I believe we are being updated to 3.5...

[Chirios]

Why hasn't OOTS yet been updated to 4.0?

[RMS Oceanic]

Scroll down the news page, to about May/June 2008. There's your answer.

[Morty]

Search the newsposts. Giant has answered the question throughly already.
Ninja'd, as was to be expected.

[BillyJimBoBob]

Ninja'd, as was to be expected.
But you tied! Look at the timestamp. Only the merest of moments separated
the two posts.

I'd like to see the OotS upgrade to 4.0. I think it'd give a whole new pile of insider rules jokes to milk for all they are worth.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

But you tied! Look at the timestamp. Only the merest of moments separated
the two posts.

I'd like to see the OotS upgrade to 4.0. I think it'd give a whole new pile of insider rules jokes to milk for all they are worth.

Yeah, but a lot of things are not included in 4th Ed... Like Bards.

Besides, the Giant has already done at least two jokes on the 4.0 rules. Elan's Class Power Source (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0558.html), and Lord Kubota looking for some advantages (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0562.html) for himself. So it's not like 4th Ed has been completely omitted from the story line.

[Porthos]

Yeah, but a lot of things are not included in 4th Ed... Like Bards.

That and the fact that Xykon and Redcloak couldn't work together anymore as a (even semi-) functional team. Makes it kinda hard to do a strip when the rule changes nuke half of your storyline. :smalltongue:

[Chirios]

First, I have to explain that I don't actually play Dungeons and Dragons, I just read that OOTS was based on it and then found out that there was a 4.0 edition and well, yeah. Now, on to my question, why would updating to 4.0 stop Xykon and Redcloak from being able to work together?

[Irreverent Fool]

First, I have to explain that I don't actually play Dungeons and Dragons, I just read that OOTS was based on it and then found out that there was a 4.0 edition and well, yeah. Now, on to my question, why would updating to 4.0 stop Xykon and Redcloak from being able to work together?

*hands Chirios a fire-proof umbrella*

obnoxious
sig

[Prime32]

First, I have to explain that I don't actually play Dungeons and Dragons, I just read that OOTS was based on it and then found out that there was a 4.0 edition and well, yeah. Now, on to my question, why would updating to 4.0 stop Xykon and Redcloak from being able to work together?
4.0 is an entirely different kind of game, that's why, to the point where some people refuse to call it D&D.

[Porthos]

First, I have to explain that I don't actually play Dungeons and Dragons, I just read that OOTS was based on it and then found out that there was a 4.0 edition and well, yeah. Now, on to my question, why would updating to 4.0 stop Xykon and Redcloak from being able to work together?

Short answer: They completely reworked how liches operate.
Slightly longer answer: Anything living that is near a 4e lich suffers horrible horrible damage.
Real Answer: There are so many differences (big and small) here and there that a story based on a 4e game really needs to be started from scratch.

Sure there can be little nods here and there (much like there are nods to 2e and 1e in the strip). But an actual conversion? No, it really can't happen. The classes/races are just to different.

In fact, Rich is just following WotC's advice when they said, "If you are in the middle of a campaign, stick with 3/3.5e until it's over, then convert (if you want) to 4e". :smallbiggrin:


4.0 is an entirely different kind of game, that's why, to the point where some people refuse to call it D&D.

Yes, well, that happened at the 1e/2e transition as well as the 2e/3e transition, so that's hardly news. :smalltongue:

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Originally Posted by Prime32
4.0 is an entirely different kind of game, that's why, to the point where some people refuse to call it D&D.

Yes, well, that happened at the 1e/2e transition as well as the 2e/3e transition, so that's hardly news. :smalltongue:

Although I do have to give a nod towards the Conversion Guidlines WotC put out when 3.0 first came out. They made an effort to bump 2nd (and even 1st Ed!) characters to 3.0.

4th Ed? Just too different to make the conversion. :smallsigh:

[Darth Stabber]

the differences between 4.0 and 3.x are greater than any edition change in the past, Trust me on this, very very different. Now Roy, Hayley, and to some extent Belkar would be easy enough (though no barbarian yet), but the spell casters are a much more difficult switch. Especially Elan, who's class no longer exists. Trust me if you played 3.5 you will feel more familiar with 2e than 4e.

