PDA

View Full Version : [4e]Random Thoughts, aka Why so many 3.5 threads lately?



Grynning
2008-12-18, 09:55 PM
It seems that in the last couple weeks 4th edition threads are few and far between...so, I'm starting one, of a sort.

First of all, this is NOT an "edition vs. edition" thread. I don't want a flamewar.

So...are all the 4th ed. folks just hiding under a rock somewhere? Or is there just not enough 4th ed. material out at the moment to get some serious discussion going?

I'm thoroughly enjoying 4th so far myself, and would love to talk about it some more with people. However, I admit myself that it seems like there's not a whole lot to talk about when it comes to the new edition - it is pretty straightforward. I do find myself asking myself random questions about it though, like:
1) "Why do so many paragon paths' abilities not match their fluff at all (e.g. Avalanche Hurler, which is terrible for Dwarves, who supposedly invented it)?"
2) "Why are Warlords so damn cool that I don't want to play anything else?"
3) "Why do Tieflings get a bonus to Cha and Half-elves get a bonus to Con?"

So, anyways, this may seem really off the wall, but if you can help me answer the above questions or just want to throw out a few of your own, jump in. I just want some 4th ed. talk goin.

Starsinger
2008-12-18, 10:20 PM
It seems that in the last couple weeks 4th edition threads are few and far between...so, I'm starting one, of a sort.

First of all, this is NOT an "edition vs. edition" thread. I don't want a flamewar.

So...are all the 4th ed. folks just hiding under a rock somewhere? Or is there just not enough 4th ed. material out at the moment to get some serious discussion going?

I'm thoroughly enjoying 4th so far myself, and would love to talk about it some more with people. However, I admit myself that it seems like there's not a whole lot to talk about when it comes to the new edition - it is pretty straightforward. I do find myself asking myself random questions about it though, like:
1) "Why do so many paragon paths' abilities not match their fluff at all (e.g. Avalanche Hurler, which is terrible for Dwarves, who supposedly invented it)?"
2) "Why are Warlords so damn cool that I don't want to play anything else?"
3) "Why do Tieflings get a bonus to Cha and Half-elves get a bonus to Con?"

So, anyways, this may seem really off the wall, but if you can help me answer the above questions or just want to throw out a few of your own, jump in. I just want some 4th ed. talk goin.

Snarky comment on why there aren't more 4e threads withheld.
1. Nothing is stopping dwarves from using thrown hammers/axes, it's not terrible for Dwarves, infact since Wisdom is secondary for every type of Ranger, Dwarves make decent rangers of any type.
2. I don't find them that cool :smalltongue:
3. Cuz if they switched half-elves would be +2 Cha +2 Cha, which is fine with me, cuz Half-elves are finally worth a damn, and are kinda becoming my favorite race.

Dublock
2008-12-18, 10:23 PM
I have one about 4E...I was making a Warlock for a friend..and wow..seems like they are powerful compared to other classes lol.

Reverent-One
2008-12-18, 10:24 PM
So...are all the 4th ed. folks just hiding under a rock somewhere? Or is there just not enough 4th ed. material out at the moment to get some serious discussion going?

It's really a very simple answer, little to do with which edition is better or anything like that. 3.X has been out for years and has built up a large following, while 4e has barely been out for half a year. Give it time, I'd wager in a few years there'll be tons of 4e threads and not so many 3.x ones.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-18, 10:24 PM
1) "Why do so many paragon paths' abilities not match their fluff at all (e.g. Avalanche Hurler, which is terrible for Dwarves, who supposedly invented it)?" Because, despite what many of the 4.0 fans like to believe, WotC still has no idea how to write.
2) "Why are Warlords so damn cool that I don't want to play anything else?" They aren't.
3) "Why do Tieflings get a bonus to Cha and Half-elves get a bonus to Con?" Because Tieflings are Emo, and everyone knows Emos are the most attractive things anywhere. :smallwink:

Flabbicus
2008-12-18, 10:24 PM
It seems that in the last couple weeks 4th edition threads are few and far between...so, I'm starting one, of a sort.

First of all, this is NOT an "edition vs. edition" thread. I don't want a flamewar.

So...are all the 4th ed. folks just hiding under a rock somewhere? Or is there just not enough 4th ed. material out at the moment to get some serious discussion going?

I'm thoroughly enjoying 4th so far myself, and would love to talk about it some more with people. However, I admit myself that it seems like there's not a whole lot to talk about when it comes to the new edition - it is pretty straightforward. I do find myself asking myself random questions about it though, like:
1) "Why do so many paragon paths' abilities not match their fluff at all (e.g. Avalanche Hurler, which is terrible for Dwarves, who supposedly invented it)?"
2) "Why are Warlords so damn cool that I don't want to play anything else?"
3) "Why do Tieflings get a bonus to Cha and Half-elves get a bonus to Con?"

So, anyways, this may seem really off the wall, but if you can help me answer the above questions or just want to throw out a few of your own, jump in. I just want some 4th ed. talk goin.

1) The rule of cool? They're throwing freaking boulders at people.
2) You are mistaken. It is fighters that are so damn cool. :smalltongue:
3) On the Wizards board they explained the Half-Elf Con bonus as being due to hybrid stamina, like with Mules.

Moff Chumley
2008-12-18, 10:31 PM
Because, despite what many of the 4.0 fans like to believe, WotC still has no idea how to write. They aren't. Because Tieflings are Emo, and everyone knows Emos are the most attractive things anywhere. :smallwink:

What about not trying to start a flame war did you not get?

I guess there aren't many threads because 4e is so perfect. :smallamused:

Hal
2008-12-18, 10:38 PM
Yeah, there's still a lot of people playing 3.5, and why not? If you shelled out hundreds of dollars on a system, you'll probably run a lot of it. I imagine when there's more material, 4E will see more popularity, as people will be saying to themselves, "I spent all that money on these source books, I ought to make use of them."

I only have the PHB, so I can't comment on the Paragon Paths. I do long for more options in regards to those and the epic destinies (not that any of my characters are ever going to see that level of play). I find it frustrating that the PHB has all of four epic destinies, with one being class specific, and another class restrictive.

Grynning
2008-12-18, 10:39 PM
1) The rule of cool? They're throwing freaking boulders at people.
2) You are mistaken. It is fighters that are so damn cool. :smalltongue:
3) On the Wizards board they explained the Half-Elf Con bonus as being due to hybrid stamina, like with Mules.


Snarky comment on why there aren't more 4e threads withheld.
1. Nothing is stopping dwarves from using thrown hammers/axes, it's not terrible for Dwarves, infact since Wisdom is secondary for every type of Ranger, Dwarves make decent rangers of any type.
2. I don't find them that cool :smalltongue:
3. Cuz if they switched half-elves would be +2 Cha +2 Cha, which is fine with me, cuz Half-elves are finally worth a damn, and are kinda becoming my favorite race.


Because, despite what many of the 4.0 fans like to believe, WotC still has no idea how to write. They aren't. Because Tieflings are Emo, and everyone knows Emos are the most attractive things anywhere. :smallwink:

etc.

1) @Flab: They don't throw boulders. Just weapons.
@Flab and Star: And the PP requires both a very high strength and a very high dex - which dwarves don't get. Like most ranger builds, bugbear is your best bet with this one.
@STK: I wouldn't go that far.

2) I guess it's just the utility of Warlords that I love - decent damage from their powers, movement granting and forced movement out the wazoo, and they can heal to boot. Plus, you're totally the Leader. Clerics, the other "leader" class, aren't traditionally the guy at the head of the party, giving orders and such, at least not in my experience. The Warlord is everything I love about fantasy heroes, and they're perfect for leading a party.

3) It's not so much that I disagree with the Half-Elf's Con bonus as much as I disagree with Tiefling's NOT getting a Con bonus. They would soooo much better at being Infernolocks if one of their stats was switched for Con.

:smallbiggrin:YAY! Debate!

Behold_the_Void
2008-12-18, 10:41 PM
I tend not to make them because people will show up and say "Play 3.5 instead!" which irritates me. Right now there's a lot of anti-4e sentiment, so I'd give it a few years to take hold.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-18, 10:45 PM
I tend not to make them because people will show up and say "Play 3.5 instead!" which irritates me. People do that to the 3.5 threads, too, and people still make them.

Flabbicus
2008-12-18, 10:46 PM
etc.

