I'm starting to feel a smidgen depressed here...

[Skyserpent]

I dunno, I've been getting a really weird vibe on these forums since Fourth Edition was announced... It's like there's this divide between people who are extremely doubtful about what WotC is doing, those who trust them enough to give them the benefit of the doubt, and those who are honestly excited about the prospect.

However, I note that those who are disappointed, pessimistic or downright angry at this change seem to number quite a few, as well possess several members who are quite skilled in the critical arts, and that has discouraged me from actually voicing my own opinion... I mean, the particularly verbose guy with a robust vocabulary and scathingly critical stylings kind of make you not want to disagree with them. Which makes sense, I mean who wants to disagree with someone who seems, for all intents and purposes, to be a superior judge of what's going on?

Unfortunately, me. I am fully aware that the game of D&D is not perfect, and I feel optimistic about what WotC are doing, I mean, The Complete Series and Players Handbook 2 have been on a slow upward scale towards balance. (For the most part at least...) And I think a good kick in the system might be able to get us to a more interesting D&D which I've grown up loving.

Such is my stance on the issue, and I know, it's optimism, which in our brilliantly secular society is a rather fragile seat to sit upon. Nonetheless, I seem to have digressed from my original point: I'm feeling a bit depressed about all this.

I mean, few things short of Buzzkillington are a bigger buzz-kill than finding out people disagree with you. For me at least. This whole thing seems to have placed a whole lot of people in different camps about the systems. But the problem is: These camps aren't like the old, more good-natured ones from ages past. I'm going to miss the Bard Defense League, and the players who are big fans of Kung-Fu Cinema and really like playing monks despite their mechanical flaws. Or even the people who think Monks are overpowered because of their "Metric Ton of abilities that make them fight Unarmed and Naked ALMOST as well as a guy who's armed" I miss the balance Nazis, and the guys who think a level 20 Barbarian can stand a remote chance against a level 20 Wizard. (Snicker) We were already "divided" to an extent, but we were still playing the same game! Dungeons & Dragons, and we were all cooperating to show all sides of a situation and help out each-other's respective games by giving them insight into the intricacies of the hobby. (This is me being surprised I spelled intricacy right)

I guess the main reason I'm feeling kinda down about Fourth Edition isn't because I'm doubtful that it'll be fun. I am wholly psyched/stoked/other-80's-synonym-for-excited and plan to dive right into playing it. (Who knows, maybe I'll find the next Pun-Pun... haha, I'll even miss those threads) I guess what I'm really depressed about is the fact that I'm not going to be playing the same game as a bunch of people who I KNOW are great at improving my table-top experience by reading their insightful posts. Which kinda sucks.

G'night all, see ya in the morning. (Or afternoon or night, depending on your time zone)

[ALOR]

I dunno, I've been getting a really weird vibe on these forums since Fourth Edition was announced... It's like there's this divide between people who are extremely doubtful about what WotC is doing, those who trust them enough to give them the benefit of the doubt, and those who are honestly excited about the prospect.


QFT
I cut most of your post to save space but i agreed with most of it.
As a person who doesn't think he can trust WotC anymore I actully feel like the anti 4e people are in the minority.
Of course back when 3e came out the same division happened between 2e and 3e camps. Some of those who swore to never switch did, some didn't.
In any event very nice post i'm sure things will calm down in a few months

[Droodle]

I think it's too early to worry, yet. If 4E is truly a huge leap forward for the system that streamlines game play without detracting from it, most folks -even the ones who are up in arms about the switch- will come around. If it isn't much of an improvement, then, yeah, there's a problem.

[Tormsskull]

I think you're overanalyzing things. Its change, some people like change and some people don't.

I've seen people who will support anything and everything WotC does, these people scare me. I've seen people who are blinded with hatred at WotC for changing the game so much. While I can understand where this group of people are coming from, I think they are taking things a bit too far.

Most of us fall into the middle of those two extremes. We're probably all a bit bummed that we're going to have to purchase new books, and that our old books are going to be less useful since we assume most people will move to 4th edition.

We're probably a bit excited at the opportunity WotC has here to fix a lot of things that we think were messed up in 3rd edition. And at the fact of new artwork, maybe new takes on old things, etc.


So, bottom line, don't think that 4e is the end of the world or the gaming community, it will adapt like it always does.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. I wouldn't worry about expressing your opinion as to 4e. People are quite happily doing so without much in the way of information, which I would imagine is the whole point in granting 'sneak peaks'. Wizards are creating a buzz about 4e and one thing you can be sure of, just about everybody in this Forum is going to take a look at the finished product in some form or another and I would hazard to say 90% (ball park figure) are going to end up playing it to some degree.

As for a change in the community, I'm not really seeing it. There are suddenly more voices criticising Wizards, that's for sure, but I don't think it's dividing the community. You need more than one side to have a debate and if we were all of one accord there wouldn't be much need for these Forums.

It's been about a week since the announcement and I imagine it'll be about another two or three until things calm down again. Then, at about Christmas, things will really go beserk with the 'Start up' versions and then things will quiet down again until April.

The announcement of 4e, it seems to me, has increased interest in game analysis and I think that's a good thing. One thing I have noticed is how different (especially on the Wizards Forums) are people's hopes and expectations for 4e. I find it both discouraging and encouraging that an apparently relatively homogenous group can have such diverse feelings about the future of one game system.

That said, this isn't a D&D Community, it's a Roleplaying Game Community with a majority of gamers who play 3e. I doubt the character of the community will change anytime soon and the advice you'll get for your tabletop game will remain relevant regardless of edition or system.

[SageinaRage]

It's really nothing to get too worried about, the exact same thing happened after 3rd edition was announced.

[Person_Man]

It's really nothing to get too worried about, the exact same thing happened after 3rd edition was announced.

I think its different this time. Here's why:

AD&D: 1978ish
AD&D 2nd ed: 1989
3.0: 2000
3.5: 2003
4.0: 2008
4.5: I'm guessing 2010
5.0: I'm guessing 2014

The real reason for my trepidation is simple. It's too soon.

Listen to the podcast on the WotC website. They confess that most of the WotC staff was playing 4.0 for two years before this announcement, and that developing the new rules often caused confusion for them when they tried to write or talk about 3.5 rules. So in 2005, just two years after 3.5 had come out, they were developing 4.0, and it was causing the staff to write all kinds of confusing garbage in some of the 3.5 expansions and online support.

I have a simple request. Write a good game, and then support that game. Don't abandon it (except to churn out poorly written expansion books) and start development on a new game the day after its been released.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I suppose shouting "It's a wombating game, get over it" wouldn't go over well on this forum. But seriously, everyone's just gotten hysterical over this damn thing.

[AKA_Bait]

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about this creating any sort of nasty division on the boards. It's all just a matter of preference and in the end that won't cause bad blood bettween reasonable people.

2ed v. 3x is a good example of this. I loathed 2ed. ThAC0 caused me to stop RPing for a good 11 years or so but 3ed I liked. That doesn't stop me from having both fun and productive discussions with the 2ed holdouts on the boards. The same will eventually be true about 3x - 4x.

It's been around a week since 4x was announced. People are a tizzy, and given the derth of info so far probably unsure of their stance, and when in a tizzy folks tend to be a little more emphatic about their opinions, if only to convince themselves. In another month there will still be conversations but I'd be surprised if they are as firey.

[Indon]

I have a simple request. Write a good game, and then support that game. Don't abandon it (except to churn out poorly written expansion books) and start development on a new game the day after its been released.

While I don't neccessarily agree with the timetable they've used, I do like the fact that it's been in the development/testing cycle for, literally, years before it'll be released.

[Bosh]

I think a lot of this bitterness comes from the fact that for a lot of RPGs people only play them if they really like them, but D&D is kind of the QWERTYUIOP of RPGing and a lot of people play D&D because that's what everyone else plays. On some level a lot of people are afraid that other people will move on to a game that they don't like and leave them high and dry with their old books and nobody to play with or will be pressured to play an edition that they don't like. You don't get this same dynamic with new editions of niche games since they're niche games already and aren't going to get shoved from mainstream to niche like 3.5ed gamers are going to.