[Kish]

Also, Xykon would no longer function as there are no sorcerers in 4ed. And no, he totally would not work as a wizard or a warlock, and if you don't understand why you haven't read Start of Darkness.

[Porthos]

the differences between 4.0 and 3.x are greater than any edition change in the past, Trust me on this, very very different. Now Roy, Hayley, and to some extent Belkar would be easy enough (though no barbarian yet), but the spell casters are a much more difficult switch. Especially Elan, who's class no longer exists. Trust me if you played 3.5 you will feel more familiar with 2e than 4e.

I gotta disagree with you there. The sheer fact that this is still a d20 game makes it more similar than dissimliar in my eyes. I think people forget all of the rules changes that occured in the 2e/3e shift.

I was around for the 2e/3e change over, and it was pretty radically different. Multiclassing, Priest Domians, Wild Spells, Basic Assumptions About How and Why Rules Work, Mechanics Under The Hood, etc. Mind you, my group was using Players Options, so it wasn't quite as bad (although even there there was a radical change: Say hello to the radically different Bard Class).

Sure WotC attempted to put out a conversion sheet. But it was widly mocked as being inadquate for people's needs, which is probably why they didn't bother with it this time around.

Although I really do think any good 4e/3e thread probably deserves to be in the Gaming Section, you know. :smallwink:

PS: The folks over at Dragonsfoot seem to think the 2e/3e shift was pretty dramatic. What is really any different from that they are saying and what the people who think that 3e/4e is a big huge deal? :smalltongue:

[Flabbicus]

Also, Xykon would no longer function as there are no sorcerers in 4ed. And no, he totally would not work as a wizard or a warlock, and if you don't understand why you haven't read Start of Darkness.

Both sorcerors and bards will be released in the PHB2 in the coming weeks for 4e. So he would still function, just not at present.

[Jayabalard]

Yes, well, that happened at the 1e/2e transition as well as the 2e/3e transition, so that's hardly news. :smalltongue:Not really; 1e and 2e were similar enough so that you could use content from one in the other with no conversion

[evileeyore]

Now, on to my question, why would updating to 4.0 stop Xykon and Redcloak from being able to work together?

Short answer: Nothing. :smallbiggrin:

Long answer: Some people are so hidebound they'd allow a few rules to stop them from doing what they know is right. :smallwink:

[Morty]

Both sorcerors and bards will be released in the PHB2 in the coming weeks for 4e. So he would still function, just not at present.

Except that it'd be non-core material in such case, and Rich has been mostly sticking to core in OoTS so far.

[Dixieboy]

Except that it'd be non-core material in such case, and Rich has been mostly sticking to core in OoTS so far.Using frequent jokes about someone taking stuff from outside core to get an advantage :smallamused:

[Morty]

Using frequent jokes about someone taking stuff from outside core to get an advantage :smallamused:

:smallsigh: Which is obviously the same as two major characters using noncore classes.

[Kurald Galain]

Why hasn't OOTS yet been updated to 4.0?

It will. In the very last strip. Mark my words.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

It will. In the very last strip. Mark my words.

But by then, 5.0 will be out! :smallbiggrin:

[Person_Man]

This is a common issue. There are tons of players, DMs, and small press publishers who built characters, plot lines, and even game worlds and novels, out of 3.X crunch. The crunch is so intrinsic to how they are written, and the 4E crunch is so different, that updating their work is pretty much impossible. They're emotionally attached to their work, so they'd rather stick with 3.X.

WotC: We're updating to 4E!

Player: OK, I've been playing D&D since age 12, and love it. I shall buy your game. How do I make Elan the Bard in 4E?

WotC: You can't really. Build a Warlord and call it a Bard.

Player: But you don't even include any suggestions for re-fluffing classes in your rules. And the class abilities are completely different. And there's no spellcasting. And non-combat Skills don't exist anymore.

WotC: Don't worry, we'll come out with a Bard in 4E. Eventually.

Player: @#$% you!

[evileeyore]

Except that it'd be non-core material in such case, and Rich has been mostly sticking to core in OoTS so far.

You obviously don't pay very close attention to the comic. Try harder, try again.