1) @Flab: They don't throw boulders. Just weapons. And the PP requires both a very high strength and a very high dex - which dwarves don't get. Like most ranger builds, bugbear is your best bet with this one.
@STK: I wouldn't go that far.

2) I guess it's just the utility of Warlords that I love - decent damage from their powers, movement granting and forced movement out the wazoo, and they can heal to boot. Plus, you're totally the Leader. Clerics, the other "leader" class, aren't traditionally the guy at the head of the party, giving orders and such, at least not in my experience. The Warlord is everything I love about fantasy heroes, and they're perfect for leading a party.

3) It's not so much that I disagree with the Half-Elf's Con bonus as much as I disagree with Tiefling's NOT getting a Con bonus. They would soooo much better at being Infernolocks if one of their stats was switched for Con.

:smallbiggrin:YAY! Debate!

1) Oh right... I just saw the name and jumped to a wild conclusion. I'm not sure if Bugbears will still be the best build by the time the PHB2 comes out. If I remember correctly someone said that no Player races will get oversized as a trait.

2) I for one am grateful that we still have a Warlord after our party Cleric stopped showing up to the game. He helps to heal my big meat shield before I get too dangerous. Plus he does an admirable tank impression.

3) Yeah, I see what you mean there. It is a bit of flavor and crunch disconnect. Maybe since most of them are descended from tainted nobles they aren't all that tough?

Behold_the_Void
2008-12-18, 10:46 PM
People do that to the 3.5 threads, too, and people still make them.

3e's got the majority thing going on though so those people are easier to ignore. And I browse 3e threads and don't see it nearly as often as I seem to see it in 4e threads.

WickerNipple
2008-12-18, 10:47 PM
2) You are mistaken. It is fighters that are so damn cool. :smalltongue:


This. Clearly. :)

Asbestos
2008-12-18, 10:50 PM
2) I guess it's just the utility of Warlords that I love - decent damage from their powers, movement granting and forced movement out the wazoo, and they can heal to boot. Plus, you're totally the Leader. Clerics, the other "leader" class, aren't traditionally the guy at the head of the party, giving orders and such, at least not in my experience. The Warlord is everything I love about fantasy heroes, and they're perfect for leading a party.


As a fellow Warlord player I'll second the leader aspect. I like deciding who gets to make attacks or shift and stuff, more so than just throwing some AC or HP at them (clerics). Getting people to act outside of their turns seems more awesome to me.

LoopyZebra
2008-12-18, 10:58 PM
I disagree on the fluff/crunch disconnect for tieflings. Charisma, of all the mental stats, makes perfect sense. Why? They're merged in with the other races; presumably, they get by on lies and diplomacy to get through the day. Moreover, charisma also represents force of personality - devilspawn are going to be very headstrong in keeping with this.

Grynning
2008-12-18, 11:03 PM
I disagree on the fluff/crunch disconnect for tieflings. Charisma, of all the mental stats, makes perfect sense. Why? They're merged in with the other races; presumably, they get by on lies and diplomacy to get through the day. Moreover, charisma also represents force of personality - devilspawn are going to be very headstrong in keeping with this.

Yes, but the way 4th ed. classes are designed it means Tieflings are not particularly good at a lot of things you'd expect them to be good at, like being Infernal Warlocks or melee fighters of any kind (their stats make them better Fey Warlocks than anything, and they only make passable Rogues and Warlords). Granted, stats aren't everything in 4th, but considering that the races that do make good Infernal Warlocks include Half-elves and Dwarves, it does seem a bit weird.

KKL
2008-12-18, 11:20 PM
I have one about 4E...I was making a Warlock for a friend..and wow..seems like they are powerful compared to other classes lol.
Not really, Warlocks don't deal too much damage to be honest, they're more of a Striker/Controller hybrid and are powerful because of their rampant debuffs and general screwing things over.


being Infernal Warlocks
Hellfire blood makes up for it and in some cases, puts them above other Warlocks.

melee fighters of any kind
Can't contest this really. They make half-decent wizards though.

LoopyZebra
2008-12-18, 11:31 PM
Yes, but the way 4th ed. classes are designed it means Tieflings are not particularly good at a lot of things you'd expect them to be good at, like being Infernal Warlocks or melee fighters of any kind (their stats make them better Fey Warlocks than anything, and they only make passable Rogues and Warlords). Granted, stats aren't everything in 4th, but considering that the races that do make good Infernal Warlocks include Half-elves and Dwarves, it does seem a bit weird.

True. I was just defending the charisma bonus. I never really got the CHA penalty in 3.5.

As for fighters, I believe that there's a feat or something in Martial Power that partially rectifies this. I don't necessarily think they should be fighters either. Based on the sample noble houses from one of the Dragon issues (which included lich tieflings, fat vampire tieflings, and elemental tieflings), it doesn't seem Fighter-ness is real represented in the racial history. Moreover, tieflings don't look any stronger than humans.

Infernal warlock definitely fits in, though. Odd quirk there.

Captain Six
2008-12-18, 11:41 PM
I figured there was a lot of 3.5 because it is a forum of a comic that uses 3.5 rules. I've always read the comic but started coming to the forum a little after 4e came out (took a while to actually register here and post) because I knew this place would have a higher density of 3.5 players than most other D&D boards. Who knows how many others came/will come thinking the same thing. Chances are it will stay that way as long as the comic stays 3.5, the forum majority will be 3.5.

For 4e players I think this might have some give and take. Sure there are less threads for 4e but a big reason for the 4e hate (opposed to "I just don't like it as much" ) was the fear of the community switching over and leaving them alone. At least it was in my case. You can't "just play what you like" when no one else is there to play with you. I think as long as there are places with a thriving 3.5 community the 4e bashing will mellow out.

Grynning
2008-12-18, 11:46 PM
I just want to re-state that this thread is not about edition bashing. The title is more about the lack of 4th ed. chatter than the large amount of 3.5 stuff that goes on. I still actively participate in 3.5 threads and I don't think the edition will go away for a while, and I think that's a good thing. Odd as it may seem, I love both editions equally. (Don't tell them, though, they just wouldn't understand. I tell them both they're my favorite :smallwink:)

Mushroom Ninja
2008-12-18, 11:51 PM
2) "Why are Warlords so damn cool that I don't want to play anything else?"


Because they're AWESOME!

you poke something with a spear and suddenly your army gets to move! How does it work? Who cares! It's AWESOME!

ps: warlords are awesome

Starsinger
2008-12-18, 11:55 PM
True. I was just defending the charisma bonus. I never really got the CHA penalty in 3.5.

Every other race in 3.5 must have a Charisma penalty, it's apparently the rules.

LoopyZebra
2008-12-19, 12:19 AM
Every other race in 3.5 must have a Charisma penalty, it's apparently the rules.

Yes, but they were ugly. And usually smelly. 3.5 Tieflings were Hot, in addition to the other points listed above. :)

skywalker
2008-12-19, 12:35 AM
Every other race in 3.5 must have a Charisma penalty, it's apparently the rules.

And every other 4e race must have a charisma bonus. Apparently.

Anyway, about the OP, I don't care about the paragon paths yet, my groups aren't there.

I'll second the things said about the warlord, being the defined leader is just plain cool. The fact that I'm the finder and biter of plot hooks for the group makes it even better.

In regards to tieflings, yes, the numbers don't really work out, I'm of a mind to say that the guys designing the races and the guys designing the classes didn't really get together about this. Because quite a few feats came out in martial power that helped out teifling and eladrin warlords, races they intended to be great warlords from the start. Dragonborn warlords got almost no help.

I think when Arcane Power comes out, we might see similar help for tiefling Infernalocks. Because that's clearly one of the iconic characters for 4e, or was intended to be.

I also have a minor nitpick about hybrid stamina, as someone who lives on a horse/mule/donkey farm. First off, it is debatable that mules have more stamina than donkeys. In fact, it's better to say that mules are the better work animal primarily because their horse blood makes them less stubborn in their dealings with the handler, less likely to quit than a donkey. Another reason they're better for work is that they combine the donkey's stamina and strength for its size with a much larger size bred in from the horse. So there really isn't a "biological hybrid stamina," even for mules, and since elves and humans don't compare the same way horses and donkeys do, I don't think "hybrid stamina" would be an appropriate explanation.

[/nitpick]

Captain Six
2008-12-19, 12:38 AM
Heh heh, sorry, I just had to share my thoughts.