Personally I think that D&D is rife with problems (in every incarnation) but I play a good bit of it too because D&D has QWERTY going for it. I was planning some houserules to deal with some of the crap that I don't like about D&D 3.5ed and then the annoucement of 4ed came out and just about everything they're doing is either something from a 3.5ed supplement that I liked and planned to use heavily in my campaign, something that I was planning to houserule anyway or something that sounds damn good. So basically it looks like 4ed is going to do a bunch of the **** I was planning to do myself, so well work for me. I don't know if I'll love it but I'm pretty damn sure that I'll prefer it to 3.5ed.


The real reason for my trepidation is simple. It's too soon.
Well unless you're afraid that your group will move on to 4ed without you and you'll prefer 3.5ed and have nobody to play with I don't see too much of a justification for this arguement. If you think that 3.5ed sucks then the sooner 4ed comes out the better. If you think that 3.5ed rocks, if you can round up a group to play it with, what's the downside of 4ed coming out? Prices will sink on Ebay for 3.5ed **** and its not like there isn't plenty of 3.5ed material already out. What 3.5ed stuff do you really need that would have been published if they'd put 4ed on hold a few years longer?

[Pokemaster]

Some of the stuff looks cool, some of the stuff doesn't. The annoying part is that I probably won't know whether or not it really is cool until they release the SRD.

Although I have to say that I really, really hated the video with the fake French guy. That has to be the single stupidest thing any advertising company has ever come up with.

[Arlanthe]

I can understand where you're coming from with the buzz-kill thing.

I was angry the day I heard 4.0 was coming out so soon. 9 out of 10 on a scale of 10 angry. The next day I was an 8 angry, and made a bunch of negative reactionary posts about it. A few days later I was a 7, and today I'm a 6.

I figure by the time 4.0 is launched I'll be a 2 or 3 in the "merely annoyed" spectrum of anger and frustration, and I'ill buy the books and be rather neutral about it in a few months (the point they call "acceptance").

I agree with Bosh's sentiment that D&D is the QWERTY of RPGs, and everyone will simply adapt because if we want to be at the forefront of the hobby we will have to. I doubt I'll ever get to the "enthusiastic" category about this 4.0 decision (unlike how I felt about 3rd Edition), but I think the hallelujiaites are right (about this one thing, at least), that in the end all of the gripers will convert.

Will it be "better"? That's both an opinion and unknowable at this point in time. Sleep on it, friend. You'll feel better and after a few more nights sleep we'll all feel a bit better.

[Paragon Badger]

As long as there's an SRD and the character creation process stays the same or someone can just as easily explain it to me... I woulden't have too many problems.

My main beef with Wizards lately is that they seem to put making money a priority over making an excellent game (which would naturally make money... unless people are lame, as was the case with near-perfect games flopping financially. :smallfurious: :smallfrown: [Okami. :( ]

[psychoticbarber]

My main beef with Wizards lately is that they seem to put making money a priority over making an excellent game (which would naturally make money... unless people are lame, as was the case with near-perfect games flopping financially.

I know 3.5 has and continues to be horrible for this, but I'm an unflagging optimist. Don't assume it will continue into fourth edition until it does. Please?

[Dervag]

I suppose shouting "It's a wombating game, get over it" wouldn't go over well on this forum.Calling D&D a game that protects itself from predators by digging a hole, hiding in it face-first, and relying on its heavily armored hiney to defend it from attack would probably be controversial, yes.

[Jade_Tarem]

There are such things as "fast-talking fools," Skyserpent. The one who makes the biggest post with important-sounding words is not always correct. If you have a good opinion, you will often find that others will support you - and that's assuming that you're not selling yourself short in the debating skills category, which you may be.

I'm a little behind on the facts for 4e. Do people even know what's in it yet? How do we know that it doesn't fix all the most frustrating errors and logical fallacies from 3.5 and leave the rest well enough alone? How do people know that they aren't going to love the fundamental changes (assuming there are any - this is WOTC, here). Why can't a dissatisfied group continue gaming in 3.5, 3.0, 2e, or 1e?

* So there we were on September 23, 2009, playing DnD version 3.5 in secret. We'd managed to elude the WotC secret police this long, and we thought we were going to be ok for another session. We were wrong.

Just as we were rolling for initiative, the door exploded inward. Several seconds of confusion followed, and when the dust settled I was pinned to the floor by a german shepard, snarling on the end of a leash, held by a figure sillhouetted in the doorway. Other shapes moved about in the musty gloom, collecting our gaming materals, character sheets, and minifigs. The shape on the end of the leash spoke in a scratchy voice, "Your time is up. You've lost this round. Fourth edition is the one you'll be playing from now on. Have fun, little Timmy. Have.... fun. Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!"

[AKA_Bait]

My main beef with Wizards lately is that they seem to put making money a priority over making an excellent game (which would naturally make money... unless people are lame, as was the case with near-perfect games flopping financially. :smallfurious: :smallfrown: [Okami. :( ]

Honestly, I can't get mat at WotC for that. They are a corporation. Corporations exist to make money, not to provide a public service. They will make more money this way. They will probably end up making around the same amount of money if the game is flawless as if it is as broken as 3.x. they might actually make more off of suppliments if the game does have some flaws because they can then publish variants in the supplements which people will but.

[nagora]

H
2ed v. 3x is a good example of this. I loathed 2ed. ThAC0 caused me to stop RPing for a good 11 years or so

All right; this is the second time I've seen this comment this week and I've heard it elsewhere before. I never played 2ed but my understanding was that you took your THAC0 (which was essentially your combat ability) and added the opponent's armour class; the result was what you needed to roll to hit on 1d20. What's so bad about that? What am I missing?

[Serenity]

Ah yes, that tired old saw from the tizzy over 3.5. "Wizards is screwing us over! They're coming out with a new edition and making all my books obsolete so I have to buy the new ones! Those money-grubbing bastards!"

Well, news flash: Wizards is a company. It's only natural that their concern is with doing business and making money. And how are they hurting you with the new edition? Is someone from Wizards showing up at your door and forcing you to convert to the new edition at gunpoint? Because otherwise, there's nothing stopping you from sticking with the edition of your choice. On this forum alone there's a broad spectrum of players doing everything from first edition to 3.5 and in between. Finding a gaming group that will play what you want to play is not going to be a problem. Some people will find that the new rules in the new edition make for a better, more enjoyable game. Some won't. And you know what? As long as they're enjoying the game they're playing, they're both right.

So, really, there's no need to demonize Wizards for doing business, especially when we barely know anything concrete about 4e yet.

[Indon]

All right; this is the second time I've seen this comment this week and I've heard it elsewhere before. I never played 2ed but my understanding was that you took your THAC0 (which was essentially your combat ability) and added the opponent's armour class; the result was what you needed to roll to hit on 1d20. What's so bad about that? What am I missing?

Add a +2 to hit from a magic item.

[Serenity]

All right; this is the second time I've seen this comment this week and I've heard it elsewhere before. I never played 2ed but my understanding was that you took your THAC0 (which was essentially your combat ability) and added the opponent's armour class; the result was what you needed to roll to hit on 1d20. What's so bad about that? What am I missing?

Not that complex once you've gotten used to it, but the idea of your opponents armor class being the number your roll has to total or exceed to hit them is infinitely more intuitive than AC -10 being damn awesome.

[Matthew]

All right; this is the second time I've seen this comment this week and I've heard it elsewhere before. I never played 2ed but my understanding was that you took your THAC0 (which was essentially your combat ability) and added the opponent's armour class; the result was what you needed to roll to hit on 1d20. What's so bad about that? What am I missing?
Hmmn. No, it basically worked exactly like the Tables in 1e. THAC0 is what you need to hit AC 0. So, in 1e, a Fighter 1 needed 20 to hit AC 0, therefore his THAC0 in 2e was 20. You subtract AC from 20 to find the target number. It's very easy. What used to confuse people was adding modifiers to THAC0 instead of to the Die Roll.

