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.

streamdragon wrote:
I remembered it only because it became an issue for my rogue, who needed to carry multiple daggers to use Cloud of Steel (encounter, level 7). I opted to get the Armbands of Daggers, or whatever the things were called that let you create +2 daggers.

Huh. Maybe it was just something we handwaved, or simplified. I have an archer-type 'on-deck' if we start up a 4e game, but we may honestly wait for 5e with some current stuff going on. We're in a hiatus, though I hope we start up something in the interim.

I can see why groups would waive the requirement considering it only really pertains to martial characters (and the Seeker maybe?), but beyond the Ranger shooting away money I found it rarely impacted the game immensely.

I wouldn't wait on 5e as an edition, since they just released the first playtest I have a hard time believing it's headed to print soon. I myself haven't actually gotten to a game in, a year and a half maybe? Not regularly anyway. Darn gas prices.

There is a Wondrous Item that is a quiver of unlimited arrows, and it is fairly low level I think.

D&D Next is scheduled for release sometime next year, so it may be a wait if you aren't planning any games between then and now.

My my the flame war is on. I didn't realize there were so many fans of 4th ed, since it was mostly a flop.

Look to everyone getting up in arms on this. I find many qualities of 4.0 to be MMOish. If you don't thats fine, I'm not that interested in getting into a flame war with you.

The OP wanted opinions on the game. I gave mine. That's it. This latest edition was watered down and made your characters a lot less customiziable.

And as far as the art goes... seriously, pull out your 3.5 book, your 4.0 and your copy of wow, and seriously look at the cover art. If you don't see some striking similarities then...

I getting the feeling that some of you may not have played many MMO's and hence why you don't see the parallels.

ZombieJoe wrote:My my the flame war is on. I didn't realize there were so many fans of 4th ed, since it was mostly a flop.

Way to miss the point. It isn't that we are fans of 4E; it is that we are fans of statements that aren't false. Also, citation needed on 'it was mostly a flop'.

Look to everyone getting up in arms on this. I find many qualities of 4.0 to be MMOish. If you don't thats fine, I'm not that interested in getting into a flame war with you.

Obviously, you are confused by what a flame war is. No one has flamed you. We have laid out coherent, provable statements that show that your recycled arguments about 4E being an MMO are patently false. If you said that you found many of the qualities of 4.0 to be Pokemonish, we would do the same thing.

The OP wanted opinions on the game. I gave mine. That's it. This latest edition was watered down and made your characters a lot less customiziable.

The only reason that 3E has 'more customization' is that it had more splatbooks. Editions previous to that had the same issues with only 2.5 having the number of splatbooks to join 3E in the realms of 'customization by additional material'.

And as far as the art goes... seriously, pull out your 3.5 book, your 4.0 and your copy of wow, and seriously look at the cover art. If you don't see some striking similarities then...

You do know that fantasy art progresses over time, right? Pull out a first edition book and compare it to novels of the time and artwork being produced. Now pull out a 2nd edition book and compare it to early Shadowrun books. OMG 2nd edition ripped off Shadowrun art! Now pull out a third edition book and compare it to any fantasy artwork from the late 90's. OMG 3rd edition has striking similarities to art of the same period!

I getting the feeling that some of you may not have played many MMO's and hence why you don't see the parallels.

I played WOW for quite a few years, starting in early BC and ending after Cataclysm. Before that, I played a number of other muds and MMOs. You are confusing somethign that is derivative of a genre (MMOs) with something that defined the genre (D&D). Of course D&D has similarities to MMOs. MMOs are based on the concepts that D&D was founded on. Your argument is like saying that real militaries ripped off 40k for designs. You have it completely backwards.

ZombieJoe wrote:My my the flame war is on.

Disagreeing with someone isn't a flame war.

ZombieJoe wrote:I didn't realize there were so many fans of 4th ed, since it was mostly a flop.

Then you must be sheltered or narrowed your view so greatly that you assume your personal experience is somehow reflective of all reality. 4E wasn't a flop, either. It did well, but not as well As WotC taskmasters would like. Of course it was the first D&D that was dealing with a fractured fanbase dealing with two concurrent running systems.

ZombieJoe wrote:Look to everyone getting up in arms on this. I find many qualities of 4.0 to be MMOish.

No one is getting up in arms, they are disagreeing. Obliviously you think it has those qualities, but, it would appear, that many don't find that your conclusion stands up very well to even mild scrutiny.

ZombieJoe wrote:I getting the feeling that some of you may not have played many MMO's and hence why you don't see the parallels.

Or, we've played MMO's and still find your reasoning specious.

Image comparison:

Covers of World of Warcraft


Cover of First Edition D&D


Cover of Second Edition D&D


Covers of 3.0 and 3.5


Cover of 4th edition D&D


If anything, 3.0/3.5 are the odd ones out, breaking a tradition going back to the Red Box. I'm also not seeing the comparison to WoW, honestly. If your entire point is "They have pictures of people in the fantasy world!" then while you are indeed correct, the comparison is useless.

Edit: And as I've said, I've been playing MMOs since the original EverQuest launched. I didn't see people comparing 3.0/3.5 to EQ, even though OMG they both have half naked elf caster women involved.

Omg, you guys might never have seen this before, but Pathfinder art is a ripoff of D&D art AND WOW art!!!!

