Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 88
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Overall, is the new version of D&D better than good old 3.5?

    I find it puts more emphasis on roleplaying and has a much clearer, better-organized rules system. It's simple, fast, and efficient. Those are the pros, right?

    Well, the cons come from the same sources in my opinion. There seems to be a simple, easy-to-follow rules system, but this simplicity comes at a cost to creativity. All the powers are already there for you; You have a large, but limited selection of abilities, but no real way to make your own. In my opinion, it would be much more fun to make up devilish ways to combine your numerous abilities yourself than have all these combinations pre-made for you.

    What do you think?

    PS: I own only the new Player's Handbook, so I might be missing quite a bit...

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    its pretty stripped down, monsterwise. Still, with templates, monsters can be made more interesting. and philosophy seems to be- a few powers, that get used, rather than lots of powers, most of which never get used.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Your main point is a major sense of contention. I think it is better, as do many people. Many others think it isn't. In previous arguments we haven't even been able to agree on how the games should be judged.
    Now with half the calories!

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2007

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Ugh. This issue has been done to death in this forum. OP, why did you feel the need to open old wounds?
    Last edited by FoE; 2008-10-24 at 01:47 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    The simplicity is both a pro and a con. On one hand, it's easier to learn everything. On the other hand, everything gets repetitive and boring more quickly.
    Come to think about it, that applies to most praises and compliants about 4th edition. I could say how being abstractive and cinematic is a drawback of 4ed, but someone else will list it as an advantage.
    Last edited by Morty; 2008-10-24 at 01:49 PM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Prep time, ease of play, may be scoring points, depending on who's arguing.

    Also, when Things from Books couldn't be done in 3rd ed, but can in 4th, this may make people happy. Dwarven fighters making magic items, a la Bruenor.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Sorry about reopening the issue, I only became a member yesterday...

    I'm asking this because myself and my friends are currently running two campaigns, one in v3.5 and one in v4. I'm DM for the v3.5 and plan to play a half-elf paladin of Melora in the v4. If anyone has either DMing advice for v3.5 or playing advice for v4, please post it here... if age matters, we're high-schoolers.

    Feel free to continue the discussion, if anyone wishes to continue...

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    well, if you can enjoy both games, more power to you. By playing, or seeing it played, both regularly, might get better insight than others.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Do you think 3.5 will survive the long term?

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    I'm not sure if I will continue playing it, but if nothing else, I will mine it for 4th ed material. When you have a lot, its a shame to let it go to waste.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Oracle_Hunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by Defiant View Post
    Do you think 3.5 will survive the long term?
    Only among a smaller community. It will have no official support, so, like 1e and 2e before it, it will fade into obscurity.

    If Pathfinder takes off, that may be where the remnant of a remnant will survive.

    But that doesn't really have anything to do with the inherent goodness or badness of a system.
    Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter Games
    Today a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!


    ~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~
    Spoiler
    Show

    Elflad

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    If I continue playing, for sure!


    On a more serious note, probably not. To me, v4 looks more like a MMORPG than D&D, but perhaps that's an extreme view. After all, the DM still exists, although the Wizards D&D Game Table will make it closer to what I see it as. But just like many simplifications going on these days, this will probably be favourable to the majority.

    Based on this, v3.5 will, unfortunately for me, probably not continue for too long. But perhaps this is for the best, since now my friends own only 3 books more than me on average (as opposed to 7 with v3.5)

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Carnegie Mellon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by Defiant View Post
    Do you think 3.5 will survive the long term?
    People still play 1st and 2nd edition, so I don't see why it wouldn't.
    My Red Hand of Doom campaign journal: Part I, Part II
    Love the Third Amendment?

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...at home.

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Multiclassing is one of the things that drew me to dnd. Now that it's gone well so has my interest.
    The game doesn't start until you reach epic levels.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2007

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    OK, mindblank, I get it now.

    As for 3E vs. 4E ... I'll say that the latter is far easier on DMs than the former.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by Face Of Evil View Post
    As for 3E vs. 4E ... I'll say that the latter is far easier on DMs than the former.
    It's undeniable that 4ed encounter budget works, as opposed to CR system that works... occasionaly.
    Last edited by Morty; 2008-10-24 at 02:51 PM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Original Poster got the gist of it already.

