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.

boogeyman wrote:My boys are 4 and 2, I think that is old enough to start.

You are a terrible Father.

Why did you wait so long?

That is an awesome acquisition, boogeyman. I need to find a copy of that.

I play 4th. Ive even done some DMing. After my first session, on every RPG that I play now Im always Elendial the Human Paladin.

@Gwar! I know, I know. It took me a long time to find the old vhs tapes I had them on.

The quality wasn't great, but managable. The video quality on the dvd is much better, but the sound seems a little low or changes volume on its own.

@Shane I got it online. I think Amazon. It was on sale normally I think it is $15.

I play/Dm 3.5 i play as a neutral good fighter/Palidian

What i also dont like in 4th is that you get 1/2 your level on everything. EVERYTHING!!. What use is adding half my level to my attack roll when my enemy gets half his level to his ac?

Or the loss of infinite customisability. Or the fact that i dont roll my own saves or hd. The fact that fighter 1 has the same hp as fighter 2 minus a little constitution modifier. The fact that then out of nowhere a lot of new races just pop up in established setttings.

Gnomes becoming a monster class. The level system the loss of prestige classes.

This is not dnd this is something else.

Its like calling a vw beetle a ferrari. Yes it has an engine 4 wheels and a steering wheel but it is still no ferrari. And no matter how you praise it it never will be.

Grtz
L.D.

I'm only familier with 3rd edition, and it seems sort of... bad. Like, Spellcasters can do everything better then everyone. Rogue? Worthless, just turn invisible or teleport through traps. Fighter? Just nuke everyone with fireballs, or disintigrate them. Even the "vulnerable to damage" argument seems awfully weak when you can fly, and reflect any ranged attacks, and make four illusionary copies of yourself zip around. And that's not even getting the billion things no other class can do at all; jump through dimensions, raise the dead, make magic items, summon demons, transform into anything, read minds, teleport across continents, make magic traps, know the future...

Why you would ever chose a party that's not Wizard, Wizard, Cleric, Druid is beyond me.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm only familier with 3rd edition, and it seems sort of... bad. Like, Spellcasters can do everything better then everyone. Rogue? Worthless, just turn invisible or teleport through traps. Fighter? Just nuke everyone with fireballs, or disintigrate them. Even the "vulnerable to damage" argument seems awfully weak when you can fly, and reflect any ranged attacks, and make four illusionary copies of yourself zip around. And that's not even getting the billion things no other class can do at all; jump through dimensions, raise the dead, make magic items, summon demons, transform into anything, read minds, teleport across continents, make magic traps, know the future...

Why you would ever chose a party that's not Wizard, Wizard, Cleric, Druid is beyond me.

That's what you need to check out Pathfinder

I play D&D 3.5, Dark Heresy, and Rogue Trader frequently. I dislike DnD 4e (its to much like playing WoW).

I've done my fair share of tabletop RP. My favorite characters were a CG Half-Elf Copper Dragon Shaman from 3.5, a NG Half-Elf Cleric of Corellon from 3.5 and a 4.0 N Cleric of the Raven Queen. I remember everybody making a stink about 4.0 when it came out. I played it and discovered something incredible: it's still a bunch of guys rolling dice and telling a story It did annoy me when in all the hype for 4.0 they said "it will be fun to play a Cleric for the first time!" Screw that, Blade of Blood let you do more damage at first level than a Raging Barbarian. Good stuff!

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm only familier with 3rd edition, and it seems sort of... bad. Like, Spellcasters can do everything better then everyone(Eventually, accept Monks). Rogue? Worthless(wrong. Grab lvls in shadow dancer and you can backstab like mad before the mage does crap all. Having more than one rogue just makes it even better as their skills compliment each other and buff each other passively.), just turn invisible(lvl 6, I can still hear you, smell you, touch you, ect. One bag of flour or emersion in a liquid means invisible people can be seen by the lack of substance in the air. Watch the predator movies for more examples.) or teleport(lvl 8 or 10) through traps (which you need to know are there). Fighter? Just nuke everyone with fireballs(lvl 6), or disintigrate(lvl8+) them. Even the "vulnerable to damage" argument seems awfully weak when you can fly, and reflect any ranged attacks, and make four illusionary copies(its 1D4+1 and they pop on a hit so one splash damage that hits them all takes them all out. Unless you are talking greater illusion which requires way higher level and can make better things than silly copies of yourself) of yourself zip around. And that's not even getting the billion things no other class can do at all(not true. Magic boots make anyone fly, Blink rings make anyone telport, etc.); jump through dimensions(item for this), raise the dead(item for this), make magic items(NPC for this), transform into anything(item for this), read minds(item for this), teleport across continents(item/portals for this), make magic traps(NPCs for this), know the future(items/NPS for this) ...