For the charisma thing, in 1&2e it represented social skills. In 3e it represented not only social skills but force of personality. It didn't measure both of those at once but usually picked one or the other at random. Tieflings are ill trusted, blunt and otherwise socially threatening, so they get a social penalty to charisma. In 4e it seems to take the route of Charisma being pure force of personality, which is how 3e seemed to be headed with each supplement. Tieflings have always had a lot of that, they just didn't get along with others well. They probably would have been better of in 3e with a penalty to charisma based skills.

Half elves... I have no idea. I prefer 3.5e but if there is one thing I like about 4e it is that elves are actually good looking. If +2 con is responsible (being healthy is usually what beauty stems from) than so be it.

LoopyZebra
2008-12-19, 12:40 AM
Half-Elf Con: Could be from a life of travel, moving place to place, elven community to human community. Thus, they are exposed to a variety of food, disease, weather, and the travel itself. Alternatively, could be the hardiness of humanity coming through.

Personally, I think they should have gotten Dex, Cha though.

Kerouac
2008-12-19, 01:00 AM
I've been reading OOTS for about two years now I guess, but only registered and started posting after my friends and I began playing 4E. It's been pretty slow going for us (busy time of year) but it's a big adjustment from 2E. I've borrowed some 3.5 books from some of my other friends and I really do like the content better (item creation, in depth descriptions, more info about just about everything... oh and spells, not powers :smalltongue: ) but it's pretty overwhelming due to how intricate and flexible everything is.

Right now I'm trying to convert some 3.5 stuff to 4 and running a modified War of the Lance campaign. The players are really starting to get into it and I think the more supplements that come out, the better the system will be and hopefully we'll have even more talk about it. :)

Thurbane
2008-12-19, 01:02 AM
The simple answer is that this particular forum seems to have more 3.5 players as regular posters than 4E.

Grynning
2008-12-19, 01:04 AM
In regards to tieflings, yes, the numbers don't really work out, I'm of a mind to say that the guys designing the races and the guys designing the classes didn't really get together about this. Because quite a few feats came out in martial power that helped out teifling and eladrin warlords, races they intended to be great warlords from the start. Dragonborn warlords got almost no help.


Dragonborn Warlords don't need help. They get bonuses to both the primary attack stat and to one of the secondary stats for the class. They have racial abilities and powers that are usable by any class. No offense to anyone who plays one, I mean, I really can't blame you from a mechanical standpoint, but...Dragonborn are one of my big gripes with 4th ed. They are an entire race of scaly Marty Stus (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyStu) and Mary Sues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue). And the latter are drawn with boobs. Even though they're obviously not mammals. Yeah.

skywalker
2008-12-19, 01:26 AM
Dragonborn Warlords don't need help.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.

I meant that they didn't need help, and didn't get any. Unlike the other races I mentioned.

Asbestos
2008-12-19, 01:47 AM
I also have a minor nitpick about hybrid stamina, as someone who lives on a horse/mule/donkey farm. First off, it is debatable that mules have more stamina than donkeys. In fact, it's better to say that mules are the better work animal primarily because their horse blood makes them less stubborn in their dealings with the handler, less likely to quit than a donkey. Another reason they're better for work is that they combine the donkey's stamina and strength for its size with a much larger size bred in from the horse. So there really isn't a "biological hybrid stamina," even for mules, and since elves and humans don't compare the same way horses and donkeys do, I don't think "hybrid stamina" would be an appropriate explanation.

[/nitpick]

I believe the term is heterosis (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heterosis), the massive size of ligers compared to lions or tigers would be a good example.



Why is it that Dragonborn are Mary Sues? It hasn't really jumped out at me.

Thurbane
2008-12-19, 01:57 AM
...of course, the other option for the prevalence of 3.5 threads as opposed to 4E is that 4E is just so bland balanced, there's not much to discuss. :smalltongue:

Please note that this is Satire™, and as such not intended as a serious critique of 4E.

Starsinger
2008-12-19, 02:01 AM
...of course, the other option for the prevalence of 3.5 threads as opposed to 4E is that 4E is just so bland balanced, there's not much to discuss. :smalltongue:

Please note that this is Satire™, and as such not intended as a serious critique of 4E.

Actually, in a way that's sort of right. It's more that 3e has a lot of stuff people can't agree upon and need to discuss, like alignment, and when it's appropriate to make a Paladin fall, and how you feed 30,000 commoners to a dragon without anyone in Cormyr noticing, or whether you can use stoneshape to make sculptures.


Why is it that Dragonborn are Mary Sues? It hasn't really jumped out at me.

This is a rather new notion to me as well.

Grynning
2008-12-19, 02:17 AM
Again, my personal opinion only, but I see Dragonborn that way because they seem to be a race compiled out of all the things that the stereotypical D&D player would find awesome.

Strength makes you good at hurtin' stuff! Gotta have a bonus to Strength!

And no one wants to be uncool or ugly! They should be so badass that everyone either loves or fears them! Slap a Charisma bonus on there! (And make like half the classes be Charisma based in one way or another!)

Oh, and you know what else would be totally radical? If they could breathe frakkin fire! Or acid! Or hell, whatever they want! Yeah, choose your own breath weapon!

etc.

Not so much that people always make their Dragonborn characters into Marys/Martys, but the race seems to have been designed to facilitate that.

Starsinger
2008-12-19, 02:21 AM
I was of the train of thought that Dragonborn were 4e's answer to the popularity (and sucktitude) of Half Dragons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfDragon.htm) in 3.5

Grynning
2008-12-19, 02:37 AM
I was of the train of thought that Dragonborn were 4e's answer to the popularity (and sucktitude) of Half Dragons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfDragon.htm) in 3.5

That's probably true, but then they loaded them with mechanical advantages that make them a superior choice for several iconic classes (Paladin, Fighter, even Rogue and now Barbarian). That's my main problem with them.

skywalker
2008-12-19, 02:43 AM
I believe the term is heterosis (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heterosis), the massive size of ligers compared to lions or tigers would be a good example.

Mules, however, tend to be smaller than horses. In a few cases, you might find a big mule larger than a small horse. But this is uncommon (not rare, but I have seen some freakin' tall horses. Never seen a mule as big as a clydesdale, altho I know a few must exist.). Mules just have that perfect blend, it seems, of toughness and pound for pound strength coupled with tractability and more poundage.

Neither of which a half-elf would logically have. What is it with me and the half-elf discussions lately?

Thurbane
2008-12-19, 02:54 AM
IIRC, the passing of the gene that causes heterosis is dependent on the species of the mother and father. That's why ligers are larger than tigons.

Mules are the result of a male donkey and a female horse. The other way round is called a hinny, and is much more rare. I'm not sure if hinnies exhibit heterosis or not.

...but we digress...

potatocubed
2008-12-19, 02:59 AM
Forget tieflings; hobgoblins have a Charisma bonus now. :smallconfused:

I think the drive to make Charisma more than a dump stat has gone way beyond the point of sensibility, since it's now pretty much the primary spellcasting stat.

So, Cha bonuses all round? I wouldn't mind one myself...

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-19, 03:17 AM
a) 3.5 is out from longer time. More things to ask, more builds, and so on

b) the nature itself ot 3.5 make more likely to talk about it

c) balance issue -----> more threads

d) maybe more 3.5 players here

Starsinger
2008-12-19, 03:17 AM
b) the nature itself ot 3.5 make more likely to talk about it


wuzzat mean?

KIDS
2008-12-19, 04:27 AM
It's probably a matter of acceptance of new edition. I don't know how many players tried 4E, but I guess that some 40-50% switched to 4E as their primary game, imo a disappointingly low total. Can anyone offer a guess as to how much time it took people to switch between 2E and 3E?

Also, this was well said:


b) the nature itself ot 3.5 make more likely to talk about it

c) balance issue -----> more threads

For example, there are at least 2 topics about paladins falling per month. In 4E, there is no such thing as a code of conduct as their class feature.
Then there are frequent posts from wizards wanting to be Batman or fighters wondering how they can suck less. in 4E, there is no Batman and classes are much more even. I wouldn't have much to say on ftr/wiz balance there...

Sebastian
2008-12-19, 04:34 AM
So, anyways, this may seem really off the wall, but if you can help me answer the above questions or just want to throw out a few of your own, jump in. I just want some 4th ed. talk goin.

