it over 4th, I think)

Ahtman wrote:

Catyrpelius wrote:4th edition is more about combat nd less about role playing.

If you want something thats more into actual role playing then I suggest pathfinder, as it closely resmebels 3.5

That seems more a like a personal problem and less of a reality. A person can roleplay all day without any kind of rules at all, so the inclusion of rules won't determine your level of roleplaying, the player will. Any system can be turned into a numbers crunch with little roleplaying. Fourth Edition does make combat more accessible and streamlined, but that doesn't mean you can't roleplay. I mean, if you don't want to roleplay while you are playing 4th, more power to you, but that isn't an inherent flaw in the system.

Came to say this in response to Catyrpelius. So thanks, Ahtman.

I sat in on a 4th edition D&D game recently and I have to say, it wasn't my thing at all.

However, if you're coming into it fresh, with no previous RPGing experience, especially no D&D experience? It would probably be OK.

Many of WarOne's criticisms ring VERY true.

The one that rings most true for me is the one about Wizards- all wizard PCs are now basically battle wizards. You can't really make a character who is bad at combat, in this system. It's a pulp fantasy roleplaying system, and it's excellent at it, but if you want a more diverse type of roleplaying it's probably not for you. I think 3.5 wasn't particularly good at doing non-pulp either, without heavy modification. And it wasn't even great at doing action heavy pulp in the way 4th is. But it is a valid criticism. If you're hoping do have fairly "normal" PCs, pick a different system. In 4th ed, everyone is the Goddamned Batman.

While I don't disagree with some of what you are saying, I am curious what you mean by 'all wizard PCs are battle wizards'. Wizards generally do crap for damage but hinder the enemy through various means or help outside combat with utilities and rituals.

Da Boss wrote: In 4th ed, everyone is the Goddamned Batman.

Now THAT was funny!

(And.... true?!? )

Well, what I meant was that the bulk of what Wizards do is directly damaging. In 3.5, because of the yoooge spell selection options, it was possible to play many different archetypes of wizard. You could play one that specialised entirely on divination, or life draining necromancy, or you could play a charmer who used enchantment, or a transmuter. And so on. The basic Wizard has more of a flashy, explodey elemental magic feel in the current set. This doesn't bother me massively, but it does mean certain settings (Ravenloft comes to mind) would be harder to run or require a lot of alteration to allow Wizards in.
Hope that makes it easier to understand- in essence, the pyrotechnics that are part of almost all of the current wizard powers are what I'm talking about.

We were working on ways around that sort of thing before I left my old group. For example, A Warlock whose eldritch blast was represented by him sticking pins in a voodoo doll. No flashy pyrotechnics, but a believable visual mechanic for how his ranged damage abilities work. I like to have that sort of thematic flexibility in my games. In Planescape I used to play a "jobbing necromancer", who wasn't your average "moohahaha" evil necromancer and didn't take many damaging spells at all. It was a lot of fun, and 4th doesn't leave much room for that sort of messing about. Of course, it is easier to create classes, but almost all of them are balanced around the amount of damage they do in combat.

Its a PC game on the tabletop. Which is odd because pen and paper roll playing shouldnt be that restricted.

Da Boss wrote:Well, what I meant was that the bulk of what Wizards do is directly damaging. In 3.5, because of the yoooge spell selection options, it was possible to play many different archetypes of wizard. You could play one that specialised entirely on divination, or life draining necromancy, or you could play a charmer who used enchantment, or a transmuter. And so on. The basic Wizard has more of a flashy, explodey elemental magic feel in the current set. This doesn't bother me massively, but it does mean certain settings (Ravenloft comes to mind) would be harder to run or require a lot of alteration to allow Wizards in.
Hope that makes it easier to understand- in essence, the pyrotechnics that are part of almost all of the current wizard powers are what I'm talking about.

We were working on ways around that sort of thing before I left my old group. For example, A Warlock whose eldritch blast was represented by him sticking pins in a voodoo doll. No flashy pyrotechnics, but a believable visual mechanic for how his ranged damage abilities work. I like to have that sort of thematic flexibility in my games. In Planescape I used to play a "jobbing necromancer", who wasn't your average "moohahaha" evil necromancer and didn't take many damaging spells at all. It was a lot of fun, and 4th doesn't leave much room for that sort of messing about. Of course, it is easier to create classes, but almost all of them are balanced around the amount of damage they do in combat.

Well Warlock's are supposed to be damage dealers. which is why they are classified as Strikers. Wizards are Controllers. The elemental spells Wizard has are so-so damage wise but don't do a lot of control, other than taking out minions. You can create a wizard without taking a single elemental spell and be extremely effective. They still have illusion, psychic, conjuration, and summoning schools to select from. With essentials you also now have Mages which are like Wizards but have a school specialization (Evocation, Illusionist, ect). Considering their poor damage, there are more ways to make an effective non-elemental controller than there are a damaging one. There are only a few builds that can do it and almost all require the player to be a Genasi. A lot of time I've seen people playing Wizards forget they can use powers during non-combat parts of the game as well as rituals. We cam across a canyon and there was supposed to be a skill challenge to get across it but the Wizard had the Arcane Gate utility, so poof, no skill challenge. We were going to have to trek across a mountainous area during the winter. The wizard used the Endure Elements ritual making it so much easier for the party because then we just had to worry about navigation and ambushes, not freezing to death.

@Orlanth: It is only as restricted as you are. If you don't put the imagination or time into it, just as one had to in any of the other systems, that isn't the games fault. If you have a DM that doesn't have an imagination or is willing to have fun with the game, again, the game didn't pick your DM. Like any other RPG, you get in what you put out.

pretre wrote:1) D&D 4th Ed doesn't feel like WOW. Wow feels like D&D 4th Ed. Almost everything that WOW is came from D&D which came from numerous things before it. Yes, some of the mechanics are simplified, but that is the direction that D&D has been going for years (think back to 1st). I think the WOW'ization is coincidental and overplayed.

Here is an interesting topic of discussion, as WoW and DnD have their game lore going hand in hand with one another in many ways.

Warcraft was invented when DnD was in its prime during the mid-90's. Warcraft borrowed heavily from the fantasy of the time, taking bits of things from Lord of the Rings, DnD, maybe even a bit from WH40k and WH Fantasy.

Up until about 2002 before they release Warcraft III, Warcraft was always under the shadow of DnD, as DnD had more success and more lore to build from than Warcraft ever did. In a way, DnD was always overshadowing Warcraft.

Then 2004 rolled around and WoW changed everything.

The game had build a sufficiently large lore base with WCIII and when they expanded it to one of the most successful game franchises of all time, DnD all of a sudden became really insignificant in comparison. DnD could not match the popularity WoW was getting.

And this was DnD 3.5 when WoW came onto the scene. 3.5 still felt like DnD and WoW was still WoW.

Flash foward about four years, and you can see now that DnD looked heavily borrowed from the way WoW looked. Characters looked more like creatures from WoW in regards to how the DnD monsters and characters were portrayed.

Suddenly the roles were reversed.

@insaniak:

Da Boss wrote:From a GM standpoint, it is miiiiles better.

In my experience, this is true. I've only ever played 4th Ed. as a DM and the experience was much more entertaining for me than DMing 3.5 Ed. games. I felt like I had much more time to think about story and roleplaying. The abilities of the monsters do not have the depth of the character abilities--which is GREAT innovation. Think about it: the players only have to manage one being in the world so it's fine that they have complex choixes as they level. But the DM has to deal with every one and thing that is not a PC; having simpler powers with combos that are easy to understand/use makes DMing so much more streamlined. You'd think it would have been incorporated into the game before now. I don't know that creating monsters and classes is any easier than creating them in 3.5. In both editions, I think that is a ticklish subject.

But it doesn't sound like you're really considering Pathfinder or have even played it, so answering your question with comparisons of 4th to it or 3.5 will not be totally helpful. As to the criticisms of 4th Ed, Ahtman already summed it up: there is always resistance to a new edition of a beloved game. Since you have never substantially played any tabletop RPGs before those criticisms shouldn't really matter to you. The main thing about 4th edition is that it's much more like a boardgame than the 2nd Ed game you played many moons ago. It is NOT, however, "generic" fantasy. The rules are very much setting-specific, it's just that the over-setting incorporates several worlds: Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, and perhaps Ravenloft again soon. The "laws of nature," as it were, are common to all of them. I would recommend paging through the campaign setting and players' guide books for each of these. If what you see "fluff-wise" interests you, that's enough to start. Because the game itself is really good. But this is an RPG and NOT are wargame/boardgame. You MUST like the setting to truly enjoy the game.

If you want to do your own thing, no edition of D&D is the best product for you. Instead, I would recommend that you get the Savage Worlds book and the Savage Worlds Fantasy companion. Those two books will be much cheaper than obtaining the barebone books for any D&D edition and you will be able to do whatever you can dream up with them. There are several campaign settings that use the Savage Worlds system, so you can look through them as well.

Awesome feedback, peoples. Thanks.

This has actually made it sound like 4th ed is pretty much exactly what we've been looking for. If it tends towards being a little cartoony and action-biased, that won't be a problem at all with the people I'll be playing with. And since I'm the one who will wind up DMing, the easier that is, the better.

Setting-wise, I'll probably be looking into Forgotten Realms, as I've read a lot of the books and like the setting. Generic enough to have all the normal, familiar Fantasy archetypes, while still having plenty of surprises to throw in.

Regardless of what rule set you choose in the end, you only get out of an RPG what you put into that RPG. Approach 4E as though it's a table-top WOW clone dungeon crawl game, and that's exactly what you get.

How much role-playing (as opposed to roll-playing) you get out of it will be entirely up to the players and the GM. No rule book can set that aspect in stone.

insaniak wrote:
Setting-wise, I'll probably be looking into Forgotten Realms, as I've read a lot of the books and like the setting. Generic enough to have all the normal, familiar Fantasy archetypes, while still having plenty of surprises to throw in.

Oh no, you want Dark Sun because your players are bad and they need to be punished.

Ahtman wrote:

insaniak wrote:
Setting-wise, I'll probably be looking into Forgotten Realms, as I've read a lot of the books and like the setting. Generic enough to have all the normal, familiar Fantasy archetypes, while still having plenty of surprises to throw in.

Oh no, you want Dark Sun because your players are bad and they need to be punished.

Plus, because of the spell plague, current day Forgotten Realms has gotten screwed over.

Well, OP hasn't played FR before 4th so that won't really matter. And I like the new FR just as well, actually.

Although I would second Ahtman about Dark Sun.

WarOne wrote:4th edition's greatest criticisms are the changes they made to the game since 3.5, which was what grew out of the end of 2.5.

The vices of the game:

1. Feels too much like WoW:RPG. However, DnD borrows from the current climate in terms of feel and game mechanics, so the 4th edition ruleset is encouraged to entice today's players to step into the game and be able to like playing rather then being forced to play.

I Agree

2. Dumbed down classes. Wizards and clerics don't feel the same anymore, as their classes had huge resources of spells to call upon and thus you may feel between 3.5 and 4.0 that your options are limited. In a way, yes. However, as they expand 4th edition, the flexibility of your class becomes greater as they give you more options.

You say the 1st part like it’s a bad thing. I tend to put it that “They Simplified it without Dumb-ing it Down.”

3. Multiclassing nerfed. One of the big things that 3.5 allowed was practically endless mutliclassing; kinda of a way to represent your character going through life changes and being able to change careers much like modern people do today. However, it got ridiculous when you saw Monk1/Paladin1/Fighter4/crazy number of prestige classes as players just picked the best stats and bonuses from each class and abandoned it when it didn't provide anything useful anymore. 4th edition multiclassing is a bit straightjacketed, but it makes the game more balanced.

Once more you say the 1st part like it’s a bad thing.
-I do agree that “Multi-Classing” was drastically Changed, until the “Hybrid-Classes” came out in the PH3.

4. Classes don't feel like themselves anymore...-this one is hard to describe, but with the newly defined roles and changes to classes, some classes don't feel like the traditional classes DnD used to represent them as. For instance, many wizard powers are "I shoot you with damage, get pushed X spaces." ....wut? Wizard spells now push people around? Wizards obviously have a bit more versatility to them, but some of the class powers made me scratch my head when I tried putting them in context to their older versions.

Once more you say it like it’s a bad thing.
-I do agree that there was some drastic changes. I have many character that when going from 1st-3rd to 4th had problems, but once my high level Cleric was Made a Paladin he felt more right than he had in years.

5. Books/RPG element are slimmed down- the older 3.0/3.5 books were perhaps some of the most fertile resources in regards to RPG elements related to their campaign worlds and how they used to be described. 3.0 and 3.5 introduced fairly large books that described worlds in great detail and gave you a lot of imagination fuel to kick start your own campaigns. By comparison, the 4.0 books feel neglected, and the novels have been reduced in terms of production, going so far as to re-release the old Dark Sun books rather than issue new ones for the new release of the Dark Sun campaign.

To me they writing all of the Fluff as if you know it already and they are just doing a recap. This is both good and bad at the same time. The lack of detailed information make you do one of two things, neither it think is that bad.
1] Research to find out what they are talking about.
2] Fill in the gaps on your own

Also, as apart of my 5th criticism, as 3.0 and 3.5 continued, the game still evolves by toning down the story aspect of the story for just simply another game of number crunching and monster bashing. Well, yeah that is what DnD is...make powerful heroes and beat up monsters for lewt. But DnD 4.0 has continued the trend where you simply get a quest and go hunt monsters rather than the more complex social interactions and challenging and engaging stories that are concocted by home grown campaigns.

Yes I agree with the “Social Interaction” within the game between PCs and NPCs. Maybe they should have left the “Social Skill Challenges” for the DMG2. I find myself constantly fighting the ballace between the “Social Skill Challenge” mechanics and just winging it.

With this in mind, 4th edition is a polished by-product of today's modern gamer. It stripped away the crazy do whatever you want spirit of 3.5 to give it more focus and ease to play.

It is for you to decide if the game is worth playing.

Once more I agree.

I do think one of the one of there other big problems is nomenclature. here is one example
-Multi-Classing is not Multi-Classing
-Hybrid-Classes are Multi-Classing in the 1st/2nd edition sense.


Thank you for your time
Anpu42
=0o0=

H.B.M.C. wrote:Regardless of what rule set you choose in the end, you only get out of an RPG what you put into that RPG. Approach 4E as though it's a table-top WOW clone dungeon crawl game, and that's exactly what you get.

How much role-playing (as opposed to roll-playing) you get out of it will be entirely up to the players and the GM. No rule book can set that aspect in stone.

Again, this!

My thoughts on the matter:

I'll be honest. I've never played 4th edition. Maybe I don't understand the way the mechanics work out. Still avoided it to this day. I have a passing enough understanding of 2nd, played 3rd, and was intimately familiar with 3.5. They all had glaring flaws. 3.5 was in a lot of ways several steps forward, several steps back. My favorite system is 3.5 in the Ravenloft campaign setting, with special care taken to houserule in the favor of being highly mortal (instant death saves for 10-15 HPs damage and so on). When 4th edition was being developed, my group caught wind of a final draft that was leaked on the internet as it was going to the printers. Naturally we eagerly ripped into to see what was coming our way. I think I was the most disappointed. Between all of the MMO sytle cooldown powers and the fact that it all looked mechanically less mortal than real combat should be. Seemingly gone were the giant spell lists that contain non-combat spells one could pick up for fun. Ventriloquism for example, doesn't appear to exist. Maybe I was the only one who used spells like that, but I for one felt betrayed. Ritual spells were added as what is considered a replacement for those, but those are strictly non-combat because they take longer than the Battle-approved list does. Maybe I've found a way I want to use one of those spells in combat to my advantage. Something outside of the MMO-box.

For me, 4th edition came in the form of Pathfinder. Almost everything I disliked about 3.5 vanished when Pathfinder became a reality. Consolidated skills in a matter that still implied that realized non-combat existed. They made grapple make sense. They rebalanced the power levels of most all of the classes. The classes are still a little more powerful than I would like overall, but the Beastiary does well to balance it out. And the best thing ever? The 3.5 stuff is entirely compatible. So I convert grapple to CMB/CMD, but everything else seems to just connect together well. I can keep running Ravenloft, Ebberon, even Forgotten Realms without buying new books. This is where I get off the RPG train.

