What In 4th Edition Would Convince Me To Try It?


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

If 4th edition does anything about the clunkiness of iterative attacks and if it can do anything to increase speed that action moves around the table then I am all in. Especially if higher level play can be as fluid as it is at lower levels. Nothing like 4 hours spent on one combat to bring everything into focus.

If they can better the base mechanics that is good enough. Everything else is up to me.

What would be a deciding factor for you? If you are on the fence what would push you in either direction?

Tam


First off, I'd really like to get a few more comments from WOTC that aren't true, "from a certain point of view."

Second, if they focused on the mechanical aspect of things like the rules you mention, and leave the "lore" alterations in both the monster entries and the settings, that would make me more likely to check them out. But the things that have really ticked me off are pretty much a done deal.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

If they managed to somehow speed up gameplay and cut down on preparation time <u>without</u> killing the tactical dept and the multiple ways of going about things, that would indeed convince me to buy.

That, and not mutating the setting beyond any reasonable recognition. I mean, seriously, if i buy Realms, i want Forgotten Realms, not some new end-times scenario (Which some people believe to be coming based on a quote from a novel preview, and an even more obscure two lines from Greenwood)


Anything that speeds up and simplifies the mechanics of game play and cuts down on DM prep time is welcome, in my book (within reasonable limits, of course -- I don't want the game so watered down that it becomes OD&D). I would especially like to see high level stat blocks reduced to a more manageable level (there's nothing I hate more than multi-page stat blocks), and to see more logical "feat trees" (like in Iron Heroes). Sounds like they're going to revise magic in such a way that casters won't be useless once they run out of spells, and won't need to have to rest for 8 hours after every third encounter in order to maintain their usefulness, which should be a good thing (depending on how the idea is executed).

There's alot more I could think of, but those are the most important and necessary changes, from my point of view...


TwiceBorn wrote:

Anything that speeds up and simplifies the mechanics of game play and cuts down on DM prep time is welcome, in my book (within reasonable limits, of course -- I don't want the game so watered down that it becomes OD&D). I would especially like to see high level stat blocks reduced to a more manageable level (there's nothing I hate more than multi-page stat blocks), and to see more logical "feat trees" (like in Iron Heroes). Sounds like they're going to revise magic in such a way that casters won't be useless once they run out of spells, and won't need to have to rest for 8 hours after every third encounter in order to maintain their usefulness, which should be a good thing (depending on how the idea is executed).

There's alot more I could think of, but those are the most important and necessary changes, from my point of view...

That's pretty much my take on it....faster gameplay...faster game prep...but still allow for character flexibility and options...less book keeping....I want it all.

I'm going into it with eyes wide open, but with a tight hold of my wallet. If I'm not "blown away" initially, I'm going to be a fence sitter for a year or two.


farewell2kings wrote:

That's pretty much my take on it....faster gameplay...faster game prep...but still allow for character flexibility and options...less book keeping....I want it all.

I'm going into it with eyes wide open, but with a tight hold of my wallet. If I'm not "blown away" initially, I'm going to be a fence sitter for a year or two.

A better game than D&D 3.5. Thats what 4th edition should be about.


They will have to do away with classes before I will take 4e seriously.

Liberty's Edge

It only costs $19 and change (the PHB)--that's like three venti white mochas at Starbucks, or two Saturday matinees, or a handful of change from the Swear Jar...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
CourtFool wrote:
They will have to do away with classes before I will take 4e seriously.

I have no Class... Does that count? :-p.. Hmmm Am I 4th Edition?

Liberty's Edge

CourtFool wrote:
They will have to do away with classes before I will take 4e seriously.

Wow - do away with classes? Do you mind if I ask why? You are the first person I think I've heard advocate that.

For me, the classes are one of the quintessential things that make D&D ... well ... D&D.

Dark Archive

To gain my immediate support for 4th edition, WOTC would have to announce two things:

1. That Greyhawk would be the default setting, and that there would be several new Greyhawk-related adventures and sourcebooks coming out with 4th edition, primarily written by Erik Mona, James Jacobs, and Jason Bulmahn. (Did I mention how much I like Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk?)