Why you would ever chose a party that's not Wizard, Wizard, Cleric, Druid is beyond me.(Besides the fact that depending on the gods of both the Cleric and Druid the party won't get a long well at all and constantly bicker over what to do, assuming any amount of roleplaying is involved ofcourse. At worst one of these two faith based characters will even lose favour with their god for going along with things when they shouldn't have making them totally useless until they attune.)

I've edited your message with comments on simple issues that pop to mind about what you say. Perhaps you just haven't played enough to realize the full scope of the classes and situations. Or your DM is sort of a one pony show and therefore your encounters always play out the same and you have found that party dynamic that bests it everytime.

Number one reason not to take lots of mages? You run out of fire power fast and will not survive any kind of extended battles (especially starting at lvl 1 to 6). Also you have to adventure long enough to develope your character to the point where you can even get any of those spells you sighted above like they were candy. A good DM will be able to challenge any party dynamic, so why you would take any one thing is irrelevent cause eventually you will get caught somewhere you can't handle(Any wild/dead magic zone for example, or coming up against any shadow born creatures or Sharrans, Beholder, etc. pawns magic users ). Fighters don't run out of what they are good at until they are dead. Same with rogues, monks, etc. In fact my group will be lucky to have more than one spellcaster period because they know they should spread out their clasess to improve their odds of surviving any one situation. If you need more of anyone class they can always higher an NPC.

Strimen wrote:(wrong. Grab lvls in shadow dancer and you can backstab like mad before the mage does crap all. Having more than one rogue just makes it even better as their skills compliment each other and buff each other passively.),

A rogue multiclassing in shadowdancer isn't a rogue, they are a rogue/shadowdancer. Shadowdancers are a class with supernatural abilties, are they not? While not a spellcaster per se, they are still magic users, and use the equivilent of spells to be as good spellcasters in their particular field.

just turn invisible(lvl 6, I can still hear you, smell you, touch you, ect. One bag of flour or emersion in a liquid means invisible people can be seen by the lack of substance in the air. Watch the predator movies for more examples.)

People can hear you, smell you, touch you, ect when you're a rogue. Only now they can see you as well. I don't know why there would be a "bag of flour" or a bucket of paint everywhere you are invisible, but in any case you are simply noting how much better invisibility is then stealth; you don't need to throw flour or paint on a rogue that you see, you see them, and they've lost all advantage. You can't disable invisibility in the methods you've described until you already know there is an invisible person around you, in which case they're already compromised to a huge degree (and if you were a rogue you would be compromised completely).

or teleport(lvl 8 or 10) through traps (which you need to know are there).

Don't rogues also need to make a search checks or something along those lines to detect a trap? With the ability to summon creatures to activate them (or get your animal friend/familiar to do it), use divination (such as Detect Magic) to search for them, and manipulate objects at a distance (opening a treasure chest or door with telekinesis) they put themselves at risk far less then a non magic user would have to be in.

If they aren't any better at detecting traps, that's still not great for the rogue, who doesn't have much besides that ability.

Fighter? Just nuke everyone with fireballs(lvl 6), or disintegrate(lvl8+) them.

At lower levels they have a little less ability, but the level that they can manipulate the environment or buff themselves is still quite an advantage. That's not even counting the Druid, with their pet wolf coming to every fight.

Even the "vulnerable to damage" argument seems awfully weak when you can fly, and reflect any ranged attacks, and make four illusionary copies(its 1D4+1 and they pop on a hit so one splash damage that hits them all takes them all out. Unless you are talking greater illusion which requires way higher level and can make better things than silly copies of yourself)

The specific illusion isn't as important as the general level of protection they can achieve with having them at their hands.

of yourself zip around. And that's not even getting the billion things no other class can do at all(not true. Magic boots make anyone fly, Blink rings make anyone telport, etc.); jump through dimensions(item for this), raise the dead(item for this), make magic items(NPC for this), transform into anything(item for this), read minds(item for this), teleport across continents(item/portals for this), make magic traps(NPCs for this), know the future(items/NPS for this) ...

Non spellcasters can use magic if spellcasters give them magic items (or they accidently drop them down a well or whatever), and non spellcasters can also ask spellcasters to cast spells for them.

This is further reason spellcasters are hugely superior to non spellcasters. When does a wizard need to fire a fighter to do something he cannot do, and will never be able to do so long as he remains a wizard? Never. When does he need an item crafted by a rogue, that will give him some of the rogue's ability, so that he can do something that only a rogue could ever do? Never.

Besides the fact that depending on the gods of both the Cleric and Druid the party won't get a long well at all and constantly bicker over what to do, assuming any amount of roleplaying is involved of course. At worst one of these two faith based characters will even lose favour with their god for going along with things when they shouldn't have making them totally useless until they attune.)

Why would a Neutral Good Druid fight with a cleric of Pelor? Or a cleric of, say, Obad-Hai fight with any Druid?

One big advantage is actually their ability to roleplay, as they are guaranteed to have at least one high mental stat, and can afford to bolster their others. A fighter needs Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and by that point they aren't going to have much left for Intelligence.

Perhaps you just haven't played enough to realize the full scope of the classes and situations. Or your DM is sort of a one pony show and therefore your encounters always play out the same and you have found that party dynamic that bests it everytime.

The more different situations I can think of, the more the absurd level of flexibility that spellcasters have helps them out. Wouldn't it be cool to have a battle in this fiery landscape? Oh yeah, just let me make myself immune to fire. Or make it so that I can fly over the lava while everyone else balances on the ledge dramatically. What if we want to go to another dimension? You can't do that at all without a spellcaster. Let's say there is an investigation into who killed the king. Well, let me just ask my god. Or begin reading the minds of all the suspects. Hell, even in what could otherwise be a pure diplomatic roleplaying situation you can fire off "charms" and such. What is the fighter supposed to do in all of these varied circumstances?

Number one reason not to take lots of mages? You run out of fire power fast and will not survive any kind of extended battles (especially starting at lvl 1 to 6). Also you have to adventure long enough to develop your character to the point where you can even get any of those spells you sighted above like they were candy.

So they get exponentially better while non spellcasters don't; that's part of the problem! It means as the game continues what seemed to be a balanced party when hacking at kobolds will go further and further in favor of the spellcasters. By level 15 or 16 your fighter will just look like the 5 year old kid who tags along to the battle where the wizard flies around throwing lightning bolts and summoning fire elementals everywhere he goes.

The ability to fight in "extended battles" isn't as important when you can Rope Trick yourself to safety. Or just leave, and go sleep in an inn, and fight tomorrow. An all spellcaster party won't have any problem with doing this whenever they can, and they will actively try to avoid getting into situations they can't get out of. To exploit this weakness requires the DM to railroad the party into having insufficient chances to rest; to make there always be some sort of ticking bomb, to make it impossible to leave the dungeon for whatever reason, and things like that. In a standard dungeon crawl it won't work, and this is rather constricting to possible challenges the DM wants to impose.

A good DM will be able to challenge any party dynamic, so why you would take any one thing is irrelevant cause eventually you will get caught somewhere you can't handle(Any wild/dead magic zone for example, or coming up against any shadow born creatures or Sharrans, Beholder, etc. pawns magic users ). Fighters don't run out of what they are good at until they are dead. Same with rogues, monks, etc. In fact my group will be lucky to have more than one spellcaster period because they know they should spread out their classes to improve their odds of surviving any one situation. If you need more of anyone class they can always higher an NPC.