You answered your own question, you want to talk about 4e but you have nothing relevant to say about it, because, let's admit it what there is to say about 4e? It is as straightforward as they come, the rules, the fluff, the ... well everything, really exist only to have something to play about, the only discussion that would make sense would be if a certain rule is or isn't balanced or how to create the more powerful builds, and the less discussions about this there are the better is.
All IMHO, of course.

Kaiyanwang
2008-12-19, 04:45 AM
@ Starsinger: what KIDS said. Good example with paladins.

KKL
2008-12-19, 04:50 AM
Forget tieflings; hobgoblins have a Charisma bonus now. :smallconfused:

Hobgoblins are militaristic and tend to make other people their lackies. I dunno about you, but I'd find that most races of tiny cannon fodder would easily get under the shoes of some race is a collective spine and a half.


That's probably true, but then they loaded them with mechanical advantages that make them a superior choice for several iconic classes (Paladin, Fighter, even Rogue and now Barbarian). That's my main problem with them.

Mechanical advantage means jack all when you're going to label an entire race as a race of mary sues. Bragonborn are not made to be mary sues nor are they facilitated to do just exactly that. In fact I should make disparaging remarks about you for insinuating as such.

Tieflings tend to attract people who make mary sues anyways, so the point's moot.

And elves. And half-elves. And human. And basically every race.

Starsinger
2008-12-19, 04:51 AM
Tieflings tend to attract people who make mary sues anyways, so the point's moot.

And elves. And half-elves. And human. And basically every race.

Especially Tieflings, since Mary Sues are supposed to be what? 70% angst at least?

KKL
2008-12-19, 04:53 AM
Especially Tieflings, since Mary Sues are supposed to be what? 70% angst at least?

Good lord no.

80% at least.

Job
2008-12-19, 05:30 AM
I’ve been involved with four 4e campaigns so far and I’ve only seen 2 Dragonborn, they were brothers (one Cleric one Paladin). I’m not really finding them prolific or disruptive even with their supposed uber bonuses.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-12-19, 06:32 AM
So, Dragonborn.
Aside from their awesome racial abilities, they get bonuses to STR and CHA. In Core, nearly every class has some use for STR; all of the others make use of CHA. As such, they are really only "bad" for a small subset of builds:
- WIS Clerics (except that CHA is their secondary stat)
- Wizards
- Infernal Warlocks
- Archery Rangers

Note that Dragonborn are actually good Rogues because both STR and CHA are secondary stats for the class. Giant dragon-y Rogues for goodness sake!

The fact that they are just good at pretty much everything, when most other races only have a few classes they're cut out for, makes them seem pretty Sue-ish. Of course, this doesn't count the silly Monster Races out there, which factor into roughly 90% of all CharOp builds.

It should be noted that Tieflings share many characteristics with Dragonborn. They have tons of racial abilities and a very good racial feat. However, their stat boosts (INT and CHA) just aren't as useful, so they're not a prime choice for basically every class.

Still, both races got waaaay too much love from WotC. And the flavor text about them is just silly!

As for the proliferation of 3.5 threads, I think it's because WotC no longer allows them. We're a decently sized D&D forum, and I've heard that when 4E came out many people migrated here from the WotC boards. Makes sense to me, anyhow.

And for the OP questions:
(1) WotC has a very spotty record for designing expansions correctly. Reading over Adventurer's Vault, for example, it is obvious that WotC doesn't understand the concept of Saving Throws in 4E since there are tons of stacking Saving Throw Penalty items and few boosters; you can make it impossible for monsters to save against a given effect pretty easily.

They really need someone to playtest this stuff before churning it out. Seriously.

(2) Warlords are totally sweet, but so are all the other classes. In my parties, most everyone wants to be some flavor of Striker because they do ridiculous amounts of damage, and have other cool Utilities. I enjoy playing my Bow Cleric thanks to silly synergies with my MC Ranger (and massive battlefield control!) though I've taken a real shine to Paladins as of late.

Really, every class has something to recommend it. Warlords were just the "most different" class compared to previous editions.

(3) Half-Elves get a CON bonus because they're moving them back to Tolkien Half-Elves which were just tougher and more inspiring humans. Aragorn's awesomeness largely stemmed from his elven blood. I won't say more here, since I am not a Tolkien expert, but it's all in the Silmarillion. 2E and 3E half-elves just tried to combine the D&D human and elven traits in some way, and it never really worked right.

Tieflings were the result of poor design. As written they make awesome Feylocks (which is just wrong!). I am highly tempted to make them +2 CON and +2 INT creatures, though that makes their "trickster nature" a little harder to justify. Something to think about, anyhow.

Matthew
2008-12-19, 08:11 AM
I was of the train of thought that Dragonborn were 4e's answer to the popularity (and sucktitude) of Half Dragons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfDragon.htm) in 3.5

I think the D20/3e Dragonborn from Races of the Dragon were the answer to the Half Dragon, and D20/4e simply adopted them.



It's probably a matter of acceptance of new edition. I don't know how many players tried 4E, but I guess that some 40-50% switched to 4E as their primary game, imo a disappointingly low total. Can anyone offer a guess as to how much time it took people to switch between 2E and 3E?

Good question, and very hard to guess. Judging from forum sizes, I would suspect that the takeup for D20/3e was something like 80+%. The takeup for D20/4e has almost certainly been lower, and unlikely to surge at any point now, though a trickle of people will continue to join, and others leave. In many cases, people have responded with a "Good game, but I think I will continue playing D20/3e preferably."

its_all_ogre
2008-12-19, 09:20 AM
shockingly i agree with matthew.
i dived from 2e to 3e immediately, dropping an ongoing campaign to start a fresh one.
i am finishing my 3.5 campaign off before moving to 4e though.

as for the warlord coolness i would say it is because dnd has never managed to encapsulate in game mechanics a brave, charismatic leader type character that you find in books and films.
3.5 had paladin (stick up ass, my way or highway) bard (i sing at you...) and .... well that was it in terms of martial characters.
sure with expansions you can add knight and maybe some others i'm unaware of, but in the basic game there was no real charismatic leader class.

i'm playing a dragonborn warlord in the upcoming game of 4e. hey my 3.5 campaign was intended to be player-led but i had to lead players by the nose through half of it, if i don't take a cha heavy character we'll spend all our time sitting around waiting for npcs to 'hand' quests to us....

Morty
2008-12-19, 09:24 AM
Dragonborn are one of my big gripes with 4th ed. They are an entire race of scaly Marty Stus (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyStu) and Mary Sues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue). And the latter are drawn with boobs. Even though they're obviously not mammals. Yeah.

First I was going to ask where the heck are you getting the "Noone's talking about 4ed" thing from but I got better. So now I'll just agree with that sentence in its entirety. It's not 4ed-exclusive thing either- WoTC's way to make things better has been "Add more dragons to it" for a long time now.
And on the subject of Charisma bonuses: before you ask why hobgoblins get one, ask yourself why do goblins get it too.

Darth Stabber
2008-12-19, 09:58 AM
3.x is still heavily discussed here because people are playing it. Heck there was a new version of World Of Darkness out some years back, but I'm still rockin' the party with the old version (much better fluff).

The default setting of 4e just makes me sad with its genericness and the hacking to peices of the cosmology. Honestly, the cosmology changed almost none from 2e to 3e, so why hack the universe to peices and give us this new kinda bland world, when my old greyhawk was rich, vibrant, and alive. And all of the 4e classes work exactly the same, at this level everybody get one of these, at the next level everyone gets on of these. I know it makes balance easier, but the classes seem to become a generic formless mush. Back when there were psions and wizards and warlocks and sorcerers and incarnates and tome of magic classes. The magic systems for each type of magic was honest to blog different, it made the different paths to magical prowess feel like you were doing something entirely different. Look at wizard and sorc, With wizard first thing he does in the morning is sit out and plot which of his increadible arcane powers of doom he was going to load up today, where as mr. sorc over here just rolled out whatever spell he wanted from his limited list. Using the same spell list and same basic system they made the wizard and sorc feel like they were doing things differently. Mix the other magics into it and you just saw things get interestin. now comes 4e, okay well when sorcerers come out they will get either a daily, encounter or utility every level, and the rules for using them will be the same as wizard, will be the same as warlock, will be the same as cleric, will be the same as frakkin' fighter. When wizards and Fighters work the same way minus some fluff, i just feel like the nice mechanical distinctions we had from 3e were fluff reinforcing. 4e makes everyone feel like 3.5 marial adepts. I'm sorry that I got off on a rant there. I don't mean anything in this post to insult or offend, I just need to vent. This is just the way i feel, magnified by and early morning on little sleep.

