PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition: Who else isn't going to bother?



Fiery Diamond
2007-11-29, 02:03 PM
I started playing not that long after 3.5 came out, and I like it. In fact, seeing some of the changes for 4e, I don't think it's worth the money, time, and effort to switch systems when it comes out. I'm sticking with 3.5. I was wondering if anyone else felt the same. If so, why, and if not, why they think 4e will be worth it. (And no, "it will be more balanced" is a worthless reason, so if that's your reason, please don't post -- houseruling and homebrewing can take care of balance just fine)

- Fiery Diamond

Leadfeathermcc
2007-11-29, 02:06 PM
It will be more balanced.

Artanis
2007-11-29, 02:08 PM
I started playing not that long after 3.5 came out, and I like it. In fact, seeing some of the changes for 4e, I don't think it's worth the money, time, and effort to switch systems when it comes out. I'm sticking with 3.5. I was wondering if anyone else felt the same. If so, why, and if not, why they think 4e will be worth it. (And no, "it will be more balanced" is a worthless reason, so if that's your reason, please don't post -- houseruling and homebrewing can take care of balance just fine)

- Fiery Diamond
How is balance a worthless reason? Not all DMs have the infinite time and encyclopedic rules knowledge that you apparently claim to have, and even if they did, they may not be inclined to have to rewrite vast swathes of rules in order to "take care of balance just fine".

kjones
2007-11-29, 02:08 PM
I started playing 3rd edition in 2005, so I can't imagine I'll start playing 4th edition before 2010 at the earliest, simply because I don't like spending a lot of money on books.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 02:11 PM
I started playing not that long after 3.5 came out, and I like it. In fact, seeing some of the changes for 4e, I don't think it's worth the money, time, and effort to switch systems when it comes out. I'm sticking with 3.5. I was wondering if anyone else felt the same. If so, why, and if not, why they think 4e will be worth it. (And no, "it will be more balanced" is a worthless reason, so if that's your reason, please don't post -- houseruling and homebrewing can take care of balance just fine)

- Fiery Diamond


I started playing not that long after Players Options came out, and I like it. In fact, seeing some of the changes for 3e, I don't think it's worth the money, time, and effort to switch systems when it comes out. I'm sticking with 2e. I was wondering if anyone else felt the same. If so, why, and if not, why they think 3e will be worth it. (And no, "it will be more balanced" is a worthless reason, so if that's your reason, please don't post -- houseruling and homebrewing can take care of balance just fine)

This time warp brought to you by Mr. Friendly.

Streamlining? Moving farther away from Gary Gygax's vision of a group of players huddled in fear begging their DM to please let them have a magic item after losing the whole party to an indefeatable trap? I know balance isn't a reason to you... I think Fighters, Monks and pretty much all non-CoDzilla/Batman classes would like a word with you.

G-Man
2007-11-29, 02:13 PM
I believe it was clearly stated to NOT post that.

At first I let most misgivings fly by me, ignoring them as the usual flim-flam thrown about by people who are afraid the new version will be far too different.

Then I noticed what they planned to do with Demons & Devils. The fiends are being thrown around, including numerous changes to their looks and station. This includes the worst (in my humble opinion) change: They are changing the Succubus to a Devil, and removing the Erinyes completely.

So, I start lookin into the matter more deeply and find that they have managed to essentially 'nuke' the entire Forgotten Realms setting with deicide on an unparalleled level.

I -may- check the books out to see if their may be anything worth my while, but as it is, I doubt I can be bothered to buy them unless I can get them cheaply (less than $20 for all of them).

Oeryn
2007-11-29, 02:14 PM
I'll check it out, just to see how it turned out, but I don't have high hopes. I haven't really been a fan of the direction the game's been goin' in since 3E came out, and 4E looks like more of the same.

Hope springs eternal, however.

Artanis
2007-11-29, 02:21 PM
I believe it was clearly stated to NOT post that.
And that, to me, is the crux of the problem. He is essentially saying, "convince me of why 4e will be better, but you aren't allowed to tell me the ways it will actually be better." He might as well have posted "4E R TEH SUXZORZ" and had the same effect.

Jayabalard
2007-11-29, 02:22 PM
/shrug

I didn't bother buying any 2nd edition
I didn't bother buying any 3rd edition
I doubt I'll bother buying any 4th edition.

Crow
2007-11-29, 02:23 PM
The problem with the "balance" argument is that we have no way of knowing it will be more or less balanced. If they can make something that is worth spending loads of money on, great.

But as it is, I just feel the game is moving in a direction that is contrary to that preferred by my group. Oh well. It's not like my 3.5 stuff is going to burst into flames or something.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 02:25 PM
And that, to me, is the crux of the problem. He is essentially saying, "convince me of why 4e will be better, but you aren't allowed to tell me the ways it will actually be better." He might as well have posted "4E R TEH SUXZORZ" and had the same effect.

It's 2e vs. 3e all over again.

Except before I was on the 2e side and held out for a long time. Then I started playing 3e and it was good. 4e seems like it will be reasonably good too. The reactionaries will calm down in a year or two.

Tyger
2007-11-29, 02:28 PM
Well, as we have NO hard and real information regarding the system, mechanics or really, anything other than speculation at this time, it is highly interesting that anyone has decided that they don't like or do like the system.

Sure, Wizard's has posted a few teasers and other information, but there is no substance to it at all yet. Just fluff.

Anyone who is already saying that they "hate" it or will never play it is acting exactly like my son, who says "Broccoli is ucky, I hate it!" when he has, in fact, never actually tasted it.

Me, I am going to wait for the actual product to come out, so that I can actually look at the system and maybe see what its like before I decide whether or not to play it. If its great, fantastic! If is sucks... well, I have enough 3.5 stuff to play until I am old and gray. Errr... older and grayer. :smallsmile:

AKA_Bait
2007-11-29, 02:29 PM
I started playing 3rd edition in 2005, so I can't imagine I'll start playing 4th edition before 2010 at the earliest, simply because I don't like spending a lot of money on books.

That's pretty much where I am too. It's not just because of the $, although that's part of it. It's also because I just don't have faith in the system being good yet and a 4.5 not following quickly on it's heels. I'd rather let all the other sheep people who don't mind throwing money away for a potentially inferior product want to be the first to try it out vett it for me.

I have no doubt there will more than enough free review/threads complaining about it in that time to make an educated decision.

Naihal
2007-11-29, 02:29 PM
I'll be happy if they fix balance issues and simplify the rules. The reign of Batman needs to be ended, and rules for things that should be simple - like grabbing someone else and channeling positive energy - are overly convoluted.













Oh, and monks.

Xefas
2007-11-29, 02:30 PM
When it comes out, I envision myself going to my local Borders, taking a Player's Handbook and DMG off the shelf, sitting down in a comfy chair and reading them through, and then deciding.

All in all, while I think it will be better than 3.5 on the whole, I've heard a lot about a system called "Burning Wheel", and I think I might be picking that up instead.

But if I do choose to pick up 4th edition, it'll probably be because it's more balanced. Not just mechanically, but also enjoyment-wise. Fighters, Barbarians, and all them just aren't as fun as casters because they don't actually do anything but "I attack" "I attack again" "I attack again!". That's how I see it...I think 4th edition will have classes that are more fun to play on the whole.

Hyfigh
2007-11-29, 02:30 PM
I'm apprehensive about saying I'll go balls-to-the-wall into 4e, but from what I've read so far they fix most of the stuff that was IMO problematic with 3.X. I've definitely have to say that balance is a huge issue in 3.X. As mentioned before, if you're not playing a form of caster, you're subpar for everything. Houseruling is not a really valid argument that the game is balanced because houseruling means you're changing the rules...

Anyhow, I'm really looking forward to see what types of options some of the classic classes have. I'm also vry excited to see a core system of spellcasting that doesn't involve Vancian casting. I hate that system with a fiery passion. I definitely want to see the ToB style melee classes.

Dausuul
2007-11-29, 02:30 PM
I started playing not that long after 3.5 came out, and I like it. In fact, seeing some of the changes for 4e, I don't think it's worth the money, time, and effort to switch systems when it comes out. I'm sticking with 3.5. I was wondering if anyone else felt the same. If so, why, and if not, why they think 4e will be worth it. (And no, "it will be more balanced" is a worthless reason, so if that's your reason, please don't post -- houseruling and homebrewing can take care of balance just fine)

- Fiery Diamond

If you don't care about balance, that's fine, it's your game... but it doesn't make it a worthless reason, just one not applicable to you. I don't like football, but that doesn't mean "I like football" is a worthless reason to watch TV. It's just not my reason.

Anyway, I like what 4E is doing with a lot of the classes; I like the new cosmology; I like the changes to racial abilities; I like the removal of alignment restrictions on core classes; I love the de-emphasizing of Vancian magic and per-day abilities; I like... well, frankly, I like about 95% of what I see (and I'm busily raising a stink (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64746&page=6) about the other 5%:smallbiggrin:). And, yes, I think (hope) it will be better balanced, too. So, I plan to switch.

SmartAlec
2007-11-29, 02:30 PM
Everything I've heard about the changes to DnD sound cool to me. I really enjoyed Star Wars: Saga Edition, and if they're reworking DnD to be more like that system, I'm right there with them. There's a myriad of little changes that I've either thought about or tried to jury-rig myself in the past, like "The overdependence on magic items makes this game sucky," and "Why is choice of race almost negligible?"

There's also a few things like "Prestige classes can be mostly eliminated with the use of feat chains for all core classes, thus allowing Fighters to become Weapon Masters, Rogues to become Assassins etc just by sticking to their regular class and picking the right feat chain," which I've never thought about, but sound right to my ear.

Plus, the campaign setting they're coming up with sounds a lot like the kind of settings I tended to run - high on mystery and danger, low on civilisation.

All in all, I've got a good feeling about this one.

rollfrenzy
2007-11-29, 02:34 PM
The problem with the "balance" argument is that we have no way of knowing it will be more or less balanced. .

The problem with EVERY argument is that we have no idea what the final changes are going to be or how it's gonna turn out in the long run.


Oh well. It's not like my 3.5 stuff is going to burst into flames or something.
QFT, QFT, QFT. There really won't be a WOTC employee holding a gun to your head forcing you to play 4th ed. I promise.

Wraithy
2007-11-29, 02:35 PM
I'm sticking with 3.5, I only started playing a year ago and I'm not letting my money go to waste. also I've spent too much time learning this set of rules to lear another set.

I think the OP said balance was invalid because 4e had yet to undergo the ultimate playtest that is general release

Hopeless
2007-11-29, 02:36 PM
I started playing not that long after 3.5 came out, and I like it. In fact, seeing some of the changes for 4e, I don't think it's worth the money, time, and effort to switch systems when it comes out. I'm sticking with 3.5. I was wondering if anyone else felt the same. If so, why, and if not, why they think 4e will be worth it. (And no, "it will be more balanced" is a worthless reason, so if that's your reason, please don't post -- houseruling and homebrewing can take care of balance just fine)
- Fiery Diamond

It strikes me more like a new campaign setting and not a new edition of d&d.

I'd prefer they provide the option of alternate campaign setting variants so that they can have their version of Faerun 4e but it also allows US to develop OUR version of Faerun 4e... I'd prefer to decide which gods go and what happens not rely on what comes across as a seriously idiotic attempt to redo the time of troubles which it certainly doesn't need.
Why add two extra races just because THEY think its cool... sorry I actually bought Races of the Dragon and the Planar Handbook and the only bit that interested me was the bits about kobolds which I didn't really need which is why it was amoung the books I got rid of, the idea of moving Faerun a century ahead however intrigues me but what has been revealed makes me hope they push back the release of Faerun 4e a year so they can release this version of theirs as an actual setting and not foist a poorly thought out concept on people who would rather have some say for their own campaigns of course if they can't figure this out for themselves I guess they won't be buying 4e and will be sticking to earlier editions that do allow them to make their own choices...

Morty
2007-11-29, 02:39 PM
I'm torn about 4ed. On one hand, things may be better balanced, melee classes may have more options than just "I hit stuff". But I don't think I like the "let's make everything cool and flashy" approach, new cosmology sucks, and they're deleting Vancian casting, which I find severly annoying.

Leadfeathermcc
2007-11-29, 02:40 PM
Despite my flippant answer brought on by the O.P.s ground rules for this thread. :smalltongue: I will most likely not be moving to 4e for a long while because of inertia. My group knows and understands 3.5, I have no desire to take gaming time to learn a new system, and we own a slew of books, I have no desire to spend more money on new ones that invalidate the old.

captain_decadence
2007-11-29, 02:43 PM
I have to say that I will probably play 4th edition because it seems that it makes things more enjoyable for non-caster based classes. While we don't know anything for sure, they look like they are truly trying to make their options something more than "I take the strongest magic weapon (doesn't matter which because I am a fighter and can use every single weapon in existence) and hit things with it. I hit them till they are dead or I am dead."

Hey, if you find that fun, go ahead and keep at it. I think that role-playing and combat should be just as interesting for all classes, not just really complex and interesting for a few and rather boring for others.

Also, it seems more balanced. Really, I think that's a valid reason. Homebrewing and Houseruling can't really effect the basic fact that the classes are not even vaguely balanced as they stand now.

I've played 2nd edition (overly complicated and not a good system), I've played 3rd (lots of weird supplements that tend to be used by players to create things that were never meant to be), I've played 3.5 (same as 3.0 except a little slimmer in a few areas and more bloated in others) and I've played lots of other systems (White Wolf, d20 Modern, a few of the cyper-punk systems, Wuxia (or however you spell that) and a completely made up system) and I'll try 4th. If it sucks, I'll not play it. I don't think the world will end because it isn't any good.

And for all those people that say it screws with the cosmology, CHANGE THE COSMOLOGY BACK IF YOU WANT IT THAT BAD. It seems the same people that tell us to house-rule and homebrew 3 and 3.5 to make it better are completely incapable of just saying "Hey guys, let's play with the 4th edition rules and the cosmology of the older editions." It's not hard.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-29, 02:46 PM
My group knows and understands 3.5, I have no desire to take gaming time to learn a new system, and we own a slew of books, I have no desire to spend more money on new ones that invalidate the old.