    Though really 3.5e is more complicated and detailed. 4e isn't really premade combinations of 3.5e stuff. 4e is something simpler but totally different, except in name and a handful of other very broad similarities.

    IMO 4e is easier to get into and better for most if you don't want to put in that much effort. 3.5e is better if you want to get into rules details (but most people I see don't). This is my opinion from playing 3.5e and reading lots of 3.5e rules while looking extensively at 4e previews, but not playing yet (not opposed to the chance, just haven't gotten one yet). There are so many awesome details in 3.5e that get ignored in favor of splatbooks, many of which are precursors to 4e. Kind of an outward spreading out into more features instead of an inward getting-nitty-gritty with existing features. That bums me out, but at the same time I can see why that would lead to 4e being a better option for a lot of people.
    Last edited by ericgrau; 2008-10-24 at 03:08 PM.
    So you never have to interrupt a game to look up a rule again:
    My 3.5e Rules Cheat Sheets: Normal, With Consolidated Skill System
    TOGC's 3.5e Spell/etc Cards: rpgnow / drivethru rpg
    Utilities: Magic Item Shop Generator (Req. MS Excel), Balanced Low Magic Item System
    Printable Cardstock Dungeon Tiles and other terrain stuff (100 MB)

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England.

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by Face Of Evil View Post
    As for 3E vs. 4E ... I'll say that the latter is far easier on DMs than the former.
    I've DMed both, and didn't notice much difference. If you can do one, you can do the other.

    As a player, I like 4e more for one-offs and games starting at level 1, and I like 3.5 more for long-running games where your character gets to significantly develop. 4e's better for casual players and newbies, 3.5's better for players who want a giant toolbox.

    - Saph
    I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and Book #10 in the series, Fallen, is out as of September 2019. For updates, check my blog!

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RPGuru1331's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    I'm going to have to second or third or whatnot 4e being easier to run then 3rd ed. The DnD GM at hte local gaming store has really been jumping at 4e due to how much easier his life has been with it. (He is an eternal GM, the poor, noble soul).

    On a more serious note, probably not. To me, v4 looks more like a MMORPG than D&D, but perhaps that's an extreme view. After all, the DM still exists, although the Wizards D&D Game Table will make it closer to what I see it as. But just like many simplifications going on these days, this will probably be favourable to the majority.
    It's also an incorrect one, terribly sorry. MMORPGs built from DnD, as well as other sources; DnD has in turn recognized that even if they don't say it out loud, classes are built with certain conceits in mind (Such as 'glass cannon'), and in a class based system, it's nigh impossible to get around those conceits, so they've turned to embrace them.

    <Android> This notwithstanding that they're not Massively Multiplayer, or Online.</Android>
    Last edited by RPGuru1331; 2008-10-24 at 03:57 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by mindblank19 View Post
    On a more serious note, probably not. To me, v4 looks more like a MMORPG than D&D, but perhaps that's an extreme view. After all, the DM still exists, although the Wizards D&D Game Table will make it closer to what I see it as. But just like many simplifications going on these days, this will probably be favourable to the majority.
    I think you overestimate what the gametable does. It's a shared space where if the DM draws something, the other players see it. If a player moves his figure, it moves for everyone. There is no rules-calculation, it's just dungeon tiles and virtual miniatures.

    Technically it makes D&D a MORPG, but only by the loosest definitions of Online. It's as much a MMORPG as two people playing make-believe over Instant Messenger. (EDIT: as far as the game table is concerned.)
    Last edited by The New Bruceski; 2008-10-24 at 04:04 PM.
    Now with half the calories!

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Here is my list of what I like and dislike about 4th edition. A lot of these are the same things people have been harping about. A lot of people may disagree with that I'm saying here. I am trying to cover a lot of ground, so I can't be as detailed in my points as I would like, so if someone disagrees with me, mention the specific point and I can go into greater detail about what I mean.

    Pros of 4th edition versus 3.5:
    • Is actually balanced. 3.5 was amazingly unbalanced. For example, compare Wizards or CoDzilla (Clerics/Druids) to fighters, rangers, and monks. In 4th edition, everyone is pretty much on the same level in terms of power.