I'm not saying that 4E is all that bad. I just liken my first impression of 4E to playing a game of the board game Descent. It looks fast to set up, and I'm sure it's fun enough. It's just that I'm looking for a screwdriver that I can precisely and subtly tailor to my exact desired type of game, and 4E offers me a sledgehammer.

As far as any advice I would give, I would probably have to say this: If you played 3rd/3.5 for even a minute and liked it, if you liked a system that had rules for literally anything under the sun, or one of the best supported with material systems out there, I recommend Pathfinder with as much of the 3.5 expansion material you can get out of ebay/amazon. If you want a system that allows for a quick and fast game requiring little setup being an underlying story, then 4E is probably the way to go.

To the 4th Ed haters (since that's the inevitable direction of this thread), have any of you played any edition of Warhammer Fantasy RPG? What do you think of those?

pretre wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Regardless of what rule set you choose in the end, you only get out of an RPG what you put into that RPG. Approach 4E as though it's a table-top WOW clone dungeon crawl game, and that's exactly what you get.

How much role-playing (as opposed to roll-playing) you get out of it will be entirely up to the players and the GM. No rule book can set that aspect in stone.

Again, this!

I completely agree. My guys and I played for 15 minutes without consulting a rulebook, dice, or character sheets while we waited for a pizza to cook. We have another DM who can't ad hoc anything that's not a part of cannon rules. He has a plot, but if it's not in a book, it's generally not allowed. 4E would destroy him, more than he already is.

daedalus wrote:My thoughts on the matter:

I'll be honest. I've never played 4th edition.

Not to be mean, but... You should probably try it before passing judgement.

I mean, I get where you are coming from. 3.5 and by extension Pathfinder have pretty beefy systems, but sometimes that beef gets in the way of the story. Either way, I would try it before knocking it. I was resistent to 4th, but it really grew on me.

This is the internet. You should always pass judgement before you even know what something is.

As a 15 year veteran of RPGs and wargaming, I don't think I am passing judgment lightly on this travesty...

D&D 4.0 is pretty for off the mark in terms of role-playing instead of roll-playing. It prioritizes stat building and min-maxing for the sake of actually trying to play a role. More of the character is centered around what they do, rather than who they are. Thank God Gygax is no longer with us to witness this version of his game.

Our local gaming group was playing 3.5 when I started with them. I found the system to be clean, streamlined, but still requiring a good player to be at the table and playing their character. However, this game was revamped by the same people who gave us Magic: The Gathering. They couldn't leave well enough alone and decided to make a good system worse by trying to make it more friendly to the eyes of someone who prefers yelling a computer screen while logged on to World of Warcraft rather than be face-to-face with the same people.

In my opinion, get 3.5 or Pathfinder. The system runs smoothly, but still requires role-playing. If you're looking for challenges, try 1st edition. Let's see how many +5 swords your fighter gets to make now!

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:D&D 4.0 is pretty for off the mark in terms of role-playing instead of roll-playing. It prioritizes stat building and min-maxing for the sake of actually trying to play a role. More of the character is centered around what they do, rather than who they are. Thank God Gygax is no longer with us to witness this version of his game.

This Stament has been made about 1st Edition Oriental Adventures, Dragon Lance, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, 4th Edition and will be made for 635th Edition.

It is the Group the Makes the Difference between "Roll-Play" and "Role-Play".

H.B.M.C. wrote:This is the internet. You should always pass judgement before you even know what something is.

Well, I've at least read through the books. I mean, that should count for a little.

That aside, I'm hardly passing judgement. I figured I was being objective. This is me passing judgement:

Ten minutes for a knock spell? Really? Gone is fleeing the mansion/dungeon/whatever, trying to get through the locked door before the unspeakable evil catches up, only to find the door is locked and having to rely on that last knock scroll. Nope. You lose 5 minutes casting it from a ritual scroll, while a rogue would have picked it as a standard action. The wizard would have better luck bashing his way through the door. I guess I shouldn't complain too much. I mean, at least there is only a gold cost; it's not like each casting cost you experience also. There are two suggested archtypes for wizards: Control Wizard, and War Wizard. Gives you some idea as to what they were aiming for when they stripped the magic system. One of my favorite openings to a campaign was that a rival of the party casts ventriloquate and embarrasses the party at some social gathering or in front of nobility. Could have been a bard or an illusionist. They then have to deal with it. It's sneaky, hard to track down, and could have a very long lasting effect on the game based upon how they respond to it. I hate to be so magic centric, but really that's my biggest beef with the system, and as I'm usually playing one of the casters, it's a big deal for me. Again, I'm not saying it's a terrible system. It sounds like an awesome thing for a couple hours when no one really wants to do anything too complex and you just want to roll a handful of fighters and a cleric and dungeon crawl. We just usually play Descent on those nights.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:D&D 4.0 is pretty for off the mark in terms of role-playing instead of roll-playing. It prioritizes stat building and min-maxing for the sake of actually trying to play a role. More of the character is centered around what they do, rather than who they are.

The exact same could be said of 3.5 except that 3.5 encourages the building of prima-donna do-it-all builds whereas 4th Ed requires team building as well as teamwork--and maybe that is one reason why so many gamers used to 3.5 can't handle it.

daedalus wrote:I'm not saying that 4E is all that bad. I just liken my first impression of 4E to playing a game of the board game Descent. It looks fast to set up, and I'm sure it's fun enough. It's just that I'm looking for a screwdriver that I can precisely and subtly tailor to my exact desired type of game, and 4E offers me a sledgehammer.

For never having played it, you hit the nail pretty much on the head in the red-highlighted part. I cannot agree that 3.5 added much "subtlety" to D&D, however. The better explanation is that you are, as you put it, intimately familiar with 3.5 and have never played 4th Ed. If you built up some experience with 4th Ed, you'd soon know what to tweak to suit your purposes.

How about a spectrum, with more boardgame-ish examples to the left and more RPG-ish ones to the right?

<---Clue---Talisman---Runebound----Descent-----D&D 4th Ed---D&D 3.5-----------------------AD&D 2nd---White Wolf stuff--->

3rd edition could get pretty broken, I had a 10th level Sorcerer with Heightened Maximized Spell who would use Shocking Grasp to make a Touch Attack to do 60 points of damage twice [CHA 20]. When I made 14th I had added Sudden Quickened Twice to my feats and I could pull off 240 point of damage on any monster in two rounds and all of it 100% Legal.

What 4th has done more than anything is eliminate the totally Broken “Legal” Characters. The DM now can concentrate on Challenging the Players and “How do I cope with parties that can do 500 points of Damage to my Monster in one round encounters.”

The subtlety I referred to was having enough system and enough content to decide what exactly I did and didn't want to include. I can say to my players, "We're using core books and these expansions. Anything out of them is fair game, anything else, you better bring beer and be prepared to beg." I can set up a Ravenloft game and do stuff like say, "Necromantic, evocation, and some enchantment spells are evil aligned and considered forbidden research. You will have some, you can find more, but they might start to drive you insane/evil depending on their (over) use." Now imagine your 4E wizard with highly limited attack spells. He's basically a commoner with a quarterstaff.

@daedalus: It's not surprising to me that your criticisms come from a caster's point of view. D&D 3.5 was as love letter to casters, to the exclusion of other classes--until Book of Nine Swords came out, that is. And that book resulted in more bitching and moaning than anything short of D&D 4th Ed itself. Coincidence?

Casters from 3.5 hate hate hate 4th Ed because they no longer come to dominate every one else's role. Even in your "judgemental post," you note with resentment that a rogue can open a lock faster than wizard in 4th:

daedalus wrote:You lose 5 minutes casting it from a ritual scroll, while a rogue would have picked it as a standard action. The wizard would have better luck bashing his way through the door.

Yes, a rogue is better at dealing with locks than a wizard. Why should it be any other way?

If your criticism boils down to "3.5 had more material," then its losing ground at a steady rate. There are tons of high quality supplements for 4th Ed currently out. I've always had criticisms about their production values but the actual content is, IMO, better on average than some of the schlock WotC put out in the heyday of 3.5.

First, of while I advocate 4th edition, I want people to play whatever they wish. All I ever ask of is that others don’t advocate “Game Bashing”.

My Quote:
o The System is All Important!
o The System is Unimportant.

What I mean by this is, whatever system make the game work for you and your players is the right system. These three come from my groups biggest complaints.

The Pros of 3rd Edition
o Flexibility: There is a lot of Flexibility.
o Resources: There are a lot of Resources.
o Skills: It has a very in-depth Skill system that make certain Character shine in their chosen field.

The Cons of 3rd Edition
o Flexibility: There is a lot of Flexibility, so much so that a DM must now choose what to exclude to maintain Game Play Balance, and [most im important] flavor of the game.
o Resources: There are too many Recourses.
o Skills: When it comes to Skills, if you did not spend your points the right way it could cripple your ability to keep up with the other characters later.

The Pros 4th Edition
o Flexibility: There is still a lot of Flexibility. My number one is you no longer need a Cleric, you could go out with just some healing potions and a party of Fighters and still survive.
o Resources: There are a lot of Resources. A lot of the books now have come out now, there are now around 20 Classes.
o Skills: Have been Simplified and with the way the Target numbers now are not being Trained in a Skill just means that you will have a harder time.

The Cons of 4th Edition
o Flexibility: There is a lot of Flexibility, but as one of my players [a Anti-4th edition player who still plays it and has fun, but wont admit it], it is a Fragile system, it does not react well to House Rules.
o Resources: There is starting to be too many Recourses.
o Skill: It is hard to be the “Specialist” in a Skill, there are usually 1-2 other Character who are Trained in the Same Skills as you.

Now about the House Rules Comment.
I am not talking about This Race/Class/Skill/Feat/Power is not available, but ones like this one that was proposed.

My Character has 3 Encounter Powers, a 1st, 3rd and 7th. Why can’t I just make it so I can use any of my Encounter Powers 3 times regardless of their levels. Which lead to the next “House Rule Request”, “Why can’t I just keep my lower level Powers?”

The balance to me always seemed as though the wizard could be the best at absolutely anything he felt like... a couple times a day. The worthiness of the fighter and rogue is that the fighter can power attack-cleave-weapon specialization-godknowswhat his way through baddies all day long, and the rogue can pop locks, disarm traps, and sneak attack as long as he wants to. Maybe our group just doesn't power-game, but as the wizard, I do the most damage not casting a single attack spell. Invis the rogue. Levitate the ranger for a better shot. I'm not saying that this isn't stuff that could happen in 4E. I'm just saying that the same arguments of why ROLE-playing still works in 4E are the same arguments that say that 3.5 is for powergaming. It's the player's fault, not the system.

daedalus wrote:I'm just saying that the same arguments of why ROLE-playing still works in 4E are the same arguments that say that 3.5 is for powergaming. It's the player's fault, not the system.

You are right there.

Role have become very much a part of the Game, there are 4, Controller, Defender, Leader and Striker.

Controller
o Wizard
Yes the Role of the Wizard has changed from the Damage monster he was in 3rd to the “Controller”.
A Wizard is now the “Traffic Cop” on the Battlefield. He make the battlefield his own, channeling the monsters into the fighters keeping them busy so the Rouge can put a knife in their back.

Defender
o Fighter
o Paladin
They put the hurt on monsters and absorb damage. They also have the ability to make the monster suffer for ignoring them.

Leader
o Cleric
He is your Healer and Buffer.

Striker
o Ranger
o Rouge
They Choose a Target and Kill it and then move onto the next.

I am not saying that a Wizard cant get into Close Combat, in fact there are a few Powers that are best used in the front line. In my local META, everyone plays a “Striker”, the Paladin, the Sword Mage and the Wizard all act like Strikers. The moment they figure out what the “Boss Monster” is it eats the wrath of the party. I can tell you the number of times the Elite Leader Monster dies quickly leaving the 20 Minions left and untouched.

daedalus wrote:The balance to me always seemed as though the wizard could be the best at absolutely anything he felt like... a couple times a day. The worthiness of the fighter and rogue is that the fighter can power attack-cleave-weapon specialization-godknowswhat his way through baddies all day long, and the rogue can pop locks, disarm traps, and sneak attack as long as he wants to. Maybe our group just doesn't power-game, but as the wizard, I do the most damage not casting a single attack spell. Invis the rogue. Levitate the ranger for a better shot. I'm not saying that this isn't stuff that could happen in 4E. I'm just saying that the same arguments of why ROLE-playing still works in 4E are the same arguments that say that 3.5 is for powergaming. It's the player's fault, not the system.

This is one of the problems that 4E fixed. Since 1st Ed the fighters and others protected the wizard until mid teens when suddenly the Wizard could do everything and the rest of the part played second fiddle.

They finally figured out that being able to do something slightly cool all day long isn't the same as being able to do something REALLY cool a few times a day. This is especially true when many groups only play a few encounters per day. It meant that spell casters dominated 1st through 3.5 because of this. Your wizard could do anything I could do better. Seriously. In 3.5, there was nothing you couldn't make a wizard do with enough expansions. It made everyone else really secondary and not so fun to play. If you weren't playing a character who could get 9th level spells, you weren't going to be terribly useful at high level.

Then there was problem two. Healbots. Playing a cleric sucked. Ultimate cosmic power and access to every spell in the book, but because of the nature of the game you were restricted to memorizing 42 different types of heal spells and maybe one or two useful spells. That was not a fun mechanic. There is a reason that so many DM's just play the Cleric themselves in earlier editions so as not to saddle the players with the character that didn't have a lot of tactical options.


Keep in mind that these are broad generalizations. I played wizards who weren't demigods and clerics who balanced fun and healing, but I had to go through some serious convolutions to do it. The game directed you that way. In 4th ed, everyone has fun things to do. The Roles are still there if your group and DM enjoys them. There are still skill systems and non-combat interactions. No one is saddled with the Healbot. No one has to feel like they are playing second fiddle at high levels.

Don't mix nostalgia (which I have a lot of) with reason. I have fond remembrances of critical hit and fumble tables and insanity charts. Were they a good idea or did they add value to the game? Hell no, they were nothing that I don't do in my games with description when someone misses. And I don't decapitate players when it doesn't fit the story, which numerous tables did.

Also, please try it before passing judgement. It is fun and is definitely DND.

In one high-level session of 3.5, a dual-progression caster literally pushed our rogue out of the way after he failed a disarm check. She cast dispell and then made a cutting remark about how we should leave the rogue at home. No one besides her was having fun by that point. After a session of 4th Ed with that same group, people were talking about how much fun they had getting out of tight spots by figuring out how their roles worked together--except for that same caster, who was totally sullen. She then proceeded to complain that 4th Ed was just a WoW boardgame that had no room for roleplaying.

Manchu wrote:In one high-level session of 3.5, a dual-progression caster literally pushed our rogue out of the way after he failed a disarm check. She cast dispell and then made a cutting remark about how we should leave the rogue at home. No one besides her was having fun by that point. After a session of 4th Ed with that same group, people were talking about how much fun they had getting out of tight spots by figuring out how their roles worked together--except for that same caster, who was totally sullen. She then proceeded to complain that 4th Ed was just a WoW boardgame that had no room for roleplaying.

lol That is exactly the difference. You just can't break things like you could in 3.5. That is 3.5's one lasting legacy in my opinion. There has been no edition of D&D before or since where you could break the game at such a fundamental level just with multi-classing.

If that is what you like to do, be the star of the game and do everything yourself, than 3.5 is for you. If you like making a team work together, go 4.0.

Can you break stuff in 4.0? Sure. Can you play together in 3.5 as a tightly knit team? Sure. Is it the focus of the game, no.

Manchu's succinct point highlights it. You have to work together in 4.0, whereas in 3.5 it was all about one-upsmanship.

What is wrong with you people there is no 3rd Sucks/4th Sucks Yelling.

I have found it true about the play style of the players can also influence the game.