It's quite possible that WOTC will end up competing with itself (as in, 4th ed competing with 3rd ed). Does anyone know if all third-party third edition sourcebooks are going to be discontinued? I suspect (if their contract allows it) that some indie publisher could make decent money on writing some more 3rd ed supplements in the next year.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-29, 02:47 PM
I think the OP said balance was invalid because 4e had yet to undergo the ultimate playtest that is general release

I don't know if that's what the OP meant, but I totally agree with the sentiment. Better balanced has yet to be proven, it could easily be that as the 2e paladin and ranger got nerfed beyond all reason coming into 3x that the primary spell casters will get the same going from 3x to 4e, creating another balance problem, just the other way.

Personally, I've never had serious problem with balance bettween the classes in my games. Most problems with balance have come about either as a result of one player being signifigantly more adept than another (no matter what class they play) or allowing magical items/PrCs that I really ought to have looked at first (all of which are optional parts of the game and not a balance problem in terms of the core mechanics). A DM paying attention can rectify those pretty easily even without signifigant homebrew or houserules just by awarding treasure to match power levels.

Of course, the game can be broken if you really want to or if you have a group at cross purposes. In that case though, if your group is in the 'let's one up eachother and make the other players look foolish/not really get to do anything' mode you are damned no matter what system you are playing.


It's quite possible that WOTC will end up competing with itself (as in, 4th ed competing with 3rd ed). Does anyone know if all third-party third edition sourcebooks are going to be discontinued? I suspect (if their contract allows it) that some indie publisher could make decent money on writing some more 3rd ed supplements in the next year.

See signature. :-)

Matthew
2007-11-29, 02:53 PM
It's 2e vs. 3e all over again.

Except before I was on the 2e side and held out for a long time. Then I started playing 3e and it was good. 4e seems like it will be reasonably good too. The reactionaries will calm down in a year or two.

Heh, heh. There's no more biased advocate than a convert (just joking).

Reptilius
2007-11-29, 02:58 PM
It seems okay, but I don't want to go through the trouble of converting all my notes. I might check out the core and see if it's worthwhile.

Ralfarius
2007-11-29, 02:59 PM
I'm probably going to pick up the core rulebooks for 4th edition.

Why? Why not? It's not a ridiculous investment. If I absolutely hate it, I've got a plethora of 3.5 to keep playing.

To be honest, I've actually fallen away from playing D&D in the past few years. I got on board with 2E AD&D a little late, so I didn't get to buy a crap ton of books. I fixed that problem in 3rd, and when 3.5 came out I was a little shaken. I preferred it, certainly, but I didn't have the gumption to really put forth the cash to collect 'em all. I know it's not necessary, but I have a completionist attitude toward things. Since then, I've mostly fallen out of touch with the big supplementary books for 3.5.

4th edition is like a fresh start for me. New system to try out, possibly a new feel to the game, and I get to start from scratch with 3 books. Then I can either abandon it and go back to whatever I was doing before, or embrace it and collect the new books as they're released.

I guess the three major reasons I have are:
- It's a new system to try out, and I love trying new things
- I don't have to worry about playing 'catch up' with supplement releases
- It seems like it's worth at least three-book investment

There you have it.

Fiery Diamond
2007-11-29, 03:02 PM
Wow.

Well, I'm glad that some people actually responded with their reasons for wanting to switch over in the way that I intended.

As for the others:

Quote:

If you don't care about balance, that's fine, it's your game... but it doesn't make it a worthless reason, just one not applicable to you. I don't like football, but that doesn't mean "I like football" is a worthless reason to watch TV. It's just not my reason.

Actually, I'm gonna disagree with you here. If person A, the initiator of a discussion, says "I want to stick with other media and not watch TV. Anyone else feel the same? If so, why, if not, tell me why you want to watch TV (and don't talk about football, it's stupid)" --- it does invalidate "I like football" as a reason to watch TV for that particular discussion. It may be a valid reason elsewhere, but for that particular discussion it is not.

Quote:

Homebrewing and Houseruling can't really effect the basic fact that the classes are not even vaguely balanced as they stand now.

This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Majority opinion, perhaps, but still opinion. Not that that is an issue, since discussion of balance is off topic for the thread, per my opening post.

An example of a poster who understands the kind of response I'm looking for (if your response happens to be in support of 4e):

Everything I've heard about the changes to DnD sound cool to me. I really enjoyed Star Wars: Saga Edition, and if they're reworking DnD to be more like that system, I'm right there with them. There's a myriad of little changes that I've either thought about or tried to jury-rig myself in the past, like "The overdependence on magic items makes this game sucky," and "Why is choice of race almost negligible?"

There's also a few things like "Prestige classes can be mostly eliminated with the use of feat chains for all core classes, thus allowing Fighters to become Weapon Masters, Rogues to become Assassins etc just by sticking to their regular class and picking the right feat chain," which I've never thought about, but sound right to my ear.

Plus, the campaign setting they're coming up with sounds a lot like the kind of settings I tended to run - high on mystery and danger, low on civilisation.

All in all, I've got a good feeling about this one.

Let's continue the discussion without getting mad at each other, please.

-Fiery Diamond

brian c
2007-11-29, 03:16 PM
I'm very intrigued by 4th edition and I think lots of the ideas they're introducing are very good ones. That having been said, I've only ever played 3.0 and 3.5 D&D, so I'm comfortable with that system and I'm not too sure about some of the other changes, in addition to the cost of new books. What I'll probably end up doing is making modifications to my homebrew setting that incorporate 4th edition ideas (new racial "powers", weapon-specific fighters, items needed for Wizard spellcasting)

Kurald Galain
2007-11-29, 03:20 PM
This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Majority opinion, perhaps, but still opinion.

Well, no. Balance is a matter of mathematics and statistics, both of which are hard numerical facts. "Not liking a fact" does not make it any less factual. Whether a class is fun is opinion, but whether a class is balanced is fact.

Ralfarius
2007-11-29, 03:35 PM
Let's continue the discussion without getting mad at each other, please.
You're going to find that a lot of people become somewhat hostile when your first post has the word worthless in bold, italicized, and underlined in relation to a particular opinion some people may hold.

Also, you're not doing much of us justice by responding only to the posts you find inflammatory and brushing everyone else off with a single phrase of vague recognition.

I understand that you're trying to provoke some meaningful discussion, but please be aware of what sort of reactions people can incite depending on how they conduct themselves.

I'm not angry with you, or particularly offended. Hopefully, I've not offended you in turn, either. Just trying to clarify a few things before this thread degenerates into another round of bickering.

Swordguy
2007-11-29, 03:37 PM
The problem with the "balance" argument is that we have no way of knowing it will be more or less balanced. If they can make something that is worth spending loads of money on, great.

But as it is, I just feel the game is moving in a direction that is contrary to that preferred by my group. Oh well. It's not like my 3.5 stuff is going to burst into flames or something.

As far as YOU know. You know darn well that if WotC (or any other company, for that matter) could arrange for this to happen, they would do it in a heartbeat. :smallbiggrin:

d12
2007-11-29, 03:40 PM
Any hope for improvements in 4E that I hear about tend to be dampened by the fact that I just don't trust WoTC enough to not screw it up. That said, the notion of better balance intrigues me greatly, since I don't really have much interest in casting classes (other than Duskblade), and I'd prefer to still be able to do something meaningful beyond level 7-9. The semi-frequent allusions I hear to reduced magical gear has me very suspect, however. I have a special level of distrust to any talk of taking away the little doodads that as often as not permit you to just survive.

Racial changes I'm a bit ambivalent about. I haven't really read any articles concerning racial changes, since they seem to throw things behind that stupid sign-in junk with sufficient frequency that I don't even bother trying to read articles anymore, so some of my comments may have no basis in reality. *shrug* One of my favorite pastimes is ridiculing the notion that elves have anything to do with magic. If they're changed in a way to better reflect such a predisposition then I will have lost one of my favorite topics of complaint (took me a long time to get used to having elves in Oblivion that were actually inclined toward magic mechanically). :smallbiggrin: I also really don't see the whole half-elf-as-super-diplomat-loved-by-all thing, and any changes that reinforce that notion will be very grating. I occasionally hear people say that gnomes won't be in the first PHB, which I'm totally fine with, cuz I can't stand them. In fact, I wouldn't be troubled at all with a "someone read a genocide scroll on gnomes" change. I would also be fine with including tieflings, and would actually prefer including other planetouched as well. What I've heard of possible alterations to the tiefling flavor seems like a pointless change tho.

I've read bits and pieces of people talking about changes to the cosmology, which also seems kind of pointless. The current cosmology is fine as it is. Besides, there are much more pressing matters to attend to.

Changes that I would be agreeable to, in addition to better balancing in general would be things like fixing grapple so that 'this thing would ever consider grappling' no longer equals 'you just lose' (effect: freedom of movement rings just about mandatory for meleers in some cases). De-suckifying monks (or whatever passes for them) would be excellent. I would like to see Incarnum return as well, with better support. Retention of Duskblade (or similar class) would be nice. Fixing alignment-based DR to be sensical ("Your DR works on everyone except demons, lawls"). A weapons of legacy system that doesn't completely suck would be interesting. Incorporating ToB stuff more closely I don't really have much of an opinion on, as I keep falling asleep whenever I try to learn that system, but fans of actually-effective characters with neat options seem to like the idea, so it can't be all that bad.

Twitchel
2007-11-29, 03:51 PM
I already spent too much on 3.5 to bother with 4 yet. Maybe I'll wait until 5th or something if I ever update. The current version works perfectly fine.

Draz74
2007-11-29, 04:36 PM
When it comes out, I envision myself going to my local Borders, taking a Player's Handbook and DMG off the shelf, sitting down in a comfy chair and reading them through, and then

... not buying them, but stealing the concepts I like from them, and homebrewing my own d20 system. I might call it "3.75E" (just like everyone else, so maybe I'll try to come up with something more original), because 3.5E and 4E will be the main sources of inspiration for it, but I'll also steal anything I legally can from True20, Iron Heroes, 2E, SWSE, etc. ...

Cristo Meyers
2007-11-29, 04:54 PM
As far as YOU know. You know darn well that if WotC (or any other company, for that matter) could arrange for this to happen, they would do it in a heartbeat. :smallbiggrin:

We tried, couldn't get the incendiaries to work right. Needless to say, that particular Borders doesn't carry DnD anymore...

I may look into it. Depends on a lot of factors, most notably finding a group again.

kjones
2007-11-29, 05:02 PM
I'd like to point out that this change will probably be very different from the change from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. When 3rd edition came out, criticisms were leveled both at the new game mechanics and at the d20 system itself, which, of course, was released at the same time. 4th edition, regardless of whatever other differences it may hold, is still d20, which is very, very different from 1e and 2e. Pick up a 1st or 2nd edition PHB if you don't believe me.

Leon
2007-11-30, 01:54 AM
Curios to see what happens with it but ultimately i'll just reverse engineer what i like into 3.5, i own far to many books to even think about swaping to a new system

horseboy
2007-11-30, 02:54 AM
Well, as we have NO hard and real information regarding the system, mechanics or really, anything other than speculation at this time, it is highly interesting that anyone has decided that they don't like or do like the system.

Well, technically, we do know one thing. They're canceling LG.
Playing in the LG with my friends was the reason that I suffered through 3.x. They've already decided they're not interested in shelling out the money for LFR. So, I'm probably not going to be playing 4th, despite what I may or may not think about the changes.

J.Gellert
2007-11-30, 06:33 AM
I am most positively not going to switch.

But still, WotC will feed 4th edition to me one way or another, most assuredly through the CRPGs to come in the next few years.

Sigh.

Epic_Wizard
2007-11-30, 08:15 AM
I am viewing 4th Edition somewhat like Windows Vista. It's not really a necessary upgrade that is being done prematurely most likely at least partly for profit. I'm certainly not planning on switching in the near future because I have a large collection of 3 and 3.5 books and will be headed off to college next year. I may switch to 4th Edition later if it seems worth it but other than that I am sticking with 3.5 and a nice mix of house rules.

Dausuul
2007-11-30, 08:46 AM
You're going to find that a lot of people become somewhat hostile when your first post has the word worthless in bold, italicized, and underlined in relation to a particular opinion some people may hold.

QFT. If you don't want to discuss balance questions in this thread, that's fine, but then don't announce that "balance is a worthless reason" and expect everyone to take that as the last word on the subject. You yourself have just initiated a discussion of balance. You've also kicked sand in the face of everyone who considers game balance an important reason to switch, by saying, in effect, "Your opinion is worthless, and you're not allowed to participate in this thread."

The "football is stupid" example is another instance of the same thing--it's hardly reasonable to post something like that and then expect the football fans on the forum to ignore it.

JadedDM
2007-11-30, 09:12 AM
I didn't bother with 3E, I didn't bother with 3.5 and based on what little information has been released so far, I sincerely doubt I'll have any interest whatsoever in 4E.

But then, I have long, long since passed beyond WotC's target demographic.

In any case, I'm quite happy and satisfied with my 2E game, and see no reason to change.

A note, though...to those who say that 3.5E will still be around after 4E's release. This is true. But good luck finding people willing to play it with you. As a player of 2E, I know this to be true. Especially with all of the slander created against it. And I've all ready begun to see people trash-talking their once precious and sacred 3E. I imagine WotC encourages that kind of talk, however.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-30, 09:26 AM
A note, though...to those who say that 3.5E will still be around after 4E's release. This is true. But good luck finding people willing to play it with you. As a player of 2E, I know this to be true. Especially with all of the slander created against it. And I've all ready begun to see people trash-talking their once precious and sacred 3E. I imagine WotC encourages that kind of talk, however.

Bitter much? Well I guess you are jaded...

Seriously though, slander? Really?


slan·der /ˈslændər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slan-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
–verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame.
–verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander.

I mean, we will skip the part about this being the web and therefore any "attacks" on 2e, if they were false, would be libel, not slander.

Moving along though...

What are the cruel falsehoods that have been leveled against 2e?

Crow
2007-11-30, 09:26 AM
A note, though...to those who say that 3.5E will still be around after 4E's release. This is true. But good luck finding people willing to play it with you. As a player of 2E, I know this to be true. Especially with all of the slander created against it. And I've all ready begun to see people trash-talking their once precious and sacred 3E. I imagine WotC encourages that kind of talk, however.

I have voiced a lot of opposition to 4E lately, and that is because (as I have often said) the game is no longer being marketed to players with my group's tastes and playstyle. If I have to find a new group though, I seriously doubt it's going to be convenient to find one that is playing 3.5 in a few years. So I'm going to buy 4E. I'll get the three core books, and if they stink, I'll wait until 4.5 (or whatever they intend to call it..."There won't be a 4.5" they say) comes out and check it out. If they're good, then great. But by the looks of everything they have been putting out lately, I just don't think it will be my cup of tea.

