Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
That's why I'm making a big deal about core mechanic and balance. These are things that did not exist in previous editions, either not as central concepts (Rule Cyclopedia had very complicated optional encounter balancing) or not at all.

It also brushes past the annoying repetitive arguments about X is bad because of X and gets down to what the versions actually were.

 pretre wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
This is kind of why I advocate looking at editions from a design stand point rather than zooming in on specific mechanics, like how a fireball works.

Agreed, it is hilarious to watch when people lay out what they don't like about X edition and you show that it has been like that since 1982 or something.

It's more accurate to say that it has been around in an limited form occasionally throughout the years as a select part of certain classes since 1982 instead of the central focus of every class in 4e.

 warboss wrote:
It's more accurate to say that it has been around in an limited form occasionally throughout the years as a select part of certain classes since 1982 instead of the central focus of every class in 4e.

I don't know about occasionally. Paladins have been At Will, Encounter, Daily since the 80's and they are pretty central. Monks and Druids are very similar since that time period as well.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
4E gave every class a new playstyle where they are all the same and NOTHING like past characters except in name.

I have trouble believing someone that actually played the game would think that all the classes played the same. The game certainly has areas for criticism, but that one is pretty far out there, and certainly not based on any kind reality.

Yeah, the don't play alike ... in the sense of them all having different powers (and therefore roles). I think he meant, however, that they all have powers in the first place.

 Manchu wrote:
Yeah, the don't play alike ... in the sense of them all having different powers (and therefore roles). I think he meant, however, that they all have powers in the first place.

That seems a silly argument, though, complaining that all the classes get something to do, but then I never understood how people would argue that "3 uses a day" was radically different from an encounter power, or that "once a day" wasn't a Daily. 3/3.5 had all that stuff, it just didn't lay it out in the same manner. You could just as easily turn 90% or more of 3/3.5 into Power cards that looked nearly identical.

Picked up Dragonspear Castle today and so far I am pretty happy with it: nice thick, glossy pages, full color, and lots of artwork. I was surprised the Campaign was in the front of the book with the rules in the back, though I am not quite sure why. It just feels like the rules should be first!

 Ahtman wrote:
3/3.5 had all that stuff, it just didn't lay it out in the same manner.

Bud, you're preaching to the choir. Remember me, the guy who thinks 4E was the next logical step after 3.5? It wasn't the only possible step mind you, as D&D Next proves. But at the time, it was very logical.

 Ahtman wrote:
Picked up Dragonspear Castle today and so far I am pretty happy with it: nice thick, glossy pages, full color, and lots of artwork. I was surprised the Campaign was in the front of the book with the rules in the back, though I am not quite sure why. It just feels like the rules should be first!

Yeah that is weird. Okay, so can you post the TOC or something?

Like a scan or just typed out?

Yeah, sorry -- you're probably in a hotel right now. It can wait. So how do the rules look then? Are they basically the same as the current playtest packet?

 Manchu wrote:
Yeah, sorry -- you're probably in a hotel right now. It can wait. So how do the rules look then? Are they basically the same as the current playtest packet?

Getting ready to head back out, but I will try to do a bit of a write up later.

 pretre wrote:
4th ed was all about balancing everything. The CO (Character Optimization) boards were much less exciting for 4th ed than 3.5/3. No Pun-Pun, no COD-zilla, no one-shot 250 damage level 5 chargers. The balance was one of the good things about 4th: Everyone had a job and could do it roughly equally well.

I've spent a good deal of time on the CO boards (had a bunch of players new to 4e and wanted to see how they should be building their characters to help them along without just giving them CO builds). If I recall correctly they actually did manage to break 4e. That build was called Oppenheimer, it leveraged a ton of abilities from a bunch of different books to basically create a walking (flying actually) acid cloud that can theoretically pump out infinite damage every turn.

That said, doing infinite damage in about a close burst 4-5 once per turn is pretty tame for an "ultimate game breaking build" compared to the stuff you saw for 3.5.

Yeah, that has nothing on Pun Pun.

Those uber builds were fun exercises, but no one in their right mind ever plays those wacky builds throught hte gimp levels to be uber at high levels. Even if they wanted to the Dungeon Master should have known better than to allow them to do so.

