Companion to the "Shocker" Thread


4th Edition

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Watcher wrote:
there is a Skills Challenges system

From what I read, this is nothing more than a basic rule to let players find out how they are going to solve some problems, i.e., what skills they intend to use (and how) to overcome an obstacle. It lets them determine what skill they use (and how I guess), and how hard they want the challenge to be (easy, medium, hard). I would guess that the DM first sets the number of easy/medium/hard challenges that need to be "won" before the obstacle is overcome or something.

All in all, it looks more like a "roleplaying meta-rule" than a rule.

http://ddxp.tumblr.com/ wrote:

Skill encounter details

Someone on enworld wanted more details on the skill encounter. Our first encounter was a traditional battle against city guards and a rogue who bribed them. When we had dispatched them a whole pile of new guards rushed our way. We were given the chance to roll skill checks against a variety of DCs of varying levels including easy(10) medium 15 and hard 20 different skills did different things. The dwarf tossed over a cart (med STR check) the ranger climbed to a roof (med acrobatic) and the warlock bluffed so well that he practically started ordering the guards around himself (hard bluff check). My clerics history skill seemed useless. The guards had no interest in the similar chase that had occurred two hundred years previous. After so many wins, we passed the encounter. I have no idea what would have happened on too many losses. Overall the skill checks really helped build a chaotic and evolving scene built spontanously in the minds of seven people and some d20 rolls. Fun stuff. I don’t know how much of this was hard mechanics and how much was the dm filling in the scene but it sure made skills a lot more fun. I used them rarely in my home game but not anymore. This is how skills should be.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220082 wrote:

Skill Challenges: These are cool awesome a great idea! In essence, the DM gives the characters some sort of task.

In our adventure, the PCs had to escape the city, being chased by the guards.
The players get to decide how to deal with the situation, using whatever skills they can think to use. You might use Diplomacy to talk your way out of a situation, or Stealth to sneak away, or Knowledge (Religion) to contact local religious officials for aid. And so forth. What I like is that the players use their imagination to meet the challenge, and have a number of options to deal with it. As a player, you decide whether you want to take on a Low, Medium, or High Challenge. To resolve this challenge, you make a skill check (DC 11, 15, or 19, respectively). If you succeed, and don't quote me on this, I believe you succeed in whatever it is you're trying to do.

... we were on the run from city guardsmen. My character, a Ranger, was pretty good at Athletics and Stealth. The DM told us to choose which skill we wanted to use, choose a challenge level, and then describe how we were accomplishing escaping the city using the skill we chose. I decided that my Ranger was going to use the rooftops, jumping from building to building, to escape the city. I proposed using Stealth and Athletics to do so.

Since I really didn't know how the skill challenge system worked, I chose 'medium', which turned out to be a roll of 10 or better for me (the Ranger had a +9 in both Stealth and Athletics). Later, I took on another skill challenge and decided to go for a 'high' challenge, and made that roll as well, escaping the city (a victory condition).

In terms of the benefits or drawbacks of the 'low', 'medium', and 'high' challenge tiers, I'm not sure. The DM said that we would get a 'victory condition' if any of us suceeded in a 'high' challenge, which my character made in the preview game. I can't say for sure whether there are any drawbacks to choosing the 'low' condition, since none of us tried that.


Gray wrote:
However, are we positive that this aspect will be entirely gone in 4e? I thought I read in a article on "Aint It Cool News" (linked to ENworld) that one could play 4e and gain XP solely from role-playing encounters. I just assumed that information has not been released yet.

Oh I think you're right.

I shouldn't speak for DmMcCoy, but I think we were just frustrated that the focus has been entirely on Combat this weekend. We want to see this stuff.


AARRGH! Just lost my post!

Firstly let me apologize for the brevity of my previous post - I had to run out in the midst of it and hit the submit button rather than the cancel button.

