PDA

View Full Version : Now that 3.5 is done as far a wotc is concerned



Darth Stabber
2009-02-06, 11:47 AM
Given that Wizards is done supporting 3.5, do you think that it would be reasonable to put the cruchiness from more books into the SRD. They already have XPH and UA stuff added to the core material, So why not the complete series, Races of series, PHBII, MIC, WoL, MM X, HoH, HoB, ToB, ToM, Draconomicon, Dragon Magic, Dragon Compedium, and MoI, these materials could be easily be stripped of intellectual property that WOTC wants to keep since most are not tied to any setting even with the fluff intact. They might even be able to squeeze a bit more cash out of the 3.5 material by selling a big fully errata'd fluffless game book (or a couple smaller volumes: VolumeI(basic rules{or rules compendium reprint}), VolumeII(races, classes, feats and skills) Volume III(spells, powers, and so forth), Volume IV(items), VolumeV(monsters), and VolumeVI(the rest). They could sell that for $100 a box, It would cost them little but the printing and final editing costs, It would not subtract 1 iota from 4e development since there would be no development, no Art or fluff to worry about (which would also make the book(s) alot shorter than you might initially think), it's perfect. Can any one see any glaring reason why this is such a bad Idea (aside from Intelectual property, and it doesn't even have to be OGL).

Eldariel
2009-02-06, 12:03 PM
Reasonable? Sure. Would WoTC do it? Not in a million years, no way before hell freezes over. And cows fly. Those stupid, stupid cows.

Few reasons why they would not want to add them to SRD:
-The books are still selling. Why cut profit?
-Making 3.5 freely (easily) available to everyone would very likely cut into the share of players converting into 4.0.
-They aren't doing anything for 3.5 anymore; changing 3.5 SRD just is too much work.
-Everything in SRD is a fair game for OGL. They'll probably want to keep those strings to themselves.

kamikasei
2009-02-06, 12:09 PM
Why would they bother? Editing and publishing it would take resources away from their work on 4e. Advertising and selling it would boost an alternative to 4e. It's in their interests for people to think "D&D = WotC's current product", and supporting or supplying an older version undercuts that.

(Never mind that, as with any entity touting a new version of its product, they want people to think the new one is superior in all ways to the old. Acknowledging that the old was better in any way than the new or even just that people's tastes between them may differ is against their interests.)

Morty
2009-02-06, 12:15 PM
(Never mind that, as with any entity touting a new version of its product, they want people to think the new one is superior in all ways to the old. Acknowledging that the old was better in any way than the new or even just that people's tastes between them may differ is against their interests.)

This, preety much. During the marketing campaign, WoTC has done everything they could to try and convince everyone that 4th edition is superior in every way to 3rd edition. Releasing new 3ed material would be against this strategy. Also, whether WoTC likes it or not, people still play 3rd edition and buy the books. So they still make profit from it.

Fax Celestis
2009-02-06, 12:55 PM
WotC releases the old 2e stuff in PDF (http://paizo.com/store/downloads/wizardsOfTheCoast), so why wouldn't they (eventually) do that with 3e?

Kurald Galain
2009-02-06, 12:56 PM
Also, whether WoTC likes it or not, people still play 3rd edition and buy the books. So they still make profit from it.

Wouldn't that be the resellers who still have 3E on the shelf that are making profit from it? To my knowledge WOTC hasn't printed any 3E stuff for quite a while, and they would already have made profit on anything that's lying on a store shelf, wouldn't they?

But yeah, the biggest competition to 4E is 3E (and possibly by extension, Pathfinder). I'm reasonably sure that Hasbro would revoke the 3E OGL if they could.

Morty
2009-02-06, 01:02 PM
Wouldn't that be the resellers who still have 3E on the shelf that are making profit from it? To my knowledge WOTC hasn't printed any 3E stuff for quite a while, and they would already have made profit on anything that's lying on a store shelf, wouldn't they?


Well, yeah, I suppose that's true. So, WoTC isn't making much profit of 3ed anymore. Which still doesn't change the fact that they're unlikely to to anything with it in near future. If I am any judge, their goal is to make 3ed fall into obscurity.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-02-06, 01:06 PM
WotC releases the old 2e stuff in PDF (http://paizo.com/store/downloads/wizardsOfTheCoast), so why wouldn't they (eventually) do that with 3e?

For 5$ each

The point is, they still own the copyrite to the 2e stuff. It hasn't gone OGL, and it never will, despite the fact that they will never touch it with a ten foot pole.

Fax Celestis
2009-02-06, 01:17 PM
For 5$ each

The point is, they still own the copyrite to the 2e stuff. It hasn't gone OGL, and it never will, despite the fact that they will never touch it with a ten foot pole.

Oh, I don't doubt none of 3e will get OGL'd, unless Hasbro sells the license. But making PDFs of 3.5e for $5 literally costs them nothing and gets them money.

Oslecamo
2009-02-06, 01:27 PM
If I am any judge, their goal is to make 3ed fall into obscurity.

If 2e is any sign, then 3e will still be around for a lot of years:smallbiggrin:

Now, if we could just agree on some general "fix", instead of the bazillion 3.Xs out there... Just the fighter rewrites could fill a book.

warman40k
2009-02-06, 01:34 PM
I love the idea that WotC releases all of their old 2nd and 3.x stuff as PDFs. It give players a lot of options, and extends the life of old games.

bosssmiley
2009-02-06, 03:38 PM
To echo Kamikasei and m0rt: WOTC is the Microsoft of the gaming world (take from that statement what you will... :smallwink: ). Did Microsoft release Win XP into the public domain when they released Vista? No. They discontinued support and pushed their new shiny toy. WOTC follow the same strategy for the same reasons.


I love the idea that WotC releases all of their old 2nd and 3.x stuff as PDFs. It give players a lot of options, and extends the life of old games.

A fantastic PR move and a clever business decision in some respects.

"Let's get some intern to scan our out-of-print IP and sell digital copies online" melds with "People deserve to see how good some of the old stuff was" and everyone wins. :smallcool:

horseboy
2009-02-06, 06:08 PM
WotC releases the old 2e stuff in PDF (http://paizo.com/store/downloads/wizardsOfTheCoast), so why wouldn't they (eventually) do that with 3e?

And they will, 5-10 years from now, but not any sooner I'd imagine.

Talya
2009-02-06, 06:19 PM
I love the idea that WotC releases all of their old 2nd and 3.x stuff as PDFs. It give players a lot of options, and extends the life of old games.

{Scrubbed}

Avor
2009-02-06, 06:31 PM
{Scrubbed}

Zeful
2009-02-06, 06:48 PM
{Scrubbed}

Fixed that for you, Piracy is never the sensible thing to do, but if you feel you need to teach the Evil corporation that dares to make money on your watch a lesson. Write a letter or something. Advocating illegal activities not only makes you an accomplice, it's also against board policy.

KeresM
2009-02-06, 07:16 PM
What's currently sucky is I lost a couple of my 3.5 books during the move and now I can't find the blasted things anywhere! I hate ordering from amazon; they keep losing my shipments.

