PDA

View Full Version : Why is it a bad thing if 4e is like WoW?



Drolyt
2010-02-03, 03:29 PM
{Scrubbed}

ex cathedra
2010-02-03, 03:33 PM
I'll sum the argument up for you:

4e = WoW.
WoW = Bad.
The transitive property then states that 4e = Bad.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 03:33 PM
Because some People think the WoW similarity = EVILBAD!!!!!!!!!!!

I personally like 4th edition and so does my entire group. Some people don't and That's their opinion which they're entitled to.

FishAreWet
2010-02-03, 03:35 PM
It's not a bad thing if 4e is like WoW for everyone.

It is for some people. It's called an opinion.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 03:35 PM
I'll sum the argument up for you:

4e = WoW.
WoW = Bad.
The transitive property then states that 4e = Bad.

But the transitive property only works if 4e were EXACTLY like WoW.


Because some People think the WoW similarity = EVILBAD!!!!!!!!!!!

I personally like 4th edition and so does my entire group. Some people don't and That's their opinion which they're entitled to.

I don't completely hate 4e, I just disagree with many of it's design choices and without the OGL it can't really be fixed. (While it can, but it can't be published legally). But yeah it's all opinion.

Sipex
2010-02-03, 03:37 PM
It's got the whole powers thing and healing surges which heal you after battle, both which sort of resemble how an MMO works.

I, myself, prefer 4e. I like the map based battles and the lesser complexity of the system.

Bibliomancer
2010-02-03, 03:41 PM
But the transitive property only works if 4e were EXACTLY like WoW.

Ah, but WoW = Very Bad
4e = somewhat like WoW
Therefore, 4e = somewhat bad


It's got the whole powers thing and healing surges which heal you after battle, both which sort of resemble how an MMO works.

So you like having a system where everyone's wounds knit together seamlessly as soon as there are no enemies in your vicinity? *Coughwhataboutrealismcough*


I, myself, prefer 4e. I like the map based battles and the lesser complexity of the system.

You didn't use a battle grid in 3.5?

Mordokai
2010-02-03, 03:41 PM
Mainly, powers=powers, or whatever they are called in WoW. Some take longer than other to recharge, but the principle carries over.

Also, roles. Defenders are taking aggro, strikers are DPS and controllers and leaders are DOT. Other game, similar principle.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-03, 03:41 PM
Because, like an MMORPG, it trades verisimilitude for competitive balance and streamlined play. Some people like that, some think it defeats the purpose of running a tabletop RPG in the first place.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 03:41 PM
It's got the whole powers thing and healing surges which heal you after battle, both which sort of resemble how an MMO works.

I, myself, prefer 4e. I like the map based battles and the lesser complexity of the system.

When did WoW get healing surges? I really don't remember that. WoW's talent system is kinda similar to how powers work, although 4e powers work more like Diablo II talents and WoW talents are more like feat trees, which 3e had.

So you like having a system where everyone's wounds knit together seamlessly as soon as there are no enemies in your vicinity? *Coughwhataboutrealismcough*

I always thought that was weird. I like verisimilitude, although that was never my biggest problem with 4e.

You didn't use a battle grid in 3.5?
I usually don't. That's one of my bigger gripes with 4e actually, the rules are too tied to the grid (though you can play without it).

Mainly, powers=powers, or whatever they are called in WoW. Some take longer than other to recharge, but the principle carries over.

Also, roles. Defenders are taking aggro, strikers are DPS and controllers and leaders are DOT. Other game, similar principle.
Uh, there is nothing in any edition of D&D that can be called DPS, though I think I see what you mean. Also Melf's Acid Arrow was a DOT spell. Aggro was an MMO invention though, and I'm not sure such a system should be in D&D (though it is again not my biggest problem with 4e).

Because, like an MMORPG, it trades verisimilitude for competitive balance and streamlined play. Some people like that, some think it defeats the purpose of running a tabletop RPG in the first place.
MMOs don't trade verisimilitude, the fact is they are a computer game and have a more or less set verisimilitude because of that. Although you hit close to the mark on one of my biggest problems with 4e, I don't see what it even has to do with WoW. Besides that there was no reason 4e couldn't maintain competitive balance and verisimilitude, that's the fault of the 4e designers not WoW.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 03:44 PM
So you like having a system where everyone's wounds knit together seamlessly as soon as there are no enemies in your vicinity? *Coughwhataboutrealismcough*

You want realism? play something other than D&D.

Wizards Sorcerers and clerics (and probably a few other classes too) constantly tell the laws of the universe to shut up and sit down.

There is nothing realistic about D&D. And Healing surges aren't much different than the cleric healing you with divine power inbetween battles.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 03:51 PM
If something comes in both a computer game and a regular game, odds are the CRPG has better graphics and such. Pen and paper games excell due to flexibility and options. In the same way that trying to design every option found in D&D into a computer game would result in sacrificing the strengths of the CRPG, trying to design a pnp game like you would a CRPG sacrifices the strengths of pnp.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 03:52 PM
You want realism? play something other than D&D.

Wizards Sorcerers and clerics (and probably a few other classes too) constantly tell the laws of the universe to shut up and sit down.

There is nothing realistic about D&D. And Healing surges aren't much different than the cleric healing you with divine power inbetween battles.

Realism is a horrible word for describing this. Verisimilitude works, but I think the best phrasing is Willing Suspension of Disbelief. Simply, it's best if you could at least believe that the system follows some physical laws, even if those laws are different. This doesn't in any way preclude spellcasters (although some people dislike spellcasters on those grounds). 4e doesn't have that internal consistency, the physics of the world read like a game. It feels like your character has to break the fourth wall just to attack. But again, that's all a matter of play style and how strong your WSoD is. Some people can't even take spellcasters, while others can be completely immersed in a 4e game despite the unrealistic rules.

Dienekes
2010-02-03, 03:53 PM
You want realism? play something other than D&D.

Wizards Sorcerers and clerics (and probably a few other classes too) constantly tell the laws of the universe to shut up and sit down.

There is nothing realistic about D&D. And Healing surges aren't much different than the cleric healing you with divine power inbetween battles.

Ehh, I never liked this argument. Sure we can agree that D&D wasn't realistic however it is not exactly about realism but about breaking the players sense of disbelief.

A cleric calling upon his gods to magically heal someone? Disbelief still suspended, it works in a logically illogical way.

You heal for no adequately explained reason. Well, let's just say that to some of us it looks like they aren't even trying anymore.

Now this is just one opinion on a game. For quite a lot of people they don't care and it doesn't break with their view of the gaming reality, maybe because they themselves don't like the threat of long term loss and prefer the character or even simply playing rather than worrying about waiting around to heal, or maybe because first person shooters have set up so that they equate stepping out of combat for 5 seconds to bring you back in the fight at full power. I don't know.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-03, 03:53 PM
You want realism? play something other than D&D.

Wizards Sorcerers and clerics (and probably a few other classes too) constantly tell the laws of the universe to shut up and sit down.

There is nothing realistic about D&D. And Healing surges aren't much different than the cleric healing you with divine power inbetween battles.

When people say "realism" in these sort of debates, they almost always actually mean "verisimilitude".

3.5e D&D goes to great pains to establish verisimilitude. 4e does not; there are blatantly different rules for PCs and NPCs.

Mordokai
2010-02-03, 03:55 PM
Uh, there is nothing in any edition of D&D that can be called DPS, though I think I see what you mean. Also Melf's Acid Arrow was a DOT spell. Aggro was an MMO invention though, and I'm not sure such a system should be in D&D (though it is again not my biggest problem with 4e).

Striker role comes pretty close to DPS. You can change it to DRP, damage per round, if you really want, but it's damn close. It's basically their job to kill the toughest monsters, while defenders are keeping them at bay (they are taking aggro). Sure, they are hurting them a little, but is striker's job to kill it.

Freshmeat
2010-02-03, 03:57 PM
You want realism? play something other than D&D.

Even 'fantasy' settings are expected to make a certain degree of sense. If one ignores the realism argument altogether on the basis that the setting is unrealistic to begin with, one might as well rationalize introducing the most random and nonsensical elements into the game.

That said, I like 4E. I see a great many similarities with WoW, but don't consider this a problem.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-03, 04:01 PM
What I think people mean by this is that there's a general lack of flexibility that makes 4e feel more like a computer game than a pencil and paper roleplaying game. Thus, for example, character options are wildly cut short. It simply isn't possible to play many classic tropes in 4e. For example, one cannot play the necromancer with the army of hideous undead. Nor can one play the wizard who summons up many horrors from the pits of hell to do his bidding.

This is connected to the fact that 4e removes pretty close to all effects that last more than a single encounter. Diseases, poisons, curses, etc. either have zero to no support. Again, something that feels a bit computer gamish.

It is true that the exact mechanical system does not intrinsically impact roleplaying and that one can roleplay about as well in any system. But, when the system actively doesn't let you take on certain roles, that's a problem.

Stompy
2010-02-03, 04:01 PM
There is nothing realistic about D&D. And Healing surges aren't much different than the cleric healing you with divine power inbetween battles.

Except that in 4e, the existence of healing surges (which I believe is quoted as the number one thing that makes 4e "unrealistic") makes it so that the party isn't browbeaten into one of them playing a cleric/healing type.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 04:03 PM
Except that in 4e, the existence of healing surges (which I believe is quoted as the number one thing that makes 4e "unrealistic") makes it so that the party isn't browbeaten into one of them playing a cleric/healing type.

Not true. In the game me and my group are playing, even with healing surges, without a cleric we'd be screwed.

also, diseases, poisons and potions still exist.

There is actually a necromancer class but it's third party my friend tells me.
Also, if you want to summon demons from hell you can take the prince of hell epic destiny.

Kekken
2010-02-03, 04:06 PM
So you like having a system where everyone's wounds knit together seamlessly as soon as there are no enemies in your vicinity? *Coughwhataboutrealismcough*?

Remember that HP in D&D have never been anything other than an abstract indication of a character's health and well being. Spending healing surges between encounters represents a character recovering after a battle. Any wounds the character has taken (keeping in mind that in the abstract hp system, a loss of hp doesn't necessarily always mean an actual wound, but can indicate a 'close call' (in fact, usually, I think only crits, being knocked down to bloodied, and, of course, 0 or less, should be actual, physical wounds)) don't magically close, unless, of course, the character in question is also being healed by the party cleric.

On a similar note, I tend to only describe the Healing Word of a Cleric, the Majestic Word of a Bard, and the Healing Spirit as actually closing wounds with magic, since all of them use a sort of magic. A Warlord's Inspiring Word, on the other hand, is Martial, so I feel it should be described as simply encouraging the target to ignore her wounds and keep fighting for God, King and Country, zounds!

Mordokai
2010-02-03, 04:07 PM
Not true. In the game me and my group are playing, even with healing surges, without a cleric we'd be screwed.

One of the big complaints, as I read it, is that healing surges enable characters a "cartoon healing".

Imagine Willie E. Coyote.

Eldan
2010-02-03, 04:07 PM
It's not necessarily WoW similarity people seem to be talking about, but CRPG similarity, primarily. Focus on combat, lack of powers with broad and cxreative application, especially utility ones, simplified mechanics, sacrificing verisimilitude for sleek combat rules.
I've never read a 4e book, so I can't say how much of that is true, but those seem to be the arguments.

Sipex
2010-02-03, 04:08 PM
I've not played 3.5 actually, but what games I've seen never used the grid, most people seemed to prefer to play without it. I remember reading about it and then seeing the gameplay and thinking "Where's the grid?"

4e does play like a game, yes, but once I got over that fact I realised it's still pretty fun.

If you need vermilsitude then it's probably not for you, but I really couldn't care.

edit:

I see it as a sacrifice of Versimilitude (I'll never spell that right) for fun. Sure, it's unrealistic and gamey, but it allows you to keep playing without saying "Okay, now we have to rest for several days".

Also, 3.5 can't really argue much either, unless your playing with loss of limb and broken bone type rules you still don't take the type of damage one would expect. It's all for fun sake of course.

Freshmeat
2010-02-03, 04:10 PM
Not true. In the game me and my group are playing, even with healing surges, without a cleric we'd be screwed.

Depends on the DM. You are assuming that a cleric is necessary because in your campaign he is. Putting aside the obvious train of thought that other groups may have different experiences, wouldn't it stand to reason that if your party didn't have a cleric, your DM quite simply wouldn't throw encounters at you that you wouldn't be able to reliably defeat unless one of you was a cleric?

Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 04:10 PM
It is true that the exact mechanical system does not intrinsically impact roleplaying and that one can roleplay about as well in any system. But, when the system actively doesn't let you take on certain roles, that's a problem.

I think that mechanics impact roleplay a lot more than people give credit for.

I can roleplaying being a summoner with legions of undead all I want, but if the system doesn't allow me to actually do that, I either need to heavily modify the system, or deal with the fact that my character is basically lying about his abilities.

Sipex
2010-02-03, 04:12 PM
Arcane Power actually gives the wizard the ability to choose summoning powers.

Optimystik
2010-02-03, 04:12 PM
Because, like an MMORPG, it trades verisimilitude for competitive balance and streamlined play. Some people like that, some think it defeats the purpose of running a tabletop RPG in the first place.

Precisely this.

4e is the point at which D&D fully transitioned from "simulation" to "game." 3.5 is much better at being a "simulation," therefore backdraft resulted.