This thread has the feel of some flammy-ness going on. Maybe I'm wrong, if so, my bad. But, here, let me supply you with some sauce there, on 4.0 flopping. Check the communities bro, most people I've spoken with and the stuff online I've read speak volumes of how unhappy people have been with 4.0. Also, 4.0 has been getting outsold by pathfinder for a while. Here's some material you can read to gett a feeling of what I'm talking about.

http://www.wildbluffmedia.com/2008/06/06/dd-4th-edition-fail/
http://cyclopeatron.blogspot.com/2011/01/pathfinder-outselling-dungeons-and.html
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/28834747/Lets_discuss_why_4th_edition_failed
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/7580/is-pathfinder-selling-better-than-dd
http://www.cafepress.com/mydarkdesigns/5819642
http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=21623
http://dnd4.blogspot.com/
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?609762-Could-someone-please-show-some-evidence-of-4E-s-failure
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3881922108

Patently false? Just cause I say," Hey look that tree over there, its kind of big!" and you say," No way dude, that tree is totally just average size!" Does not make anything you've said fact. It's opinion man. The only thing you proved is that you disagree with me.


Well now I wanna know if you played 4.0 and 3.5 much. Seriously, I'm only talking about core books, DMG, Monster Manual, Player's Hand Book. I think in 3.5 there was something close to 110 feats you could choose and 4.0 there are about 67. In 4.0 there are 17 skills versus the 40! you get in 3.5, pulled by hand from both my copy of the players hand book of 3.5 and 4.0. I"m even going to bother counting anything else. This is emprical proof that 4.0 gives you less options that 3.5.

D&D 4.0 is not using the "art of the age", its using WOW. This is just a general consensus of what my peers and the internet at large feel. This is completely opinion based so I really don't wanna get into too much detial on it. They look the same to me. Just my two pence, anyone interested in this concept can google image the two and compare till they are happy.

I'm afraid not. In 3.5 you didn't have Herioc paths or paragon paths. You just had your character and the wealth of options he was given. In 4.0, you follow a strict path up a power tree. This is an MMO style leveling system. I play many RPG's, digitcal and pen and paper, and MMO's use this system a lot more than anymore system. This does not mean that 4.0 = MMO. It means that the creators took some of their design cues from an MMO. I dont know if you challanged or something by these comments, I'm not attacking WoC or WOW or D&D. I"m saying that 4.0 feels more like an MMO then an D&DRPG. If you have all this experience how is it that you cannot admit that there is some justification for the arugment that 4.0 feels like WOW? Instead, you're clapping your hands to your ears and scream, "BLA BLA BLA! NOPE ITS DIFFERENT NOPE!" Come on dude, at least admit that the argument has merit, don't act like its some alien remark that has no grounding. Do some googling and you'll see that a lot of people feel this way. Its not random, I'm not one guy with this opinion. Are you saying that ALL these people are just wrong and stupid because they don't agree with you? If so, then I do belive, you've just started a flame war.

I don't know what came out first, but yes , you are correct. Nobody is even trying to be original.

Wanna go ahead and fix your quotes before I reply?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, go ahead and google 'Appeal to Authority' and 'Appeal to Common Belief'. You're doing an awful lot of it.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

pretre wrote:Wanna go ahead and fix your quotes before I reply?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, go ahead and google 'Appeal to Authority' and 'Appeal to Common Belief'. You're doing an awful lot of it.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

I just gave up and deleted them. This is the longest thread I've commented in, the qoute system eludes me for now lol.

ZombieJoe wrote:This thread has the feel of some flammy-ness going on. Maybe I'm wrong, if so, my bad. But, here, let me supply you with some sauce there, on 4.0 flopping. Check the communities bro, most people I've spoken with and the stuff online I've read speak volumes of how unhappy people have been with 4.0. Also, 4.0 has been getting outsold by pathfinder for a while. Here's some material you can read to gett a feeling of what I'm talking about.

This is an appeal to authority and appeal to common belief. Use your own words to phrase your arguments. Your list of links are all blogs. Please cite actual factual evidence that shows that 4th wasn't successful. If you want anecdotal blog evidence, I can go onto the newgroup search and show you posts of people saying why 3rd failed, 2nd failed, etc so on.

Patently false? Just cause I say," Hey look that tree over there, its kind of big!" and you say," No way dude, that tree is totally just average size!" Does not make anything you've said fact. It's opinion man. The only thing you proved is that you disagree with me.

If you say that a tree is big and it is 3 foot tall, sure that's your opinion, but it is provably false. A 3 foot tree isn't a 'kind of big'. D&D 4E isn't derivative of MMOs beyond the fact that it is derivative of previous editions of D&D, which of course MMOs are themselves derivative of.

Well now I wanna know if you played 4.0 and 3.5 much. Seriously, I'm only talking about core books, DMG, Monster Manual, Player's Hand Book. I think in 3.5 there was something close to 110 feats you could choose and 4.0 there are about 67. In 4.0 there are 17 skills versus the 40! you get in 3.5, pulled by hand from both my copy of the players hand book of 3.5 and 4.0. I"m even going to bother counting anything else. This is emprical proof that 4.0 gives you less options that 3.5.

How many of the feats in 3E/3.5 were duplicate feats or practically useless? More stuff does not equal more customization, it just means more stuff.

D&D 4.0 is not using the "art of the age", its using WOW. This is just a general consensus of what my peers and the internet at large feel. This is completely opinion based so I really don't wanna get into too much detial on it. They look the same to me. Just my two pence, anyone interested in this concept can google image the two and compare till they are happy.

Show me two pieces of art, with date of creation that show that D&D 4E 'copied WOW'.

I'm afraid not. In 3.5 you didn't have Herioc paths or paragon paths.

Umm. Paragon Paths are direct descendents of Prestige classes. They are almost exactly the same. Basic D&D had 'tiers' of Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal. This is nothing new.

In 4.0, you follow a strict path up a power tree. This is an MMO style leveling system. I play many RPG's, digitcal and pen and paper, and MMO's use this system a lot more than anymore system. This does not mean that 4.0 = MMO. It means that the creators took some of their design cues from an MMO.