HidaTsuzua
2008-12-19, 11:10 AM
It'll be a bit hard to compare 2nd to 3.x adoption rates to 3.x to 4.0 rates. One is that the online community was far less way back in 2000. There was one, but it was definitely smaller. That will make it harder to figure out 2nd to 3.x adoption.

There's several reasons why 4.0 threads are rarer here. One is that 3.x has more to talk about. Alignment doesn't matter too much, but it's great for thread after thread of discussion. Fourth edition both greatly weakened and simplified them. 3.X's blatant balance issues are a rich fountainwell of debates as well. 4.0 has them too, but they're not as large and often easier to spell out. Hostility towards 4.0 is also a factor.

Artanis
2008-12-19, 11:37 AM
as someone who lives on a horse/mule/donkey farm.
*notices "Knoxville" under skywalker's avatar*

Where do you live, anyways? I was going to UT up until last semester, and am still fairly close by.



Dragonborn are one of my big gripes with 4th ed. They are an entire race of scaly Marty Stus (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyStu) and Mary Sues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue). And the latter are drawn with boobs. Even though they're obviously not mammals. Yeah.
Don't forget the head-tentacles that look like long hair. It's not as bad as boobs, but FFS was there not SOME other way of making the genders look different?

Matthew
2008-12-19, 11:44 AM
It'll be a bit hard to compare 2nd to 3.x adoption rates to 3.x to 4.0 rates. One is that the online community was far less way back in 2000. There was one, but it was definitely smaller. That will make it harder to figure out 2nd to 3.x adoption.

I don't think online communities are a very good representation in any case, but all we're doing here is looking at relative community sizes as an indication. Dragonsfoot has around 4,000 members, EnWorld has about 80,000, RPGNet 30,000, GitP 30,000, and WotC has getting on for 400,000. An estimate of anywhere from 80% to 99% total takeup is fairly reasonable.

These are just estimates, though, the online community can only give a skewed idea; the question is whether these trends are then reflected elsewhere etcetera]. The takeup for D20/3e. I doubt we'll ever see an overall takeup of D20/4e of over 90%.

its_all_ogre
2008-12-19, 11:50 AM
it could just be that with less to debate the 4e players are


playing 4e instead of debating

whereas 3.5 players are so busy debating they get less playtime in?:smalltongue:

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-19, 11:54 AM
4e still hasn't caught on as much as it will in time.

and yeah you can't compare the rush from 2e to 3.0 to this

3.0 lead a lot of people who gave up on dnd for all its near random categories of saving throws and thac0 and issues to come back to a streamlined easy to pick up and play game. really, aside for encumbrance, turning, anda few random rule clarifyign lookups, you didnt need to check the boo anytime somethign happened. you had a flux of people old and new who picked it up on launch day and get back into the hobby.

with 4e, its core mechanic is still essentially the same, it is jsut adapting the classes to the at will/scene/daily powers. this adressed the balance issue as well as gave people who wanted something more than learn and burn spellcasting.

HidaTsuzua
2008-12-19, 12:27 PM
I don't think online communities are a very good representation in any case, but all we're doing here is looking at relative community sizes as an indication. Dragonsfoot has around 4,000 members, EnWorld has about 80,000, RPGNet 30,000, GitP 30,000, and WotC has getting on for 400,000. An estimate of anywhere from 80% to 99% total takeup is fairly reasonable.

These are just estimates, though, the online community can only give a skewed idea; the question is whether these trends are then reflected elsewhere etcetera]. The takeup for D20/3e. I doubt we'll ever see an overall takeup of D20/4e of over 90%.

I agree they aren't a good representation, but it's among the better alternatives. Simply asking people you know is way too small and prone to bias (such as lots of people I know playing HERO since one of my friends is a big HERO promoter). Going by shelf space isn't going to work well since that 3.X isn't being made (Pathfinder going to be a heck of lot smaller than 3.x was). The best source of data would be sales figures over the past couple of years (ideally mid 90s to today), but that's kept pretty close to the chest by the businesses involved.

There isn't a gaming "hub" where you can randomly poll what games people play like you can with the Steam Hardware Survey. (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey) You could do a more widespread poll (random calling of RPG players from over the US/world), but that requires time and resources (and if someone has done this it's not widespread like the sale figures). A large poll on the major D&D forums might work and wouldn't be too hard. It'll be just of forumgoers (who likely differ from non-forumgoers) but it's among the best ways to figure out adoption rates without breaking/social hacking into WOTC's office.

My guess is that 4.0 will heavily take over 3.X in the new few years. People will switch once their current campaigns end. Some will stop roleplaying entirely to be replaced by new 4.0 players (since that's what will be mainly available). I think there will be a minority of 3.X since 3.X is quite different in many ways from 4.0. However they'll be a minority compared to whatever the numbers are now.

Talya
2008-12-19, 12:47 PM
Once 4e has 300 splatbooks to download, even I might start the occasional 4e thread.

Asbestos
2008-12-19, 12:47 PM
Mechanical advantage means jack all when you're going to label an entire race as a race of mary sues. Bragonborn are not made to be mary sues nor are they facilitated to do just exactly that. In fact I should make disparaging remarks about you for insinuating as such.

Tieflings tend to attract people who make mary sues anyways, so the point's moot.

And elves. And half-elves. And human. And basically every race.

Yeah, really all the Mary Sues I've seen in the games I've played have been some variation of elf. They also tend to have long flowing locks... and be way thin, but somehow buff. Don't question it!

--------------
Heterosis: Its quite the complex genetic stuff, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned ligers because people are too focused on them. Sometimes, but not always, it matters which species is the dad and which is the mom, but not always, and with plants it can get wonky. Also, size isn't the only feature that may be enhanced. Hybrids may have increased stamina, fecundity, or some other trait.

My guess is that half-elves have both the stamina and fecundity thing... that'd explain those bonuses.

Or Starsinger's LOTR explanation, that makes a lot of sense too considering the material. I feel like more WotC employees know more about Tolkien than genetics and animal husbandry.

Matthew
2008-12-19, 01:09 PM
I agree they aren't a good representation, but it's among the better alternatives. Simply asking people you know is way too small and prone to bias (such as lots of people I know playing HERO since one of my friends is a big HERO promoter). Going by shelf space isn't going to work well since that 3.X isn't being made (Pathfinder going to be a heck of lot smaller than 3.x was). The best source of data would be sales figures over the past couple of years (ideally mid 90s to today), but that's kept pretty close to the chest by the businesses involved.

I dunno, shelf space is quite interesting. Pathfinder has got a lot more visibility at my local stores than I would have expected, and the D20/4e material substantially less. Sales figures our not only "business secrets", but from what I gathered in an exchange with one of the WotC brand managers, subject to considerable interpretation. It would be interesting to see them, though.



There isn't a gaming "hub" where you can randomly poll what games people play like you can with the Steam Hardware Survey. (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey) You could do a more widespread poll (random calling of RPG players from over the US/world), but that requires time and resources (and if someone has done this it's not widespread like the sale figures). A large poll on the major D&D forums might work and wouldn't be too hard. It'll be just of forumgoers (who likely differ from non-forumgoers) but it's among the best ways to figure out adoption rates without breaking/social hacking into WOTC's office.

Don't get me wrong, I mention the online forums because they are the best alternative right at the moment, and they suggest the vague figures that were postulated.



My guess is that 4.0 will heavily take over 3.X in the new few years. People will switch once their current campaigns end. Some will stop roleplaying entirely to be replaced by new 4.0 players (since that's what will be mainly available). I think there will be a minority of 3.X since 3.X is quite different in many ways from 4.0. However they'll be a minority compared to whatever the numbers are now.

It's possible, but I doubt it. We'll see a gradual increase, for sure, but I don't think we'll see takeup like we did between AD&D and D20. Still, time will tell.

