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.

Well, there is that problem.

Either way, I look forward to seeing the final product. I generally don't care what form my D&D takes, as long as I can play it. I've been happy with all the editions I have played so far.

For me, I can already do everything I can imagine wanting to do as far as generic fantasy is concerned with the various iterations of D&D and D&D-inspired games. I had hoped that 5E would present some new "thing to be done" but either that isn't the case (instead, we have a "thing to be redone" -- literally, thanks for the umpteenth recycling of Keep on the Borderlands) or the playtest materials simply don't unveil that. I'd like to think it's the latter but the position seems a bit too naive even for me.

Yeah, really all a new edition does is reset the needed books to play. It is like how magic does legal sets for magic, but more convoluted.

I seriously didn't have that complaint with 4E, which is the first new edition I ever experienced as a "new edition." (I started with AD&D 2.5 then dropped D&D generally until around 2006.) I do think a lot of people were hoping 4E would just be something like that -- new art, a few changes, basically what Paizo gave them -- and it still amazes me that more people don't complain that Paizo is re-selling you 3.5 (and, as time goes buy, repackaging its own Pathfinder content for you to repurchase).

As much as I enjoy 4th, it is still D&D. The mechanics are different, but it didn't seem like a bigger jump than 2.5 to 3. Boy, I remember the bitching when that happened.

I've never played Pathfinder, mostly because we switched to 4th and I had more than enough 3e/3.5e stuff already.

Although I didn't experience it, I can imagine how huge the gap between AD&D and 3E must have seemed at the time. Hell, it looks pretty big even now that we've "made it across." I've been saying for a while now, 4E was the natural and logical progression from 3E. (And I still think, although I only have anecdotal evidence, that a lot of 4E haters were casting prima donnas in 3E.)

The Swords and Sorcery Ravenloft stuff was what got me "into" Dungeons and Dragons properly. Still love it to bits, though I don't own any of it at the moment.

I just don't ever expect Wizards to put out anything that strong, to be honest. I don't think they've got the chops for it. Which is okay, because the stuff they do put out is pretty passable and usable. And like I said, there's a lot of "OMG AWESOME I AM IN UNI AND DISCOVERING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME!" colouring my view.
But yeah, I don't need the next "keep on the borderlands" scenario. I also don't think Pathfinder is the answer to much, except for people who were satisfied with 3.5 and wanted a little tweak to make fighters and paladins a bit better.

Manchu wrote:(And I still think, although I only have anecdotal evidence, that a lot of 4E haters were casting prima donnas in 3E.)

THIS. Dear sweet baby raptor zeus THIS. I've played every edition of D&D at some point (along with a few other fantasy settings like Tunnels and Trolls), and 4th edition was the first time I felt like I could play a non-caster class and compete*. 3.0/3.5 was especially bad once you hit 5th level, and fighters just suddenly fell off a cliff. My first 4e character? Fighter; favorite character I've played in any fantasy game in years.

*: By compete I actually mean "be useful to the party at all".

streamdragon wrote:

Manchu wrote:(And I still think, although I only have anecdotal evidence, that a lot of 4E haters were casting prima donnas in 3E.)

THIS. Dear sweet baby raptor zeus THIS. I've played every edition of D&D at some point (along with a few other fantasy settings like Tunnels and Trolls), and 4th edition was the first time I felt like I could play a non-caster class and compete*. 3.0/3.5 was especially bad once you hit 5th level, and fighters just suddenly fell off a cliff. My first 4e character? Fighter; favorite character I've played in any fantasy game in years.

*: By compete I actually mean "be useful to the party at all".

I can totally agree with that. 4E was the first time I played a wizard ever. So naturally I thought it was a big let down. Wizards in other editions were much better, (from what I saw from other players).

Anyway I got my playtesting materials printed out. Hopefully I will get a chance to use them this weekend or next week.

Wizards were more powerful in other editions in comparison to the rest of the party. That's different than better.

In D&D, more powerful is generally the same as better.

Once you hit 5th level in 3.0/3.5 (especially in 3.0 pre Haste-nerf), wizards completely blew ever other class out of the water. There was literally no comparison.

Even when the wizard turned our fighter into a troll, the fighter couldn't keep up with the wizard, except in HP. (The crutch here is that this required a wizard in the first place...) HP was largely unnecessary by level 9, as you often faced "save or die" spells anyway. There were also no tools* for a fighter to actually 'tank' anything (that is, keep it from attacking the mage).


* This is an exaggeration, only because of spiked chain / improved trip fighters. Who were worthless against flying enemies, or enemies with ranged attacks.

streamdragon wrote:Once you hit 5th level in 3.0/3.5 (especially in 3.0 pre Haste-nerf), wizards completely blew ever other class out of the water. There was literally no comparison.