You mean a strict levelling system? Like existed in D&D since the late 70's? That's what D&D stole from MMOs? Oh, now I get it, you have no historical context. The idea of prestige classes didn't come until 3rd ed and the idea of multiclassing didn't come until 1st edition hardbacks. Original D&D used the strict levelling system that you are saying was created by MMOs.

Come on dude, at least admit that the argument has merit, don't act like its some alien remark that has no grounding.

It has merit because MMOs are derivative of D&D. Of course 4E D&D is derivative of earlier D&D versions. So they both have the same sources. But saying that D&D is like an MMO because it is also like early D&D is just silly.

Do some googling and you'll see that a lot of people feel this way. Its not random, I'm not one guy with this opinion. Are you saying that ALL these people are just wrong and stupid because they don't agree with you? If so, then I do belive, you've just started a flame war.

Appeal to Common Belief. Also, confused over what a flame war is.

I don't know what came out first, but yes , you are correct. Nobody is even trying to be original.

This is the point. D&D 4E didn't copy MMOs. It copied D&D. Which MMOs also copied. This is what you don't understand.

I just gave up and deleted them. This is the longest thread I've commented in, the qoute system eludes me for now lol.

Thanks for fixing them!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, my favorite thread from 2002.

"3rd Edition: The Diablo-ization of Dungeons and Dragons"

There is truly nothing new under the sun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:21:45 -0400
> "Starbuck" <Starbuc...@excite.com> writes:

> > What can you do in Diablo? Pump stats. What can you do in 3E? Pump
> > stats.

> Omigod, you kill monsters in Diablo. You kill monsters in 3E. 3E has
> been Diablofied!

> It's even worse that you find gold in Diablo, which the 3E writers
> obviously copied in an effort to appeal to the mindless Diablo people.

> By the way, this is my way of saying, "You're an idiot, Starbuck."

I meant his analogy about the stats held true because it happens in both
games. I never mentioned anything else.

And by the way, about the idiot comment... takes one to know one.

1. This is what we call "confirmation bias". You have formed an opinion, and then tend to see only those things that support that decision.

2. As with any forum group, those on the forum do not usually represent the majority. They represent those who use the forum, nothing more. Appealing to that as some sort of proof. If I provided you an equal number of links promoting 4e, it would do nothing to prove that 4e was a huge success. Edit: as to Pathfinder outselling 4e, remember that 4e released literally over a year before Pathfinder did. It shouldn't be surprising that something new outsells something a year older.

3. Feats and skills in 4e are much more compact versus 3e, this is true. However, the basis for comparison is flawed. A compact system opens up options for players, as for example, they only need to use the "Stealth" skill as opposed to having to sink points into both "Move Silently" and "Hide". "Listen", "Spot" and "Search" were all condensed into "Perception" as well. Streamlined does not mean less options, as all the options those skill provided remain in the game. 3.0/3.5 also had plenty of skills that were absolutely pointless to have as skills (lookin at you Profession). These skills are fantastic as numerical role play additions (my fighter used to be a blacksmith and blah de blah de blah) howover they're unnecessary; my 4e fighter could have been a blacksmith too, he just doesn't need a skill he'll never roll. 3.0/3.5 feats were much in the same boat.

4. Please show me, exactly how D&D 4e is using WoW art. Because that would be copyright infringement. Hell, Ron Spencer (who does art in the PHB, among others) does art for White Wolf, and for the WoW trading card game. Does that mean White Wolf is stealing from WoW? Say it's "what you feel" doesn't make it true, nor does it make it a valid argument of any kind.

5. 3.0/3.5 had Prestige Classes, often in tiers based on what minimum level they required. I had a cleric / divine disciple / hierophant. That's not all that different from 4.0 except that you could, concievably, choose not to take any prestige classes; that doesn't mean that they're not there however.

6. WoW does not have that tier system that you describe. Neither did EQ, neither did DAoC, nor TERA or anything else I've played where you literally jump a tier. Sure, WoW has level brackets for battlegrounds, but that's not even remotely the same as a tier system. I will point out that one supplement for 3.0 was the EPIC Level Handbook.

And again, I'm not saying you're a fool for liking 3.0/3.5. I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of people who feel the same way you do, clearly there are. I'm saying that the reaction never seems to be one that can be explained clearly with valid arguments; too often it's irrational dislike simply because of the massive shift the game took from 3.5 to 4e and people not reacting well to that much change. You can try to blame WoW all you want, but realistically the two are nothing alike beyond both being set in a fantasy universe.

My WoW warrior picked one class and stuck with it.
My 4e fighter was a Fighter/Scion of Arakhosia/something I forget what.

My WoW warrior has changed from using sword and board, to 2H as arms, to dual wielding as Fury; repeatedly.
My 4e fighter uses a Fullblade; has since he could retrain one feat when the Adventurer's Vault released; he used a greatsword before that.

Oooh, here's a good one. From the thread 'WOTC is officially dead' in 2002:

I really, honestly, think 3rd edition, on balance, is not for me. I know
many people disagree, but I wonder how many people _agree_. I'm not really
tossing this out for discussion, just noting it; there is no point arguing
about it, because many people _like_ 3rd edition for many of the reasons I
hate it. The point here is that I really wonder how the numbers actually
break.


I know that I, personally, haven't spent a dime on the new stuff, and would
never do so. I have the books, but only because WOTC gave Stormfront a few
copies of them when Pools of Radience 2 was being developed. When I got
them, I was excited at the prospect of the new version, but but I just
couldn't dig it. Probably the biggest gripe I had was the high magic and
the fact that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to play without
a battle board.