Avor
2009-02-06, 07:27 PM
Fixed that for you, Piracy is never the sensible thing to do, but if you feel you need to teach the Evil corporation that dares to make money on your watch a lesson. Write a letter or something. Advocating illegal activities not only makes you an accomplice, it's also against board policy.

{Scrubbed}


What's currently sucky is I lost a couple of my 3.5 books during the move and now I can't find the blasted things anywhere! I hate ordering from amazon; they keep losing my shipments.

I've had problems with them as well.

Talya
2009-02-06, 07:55 PM
Fixed that for you, Piracy is never the sensible thing to do, but if you feel you need to teach the Evil corporation that dares to make money on your watch a lesson. Write a letter or something. Advocating illegal activities not only makes you an accomplice, it's also against board policy.


Yes, well, I suppose it is against board policy, at any rate. I'm not one to pretend to be a moderator. But beyond that, to each their own.

_Zoot_
2009-02-06, 07:58 PM
I really don't think that they will release an online copy so early into 4th editions time, it may draw people back to 3.5. Or if not that then it may give them an alternative to buying all the 4th edition stuff as it's released.

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-02-06, 08:19 PM
{Scrubbed}


I've had problems with them as well.

What about y'know the stores that still sell them? if you download the products instead of buying them then they lose out on money, don't they?

Talya
2009-02-06, 09:11 PM
if you download the products instead of buying them then they lose out on money, don't they?

{Scrubbed}

Roland St. Jude
2009-02-07, 01:16 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread sure got out of hand fast. Please don't advocate piracy or copyright infringement here. And if you know something is against the rules, please don't post it.

Please feel free to carry on within the Forum Rules.

Dacia Brabant
2009-02-07, 02:48 AM
The idea in business of not wanting to compete against yourself is pure folly and always has been, but unfortunately many companies continue to go down that road and Hasbro/WotC is no exception.

For example, Toyota doesn't hurt its Accord line by manufacturing Civics and Tundras, nor does it hurt its brand by manufacturing Lexus models; they're different automotive models for different drivers' needs. Likewise, 3.X and 4ed operate on different gaming models that fit different types of games that people play. D&D 3.5 is good as a simulation and excellent for epic high fantasy games, but low on accessibility and high on time investment, whereas 4ed is more accessible, lighter on commitment and balanced for group play, like a board game almost, but it's weak on simulation and leans more toward dark fantasy.

I like 4e but it just looks like they have no confidence in their new system by cutting off support for the old one. People who want to play 3.5 games are going to keep playing them, people who like what they see in 4e are going to play games with that, and some will do both. It shouldn't have to be one option only.

KKL
2009-02-07, 04:19 AM
...D&D 3.5 is good as a simulation...

ಠ_ಠ

3.5e is terrible for simulationingism for a myriad of reasons.

TheOOB
2009-02-07, 04:21 AM
Even if they where to consider making the content free, they would wait awhile to do so, so as to not peeve the people who spent money on the books.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-07, 05:17 AM
4ed ... leans more toward dark fantasy.
Wait, how's that? How can a system where anything adverse that happens to you is undone within five minutes be considered "dark"?

KKL
2009-02-07, 05:25 AM
Wait, how's that? How can a system where anything adverse that happens to you is undone within five minutes be considered "dark"?

So diseases aren't adverse?

ghost_warlock
2009-02-07, 05:37 AM
For 5$ each

The point is, they still own the copyrite to the 2e stuff. It hasn't gone OGL, and it never will, despite the fact that they will never touch it with a ten foot pole.

Um, but they did touch them; not with any 10-foot-pole, either. The laid bare hands on them, carressed them, made sweet love to them, then ran off with their heart and soul in pocket. At least as far as modules are concerned...

WotC republished several 1st and 2nd edition modules, or at least versions of them, with 3e crunch. I can completely see them doing the same thing with 3e modules, reprinting them as "New and Improved" 4e modules. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Keep on the Shadowfell showed up as a 5e module.

Or, was I daydreaming when I heard about Against the Giants, Temple of Elemental Evil, Demonweb Pits, Castle Ravenloft, and Tomb of Horrors showing up as 3e mods? :smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2009-02-07, 05:41 AM
So diseases aren't adverse?

Three words: cure disease ritual. It's low level and will remove any disease within minutes.

hamishspence
2009-02-07, 05:51 AM
And, potentially, kill the being that is being cured- its not quite as lacking in side-effects as the Cure Disease Spell. Also, high level diseases are riskier to cure.

KKL
2009-02-07, 06:07 AM
Three words: cure disease ritual. It's low level and will remove any disease within minutes.


Upon completing this ritual, make a Heal check, using the level of the disease as a penalty to this check.


Heal Check
Result Effect on Target
0 or lower Death
1–9 Damage equal to the target’s maximum hit points
10–19 Damage equal to one-half of the target’s maximum hit points
20–29 Damage equal to one-quarter of the target’s maximum hit points
30 or higher No damage

Uh huh. A botched roll has a decent chance of killing the sap you're trying to undisease. I'd say that's a decent enough adverse effect.

ghost_warlock
2009-02-07, 06:07 AM
So...the argument is that potentially dangerous diseases = dark fantasy setting?

KKL
2009-02-07, 06:10 AM
So...the argument is that potentially dangerous diseases = dark fantasy setting?

Ask him, I have no clue what he's going on about with 4e being dark fantasy.

I mean, you could use 4e for dark fantasy, but one could make the argument that you could use Mekton Zeta for a low magic/tech campaign with that same vein of thought.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-07, 06:10 AM
So...the argument is that potentially dangerous diseases = dark fantasy setting?

Yeah, that still doesn't make a lot of sense. (edit) I was saying 4E isn't dark; KKL's response (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5740542&postcount=28) was that yes it is, because there's diseases involved. Strikes me as odd.

(also, assisting, skill training, and a decent ability score means that the ritual is impossible to botch; this is precisely why 4E isn't dark: it alludes to nasty things that might happen, while simultaneously ensuring that they won't happen)

ghost_warlock
2009-02-07, 06:29 AM
I could see it being somewhat dark, if the 'points of light' thing was emphasized or viewed from a slightly different angle. But 4e, as written, just seems too hopeful; the characters can effect lasting, positive change in the world and really Make a DifferenceTM through adventuring. :smallwink:

Maybe if, instead of 'points of light,' it was 'flickering candles in the darkness'...

hamishspence
2009-02-07, 06:37 AM
Not impossible to botch- given a sufficiently deadly disease. And how much can untrained people assist?

Aquillion
2009-02-07, 08:24 AM
Different people also see different things when you say "dark". I mean, 4.0e is clearly far less dark than the most lighthearted thing White Wolf has ever published (which is, incidentally, "Pillow: The Fluffening"; what the hell were they thinking?)

I don't think, really, that any system with a reliable method of bringing back the dead can ever be called too dark, not unless it makes a severe effort to be dark in other ways (by invoking madness, fates worst than death, and so on.) "O death, where is thy sting?"

Without that, any darkness is transient and limited.