The best I am hoping for right now is that they tone down casters (seriously, some of the spells just need to vanish), and eliminate wealth by level as a balancing factor. Magic items should be a bonus, not a requirement, to face equal-level CR's.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-30, 09:32 AM
The best I am hoping for right now is that they tone down casters (seriously, some of the spells just need to vanish), and eliminate wealth by level as a balancing factor. Magic items should be a bonus, not a requirement, to face equal-level CR's.

I agree, casters need to be toned down. They are eliminating CRs in 4e and going to something that makes more sense and works better. Like they point out, as it is now most monsters are either just glorified speedbumps or too tough for their CR.

JadedDM
2007-11-30, 09:36 AM
I mean, we will skip the part about this being the web and therefore any "attacks" on 2e, if they were false, would be libel, not slander.


Semantics. By slander, I simply mean a great number of people are quick to bad-mouth it, particularly those who know nothing about it and only hear second-hand information from others.


What are the cruel falsehoods that have been leveled against 2e?

That's not the point of this thread, and I do not wish to derail it. But suffice to say, I see a lot of people badmouthing it in general (I think about 60% of my posts here have been trying to defend it or correct people's gross misunderstandings of it). This 'libel', if you prefer, is usually caused by greatly exaggerating things, like making THAC0 out to be more complicated than rocket science or outright calling it 'unplayable' (despite the fact I have been playing it, quite easily, for years now). I am beginning to notice similar attitudes being developed toward 3E fairly recently (that it's horribly broken and unbalanced), and I imagine this will make it much more difficult for those who stick with 3E to find people willing to play it.

At this point in time, 2E has such a horrible reputation among D&D players (particularly the younger generation), that I usually have to recruit people who have never played D&D before just to maintain my game.

Matthew
2007-11-30, 09:46 AM
See post #27, JadedDM.

And, yeah, I see a lot of false claims about 2e. I spend a lot of time correcting them.

J.Gellert
2007-11-30, 09:49 AM
I played 2nd edition before switching to 3rd, and while I like 3rd edition much more, I know what you mean. People are already going on about everything wrong with 3rd edition. One wonders why all the people that hate 3rd edition so much did not switch to another RPG all this time.

4th edition is for another audience, of which I am not part. Good thing my regular gaming group isn't, either.

Edit: Talking balance is ridiculous. One can break and unbalance every gaming system. That's why you have a DM - this is not Starcraft where you absolutely have to pump out a patch every time something goes out of balance.

Reinboom
2007-11-30, 09:56 AM
I'm a bit torn on 4e.
First, money is an issue. I only own a small selection of 3.5 books as it is, and was hoping to expand upon that, but I can't really expand my 3.5 collection while still supporting 4e, at least, not without draining myself. :smallfrown:

For the actual display of what we have now, there's a considerable amount that I like. First, I HATE vancian magic. I love semi, however (sorcerer, favored soul), but the vancian magic system that has existed for far too long? Ew. Not so much the fluff, the... ridiculous preplanning you must do with it.
The cutting of a lot of this, to me, is a huge benefit for 4e, and probably the largest one for me.
The stretching to levels 1-30... I don't agree on the whole 'speed up', this is a bit bad, however, experience tables are one of the easiest things to change. So, I don't have an issue with this, really, at all. I do like that they leave the option for 30 there if need be, and having different tier focuses lets me quickly try different styles of gameplay and hope (I hope) for a more smooth game than what 3.5 has (where high levels sort of fall apart).

Losing Erinyes... this hurts. I really like the idea behind these devils, and their image... and I've always wanted to role play one (but the very crappy LA and monster rules of 3.5 has always prevented me). I will probably have to homebrew these back into existance. :smallfrown:

However, this does show a smidgen of hope on a different area: playable monster races! I want to be able to actually work as playing a monster race for once. Hopefully, they build racial progressions for some of the more interesting ones.

Any more than these.. would be too much speculation.
There's a few issues that I don't like, and a few issues that I do. Only release will tell my final stand.


Edit: Talking balance is ridiculous. One can break and unbalance every gaming system. That's why you have a DM - this is not Starcraft where you absolutely have to pump out a patch every time something goes out of balance.

Not entirely ridiculous. Yes, one can break and unbalance every game system, but, that's not the kind of balance that gets annoying. It's the passive unbalance, the kind of unbalance of a game system that occurs by just -being-. For example, playing only core and just playing a wizard to high levels will make you completely outshine a fighter at high levels. The amount of spotlight switch suddenly draws attention, and ultimately, interest away from the fighter - detracting from that player's fun. A good group who works together well can limit this from occurring, but even then, it still occurs.
This is the kind of unbalancing that needs to be made sure not to exist.. much. In the long run, it's hard to make it so that a particular class doesn't flair a bit more than another, however, cutting this gap provides for the game, in my opinion. When a group of players can each just pick up their favorite class and enjoy the game for each their own merits - that's what a game should strive for - enjoyment. And yes, as a personal witness to it, unbalance does detract from this.

Sleet
2007-11-30, 09:57 AM
Well, no. Balance is a matter of mathematics and statistics, both of which are hard numerical facts.

The very definition of balance is subjective. What quantity do you measure to determine if two classes are balanced? Average damage output per round? Average spotlight time per session? The number of nifty tactical tricks you can pull off? Influence over the course of events in the wider game world?

Whether two classes as written are balanced partially depends on what a given player wants to get out of playing a given class, which is determined by many things not purely mathematical; therefore, balance is not reducible to pure mathematics. Do hard numbers play a role? Sure. Do they represent the end-all and be-all of balance? Of course not.

ranger89
2007-11-30, 10:00 AM
Well, as we have NO hard and real information regarding the system, mechanics or really, anything other than speculation at this time, it is highly interesting that anyone has decided that they don't like or do like the system.

Sure, Wizard's has posted a few teasers and other information, but there is no substance to it at all yet. Just fluff.

Anyone who is already saying that they "hate" it or will never play it is acting exactly like my son, who says "Broccoli is ucky, I hate it!" when he has, in fact, never actually tasted it.

Me, I am going to wait for the actual product to come out, so that I can actually look at the system and maybe see what its like before I decide whether or not to play it. If its great, fantastic! If is sucks... well, I have enough 3.5 stuff to play until I am old and gray. Errr... older and grayer. :smallsmile:

Ditto. I couldn't have said it any better myself. I'm currently happy with 3.5 but I'm also intrigued to find out what 4e will be like when it's released. If both I and my group like the changes, we'll switch at some point.

Hexus
2007-11-30, 10:05 AM
Let's say money isn't a factor (as in they gave the core books as a free pdf) how many of you wouldnt try it?

Also I think alot of you are forgetting about the online component. I think it will be fantastic for groups who's players have scattered to the ends of this earth, or people who have small groups and just want extra players.

My perception of 4th edition is that they are going to take advantage of the 10 years of of changes to "roleplaying games" that MMO's have made. Alot of mechanics from said games are perfect candidates for pnp. I think alot of you feel that 4e =! dnd, not even the setting (points of light). I would wager that most of those players like planning there what there characters will be from lvl 1 - 20. Most players dont have the time or foresight to plan that far ahead, they like to take it as it comes. I think the main focus of 4th is to make it accessible while still appealing to it's older fan base.

To be geeky about it I will break down dnd editions to computer OSes.

1st Ed = Unix
2nd Ed = Dos
3rd Ed = Windows Me
3.5 Ed = Windows XP
4th Ed = 10.5 Leopard

Not to say there is any thing wrong with Unix, Dos or XP, It's just the natural evolution of features I think, there trying to make it "point and click" instead of having to make a custom shell script . . . I think I might have lost a few people here. /end rant

KIDS
2007-11-30, 10:06 AM
Anyway, I like what 4E is doing with a lot of the classes; I like the new cosmology; I like the changes to racial abilities; I like the removal of alignment restrictions on core classes; I love the de-emphasizing of Vancian magic and per-day abilities; I like... well, frankly, I like about 95% of what I see (and I'm busily raising a stink about the other 5%). And, yes, I think (hope) it will be better balanced, too. So, I plan to switch.

Seconded. I like 3.5 a lot and think 4E will continue this move in the right direction.

And oh, it's balanced.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-30, 10:11 AM
Semantics. By slander, I simply mean a great number of people are quick to bad-mouth it, particularly those who know nothing about it and only hear second-hand information from others.

I know - I should have put a :smallwink: at the end of that. I knew what you meant, I was just roleplaying my alignment. :smallbiggrin:


That's not the point of this thread, and I do not wish to derail it. But suffice to say, I see a lot of people badmouthing it in general (I think about 60% of my posts here have been trying to defend it or correct people's gross misunderstandings of it). This 'libel', if you prefer, is usually caused by greatly exaggerating things, like making THAC0 out to be more complicated than rocket science or outright calling it 'unplayable' (despite the fact I have been playing it, quite easily, for years now). I am beginning to notice similar attitudes being developed toward 3E fairly recently (that it's horribly broken and unbalanced), and I imagine this will make it much more difficult for those who stick with 3E to find people willing to play it.

I don't think you will find that most of the complaints about 3e are something new. Spellcasters in 3e have been broken since pretty much day. They have gotten more broken with each new splatbook. Not that they weren't just as broken in 2e.. though to be honest I think 2e dealt with broken spellcasters in a more unique way - extra paperwork. Having to micromanage every last pinch of dust, ball of bat guano and live spider did a pretty amazing job of limiting spellcasters, in my experience anyway. That's not an attack on 2e either, I am quite serious.

I don't say Thac0 was rocket science, but it is needlessly complicated when you consider that BAB does effectively the same thing, without any extra effort involved. While math is a strong-suit for me and for most gamers, as I say above, I have had more than a few players who were just terrible at math and it slowed the game to a crawl. You could say "Well don't play with people who can't do math!" but in most cases these are friends and it's pretty cruel IMO to tell someone that because they have poor literacy or poor math that they aren't allowed to hang out with you and their other friends on D&D day when everyone else is playing.

As for other issues, I suppose power gamers always have and always will break games. In 2e though it seemed like there were many, many, many more ways to have an utterly broken character and most fights seemed to become very repetative since so many spellls and abilities were "must haves" for both sides in a battle.


At this point in time, 2E has such a horrible reputation among D&D players (particularly the younger generation), that I usually have to recruit people who have never played D&D before just to maintain my game.

I would most likely never play D&D again if the only group available was 2e. Though I had fun when I played it, the changes 3e brought about made the game so much more fun. Finally, I could play the character *I* wanted and though there is always the risk of DM fiat, for the most part it is less frequent, since the rules for things are already built into them.

Dausuul
2007-11-30, 10:28 AM
Let's say money isn't a factor (as in they gave the core books as a free pdf) how many of you wouldnt try it?

Also I think alot of you are forgetting about the online component. I think it will be fantastic for groups who's players have scattered to the ends of this earth, or people who have small groups and just want extra players.

My perception of 4th edition is that they are going to take advantage of the 10 years of of changes to "roleplaying games" that MMO's have made. Alot of mechanics from said games are perfect candidates for pnp. I think alot of you feel that 4e =! dnd, not even the setting (points of light). I would wager that most of those players like planning there what there characters will be from lvl 1 - 20. Most players dont have the time or foresight to plan that far ahead, they like to take it as it comes. I think the main focus of 4th is to make it accessible while still appealing to it's older fan base.

To be geeky about it I will break down dnd editions to computer OSes.

1st Ed = Unix
2nd Ed = Dos
3rd Ed = Windows Me
3.5 Ed = Windows XP
4th Ed = 10.5 Leopard

Not to say there is any thing wrong with Unix, Dos or XP, It's just the natural evolution of features I think, there trying to make it "point and click" instead of having to make a custom shell script . . . I think I might have lost a few people here. /end rant

Don't forget:

Original D&D = Multics
Chainmail = ENIAC

:smallbiggrin:

JadedDM
2007-11-30, 11:13 AM
Let's say money isn't a factor (as in they gave the core books as a free pdf) how many of you wouldnt try it?

I still wouldn't. It's just not my cup of tea. Nor was 3E.


Also I think alot of you are forgetting about the online component. I think it will be fantastic for groups who's players have scattered to the ends of this earth, or people who have small groups and just want extra players.


You DO realize that online tabletop gaming has existed for some time, right? I often hear people acting like this is something new that 4E is 'inventing' but I've been playing online with OpenRPG for years now, and it's completely free. No monthly fee.


I don't think you will find that most of the complaints about 3e are something new.

Not new, no. But they are being more frequent. A few months ago, insinuating that 3E was anything less than perfect would get you torn to shreds by a band of rabid fans (I know, I speak from experience). Now bashing 3E is becoming fashionable. Assuming history repeats itself, pretty soon these legitimate complaints about 3E will become more and more exaggerated until a newcomer would get the impression that 3E was the most broken and ridiculous system ever conceived by man. People will say things like, "I can't believe anyone ever could have possibly played 3E! It's so broken, it's simply unplayable!"


though to be honest I think 2e dealt with broken spellcasters in a more unique way

In all honesty, casters never seem to be overpowered in my own games. In fact, my players prefer noncasters. There have been a number of instances where we would have a party with no mage or cleric whatsoever (or sometimes, lacking BOTH). This may be because my games tend to never last much longer than level 6, though (which is where my current campaign is now...and the players are starting to get bored with it and are ready to move on to something else).


I don't say Thac0 was rocket science, but it is needlessly complicated when you consider that BAB does effectively the same thing, without any extra effort involved.

Right, but there's a difference between saying "BAB is more intuitive than THAC0" and "THAC0 is so impossibly difficult, it would take the world's top ten mathematicians a year to figure it out!" I have no issue with people claiming BAB is marginally easier than THAC0. I just hate it when people act like the simple act of subtracting two numbers somehow muddles even the greatest of minds.


I have had more than a few players who were just terrible at math and it slowed the game to a crawl.

My players aren't much better. Heck, I have one girl who's been gaming with me for over five years now, and she still doesn't even know what THAC0 stands for. I just do the equations myself and simply tell the players whether they hit or not. All they have to do is roll the dice.

I imagine, though, I probably run things very differently than most DMs, so my personal experiences can't in anyway represent the majority.

Hexus
2007-11-30, 11:28 AM
I still wouldn't. It's just not my cup of tea. Nor was 3E.



You DO realize that online tabletop gaming has existed for some time, right? I often hear people acting like this is something new that 4E is 'inventing' but I've been playing online with OpenRPG for years now, and it's completely free. No monthly fee.