    • There are very few traps (terrible choices, not the disarming traps). In 3.5, there were a lot of traps, like weapon focus and toughness. Traps that were intentionally placed there, if Monty Cook's explanations are to be believed. Now, the biggest problem a power/feat can have is not synergizing properly with the rest of the character. Very few feats are intrinsically bad. Of course, this might have more to do with the power level of feats being more normalized.

    • Standardization. There is much better balance in terms of player character creation, and the monsters CRs are much more accurate (baring some exceptions, like Needlefang Drake Swarms). Also, changing the standard player to monster ratio from 4:1 to 1:1 provides much greater granularity of power adjustment, making it much easier for the DM to scale an encounter and make it just right. All of these mean that the average 4th edition experience for a player is better than the average 3rd edition experience, and that 4th edition experiences for a player are more uniform, rather than being the hit or miss that I often experienced in 3rd edition.

    • Reduction of complexity in character creation. In 3.5, I felt like I needed to spend a huge amount of effort in order to make a good character. In 4th edition, it does not require nearly as much effort, due to the decrease in importance of feats, items, and alternative class features. Of course, the lack of splat books might be a part of the reason, but I feel as though 4th edition core is vastly less complicated in character creation than 3.5 core

    • Streamlined play. Battle is much more fun in 4th edition. Everyone has a lot of options, more than the typical melee character (like a non-optimized fighter) in 3.5 which could only hit things with a sword. Also, the many simplifications and changes make combat go quicker and smoother.


    Cons of 4th edition versus 3.5:
    • Weird abstractions/simplifications. I think this is where people say "Oh, D&D is a MorePig!" There are lots and lots of weird things that just don't make sense in terms of an internally consistent world. Things like cubic dragon breaths, diagonals being the same distance as horizontals/verticals, being unable to sell mundane equipment, magic items selling for 1/5th value instead of half, encumbrance rules (being heavily encumbered automatically occupies both of your hands, so you *technically* cannot carry a sword/shield, and dragging more than your normal weight will slow you, so that horses can carry 237 lbs and drag 1,187 lbs, but when they drag more than 237 lbs, like a cart, they can only move 10 ft a round), basically everything breaking down when you consider height. An entire thread around this could be created, so I won't list more.

      Some of these things were design decisions to make things easier in combat. Most of them feel like the designers either didn't think things through all the way (encumbrance), or failed to read an applicable rule.

    • Sloppy editing. For some reason, the 4th edition core books feel a lot more sloppy than 3.5 core. I could list dozens and dozens of examples of things that have not yet been errataed that are either not clear or don't work (and if I really wanted to, I'm certain I could find at least 100 items in the Adventurer's vault that need errata). Things like heavily encumbered dwarfs who are not slowed, yet still have both their hands taken up by their heavy load. A more thorough explanation of what you apply a weapon/implements enhancement bonus to (the best explanation in the PHB is "A magic weapon adds an enhancement bonus to attack
      rolls and damage rolls, ... This bonus does not apply to any ongoing damage or other damage that might be applied to the attack." p. 232, which is not very clear on what "other damage" means and is very very easily overlooked). About half of the conjurations simply do not work as one would expect due to poorly/incompletely worded attack/effect entries. Again, the list goes on and on.

      This annoys me a lot more than in 3rd edition because the presentation of the rules is a lot more formalized than in 3rd edition (power descriptions are strictly formatted, versus the spell descriptions of 3rd edition that seemed to encourage more flexibility in DM adjudication of the spell by describing more than "here are the precise effects." Presenting the rules in a more formal manner implicitly means more standardization, but lack of clarity opposes this.

    • Reduction of DM adjudication. This is kind of similar to what I was just talking about. Yes, the books say that a DM can change anything they want, but at the same time the presentation of the rules discourage adjudication and encourage simply applying the stated effects. The removal of open ended spells like Wish and the formalization of the effects gives less room (by default, unless the DM overrides the rules) for DM adjudication. For example, there are no spells with the flexibility of, say, 3.5's Grease. A good 4th edition example is the Goblin Hexer, which has a zone that is flavored as a cloud of dust, that creates a cloud of dust that provides concealment for only its allies. The one way nature of the power makes NO SENSE compared to the flavor (unless you add in flavor that is not printed in the book). The presentation of the power seems to prevent clever uses, as it applies very specific penalties that are loosely related to but largely independent from the flavor.