It is worth noting that 4e is still much closer to being a simulation than any CRPG (especially WoW.)

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 04:13 PM
wouldn't it stand to reason that if your party didn't have a cleric, your DM quite simply wouldn't throw encounters at you that you wouldn't be able to reliably defeat unless one of you was a cleric?

Yeah, no. I believe in one 3.5 campaign he threw an undead Balor at the party. (Yes, I know by rules those aren't allowed. Screw the rules he's the DM!)

Even ignoring that, he's running this of a WOTC made campaign. So, once again, no.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-03, 04:20 PM
also, diseases, poisons and potions still exist.

But much less support (and there wasn't even much support to start with in 3.5).



There is actually a necromancer class but it's third party my friend tells me.

Right. I've seen at least two 3rd party versions. But they a) don't involve much in the way of big armies of undead (one of the class aspects of necromancy) simply because the rule system doesn't let you have big armies of non-characters.



Also, if you want to summon demons from hell you can take the prince of hell epic destiny.

So in order to summon demons I need to wait until I'm a specific narrow type of epic character. Whatever happened to (for example) the bumbling apprentice who gets himself killed summoning a demon. Oh, well, no worry there, can't even try it until you are epic. Even then, the mechanics don't strongly support the entire legions of demons thing.


I think that mechanics impact roleplay a lot more than people give credit for.

I can roleplaying being a summoner with legions of undead all I want, but if the system doesn't allow me to actually do that, I either need to heavily modify the system, or deal with the fact that my character is basically lying about his abilities.

Right. And the thing is that there's a fundamental lack of mechanical support. In 3.5 I can do pretty close to anything if I reflavor appropriately. If I really, really need to, I can homebrew something up. But there are basic roles and such which I can't just do in 4e. And the system is so narrow that I have trouble supporting it even with homebrewing because the system has less innate flexibility.

Chaelos
2010-02-03, 04:22 PM
To answer the original post: because if people wanted to play WoW, they would play WoW. Even sleek combat rules can't compete with what a computer does behind the scenes, in terms of streamlining play, but a proper tabletop RPG has to be more than stat blocks and encounter powers. Also, I feel like I can't do anything in 4E, combat wise, without having to metagame like crazy, and it's not a feeling that leads to much immersion in play.

Also: No, I've never seen a 3.5 game with a grid.

Mordokai
2010-02-03, 04:26 PM
Also: No, I've never seen a 3.5 game with a grid.

Makes two of us. I'm not really sure how anybody could play 3.5 without a grid. Yes, it's not needed as much as in 4E, but it's still pretty neccesary.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 04:28 PM
Makes two of us. I'm not really sure how anybody could play 3.5 without a grid. Yes, it's not needed as much as in 4E, but it's still pretty neccesary.

It's not actually that hard. I prefer a grid, granted, but it's hardly a requirement. You just say things like "whats the marching order" and describe roughly where people are at. In general, it's not terribly complicated.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-03, 04:31 PM
It's not actually that hard. I prefer a grid, granted, but it's hardly a requirement. You just say things like "whats the marching order" and describe roughly where people are at. In general, it's not terribly complicated.

Some people think much better with a picture. Unless the DM is an expert at description the likes of bestselling authors, I'll be confused.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-03, 04:32 PM
Yeah, no. I believe in one 3.5 campaign he threw an undead Balor at the party. (Yes, I know by rules those aren't allowed. Screw the rules he's the DM!)

Even ignoring that, he's running this of a WOTC made campaign. So, once again, no.

Well theres a few things wrong with these statements.
1. you don't need a cleric or a dedicated healer.. thats been proven on multiple boards...
2. an undead balor isn't realy any thing crazy even though it doesn't work.
3. running WOTC made campains proves nothing as WOTC has bad designers.


To the OP:

I can't stand games that run like MMO's. 4e has a feel of an MMO. Rechargable abilites... even the states rolls are there. strikers are dps.. tanks are well tanks, controlers are like you wizards and debuffers,
etc etc..

i don't liek how 4e basicaly threw out. Out of combat any thing... it sucks.. one of the reasons i hate 4e.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 04:35 PM
Well theres a few things wrong with these statements.
1. you don't need a cleric or a dedicated healer.. thats been proven on multiple boards...
2. an undead balor isn't realy any thing crazy even though it doesn't work.
3. running WOTC made campains proves nothing as WOTC has bad designers.


1. Well it's been useful in my games. That's all I meant.
2. I forgot to mention. I think the party was level 5. But yeah, it isn't that crazy.
3. Actually, Scales of war hasn't been too bad so far. Granted we're only on the 4th chapter but still.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 04:35 PM
Some people think much better with a picture. Unless the DM is an expert at description the likes of bestselling authors, I'll be confused.

It really depends on the group, the situation, etc. If it's a party of six people, one of which has leadership, one of which has an animal companion, and one of which is a summoner, facing a large mob with several types of units in a cramped environment....you need a map. It's just too complicated otherwise.

However, for the assumed party of four, either in a relatively uncomplicated dungeon or outdoors, facing 1-4 mobs, simple descriptions will do nicely.

ericgrau
2010-02-03, 04:39 PM
It's not a bad thing... except when you don't want to play WoW. You want to play something more resembling OD&D through 3.5e. I like WoW, 3.5e and my group is wary about trying 4e but I wouldn't mind taking it for a spin. One of the biggest reasons they won't is b/c they say it is like WoW, and yet they are hardcore WoW players. They say "we already play WoW all the time". Regardless I don't think any of us would want to stop playing 3.5e altogether, and 4e certainly isn't a substitute.

Gamerlord
2010-02-03, 04:43 PM
I have no remote clue how 4e is anything like WoW.
But it could be because WoW is the very antithesis of D&D, so anti-4e people see it as a good comparison.

Mordokai
2010-02-03, 04:45 PM
I have no remote clue how 4e is anything like WoW.
But it could be because WoW is the very antithesis of D&D, so anti-4e people see it as a good comparison.

You were explained multiple times, in this very topic, why people think so. The very least you could do it take time and read some of the answers through, before answering yourself.

Gamerlord
2010-02-03, 04:48 PM
You were explained multiple times, in this very topic, why people think so. The very least you could do it take time and read some of the answers through, before answering yourself.

Stupid,stupid me..


That will teach me to not be lazy and post before reading all the posts....

magic9mushroom
2010-02-03, 04:48 PM
I have no remote clue how 4e is anything like WoW.
But it could be because WoW is the very antithesis of D&D, so anti-4e people see it as a good comparison.

I already explained why - it drops the verisimilitude which they went to great pains to get in 3.5 in order to get better competitive balance and streamlined combat. For instance, the cosmic law saying that minions have 1 HP.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 04:49 PM
For instance, the cosmic law saying that minions have 1 HP.

it's been changed and I believe they admitted they made a mistake there.

Or maybe I've been reading topics on this site too much.

probably the latter.

Gamerlord
2010-02-03, 04:50 PM
it's been changed and I believe they admitted they made a mistake there.

It has been changed? Where?

Mordokai
2010-02-03, 04:50 PM
it's been changed and I believe they admitted they made a mistake there.

Reference, por favor?

Sipex
2010-02-03, 04:50 PM
I dunno, I like that.

Some monsters just...go down in one hit.

edit: It's still very open to DM intervention as monsters are incredibly easy to customise and create with the 4e system. I've seen and discussed variants of minions, like ones that go down in two hits, or ones that raise if their master isn't dead...etc. Gives you access to hordes of equal level enemies without overwhelming your players.

Also, I did say Arcane Power gives the wizard summoning abilities, did I not? Either way, no, you can't have a 'legions of undead' type of wizard but summoning is possible.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 04:51 PM
It has been changed? Where?


I heard that they admitted they made a mistake and aren't making any more minions.

I'm probably wrong about that though.

read my edited post please.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 04:51 PM
I have no remote clue how 4e is anything like WoW.
But it could be because WoW is the very antithesis of D&D, so anti-4e people see it as a good comparison.

Wow, tbh, borrowed quite a few things directly from D&D. For example, a wild variety of mage spells are iconic D&D spells. Create water, fireball, feather fall are but a few examples. Likewise, many of the races in wow are thematically very similar to D&D.

Wow is hardly alone in this, though...fantasy in general borrows heavily among itself, and D&D is well known enough to be a common target for borrowing. Wow is thus hardly the antithesis to D&D. It's not exactly like D&D, no...but it feels like you're grasping at straws to make a point, and ignoring the many, many people who have explained why they feel it is so.

Gamerlord
2010-02-03, 04:51 PM
I heard that they admitted they made a mistake and aren't making any more minions.

I'm probably wrong about that though.

I have distinct trouble believing that, without minions, controllers slightly (Thought just slightly.) drop in usefulness.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 04:52 PM
If something comes in both a computer game and a regular game, odds are the CRPG has better graphics and such. Pen and paper games excell due to flexibility and options. In the same way that trying to design every option found in D&D into a computer game would result in sacrificing the strengths of the CRPG, trying to design a pnp game like you would a CRPG sacrifices the strengths of pnp.
Okay. Why WoW specifically then?

Ehh, I never liked this argument. Sure we can agree that D&D wasn't realistic however it is not exactly about realism but about breaking the players sense of disbelief.

A cleric calling upon his gods to magically heal someone? Disbelief still suspended, it works in a logically illogical way.

You heal for no adequately explained reason. Well, let's just say that to some of us it looks like they aren't even trying anymore.

Now this is just one opinion on a game. For quite a lot of people they don't care and it doesn't break with their view of the gaming reality, maybe because they themselves don't like the threat of long term loss and prefer the character or even simply playing rather than worrying about waiting around to heal, or maybe because first person shooters have set up so that they equate stepping out of combat for 5 seconds to bring you back in the fight at full power. I don't know.
Yeah, I think you explained it a bit better then me. As long as there's an explanation, and it's consistent, Willing Suspension of Disbelief isn't broken. 4e doesn't even attempt this.

When people say "realism" in these sort of debates, they almost always actually mean "verisimilitude".

3.5e D&D goes to great pains to establish verisimilitude. 4e does not; there are blatantly different rules for PCs and NPCs.
I also never got the 1 hip point monsters. On the other hand I do like the template system from 4e, but overall I would like it better if Monster HD = Player Levels. I would like it even better if Monster HD = Monster CR = Monster ECL = Player Levels.

Striker role comes pretty close to DPS. You can change it to DRP, damage per round, if you really want, but it's damn close. It's basically their job to kill the toughest monsters, while defenders are keeping them at bay (they are taking aggro). Sure, they are hurting them a little, but is striker's job to kill it.
I have... really no problem with this. Wasn't this the job of all martial character's in 3.5? They couldn't do much else. Your problem is with tanks/defenders I think, not strikers/DPRers.

Even 'fantasy' settings are expected to make a certain degree of sense. If one ignores the realism argument altogether on the basis that the setting is unrealistic to begin with, one might as well rationalize introducing the most random and nonsensical elements into the game.

That said, I like 4E. I see a great many similarities with WoW, but don't consider this a problem.
I... just don't see the similarities. I've played WoW, I had a level 70 character back in Burning Crusade days, and it never played anything like any tabletop RPG I've ever seen. Heck, in WoW PvP jumping at the right moments was often more important than what talents you picked, there's nothing like that in D&D.

What I think people mean by this is that there's a general lack of flexibility that makes 4e feel more like a computer game than a pencil and paper roleplaying game. Thus, for example, character options are wildly cut short. It simply isn't possible to play many classic tropes in 4e. For example, one cannot play the necromancer with the army of hideous undead. Nor can one play the wizard who summons up many horrors from the pits of hell to do his bidding.

This is connected to the fact that 4e removes pretty close to all effects that last more than a single encounter. Diseases, poisons, curses, etc. either have zero to no support. Again, something that feels a bit computer gamish.

It is true that the exact mechanical system does not intrinsically impact roleplaying and that one can roleplay about as well in any system. But, when the system actively doesn't let you take on certain roles, that's a problem.
This was always my biggest problem with 4e. It is also my biggest problem with many of the 3.whatevers. They don't allow you to play all the fun archetypes.

Except that in 4e, the existence of healing surges (which I believe is quoted as the number one thing that makes 4e "unrealistic") makes it so that the party isn't browbeaten into one of them playing a cleric/healing type.
It should at least be given some justification.

Not true. In the game me and my group are playing, even with healing surges, without a cleric we'd be screwed.

also, diseases, poisons and potions still exist.

There is actually a necromancer class but it's third party my friend tells me.
Also, if you want to summon demons from hell you can take the prince of hell epic destiny.
Third party doesn't count. And the summoning rules in 4e are weird.

Remember that HP in D&D have never been anything other than an abstract indication of a character's health and well being. Spending healing surges between encounters represents a character recovering after a battle. Any wounds the character has taken (keeping in mind that in the abstract hp system, a loss of hp doesn't necessarily always mean an actual wound, but can indicate a 'close call' (in fact, usually, I think only crits, being knocked down to bloodied, and, of course, 0 or less, should be actual, physical wounds)) don't magically close, unless, of course, the character in question is also being healed by the party cleric.