So, a Level 1 Fighter with THAC0 20 and +3 'To Hit' who attacks an Orc with Armour Class 7 needs 13 to hit without modifiers and 10 to hit with. So, you subtract AC and 'To Hit' Modifiers from THAC0. It's very easy, but it isn't very intuitive.

THAC0 to AB conversion:
THAC0 = [20 - AB]
AB = [THAC0 - 20]

[Gamiress]

Calling D&D a game that protects itself from predators by digging a hole, hiding in it face-first, and relying on its heavily armored hiney to defend it from attack would probably be controversial, yes.

You know, this is actually an apt metaphor for the days since Wizards bought the game.

Every time they piss off the gamers, they just burrow face-first into their screwup and pretend they can't hear us, relying on their heavily armoured lawyers and publicists to guard their hineys.

[Kiero]

Maybe people need to start tagging their threads with a [+] or [-] if they'd rather not have one or the other souring their threads? Thus if you want to rant without dealing with people arguing with the things you don't like, you tag it [-]. If you want to be all excited and share the goodwill, you tag it [+] so the buzzkillers stay out.

[DeathQuaker]

I mean, the particularly verbose guy with a robust vocabulary and scathingly critical stylings kind of make you not want to disagree with them. Which makes sense, I mean who wants to disagree with someone who seems, for all intents and purposes, to be a superior judge of what's going on?


If someone behaves as if they are dead certain of what 4E is going to be like at this point -- they are anything BUT "a superior judge of what's going on."

There's relatively little information available, no matter how hard you are looking, with a good amount of rumor mixed in with the fact. None of us know what is going on at this point. While yes, there are people who can say the "Sky is falling!" with enough convincing eloquence that you instinctively duck, you have to stop and realize that they're still playing the role of Chicken Little, and you should take them as seriously.

Don't let their gobbling bother you none and say what you like.

[nagora]

Hmmn. No, it basically worked exactly like the Tables in 1e. THAC0 is what you need to hit AC 0. So, in 1e, a Fighter 1 needed 20 to hit AC 0, therefore his THAC0 in 2e was 20. You subtract AC from 20 to find the target number.

I was thinking 'subtracted', but I typed 'added' for some reason.


It's very easy. What used to confuse people was adding modifiers to THAC0 instead of to the Die Roll. So, a Level 1 Fighter with THAC0 20 and +3 'To Hit' who attacks an Orc with Armour Class 7 needs 13 to hit without modifiers and 10 to hit with. So, you subtract AC and 'To Hit' Modifiers from THAC0. It's very easy, but it isn't very intuitive.

THAC0 to AB conversion:
THAC0 = [20 - AB]
AB = [THAC0 - 20]

Seems easy enough. I suppose you could add AC to the dice along with all the other mods too, in fact, and skip the subtraction step completely.

[DeathQuaker]

Seems easy enough. I suppose you could add AC to the dice along with all the other mods too, in fact, and skip the subtraction step completely.

Easy??? See, I played 2e for years... and I'm reading the description here again... and I still can't wrap my freaking head around it. When I played 2e I had to write a chart on the back of my character sheet of what armor class I hit with which number, for each of my weapons I used most. Then again, I'm all but incapable of arithmetic. Somehow "add your AB to the die roll" is much easier for me.

But it's also possible I'm just stupid.

[Krellen]

Well, news flash: Wizards is a company. It's only natural that their concern is with doing business and making money.
This was not always the case, and does not have to be the case. It's only the case because people keep saying it's a valid excuse/explanation, rather than expecting more from business than sheer profit-motive. Businesses can be - and are! - about more than making money.

[nagora]

Easy??? See, I played 2e for years... and I'm reading the description here again... and I still can't wrap my freaking head around it. When I played 2e I had to write a chart on the back of my character sheet of what armor class I hit with which number, for each of my weapons I used most. Then again, I'm all but incapable of arithmetic. Somehow "add your AB to the die roll" is much easier for me.


But...but...but...isn't that exactly the same thing?! I have a target number, I roll a die and add some mods and if the die and mods equals the target I've hit. I'm struggling with this...

[Serenity]

Certainly, they can be about more than making money, indeed, should be about more than making money. But they can't not be, on some level, about making money. That much is the nature of the beast. So yes, Wizards has a profit motive in releasing the new edition. But it's simply ridiculous and mean-spirited, especially given our lack of concrete information on 4e, to claim that that is their only motive. Who are we to say that they're just money-grubbing bastards and that an actual attempt to rebalance the game and make it more streamlined and enjoyable is not involved as well?

No one's being forced to change to a game system they don't like. But if some people find that 4e makes a better game for them, than there is a good reason for 4e to exist.

[Serenity]

But...but...but...isn't that exactly the same thing?! I have a target number, I roll a die and add some mods and if the die and mods equals the target I've hit. I'm struggling with this...

It may be essentially the same thing, but the process for determining the target number is a lot more intuitive and easily grasped for many players.

[Matthew]

Seriously, guys, it's this:


The score your Character needs to roll on 1D20 to hit his opponent is equal to:

his THAC0 - his target's Armour Class.

Add or subract any modifiers from the die roll.

That's all there is to it. It's not rocket science. It's marginally more difficult to explain and grasp than BAB.

[Edit]
And Nagora is quite right, it could also be expressed as

Roll 1D20, add the opponent's AC and any Modifiers. DC is your Character's THAC0.

[Jothki]

My main beef with Wizards lately is that they seem to put making money a priority over making an excellent game (which would naturally make money... unless people are lame, as was the case with near-perfect games flopping financially. :smallfurious: :smallfrown: [Okami. :( ]

I don't quite get that. Wouldn't indefinitely making books for 3.5 be putting making money over making an excellent game, since 3.5 suffers from many known flaws that no amount of add ons can ever fix? By making a new edition, they have to sink more money and time into development than they would just making 3.5 books, and they run the risk of people keeping on playing 3.5 instead of buying newer books (which gives them a further incentive to make 4 as good as possible, too).

[hamlet]

All right; this is the second time I've seen this comment this week and I've heard it elsewhere before. I never played 2ed but my understanding was that you took your THAC0 (which was essentially your combat ability) and added the opponent's armour class; the result was what you needed to roll to hit on 1d20. What's so bad about that? What am I missing?

Subtracted. If your THAC0 was 15 and your opponent had a -5 AC, then you'd have to roll a 20 (modified or natural) on your attack to hit him.

Higher math it ain't.

[Krellen]

But they can't not be, on some level, about making money.
Also untrue. Not only are profit returns not mandated by law (they may be mandated by stock holders, but private companies aren't beholden to stock holders, for instance, nor are all stock holders of publicly-traded corporations going to insist on profit returns), but there exists an entire subset of corporations that are, in fact, mandated to not return profits. That's why they're called non-profits.

[Journey]

But...but...but...isn't that exactly the same thing?! I have a target number, I roll a die and add some mods and if the die and mods equals the target I've hit. I'm struggling with this...
It is the same thing.

THAC0: Hit if d20 + Attack Bonuses > THAC0 - Opp. AC + Opp. Armor Bonus

d20: Hit if d20 + BAB + Attack Bonuses > Opp. AC + Opp. Armor Bonus

An identical number of calculations are required. It only doesn't make sense if one doesn't understand subtraction or what negative numbers are.

And this issue is probably the single most representative issue, for me, that illustrates just how far and fast D&D is falling as a system. I imagine 4e will make characters basically like WoW characters with feat (talent) trees: Tired of dealing damage with that axe your fighter's been training with for 16 levels and possibly years of adventuring? That's fine. Pay a modest fee in gold and he can magically reinvent himself to be a dual-dagger-wielding whirlwind attacker.