Artanis
2008-12-19, 01:33 PM
I wonder how much of it is due to the amount of differences between the various editions. 4e went out of its way to, in their words, butcher a lot of the "sacred cows" of the old editions. For instance, I've seen a lot of 2e proponents say that BAB and THAC0 work out pretty much the same way, but 4e doesn't have anything that's really that close to either*. And I don't think any change from 2e to 3e combat mechanics could hope to match the magnitude of the change inherent in switching to 4e's fundamental aspect of making everybody use the same basic system. Hell, there isn't even a "plain old attack" option, as even the Basic Attacks are powers.



*Gaining to-hit for leveling up works out similarly to a 1/2 BAB, but it's the same for everybody and only gets a sentence or two here and there, rather than being part of an entire table in each class entry.

Ninetail
2008-12-19, 01:52 PM
It's probably a matter of acceptance of new edition. I don't know how many players tried 4E, but I guess that some 40-50% switched to 4E as their primary game, imo a disappointingly low total. Can anyone offer a guess as to how much time it took people to switch between 2E and 3E?

I was a regular on rec.games.frp.dnd at the time the switch from 2e to 3e happened. There was a pretty large number of people who switched over more or less immediately, and an even larger number of people who did not. Reasons for not switching included an investment in the old rulebooks, a dislike of the new rules as somehow "not really D&D", dislike of a perceived power creep and diminishment of roleplaying-oriented material, and just plain dislike of learning a new rules system. Among other things.

Sounds familiar, eh?

I'd say it took somewhere between a year and 18 months for the edition wars to die down and the majority to switch over to 3e. (Then 3.5 came along a year later, causing another uproar, but that's a different story...)

Incidentally, the same thing happened when 1e switched to 2e.

Matthew
2008-12-19, 02:13 PM
I wonder how much of it is due to the amount of differences between the various editions. 4e went out of its way to, in their words, butcher a lot of the "sacred cows" of the old editions. For instance, I've seen a lot of 2e proponents say that BAB and THAC0 work out pretty much the same way, but 4e doesn't have anything that's really that close to either*. And I don't think any change from 2e to 3e combat mechanics could hope to match the magnitude of the change inherent in switching to 4e's fundamental aspect of making everybody use the same basic system. Hell, there isn't even a "plain old attack" option, as even the Basic Attacks are powers.


*Gaining to-hit for leveling up works out similarly to a 1/2 BAB, but it's the same for everybody and only gets a sentence or two here and there, rather than being part of an entire table in each class entry.

Pretty much. If you were familiar with AD&D/2e Combat & Tactics you were already familiar with the D20/3e combat system. D20/3e was pretty much AD&D revamped , but D20/4e is far and away a different game. BAB and THAC0 are pretty much just inversions [THAC0 = 20 − BAB]. It isn't really a claim, just a mathematical fact. :smallwink:



Incidentally, the same thing happened when 1e switched to 2e.

Interestingly, between AD&D/1e and AD&D/2e TSR supposedly lost half of its customers. However, the difference this time round is that if you don't want to get with the program, there really are alternative simulacrum games, supplements and adventures to spend your money on. I have stopped visiting the [I]Wizards of the Coast website altogether now, barring the occasional trip to the D20/3e archive. Just lost interest (even though I am playing in a D20/4e play by post game).

Talya
2008-12-19, 03:35 PM
However, the difference this time round is that if you don't want to get with the program, there really are alternative simulacrum games, supplements and adventures to spend your money on. I have stopped visiting the Wizards of the Coast website altogether now, barring the occasional trip to the D20/3e archive. Just lost interest (even though I am playing in a D20/4e play by post game).

I'd be the same, if not for Star Wars Saga Edition.

Rockphed
2008-12-19, 03:39 PM
The default setting of 4e just makes me sad with its genericness and the hacking to peices of the cosmology. Honestly, the cosmology changed almost none from 2e to 3e, so why hack the universe to peices and give us this new kinda bland world, when my old greyhawk was rich, vibrant, and alive.

I disagree. I found The Great Wheel over done, bland, and dead. Maybe it was because I never looked at The Manual of the Planes, but about half of the planes sounded more like Personal Realms of the Gods, than planet sized realms. As such, I would probably never use it in a campaign I was running unless I was using a published setting.

On the other hand, the default 4e cosmology maintains the "Opposites about the real world" feel of ye wheel, but without the overcomplications. The Feywild is more alive, while the Shadowfell is a grimdark version of the world. Likewise the Elemental Chaos and the Astral Sea are opposites with the world being the interface between them. I like the opposites themes, though I did like the old elemental planes, which are now missing.:smallfrown:

Ninetail
2008-12-19, 03:46 PM
Interestingly, between AD&D/1e and AD&D/2e TSR supposedly lost half of its customers. However, the difference this time round is that if you don't want to get with the program, there really are alternative simulacrum games, supplements and adventures to spend your money on. I have stopped visiting the Wizards of the Coast website altogether now, barring the occasional trip to the D20/3e archive. Just lost interest (even though I am playing in a D20/4e play by post game).

Eh... I think that was true back then, too. Maybe not so many of them, but there was still a pretty wide array of other systems, including some that're still alive today (GURPS, HERO). Not to mention all of the people who stuck with 1e.

I think a lot of people look back at earlier transitions and kind of gloss over the amount of argument among the fan base. There seems to be a widespread notion that the change from 2e to 3e was fast and nearly-unanimous, and that just wasn't true. (Although I do think it'll turn out to be quicker than the 3e to 4e switch, because there was nothing like the OGL back in the 2e days, so there was no Pathfinder/True20/other d20-like system equivalent to 2e as there is to 3e.)

I would say 4e will be pretty well established by this time next year, but it might take another year beyond that to reach 3e's levels.

Matthew
2008-12-19, 03:58 PM
Eh... I think that was true back then, too. Maybe not so many of them, but there was still a pretty wide array of other systems, including some that're still alive today (GURPS, HERO). Not to mention all of the people who stuck with 1e.

Simulacrum games, not games in general! [i.e. games that are simulacrums of AD&D/1e/2e or D20/3e].



I think a lot of people look back at earlier transitions and kind of gloss over the amount of argument among the fan base. There seems to be a widespread notion that the change from 2e to 3e was fast and nearly-unanimous, and that just wasn't true. (Although I do think it'll turn out to be quicker than the 3e to 4e switch, because there was nothing like the OGL back in the 2e days, so there was no Pathfinder/True20/other d20-like system equivalent to 2e as there is to 3e.)

I would say 4e will be pretty well established by this time next year, but it might take another year beyond that to reach 3e's levels.

Maybe they do, I don't know. I think that's probably just people who started with D20/3e and thus only have second hand accounts of events. As to how widespread D20/4e will be by this time next year, I'm guessing probably 70%ish, but we shall have to wait and see.

PurinaDragonCho
2008-12-19, 03:59 PM
Without even reaching the question of adoption rates of 4e vs. 3.5...

There are far more options in 3.5 than there are in 4e right now. More options spurs more discussion.

TheEmerged
2008-12-19, 05:07 PM
RE: Why more 3.5 than 4.0 threads. Most of the reasons have already been touched on, but there's one that's conspicuous by its absence -- some of the 4.0 crowd feels like the 3.x crowd runs them out of a lot of forums, or they feel like any discussion of 4.0 turns into an edition war.

RE: Comparing the 2nd to 3.x transition to the 3.x to 4.0 transition. This lilkely varies quite a bit from one area to the other. Speaking for myself, I find it amusing because I was the "early adopter" for 3.x in several circles. At least in my own epxerience, I find the similarity of the complaints amusing (especially the one about how "obvious" is was that they'd made 3.x more computer friendly than 2nd edition).

RE: Warlords. Ironically, our party's warlord is a dragonborn :smallcool:

RE: Dragonborn. Did I mention the warlord is a *female* dragonborn? When one of the other players complained, the warlord's player replied "Hey, if a mammal can lay eggs (platypus) why can't a reptile milk their young?" That was the end of the issue for us, at least.

RE: The new cosmology (AKA The Great Wheel). In some of the prerelease material, they said the reason this was done away with was the feeling that it created redundency. You couldn't just create a cool fire monster, because then you "had" to create water/air/earth versions of it. They also disliked the inevitable "crossover" and "leakage" it lead to -- it wasn't enough to have a plane for each of the nine alignments, you then had to have the planes in between them...

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that decision, merely making sure you know why they say they made the one they did.