Oslecamo
2009-02-07, 09:22 AM
I don't think, really, that any system with a reliable method of bringing back the dead can ever be called too dark, not unless it makes a severe effort to be dark in other ways (by invoking madness, fates worst than death, and so on.) "O death, where is thy sting?"

Without that, any darkness is transient and limited.

In 3.X, there are nonepic monsters wich can kill you in such ways that nothing can bring you back from the death.

Casters can also lock your soul, and noncasters can get weapons wich lock your soul when they kill you. Then they use said soul to fuel some ritual wich consumes the soul, destroying it for eternity(BoVD allows it, and I think I saw other soul destroying effects in some other books.)

Making people stay dead in 3.X is hard, but not too hard. And heck, killing them in the first place is quite easy. At medium-high levels players start droping like flies if the DM doesn't hold back punches. All it takes from then it's making the enemies capture the players souls and consume them in some dark ritual.

It all depends on how cruel the DM is feeling.

Aquillion
2009-02-07, 10:08 AM
In 3.X, there are nonepic monsters wich can kill you in such ways that nothing can bring you back from the death.

Casters can also lock your soul, and noncasters can get weapons wich lock your soul when they kill you. Then they use said soul to fuel some ritual wich consumes the soul, destroying it for eternity(BoVD allows it, and I think I saw other soul destroying effects in some other books.)

Making people stay dead in 3.X is hard, but not too hard. And heck, killing them in the first place is quite easy. At medium-high levels players start droping like flies if the DM doesn't hold back punches. All it takes from then it's making the enemies capture the players souls and consume them in some dark ritual.

It all depends on how cruel the DM is feeling.The default is that they can come back, though. And just about everything short of a Sphere of Annihilation contains an escape clause if you either 1. remove the source of binding, or 2. use Wish or Miracle (or both). Even the Sphere of Annihilation allows you to be brought back by deities.

I mean, Imprisonment is higher level than either Finger of Death or Disintegrate. That tells you exactly how much death is worth in D&D, right there.

I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a single thing in D&D that makes you absolutely, irrevocably dead forever with no exceptions; almost always, anything capable of "killing you dead" will specifically list its exceptions. When you compare this to, well, what we can concretely observe in our day-to-day life here in reality, where a single jagged piece of glass or unlucky fall can be more deadly than the most horrible things in the universe, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that D&D softens things a bit.

hamishspence
2009-02-07, 10:14 AM
Epic effects like the Cloak used by the Le'Shay head of the Garotte "beyond the reach of even greater deities"

Potentially, soul-consuming effects, as outlined in Complete Divine.

Oslecamo
2009-02-07, 10:59 AM
I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a single thing in D&D that makes you absolutely, irrevocably dead forever with no exceptions; almost always, anything capable of "killing you dead" will specifically list its exceptions.

From BoVD:

Using a soul in any way other than simply transferring it as barter consumes it completely, destroying it forever.

No exceptions listed. No wish, no miracle, no deity intervetion. You're dead, Jim.

How to capture the player's soul? Thinaum weapons are easily available to NPCs before the PCs even get raise dead. No need for high level magic actually.

How to use the soul? Quite easy. It can be consumed to pay 10 exp points, or used as a spell component to provide a profane +10 bonus against spell resistance checks. Just picture it. The evil caster coup de graces a paralyzed PC with a thinaum weapon, then uses the captured soul to fuel his next spell against the rest of the party. How's that not dark?

Out of the top of my head. I'm pretty sure there are some other effects that kill you good whitout any recursion.

Not to mention all the horrible transformations a PC can suffer like a vargouile's disease.

And even if they can be undone by miracle/wish/deity intervetion, how many parties actually have acess to those?

hamishspence
2009-02-07, 11:07 AM
Complete Divine mentions demons consuming souls, next to Sphere of Annihilation- which suggests deity-level effects might possibly reverse it in the same way. This would be tricky to define ruleswise, though.

Dacia Brabant
2009-02-07, 11:31 AM
You know, those little examples of what I thought certain editions are good or bad at conveying really had nothing at all to do with the main thrust of my post, or the purpose of this thread right?

I'm not going to argue with any of you about any of that stuff. You don't think 4e lends itself to darker themes, fine, I don't care, it may just be the way my group plays it. But am I right or am I wrong to say that generally as a game it was designed with a different focus than its predecessor?

InkEyes
2009-02-07, 12:02 PM
The default is that they can come back, though. And just about everything short of a Sphere of Annihilation contains an escape clause if you either 1. remove the source of binding, or 2. use Wish or Miracle (or both). Even the Sphere of Annihilation allows you to be brought back by deities.

I mean, Imprisonment is higher level than either Finger of Death or Disintegrate. That tells you exactly how much death is worth in D&D, right there.

I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a single thing in D&D that makes you absolutely, irrevocably dead forever with no exceptions; almost always, anything capable of "killing you dead" will specifically list its exceptions. When you compare this to, well, what we can concretely observe in our day-to-day life here in reality, where a single jagged piece of glass or unlucky fall can be more deadly than the most horrible things in the universe, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that D&D softens things a bit.


Sticking to core, drawing The Skull (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#skull) from a Deck of Many Things can permanately and forever kill you.


A dread wraith appears. Treat this creature as an unturnable undead. The character must fight it alone—if others help, they get dread wraiths to fight as well. If the character is slain, she is slain forever and cannot be revived, even with a wish or a miracle.

Sure, it's a minor artifact and it's only one obscure effect but it's still a "forever death".

Oslecamo
2009-02-07, 12:47 PM
But am I right or am I wrong to say that generally as a game it was designed with a different focus than its predecessor?

I say you're right. 4e is clearly designed for a diferent population than 3e.

In 3e things can jump out of the corners and kill you before you understand what's hapening, just because you got a little unlucky with the dices(kitty kitty kitty, here, kitty kitty AARGHHHH-wizard's last words).

In 4e on the other hand a monster of your CR will need all the luck on the world to take you down.

Some like the first, others prefer the later.

hamishspence
2009-02-07, 01:18 PM
does this apply to lone character vs lone monster, or solo monster vs party?

I thought the Standard/Elite/Solo system had the advantage of easier encounter building and less CR error.

Oslecamo
2009-02-07, 01:37 PM
does this apply to lone character vs lone monster, or solo monster vs party?

I thought the Standard/Elite/Solo system had the advantage of easier encounter building and less CR error.

A solo monster actually deals just slightly more damage to a single target than a normal monster of the same level. They have however more ways of dealing damage to several targets, plus counter attacks. This was made to prevent solo monsters from being able to focus fire on a single player. Hurt characters in a party can simply choose to stop attacking the monster and back away a little to escape it's Aoes, meaning the solo monster can't really deal them the last blow.

Really, solo monsters in 4e are actually quite weak, since they're quite easy to control by the party. All those high stats are worthless when the party can rain down a dozen debuffs over them.

Normal monsters are still weaker than single characters of the same level, except some guys like the fire beetle, succubus and some swarms wich pack quite a punch, but they're few and between, and they clearly get out of the normal monster rules for 4e.

Everything else will wear you down a little, but your player stats are directly better than the monster stats, so victory is almost yours from the begining.