On a similar note, I tend to only describe the Healing Word of a Cleric, the Majestic Word of a Bard, and the Healing Spirit as actually closing wounds with magic, since all of them use a sort of magic. A Warlord's Inspiring Word, on the other hand, is Martial, so I feel it should be described as simply encouraging the target to ignore her wounds and keep fighting for God, King and Country, zounds!
That is a fair point. That said, I've always thought of hp as actually taking wounds, and of the characters as just being super tough (like Goku tough). Another thing is that HP, while an abstraction, is something the system simply cannot function without. HP-less systems simply don't work very well (for most people anyways). Healing Surges aren't necessary for the function of the system.

One of the big complaints, as I read it, is that healing surges enable characters a "cartoon healing".

Imagine Willie E. Coyote.
Uh, I never really thought of it that way.

It's not necessarily WoW similarity people seem to be talking about, but CRPG similarity, primarily. Focus on combat, lack of powers with broad and cxreative application, especially utility ones, simplified mechanics, sacrificing verisimilitude for sleek combat rules.
I've never read a 4e book, so I can't say how much of that is true, but those seem to be the arguments.
It's somewhat true. There are non-combat powers, but they are segregated from the combat stuff and aren't as emphasized. Creative use of powers is almost non-existent. Also the combat rules aren't what I would call sleek.

I've not played 3.5 actually, but what games I've seen never used the grid, most people seemed to prefer to play without it. I remember reading about it and then seeing the gameplay and thinking "Where's the grid?"

4e does play like a game, yes, but once I got over that fact I realised it's still pretty fun.

If you need vermilsitude then it's probably not for you, but I really couldn't care.

edit:

I see it as a sacrifice of Versimilitude (I'll never spell that right) for fun. Sure, it's unrealistic and gamey, but it allows you to keep playing without saying "Okay, now we have to rest for several days".

Also, 3.5 can't really argue much either, unless your playing with loss of limb and broken bone type rules you still don't take the type of damage one would expect. It's all for fun sake of course.
I think it's pretty fun, but verisimilitude and the ability to play any kind of player in any kind of game is what made 3e great. If a fun monster killing spree was all I wanted I would play Diablo or something.

Depends on the DM. You are assuming that a cleric is necessary because in your campaign he is. Putting aside the obvious train of thought that other groups may have different experiences, wouldn't it stand to reason that if your party didn't have a cleric, your DM quite simply wouldn't throw encounters at you that you wouldn't be able to reliably defeat unless one of you was a cleric?
The problem here is that the DM shouldn't have to adjust encounters because the party made choices the designers don't approve of (all wizards for example).

I think that mechanics impact roleplay a lot more than people give credit for.

I can roleplaying being a summoner with legions of undead all I want, but if the system doesn't allow me to actually do that, I either need to heavily modify the system, or deal with the fact that my character is basically lying about his abilities.
This. The lack of versatility in character creation and party customization is the biggest flaw of 4e, well beyond the verisimilitude problems (which are also huge).

Arcane Power actually gives the wizard the ability to choose summoning powers.
They work weird though.

Precisely this.

4e is the point at which D&D fully transitioned from "simulation" to "game." 3.5 is much better at being a "simulation," therefore backdraft resulted.

It is worth noting that 4e is still much closer to being a simulation than any CRPG (especially WoW.)
I agree with this, more or less. WoW is in some ways more like an ERPG, with a big focus on story (that is ignored), and rather unrealistic game mechanics.

Yeah, no. I believe in one 3.5 campaign he threw an undead Balor at the party. (Yes, I know by rules those aren't allowed. Screw the rules he's the DM!)

Even ignoring that, he's running this of a WOTC made campaign. So, once again, no.
Actually there is a demon lich template somewhere. Anyways like I said you shouldn't be punished for having a party composition the designers didn't like. My PCs never chose good party composition in 3e, there would always either be no wizards/sorcerers, no healers, 5 rogues, etc. Player's shouldn't be punished for that. I'm fine with roles, but even WoWs not that strict until you get to end game. Running an instance with 5 warriors is perfectly reasonable.

But much less support (and there wasn't even much support to start with in 3.5).

Diseases and stuff have always been a weakness of D&D. 4e just made it worse.

Right. I've seen at least two 3rd party versions. But they a) don't involve much in the way of big armies of undead (one of the class aspects of necromancy) simply because the rule system doesn't let you have big armies of non-characters.
Sadly that was never really possible in 3e either due to the limits on how many undead you could control. I always felt my epic necromancer should be taking on nations or planes with his undead armies, but no, a level 30 necromancer only gets 120 human skeletons.

So in order to summon demons I need to wait until I'm a specific narrow type of epic character. Whatever happened to (for example) the bumbling apprentice who gets himself killed summoning a demon. Oh, well, no worry there, can't even try it until you are epic. Even then, the mechanics don't strongly support the entire legions of demons thing.
Again, that never really worked in 3e either, though 4e does it worse.

Right. And the thing is that there's a fundamental lack of mechanical support. In 3.5 I can do pretty close to anything if I reflavor appropriately. If I really, really need to, I can homebrew something up. But there are basic roles and such which I can't just do in 4e. And the system is so narrow that I have trouble supporting it even with homebrewing because the system has less innate flexibility.
4e is virtually impossible to homebrew since it takes forever to come up with all those damn powers. And it's really inflexible in how many special abilities you are allowed to know.

To answer the original post: because if people wanted to play WoW, they would play WoW. Even sleek combat rules can't compete with what a computer does behind the scenes, in terms of streamlining play, but a proper tabletop RPG has to be more than stat blocks and encounter powers. Also, I feel like I can't do anything in 4E, combat wise, without having to metagame like crazy, and it's not a feeling that leads to much immersion in play.

Also: No, I've never seen a 3.5 game with a grid.
Alright, that does make some more sense. Though again I don't see how 4e is like WoW. Also, I've ran one 3.5 game with a grid in my whole life, and only played in one where the DM used a ruler instead of the grid.

Makes two of us. I'm not really sure how anybody could play 3.5 without a grid. Yes, it's not needed as much as in 4E, but it's still pretty neccesary.
As above, I rarely use grids.

It's not actually that hard. I prefer a grid, granted, but it's hardly a requirement. You just say things like "whats the marching order" and describe roughly where people are at. In general, it's not terribly complicated.
You can have figures to represent where people are on the table without actually using the grid. It can speed things up.

Some people think much better with a picture. Unless the DM is an expert at description the likes of bestselling authors, I'll be confused.
I usually bring maps. My descriptions are as good as a professional authors when I want them to be, but that's only those I've prepared ahead of time. On the spot I'm forced to resort to pointing at a map.

Well theres a few things wrong with these statements.
1. you don't need a cleric or a dedicated healer.. thats been proven on multiple boards...
2. an undead balor isn't realy any thing crazy even though it doesn't work.
3. running WOTC made campains proves nothing as WOTC has bad designers.


To the OP:

I can't stand games that run like MMO's. 4e has a feel of an MMO. Rechargable abilites... even the states rolls are there. strikers are dps.. tanks are well tanks, controlers are like you wizards and debuffers,
etc etc..

i don't liek how 4e basicaly threw out. Out of combat any thing... it sucks.. one of the reasons i hate 4e.
I do think its weird how they used MMO terms throughout the book, like tanks/strikers. I also think its weird for nonmagical abilities to have use limits.

1. Well it's been useful in my games. That's all I meant.
2. I forgot to mention. I think the party was level 5. But yeah, it isn't that crazy.
3. Actually, Scales of war hasn't been too bad so far. Granted we're only on the 4th chapter but still.
Useful in your games doesn't make for a very good argument. I can't tell you how many people have told me that in their games 3.5 monks are stronger than wizards.

It really depends on the group, the situation, etc. If it's a party of six people, one of which has leadership, one of which has an animal companion, and one of which is a summoner, facing a large mob with several types of units in a cramped environment....you need a map. It's just too complicated otherwise.

However, for the assumed party of four, either in a relatively uncomplicated dungeon or outdoors, facing 1-4 mobs, simple descriptions will do nicely.
The map doesn't have to be a battle grid though.

It's not a bad thing... except when you don't want to play WoW. You want to play something more resembling OD&D through 3.5e. I like WoW, 3.5e and my group is wary about trying 4e but I wouldn't mind taking it for a spin. One of the biggest reasons they won't is b/c they say it is like WoW, and yet they are hardcore WoW players. They say "we already play WoW all the time". Regardless I don't think any of us would want to stop playing 3.5e altogether, and 4e certainly isn't a substitute.
Well another problem with 4e is that it isn't anything like previous editions, which tends to make your fanbase angry regardless of whether the end result is a good game. There's no particular reason they couldn't have two brands.

I have no remote clue how 4e is anything like WoW.
But it could be because WoW is the very antithesis of D&D, so anti-4e people see it as a good comparison.
How is WoW the antithesis of D&D?

You were explained multiple times, in this very topic, why people think so. The very least you could do it take time and read some of the answers through, before answering yourself.
No need to be harsh.

Stupid,stupid me..


That will teach me to not be lazy and post before reading all the posts....
...

I already explained why - it drops the verisimilitude which they went to great pains to get in 3.5 in order to get better competitive balance and streamlined combat. For instance, the cosmic law saying that minions have 1 HP.
Right. But how does that make it WoW? It is a huge problem for 4e, but I don't see how a lack of verisimilitude = like WoW.

it's been changed and I believe they admitted they made a mistake there.

Or maybe I've been reading topics on this site too much.

probably the latter.
I'm certainly not sure what you are talking about.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-03, 04:54 PM
I dunno, I like that.

Some monsters just...go down in one hit.

But why should it be conditional on them being minions?

Thing is, under 3.5 mooks tend to die in one hit anyway. But at least they do actually have HP like everyone else. Like I was saying, verisimilitude. The rules may be different, but everyone follows them.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 04:55 PM
I'm certainly not sure what you are talking about.

Knowing me, I probably dreamt about it and think it's actually real.

I dream about the weirdest things sometimes.

Susano-wo
2010-02-03, 04:56 PM
IT s not objectively bad, just bad if you don't like WoW-style, or don't want WoW style in your PnP. Honestly, its kind of an obvious answer

As far as people being unreasonable.. yes. Yes indeed, for any topic you eill find people who will "OMFG SUX" about anything. The frustrating thing is then people tend to ignore lesser criticisms that remind people of it.

There are some definitely MMO style elements, whether the designers intended this or not. Streamlined for combat even more than 3.5, "timers" on abilities, and volitional monster abilities that trigger automatically (or at least with AP expenditure) when at 1/2 HP spring to mind

The only thing I thing is specifically WoW-like is the art, which I have a love/hate relationship with. I find its all pretty, but a lot of it is flawed anatomically, and if definitely bears similarities to WoW's art style. That and the popularity of Wow are why people simplify the argument like that. (sigh)

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 04:57 PM
But why should it be conditional on them being minions?

Thing is, under 3.5 mooks tend to die in one hit anyway. But at least they do actually have HP like everyone else. Like I was saying, verisimilitude. The rules may be different, but everyone follows them.

Right. I think the problem though is that they wanted to make parties of enemies. The problem with 3e is that minions don't just have less hp, they have less BAB etc. Their fix isn't a very good one, but I see why they did it.

hamishspence
2010-02-03, 04:57 PM
I heard that they admitted they made a mistake and aren't making any more minions.

The most recent books (Underdark, The Plane Below) have minions in, so I'd be surprised if they drop them this late.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 04:59 PM
IT s not objectively bad, just bad if you don't like WoW-style, or don't want WoW style in your PnP. Honestly, its kind of an obvious answer

As far as people being unreasonable.. yes. Yes indeed, for any topic you eill find people who will "OMFG SUX" about anything. The frustrating thing is then people tend to ignore lesser criticisms that remind people of it.

There are some definitely MMO style elements, whether the designers intended this or not. Streamlined for combat even more than 3.5, "timers" on abilities, and volitional monster abilities that trigger automatically (or at least with AP expenditure) when at 1/2 HP spring to mind

The only thing I thing is specifically WoW-like is the art, which I have a love/hate relationship with. I find its all pretty, but a lot of it is flawed anatomically, and if definitely bears similarities to WoW's art style. That and the popularity of Wow are why people simplify the argument like that. (sigh)
Well yes, I do get annoyed how if you try to make a reasoned argument why you don't like 4e you tend to get lumped into the "they changed it now it sucks! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks)" crowd.

Mando Knight
2010-02-03, 05:00 PM
It is worth noting that 4e is still much closer to being a simulation than any CRPG (especially WoW.)
For example, you can jump and aren't impeded by waist-high fences! :smalltongue:

Thing is, under 3.5 mooks tend to die in one hit anyway. But at least they do actually have HP like everyone else. Like I was saying, verisimilitude. The rules may be different, but everyone follows them.
If they're meant to die in one hit, then why not just make them explicitly die in one hit? Their HP is meaningless if they're supposed to die in one hit, and is a hindrance if they've got more HP than the characters can remove in a hit when they're supposed to die right away.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:03 PM
For example, you can jump and aren't impeded by waist-high fences! :smalltongue:

If they're meant to die in one hit, then why not just make them explicitly die in one hit? Their HP is meaningless if they're supposed to die in one hit, and is a hindrance if they've got more HP than the characters can remove in a hit when they're supposed to die right away.

Partially because a lot of my players like to play weird monster races, and minions don't work right. Well, actually, none of 4e works right for that.