2. The return of print versions of Dungeon and Dragon magazines, done by the folks at Paizo.

Until these announcements, I'm just not certain that I'm all too interested in 4th edition.


Marc Radle 81 wrote:
Wow - do away with classes? Do you mind if I ask why? You are the first person I think I've heard advocate that.

I am not going to try and reply for CourtFool, but I have some insight on that topic.

The biggest problem with classes is "pigeonholing" characters, and limiting flexibility. (YMMV) That is why there is a subset of the hobby that hate classes.

I wouldn't call classes quintessential to D&D, since there are a few other systems that use them (Palladium comes to mind). The thing that always "screamed" D&D to me was Vancian magic. That, and "vanilla" Fighters. But I am digressing.


What would convince me to try 4E?

Delaying it until 2011.

Liberty's Edge

CourtFool wrote:
They will have to do away with classes before I will take 4e seriously.

"So...give me a call some time....when you have no class."

Rodney Dangerfield

Dark Archive

I'll be picking up the 4th Edition core books regardless, its how I'm built. I'll always at least own the current edition of D&D.

Playing it is another matter entirely.

What will it take to get me to play? Thats going to be a bit more difficult.

1. It will have to "feel" like D&D. A pretty tall order since I already do not feel the 3.5e has the D&D "feel" to it. I've

2. Do away with the craziness. Please, I don't want to see insane levels of multi-classing (I'm a ninja/fighter/wizard/ ranger!) and just outright idiotic templates (half dragon treants).

3. Fun. It has to look fun. And not just a "Gee, that looks fun." It needs to look like hellified fun on wheels. I'm already full up on D&D gaming goodness and having a blast with C&C and OD&D so I have no need for another system. So, it'll need to promise me a better time than those two games. Good luck on that.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
DaveMage wrote:

What would convince me to try 4E?

Delaying it until 2011.

Good call. And if they didn't change for any of the online content. And if they hadn't taken Dragon and Dungeon from the guys that made them great.


Marc Radle 81 wrote:
Wow - do away with classes? Do you mind if I ask why? You are the first person I think I've heard advocate that.

Disenchanter pretty much had it. I would not need multicasting or 100 different prestige classes if I were not straight jacketed into someone else's concept of a fantasy character.

Classes make it easy for those that do not know what they want. They can simply pick from a list. I prefer the freedom to create a character I want to play.


DaveMage wrote:

What would convince me to try 4E?

Delaying it until 2011.

What would be gained by postponing the new edition another four years?

I'd actually like to know this, because a lot of people have been saying that fourth edition is coming 'too soon', and I just don't see it. Seven years is a long time, and there are already so many 3rd edition books that we don't need anything new at this point.

Maybe we just havn't been playing 3rd Ed long enough to hate it yet.


Some people do not like having to upgrade their OS every five years.


Teiran wrote:

What would be gained by postponing the new edition another four years?

I'd actually like to know this, because a lot of people have been saying that fourth edition is coming 'too soon', and I just don't see it. Seven years is a long time, and there are already so many 3rd edition books that we don't need anything new at this point.

Maybe we just havn't been playing 3rd Ed long enough to hate it yet.

Speaking for absolutely no one but myself, it would get me an extra 4 years to use books I bought less than a year ago. See, we just moved over from 3.0 to 3.5 earlier this spring, which I had been preparing for since last fall (when I RE-bought the 3 core books). Since I use almost all published adventures (1 wife + 3 kids + 2 dogs = very little free time) I didn't want to move over until I'd used all the 3.0 stuff that I really wanted to, and until I really wanted to start in on the 3.5 adventures I had. Now that we've moved over, 4e is announced. :-P Well, I still want to run Age of Worms, Savage Tide, and a campaign revolving around Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk. So I have no plans on upgrading until then, which will be at least four years. It may not even be until 5th ed is out. In fact, if there is enough Pathfinder 3.5 stuff available, I may never move over. Who knows? But I'm not going to move very fast at all on this one.

Greg


CourtFool wrote:
Some people do not like having to upgrade their OS every five years.

Five?

I think you mean two to three years.

Vista was released this year (2007) with the next version (I forget the code name) slated to be released in 2009 - 2010.