Compare it with 3e, where monsters ofensive and defense capacity normally is clearly stronger than the player's ofensive and defense capacity, meaning that the best classes are the ones wich can copy and control monsters.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-07, 04:12 PM
But am I right or am I wrong to say that generally as a game it was designed with a different focus than its predecessor?

Oh, absolutely. Although WOTC is doing its best to obscure that...

JaxGaret
2009-02-08, 12:36 AM
Normal monsters are still weaker than single characters of the same level.

PCs are equivalent to Elite monsters, not Standard monsters.

Thane of Fife
2009-02-08, 07:35 AM
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that most of the anti-4e arguments being made here are the exact same arguments that are made against 3e by supporters of earlier editions? (They made it too easy to get resurrected, they toned down all the monsters to the point of being wimps, etc.)

Morty
2009-02-08, 08:05 AM
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that most of the anti-4e arguments being made here are the exact same arguments that are made against 3e by supporters of earlier editions? (They made it too easy to get resurrected, they toned down all the monsters to the point of being wimps, etc.)

Maybe, maybe not, but I fail to see how it makes such complaints invalid in any way. And if such arguments seem like majority to you, you're looking at it in a weird way.

Thane of Fife
2009-02-08, 08:12 AM
Maybe, maybe not, but I fail to see how it makes such complaints invalid in any way. And if such arguments seem like majority to you, you're looking at it in a weird way.

I'm not commenting on their validity, merely on their presence.

Morty
2009-02-08, 08:15 AM
I'm not commenting on their validity, merely on their presence.

In which case, I fail to see the humor either.

Thane of Fife
2009-02-08, 08:36 AM
In which case, I fail to see the humor either.

It's amusing because, in an argument about, say, 2e vs 3.x, the people who favor 3.x would (most likely) be arguing that irreversible stuff is Bad (there was a thread a while back about older edition permanent level drain compared to newer 3.x level drain, for example). But in this thread, the people who favor 3.x are arguing the exact opposite.

It's amusing to see a game go from being argued for because it got rid of things to seeing it argued for because it still has them. Perhaps I should have said "amusing" or "intriguing" rather than "hilarious." Regardless, I intended it to light-heartedly point out some amusing parallels.

GoC
2009-02-08, 08:55 AM
Fixed that for you, Piracy is never the sensible thing to do, but if you feel you need to teach the Evil corporation that dares to make money on your watch a lesson. Write a letter or something. Advocating illegal activities not only makes you an accomplice, it's also against board policy.

I advocate illegal activities.
Granted they aren't illegal where I live or in the US...

Demiliches Trap the Soul ability is permanent if left long enough.
The Blazefire ability is very permanent.
The Blightfire ability may or may not be permanent.
The Phane's Time Leach ability is permanent to non-immortal characters.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 09:20 AM
in 4th ed, Demilich trap the soul only ensures no ressurrection if demilich never eats it- if it does, soul passes on the Shadowfell (where it can be rezzed)

Unlike in 3.5, where said soul would be "lost forever" if you go by Complete Divine or BoVD on souls being utterly destroyed if eaten.

However, while demilich is alive and soul is not eaten, character could be said to be "impossible to bring back"

InaVegt
2009-02-08, 09:35 AM
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that most of the anti-4e arguments being made here are the exact same arguments that are made against 3e by supporters of earlier editions? (They made it too easy to get resurrected, they toned down all the monsters to the point of being wimps, etc.)

I make those arguments against 4e because I made them against 3e as well.

I still prefer my trusty old third hand 1e core rules to 3.5, but I can't find anyone to play AD&D with, so I default to 3.5, and in the future, will default to WoD.

At least 3.5 still resembled good ol' AD&D.

Besides the fact that they use similar/the same names for things, 4E doesn't really ring as D&D to me.

Zeful
2009-02-08, 10:59 AM
I advocate illegal activities.
Granted they aren't illegal where I live or in the US...

I live in the US, pirating and copyright infringement are illegal.

Oslecamo
2009-02-08, 04:46 PM
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that most of the anti-4e arguments being made here are the exact same arguments that are made against 3e by supporters of earlier editions? (They made it too easy to get resurrected, they toned down all the monsters to the point of being wimps, etc.)

It's actually quite serious. That's precisely the reason we complain.

Each edition indeed ressurection gets easier and monsters get less dangerous. 3.X may be called quite rough in the first levels, but 2e was even more brutal for starting adventurers, and it didn't get much better at higher levels. But well, it was quite enjoyable, even if 90% of your characters ended up as a blood stain in a dungeon for some bad luck.

But alas, D&D is a team game, so if the other guys want to play the shiny new edition, I prefer to suck up the changes I don't like and play with them than not playing at all.

hamishspence
2009-02-08, 04:55 PM
still not easy at low levels. And some adventures are harder than others- maybe due to throwing something with dangerously high CR at party: Irontooth in Keep on the Shadowfell springs to mind.

Oslecamo
2009-02-08, 05:06 PM
With all due respect, you can't deny that 4e is much more nice to the players at low levels.

In 3.X, an orc warrior with a greataxe could one hit kill(really kill, not just drop you in the negatives) with a lucky crit, and it was only CR 1/2! Wizards go down on one hit from pretty much anything, and even the fighter can't take many blows before falling.

In 4e, you get a fat nice suchion of HP at first level, and crits hurt a lot less(altough they're more common), so even if the enemy group of your CR jumps at your wizard's throat and unleashes everything they have at him, the wizard will probably still be standing.

Eeezee
2009-02-08, 08:02 PM
If I were a new D&D player/group, what incentive would I have to buy the 4.0 books when all of the 3.5 content is available for free? The fact that so many people own so many 3.5 books does hurt 4.0 sales, since people don't need to shell out money for new materials for the next campaign.

So releasing all of the 3.5 books as free content would not only cut into sales of 3.5 books, but also cut into sales of 4.0 books

I'd rather they focus their energy on enhancing 4.0.

KKL
2009-02-08, 11:58 PM
In 4e, you get a fat nice suchion of HP at first level, and crits hurt a lot less(altough they're more common), so even if the enemy group of your CR jumps at your wizard's throat and unleashes everything they have at him, the wizard will probably still be standing.

eh wot.

Crits hurt less, yes, but at level one they're still fairly dangerous, and I don't see how they'd be more common at all.

And last time I saw a gang of level 1 standards play "Dogpile on the wizard," the Wizard came out of it below 0 and the standards came out giving high fives to each other like it was a party and they knew they were going to score with hot chicks.

Level one is still fairly squishy, although not horribly so.

RebelRogue
2009-02-09, 12:12 AM
Crits hurt less
With high crit weapons and the extra dice for each enchantment level of the weapon/implement, I'm not so sure I agree!

Edit: reread the context, which means I actually do agree...

horseboy
2009-02-09, 03:22 AM
ಠ_ಠ

3.5e is terrible for simulationingism for a myriad of reasons.