3rd edition catered to a specific market, one that did not include me, and I
think many old players may feel similarly. High magic, battle boards, and
multi-classing were built into the system in such a way as to be almost
inextricable without starting over from the ground up. My impression of the
way 3rd edition has been handled of late can be summed up as going out in a
blaze of glory. Call me silly, but I think the ELH might have been the real
signal that something was wrong. I mean, didn't we used to call this stuff
'munchkin'? Was it a last ditch effort to milk the system, to basically put
out official rules for playing characters that, all in all, might as well be
gods? I dunno, but I wonder.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This looks familiar... From a '3rd edition complaints' thread in 2000 where someone addresses the fact that 3rd is too ROLL playing vs ROLE playing:

To say that it has never promoted a certain type of play is flat-out
wrong. Look at first edition, where the only ways to earn experience
were to kill things and get treasure. You *could* run campaigns that
weren't combat-heavy, but the rules simply weren't suited for it. Of
course, you could change those rules, but you can change any system to be
anything.

With that said, I agree that 3rd edition doesn't force a certain type of
play. The rules explicitly say that XP are for overcoming challenges --
which don't have to be killing things and getting treasure.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
1999

every piece of 3rd edition artwork I've seen I
have hated. The classic style that I like just doesn't seem to be in
fashion anymore.

I swear, ZombieJoe is a time traveler!

Every here is trying very hard to disprove what I'm saying. And that's cool, cause you obvioulsy disagree, and I'm fine with that part. The issue I got is that people are trying to prove/disprove thigns that are nothing more that subjective views. I'm not accusing WoTC of stealing anything from anyone. I'm saying that they took a decided step towards a more MMO style feel. And I don't blame them for doing so really. MMO's are very populare, so it's not illogical that they would move in that direction.

The evidence I supported my arguments with are not intended to prove definetively that 4.0 is a rip off. It's to show that a reasonable argument exhists for the claim. I find it hard to believe that I"m the only one on this thread who sees this.

Also, in reguards to my using blogs as evidence. Consider this, it does not matter what WoTC intended to do with 4.0, it matter what player think. I challange anyone to find me more articles that are PRO 4.0 then CON. This IS evidence of its failures. The fans make the game what it is, and if the fans dislike it then its a failure. 4th is not a total flop, but generally it was not as successful or well recieved as it probably could hav been.

Blog are representive of the game's success. Read the comments, see what the fans are saying about it.

ZombieJoe wrote:Every here is trying very hard to disprove what I'm saying. And that's cool, cause you obvioulsy disagree, and I'm fine with that part. The issue I got is that people are trying to prove/disprove thigns that are nothing more that subjective views.

Okay, this is fine. So don't make any declarative statements.

I'm not accusing WoTC of stealing anything from anyone. I'm saying that they took a decided step towards a more MMO style feel. And I don't blame them for doing so really. MMO's are very populare, so it's not illogical that they would move in that direction.

Whoops, you just made a declarative statement.

The evidence I supported my arguments with are not intended to prove definetively that 4.0 is a rip off. It's to show that a reasonable argument exhists for the claim. I find it hard to believe that I"m the only one on this thread who sees this.

And our statements are being made to show that there is no reasonable argument for that claim.

Also, in reguards to my using blogs as evidence. Consider this, it does not matter what WoTC intended to do with 4.0, it matter what player think. I challange anyone to find me more articles that are PRO 4.0 then CON. This IS evidence of its failures. The fans make the game what it is, and if the fans dislike it then its a failure. 4th is not a total flop, but generally it was not as successful or well recieved as it probably could hav been.

Blog are representive of the game's success. Read the comments, see what the fans are saying about it.

Appeal to the commons. Seriously, do you know what a fallacy is?

Let's go with Rhetological Fallacies: Errors and manipulations of rhetoric of logical thinking. If your only real argument is 'everyone else thinks the same as I', then your argument has no real merit.

I thoguht 3e was a great 'cleanup' of the mess 2e had unfortunately become. It became a mess in it's own way, but still much more manageable as it was easier for a GM to delineate lines and the system was a bit more modular.

"OK, core PHB/DMG and WotC class books only, plus this one book of setting-specific stuff. Go!"

4e tried to deal with different problems, mainly the whole 'Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard' concept, CoDzilla, or the '15 minute work day" (In which, for campaigns where the GM runs things mechanically and doesn't apply any time pressure, it generally makes sense for adventurers to go forth, clear a room or two by using their 'big gun' spells, then retire to a nearby town to rest, reload spells, etc.). Some of these efforts worked better than others, and it's not without faults, but (most importantly) it's fun!

I still wonder how 4e would have done if it had been a separate game without the weight of being "the new D&D."

Balance wrote:I thoguht 3e was a great 'cleanup' of the mess 2e had unfortunately become. It became a mess in it's own way, but still much more manageable as it was easier for a GM to delineate lines and the system was a bit more modular.

"OK, core PHB/DMG and WotC class books only, plus this one book of setting-specific stuff. Go!"

4e tried to deal with different problems, mainly the whole 'Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard' concept, CoDzilla, or the '15 minute work day" (In which, for campaigns where the GM runs things mechanically and doesn't apply any time pressure, it generally makes sense for adventurers to go forth, clear a room or two by using their 'big gun' spells, then retire to a nearby town to rest, reload spells, etc.). Some of these efforts worked better than others, and it's not without faults, but (most importantly) it's fun!

I still wonder how 4e would have done if it had been a separate game without the weight of being "the new D&D."

I agree with most of these points. Each version of D&D has tried to fix the sins of the previous, often at the expense of being its own game. 3E and 4E were both huge leaps forward in terms of how the game plays compared to earlier editions.

As for what would have happened if they marketed it as something other than D&D? How many fantasy RPGs are successful without marketing as D&D. Even Pathfinder does it with a wink and a nudge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aha, here's a good opinion from 2000:

A large
majority of players are taking issue with the 3e Concept artwork for its
"20th century, cyberpunk, post-apocalyptic, sharp-edged, War Hammer like,
freak ass tattooed, weirdo, immature, Spawn comic book, non-traditional
fantasy like" style.

