Failed Knowledge Check's page

If that's what you're after, you may want to check out The Blood Throne by Reality Deviant. It is exactly what you describe and its getting a great deal of support right now. Blight Elves and Blighted Bestiary (both of which are excellent) just came out to support it.

While I may mine it for ideas and crunch, I have plans for my own campaign. Thanks for the reference though.

I have more questions though --

Monsters. Rules to convert come with the core book, I imagine? Also is the encounter system designed differently? Is there one?

Again, thanks for the info.

I am thinking about running a darker, edgy, gritty fantasy game, with low magic . . .I may have to check this out.

Thanks for the info guys.

How varied are the characters with only 3 roles? Also, are there a fair amount of player options?

Thanks again, and in advance.

Please.

I understand that it is a 'rules-light' version of the d20 system. I understand that it operates only off the d20.

But,

could people let me know what they consider its strengths/weaknesses?

How does it hold up at higher levels?

Is it better suited for cinematic play or darker, grittier play?

Thank you.

Again, to reiterate: Do. This. Now.

I believe you forgot to add "please."

The problem at hand here:

3.5 loyalists have an apple. It came from the tree of 3.5, which has had time to blossom and bear fruit.

As such when they argue, they can always say "Look! Look what we have! Compared to our fruit, you have nothing of value."

4ed enthusiasts have a seed. Some of them recall when 3.5 was but a seed, and how certain people railed against it. But 3.5 grew strong. 4ed enthusiasts hope the same. Most enthusiasts realize they can offer only the slightest rebuttal against the 3.5 loyalists for simple fact they have on eye on the what could be, while the 3.5 argues what is and has come before.

Is either side wrong. NO, but the values they argue from seem at odds . . .and so they war -- both swinging fruitlessly at impossibly high ACs that they could never hope to hit, regardless of edition.

Wow, if that was the best thing you've read since "Age of Worms" I think I may pity you.

Hmm. Have you read it? While it lacks any concrete crunch, it is well-written and an intriguing read.

In truth, it is one of the few times in memory I read an RPG book from cover to cover as soon as I could.

I am greatly intrigued and optimistic in regards to 4e.

Well - I came here to talk about 4E. I was hoping to actually talk about the new crunch in a communal way. You know, people talking about things to form opinions and evaluate ideas. I was hoping for group analysis of the facts and not this we hate WotC and everything it touches kind of thing.

When I go to my local shop and talk 4E we actually talk about the new stuff, compare it to the old stuff, talk about the way other games handle it, and we do it all in a very civil manner. We learn a whole lot from each other's perspectives.

Here its all about hyperbole, conspiracy theories, and polarization ... with a few exceptions.

I try to ignore the noise to focus in on the signal but it ain't easy.

I sympathize 100%.

Give. Them. To. Me.

Rodney - Thanks for the quick response. I figured your answer, but it was nice to hear.

Samuel - You say as much, and you are right . . .gamers cannot lay all of the marketing blame on the designers. If you have a gripe with the marketing, I can understand that. I don't, but it is obvious there are some who do. Unfortunately, the past marketing strategy cannot be altered. ON the bright side, you do have to commend those WotC employees who are making outreaches on the boards in an attempt to open a dialouge. That in and of itself is taking a page out of the Paizo playbook and doing so to good effect.

What I am trying to say is that, though the marketing may have turned you off or out, at least they seem to be taking measures to try to reach those gamers that were off-put by it in a more mature manner . . .like Rodney on these boards or Andy trying to explain the internal e-mail to freelancers.

Bottom line (for me anyway) is that marketing does not dictate what kind of game it is going to be. Yes, you may have to seperate some fat and gristle from the steak of what they are saying, but I tend to think that steak (4e if my horrible metaphor is lost) looks succulent.

So here is to hoping that the next version of D&D is a grade A steak.

EDIT: FAILED MY SPELLING CHECK

Let me jump in and add my thoughts:

- Rodney thanks for stopping by and sharing your insight.

- I am greatly interested in 4e -- it seems right up my alley. I enjoy the concept of more combat actions and an altering of the current magic system.

- Changes to the story of D&D do not bother me, as I run a homebrew.

- I was a bit worried if the fighter was going to get supernatural on us, but you hint that is not the case and that things fighters do are not above and beyond the realms of 'fantasy possibility'. Yay!

- My only concern remaining is -- will 4e allow us to tell the same stories as 3.5? I imagine yes. But let's say I want my group to face a displacer beast . . .not a displacer beast for each member . . .I hope that options for this are accessible and simple in the new encounter system. For me it is the mechanics of the encounter system that really aid in the telling of a story.

- Keep up the good work, and again thanks for the insight.

I agree about the exploding devil bit, it seems a bit off-track. Perhaps there is something we do not yet know about explosions (they push back, stun, knock down, etc).

All in all, I find this version of the Pit Fiend focused and interesting. For my money, it is a better version than the hodgepodge version in 3.5

Not to be that guy . . .but 3.5 or 4e?