3.x is terrible period. I mean, the only real thing 3.x has going for it is nostalgia.
I could see it being somewhat dark, if the 'points of light' thing was emphasized or viewed from a slightly different angle. But 4e, as written, just seems too hopeful; the characters can effect lasting, positive change in the world and really Make a DifferenceTM through adventuring. :smallwink:

Maybe if, instead of 'points of light,' it was 'flickering candles in the darkness'...
Yeah, I could see that. Kinda like CyberPunk (the world sucks eggs, but it's on the cusp of getting better.) Now if only D&D did "gritty".

Also o'possums are evil. *shudder*

skywalker
2009-02-09, 03:32 AM
With all due respect, you can't deny that 4e is much more nice to the players at low levels.

In 3.X, an orc warrior with a greataxe could one hit kill(really kill, not just drop you in the negatives) with a lucky crit, and it was only CR 1/2! Wizards go down on one hit from pretty much anything, and even the fighter can't take many blows before falling.

In 4e, you get a fat nice suchion of HP at first level, and crits hurt a lot less(altough they're more common), so even if the enemy group of your CR jumps at your wizard's throat and unleashes everything they have at him, the wizard will probably still be standing.

I think one thing the CO community has largely ignored that makes brilliant sense and has really added to caster survivability is the removal of ASF. As a DM, when I throw a skirmisher at a wizard looking to roll some fat sneak attack dice, it kills me to say "that's a 15 vs. AC" and get "miss!" as a response :smalltongue:, all because someone made it so easy for casters to wear armor. Of course, part of this is that there just aren't that many good heroic feats for casters to take up the slot where they stick AP(leather). I'm sure when Arcane Power comes out, that will change (I hope).

I wish I had something to contribute on the subject of the OP. But I fear all my good points have already been made by other, swifter posters.

Oslecamo
2009-02-09, 05:24 AM
3.x is terrible period. I mean, the only real thing 3.x has going for it is nostalgia.

Yeah, it's just a coincidence there's still so many people playing it despite all the 4e propaganda going around. :smalltongue:

horseboy
2009-02-09, 05:40 AM
Yeah, it's just a coincidence there's still so many people playing it despite all the 4e propaganda going around. :smalltongue:
Oh no, P.T. Barnum was quite correct.

Oslecamo
2009-02-09, 06:48 AM
Oh no, P.T. Barnum was quite correct.

On what exactly? Wotc themselves tried to bury 3.X, still it is being played by a lot of people nowadays. Wich means those people like it.

And since a game's purpose it's, you know, to entertain people, then 3.X is a good game, because people keep playing it even when there's no more publicity for it going around, wich means they're playing for their own amusement.

Aquillion
2009-02-09, 07:18 AM
I think one thing the CO community has largely ignored that makes brilliant sense and has really added to caster survivability is the removal of ASF.Not really. The CO community has always said that WotC vastly overrated the value of casting-in-armor; being good at actually doing things is always worth more than being able to absorb hits.


3.x is terrible period. I mean, the only real thing 3.x has going for it is nostalgia.
They're two completely different games. Telling people they should stop playing one so they can play the other instead is like telling people that Checkers suck because they can just be playing Chess, or that they shouldn't play Dodgeball when they could be playing Tag. It's silly.

It feels as if a new company bought the D&D franchise and had the designers come out with a new game based on vaguely-similar concepts that they used the old name to sell. It's a good game, sure, but that's beside the point.

Morty
2009-02-09, 07:54 AM
Yeah, it's just a coincidence there's still so many people playing it despite all the 4e propaganda going around. :smalltongue:

Well, obviously we're all misguided rubes who don't know what's really good and are only swayed by marketing.:smalltongue:

KnightDisciple
2009-02-09, 09:00 AM
Can't we fall back one "some people like 3.x, some people like 4th, everybody go be happy"?
I mean, I'll be honest, I'm tired of the back and forth. "3.x sucks!" "4th isn't D&D" Repeat ad nauseum.

As for the OP, I suppose it's been largely addressed, but I doubt it'll happen. WoTC has no reason to give all that stuff out for free. If nothing else, it'd give Paizo more stuff to copy for Pathfinder.

Morty
2009-02-09, 09:03 AM
Can't we fall back one "some people like 3.x, some people like 4th, everybody go be happy"?
I mean, I'll be honest, I'm tired of the back and forth. "3.x sucks!" "4th isn't D&D" Repeat ad nauseum.

Tell that to Horseboy, who not only annouced once more that 3ed is absolutely bad, but preety much said that all people who like 3.x are only swayed by hype. What hype, I wonder, considering that ever since 4ed has been announced WoTC has been trying to convince us that 3ed sucks.

horseboy
2009-02-09, 05:06 PM
They're two completely different games. :smallconfused: What is? What did I compare 3.x to? Cyber Punk? That was a different conversation on the same thread.
Telling people they should stop playing one so they can play the other instead is like telling people that Checkers suck because they can just be playing Chess, or that they shouldn't play Dodgeball when they could be playing Tag. It's silly.Again, what "other system" did I compare 3.x to? 3.x is poorly written, abysmally poorly play tested, poorly though out. They then REVISED the system and it's still horribly bad. The only thing it did well was separate people from their money. "Wanna play a competent fighter? Yeah, you're going to need these three splatbooks."

Kurald Galain
2009-02-09, 05:24 PM
:3.x is poorly written, abysmally poorly play tested, poorly though out. They then REVISED the system and it's still horribly bad.

I'm sure that explains why it was the world's best-selling RPG for seven years?

DM Raven
2009-02-09, 05:26 PM
No they won't and no they shouldn't. As a business they need to support their current product (4th edition). I don't think they want 3rd edition to disappear, but they certainly aren't going to spend company resources on keeping it alive. (Just look at second edition when third edition first came out.)

And can we all PLEASE stop whining about WOTC and 4th edition? If people ask for your opinion on it then by all means open the floodgates. But I'm tired of every thread I visit on this site that mentions 4.0 and 3.X in the same sentence turning into an us vs them thread. It derails threads and it restates the same things over and over. Play whatever you have fun playing and shut it!

<3

Morty
2009-02-09, 05:29 PM
I'm sure that explains why it was the world's best-selling RPG for seven years?

Well, as Horseboy so kindly explained, it's all marketing hype.

Anakha
2009-02-09, 05:35 PM
I'm sure that explains why it was the world's best-selling RPG for seven years?

Maybe because it is the most well known RPG for 20 years before that? Name a Fantasy RPG that was out at the same time as 1E and 2E, or even 3E that is similar.

Doug Lampert
2009-02-09, 05:36 PM
In 4e on the other hand a monster of your CR will need all the luck on the world to take you down.

You are aware that 3.x a monster of your CR is supposed to challenge the ENTIRE PARTY while in 4.0 CR is definded as what's required to challenge a single character?

That's kind of an important difference, the equivalent to a 3.x = CR encounter in 4th ed would be a standard monster roughly NINE levels above the party, or a solo at the level of the party.

Doug Lampert
2009-02-09, 05:45 PM
Not really. The CO community has always said that WotC vastly overrated the value of casting-in-armor; being good at actually doing things is always worth more than being able to absorb hits.
The wizard in the campaign I'm running took Leather armor proficiency at level 6. He thinks it's very useful. The monsters no longer recognize him as the one guy in the party not wearing armor who they need to concentrate fire on till he either needs to be raised, yet again, or soaks up all the healing from the entire party.

And he really likes the property of the leather armor he made for himself.

Oh yeah, and it also adds a bit to his AC, that's kind of nice too but nowhere near as good as the first two, it's not like most of the attacks on him target AC anyway.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-09, 06:11 PM
Name a Fantasy RPG that was out at the same time as 1E and 2E, or even 3E that is similar.

Bunnies and Burrows.

horseboy
2009-02-09, 06:32 PM
I'm sure that explains why it was the world's best-selling RPG for seven years?

Since when does popularity have anything to do with quality? Show of hands, anybody still listening to New Kids on the Block?

Kurald Galain
2009-02-09, 07:03 PM
Since when does popularity have anything to do with quality? Show of hands, anybody still listening to New Kids on the Block?

I'm reasonably sure that NKOTB was not the world's best selling band for seven years. Perhaps the Beatles would be a better analogy...

Animefunkmaster
2009-02-09, 07:23 PM
Oh, I don't doubt none of 3e will get OGL'd, unless Hasbro sells the license. But making PDFs of 3.5e for $5 literally costs them nothing and gets them money.

I disagree. Rather, I feel WoTC would disagree. When 4e came out with the three core rule sets Wizard's bought back all their 3.x inventory from four of the local game stores, two barns and noble, and one boarders book store in my area. This would seem to indicate that WoTC/Hasbro believes that 3.5 is a direct competitor to 4e, selling pdfs for 5$ might stop consumers from buying new 4e products.

horseboy
2009-02-09, 07:26 PM
I'm reasonably sure that NKOTB was not the world's best selling band for seven years. Perhaps the Beatles would be a better analogy...Nah, Beatles actually had some skill/talent. More like The Monkiees or Sinatra. Oh I know! Hair Metal! Yeah, hair metal was popular for a decade. That's rather poignant, as the ice storm smack my satellite dish and I can only get three channels, Hair Nation being one of them. I was all ready for some Sabbath when I found out I had it and what did they play? Ratt, Cinderella. I sat there for 45 minutes waiting for a half decent hair metal song before realizing maybe those detractors were right and hair metal really does suck. But I listened anyway, because I was nostalgic for the era. Yeah, 3.x is the hair metal of rpgs. That's got a good ring to it.

DM Raven
2009-02-09, 07:33 PM
I disagree. Rather, I feel WoTC would disagree. When 4e came out with the three core rule sets Wizard's bought back all their 3.x inventory from four of the local game stores, two barns and noble, and one boarders book store in my area. This would seem to indicate that WoTC/Hasbro believes that 3.5 is a direct competitor to 4e, selling pdfs for 5$ might stop consumers from buying new 4e products.

This has more to do with working in the book publishing and sales business and less to do with a secret plot to destroy third edition. Ask someone who runs a Barnes and Nobles about it.

Animefunkmaster
2009-02-09, 07:44 PM
less to do with a secret plot to destroy third edition.

To be fair, I did not mean to infer a secret plot, merely marketing strategy mixed what I have noticed at my local stores and a possible reason why 3.x books will not be included in the ogl or available for minimal cost soon.

Aquillion
2009-02-09, 09:36 PM
3.x is poorly written, abysmally poorly play tested, poorly though out. They then REVISED the system and it's still horribly bad. The only thing it did well was separate people from their money. "Wanna play a competent fighter? Yeah, you're going to need these three splatbooks."What is the point of this? You know, perfectly well, that there are a huge number of fans of 3.5 on this forum and in this thread specifically, people who still play and enjoy it and admire it as a game despite its faults. Yet in this thread, just your past few posts, you've implicitly compared them to New Kids on the Block fans, implied that they're nostalgia-obsessed suckers, and generally been all "YOUR FAVORITE BAND SUCKS" in their face at every possible opportunity.

We get it. You really, really, really don't like that specific game. That's fine, games are a matter of taste. Nobody here is trying to force you to play it or even suggesting that it's the better game; they're just implying that they like it and want to play it, and this offends you enough to make you want to get all up in their faces about how they're playing the wrong game.

Why? What's the point? Nobody is going to stop liking their favorite game just because you tell them to. Nobody was asking for opinions on 3.5 in this thread, either.

Different people like different games. Knowing that people enjoy something that you don't find enjoyable yourself does not (I hope) burn your skin like kryptonite. Playing the wrong role-playing game is not an earth-shattering folly of contemptible proportions.

You haven't even suggested another game they could play instead. If you want to know why people still like 3.5, you could try starting another thread and asking them. If you really think it's purely nostalgia, then you should be able to figure out another game that fits all their criteria -- heck, you might even convince people to stop playing 3.5. But just telling people that their favorite game sucks isn't going to get anywhere.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-09, 09:46 PM
Since when does popularity have anything to do with quality? Show of hands, anybody still listening to New Kids on the Block?

What about Britney Spears: she has been making music for as while now. I actually never heard NKotB.

Knaight
2009-02-09, 10:40 PM
I'm sure that explains why it was the world's best-selling RPG for seven years?

Its a brand name and momentum. D&D was there first, it had the first chance to grow, it got recognition and then by sheer dint of being better known continued to out-sell everything else. AD&D picked up off of this, as did 2nd edition, as did 3.0, 3.5, and now fourth. If fifth edition ever comes out(which it probably will) odds are it will coast by on the same brand recognition and momentum. It doesn't matter if other games are far better if they are impossible to get a copy of, and nobody knows they exist, and this applies to every edition of D&D, more and more, although free PDFs are out there, and there are some really nice systems you can find if you look(Fudge and Fate for example) in free PDF format. But that takes effort, and you have to have heard about D&D, somehow found out it wasn't the only system, found out that there are online PDFs like the ones I mentioned, and be dissatisfied enough with D&D to search through a lot of crap to find something good.

AgentPaper
2009-02-09, 10:59 PM
Why are people arguing over whether 4E or 3.5 are better in this thread? Haven't there been enough threads about this dead horse? Go make another one if you really need to argue over nothing anymore.

And now to completely contradict my above statement because I know it will be ignored anyways...:smalltongue: How hard is it to get the "3.5 feel" in 4.0? Here's some easy modifications:


You cannot be resurrected.
Everything has half normal health.
Prestidigitation lasts forever again.
Only use monsters of party level + 3.
Fighters get no powers, and instead get twice as many feats.
Use the skill system from 3.5. It can be put in pretty much as-is.
Wizards get to choose all of their powers like they do dailies.
Wizards get extra powers from Int.


I mean, what else is there about 3.5 that's so godawfully different from 4.0? People seem to be mad that 4E is so easy to use and understand. I mean, 3.5 is really just clunky in a lot of ways it doesn't need to be. You can't argue that the game has improved a lot, and even if it's changed some in the process, it only takes a small effort of homebrewing to "fix" those changes to whatever you want. You want the game more dark? Make death worse, send harder stronger, and make your campaign have a darker theme to it. This game is all about imagination, so use yours! :smallannoyed:

skywalker
2009-02-09, 11:39 PM
Not really. The CO community has always said that WotC vastly overrated the value of casting-in-armor; being good at actually doing things is always worth more than being able to absorb hits.