Remmirath
2010-02-03, 05:03 PM
Some people simply don't like the same things in their tabletop gaming as they like in a computer game, and so being like a computer game is a bad thing for a tabletop game to them.
Me, I see 4E as being more like Guild Wars (probably because that's the only MMORPG I ever played, so I really can't compare it to WoW or anything else). I like Guild Wars well enough, but I would hate to play that system pen and paper. The system bothers me from time to time in the game already, and I'd like Guild Wars better if it was a more complex system that didn't involve activated abilities.

It's been creeping in since later 3.5 manuals, but I also don't like to get my Magic the Gathering into my D&D, and it constantly feels like that to me in 4E with all its flavour text and its strangely named creatures which seem to fit the same naming patterns as Magic cards. (No, I don't use the 3.5 creatures that have the same problem, either.)

I certainly have no problem believing that some people like it and it's their thing; it's just not mine, and I'd rather have seen D&D keep evolving as more of a complex simulation than (in my eyes) devolving into everything being easy and simple and with flashy names, like most MMORPGs.
Maybe with enough house rules it would be playable to me, but at that point I'm much better off sticking with 3E, which is of course what I do.

It's a preference thing. I don't want complete balance or streamlined play, I want the cleric to have their function and the wizard to spend hours studying and selecting his spells, and if one class tends to be more powerful than another I don't have a problem with that. Some people want the first but don't want the second.
I'd hazard a guess that most people who were playing 3E tend to be more in the first camp, or they probably would've switched to a different system.
And of course, some just don't care that much and will play whatever's there.

Also, I guess one of my (and probably other's) problems is just that it is 4E. You can't find 3E books any longer except used, and whenever 5E comes along it'll probably be building on that, becoming more streamlined and flashy. If it was some kind of alternate 'Streamlined D&D' system, it'd be different, and I think a lot less people would be annoyed about it. (Which, honestly, I think would be the best solution - if they released something like 4E and something like 3E side by side, probably enough people would play each one.)

I guess that went a bit askew from the original question. More succinct answer: people who make that comparison probably either don't like WoW at all, or want D&D to be seperate from it. And MMORPGs in general tend to carry with them the reputation that nobody in them actually roleplays, and that's certainly not something you'd want to associate with a roleplaying game. Therefore, being like a MMORPG is bad for a roleplaying game.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:10 PM
Some people simply don't like the same things in their tabletop gaming as they like in a computer game, and so being like a computer game is a bad thing for a tabletop game to them.
Me, I see 4E as being more like Guild Wars (probably because that's the only MMORPG I ever played, so I really can't compare it to WoW or anything else). I like Guild Wars well enough, but I would hate to play that system pen and paper. The system bothers me from time to time in the game already, and I'd like Guild Wars better if it was a more complex system that didn't involve activated abilities.

It's been creeping in since later 3.5 manuals, but I also don't like to get my Magic the Gathering into my D&D, and it constantly feels like that to me in 4E with all its flavour text and its strangely named creatures which seem to fit the same naming patterns as Magic cards. (No, I don't use the 3.5 creatures that have the same problem, either.)

I certainly have no problem believing that some people like it and it's their thing; it's just not mine, and I'd rather have seen D&D keep evolving as more of a complex simulation than (in my eyes) devolving into everything being easy and simple and with flashy names, like most MMORPGs.
Maybe with enough house rules it would be playable to me, but at that point I'm much better off sticking with 3E, which is of course what I do.

It's a preference thing. I don't want complete balance or streamlined play, I want the cleric to have their function and the wizard to spend hours studying and selecting his spells, and if one class tends to be more powerful than another I don't have a problem with that. Some people want the first but don't want the second.
I'd hazard a guess that most people who were playing 3E tend to be more in the first camp, or they probably would've switched to a different system.
And of course, some just don't care that much and will play whatever's there.

Also, I guess one of my (and probably other's) problems is just that it is 4E. You can't find 3E books any longer except used, and whenever 5E comes along it'll probably be building on that, becoming more streamlined and flashy. If it was some kind of alternate 'Streamlined D&D' system, it'd be different, and I think a lot less people would be annoyed about it. (Which, honestly, I think would be the best solution - if they released something like 4E and something like 3E side by side, probably enough people would play each one.)

I guess that went a bit askew from the original question. More succinct answer: people who make that comparison probably either don't like WoW at all, or want D&D to be seperate from it. And MMORPGs in general tend to carry with them the reputation that nobody in them actually roleplays, and that's certainly not something you'd want to associate with a roleplaying game. Therefore, being like a MMORPG is bad for a roleplaying game.

Long post. That said, you made some good points. I still don't see why a game can't have all the nice things 3e has and still be balanced and streamlined.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-02-03, 05:11 PM
To the OP:

I can't stand games that run like MMO's. 4e has a feel of an MMO. Rechargable abilites... even the states rolls are there. strikers are dps.. tanks are well tanks, controlers are like you wizards and debuffers,
etc etc..

I guess you must hate Knights, Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts, and ToB classes.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:14 PM
I guess you must hate Knights, Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts, and ToB classes.

I hate most of those classes actually, but not because they are similar to MMOs. I'm not fond of adding in new mechanics after core, supplements should give you options, not try to fix the system.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-03, 05:15 PM
Ok
Sadly that was never really possible in 3e either due to the limits on how many undead you could control. I always felt my epic necromancer should be taking on nations or planes with his undead armies, but no, a level 30 necromancer only gets 120 human skeletons.



There are ways of getting around this. For example, undead servants who control undead for you. Or take Undead Leadership. I'm not sure what size army one wants but yes, 120 isn't exactly 2000, but it's better than zero (or 1 if one really stretches the 4e rules).



Again, that never really worked in 3e either, though 4e does it worse.

Right, there were ways to do it but it was generally non-ideal. They've gone and made it much worse.



4e is virtually impossible to homebrew since it takes forever to come up with all those damn powers. And it's really inflexible in how many special abilities you are allowed to know.

Yes. I think one can see this also in how much of the Homebrew forum here is dedicated to 3.5. It is just headachy. It also makes things more annoying for DMs and the like who are trying to make stuff. A cynical part of me almost wonders if this was part of an attempt by WOTC to force people to be more reliant on their products.



Right. But how does that make it WoW? It is a huge problem for 4e, but I don't see how a lack of verisimilitude = like WoW.


Yes, this isn't the best analogy. I think part of it is that there are other problems which remind people of WoW (that have been discussed already in the thread), but one problem that WoW has certainly is a lack of verisimilitude. Thus, one has parties of 30 or 40 people going out and systematically all doing the exact same thing in the same setting, with minimal impact on the universe. And yet, each of those people is supposed to be a great hero. Understandably, this breaks down the ability to suspend disbelief. Moreover, things in 4e which wreck suspension of disbelief (such as the healing surges discussed earlier) are also very close to things that make it difficult to suspend disbelief in WoW and other MMPORGS.

hamishspence
2010-02-03, 05:16 PM
There is also the Factotum- which works in a similar way.

Incarnum classes, and Binders, might also qualify as being "a little 4E-ish"

Siegel
2010-02-03, 05:20 PM
Aaaahhh now i see why i like Incarnum that much

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:21 PM
There are ways of getting around this. For example, undead servants who control undead for you. Or take Undead Leadership. I'm not sure what size army one wants but yes, 120 isn't exactly 2000, but it's better than zero (or 1 if one really stretches the 4e rules).

Hmm, in my homebrew 3.whatever system I'm going to have to remember to fix the undead thing.



Right, there were ways to do it but it was generally non-ideal. They've gone and made it much worse.

Not just worse. They pretty much killed it.


Yes. I think one can see this also in how much of the Homebrew forum here is dedicated to 3.5. It is just headachy. It also makes things more annoying for DMs and the like who are trying to make stuff. A cynical part of me almost wonders if this was part of an attempt by WOTC to force people to be more reliant on their products.

My non cynical side thinks that's what they are doing.


Yes, this isn't the best analogy. I think part of it is that there are other problems which remind people of WoW (that have been discussed already in the thread), but one problem that WoW has certainly is a lack of verisimilitude. Thus, one has parties of 30 or 40 people going out and systematically all doing the exact same thing in the same setting, with minimal impact on the universe. And yet, each of those people is supposed to be a great hero. Understandably, this breaks down the ability to suspend disbelief. Moreover, things in 4e which wreck suspension of disbelief (such as the healing surges discussed earlier) are also very close to things that make it difficult to suspend disbelief in WoW and other MMPORGS.

WoW has gameplay story segregation. There's only one hero fighting those bosses, not fourty. That said, D&D really shouldn't have gameplay story segregation.

Aaaahhh now i see why i like Incarnum that much
That... has nothing to do with this thread.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-03, 05:22 PM
I dunno, I like that.

Some monsters just...go down in one hit.

But why should it be conditional on them being minions?

Thing is, under 3.5 mooks tend to die in one hit anyway. But at least they do actually have HP like everyone else. Like I was saying, verisimilitude. The rules may be different, but everyone follows them.

Optimystik
2010-02-03, 05:23 PM
I hate most of those classes actually, but not because they are similar to MMOs. I'm not fond of adding in new mechanics after core, supplements should give you options, not try to fix the system.

Trust us, the system needed it.

Also, lolVance

JoshuaZ
2010-02-03, 05:24 PM
I hate most of those classes actually, but not because they are similar to MMOs. I'm not fond of adding in new mechanics after core, supplements should give you options, not try to fix the system.

Eh. I'm not sure I agree. I mean ideally yes. But if you can reasonably "fix" things by say "hey, use these classes instead and everything comes out nice" would you rather they not get published at all? The fact that there were serious balance issues in Core isn't an argument against later publishing things that make up for those issues.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:26 PM
Trust us, the system needed it.

Also, lolVance

Well, at least part of why I don't like it is when they went to try and fix problems with the system they just made new classes instead of fixing the old ones. It creates the problem where if you want a balanced 3e game you can't even use core classes. It also creates the related problem that if you try to mix several of these different systems (core, incarnum, sublime way) the system becomes really hard to run.


Eh. I'm not sure I agree. I mean ideally yes. But if you can reasonably "fix" things by say "hey, use these classes instead and everything comes out nice" would you rather they not get published at all? The fact that there were serious balance issues in Core isn't an argument against later publishing things that make up for those issues.
Well, at least ToB were essentially clones of Core classes except with maneuvers. Clerics and Wizards got screwed entirely fluff wise, unless you want to play an illusionist who does nothing else or a necromancer who does nothing else or a healer who does nothing else. Although the 3e designers didn't seem to see overpowered as a problem, just underpowered.

Optimystik
2010-02-03, 05:28 PM
Which is why they made a (relatively) balanced system from the ground up, i.e. 4e.

3.x is very difficult for them to errata I believe.

Tavar
2010-02-03, 05:29 PM
But, how could they have fixed the fighter without essentially remaking the system? I've yet to see a remake of the core classes that both addresses their issues and stays similar mechanically. So, you want them to fix the system, but not if they change anything? Seem...odd.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:29 PM
Which is why they made a (relatively) balanced system from the ground up, i.e. 4e.

3.x is very difficult for them to errata I believe.

Yeah, and then they gave 4e entirely different problems, as described above. It's easier to reign in abuses of 3e than to fix the problems with 4e.

But, how could they have fixed the fighter without essentially remaking the system? I've yet to see a remake of the core classes that both addresses their issues and stays similar mechanically. So, you want them to fix the system, but not if they change anything? Seem...odd.
I didn't say not change anything, but those classes require different fluff. Even the Warblade has the fluff that he follows some martial art called the sublime way. At any rate I've got a fighter redux I'll post in a few days that works exactly like the fighter, except you get a feat every level, good reflex saves, a d12 hit die, more skills, and you can swap out feats once a day. I'm also completely revamping all the feats, which is taking longer than I anticipated.

Mando Knight
2010-02-03, 05:32 PM
Partially because a lot of my players like to play weird monster races, and minions don't work right. Well, actually, none of 4e works right for that.

Depends on what you define as "weird monster race." Might I remind you who got spots in the PHB1 instead of le gnome?
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4new/galleries/PlayersHandbook_art/img/114168_CN_GL.jpghttp://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4new/galleries/PlayersHandbook_art/img/114175_CN_GL.jpg
Weirder monster races would need to be homebrewed, but at the very least the system doesn't impose a hardly-balanced penalty for the ones WotC made.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:34 PM
Depends on what you define as "weird monster race." Might I remind you who got spots in the PHB1 instead of le gnome?
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4new/galleries/PlayersHandbook_art/img/114168_CN_GL.jpghttp://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4new/galleries/PlayersHandbook_art/img/114175_CN_GL.jpg
Weirder monster races would need to be homebrewed, but at the very least the system doesn't impose a hardly-balanced penalty for the ones WotC made.

Well, yeah, LA hardly worked right, but that was easier to fix than having to homebrew a whole damn race. Also I agree with you, the PHB1 race choices were strange. Very strange.

JoshuaZ
2010-02-03, 05:36 PM
Yeah, and then they gave 4e entirely different problems, as described above. It's easier to reign in abuses of 3e than to fix the problems with 4e.

I didn't say not change anything, but those classes require different fluff. Even the Warblade has the fluff that he follows some martial art called the sublime way. At any rate I've got a fighter redux I'll post in a few days that works exactly like the fighter, except you get a feat every level, good reflex saves, a d12 hit die, more skills, and you can swap out feats once a day. I'm also completely revamping all the feats, which is taking longer than I anticipated.

Honestly 3e without the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist and Artificer, and using ToB for the primarily melee works pretty well. And the Warblade is easily unfluffed. That is well-balanced or close to it. Ok, maybe no erudites too. But that's basically all the really large scale changes that need to occur to get a reasonably balanced system. If one really needs to there are a handful of fighter fixes floating around that do an ok job.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:40 PM
Honestly 3e without the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist and Artificer, and using ToB for the primarily melee works pretty well. And the Warblade is easily unfluffed. That is well-balanced or close to it. Ok, maybe no erudites too. But that's basically all the really large scale changes that need to occur to get a reasonably balanced system. If one really needs to there are a handful of fighter fixes floating around that do an ok job.

The Wizard, Druid, and Cleric are my favorite classes. They were my favorite classes before I learned how to break the game with them (somewhere around my fifth adventure). None of the published classes that came after allow the same kinds of fun that those classes do. I like characters that can fly, and teleport, and summon outsiders, and throw fireballs, and shapeshift, and create stuff out of nothing. If I wanted to hit stuff with a sword, I could do that in real life. In fact I am a member of the fencing club at my university.

Freshmeat
2010-02-03, 05:41 PM
I... just don't see the similarities. I've played WoW, I had a level 70 character back in Burning Crusade days, and it never played anything like any tabletop RPG I've ever seen. Heck, in WoW PvP jumping at the right moments was often more important than what talents you picked, there's nothing like that in D&D.

The power-system in general bears similarities to WoW. Perhaps not word-for-word but the idea in general. Especially when compared to 3.5. Some abilities are also WoW abilities by any other name. Blinding Barrage is basically Fan of Knives, for example.
Then there's the Tank-DPS-Controller thing. While the concept was already there in previous editions, I haven't met anyone yet who didn't think 'DPS' when they read 'Striker' or 'Tank' when they read 'Defender'. On the topic of tanks, marking sure sounds a lot like taunting, don't you think?

Then there's the races, particularly in regards to their art. Even if you consider that both are basically high elves, the Eladrin really look a lot like Blood Elves. The (vanilla) elves seem to be a bit more night-elfy too, although this one's up to personal interpretation. But then there's the dwarves... just look at page 36 of the 4e PHB. How is that not Dun Modr? The only thing that's missing is an archway that reads "Welcome to Ironforge!". For a race that's all about iron and steel, it sure seems odd that the most classic depiction of a dwarf is to put him in heaps of snow.

Racial abilities are also a lot more combat-related than subtle touches here and there. Eladrin, for example, get Fey Step. Which is exactly like Blink, a classic Warcraft ability. Goliath's can turn their skin into stone, much likes dwarves in WoW. Orcs (half-orcs) get a straight-up DPS boost which is, again, much like WoW.

The non-WoW elements still outweigh the WoW elements, but WotC does seem to have been inspired by WoW as far as some parts are concerned. Some people mind - others don't. Way I see it, most people that are bothered by 4e are bothered more by the lack of versimilitude than some of the overlapping WoW elements.


The problem here is that the DM shouldn't have to adjust encounters because the party made choices the designers don't approve of (all wizards for example).

I see no problem with the DM adjusting encounters based on the party. It's his game, after all. What the designers do or don't approve of seems rather irrelevant, provided the players enjoy the campaign and are routinely challenged by monsters of an appropriate difficulty according to the party's overall strength.

If you're referring to modules in particular, I'm of the mind that as long the players take a party that isn't too off-beat or unusual and the module is designed for such parties, there isn't really a problem. If the players take an 'unapproved' party consisting of only mages or rogues, I don't really hold WotC responsible for such parties having a much more difficult time.

I suppose it depends on the module in question and how broad one defines WotC's stance on parties. If you have to take a fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric along or get stomped flat, then you're just dealing with a poor module. But that has no direct bearing on whether or not a class is necessary for parties in general. Just for that module then.

Optimystik
2010-02-03, 05:42 PM
Yeah, and then they gave 4e entirely different problems, as described above. It's easier to reign in abuses of 3e than to fix the problems with 4e.

Actually, it's very easy to fix 4e. Every erratum gets applied to the Character Editor - it's a very seamless process.

Tavar
2010-02-03, 05:43 PM
I didn't say not change anything, but those classes require different fluff. Even the Warblade has the fluff that he follows some martial art called the sublime way.
So, if the class has fluff it must be followed? Why?

Especially when in this case, the fluff isn't essential to the class at all. Plus, I mean, it's not like fighting schools weren't something found in history...

At any rate I've got a fighter redux I'll post in a few days that works exactly like the fighter, except you get a feat every level, good reflex saves, a d12 hit die, more skills, and you can swap out feats once a day. I'm also completely revamping all the feats, which is taking longer than I anticipated.
So...rewriting the system. Yeah, you're not touching the class, but you're rewriting the feat system, which is a much bigger, more invasive step.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:45 PM
The power-system in general bears similarities to WoW. Perhaps not word-for-word but the idea in general. Especially when compared to 3.5. Some abilities are also WoW abilities by any other name. Blinding Barrage is basically Fan of Knives, for example.
Then there's the Tank-DPS-Controller thing. While the concept was already there in previous editions, I haven't met anyone yet who didn't think 'DPS' when they read 'Striker' or 'Tank' when they read 'Defender'. On the topic of tanks, marking sure sounds a lot like taunting, don't you think?

Then there's the races, particularly in regards to their art. Even if you consider that both are basically high elves, the Eladrin really look a lot like Blood Elves. The (vanilla) elves seem to be a bit more night-elfy too, although this one's up to personal interpretation. But then there's the dwarves... just look at page 36 of the 4e PHB. How is that not Dun Modr? The only thing that's missing is an archway that reads "Welcome to Ironforge!". For a race that's all about iron and steel, it sure seems odd that the most classic depiction of a dwarf is to put him in heaps of snow.

Racial abilities are also a lot more combat-related than subtle touches here and there. Eladrin, for example, get Fey Step. Which is exactly like Blink, a classic Warcraft ability. Goliath's can turn their skin into stone, much likes dwarves in WoW. Orcs (half-orcs) get a straight-up DPS boost which is, again, much like WoW.

The non-WoW elements still outweigh the WoW elements, but WotC does seem to have been inspired by WoW as far as some parts are concerned. Some people mind - others don't. Way I see it, most people that are bothered by 4e are bothered more by the lack of versimilitude than some of the overlapping WoW elements.



I see no problem with the DM adjusting encounters based on the party. It's his game, after all. What the designers do or don't approve of seems rather irrelevant, provided the players enjoy the campaign and are routinely challenged by monsters of an appropriate difficulty according to the party's overall strength.

If you're referring to modules in particular, I'm of the mind that as long the players take a party that isn't too off-beat or unusual and the module is designed for such parties, there isn't really a problem. If the players take an 'unapproved' party consisting of only mages or rogues, I don't really hold WotC responsible for such parties having a much more difficult time.

I suppose it depends on the module in question and how broad one defines WotC's stance on parties. If you have to take a fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric along or get stomped flat, then you're just dealing with a poor module. But that has no direct bearing on whether or not a class is necessary for parties in general. Just for that module then.

Really? It's been my impression that level appropriate encounters are much harder with weird parties in 4e. Of course in 3e there is no such thing as a level appropriate encounter due to the variance in class power level. As for the powers thing, they are really much more similar to Diablo II talents in that you can't use any you don't buy. In Wow at least you have some baseline abilities.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:48 PM
So, if the class has fluff it must be followed? Why?

Especially when in this case, the fluff isn't essential to the class at all. Plus, I mean, it's not like fighting schools weren't something found in history...

So...rewriting the system. Yeah, you're not touching the class, but you're rewriting the feat system, which is a much bigger, more invasive step.

Right. But 3.0 was the first edition to use feats and skills, so that really isn't that big a change. IIRC in 1.0 fighters had this many class abilities: 0. My system will still be a continuation of D&D's tradition. 4e is not.

hamishspence
2010-02-03, 05:48 PM
Swapping out feats once per day is also a Warblade thing- once per day- they can swap out weapon-specific feats- requires 1 hour.

So they could go from having Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc, in greatsword, to having the same feats for Short sword instead.

Zaydos
2010-02-03, 05:50 PM
Don't know enough WoW to say much on how it's like WoW, but 4e is very video game-like. The system feels like it is a game and not how D&D always has (yes it is a game, it's a fun game, but it never stops being a game that I obsess over).

Part of this is the combat system. How it works it feels like a video game, and martial characters having dailies is just a little odd (why can't I swing the sword this way more than once a day?). It doesn't stop it from being a good system, especially the battle system, and it's not unjustifiable (epics and legends are known for having people do feats in the heat of combat they just couldn't do regularly but the fact that... I will not descend into that). I'd say it's not so much WoW like as WoW is ultimately D&D derived and 4e is video game like and as WoW is one of the more popular and superficially D&D like games it is the one picked as similar. Of the times I've played 4e the most recent has been the most enjoyable experience I've had as a player in a long time although that has more to do with DM quality than system quality.

Most of the video game-like elements (healing surges, martial dailies, etc) don't bother me. What bothers me is the lack of non-combat abilities (which is another video game element I realize), and that the system feels like 100% combat. Rituals are rather weak, skill challenges are broken, and you don't have interesting non-combat class abilities very often. That and the lack of options, plus that it's even harder to portray some character archetypes than before.

All in all I'd say 4e is video game-like, it lacks interesting options which existed in 3.X, but does have the best combat system of D&D. The argument that it's so different from earlier editions could be said (and I've seen it said by everyone I know personally who was a serious gamer before 3.x) about 3.x compared to 1e and 2e. Of the various editions:

3.X is my favorite, I like the options and Vancian casting. I will admit I rarely have a desire to play mundane characters which probably makes it better. I usually want magical stuff to play with of some sort, whether it's paladins' supernatural powers or a wizard's bookful of spells.

4e actually might come next, the battle system is good and gives you multiple abilities. When I have played the only character that didn't descend into I use my at-will, though, was when I played a Drow rogue and then it descended into "how do I get CA" which was fun. I like my current spellsword (he has magical goodies to play with). I like the use of encounter powers a lot though, and wish they had them in 2e.

B/E/C/M/I comes next since it was the first one I played. It's really simple and it's good. If I wanted to throw together a game in 5 minutes and just hang out and play (beer and pretzels gaming) this would probably be my choice... except that experience shows instead of teaching the simpler game to my friends I end up throwing a 3.X or 4e adventure together and character building takes forever as opposed to 5 minutes.

1e/2e I only really played PHB/DMG/MM and not that often. I memorized the 2e PHB for a while (I was lonely) and I like the system alright but wish it had something like encounter powers (just hand them out across the board), even if they were something simple like 1/encounter you can make an attack that deals double damage. The splats might have had more combat options and the armor versus weapon table might have added more strategy to the game but it normally descended into I attack fairly quickly.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:52 PM
Swapping out feats once per day is also a Warblade thing- once per day- they can swap out weapon-specific feats- requires 1 hour.

So they could go from having Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc, in greatsword, to having the same feats for Short sword instead.

That's actually where I got the idea, except with my fighter he will be able to swap out any of his bonus feats. Also my system will be completely self contained, no need for supplemental material such as the Book of Weaboo Fightin Magics (I don't have anything against ToB, I just like calling it that). Which is incidentally why it is taking so long, I have to write a crapload of feats rather than just steal them from splat books.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 05:58 PM
So rather than taking a decent fix. (ToB) you're rewriting the entire feat system?

That just seems like it's more trouble than it's worth. That doesn't mean you can't do it, Heck I'm making hybrid versions of evedry dragon pretty much for the heck of it. Also, I want a red dragon with blue scales as a mount.:smallbiggrin: Or a silver dragon with gold scales. Normal gold dragons though........ I'd feel like I was riding a flying catfish with those whiskers.:smallyuk:

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 05:59 PM
Don't know enough WoW to say much on how it's like WoW, but 4e is very video game-like. The system feels like it is a game and not how D&D always has (yes it is a game, it's a fun game, but it never stops being a game that I obsess over).

Part of this is the combat system. How it works it feels like a video game, and martial characters having dailies is just a little odd (why can't I swing the sword this way more than once a day?). It doesn't stop it from being a good system, especially the battle system, and it's not unjustifiable (epics and legends are known for having people do feats in the heat of combat they just couldn't do regularly but the fact that... I will not descend into that). I'd say it's not so much WoW like as WoW is ultimately D&D derived and 4e is video game like and as WoW is one of the more popular and superficially D&D like games it is the one picked as similar. Of the times I've played 4e the most recent has been the most enjoyable experience I've had as a player in a long time although that has more to do with DM quality than system quality.

Most of the video game-like elements (healing surges, martial dailies, etc) don't bother me. What bothers me is the lack of non-combat abilities (which is another video game element I realize), and that the system feels like 100% combat. Rituals are rather weak, skill challenges are broken, and you don't have interesting non-combat class abilities very often. That and the lack of options, plus that it's even harder to portray some character archetypes than before.

All in all I'd say 4e is video game-like, it lacks interesting options which existed in 3.X, but does have the best combat system of D&D. The argument that it's so different from earlier editions could be said (and I've seen it said by everyone I know personally who was a serious gamer before 3.x) about 3.x compared to 1e and 2e. Of the various editions:

3.X is my favorite, I like the options and Vancian casting. I will admit I rarely have a desire to play mundane characters which probably makes it better. I usually want magical stuff to play with of some sort, whether it's paladins' supernatural powers or a wizard's bookful of spells.

4e actually might come next, the battle system is good and gives you multiple abilities. When I have played the only character that didn't descend into I use my at-will, though, was when I played a Drow rogue and then it descended into "how do I get CA" which was fun. I like my current spellsword (he has magical goodies to play with). I like the use of encounter powers a lot though, and wish they had them in 2e.

B/E/C/M/I comes next since it was the first one I played. It's really simple and it's good. If I wanted to throw together a game in 5 minutes and just hang out and play (beer and pretzels gaming) this would probably be my choice... except that experience shows instead of teaching the simpler game to my friends I end up throwing a 3.X or 4e adventure together and character building takes forever as opposed to 5 minutes.

1e/2e I only really played PHB/DMG/MM and not that often. I memorized the 2e PHB for a while (I was lonely) and I like the system alright but wish it had something like encounter powers (just hand them out across the board), even if they were something simple like 1/encounter you can make an attack that deals double damage. The splats might have had more combat options and the armor versus weapon table might have added more strategy to the game but it normally descended into I attack fairly quickly.

I need to get a copy of BECMI. Can't find one anywhere. That's off topic though. 2e to 3e was a much bigger change than 1e to 2e. 3e to 3.5e is actually the smallest change ever undertaken. But 3.5e to 4.0e? Hardly recognizable without the name on the cover. The biggest 2e to 3e changes were the addition of feats, skills, and prestige classes instead of kits (which iirc were from a supplement). The classes and what they could do were more or less recognizable.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 06:02 PM
So rather than taking a decent fix. (ToB) you're rewriting the entire feat system?

That just seems like it's more trouble than it's worth. That doesn't mean you can't do it, Heck I'm making hybrid versions of evedry dragon pretty much for the heck of it. Also, I want a red dragon with blue scales as a mount.:smallbiggrin: Or a silver dragon with gold scales. Normal gold dragons though........ I'd feel like I was riding a flying catfish with those whiskers.:smallyuk:

Well, uh, it probably is more trouble than its worth. At any rate I'm not really rewriting the feat system, just most of the feats to make them more balanced and useful and to give the fighter more variety (some of the feat trees I'm working on replace whole classes and prestige classes, such as duelist, swashbuckler, and samurai, since in my mind fighters should encompass all martial archetypes).

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 06:05 PM
Well, uh,

Yes. I realize how off topic that was.:smalltongue: However

GOLD DRAGONS LOOK LIKE FREAKING CATFISH!

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 06:11 PM
Yes. I realize how off topic that was.:smalltongue: However

GOLD DRAGONS LOOK LIKE FREAKING CATFISH!

I always thought that was weird. It makes me hungry looking at them, I want to fry them up and have me some catfish dragon. At any rate silver dragon's look much cooler, as do red dragons.

randomhero00
2010-02-03, 06:18 PM
ugh, please say video game or MMORPG instead of WoW, please don't make WoW like Kleenex. (Unless you're blowing your nose on WoW)

Anyways, as for our group, 4e being too much like a video game is bad because we don't play DnD to play video games. We already have PCs, PS3s, Xbox's...etc. for it. If we want video games we have *much* better options with sweet graphics and such.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 06:22 PM
ugh, please say video game or MMORPG instead of WoW, please don't make WoW like Kleenex. (Unless you're blowing your nose on WoW)

Anyways, as for our group, 4e being too much like a video game is bad because we don't play DnD to play video games. We already have PCs, PS3s, Xbox's...etc. for it. If we want video games we have *much* better options with sweet graphics and such.

WoW already is like Kleenex as far as MMO's go. It is far and above the most popular MMO there is. It is one of the most popular games period. Nothing can be done about that.

randomhero00
2010-02-03, 06:25 PM
WoW already is like Kleenex as far as MMO's go. It is far and above the most popular MMO there is. It is one of the most popular games period. Nothing can be done about that.

Not the same thing as WoW being synonymous with MMORPG. I don't know about you but if I say "The MMORPG" in a conversation my friends would say, "Which?"

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 06:26 PM
Not the same thing as WoW being synonymous with MMORPG. I don't know about you but if I say "The MMORPG" in a conversation my friends would say, "Which?"

True, but at any rate question in the op is specifically about WoW. I've never heard anyone compare 4e to any other MMO or MMORPGs in general. I assume that is the result of an effect similar to that of Kleenex.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-02-03, 06:29 PM
4e is too much like DDO!

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 06:33 PM
4e is too much like DDO!

Okay, I deserved that one, but... has Eberron even adapted for 4e yet?

RagnaroksChosen
2010-02-03, 06:35 PM
I guess you must hate Knights, Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts, and ToB classes.

To be honest with you ... knights althoguh do have an aggro mechanic are not mmo like to me... nor are warlocks or dragonfire adepts. though both mechanicaly are similar to mmos with there "at will abilities" when i play them i don't feel like im playing an mmo... unlike 4e...

As far as tob class's yes they feel mmo ish... they break alot of versimilitude(sorry about spelling) in my eyes and unless i have a distictly eastern/arabian nights feel to my game i don't tend to play them or let them be played... not that i don't like fighters or want them to have nice things just the feel of them usualy doesn't fit.

Mando Knight
2010-02-03, 06:37 PM
Okay, I deserved that one, but... has Eberron even adapted for 4e yet?

Last year's campaign setting material. This year's material is Dark Sun. We'll probably get a couple of extra splats and some Dragon/Dungeon articles about them as well.

Drakevarg
2010-02-03, 06:38 PM
4e is too much like DDO!

Which sucks, so that doesn't really change anything...

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 06:39 PM
To be honest with you ... knights althoguh do have an aggro mechanic are not mmo like to me... nor are warlocks or dragonfire adepts. though both mechanicaly are similar to mmos with there "at will abilities" when i play them i don't feel like im playing an mmo... unlike 4e...

As far as tob class's yes they feel mmo ish... they break alot of versimilitude(sorry about spelling) in my eyes and unless i have a distictly eastern/arabian nights feel to my game i don't tend to play them or let them be played... not that i don't like fighters or want them to have nice things just the feel of them usualy doesn't fit.

Well, Warblade isn't that bad, but yeah, I feel they are too different from the rest of 3.5.


Last year's campaign setting material. This year's material is Dark Sun. We'll probably get a couple of extra splats and some Dragon/Dungeon articles about them as well.
Huh. Didn't realize that. I don't really keep up with the 4e stuff.

Which sucks, so that doesn't really change anything...
Yeah WoW is better than DDO anyways.

Optimystik
2010-02-03, 06:55 PM
Okay, I deserved that one, but... has Eberron even adapted for 4e yet?

Yes, Eberron Player's Guide introduces the Warforged, Changeling and Kalashtar races + the Artificer Class, and changes the Truenamer into a paragon path. That tickled me pink when I read it.

Touchy
2010-02-03, 07:02 PM
Yes, Eberron Player's Guide introduces the Warforged, Changeling and Kalashtar races + the Artificer Class, and changes the Truenamer into a paragon path. That tickled me pink when I read it.
I don't have that book, does truenamer still live up to it's legacy?

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 07:04 PM
Yes, Eberron Player's Guide introduces the Warforged, Changeling and Kalashtar races + the Artificer Class, and changes the Truenamer into a paragon path. That tickled me pink when I read it.

How the hell did they translate the Artificer into 4e?

Touchy
2010-02-03, 07:22 PM
How the hell did they translate the Artificer into 4e?

It's a leader class.

Thats about as far as I know.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 07:33 PM
I always thought that was weird. It makes me hungry looking at them, I want to fry them up and have me some catfish dragon. At any rate silver dragon's look much cooler, as do red dragons.

I think a blue Red dragon. (Red body blue scales) or a gold silver dragon. (silver body gold scales) would looke awesome.

then I'll go to dragon land and kill all those wusses and rid the earth of that awful show.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 07:38 PM
I think a blue Red dragon. (Red body blue scales) or a gold silver dragon. (silver body gold scales) would looke awesome.

then I'll go to dragon land and kill all those wusses and rid the earth of that awful show.

A Gold Silver Dragon would be awesome. We need to get somebody to draw that.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 07:47 PM
A Gold Silver Dragon would be awesome. We need to get somebody to draw that.

I would but I'm horrible at drawing.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-03, 07:52 PM
Well, since 4e isn't like World of Warcraft (you've played it, you should know), the allegation that "4e is like WoW" is used mostly by ill-informed people. Ill-informed people aren't exactly known for their sound logic.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 07:54 PM
Well, since 4e isn't like World of Warcraft (you've played it, you should know), the allegation that "4e is like WoW" is used mostly by ill-informed people. Ill-informed people aren't exactly known for their sound logic.

Well that's a good point, I'd still like to know how they came to that conclusion. The classes don't even play similar between the two games. Also WoW has guns. How do you connect a steampunk game to D&D? EVER?

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-02-03, 07:59 PM
I've never played WoW, but I've played a few browser based MMOs, like AdventureQuest Worlds, and I think I can succinctly say that MMOs tend to skimp on story. They may have the bare minimum, but you're largely expected to either be content with the pointless grinding, and saving up to get more powerful gear, or using your imagination to make up a story for yourself.

Now certainly this doesn't have to be true of all MMOs, and I'm certain there are MMOs out there that DO place a strong focus on story, but the reputation is there. And when 4e draws comparisons to WoW because some of the new features bear a resemblance to WoW mechanics (talents to powers and such) people fear that the entire new system will also carry the percieved flaws of a MMO, such as abandonment of story in favor of grinding.

This can't really be said of D&D, or any sort of tabletop game though, since even with a DM who isn't a good storyteller, you still get a story to work your waythrough, rather than just wandering around killing randomly appearing monsters for loot and xp.

In short, the 4e is WoW on paper is a false dichotomy in my opinion.

I've heard a number of different complaints about 4e from my friends, most of whom are staunch supporters of 3.5, but I feel that 4e in general was indeed an improvement.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 08:02 PM
I've never played WoW, but I've played a few browser based MMOs, like AdventureQuest Worlds, and I think I can succinctly say that MMOs tend to skimp on story. They may have the bare minimum, but you're largely expected to either be content with the pointless grinding, and saving up to get more powerful gear, or using your imagination to make up a story for yourself.

Now certainly this doesn't have to be true of all MMOs, and I'm certain there are MMOs out there that DO place a strong focus on story, but the reputation is there. And when 4e draws comparisons to WoW because some of the new features bear a resemblance to WoW mechanics (talents to powers and such) people fear that the entire new system will also carry the percieved flaws of a MMO, such as abandonment of story in favor of grinding.

This can't really be said of D&D, or any sort of tabletop game though, since even with a DM who isn't a good storyteller, you still get a story to work your waythrough, rather than just wandering around killing randomly appearing monsters for loot and xp.

In short, the 4e is WoW on paper is a false dichotomy in my opinion.

I've heard a number of different complaints about 4e from my friends, most of whom are staunch supporters of 3.5, but I feel that 4e in general was indeed an improvement.

4e made some improvements, but I feel the mistakes outweight them. As for WoWs storyline, it's what you call a waste of time story. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WasteOfTimeStory) Blizzard is infamous for making intricate, detailed storylines nobody pays attention to. Other MMOs skimping on story is a direct consequence of this, since Blizzard actually shells out big cash for huge story teams, and nobody pays attention.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-03, 08:09 PM
1) WoW is fantasy. So is 4e. Surprise!
2) WoW has some pretty stupid-seeming things. So does 4e (dragonborn breasts lol). And so does 3e, but that's not relevant ATM. So that's a similarity there.

3) It's not about the play, it's about the words. 4e plays like D&D; it doesn't sound like D&D. Word cloud analyses of the PHB in different editions (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2009-02d.html) prove that the language has changed significantly.

Prominent words in 2e: Character(s), Spell, Magical, Saving, creature(s), DM, level, one
Prominent words in 3e: gp, creature, attack, level, character, bonus, magic, spell
Prominent words in 4e: damage, target, attack, power, level, action, encounter

I've underlined the words that sound "video-gamey". Observe how many there are between the editions. Notably, there is a neutering of "magic" and "spell" in their frequency. Spell went from the biggest word to a basic non-entity. Sounds less fantasy RP and more video game.

Emphasis on "sounds". 4e plays similarly enough to 3e. But the vocabulary used makes it seem more tactical, more combat-focused, and more gamist.
It's similar to what happens with White Wolf. D&D has an image of being more combat-focused than the WW systems, a claim mostly created by the length of the D&D rulebook space devoted to combat (relative to the WW rulebook space devoted to RP discussion). However, in play, D&D players aren't significantly more bloodthirsty.

IMO discussions of "better" are irrelevant. D&D 4e and D&D 3e are simply different. The divergence is (barely) enough that a strict relationship can't be defined. It's like trying to decide whether boron is better than sulfur.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 08:13 PM
1) WoW is fantasy. So is 4e. Surprise!
2) WoW has some pretty stupid-seeming things. So does 4e (dragonborn breasts lol). And so does 3e, but that's not relevant ATM. So that's a similarity there.

3) It's not about the play, it's about the words. 4e plays like D&D; it doesn't sound like D&D. Word cloud analyses of the PHB in different editions (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2009-02d.html) prove that the language has changed significantly.