AslanCross
2008-12-19, 05:45 PM
My reasons why I don't start 4.0 threads:

1. I don't have the books. The core books are pretty hard to find here, and the 3.5 books are cheap at 60% off.
2. Both campaigns I'm associated with are 3.5.


While I'm interested in 4E and I don't think it's horrible, I think I'll be sticking to 3.5 for a while.

Thurbane
2008-12-19, 09:40 PM
My takeup of 3.5 from 2E (missed 3.0 altogether) was several years, but that was mainly because my gaming group had an extended hiatus while people went and did odd things like start having children. :smalltongue:

A couple of us tried 4E at game day, and found it really just was not to our taste - it felt like a totally different game. Also, we're pretty heavily invested in 3.5 both financially (books and other materials) and time-wise, in mastering the rules, so there is no interest from any in our group to switch to 4E.

Also, 3.5 has a ton more "free support" (i.e. SRD, PC Gen etc.) than 4E, and with the new licensing deals, that seems unlikely to change any time soon...

KKL
2008-12-19, 09:53 PM
it felt like a totally different game
That's because it is. :P


There are far more options in 3.5 than there are in 4e right now.
Of course, when you compare eight or so years of splatbooks with 4e's scant half a year or so.

Thurbane
2008-12-19, 10:15 PM
That's because it is. :P
We'll, I should clarify - the difference (to me) was far more pronounced than any of my previous edition changes (1e to 2e, 2e to 3.5)... :smallwink:

To be fair to 4e, I should probably admit that I simply loathed the concept of 3e when it came out. It wasn't until I had started playing in earnest that 3.5 became my favorite edition. I just can't see that happening with 4e. While it seems quite sound mechanically, it just doesn't capture the "feel" of Dungeons and Dragons for me, though I fully accept that that is purely personal opinion...

Asbestos
2008-12-20, 12:29 AM
We'll, I should clarify - the difference (to me) was far more pronounced than any of my previous edition changes (1e to 2e, 2e to 3.5)... :smallwink:

To be fair to 4e, I should probably admit that I simply loathed the concept of 3e when it came out. It wasn't until I had started playing in earnest that 3.5 became my favorite edition. I just can't see that happening with 4e. While it seems quite sound mechanically, it just doesn't capture the "feel" of Dungeons and Dragons for me, though I fully accept that that is purely personal opinion...

Bolded for emphasis, I feel that if more people admitted this then the edition wars would vanish, or at least be very diminished. See, I love 4e, but I was a skirmish (DDM) player before it came out so it meshed very well with what I was already doing. More so than 3.x. Not to say that I don't love to RP, but I like my combat to be interesting and tactical and such, more so than I found I could do in 3.x. On a related note, I have heart boners (http://www.qwantz.com/archive/001331.html) for Warlords.

Thurbane
2008-12-20, 12:56 AM
Well, the flipside of that is that it should generally be accepted that unless someone is quoting some kind of facts and figures, what they are expressing should be considered to be an opinion, without having to tack a disclaimer on the end every time. :smalltongue:

I used to fall into the trap of 4e hating and how it's "not really D&D". Same with the numerous ToB debates. I like to think I'm doing my best nowadays to accept that other people have different tastes in games, and even in the various incarnations of D&D. It's a slow evolution, but I'm getting there... :smallbiggrin:

Totally Guy
2008-12-20, 05:31 AM
I'm going to suggest a slightly different reason for the ratio of 3.5 to 4E threads on this forum: The community here is rather mechanics heavy.

There are always threads about how to stat a villiain or to what degree of optimisation is ideal but very rarely threads on how the various story elements should pan out.

Mechanical threads are able to bring everyone with a knowledge of the system together to discuss the black and white facts of what the system can or can't achieve.

Mechanical threads in 4th edition feel different, the different abilities are to some degree situational rather than superior. If there was one power of the same class and level that was strictly superior to any others then a winner would be decided by the community and hailed as the optimal choice, but I don't think that this has happened outside of a couple of potential exceptions. Therefore that answer to these questions are retorted by "what situations does your DM put you in?" which in my opinion is a good way that the system actually achieves a story/mechanics integration.

Party optimisation has been touched upon but I don't think that it's taken seriously because that's about acting outside of the normal sphere of influence, a single character, that you'd normally control.

So that's my opinion of why 4E isn't being discussed so much.

Story threads are more less common around here but it is a way that 3.5 threads attract more 3.5 specialist. Somebody gives information on a world defining spectacle looking for feedback but again 3.5's ability to define it in black and white to the 3.5 masses lead to much chatter. This is the way that 3.5 integrates it's story with its mechanics. Settings are another strength of the system, you can start taklking within one setting and everyone with the right knowledge can know what you're talking about instantly.

4th edition currently has less about the world to discuss which means that one player can start talking about the world, feels less need to put a [4E] tag on, and then everyone has to read the thread to understand the setting which is a weaker way to discuss something as complicated as a world.

Maybe I can make reference to TV tropes here. They provide a good way of communicating a concept of the story but only to those with the knowledge of the trope. Is has resulted in a smaller but related forum split on whether TV tropes is a good thing to reference or not.

What else is a staple of the community?
The paladin falls thread... 3.5.
The monk sucks thread... 3.5.
Wizard overshadows party thread... 3.5.
I'm sure suitably ludicrous 4E threads will appear in time.

"Did my DM rule fairly?" threads... These are usually a reference to a more obscure 3.5 rule expansion. In 4E there are fewer rules so the DM sets a precedent for something that does not have a rule with Rule Zero and the thread goes quiet (or someone asks why an edition could be allowed to exist without that rule).

So maybe its got something to do with the ease of talking about 3.5 (compare rules to tropes) and the difficulty of talking about about 4E which requires more exposition to explain a concept.

Hope I made the point in a balanced and fair way.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-20, 05:46 AM
Mechanical threads in 4th edition feel different, the different abilities are to some degree situational rather than superior. If there was one power of the same class and level that was strictly superior to any others then a winner would be decided by the community and hailed as the optimal choice,
I can think of several instances of that happening. Because, at each level, there are only three or four powers available, it is in many cases easy to pick the best among them.

Only, because it's so easy and obvious, people are less inclined to post about. What are they going to say? "I'm playing an archer ranger and I decided that Split the Tree is better than Jaws of the Wolf"? Have a cookie.

Totally Guy
2008-12-20, 06:35 AM
Only, because it's so easy and obvious, people are less inclined to post about. What are they going to say? "I'm playing an archer ranger and I decided that Split the Tree is better than Jaws of the Wolf"? Have a cookie.

Yeah, that too.

Chrono22
2008-12-20, 06:50 AM
People say the main problem with dnd 3.5 was too many splatbooks. But they also say dnd 4e will become more popular when it has a bunch of splat books.

I say we skip it and switch to 5th edition. It's even more streamlined and nonrestrictive than 4e, and all of the classes are equally powerful. Combat is fast, simple, and easy to learn. Descriptions? Fluff? Don't worry, you're perfectly free to make all of your own. It's that good.
Then we can buy more splatbooks.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-20, 12:50 PM
yes thaco was a mathmatical inversion of bab. two differences in it

1)simplicity to new people. bab is is just easier to explain
2) the -10 ac cap is gone. yes godly ac is in your power if you stack enough modifiers.

other issues were the profiecincy system, saving throws greatly simplified and filed logically, and uniform leveling and no demihuman caps/class restrictions

4e just isnt a drastic leap in improvements to warrant everyone and their cousin to drop 3.5 to go for it.

lisiecki
2008-12-20, 12:57 PM
3) "Why do Tieflings get a bonus to Cha and Half-elves get a bonus to Con?"

Because there's a history of them getting a bonus to there INT and CHA scores since, 1995 at least.


Because Tieflings are Emo, and everyone knows Emos are the most attractive things anywhere.

Damn you Planescape Players Guide for jumping on the emo band wagon!
Why did you have to go and do something so trendy in 1995?

Matthew
2008-12-20, 01:10 PM
yes thaco was a mathmatical inversion of bab. two differences in it

1)simplicity to new people. bab is is just easier to explain
2) the -10 ac cap is gone. yes godly ac is in your power if you stack enough modifiers.

As has been discussed to death, some people find it easier, some people do not. The real problem was when something was written as "+2 to armour class" without indicating whether a bonus or penalty was meant.

The −10 AC limit is a mixed blessing.



other issues were the profiecincy system, saving throws greatly simplified and filed logically, and uniform leveling and no demihuman caps/class restrictions

Issues for some folks, non-issues for others, but why bring them up?