I feel bad for those that bought into Vista thinking it was the next great thing, not realizing it was only a hold over, money grabber, while they finished up the next, next great thing.

Actually... That sounds somewhat familiar...


And what if they do away with the classes? You build your character from scratch, taking feats and skills as you see fit. Taking certain feats could block access to other feats, so as the character progresses, he slowly turns into a spellcaster, or a fighter, or a cleric.

Seriously... What's a paladin? A champion of the church? A first level champion?? (not so champion is he?)... A class is nothing more than a title that is given when someone accomplishes certain things. With the removal of classes, your character could start as a guard, then slowly upgrade to a fighter (say gladiator because he is captured and fights in arenas). Then turns to St-Cuthbert when he is finally released and takes on clerical cappabilities. And at the end, becomes a paladin of St-Cuthbert, striking down evil where-ever it stands. Isn't that more beleivable?

I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

Ultradan

Scarab Sages

Disenchanter wrote:

I feel bad for those that bought into Vista thinking it was the next great thing, not realizing it was only a hold over, money grabber, while they finished up the next, next great thing.

I feel bad for me too. Although I didn't actually buy Vista on purpose. Mrs. Zombie and I got a new computer and that is what it came with. Personally, I think it sucks.


CourtFool wrote:
Some people do not like having to upgrade their OS every five years.

That's not really a fair compairson. Role playign games are not anything like software. You physically cannot install new software on an outmoded OS. Windows 3.1 is not going to play the latest video game, no matter how good you are with computers.

If you wanted to, the new Pathfinder adventures could be converted back into AD&D 2nd edition and run old school. There are people who do that now. I've been converting all those old adventures modules like the Keep of the Broadlands into 3rd edition for years.

Frankly, this is the arguement that bugs me most about 4th edition. Your books do not suddenly become blank and useless once a new edition is out. I just finished running a campaing printed for 2nd edition, using 3rd edition monsters. No body even noticed that the adventure was converted and it took very little time to update the monsters and npc stats for the new system. The hard part of a role playing game is coming up with a good and memorable story, not the stats of the bad guys.

GregH wrote:


Speaking for absolutely no one but myself, it would get me an extra 4 years to use books I bought less than a year ago. See, we just moved over from 3.0 to 3.5 earlier this spring, which I had been preparing for since last fall (when I RE-bought the 3 core books). Since I use almost all published adventures (1 wife + 3 kids + 2 dogs = very little free time) I didn't want to move over until I'd used all the 3.0 stuff that I really wanted to, and until I really wanted to start in on the 3.5 adventures I had. Now that we've moved over, 4e is announced.

Greg

But Greg, how would things actually be different for you in four years? If 4th was pushed back, then Wizards and Paizo would keep right on publishing new adventures and new rule books. You would keep buying them, and When 2011 rolls around you'd still have years worth of pre-made adventures available to you before you ran out of 3.5 material.

Unless you stop buying new adventures and run everything you already own before buying new books. Which sounds a lot like what your plan for 4th edition is now.

If they update the edition now, when you get finished running 3.5 and get ready to convert you'll be able to go online and grab the 4th ed SRD for free or search through the half price book shops and pick up the core books at well under full cost. And as a bonus, there will be a wide range of premade adventures to chose from at that point, and you'll be able to cherry pick the goods ones.

So with or without a edition change, you have years of fun ahead of you and your family. If you look at the 4th ed. SRD and love the new system, then you can convert. If not, then you can go right on using 3rd ed. for the rest of your life.


You are right, it is an imperfect comparison. However, in my opinion, the corporate strategy is exactly the same. Don't get me wrong, I got no problem with trying to make money. I just think their strategy is flawed. Of course I am probably wrong. 3.5 worked pretty well for them.


Teiran wrote:
But Greg, how would things actually be different for you in four years? If 4th was pushed back, then Wizards and Paizo would keep right on publishing new adventures and new rule books.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was specifically referring to the core rule books. I re-bought the 3.5 core books because they did not offer "upgrade notes" (which they did for a lot of the pre-3.5 books - specficially where it comes to statting monsters). All 3.5 changes to the PHB, DMG and MM were not available as on-line supplements. One needed to buy the books. (And yes, I know most of that info is in the SRD - but I bought the books because I don't use a computer at the gaming table.)