Yes, I run an openrpg server for my custom game (Anathema). It's just alot of people are not aware of openrpg and I dont think the tool set is as intuitive as the 4e one will be. Once again it comes down to accessibility. Out of curiosity, have you ever given Castles & Crusaders a shot? or Hackmaster? I think there are alot of "modern" versions of 2nd ed. Most of the time when I find people who stick with 2nded it is out of stubborness / they dont want there 200+ splat books going to waste (which I can understand lol). I mean I still have my binder based monster manual which I pull out every once in awhile to show people what a Tarasque really looks like.

J.Gellert
2007-11-30, 11:36 AM
Let's say money isn't a factor (as in they gave the core books as a free pdf) how many of you wouldnt try it?

If the core books were free (is 4e going to have a SRD?) I'd probably take a peek to see if there's anything house-rule-worthy for 3.5. Which is also likely to happen when I get my hands on the first 4th edition CRPG.

JadedDM
2007-11-30, 11:39 AM
Out of curiosity, have you ever given Castles & Crusaders a shot? or Hackmaster? I think there are alot of "modern" versions of 2nd ed.

I have heard many good things about C&C, although I admit I have not looked into it deeply. While it's certainly possible it could be a good game for me, as far as I can tell, it's no more popular than 2E is (I have never seen any books for it in the local bookstores). Thus finding players for it probably wouldn't be much different. And I'd still have to shell out money for new books and discard the ones I all ready have.

So I just stick with what I have, and as 2E is so wonderfully flexible, I can change whatever I don't like or even switch things around just for the heck of trying something new.

Epic_Wizard
2007-11-30, 11:43 AM
Let's say money isn't a factor (as in they gave the core books as a free pdf) how many of you wouldnt try it?

Also I think alot of you are forgetting about the online component. I think it will be fantastic for groups who's players have scattered to the ends of this earth, or people who have small groups and just want extra players.

My perception of 4th edition is that they are going to take advantage of the 10 years of of changes to "roleplaying games" that MMO's have made. Alot of mechanics from said games are perfect candidates for pnp. I think alot of you feel that 4e =! dnd, not even the setting (points of light). I would wager that most of those players like planning there what there characters will be from lvl 1 - 20. Most players dont have the time or foresight to plan that far ahead, they like to take it as it comes. I think the main focus of 4th is to make it accessible while still appealing to it's older fan base.

To be geeky about it I will break down dnd editions to computer OSes.

1st Ed = Unix
2nd Ed = Dos
3rd Ed = Windows Me
3.5 Ed = Windows XP
4th Ed = 10.5 Leopard

Not to say there is any thing wrong with Unix, Dos or XP, It's just the natural evolution of features I think, there trying to make it "point and click" instead of having to make a custom shell script . . . I think I might have lost a few people here. /end rant

I would go more along the lines of one line of OS'es since D&D hasn't suddenly become a board game or something else completely different from its previous iteration.

1st Ed = Dos
2nd Ed = Windows 3.1
3rd Ed = Windows XP
3.5 Ed = Windows XP w/ Service Pack 2 ect.
4th Ed = Vista

Generally 3.5 was just a "patch" of 3.0 and similar to Service Pack 2 it created some problems and fixed some problems.

Generally though I view Vista and 4.0 as upgrades that are not particularly necessary at this time but which may become favorable several years after initial release after everything else catches up. In other words once they have started to release some decent supplementary material and we have a clearer picture of what they are doing.

ALOR
2007-11-30, 11:51 AM
I don't think i will be buying the next set of "magic: the gather......... wait I mean 4e. I'll at least wait 5 years for 5.0 or maybe they will be up to 6.75 by then. :smallbiggrin:

Reinboom
2007-11-30, 12:04 PM
I don't think i will be buying the next set of "magic: the gather......... wait I mean 4e. I'll at least wait 5 years for 5.0 or maybe they will be up to 6.75 by then. :smallbiggrin:

Uh... what is this making fun of again? :smallconfused:
Even 2nd edition had something called the "Player's Options" line.

And other game systems have released more editions in shorter time spans.

Hexus
2007-11-30, 12:07 PM
I would go more along the lines of one line of OS'es since D&D hasn't suddenly become a board game or something else completely different from its previous iteration.

1st Ed = Dos
2nd Ed = Windows 3.1
3rd Ed = Windows XP
3.5 Ed = Windows XP w/ Service Pack 2 ect.
4th Ed = Vista

Generally 3.5 was just a "patch" of 3.0 and similar to Service Pack 2 it created some problems and fixed some problems.

Generally though I view Vista and 4.0 as upgrades that are not particularly necessary at this time but which may become favorable several years after initial release after everything else catches up. In other words once they have started to release some decent supplementary material and we have a clearer picture of what they are doing.

The reason I use ME for 3.0 is that they thought something was proken, thus the need for a 3.5. Also with 10.5 Leopard I think it has more functionality then just eye candy (as seen in Vista). I really think with 4th ed they are trying to tap into the mmo fan base (with the near 10 million Warcraft subscribers) most guilds in mmo's has atleast one person that has played dnd. From what I read in Iron Heroes / Star Wars Saga edition (what they say 4e is most like) it seems it will be mechanicly sound and streamlined. I mean who really puts points into "move silently" and doesnt put points in "hide" . . . really.

ALOR
2007-11-30, 12:14 PM
Uh... what is this making fun of again? :smallconfused:
Even 2nd edition had something called the "Player's Options" line.

And other game systems have released more editions in shorter time spans.

well my point is I gave wizards my money for 3.0, fell for it again with 3.5 and now I do not intend to give them any more money. As far as other games coming out with new editions in shorter time spans I didn't play those games.
The OP asked why I won't bother with the 4e so I told him.

Revlid
2007-11-30, 12:15 PM
See, for me, 3.5rd Edition was a good place to be.
It had archetypal Fantasy Races, each of which filled a niche that could easily be fluffed up for other, less common races: Humans, Elves, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Dwarfs, Halflings, and Gnomes (who I never liked).
It had archetypal Fantasy Classes, each of which filled a niche and could easily be fluffed up for other, less common classes: Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Monks, Wizards, Sorcerers, Rogues, Rangers, and Bards.

It could be very easily used to play High or Low Fantasy, or somewhere in between, or a completely different setting.

Now 4th Edition;s coming around and I'm hearing that Dragon-people and Tieflings and [whatever the hell Eladrin are] are basic races, that Sword-Mages and Warlords are basic classes, and I'm getting a wee bit concerned about my Low-Lowish Fantasy. That's all I'm saying.

Epic_Wizard
2007-11-30, 12:16 PM
The reason I use ME for 3.0 is that they thought something was proken, thus the need for a 3.5. Also with 10.5 Leopard I think it has more functionality then just eye candy (as seen in Vista). I really think with 4th ed they are trying to tap into the mmo fan base (with the near 10 million Warcraft subscribers) most guilds in mmo's has atleast one person that has played dnd. From what I read in Iron Heroes / Star Wars Saga edition (what they say 4e is most like) it seems it will be mechanicly sound and streamlined. I mean who really puts points into "move silently" and doesnt put points in "hide" . . . really.

As a tech geek I really do have to say that comparing Windows ME to D&D is just wrong. Actually the only thing that you can really compare Windows ME to is Windows 2000 but only because the latter is actually worse.

Actually to be fair:

1st Ed = Windows 3.1
2nd Ed = Windows 98
3rd Ed = Windows XP
3.5 Ed = Windows XP w/ Service Pack 2 ect.
4th Ed = Vista

Because while 98 was fine at the time and is still perfectly usable it does have a somewhat ages feel to it. For all the 2nd Edition fans I simply mean the look and feel of the books in this case not the game itself. Dos is so very different from future windows products that it really doesn't belong in a comparison where the basic idea [of D&D] has remained basically the same.

Anyways really since we have very little information at this point about 4.0 it is impossible to make any realistic determination about how good or bad it will be except from a financial standpoint in some cases.

Reinboom
2007-11-30, 12:20 PM
-snip-

Forgot one... (2.5 = player's options, released in around... 94 I think)

1st Ed = Windows 3.1
2nd Ed = Windows 98
2.5 Ed = Windows 98 SE
3rd Ed = Windows XP
3.5 Ed = Windows XP w/ Service Pack 2 etc.
4th Ed = Vista

-edit- for below
Chainmail? I'm unfamiliar; OD&D, though, should be included.

OD&D = Windows 3.1
1st ED = Windows 95 *shudders of the thought*
2nd Ed = Windows 98
2.5 Ed = Windows 98 SE
3rd Ed = Windows XP
3.5 Ed = Windows XP w/ Service Pack 2 etc.
4th Ed = Vista

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-30, 12:21 PM
You also need to add Chainmail and Original D&D....

Just sayin...

JadedDM
2007-11-30, 12:23 PM
well my point is I gave wizards my money for 3.0, fell for it again with 3.5 and now I do not intend to give them any more money. As far as other games coming out with new editions in shorter time spans I didn't play those games.
The OP asked why I won't bother with the 4e so I told him.

This is the way of things. You have to constantly be updating the rules of any game every few years. That's why they're always changing the rules of Chess, Monopoly, and Baseball. Otherwise, people would get bored with these things and stop playing them.

Oh, wait...

Roderick_BR
2007-11-30, 12:25 PM
I'm really looking for it.
You say that a different set of rules is worthless? I disagree, but since you asked not to talk about it, I won't.

Hexus
2007-11-30, 12:28 PM
See, for me, 3.5rd Edition was a good place to be.
It had archetypal Fantasy Races, each of which filled a niche that could easily be fluffed up for other, less common races: Humans, Elves, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Dwarfs, Halflings, and Gnomes (who I never liked).
It had archetypal Fantasy Classes, each of which filled a niche and could easily be fluffed up for other, less common classes: Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Monks, Wizards, Sorcerers, Rogues, Rangers, and Bards.

It could be very easily used to play High or Low Fantasy, or somewhere in between, or a completely different setting.

Now 4th Edition;s coming around and I'm hearing that Dragon-people and Tieflings and [whatever the hell Eladrin are] are basic races, that Sword-Mages and Warlords are basic classes, and I'm getting a wee bit concerned about my Low-Lowish Fantasy. That's all I'm saying.

I'm a little perturbed by the lack of Bards (atleast rumored lack of). People say singing and lute playing has no place on the battlefield, I can understand that point of view. Most bards would rather be in town picking pockets and making babies in any case. I also dont recall any one complaining that you could play a Tiefling in Never Winter Nights 2, if a DM doesnt want them in there campeign they dont have to be.


As a tech geek I really do have to say that comparing Windows ME to D&D is just wrong. Actually the only thing that you can really compare Windows ME to is Windows 2000 but only because the latter is actually worse.

Actually to be fair:

1st Ed = Windows 3.1
2nd Ed = Windows 98
3rd Ed = Windows XP
3.5 Ed = Windows XP w/ Service Pack 2 ect.
4th Ed = Vista

Because while 98 was fine at the time and is still perfectly usable it does have a somewhat ages feel to it. For all the 2nd Edition fans I simply mean the look and feel of the books in this case not the game itself. Dos is so very different from future windows products that it really doesn't belong in a comparison where the basic idea [of D&D] has remained basically the same.

Anyways really since we have very little information at this point about 4.0 it is impossible to make any realistic determination about how good or bad it will be except from a financial standpoint in some cases.

I would say thats a fair analysis. With 4th addition I am commenting on pure speculation. I think the main thing with 4e is people think its too, much too soon. Taking out gnomes ::cough:: good riddance ::cough:: , Changing the class structure (turning monk and the such into a talent tree for a fighter) although I think there are some people on this board who still think/play elf as a class =X.


This is the way of things. You have to constantly be updating the rules of any game every few years. That's why they're always changing the rules of Chess, Monopoly, and Baseball. Otherwise, people would get bored with these things and stop playing them.

Oh, wait...

I lol'd irl. You have to think with those games I doubt they had there rule set finalized after the first game played. Probably took alot of fine tunning to get to the perfected state that they are currently in. I can agree that for WotC new editions of dnd = license to print money (atleast thats what they think). They will have my $100 for the core books. . . . maybe another $100 for cute little pre-painted miniatures.

J.Gellert
2007-11-30, 12:31 PM
The thing is, everything I'd like to change about 3.5 edition... they aren't changing it. And after many years of playing 3.0/3.5 (I hardly ever saw the difference, except spellcaster nerfing), I feel very comfortable with my (not short) list of house rules.

Changing to 4th edition right now would be like working for years to build a beautiful house by the sea, only to have someone come and try to sell you a piece of land by the lake as soon as you finish it. I wouldn't leave the fully built and equipped house to go build a new one from the ground up. :smallsmile:

Matthew
2007-11-30, 12:44 PM
I have heard many good things about C&C, although I admit I have not looked into it deeply. While it's certainly possible it could be a good game for me, as far as I can tell, it's no more popular than 2E is (I have never seen any books for it in the local bookstores). Thus finding players for it probably wouldn't be much different. And I'd still have to shell out money for new books and discard the ones I all ready have.

So I just stick with what I have, and as 2E is so wonderfully flexible, I can change whatever I don't like or even switch things around just for the heck of trying something new.

Castles & Crusades is good, but I don't rate the Siege System. Basically, it replaces Attribute Checks or simple percentage chances (or Non Weapon Proficiencies, if you use those). It's okay, but superfluous, in my opinion.