The old [1979] player cannot grasp the concept of the “The Team”

His Paladin got a Mountain Shield, that has the power to prevent and adjacent character from being moved against his will. He can not get a grasp of it and thinks its totally worthless. He also has a problem with the Warlord, he is constantly amazed at how well I play one. Now my Warlord has some issues, for one the moment I sit down to to play him my Dice go Arctic Cold. My most powerful weapon is Minron the Minotaur Figter as I have a lot of power that are “I do something and a Party member can Attack the Target Powers”.

I was always a fan of having the whole party breaking their characters in 3.5 and making the DM cry when we slaughtered monsters 5-6 CR higher then us without much of a problem.

I do feel that Wizards and what not were nerfed a bit in 4th. They did need it. But most of the classes have the same feel to me now.

One thing I do really dislike about 4th is that I can't make a viable skill monkey/monster anymore. Dominating through skill rolls was so fun for me.

Manchu wrote:In one high-level session of 3.5, a dual-progression caster literally pushed our rogue out of the way after he failed a disarm check. She cast dispell and then made a cutting remark about how we should leave the rogue at home. No one besides her was having fun by that point. After a session of 4th Ed with that same group, people were talking about how much fun they had getting out of tight spots by figuring out how their roles worked together--except for that same caster, who was totally sullen. She then proceeded to complain that 4th Ed was just a WoW boardgame that had no room for roleplaying.

That sounds more like a problem with a player than a system. We've had more than our fair share of those, though for us they're seldom casters (for some reason, I'm the only one eager to jump into it, and I'm playing a Dwarven transmuter, no power gaming there). Ours were mostly Fighters, or the occasional Fighter/Monk/Dragon Shaman/Duelist/Swashbuckler/Weretiger/Vampire, but I suppose that also proves the point. Our solution was just to be rid of the players themselves, as we realized they weren't really contributing much to the gaming anyway. To be fair, 3.5 wasn't really a system for us until we stopped saying, "show up with 10th level characters," and we actually started sitting down with whomever happened to be DMing at the time, and say, "This is who my character is. It is well thought out, makes sense, and isn't abusive. How can he fit into your world?" The secret, no matter what system you play I suppose, is to make sure you're playing the character, not the spreadsheet. Starting from level 1 helps also. With respect to your example, did you guys start from humble beginnings? What was the relationship between the caster and the rogue at that point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimpost wrote:One thing I do really dislike about 4th is that I can't make a viable skill monkey/monster anymore. Dominating through skill rolls was so fun for me.

I know! One of my favorite things to do was to make a bard and focus everything on skills. Between jack of all trades, the ones that gave you bonus skill points, and other zaniness, there was nothing you couldn't do! (Except fight)

Grimpost wrote:I was always a fan of having the whole party breaking their characters in 3.5 and making the DM cry when we slaughtered monsters 5-6 CR higher then us without much of a problem.

I do feel that Wizards and what not were nerfed a bit in 4th. They did need it. But most of the classes have the same feel to me now.

One thing I do really dislike about 4th is that I can't make a viable skill monkey/monster anymore. Dominating through skill rolls was so fun for me.

It was not completely their fault. They wanted to bring out 4th edition in 2010, but Haz-Broken said do it when we want you to.

You can build a “Skill Monkey” still. You may not have 10 more “Ranks” than everyone else, but, you can gain bonuses from Feats, Powers and Items [both Mundane and Magical]. There are also a lot out there that lets roll one Skill [Like History] instead of another or a Ability Checks and a lot of ways to get more than one roll.

daedalus wrote:That sounds more like a problem with a player than a system.

It's certainly a player problem. But it's also a system problem in that the system allows this specific player to cause that specific problem, whereas the other system does not allow it.

With respect to your example, did you guys start from humble beginnings? What was the relationship between the caster and the rogue at that point?

We were in the homestretch of a two-year campaign (with a break for summer where we played another campaign) that started from level 1.

As a huge fan of 3.5 Swords and Sorcery Ravenloft myself (it is by far my favourite setting) I can totally see your point of view. D'n'D 4th doesn't do that specific setting very well at all. There are loads it does really well though, and don't dismiss all of them. 3.5 for was bad at certain settings too, it didn't make it a bad system. (I think it was needlessly clunky and unbalanced to hell at high level, but it had a lot going for it too.)

@DaBoss: Did you play the Ravenloft "boardgame" yet?

I did, I bought it and played a solo adventure. It's nothing like the 3.5 setting, which was all gothic horror and victorian in a beautifully put together package (except the awful monster manual, that thing sucked).
It's a fun dungeon crawl though, and it's very quick and easy to play.

I hear pathfinder are doing a Ravenloft-esque setting soon, which I might look at. A good friend and old gaming buddy of mine wrote a "mistfinder" ravenloft adaption for pathfinder, which was pretty good

If you dont care about what you are doing and just want to sit down and play WoW without playing Wow. 4th Edition is the perfect set of rules.

Though, in truth my contempt for 4th edition isnt so much with the rules, but with what they did to Forgotten Realms in order to justify their new rules.

Da Boss wrote:It's nothing like the 3.5 setting, which was all gothic horror and victorian in a beautifully put together package (except the awful monster manual, that thing sucked).

In all fairness, raveloft 3.5 was not a WotC product.

I hear pathfinder are doing a Ravenloft-esque setting soon, which I might look at. A good friend and old gaming buddy of mine wrote a "mistfinder" ravenloft adaption for pathfinder, which was pretty good

That does sound exciting and I would love to see your friend's work.

True! I just think it was superior to WotC ravenloft.
http://rapidshare.com/files/387037780/Mistfinder.pdf.html

Ask and ye shall recieve. I think he did a pretty good job!

daedalus wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimpost wrote:One thing I do really dislike about 4th is that I can't make a viable skill monkey/monster anymore. Dominating through skill rolls was so fun for me.

I know! One of my favorite things to do was to make a bard and focus everything on skills. Between jack of all trades, the ones that gave you bonus skill points, and other zaniness, there was nothing you couldn't do! (Except fight)

Da Boss wrote:I did, I bought it and played a solo adventure. It's nothing like the 3.5 setting, which was all gothic horror and victorian in a beautifully put together package (except the awful monster manual, that thing sucked).
It's a fun dungeon crawl though, and it's very quick and easy to play.

That was exactly what I figured. That makes me sad, but at the same time, very happy that I did not spend money on it. I wanted more Dracula, and it looked like it was all Castlevania.

I hear pathfinder are doing a Ravenloft-esque setting soon, which I might look at. A good friend and old gaming buddy of mine wrote a "mistfinder" ravenloft adaption for pathfinder, which was pretty good

I caught wind of the Pathfinder setting, and I'm eagerly awaiting it. If you have access to your friend's "mistfinder" and he doesn't mind, I'd love to give it a look through. That's exactly what I'm running right now and I'm sort of adapting rules and fine-tuning as the sessions go on. It would be great to have some of the underlying groundwork already.

See the link in the post above, I'm sure Damien won't mind you using it, he'd probably be happy to hear that people are.
Post any comments here (or in another thread, don't want to drag this one OT too much) and I'll point him at them

I forgot to add there is a theme (like a level 1 Parargon Paths) in Dark Sun that makes a Bard even more skillmatic. Is that a word? I just invented it, it is mine: skillmatic™.

I believe that a proper Ravenloft Campaign book for 4th is coming out sometime next year which makes sense considering Players Handbook 4: Heroes of Shadow comes out next year and has 'dark' classes that use Shadow as a power source. The only classes I know in it are Hexblades and Necromancers at the moment. It was speculated Assassin may finally make it's way into a book but it won't be in there as apparently it is supposed to be a DDinsider subscriber exclusive class, which is silly considering the rules are readily available.

I'm skeptical that it'll be anything like the Ravenloft that I know and love, but pretty openminded that it might be good in it's own way.
Swords and Sorcery Ravenloft wasn't much like the old 2nd edition stuff in some wayse either. It emphasised certain aspects over others and gave it a very unique flavour. I imagine WotC will go for more of a mass appeal, probably tapping into people's desire to play as "tainted" characters like Werewolves and Vampires. That's a pretty big departure from old school ravenloft, where a taint like that was something to be absolutely avoided at all costs if done right. It didn't work out well for a lot of groups though, because the "path to corruption" mechanics were easy to abuse for someone who didn't care about storyline (had it happen to me, but was able to incorporate it and get some cracking mileage. The mechanic basically means that if you commit an evil act, there's a chance the dark powers will gift you with a power or increased strength that makes it more likely you'll succeed if you commit such an act again, but also give you a kicker to lure you deeper into corruption. The further down the path you go, the harder it is to turn back. Eventually, you will end up with all the power you desired, but the curse will have strengthened and made it so that you cannot get what you wanted because of it. A good GM can come up with some really imaginative paths for players, it's very satisfying. The difficult part is that due to the nature of the temptation, the first couple of steps are pretty mechanically beneficial to most characters. Anyhow. That's a big digression, but I don't think something like that will fit into the design philosophy of 4th, and it's a bit of a shame)

Ahtman wrote:I believe that a proper Ravenloft Campaign book for 4th is coming out sometime next year

This could be enough to getr me proactive about 4th!

@Ahtman:

I must admit, I find you bard compelling, though I must say, I can't remember ever seeing Bard in the 4E edition rulebook. Maybe I looked at an early copy or something. I think the other thing that really irritated me was that Gnome was missing too. I really don't think Ravenloft will ever be viable in the 4E world though, but I guess we'll see when they release the books.

@Da Boss:

Excellent! I've got it on my phone now. (Work for silly reasons has problems with Rapidshare, go figure) From what I've read, it looks pretty awesome. I'll have to get it out to my players tonight.

You can already play as 'werewolves', they are called shifters, though it isn't literally a werewolf because you can still be infected with lycanthropy as well. You can also play as Undead, called Revenants.

I like the wide range of races and "base classes" (to use a term from 3.5) that 4th offers.

What do you guys think of the new "essentials" books like the rules compendium?

daedalus wrote:@Ahtman:

I must admit, I find you bard compelling, though I must say, I can't remember ever seeing Bard in the 4E edition rulebook. Maybe I looked at an early copy or something. I think the other thing that really irritated me was that Gnome was missing too. I really don't think Ravenloft will ever be viable in the 4E world though, but I guess we'll see when they release the books.

Bards and Gnomes are in PHB2. It is more difficult to make a Gnome Skillmonkey (or skilltastic™) because of all the extra skill, feat, and At-Will humans get. It isn't impossible, it would just take a little longer to get there. Basically you would be level 6 to get all the same feats, but you would have a better INT score than the Human, as well as the racial powers.

Manchu wrote:What do you guys think of the new "essentials" books like the rules compendium?

The Rules Compendium is basically the 4e rules with all the errata and updates in one book.

Got to look at the new Essentials player guide last night and it is fairly neat. The classes are very different from the standard 4e stuff and a bit like 2nd edition versions of the classes in fourth edition. For example the new Fighter types in Essentials have no Fighters Mark. The Fightrer Slayer's At-Wills are stances: one is +1 to hit, the other is +2 damage. They are basically centered around their melee basic attack so it is a return to "I attack" for them, but they get to modify it a bit. The Fighter Knight has an aura but I haven't had a chance to really look at him yet. A good deal of the class specific stuff doesn't transfer over to the 4e classes, but a lot of the basic stuff does. For example, only the Slayer gets the At-Will stances, you can't give them to a Brawler Fighter from Martial Power 2. Still there are a good amount of new powers and abilities that do transfer, enough to make it worthwhile for a player to take a look at. I have a Wizard I'm getting ready to start and I'm taking a new At-Will from there as well as an awesome (for me, thematically) new Daily power.

Ahtman: I was aware of the shifters, not of the revenants though. I imagine the ravenloft book might make more of the tainted nature of those heroes, perhaps focusing on antiheroes and so on. Could be good, I suppose. I'll probably pick it up out of interest.

I'm excited about Darksun, I keep checking the local shop to see if they have it yet. Played a Darksun campaign in 3.5 that was the balls, would love another crack at it. Sounds like they made defiling even more dramatic and harsh, which is to my mind, all good

The one thing I wouldn't mind seeing come out of the new Dark Sun book is Themes. It is a great idea I would like to see incorporated into the regular game.

@Ahtman: I'm not sure I understand the relationship between the essentials fighter/cleric book you're talking about and 4th ed. I thought the little books were simply 4th ed. supplements?

Manchu wrote:@Ahtman: I'm not sure I understand the relationship between the essentials fighter/cleric book you're talking about and 4th ed. I thought the little books were simply 4th ed. supplements?

They are, but it is adding in new version of classes, some of which have abilities/powers that don't work with other versions of that class. For example Mage is a type of Wizard in Essentials. It can take all the spells that previous Wizards could take but they also pick a school (Evocation, Illusion, and something) and get bonus's to certain things for taking that school. Only Mages can have these, as well as getting Magic Missle as a free extra At-Will. Now, they can not get 'Implement Mastery' that normal Wizard can. Implement Mastery are special abilities depending on what Implement you use. When you create a Wizard you select one mastery, such as Staff of Defense. As an enounter power you can boost all your defense at any time after being hit, even up to after the damage is rolled. It is similiar to the Shield spell but you can only do it while use use a staff. There is a Mastery for orbs, wands, tomes, and staff. Mages (essentials) get Schools, 4e gets IM powers. They both can still pull from the same spell book pool though.

The Fighter is a little more nuanced in the changes but it is sort of like that. I don't own the book, a buddy of mine has it, and I would really need it in front of me to get more specific.

There are also new feats in Essentials. EX: you can now take a bonus to Non-AC defenses at Heroic (1-10) level.

A good deal of the class specific stuff doesn't transfer over to the 4e classes, but a lot of the basic stuff does.

This is the part that was confusing me. Do you just mean that the class subtypes do not cross-intergrate?

Manchu wrote:

A good deal of the class specific stuff doesn't transfer over to the 4e classes, but a lot of the basic stuff does.

This is the part that was confusing me. Do you just mean that the class subtypes do not cross-intergrate?

Sorry, that was kind of worded strangely. Yes, the sub-class stuff doesn't transfer, but they also have new powers that do work for all versions of the class. There are a few Sub-Class specific powers that are Slayer only, but there are some new powers in there that are for any fighter.

I actually find the lack of insanely convoluted rules make RP-ing easier. Combat is more streamlined although still tactial and less clunky than 3.x
At high levels there is more balance (lvl 20 fighter vs lvl 20 wizard = save or die,save or die,save or die,save or die,save or die,save or die,save or die,save or die,*fail*=you die

@Ahtman

And yet I still don't enjoy the system. Odd.

Grimpost wrote:@Ahtman

And yet I still don't enjoy the system. Odd.

And yet I never said you would. Odder still.

I have never argued that 4th is the best system, just that it isn't the worst. I've argued to play what you like without bashing others.

D&D 4.0 is pretty for off the mark in terms of role-playing instead of roll-playing. It prioritizes stat building and min-maxing for the sake of actually trying to play a role. More of the character is centered around what they do, rather than who they are. Thank God Gygax is no longer with us to witness this version of his game.

The D&D ruleset has always been about what characters can do, rather than who they are. The original game was made because some guys playing a fantasy wargame wanted to do more dungeon-running and small group stuff instead of big battles, and included ZERO rules for 'who they are', it was all combat rules. As the game developed, it went on to 1st Edition D&D. 1st Edition played in the Greyhawk setting is the full-on 'Gary Gygax' experience, the rules were almost entirely his baby at the time and Greyhawk was his personal campaign world.

Please tell me where to find any significant rules on the 'who they are' part of an RPG in my 1st edition books, or the Greyhawk setting books. I can't really think of much of anything, the only hings that come to mind is the table for randomly determining your character's social class/starting wealth and the Barbarian and Cavalier special rules, that enforce certain 'you must do this or lose your abilities' restrictions. I can find tons of rules for slight weapon variants (there are around 2 dozen types of polearm), catching diseases, random encounters, and the like, but basically no rules for the non-combat side.

If you're fairly new to D&D and did not start back in the Gygax Golden Days of 1st edition (which was not mid-90s), you might want to review what the game was before telling us how far it's strayed from the original vision.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:The D&D ruleset has always been about what characters can do, rather than who they are.