Yeah, I'll still have a fair bit of 3.5 stuff when I (eventually) upgrade to 4. Heck, I still have a lot of 1st, 2nd and 3.0 ed stuff. But I feel that I haven't gotten my money's worth out of 3.5. And I think a 4-year release cycle is too short. And yes, I do consider 3.0 a different version from 3.5. I know it's just an "upgrade" but you can't run 3.0 adventures without making "upgrade" modifications. If you could run 3.0 adventures without changing a word, then I'd consider them the same version. Yeah the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 is not as many as from 2 to 3, but it's still there. So, to me, there has been two versions in the last 8 years, not 1.

This is all IMHO, of course. I'm sure there are several/many/huge numbers of people who will go for 4th edition the moment it rolls out. But I won't. And don't get me wrong. I'm not upset, mad, frustrated, anything. The only bit of "sadness" is that I know, starting in April, that there will be nothing new coming out for the game I play. I want my game to be supported, but it won't be. But I'm a big boy, and my game will go on just fine, until I run out of material, that is. And when that happens, I'll start looking at 4th edition. But not before then.

Greg


Teiran wrote:
Frankly, this is the arguement that bugs me most about 4th edition. Your books do not suddenly become blank and useless once a new edition is out.

Your analogy isn't as different as you would like it to be.

A new OS doesn't make any of the old OSes stop working either.

Packed up somewhere, I still have a 486 machine that works just fine with DOS 6.21.

And the fact that it can't use any of the newest software is based more around the hardware problems, rather than software. Although, those exist too.

Just like I'd have a hard time installing DOS 6.21 on any new machine. And if I did pull it off, I couldn't run any of the games from that era on the new machines, because the clock speed can not be slowed down enough. (I tried running some old games from the 486 era on an outdated [at that time] Pentium III. The games ran too "fast" to do anything.)

And that lends itself very well to the "Edition problem" with PnP RPGs. Yes, old edition material can be reworked to fit into new editions. And new material can be reworked to fit into old editions.

Just like new software can be modified to run on old OS's, and old software can be modified to run on new OS's.

The problem arises when you realize the end result isn't worth the effort put into it. Most people don't want to put in the effort for computer software, and a significant number of people feel the same way about PnP RPGs.

(((I think I rambled on too long... I think I lost my own point in there somewhere...)))


(handing Disenchanter a point)


Tambryn wrote:
If 4th edition does anything about the clunkiness of iterative attacks

Iterative attacks are gone in 4e, though if SWSE is a useful guide, you can invest in feats that grant multiple attacks per round.


Shroomy wrote:
Tambryn wrote:
If 4th edition does anything about the clunkiness of iterative attacks
Iterative attacks are gone in 4e, though if SWSE is a useful guide, you can invest in feats that grant multiple attacks per round.

Can someone explain to me the "clunkiness" of iterative attacks? The only thing I can think of is that a standard action gives 1 attack while a full action gives a whole bunch. A little off, I'll grant, but not a big deal, as far as I can see.

Greg


The arguments that I have seen is that it slows down combat while someone rolls their 20 different attacks and that only about half of them are useful as the bonuses are too low to hit appropriate CR creatures.

Personally, I do not see them as clunky so much as unnecessary.


Disenchanter wrote:

Yes, old edition material can be reworked to fit into new editions. And new material can be reworked to fit into old editions.

Just like new software can be modified to run on old OS's, and old software can be modified to run on new OS's.

The problem arises when you realize the end result isn't worth the effort put into it. Most people don't want to put in the effort for computer software, and a significant number of people feel the same way about PnP RPGs.

(((I think I rambled on too long... I think I lost my own point in there somewhere...)))

Well, I think I grasped your point. To use a product from a different edition you have to convert something, just like you have to with very old software and a new OS. You can't pick up a 2nd edition adventure and run it using 3rd without doing some leg work before hand. If the effort of converting that old adventure to the new system is so great that you can't have fun, then the adventure becomes more or less useless.