You should check out some of the recently released adventures for OSRIC, as those are 100% AD&D compatable:

Adventure Module PDFs at YourGamesNow

Advanced Adventures (Expeditious Retreat Press)

AA1 - The Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=96) ($5.00)
AA2 - The Red Mausoleum (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=97) ($5.00)
AA3 - The Curse of the Witch Head (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1393) ($5.00)

http://www.xrpshop.citymax.com/i/OSRIC/Pod-Caverns_Cover_for_Ads__small_version_.jpghttp://www.xrpshop.citymax.com/i/OSRIC/JPEG_Web_Cover_image.jpghttp://www.xrpshop.citymax.com/i/OSRIC/XRP6103Witch_Head_Cover.jpg

Advanced Master Adventures (0one Games)

The Andwan Legacy (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=530) ($5.00)
The Divine Alligator (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1454) ($6.50)
The Minotaur (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=531) ($5.00)
Deadly Ice (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1012) ($6.00)
Blood Runs Cold (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1904) ($6.50)

http://www.rpgnow.com/images/61/23337.jpghttp://www.rpgnow.com/images/61/25763.jpghttp://www.rpgnow.com/images/61/23611.jpghttp://www.rpgnow.com/images/61/24073.jpg
http://www.rpgnow.com/images/61/50854.jpg

Dungeon Crawl Classics (Goodman Games)

Iron Crypt of the Heretics (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=877) ($6.99) - incorrectly listed!
Saga of the Witch Queen (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1864) ($9.99)

http://www.rpgnow.com/images/36/23822.jpghttp://www.rpgnow.com/images/36/50480.jpg

First Edition Fantasy (Ronin Arts)

Into the Mite Lair (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=359) ($2.00)
Smuggler's Bane (http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=361) ($3.00)

http://e23.sjgames.com/media/FEF001.jpghttp://e23.sjgames.com/media/FEF003.jpg

Adventure Module PDFs at RPGNow

Realms of Arkonus (Magique Production)

RAM1 - The Dark Raiders of Misty Ridge (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=29506&it=1) ($7.99)
RAM2 - The Forgotten Isle (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=24771&it=1) ($3.00)

http://www.rpgnow.com/images/products/product_22435.jpghttp://www.rpgnow.com/images/773/24771.jpg

Alternatively, check out the C&C free Starter Rules :smallwink:

horseboy
2007-11-30, 01:27 PM
Let's say money isn't a factor (as in they gave the core books as a free pdf) how many of you wouldn't try it?I'd down load it. Hell, I down load any free system I find. Would we play it or would it just sit on my hard drive next to Broken Gears? Well, that would depend on how well they did on it.

Most of my current gaming friends are in the "bitter" camp about the change over. "I've got too many books to change, I'm too invested." they scream. "Dude, you bit torrented those books. That doesn't count" I answer. That, plus they're not fans of SAGA edition and my own misgivings about the faux nature of 4th's "genericness" means if it does get played, it'll be when we're burnt out and need a month or so of silliness to get refocused.

littlechicory
2007-11-30, 01:27 PM
I don't know 2nd Ed. I don't really even know 3rd Ed. I came in on 3.5, and I cannot stand what I'm seeing simply thrown out in 4.0. I'm keeping my 3.5. I'm keeping my half-orcs and gnomes, no matter how much 'prettier' the new player races are.

Ganurath
2007-11-30, 01:29 PM
I'm not going to go 4E because I've invested a great deal in 3.5 books (Completes and such,) and I have an undying love of half-orcs that Wizards has seen fit to stomp on like it was worthless.

Morty
2007-11-30, 01:31 PM
I'm not going to go 4E because I've invested a great deal in 3.5 books (Completes and such,) and I have an undying love of half-orcs that Wizards has seen fit to stomp on like it was worthless.

Because, man, Dragonborn are so much more cool!:smallannoyed:
I never thought I'll be defending Half-orcs.

Ganurath
2007-11-30, 01:38 PM
Because, man, Dragonborn are so much more cool!:smallannoyed:
I never thought I'll be defending Half-orcs.It's because they're worried about offending people with having a race that is based heavily around relations between humans and nonhumans. Same reason they offed the half-elf.

Hexus
2007-11-30, 01:38 PM
Well the story behind dragonborn is that there converted from other races by Bahamut . The original race determines what type of dragonborn they become. I have seen pics of pretty buff dragonborn (half-orc?) so I wouldnt rule them out. They will need to have a + strength race in the PHB.

kjones
2007-11-30, 01:38 PM
I urge the 2nd Edition supporters in this thread to take a look at Hackmaster. It's what 3rd Edition should have been, and while it does have a certain tounge-in-cheek feel, it's as serious as you want it to be, just like D&D.

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 01:40 PM
It's because they're worried about offending people with having a race that is based heavily around relations between humans and nonhumans. Same reason they offed the half-elf.

Either that, or they finally realised that different races aren't necessarily genetically compatible.

Matthew
2007-11-30, 01:41 PM
I urge the 2nd Edition supporters in this thread to take a look at Hackmaster. It's what 3rd Edition should have been, and while it does have a certain tounge-in-cheek feel, it's as serious as you want it to be, just like D&D.

Maybe, but as Hamlet and I were recently discussing, the license to sell Hack Master has expired, so it might be wise to wait on a new edition. For the moment, I wouldn't advise anyone to go with Hack Master over Castles & Crusades or simply picking up the original books and using the new OSRIC material.

littlechicory
2007-11-30, 01:43 PM
Wait, they offed half-elves, too?!

*hugs her 3.5 corebooks tighter*

ALOR
2007-11-30, 01:44 PM
Either that, or they finally realised that different races aren't necessarily genetically compatible.

Because genetics are so important in a fantasy setting. :smalltongue:

Ganurath
2007-11-30, 01:46 PM
Wait, they offed half-elves, too?!

*hugs her 3.5 corebooks tighter*They weren't on the list of races they put in... and neither were the gnomes.

EvilJames
2007-11-30, 01:48 PM
balance would be a fine reason to make 4th ed if that's what the reason was. as it is however it's not Wotc just wants to sell you the same books you bought 8 and 5 years ago.
3rd ed was an acceptable idea when it was announced and I was looking forward to it. In the end i didn't think much of it, but the idea of it's existence didn't bother me. This time it already seems like a bad idea and I'm likeing the changes even less. It's onething to house rule because I think my way works better but I'd have to house rule what i've seen so far just to make sense.:smallyuk:

And incidently I hear a lot of comparisons between Players option books and the 3.5 edition. They are not even the slightest bit similar there were only 3 PO books ever published the rest of the material published after didn't use it (barring a few articles in dragon magazine and a few mentions in a few of the "complete" books and such) everything after 3.5 came out had to be 3.5 it was essentilly not an option it was a redo of the system you may as well compare it to the Dragonlance saga system.

anyway. yes I will be avoiding 4th ed, but I may pick up some used 3.5 now

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-30, 01:49 PM
Yes, because we all know that one of the main storyline decisions for 4e is that Wizards decided to exterminate the entire Orcish (and thereby Half-Orcish) race.

Eyes. I don't have enough of them to roll.

Orcs are pretty clearly in 4e.

I would say there is a pretty darn good chance that Half-Orcs will also exist. They will just be in the Monster Manual (with rules to use them as PCs) instead of in the PHB.

I think that is pretty fair, considering that Orcs are a pretty evil lot and a Half-Orc PC would be pretty rare. Why rare? Well, in I would say roughly 99/100 cases the father is going to be orcish and the mother human. I would also say in those 99/100 cases, the mother isn't the mother voluntarily. In most human societies, she would be either cast out for being 'tainted' or should would be carried off to the orcish lair, where she might have a 50% chance of living to bring the child to term. So now you have a Half-Orc, raised in an Orcish home. While I think some would be thrown to the wilds, most would be kept since they are smarter and more charismatic than their Orc brothers. So they would be raised in a Chaotic Evil society, no doubt becoming Chaotic Evil themselves, most likely doing well (because they are smarter and more charismatic) or dying very young. (because others see them as a threat since they are smarter and more charismatic..) So, of our 100, ~50% are never born. Of that remainder, ~75% will die before reaching adulthood (figuring brutal conditions and competition) leaving us with ~13/100 survivors. Of that 13, I would venture to say that it is a rare soul indeed who would choose to give up a life as being a leader of a warband to become an adventurer.

Given that, I think it is fair to not include Half-Orcs as a base race.

On a side note, were there a lot of complaints about second edition, since first edition allowed half-orcs, but they were removed in second? (At least until the release of Humanoids many years later)

Hexus
2007-11-30, 01:52 PM
From EnWorld

Warforged is mentioned. Apart from the core races (human, elf, eladrin, thiefling, dragonborn, dwarf and halfling) gnome, drow, celestial (aasimar) and warforged is mentioned for a paragraph or two.

Tiefling on the other hand can breed with humans. The result is always a thiefling. I won't give away fluff from the book, but it is great! But their grandparent are definitely not demons, they are thieflings. As for their distant past ancestry, but and read the book.

Strange as it is, as half-elves get mentioned from the announcement of 4th edition, but there is nothing in the book about them.

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 01:56 PM
As I speculated in another thread, it's possible the Core PHB and DMG will be heavily themed around a 'new' setting - something that new players to D&D can just jump into and play in, without having to imagine their own world or buy a sourcebook. That's something that was seriously lacking in 3rd Ed - though there were details on Gods and such, there was no map you could use, or details of some example setting or cities or anything.

Would make sense - the idea of a setting based around small islands of civilisation in a sea of wilderness is much easier to get into than a politically complex setting like the Realms, and it makes adventures much easier to find.

EvilJames
2007-11-30, 01:57 PM
removing half-orcs wouldn't bother me after all it's tradition. otherwise how would they put them back in 5th ed in 6 years:smallbiggrin:


As I speculated in another thread, it's possible the Core PHB and DMG will be heavily themed around a 'new' setting - something that new players to D&D can just jump into and play in, without having to imagine their own world or buy a sourcebook. That's something that was seriously lacking in 3rd Ed - though there were details on Gods and such, there was no map you could use, or details of some example setting or cities or anything.

Would make sense - the idea of a setting based around small islands of civilisation in a sea of wilderness is much easier to get into than a politically complex setting like the Realms, and it makes adventures much easier to find.
3rd ed was supposedto be Greyhawk setting but you are right that they didn't really support it much. IF you wanted to know where r the places in published adventures were you had to go find a 2nd ed map.

Morty
2007-11-30, 02:06 PM
Bah, I personally don't like half-orcs at all, mainly for reasons listed by Mr. Friendly. But when the alternative is Dragonborn...
And it wouldn't hurt if they made orc society somewhat more belivable.

Yakk
2007-11-30, 02:13 PM
I started playing with good old Basic D&D.
I then played Expert D&D -- the rest of the books where pretty useless, the level time was too long to reach them. ;)
Then AD&D, AD&D2nd, D&D 3rd, D&D 3.5...

Conclusion? It has had a tendency towards being less sucky. :)

They really do file off the rough parts of the game.

EvilJames
2007-11-30, 02:20 PM
not so much file off as hack at with a cleaver from what i've seen

Matthew
2007-11-30, 02:23 PM
Heh, heh, yeah, where 'Sucky' = 'more to my preference'.

EvilJames
2007-11-30, 02:24 PM
Heh, heh, yeah, where 'Sucky' = 'more to my preference'.

it's less more to your preference?:smallconfused:

Matthew
2007-11-30, 02:32 PM
Heh, heh. Okay, "where 'less sucky' = 'more to my preference' (not mine, I must point out)"

You picked that Nit! I will be sure to award you 1 experience point at the end of the game.

EvilJames
2007-11-30, 02:47 PM
Yay one exp (I take em where I can get em):smallbiggrin:

spaceLem
2007-11-30, 08:13 PM
I'm interested in 4th ed. I have major issues with the current system that I would really love to see addressed, (primarily balance - I'd love to play a high level fighter, but I become increasingly less useful to the party). I think skills need a major work over, and I've always thought that AB should really be a skill, and I would love to see the end of Vancian based magic (I hate spell slots).

I'm excited to see more of a difference between races, and have weapons that feel different from each other. Focussing on feat chains is also a good move. I'd like to see more of a character's abilities at high levels, rather than overburdence of magic items. I'd also like to see a +2 greatsword cost considerably more than a +2 dagger, but I think that's never going to change.

I don't really trust WotC to sort all of the issues out, and I have many other RPGs that work the way I prefer, but I'm going to play 4th ed, because that's what my friends will be playing, and they're the ones that really make a game fun, not a collection of rules.

Yrnes
2007-11-30, 09:12 PM
It's because they're worried about offending people with having a race that is based heavily around relations between humans and nonhumans. Same reason they offed the half-elf.

I won't miss half elves. Not that I had anything against them, its just our group is big on min/maxing (we do role play, we're just very aware of our powergaming ways) and half elves bring nothing to the table.

Put dwarves, halflings, elves, or humans on the chopping block, and then we have a problem:smallbiggrin:

Zeful
2007-11-30, 09:41 PM
I'm going to point out that the Keep of the Shadowfell adventure game is going to show up before the release, with maybe a third of the rules. I mean maybe we should look at that as the real test of forth ed. If the adventure game is crap your out ten bucks instead of the ~$150 you would be out if you bought the books.

See, problem solved.

PnP Fan
2007-12-01, 02:57 AM
Like several others in this thread, I've been playing on and off since the red basic boxed set. Every edition has been an improvement, imo. Going from a fairly simple game (boxed sets) to the more complicated first ed added a lot of dimension and detail to the game that had been left out in the boxed sets. Second ed was an improvement because it defined the characters in greater depth in terms of non-weapon profs. 3.x improved the more annoying statistical aspects of the game (though it made others worse), and generally, imo, improved playability. I expect that 4th ed will still be an improvement, possibly in the mechanical/balance areas that everyone is hoping for. So I am inclined to want to give it a chance.

However. . .
I, like many of you, am an adult, with RL responsibilities, and bills to pay. I am more than willing to shell out thirty or so bucks a month for a gaming product. But I would like that product to be something I don't have already. Something that provides new functionality in some way. A new set of core rules isn't really what I want, especially when I've got a set of core rules already that work reasonably well, with an intelligent human being behind the screen. (No the aren't perfect, that's what the human being is there for.) This is especially true when entry into 4th ed will lead to the re-purchase of many of the same books I've already got, just with the mechanics revised. Many of my friends feel the same way, and many of them have less disposable income than I do. (Probably 1/3 of my fellow gamers don't own more than the core books necessary to play the games we play, and some of them don't even own that much.)

So, my guess is that I will probably buy the 4.0 PHB to start with. I will look at it, read it, and see what sorts of improvements they've made. Possibly steal some ideas and incorporate them into my 3.5 games. Otherwise, I think I'm pretty much done giving WoTC my cash after next year, with possible exceptions for things that are mechanic free (miniatures, the occasional sourcebook that is mostly fluff). It's a shame, because my local merchants will probably suffer for the loss of my money (and a number of others).

I'm hoping that Green Ronin and White Wolf (and others) will come out with some more palatable material that my fellow players will want to enjoy. Most of my friends don't dig all of that vampire /werewolf stuff (some find it creepy, and more than one of them find the games religiously offensive.)

Renx
2007-12-01, 04:41 AM
The balance will be broken in a few years with supplemental books, as always.

It's a never-ending circle of cash ;)

Personally what I hate about 3.0 and 3.5 are the buff/summon durations. The main reason seems to be that they're "for battle", which is ludicrous. After level 5-7 no summon you cast will make any difference in CR-appropriate combat. And as they last seconds, they become useless by default outside combat, unless reasonable houserules are brought to play.