    • Items are incredibly weak. At least, the PHB ones. The Adventurer's Vault items are much stronger. But the items enhance the character, never overshadow character abilities. In previous editions, you could get a wand of fireball or other powerful item and completely dominate until it ran out of charges or something. Now, a strong item can only be used once a day. This increases balance, but it doesn't *feel* right to me. I WANT to be able to pick up an uber item and dominate for a short time. Instead, I am just intrinsically better than Also, there are no rules for item creation like there were in 3rd edition, which discourages custom items.

      Also, the 1 daily item power per mile stone (more uses at higher tiers) rule is completely nonsensical to me. I really do not see the problem with stocking up on daily usage items and using them all up. Worse, it makes the opportunity cost of the non-combat daily item powers from the Adventurer's Vault unnecessarily high. For example, I will never use the item that summons a mount for the day, as it means I do not get to use my sword's daily power.

      I should mention that a lot of people will disagree with me on this point, as many people would prefer that items should not overshadow a character. But, having weak magic items doesn't *feel* realistic to *me*.

    • Magic Rituals are seriously gimped. Either there is a terrible gotcha that severely reduces the usability of a ritual, or the ritual's component cost is too high. For example, Hand of Fate only predicts the future for the next hour. If I am at a fork in the road, and there is a massive hoard of treasure on the left path two hours away and a Tarrasque on the right path two hours away, the Hand will go "lol, I dunno" when trying to determine which path has the greater reward. Another example, Hero's feast creates food for 5 medium creatures. For 35 gold. If I had 35 gp of material components, why don't I have 5 rations? Yet another example, Silence is useless, as it only reduces the perception check by 10, rather than making true silence. In my opinion, magic should be better or more convenient than doing something the mundane way.


    In short, 4th edition is a great combat game. But it feels like there is a lot of verisimilitude missing. Any time you try to do something that the game designers did not forsee, there is almost always a big problem by RAW. I like 2nd edition a lot better as a D&D game (3rd edition feels like a bad compromise between 2nd edition and 4th edition, trying to do both realism and good gaming at the same time, but failing at both). I have a lot more I could say, but I'll stop now, as this post is already extremely long.
    Last edited by TMZ_Cinoros; 2008-10-24 at 04:57 PM. Reason: Fixed formatting to make more readable, corrected various typos

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RPGuru1331's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by TMZ_Cinoros View Post
    [*]There are very few traps (terrible choices, not the disarming traps). In 3.5, there were a lot of traps, like weapon focus and toughness. Traps that were intentionally placed there, if Monty Cook's explanations are to be believed. Now, the biggest problem a power/feat can have is not synergizing properly with the rest of the character. Very few feats are intrinsically bad. Of course, this might have more to do with the power level of feats being more normalized.Cons of 4th edition versus 3.5:
    • Magic Rituals are seriously gimped. 7 For example, Hand of Fate only predicts the future for the next hour. If I am at a fork in the road, and there is a massive hoard of treasure on the left path two hours away and a Tarrasque on the right path two hours away, the Hand will go "lol, I dunno" when trying to determine which path has the greater reward. Another example, Hero's feast creates food for 5 medium creatures. For 35 gold. If I had 35 gp of material components, why don't I have 5 rations? Yet another example, Silence is useless, as it only reduces the perception check by 10, rather than making true silence. In my opinion, magic should be better or more convenient than doing something the mundane way.
    This is fairly similar to how magic uuuusually works in fiction that didn't steal its tropes from DnD, actually..

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by RPGuru1331 View Post
    This is fairly similar to how magic uuuusually works in fiction that didn't steal its tropes from DnD, actually..
    Could you post some examples? I'm not sure if I completely understand what you mean, and would like to know more.

    For me, it feels like they were trying to go away from 3.5, where the wizard just dominated out of combat situations with utility magic. For example, the wizard who had Knock made the rogue obsolete (since rogues were normally really only good for finding and disarming traps). However, I think they were overzealous in this regard and went too far.