The latter part of 2e (skills & powers/players option) and 3/3.5e were bad enough with the power inflation and vaguely medieval flavored comic-book superhero character system. I imagine 4.5 or 5e will consist essentially of people playing a dice game, where the high-roller gets to give his character another talent, an extra plus on an item, or another increment of gold, and occasionally somebody might actually make a note of it in their online character "sheet."

[Dausuul]

Seriously, guys, it's this:

That's all there is to it. It's not rocket science. It's marginally more difficult to explain and grasp than BAB.

It's not a question of how hard it is to explain and grasp, it's a question of how easy it is to process mentally when you have a dozen other things to keep track of. BAB is mathematically identical but conceptually simpler, thus making it easier to use in play.

The crucial realization here is that the human brain is not a computer chip. You can take a problem that is the exact same thing mathematically, formulate it two different ways, and people will find one formulation much, much easier to solve than the other.

In this case, BAB simplifies the system conceptually because in the BAB mechanic, high numbers are always good for whoever has them. A high attack modifier is good. A high roll is good. A high AC is good (for the defender). So you add your attack modifier and your roll together, and that's your result; the other guy uses his AC, and that's his result; if your result is better, you hit. Very intuitive.

In the THAC0 mechanic, high rolls on the d20 are good, but low THAC0 is good, and low AC is good. That's confusing right there. Newbies were constantly forgetting which numbers they wanted to be high and which they wanted to be low. (Nonweapon proficiencies and thief percentile rolls only added to the confusion.) Then the idea that "your" number (your THAC0) is subtracted from the roll, meaning it is in essence a penalty... that also is counterintuitive.

[Serenity]

If a company doesn't make money, it will, eventually, fold. Even a non-profit needs to get money to survive, which it does by asking for donations and getting government tax breaks. At any rate, you aren't seeing the forest for the trees here. My point is not that it's OK for Wizards to release a new edition because it makes money. My point is that for us to call them money-grubbing bastards simply because they have, in part, a profit motive, and thereby dismiss any possible good that could come from 4e is shortsighted, simplistic, and unfair.

[mudbunny]

Also untrue. Not only are profit returns not mandated by law (they may be mandated by stock holders, but private companies aren't beholden to stock holders, for instance, nor are all stock holders of publicly-traded corporations going to insist on profit returns), but there exists an entire subset of corporations that are, in fact, mandated to not return profits. That's why they're called non-profits.

Unless Hasbro has changed it's status lately, it is not a non-profit organization, thus, it is all about the profit. Sure, WotC may be doing it because they love D&D and think that 4ed will vastly improve it somewhere.

But somewhere, there are papers out there showing that there is more profit to be had in releasing 4ed now than in sticking with 3.5 for another couple of years.

[Matthew]

It's not a question of how hard it is to explain and grasp, it's a question of how easy it is to process mentally when you have a dozen other things to keep track of. BAB is mathematically identical but conceptually simpler, thus making it easier to use in play.

The crucial realization here is that the human brain is not a computer chip. You can take a problem that is the exact same thing mathematically, formulate it two different ways, and people will find one formulation much, much easier to solve than the other.

Mate, you're dreamin'. There are much more complicated things to keep track of in any D&D game (What's my AB when fighting with two weapons again? How about when I'm not charging? How many attacks is that?) If you can't do it, you can't do it. There is no real reason for THAC0 to be the way it is, but the actual method is about as difficult as doing subtraction (oh, wait it is subtraction). As I said, it's marginally more complicated because it's less intuitive. A game breaker it's not.

[mudbunny]

And this issue is probably the single most representative issue, for me, that illustrates just how far and fast D&D is falling as a system. I imagine am making a wild guess that 4e will make characters basically like WoW characters with feat (talent) trees: Tired of dealing damage with that axe your fighter's been training with for 16 levels and possibly years of adventuring? That's fine. Pay a modest fee in gold and he can magically reinvent himself to be a dual-dagger-wielding whirlwind attacker.

The latter part of 2e (skills & powers/players option) and 3/3.5e were bad enough with the power inflation and vaguely medieval flavored comic-book superhero character system. I imagine am making a wild guess that 4.5 or 5e will consist essentially of people playing a dice game, where the high-roller gets to give his character another talent, an extra plus on an item, or another increment of gold, and occasionally somebody might actually make a note of it in their online character "sheet."

I fixed your post for you.

Edit to add

I should note that the people who claim that 4e will solve all problems are just as guilty of taking rumors and hearsay and reporting it as fact.

[Dausuul]

Mate, you're dreamin'. There are much more complicated things to keep track of in any D&D game (What's my AB when fighting with two weapons again? How about when I'm not charging? How many attacks is that?)

And every one of those things is slowing down the game and adding brainwork. However, some of them are, hypothetically, serving a purpose for game balance reasons (I think a lot could be trimmed out with no real loss, and it looks like 4E is going to do exactly that, but that's a different issue).

THAC0 slowed down the game and added brainwork for no good reason; BAB does the exact same thing mathematically and is easier for the human brain to handle. Therefore it's a better mechanic.

[Matthew]

The question is to what degree, though. The fact is, that in practice, THAC0 never slowed down one AD&D game I participated in. It just wasn't complicated enough to be noticable. I'm not saying THAC0 is better than AB, I'm saying the degree to which AB is better is marginal.

You could say the same thing for Attribute Checks. In AD&D you have to roll under your Attribute. In 3e you have to roll over DC X - your Attribute Modifier.

[Serenity]

My responses are in italics bold now, since I somehow missed a quirk of quotes...silly me...


It is the same thing.

THAC0: Hit if d20 + Attack Bonuses > THAC0 - Opp. AC + Opp. Armor Bonus

d20: Hit if d20 + BAB + Attack Bonuses > Opp. AC + Opp. Armor Bonus

An identical number of calculations are required. It only doesn't make sense if one doesn't understand subtraction or what negative numbers are.

Or if you just have a somewhat easier time processing one over the other, and it makes more intuitive sense to you that a bigger AC is better than a smaller one. Just because things are functionally the same doesn't meant he different presentation can't throw you without you being an idiot.

And this issue is probably the single most representative issue, for me, that illustrates just how far and fast D&D is falling as a system. I imagine 4e will make characters basically like WoW characters with feat (talent) trees: Tired of dealing damage with that axe your fighter's been training with for 16 levels and possibly years of adventuring? That's fine. Pay a modest fee in gold and he can magically reinvent himself to be a dual-dagger-wielding whirlwind attacker.

Burden of proof falls to you, and I think you'll find it a heavy one. Do you have a crystal ball that's shown you the future of D&D?

The latter part of 2e (skills & powers/players option) and 3/3.5e were bad enough with the power inflation and vaguely medieval flavored comic-book superhero character system.

Which, as we all know, was the only option available at all under those systems and inherently and unchangeably makes for uninteresting stories. Everyone knows that no one plays 3rd edition who isn't a damn munchkin! :smallamused:

I imagine 4.5 or 5e will consist essentially of people playing a dice game, where the high-roller gets to give his character another talent, an extra plus on an item, or another increment of gold, and occasionally somebody might actually make a note of it in their online character "sheet."

Then, sir, you have a very active imagination. Once more, burden of proof. If you don't like recent editions, that's fine. Play first edition, if that's what you enjoy. But coming on howling baseless accusations and insulting our intelligence is, quite simply, troll behavior.

[nagora]

THAC0 slowed down the game and added brainwork for no good reason; BAB does the exact same thing mathematically and is easier for the human brain to handle. Therefore it's a better mechanic.

Is it worth pointing out that the 1e "Look the number up on the table in front of you on, and then tell the player what they need to roll" system was easier than either?

[Indon]

What used to confuse people was adding modifiers to THAC0 instead of to the Die Roll.


It essentially meant, as far as I'm concerned, that when you're going to make a bonus or penalty to hit or to AC, you needed to specify that it is either a bonus, or a penalty, in order to remove ambiguity about, essentially, which side of the equasion you were adding to (or rather, if you were inverting the bonus or not), because different people calculated it differently.

And because people calculated it differently, people ended up writing down how to apply penalties/bonuses differently, making trading material potentially annoying for a DM, too.