Okay, this is fine. So don't make any declarative statements.

Forums do not convey tone the way we'd like them too. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs and you can't have a discussion without some declarative statements.

Whoops, you just made a declarative statement.

See above if you are still confused.

And our statements are being made to show that there is no reasonable argument for that claim.

Yes, cause one forum undermines all others. Because in this instance the weight of numbers is on your side, you are therefore correct?

Appeal to the commons. Seriously, do you know what a fallacy is?

Let's go with Rhetological Fallacies: Errors and manipulations of rhetoric of logical thinking. If your only real argument is 'everyone else thinks the same as I', then your argument has no real merit.

So then, by admission of your own logic, your opinion is void? You seem pretty ready to point out that this thread agrees with your views over mine that you must therefore be correct. You have after all, patently proved, me wrong, right? I made a subjective statement and you made a subjective statement, yet somehow, you are the one who is correct? Since there is no objective way you could be correct for expressing an opinion, and I assume you are smart enough to see that, than you must be using the fact that more people have made comments in agreement with you to prove me wrong. If that is the case, then your argument is only backed by the number of people whom agree with you. So, you’re right cause in this thread,

'everyone else thinks the same as

you. So when I pull outside sources and appeal the commons then I am wrong, but when you do it, you are correct? There is a difference between using big words because it makes you sound smart and being smart. Your own logic seems to have some holes in it.

Do not be confused, let me help you. This conversation cannot be proven true or false by anyone. I pointed out similarities that are not backed by facts because no facts exist here. If there was a direct way saying, “hey Wotc ripped off WoW,” then there would be a law suit right now. It’s not the case. I feel that 4th Ed plays like an MMO. It’s a matter of feel, of interpretation; in other words, opinion. If you do not agree with me that is fine, convincing you to agree with me is not my intention, nor should it be anyone’s. The goal of an argument is to reach understanding. You cannot denounce my supporting evidence in this case without denouncing your own.

ZombieJoe wrote:

Okay, this is fine. So don't make any declarative statements.

Forums do not convey tone the way we'd like them too. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs and you can't have a discussion without some declarative statements.

You can make them, but don't try to hide behind 'It is just my opinion' afterwards.

And our statements are being made to show that there is no reasonable argument for that claim.

Yes, cause one forum undermines all others. Because in this instance the weight of numbers is on your side, you are therefore correct?

No, the weight of fact is on my side. I am providing facts.

So then, by admission of your own logic, your opinion is void? You seem pretty ready to point out that this thread agrees with your views over mine that you must therefore be correct.

Wrong. I have never Appealed to the Commons to make my point.

You have after all, patently proved, me wrong, right? I made a subjective statement and you made a subjective statement, yet somehow, you are the one who is correct?

Wrong. Again, you are confused. You say '4E is like an MMO'. I show you that the things you claim are derivative of MMOs existed before MMOs, so hence that point is incorrect. I am using facts.

Since there is no objective way you could be correct for expressing an opinion, and I assume you are smart enough to see that, than you must be using the fact that more people have made comments in agreement with you to prove me wrong. If that is the case, then your argument is only backed by the number of people whom agree with you. So, you’re right cause in this thread,

'everyone else thinks the same as

you. So when I pull outside sources and appeal the commons then I am wrong, but when you do it, you are correct? There is a difference between using big words because it makes you sound smart and being smart. Your own logic seems to have some holes in it.

Show somewhere where I Appealed to the Commons in this thread.

Do not be confused, let me help you. This conversation cannot be proven true or false by anyone. I pointed out similarities that are not backed by facts because no facts exist here. If there was a direct way saying, “hey Wotc ripped off WoW,” then there would be a law suit right now. It’s not the case. I feel that 4th Ed plays like an MMO. It’s a matter of feel, of interpretation; in other words, opinion. If you do not agree with me that is fine, convincing you to agree with me is not my intention, nor should it be anyone’s. The goal of an argument is to reach understanding. You cannot denounce my supporting evidence in this case without denouncing your own.

But there are facts. If you say 'WOTC ripped off WOW' and we can show prior art, then you are proved incorrect. We have proved prior art multiple times, but you do not accept it and say 'yeah, but my opinion says those facts don't matter'.

Your position is that 4E is like WOW because of tiers and level progression and art style, etc. We have shown in this thread that all of these things existed prior to 4E and WOW.

Name one thing that 4E ripped off WOW that did not exist prior to WOW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, you're getting all butt-hurt that I am disputing your points. It is nothing personal, I just find someone making uninformed points to be rather distasteful, so am trying to correct them.

Hopefully, you would see that some of these opinions are based on incorrect assumptions.

ZombieJoe wrote:

Well now I wanna know if you played 4.0 and 3.5 much. Seriously, I'm only talking about core books, DMG, Monster Manual, Player's Hand Book. I think in 3.5 there was something close to 110 feats you could choose and 4.0 there are about 67. In 4.0 there are 17 skills versus the 40! you get in 3.5, pulled by hand from both my copy of the players hand book of 3.5 and 4.0. I"m even going to bother counting anything else. This is emprical proof that 4.0 gives you less options that 3.5.

I disagree- move silently and hide have been rolled into 'stealth', innuendo and diplomacy have been rolled together. Knowledge(Rocks),Knowledge(caves),Knowledge(derp) has been rolled into dungeoneering.
It is more streamlined. If that's your argument then 5th has EVEN LESS OPTIONS!!! (ZOMG!)

LOL, at what point have you proven anything factual? I said that 4th Ed went the rout of WOW. All you said was, "NOPE! Didn't happen". You've proven nothing. All you did was scream WRONG, at anything that was said. How exactly did you prove anything? You remind me of one of those guys who talks louder when he wants to sound smarter. Seriously guy, nobody here is challanging your nerd cred, I'm sure you spent many constructive hours playing WOW and you are totally awesome sauce at it. But, you need to learn the proper format of an argument. So lower that E-pene a bit and let’s have a useful discuss about this game. I'm sorry if I upset you somehow, I forget how easy that can be with some people.

