I for my part always used the Great Wheel in my homebrew campaigns. It was so easy to pick up a whole cosmology and insert it.
I could also use a lot of planescape stuff. Bloodwar, Mechanus all was there and useable.
I can still use my old 1st edtion "Manual of the Planes" in my 3.5 games. I can steal the 2nd edition adventure idea for "A Paladin in Hell" and recreate it in 3.5. I can use the whole Savage Tide adventure Path for my homebrew setting without changing the main antagonists and the whole cosmology. My Players can have a bash on the demon Queen of Spiders in her big Metal Fortress and use 1st edtion and later they can make an Expedtion to her Realm and use 3.5.
I like the continuation and evolvement of the Fluff. Hell in 3.5 has evolved since 1st edition. Old Archfiends have fallen and new ones have rise. Even Demonlords were retired and then had their glorius Comeback!
For me, and I might know to little of 4th setting or be too negative, this continuation is now broken. This is what I do not like.Save the Succubus!
Save the Wheel
This is my issue as well. The whole 'backwards fluff compatibility' thing. I have always thought Planescape was one of the best written campaign settings ever. Although it was never rereleased in its entirety in 3.5, everything that WAS released by WotC implied that the fluff remained the same (except for the evolution/deposition of several icons like Orcus). I really have no care for mechanics. If there is a set of mutually-agreed upon rules to facilitate gameplay I am fine. HOWEVER, I do take umbrage at the throwing of the baby out with the bathwater with this whole cosmology revamp they are going for. As I stated in another thread, I enjoyed the backstory that 20+ years of planar suppliments gave me. Could I use the Great Wheel in 4e? Sure I could, just like I could make up my own cosmology in 3.5. I prefer to play in a suppliment-supported structured campaign that other players know and appreciate. As Tharen so exellently stated the continuity is now broken, and that is what I don't like. From this point 4e is reforging its own backstory, and that is fine. It just makes me (and I only speak for myself) unlikely to pick up the books, solely because I am disappointed that they have made the descision to render my favorite campaign 'obsolete'.
Save the Succubus!
Save the Wheel!
except for the evolution/deposition of several icons like OrcusEven that was featured in the Manual of Planes 3.5 and the Book of Vile Darkness and Fiendish codex I.
All sources since Dead Gods acknowledged Orcus embarrassing demise and glorious Comeback!
True! I used my words badly, I should have said the fluff remained the same except for the story-driven evolutionary progression of several icons like Orcus. I don't think things should remain static, but I don't believe in scrapping 20+ years of backstory in one fell swoop.
Save the Succubus!
Save the Wheel!
I for my part always used the Great Wheel in my homebrew campaigns. It was so easy to pick up a whole cosmology and insert it.
I could also use a lot of planescape stuff. Bloodwar, Mechanus all was there and useable.
I can still use my old 1st edtion "Manual of the Planes" in my 3.5 games. I can steal the 2nd edition adventure idea for "A Paladin in Hell" and recreate it in 3.5. I can use the whole Savage Tide adventure Path for my homebrew setting without changing the main antagonists and the whole cosmology. My Players can have a bash on the demon Queen of Spiders in her big Metal Fortress and use 1st edtion and later they can make an Expedtion to her Realm and use 3.5.
I like the continuation and evolvement of the Fluff. Hell in 3.5 has evolved since 1st edition. Old Archfiends have fallen and new ones have rise. Even Demonlords were retired and then had their glorius Comeback!
For me, and I might know to little of 4th setting or be too negative, this continuation is now broken. This is what...
Wow, Tharen, thanks for a well written reply. I hadn't considered your angle of argument before.
I think the reason I am not similiarly upset about this change is because I still see it as a continuation of what came before. It is true that some of the backstory is different now, and things have changed around, but many things are still existant. The same outer planes are there, just not aligned around an arbitrary ring. I expect Sigil is still there (and would very probably add it in, if not). Many of the same movers and shakers are still about, and while they may have a few different backstories, they will likely have the same relationships/antagonisms.
Would considering it a different take on the same underlying story help or hurt from your PoV?
Cheers! :)
|
Wow, Tharen, thanks for a well written reply. I hadn't considered your angle of argument before.
Your reply to my first post helped me to articulate this nagging "this is not right somehow" feeling I had with the information on cosmology of 4th.