Edit: Also, Serenity, all text in a quote is italicised.

[DeathQuaker]

It's not a question of how hard it is to explain and grasp, it's a question of how easy it is to process mentally when you have a dozen other things to keep track of. BAB is mathematically identical but conceptually simpler, thus making it easier to use in play.

In the THAC0 mechanic, high rolls on the d20 are good, but low THAC0 is good, and low AC is good. That's confusing right there. Newbies were constantly forgetting which numbers they wanted to be high and which they wanted to be low. (Nonweapon proficiencies and thief percentile rolls only added to the confusion.) Furthermore, the way people handled THAC0 was typically, "roll 1d20 and add the enemy's AC," which is also counterintuitive; conceptually, the enemy's AC belongs to the enemy and not to you. It's not something you should be using in your rolls.

Thank you for explaining that so articulately. That's exactly the problem I've always had.



Mate, you're dreamin'. There are much more complicated things to keep track of in any D&D game (What's my AB when fighting with two weapons again? How about when I'm not charging? How many attacks is that?) If you can't do it, you can't do it. There is no real reason for THAC0 to be the way it is, but the actual method is about as difficult as doing subtraction (oh, wait it is subtraction). As I said, it's marginally more complicated because it's less intuitive. A game breaker it's not.

No, not dreamin'. Matthew, I've never interacted with you much but I've read a lot of your posts over the long time I've been at GiantitP. You're mathematically a brilliant person; I've seen you post formulas and such with ease and it's clear you know exactly what you're talking about, as you argue along with them splendidly. And these posts of yours that heavily involve the mathematical formulas absolutely make my head spin completely out of control. My eyes glaze over and I can't make any sense of your arguments; same goes for the THAC0 mechanic. It's not that I think YOU are being nonsensical, nor is the THAC0 mechanic. It's just in both cases, you're expressing something effectively in a "language" that my brain processes poorly.

Your brain works differently than mine.

My brain also works differently than a lot of people's, for the record (I'm about 60% right brained which puts me in a fair minority, with secondary dominance on the left side where LANGUAGE is strong, but the part of my brain that processes arithmetic is slow and weak). I could probably express certain abstract ideas to you when I'm on a roll and you probably would have no idea what I'm talking about either (or otherwise, there's stuff that's intuitive to me... maybe drawing or music or something... that you don't do as well).

And the thing is, I can tell you're a really, really smart guy. An exceptionally smart one, in fact. Which puts you in a vast minority of the population. That means a lot of stuff that is cake to you is utterly incomprehensible to the rest of us.

So it's very, very unfair of you to assume just because you can do it, everyone else can. It doesn't work like that--especially not with math, because that involves a lot of aptitude factors that vary widely from person to person.

Or to put it very simply: it's easy for you to subtract. But, in fact, subtracting is harder than adding. (That's why we learn to add first in elementary school.)

A mechanic that involves only adding, and no subtracting, is therefore an easier mechanic for the majority of people to learn, not just for mathematical geniuses (no sarcasm) like you.

That's all it is. (Edit: And no, it's not a game breaker. But that's the reason why a lot of people prefer one mechanic over the other.)

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

[nagora]

A mechanic that involves only adding, and no subtracting, is therefore an easier mechanic for the majority of people to learn

I know this from experience with players and my home-grown game designs, that's why I quickly jumped to the idea of adding AC along with any other mods to the die. At that point the THAC0 system is at least as simple as the 3e system. I'm surprised TSR missed that trick.

[hamlet]

A mechanic that involves only adding, and no subtracting, is therefore an easier mechanic for the majority of people to learn, not just for mathematical geniuses (no sarcasm) like you.

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

I disagree. I'm so bad at math that, during game sessions, I'm often caught counting on my fingers to figure something as simple as +5 to damage.

However, when it comes to THAC0, I have no trouble at all. It's a matter of taste.

Plus, there's the fact that if you don't like the actual calculation involved, all you have to do is sit down and scribble up a chart. Takes about 10 seconds and is even faster than either mechanic.

People cite THAC0 as if it were some inscrutable, unbelievably complicated rule that kills all fun. Frankly, and this is my opinion, it comes out to mental sloth.

[Serenity]

Well, they cite it as such because they find THAC0 as complicated as you find AB. So for them, a system with AB is better, and having that option presented for them in third edition is a good thing. Meanwhile, there's nothing stopping you from playing an edition with THAC0 if that works for you. Just like how the rules of 4e will work better for some people, while others will want to stick with 3/3.5, 2e or whichever. And they can do that.

[DeathQuaker]

People cite THAC0 as if it were some inscrutable, unbelievably complicated rule that kills all fun. Frankly, and this is my opinion, it comes out to mental sloth.

Thanks for calling me lazy, hamlet. :smallamused:

My whole point was, different people's brains work differently. I believe that the majority finds the one mechanic a little easier than the other.

That's all I'm saying. In general, most people find one way easier than another. I find it unfair not to take that into account, nor to assume every gamer thinks or calculates the way you (or any given individual) do. It is, in fact not only "a matter of taste" but how particular things work in a person's mind.

For the record, I've got THAC0 charts on my 2e sheets and ABs written out on my 3e sheets, and I throw in a little finger and toe counting on top of that. Nothing wrong with that. Ultimately, if I've got a good GM and good friends to play with, I'll deal with any system and muddle through with my math-deficient brain. :smallamused:

That's it, I'm done; people will misunderstand me or not. I've helped derail this poor guy's thread too much already. I apologize for that.

[nagora]

I've helped derail this poor guy's thread too much already. I apologize for that.

Actually, that was me.:smallredface:

[Matthew]

*Stuff*

Sure and I have no problem with people preferring AB over THAC0 (Hell, I prefer AB over THAC0) and I can accept that to some people it really is a significant difference. It's also true that I tend to do most of the maths in my games these days, so perhaps there is some element of bias in my opinion (I should make clear, by the way, that I am not any great genius with mathematics, but I can add and subtract quickly, faster indeed than the two Maths PHD Students in my last group - but PHD Level Maths ain't about adding and subtracting, so it's way over my head!).* I suppose that without a quantifiable survey as to how difficult THAC0 is relative to AB, there's not much that can be said definitively about how it impacted the gaming community beyond individual anecdotes.

Anyway, thanks for the compliments, it's nice to be noticed and feeding my ego is one sure way to shut me up. :smallwink:

* Actually, some of the maths stuff Yakk comes up with confuses the hell out of me.

[hamlet]

Thanks for calling me lazy, hamlet. :smallamused:



You're welcome.

And I'll be the first to admit that I can be mentaly lazy too.

Just like I'll be the first to admit that I find so much of 3rd Edition mystifying. Yes, I can see where they were going, but for the most part, reading the books just draws a veil of annoyance over my vision.

Compare that to the feeling I get from reading the older editions (inspiration in every dang paragraph baby!) and you'll see where I'm coming from.

Thought exercise: Go look at the Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign setting. Read a chapter. Go on, do it. That, to me, is what D&D should be like.

[Crow]

While it is entirely reasonable that WotC is a corporation, and should do what it can to make money, I think people are forgetting something;

As a business, your first priority is two-fold: You make money by providing quality product and providing quality service to the customer. In days of yore, if a company didn't provide quality products and treat their customers with respect, they didn't make money.

The releases that WotC have put out recently are of dubious quality (with a few gems here and there), and they certainly havn't shown much respect for their customer base. That doesn't matter these days however, as there are plenty of people who seem perfectly willing to accept the situation and hand over their money anyways, saying "Wizards is a corporation, of course their only interest is making money!"

So I say to each his own.

Personally, I'm not going to spend money on a bad product, and only time will tell if the product is good or not, so I'll withhold judgement until then. As to the hope of balance in the new edition, and all the people who are hopeful for that prospect; just wait until the first couple of supplements. There will be power-creep, just like the past. That is how Wizards sells more supplements.