Hagentai
2007-12-01, 05:32 AM
How is balance a worthless reason? Not all DMs have the infinite time and encyclopedic rules knowledge that you apparently claim to have, and even if they did, they may not be inclined to have to rewrite vast swathes of rules in order to "take care of balance just fine".

Oh Lord. But there are dms who have the cash to just go buy new crap? $e4 is going to have problems just like every other game.

If there's a problem with the game you fix it yourself. Or else WOTC should have came and said "DM don't have the right to change.. this, this and this"

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-01, 05:43 AM
Personally what I hate about 3.0 and 3.5 are the buff/summon durations. The main reason seems to be that they're "for battle", which is ludicrous. After level 5-7 no summon you cast will make any difference in CR-appropriate combat. And as they last seconds, they become useless by default outside combat, unless reasonable houserules are brought to play.

Maybe it's not so much that the summons can't make a difference. Maybe you're doing it wrong.

Renx
2007-12-01, 05:51 AM
Maybe it's not so much that the summons can't make a difference. Maybe you're doing it wrong.

Do the math. 'nuff said.

Fatso
2007-12-01, 05:52 AM
I won't bother at all.

The changes made for 4.0 have so far done naught to make me even slightly interested. Some even turning me right off.

With house-rules and similar modifications I've gotten 3,5 to my liking.

So, no. I won't buy 4.0.

I MIGHT go back to playing Basic Roleplaying again though... :smallwink:

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-01, 07:37 AM
Do the math. 'nuff said.

Okay.

Summon Monster V can get you a Bearded Devil, which has Greater Teleport at will. Sure, it's self + 50 lbs gear only... but jump in a Bag of Holding, give the bag to the devil, and have it take you whereever. Multiple teleports in succession, if needed, and Greater Teleport is normally a 7th level slot. On top of that, if you have Augment Summoning, it frenzies and has +13 to hit, bypasses some DR, forces saves and extra damage when it hits... and, oh yeah, it's telepathic, letting your party communicate mentally through it--often handy!
If you're summoning, you really should *have* Augment Summoning. With it, the Giant Stag Beetle has +12 to hit for very significant damage, or Trample with a DC 21 save.
The Achaierai's Black Cloud ability has a DC 17 (with Augment) AoE save-or-lose.
The Giant Crocodile makes an effective grappler.

Summon Monster VII? The Bone Devil has Dimensional Anchor, Fly, Major Image, and Wall of Ice at will. It spams a Wall every round and moves to use its fear aura; that's high-quality battlefield control. An augmented Elephant has a solid Trample. The 16-HD Earth Elemental can Bull Rush your enemies around.

A number of creatures at various levels gain Dispel Magic at will. The CL is usually too low to bother targetting an opponent's buffs... so have them target your enemy's magic items, instead.

That's just core. And that's the Summon Monster spells--the druid gets Summon Nature's Ally. SNA VI summons a Dire Bear--augment summoning on top of that--and then you Animal Growth it and your companion both.



So I'd say you are in fact doing it wrong. You can't expect your summon to fight as well as the party fighter--that'd just be mean to the fighter! Unless you're a Druid, in which case see Dire Bear, but if you're a Druid the fighter is already probably feeling kind of sad. Instead, use the special abilities and SLAs of your summons, with a side of combat from particularily combat-capable ones.

Epic_Wizard
2007-12-01, 04:48 PM
Okay.

Summon Monster V can get you a Bearded Devil, which has Greater Teleport at will. Sure, it's self + 50 lbs gear only... but jump in a Bag of Holding, give the bag to the devil, and have it take you whereever. Multiple teleports in succession, if needed, and Greater Teleport is normally a 7th level slot. On top of that, if you have Augment Summoning, it frenzies and has +13 to hit, bypasses some DR, forces saves and extra damage when it hits... and, oh yeah, it's telepathic, letting your party communicate mentally through it--often handy!
If you're summoning, you really should *have* Augment Summoning. With it, the Giant Stag Beetle has +12 to hit for very significant damage, or Trample with a DC 21 save.
The Achaierai's Black Cloud ability has a DC 17 (with Augment) AoE save-or-lose.
The Giant Crocodile makes an effective grappler.

Summon Monster VII? The Bone Devil has Dimensional Anchor, Fly, Major Image, and Wall of Ice at will. It spams a Wall every round and moves to use its fear aura; that's high-quality battlefield control. An augmented Elephant has a solid Trample. The 16-HD Earth Elemental can Bull Rush your enemies around.

A number of creatures at various levels gain Dispel Magic at will. The CL is usually too low to bother targetting an opponent's buffs... so have them target your enemy's magic items, instead.

That's just core. And that's the Summon Monster spells--the druid gets Summon Nature's Ally. SNA VI summons a Dire Bear--augment summoning on top of that--and then you Animal Growth it and your companion both.



So I'd say you are in fact doing it wrong. You can't expect your summon to fight as well as the party fighter--that'd just be mean to the fighter! Unless you're a Druid, in which case see Dire Bear, but if you're a Druid the fighter is already probably feeling kind of sad. Instead, use the special abilities and SLAs of your summons, with a side of combat from particularily combat-capable ones.

Yes but summons can be dispelled and the Bearded Devil would have to be familiar with the place you want to transport to. Not to mention that he might decide to twist your words when he talks to another party member.

I would fully support making Fighters able to do just as well as Wizards at high levels but I really don't think that another Edition is needed.

Renx
2007-12-01, 07:16 PM
Yes but summons can be dispelled and the Bearded Devil would have to be familiar with the place you want to transport to. Not to mention that he might decide to twist your words when he talks to another party member.

Thank you. At level 7 you have to do it in 21 seconds or less if you go by the book. Good luck. Also, you'll have to get pretty badass Bags of Holding so they won't rip when your dwarven fighter and half-orc barbarian enter it. And, of course, it'll have to weigh less than 50 pounds. Again, good luck. Happy dying.


The Achaierai's Black Cloud ability has a DC 17 (with Augment) AoE save-or-lose.
The Giant Crocodile makes an effective grappler.

I'll remember that when I hit level 9. Still, they're both 5th level casts. Also, you have to know that they can do it before you can tell them to do it. Good luck rolling high on that knowledge (planes) roll.


Summon Monster VII? The Bone Devil has Dimensional Anchor, Fly, Major Image, and Wall of Ice at will. It spams a Wall every round and moves to use its fear aura; that's high-quality battlefield control. An augmented Elephant has a solid Trample. The 16-HD Earth Elemental can Bull Rush your enemies around. A number of creatures at various levels gain Dispel Magic at will. The CL is usually too low to bother targetting an opponent's buffs... so have them target your enemy's magic items, instead.

At VII they start being useful, I'll give you that. Dispel Magic doesn't sound a good idea to summon mobs for, you can just cast it yourself. And on items? Destroying loot? Are you crazy?


That's just core. And that's the Summon Monster spells--the druid gets Summon Nature's Ally. SNA VI summons a Dire Bear--augment summoning on top of that--and then you Animal Growth it and your companion both.

I have no experience in using SNA, so I'll defer to your ...judgement.

Anyway, I'm not saying summons are bad, they're excellent for creative solutions and especially roleplaying. I simply object (loudly) to the round/level limits which make them absolutely useless on lower levels, especially out of combat. And in CR-appropriate combat most of the summons in the basic lists don't give out much bang for the buck. The point is, if you want to actually use them with any kind of consistency, you'll have to burn Persistent Spell -rods or turn attempts with metamagic -- or get concessions from your DM. Which isn't nice since that introduces even more balance issues to the game.

YancyS
2007-12-01, 08:47 PM
1st post on gitp.

I've got some speculation and three opinions.

Speculation:
4e will be more like World of Warcraft in that there will be feat progressions. The site says that you choose a class and a build. Basically that means that class skills will probably work as a sort of tech tree. Sometimes these work and sometimes they don't. My problem is that it might be way MORE restrictive instead of LESS restrictive than they say. They're saying stuff about more "clearly defined class roles" or some such. That FEELS like they're pigeonholing character classes, which I don't like. For a guy that likes BRP--a very loose an non-restrictive system--this isn't looking good for me.

Opinion 1:
That said, I'm probably going to buy 4e core anyway. And I'll tell you why. Previous experience proves that since nearly everyone who plays fantasy RPGs, play D&D and since it's the easiest game to find a group to play, if we already play D&D, it's unlikely that we're going to stop anytime soon.

Everyone said, "F--- 3.x, I'm not buying that. 2nd ed is just fine." And they were right. 2nd ed was just fine. But everyone still made the switch to 3rd. And then they made the switch to 3.5. They grumbled, but they did it. And that's why I'm going to buy 4e PHB on the first day. I want to be ready for the day when it's necessary.

Opinion 2:
Forgotten Realms and Eberron are lame. I've never played FR, but I've played Eberron and it's lame. I don't play pre-generated worlds. That said, whatever world they decide to throw in the PHB, I'm sure I won't care. I always end up playing in original worlds from campaign to campaign anyway.

Opnion 3:
WoTC should change their 4e campaign slogan to: "Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition: as if you had a choice."

That would be closer to the mark.

Edit:
And it REALLY pisses me off how much WoTC is trash talking 2nd and 3rd ed in their promotional stuff. They are both decent systems and it's an underhanded attempt to get people to undervalue all the good times they've had on the other systems.

Edit again:
In 3.5 grappling is NOT that complicated, for crying out loud. It's not broken, and it's not difficult to figure out. It's just a book organization problem, not a rules problem. The 3.5 phb is poorly organized so it makes it seem harder because it's harder to find the damned rule. The rules work just fine.

Kompera
2007-12-01, 09:30 PM
I started playing not that long after 3.5 came out, and I like it. In fact, seeing some of the changes for 4e, I don't think it's worth the money, time, and effort to switch systems when it comes out. I'm sticking with 3.5. I was wondering if anyone else felt the same. If so, why, and if not, why they think 4e will be worth it. (And no, "it will be more balanced" is a worthless reason, so if that's your reason, please don't post -- houseruling and homebrewing can take care of balance just fine)

- Fiery DiamondI don't feel the same. If 4e is a better system, that's reason enough to play it. The time and effort to learn a new system is not a huge investment nor is it a difficult thing. Skim the books for familiarity, and then break out the rules as you go. There are people in my current group who need to be reminded of the 3.5 rules during each play session, and these are intelligent and adult professionals, they simply have better things to do with their time than memorize D&D rules. So there'd be no real change in play on that regard. The cost is an issue to some, who would rather make another deposit to their kid's college fund than spend ~$100 on yet another set of D&D books. No argument from me on that regard.

In a vacuum, I'd probably buy the 4e if it fixed balance. Yeah, I know you said not to use that reason, but it's hard to get around the fact that it's the sole reason I'd consider the change. I don't think WotC will manage it, but I'll browse the books to see if they made an effort.

captain_decadence said it best:


I have to say that I will probably play 4th edition because it seems that it makes things more enjoyable for non-caster based classes. While we don't know anything for sure, they look like they are truly trying to make their options something more than "I take the strongest magic weapon (doesn't matter which because I am a fighter and can use every single weapon in existence) and hit things with it. I hit them till they are dead or I am dead."

I've posted in other class threads a similar point:

At low levels the Fighter swings a sword or shoots a bow to kill his opponent.
At high levels the Fighter swings a sword or shoots a bow to kill his opponent.

Yeah, he's better at it, but that's not the point. It's the same options, 8 levels later. Meanwhile, the Wizard is bending time and space, and his options have grown, perhaps not exponentially, but at an enormous rate.

I'd like to think that 4e would address this basic flaw in the game, but I don't hold out much hope that it will manage to do so. There seems to be a huge amount of predisposition to the concept that Wizards and other casters have to have a few hundred spells to chose from in order to be interesting to play, or that a game system which doesn't include that number of spells is somehow limited or flawed. But frankly, I don't think the 'fix' will ever be found in adding some nifty combat maneuvers or interesting options to the melee classes. The casters need to have their options savagely curtailed from the present state, or the game will never find balance.


There really won't be a WOTC employee holding a gun to your head forcing you to play 4th ed. I promise.Perhaps nothing so dramatic, but if you enjoy convention going it'll be necessary to own 4e (or at least be familiar with, which ownership provides the most easy route to) to effectively participate in any official tournaments or events. There is a price for progress. Within your own gaming circle, of course you can play whatever system the group enjoys.

SmartAlec
2007-12-01, 09:37 PM
The casters need to have their options savagely curtailed from the present state, or the game will never find balance.

From the sounds of things, that's exactly what's going to happen.

Moff Chumley
2007-12-01, 09:39 PM
Thus, far, I am happy with pretty much every change WotC has anounced, and am planning to buy and play 4e ASAP. Speaking of which, I can give you a great discount on $300 dollars worth of 3.5e books...

Kompera
2007-12-01, 11:27 PM
From the sounds of things, that's [4e savagely curtailing caster abilities] exactly what's going to happen.I sure hope so. I've read a few 4e teasers on the WotC site, but hadn't seen any which suggested that this would be the case. Do you have any references you could share?

EvilJames
2007-12-02, 03:50 AM
If I ever do buy 4th ed it won't be for a few years it seems rushed out to me as I said before it's only been 8 years since 3rd ed and only 5 years since 3.5. when all previous editions had at least 10 in between so for me it's just to soon for a new one. (mention 3.5 since that's the version the trailer focuses on it glosses over 3.0 and it really, makes Wotc look bad.)

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-02, 08:09 AM
Thank you. At level 7 you have to do it in 21 seconds or less if you go by the book. Good luck. Also, you'll have to get pretty badass Bags of Holding so they won't rip when your dwarven fighter and half-orc barbarian enter it. And, of course, it'll have to weigh less than 50 pounds. Again, good luck. Happy dying.
Uh, you can fit things in Bags of Holding (or a Portable Hole) that won't fit in a normal bag of that size. Bags of Holding don't rip.
A round is 6 seconds. At CL 9, you have 54 seconds to do it (minus 6 for the teleport and opening of the bag). And with Greater Teleport, you don't need to be familiar with it.
The Bag of Holding has a constant weight, regardless of what's in it. "Get in the bag and have the devil teleport us" works.