OK, firstly DMcCOY i agree with you that old school D & D was pretty weak in the role playing framework department. I love the opportunities that the 3rd edition skill set has brought to the table, and how it makes my job as a DM much easier. I too do not want to see an edition that neglects this aspect of the game. A solid framework that the players can understand can only encourage them to see its potential in the game. I am hoping for a 4th editon framework that opens possibilities - not shuts the door on them.

I should also say here that I am giving WoTC the benefit of the doubt when it comes to 4th edition. I am willing to believe until they prove me wrong that they are going to put out a solid product that addresses role playing concerns in a well thought out manner. I believe I read a post somewhere (?) from one of the designers where they talked about how they are trying to do just that, and I'm willing to believe that.

And thank you to you Watcher for the reminder that roleplaying is more than just PC - NPC interaction; when I hear the term roleplaying that's what immediately jumps to my mind and I began to address the issue with that prejudice. There's been just as much role-playing at my table regardless of the edition or system used - although the results of that roleplaying and what it can accomplish have certainly changed! (And again, much for the better in my opinion)

Dark Archive

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:


2] I enjoy characters who are not superheroic to begin with. D&D, to me, is about the potential to improve through perseverance and determination. 4th edition characters, on the other hand, enter the game as heroes with abilities that far outstrip those of common men. Rather than rising to the rank of hero through game play, 4th edition characters operate under the assumption that they are "the best at what they do" and that they are pre-ordained to change the world. For me, games like Feng Shui are better for this type of game-play.

This is a big one for me. There are certain types of game, certain types of drama, certain edge-of-your-seat, how-are-we-gonna-pull-this-out? challenge, that require the group to have finite resources.

I love, love, love superhero games, where everyone starts out able to fly and bounce bullets off of their chests and punch through a brick wall, but D&D has never been that game, and I've never wanted it to be that game. The Warlock, for all that it's a fun class, isn't a D&D class. It's a superhero, flying around all day, zapping people with his Eldritch Blast-Vision. All he needs is spandex. It's a completely different style of play, and I've got no problem with that style being *an option* (such as through the introduction of the Warlock class, which I've played and enjoyed), but I very much don't want any other option, or style of play, such as the resource-management game where the *strategic* choices of what spells you pick for the day and the *tactical* choices of what spells / slots you expend during a given encounter to be discarded in the process.

The decision to not just add cool new options and *expand* the game, but to take away all other options and make the game *less* than it was, was very much like hearing, 'gardez-lou!' and seeing a baby fly out the window.


Niko77 wrote:
And thank you to you Watcher for the reminder that roleplaying is more than just PC - NPC interaction; when I hear the term roleplaying that's what immediately jumps to my mind and I began to address the issue with that prejudice.

No thanks are necessary. I spoke tersely, but some WOTC posters were frustrating me on the same point. We're quite cool.

And you're not necessarily wrong! In that the other extreme is no better with over-reliance on randomizers and systems. It's a balance.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Niko77 wrote:
I should also say here that I am giving WoTC the benefit of the doubt when it comes to 4th edition.

I've given them the benefit of the doubt that the rules would be at the 3rd party companies in Oct like they said. I gave them the benefit of the doubt the doubt that publishers would have the rules shortly after WotC said they were putting the rules into binders. I've given them the benefit of the doubt again when they the "OGL" confrence call said publishers would have info soon.

I've given WotC the benefit of the doubt that FR would be recognizible as FR to FR fans. I gave them the benefit of the doubt that eDungeon and eDragon would be quality online magazines. I've given WotC the benefit of the doubt when they said the game would remain the same. I gave them the benefit of the doubt that 4E isn't coming out soon (even if I was sure that was not the case and kept discussing it, I was ready to admit I was wrong if so proven).

Combine that with the list at the start of this thread and I'm done giving them the benefit of the doubt. They've maxed out their credibility credit cards. Its time for them to deal with the consequences of a terrible credibility credit rating.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
The shift away from "classic" core races and classes is part of that. I want D&D to have dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, 1/2 elves, 1/2 orcs and humans. Anything else should be added on a setting-by-setting basis.
Moonlion wrote:
Half-orcs were introduced as a core player character race just in 3rd Edition, right? That doesn't make it classic, does it?

Half-Orcs were a PHB race in 1E.

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
4th edition characters, on the other hand, enter the game as heroes with abilities that far outstrip those of common men.
Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
So do 3e PCs, IMO.

The difference between a level 1 warrior and a level 1 fighter is a single feat. The difference between someone inside the game becoming a level 1 commoner and a level 1 PC class is that they choose to do something other then work the fields all their life. They have enough training to do something, even if that something isn't something great.

The Exchange

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
If 4E is moving away from role playing, it has to be moving towards something. Its moving towards combat. Its moving towards tactical play. ... Its moving towards minis. Are minis and role playing mutually exclusive, no. They can advance together. But the information we have so far suggests that that 4E is moving away from role playing and towards minis.

I guess I just don't see it. Role playing has always been an invisible element anyway. If you write rules for it then it's no longer role playing. The hilarious thing about it is that, when all is said and done, no matter how munch crunch there is, no matter how complex the mechanics, D&D is about taking a mental snapshot of who you think the character is and the pretending to be them. Role playing cannot be found in any rules from any edition. Role playing comes from the imagination.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
4th edition characters, on the other hand, enter the game as heroes with abilities that far outstrip those of common men.
Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
So do 3e PCs, IMO.
The difference between a level 1 warrior and a level 1 fighter is a single feat. The difference between someone inside the game becoming a level 1 commoner and a level 1 PC class is that they choose to do something other then work the fields all their life. They have enough training to do something, even if that something isn't something great.

PCs also get 4d6 drop lowest instead of 3d6. However, there's an order of magnitude issue here. 3E PCs are a cut above, with the potential to be heroic. 4E PCs are just flat out superior.


Wow. This might be a new thread topic but this discussion has taught me how much I have changed in 30 years of D&D.

I used to play as a kid to pretend I could fight monsters or cast spells. Somewhere along the line I got in the habit of creating character histories and trying to draw (really bad) character portaits. I started to try and envision personalities behind the character sheets. We occasionally used miniatures, but they were more like little portraits. I choose my character based on what it would be fun to be.

Eventually, 3rd Edition brought me back to the game after over 10 years absence. I initially liked the 'boardgame' aspect because it helped resolve movement and the 'who is in the fireball' questions. But it also means I spend more time Min/Maxing my character. I study Message boards about how to create the 'best' character. I started spending less time 'role-playing' and worrying about back story. I choose my character based on what it is 'best' to be (ok, I still like to cast spells). As a DM, I know I spend more time in combat and less on the reasons for the battles.

How will 4th Edition change how we play and, perhaps more importantly, how the next generation will play?

EDIT: I kind of wanted 4th Edition to help get rid of some 3rd Edition baggage. But now I am starting to wonder if it will take away the fun of 'being an Elf Wizard'.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gotta say mostly agree except for two minor quibbles:

Religious objection over tieflings/warlocks......if it wasnt them, it be devils and demons. If it wasnt devils and demons, it be Asmodus as a deity. If it wasnt that....it be wizards casting spellls with wants adn objects.

Religious wackjobs will always find a reason to object. Ever heard their reasons for objecting to Harry Potter or teh X-Men? Same stupid stuff.

And....OGL reasons....I'm dismayed it went from OGL to new gaming liscense. Thats a real shame. But, unfortunately, D&D IS theirs to assert control over, whether you like it or not. Whether I like it or not.


Watcher wrote:
I shouldn't speak for DmMcCoy, but I think we were just frustrated that the focus has been entirely on Combat this weekend. We want to see this stuff.

I'd have to say that I'm in this boat too.

To address the OP, I've had some concerns with some of the same issues. However I'll be on the fence until I can get a look at the books in August. There are several things that I'm looking forward too, and I think I may be able to work around some of the potential issues I've seen (hopefully). In particular;

Wizards/Spells: I'll admit that I like the idea of unlimited use type spells. I've always had a problem with the memorize-cast-forget system. I just hope that I can figure out how to create spells for the ones that are missing.

Tieflings and Warlocks: I also had an issue with these, and it is interesting to see that I'm not alone. My religious views aside, I like my PCs to be heroic, and not with such infernal foundations. I I'll most likely use them as villains, and limit them as PCs. **In my homebrew there were no elves, halflings, orcs, or gnomes, so I'm sure I can move on without these.

Mini's: I've DM'd since 1989 and never used mini's. I think I'll get by in 4e.

DMcCoy, thanks for posting those points.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

carmachu wrote:

Religious objection over tieflings/warlocks......if it wasnt them, it be devils and demons. If it wasnt devils and demons, it be Asmodus as a deity. If it wasnt that....it be wizards casting spellls with wants adn objects.

Religious wackjobs will always find a reason to object. Ever heard their reasons for objecting to Harry Potter or teh X-Men? Same stupid stuff.

People you're describing generally don't play RPGs since they "occult" steriotype is still heavily ingrained into their line of thinking. Just last month, my dad asked my about the witchcraft RPG book that was sitting next to my desk since I was using it as a reference. My objection is that the world assumes enough infernal interaction that they are common place. This is, as an earlier poster put it, "asking for trouble." The only way I can see this being "good" for WotC is if they is counting on Falwell's future successor getting their hands on it and turning it into their own personal crusade and thus giving the game lots of free publicity. If that is the case, I'd sooner touch 4E with a disintegrate spell then a 10 foot pole.

Tieflings/Warlocks being common is the proverbial line. WotC crossed it.

[threadjack]
And please don't paint all religious persons with the same brush. Just because I have an objection based on my beliefs does not mean I am like my religion's radical elements. Just because there has been a president that pandered to them for the past 7 years doesn't mean that they are the majority in my faith. And it certainly doesn't mean that I like them, tolerate them or pass up an opportunity to tell them what I think of them to their face.
[/threadjack]


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Niko77 wrote:
I should also say here that I am giving WoTC the benefit of the doubt when it comes to 4th edition.

I've given them the benefit of the doubt that the rules would be at the 3rd party companies in Oct like they said. I gave them the benefit of the doubt the doubt that publishers would have the rules shortly after WotC said they were putting the rules into binders. I've given them the benefit of the doubt again when they the "OGL" confrence call said publishers would have info soon.

I've given WotC the benefit of the doubt that FR would be recognizible as FR to FR fans. I gave them the benefit of the doubt that eDungeon and eDragon would be quality online magazines. I've given WotC the benefit of the doubt when they said the game would remain the same. I gave them the benefit of the doubt that 4E isn't coming out soon (even if I was sure that was not the case and kept discussing it, I was ready to admit I was wrong if so proven).

Combine that with the list at the start of this thread and I'm done giving them the benefit of the doubt. They've maxed out their credibility credit cards. Its time for them to deal with the consequences of a terrible credibility credit rating.

Perfect!

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Watcher wrote:
Moonlion wrote:

I don't see making people excited to play a wizard from level 1 as being overcompensating... ;)

We'll have to see when the rules come out if it's too much too soon, but considering what's been revealed so far in D&DXP I doubt it.

It might not be, but Lewy (the person I was responding to) thought so.

It might not be overcompensating Moonlion, and certainly it's a worthy goal.. making them more fun. You did note that I couldn't get anybody to actually play one?

But I would like see it in practice and not just in theory.

I must be strange, I love playing low level Wizards, just because I do have to make the choices of when to cast, I do have to interact with more than spells and it forces me to use my brain in encounters of all types. I may just be wierd but give me that low level wizard. The impression (and admittedly it is just that) I get is that I can keep casting. It just seems it'll be less of a challenge on the old grey matter.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:
I guess I just don't see it. Role playing has always been an invisible element anyway. If you write rules for it then it's no longer role playing. The hilarious thing about it is that, when all is said and done, no matter how munch crunch there is, no matter how complex the mechanics, D&D is about taking a mental snapshot of who you think the character is and the pretending to be them. Role playing cannot be found in any rules from any edition. Role playing comes from the imagination.

I don't really expect to convince you, but here's my take on it.

To me, roleplaying, playing the role of your character, is actually like "switching" into the body of your character and making it behave like a character would behave in the imaginary world. I guess that's a pretty common definition.

Now, say "silk" five times. Now, spell "silk." What do cows drink?

Why do some people answer "milk"? Well, I'm not a psychologist or anything like that, but I would tend to think that people get used to the sound of "silk" and the first thing they can think of, that is related to cows, is "milk" ... so that's the answer they give.

Now, what does it have to do with roleplaying? Well, if during all the combats, you are incited to think in a certain way, you will have a hard time thinking in another way outside of combat.

The best way I can state what I think (English not being my native tongue doesn't help - but I hope I can still bring my point across) is this.

From what I have seen of 4E (combat) rules, it seems to me that you are incited to think in terms of rules (i.e., to "rule-play"). Powers are presented in terms of formulas like +9 vs Reflex, usable X times per enconter, Close burst 3, 2d4+7 damage with only a tiny (imo) effort at explaining what "really" happens. And, most of the time, that description is all about soaring light coming out of nowhere and strange sounds but not really about how the act is done exactly. It actually makes me think of those Magic the Gathering card where you have a series of numerical information describing what the card does, and sometimes a small fluff explanation (that is mostly there just to fill up blanks on the card).

Now, in my opinion, power descriptions focusing on formulas, on rules, incite players to think in terms of formulas and rules. This incites people to "rule-play" combats. This incites them to find the most efficient way to use and combine their powers (which is good and an interesting part of roleplaying games), but it does not incite them to really "live" their character's life.

And (which is when I'm coming back to the silk/milk thing) I would guess that such a heavy focus in combat makes it hard to suddenly switch out of it outside combats. That's how I would support a claim that the 4E ruleset does not incite roleplaying.

Obviously, all that I said about how I see combat rules in 4E is debatable and I am sure that many would disagree with me (though I still think that the focus on rules that do not translate well into actions is at least slightly stronger in 4E than in 3.x), but my main point here is that, if combat rules are presented with such a focus, then the whole system incites players to remain in this "heavy rule" thiking mode instead of actually getting under their character's skin.


crosswiredmind wrote:

The reason I do not get it is this - that is how D&D was born. The very DNA of this game is miniatures with a layer of roleplaying. In order to play the original edition you needed a copy of Chaimail. One of the very first supplements was Swords & Spells that contained rules for mass combats in D&D.

So I am not disagreeing when you say its a minis game - I am saying that it has always been that way.

You'd think this would be true based on D&Ds historical roots in miniature war gaming but I feel its not.

In 1st edition people playing with miniatures were very much the minority. There really were no rules for using miniatures in the game and the most common use for them was off to one side as a visual representation of the parties marching order. I would be shocked to find that more then one group in say 5 used miniatures - and probably less then that. 2nd Edition also did not give you rules for playing with miniatures. Essentially in both cases playing with miniatures more or less meant adding house rules (albeit probably not very complex ones and this was not hard to do) to deal with them.

That said I think that the inclusion of miniatures was essentially on the rise. If no more then one group in five was using them in 1st edition it was probably more like 1 in 3 by the end of 2nd edition. Hence there were a lot of groups that did invent such house rules and that might have been one of the inspirations for making it pretty much standard in 3rd.

I think a big factor for this was partly price. The gaming demographic for 1st edition was probably pretty young. You'd be faced with a choice to buy a book, module or mini's 'cause most young adults can't afford them all. These days the average D&D player is probably a 30 year old male with enough disposable income to buy miniatures without having to make a Faustian choice about what to buy for the game.


Moonlion wrote:
Half-orcs were introduced as a core player character race just in 3rd Edition, right? That doesn't make it classic, does it?

Hmm...I don't have my 1st edition players handbook handy but their not in the 2nd edition players handbook. I think you might be right that their not normally core.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Moonlion wrote:
Half-orcs were introduced as a core player character race just in 3rd Edition, right? That doesn't make it classic, does it?
Hmm...I don't have my 1st edition players handbook handy but their not in the 2nd edition players handbook. I think you might be right that their not normally core.

No. They are most certainly in 1st Edition. 2nd Edition is the only edition (before 4th) that didn't have them in the PHB.

Wikipedia wrote:
The release of AD&D2 also corresponded with a policy change at TSR. An effort was made to remove aspects of the game which had attracted negative publicity. Half-orcs were no longer presented as a player character race in the core rulebooks,

Found here.

And in addition: DriveThruRPGs blurb, plus Paizo's blurb.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
...every playtester that went into great detail has talked about one thing and one thing exclusively: combat. I have yet to hear one single thing about how the game encourages role playing. Yes, its about what the players bring to the table. But it sounds like 4E has less role playing support then Dora the Explorer Candyland. At least there, you're playing either Dora, Boots, Diago, or Backpack (my favorite).

I certianly agree that combat has taken by far the lions share of attention. Still I can't say I recall there being any real mention of how much better the role playing would be supported in either the transition from 1st to 2nd or from 2nd to 3rd.

On that note I do recall there being at least some talk about role playing in 4th edition in one of the Podcasts and this actually got me pretty excited. The gist of the podcast was that the designers felt that the social interaction rules had to be designed to address the fact that an important role playing encounter is often the one the DM had not planned for in his wildest dreams. If the players decide to attack the Gnolls that the DM did not at all expect them to engage he can kind of fumble his way through this encounter by grabbing the Monster Manual and flipping to the Gnoll entry.

But what the heck does the DM do if the players, out of the blue go - "you know what, screw this! We are not going into the sewers to hunt these Cultists down! We are going to see the Mayor of this dump and were going to tell him whats what!"

Well the DM has just been blindsided by an important role playing encounter that was totally unplanned for and he has about 5 seconds before he has to be the mayor. With such an important NPC it'd be real good if he can make it convincing 'cause if this encounter falls flat it actually has significant ongoing effects on play. More so much of the time then if a fight falls a bit flat as these important NPCs will remain important NPCs potentially for the whole campaign.

Hence the designers where arguing that the rules for social interactions not only need to work but they should be made not so much to deal with encounters the DM has planned but to help the DM out for totally unplanned encounters. I don't know if they'll pull this goal off but I'm glad their going to take a shot at it becuase I've had the PCs do almost exactly this to me and its not pretty . Its not just that your winging it - its that your winging it and this is probably going to be the most important scene of tonights game.


Moonlion wrote:

Half-orcs were introduced as a core player character race just in 3rd Edition, right? That doesn't make it classic, does it?

Half Orcs were included as a standard player option in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook. It's very much a classic element.

Personally, I don't really care which classes make the first cut. At various times in various editions we've seen: Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Illusionist, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Thief, and Wizard (also called "Magic User"). They could take any selection of those and still make a recognizable D&D out of the deal. Heck, they could dump some of them and replace them with others. I was totally supportive of the Thief going away and the Rogue taking his place. Having the Barbarian go away and get replaced by a Berserker or a Warrior or even folded into Fighter options would be fine.

The thing is, the Core Classes they choose have to be able to cover the bases of a lot of D&D characters. That means that each character class needs to be able to be played in a lot of different ways or you need a lot of character classes.

Where they really lost me was not the fact that there are only eight character classes. We used to make do with four and we liked it. No, the problem is that each of those eight classes is extremely narrow. The presented Rogue really only covers two characters. You can be the original Raphael from the comics where you are stealthy and brutally kill people with your sais. Or you can be the Raphael from the children's cartoon who is Charismatic and uses his sai mostly for show as he does his actual effects by tripping foes and dumping them off cliffs. But in either case the class is so narrowly defined that you are not just a Ninja Turtle, you're Raphael the specific Ninja Turtle. The class doesn't generate Michaelangelo or Donatello.

It looks like there are really only like 2-4 concepts available for each class. With the extreme specificity of what weapons you can use and what abilities can be used with what, it is entirely probable that even less than that will generally be considered "effective."

-Frank


Disenchanter wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Moonlion wrote:
Half-orcs were introduced as a core player character race just in 3rd Edition, right? That doesn't make it classic, does it?
Hmm...I don't have my 1st edition players handbook handy but their not in the 2nd edition players handbook. I think you might be right that their not normally core.
No. They are most certainly in 1st Edition. 2nd Edition is the only edition (before 4th) that didn't have them in the PHB.

Well I'm not sure where I put my 1st edition players hand book but I just glanced at the Basic D&D red book and their not in that either. No Gnomes either - just Dwarves, Elves and Halflings.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Well I'm not sure where I put my 1st edition players hand book but I just glanced at the Basic D&D red book and their not in that either. No Gnomes either - just Dwarves, Elves and Halflings.

I just realized, and came back to clarify in my post, that I normally don't think of anything before AD&D 1st Edition when I talk D&D. So my statement is biased from 1st Edition onward.

Scarab Sages

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
But it sounds like 4E has less role playing support then Dora the Explorer Candyland. At least there, you're playing either Dora, Boots, Diago, or Backpack (my favorite).

Yum, yum, yum, delicioso!

Dark Archive

Well said DMcCoy1693!
I share your concerns.


Ross Byers wrote:
4E PCs are just flat out superior.

At First Level, definitely.

But a 1st level HackMaster character is about on par with a third level character in 1e or 2e, and a 2nd level 3e character; I suspect a level 1 HM character is a little weaker than a level 1 4E PC.

In 3e, though, power grows very quickly, by about 4th level, a HM PC has to be about 5th to "keep up" while a 1e/2e character needs to be at least 6th; we haven't seen enough of 4E characters to know if they remain 2 levels "tougher" throughout their career, or if they fall back or if the increase gets worse. It's too early to make that judgement.
The clear IMPLICATION is that the increase gets worse, but we haven't seen anything to prove this, just imply it.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DMcCoy1693 wrote:


[threadjack]
And please don't paint all religious persons with the same brush. Just because I have an objection based on my beliefs does not mean I am like my religion's radical elements. Just because there has been a president that pandered to them for the past 7 years doesn't mean that they are the majority in my faith. And it certainly doesn't mean that I like them, tolerate them or pass up an opportunity to tell them what I think of them to their face.
[/threadjack]

You misunderstand me. Or perhaps I'm not clear enough.

Not all religious folks are wackjobs.

There ARE certain subset of religious foks that are. You know it and I know it. YOU, on one hand, might object to Asmodus being up in godhood due to religous objections. Which is fine. However:

You arent going to Join BADD or things like jack Chick cartoons or:

http://ptgptb.org/0025/moral.html

Other items that ARE wackjob like.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

carmachu wrote:
Not all religious folks are wackjobs.

Thank you for clarifying.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DMcCoy1693 wrote:
carmachu wrote:
Not all religious folks are wackjobs.
Thank you for clarifying.

Its like the difference in islam: not all muslim are homicidal wackjobs that riot over a cartoon or such.

But there are wackjobs.

The Exchange

Dalvyn wrote:
And (which is when I'm coming back to the silk/milk thing) I would guess that such a heavy focus in combat makes it hard to suddenly switch out of it outside combats. That's how I would support a claim that the 4E ruleset does not incite roleplaying.

I would agree with this if it were not for the fact that most RPGs have a heavy dose of rules and most rules deal with combat and yet all of them have a heavy dose of role playing as well. If you can role play in GURPS then you can role play in anything.


crosswiredmind wrote:
I would agree with this if it were not for the fact that most RPGs have a heavy dose of rules and most rules deal with combat and yet all of them have a heavy dose of role playing as well. If you can role play in GURPS then you can role play in anything.