The thing is, you don't have to convert anything at all to continue playing in an old edition of D&D. You just have to make up your own campaign or play the existing adventures. People are still happily playing first edition D&D, and have never bought a single product from WotC. You can have decades of fun with what exists now for 3.5, and not care a bit about 4th edition, and I just don't understand why that is a bad thing. I would think that owning a game that you can play for the rest of your life would be a good thing.

Granted, it won't help people like Greg who don't have any time to make an adventure, but his books aren't useless now that a new edition is coming out. He can keep right on playing 3rd edition and the old adventures. I sympathies with his buyers remorse, but I don't see why it should be used as an argument against 4th edition coming out.

Another reason the software to role-playing comparison doesn't work is the level of effort involved in conversion. Your explanation of software conversion is basically accurate and just about as confusing as real software conversion actually is. I see the effort involved in converting an adventure as quite minimal.

The Monster Manual has all the standard bad guys ready made for you. If an old or new adventure calls for skeletons or beholders, you flip to the right page in the Monster Manual of your choice and run the combat. Easy.

Stating up an NPC can take more time, but if you use the pre-made NPCs from the DM guide and tweak them to suit the situation at hand, then you can convert a whole Dungeon magazine in an hour or two. I did it with the Mere of Dead Men series, and it worked out wonderfully. Once you know the system well you could even come up with a brand new game in about the same time. Good luck programming a modern video game from scratch in that time.

All it will take for me to switch to 4th edition is for it to be fun.


Teiran wrote:
Good luck programming a modern video game from scratch in that time.

It isn't quite as difficult as you make it sound.

But again, it comes back to how much effort an individual wants to put into it.

My comprehension of computer hardware and software is greater than most role players I know. That kind of area takes considerably less effort for me than them.
You don't have much of a problem converting RPG material, even though that would take a huge amount of effort for others.

To each their own.

Liberty's Edge

I want rakastas.

Liberty's Edge

Cutting my prep time down is pretty important to me.

Combat always seems to slow down when juggling all of those little issues I can never memorize. Streamlined combat would be nice.

Keep everything that pertains to creatures in one place. It would be nice not to search through two other books to run a creature from the MM. I want the details on how a creature's power works all in one place. I don't want to be required to refer to the DMG to understand how conditions work when it would be just as easy to place the info in the power's description. I also hate looking up spell-like abilities only to find I have to sift through two spell descriptions just to get an idea of what the creature can do. Scare is a simple yet good example of this issue that came up at my game last night.

These are things the new edition is already promising so it has my attention.

Widespread changes to story and background material could continue to sour my opinion. Honestly, as I think on it, what I would really like is setting neutral fluff that is later expanded upon by specific settings.

For example, the MM could give you the stats for the succubi, some information on what purpose they serve, provide suggestions on how best to utilize the creature, and a few loose suggestions on where these creatures would live. Let each setting explicitly determine what part of the lower planes the creature lives in because that answer might be different depending on what world you are playing in.

I guess I want an inferred setting rather than a default setting. That would make me happy. It leaves the fluffy sacred cows alone but allows DMs to change what they want. In other words, D&D successfully portrays a world that includes elves, halflings, and other fantasy races. You fight monsters such as orcs, goblins, and dragons. How those elements fit together really ought to be left DM or to setting material WotC produces. While I don't want anything as sparse as the 1e PHB and MM I don't think that kind of design philosophy is a bad thing. Give me the details and let me decide how to best utilize them. I want D&D to be even more of a toolbox.

An argument could be made that such a set of core rules might be a hurdle for new players. Then I say WotC could bundle the core books with small booklets, or provide a free online download, that details a limited setting to illustrate how these elements can work together. Each booklet would utilize material in the core book it is attached to and provide an idea how it could all be arranged into a coherent setting. In this way the default setting remains somewhat seperate from the core inferred setting. I don't know, perhaps that is a bit much to be feasible.

My final consideration won't necessarily keep me from buying the core books but it might help me decide on much I plan on investing in the new edition. The DI could really mold my thoughts on WotC as a company. Right now the proposed number of fees and charges really just sounds like a money grab on the company's part. I am trying to reserve judgment but that is really hard to do when it sounds like the subscriber fee will not be enough to utilize all of the online features. Current information indicates you also pay a fee to unlock online content for books, pay another fee to use the online table with counters, and further purchase online v-minis that come in randomized packs if you want something more than generic tokens on the virtual game table.