No, the CO community only plays at level 20 (or level 30, in 4e), so of course casting in armor doesn't do anything for them, neither does absorbing hits. At level 20, if you get hit, you die. Nobody even rolls dice in the CO community, because the barbarian has a +86 to hit, and does 1d12+848 damage, so the wizard just dies, but wait, the wizard has a contingency for this situation with celerity and time stop, and thus forcecage-cloudkill-delayed blast cheeseballs the barbarian into oblivion so now we don't even have to roll for initiative because the wizard always goes first. Combat lasts maybe 2 rounds if you're lucky, but unfortunately they take as long as 6 rounds at level 1.

In 4e, where feats are like popcorn (especially with retraining) for wizards, grabbing an armor proficiency feat for a +2 to AC makes a whole lot of sense. It takes two more numbers off the d20 for a hit. This isn't the ability to absorb hits. It's the ability to avoid hits in the first place. I guess "absorb swings" would be a decent word choice.

jeek
2009-02-10, 03:43 AM
Different people also see different things when you say "dark". I mean, 4.0e is clearly far less dark than the most lighthearted thing White Wolf has ever published (which is, incidentally, "Pillow: The Fluffening"; what the hell were they thinking?)

Dammit, I went looking for this. I figured it'd be a great follow-up to a Bunnies & Burrows campaign I was setting up.

Morty
2009-02-10, 08:12 AM
I mean, what else is there about 3.5 that's so godawfully different from 4.0? People seem to be mad that 4E is so easy to use and understand. I mean, 3.5 is really just clunky in a lot of ways it doesn't need to be. You can't argue that the game has improved a lot, and even if it's changed some in the process, it only takes a small effort of homebrewing to "fix" those changes to whatever you want. You want the game more dark? Make death worse, send harder stronger, and make your campaign have a darker theme to it. This game is all about imagination, so use yours! :smallannoyed:

You've given a really good advice there in the first sentence. Why ignore it yourself? And why assume people will be somehow swayed from their opinions just because you tell them to, after all those pointless discussions? Especially when you apparently fail to understand why do they think what they think and, like many others, attribute opinions different than yours to unreasonable stubbornnes?
Also, this thread, for some inexplicable reason, reminds me of a joke I once heard:
An English gentleman was stranded on a desert island. After a year, he was found by the crew of another ship. Upon arrival, they noticed that the man has built three buildings on the island: a house he lived in, a club he visited and a club he didn't visit.
Again, I have no idea why I'm reminded of this joke.

Lappy9000
2009-02-10, 11:15 AM
I mean, what else is there about 3.5 that's so godawfully different from 4.0? People seem to be mad that 4E is so easy to use and understand. I mean, 3.5 is really just clunky in a lot of ways it doesn't need to be. You can't argue that the game has improved a lot, and even if it's changed some in the process, it only takes a small effort of homebrewing to "fix" those changes to whatever you want. You want the game more dark? Make death worse, send harder stronger, and make your campaign have a darker theme to it. This game is all about imagination, so use yours! :smallannoyed:

3.x is terrible period. I mean, the only real thing 3.x has going for it is nostalgia. Please don't go there.

I'll have to bring out the dead badgers. Again.

Darn laserbadgers and their obsession with cake....

Kurald Galain
2009-02-10, 04:10 PM
I mean, what else is there about 3.5 that's so godawfully different from 4.0?
You know the funny thing? I can take the exact same sentences, replace 3.5 with 4.0 and vice versa, and the result will make exactly as much sense as your version: somebody who proclaims his personal opinion to be objective fact, and who appears to be very intolerant of other opinions. YMMV.

Thurbane
2009-02-10, 08:44 PM
*sigh* These threads always go the same way. Let's face it people, 3.5 or 4E aren't better or worse than each other, just different. Lets throw 1E and 2E into that statement as well. There is no impirical measure of which is better - no scientific formula. It's all down to personal opinion, and what style of game a group enjoys. I'll admit, 4E isn't to my taste, so I'm sticking with 3.5. To argue it's better or worse just doesn't make any sense. :smallfrown:

monty
2009-02-11, 12:45 AM
impirical

Empirical. Other than that, I agree with you. Personally, I don't like 4E, but I'm not going to tell others not to play it if they're having fun. It is a game, after all.

Knaight
2009-02-11, 01:11 AM
I agree entirely, its just a game, and there is no point attacking someone for not playing the same edition, or even system. Thats why I left the WotC forums, because if you were pro fourth edition then you were insulted as an idiot unable to handle the math, which also applied to any other system(which included the ones I typically play, which doesn't include fourth edition. or if you were pro third edition then you were a bad person who was greedy and anti change. Civil discussion vanished, and if you tried to have one someone from the other camp would come in and either insult your intelligence, or your morality. Its way better at Giant in the Playground, partially because the system thing isn't as cut and dry(we have Wushu players, M&M players, Exalted players, players from all editions with D&D, Fate and Fudge players, etc.) but mostly because it didn't get centered around an edition war. The WotC forums were actually kind of nice before fourth edition came out and a few people managed to polarize everybody. This thread is nothing by comparison, I haven't even seen much in the way of personal attacks.

Thurbane
2009-02-11, 02:15 AM
Empirical. Other than that, I agree with you. Personally, I don't like 4E, but I'm not going to tell others not to play it if they're having fun. It is a game, after all.
Ah yes, that's indeed what I meant. :smallbiggrin:

BnF95
2009-02-11, 02:59 AM
I dunno, 3.XE ... 4E ... look pretty much similar to me other than a few cosmetic changes, much as 1E and 2E are pretty much the same thing. All in all its just their way of separating people from their money.

Aquillion
2009-02-11, 04:21 AM
I dunno, 3.XE ... 4E ... look pretty much similar to me other than a few cosmetic changes, much as 1E and 2E are pretty much the same thing. All in all its just their way of separating people from their money.All right, then. Let's say I have an extremely simple Gnomish Illusionist build, focused primarily on using the spells descended from the Minor Image line, plus Shadow Evocation / Shadow Conjuration. This is an extremely basic, core build that has been central to the system and the Gnomish race since 2e (in fact, it has generally been the defining build of the Gnomish race.) Explain to me how I can translate this character to 4e with minimal disruption in its image or in terms of how it plays. No houseruling.

More simply... If I had a generic, straight no-frills wizard in 1st edition, I could have fairly easily translated it to 2nd and then to 3rd, with only minimal changes in terms its abilities or how it plays. Explain how to translate this character to 4e without substantially changing the way it plays or its capabilities.