Great point. The only "who you are" rule I can think of from 3.5 was the optional flaws-for-feats idea smuggled in from other systems but I never saw any of the power gamers I played with even consider it. I'd be interested to hear other examples from D&D if people can think of them and, more especially, some "who you are" rules from other systems. For example, character creation in Traveller is very "who you are" oriented. You roll across a series of connected tables to determine what your characters life was like in the years leading up to the game, creating a narrative as well as an abilities set as you go. The flaws and talents set-up in Savage Worlds is another example. I'd say it's a fair split between "what you can do" and "who you are." Mouse Gaurd and its big brother Burning Wheel have certain "stats" that are just character- and world-building exercises: your character sheet includes spaces for names and descriptions of allies and enemies that the player takes the initiative in creating. Any other examples?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
If you're fairly new to D&D and did not start back in the Gygax Golden Days of 1st edition (which was not mid-90s), you might want to review what the game was before telling us how far it's strayed from the original vision.

YES!

Back in my day... Seriously though. D&D has never made your role. You have made your role and used the system to cover the combat and crunchy parts.

D&D (any edition) always bugs me somewhat for various reasons. There are loads of cool aspects to all the editions, but give me something simpler any day.

These days (after nearly 3 decades of play, and nearly a decade of professional RPG design) I've boiled it down to one of 3 or 4 games for fantasy RPGing:

Dragon Warriors for atmospheric, low-mid fantasy, folkloric gaming

Amber Diceless Roleplaying for character-driven, high-powered, universe-shaking gaming

Warhammer FRP (1st or 2nd edition) for gaming specifically in the Old World -- again, very atmospheric, and a bit more low-key than D&D (meet a group of skeletons, and your adventurers may well be legging it in terror, rather than -- D&D-style -- muttering, "Oh, it's OK, these guys are only 1 hit die each").

Well, try before you buy! The official Wizards site actually has some free quickstart rules and characters. Also if you have a good FLGS you could try to find a D&D Encounters Wednesday, which is basically a series of vaguely linked one off combats you can drop in on and play.

For myself I find 4th much easier to DM. Overall the system feels less vague and more balanced. I don't agree with the "4th is a video game lolz", I think that's just people hating on the current system. Sure each class can do something neat each turn...but somehow that parallels with video games? Anyways all my players enjoy the new edition. As for combat being the focus, well, that depends on the DM. Nothing in the rules stops you from roleplaying as much or as little as you did before.

Anyways, throwing a few pre-generated characters into an encounter or reading the PHB is probably the best place to start to get a feel for the game.

Just picked up the red box starter set. Looks to be pretty well set up for walking beginners through how everything works.

@Manchu: Mutant Chronicles (the RPG set in the Warzone universe, or vice versa) has a character generation system where, after rolling your abilities, you choose a background/profession to try for, and get to either add skill picks from that profession or, if you failed your roll for the profession, you pick free skills as an Unemployed. They also included rolls for special events in your life before you became a freelancer... these all added up to a good picture of "who you are" as you set out on your new career...

-Vilegrimm

insaniak wrote:Just picked up the red box starter set. Looks to be pretty well set up for walking beginners through how everything works.

Tell us how it works out so we can settle this.

@Insaniak: I second the request for a review. I was a little bummed that there are character counters rather than miniatures. I guess it's a price-point issue (only $14 on Amazon!).

@Vilegrimm: That sounds a lot like Traveller. Well, a bit less complicated.

Manchu wrote:@Insaniak: I second the request for a review. I was a little bummed that there are character counters rather than miniatures. I guess it's a price-point issue (only $14 on Amazon!).

Yeah, I paid AU$16 for it. The counters don't bother me too much. Fantasy minis are easy to come by... what I don't already have sitting around. I did have a largish collection of D&D minis back when I was working in a games store, but got rid of them a while ago to concentrate on Star Wars minis instead.

The books look good so far. Steps you through the character creation process in the form of a 'Choose your own adventure' style story

Whoa, that sounds kind of worth it right there--at least as a template. How cool would it be if you could start a real campaign that way?

Manchu wrote:Whoa, that sounds kind of worth it right there--at least as a template. How cool would it be if you could start a real campaign that way?

Wow. Agreed.

I may have to buy the red box just for that.

On a mini-note-

I am planning to get the Castle Ravenloft game as it does appear to be a "steal" in terms of miniatures and content for the price tag and I loved the old DnD board game back from the mid-90's that does the same thing as the Castle Ravenloft Board game does: introduce the game without shoving decades worth of lore, rules, and history behind it.

Bear in mind the minis in that game are just previously released and now unpainted D&D minis. The Strahd figure is not even the D&D minis Strahd. (Well, that might be a good thing depending on what you thought of that strangely faceless mini.) I, too, thought about purchasing that set but this little tidbit was a dealbreaker. You might hold out for the next game in the series: Wrath of Ashardlon, although it will still just be old D&D minis, I reckon.

Manchu wrote:Bear in mind the minis in that game are just previously released and now unpainted D&D minis. The Strahd figure is not even the D&D minis Strahd. (Well, that might be a good thing depending on what you thought of that strangely faceless mini.) I, too, thought about purchasing that set but this little tidbit was a dealbreaker. You might hold out for the next game in the series: Wrath of Ashardlon, although it will still just be old D&D minis, I reckon.

Yup. Pretty aware of the miniatures being unpainted. However, if you do get the game from the point of buying it for the tiles and miniatures, it is a very good purchase price. Today's miniatures- 6 painted with one being huge comes in at around 22 dollars retail. Tiles are about 12 dollars for a pack. And now that I have done Warhammer painting on my models, I feel more included to paint these critters if the mood struck me to do so.

Personally I love 4th edition: Why?
1. As a GM it makes my life so easy, I only have to spend the time I want to on building adventures.
2. The Company Support: This might not seem like a lot, but with using the “Character Builder” and “Adventure Tools” everything is up-to-date.

I have had a lot of complaints, but a lot are same ones from 25+ year players.
1. It’s not D&D.
2. I miss my 20d6 Fire Ball
3. How come I don’t have my 200 hit points?
4. The system is too fragile; I can’t incorporate all of my house rules without breaking it.

I also think the initial “Change is bad” thing is starting die off. This is the second thread that has not degenerated into an I am right and you are wrong circular augment.


I only have one thing left to say.

Anpu42 wrote:Personally I love 4th edition: Why?
1. As a GM it makes my life so easy, I only have to spend the time I want to on building adventures.
2. The Company Support: This might not seem like a lot, but with using the “Character Builder” and “Adventure Tools” everything is up-to-date.

OMG! Support for 4th Ed is awesome. I am soooo in love with CB and AT. One of my players pays the $15/month and it is worth every penny. If he didn't, I would.

Character Builder makes keeping your character updated a snap! I love it.

Adventure Tools needs more modules, but the monster database is awesome for DMs who like to 'Wing It'.

I used E-Tools in previous editions of D&D and, although it was cool, it was pretty annoying at times to do what you wanted. D&D Insider is just awesome.

Oh and don't forget the search engine that has every rule they've printed for 4th Ed in it, by category.

pretre wrote:OMG! Support for 4th Ed is awesome. I am soooo in love with CB and AT. One of my players pays the $15/month and it is worth every penny. If he didn't, I would.

If he is consistent, he really should buy the annual subscription for $70. That makes it less than $6 a month.

Ahtman wrote:

pretre wrote:OMG! Support for 4th Ed is awesome. I am soooo in love with CB and AT. One of my players pays the $15/month and it is worth every penny. If he didn't, I would.

If he is consistent, he really should buy the annual subscription for $70. That makes it less than $6 a month.

Oooh! I didn't know about that one. Thank you!

My friend started a 4e game about a year ago after being a player in my own rpg's for years, inviting me and my family to play. My wife has played rpgs sporadically and this was the first game that my son had played. I've played DnD in all it's incarnations (cut my teeth on 1.0) and had my reservations with 4e after being rather disappointed with 3.0.

Character creation was fun and simple - a boon to my wife who hates the process - when using the Character Builder and the simplicity of the system lends itself to developing your character's story and roleplaying traits. The Class/Build/Powers are relatively limiting when going cross-class or multi-classing - they're really focused on making sure everyone in the party sticks to their assigned roles while being able to one-trick-pony occassionally.

The system works best with 5 players who each take a separate role: defender, leader, striker, and controller. We're in a 4-member party with two leaders (Cleric and Warlord), a striker(Avenger), and a controller (Wizard) and are sorely in need of a fighter or paladin. It definitely allows for great interactions between the various class abilities with 'nova' style combos - especially with a support class like the warlord.

I've enjoyed our games alot and while the system is definitely different, it's not different in a bad way. I'd say that it brings a lot more balance to the classes as a whole and introduces some interesting mechanics of game play.

D&D4E - Brilliant!
I've been playing D&D since Basic (in 1981), and I think 4E is possibly the best version if all you want is a combat heavy fantasy game. I am loving the figure representation aspect of the game too.
You can role-play (our group does) in between the fighting, and have fun at the same time.

I have played 4E (my Dark Pact Warlock is the best fun I have had in a group with 3 other men - EVER), and I have GM'd 4E (5 games into a homebrew campaign).
I can honestly say that for GM's this is a fanatasic system - each enemy is encapsulated into a single box, and each Monster in the Monster Manual has encounters ready made for you - fantastic! All a GM has to do is create the game for the night!

If you can, use the character builder to create the characters - it is SO easy. It sorts the 'Powers' out for you too (the only part of the game that can get in the way of play at times, whilst you're waiting for the players to read the description and details to sort out which one they are going to use), but this soon becomes second nature.

Have Fun and Enjoy Yourselves!

You can strip down any RPG to numbers, in 4E it might be a bit easier but it's really up to the gm and players if they want to essentially play a boardgame about killing monsters getting lootz or a game where they craft a story.

I had a ton of issues with 4E. I had tons of fun with the 3rd edition, but when I tried playing 4E it was an odd experience. At first my friends and I loved it since it really gave a new tactical way to play out combat: that made the game much more exciting. We also saw new ways to layout our characters almost like a new world of character development. As we kept playing we started to get a feeling like it was WOW on paper... then we started playing out the more fluffy RPG parts of our games which to be honest take up most of our games, and we saw how little the game rules gave us for things such as diplomacy. The skill set which had once been a HUGE list, is now just 8 or so.

Of course you can RPG yourself without using any rules, and I believe this is a big argument against the lack of skills being a negative thing. I understand this, but I like my RPG games to have rules and mechanics for fluffier things which lie outside of combat. If i wanted to have a combat focused game based off special attacks i could just play WoW... you know?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What we did to fix this issue was to use the old skill system with the 4E combat system.

Sageheart wrote:The skill set which had once been a HUGE list, is now just 8 or so.

There are 17 skills. I'm not sure what the problem was with diplomacy since one of the skills is called Diplomacy. In the end how does it make it that huge of a difference if, instead of putting points into pick-pocket, pick lock, disable trap, sleight-of-hand, ect, you put them under one heading: thievery.

I had no major qualms with 3rd edition. But I like 4th edition a lot. It's easier to get a longer campaign gaining momentum I feel compared to previously. Plenty of room for the character development but the option being there for a lot more easy to organise larger battles. I feel its a step in the right direction for the system.

Lexx wrote:I had no major qualms with 3rd edition. But I like 4th edition a lot. It's easier to get a longer campaign gaining momentum I feel compared to previously. Plenty of room for the character development but the option being there for a lot more easy to organise larger battles. I feel its a step in the right direction for the system.

True, it is posible to plan out a campain going from 1st to 30th before the first session is played.
You also have the posibility to aslo run the entire campain without a single fight.

Sageheart wrote:I had a ton of issues with 4E. I had tons of fun with the 3rd edition, but when I tried playing 4E it was an odd experience. At first my friends and I loved it since it really gave a new tactical way to play out combat: that made the game much more exciting. We also saw new ways to layout our characters almost like a new world of character development. As we kept playing we started to get a feeling like it was WOW on paper... then we started playing out the more fluffy RPG parts of our games which to be honest take up most of our games, and we saw how little the game rules gave us for things such as diplomacy. The skill set which had once been a HUGE list, is now just 8 or so.

This is the role-playing vs roll-playing debate. Also, D&D 4E isn't WOW on Paper. Wow is D&D on a computer.

# of Skills is kind of irrelevant, but as someone else mentioned. There are 17 now. There were more before and before that in 2nd and 1st edition there were even more. Rules do not role-playing make. Role-playing makes role-playing.

Of course you can RPG yourself without using any rules, and I believe this is a big argument against the lack of skills being a negative thing. I understand this, but I like my RPG games to have rules and mechanics for fluffier things which lie outside of combat. If i wanted to have a combat focused game based off special attacks i could just play WoW... you know?

Amusingly enough there is actually MORE structure in 4th ed for non-combat encounters (skill challenges) then there was in any previous edition. The difference is that there are not more rules. Do not confuse # of rules for support.

If # of rules = support for something than the 1st edition DM's guide was the most advanced 'role-playing' aid ever as it had rules for everything. When it came down to it though, they did not really provide a structure for Roleplaying, they provided an obstacle. Every time you wanted to do anything, you had to roll on a table. The same was true of 3rd ed. More rules does not equal more roleplaying.

D&D 4E provides you a structure to roleplay and have non combat encounters and then gets the hell out of your way. That's what a system should do.

Ahtman wrote:

Catyrpelius wrote:4th edition is more about combat nd less about role playing.

If you want something thats more into actual role playing then I suggest pathfinder, as it closely resmebels 3.5

That seems more a like a personal problem and less of a reality. A person can roleplay all day without any kind of rules at all, so the inclusion of rules won't determine your level of roleplaying, the player will. Any system can be turned into a numbers crunch with little roleplaying. Fourth Edition does make combat more accessible and streamlined, but that doesn't mean you can't roleplay. I mean, if you don't want to roleplay while you are playing 4th, more power to you, but that isn't an inherent flaw in the system.

I'll agree with that, and also, D&D was never a system which focused on social interactions; you always had to implement those aspects yourself. I enjoy 4E because it's very honest about what it is; it's essentially a skirmish game where the players control one individual person. It does that well too, and it's much more balanced than any previous incarnation of the game. If you want to include roleplaying aspects, then by all means, but it's not something which will be arbitrated by the ruleset. In short, after playing D&D for years I was proud of WotC for making D&D into a well balanced system.

That being said, I also realized that I'm not looking for a strict combat focused game system, I like that in my miniatures games, not my roleplaying ones. I want a game system which can sustain some deviation from the RAW and that doesn't promote the PC's into effective gods. I got that in some of my older D&D games, but only because I forced a square peg into a round hole, D&D was never not about becoming an all powerful combat god rules wise. So once WotC was honest with what D&D was, I had to be honest with myself and started running other things after 14-15 years. I like story, and background, and fluff, but I also like desperate fights with survival on a knife's edge, and D&D is not made to handle that well. So now I run Dark Heresy and WFRP 2E. I like those systems, they lend themselves well to the types of games that I want to play, they take on the fly arbitration well, and they give themselves over much easier to story based gaming as the character achievement tends to be less focused on loot and experience that makes the PC into a combat god. In D&D leveling invariably makes you a better killer, and you have to become a better killer too, otherwise you let the party and yourself down facing the next series of challenges, and since the major way you've always gained experience in D&D is by destroying foes... Well then I'm back to the start.

Long story short, 4E does D&D well and I feel it's the most balanced and fair version ever, but if your focus is story advancement, then D&D was never your best choice to begin with.

P.S.: Pathfinder is interesting, but failed to address most of the balance issues of 3.5, and in some instances made new ones. If you love 3.5 though, and don't want to stop buying books for it, then by all means. Also, as someone who has DMed every version of D&D, 4E D&D is by far the kindest in that regard, and after I stopped DMing 3.5 and realized the effort I put in for the return that I got, never again.

Yes the group is important, very important.

My group is made up with mostly players that started with 1st edition. Some of them are having problems with 4th edition. Perceptions are that they Nerfed everything.

However I think the problem is not the system, but the players themselves.
1] Started in 79
2] Started in 83
3] Started in 85
4] Stared in the early 80’s AFAIK
5] Started in 95
And a new one that started a few month ago.

The funny part is that #1 Complains that it is Roll-Play, not Role-Play, but every time I run a high [around 50/50] Non-Combat Game he complains about not a enough combat and will only use the Aid another Action during Skill Challenges and he hates the new Skill System

#2 Keeps wanting to cast his 20d6 fire balls and keeps complaing the it is only a Daily Power. He LOVES the new skill System

#3 Has Adapted well, but his dice still hate him.

#4 Joined the group about a year ago and has little or no complaints

#5 Love the System and the new guy just does not know any better.

However they keep coming and having a good time.

One of my Saying fits here perfectly
-The System is All Important
-The System is Unimportant.

You want to run a High Fantasy Game like The Pirates of Dark Water or Hawk the Slayer; you want to use Palladium or 3.5/Pathfinder.
You want a Middle Fantasy Game like LotR or Avatar the Last Air Bender, you can do it with 4th, but 3.5 or 2nd might work better.
You want to a Low Fantasy Game you might want to Look into WHF or even GURPS.

Once you get past the Core Books and into the other books [DMG 2], you could run them all with 4e. it all depends on what you want.

Also you need to look in the Fundamental Attitude change to the DM/Player relationship.
In 1st and 2nd it was I am God and you live and die by my Benevolence.
In 3rd it change to You are a team in the NFL and I am playing all of the Other Teams.
In 4th it is now You are my Team and I am the Head Coach.

As usual, Anpu, you provide excellent thoughts based on experience:

Anpu42 wrote:Also you need to look in the Fundamental Attitude change to the DM/Player relationship.
In 1st and 2nd it was I am God and you live and die by my Benevolence.
In 3rd it change to You are a team in the NFL and I am playing all of the Other Teams.
In 4th it is now You are my Team and I am the Head Coach.

I would say that 3rd could also be: "I'm the king but you nobles have made me sign Magna Carta, which I will grudgingly accpet." If the DM is bad, that is.

I would play Dark Heresy and wait for 5th tbh.

Unless you were really into some particular rule or world.

I played the game from AD&D (1E) through 3.5E, but 4E has made me go back to 1E...

Out of curiosity, anyone tried the new D&D Essentials?

Honestly, I think the biggest hurdle 4E has to oversome is the nostalgia it's playerbase has for previous editions.

4E mechanically is vastly superior to it's previous editions.

Roll Play Vs. Role Play arguments are riduclous, since that has nothing to do with mechanics and everything to do with the gaming group.

adamsouza wrote:Honestly, I think the biggest hurdle 4E has to oversome is the nostalgia it's playerbase has for previous editions.

4E mechanically is vastly superior to it's previous editions.

Roll Play Vs. Role Play arguments are riduclous, since that has nothing to do with mechanics and everything to do with the gaming group.

Short, simple, and to the point, well said sir.

Its pretty well WoW on table top. 3rd ed was the last time I actually enjoyed D&D.


By that I mean that the combat abilities and mechanics are ridiculously over the top. It eschews the fantasy feel of classic D&D with a YAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH I AM A GOD OF SLAUGHTER that seems to permeate gaming today.

I like the idea that 3/3.5 is somehow 'realistic' and not over the top at all.

Ahtman wrote:I like the idea that 3/3.5 is somehow 'realistic' and not over the top at all.

He and every other PC in his party had a strict no casters policy I would guess?

Neconilis wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I like the idea that 3/3.5 is somehow 'realistic' and not over the top at all.

He and every other PC in his party had a strict no casters policy I would guess?

Heh. And no multi-classing.

My Paladin/Bard/Sublime Chord/Knight Phantom that had max level bard, mage and paladin spells in full plate with 3/4 BAB/CL and a flying phantom horse disagrees with the realistic assertion of 3.5. 3.5 is more OMG I AM KILLER OF WORLDS than 4e is at this point. 4e needs more splatbooks to get there and it will be harder since multiclassing is much restricted.

Everyone who i ever tried to get playing 4th didn't even bother to try
they'd give me a "its paper WoW" style excuse and not even give two looks.
lame. 3.5 is too rule-heavy!

It's nonsense to suggest that game system has nothing to do with roleplaying. It's perfectly possible to design game systems that promote roleplay, or even promote a particular kind of roleplay. D&D has never had such a system, so I can see how gamers who've pretty much only played that or its clones would assume that whether a group roleplays or not is just down to the members of the group, but it's patently untrue.

Look at any of the New Style Games from Hogshead Publishing, or look at Amber Diceless, or Nobilis, or some of the standouts from the Forge indie gaming community, like My Life With Master or Sorcerer, if you want to see games whose mechanics actively encourage roleplaying.

The worst bit that kills 4E for me is the business model. The core books do not contain all of the core in order to require more purchases by consumers. So instead of making interesting, engaging new product they merely cut a lot of filler into the ols core so that they can spread out the material over several purchases.
Even the "Essentials" line, Mike Mearls' "Olive Branch" to disenfranchised fans does this. Here's a warpriest with domains, but we only give you two. "Stay tuned for more products to give you something useful...".

Actually there are two general builds (melee cleric, stand back and heal cleric) but there are more Domains, you just have to feat into them. The Cleric section is really organized badly though where it has some of their info here, and some of it there but never quite all where you need it.

Tacobake wrote:I would play Dark Heresy and wait for 5th tbh.

I actually have to agree with this. Since I was introduced to Dark heresy I have found it to be an incredibly enjoyable game, so much that I put all my plans for anything D&D dm-ing aside and have been planning and focusing my attention (and subsequently my money...) to Dark Heresy. It's such a wonderful system that allows you to use all that wonderful 40k and other terrain and provides such... freshness? to the rpg systems I have know for so long.

However if all you really want to do is combat, both 4th and pathfinder can provide this. The only problem is you have to spend quite a bit more money (as in more then 3x) for all the 4th books since the system they created allows them to spam books rather than condense it down so you have to spend less. You can do all the same stuff in both games, but playing pathfinder makes my character seem a bit more... personal. Furthermore the lore for the pathfinder world is INCREDIBLE. Really. I'm not lying.

I would recommend going down to your FLGS and looking at both the 4th books and pathfinder books before making your decision.

Something to note is whenever I played 4th, combat took forever... hours on in for just a single encounter. Be this just my group or not, I'm not sure, but as a whole I remember quite a few threads on "Combat takes too long" way back when I was actually looking up stuff about 4th.

utan wrote:The worst bit that kills 4E for me is the business model. The core books do not contain all of the core in order to require more purchases by consumers. So instead of making interesting, engaging new product they merely cut a lot of filler into the ols core so that they can spread out the material over several purchases.
Even the "Essentials" line, Mike Mearls' "Olive Branch" to disenfranchised fans does this. Here's a warpriest with domains, but we only give you two. "Stay tuned for more products to give you something useful...".

Your not the only one who thinks that. It's not like people who play roleplaying games have money falling off trees after all, less books with more is always the way to go.

juraigamer wrote:
However if all you really want to do is combat, both 4th and pathfinder can provide this. The only problem is you have to spend quite a bit more money (as in more then 3x) for all the 4th books since the system they created allows them to spam books rather than condense it down so you have to spend less. You can do all the same stuff in both games, but playing pathfinder makes my character seem a bit more... personal. Furthermore the lore for the pathfinder world is INCREDIBLE. Really. I'm not lying.

Just because pathfinder has less books doesn't mean you get more for less. Sure you have 3 books and all the material is in there. Great. You don't need to buy all of the D&D books to benefit or play the system.

Something to note is whenever I played 4th, combat took forever... hours on in for just a single encounter. Be this just my group or not, I'm not sure, but as a whole I remember quite a few threads on "Combat takes too long" way back when I was actually looking up stuff about 4th.

It depends on party size and level. This has been true of D&D forever though. 3.5 Took ages to resolve high level combat. 4E is actually faster than 3 and 3.5, but does bog down a bit at high levels (due to option glut).

utan wrote:The worst bit that kills 4E for me is the business model. The core books do not contain all of the core in order to require more purchases by consumers. So instead of making interesting, engaging new product they merely cut a lot of filler into the ols core so that they can spread out the material over several purchases.
Even the "Essentials" line, Mike Mearls' "Olive Branch" to disenfranchised fans does this. Here's a warpriest with domains, but we only give you two. "Stay tuned for more products to give you something useful...".

Your not the only one who thinks that. It's not like people who play roleplaying games have money falling off trees after all, less books with more is always the way to go.

No, the core books do have the core material. Hence the name. The other books are optional. You can (and I have) run successful games with just the Big 3. The same that you can run games with just the Big 3 in Pathfinder. The difference is that WOTC produces more books that you can optionally add to your games.

All that being said... There are Pathfinder Zealots and there are D&D Zealots. Wherever the two meet there is no agreement, there is only forum war.

Jurai's advice is solid in one piece. Check them both out and buy the one that appeals to you. I would also try out a test game if the store does them. (I know stores do D&D Encounter games a lot as promos, not sure about Pathfinder.) Always try something before you buy it, if possible.

Can I say "Dragon Warriors" again?

Core book has all the rules you'll ever need to play, plus an adventure and a detailed world background... the game plays quickly... and the setting is a wonderful, gritty, dark, British folkloric one that was quite influential on the Warhammer world (Dragon Warriors was first released back in the early 80s).

I will admit to some personal interest here, as I've worked on the line myself, and the current publisher is a friend, but honestly, I've been playing DW for 25 years, and it's the only tabletop RPG I've kept coming back to over those years.

Am I the only one seeing the irony of complaining about a gaming company (supposedly) having an OMG MONEYZ ONRY plan on a website devoted to Games Workshop?

pretre wrote:
Just because pathfinder has less books doesn't mean you get more for less. Sure you have 3 books and all the material is in there. Great. You don't need to buy all of the D&D books to benefit or play the system.

True, you don't need to get the rest of the books to play the system, but you need the other books to allow more diversity in available actions for the players during combat and outside of it as well. I merely speak of the contrast between the two systems and the simple difference in the amount material both offer. I believe both game systems have about the same amount of material, but only if you have all the books for both (ie: 4 pathfinder books vs 12+ 4th books)

I mean, if you had the option to buy really awesome minis that came in huge lots for cheap rather than another line that offered similar minis but for more and came in smaller packages, what would you choose?

Again, I'm not saying 4th is horrible, I'm just saying it's designed in a manner that I dislike from a broad perspective, and I say this having played and dm-ed 4th ed.

What saddens me is when people can't discuss the differences between the games and actually converse about it. Perhaps it shows the overall average intelligence of each gaming systems player base, perhaps it is blind zealotry, or some other equally absurd reason to be unable to talk about such things in a civil manner (of course, if could be both of those reasons in some cases)

I guess if I really had to pin down why I think 4th is bad... it just comes down to the book releasing system. Minimal content, more books, more revenue. Good from a economics perspective, bad from a consumer perspective. If that changed and there were at least half the books that there are now, I might sing a different tune about 4th.

Edit: Now try again and show some reasoning why what I'm saying is incorrect

juraigamer wrote: I know my facts and make every attempt to present them, however there are those ignorant zealots of specific editions that won't hear any of it. Hell, I expect some of them have already sent hate mail to me for speaking my mind.

Do you really see yourself as some above it all persecuted martyr? If you read the thread(s), you aren't saying anything that anyone hasn't generally said including myself, yet somehow you have this weird air about you like you see yourself floating in defending something that was never actually under attack in the first place. So it doesn't make sense that you, or someone else, would be getting hate mail about it. It would be wierd to go after the parrot instead of the speaker. Then you go off about "I know what I am talking about" but you don't actually talk like you do. You can't even tell that when someone says "that only manly men and attractive ladies play 4th edition", that it is a joke.

Ian Sturrock wrote:It's nonsense to suggest that game system has nothing to do with roleplaying.

I suggested that is there is nothing in 4E that makes it less "role" playable than any previous edition of D&D.

-----

I hated Amber. Amber is an acting exercise for amature thespians. A complete setting, where the characters have to agree who is better at what at everything before the campaign starts. The Game Master holds the character sheets and the players just act their parts, with the game Master the sole arbiter of success or failure. I know techincally that qualifies as role playing but by those standards sow does playing Cowboys and Indians. I always felt that the Amber setting was a way for the author to cash in on his fictional setting without bothering to actually develop a worthwhile game system.

Call me old fashioned but, I like my RPGs to involve pen, paper, and dice rolling.

As someone who is very familiar with 3.5, I can say one of the flaws was that there were some needlessly complex mechanics and flaws. The majority of people I knew who played 3.5 has house rules of some kind or customised errata of some kind to streamline it (as a DM myself, house rules were a must in 3.5). Not to mention the excess amount of sourcebooks as barebones 3.5 without any source books is pretty boring IMO. I dare say 3.5 without house rules and secondary sourcebooks was fairly unplayable and boring.

It appears that 4th edition is just a product of all the feedback as well as an attempt to get the younger generation to play D&D over a videogame, which is not a bad thing. Things change over time and nothing is ever eternal.

You guys should read the insane arguments on the DDO forums over 3.5 vs 4.0, it’s quite insane. I think the general consensus is that people felt there should have been 2 variations to the core gameplay mechanics. One focusing on streamlined gameplay (4.0 in its current form) and the other focusing on roleplay and fluff exploration (3.5 with some of the hardcore roleplay stuff from second edition like houses).

At the end of the day both systems have their benefits and flaws. I have to agree with some of the previous posters in saying that it boils down to group preference rather than stating one or the other is inherently better or worse.

adamsouza wrote:It's nonsense to suggest that game system has nothing to do with roleplaying.

This is quite true. 4th doesn't make it harder to roleplay at all. Perhaps the new players are merely looking for a pc game in tabletop form and are unaccustomed to roleplaying, but don't believe for a second that 4th is lacking in the ability to roleplay at all. The only think I'll say is unless you roleplay properly, you might end up with a gimped character, though this is true in all games. However the focus on static powers in 4th vs the gameplay of 3rd does provide limits based on core books alone.

candy.man wrote:

At the end of the day both systems have their benefits and flaws. I have to agree with some of the previous posters in saying that it boils down to group preference rather than stating one or the other is inherently better or worse.

+1. I really wish someone did some research on the types of people who currently play both rulesets for the game, some interesting similarity's would arise between those that chose one system over another, I'm sure of it.

Ahtman wrote:Out of curiosity, anyone tried the new D&D Essentials?

I have not, but I've read reviews.

I like the concept, but I do not like what I've heard of the actual product.

The classes are variants of the main iconic classes. The Fighter, for example, is a kinda-sorta variant of the standard 4e fighter that has no dailies but has some stances. This was done, supposedly, because some people complained that playing a fighter was too tough. I have not really heard how it would work if the Essentials stuff is mixed with 4e. it sounds like there'll be some weirdness as the Essentials player is used to playing in a bit simpler setup.

I think I would have preferred if it was more of a true starter set. Provide the four iconic classes, maybe a couple more, and give them limited builds to get them to level 10. Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric. They'll each have one 'build' and one or two powers to select from per level, but all of these are drawn from the PHB and related books. Essentials is designed as a "Let's try this" with the idea that moving to the regular books adds options, not changes options.

4th Edition is a good system for D&D. Not for Fantasy Roleplaying, which it has several failings at. it's really a funs system for people who want to get together and play dungeon crawls with a bit of story. More GM-moderated than Descent and similar 'Board Game RPGs) but (by default) very easy barrier-to-entry as you can make a character in minutes that is probably competitive, or at least not useless. Adding 'story' and 'character' is still up to the players, and D&D 4 really seems to have downplayed a lot of the 'meta game' bits in favor of concentrating on doing what D&D has always done best: focusing on a bunch of friends who go exploring caves, killing monsters, and stealing their stuff for fun and profit.

adamsouza wrote:I suggested that is there is nothing in 4E that makes it less "role" playable than any previous edition of D&D.

-----

I hated Amber. Amber is an acting exercise for amature thespians. A complete setting, where the characters have to agree who is better at what at everything before the campaign starts. The Game Master holds the character sheets and the players just act their parts, with the game Master the sole arbiter of success or failure. I know techincally that qualifies as role playing but by those standards sow does playing Cowboys and Indians. I always felt that the Amber setting was a way for the author to cash in on his fictional setting without bothering to actually develop a worthwhile game system.

Call me old fashioned but, I like my RPGs to involve pen, paper, and dice rolling.