I'll point you towards one "non-core" * relevancy: Dashing Swordsman





* As though "Core" and "Non-core" have any bearing what so ever when the Author admits that plot and comedy are a far greater concern than rules.

[Porthos]

Except that it'd be non-core material in such case, and Rich has been mostly sticking to core in OoTS so far.

I've been avoiding the 4e flamewars threads like the plague, but I was under the impression that all of the PHBs/DMGs/MMs under 4e were "core" whether or not they had a II, IIII, or IV stuck to them. In fact, I thought that they had, more or less, done away with that silly notion of "core".


But if I'm wrong, no big deal.

[BillyJimBoBob]

the differences between 4.0 and 3.x are greater than any edition change in the past, Trust me on this, very very different. Now Roy, Hayley, and to some extent Belkar would be easy enough (though no barbarian yet), but the spell casters are a much more difficult switch. Especially Elan, who's class no longer exists. Trust me if you played 3.5 you will feel more familiar with 2e than 4e.Wasn't a Druid in AD&D a Fighter who became a Thief who became a Magic-User who finally became a Druid? And didn't the Barbarian not exist at all in AD&D core, while in 4e it has been printed on-line, but not yet officially published? And isn't the psionics system of AD&D (a chance for those players with many exceptional ability scores to gain yet another advantage their fellow players at the table don't have access to) dramatically different than the Psionics classes of 3 and 3.5?

I'll agree that there are more sweeping mechanics changes between 3.5 and 4e than between any two earlier versions, but that's not to say that prior editions haven't had some monstrous changes between them as well.

In the end, you still roll a D20 to hit, and a lot of the other mechanics are familiar as well, even if not exactly the same. I call it par, and I like the fact that balance has clearly been a foremost design philosophy, rather than just sticking to some old methods simply because they are familiar and comfortable.

Also, Xykon would no longer function as there are no sorcerers in 4ed. And no, he totally would not work as a wizard or a warlock, and if you don't understand why you haven't read Start of Darkness.4e Wizards are pretty much 3/3.5 Sorcerers. They can cast any at-will spell at any time, and there is no such thing as a spell slot any longer. WotC just kept the one name rather than the other.

[David Argall]

Wasn't a Druid in AD&D a Fighter who became a Thief who became a Magic-User who finally became a Druid?
I think you are thinking of the bard.


And didn't the Barbarian not exist at all in AD&D core,
The barbarian appeared more than once, but was hampered by being pretty much impossible to play with magic users.


And isn't the psionics system of AD&D (a chance for those players with many exceptional ability scores to gain yet another advantage their fellow players at the table don't have access to) dramatically different than the Psionics classes of 3 and 3.5?
Psionics has always been the neglected child of D&D, with no edition really producing a playable system for it.



I'll agree that there are more sweeping mechanics changes between 3.5 and 4e than between any two earlier versions, but that's not to say that prior editions haven't had some monstrous changes between them as well.
Nontheless, just about any D&D wantabe game is more D&D than 4e. The only reason to call 4e D&D is they have the trademark.

[Trixie]

Except that it'd be non-core material in such case, and Rich has been mostly sticking to core in OoTS so far.

Since when PHB is non-core? :smallconfused:

[Kish]

Since when PHB is non-core? :smallconfused:

Player's Handbook 2 isn't the same as Player's Handbook. It's a kind of "hand-faster-than-eye" trick WotC uses to make it look like buying two Player's Handbooks for twice as much money is the same as buying one.

If they called the 3.5 ed PHB2 "core," I never heard it. If they say nothing in 4ed is "non-core," I'm cynical about their motivations ($$$) but not surprised.

[BillyJimBoBob]

Nontheless, just about any D&D wantabe game is more D&D than 4e. The only reason to call 4e D&D is they have the trademark.A strong negative opinion, like many hold on the subject of 4e. I've played every version of D&D, and I've enjoyed them all. 4e is no different in that regard, for me, and I really do not understand the strong negative opinions such a well balanced game with such a fun and fast play flow attracts. I play with a few people who are not veteran gamers. They enjoy the ability to throw down an at-use card (props help, as in any other version) and do that action. In prior editions some of them remained confused from session to session as to their options in any given round. And the veteran gamers in my group are not complaining about a lack of depth, so it looks like a win-win to me. That said, I still enjoy the prior versions as well.