I'll remember that when I hit level 9. Still, they're both 5th level casts. Also, you have to know that they can do it before you can tell them to do it. Good luck rolling high on that knowledge (planes) roll.
You're a wizard. You should be able to identify outsiders and their SLAs. Or you could have the devil telepathically tell you his abilities.
It's a 5th level spell that gives you the option of a Greater Teleport, a decently useful combatant with telepathy, an AoE save-or-lose plus an okay combatant, etc. Pretty powerful, I'd say.

"Summons can be dispelled"--so what? If they waste a round trying to dispel your summoned monster, they could have been dispelling you, instead. Or doing something more dangerous.



At VII they start being useful, I'll give you that. Dispel Magic doesn't sound a good idea to summon mobs for, you can just cast it yourself. And on items? Destroying loot? Are you crazy?
Dispelling an item doesn't destroy it! It suppresses its magical properties for 1d4 rounds. Casting dispel yourself gets you one dispel; Summoning 1d4+1 lesser summons gets you 1d4+1 dispels a round, every round.




I have no experience in using SNA, so I'll defer to your ...judgement.
You can check the Dire Bear's stats. Then apply Augment Summoning and Animal Growth.


Anyway, I'm not saying summons are bad, they're excellent for creative solutions and especially roleplaying. I simply object (loudly) to the round/level limits which make them absolutely useless on lower levels, especially out of combat. And in CR-appropriate combat most of the summons in the basic lists don't give out much bang for the buck. The point is, if you want to actually use them with any kind of consistency, you'll have to burn Persistent Spell -rods or turn attempts with metamagic -- or get concessions from your DM. Which isn't nice since that introduces even more balance issues to the game.
Sure, they're not very useful out of combat--they're combat spells. And in CR-appropriate combat, each Summon Monster has summons that are useful. And a summon for two or three rounds in combat at low levels can make a big difference.

If what you're looking for are utility-based, non-combat-effective summons... well, there's Planar Binding type stuff, but overall D&D doesn't have much non-combat based utility spells, period, much less summons.

Zincorium
2007-12-02, 02:30 PM
Thus, far, I am happy with pretty much every change WotC has anounced, and am planning to buy and play 4e ASAP. Speaking of which, I can give you a great discount on $300 dollars worth of 3.5e books...

Yay, someone who finally shares my perspective :smallbiggrin: .

The way I'm looking at it, 4th edition is going to cut down on the number of house-rules I make.

Jerthanis
2007-12-03, 01:23 AM
I'll probably do the "Big Comfy Chair" approach for a couple years. Read it in a bookstore, get used to the ideas, but not buy it. The problem is, is that one of my good friends has every single WotC 3.5 splatbook in print that isn't based in Forgotten Realms, and he even has three or four Forgotten Realms books. The rest of us can't convert until he does, because we'd feel guilty that he bought all those books that we never got around to using.

Now, I firmly believe that 4th edition will be a better ruleset in a lot of respects, and if somehow my friend lost his collection of D&D books in a plane crash, I'd probably upgrade in an instant... but when my group and I play levels 2-9ish, where 3.5 still functions perfectly well, I don't mind letting a friend get the most out of his books. Of everything I've heard so far, 80% of the teaser info sounds great, 20% is stuff I don't like that they changed, but don't mind that much.

I would probably have the same opinion about the 2nd edition-3rd edition change... but that depends on what kinds of splatbooks 2nd edition had. When I played, we had the PHB, DMG and MM and one player's option book (Combat and Tactics IIRC), and my list of houserules was as long as my arm. Most dealt with speeding up experience points and mitigating the deadliness of combat, making combat move faster, making wizards suck less at level 1... If the 2nd ed splats cleared those issues up, I'd be happy to play a 2nd edition game. Thinking of 3rd edition, I'd have to consider for a moment to remember all the houserules I've come up with. The houserules I've considered for 3rd edition have been additive changes rather than subtractive ("I'll make up a new feat that makes Sword and Board fighting more appealing" vs "I'm just going to ignore this rule about racial maximum levels, and racial restrictions to classes"), which meant that I liked the 3.5 system enough to want it to be bigger, and thought on some level that the 2nd edition system was getting in the way of fun. Basically, I'd say I'm more willing to stick with 3.5 than 2nd because I need fewer houserules to enjoy playing it. However, if the group playing 2nd edition was a really good group and I knew it, I'd play any system they wanted, because good gaming groups are worth more than six times their collective weight in sourcebooks.

Bosh
2007-12-03, 07:02 AM
Meh, I've gotten bored of D&D in general. 4ed looks like it'll do a fine job of what its setting out to do but that's not what I want anymore...

After playing Spirit of the Century I really have a hard time getting into games where my character's personality don't have a mechanical affect on gameplay anymore.

SoD
2007-12-03, 07:13 AM
I personally am happy with 3.5, and would rather not have to spend money on new books...but my friends back home have been talking about changing to 4, so I'll see how it goes.

Kiero
2007-12-03, 07:24 AM
I didn't bother buying any 3rd edition
I doubt I'll bother buying any 4th edition.

Me neither. I stopped playing 2nd edition a long time ago too.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-03, 08:39 AM
After playing Spirit of the Century I really have a hard time getting into games where my character's personality don't have a mechanical affect on gameplay anymore.

Isn't it wonderful? SotC is love.

Tormsskull
2007-12-03, 09:34 AM
I'll upgrade to it most likely. I'm interested in checking out the online-integration that they are promoting, but I am not interested in paying a monthly fee. So I'll probably check them out for a short time, and then cancel it if it doesn't have anything worth while.

The main reason to upgrade though is to stay current. I plan to create adventures and possibly supplements of some kind, and as such it makes the most sense to use the edition that the majority of players use, which I'm guessing will be 4e shortly after it comes out.

Surudoi
2007-12-03, 10:24 AM
Well 4e looks intresting so im going to but the books. And the formated elves look more fun to play.:smallsmile:

Snadgeros
2007-12-03, 11:41 AM
Oh well. It's not like my 3.5 stuff is going to burst into flames or something.

#3!:smallbiggrin:

OzymandiasVolt
2007-12-03, 04:38 PM
I'm going to wait until the game comes out and I have a chance to look it over before I decide if I'm going to buy it or not. Call me a maverick.

Kaerou
2007-12-04, 04:21 AM
I'm torn on 4th.. if it revitalises my gaming group i'm for it however. My DM became a WoWaholic and we rarely see him anymore.. -_-
Reasons i'm torn:
4th edition:

Pro's:
1, They got rid of Gnomes (and I think half orcs? would have to confirm)

2, They removed the majority of Vancian Magic (I hate it) the semi-vancian thing is something i'll have to try out. I love sorcerers so.. as long as i have the option to be a spellcaster with natural magic and not have to lug around tomes and junk i'll be happy.. even if i have to take some kind of first level feat chain. if i do have to be a book wizard.. hate.

Also.. no, I dont like Warlocks and I never will. They're really not sorcerers to me. Their theme sounds entirely different.. especially in 3rd.

3, I'm liking that weapons are more varied and matter. I tired of 1/10th of weapons being taken for being the best, and all the rest werent 'good enough. Also i hated how spears were pretty useless in general combat: the spear is supposed to have been the staple effective weapon of armies for generations.

4, Elves. Since Tolkein I have always liked the theme of elves being woodland dwellers who use natural (albiet powerful) magic. So I actually like this change. I have always envisioned elves wearing green with a bow, not dressed in courtly robes with a magic staff.

Cons:
1, They have butchered my beloved realms, gutted it, thrust in 7 day old pig guts, replaced its head with an orcs, sewn it all up, reanimated it and taught it to sing crazy frog again and again while holding up a world of warcraft banner. The setting is the most important thing to the game to many people. They look like they have really ruined it from what I have heard. Looks like they didnt learn from Eberron and how it also destroyed DDO.

2, From a lot of what I am hearing, they are heavily world of warcraft inspired. They use terms like agro, and a lot of the abilities sound inspired by online gaming. I dont like it.

3, No Kobold race? After the phenominal popularity? I'm shocked and dissapointed =( They're so flavorful and different. Imo the one thing D&D needs os to add a couple of 'beast' races into the mix, something that isnt a human with funny ears or a couple of tasteful scales. Kobolds fit due to the fact they are numerous and humanoid, not overly powerful or any more powerful than a standard race.. and imo have some of the best lore behind them after RotD.

illathid
2007-12-04, 05:50 AM
Cons:
1, They have butchered my beloved realms, gutted it, thrust in 7 day old pig guts, replaced its head with an orcs, sewn it all up, reanimated it and taught it to sing crazy frog again and again while holding up a world of warcraft banner. The setting is the most important thing to the game to many people. They look like they have really ruined it from what I have heard. Looks like they didnt learn from Eberron and how it also destroyed DDO.

I'm having trouble understanding what your going for, especially in the bolded section. As a beta tester, the biggest problems in DDO were that it focused almost solely on hardcore quest grinding and didn't include enough Eberron specific flavour besides the inclusion of the warforged as a PC race.


2, From a lot of what I am hearing, they are heavily world of warcraft inspired. They use terms like agro, and a lot of the abilities sound inspired by online gaming. I dont like it.


Where do people keep getting this from? Where have they used the term Aggro, except to say that they aren't including it?

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-04, 05:57 AM
3, No Kobold race? After the phenominal popularity? I'm shocked and dissapointed =( They're so flavorful and different. Imo the one thing D&D needs os to add a couple of 'beast' races into the mix, something that isnt a human with funny ears or a couple of tasteful scales. Kobolds fit due to the fact they are numerous and humanoid, not overly powerful or any more powerful than a standard race.. and imo have some of the best lore behind them after RotD.

I sympathize with you here. If they had cut out halflings, I would never have paid for any 4th ed. product. Unless they had made kobolds a playable race. Then I would have bought the PHB.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 06:12 AM
Cons:
1, They have butchered my beloved realms, gutted it, thrust in 7 day old pig guts, replaced its head with an orcs, sewn it all up, reanimated it and taught it to sing crazy frog again and again while holding up a world of warcraft banner. The setting is the most important thing to the game to many people. They look like they have really ruined it from what I have heard. Looks like they didnt learn from Eberron and how it also destroyed DDO.
Yeah, Forgotten Realms is changing a little. Suck it up. The previous generation of gamers sure did. (Hey, how about that Time of Troubles? "WTF are they doing" then, Classic Forgotten Realms Lore now.) It will remain a big sprawling setting with powerful NPCs, and you'll be able to have the exact same kinds of fun in it.

BTW, Eberron has nothing to do with what made DDO sucks. Crappy gameplay made DDO suck. Eberron itself is made of awesome, because it has sky pirates and halflings riding dinosaurs.


2, From a lot of what I am hearing, they are heavily world of warcraft inspired. They use terms like agro, and a lot of the abilities sound inspired by online gaming. I dont like it.
"What you're hearing" is wrong. "D&D IS BECOMING AN MMO!!!11111one" is the cry of people upset about the edition change who can't muster up any *real* arguments.
No, D&D is not becoming an MMO. No, there (Knight class) isn't (Goad feat) going to (Iron Guard's Glare stance) be any more (Mindless Rage spell) "aggro management" than in 3.5, and WotC definitely isn't using the term "aggro".

4E looks like it'll have "aggro management" in the same way 3.5 did: abilities that make it harder to attack some people or easier to attack you. A Paladin's magical smite will cut off an enemy's line of effect to everyone but the paladin himself for a round. Fighters will get some kind of advantage against enemies who aren't paying attention to them. That sort of thing.


3, No Kobold race? After the phenominal popularity? I'm shocked and dissapointed =( They're so flavorful and different. Imo the one thing D&D needs os to add a couple of 'beast' races into the mix, something that isnt a human with funny ears or a couple of tasteful scales. Kobolds fit due to the fact they are numerous and humanoid, not overly powerful or any more powerful than a standard race.. and imo have some of the best lore behind them after RotD.
I'm guessing Kobolds are gonna be in the MONSTER MANUAL, given that they are a MONSTER race.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-04, 06:17 AM
Hey! Iron Guard's Glare is great! It doesn't force the opponent to do things, it just gives an incentive to. Which is how such things ought to work.

As opposed to the Paladin Smite ability, which prevents the target from doing anything other than target the paladin, which is stupid, and not justified by the description given of the ability (aside from "well, its a high level ability, and ought to be hardcore")

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 06:26 AM
Hey! Iron Guard's Glare is great! It doesn't force the opponent to do things, it just gives an incentive to. Which is how such things ought to work.

As opposed to the Paladin Smite ability, which prevents the target from doing anything other than target the paladin, which is stupid, and not justified by the description given of the ability (aside from "well, its a high level ability, and ought to be hardcore")

It's a divine shield around it that cuts off line of effect. How is that different from, I don't know, trapping it in a Resilient Sphere for a round or something... or, besides the fact that it's a magical effect, just tripping it so it has to (get up and) attack you because it can't reach anyone

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-04, 06:30 AM
I would buy a divine shield around the paladin, that blocks line of effect through his space, or an area centered on him. That would be thematic for paladin, and allow the classic paladin protecting the party from dragon's breath with his shield image.

I could buy a divine shield that surrounds the paladin and the target, that prevents the target from moving away, as well as preventing him from targeting other PCs.

As is, the paladin can hit a foe with this ability, and then the foe could walk around the paladin, right up to another person, and still not have line of effect. Which is ridiculous.

They pretty much didn't go far enough with the ability for it to make sense.

Dairun Cates
2007-12-04, 03:23 PM
I have voiced a lot of opposition to 4E lately, and that is because (as I have often said) the game is no longer being marketed to players with my group's tastes and playstyle. If I have to find a new group though, I seriously doubt it's going to be convenient to find one that is playing 3.5 in a few years. So I'm going to buy 4E. I'll get the three core books, and if they stink, I'll wait until 4.5 (or whatever they intend to call it..."There won't be a 4.5" they say) comes out and check it out. If they're good, then great. But by the looks of everything they have been putting out lately, I just don't think it will be my cup of tea.

I still have yet to finish the whole thread, but this line strikes me mostly because this is the wonderful thing that hardcore console gamers had to go through when the Playstation first came out. The market was slowly being marketed away from them. It's happening again with casual games and the kids who grew up on the PS2 are slowly finding themselves becoming obsolete in the eyes of their Gods of Manufacture. The same people that called the older generation old fogies is slowly finding themselves being called the old fogies. The new generation of my generation are the luddites of today.

Still, eventually, my generation of gamers found its niche or turned to other hobbies. Personally, I found my niche and know how to find games in it. Even in a market where a good third of the games being released are either sports or FPS games, the market's still huge, and there's still something for everyone. You're just not in the limelight of the industry anymore. They've hit the bell curve of the gain they can get out of your market. It's not really heartless, it's just good business. It's how you keep making products so you can continue to satisfy consumers.

This may seem kinda off-topic but the point is three-fold:
1. You can't stop progress
2. Every dedicated group in a hobby goes through this eventually
3. Things eventually stabilize and as the market grows, you'll find products for your niche again

The point is, 4E is going to sell and 3E is going to become obsolete eventually (whether it's slowly or quickly). It's natural to find yourself as a dedicated 3E player being left out, but you can't actually stop the march forward. You're left with a few sensible options. You can stick with the old stuff and enjoy it fully knowing nothing new is coming, but this can get frustrating. So, provided you're not dedicated to that choice, you can either adopt 4E and find things you DO like in it and capitalize on those points for your own play experience, give up the hobby and find a new one, or take this opportunity to bust out of the standard of D&D and try new systems. The market's getting bigger and finding a group willing to play smaller known RPG's is getting a hell of a lot easier. Take this opportunity to try new things.

I've said this before with a bit of protest, but while D&D is very good and a definite standard for quality in the industry, unless you find the base setting for D&D to be particularly inspiring, there are better game systems for any other kind of playstyle. There are games out there for playing pirates, cyberpunk style hackers, rampant cliches, superheroes, bad ass god-chosen bastions of good, back-stabbing and plotting PC killers, action heroes, Cartoon stars, and yes, even high school teenagers with generally powerful but all together useless superpowers (not that I'd recommend Teenagers from Outspace for most players, but it's still viable).

A lot of games out there are either insanely cheap or come with free demos. They have to do this to keep up with D&D and often entire systems can be summed up in 1 or 2 books with supplements being more flavor than a necessity to keep up with players (GASP AND SHOCK). That's probably a bit of an unfair shot at D&D, but looking at Paranoia XP and its supplements. It's easy to see that there is a different way to approach supplements. The Paranoia supplements are there for inspiration and ideas for different campaigns. While the new stuff is awesome, it doesn't change the game in some great mechanical way. It's not better per se. It's just different, and the optional nature makes it cheaper.

If you're dissatisfied with the coming of 4E, then I suggest you go out and try new games. This isn't the end of your generation of tabletop gamers but the opportunity to seek new worlds. There's enough of you to find groups for other systems and PbP makes it easier than ever. If it fails, then you have something to fall back on. If you are satisfied with a new release, then continue on.

I'm not saying you guys should stop discussing, just giving my own personal experience and insight on this and telling you not to be bitter towards the oncoming generation of gamers.

Arlanthe
2007-12-04, 08:34 PM
I still don't like 4E, what they are doing to D&D, what they are doing to the Realms. I'm finished with D&D after 3.5 if they press on with this extreme "upgrade".

It isn't a matter of me taking time to adapt, I'm just finished with it. I'll play 3.5 on and off I am sure, maybe do a nostalgia 2nd ed game for fun, but I am on to other RPGs after the sun sets on D&D 3rd ed.

R.I.P.

Edit: After Reel railing against the "D&D is becoming an MMO argument", well I thik it is a valid argument many MMOish things are happening to it.

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-04, 08:51 PM
Building monsters and characters on incompatible bases makes 4th ed. dead to me before it's printed.

Really there's nothing they could do to make up for that if it were the only thing they did wrong. Playing non-humanoids in 3.5 may be less than ideally designed, but at least it's coherent.

I pretty much stopped paying attention after that, so I can't make any other criticisms with confidence.

Renegade Paladin
2007-12-04, 08:55 PM
At this stage, I probably won't, though I won't make a definite yes or no until I see it in print (or at least in the SRD).

Counterspin
2007-12-05, 02:07 AM
Edit: After Reel railing against the "D&D is becoming an MMO argument", well I thik it is a valid argument many MMOish things are happening to it.

That's your reply? Reel talks about how people use that to cover up the fact they can't even muster a decent argument, and your reply is "MMOish things are happening"? I am a serious WOWhead, and I see nothing MMOish going on. Even if it were true, and I have yet to see a single serious example, it's still not an argument. The question is whether things will be good or bad for the game, not where they came from. If the next rule set was "elephant" derived, and as a result was the best gaming experience conceivable, I'd be right up there at the FLGS, credit card in hand.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-05, 02:13 AM
If the next rule set was "elephant" derived, and as a result was the best gaming experience conceivable, I'd be right up there at the FLGS, credit card in hand.

Yeah, but elephants are awesome!

http://www.sfondideldesktop.com/Images-Animals/Elephant/Afwld-African-Elephants-Young-Calf-Under-Mom/Afwld-African-Elephants-Young-Calf-Under-Mom.Jpg

JadedDM
2007-12-05, 02:44 AM
MMOG, MMOG!

I agree with the statement that 4E will not be like a Massive Multi-Player Online, because that simply makes no sense.

:smallbiggrin:

Lady Tialait
2007-12-05, 02:50 AM
I havn't seen much, but what i have seen is

1 Added Net Material
2 Dispose of stuff that grinds the game to a halt
3 give everyone something ToB-ish
4 Say it's more balanced

that is all i've heard about 4th ed. And most of it could be done to 3.5 without making me spend money..but that wouldn't be very Hasbro of them would it?

Repeat after me...'They want your money...'

Sonofaspectre
2007-12-05, 02:57 AM
Personally, I plan on trying it out, but I am going back and forth on my liking. The thing that bothers me the most - while I think it was a sound business move - was how close Wizards is pushing DnD to WoWcraft. I would not mind it if it just got closer to d20 Modern (which I find is a stronger system for power balancing and general but that is a different box of soap) but this feels more like a desperate attempt to garner all the video gamers. Again, I understand, but what makes DnD such a great game is that it is better on pen and paper than any other type of game play with the same rules. And what makes WoWcraft such a great game is that it is better on PC (Mac) than any other type of game play. When these two get closer and closer, they both lose integrity. And I am afraid of that.

Plus, I just spent about a year working on three base classes, five-eight races, a brand new playing world, and a large group of feats and prestige classes. I don't really wanna adapt it all again. But that is the selfish reason.

What was I saying? Oh yeah, I'll give it a try, but it can go either way.

Morty
2007-12-05, 05:18 AM
I still don't like 4E, what they are doing to D&D, what they are doing to the Realms.

Realms? Is this supposed to mean Forgotten Realms? If so, what exactly are they doing to it? Given that 4ed flavor so far seems preety awful, I'm kinda worried.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 06:27 AM
WoWcraft

World of Warcraftcraft? :smallsigh:

Bosh
2007-12-05, 06:43 AM
Isn't it wonderful? SotC is love.

Indeed. With D&D I have to always focus on roleplaying since if I don't I naturally slide into faceless tactical combat. In SotC its almost impossible to not roleplay. Love it silly.

jamroar
2007-12-05, 07:25 AM
Realms? Is this supposed to mean Forgotten Realms? If so, what exactly are they doing to it? Given that 4ed flavor so far seems preety awful, I'm kinda worried.

Basically, another rules-induced upheaval like Times of Troubles. Read the Grand History of the Realms for details.


Mystra dies (yet again), killed by Cyric and Shar.
Spellplague brought on by her death decimates magic users of Realms and changes the nature of magic (because crunchy rule changes always require a fluffy explanation)
Sundry minor deities get killed/lose their divine rank in the aftermath. (Saving Ao the trouble of having to downsize the bloated pantheon roster).
Torm kills Helm in a fit of Mikoesque self-righteous stupidity brought on by jealousy over his supposed affair with Tymora, blames it all on a plot of Cyric's - Next on As The Realms Turns.
The gods are finally fed up with Cyric's shenanigans, and imprison him on his home plane for a thousand years.
Obould successfully carves an Orc kingdom out of the Silver Marches.

PhoenixRising
2007-12-05, 08:18 AM
I probably won't. I've gotten used to 3rd, and our group has so many books it would be a pain to switch up for a while. Plus, the books are too expensive to buy new sets of.

Sebastian
2007-12-05, 09:17 AM
I don't think you will find that most of the complaints about 3e are something new. Spellcasters in 3e have been broken since pretty much day. They have gotten more broken with each new splatbook. Not that they weren't just as broken in 2e. Though to be honest I think 2e dealt with broken spellcasters in a more unique way - extra paperwork. Having to micromanage every last pinch of dust, ball of bat guano and live spider did a pretty amazing job of limiting spellcasters, in my experience anyway. That's not an attack on 2e either, I am quite serious.


See, this is a typical 2e "slander". Wizards in 2e were powerful but hardly broken, and certainly not "as broken as in 3rd edition", unless you fogret to apply they principal limitations, that is the "one hit and you are out" rule (1 single hit point of damage and you can't cast spells for that round) and the 10 minute for level rule (you needed 10 minute for level of rest to rememorize spell, this mean an half hour for every fireball and an hour and a half for a meteor storm, this mean a wizard had to think twice before to cast that time stop, while in 3rd ed there is not reason for a wizard to not use all his higher level spells every day) Of course they removed or watered down those limits from 3rd edition, no surprise if casters become broken. (to not mention the increased number of spells and the way the other wizards limitations (spellbook, material components) were just ignored ninety-nine times out of one hundred :annoyed:

Sorry for the rant, but this is a pet peeve(sp) of mine.

sapphail
2007-12-05, 09:20 AM
I don't really see the point of 4e. As someone else mentioned, the problems in 3 and 3.5 could have been fixed within those editions via splatbooks or web material or something of the like. If someone can convince me that this isn't just a moneymaking exercise then I will consider looking at it, but don't expect me to fork out $40-odd per book for some not-terribly-important (or necessary) changes.

sapphail
2007-12-05, 09:21 AM
I don't really see the point of 4e. As someone else mentioned, the problems in 3 and 3.5 could have been fixed within those editions via splatbooks or web material or something of the like. If someone can convince me that this isn't just a moneymaking exercise then I will consider looking at it, but don't expect me to fork out $40-odd per book for some not-terribly-important (or necessary) changes.

horseboy
2007-12-05, 12:29 PM
See, this is a typical 2e "slander". Wizards in 2e were powerful but hardly broken, and certainly not "as broken as in 3rd edition", unless you fogret to apply they principal limitations, that is the "one hit and you are out" rule (1 single hit point of damage and you can't cast spells for that round) and the 10 minute for level rule (you needed 10 minute for level of rest to rememorize spell, this mean an half hour for every fireball and an hour and a half for a meteor storm, this mean a wizard had to think twice before to cast that time stop, while in 3rd ed there is not reason for a wizard to not use all his higher level spells every day) Of course they removed or watered down those limits from 3rd edition, no surprise if casters become broken. (to not mention the increased number of spells and the way the other wizards limitations (spellbook, material components) were just ignored ninety-nine times out of one hundred :annoyed:

Sorry for the rant, but this is a pet peeve(sp) of mine.
Oh, it wasn't nearly as pronounced but it was there. Usually over 15thish. The magic-user starts becoming a lich and conquering the lower planes. Sure, when he's done the fighter gets to be the general of Hell, but he's still just the highest flunky.

JadedDM
2007-12-05, 01:36 PM
Oh, it wasn't nearly as pronounced but it was there. Usually over 15thish. The magic-user starts becoming a lich and conquering the lower planes. Sure, when he's done the fighter gets to be the general of Hell, but he's still just the highest flunky.

How often did that happen, though? I've been DMing 2E for years now, and we've never had a game make it past level 8. And the longest game we ever ran was over a year (in real time) long. A 15th level mage needs 1,875,000 XP (the advancement rate was much, much slower than in 3E). Unless you intentionally started a game at that level, or ran the same game for several years, it just doesn't seem feasible to me.

Werewindlefr
2007-12-05, 01:41 PM
I think this balance issue is symptomatic of some wrong design decision from WotC. They're going to go for a gameplay style where they are in direct competition with video games (and this is a battle they can't win).
Roleplaying game's particularity is to be a game of imagination. D&D and fantasy roleplaying game tries to give players a feeling of adventure that's not unlike the ones experiences by the characters of fantasy books. But as someone said in a blog (I can't give a link since I can't seem to find it anymore), WotC is simply killing the fantasy in D&D, and with it the dream and imagination that it allowed us to express, by transforming it into a kind of paper-version of a video-game.

There are several ways to play D&D. Tiled-dungeon monster-bashing, character development-based, story-driven, etc. . They seem to have given priority to the kick-in-the-door dungeon-style gameplay (heroquest-like?) whch is a bad move: because in the end, it is the one thing that other games -video games, mostly- can do a heck of a lot better. In the end, the people that like story-driven (for instance) gameplay will find themselves with a game that's not really adapted to it, and the ones who like dungeon-crawling and monster-bashing will find MMOs more appealing, because they do that kind of thing way better. By making those design choice, they erase what makes the RPGs (D&D, at least) so different from other games -and thus I'm left wondering, why should I play D&D 4e over Warhammer Online or Age of Conan? The games won't feel that different if WotC really goes that way...

Balance is not an important notion in fantasy. Actually, it's counterproductive. As opposed to video games, what makes characters different from each other is not what powers they have, but what they are. A bard isn't a guy with "inspire competence", it's a free-spirited guy that wants to gather tales and see the world (well, it's more complicated than that, but that's the idea). What matters first is the feeling of the class, how it can represent faithfully a fantasy archetype, a character concept. Not what powers it should have to be balanced with the others, but what powers it should have to feel like a bard.
Characters are unbalanced in fantasy. Aragorn is "stronger" than Frodo, to take some stereotype-ish example. Actually comparing them in terms of power doesn't make sense, it's not DAoC or WoW style PvP, so it doesn't really matter. The same applies to Elric and Moonglum of Elwher in the famous books written by Moorcock

I'm not trying to decide how people should play, but I'm saying what a roleplaying game logically should be if it doesn't want to overlap with video games - and suffer a lot from it, because video games are much better at what they do.

Artanis
2007-12-05, 04:39 PM
Balance is not an important notion in fantasy. Actually, it's counterproductive. As opposed to video games, what makes characters different from each other is not what powers they have, but what they are.
The problem with this sentiment is that if the balance becomes bad enough, "guy who is totally worthless to the point that his player has no fun" becomes, as you say, "what they are".

If you enjoy having no role in the party beyond being an extra person to split loot between, go ahead and play one of the underpowered classes. But if you want to suck, that can be done just as easily in a balanced system simply by doing so on purpose, without forcing the rest of us who want our characters to be "guy who is useful" into avoiding what we might otherwise want to play.