Let's format this convo a little better, I'd like for this to not get canned by the Mods. Let's go with this format.

I'd actually like to take a moment and rephrase my claims here. I think that maybe this dialogue got side tracked cause I used MMO's as an example. Let's go with video game.
Here is one reason, to start, that I feel D&D 4th Ed feels like I'm playing video game.

1. Skills and feats that were most for role playing purposes were removed. Listen, spot, and search are now all in one, called perception. This is a video game concept. I've never played a game that had three different skills for seeing and hearing, they were always just one thing, and often called 'perception'. This reduces roleplaying. When I play 3.5, I like to make characters with personality flaws; they just make the character more interesting. In one instance, I wanted to make an old man who was hard of hearing but had keen eyes sight. So I dropped no points in listen and haggled with my DM to give me a minus to it, but give me a bonus to spot and listen. This will not happen in 4th ed. Since these are now one skill.

D&D 4th Ed lower the number of customizable options you could give your character. What they give it, was more combat abilities. Largely they made the game more modular. A DM could grab some monsters and throw them at a party much easier now. I think we can all agree that 3.5 and its CR system was a little wonky. That's cool, it made the game more accessible to people with less time. When I got to my FLGS on Tuesday, I see tons of people playing ad-hoc dungeon crawls. It's awesome. But, its also not Roleplaying. 4th Ed supported combat and lots of it. Video Games, and especially MMO's are largely driven by the need for players to get together and go on kill monsters as a party. YES, before you say it, I know that MMO's took ideas from RPG's. The pen&paper game came first, so the VG's barrowed from them. But, with 4th edition, WoTC lowered roleplaying options and raised combat ones. This made the game into an almost MMO parody.

ZombieJoe wrote:LOL, at what point have you proven anything factual? I said that 4th Ed went the rout of WOW. All you said was, "NOPE! Didn't happen". You've proven nothing. All you did was scream WRONG, at anything that was said. How exactly did you prove anything? You remind me of one of those guys who talks louder when he wants to sound smarter. Seriously guy, nobody here is challanging your nerd cred, I'm sure you spent many constructive hours playing WOW and you are totally awesome sauce at it. But, you need to learn the proper format of an argument. So lower that E-pene a bit and let’s have a useful discuss about this game. I'm sorry if I upset you somehow, I forget how easy that can be with some people.

Try to attack the argument and not the poster.

Here is one reason, to start, that I feel D&D 4th Ed feels like I'm playing video game.

1. Skills and feats that were most for role playing purposes were removed. Listen, spot, and search are now all in one, called perception. This is a video game concept. I've never played a game that had three different skills for seeing and hearing, they were always just one thing, and often called 'perception'. This reduces roleplaying. When I play 3.5, I like to make characters with personality flaws; they just make the character more interesting. In one instance, I wanted to make an old man who was hard of hearing but had keen eyes sight. So I dropped no points in listen and haggled with my DM to give me a minus to it, but give me a bonus to spot and listen. This will not happen in 4th ed. Since these are now one skill.

World Of Darkness had perception back in the 90's, which covered all of those skills. 2nd edition D&D had no perception skills except as house rules, addon rules. Previous art and has nothing to do with Video Games.
You can still haggle with your DM to add flaws. This is no different in different editions. In fact, 3rd ed was a step down from 1st ed which had hundreds of flaws and tables for flaws and such in the DMG.

D&D 4th Ed lower the number of customizable options you could give your character.

Again, number of abilities doesn't mean customization. If you want to argue that more useless feats and abilities that bog down the game are more customization then I concede the point to you. This would also mean that 2nd edition D&D was more customizable than 3E because it had FAR more customizable options than 3E in the kits and other things that were released for it.

When I got to my FLGS on Tuesday, I see tons of people playing ad-hoc dungeon crawls. It's awesome. But, its also not Roleplaying. 4th Ed supported combat and lots of it. Video Games, and especially MMO's are largely driven by the need for players to get together and go on kill monsters as a party. YES, before you say it, I know that MMO's took ideas from RPG's. The pen&paper game came first, so the VG's barrowed from them. But, with 4th edition, WoTC lowered roleplaying options and raised combat ones. This made the game into an almost MMO parody.

This has nothing to do with the edition. In 1st edition, there was literally no way to get XP other than killing monsters. Does that mean that 1st edition was nothing other than a kill monsters quest and ripped off MMOs? What about 2nd? Same thing. Someone call Gygax and tell him that he ripped off MMOs back in the 70s with his experience system.

Roleplaying has never been defined by the system. Go into 3rd ed and tell me where the system for roleplaying is and where the roleplaying options are. Oh yeah, the same place they are in 1st, 2nd and 4th. It is up to the group to roleplay. The system does not create that. The system is there to administer everything else.

Again, your points are covered by prior art. If that is not clear, then let me explain. Prior art means that someone did it before MMOs did it. D&D didn't copy MMOs, it copied other RPGs (including D&D) from previous editions. The problem is that you lack historical context in the statements you make so assume that MMOs did it first.

Phototoxin wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:

Well now I wanna know if you played 4.0 and 3.5 much. Seriously, I'm only talking about core books, DMG, Monster Manual, Player's Hand Book. I think in 3.5 there was something close to 110 feats you could choose and 4.0 there are about 67. In 4.0 there are 17 skills versus the 40! you get in 3.5, pulled by hand from both my copy of the players hand book of 3.5 and 4.0. I"m even going to bother counting anything else. This is emprical proof that 4.0 gives you less options that 3.5.