[FujinAkari]

Except that it'd be non-core material in such case, and Rich has been mostly sticking to core in OoTS so far.

Ummm... no he hasn't? Thelkea was a non-core class, Haley seems to be a non-core race, Elan uses a non-core PrC, and Miko's statement about being a samurai was enough to cause mass confusion, despite Samurai's being non-core.

No, sorry, Rich has felt absolutely no obligation to stay within the core of 3.5 so far :P

[Kish]

Haley seems to be a non-core race,
Urgh.

You grant what some of us consider extremely silly speculation about Haley being nonhuman the status of an established fact. The strip has never called her anything but human, and much as I wish humans were a non-core race, they aren't.

[magic9mushroom]

Urgh.

You grant what some of us consider extremely silly speculation about Haley being nonhuman the status of an established fact. The strip has never called her anything but human, and much as I wish humans were a non-core race, they aren't.

Well, the humans do occupy an important niche.

And they prove that True Neutral really is the most successful alignment :smile:

[David Argall]

A strong negative opinion, like many hold on the subject of 4e. I've played every version of D&D, and I've enjoyed them all. 4e is no different in that regard, for me, and I really do not understand the strong negative opinions such a well balanced game with such a fun and fast play flow attracts.
While 4e is the first edition I didn't go into already convinced it was superior to previous editions, my comments were value neutral. I like Chess and I like Go. But they are very different games. 4e and 3.5 are not [quite] that different, but they are very different, and 4e is called D&D because WOTC has the right to call any game it wants D&D, and the name attracts customers, not because of any logical resemblance between the two.

[Dracorat]

As a DM who did 2E, 3E and now am doing 4E I will say this.

4E has placed playability back in to D&D. The problem with 3E is what gave it it's strength also gave it a crippled limb. Rules. Tons of them.

In 3E, for almost every scenario, there was some way to derive a rules answer that satisfied most people. But, in laying out that ruleset, some things became intrinsic to how the game operated to the point where you almost had to write an essay of house rules if you wanted to change it. O/P spell users and U/P fighters at high levels is an example.

In 4E many rules simply do not exist. For this reason, some people who feel satisfaction in a blanket of rules, find themselves standing in the cold. 4E's mantra is 180 degrees different. It is "just do something".

And that's what I like about 4E. It was designed with "just do something" in mind. For sitting down and playing with friends, this has been awesome. We focus so much less on rules now and more on just playing. And we are having a ball.

That said, one must remember that this is a Web comic. That means the author should stay with the system that gives him the most material to write with. A system that can became laden with inanity due to the complex nature of rules is such a system. Yes, I'd love to see a batch of 4E rules, but long-term, I'll skip them if sticking with 3E really helps the author.

And I'll still play 4E at my table.

[BillyJimBoBob]

While 4e is the first edition I didn't go into already convinced it was superior to previous editions, my comments were value neutral.I won't argue 3e vs 4e with you or anyone else. It's pointless, because in the end it's a matter of opinion and the preferences of your gaming circle. But I will say that
Nontheless, just about any D&D wantabe game is more D&D than 4e. The only reason to call 4e D&D is they have the trademark. does not come across as value neutral, at all. "Wantabe" is a pejorative term, and saying that 4e is less D&D than something you've attached a pejorative to is clearly not a value neutral statement.

[Silverraptor]

I think it would be funny to have a mixed 3.5-4.0, As in the party meets another group that follows the 4th ed. rules. I wonder what the spellcasters reaction to the whole "at-will" spells. I'd feel pretty murderous and with V's new style, well, you get the idea...

[Kletian999]

Many of Rich's plot points rely on 3.5 rules like the spell system (i.e. V's ascension). 4e made large changes to the spell system among other things so the story as planned no longer works- thus he's not converting anything he's already established- this decision was made without any judgement of quality between the versions- he's staying true neutral in the edition war. He did leave the door open to making 4e related jokes however, and has made a few. There is no need to say anything further on the subject, certainly not to disparage either edition or WotC as a company.

[Volkov]

I mainly dislike 4th edition for killing the fluff, I don't like the mechanics either but it's what it's done to the fluff that's made me mad.

[Gamgee]

As a DM who did 2E, 3E and now am doing 4E I will say this.

4E has placed playability back in to D&D. The problem with 3E is what gave it it's strength also gave it a crippled limb. Rules. Tons of them.

In 3E, for almost every scenario, there was some way to derive a rules answer that satisfied most people. But, in laying out that ruleset, some things became intrinsic to how the game operated to the point where you almost had to write an essay of house rules if you wanted to change it. O/P spell users and U/P fighters at high levels is an example.

In 4E many rules simply do not exist. For this reason, some people who feel satisfaction in a blanket of rules, find themselves standing in the cold. 4E's mantra is 180 degrees different. It is "just do something".

And that's what I like about 4E. It was designed with "just do something" in mind. For sitting down and playing with friends, this has been awesome. We focus so much less on rules now and more on just playing. And we are having a ball.

That said, one must remember that this is a Web comic. That means the author should stay with the system that gives him the most material to write with. A system that can became laden with inanity due to the complex nature of rules is such a system. Yes, I'd love to see a batch of 4E rules, but long-term, I'll skip them if sticking with 3E really helps the author.

And I'll still play 4E at my table.

The horror that comes with "just doing something". I let the players have free reign over where they wanted to go and what they wanted to do and just set the tone. Within two sessions three of them had died and they had a 2 billion dollar bounty on each of their heads. I took control of the plot and have to salvage a lot of what I had planned. They were grateful I stopped the insanity before it was a total party kill. Also several planets were lost... not to mention total widespread destruction in every way.

Sometimes there can be such a thing as too much freedom. I don't like 4e because of the "just do things" mentality. It is just asking for trouble if they continue to go down this route. May as well just play with no rules! Just free form it, but we all know how horrendous that can be. Once it's open to free form, chaos takes hold and it's a squabble for who can take and hold whatever they can get. It would be utter madness for the DM who wouldn't have much control and even most players would get turned off.

I agree there can be too much rules on the opposite side of the spectrum. However if my 10 year old cousin can master the rules within a few sessions and a glance or two at the rules I don't think others should have too much trouble. You're not being asked to make a godamn sky net or something! Then again I often give people the benefit of the doubt and they never cease to... disappoint.

[Devils_Advocate]

4e is called D&D because WOTC has the right to call any game it wants D&D, and the name attracts customers, not because of any logical resemblance between the two.
Except that they're both based around d20 rolls. Oh, and they both have hit points and the same six ability scores. And the same three types of saving throws. And each has a skill system. And they have several of the same classes, or class concepts if you prefer, although implemented differently. And they share a bunch of iconic monsters (also implemented differently), including various evil ugly humanoids and dragons whose abilities vary with their colors. And I'm guessing that 4E still has plenty of underground ruins implausibly laden with treasure. And...

Really, I could go on. And on. And on. There are enough similarities between 3E and 4E that I'm not even going to try to list them all, which seems pretty telling.

Yeah, I'm sure that there are D&D clones that are more like previous editions than 4E is. That's because they're clones of the previous editions. 4E is so unlike all other DnD-derived games because it hasn't been around long enough to clone, doy. You could insist that being more than just a clone of any previous edition invalidates its status as a continuation of the product line, I suppose. But I don't really see the basis for that perspective. Besides, previous editions were non-clones, too, and also criticized as "not D&D".

It's funny how the current edition of D&D gamers hasn't just inherited the class concepts, ability scores, monsters, etc. of ages past, but the complaints.

"This new edition is like a video game! They're dumbing it down to appeal to kids! Encounters are so easy that there's no real challenge now! Healing is ridiculously easy! (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/msg/21c6c22a1ab12aed) They've completely obliterated and overwritten mountains of setting detail! Everything's so different, it's not even accurate to say the settings were heavily retconned -- that implies that they're really still using the same settings! This isn't D&D, it's a completely different game with the D&D label stuck on! What? This is completely different from the change to the edition that I favor!"

"Gah! You reactionary elitist! You're clinging to an overly complicated, unbalanced rule system out of misguided nostalgia! For pity's sake, it isn't a bad thing for it to be harder for the DM to accidentally kill off PCs! D&D has never accurately simulated reality -- it's always abstracted things and handwaved piles of stuff to make the game simpler, and tweaked things away from reality to make the game more balanced, and more fun! Get over it! Every new edition tosses out old stuff! Come on, man, you're complaining about things that were already there in the last edition as if they were introduced in the new one! They're just present in different forms now. You're leveling completely unwarranted accusations at the new game just because you don't like it! What do you mean, there, I just said it?"

:smalltongue: :smallamused: :smallwink:

[RebelRogue]

Nontheless, just about any D&D wantabe game is more D&D than 4e.
I've been playing D&D since 1st edition, and to me 4th ed is much more in the spirit of 1st/2nd ed than 3rd ever was. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is another thing altogether.

[Chronos]

Except that they're both based around d20 rolls. Oh, and they both have hit points and the same six ability scores. And the same three types of saving throws. And each has a skill system. And they have several of the same classes, or class concepts if you prefer, although implemented differently. And they share a bunch of iconic monsters (also implemented differently), including various evil ugly humanoids and dragons whose abilities vary with their colors. And I'm guessing that 4E still has plenty of underground ruins implausibly laden with treasure. And...3.x has six ability scores, but 4e functionally has three: Int/Dex, Str/Con, and Wis/Cha. 3e has three kinds of saving throw, but 4e replaced those with defenses, and then shoehorned in a generic saving throw for situations that didn't work with defenses, but made it a coin toss independent of class abilities. Every role-playing game ever made has some sort of skill system. The classes and monsters have the same names, but vary significantly in their functionality.

You're also overlooking some of the fundamental differences. All versions of D&D prior to 4th had 9 alignments, while 4th has 5. All prior versions had 20 levels of character advancement, with significantly different power levels, while 4th edition has 30, with a power range about equivalent to 3 levels in the earlier versions. All previous versions use different mechanics for each of the basic classes (spellcasters having to conserve limited daily resources while warriors can swing a sword all day long, for instance), while 4th uses exactly the same for everyone.

Yes, there are some similarities between 4th edition and the previous editions, but there's some similarities between any two games. The difference between 4th and any previous version is still greater than the differences between any two previous editions.

[BillyJimBoBob]

Every role-playing game ever made has some sort of skill system.I don't recall a skill system in my three booklet set and blue book set. I'll admit it's been many years since I've even found them in a box in my garage, but I really can not remember any kind of skill system in D&D until AD&D.


All prior versions had 20 levels of character advancement, with significantly different power levels, while 4th edition has 30, with a power range about equivalent to 3 levels in the earlier versions.I also don't recall a level cap (for Humans, at least) in any prior edition of D&D. 3 & 3.5 separated it out into "epic" rules, but if I recall correctly prior editions simply stated that after a certain level you added this many hit points (or a die) per level, required this many EXP, and the spells per level table was extended in such and such a fashion.


The difference between 4th and any previous version is still greater than the differences between any two previous editions.That is an opinion to which you are entitled. I tend to think that there are more changes between D&D and AD&D, but that's just my opinion.

Really, the only accurate statement is that there are a great many things the two systems have in common, and there are also a great many things which are different.

[BillyJimBoBob]

Healing is ridiculously easy! (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/msg/21c6c22a1ab12aed)Thanks for posting that. It's a very amusing read. :smallsmile:

I especially chuckled after getting to this post:

"> No, I think I'm staying in 2E, where the charcters at least have a
> CHANCE to die.

I agree with you. The whole 3e game has always given me a feeling that
I'm trying to play a video game or computer game on the tabletop. The
only thing missing is the computer. You know the feeling you get when
you first buy the latest computer game that's been hyped up for months,
if not years? The "I wonder what I can do" feeling? Well, 3e gives me
that feeling, without also giving me the feeling of what I *can't*
do....in other words, I don't sense a restrictiveness or any limitations
to what, who, or how characters are allowed to be played. Anything goes,
and seeing your examples of the healing rates in 3e only solidifies my
feelings on that."

OMG! 3e is World of Warcraft!!!1!!!11!!exclamation point!!111!!eleven!!

[oxybe]

no no no... 3rd is Diablo/Diablo II. you have to use the proper game for the period.

[Rotipher]

FWIW, keeping with the 3.5 rules means that readers can look up practically anything that happens in the comic in the online 3.5 SRD, free of charge. In itself, that's an advantage for keeping to the old edition, no matter what you think of the new one.