I think the reason I am not similiarly upset about this change is because I still see it as a continuation of what came before. It is true that some of the backstory is different now, and things have changed around, but many things are still existant. The same outer planes are there, just not aligned around an arbitrary ring. I expect Sigil is still there (and would very probably add it in, if not). Many of the same movers and shakers are still about, and while they may have a few different backstories, they will likely have the same relationships/antagonisms.
Would considering it a different take on the same underlying story help or hurt from your PoV?
Cheers! :)
Well, I see 4th edition simply not as an evolved D&D in mechanics an fluff, but as a new take on D&D and its cosmology.
So if I play D&D 4th I will take everything as new and not say 3.5 had better diagonal movement and I liked the wheel better.
I will judge 4th on its own merits.
After all my bitterness and anger I am pretty mellow now. I have Pathfinder for my 3.5 gaming and 4th for a different experience.
Well, I see 4th edition simply not as an evolved D&D in mechanics an fluff, but as a new take on D&D and its cosmology.
So if I play D&D 4th I will take everything as new and not say 3.5 had better diagonal movement and I liked the wheel better.
I will judge 4th on its own merits.
After all my bitterness and anger I am pretty mellow now. I have Pathfinder for my 3.5 gaming and 4th for a different experience.
That the spirit!
Have you tried 4E yet?
Cheers! :)
In before the Razz!
Yeah, haven't checked these forums out in awhile. I agree the hate for 4E, especially from me, is overwhelming some folks. So I laid low.
But, yeah, to the OP--- It definitely is an MMORPG on paper...sucks don't it?
|
I love the debate of the great wheel and such, and maybe I am to blame by switching focus of the MB and talking LOTR. My bad!. The main reason I started this board was to get feedback of players/DM's that treid out the 4th edition tester and get feedback. It is important to hear, since it is coming out soon. Our group decided to go witht he new rules 4th edition and see how it goes. Most are really eager to level fast to try high, epic, low levels. So feedback is what I want to hear. Our feedback to reoutline again is:
Con:
1. the three roll dead rule as opposed to either -CON SCORE or -10 and bleeding to death
2. Too many WOW/Dumbed up abilites that put images of WOW in players minds (there saying not mine) Although we do have the WOW board game and many of the markers will be used (Hunters Mark/Warlocks Curse)
3. Critical hits doing max dmaage rather than use the decks, or madeup charts (anyone want a house chart of fumbling just ask)
4. Too much emphasis on roles of characters, althouhg the final product may take this out of the Con list
5. Turn undead rules (like paizos way better)
Pros:
1. Love the relfex/fort/will AC scores rather than ST's
2. Love the simplistics (Rules should be simple) Rememeber the fun of 1st edition and basic?
3. Dailey powers, encounter powers, and at will powers
4. Races will be different so an 11th level dwarf fighter will be different than a 11th level elf fighter in many ways not just a few differnet skills like in 3.0/3.5
5. Epic style bosses and taking a great 1st level module and all to do as a DM is make the creatures epic rather than add in and take out
That sums it up. Not much in the pre-players handbook to go off of, but that was the feedback.
|
|
In before the Razz!Yeah, haven't checked these forums out in awhile. I agree the hate for 4E, especially from me, is overwhelming some folks. So I laid low.
But, yeah, to the OP--- It definitely is an MMORPG on paper...sucks don't it?
As one of my players of 11 years quoted "Its WOW with crappy graphics" Hope they change it somewhat
How the hell is 4E anything like WoW? PLease prove it to me. And don't use any examples D&D did first.
I've played the pre test, looked at all the info and see nothing resembling WoW that D&D never did first.
I've played the pre test, looked at all the info and see nothing resembling WoW that D&D never did first.
I agree, not like WoW either. Perhaps people are confused because some already existing DnD concept have received new terminology originally coined in the MMORPG arena?
I think of it kinda like the "4E's marketing was insulting to 3E players" meme that went through here for a long time. I never saw it, but enough people said they did that I gave up trying to counter the point. At its base it is a matter of taste ... if it reminds them o it, it does (whether or not it really is similar!)
Cheers! :)
PS: I posted a topic about my first run through the pre-test on here in another thread, Ed, in case you are interested/haven't read it. Maybe I'll come provide a link if you can't find it.
A few members of my group seemed somewhat disheartened by the tough fights in the pregen I played in, and in a way, I agree. The group wiped once, and essentially wiped two other times (enough people died that any party that came afterwards would be essentially a new party ...)
I later ran the Return of the Burning Plague, a player made module from ENWorld. I think this went over much better, since the fights seemed a little more even handed (challenging, but not increadibly hard). Everyone said they had fun, even the anti-4E persons in the group. The only complaint that really sticks out in my head was the most anti-4E player at my table saying that no one would ever want to play anything but Strikers. Of course, this player also rarely plays anything but 3E's Striker equivalents (mostly Wizards or Sorcerors) so I'm not sure if this is his own views coloring what he sees or what ...
Personally, I normally am very anti-Cleric, but I think the idea of a Warlord sounds pretty intriguing (I always liked 3E's Marshall, as well ...)
Cheers! :)
I can't disagree more about the WOW reference. They were certainly inspired by certain mechanical improvements in WOW, just like WOW was originally inspired by D&D. But I can't see more than a superficial difference, and certainly not in the list you mentioned.
Epic creatures, heroic monsters
This is as close as you get, but this is merely terminology. You can't tell me that an Ancient Red Dragon wasn't an epic creature for a 17th level party, or that a beholer wasn't a epic encounter for a 10th level party.
warlocks
(1) The D&D warlock functions completely different from the WoW warlock. They are alike in name only.
(2) The Warlock class in 3.5e, upon which the 4e version is based, actually predates WoW. Complete Arcane was published before WoW even started open beta.Feat tiers,
Feat Tiers were in 3e, never mind 3.5e. They've changed nothing from 3.5e.
random healing,
Random Healing was in OD&D, BECM, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e. They've changed nothing.
buffs,
Buffs have been in existence since 1e. 3e really popularized the concept, with a list of dozens of buffs including divine strength, Fox's Cunning and Bear's Endurance. They've changed nothing.
minions,
WoW has no such concept. If you substituted "Zombie Movies" for WoW, then you might have a point.
immediate powers,
Immediate Powers were introduced in Complete Warrior, which was published a fully year before WoW went into open beta. They've changed nothing.
recharge (cool down
Recharge rolls have been in since 2e. Dragons, for example, needed to wait 1d4+1 rounds before using their breath again. Now they use a random roll that mimics the length of time: a 5+ recharge functions pretty similarly to 1d4+1, and doesn't require bookkeeping. They've taken nothing from WoW, and streamlined the mechanics.
I'm not saying that 4e doesn't borrow from WoW, but I AM saying that said borrowing is isolated and not pervasive, and nothing in your list was inspired at all by WoW. Do you have other examples?
4e feels like WoW to me. It's my opinion, and not meant to belittle anyone that feels it's not like WoW. The OP has stated numerous times now its his opinion and he seem to actuality wants to get involved with the new edition.
I will be buying the 3 core check 'em out and if i dont like what i see ill dump 'em.
I can neither prove my opinion anymore than any Pro-4e person can prove theirs. If i don't like the taste of Pizza im not gonna eat pizza regardless of how you feel about it.
Thus far I don't like the "Feel" of 4e, im not changing my mind till i get Hands on the Core rules. Period.
Now can we accept the fact that opinions are like @^^holes?
Now back to the OP's statements.
I'm really into the fact that the races will get a chance to develop along with their chosen class thats a awesome concept im thinking of toying with in my 3e campaign.
It's seems to have a OD&D feel about it, like when the "Elf" was a class.
I really don't care for the 3 chances at surviving death, hopefully that can be easily House Ruled away.
Eric
Ive really liked the tone here in this thread thus far, if its possible to remain civil it would be great, it might eeven help me with better accepting 4e.
Sorry if i may have made any one upset with my rant above....
Eric.
4e feels like WoW to me. It's my opinion, and not meant to belittle anyone that feels it's not like WoW. The OP has stated numerous times now its his opinion and he seem to actuality wants to get involved with the new edition.
I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, or trying to tell anyone that their opinion is invalid. I'm merely asking for evidence supporting that opinion. Specifically, what triggered the "4e = WoW" reaction? If the list above is complete, then... well, okay, an unsupported opinion is still an opinion, but it's a lot less influential.
Soo.... give me some reasons yourself. I'll start with the obvious one.
(1) Only characters that have achieved paragon status may use magic rings.
That does indeed smack of level requirements.
Give me more, though. One instance does not an argument make.
I really don't care for the 3 chances at surviving death, hopefully that can be easily House Ruled away.
It's really not the three chances at surviving death so much as the new countdown to death, just like 3.5e. This one is merely more random, which appeals to me.
HHHHmmmmmm,
Points taken. I think the WoW effect is related to the Diablo effect folks felt when D&D 2e went to 3e. Similarities are there......based of course on opinion.
I got a better feeling of late that 4e is becoming more of a tribute to earlier editions. Certain parts of the games seem that way.....
I really don't care for the shorter Monster descriptions. Its a return to simpler times.....I'll be the first to admit 3e is a bit bloated. I like it though.
Ive been kinda nostalgic of late and began running my wife and daughter through B2. Using the OD&D rules is......fun? Hmmmm I loved my old Halfling character in my younger days. Great memories.
WoW is, what the most popular MMORPG ever right......It would better for me to say that 4e is like a MMORPG to me. But to make a clear statement like that as fact and not opinion without the Core books in Hand well im fooling myself.
Like it or not I think WotC is catering to the MMO crowd. Replace Hacking and Slashing with Grinding.......
Any way, been using minatures for the first time ever in a 3e campaign....whats some of the improvements we can expect?
Eric
First, minitures are essential to cast spells where you want them.
Without minitures, all area effects, effect everyone and everything.
Now, I've never played WOW online.
I've only used minitures from the tabletop game.
For specific examples you have to go to other computer games.
In Time Trek, a hit knocks out your ships shields.
Then it knocks out sensors, warp drive, or weapons.
This is very similar to the designation "bloodied".
I believe this predates any effects from crit tables.
|
|
HHHHmmmmmm,
Points taken. I think the WoW effect is related to the Diablo effect folks felt when D&D 2e went to 3e. Similarities are there......based of course on opinion.
I got a better feeling of late that 4e is becoming more of a tribute to earlier editions. Certain parts of the games seem that way.....
I really don't care for the shorter Monster descriptions. Its a return to simpler times.....I'll be the first to admit 3e is a bit bloated. I like it though.
Ive been kinda nostalgic of late and began running my wife and daughter through B2. Using the OD&D rules is......fun? Hmmmm I loved my old Halfling character in my younger days. Great memories.
WoW is, what the most popular MMORPG ever right......It would better for me to say that 4e is like a MMORPG to me. But to make a clear statement like that as fact and not opinion without the Core books in Hand well im fooling myself.
Like it or not I think WotC is catering to the MMO crowd. Replace Hacking and Slashing with Grinding.......
This is the very reason I like 4th edition....the simplistic rules. I loved basic, 1st, and second. 3rd got alittle heavy inrules (for the rules lawyers to appease the squeeky wheels out there), then 3.5 which made it more of a chore to play than fun. It is easy to disagree than make a point, or be reactive than proactive. I stated a few things that resembled WOW or I like reply from this person of more like MMORPG with WOW being th top. The only thing my players (Irepeat my players as well) put into their head for instance is...Hunter put hunters quarry on and visualized that red arrow you put on a monster from hunters mark....the paladin put on his mark and said "okay now I pulled aggro from this creature so you guys bash away while I tank" So the game became a WOW table top with crappy graphics. I have always as well as my players loved the imagination part of DND. Those with no imagination...well they are the complainers and rule lawyers and always have been for the 22+ years I have played. So we will keep 4th edition. I will have my red marker in hand afte trthe first two sessions, taking out rules, and adding new in to make 4.1 houseversion. The first thing to go is the three roll and die. Dying should be dramatic, but on a longer time scale. Negative 1/2 your hit points is also rediculous. When has a player ever gone to -60HP? It will cause me the DM to have monsters repeatably bash and crit unconscious, which although sometimes a hungry undead gnawing away on an unconscious character sends chills to players out there, it should not be a flip a penny and if you get heads three times you die crap!. So fire away. I wanted this to be a post about what we liked and disliked about 4th edition, but now it has become a everyone bash the op...PS thnks eric for the support, seems like it is an us versus them. Back to the post, what did everyone think of 4th edition. Did you see the newest stuff from enworld? any feedback?
Eric