I particularly adore the Vancian casting system; it is, to a large extent, the reason why I play D&D, since I like the challenge of planning ahead and having a wide variety of levels of force to bring to bear, as well as a large number of highly-specialized spells that I have to creatively adapt to my situation. I have no particular interest in damage-dealing spells (not even in 2e, where they're reasonably powerful); I was first attracted to D&D by reading through the books and finding a wide variety of different spells of differing levels of power, all highly-specialized and unique, with many strange and clever applications. I mostly skimmed the spells that merely blasted, debuffed, or slew, which were uninteresting; to me, the most interesting spells were the ones that reshaped the landscape, or crossed vast distances in an instant, or let you contact strange entities to ask their opinion, or conjure any illusion you could call to mind, or turn invisible for hours on end, or fly through the air on a phantom steed, or any of a thousand other things. I have been able to build a character around those (note, around, making them my primary and practically sole abilities, the ones I used regularly and reliably as my contribution to the party) in every edition to date. Most importantly, I would like to be able to use these abilities (which, again, I consider the core, fundamental abilities of such a character) without permanently weakening myself or paying permanent resources. Explain how I can make that character in 4e, please.

I love collecting spells and carefully pouring over which ones to prepare and apply. I love having spells at a wide variety of different levels, so I have to choose exactly how much power to bring to bear.

Maybe you like seeing this character archtype gone; to each his own. But to someone who was originally drawn to D&D by the vast breadth and limitless possibilities inherent in its system of magic, 4e is never going to be a proper replacement. Whether you favor it or not, that change is anything but cosmetic.

KKL
2009-02-11, 04:53 AM
No, the CO community only plays at level 20 (or level 30, in 4e), so of course casting in armor doesn't do anything for them, neither does absorbing hits. At level 20, if you get hit, you die. Nobody even rolls dice in the CO community, because the barbarian has a +86 to hit, and does 1d12+848 damage, so the wizard just dies, but wait, the wizard has a contingency for this situation with celerity and time stop, and thus forcecage-cloudkill-delayed blast cheeseballs the barbarian into oblivion so now we don't even have to roll for initiative because the wizard always goes first. Combat lasts maybe 2 rounds if you're lucky, but unfortunately they take as long as 6 rounds at level 1.

This IS sarcasm, right?

DM Raven
2009-02-11, 04:18 PM
Another thread successfully de-railed by the edition fan boys. Congrats on making your same tired arguments again and again...I salute you.

Jayabalard
2009-02-11, 09:30 PM
This is an extremely basic, core build that has been central to the system and the Gnomish race since 2e (in fact, it has generally been the defining build of the Gnomish race.) Actually, the gnome illusionist goes back to 1e AD&D.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-12, 07:04 AM
This IS sarcasm, right?
Exaggerated, certainly, but on the whole it's true that many charop threads consider a maximum-level character with maximum gear, without bothering to explain what happens in the 19 levels before that.

Given that, according to WOTC statistics, most games never reach level 14, optimizing a character for level 20 would seem to be rather theoretical (which, arguably, is the whole point).

Kaiyanwang
2009-02-12, 07:08 AM
Maybe you like seeing this character archtype gone; to each his own. But to someone who was originally drawn to D&D by the vast breadth and limitless possibilities inherent in its system of magic, 4e is never going to be a proper replacement. Whether you favor it or not, that change is anything but cosmetic.

Wow.. you have written my feelings about that Aquillon... I fell like a detect magic spell cast on a 4th edition manual detects... nothing :smallsmile:

horseboy
2009-02-12, 04:57 PM
Its way better at Giant in the Playground, partially because the system thing isn't as cut and dry(we have Wushu players, M&M players, Exalted players, players from all editions with D&D, Fate and Fudge players, etc.) but mostly because it didn't get centered around an edition war.
Yeah, I've been anti-3.x here since July of 2007, yet somehow now I'm considered "pro-4th" because of it.

Triaxx
2009-02-12, 09:35 PM
Ah, I understand the problem. It's not that people object to 4e for being simple, they object to it for not being complex. But 3.x and 2e were probably the same way. Particularly since they followed something that had had years to acquire dozens of splatbooks, and tons of homebrew. And now comes this new system, with only basic rules, and a lack of options. But now, after all this time we see that 2e and 3.x have more options than you could have imagined when they arrived. I'm certain 4e will do the same, but for now there's not as much depth, and so it doesn't hold the interest for very long. But as it expands, and growss, it will eventually reach a point where I can go and think: Hey, if I do this and this, then I can get this and be awesome. 3.5 has already reached it's Critical Awesome limit. I'm eagerly awaiting 4e to do the same.

@horseboy: After the third Leap charging, Power Shocking Fighter you've had pushed at you in as many minutes, I don't think anyone hasn't been anti-3.x at least once.

Aquillion
2009-02-12, 09:44 PM
Ah, I understand the problem. It's not that people object to 4e for being simple, they object to it for not being complex. But 3.x and 2e were probably the same way. Particularly since they followed something that had had years to acquire dozens of splatbooks, and tons of homebrew. And now comes this new system, with only basic rules, and a lack of options. But now, after all this time we see that 2e and 3.x have more options than you could have imagined when they arrived. I'm certain 4e will do the same, but for now there's not as much depth, and so it doesn't hold the interest for very long. But as it expands, and growss, it will eventually reach a point where I can go and think: Hey, if I do this and this, then I can get this and be awesome. 3.5 has already reached it's Critical Awesome limit. I'm eagerly awaiting 4e to do the same.It's not quite comparable in all cases.

First, the transition to AD&D by definition made the system more complicated rather than less (hence the "advanced"). All the old stuff still applied, plus there were lots of new things.

Second, as I mentioned elsewhere -- you could, with some work, translate almost anything from earlier editions, from all the way back in the original game through to 2nd, 3.0, and 3.5. There would have to be a lot of tweaks, and character classes might require a radical redesign, but for most other things (like spells, magic items, and so forth) there is a fairly obvious series of mechanical steps that you can follow to convert between any edition prior to 4.0.

4.0 broke that completely. With the exception of a small number of high-casting time, material-component-cost spells, you cannot translate very much from any prior edition into 4e without completely rewriting it. Earlier editions made at least an effort to ensure that the books you'd purchased and things you'd invented from earlier editions could, with some work, be used with the new system.

4e, though, makes a determined and specific effort to eliminate most of what came before it (so they can sell you the new books -- they're open about that, and to be fair, they're running a business, so I can't complain too much. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.)

This is very hard to remember now. But when 4e was still in development and little word had come out about it, the sorts of questions people asked were "What will they do about the Polymorph line? Will they remove it completely?" And "Will they use the Tome of Battle mechanics as the inspiration for new fighter classes?" And so on. Nobody expected them to completely alter the underlying assumptions of the game to the point where it would have this little connection to what came before.

I'm not even saying I dislike 4e. It's just that you've gotta understand why many people haven't just switched over to it -- it's not like the switch from 2e to 3e, which ultimately (though many things changed quite dramatically) came down to using different mechanics to attain the same general look and feel. 4e is a totally different game.

InaVegt
2009-02-12, 09:44 PM
For myself, I object to 4e because of the kiddy glove approach.

Same reason I objected to 3e.

While playing 4e, I just don't feel like my character is in any real danger.

In ADnD, if your character reached third level, that was an accomplishment, that just didn't happen all that much [Either you went against low XP monsters and it took ages, or you were in a very real danger of dying, several times.]

In 4e, if your character reaches third level, it's nothing special.

I dunno about you, but I like the sense of accomplishment I had in ADnD when I had a character reach fifth level, I don't think it'll be the same in 4e, not even for thirthieth level.