[JadedDM]

Mark Twain once said that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. And I've been experiencing a serious case of deja vu ever since 4E was announced. Assuming that the same thing that happened in the 2E/3E changeover happens now, I would not worry about a split in the community.

Trust me, 90% of the people who are swearing up and down that Wizards will never get another penny out of them will buy and convert to 4E when it comes out. The few that do stay with 3E will be relatively few in number. I mean, just look how many people have all ready adopted the mentality of, "Hey, Wizards is a company. They're SUPPOSED to be screwing us over." You know folks, it actually is possible (and feasible) for a company to make money by making a quality product. Not releasing crap, and then promising an upgrade to fix said crap. (Although ask yourselves...is a full, brand new edition really necessary to fix the things you perceive wrong with 3E?)

And THAC0 isn't hard. I've had players who could barely balance their own checkbooks figure it out. Really, if THAC0 was as game-breaking as people made it out to be, then everyone would have just switched to C&C. The problem with THAC0 is simple. It's old. Like 18 years old. And, say it with me class...

Newer is BETTER
Newer is BETTER
Newer is BETTER

[mudbunny]

As a business, your first priority is two-fold: You make money by providing quality product and providing quality service to the customer. In days of yore, if a company didn't provide quality products and treat their customers with respect, they didn't make money.

The releases that WotC have put out recently are of dubious quality (with a few gems here and there), and they certainly havn't shown much respect for their customer base. That doesn't matter these days however, as there are plenty of people who seem perfectly willing to accept the situation and hand over their money anyways, saying "Wizards is a corporation, of course their only interest is making money!"

You are forgetting one important part of business.

If you put out crappy products, people won't buy them.

Yes, there will always be a small percentage of people who will continue to buy products, good/bad or meh, simply because it is WotC putting them out. However, that is not enough to keep a business afloat. For most people, if the company consistently puts out crap, they will stop buying from the company.

Currently, there are enough people who think that WotC puts out good products, and will buy those products, that it is keeping the WotC division of Hasbro in the black.

[Serenity]

My point, again, is not that corporations 'should be' screwing us over. My point is that the existence of a profit motive is not in itself a bad thing or proof that they are money-grubbing bastards who just want to make us buy crappy new books to keep up. What few facts we've been able to glean about 4e have, by and large, struck me as good ideas. It's my impression from what little I know, though more my hope, that Wizards is trying, with the new edition, to rebalance many of the flaws we regularly bemoan in 3/3.5 as well as ramp up the coolness factor to draw in new gamers. If that is what it does, than they are, indeed, providing quality products to earn money. Nor are they screwing anyone over, even if you don't like the new edition, because there's still a wealth of material for whatever edition you'd prefer to play (whch will most likely become more affordable for no longe being the current edition), and plenty of people willing to play with you.

[Damian_Blackclaw]

I think a lot of this bitterness comes from the fact that for a lot of RPGs people only play them if they really like them, but D&D is kind of the QWERTYUIOP of RPGing and a lot of people play D&D because that's what everyone else plays. On some level a lot of people are afraid that other people will move on to a game that they don't like and leave them high and dry with their old books and nobody to play with or will be pressured to play an edition that they don't like. You don't get this same dynamic with new editions of niche games since they're niche games already and aren't going to get shoved from mainstream to niche like 3.5ed gamers are going to.


That would be me.
DtD

[AtomicKitKat]

I dunno. I wouldn't think the prices would drop too much for 3.x books unless you're buying them secondhand(quite difficult when you're already on an island and the importing is semi-sporadic even with one of the bigger FLGS chains).

[Serenity]

Well, no, they're not suddenly going to become $10 books. But simple supply and demand dictates that the price will go down a little bit as many people make the switch and many new players start out with the new edition.

[horseboy]

(Although ask yourselves...is a full, brand new edition really necessary to fix the things you perceive wrong with 3E?)


In a word, yes. While 3.x is only 8 years old it struggles so hard to deal with things that other game systems fixed a good 10 years ago. Things like skill difficulties, realistic handling of NPC's, social interaction tests, easily broken concepts, and things of this nature. 3.x is almost 20 years behind the current design parameters. From what they've leaked it sounds like they (finally) realized this.

The problem I'm having with WotC is their quality in playtesting. That one they posted, didn't thrill me with displays of competency. I'm hoping that they did a better job than they're letting on.

[Matthew]

What games are you thinking of, Horseboy, that are so much better at handling this stuff (not that I disagree that 3e did a terrible job with their Skill System).

[nagora]

In a word, yes. While 3.x is only 8 years old it struggles so hard to deal with things that other game systems fixed a good 10 years ago. Things like skill difficulties,

Result of using a d20.


realistic handling of NPC's

DM's job sine qua non.


social interaction tests

DM's job.


easily broken concepts

?

[Black Hand]

:smallconfused: I did have to roll my eyes upon hearing of the release... Not that I'm lumping myself in to the don't-wanna-change-crowd, but it's more of a matter of I-can't-afford-new-Sh!t. Hell, I still only have the 3.0 core books and really nothning much else.

As with Wizards though, I'm feeling that D&D brand is going to be handled like Magic the Gathering, where new sets are old within a matter of months.

:smallbiggrin: I certainly will check out the 4.0 stuff though, and in the end I'll just incorporate what I like and don't like with it into my games, which at this point is a mish mash of 2.0 and 3.x

[horseboy]

What games are you thinking of, Horseboy, that are so much better at handling this stuff (not that I disagree that 3e did a terrible job with their Skill System).

Well, the problem with the skill system is also the problem with the NPC's and several other problems. Reality breaks down at 5th level. Or if you'd rather, 5+ is superhuman. With a first level apprentice capable of making a "mastercrafted" item, then why is it called mastercrafted, if, in fact a master did not craft them? In a system such as Rolemaster where BAB and HP are not directly tied to level, it's possible for a "commoner" to be able to be 5, 10 or even 50th level. The average craftsman actually is an adventurer. That whole "journeyman" thing, where they're supposed to wonder the land, train under different masters, find out new things about their craft. But they're not allowed to do that in D&D, since the mechanics would quickly break down.

Earthdawn uses the same system to smack a troll upside his kat'ral (clan honour) the same way you'd smack him with a sword upside the head. Sure, roleplaying can allow you to provide a compelling argument, however, how often have you had a compelling argument on these forums but somebody still didn't buy it? Getting someone to agree with you is every bit as difficult and challenging as a sword hitting home.
And of course they also have that whole thing going for them that, while only PC "classes" have levels, skills could be developed irregardless of level so again, a crafter could easily have 5 (out of 10) ranks in crafting and it not destroy verisimilitude.

Then there's game systems like Shadowrun and Harn that work really well as well, but since they're not class based, I'll not muddy the waters with something you can't compare D&D to.

[Matthew]

Heh, which is how AD&D used to work, of course, since the majority of the population had no level and were just granted 'whatever was appropriate'. THAC0 and HP were only fixed for PCs.

[horseboy]

Heh, which is how AD&D used to work, of course, since the majority of the population had no level and were just granted 'whatever was appropriate'. THAC0 and HP were only fixed for PCs.

Yes, back when DM Fiat, just ment DMing. :smallamused:

[Matthew]

Now I'm in the wrong Thread *Wanders back to 'Things I Miss about Previous Editions*

[JadedDM]

Yeah, I know there will be a lot of people who disagree with me on this, but I find that most of the stuff people complain is broken or wrong in 3E did not exist in 2E. Making NPCs, for instance, was a snap.

[black wagner]

Im still playing 2nd Ed

[Jannex]

The thing that saddens me (getting back to the OP) about the imminent release of 4E, is that I'm only just now beginning to realize how well I know the current edition. D&D has never been my primary system (I'm a dyed-in-the-wool White Wolfer), so when I play D&D--which I often do these days, as it's by far the most common system with which the majority of people are familiar (the "QWERTY" of gaming, as another poster said)--I usually find myself looking to more experienced players for advice and rules help.