[Rizzer]

Many of Rich's plot points rely on 3.5 rules like the spell system (i.e. V's ascension). 4e made large changes to the spell system among other things so the story as planned no longer works

Here's a thought, maybe V's ascension will trigger the transformation to 4e... :)

[Volkov]

FWIW, keeping with the 3.5 rules means that readers can look up practically anything that happens in the comic in the online 3.5 SRD, free of charge. In itself, that's an advantage for keeping to the old edition, no matter what you think of the new one.

They only give the most essential of source books, i.e deities and demi-gods, the psionics handbooks, the epic level handbook, and the three core rule books. I just wish they put every last single source book ever made in there :smallfurious: .

[factotum]

FWIW, keeping with the 3.5 rules means that readers can look up practically anything that happens in the comic in the online 3.5 SRD, free of charge. In itself, that's an advantage for keeping to the old edition, no matter what you think of the new one.

Except that Rich has said that the story overrides rules, no matter what. This is why you get so many people coming on here saying "But the D&D rules say he can't DO that!"--therefore, having a convenient online rule reference like the SRD isn't relevant to the storyline anyway.

[evileeyore]

Healing is ridiculously easy! (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/msg/21c6c22a1ab12aed)

You've sat on that for 8 long years waiting to use it haven't you?

My gods man... I'd aplaud you, but I'm stunned immobile by your shear patience and the brillaint employment of this argumentive weaponry.




Luckily I have 50-50 shot of saving from the Stun Effect at the end of each round... :smallwink:

[magic9mushroom]

I have never played 2e.

I think 3e > 4e because 4e lacks verisimilitude. Lots of rules are basically "We put this in to make everyone balanced" rather than "We put this in because it makes sense".

I personally believe that any RPG worth its salt should have wizards becoming Batman and leaving (unbuffed) fighters in the dust at high levels. Because it makes sense that way.

[evileeyore]

I have never played 2e.

Which means absolutely nothing.


I think 3e > 4e because 4e lacks verisimilitude.

This is also meaningless. You may prefer one edition, but it does not make the others lesser in any way.

And verisimilitude is overrated. In some cases it's nice, in others, not so much.


Lots of rules are basically "We put this in to make everyone balanced" rather than "We put this in because it makes sense".

So it makes no sense for the characters working together within a party to be balanced?


Yes, I did read your next sentence. I'm guessing you like playing Wizards and feel personaly slighted by the "gimping".


I personally believe that any RPG worth its salt should have wizards becoming Batman and leaving (unbuffed) fighters in the dust at high levels. Because it makes sense that way.

I'm glad your wrong. I'd hate for my Call of Cthulhu RPG to have Batman Wizards running about. T'would break the verisimilitude.

[magic9mushroom]

Which means absolutely nothing.



This is also meaningless. You may prefer one edition, but it does not make the others lesser in any way.

And verisimilitude is overrated. In some cases it's nice, in others, not so much.

You have your opinion, I have mine.


So it makes no sense for the characters working together within a party to be balanced?

Yes, I did read your next sentence. I'm guessing you like playing Wizards and feel personaly slighted by the "gimping".

Not particularly to both.


I'm glad your wrong. I'd hate for my Call of Cthulhu RPG to have Batman Wizards running about. T'would break the verisimilitude.

Now obviously I was referring to fantasy RPGs in comparable settings. It's 2 am and I'm tired.

[Rotipher]

Except that Rich has said that the story overrides rules, no matter what. This is why you get so many people coming on here saying "But the D&D rules say he can't DO that!"--therefore, having a convenient online rule reference like the SRD isn't relevant to the storyline anyway.

It's not irrelevant to the storyline, it's just not an inflexible straitjacket. Many aspects of the D&D game are actually crucial to the comic's plot -- if there were no divine spells to restore life to the dead, as is true for most non-RPG-based fantasy worlds, would Haley's quest to bring Roy's corpse to a cleric make a lick of sense? -- and being able to look such things up in the SRD is a great convenience, for readers whose personal recall about those rules is unreliable.

Plus, arguing about how the comic either conforms to or violates the rules seems to be a secondary source of entertainment for many people on these boards. :smallwink: