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.

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

Centurion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5: Fireball! which is a daily.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i have played 3.5, pathfinder and 4e.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5: Fireball! which is a daily.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

daedalus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other thing is something I came up with

The System is Unimportant
The System is All Important

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

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

It is all about the flavor

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

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

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

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

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

Moving to the subforum which includes RPGs…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my $.02

Eric

So you have not tried it then

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mannahnin:

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

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

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

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

Anpu42 wrote:So you have not tried it then

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

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

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

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

Eric

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

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