However, between the D&D group I used to play with, which had some pretty impressive powergamers, and hanging out on this board, I appear to have picked up a startlingly solid understanding of the game through some sort of arcane osmosis. These days, when I play with my current RL D&D group, I'm starting to discover that I'm that "more experienced player." Thanks to having played in gestalt games, I can tell another PC what their base save bonus should be for the current level (fractional BAB and saves FTW!). I've developed a fairly solid intuition about optimal vs. suboptimal feat choices, and I know how to spend WBL to best advantage. I'm even starting to learn about the cheesiest Wizard spells--and I don't play Wizards. My current DM (this is the first campaign he's run) can sort of look to me for advice. Me. I don't know D&D... But, apparently, now I do. And as weird as it is, I think I kind of like that feeling. I'm not excited about the prospect of losing it.

4th Edition might be great, or it might be horrible. Either way, if they're changing enough to warrant actually calling it a "new edition," they're going to be changing enough that I won't know it anymore. It's kind of like having the rug pulled out from under me: just when I start to get genuinely comfortable with the current rules-set, it's going to be taken away. And yes, I know, there's no law saying I can only play the most current edition of the game, but like I said before, D&D isn't my drug of choice, gaming-wise. I play it mostly because other people play it (and because I can't convince them to play White Wolf). That means I'm going to be playing the version of it that the people around me play. And eventually, that'll be 4E. I don't know what they're going to do with it, whether the changes will be good or bad. But if those changes are significant enough to make it a "new edition," I'll be back to square one. I'm concerned that it will be complicated and full of math and geared primarily toward combat, because in my mind that's what D&D is. It took me long enough to learn how to make a character that was both interesting to roleplay and mechanically effective under the current system. Now I'm going to have to learn that all over again in the new one.

I guess, by way of analogy, I feel like I just started in a new PrC. I'm not excited about the idea of going back to first level.

[/emo rant] :smallwink:

[AtomicKitKat]

Welcome to D&D: The Hoarding.:smallyuk: Seriously. The reason I gave up Magic was because it kept getting obsolete right after I finally got together enough cards to be "legal".:smallfrown:

[Tor the Fallen]

Mastercraftsman:

Dwarf male, commoner level 1, old age, 25pt buy
STR 11
DEX 8
CON 12
INT 16
WIS 13
CHA 10

Attack: +0
HP: average 7
Saves: 0/-1/1

Craft skill:
4 (ranks) +3 (int mod) +3 (skill focus) + 2 (masterwork tools) +2 (racial mod) +6 (three apprentices using aid another) = +19.

This commoner can pump out masterwork weapons.

[BetaFlame]

I'm not part of the either side of the argument. I'm in the "why change when I've fixed D&D for my group?" bunch. We've tested and balanced our houserules, and come up with a pretty good system that we have fun with. I enjoy the optional rules I use, and I am afraid they won't port over with 4e. So I'll probably give it a couple years before I even look it over seriously. I'll check out the SRD and so forth, but I am pretty happy with my 3.5e D&D. When I want something different, I play Shadowrun.

Am I switching? Maybe eventually. Am I going to buy the cores when they come out? Not bloody likely. At the very least, I'll wait for the second print run with the errors fixed :P

[Zincorium]

Welcome to D&D: The Hoarding.:smallyuk: Seriously. The reason I gave up Magic was because it kept getting obsolete right after I finally got together enough cards to be "legal".:smallfrown:

I got that feeling, but it was more that I could never work out the old rules problems before they added in a heap of new ones that didn't solve the old problems.

Also, I can play with a 40$ rpg book alone (even theoretically with D&D).

I cannot play magic with just four 10$ booster packs.

So compared to any RPG I was into magic was hideously expensive. Now I only play RPGs :smallbiggrin: .

[Crow]

When I want something different, I play Shadowrun.

Edition? :smallconfused:

[Rex Blunder]

Eh, I think 4e is supposed to be an "evolution, not revolution". So it'll still be d20 and I assume thread necromancy will still be a wizard specialization.

[tannish2]

when things happen, they will happen. ill have pitchforks and torches ready(dont have enough for plane tickets though ><), ill also have a fresh pack of mechanical pencils, new ink cartrige for the printer and, some pizza, either way, ill be ready. oh, ill also have some soft blankets and some water pre-arranged for the fetal position i will suddenly fall to when i first open the book if they butcher it.

[Ulzgoroth]

Mastercraftsman:

Dwarf male, commoner level 1, old age, 25pt buy
STR 11
DEX 8
CON 12
INT 16
WIS 13
CHA 10

Attack: +0
HP: average 7
Saves: 0/-1/1

Craft skill:
4 (ranks) +3 (int mod) +3 (skill focus) + 2 (masterwork tools) +2 (racial mod) +6 (three apprentices using aid another) = +19.

This commoner can pump out masterwork weapons.
This commoner isn't going to exist. 25 pointbuy commoner who gets to old age while remaining at level 1? Not likely. (Also, 7 HP? shouldn't that be 1d4+1?)

On the other hand, you don't need to work so hard to get a mastercrafter. Taking 10 is perfectly reasonable. So ditch the three apprentices cheese (would you really allow arbitrarily many aid another checks?), and dump the int modifier too. You've still got +11. Your intensively focussed but not especially exceptional dwarf smith can make a masterwork item right off. He only needs either masterwork tools or a single apprentice. It does take him about 4 weeks to do, or 7-8 for a weapon.

Why? Because a level 1 smith (with full ranks and skill focus) isn't an apprentice. Journeyman would be more appropriate. They can't complete their masterwork yet (unless they're a dwarf, which is special, or have help, which is cheating. Or have an int bonus, which makes them special), but they can handle any standard task within their craft except the finest pieces (exotic weapons, mighty composite bows, full plate, high-complexity items) with the ordinary tools they probably have. If they have an int bonus of 1, they can complete nearly anything...except masterwork items. At level 3-4, they can complete a masterwork using their own tools (sooner if they're especially bright). It'll never be that hard again, since after that they'll probably take an apprentice and pick up masterwork tools as soon as they can.

If they had their own forge, apprentices, and all the tools they want, even a mediocre journeyman could manage to make masterwork or other high-end items. But these aren't things that are readily available.

Er...I have no idea whether you were complaining about this. I just was seeing how nicely the whole thing works...

[Machete]

I started playing dnd at the beginning of this year. Fun game, a little rules heavy as I'm used to freeform(or rather WAS used to freeform).

From all that I've heard, it feels to me that the designers think it is too soon and they lack confidence in the product and are being pushed to release it earilier than they want.

It feels like they know it is going to be a train wreck. "Oh, encumberance, we forgot to write rules for that" is just ONE example.

I'm going to wait for 5th edition. Probably.

[Dr. Weasel]

I'm going to wait for 5th edition. Probably.
You're discounting one unpublished game as rush-job garbage while supporting another currently inexistent game (with- more than likely- the same design team) in its place?

[horseboy]

It feels like they know it is going to be a train wreck. "Oh, encumberance, we forgot to write rules for that" is just ONE example.


Oh bloody Hell! I hadn't heard that one yet! LMAO! Wow, I really should apply for a job at WotC. Apparently they'll hire anyone.

[AtomicKitKat]

Nitpick, but shouldn't someone who crafts Masterwork items be oh, I dunno, an Expert, rather than a Commoner?:smallbiggrin:

[Norsesmithy]

Well, if you count every major revision of D&D as its own edition, I think you find that the average time between major revisions is 4 years, it is just that previous major rules revisions were ignored for the most part (sure you may have adopted parts of Skills and Powers, but I haven't yet met anyone who used the whole thing), because they published them as separate books, not a new edition of the Big Three.

Starting work developing the next version of a product weeks after the introduction of the new version is not unheard of, and the initial step of such a development tends to lead to more and better suppliments, because that initial step is to break the product again, and find the weak points.

From there, you can try to fix those weak points through supplements, if it is an RPG, or new trim packages, if it is a car.

Chevrolet started working on the C6 Corvette not even six weeks after introducing the C5, and this work vastly improved the C5, leading to better ride, better handling, more power, and eventually, the quickest and most powerful Corvettes to that point.

And then once they released the C6, it was a far better car than the C5, for those 8 years of R&D, 8 years of R&D that made the C5 a stronger product overall.

They say that the developement work that went into 4e lead to the Martial adept classes in TOB, lead to the new magic options in TOM, lead to all the completes series, lead to all of the things that tried to patch together 3.5e, which was an effort to patch together 3e, which was a much needed effort to try and stitch together all the various 2e mechanics. Which is not to say that any of these editions were "Bad" I may have only been playing DnD since 2004, but I have looked at, and played one shots in, most of the DnD editions, including the original box set. No one can rightfully say that any of them were "Bad", but each was, IMO, an improvement on the last (though I think that the jump from basic 2e to 3e was the smallest, add in some of the optional rules, however, and it becomes the largest).

The biggest problem, IMO, is that with 3e, they were afraid to start with an empty plate, and they kept too much. Hopefully, they started with a reasonably clean plate for 4e (and I think that the signs are very hopeful on this one).

Sure you could theoretically run a buisness selling supplements to a written in stone set of rules, but I think there would come a point where further support is no longer viable, and you have to start clean, to avoid saturation.

What would be the state of the game if WOTC had done nothing but release 2e supplements?

[Lavin]

I personally feel that the new 4.0 version will make little to no difference in my gameplay. I have already decided that I will keep playing version 3.5 untill version 4.5 comes out, and remaining in the past is reasonably futile. Until then, version 3.5 is just fine. I mean, unless EVERYONE is raving about how much better v4 is. Then i'll just borrow the books from a friend.

[Zincorium]

I personally feel that the new 4.0 version will make little to no difference in my gameplay. I have already decided that I will keep playing version 3.5 untill version 4.5 comes out, and remaining in the past is reasonably futile. Until then, version 3.5 is just fine. I mean, unless EVERYONE is raving about how much better v4 is. Then i'll just borrow the books from a friend.

They've already stated that there will be no 4.5, by which I take it to mean there will be no big single changeover, instead it'll be 4th edition many years from now but they'll have updated it piecemeal.

That's the way that first and second edition operated, and it went just fine. They caught a huge amount of flack for the '.5' thing and they've said they're not looking to repeat it.

[Machete]

You're discounting one unpublished game as rush-job garbage while supporting another currently inexistent game (with- more than likely- the same design team) in its place?

Probably. Not garbage, just not worth the money and the effort of learning the rules all over again.

Although, yet unknown information may shift my decision.

That and if Fax says its good then I'll probably switch. Cause he's like the Shaft of dnd.

[Charity]

That and if Fax says its good then I'll probably switch. Cause he's like the Shaft of dnd.

http://boojum.dreamhosters.com/sw2001/719/m/sw-07191715-0520-CopperMine-1100ftVerticalMineShaft-LookingDown.jpg
Deep, man he's deep.

[Dr. Weasel]

Making any judgments now just seems incredibly futile.

Once it comes out, I think the books will be worth skimming before any decision can be made. It is ridiculous to develop any strong opinions or to commit yourself one way or another months before the game is released.

I see people on these boards announcing that they refuse to play the new edition. Why? Because it's been released too soon after 3.5 or because ever since 1975 there's been a plot to turn Dungeons and Dragons into a videogame, disallowing socialization and roleplay entirely. Saying you don't want to convert to a new system because you don't think you can spare $120 is entirely reasonable; saying you don't want it because anything released after 2000 is absolute rubbish is not.


The releases do merit criticism because the system is not out yet, it is still undergoing playtests and revisions (if I'm not mistaken, which I may well be) and designers would be fools* not to listen to the public reaction to their announcements.

I think everybody- the people who still play Second edition and the people throwing money at Hasbro each month alike- want a cleaner, better balanced system. Nothing released yet has either confirmed or denied this. I think everybody wants to back off of the magic-item dependency of 3rd edition. I also think that the few solid details which have been released may provide for such a game (but they very easily couldn't as Wizards has proven itself to have notoriously poor playtesters). The only thing anyone can do now is wait to see the result.


*"Bad optimizers" does not equate to "fools." Just because they've been caught in the rut of treating Druids as "only useful as fifth party members" does not mean the people are complete morons. The two may coincide, but neither definitely correlates to the other.

[Illirion]

I dunno, I've been getting a really weird vibe on these forums since Fourth Edition was announced... It's like there's this divide between people who are extremely doubtful about what WotC is doing, those who trust them enough to give them the benefit of the doubt, and those who are honestly excited about the prospect.

Hi,
I'm somewhat of an infrequent lurker over here, but I just had to say that I completely agree with the first post. Constantly having to sift through posts of people who are scared of changes and trying to reasure themselves by pointing out all the things that could go wrong with the new edition is pretty depressing indeed. Pretty ironic too how different that attitude is from that of the adventurers we always pretend to be :smallannoyed: .

I'm proud to say that from the beginning, I never saw 4e as something that was gonna take away everything I've done in my campaigns so far and rob me of similar experiences in the future. I'm going to play 4e because from what I've read on the website and heard in the podcasts, the development team is doing a pretty good job at identifying most of the annoyances in 3.5 and has proposed some inventive and exciting ways to get rid of them so far. Maybe it's because I'm used to the faster pace updates from M:tG and Warhammer (or have played DnD for only 3 years), but I'm actually pretty excited to dive into those books and experience the new gameplay.

Sorry for the rant, but I kinda wanted to see if I could get this back on topic :smallwink: .

[crimson77]

I dunno, I've been getting a really weird vibe on these forums since Fourth Edition was announced... It's like there's this divide between people who are extremely doubtful about what WotC is doing, those who trust them enough to give them the benefit of the doubt, and those who are honestly excited about the prospect.

I have thought a lot about 4e, I have read some of the commentary from the designers and playtesters, and I am reminded of when 3e came into being.

Any time there is change in a system there is frustration from those who do not want change. Most of us here have paid at least $30 (for a phb) to play this game. I would venture to guess that the majority of us have paid somewhere around $100-$1000, once you factor in dice, miniatures, and previous editions. There is a sense of betrayal knowing that these books will soon be out of print and that rulebook which you have used once (Races of the Wild), soon will sell for $5.00 at your local used bookstore.

Many of us are in different camps. A few of us are excited at the notion of a new edition. Others of us feel a sense of indifference. Many of us are angered. For all these different groups, I offer a few words.

First, for many our anger will fade as we see the innovations in the new rules, as what is "broken" becomes fixed and what is "unbalanced" becomes balanced. However, new rules will become exploited and new things will be broken. This is part of life; there will never be a perfect gaming system.

Second, many of us will buy the new edition. Roleplaying is a community event, if we play with a community we have to abide by the same rules. However, take your time picking up the new rules, if you do so choose. I know of a few groups that still play 2nd edition. There is no rush, make sure that you have given 3.5 a proper goodbye.

Third, I advocate the need for moderation. Many of us, me included, have spent money on rules books that we rarely use. I suggest buying fewer books, just the basics, let your imagination do the rest. A few months ago, I was invited for an "Old School Gaming Session" at a fellow DM's house. We played out of the old Rules Encyclopedia. I had a wonderful time, it was basic, but it was not the rulebook that made the game, it was the DM's imagination and storytelling ability.

Fourth, create your own worlds, classes, races, and monsters. Remember that the only difference between a Wizard's writer and yourself is that they are being paid to create. If you spend any time surfing the internet, you will find for yourself, many wonderful worlds, classes, races, and monsters. If you want to improve your DMing or playing skills, play with master roleplayers, those who have been gaming for 15 years or more. Read good fantasy books, see how the author tells the story and holds you, the reader, in suspense. Take time to study group dynamics and leadership so that you can learn how to captivate people and get them interested in your game.

Lastly, I am sure that we will once again have this conversation once a new edition comes out in five to ten years. I hope that this board will still be around and we can drag up this conversation and realize that gamers will always be complaining about new editions.