Prominent words in 2e: Character(s), Spell, Magical, Saving, creature(s), DM, level, one
Prominent words in 3e: gp, creature, attack, level, character, bonus, magic, spell
Prominent words in 4e: damage, target, attack, power, level, action, encounter

I've underlined the words that sound "video-gamey". Observe how many there are between the editions. Notably, there is a neutering of "magic" and "spell" in their frequency. Spell went from the biggest word to a basic non-entity. Sounds less fantasy RP and more video game.

Emphasis on "sounds". 4e plays similarly enough to 3e. But the vocabulary used makes it seem more tactical, more combat-focused, and more gamist.
It's similar to what happens with White Wolf. D&D has an image of being more combat-focused than the WW systems, a claim mostly created by the length of the D&D rulebook space devoted to combat (relative to the WW rulebook space devoted to RP discussion). However, in play, D&D players aren't significantly more bloodthirsty.

I see your point about the wording. I thought that was a big part of it, but you're the first to mention anything except the role names. Also WoW's stupid seeming things fit, since it is one setting. If a race is included in the core of an RP system it should be expected that most campaigns in that system will use it. That is reasonable of the Tolkienesqe races. It is not reasonable of scaly dragon like thingys.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-03, 08:18 PM
Oh, there's another vague similarity I forgot.

Blizzard charges monthly to play WoW
Wizards charges monthly to get D&D Insider content for 4e.

That's why I don't play either. Granted, for 4e, there are many more (important) reasons, but still.

Touchy
2010-02-03, 08:21 PM
Oh, there's another vague similarity I forgot.

Blizzard charges monthly to play WoW
Wizards charges monthly to get D&D Insider content for 4e.

That's why I don't play either. Granted, for 4e, there are many more (important) reasons, but still.
Or you can buy the books.
You even get the full Char. creator with one payment for 1 month of DDI, you do not have to resubscribe, no updates, but you can level to the highest level and may use anything that existed at the time you last updated.
You can also get all the other tools too, under the same condition of you cannot use anything AFTER that update.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 08:21 PM
Oh, there's another vague similarity I forgot.

Blizzard charges monthly to play WoW
Wizards charges monthly to get D&D Insider content for 4e.

That's why I don't play either. Granted, for 4e, there are many more (important) reasons, but still.

Yeah, WoW is awesome but the fees not worth it. Actually I think the subscription fee for D&D Insider is the most valid comparison to MMOs that has been put forth. It crap to make us pay a monthly fricken fee. As is the spreading out of what is essentially core content across several PHBs.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 08:23 PM
Or you can buy the books.
You even get the full Char. creator with one payment for payment of 1 month, you do not have to resubscribe, no updates, but you can level to the highest level and may use anything that existed at the time you last updated.
You can also get all the other tools too.

That's... still crap.

Touchy
2010-02-03, 08:25 PM
That's... still crap.

Hey, your opinion is your opinion, but my opinion is my opinion. I've only played a one-shot(Thanks to a monk that rage-quited from ALL DND FOR A GAME OF BAD ROLLS, I burst out laughing) 3.5 as a fighter, I did not get much a sampling of the system but in the most basic-y basics, it felt about the same to me.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-03, 08:28 PM
Or you can buy the books.


It crap to make us pay a monthly fricken fee. As is the spreading out of what is essentially core content across several PHBs.

1) There is a Dragon Compendium that incorporates large amounts of DDI material for a single purchase cost.
2) "essentially core content" is different from "core content". Arguably, all the tier 3 classes of 3.5 are "essentially core content" spread out across several handbooks for players. You can play 4e with 3 core books, the same way you can play 3.5 with 3 core books. Adding PHB2/3/... makes the game a different beast, much like adding ToB/MoI/PHB2 makes 3.5 a different beast. Still isn't mandatory.


That's... still crap.

This. I'm not interested in the character creator or battle map or random stuff I can do myself, the same way I do it in 3.5 or GURPS or whatever. I'm interested in the mediocre officially-sanctioned homebrew. :P

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 08:37 PM
Hey, your opinion is your opinion, but my opinion is my opinion. I've only played a one-shot(Thanks to a monk that rage-quited from ALL DND FOR A GAME OF BAD ROLLS, I burst out laughing) 3.5 as a fighter, I did not get much a sampling of the system but in the most basic-y basics, it felt about the same to me.

Sorry, shouldn't have worded it that way. I just don't like having to pay for those kinds of features when I've already bought the rulebooks. I understand WotC has to make money, but it still seems wrong to me.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 08:40 PM
1) There is a Dragon Compendium that incorporates large amounts of DDI material for a single purchase cost.
2) "essentially core content" is different from "core content". Arguably, all the tier 3 classes of 3.5 are "essentially core content" spread out across several handbooks for players. You can play 4e with 3 core books, the same way you can play 3.5 with 3 core books. Adding PHB2/3/... makes the game a different beast, much like adding ToB/MoI/PHB2 makes 3.5 a different beast. Still isn't mandatory.


Classes that have been around since 1st edition, even as sub-classes, should not be in non-core supplements. That's a terrible disservice to long time fans, and is completely different from the ToB/MoI/PHB2 issue, which is a big but separate problem with how 3.5 turned out in the end.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-03, 08:55 PM
Classes that have been around since 1st edition, even as sub-classes, should not be in non-core supplements. That's a terrible disservice to long time fans
Oh, so that's why 4e was derided as "not D&D". I can't believe I missed that huge and obvious point. I should have looked at more edition wars.


and is completely different from the ToB/MoI/PHB2 issue, which is a big but separate problem with how 3.5 turned out in the end.

Why is it a problem? You earlier said supplements should not try to fix the system. Do you have a justification behind this, or is it just a starting axiom of your game design philosophy?

AgentPaper
2010-02-03, 09:00 PM
That's... still crap.

How, exactly? Go pay $15 for a single month's subscription, download the character builder, and then cancel your account. You have not bought every single book released so far for 4E DnD, not to mention all the dragon and dungeon magazines, and a few other assorted odds and ends. You won't lose these as soon as your subscription is over, you'll have them for as long as you want, to use however you wish, all for a third the cost of a single book. And, if at any point you find out that a new book came out that you'd really like to have access too, you can get another month's subscription, again for a third of the cost of buying the book, and you'll have it, along with every single other book released since you last updated.


And even if, for some bizarre reason, you balk at paying $15 dollars once because it has the words "monthly fee" attached to the end of it, you can always just buy the books the normal way, and never bother with DnD Insider at all.

I mean, seriously, what are you trying to get out of wizards here? Do you want them to sell you every single piece of content they'll ever release for the price of a single book or something? :smallconfused:

Touchy
2010-02-03, 09:01 PM
How, exactly? Go pay $15 for a single month's subscription, download the character builder, and then cancel your account. You have not bought every single book released so far for 4E DnD, not to mention all the dragon and dungeon magazines, and a few other assorted odds and ends. You won't lose these as soon as your subscription is over, you'll have them for as long as you want, to use however you wish, all for a third the cost of a single book. And, if at any point you find out that a new book came out that you'd really like to have access too, you can get another month's subscription, again for a third of the cost of buying the book, and you'll have it, along with every single other book released since you last updated.


And even if, for some bizarre reason, you balk at paying $15 dollars once because it has the words "monthly fee" attached to the end of it, you can always just buy the books the normal way, and never bother with DnD Insider at all.

I mean, seriously, what are you trying to get out of wizards here? Do you want them to sell you every single piece of content they'll ever release for the price of a single book or something? :smallconfused:
Check his later post, he said he worded that wrongly.

AgentPaper
2010-02-03, 09:03 PM
Check his later post, he said he worded that wrongly.

So, what, he meant "Hey, thay's pretty nifty."? :smallconfused:

I don't think you can word a post that badly.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 09:05 PM
Why is it a problem? You earlier said supplements should not try to fix the system. Do you have a justification behind this, or is it just a starting axiom of your game design philosophy?

Because not everyone can afford the supplements? Because it makes the game complicated when mixing supplements? Well, mostly the former, but the latter is problematic. The core system is mostly pretty simple, with the only really hard to understand parts being the grappling rules and spells. The problem with Tob/MoI is that they create entire new systems for you to learn. PHB 2 mostly avoids that problem though, while adding several options that make the tier 4/5 classes more effective and adding a couple tier 3 classes. Again though, the big thing is to me it feels like robbing to to make people buy supplements just so the game can work for them. Core should be a standalone fantasy RPG, not just one part of a series of books you have to buy.

Ozreth
2010-02-03, 09:06 PM
It seems like the OP is trying to justify playing or not playing 4e, he is just being very subtle about it.

Deep down he has an urge to pick up the new edition and roll with it (no pun intended.)

Also, OP, you keep saying things like "Wizards MAKE us pay for bla bla" they arent making you do anything and all of the content is available elsewhere just as it always has been. DDI is just a convienent way for some people to get all of the material, and youg et it at a much cheaper price than you would if you bought the books.

Me, I like having the books and that is good enough for me, so I dont bother with DDI.

Also, 4e may be different, but it is a good system, and most importantly it is fun. Also, it still feels like d&d. My group is still getting into bar fights, tracking monsters, sneaking around castles, making moral decisions etc.

The numbers, stats, charts etc in these games arent as important as just sitting down with friends and adventuing together. It is still about adventure and story-telling, and that is all that matters in the end.

AgentPaper
2010-02-03, 09:07 PM
Because not everyone can afford the supplements? Because it makes the game complicated when mixing supplements? Well, mostly the former, but the latter is problematic. The core system is mostly pretty simple, with the only really hard to understand parts being the grappling rules and spells. The problem with Tob/MoI is that they create entire new systems for you to learn. PHB 2 mostly avoids that problem though, while adding several options that make the tier 4/5 classes more effective and adding a couple tier 3 classes. Again though, the big thing is to me it feels like robbing to to make people buy supplements just so the game can work for them. Core should be a standalone fantasy RPG, not just one part of a series of books you have to buy.

Very true, and definitely something that 4E has done better than 3.5 ever did.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 09:08 PM
So, what, he meant "Hey, thay's pretty nifty."? :smallconfused:

I don't think you can word a post that badly.

Dude, no need to get so offensive. I apologize for that post. I just feel that they keep important parts of their system locked away in that D&D insider, a lot of the trumped up features of 4e are only available there, and you shouldn't have to buy something in addition to the core rulebooks in order to get the basic features of the game. Many many RPGs are already cheaper than D&D, this seems to me to be milking the D&D brand for money rather than actually trying to make a good roleplaying product.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 09:09 PM
You DO get the basic features of the game in the core rulebook. I don't know where you got the idea you don't.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 09:10 PM
Very true, and definitely something that 4E has done better than 3.5 ever did.

Alright, you seem to like 4e. That is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if 4e is working for you and your friends, then I suppose they did something right. I just don't like it personally. I agree they simplified things. I agree that some people like the new rules, and for them it is a good game. I do not agree that it can justifiably be called D&D anymore.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 09:11 PM
You DO get the basic features of the game in the core rulebook. I don't know where you got the idea you don't.

Because some of the features of D&D insider were trumped up as improvements to the game before 4e's release.

AgentPaper
2010-02-03, 09:11 PM
Dude, no need to get so offensive. I apologize for that post. I just feel that they keep important parts of their system locked away in that D&D insider, a lot of the trumped up features of 4e are only available there, and you shouldn't have to buy something in addition to the core rulebooks in order to get the basic features of the game. Many many RPGs are already cheaper than D&D, this seems to me to be milking the D&D brand for money rather than actually trying to make a good roleplaying product.

Ah, now that is something else completely. Well, what features are you saying are "basic" that you get with the subscription? The character builder? Because if so, then, well, there's about a thousand reasons why something like that can't be free.


I do not agree that it can justifiably be called D&D anymore.

See, this is where you go from "politely disagreeing" to "you guys are having badwrongfun."


Because some of the features of D&D insider were trumped up as improvements to the game before 4e's release.

Such as?

Thurbane
2010-02-03, 09:12 PM
Q Why is it a bad thing if 4e is like WoW?

My answer? It's not. But, by the same token, it's not what I'm looking for from an RPG. 3.5, even for it's flaws, suits my gaming needs much better than 4E does. This isn't a criticism - it's a personal preference.

It's the same way I prefer Black Sabbath to the Beatles - not bad, just different. :smallwink:

Touchy
2010-02-03, 09:12 PM
The only non-basic feature I've noticed outside of the player handbook is vehicle movement for things drawn by animals, which the only one player handbook has is a wagon. Alternative hybrid rules aren't going to be standard and are alternative rules, you can denial them access if you feel so.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 09:13 PM
There actually is a character builder online that IS free. It just doesn't have quite as many features as the official character builder.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 09:15 PM
Ah, now that is something else completely. Well, what features are you saying are "basic" that you get with the subscription? The character builder? Because if so, then, well, there's about a thousand reasons why something like that can't be free.
There are free character builders out there, I don't get where you are coming from. I could probably build one in eclipse in about a day.



See, this is where you go from "politely disagreeing" to "you guys are having badwrongfun."
How so? I'm simply saying it doesn't follow in the tradition of previous editions. People can play any game they want, it's not badwrongfun.



Such as?
Well, they aren't actually available yet, but what I was referring to is apparently now called the Game Table.

AgentPaper
2010-02-03, 09:18 PM
There are free character builders out there, I don't get where you are coming from. I could probably build one in eclipse in about a day.