Overall I am cautious yet interested. I will read the material over, look closely at the meatier previews, and probably read over the SRD before I commit to the purchase.

Of course, if some of my favorite 3rd party publishers suddenly said they were exclusively producing material for 4e, that might accelerate my purchasing plans. Even in that case, I am going to approach each new release from WotC with a strong amount of consumer wariness. I want to make sure I have a good idea what the product is like before it goes onto my shelf. I made some mistakes with 3.5 when I didn't do the proper research.


CourtFool wrote:

The arguments that I have seen is that it slows down combat while someone rolls their 20 different attacks and that only about half of them are useful as the bonuses are too low to hit appropriate CR creatures.

Personally, I do not see them as clunky so much as unnecessary.

Except for the natural 20s.

I dunno, I guess we're different. But when the fighter is making his attacks, pretty much the whole party is hanging on the dice rolls. So I don't see it as slowing down combat, so much. It's a part of combat. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm used to it and don't see a problem with it. But I guess that's probably why I'll be holding onto 3.5 for a lot longer than others.

Greg

Liberty's Edge

I wanna Dark Sun book.


Heathansson wrote:
I wanna Dark Sun book.

You may receive a symbolic Dark Sun book if 4E tanks.. : P


Heathansson wrote:
I wanna Dark Sun book.

Best I can do for you.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

GregH wrote:
CourtFool wrote:

The arguments that I have seen is that it slows down combat while someone rolls their 20 different attacks and that only about half of them are useful as the bonuses are too low to hit appropriate CR creatures.

Personally, I do not see them as clunky so much as unnecessary.

Except for the natural 20s.

I dunno, I guess we're different. But when the fighter is making his attacks, pretty much the whole party is hanging on the dice rolls. So I don't see it as slowing down combat, so much. It's a part of combat.

I would like to see 4e introduce a Shadowrun-style method of iterative attacks based on initiative. Say you act on whatever your initiative is and then you get another action for every 5 less initiative. Then, to accomodate this new system, give 'fighter' types a class bonus to initiative that grows with level. Give all classes this bonus, but make it scale faster for the fighters. Maybe fighters get +1 init per level while wizards get +1 init per 4 levels.

Say, for example, Bob is a 12th level fighter in this hypothetical system. He has a Dex bonus that gives him +2 init, his class gives him +12 init, and he took Improved Initiative, which gives him +4 more. He rolls a 16 on the d20 which gives him an initiative score of 34. He can then attack on 34, 29, 24, 19, 14, 9, and 4.

In light of that analysis, maybe you should get one attack per ten points, meaning an attack at 34, 24, 14, and 4. You could, if you wished, take this a step further and allow different weapons to penalize or boost initiative accordingly. This becomes problematic with characters who want to do something other than fight, however.

I dunno. It was just a thought.

Liberty's Edge

Teiran wrote:


That's not really a fair compairson. Role playign games are not anything like software. You physically cannot install new software on an outmoded OS. Windows 3.1 is not going to play the latest video game, no matter how good you are with computers.

Which is one reason why everyone should switch to Mac...

It.
Just.
Works.


GregH wrote:
I dunno, I guess we're different.

Agreed. I was merely relating second hand. I do not have this problem either because I use a different game altogether.

Grand Lodge

Andrew Turner wrote:
Teiran wrote:


That's not really a fair compairson. Role playign games are not anything like software. You physically cannot install new software on an outmoded OS. Windows 3.1 is not going to play the latest video game, no matter how good you are with computers.

Which is one reason why everyone should switch to Mac...

It.
Just.
Works.

That would be why you can install the latest software written for OS X Tiger on a System 7 Mac and still have it work just fine.

Oh wait, you can't.


Are we really going to start a Mac/PC flamewar in the 3.5e/4e flamewar thread? :)

Grand Lodge

CourtFool wrote:
Are we really going to start a Mac/PC flamewar in the 3.5e/4e flamewar thread? :)

Of course! ;)

The Exchange

Andrew Turner wrote:
Teiran wrote:


That's not really a fair compairson. Role playign games are not anything like software. You physically cannot install new software on an outmoded OS. Windows 3.1 is not going to play the latest video game, no matter how good you are with computers.

Which is one reason why everyone should switch to Mac...

It.
Just.
Works.

Hey, what anti-virus software do you run on your Mac? Oh, right, you don't really need antivirus for Macs because of the almost non-existance of viruses for them.....

Yeah, but what do you do when they lock up? Oh, right, much stabler operating system than windows that doesn't freeze nearly as often.....

Yup, PCs Rule!!!
{A Mac is my next purchase btw}

FH


hi all.
i was at gen con in reading for the 4th ed anouncement and frankly it made me want to go back to 1st ed. so dont hold your breath for anything exciting.
it seems it "MAY" make it easier for a DM, but they are extending the levels. you no longer go from 1st to 20th its 1st to 30th. their streching the advancement. no more feats (its more like a tech tree)
personally i like 3.5 despite its faults and time consuming prep for a DM ( i do DM) and will not be investing in 4th ed.
especially as alot of the content that will be released, will be online, which we will have to fork out a monthly subsription for.

well thats my rant

damn captilalism

oh, and bring back Bhaal and Mrykul. damn you all!!!!!!

Liberty's Edge

Fatespinner wrote:

QUOTE]I would like to see 4e introduce a Shadowrun-style method of iterative attacks based on initiative. Say you act on whatever your initiative is and then you get another action for every 5 less initiative. Then, to accomodate this new system, give 'fighter' types a class bonus to initiative that grows with level. Give all classes this bonus, but make it scale faster for the fighters. Maybe fighters get +1 init per level while wizards get +1 init per 4 levels.

Say, for example, Bob is a 12th level fighter in this hypothetical system. He has a Dex bonus that gives him +2 init, his class gives him +12 init, and he took Improved Initiative, which gives him +4 more. He rolls a 16 on the d20 which gives him an initiative score of 34. He can then attack on 34, 29, 24, 19, 14, 9, and 4.

In light of that analysis, maybe you should get one attack per ten points, meaning an attack at 34, 24, 14, and 4. You could, if you wished, take this a step further and allow different weapons to penalize or boost initiative accordingly. This becomes problematic with characters who want to do something other than fight, however.

I dunno. It was just a thought.

That would be kind of nifty. What you could do is extend the combat round and state at each point in the initiative you can take certain actions, perhaps either a move or a standard action. That way you can do something other than swing a weapon. Of course that would mean spellcasters would be casting more than one spell in a round in some cases but if the rounds are longer then that is not outside the realm of possibility. And with 4e at will abilities in play that makes even more sense.

My only problem with the Shadowrun round was how long to took to facilitate. I usually played the spellcaster and I rarely got more than one action a round. I spent a lot of time doing nothing.


I am an old timer, back from the AD&D Hardback days.. When 3.X came out, I was tired of the game and stayed away from high fantasy for a decade. Even then, I was a little tired of the 'Complete Guide to' Market strategies that were being employed.

So what I am doing here? Pathfinders lured me back. I guess I just missed me some high fantasy. I picked up some used 3.5 books cheap, and here I am.

All this explanation is a disclaimer, because I don't have as much to fear from 4th Edition. No investment in materials, and no old campaign to convert.

What would I liked to see?

Well, starting Pathfinders I had lot of players wanting to be rogues.. Turns out many of them want the extra skill points, and that was their sole motivation. They wanted some relatively cool skills in order to make them feel something other than lame and inadequate at first level. It wasn't the fact that it was a starting character that is expected to grow, it was just a starting character that- to them- seemed incapable of doing much more than getting themselves dressed, and hitting something with a sword. Ultimately it segued into a discussion that they disliked classes. They wanted to economically build their own fantasy character rather than follow what seemed to be a limiting template.

Likewise, the arcanist classes.. Wizards and Sorcerors.. Lots of fun, but it takes a long investment before you get to the 'good stuff'


What would I like to see in 4E D&D? Two words peeps, two words...

"Happy Sauce!"

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / What In 4th Edition Would Convince Me To Try It? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.