    I agree that the wizard's utility spells were strong, but the rituals in 4th edition are down-right unusable, at least unless you have thousands and thousands of GP, like in the Paragon/epic tiers. After all, at that level, who cares if you used 35 gp to summon flying horses.
    Last edited by TMZ_Cinoros; 2008-10-24 at 04:59 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Banned
     
    EvilElitest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oh gods i wish i knew
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by Defiant View Post
    Do you think 3.5 will survive the long term?
    actually in terms of survivability, it will do better, the D20 license is free

    And OP, thank you for bringing up the second most tabboo topic in the forum


    Pros
    Better combat
    Balanced
    Better art (some what)
    Better combat
    Easier to learn
    Better combat
    Easier to play simply
    Better combat.......yeah


    Con
    Terrible fluff
    No back ground of note
    Dumbed down absurdly
    Ruined aligniments, and that is worst than the 3E, which says a lot
    Gods uninteresting
    Limiting in terms of character design options
    Monsters are little more than state blocks
    Bad world design
    NPC/PC rules are terrible
    Focus so much on combat its almost hack and slash
    Simplistic/primative in terms of actual rules other than combat
    Shallow in content
    massive amount of arbitrary change
    Shall i go on?

    4E's biggest problem is it is a new edition of D&D. It is built upon one style of gameplay, and so it would be a fine as a spin off game, maybe a RPG version of hte miniatures game. Honestly it would be fine as a spin off game. If you like that one style of play, its great. If you don't like it........

    as a new edition, its limiting and takes away so much form eariler eidtions that it goes form a good spin off game to a lack luster edition
    from
    EE
    Last edited by EvilElitest; 2008-10-24 at 05:02 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Banned
     
    EvilElitest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oh gods i wish i knew
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    Only among a smaller community. It will have no official support, so, like 1e and 2e before it, it will fade into obscurity.

    If Pathfinder takes off, that may be where the remnant of a remnant will survive.

    But that doesn't really have anything to do with the inherent goodness or badness of a system.
    no, actually it has offical support, other than pathfinder, because the license is free for anybody, unlike 2E or 1E, or for that matter 4E
    from
    EE

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RPGuru1331's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Could you post some examples? I'm not sure if I completely understand what you mean, and would like to know more.

    For me, it feels like they were trying to go away from 3.5, where the wizard just dominated out of combat situations with utility magic. For example, the wizard who had Knock made the rogue obsolete (since rogues were normally really only good for finding and disarming traps). However, I think they were overzealous in this regard and went too far.

    I agree that the wizard's utility spells were strong, but the rituals in 4th edition are down-right unusable, at least unless you have thousands and thousands of GP, like in the Paragon/epic tiers. After all, at that level, who cares if you used 35 gp to summon flying horses.
    Well, in fiction, magic is generally not the first solution people resort to. I can list a number of tropes as to /why/, but the upshot is that magic generally has an extra cost associated with it that means you will want to explore your options. For instance, in the Warhammer worlds, and this is an extreme example, your soul can be dragged off by evil demons and eaten if you cast spells. Usually, it's not that severe a cost, but there can be all kinds of them. Even Mage has something, and that's all about Magi; You can pull yourself out of touch with normal human beings and lose your sanity if you cast spells too frivolously (As well as the more gamist cost of Mana). I don't feel they're unusable at all; They're merely meant to be used *sparingly*. And Bloody Hell, I meant to ask you what you meant by "The traps were intentional if Monte Cook is to be believed"

    There is another difference between DnD spells and normal fictional spells, and that's in the breadth of magic's usefulness for any one mage, but that *isn't* repeated in DnD. Not even for spontaneous casters, who can burn scrolls.
    Last edited by RPGuru1331; 2008-10-24 at 05:05 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Banned
     
    EvilElitest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oh gods i wish i knew
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by RPGuru1331 View Post
    Well, in fiction, magic is generally not the first solution people resort to. I can list a number of tropes as to /why/, but the upshot is that magic generally has an extra cost associated with it that means you will want to explore your options. For instance, in the Warhammer worlds, and this is an extreme example, your soul can be dragged off by evil demons and eaten if you cast spells. Usually, it's not that severe a cost, but there can be all kinds of them. Even Mage has something, and that's all about Magi; You can pull yourself out of touch with normal human beings and lose your sanity if you cast spells too frivolously (As well as the more gamist cost of Mana). I don't feel they're unusable at all; They're merely meant to be used *sparingly*. And Bloody Hell, I meant to ask you what you meant by "The traps were intentional if Monte Cook is to be believed"

    There is another difference between DnD spells and normal fictional spells, and that's in the breadth of magic's usefulness for any one mage, but that *isn't* repeated in DnD. Not even for spontaneous casters, who can burn scrolls.
    1) Define normal fiction. There is lots of fiction, with lots of magic types, not all work that way
    2) Wait, doesn't 4E do taht too, just not rituals but other spells?