You obviously aren't familiar with CODzilla. Clerics and Druids were the real powerhouses in 3.5.

Although, as I bring up in all of these threads, I played a Bard/Paladin/Phantom Knight?/Sublime Chord that wore plate, cast bard/paladin/wizards spells, had a phantom steed and full BAB most of the day. He beat the living crud out of normal wizards. I loved 3.5, but god was it broken.

pretre wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Once you hit 5th level in 3.0/3.5 (especially in 3.0 pre Haste-nerf), wizards completely blew ever other class out of the water. There was literally no comparison.

You obviously aren't familiar with CODzilla. Clerics and Druids were the real powerhouses in 3.5.

Although, as I bring up in all of these threads, I played a Bard/Paladin/Phantom Knight?/Sublime Chord that wore plate, cast bard/paladin/wizards spells, had a phantom steed and full BAB most of the day. He beat the living crud out of normal wizards. I loved 3.5, but god was it broken.

Could not agree with the bolded more. And I'd say you weren't facing well played wizards then! Contingency... oh god contingency... The number of abuses of that spell, permanency and Polymorph Other were just insanity in purest form.

Clerics and Druids were certainly powerful in 3.5, but they had restrictions that the wizard lacked. Not that they were pushovers, mind, I'd just put a well played cleric just a smidge below a well played wizard and leagues above your average wizard. Non-casters don't even make the list.

pretre wrote:Wizards were more powerful in other editions in comparison to the rest of the party. That's different than better.

Like streamdragon said, more powerful = better in D&D. Just look at warhammer, the more powerful armies are always the better ones to collect (from a gaming standpoint). Warhammer can be subjective such as thinking nids are the best looking minis, so better can have more than one meaning. However in D&D, I don't think there is much of a hobby in collecting fighter stats. More powerful class is better. The more powerful classes can get more XP. More XP can get you more levels, equipment, etc. From a gaming standpoint everything is better in a more powerful class. I didn't get that in 4E. If the battles were not designed in a way that every class could do their thing, then some characters wouldn't get jak. I remember not being able to do any damage to certain monsters because the monster was designed for characters like fighters to battle it. My DM always had a rule, "if you do one point of damage to it, you are entitled to an equal share". Let's just say, that didn't happen.

Of course if the battles were designed better by my DM, that wouldn't have been a problem.

Balance wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:With the new IKRPG(the only reason I still own 3.5 books) coming out at the end of summer, I see no reason to switch from 2nd ed for D&D campaigns.

I thought they were moving to their own system for the new version?

They are.

Sorry, I was essentially saying that I'm not up for having(ie. forcing ) my group learn two new systems at the same time.

Yeah, that's a DM problem. One of the good things about 4e is that it removes the 'can't hurt it' and 'aquaman' syndromes by providing meaningful powers for everyone. Also there is no one point rule in 4e, if you're there you get xp.

So again, 4e gets blamed for a bad DM.

pretre wrote:Yeah, that's a DM problem. One of the good things about 4e is that it removes the 'can't hurt it' and 'aquaman' syndromes by providing meaningful powers for everyone. Also there is no one point rule in 4e, if you're there you get xp.

So again, 4e gets blamed for a bad DM.

Well I could have phrased it a little better but I was trying to imply that very thing. "If the battles were not designed in a way that every class could do their thing, then some characters wouldn't get jak."

DMs really had to put some effort into designing the encounters. If they didn't certain classes got shafted.

Lord Scythican wrote:

pretre wrote:Wizards were more powerful in other editions in comparison to the rest of the party. That's different than better.

Like streamdragon said, more powerful = better in D&D. Just look at warhammer, the more powerful armies are always the better ones to collect (from a gaming standpoint). Warhammer can be subjective such as thinking nids are the best looking minis, so better can have more than one meaning. However in D&D, I don't think there is much of a hobby in collecting fighter stats. More powerful class is better. The more powerful classes can get more XP. More XP can get you more levels, equipment, etc. From a gaming standpoint everything is better in a more powerful class. I didn't get that in 4E. If the battles were not designed in a way that every class could do their thing, then some characters wouldn't get jak. I remember not being able to do any damage to certain monsters because the monster was designed for characters like fighters to battle it. My DM always had a rule, "if you do one point of damage to it, you are entitled to an equal share". Let's just say, that didn't happen.

Of course if the battles were designed better by my DM, that wouldn't have been a problem.

Wait... your DM assigned encounter XP based on who hurt the monster? That's ... horrible. That actively goes against team work, and pretty much everything D&D is based on!

We were supposed to start running the playtest tonight but forgot Origins is going on and a few people were gone.

streamdragon wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

pretre wrote:Wizards were more powerful in other editions in comparison to the rest of the party. That's different than better.

Like streamdragon said, more powerful = better in D&D. Just look at warhammer, the more powerful armies are always the better ones to collect (from a gaming standpoint). Warhammer can be subjective such as thinking nids are the best looking minis, so better can have more than one meaning. However in D&D, I don't think there is much of a hobby in collecting fighter stats. More powerful class is better. The more powerful classes can get more XP. More XP can get you more levels, equipment, etc. From a gaming standpoint everything is better in a more powerful class. I didn't get that in 4E. If the battles were not designed in a way that every class could do their thing, then some characters wouldn't get jak. I remember not being able to do any damage to certain monsters because the monster was designed for characters like fighters to battle it. My DM always had a rule, "if you do one point of damage to it, you are entitled to an equal share". Let's just say, that didn't happen.

Of course if the battles were designed better by my DM, that wouldn't have been a problem.

Wait... your DM assigned encounter XP based on who hurt the monster? That's ... horrible. That actively goes against team work, and pretty much everything D&D is based on!

Yeah it was pretty much a bad experience. I never really ran into that problem with other editions. It seemed like whatever the monster was, everyone could do some damage to it. It was a flaw with the DM not 4E, but it felt like a flaw in the edition because the problem never came up before.

Lord Scythican wrote:Yeah it was pretty much a bad experience. I never really ran into that problem with other editions. It seemed like whatever the monster was, everyone could do some damage to it. It was a flaw with the DM not 4E, but it felt like a flaw in the edition because the problem never came up before.

Bad DMs are the problem of all editions.

streamdragon wrote:Wait... your DM assigned encounter XP based on who hurt the monster? That's ... horrible. That actively goes against team work, and pretty much everything D&D is based on!

I've heard of a lot of GMs who just got rid of 'XP' as a concept for the most part and just said, "OK, let's just say you level up every X sessions/objectives and ignore the math that would, ultimately, suggest that you should level up every X sessions/objectives anyway."

4e really tried to get rid of some of the 'eccentricities' of the older styles of gameplay. I kind of miss 'minor xp rewards' for doing recaps, making the group laugh, doing something really cool, etc. Our group never really went so far as to muck up level balance with them, but they were a fun way to 'keep score.' The only thing that did mess up group levels noticeably was not getting XP if you couldn't make a game, something else 4e also seems to be against.

We never really got into magic item creation in our campaigns, so I don't know what the 'Casters spend XP on magic item creation' stuff would have done. Was this intended as a counter to the generally overpowering magic rules?

What system had an established 'you get XP if you miss a game' rule? What system had minor xp rewards for doing recaps in it?

Seems like those are all house rules and hence independent of edition.

Balance wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Wait... your DM assigned encounter XP based on who hurt the monster? That's ... horrible. That actively goes against team work, and pretty much everything D&D is based on!

I've heard of a lot of GMs who just got rid of 'XP' as a concept for the most part and just said, "OK, let's just say you level up every X sessions/objectives and ignore the math that would, ultimately, suggest that you should level up every X sessions/objectives anyway."

4e really tried to get rid of some of the 'eccentricities' of the older styles of gameplay. I kind of miss 'minor xp rewards' for doing recaps, making the group laugh, doing something really cool, etc. Our group never really went so far as to muck up level balance with them, but they were a fun way to 'keep score.' The only thing that did mess up group levels noticeably was not getting XP if you couldn't make a game, something else 4e also seems to be against.

We never really got into magic item creation in our campaigns, so I don't know what the 'Casters spend XP on magic item creation' stuff would have done. Was this intended as a counter to the generally overpowering magic rules?

I've actually used the "You level when I say" method quite a few times myself, as the timing was usually tied to story advancement rather than "Congratulations, you've killed 100 kobolds!". I found it helped players not focus so much on killing everything the meet, and going with the story. I don't remember if it was Order of the Stick or Goblins that said something to the effect of "If they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have been worth XP!".

And actually I do remember an instance in a 3.0/3.5 game (I forget which) where my cleric failed to level with the rest of the party, because I had spent 1,000xp crafting a magic falchion for the party fighter.

pretre wrote:What system had an established 'you get XP if you miss a game' rule? What system had minor xp rewards for doing recaps in it?

Seems like those are all house rules and hence independent of edition.

I believe 4e has something to the effect of "Game works best if PCs are kept at the same XP level" but I have not read the 4e DMG.

Minor rewards for recaps was definitely a house rule. We avoided it for 4e because of the above. I don't know if "The PCs should be the same level" is spelled out in the DMG, but I've seen the concept online many times as it fits with the general theme that all 4e characters should be equally heroically powerful, just in different ways.

Although 2nd edition D&D had some funky optional XP rules.