The most extreme 4E build I ever played was a barbarian that got temporary hit points when he hit something with his at will attack, when he got hit, and when he killed something. He would walk into a mob of minions and his temporary hit point totals would grow faster than any damage they could put out. He also had the daily that restored hafl his hit point total.

He wasn't stacking his temporary hp from different sources was he/she? As you can only use temporary hit points from a single source.

TEMPORARY HIT POINTS
✦ Not Real Hit Points: Temporary hit points aren’t real
hit points. They’re a layer of insulation that attacks
have to get through before they start doing damage
to you. Don’t add temporary hit points to your
current hit points (if your current hit points are 0, you
still have 0 when you receive temporary hit points).
Keep track of them as a separate pool of hit points.
✦ Don’t Count toward Maximum: Temporary hit
points don’t count when you compare your current
hit points to your maximum hit points, when you
determine whether you’re bloodied, or for other
effects that depend on your current hit points.
✦ Lose Temporary Hit Points First: When you take
damage, subtract it from your temporary hit points.
If you take more damage than your temporary hit
points, extra damage reduces your current hit points.
✦ Don’t Add Together: If you get temporary hit
points from different sources, use the higher value as
your temporary hit point total instead of adding the
values together.
✦ Last until You Rest: Your temporary hit points last
until they’re reduced to 0 by damage or until you
take a rest.

It appears the final D&D Next playtest packet will go out in September... sounds like a release for Gencon 2014.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340143-Final-playtest-packet-due-in-mid-September

 warboss wrote:
It appears the final D&D Next playtest packet will go out in September... sounds like a release for Gencon 2014.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340143-Final-playtest-packet-due-in-mid-September

Well that's interesting.

I finally coaxed enough people to try out next and everybody seems to be quite satisfied (my group is a mix of complete newcomers, 3.5 E lovers (who keep griping that Clerics have been nerfed) and 4 E fans.

I find that combat is relatively straightforward, which reminds me of my LotR SBG days. It also seems to be very easy for new DMs to use.

Quick question, are they still including a set of rules for combat without minis/maps? I remember some of my friends from college (all my 4e players actually) tried that and after about half an encounter the GM said "you're all just picturing a grid in your head aren't you", everybody agreed and they started using minis again.

 Cheesecat wrote:
He wasn't stacking his temporary hp from different sources was he/she? As you can only use temporary hit points from a single source.

Yes, he was stacking them. We missed the part where they didn't stack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Quick question, are they still including a set of rules for combat without minis/maps? I remember some of my friends from college (all my 4e players actually) tried that and after about half an encounter the GM said "you're all just picturing a grid in your head aren't you", everybody agreed and they started using minis again.

You do not NEED seperate rules for combat with and without maps/miniatures.

You either play with maps and miniatures and know where everything is, or you play without maps and minatures, just like you did before 3E, and your thief is always miraculously in posistion to backstab stuff

 adamsouza wrote:


You do not NEED seperate rules for combat with and without maps/miniatures.

You either play with maps and miniatures and know where everything is, or you play without maps and minatures, just like you did before 3E, and your thief is always miraculously in posistion to backstab stuff

Now I've got to ask:

Which of these two options do people following this thread prefer?

I roll with maps and minis just because it's what I've always used and I'm most comfortable with it.

I suppose abstract combat could be done (using a system that's not D&D 3.5+), but I've always enjoyed the idea of combat as a tactical exercise too much for me to prefer it I think.

 Cheesecat wrote:

You either play with maps and miniatures and know where everything is, or you play without maps and minatures, just like you did before 3E, and your thief is always miraculously in posistion to backstab stuff

As of the last released playtest rules there is NO FLANKING in Next rules so positioning becomes less important. Now, with the current rogue pregen having an ally adjacent to the enemy is all you need for sneak attack. It's rules making maps less necessary.

Dr. What wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:


You do not NEED seperate rules for combat with and without maps/miniatures.

You either play with maps and miniatures and know where everything is, or you play without maps and minatures, just like you did before 3E, and your thief is always miraculously in posistion to backstab stuff

Now I've got to ask:

Which of these two options do people following this thread prefer?

I would not use separate add-on rules for maps/miniatures. I want the base rules to be playable on a map. People have been using minis to play D&D since 1st ed. In 3rd edition I used maps in about 1 in 5 combat encounters. 4th edition obviously pushed that up to 95% of combats. I DM for D&D Encounters and Living Forgotten Realms, and maps really help players understand what is going on. I'm fine going back to 2nd-3rd edition levels of mapping but it is going to give me major headaches when dealing with new players or just running for strangers at stores or conventions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The way Wizards has handled D&D 4E and the transition to Next as a company angers me greatly, but I will try to separate that from my thoughts on the editions.

If I had to describe D&D Next I would say it is a hybrid of 2nd and 3/3.5 editions more than anything else. I don't see anything that screams 1st Ed. to me and I don't recognize much of anything from 4E either.

Wizards wants an edition that makes everyone happy. I don't believe it is possible. I have heard people say that the wizard class SHOULD be more powerful than fighters because they get magic and that is what fantasy, and D&D means to them. I see no middle ground between that and the "every class should make an even contribution" crowd.


As for Next as it stands, I can see potential, but there are plenty of things that still bother me. That isn't too different than any edition of D&D. They all have their flaws.

-I don't like the current skill system for Next. I dislike picking skills at level one and being done forever. 4E skills weren't any better for this. The 3rd Ed. skill system, on the other hand, made me feel like my character was evolving each level as I adjusted my skill point allocations.

-Spellcasters (and other ranged attackers) have it too easy. IMHO for vancian magic to exist in any usable form there needs to be an easy way to interrupt spellcasters. If that Fireball can take out a dozen city guard, then one skilled archer with a readied arrow should be able to stop the wizard from casting. In Next spells that require concentration are not interrupted by damage at all and spellcasting doesn't even provoke an attack of opportunity. Wizards have at-will attack spells now, with a similar number of daily spells to 2nd/3rd ed. They are giving the wizards back much of their lost power, but didn't give back their weakness. Bow users are in a similar boat in that their attacks also don't provoke enemy attacks anymore.

-Overall the core Next system seems alright. I feel neutral about the advantage/disadvantage thing. They are going back to feet measurements instead of squares (good.)

I've stewed over this for months and now I've forgotten half my thoughts. Hopefully I can add to the conversation moving forward.

 Dr. What wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:


You do not NEED seperate rules for combat with and without maps/miniatures.

You either play with maps and miniatures and know where everything is, or you play without maps and minatures, just like you did before 3E, and your thief is always miraculously in posistion to backstab stuff

Now I've got to ask:

Which of these two options do people following this thread prefer?

I would never play any version of Third (including Pathfinder) or Fourth without mat&minis. The rules of both of those editions clearly assume you will use them, although 4E is the only one honest about it. I think it's easy enough to play any other edition entirely in the theater of the mind.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dr. What wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:


You do not NEED seperate rules for combat with and without maps/miniatures.

You either play with maps and miniatures and know where everything is, or you play without maps and minatures, just like you did before 3E, and your thief is always miraculously in posistion to backstab stuff

Now I've got to ask:

Which of these two options do people following this thread prefer?

I would never play any version of Third (including Pathfinder) or Fourth without mat&minis. The rules of both of those editions clearly assume you will use them, although 4E is the only one honest about it. I think it's easy enough to play any other edition entirely in the theater of the mind.

I also only tried playing 3/3.5 a couple of times without minis and the players balked (and frankly it was a bit odd feeling). I'm not sure what you mean by it not being "honest" about it when IIRC most every combat diagram shows a combat grid and the first section of the PHB combat section is devoted to the battle grid and flat out recommends you use minis and a map.

I'm sorry , I just don't get the need.

I love maps and miniatures, and I own tons of them, but I don't use them all the time. To play without them you do just like you did in earlier versions of D&D, and every other RPG, where you rely on the Game Master to tell you who is affected by AOEs, etc... Maps and minatures make it easier to keep track of, but we're still talking about imaginary battles being held in our heads.

 warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by it not being "honest" about it when IIRC most every combat diagram shows a combat grid and the first section of the PHB combat section is devoted to the battle grid and flat out recommends you use minis and a map.

Fourth Edition is up front about the need for it, and that it was designed with it in mind, whereas 3/3.5 needs just about as much, all the rules are shown (as you say) on a map, but it tries to act like it is an option even though it is just as thoroughly designed around using minis as 4E ever was.


The Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle has the most up to date version of the Next playtest rules, it just lacks the character creation rules and comes with pregen characters. If you have the character creation rules from the latest playtest packet you can easily have players make their own characters. I'll post a more detailed list of contest later.

 Ahtman wrote:

Fourth Edition is up front about the need for it, and that it was designed with it in mind, whereas 3/3.5 needs just about as much, all the rules are shown (as you say) on a map, but it tries to act like it is an option even though it is just as thoroughly designed around using minis as 4E ever was.

I strongly disagree with this statement. The tactical requirements of 3/3.5 aren't anywhere near that of 4E. When I DMed in 3.5 many, many battles were adjudicated simply, without the need for a grid. Grid combat in 3.5 IS just an option. I often found it useful in complicated battles, but far from necessary. 4E, with its at-will pushes, AOES, and auras is meant to be a tactical tabletop miniatures game in a way no other edition has touched.

It has been mentioned a couple times on this thread, but I will say it again. Older editions of D&D require the players to trust the DM to adjudicate and interpret the rules fairly. How many enemies can I catch in my fireball? Will I hit any allies with this burst? Is there any cover I can get to this round? As editions went on the rules became more codified and "combat focused" Before 4E my experiences with organized D&D play was primarily negative, because the game experience varied so widely from DM to DM. I ran into too many convention DMs bringing their house rules, optional rules, or illogical (to me) rules interpretations to the table. It felt like I had to relearn how to play with every new DM. 4E games on the other hand (run with published adventures) tends to give a much more predictable game experience. This allows for situations like the Encounters program, where my FLGS has up to 5 tables running simultaneously any given Wednesday. It is casual play and not ever player shows up every week, but we feel confident moving players from table to table as needed because we are all playing the same adventure and are running the same encounter at the same time. 4E's strict rules structure is a big part of making this possible. Having maps also cuts out the "I thought I was safe from XYZ.", "I wouldn't have been there if I had realized that", or "that would have been obvious to my character, you should have mentioned it"

I prefer to play games that use minis for the combat. Other than that, it's in the mind's eye, like during normal roleplaying in towns/settlements or while exploring/ travelling.

Using minis and maps helps visualize the surroundings better without having to remember specific things, and it gives a nice visual of how you are working alongside other team members.

I don't have a lot of experience with 3.5, but I once PCed in a campaign that was run using FantasyCraft (pretty close to 3.5), and without using miniatures the combat scenes were stilted and horrible. It was not fun constantly asking the GM how many monsters were close enough to allow my melee attacks to affect multiple enemies.

 Galen wrote:
Older editions of D&D require the players to trust the DM to adjudicate and interpret the rules fairly.

That's very true; but it must be said, Third is not one of the "older editions" in this regard.

What I mean by them playing alike is that all abilities have the same core mechanics with very little difference except some are melee range and some are not. Mage and Warriors have Burst effects.

Pretre can grandeur all he wants that I'm looking at the small picture and not the whole of the effect simply because of the Paladin had powers he could use all the time, and such. I know of these mechanics. Druids could shift as well with similar function.

Still far fetched to think that 4E is a 'logical evolution' of what was building in 3rd Edition.

If we want to, as Pretre says, "get down to what the versions actually were"....there still FAR more similarity between a Wizard and Warrior in 4E than there ever was. And 3rd didn't bring them 'closer' in any respect save for overall character building of Base Attack, Saves, Skills and Feats.

There is no logical jump from that type of similarity to 'Lets make all classes maintain powers that can be used in set conditions of timing' which is the hallmark system that 4E is based on.

Again, I have played and like all editions and can certainly see the pros and cons of all of them. 4th Edition established the game as a VERY streamlined combat system that could accomplish larger battles in much less time than in previous editions(at least for players without complete understanding of all game/class mechanics).

Your post boils down to "nuh uh." In point of fact, most of the 3E splat is devoted to, by feat or prestige class, conferring what would be known as powers in 4E. As I mentioned, Bo9S was simply the most explicit example -- it was it's own logical next step from the Complete ____ line of books and 4E logically followed from it.