Even enemies with anti-magic can still be fought with magic users, ridiculously enough, if they're prepared. If you throw a boulder at a beholder with telekineses antimagic won't slow it down. If you conjure an iron wall above them it won't disappear. Still, it is true that antimagic will screw them over to a large degree. The problem here is that fighting magic requires a constant supply of magic specifically made to stop magic itself. You will never be able to have a traitor in the party's midst without a ring that masks their alignment from Detect Evil. You will never be able to force them to find the key for a lock unless the door is magically warded against the magic of the party wizard. Magic must be used to defeat magic, while both magic and mundane abilities can defeat mundane ability. In this case, the solution proposed is simply to to make the setting more magic based, so that magic possessed by the party isn't as unbalancing. While it's certainly true that the DM can negate any power the players acquire for themselves, I maintain that for most campaigns - built for a mixed party and administered without regard as to the party's composition - a party of all spellcasters will do significantly better than a mixed party, and much better than a party with no spellcasters at all. Or at least, it will for the last 4/5 of the game.

Now, the wild magic idea is one that I've always liked. I haven't heard of it being particularly common, though, except in some crazy foreign planes or whatever. To make it more prominent throughout the setting (sort of like the risk of miscasting in WHFB) would certainly make for an interesting game. (It would be, however, something of a houserule nerfing magic in that use.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:That's what you need to check out Pathfinder

Unfortunately, I don't even think I have my old 3rd ed books any more.

What's the deal with this 4th ed thing? I hear the combat structure is more like WoW. Which doesn't sound great...

Orkeosaurus wrote:Unfortunately, I don't even think I have my old 3rd ed books any more.

And therein lies the beauty of pathfinder, you don't need them! Pathfinder is completely self contained. 3.0 and 3.5 books are compatible with a little work, but you do not need them at all to use Pathfinder

Hmm. Interesting; is the setting more high magic than normal or less? (Or pretty much the same?)

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. Interesting; is the setting more high magic than normal or less? (Or pretty much the same?)

It's pretty much the same. Of course, a DM can make it as high or low fantasy as he/she (lol she, as if ) wants.

What I like about it too is that it comes in Linked and Bookmarked PDF form, which makes searching for stuff so much easier, and that it is only 2 rulebooks, the core rulebook (which is PHB and DMG in one) and the Bestiary (the MM), so it's cheaper

If you want linkage: Main Site and Errata, Character Sheets, 3.5 conversion guide and Free Bestiary Preview

Hmm. I may look into this, especially if I decide I don't really like 4th ed.

I'll admit, I really don't like too high of magic settings, especially when magic is not only powerful but makes for a solution to nearly any problem; I'm probably a little embittered against spellcasters because of that.

I still need to check out Dark Heresy as well.

What system gives you the greatest variety and customization for character creation? Like half halfling and half fairie dragon. I know that was one crazy night still can't remember most of it. It doesn't have to be that crazy. However, I do like to have freedom of choice.

My guess would be that 3rd edition is better for that than 4th. Tons of different sourcebooks lying around, although it may be tricky to get your hands on all of them.

The Forgotten Realms included an absurd degree of magic. I think it relates to the inherent nerd bias of role-playing; ie. the intellectual elements of fantasy tend to be highlighted in pastimes which are targeted at people who style themselves as intelligent. Ebberon is superior in my mind because it actually attempts to codify magical abilities. There is less whimsy to it.

As for my experience: I've never been involved in D&D as a player. I've always been a DM, and generally for people I didn't know well (I have very few gamer friends). In general I found 3e to be unwieldy. People got too bogged down in the technicalities of combat and interaction, rather than focusing on the narrative. But then I've always seen RPGs as a form of interactive novel, as opposed to competitive enterprises.

I've not yet been involved in 4e, but I like what I've heard. It seems to allow social interaction to be social, rather than mechanical. A vast improvement to my mind.

I've always thought something like that myself. It's also more difficult to use intelligence in a realistic manner in a fantasy setting (where scientific knowledge is limited for flavor) where physical combat is the most important aspect in play (instead of, say, religious, political, or economic challenges) and in such a medium where there simply isn't as much to analyze as there would be in real life (you can't know anything about the setting the DM hasn't thought of yet, you can't analyze a person's actions and be sure that it isn't just poor roleplaying/railroading behind them, etc).

I also hear Exalted is rather DBZ like in what they throw around, although I think there's a more spiritual/mythical form of magic behind it.