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-20, 01:14 PM
because these were issues that were changed signifigantly in the shift from editions.

aside for the build of the classes how is 4e a drastically different game?

Matthew
2008-12-20, 01:20 PM
Because these were issues that were changed signifigantly in the shift from editions.

They did change significantly, but they weren't really issues for everyone. Indeed, some of those changes were very much for the worse.



Aside for the build of the classes how is 4e a drastically different game?

Well, that's a good question, and probably best treated in a different thread, I think.

Blood_Lord
2008-12-20, 01:53 PM
They did change significantly, but they weren't really issues for everyone. Indeed, some of those changes were very much for the worse.

Those issues were issues with the change. He's not decrying your beloved 2e. He's saying: "The following things were changed significantly, and thus determined who liked 3.5 better then 2e, and who liked 2e better then 3.5."

Matthew
2008-12-20, 01:56 PM
Those issues were issues with the change. He's not decrying your beloved 2e. He's saying: "The following things were changed significantly, and thus determined who liked 3.5 better then 2e, and who liked 2e better then 3.5."

Could have fooled me with the whole "logical, easier, simplified" mantra. Still, that's not really the point. If we're looking for reasons that the take up is less between D20/3e and D20/4e than between AD&D/2e and D20/3e, we should be looking at something more substantial than subjective feelings. The rules didn't change at all between AD&D/1e and AD&D/2e, yet the take up seems to have been equally extensive.

Artanis
2008-12-20, 01:59 PM
Could have fooled me with the whole "logical, easier, simplified" mantra.
I don't take that as a statement that favors one edition over the other, given that that's exactly why a lot of people dislike the new edition. Just look at all the "4E R TEH WOWZ!!!11" stuff that people have posted in the past.

Matthew
2008-12-20, 02:01 PM
I don't take that as a statement that favors one edition over the other, given that that's exactly why a lot of people dislike the new edition. Just look at all the "4E R TEH WOWZ!!!11" stuff that people have posted in the past.

It is not that it's favouritism ("quicker, easier, more seductive"), it's just innaccurate. As I say, though, there is likely a good deal more to take up percentages than rule changes. A lot of games barely change the rules, and still the majority of the fans move on to the next edition (and a minority complain about how significant the changes are). With the OGL we have a totally different playing field, because other companies can support games that have been abandoned, which means there is much greater reliance on "brand power" (especially at the rate designers are cycled). I think that is primarily why we are seeing less takeup of D20/4e than D20/3e.

Oslecamo
2008-12-20, 02:40 PM
Well, 3.X simply has a lot more of crazy rules interaction plus a lot more splatbooks, so it provides a lot more material to discuss about than 4e.

But give it some time. In a few years, people will have found crazy interpretations of the 4e rules just like they did in 3.X and we'll get plenty of nonsense 4e threads.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-20, 06:17 PM
the point was it got more seats in. it was a large shift. 4e not so much.

I loved 2e, I miss exceptional strength, not going to say 2e was unplayable, because it wasn't and still isnt. but the big issue is why is 4e not a sudden shift like 3.0 was.

Matthew
2008-12-20, 06:37 PM
the point was it got more seats in. it was a large shift. 4e not so much.

I loved 2e, I miss exceptional strength, not going to say 2e was unplayable, because it wasn't and still isnt. but the big issue is why is 4e not a sudden shift like 3.0 was.

I think that it could have to do with the degree of rules shift. With D20/3e, the degree of rules shift was not very great, and with most games I can think of that go into new editions, that is the case. I get the feeling that a lot of people see D20/4e as a paradigm shift (which is why I think examining the differences would be interesting, but strays rather off the point of this thread). The changes between AD&D/1e/2e and D20/3e may have been much smaller steps, or more gradually introduced, or just plainly more desirable, and I think that is something worth looking at.

As it goes, I am involved in a play by post game of D20/4e, and so far I haven't seen much of a difference, but no combat thus far either.

Kerouac
2008-12-20, 08:02 PM
I loved 2e, I miss exceptional strength, not going to say 2e was unplayable, because it wasn't and still isnt. but the big issue is why is 4e not a sudden shift like 3.0 was.

I still prefer 2nd. If the rest of my crew hadn't wanted to shift, we probably would've stayed with that. :(

Thurbane
2008-12-20, 08:58 PM
There was indeed a major debate when my group resumed after our extended hiatus.

Half of us were 1E/2E veterans, the other half of the newly (re-)formed group either had no D&D experience, or had really only played a little 3e. We eventually decided it would be fairer to all if we were on an "even keel" in learning a new system, so we went with the then current 3.5e.

I found the rules shifts form 1e to 2e to be negligible, but the shift from 2e to 3e(3.5) was fairly major. Still, from my (admittedly very limited) experience with 4e, the system differences between it and 3.5 is even larger than than from 2e to 3e. There was really no easy conversion for existing characters and campaigns that I could see, although it might be easier now some of the races and classes dumped from the core have made it into 4e splatbooks.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-12-20, 09:27 PM
Well, 3.X simply has a lot more of crazy rules interaction plus a lot more splatbooks, so it provides a lot more material to discuss about than 4e.

But give it some time. In a few years, people will have found crazy interpretations of the 4e rules just like they did in 3.X and we'll get plenty of nonsense 4e threads.

I actually don't think we will get alot of that. Good or bad, take it as you will. Just because in my opinion its pretty hard to mess with 4e's already stable base.

But I do think that there will be more 4e homebrew in the future. IMO its much easier to create monsters/classes/items in 4e than in 3.X. Everything has a fairly easy to read template, while in 3e it was hit or miss.

horseboy
2008-12-21, 12:20 AM
You can't "just play what you like" when no one else is there to play with you. I think as long as there are places with a thriving 3.5 community the 4e bashing will mellow out.
As a non-D&D player I wish to show you this violin. It's remarkably tiny, would you like for me to play it? Yes, forming a group takes time. It becomes even more difficult as you get older and people have less free time. At least until you retire. HMmmmm. I wonder if there are any RPG retirement homes.
I dunno, shelf space is quite interesting. Pathfinder has got a lot more visibility at my local stores than I would have expected, and the D20/4e material substantially less. Sales figures our not only "business secrets", but from what I gathered in an exchange with one of the WotC brand managers, subject to considerable interpretation. It would be interesting to see them, though.Which I've always found rather dubious, especially considering how open (http://www.earthdawn.com/index.php?categoryid=22&p2007_articleid=2) other companies are.

Oh, and I called Dragonborn Warlord before the books were out, so it's not just a Stu. :smalltongue:

ZerglingOne
2008-12-21, 05:36 AM
I think there are a multitude of reasons 3.X prevails over 4e for the moment. The first being the amount of time both have been out. As stated earlier, 3.X has been out for years and many people haven't "upgraded" to 4th edition.

And now I start getting a little ugly, but keep in mind that this is opinion and is not meant to influence anyone's thoughts on anything. Fourth edition lacks certain qualities that make 3.X so easy to write for. When playing 4e you really are locked into class/race/alignment, regardless of the fact that they allow you to "multiclass". For example, when playing 3.X, at any point in the game when you gain a level you can multiclass into any other class and if you meet the prereqs you can get a prestige class. There is also a -MUCH- greater deal of magic in 3.X and I think it lends more of a fantasy feeling to the game knowing that the laws of magic are limitless. This is what makes it so easy to write 3.X material, all you have to write is a spell or a base class, with 4e you have to write the class, paths, different move sub-sets, and possibly even paragon paths and beyond.

3.X has more of the "wouldn't it be cool if?" feeling, whereas 4e has a "hey, in 3.Xe they had ____, and it would be cool to adapt it". Not that 4e doesn't have its advantages, nor is it impossible to write content for. It's certainly easier on DM's and getting a game going takes much much less time. Logistics of the game have been vastly improved, and you always know exactly what you're capable of. It just feels less expandable than 3.X, and it feels like a totally different game. At least from my perspective.

Matthew
2008-12-21, 07:05 AM
Which I've always found rather dubious, especially considering how open (http://www.earthdawn.com/index.php?categoryid=22&p2007_articleid=2) other companies are.

Interestingly, Troll Lord Games are also very guarded about sales figures. I don't understand the need for secrecy, but then I don't run a company either. :smallbiggrin: