|
If Paizo switched and (more importantly) my F2F group REALLY wanted to change, then I would do it. The chances of my group deciding to change are slightly lower that the temp in Wisconsin right now. The only reason they know about 4th edition is because I told them about it.
So, realistically speaking - it ain't happening.
If Paizo switched and (more importantly) my F2F group REALLY wanted to change, then I would do it. The chances of my group deciding to change are slightly lower that the temp in Wisconsin right now. The only reason they know about 4th edition is because I told them about it.
So, realistically speaking - it ain't happening.
I must not be up on all the new lingo . . . F2F? THat a paticular campaign setting setting or something?
I must not be up on all the new lingo . . . F2F? THat a paticular campaign setting setting or something?
Face 2 Face. IRL. Meatspace. The way games used to be played, before everbody got caught up in these Internets things.
What will it take to get me to try it? Nothing. I'm going to try it. (If only so that I'll know that broccoli tastes nasty, so to speak.) As I said in the poll thread, though, I fully expect to still be playing 3.5 for years. If 4E isn't the major disappointment it looks like, I might switch in 2009 or 2010. Otherwise, I'll probably wait for 5E.
I must not be up on all the new lingo . . . F2F? THat a paticular campaign setting setting or something?Face 2 Face. IRL. Meatspace. The way games used to be played, before everbody got caught up in these Internets things.
Meatspace!? Wow, I haven't heard that since I last read Gibson!
Meatspace!? Wow, I haven't heard that since I last read Gibson!
I use it all the time!
I am awaiting the release of the core 4E books. I might play both, but most likely I will switch within a week of release.
|
There's honestly nothing that WotC (or anyone else) could feasibly do to get me to convert. Infeasibly- I suppose if someone updated all of my 3.5 books, supplements, and adventures to 4E for free, and no effort on my part, I'd consider it more closely. Even then it would be assured. The expense of the change and the effort of converting are the two barriers that will prevent me from switching.
Not a damn thing could make me try 4E.
Attempting a serious answer and avoiding all unlikely inducements (rare scotch or bourbon whiskeys, scantily clad women to deliver the rulebooks to my front door, etc.), here is what 4th edition would need to do for me:
1) I would need "The Great 4th Edition Encyclopedia of Updates." Essentially one to three massive products that go beyond the core rulebooks to provide me with
a) monster statistics for all monsters from all prior editions of the Dungeons and Dragons Game (no exceptions, not even for the flumph);
b) complete set of class/prestige class analogues for all prior edition classes, kits, and prestige classes;
c) complete statistics blocks for the litterally hundreds of NPCs from all prior adventures including those from Dungeon magazine;
d) magic item descriptions for every magic item from all prior editions of the game;
e) rules coverage for all the environmental/planar/psionic/high-leve-epic/ or other special circumstances that have been covered in prior editions of the game;
f) updates for every spell from every prior edition; and
g) just about every noteworthy adventure and Dungeon magazine issue adventure updated to the new rules.
I have NO TIME to spend updating my campaign any more. I have just enough time to comb through 3.0 and 3.5 resources to update those prior edition adventures I want to use. And I don't want to wait to the end of the 4th edition product line to get it all, spread out over twenty different resources and an online subscription service.
2) I would need a comprehensive Greyhawk resource adjusting the core rules to a Greyhawk that existed in a crystaline sphere known as Greyspace, nested at the center of the Planscape multiverse. (No need to delve into Mystara, Athas or any other crystal spheres - that can all be optional).
3) The price of these items, not to number more than 2-5 significantly-sized volumes, would have to be below $500 for the lot.
4) I might then buy further 4th edition materials since they would then have to introduce original material (and not another rendition of the Wild Mage or Thought Eater intermingled with some new material).
What could sway you to try 4th edition?
1) My players all wanting to play it.
2) No conversion work on my part.
3) All the fluff tropes and character options of previous editions ready to go in 4e.
4) No changes to FR (more expanding and detail only).
Mine is simple...
I want to be able to play a rogue that uses a greatsword or spear rather than a dagger or shortsword as his primary weapon and doesn't take a badwrongfun penalty for doing so.
Mine is simple...
I want to be able to play a rogue that uses a greatsword or spear rather than a dagger or shortsword as his primary weapon and doesn't take a badwrongfun penalty for doing so.
Buh? In 3E, your Rogue wouldn't be proficient in those weapons either. I'd suspect (just as in 3E) that you'll need a proficiency feat to be considered proficient in them.