@dogma: I've been wanting to get a via e-mail or dakka group going for a long time; for me the emphasis is on collaborative narration rather than mechanic; crunch is only to balance the possible, IMO, not constrain it (although I am not referring to magic, on which topic I full agree with you); let me know if you're interested--you, too, Orkeo

onT (sort of) 4E is a solid game, better in many ways than 3.5; 3.5 has notalgia on its side and, to be fair, a better quality line of books background and layout-wise; I wish wizards had adapted the "D&D3.8" of SW Saga edition to be 4E

I'd probably be up for playing something. God knows I've got the time.

Orkeosaurus wrote: It's also more difficult to use intelligence in a realistic manner in a fantasy setting...

Not to mention the issues inherent in having people of low intelligence RP those of high intelligence. It isn't something that can be readily simulated.

@Manchu: I'd be down, as with Orkeo I have immense amounts of time (I work a lot, but my job is a joke). At least I will until my career changes start coming to fruition.

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote: It's also more difficult to use intelligence in a realistic manner in a fantasy setting...

Not to mention the issues inherent in having people of low intelligence RP those of high intelligence. It isn't something that can be readily simulated.

You can say the same of people with high intelligence RPing those of low intelligence. At least, it never works out in my games :(

That's true, Gwar!. It isn't easy to present an accurate model of something you are not. That's why acting is so difficult!

dogma wrote:I've not yet been involved in 4e, but I like what I've heard. It seems to allow social interaction to be social, rather than mechanical. A vast improvement to my mind.

Oh it is. Of course that gets turned around and criticized as being all about the combat since every little non-combat stat isn't specifically ruled. The reality of course is that you can do the same thing as before (there are rules after all) but it is up to the players to, you know, roleplay, to work things out. It's a very liberating feeling.

I saw some complimenting 3rd for having lots of sourcebooks. In a nutshell, here is what 4th has at the moment, or will shortly:

Players Handbook 1, 2, 3
DM's Guide 1, 2
Martial Power 1, 2
Divine Power
Arcane Power
Primal Power
Dragonomicon 1, 2
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
Eberron Players Guide
Eberron DM's Campaign setting
Dark Sun Campaign Setting
Dragonborn Players Guide*
Underdark

That doesn't include adventure modules or accessories. The Players Handbooks really aren't any different than having to buy the Psionics book and the "Power" guides are essentially the same as things like Sword and Fist in 3rd. The names have been changed but the amount of supplements isn't radically different. It is about the same amount as when 3rd was this old, or AD&D when it the same age. I do agree that the layout of the books could be better, no doubt. Of course 4th doesn't have Oriental Adventures yet, which I imagine will be Players Handbook 4.

What is funny to me is that recall hearing many of the same arguments about 3rd when it was released. I know I heard several times that 3rd "wasn't D&D" because it didn' use THAC0. Of course there are still people that complain that 1st edition was truly the best.

As for fighters having similar hit points, I'm guessing you aren't taking into consideration healing surges. A fighter with a CON of 12 will, in essence, have one extra healing surge whereas a fighter with a CON of 18 week have 4 extra healing surges. Let's say they have 40 hit points, meaning their healing surge value is 10hp. The fighter with 12 has 10 extra hit points where the 18 has 40. There isn't unlimited healing anymore so it can get fairly squirrelly in a long adventure near the end.

Many of these complaints seem to be coming from a place of ignorance i.e. not having actually played the game any decent amount of time or at all. To say things like fighters and wizards are the same is something that can only be said if you have very little to no experience with 4th, for example. Having played it for a few months now I can tell you they don't play alike at all.

"Hey king guy, why don't you get your guys to kill all the orcs, 'cause they're evil. And also give me your magic sword."

Roll: 20!

I play some 3.5 D&D with my friends - we're starting a new campaign soon, and I've decided to go the simple route of big-guy-who-bashes. Not sure which class exactly, but eh. Most of my characters have been Rouges or similar - my most recent was a Gnome Bard who was going to eventually level up to be a Dread Pirate, if we got that far (we didn't).

Ahtman wrote:
Oh it is.

Honestly, that's a sufficient endorsement for purchase.

I don't actively play D&D anymore but I still keep up on the rules/lore. I got into it right around the time 3rd edition was new. Although I did play the game Baldur's Gate, which used 2nd edition rules. I was so happy when they did away with THAC0.