It's a very different 'feel from (say) games like WW's Vampire where characters are much more individual despite the game encouraging working as a group. Then again, D&D has historically been about the power curve (or hero's journey to go for a more literary take) while many other RPGs are about slower, more measured advancement. For example, it's generally a bit wonky to do any sort of "old veteran mentor' character in D&D and have it supported mechanically in any fashion. Works fine as a character concept, doesn't really work as mechanical concept.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:And actually I do remember an instance in a 3.0/3.5 game (I forget which) where my cleric failed to level with the rest of the party, because I had spent 1,000xp crafting a magic falchion for the party fighter.

Was it enough to change the power-balance, do you feel? I realize this is one incident, but do you feel that being one level behind (for a bit) changed the game mechanics greatly? I'd guess if you had 1,000 XP to spend you were probably high single digits or low teens, so it's an interesting choice (from mechanics) to say "OK, magic weapon, or delay access to new spells..."

Of course, my the game's story it may have made perfect sense to make the fighter a weapon when the chance arose.

I personally switched to "level when I say" in my 4th edition games just because tracking XP was a hassle and a half.

On the topic of minor xp rewards, if Wizards hadn't tried to use fortune cards as a horrendous CCG monetization gimmick they'd probably have worked pretty well for that. Have a whole deck of cards with things like "reroll a saving throw" "take a free move action" or "add +1d6 to hit with an attack" and hand them out for xp bonus reasons. Make a rule that players can't use the cards until after the encounter they got them to prevent the stunt pumping idiocy that plagues Exalted.

Balance wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:And actually I do remember an instance in a 3.0/3.5 game (I forget which) where my cleric failed to level with the rest of the party, because I had spent 1,000xp crafting a magic falchion for the party fighter.

Was it enough to change the power-balance, do you feel? I realize this is one incident, but do you feel that being one level behind (for a bit) changed the game mechanics greatly? I'd guess if you had 1,000 XP to spend you were probably high single digits or low teens, so it's an interesting choice (from mechanics) to say "OK, magic weapon, or delay access to new spells..."

Of course, my the game's story it may have made perfect sense to make the fighter a weapon when the chance arose.

To be honest, I don't remember if it made a difference or not. Now that I think of it, it was our first 3.0 game so it's been awhile. I believe it was around 6 or 7, and I made the fighter a Keen falchion. "Ooh, he's gonna crit all the time" (he never crit)... And I had no idea how much XP we were getting when, so I didn't really think it was going to cost me a level. I can't say if it upset balance, but it was a bit "not fun" to have fallen behind because I wanted to help my party member out. We ended up using a house rule that let someone other than the creator expend the XP, so that the people with crafting feats weren't always getting the shaft when we couldn't find what we wanted. In that regard, 4e's "Wishlist" system for magic items is drastically superior, imo.

RogueRegault wrote:I personally switched to "level when I say" in my 4th edition games just because tracking XP was a hassle and a half.

On the topic of minor xp rewards, if Wizards hadn't tried to use fortune cards as a horrendous CCG monetization gimmick they'd probably have worked pretty well for that. Have a whole deck of cards with things like "reroll a saving throw" "take a free move action" or "add +1d6 to hit with an attack" and hand them out for xp bonus reasons. Make a rule that players can't use the cards until after the encounter they got them to prevent the stunt pumping idiocy that plagues Exalted.

I honestly can't understand how tracking the XP is difficult in 4e; each monster has a set value for XP. Add it up, *boom* done. Certainly simpler than the "cross reference CR vs party level, adjust for overlevel" version of 3.0/3.5; not necessarily better, but at least simpler.

And I never played with those cards, but I agree with you on them. I bought the shadowfell supplement, saw the cards and was like "WTF are these?"

There was even a Paragon Path built around the fortune cards. I think it was called Fate Dancer or something like that. The problem with the cards (ok, one of the the problems) is that they either were useless, or completely broken, and of course the really good ones were rare cards.

If an enemy knocks you prone you get a sense of ennui.

Or

If an enemy knocks you prone you aren't knocked prone and instead all enemies within 10 are knocked prone and you laugh gregariously while giving 10 temp hit points to all your allies.


I thought the Shadowfell Cards were different cards. They weren't ccg and just were for curses and such. If you rolled a 1 or were crit by an enemy you got a card. It was like a curse, you just had a card to remind you instead of writing it down. They did spice things up a bit.

Not entirely sure. They seem to focus on a Despair mechanic, which I'm guessing is part of being in the shadowfell. So there was another, worse, card mechanic? Gross.

streamdragon wrote:Not entirely sure. They seem to focus on a Despair mechanic, which I'm guessing is part of being in the shadowfell. So there was another, worse, card mechanic? Gross.

It actually isn't worse, as it is just a set of 'curses' for the DM to hand out and not an extra Encounter power, the usefulness being based on how many packs of cards you bought. Instead of a list of debilitations you just have cards with the description you can hand to the player. It could just as easily been an a list without cards. They were to represent the way the Shadowfell could effect people. It was just the one set that came with the box and not part of some CCG attempt.