Have you tried the demo of the character builder? Because there's no way you could program something that complicated with a day's work, or even a month's work, not to mention filling it with all the content Wizards is releasing and making sure it's bug-free.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 09:20 PM
Have you tried the demo of the character builder? Because there's no way you could program something that complicated with a day's work, or even a month's work, not to mention filling it with all the content Wizards is releasing and making sure it's bug-free.

No. What does it do besides crunch numbers and make sure your character is legit? The biggest task of the programming would be adding in all the options, beyond that it would be pretty simple. If it didn't crunch the numbers for you then I could in fact do it in a day, otherwise you are right I was exaggerating.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-03, 09:22 PM
Deep down he has an urge to pick up the new edition and roll with it (no pun intended.)
Deep down I would enjoy stealing the Popemobile. Emphasis on deep. "Deep down" doesn't mean anything. :smallmad:


Also, it still feels like d&d. My group is still getting into bar fights, tracking monsters, sneaking around castles, making moral decisions etc.

You can do those 4 things in GURPS, Wushu, freeform, or M&M. None of those feel like D&D.


Core should be a standalone fantasy RPG, not just one part of a series of books you have to buy.

Yes, that would be ideal. However, if Core is broken*, and does not function as a standalone fantasy RPG, what should you do? Wizards, for a while, doddered along making supplemental material for the broken core. However, at some point they changed priorities. They thought that having a functional fantasy RPG that you have to spend $100 or so for is better than having a nonfunctional RPG that you can pick up for the price of one book.

That's if Core is broken. IMO, core is not broken, and ToB, MoI, ToM, et cetera were ways for WotC to make "new" RPGs without undermining the D&D brand name. Core works just fine, as does Core + Incarnum + Martial Adepts. They're different games.


Because some of the features of D&D insider were trumped up as improvements to the game before 4e's release.

The fact that WotC's marketing and advertising divisions fail harder than FATAL doesn't make 4e a bad game. Just accept that those "improvements" are effectively dead to the world. 4e is still decent without them.


See, this is where you go from "politely disagreeing" to "you guys are having badwrongfun."

You associate "not D&D" with "badwrongfun"? GURPS cannot justifiably be called D&D. How is that a slur against GURPS?

AstralFire
2010-02-03, 09:27 PM
3.5 is closer to 4E than it is to 2E. I think if you're going to make the charge that it's 'not D&D anymore' as a pejorative, you'd be better off beginning that with 3E than 4.

Touchy
2010-02-03, 09:28 PM
Yes, marketing was 4e FATAL flaw. It was not FATAL enough to ruin the game.

Innis Cabal
2010-02-03, 09:29 PM
3.5 is closer to 4E than it is to 2E. I think if you're going to make the charge that it's 'not D&D anymore' as a pejorative, you'd be better off beginning that with 3E than 4.

In the same vein then, 4th Ed is nothing like 2nd Ed, so the argument continues even from there.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 09:32 PM
You associate "not D&D" with "badwrongfun"? GURPS cannot justifiably be called D&D. How is that a slur against GURPS?

See though, GURPS actually is badwrongfun:smallwink: (Joking. joking. I haven't actually ever played GURPS)

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 09:32 PM
{Scrubbed}

AgentPaper
2010-02-03, 09:34 PM
No. What does it do besides crunch numbers and make sure your character is legit? The biggest task of the programming would be adding in all the options, beyond that it would be pretty simple. If it didn't crunch the numbers for you then I could in fact do it in a day, otherwise you are right I was exaggerating.

I would suggest trying it out. If you want an idea, look at a character sheet. The character builder will fill in every single entry on that list with accurate numbers and text, and also provide you with a couple pages of power cards with all of your powers (including racial and item powers) on them, pre-calculated based on your currently wielded weapon, equipped equipment, feats, and so on.

AstralFire
2010-02-03, 09:34 PM
In the same vein then, 4th Ed is nothing like 2nd Ed, so the argument continues even from there.

...You missed my point. There are two kinds of D&D: TSR and WotC. 4E is clearly descended from 3E and bears much in common with it. 3E itself is not recognizable except in name to someone who only knows OD&D or D&D 1.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 09:34 PM
3.5 is closer to 4E than it is to 2E. I think if you're going to make the charge that it's 'not D&D anymore' as a pejorative, you'd be better off beginning that with 3E than 4.

How in the name of all that is good and holy do you figure that 3.5 is closer to 4e than 2e? Never mind that, it wasn't meant as a pejorative. When I made this thread I forgot how easily people get angry about edition wars. I was defending 4e on at least one charge, the MMO thing.

Touchy
2010-02-03, 09:38 PM
...You missed my point. There are two kinds of D&D: TSR and WotC. 4E is clearly descended from 3E and bears much in common with it. 3E itself is not recognizable except in name to someone who only knows OD&D or D&D 1.

Oh boy, it's going to be funny to apply this argument when 5e comes out.

Mystic Muse
2010-02-03, 09:38 PM
I would suggest trying it out. If you want an idea, look at a character sheet. The character builder will fill in every single entry on that list with accurate numbers and text, and also provide you with a couple pages of power cards with all of your powers (including racial and item powers) on them, pre-calculated based on your currently wielded weapon, equipped equipment, feats, and so on.

Wow. I'm getting a one month subscription to DDI (mostly for the dragon and dungeon magazines but also for the scales of war campaign) and now wish I had a machine with windows instead of Linux.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 09:39 PM
...You missed my point. There are two kinds of D&D: TSR and WotC. 4E is clearly descended from 3E and bears much in common with it. 3E itself is not recognizable except in name to someone who only knows OD&D or D&D 1.

Hmm, can't say for certain, but I think if someone had a copy of 1e player's handbook and a copy of 3e player's handbook with all references to the name of the system removed, they would at least know they were related systems (they might conclude that a different company ripped off 1e to make 3e, which would be a fair claim). I do not think they would recognize 3e and 4e as related systems, except perhaps by the use of the core mechanic. It is true however that 3e is closer to 4e than any previous edition, but it is also true that 3e is much closer to 1e/2e than 4e is.

AstralFire
2010-02-03, 09:42 PM
Hmm, can't say for certain, but I think if someone had a copy of 1e player's handbook and a copy of 3e player's handbook with all references to the name of the system removed, they would at least know they were related systems (they might conclude that a different company ripped off 1e to make 3e, which would be a fair claim). I do not think they would recognize 3e and 4e as related systems, except perhaps by the use of the core mechanic. It is true however that 3e is closer to 4e than any previous edition, but it is also true that 3e is much closer to 1e/2e than 4e is.

Feats. Skills. Encounter powers. Christmas tree effect. (Significantly lessened, but -still.-) Lack of long-term effects from magic. (Magic in general having fewer drawbacks.) Crafting. 'Built' multiclassing (level by level) rather than dualclassing. Expansion of special abilities for melee. Wider variety of player races. Multiple defense/save system. Lack of weapon speed.

AgentPaper
2010-02-03, 09:44 PM
This is the main reason at least some people don't like 4e, and I'm not sure why people who do like 4e can't seem to see this. Well, I'm not perfect either, I am often shortsighted towards opinions not my own, but I do try to be open minded.

What, exactly, is it about older editions that makes them "DnD"? Is it the vancian casting system? Being able to switch classes every single level? The 15 minute adventuring day?


Is core broken? Depends on how you define broken. Some classes certainly shined more than other, but the game itself played fine. So yeah you've nailed this one. Again, I don't have problems with WotC providing supplements to make more money, but the books in 4e seem like core rules split up into multiple books so you have to buy them to have a complete RPG. To be clear, to me a complete fantasy RPG will allow all the fantasy archetypes. 4e PHB1 only allows 8 fantasy archetypes due to the lack of customization.

Wrong. 4E doesn't have the archetypes you want in core. Yes, it doesn't have all the archetypes, but neither did 3.5, and they both have about the same number of archetypes they can represent.


Right. GURPS is awesome. GURPS is not D&D. Those two statements fit together nicely.

Imagine I came in while you were playing DnD 3.5, and said, "Yah, sure, you guys are having fun with that, but it's not really Dungeons and Dragons." :smallannoyed:

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-03, 09:47 PM
Imagine I came in while you were playing DnD 3.5, and said, "Yah, sure, you guys are having fun with that, but it's not really Dungeons and Dragons." :smallannoyed:

I'd dismiss you as a fool and not get worked up about it.

Is it really so important whether or not something is or is not D&D? The moniker isn't exactly 100% positive in its connotation. If the thing in question is D&D, stating it isn't is simply a non sequitur to be dismissed. If the thing in question isn't D&D, stating that is a trivial fact.

Mando Knight
2010-02-03, 09:51 PM
No. What does it do besides crunch numbers and make sure your character is legit? The biggest task of the programming would be adding in all the options, beyond that it would be pretty simple. If it didn't crunch the numbers for you then I could in fact do it in a day, otherwise you are right I was exaggerating.

It lists all of the available feats and powers for each class up to roughly one month, complete with text. It's not just a list like crystalkeep has for 3.5, it's like having someone go through all of the books and Dungeon and Dragon magazine articles and compiling all of the character options in full text. The character builder summary used to display a character's stat sheet for a lot of 4e games is just that, a summary... like if you wrote down all of the names of the spells your wizard knew and where they were in the books so you didn't need to copy all of the text from them.

It's the single most useful D&D-related program I've ever tried.

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 09:54 PM
Feats. Skills. Encounter powers. Christmas tree effect. (Significantly lessened, but -still.-) Lack of long-term effects from magic. (Magic in general having fewer drawbacks.) Crafting. 'Built' multiclassing (level by level) rather than dualclassing.

What encounter powers? As far as I know in 3.5 core the only encounter power is rage. Skills work completely differently between 4e and 3e, and are a more or less natural progression of non-weapon proficiencies. Multiclassing is completely different between the two as well. There is no magic in 4e. Spells in 3e are similar in construction to the previous editions, which is one of the big things that makes 4e different.

What, exactly, is it about older editions that makes them "DnD"? Is it the vancian casting system? Being able to switch classes every single level? The 15 minute adventuring day?

Something like that, yeah. It's more the feel of it though. Also I've never had a 15 minute adventuring day in all of my time playing D&D, and I usually play wizards.

Wrong. 4E doesn't have the archetypes [i]you[i] want in core. Yes, it doesn't have all the archetypes, but neither did 3.5, and they both have about the same number of archetypes they can represent.
How do they both have the same number of archetypes they can represent? With the huge amount of spells and the versatility in combat builds 3e can represent pretty much any archetype in core, supplements just give more specific/specialized options to core's generic options.

Imagine I came in while you were playing DnD 3.5, and said, "Yah, sure, you guys are having fun with that, but it's not really Dungeons and Dragons."
I'm not sure I would care all that much. Look, what I said amounts to saying that the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance series isn't part of the Baldur's Gate series, which is perfectly true, or that Highlander 2 isn't part of the Highlander series, which is equally true. At any rate I did not mean to offend, and I apologize if I did.

AstralFire
2010-02-03, 09:57 PM
What encounter powers? As far as I know in 3.5 core the only encounter power is rage. Skills work completely differently between 4e and 3e, and are a more or less natural progression of non-weapon proficiencies. Multiclassing is completely different between the two as well. There is no magic in 4e. Spells in 3e are similar in construction to the previous editions, which is one of the big things that makes 4e different.

Multiclassing has more relation to 3e than 2e.

Encounter powers = ToB.

4e has magic - did you forget rituals? And the entire arcane/divine power sources?

Touchy
2010-02-03, 09:58 PM
Multiclassing has more relation to 3e than 4e.

Encounter powers = ToB.

4e has magic - did you forget rituals? And the entire arcane/divine power sources?

We even have psionics now thanks to player handbook 3!

Drolyt
2010-02-03, 10:07 PM
Multiclassing has more relation to 3e than 2e.

Encounter powers = ToB.

4e has magic - did you forget rituals? And the entire arcane/divine power sources?

I said player's handbooks. No ToB. And no, 4e does not have magic the way all the previous systems did. According to an analysis of what words are most common in the various editions, spell was practically the most common word in the first three and didn't make the list in 4e. At any rate 3e spellcasting is much closer to 1e or 2e than 4e.

Touchy
2010-02-03, 10:12 PM
I said player's handbooks. No ToB. And no, 4e does not have magic the way all the previous systems did. According to an analysis of what words are most common in the various editions, spell was practically the most common word in the first three and didn't make the list in 4e. At any rate 3e spellcasting is much closer to 1e or 2e than 4e.

yes, but you said it does not have magic, not that it does not have magic in the same way.

Good strawman argument though, you should work on making it a tad less obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument

AstralFire
2010-02-03, 10:12 PM
I said player's handbooks. No ToB. And no, 4e does not have magic the way all the previous systems did. According to an analysis of what words are most common in the various editions, spell was practically the most common word in the first three and didn't make the list in 4e. At any rate 3e spellcasting is much closer to 1e or 2e than 4e.

Yeah, you said. Wasn't really playing by that rule. The editions are considerably more than just their player's handbooks.

According to the same guy who posted that analysis, that's terminology, not mechanics, so you kind of missed the point there.

Roland St. Jude
2010-02-03, 10:13 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep things civil, avoid edition wars, and don't start threads just because you want to argue with people. Disclaiming, "I don't mean to start an edition war..." is a good indicator that you're starting an edition war and you know it. Thread locked.

Though I would say that almost every single poster in this thread managed to remain quite civil. Kudos.