I'd say that all editions of AD&D have been marginally less conducive to roleplaying than Original D&D. Generally, as you add complexity to an RPG, you reduce the elegance of the design, and remind players more consistently that they're *playing a game* rather than keeping them immersed in the roleplay experience.

You seem to have the wrong impression of Amber, on several fronts. Possibly you had a gaming group that just didn't gel for Amber, or a GM who wasn't that well suited to running it (no disrespect intended to either your group or your GM -- some of the best GMs of, say, Call of Cthulhu, or Pendragon, or Vampire, or Cyberpunk, that I know, wouldn't be well suited to running an Amber game). Certainly I would disagree that the setting is "complete" -- it's probably about the most open-ended one out there. There are loads of opportunities both before the game and during play for some players to become better at various game stats without the other players' knowledge. The GM doesn't particularly need to hold the character sheets. It's absolutely untrue that the GM is the sole arbiter of success & failure -- the rules give extremely clear guidance for just about every situation. The GM interprets the rules (as with any other RPG) but personally I find as an Amber GM that I have to that determining character success/failure is actually easier than 90% of other games because of those clear rules.

The Amber game wasn't written by the author of the Amber novels, either. So I make it that you're mistaken about just about every aspect of the game.

You are, of course, very much entitled to not like it, though.

I started out with D&D 4E, its not that bad, but it helps that the person running the campaign itself knows all of the new rules to the new system. Either way I do not believe that one system is better than the other, its about having a good time with your group of players. I do like the number of playable races in forth edition, however i hate buying the new books that come out every month or so.

My Two Cents (Okay, more like a Half Dollar).

I do not personally like Fourth Edition D&D. I grew up on 2'nd and 3'rd/3.5 and if I'm going to play D&D, 3.5 is definitely the way to go in my opinion. But I'll admit, it's suffered from a fair amount of over-elaboration. The heart of the problem, in my opinion, is the company (emphasis on the big company) WOTC, which has been in charge of the D&D title for some time. As a company, it is their goal to make as much money and that, unfortunately, means squeezing as much money out of us (the consumer), as is humanly possible through the use of installments, settings, scenarios, rules modifications (3.5 ring any bells), and supplements. Again, unfortunately, this tends to lead to an excess of material and a horrible jumble of rules, and we all know what happens if you don't keep up with the times. Quite frankly, I've just about had my fill of being exploited. Bring me back the days of small developers, little companies, and loyal, helpful fan bases.
Of Course the 'New Direction' for D&D is not my favorite, it's geared towards the maximization of profits for the Wizards, and that means the maximization of customer bases, in that spirit, the rules have to be as easy to use and 'cookie-cutter' as the Wizards can make them. Don't Get me wrong, I own a few books, and I've played it, but the reality is that the mainstream RPG industry is moving in a direction that is simply not geared towards hard-core (I use the term loosely, but that's a whole 'nother post) gamers who want to spend great time and effort investing their characters as a person, instead of as a fighter or wizard. Don't get me wrong, I don't hold it against the Wizards, they have the right to maximize profit, it's kind of the point of being a business, and...



(I jest, I have no problem with V-Gamers, or MMO's)
But Damnit, sometimes I miss the older days.

I've only played 3rd-4rth edition and 4rth edition isnt absolutley horrible its just not nearly as good as the others mainly due to the fact that I could just play World of warcraft if I felt like playing 4rth edition (its pretty much the same thing)

Eura wrote:I've only played 3rd-4rth edition and 4rth edition isnt absolutley horrible its just not nearly as good as the others mainly due to the fact that I could just play World of warcraft if I felt like playing 4rth edition (its pretty much the same thing)

Are you trying to start trouble? Why would you say something that devoid of thought?

I believe that's his opinion, one he's probably put some thought into but didn't waste time elaborating and just put the conclusion to his thoughts.

KingofthePeeps wrote:My Two Cents (Okay, more like a Half Dollar).

I do not personally like Fourth Edition D&D. I grew up on 2'nd and 3'rd/3.5 and if I'm going to play D&D, 3.5 is definitely the way to go in my opinion. But I'll admit, it's suffered from a fair amount of over-elaboration. The heart of the problem, in my opinion, is the company (emphasis on the big company) WOTC, which has been in charge of the D&D title for some time. As a company, it is their goal to make as much money and that, unfortunately, means squeezing as much money out of us (the consumer), as is humanly possible through the use of installments, settings, scenarios, rules modifications (3.5 ring any bells), and supplements. Again, unfortunately, this tends to lead to an excess of material and a horrible jumble of rules, and we all know what happens if you don't keep up with the times. Quite frankly, I've just about had my fill of being exploited. Bring me back the days of small developers, little companies, and loyal, helpful fan bases.
Of Course the 'New Direction' for D&D is not my favorite, it's geared towards the maximization of profits for the Wizards, and that means the maximization of customer bases, in that spirit, the rules have to be as easy to use and 'cookie-cutter' as the Wizards can make them. Don't Get me wrong, I own a few books, and I've played it, but the reality is that the mainstream RPG industry is moving in a direction that is simply not geared towards hard-core (I use the term loosely, but that's a whole 'nother post) gamers who want to spend great time and effort investing their characters as a person, instead of as a fighter or wizard. Don't get me wrong, I don't hold it against the Wizards, they have the right to maximize profit, it's kind of the point of being a business, and...

Honest question: Do you remember TSR? I don't understand why people talk about WoTC being money grubbers when TSR had a strict policy of "Don't playtest it, just ship the damn thing and crank out another" for years. It was also run by a woman who forced Buck Rogers after Buck Rogers product out the door because her family owned the rights.

I don't know if it's rose tinted glasses or what but compared to TSR, WoTC is like a kindly old grandpa.

juraigamer wrote:I believe that's his opinion, one he's probably put some thought into but didn't waste time elaborating and just put the conclusion to his thoughts.

That is almost as poorly thought out as the post you are feebly trying to defend. Being an opinion is a worthless argument and the last resort for those who actually haven't thought something through. Or for those who haven't read through the thread they are posting in becuase that subject has been discussed already. That is why bringing it back up is a bit silly. So, not only is it wrong (yes, opinions can be wrong) it was also redundant.

Gr3y wrote:I don't know if it's rose tinted glasses or what but compared to TSR, WoTC is like a kindly old grandpa.

It is a combination of nostalgia mixed with WotC being the ones we have to pay at this point. They are taking our money.

I don't mind it in the least. It made things less time consuming and more streamlined. Honestly, who really gave a gak about exploring? That's all verbal anyway. Combat SHOULD be the focus of the game.

I agree with Gr3y's sentiments.

People forgive all the sins of 1st edition because at the time there simply wasn't anything better.
A lot of the monsters and models were direct imports from their tournaments where the adventures and monsters were made to slaughter characters and had no semblance of play balance.

2nd Edition focused on player balance, but pretty much just straight over converted the entire monster pantheon, often adding new tricks and powers with variants. Creating magic items and spells was now an epic task. Character's created with "kits" out shined those without. demi Humans were still superhuman, but the min maxed "dual class" human could have muti class abilities in excess of any other race. (Dex, Str, and Int of 17 you say ? You could be Fighter 10, Thief 10, Wizard 10 before your single class team mate hit level 13)

3rd Edition was awesome, but with the OGL came more supplements/feats/spells/magic item combinations than could ever be play tested together. The new freedom allowed Min Maxers to go hog wild, while other players gimped them self with sub-optimal feat choices. There was also a game balance break where high level clerics were involved.

got to run...

So instead of the obvious and hoping it would come naturally through deep thought, I'll just spell it out for ya.

4th ed = wow? Yes, kinda. In Wow and other MMOs you use powers on cooldowns or that rely on mana or some such pool to use. In 4th you use powers that you can use all the time, sometime, and rarely. It's a simple analogy and makes sense.

Now you can't really do extreme freeform in Wow, but for those whose first experience with table top rpgs, it's damn similar and there are quite a few who agree.


I have yet to see anyone prove there is no similarity to 4th and Wow, so until then



Now as a whole:

I wouldn't even stick D&D on the cover. I think this is an abomination of the game. They have totally ruined it. They have alienated large numbers of roleplayers, people who have been playing this game for years. 4th edition is setup to be a game for hack-and-slashing power gaming min-maxers who want to fight really big monsters with tones of hit points. Granted a person can still play 4th edition and roleplay out events and scenarios, but in practice the rules really discourage any kind of roleplaying activity.

The combat system was deliberately designed to make miniatures mandatory for any combat situation.

I completely agree with Kingofthepeeps' post above, all 4th boils down to is "How to rework dnd to maximize profit". Yet at the same time when it came to the later stages of 3rd and 3.5 the money grubbins can be seen.
I don't agree that 4th is most like Wow though, I feel it's most like a board game, a feeling that only got reinforced when they actually released 4th ed board games...

Now don't get me wrong, I've played and dm-ed the game for more than a for at least a year at one point, thought it's not like I can prove that. However in the end 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons was seriously a complete waste of time and money.

By my current count, there are 3 core books and 15+ some books that you need to add content that equals what should be in 1/4 that amount of books at least.

In contrast, What my group has been playing, The pathfinder rpg (D&D) only has 3 core books out, the first a 500+ page monster with 2-4 books worth of 4th equivalent material in it.

I don't care what you play or why you play it, but other people play other games and enjoy them. If your gonna start a discussion about why someone believes they way they do, you should start with your own reasons why you believe their opinions are wrong. I'm going to go use the cash I saved not buying any more 4th books and selling them back for a better game on some more 40k models that I can use for Dark Heresy. Oh yea and I used some of that cash for Dark heresy books, which is in my opinion a far better game and system than anything in 4th.

juraigamer wrote:it's damn similar and there are quite a few who agree.

The more people that are wrong doesn't make something right. It just makes more people wrong. it is amazing that the main complaints come from 3/3.5 apologists. This is all we get from you.




We are just recycling the same points over and over. Someone likes X, someone who like Y gets all hurt and sarcastic, someone calls for reason and that all gaming is equally valid, and then a few days pass and someone else comes in and starts the whole thing over again. It is the thread that won't die and yet also not make any progress.

As Ahtman didn't bother to say, because it was covered earlier in the thread, the similarities between 4th and WoW are trivial beside their differences.

Kingofthepeeps-
WotC was a company owned and run by passionate gamers, who, thanks to Magic: The Gathering, had enough money to purchase TSR and save D&D, which TSR had been running into the ground for several years. They succeeded. The D20 license, SRD, and OGL are all big elements of that.

WotC then agreed to a purchase by Hasbro, which was supposed to see the main people in WotC have financial security while maintaining good control over the handling of D&D. Sadly, they got the former but not the latter. If you want to rant about profit-centered design (which again, is highly ironic on a site devoted to GW), then Hasbro is the better target. WotC started out and acquired D&D as a company by gamers and for gamers, and changed into one also for its owners.

Check out the article linked below, and particularly Rick Marshall's several excellent detailed comments about the history at WotC, which he thankfully says he's going to compile onto his own site soon:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/11/thank-you-ryan-dancey.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I don't mind it in the least. It made things less time consuming and more streamlined. Honestly, who really gave a gak about exploring? That's all verbal anyway. Combat SHOULD be the focus of the game.

This is a matter of taste. A lot of players of the older editions are much more into exploring unusual situations, and prefer streamlined combat rules which allow a fight to be resolved in a few minutes, so combat doesn't dominate the session unless you have a LOT of fights.

3.5 Allowed you to do some spectacular stuff with your character, if you were magic. Now that has been scaled back, players who enjoyed it are bitter. But it was necessary.

Play Warhammer Fantasty RPG,At least dont have to worry About a lack of MINIS.Sorry I quit DND when TSR did.Also when the man gave up on it.Gary Gygax.May he R.I.P.Because if it was not for him alot of companies would not be around.Take that GW you started out making first ed. dnd stuff.Heck i have some of your modules.

col. krazy kenny wrote:Play Warhammer Fantasty RPG,At least dont have to worry About a lack of MINIS.Sorry I quit DND when TSR did.Also when the man gave up on it.Gary Gygax.May he R.I.P.Because if it was not for him alot of companies would not be around.Take that GW you started out making first ed. dnd stuff.Heck i have some of your modules.

How does the warhammer fantasy rpg relate to dark heresy? I know it uses the same system, but am unsure as to how magic works or a few other things. Would you provide some examples why you recommend it? Do "fate points" exist in that system? How is weaponry scaled? Does it use the same experience system as in DH? Thanks!

col. krazy kenny wrote:Play Warhammer Fantasty RPG,At least dont have to worry About a lack of MINIS.Sorry I quit DND when TSR did.Also when the man gave up on it.Gary Gygax.May he R.I.P.Because if it was not for him alot of companies would not be around.Take that GW you started out making first ed. dnd stuff.Heck i have some of your modules.

Did you quit twice, then? Around 10 years apart?

Gary Gygax was run out of the company back in the 80s (around '86 or '87, maybe?), forced out by Lorraine Williams and the Blumes. The Blumes first started bankrupting TSR in the early-mid 80s when Gygax went to California to work on the D&D tv show and trying to get a movie together. He tried to get control back and made a strong effort at getting TSR back on his feet (the release of Unearthed Arcana was a strong shot in the arm, cash-wise), but eventually lost the battle and was forced to leave.

Williams and the rest of her terrible management team ran D&D and TSR into the ground from there; D&D was widely looked-down on by gamers in the 90s, most gamers thinking of it as mindless hack & slash, and preferring stuff like GURPS, Vampire the Masquerade, etc. TSR's terrible treatment of the fans was another major factor. Anyone who was on the internet & the early web in the 90s remembers the nickname "T$R" and their attempts to shut down fan websites that they should have valued like gold.

WotC quite literally saved D&D. Peter Adkinson, Ryan Dancey, and others on their staff wanted to get it out of the gutter of games and make it effectively immortal; not subject to being destroyed by bad corporate decisions. And they succeeded. No matter how you feel about 4th ed, the things they did with the legal license made it possible for 3E and all the retro-clones of earlier editions to be kept alive and in the hands of the fans in perpetuity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

juraigamer wrote:

col. krazy kenny wrote:Play Warhammer Fantasty RPG,At least dont have to worry About a lack of MINIS.Sorry I quit DND when TSR did.Also when the man gave up on it.Gary Gygax.May he R.I.P.Because if it was not for him alot of companies would not be around.Take that GW you started out making first ed. dnd stuff.Heck i have some of your modules.

How does the warhammer fantasy rpg relate to dark heresy? I know it uses the same system, but am unsure as to how magic works or a few other things. Would you provide some examples why you recommend it? Do "fate points" exist in that system? How is weaponry scaled? Does it use the same experience system as in DH? Thanks!

This is totally off-topic and would make a good thread of its own. I recommend starting one.

Mannahnin wrote:No matter how you feel about 4th ed, the things they did with the legal license made it possible for 3E and all the retro-clones of earlier editions to be kept alive and in the hands of the fans in perpetuity.

Let's also not forget that a great deal of 4e was based on player input to the changes they wanted to see. It wasn't just some arbitrary rules change.

If anything, 4E is just the uiltimate expression of trends developed in third. I am totally puzzled by the extreme sentiments: how can someone love 3.5 but hate 4th? My guess is that people don't actually feel this way but I'm sure it makes them feel wise to scream it over and over. TSR was indeed an utterly awful company but there was an upshot inasmuch as gamers went elsewhere and there was some mainstream development outside of D&D. I think the success of 3.5 worked against that development. If there are two halves to RPG, the RP and the G, WotC has always favored the G and I'm sure that contributed to Hasbro's interest in the company. Meanwhile, systems that emphasize RP are increasingly marginalized from the mainstream--by consumers as much as publishers, I'd say.

I completely agree with Kingofthepeeps' post above, all 4th boils down to is "How to rework dnd to maximize profit". Yet at the same time when it came to the later stages of 3rd and 3.5 the money grubbins can be seen.

See M's post. He has a superb grasp of D&D's history. Do a search on the newsgroups in google for TSR and 1st/2nd edition. You'll see the same posts (much as you did here) about the move to 2nd. And guess what, do the same thing for 3rd. Same posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/7a920b30a0742885/6896d0e455ba1501?hl=en&q=TSR+profit+2nd+edition&safe=on
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/51d1391051d13748/52c4768fcda845f5?hl=en&q=TSR+2nd+edition+wow&safe=on
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.miniatures.warhammer/browse_thread/thread/20246e893cf35e83/3af357b4c7359b9e?hl=en&q=3rd+ruined+D%26D&safe=on

Let's play a fun game? What edition are they complaining about?

Guy from 1992 wrote:
As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per month, 2 would do just fine.

Guy from 1992 wrote:
Why produce one or two supoplements when you can spread out the material to three or four? And by using cheap paper covers and glue bindings you not only increase the profit margin per unit sold, you reduce the useful life of the product and limit the secondary (used) market.

jurai from 2010 wrote:
By my current count, there are 3 core books and 15+ some books that you need to add content that equals what should be in 1/4 that amount of books at least.

Creepy.

Guy from 1992 wrote:
>Agreed! Used by itself the 2nd Edition is a piece of crud! Only as a >supplement to the 1st Edition does the 2nd Editon have any merit in my eyes. >Although some would disagree (like I could really care less!) since Gygax >wrote the first edition and did not write the 2nd then it ain't official!!!

Guy from 2001 wrote:
The problems I see with 3rd (couple of these are minor pet peeves): 1) Definitely aimed at a young, videogaming audience from presentation, the emphasis on use of miniatures in combat, the huge precedence combat has in the rules, and the feat system feels like diablo ii skills.

juraigamer in 2010 wrote:4th ed = wow? Yes, kinda. In Wow and other MMOs you use powers on cooldowns or that rely on mana or some such pool to use. In 4th you use powers that you can use all the time, sometime, and rarely. It's a simple analogy and makes sense.

Whoa, trippy.

Guy from 2001 wrote:DnD 3E suffers simply because it replaced one set of problems for another. It's mostly d20, but it still uses all sorts of other dice and stuff. It's traded rule complexity and text to become a miniatures wargaming exercise. And the simplified core mechanic simply highlights how fiddly the remaining mechanics are. And balance? Much worse than otherwise, because the GM is rather obliged to run "balanced" encounters.

juraigamer 2010 wrote:
I wouldn't even stick D&D on the cover. I think this is an abomination of the game. They have totally ruined it. They have alienated large numbers of roleplayers, people who have been playing this game for years. 4th edition is setup to be a game for hack-and-slashing power gaming min-maxers who want to fight really big monsters with tones of hit points. Granted a person can still play 4th edition and roleplay out events and scenarios, but in practice the rules really discourage any kind of roleplaying activity.

I'm just weirded out now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

juraigamer wrote:4th ed = wow? Yes, kinda. In Wow and other MMOs you use powers on cooldowns or that rely on mana or some such pool to use. In 4th you use powers that you can use all the time, sometime, and rarely. It's a simple analogy and makes sense.

WOW is based on the same things D&D and other RPGs are, the wealth of common property and concepts that make up the fantasy genre.

The concept of 'cooldowns', 'mana', etc are not new. In 1st, 2nd and 3rd you had powers that you could use all the time, sometime and rarely. Vancian spell system is based around a set number of spells that you can use in a day. Some classes also had 'all the time' abilities, some had a set number of uses and some had ones that could only be used in separate encounters. This is nothing new.

The concept of Mana to cast spells goes back to the 60's and has been used in systems since the start of RPGs. Rage as a mechanic was used in 2nd and 1st edition D&D for berserkers in different forms.

I think what you are seeing is a convergence of ideas and not one game copying the other.

I have yet to see anyone prove there is no similarity to 4th and Wow, so until then

Of course there is similarity. They are both Fantasy RPGs. I bet I could make a similarly exhaustive list of things similar between Pathfinder or 3rd Edition D&D and WOW. Doesn't mean that they are copied from it, just that they have a similar genres and draw from the same rich history of RPGs.

I wouldn't even stick D&D on the cover. I think this is an abomination of the game. They have totally ruined it. They have alienated large numbers of roleplayers, people who have been playing this game for years. 4th edition is setup to be a game for hack-and-slashing power gaming min-maxers who want to fight really big monsters with tones of hit points. Granted a person can still play 4th edition and roleplay out events and scenarios, but in practice the rules really discourage any kind of roleplaying activity.

I see you feel strongly about it. That's your right. But...
- 3rd and 3.5 were much more min-max friendly than 4E. Go to Wizards.com and check out the old 3.5 Char Opt forums versus the 4E ones. Big difference.
- What rules were there for events and scenarios in 3rd, 2nd, 1st ed that are not present in 4th ed? A few additional skills that have been rolled into new 4th ed skills... Other than that ...
What rules are in 4th ed for events and scenarios that weren't in 3rd/2nd/1st? Oh yeah, Skill Challenges.

The combat system was deliberately designed to make miniatures mandatory for any combat situation.

This is just my opinion, but if you're not playing with Minis or Tokens or Slips of Paper with names on it, you're missing out.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wow! I just noticed that the guy from 2001 was John Hwang. I wonder if it was our JH... Hey, it is! Bottom of the page!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.miniatures.warhammer/browse_thread/thread/20246e893cf35e83/3af357b4c7359b9e?hl=en&q=3rd+ruined+D%26D&safe=on

JohnHwangDD from 2001 wrote:Disappointing, actually. It's rushed, very, very rushed. Product is very
uneven. Some of the expansion books have serious problems, miniatures line has
major holes.

Rather like GW, really.
...DnD 3E suffers simply because it replaced one set of problems for another.
It's mostly d20, but it still uses all sorts of other dice and stuff. It's
traded rule complexity and text to become a miniatures wargaming exercise.
And the simplified core mechanic simply highlights how fiddly the remaining
mechanics are. And balance? Much worse than otherwise, because the GM is
rather obliged to run "balanced" encounters.

--- John Hwang "J_Hw...@my-deja.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

Manchu wrote:If anything, 4E is just the uiltimate expression of trends developed in third. I am totally puzzled by the extreme sentiments: how can someone love 3.5 but hate 4th? My guess is that people don't actually feel this way but I'm sure it makes them feel wise to scream it over and over. TSR was indeed an utterly awful company but there was an upshot inasmuch as gamers went elsewhere and there was some mainstream development outside of D&D. I think the success of 3.5 worked against that development. If there are two halves to RPG, the RP and the G, WotC has always favored the G and I'm sure that contributed to Hasbro's interest in the company. Meanwhile, systems that emphasize RP are increasingly marginalized from the mainstream--by consumers as much as publishers, I'd say.

I think that 4th edition would have been better received if it had come out from someone other than WotC* without the D&D 'name.' It's a very interesting system, and has some neat ideas, but a lot of these weren't presented properly which turned people off.

It's a neat synthesis of the desire for 'cinematic' play and the desire for 'tactical' play, something I don't know of another game that does. There's a lot of neat cinematic games (Try Feng Shui for one) and some great 'tactical games' (Even Necromunda, if you want) but few games really combine the two. Tactical play tends to, in most, end up being a string of "I attack" in my experience. Sure, the spell-caster might get some fun, but for the fighters it tends to get boring. Some GMs allow more 'cinematic' stuff, but that can cause problems as well: If a GM allows a party to do a trick, then the party will tend to repeat the trick if possible. Cineamtic play can be fun (Feng Shui can be very fun if everyone is in the right mood) but many often don't feel there's enough 'challenge' to it.

4th edition uses a lot of status effects, special movement, and similar to add some cinematic feel. These are limited, but generally everyone has a couple At-Wills that they can choose from even if they're running on empty. It's still very, very tactical, but I much prefer "I push him back, then get to punch one of his buddies. next round, I'll do a charge' over "I attack. I attack. Now I'll attack the next guy."

TSR had some great ideas, and I liked the way the 2nd editionA D&D line was split up... You had tons of weird box set settings (Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape) that were semi-compatible, then weird books like the almost-scholarly faux-leather blue books (As I remember, there was a castle book, a vikings book, etc.) and the funky Compleat books (brown faux-leather) that admittedly had tons of kits (which were generally unbalanced compared to 3.0s prestige classes, and that's saying something.)

An interesting comment about 4.0 is that it (by default) removes the 'roll' from 'role playing' by making the two elements almost completely separate. I know the 'Skill Challenge' rolls have been errated several times, but as-written it seems like the GM should just handle the two separately... or, as I've advocated, let the role-playing commence, then give bonuses to skill checks for doing something interesting over just 'I use Diplomacy!'

* Note that few companies could probably have matched WotC's price points and production values, admittedly.

Masterful post, pretre.

That does sound like our John. If we ever see him again (I hope so!) he could confirm/deny . . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Balance: don't forget the spell compendia!

One more thought on the '4th edition = WoW' concept.

I can see the thought behind this, as everything has (by the default flavor text) a lot of 'shinies.' When my group started playing 4.0 I was playing a Paladin and the stock flavor text (I.E. the text you can disregard at your whim) really makes it sound like every power needs to include some fancy particle effects and light sourcing that make the video card manufacturers happy. This, in feel, is somewhat like WoW.

However, that's the trappings and as I said easily changed. The combat doesn't feel much like WoW... In fact, I almost wish a game like WoW used 4.0 style combat. When 4.0 combat is working as-designed, it's surprisingly fluid. Status effects are constantly being thrown around, shook off, or dispelled. Characters get moved around, and that means environmental effect have some meaning. The GM is encouraged to hold fights in burning buildings, inside clanking factories, or similar. I don't play WoW, but from what I've seen combat is more about timing powers and managing aggro, which is a very small part of 4th edition combat.

Good points. As part of the cinematic feel you mention, the 4E combat system really helps to build a sense of interdependence that I felt was not at all encouraged (maybe even discouraged at high levels) in Third. The "shininess," strangely enough, is supposed to support your imagination as your role play but I've rarely seen it analyzed from that perspective--maybe an inevitable result of the market having been exposed to the effects you mention--and I mean in Diablo and Dungeon Siege just as much as WoW. But "Never let the obvious facts stand in the way of angry criticisms" is like Rule No. 3 in the Hater's Handbook (4th edition).

Balance wrote:
I think that 4th edition would have been better received if it had come out from someone other than WotC* without the D&D 'name.' It's a very interesting system, and has some neat ideas, but a lot of these weren't presented properly which turned people off.

I think this a basicaly true statment by some of my older OLD SCHOOL players.
90% of the changes from 1-3 to 4e are simmilar to the house rules our oldest [1979] GM had come up with. They adressed most of the Issues that had come up, but not the way Old timerrs would have done it.
I don't know how they could have done the release better as far as the New Blood, but for the Old timers most of the miss thier Helms of Brillance and Bottles of Air

Manchu wrote: The "shininess," strangely enough, is supposed to support your imagination as your role play but I've rarely seen it analyzed from that perspective--maybe an inevitable result of the market having been exposed to the effects you mention--and I mean in Diablo and Dungeon Siege just as much as WoW. But "Never let the obvious facts stand in the way of angry criticisms" is like Rule No. 3 in the Hater's Handbook (4th edition).

I can accept that, but my fantasy worlds tend to be a bit grimier and less flashy, mentally. My group at least references the fact that most dungeon-crawlers should look like they've been dead for a month when they get back, an aspect most versions of D&D ignore. We hand-wave it in that the GM doesn't make us negotiate for or manually deal with 'maintenance' like cleaning and repairing gear, or even worrying about rations, as we don't find that kind of bean-counting fun. Some groups do, of course...

pretre wrote:Old Comments followed by New Comments

Are.. Are you Jon Stewart? One of my favorite things on his show is when he pulls quotes from years ago, then compares them to current quotes. Your post here is just as awesome.

Aduro wrote:

pretre wrote:Old Comments followed by New Comments

Are.. Are you Jon Stewart? One of my favorite things on his show is when he pulls quotes from years ago, then compares them to current quotes. Your post here is just as awesome.

lol no. But yeah, he has a good style. Thanks!

Great posts, guys.

Awesome research, Pretre.

Manchu wrote:If anything, 4E is just the uiltimate expression of trends developed in third. I am totally puzzled by the extreme sentiments: how can someone love 3.5 but hate 4th?

I disagree with that, to some extent. There were definitely some trends in 3rd that found fuller expression in 4th, and late 3.5 obviously had several books which were testbeds for 4E concepts (Book of Nine Swords, Complete Mage). That said, IMO 3E is more directly an ancestor of 1E; both games have a significant Simulationist bent, trying to model realistic activities and outcomes. Long article here:

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

4E embraces being a Game more fully, dropping a lot of Simulationist accuracy in favor of ease of play. For example, movement being almost exclusively measured in Squares as opposed to actual distances, with diagonal movement being no longer than movement along the grid. Also carrying weights/encumbrance. And the handling of light/vision.

Using actual units of measurement in 3.5 was a conceit at best (hold-over would be another good term). "Conceit" is a pretty good word for the "realism" of 3.5, actually. Even in the linked article, the immediate disclaimer undermines much of the following analysis. I also have difficulty understanding how simulation matters in a world where (according to article author) the protagonists become far, far more capable than the most capable people who have ever actually existed pretty soon in their development. But this difficulty probably also occurred to the deisgners: 3.5 seems to me to abandon the simulation model while retaining its language. Movement and ranges are listed in feet in books and played as squares on mats. Wht 4E did is stop worrying about the IRL units of measurment altogether. You might say that Fourth Editionis 3.5 coming out of the closet.

I think it's more a conscious choice to consistently embrace the Game priority, where 3E straddled the worlds between Simulationist and Gamist priorities more evenly, as 1E did. I'll agree that 3.5 was already trending toward the Gamist side.

One thing that seemed weird to myself and a lot of players with 3.0 through 4.0 is that the 'classic' ability scores are, in and of themselves, pretty much meaningless except as numbers to get watch get bigger. With a few exceptions, the useful ability score is the zero-average ability score modifier. In actual play, you pretty much never use the 0-18+ score, but you sue the modifier constantly. It's there as a kind of weird limiter (you need to raise it 2 points to have an effect) and as a base score for HP in some versions, but that is about it.

Balance wrote:One thing that seemed weird to myself and a lot of players with 3.0 through 4.0 is that the 'classic' ability scores are, in and of themselves, pretty much meaningless except as numbers to get watch get bigger. With a few exceptions, the useful ability score is the zero-average ability score modifier. In actual play, you pretty much never use the 0-18+ score, but you sue the modifier constantly. It's there as a kind of weird limiter (you need to raise it 2 points to have an effect) and as a base score for HP in some versions, but that is about it.

This is why I'm expecting 5E to switch to something more like True20 where you do away with the "subtract 10 and divide by 2" that's been around since it was Chainmail.

4e has already gotten rid of Vancian casting and class as identity. Ability scores are the next sacred cow that needs to get hamburgerized.

Mannahnin wrote:I think it's more a conscious choice to consistently embrace the Game priority, where 3E straddled the worlds between Simulationist and Gamist priorities more evenly, as 1E did. I'll agree that 3.5 was already trending toward the Gamist side.

Yeah, I'm looking from 4E backwards, through Saga Edition and 3.5 to AD&D2nd (rather than 1E), when making such statements. I can see how your point emphasizes the reverse perspective looking from 1E, although I don't think my analysis is just retrospective or counter-factual (i.e, I'm not just talking about Book of Nine Swords, Dungeonscape, &etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Balance: Some d20 games (e.g., Blue Moon) just listed your modifier rather than score for abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gr3y wrote:4e has already gotten rid of Vancian casting and class as identity. Ability scores are the next sacred cow that needs to get hamburgerized.

And HP!

Gr3y wrote:
This is why I'm expecting 5E to switch to something more like True20 where you do away with the "subtract 10 and divide by 2" that's been around since it was Chainmail.

I think I saw developer comments in the 3.0 era that the designers wanted to do this, but it was too much of a sacred cow to touch. I'm just glad 3.0 got rid of the annoying look-ups you had to do to see a bunch of vaguely-relevant trivia related to each stat (Like bonus spells, a bunch of lift numbers, etc.).

In a lot of ways, the adherence to stats that don't matter is almost worse than a similar annoyance I have with WH40k, which is that BS is a number that is only useful after fixed math is applied to it. (But if they did the math, besides breaking everything, they'd have one stat that was best if low...)

Gr3y wrote:
4e has already gotten rid of Vancian casting and class as identity. Ability scores are the next sacred cow that needs to get hamburgerized.

There's still Vancian casting, to a point. Wizards swap out dailies, after all. They just made low-level spells a bit more book-keeping free by making them Encounter and At-Will spells.

Removing memorization per-se for rituals was probably a good thing for keeping the game flowing. Having to pause, return to town, and rest up because a certain utility spell is needed is not fun. Then again, the 4.0 design philosophy seems to be to minimize places where you'd need that fly spell to get around by providing an alternative (I.E. you can either fly, or walk across a narrow beam, etc.) as well as discouraging spell-casters using magic to minimize the role of other characters. "Hey, why have a thief? I can open a half-dozen doors remotely each day, and even pick a couple locks, at a minimal loss of combat effectiveness!" was very possible in 2.0-3.5, while in 4.0 using rituals to do thief-stuff is generally not the best bet as far as return-on-investment...

Out of curiosity, what to you mean by 4.0 having gotten rid of 'class as identity'? If anything, the classes seem a bit more focused between the highly individual power sets and the 'roles' but that may just be my opinion. For example, I'm playing a Druid character that was rebuilt from 3.0 and it's a little weird not being half-a-cleric anymore.

You know, I had this whole Big long post set up here rephrasing the stuff I said before because i realized it was kind of ham-fisted and awkward in making the point i wanted to, but i accidentally closed my tab, so I'll condense it for you.

D&D = AWESOME! - What Gygax and Arneson did for Gaming was outstanding, and even if the original two additions were a bit clunky and arduous, we as gamers, can respect them for their role in mainstream gaming history.
Wizards; yes, they're money grubbers, but every corp. is. As corporations grow they inevitably become more profit centric.
4'th edition; not as bad as all the crap it got right out the gate from the 'old guard', but really, i hate to say it, it's more a turn based strategic combat game than it is a roleplaying game.
TSR; Yes, they were the evil bastards of the RPG community before the Wizards took them, but the wizards are getting there in my opinion, but i don't begrudge there decision, they were a corporation, making money was their goal.
Gaming In General; As gaming has become more mainstream, companies have had to start catering to a wider audience, that means diluting the rules, making them 'easier' for less 'hard-core' gamers to run and play. Again, I hate them for it, but i don't begrudge them their right to, i wouldn't for a second ask them to Alienate the larger half of their Consumer base in deference to older more established consumers.
3.5; In my opinion, The Best edition of D&D in my opinion, The core rules and books (PHB, MM, And GMG) were a fantastic rules set that worked for both roleplaying and combat, but then the wave of supplements followed the core rules, and in my opinion, destroyed the tentative balance and system that 3.5 established, the only thing i'd keep if they took back all the supplements was the prestige classes, and for what did they do this? Profit.

Okay, I think that might make my point a little better, though not nearly as well as the original version of this post.

Manchu wrote:
And HP!

Hey now! Let's not get crazy. HP is fine, they just need to stress that it has nothing to do with actual physical damage you've sustained.

Balance wrote:Out of curiosity, what to you mean by 4.0 having gotten rid of 'class as identity'? If anything, the classes seem a bit more focused between the highly individual power sets and the 'roles' but that may just be my opinion. For example, I'm playing a Druid character that was rebuilt from 3.0 and it's a little weird not being half-a-cleric anymore.

Unlike previous versions 4e took a "top down" approach to class creation. Let's look at the Druid:
Power Source: Primal, so we have access to elemental damage types and the ability to change forms.
Role: Controller, so you focus on managing the flow of battle and herding enemies into positon through area or status effects.

Now, if we gut all the lines of fluff from your power cards we have someone who does elemental damage, changes shape, and focuses on board control. Could it be a Druid? Sure. Could it be a Magician who focus on self alteration and the manipulation of the world around them? Why not? Could you be a Paladin of Corellon or some other nature centric deity? Hell yes is could!

"Class as Identity" stems from taking a "bottom up" approach, where you decide that Druids are people who only focus on the preservation of the natural world and granola and baby deer and stuff. You start from that premise and design the class around those ideas. "Top down" design is where you design the class first, then decide what familiar trope best describes it.

Also can someone please show me a game company that's not out to take all of my monies? PP has released 12 books this year, of which I need like... three or four at least along with a grip of new scultps. WotC has brought back one of the all time best campaign settings evar, as well as several books of new options for classes. Paizo wants me to give them $60 for a rule set I already own 90% and have been playing for years.

Show me the company that isn't out for profit. Ever.

Gr3y wrote:Show me the company that isn't out for profit.

I'm trying, but they're not answering their phones--the website is down--the lights are off--no cars in the parking lot. And nobody else has heard from them for a while, either . . .

Gr3y wrote:Power Source: Primal, so we have access to elemental damage types and the ability to change forms.

Barbarians are also Primal and they do axe damage.

But they do get rages and things which can do elemental damage.

Monks can do some elemental damage as well but they are Psionic. More importantly, I was just being silly.

Oh YEAH?! Well WIZARDZ CAN DO ELEMENTAL DAMAGE TOO!!!11! Does that make them Primal TOO???

Or, two can play at that game.

I can’t quite see what has happened here since I skipped from pg 2 to here but I play 4.0 and I like it quite a lot. The only problem I have is we have too many people that just don’t understand what roll-playing means.
Just because you might know that you are up agenst a pack of werewolf’s doesn’t mean that you character knows.

They also have a bad habit of charging into combat by themselves. From what is said about 3.5, they would love that way more.

Ledabot wrote:The only problem I have is we have too many people that just don’t understand what roll-playing means. Just because you might know that you are up agenst a pack of werewolf’s doesn’t mean that you character knows.

By your description, I think they have a firm grip on "roll playing." It's interesting that what you've read here about 3.5 (admittedly, only to page two -- why not read the whole thread?) makes you think it's better suited to your group of violence-craving metagamers than 4E. I agree with you but I'm interested in how you came to that conclusion.

Is it still worth it: yes.

I have played every style of campaign out there, from a Beer and Pretzel campaign based on the MB Hero’s Quest game to Aftermath [27 rolls to determine the effect of a single bullet]

[AD&D] I have played in a campaign where my Ranger tore off his sleeve to make a torch and the DM would not move on until I wrote it down. [that game died quickly]
[AD&D] A low magic game that by the time we made 4th we had one magic sword, 4-5 potions and the mage had not have any 2nd level spells. [That one was actuality fun.]
[AD&D 2nd] I have played in one game were the DM rolled everything behind his screen including our hit his and damages, he also would not tell us how much damage we took, only saying thins like “That one hurt you bad!”, we did not even know how many hit points we even had to start with. [Worst Game Ever]
[D&D 3.5] I ran a game running the characters from 4th to 16th using GG’s Necropolis Book including a “300” Style battle at the end. If it was in a “d20” {including BESM d20} I allowed it. [I am still getting request to return to that part of the campaign]

[WoD] Then there was the WoD game [I am glad I did not make it to] where when ever some one mentioned the town [Denton for the Rocky Horror Picture Show] we were mall required to sing and dance to the theme song or we would not have gotten EXP. [Some of the players still curl up it to a ball wetting themselves every time they here Tim sing]

[Mekton] I played in a Awesome Mekton Game that just ended abruptly when we reached the of the story, without the players know it was going to be a one shot game [this really pissed us all off]

[Shadowrun or Gamaworld 4e] I am currently working on a game based on Left-4-Dead that I am not planning on working about how much ammunition you have with your pistols and giving out lost of ammo for everything else. The only players I have that are not interested are the two that hate Zombie Movies.

The point I am trying to make is Mechanically the game should have nothing to do with you fun; it is the interaction of the DM and the Players.

I'm a bit suspicious of the "rules don't matter" attitude that surfaces every once in a while here (sorry, Anpu, you're not my nemesis here or anything--just most recent example). If this is the case, then why-oh-why do we even bother with rules in the first place? A game is really only fun as long as there is some semblance of fairness and rules (where game designers are the pseudo-present neutral third parties) are the biggest factor in maintaining that. If you have a group that gets along all the time and where everyone goes with the flow on every issue, more power to you. I say again: you vex me, man, you vex me, because I've never seen such a group.

It's not that rules don't metter, it's that no mater how good the rules are the game will suck if you have a bad person running it or bad players playing it. You can also have fun with bad rules (kind of like MST3K) but it's harder and better rules are a better start.

Manchu wrote:

Gr3y wrote:Show me the company that isn't out for profit.

I'm trying, but they're not answering their phones--the website is down--the lights are off--no cars in the parking lot. And nobody else has heard from them for a while, either . . .

I miss Eden Games. The Buffy RPG was fun damn it!

Ledabot wrote:
They also have a bad habit of charging into combat by themselves. From what is said about 3.5, they would love that way more.

3.5 may be slightly more "tactical" than 4e simply because the combination of the god awful CR system and the prevalence of stat damage makes combat... interesting. Anyone who has taken on a golem, a roper, or a hive of stirges at low level knows exactly what I"m talking about. Combat also lasts about two to three times longer per turn then 4e in my experience.

Anpu42 wrote:
The point I am trying to make is Mechanically the game should have nothing to do with you fun; it is the interaction of the DM and the Players.

But if you have a good idea for a game, and a good group to play with, why use a system that isn't good for your concept? I could run a game all about political subterfuge and social maneuvering in 4e, but why? It's a terrible use of the system. Likewise I could run a dungeon busting high adventure romp in Storyteller, but again I definitely wouldn't be playing to the system's strong suit. The rule set is important as it allows conflict resolution in a way that isn't DM fiat. With out it you've gone from playing make believe with dice, to just plain make believe.

Gr3y wrote: a game all about political subterfuge and social maneuvering in 4e

My gaming group could pull this off and it would be glorious. And of course by glorious I mean hilarious.

I am currently in the middle of a 4e DnD campaign, and while its my only real experience with the "pen and paper" type of RPG, it has been quite fun... My wife is a "vet" player, in that she played 3 and 3.5 ed. games. She did not like 4e, until she really played a more drawn out campaign.

Also, if you are hesitant to buy all those books again, you could get a D&Di account, so that you can download the character builder, and Adventure builder programs, which are kept up to date with all of the most current FAQs, errata, and publications so that you can run just about any type of game possible in the DnD world

I have one great example of a “Rules are all Important” “The Rules are Unimportant” game

I have been running off and on a Modern Military/Horror game since 98
I started with Twilight: 2000/Darconspiracy for a while, it had the problem of basic lacking a good “Magic” System.
Then I went to Shadowrun 2nd and then about 3 months later Shadowrun 3rd edition and it worked real well unit some of the group moved, the ones most interested so the game died out.

A few years later some the group had interest. Two of the players did not like Shadowrun, but D20 Modern came out so we started to use it. It worked well until the characters started to hit 10th level. The main problems were actually the Hit Point system.
-The Uber Sniper armed with Single Shot .50 Cal would take 3-5 shots to kill a sentry of any were close to his level.
-Most of the Opposition if made of a level to challenge the team it would take entire clips to kill a guard.
-It would take 3-6 Guards armed with AK-47s to even worry the PCs.
-It quickly turned into a who could throw out the lead the quickest and no one ever used any thing but Automatics, the few fights that we just small arms or knife took 20-30 rounds to run.

Not that we did not have fun, the two missions that are still talked about are the 2 Land Sharks [The 1st things the PCs did when they got back to base was change their underwear] and the Rakshasha [That never had a shot fired].
It was after while mechanically the system broke down for the Horror/Suspense we were going for when the PCs had 100 hit points. We did try the “System Shock Rules”, but when you have 2 players who could not make a Saving Throw to Save their lives [Yes I relies the pun], it only take 2-3 characters failing in one fight to ruin a game.

We then went to back to Shadowrun, this time 4e and every one is happy.

Now with D&D 4e and Gamma-World [And Minions] we may take a look at it.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I am currently in the middle of a 4e DnD campaign, and while its my only real experience with the "pen and paper" type of RPG, it has been quite fun... My wife is a "vet" player, in that she played 3 and 3.5 ed. games. She did not like 4e, until she really played a more drawn out campaign.

See here ^

I used to manage a comic shop and I got to hear SO MANY complaints. I played 4th ed. I quickly realized that in practice it felt like I was playing DnD. Play the game, quit griping and/or lying that you've played it. Games are completely subjective and they're only as good as who you get to play with.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:. Games are completely subjective and they're only as good as who you get to play with.

Isn't this the case with ALL games, not just DnD, or warhammer?

Anpu42 wrote:
A few years later some the group had interest. Two of the players did not like Shadowrun, but D20 Modern came out so we started to use it. It worked well until the characters started to hit 10th level. The main problems were actually the Hit Point system.
-The Uber Sniper armed with Single Shot .50 Cal would take 3-5 shots to kill a sentry of any were close to his level.
-Most of the Opposition if made of a level to challenge the team it would take entire clips to kill a guard.
-It would take 3-6 Guards armed with AK-47s to even worry the PCs.
-It quickly turned into a who could throw out the lead the quickest and no one ever used any thing but Automatics, the few fights that we just small arms or knife took 20-30 rounds to run.

I do remember some D20 modern/future variants had some special rules either in the core or class-specific to deal with this.

In general, there's a 'massive damage' rule that was often overlooked. I believe the d20 Call of Cthulhu variant did something like make it so if you took your Con score in one hit you risked auto-dying, while I think d20 Modern did something like half HP or 50 points or something.

For the sniper, it would depend on a lot of things. Theoretically, he probably should have gotten a lot of bonus 'sneak attack' dice from one source or another. Not as many as 4th would hand out, but a bunch I'd hope. A lot of it would depend on the build, though.

I tend to agree with your feelings, though. d20 games at low elves were fun, but I always felt them get boring to run or play (mechanically) once levels got above 7-8 or so. In D&D 3.0, it seemed like everyone ended up with a ton of spells (from base or prestige classes) to throw around. In other d20 games, you just had a ton of powers that weren't that interesting and have a lot fo HP to chip through.

4.th edition has smoothed that out a lot in an interesting way. My group is only at level 8 (which is a somewhat 'dull' level as you get a feat but now powers) and it seems a bit more of a smooth upgrade... Levels 11 and 21 are probably big jumps, but that seems to be a level where the GM is recommended to take a brief pause to let everyone decide how things should go. I'm hoping we run down our Paragon Paths with the group as it looks like it'll almost be like new characters!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I used to manage a comic shop and I got to hear SO MANY complaints. I played 4th ed. I quickly realized that in practice it felt like I was playing DnD. Play the game, quit griping and/or lying that you've played it. Games are completely subjective and they're only as good as who you get to play with.

YAY. Well said.

11 and 21 are fairly huge jumps. You think there are a lot of status effects and conditions to keep track of now, it gets crazy once you hit paragon. The monsters will be more pressing as well. This is also the time where you start seeing stun and dominate a lot more. Dominate is the fun one. On Monday our Fullblade fighter forget he was "Confused" and used a daily power on a Eladrin Shadow Dancer but hit me with it instead, taking me from not bloodied to -5 hit points. I also was weakened and slowed by the attack and continually failed my saving throws.

The proplem with the Massive damage rule was all it took was 3-4 of the caracterrs to fail the save is nthe same fight and then you have 1 Character of 10th level and 10-15 8th Level Drug Dealers armed with SMGs and Assualt Rifles, that takes 1-2 rounds to kill each, if the Character does not Move.

Ahtman wrote:11 and 21 are fairly huge jumps. You think there are a lot of status effects and conditions to keep track of now, it gets crazy once you hit paragon. The monsters will be more pressing as well. This is also the time where you start seeing stun and dominate a lot more. Dominate is the fun one. On Monday our Fullblade fighter forget he was "Confused" and used a daily power on a Eladrin Shadow Dancer but hit me with it instead, taking me from not bloodied to -5 hit points. I also was weakened and slowed by the attack and continually failed my saving throws.

Sometimes other level breaks can be surprisingly large as well, when more then one character gets a really good new power, for example. 7th can be nasty when a Fighter first gets Come and Get It. One of my groups just hit 16th level, and between the 15th level Daily powers and the 16th level Paragon benefits, we definitely perceive that we've had a jump up in power recently.