On topic, I think 4E needs to come out in order to convince me to try it. But then I guess I'm easy like sunday morning! ;p
Buh? In 3E, your Rogue wouldn't be proficient in those weapons either. I'd suspect (just as in 3E) that you'll need a proficiency feat to be considered proficient in them.
Shortspear, spear and longspear are all rogue proficiencies in 3.5. And, if proficiency was gained via a feat or multiclassing in greatsword, sneak attack and other rogue combat abilities worked with it.
In 4e, from what has been revealed so far, there is a chance that gaining proficiency won't be enough to make having the proficiency worthwhile mechanically as base rogue abilities and a chunk of powers won't be usable with a greatsword. So, at present, it appears there may be a badwrongfun penalty for not using the *cool* options of dagger or shortsword if you're playing a rogue (or fighter that adds rogue powers).
I'll try 4e if more information is revealed in the final product that shows there is no badwrongfun penalty or a way around the badwrongfun penalty. It may be as simple as selecting the artful dodger path for your Rogue as the bonus to AC vs. attacks of opportunity ability isn't related to weapon choice and utility powers like tumble don't seem to be either. Combining that with a few fighter powers may allow you to make a greatsword or spear wielding rogue that is as effective as a shortsword or dagger rogue (or greatsword or spear fighter).
|
|
1: Your rogue will feel different. That's why WotC keeps saying direct conversions won't always be an option.
2: You certainly -can- play a rogue with a greatsword in 4e and suffer no penalty, depending on your character design. I can't promise it'll work exactly like you want it to, but then again I know a lot of 3e rogues who hate being "penalized" for specializing in ranged attacks since they have to be w/in 30 feet to sneak attack.
3: By the same token, I have designed some 4e characters who would be penalized for their concept if I made them in 3e.
4: Clearly, YMMV
1: Your rogue will feel different. That's why WotC keeps saying direct conversions won't always be an option.
This isn't a conversion issue, it is a flexibility issue - the ability to play the character you want to play rather than the character you should play. The "no direct conversions" thing is great when explaining you can't make a gnome sorceror, but falls short here.
2: You certainly -can- play a rogue with a greatsword in 4e and suffer no penalty, depending on your character design. I can't promise it'll work exactly like you want it to,
This is nice to hear, kind of, maybe. I would like it to work "well" - as in as well as a character that used a feat and couple powers on something else.
Specifically, I'd like to see:
a) I spend X amount of resources to fight using a greatsword or spear - such as a feat on Fighter Training and a couple powers for greatsword or spear (or however these things work in 4e).
b) Having spent X resources on combat abilities, my rogue is as effective in combat and out of combat as a rogue that spent X amount of resources on other combat abilities - such as a feat to improve a rogue combat ability and a couple of rogue offensive powers (or however things work in 4e).
c) If I've dropped from 'optimal' to 'viable' because I'm using the weapon I want to use rather than the weapon I'm supposed to use, I'll pass.
I can see "greatsword + rogue > shortsword + rogue in combat" being problematic from a design standpoint whether because it breaks a damage curve or makes strikers that use the "right" rogue weapons no longer attractive or whatever. But there is no reason "greatsword + rogue = shortsword + rogue in combat" shouldn't be attainable without forcing the rogue using the weapon he wants to use to suffer in some other way.
but then again I know a lot of 3e rogues who hate being "penalized" for specializing in ranged attacks since they have to be w/in 30 feet to sneak attack.3: By the same token, I have designed some 4e characters who would be penalized for their concept if I made them in 3e.
If this means that 4e will allow those players to play the character they want, I'm happy for them. I'm happy for people who want to play a heavily armored fighter that uses a weapon and shield or two-handed weapon. I'm happy for people that want to play a rogue that wears leather armor and uses a dagger or shortsword. I'm happy for people that want to play a ranger that wears chain armor and uses a bow or two weapons (or whatever rangers get). I'm happy for people that want to be a tiefling warlock or dragonborn warlord. But, none of those things make me want to play 4e.
4: Clearly, YMMV
Yep, but the possibility that I could be getting worse mileage because I want a red car rather than a beige car is kind of disheartening.
|
Provide a FREE pdf that had:
- (4) 1st level premade characters and a synopsis of all abilities/powers they can use.
- "easy start" combat rules that hit on the highlights/main themes of 4e combat without getting into the ugly bits
- A simple scenario involving a cave complex, 5 encounters of various types and difficulties with any "special rules/highlight rules" included at the time of encounter.
Come on WotC, you need DMs, make it easy for me already. Show me the "cool".
Actually nothing.
If I ever loose interest in my cubic-yards of 3.5 material I would go back to Cthulhu/Traveller/RuneQuest/WarhammerFRP/Midgard/Elric!/Stormbringer/Parano ia(xp)/GURPS/MERP/Palladium/Cyberpunk/alltheotherrpgsIforgettomention which still lurk in my shelves, waiting to be palyed again.
gnomes
bards
barbarians
druids
sorcerors.
no warlord.
no astral diamonds.
a realistic setting that operates consistently.
all the rules I need in three or four books.
A digital playmat that actually gives me everything I need from the outset, with improvements to follow.
A reactive, forthright and transparent WotC.
non random miniatures available in sets.
|
Nothing will get me to try 4e at this point. It may be a good system, but it's not D&D to me. I like my 3.x system enough to stay with it.
And I'm really, really, really hoping Paizo will support 3.x in some manner. I enjoy their products, and I would like them to stay relevant to my gaming experience so I can stay a customer.
I would need paizo to write me an Adventure Path or a module
I'd play it if I were excited by the GM, group, and scenario. I'll play almost anything--for a little while at least--under those circumstances.
I'm having trouble imagining getting that excited, though. The things that the 4e descriptions want me to be excited about are the wrong things for me. The way to sell to me as a player is to talk about setting and scenario, whereas the 4e buzz seems to be all about PC capabilities.
At the moment, I can't really think of anything that would induce me to run 4. The D&D Experience reports seemed pretty clearcut. If I had to give up 3.5 I'd go back to our 1.0-based homebrew, adding in useful concepts from 3.0 and 3.5. It really helps that 1, 2 and 3 can all be converted with some effort, so I can use modules from any of them. It's not clear to me that 4e will have that kind of compatibility.
Mary
|
For me, the ONLY thing that would get me to try 4th edition is if Paizo got the rights to Greyhawk and came up with a Player's Guide that included its take on gnomes, druids, bards, and all other classic races and classes left out of WotC's PHB.
At the same time, it would keep schools of magic and avoid use of warlocks, warlords, tieflings, dragonborn and other "new" elements that don't have a place in classic D&D.
I'd want the setting to be self-sufficient, other than requiring the use of the PHB, DMG and MM. Any further WotC supplements would not factor in, though Paizo would release their own supplementary material.
It would be 4th edition with a classic D&D feel to it.
That might fit the bill, I'd believe. I think the only way I'd really want to even touch 4e would be to have an awesome enough setting to be published for it, mysterious enough that even a jaded old man like me would WANT to play it.
Oh, that and an ass-kicking campaign on a epic level, with plenty of roleplaying. kind of like Living Arcanis, or the original dragonlance series.
Hmmm ... that's not going to happen.
|
WotC should release a FREE pdf of H1. Since it comes out before the 3 core books, it has to contain pregens, basic rules, and the adventure. Let me try out this module for free. If I like it - I will probably buy the 3 core books. If I really like it, I will buy the hardcover H1 too. Seems like a VERY economical marketing strategy for WotC.
|
|
and the game was developed by people who play the game FOR A LIVING.
With due respect, I really don't think that it makes it better, far from it. I'll take a passionate man over a mercenary anytime.
When 3rd edition came out, there was just as much rancor about the game as we're seeing now and just about everyone eventually switched. The same thing happened when 2nd edition was released, but the rancor was on Usenet and the letters page of Dragon instead.It will be interesting to see who's playing 4th edition a year from now.
I used to feel the same about 4e I remember, but I don't think the marketing was quite as insulting as now.
Also, Greyhawk got me to try 4e. no chance this time.
And I was intrigued by the rules change, even so they repelled me. Not so this time either.
And I had not such a huge backlog of adventures to play.
And there was no choice left to play except taking on another system, but if ANY company should choose to stay 3.5...
So yes, many people, a majority will convert, especially those who depend on organised play. Fortunately, it is not my case.
|
|
and the game was developed by people who play the game FOR A LIVING.With due respect, I really don't think that it makes it better, far from it. I'll take a passionate man over a mercenary anytime.
Agreed! I use DudeMonkey's statement to make the exact opposite case.
I write software for a living...I write it entirely differently when it's for my personal use.
Honestly... I would give 4E a shot as holding a place on my personal interest gaming table (not the crap I must endure as a game designer) if:
1. They extended the skill list back to have a catch all interest skill... honestly a Knowledge: (your choice of topic) or Occupation: would do it.
2. They went back to the old wide range selection of spells but maybe perhaps used a "mana points per day" format rather than 6 1st level spells per day, 6 2nd level, etc. etc. etc.
3. Left the original 11 classes in.
4. Made 4th edition more complex, like 3rd and 3.5... Hey! I started playing D&D again because I HAD choices all of a sudden....
5. Kept the whole template thing... I don't know about you but I kinda liked the ghosts of former lycanthropic minotaurs.
6. Added more of the armors back....
7. Dropped the astral diamond crap.
8. Added a helmet category to the armor selection, alongside a base armor suit and the shield.
9. Made it a wee bit less miniatures dependent... me, I love minis but I realize that there are several of you out there that do not.
10. Kept the old rogue style gaming... search for treasures and all rather than this rumor about some issued at the end reward system.
11. Allowed for "unlimited levels" in a sense via multiclassing....
12. Dropped the rank cap restrictions for acquiring skill ranks (one thing I didn't like about 3.x)
13. Tailored the dark elf a bit to make him a start up race choice.
More in a bit....
I used to feel the same about 4e I remember, but I don't think the marketing was quite as insulting as now.And I had not such a huge backlog of adventures to play.
And there was no choice left to play except taking on another system, but if ANY company should choose to stay 3.5...
So yes, many people, a majority will convert, especially those who depend on organised play. Fortunately, it is not my case.
Stereo... I'm really with you on so many of these answers. I think we share alot of the same reasons....
Insulting marketing.. YES! I hate that... especially this stupid "coolness" and "awesome" crap. I'm sorry, I might not be the most saavy on marketing strategies but I understand that when a company has to have their own representatives drool over the "coolness" of their game then they are hiding a very serious sense of lacking with the product that they have already detected. And the enforced, fascist like "don't you DARE say anything bad about 4th edition, D*MN YOU! Don't you DARRREEEE" attitude of the "other boards" only makes it more obvious they already know the flaws... and hoping we are either to stupid or too "sheeple" to raise any real objections.
Backlog... of adventures and products. In fact, amongst other more obvious reasons, one of my greatest beefs against the conversion from 3.0 to 3.5 was that I had just acquired a huge amount of supplements and all that I had barely had the chance to consider diving into and they went and adjusted the rules on us. Now I have both stuff for 3.0 and 3.5... more stuff than I will be able to play fully out in 3 campaigns, much less one. There's still a dozen or more desirable, unexplored roles to play out with 3.0 and 3.5
No other choice... as long as I can keep getting backup copies of the books I shouldn't have to worry about this.
Organized play... Yeah, I live in the heart of the Appalachian Mountains in Southwest Virginia... the most organized I can ever hope to achieve is more than 4 people at once around the gaming table at my house.
Organized play... Yeah, I live in the heart of the Appalachian Mountains in Southwest Virginia... the most organized I can ever hope to achieve is more than 4 people at once...
where bouts do you live man .I'm about 40 minutes west of Cumberland gap myself and understand what ya mean getting 4 people together for a game is almost an epic feat it seems.
I'll certainly try it- I'm not some kind of Philistine.
Buying it, on the other hand...
where bouts do you live man .I'm about 40 minutes west of Cumberland gap myself and understand what ya mean getting 4 people together for a game is almost an epic feat it seems.
Organized play... Yeah, I live in the heart of the Appalachian Mountains in Southwest Virginia... the most organized I can ever hope to achieve is more than 4 people at once...
Smyth Couty areaish.... I know what you mean about trying to get people together. Of course, my 2nd shift job at the hospital and my college tying up every single weekend also accounts for alot of problems.
So I have come to the realization that 4th edition is going to be effectively a brand new type of game. It isn't going to be an upgrade, it is just going to be a different game. Just as pictionary is different from monopoly. Sure they have some fluff that is similiar (so does lots of other games), but they are fundamentally different types of games.
With that understanding, I thought again about what would make me willing to want to play 4th edition. And I came up with the following thought. 1 Book to play. That is what it would take. If they made rules like they did for Star Wars: SAGA, which was effectively the PHB/DMG/MM(Lite). If there was one book needed for 4th edition, I'd probably give it a try, when I wasn't playing my regular D&D games (those being 3.5 edition games). And given how much more simplified everything is suppose to be in 4th edition, I think this is a very viable option. Of course they wouldn't do that, having three books is a sacred cow that isn't going down easy. Unfortunately, that means I am not willing to spend that type of money for a game that I will only play on rare occasions.
I would try it, certainly. However, buying it is another matter.
It doesn't pull me in the way that other products have, and I suspect that most of my current group likely feels the same. So if one of them bought it and ran a game, sure I'd try it. Could be fun, never know.
But buying it with the info provided so far? Nope.