I disagree- move silently and hide have been rolled into 'stealth', innuendo and diplomacy have been rolled together. Knowledge(Rocks),Knowledge(caves),Knowledge(derp) has been rolled into dungeoneering.
It is more streamlined. If that's your argument then 5th has EVEN LESS OPTIONS!!! (ZOMG!)

How can we know what 5th Ed has?! It's not out yet. I know nothing about what is in it. And what you call 'streamline' I call strinkage. YOu have less ways of making a unique character. People keep telling me that you can just roleplay those things, that roleplaying hasn't changed at all. But, thats not true for me. I want rules to reflect my character. Its funny, this is Dakka Dakka, its pretty much a 40K thread, or at least a large part of it is. Many 40K players complain that the rules do not reflect the fluff. Thats the same thing here. I want a character who actually has modible skills. What if you wanted to play an Orc who was light on his feet but wasn't a rogue? He's not good at hiding, he's just good at not stomping around. Well now, you don't have rules to support it anymore in 4thed. That's my problem with the game. You have less ways of making your character's personality unique and to show through in the rules.

ZombieJoe wrote:Thats the same thing here. I want a character who actually has modible skills. What if you wanted to play an Orc who was light on his feet but wasn't a rogue? He's not good at hiding, he's just good at not stomping around. Well now, you don't have rules to support it anymore in 4thed. That's my problem with the game. You have less ways of making your character's personality unique and to show through in the rules.

Easy, Orc Ranger. Take stealth and just don't use it for hiding. Wow, lookit that.

Edit: The funniest part of this is that you are reinforcing the idea of ROLL playing versus ROLE playing. You want the ROLLs to define your character by providing you rules. Whereas we want the ROLE to define the character external to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Top Reasons D&D 4E is ripping off WOW:
1) Weapons! They use the same weapons as WOW!
2) Spells! Some of the spells have the same names!
3) Classes. Some of the class names are the same.
4) Wait, they use the word Class too.
5) Races. Orcs, Dwarves, Elves. Wtf, they stole races from WOW
6) Quests!!!! WOW totally invented quests,
7) Art! Chicks in skimpy armor with swords. Nuff Said.
8) Skills! You can take skills in WOW. Total ripoff.
9) Crafting! You can make stuff in WOW.
10) Experience Points. Levelling based on killing things and completing quests? Totally ripped off from WOW.
11) Hit Points. We know that it is just code for health.
12) Levelling. Levelling in D&D works just like in Wow. You get XP and go up levels. Total rip off.

Try to attack the argument and not the poster.

Good advice, I hope you listen to it.

World Of Darkness had perception back in the 90's, which covered all of those skills. 2nd edition D&D had no perception skills except as house rules, addon rules. Previous art and has nothing to do with Video Games.
You can still haggle with your DM to add flaws. This is no different in different editions. In fact, 3rd ed was a step down from 1st ed which had hundreds of flaws and tables for flaws and such in the DMG.

Stay on target, I'm not talking about any other editions. 3.5 versus 4. 1st and 2nd have nothing to do with it, what they were is meaningless cause this is a converation of where 4thed went.

Again, number of abilities doesn't mean customization. If you want to argue that more useless feats and abilities that bog down the game are more customization then I concede the point to you. This would also mean that 2nd edition D&D was more customizable than 3E because it had FAR more customizable options than 3E in the kits and other things that were released for it.

We are talking 3.5, again. And, you cannot just call them useless. What, you never used them, so that means nobody else does? If you play D&D like you are playing munchkin then sure, many of them are useless.

Roleplaying has never been defined by the system. Go into 3rd ed and tell me where the system for roleplaying is and where the roleplaying options are. Oh yeah, the same place they are in 1st, 2nd and 4th. It is up to the group to roleplay. The system does not create that. The system is there to administer everything else.

Rules that reflect character made the game play fun and different.

Again, your points are covered by prior art. If that is not clear, then let me explain. Prior art means that someone did it before MMOs did it. D&D didn't copy MMOs, it copied other RPGs (including D&D) from previous editions. The problem is that you lack historical context in the statements you make so assume that MMOs did it first.

That past man, you are living in it. Get with the future. I'm talking 3.5 to 4. If you ran out of argument then move on. P&P RPG's are on one road and Video Games are on another, now those roads are starting to cross a bit.

First off, I think the condescending attitude of your fist paragraph is uncalled for.

As to your point:

1. If something in the game exists purely for roleplaying purposes, not mechanical ones, then it doesn't need to exist in the game. You yourself mention how you worked with your DM to get a penalty and bonuses, this is just as easily something you could do in 4e. GM fiat is the same regardless of edition.

There are plenty of other games that do not use Listen, Search and Spot as all separate skills. White-Wolf, for instance, uses Perception as an attribute, and has no specific skills for noticing things. Palladium games (ugh) also has no real system for noticing things in general. Cyberpunk 2020 has a single skill "Awareness/Notice", as does Shadowrun 4e. In fact, I would posit that D&D is one of FEW games that actually felt the need to break that down. D&D 2nd edition use Alertness, not listen and spot and search. So again, your evidence for comparison is false.

D&D 4e provided plenty of methods of customization. There were backgrounds providing tangible benefits, there were plenty of feats and utility powers, paragon paths and other actual mechanical things to customize your character. In regards to dungeon crawling, I will say again:

Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was the first edition of dungeons and dragons to offer a system for providing XP for NON-COMBAT ENCOUNTERS. The system may have had its problems, but it was the first time it existed. If I wanted to run a game where characters never pick up a single weapon, I can do so with a set system in place; previously, a DM would have to fiat every aspect of such a campaign. So when you posit "WOTC lowered roleplaying options", I give you evidence you are wrong. There are plenty of roleplaying options, and an all new method of playing the game which focuses entirely on roleplaying.

pretre wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:Thats the same thing here. I want a character who actually has modible skills. What if you wanted to play an Orc who was light on his feet but wasn't a rogue? He's not good at hiding, he's just good at not stomping around. Well now, you don't have rules to support it anymore in 4thed. That's my problem with the game. You have less ways of making your character's personality unique and to show through in the rules.

Easy, Orc Ranger. Take stealth and just don't use it for hiding. Wow, lookit that.

Edit: The funniest part of this is that you are reinforcing the idea of ROLL playing versus ROLE playing. You want the ROLLs to define your character by providing you rules. Whereas we want the ROLE to define the character external to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Top Reasons D&D 4E is ripping off WOW:
1) Weapons! They use the same weapons as WOW!
2) Spells! Some of the spells have the same names!
3) Classes. Some of the class names are the same.
4) Wait, they use the word Class too.
5) Races. Orcs, Dwarves, Elves. Wtf, they stole races from WOW
6) Quests!!!! WOW totally invented quests,
7) Art! Chicks in skimpy armor with swords. Nuff Said.
8) Skills! You can take skills in WOW. Total ripoff.
9) Crafting! You can make stuff in WOW.
10) Experience Points. Levelling based on killing things and completing quests? Totally ripped off from WOW.
11) Hit Points. We know that it is just code for health.
12) Levelling. Levelling in D&D works just like in Wow. You get XP and go up levels. Total rip off.

Glib and out of logical arguments its seems. I was expecting more. Oh well.

ZombieJoe wrote:Stay on target, I'm not talking about any other editions. 3.5 versus 4. 1st and 2nd have nothing to do with it, what they were is meaningless cause this is a converation of where 4thed went.

You're saying 4th ripped off MMOs. I'm saying that it didn't. It ripped off 1st, 2nd and other previous RPGs. Completely on target.

Again, number of abilities doesn't mean customization. If you want to argue that more useless feats and abilities that bog down the game are more customization then I concede the point to you. This would also mean that 2nd edition D&D was more customizable than 3E because it had FAR more customizable options than 3E in the kits and other things that were released for it.

We are talking 3.5, again. And, you cannot just call them useless. What, you never used them, so that means nobody else does? If you play D&D like you are playing munchkin then sure, many of them are useless.

Having five feats to replicate skill focus is indeed useless. Way to disparage me again though.

Roleplaying has never been defined by the system. Go into 3rd ed and tell me where the system for roleplaying is and where the roleplaying options are. Oh yeah, the same place they are in 1st, 2nd and 4th. It is up to the group to roleplay. The system does not create that. The system is there to administer everything else.

Rules that reflect character made the game play fun and different.

Sure and 4E has those. Those rules for 4E are different than 3E and different than 2E and different than 1E. Different does not equal OMG MMO!!!!

That past man, you are living in it. Get with the future. I'm talking 3.5 to 4. If you ran out of argument then move on. P&P RPG's are on one road and Video Games are on another, now those roads are starting to cross a bit.

The past informs the present. MMOs copied those past RPGs. 4E copied those past RPGs. That doesn't mean that 4E copied MMOs.

Yes, the roads have been crossing since video games started, mostly because Video games have always copied RPGs. You know, because RPGs came first. Oh sorry, that was the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:
Glib and out of logical arguments its seems. I was expecting more. Oh well.

The list was meant as humor. Take it as such.

I note that you didn't address your want for more ROLL and less ROLE by providing rules to help you ROLEplay.

I note that you didn't address your want for more ROLL and less ROLE by providing rules to help you ROLEplay.

You are quiet clever with the puns. I don't find picking up dice and rolling them across the table too taxing. So, yes I do like to ROLL when I ROLE. I also eat ROLLS when I ROLE. I once ate a ROLL that I recieve from a MOLE who swung on a POLL when I went out on a STROLL, and then I was FULL and didn't have time to ROLE. But, that's getting off topic


Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:First off, I think the condescending attitude of your fist paragraph is uncalled for.

As to your point:

1. If something in the game exists purely for roleplaying purposes, not mechanical ones, then it doesn't need to exist in the game. You yourself mention how you worked with your DM to get a penalty and bonuses, this is just as easily something you could do in 4e. GM fiat is the same regardless of edition.

There are plenty of other games that do not use Listen, Search and Spot as all separate skills. White-Wolf, for instance, uses Perception as an attribute, and has no specific skills for noticing things. Palladium games (ugh) also has no real system for noticing things in general. Cyberpunk 2020 has a single skill "Awareness/Notice", as does Shadowrun 4e. In fact, I would posit that D&D is one of FEW games that actually felt the need to break that down. D&D 2nd edition use Alertness, not listen and spot and search. So again, your evidence for comparison is false.

D&D 4e provided plenty of methods of customization. There were backgrounds providing tangible benefits, there were plenty of feats and utility powers, paragon paths and other actual mechanical things to customize your character. In regards to dungeon crawling, I will say again:

Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was the first edition of dungeons and dragons to offer a system for providing XP for NON-COMBAT ENCOUNTERS. The system may have had its problems, but it was the first time it existed. If I wanted to run a game where characters never pick up a single weapon, I can do so with a set system in place; previously, a DM would have to fiat every aspect of such a campaign. So when you posit "WOTC lowered roleplaying options", I give you evidence you are wrong. There are plenty of roleplaying options, and an all new method of playing the game which focuses entirely on roleplaying.

4th Ed did do some cool things with the XP they gave away for roleplaying. It was one of the things I like most about it. To the OP, 4th Ed is not bad. It's just not great. If you are totally new to DND and young, then its a great place to start. If you are an old hand at DND then I'd not suggest moving to 4th.

To your point, yes there are other RPG's that what you said, but I do not play them all and do not have an informed opinion on the matter.