I am not sure "most" is accurate. With the possible exception of the new World of Darkness games (which I haven't read), all of White Wolf's games include at least as much non-combat rules as combat. That alone is a substantial section of the market, if not in "quantity of titles."


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:
I would agree with this if it were not for the fact that most RPGs have a heavy dose of rules and most rules deal with combat and yet all of them have a heavy dose of role playing as well. If you can role play in GURPS then you can role play in anything.

Sure ... it is always possible to roleplay, whatever the system. You can roleplay while playing Magic the Gathering, or while playing cards. :)

I just meant that, depending on how the rules are presented, a game might incite more or less roleplaying.

For example, when I see powers described with 4-5 lines of numbers and formulas and only 1 line of (poor) fluff [e.g., many of the powers given in the 4E playtest character sheets, especially for clerics/paladins], I tend to switch into "pure math mode" and base my decision only on those formulas and numbers not on *what* the character does. Games that make me switch into "pure math mode" do not really help me to switch under my character's skin.

Then again, perhaps it's just a mental limitation I have to not be able to continue to suspend disbelief while switching into "math mode" for each combat decision.

Dark Archive

DMcCoy1693 wrote:

The following reasons are why I will not be upgrading to 4E (in no particular order):

1) Removing 1E Races/Classes from the PHI and traditional monsters from the MMI.
2) Scrapping of the OGL.
3) "Dragonborn are a major race in the nFR."
4) Tieflings and Warlocks are an assumed major part of 4E. Religious Objection.
5) Cinematic feel.
6) Wizards are now primarily illusionists and evokers.
7) Misc. Narrowing of Classes. Movement in squares
8) Static XP.
9) "Monsters are for killing not interacting."
10) NO DUNGEON AND DRAGON PRINT MAGAZINES!?!

Interesting reasons. Thanks for taking the time to post them. My opinion on your opinion is as follows :-

1. I don't like it either. Its symptomatic of the "change for the sake of change" vibe I get from 4th edition. Also, it comes across as cynical; the bard class is ready to go, but they are keeping it back presumably to sell more PH2s. However, I'm prepared to put up with it.

2. I love the OGL, and its a big reason why D&D 3 has such a wealth of material.

3. I don't care about the FR, but this comes under point 1 for me.

4. No religious worries; not an issue for me.

5. It wasn't an issue for me until I read your argument. I prefer books to films, but hadn't realised it until you put it in those terms.

6. Not bothered. They will be bringing out more magic users to cover other niches.

7. See 6.

8. I generally house rule XP anyway.

9. I don't think that's a fair reflection of 4th edition, but anyway it comes down to DMing style, and I'm pretty set in my ways.

10. I haven't bought a WotC book since, other then second hand. However, I am willing to give 4th edition a chance to impress.

My reason for not switching is that I'm not done with 3.5 yet. There are so many places it can take me that I haven't had a chance to visit. I have loads of 3rd edition books which I have barely scratched the surface of.

I ran a homebrew campaign from levels 1 to 20. I'm now running War of the Burning Sky - we are currently wrapping up adventure 4 of (hopefully) 12. I want to run Rise of the Runelords and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, Red Hand of Doom and Necropolis.

As a player, I've played a 3.0 elf sorcerer up to 7th level. My current character is a tiefling binder 20 / rogue 1. Other than that I've played an elf cleric up to level 5, and a human psion for a one shot.

I want to play a ranger with a vow of poverty, a psion (properly), a monk/sorcerer, a mad halfling alchemist, a cultist of the Dragon Below.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
9) "Monsters are for killing not interacting."
amethal wrote:
9. I don't think that's a fair reflection of 4th edition, but anyway it comes down to DMing style, and I'm pretty set in my ways.

That's a quote from Worlds and Monsters. One of the designers said it to explain why they're taking fey and good aligned monsters from the MM.

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Companion to the "Shocker" Thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.