    Anyways, on topic, i think if we are going to name pros and cons, we shouldn't respond to each others claims, because then we are going to get that normal 4E dicussion that nobody likes
    from
    EE

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RPGuru1331's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilElitest View Post
    1) Define normal fiction. There is lots of fiction, with lots of magic types, not all work that way
    2) Wait, doesn't 4E do taht too, just not rituals but other spells?
    1: Things that are not 80s hack fantasy. There may be a lot of kinds of magic, but even in a series marketted for kids where magic was supposed to be the best (Harry Potter), it's still not strictly better at everything, in most cases. And the ones where it is are generally just not good books.
    2: Which part? If you mean "Enforced limit on the breadth of magic" then no, 4e doesn't do that either; DnD never has. If you mean "Limit the ability magic has to affect the world somewhat, like normal fiction", then yes, it has somewhat. That's why it's relevant.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Banned
     
    EvilElitest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oh gods i wish i knew
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by RPGuru1331 View Post
    1: Things that are not 80s hack fantasy. There may be a lot of kinds of magic, but even in a series marketted for kids where magic was supposed to be the best (Harry Potter), it's still not strictly better at everything, in most cases. And the ones where it is are generally just not good books.
    2: Which part? If you mean "Enforced limit on the breadth of magic" then no, 4e doesn't do that either; DnD never has. If you mean "Limit the ability magic has to affect the world somewhat, like normal fiction", then yes, it has somewhat. That's why it's relevant.
    1) Isn't that a little bit broad of a statement? I mean, your basically saying magic works like this everywhere, when the massive amount of different magic workings are absurd.
    2) Define "normal fiction". Eddings? Salvator? Rowling? Tolkien? Martine? Bloody Paloni? What counts as "normal". Its a rather general statement?
    3) Not really. The PCs are absurdly powerful with massive magic at their disposal, so no its limits on the world doesn't change. It just focues upon combat more than anything else
    from
    EE

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RPGuru1331's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Default Re: v4 D&D pros vs. cons

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilElitest View Post
    1) Isn't that a little bit broad of a statement? I mean, your basically saying magic works like this everywhere, when the massive amount of different magic workings are absurd.
    2) Define "normal fiction". Eddings? Salvator? Rowling? Tolkien? Martine? Bloody Paloni? What counts as "normal". Its a rather general statement?
    3) Not really. The PCs are absurdly powerful with massive magic at their disposal, so no its limits on the world doesn't change. It just focues upon combat more than anything else
    from
    EE
    1. No. I really, really am not making a statement that's too broad. If the fiction is good, Magic is not going to be end-all without some sort of incredible cost attached. The two aren't technically mutually exclusive, it's that without it, fiction tends to drag into Mary Sue-age that drags down the book. See: Elminster.
    2. It is a rather general statement. I mean "Things that aren't bad.", quite frankly. I can not think of a good /anything/ where not only is their magic/special things effective at everything, it comes without cost.
    3. Its limits on the world have changed vastly. In third edition, by expending my 9th levels, I can have several utterly loyal servants that are far more powerful then I am (Gate, Mindrape Solars). I can detonate a city with trivial ease (Locate City Bomb). 3rd ed allows the creation of that one guy's worlds. The one with the Uber Magocracy that rules all, has magic infrastructure everywhere that everyone can use, and has mindraped all its relevant servants. Third ed allows you to create a new plane for yourself as part of a mechanical thing you can repeat at will, with Epic Magic. An Epic Tier Mage may be a powerful person, capable of a wide variety of tricks, both combat and non-, but the simple fact is that Rituals are nowhere near broad enough for magic, and magic alone, to have these kinds of effects on the world at large.
    Last edited by RPGuru1331; 2008-10-24 at 05:34 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •