This is a valid question.
It does solve the problem of crit fumbles.
With no confirmation roll there will be no confusion if a 1 is rolled then.
Have they put in clear rules?
Do they say, "Good clerics cannot cast evil spells."
They should add "Evil spells in the Player's Handbook do not allow you to cast them."
I won't go in to what prompted this.
|
I can't say I know enough to know what mechanical problems have been "solved". The one major problem that has been solved is the GM look up problem. As a GM I have everything I need in the creature stat block. I do not need to look up feats, spells, or abilities. Everything I need is right there for me. It is such a big help that I am not sure I can ever GM 3.5 again.
It depends on what you and/or your group considered to be problems in the first place. Personally, I think they made classes more thematic and removed much, if not all, of the swingy mechanics.
Classes are also actually good at whatever it is they are supposed to do. Bards for example, are not terribly useful beyond their music, which I dont think is really worth sacrificing another character for. Fighters are also pretty sucktacular, especially when put beside a warblade: they just cant compete with the damage.
There are more things, but those really rise to the top when I think of 4th Edition.
This is a valid question.
It does solve the problem of crit fumbles.
With no confirmation roll there will be no confusion if a 1 is rolled then.
Have they put in clear rules?
Do they say, "Good clerics cannot cast evil spells."
They should add "Evil spells in the Player's Handbook do not allow you to cast them."
I won't go in to what prompted this.
Since there are no longer any evil spells in 4e, problem solved.
This is a valid question.
It does solve the problem of crit fumbles.
With no confirmation roll there will be no confusion if a 1 is rolled then.
Have they put in clear rules?
Do they say, "Good clerics cannot cast evil spells."
They should add "Evil spells in the Player's Handbook do not allow you to cast them."
I won't go in to what prompted this.
If your looking for specific solutions to 3.5 problems your really better off looking at 3.P.
4E is a total rewrite of the rules. It does not really 'solve' 3.5 problems per se. The context has changed enough that the 'problem' may or may not even be in the game any more. Whatever problems 4E has will likely be problems that are all its own and don't really relate to 3.5.
|
|
Actually 4e is not a total rewrite of 3.5. There are changes but not large enough that you need to learn a completely different set of rules. 4e still has class, level, AC, HP, standard actins, move actions, to hit rolls, damage rolls, skill checks, DCs, GPs, XPs, etc., etc.
3e to 4e is an evolutionary step not a completely new game.
If your looking for specific solutions to 3.5 problems your really better off looking at 3.P.
I disagree. While it is true that the 4e designers basically recreated the game from base principles, I think it's disingenuous to claim that the designers were not seeking to resolve issues people had with the game. They had to design the game in the manner they did because the issues they sought to resolve require fundamental changes, rather than specific fixes.
Such issues include
That being said, for a number of people the issues that 4e seeks to address were not issues at all. For those seeking fixes to less fundamental problems (and are otherwise happy with the status quo) or just continued support for their 3e games Pathfinder will probably suit their needs and that's a Good Thing®.
Actually 4e is not a total rewrite of 3.5. There are changes but not large enough that you need to learn a completely different set of rules. 4e still has class, level, AC, HP, standard actins, move actions, to hit rolls, damage rolls, skill checks, DCs, GPs, XPs, etc., etc.
3e to 4e is an evolutionary step not a completely new game.
I fully agree.
Threadjack:
For Campbell: How in the nine hells did you make a ? Do you compose your posts in Word?
3e to 4e is an evolutionary step not a completely new game.
And this is where I disagree. Certainly the fundamental mechanics are the same, but that's true of many games that aren't and never were D&D: roll a die add a number to it to beat a target number. Palladium uses that mechanic (along with several other wonderful sub-mechanics but... i digress), Agone uses that same idea only with many numbers added to a d10 roll.
While many things are going to be familiar and fundamental mechanics and terminology is intact, there are many differences that have been stated or hinted too in the various articles that have been released by WotC site that make this look like new a new rules system. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing can be debated (and has) but in a way it makes sense to tear it all down to the fundamentals and start over. Keeping what makes sense and booting out what doesn't. The easiest way to fix a problem is make the problem simply not exsist any more.
I honestly don't look at 3rd edition as an evolution of 2nd, I see it as a different game entirely with much of the same terminology. It will be the same with 4th edition versus previous editions of the game.
I'm not here to debate whether 4th edition is D&D, or some collection of rules for table top MMORPG's. That ship has sailed in my opinion, and is a pointless debate. 4th will be a good game. It's going to have a slightly different feel from 3rd, but that's true of 2nd, 1st and OD&D.
Just curious... what do people mean by the term "swingy" mechanics?
I hear this used also in statements like "low level games are swingy". What does it mean or imply?
Just curious... what do people mean by the term "swingy" mechanics?
I hear this used also in statements like "low level games are swingy". What does it mean or imply?
It's a word that even the 3.5 DMG uses (when discussing single-monster encounters) and that I think came from discussions about Magic cards. It's generally a synonym for "unpredictable" or "variable". In the D&D encounter context, it means mechanics that can drastically change the outcome of a battle based on a single decision or die roll.
At low levels, a critical hit on a character can easily knock out or kill that character, even if the character otherwise has the battle in hand. At higher levels, certain attacks are devastating unless the character or monster has a spell that makes them completely immune. Those are all things I think of as "swingy".
This is a valid question.
It does solve the problem of crit fumbles.
With no confirmation roll there will be no confusion if a 1 is rolled then.
Have they put in clear rules?
Do they say, "Good clerics cannot cast evil spells."
They should add "Evil spells in the Player's Handbook do not allow you to cast them."
I won't go in to what prompted this.
4th Edition D&D solves the mathematical concept of Pi.
|
3rd edition was a great game when it came out. 3.5 in our opinion swung the game to the power of the PC's, making DMing harder, and slower. More abilities, spells, more power etc. Our group actually looking back enjoyed 2nd edition with the combat and tactics guides better because of the balance, but it also was a little time consuming. 4th edition does solve one big problem with 3rd and especially 3.5...speed of combat. The game runs faster, smoother, and no flipping through indexes and books to find a rule, spell, etc. We are finishing up Savage Tides and those monsters stat blocks are a DM's nightmare. We ran the 4th edition module (first 5 battles) and combat ran 3x faster, players had 3x more fun, and no one got confused with the rules (at least not too much). It gave the feel in this matter of times of basic DND and 1st edition.
Just curious... what do people mean by the term "swingy" mechanics?
I hear this used also in statements like "low level games are swingy". What does it mean or imply?
It's a word that even the 3.5 DMG uses (when discussing single-monster encounters) and that I think came from discussions about Magic cards. It's generally a synonym for "unpredictable" or "variable". In the D&D encounter context, it means mechanics that can drastically change the outcome of a battle based on a single decision or die roll.
At low levels, a critical hit on a character can easily knock out or kill that character, even if the character otherwise has the battle in hand. At higher levels, certain attacks are devastating unless the character or monster has a spell that makes them completely immune. Those are all things I think of as "swingy".
Ah, alrighty. Makes sense. Thanks for letting me know.
I know people will flame me for this, but an opinion was asked so I will give mine and I really don't care at this point if I am hated for it anymore. I have a right to one.
To me, 4E solves the problem of making players actually RP and for DMs to bother being creative. It does the work for you and the players also get to do what the majority of D&D players only want to do: hack&slash.
It solves the problem of worrying about "D&D Canon", since they destroyed so much canon and so much of what was built on Gygax's stuff that it's a whole new game now.
I think it also solves the problem of people doing math and bothering to read. It also creates a "CCG" feeling since it involves constant updates and new powers and new super-killer moves and items and whatnot and nothing else. I mean, heck, the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills aren't event there anymore...because you can't KILL stuff with the skills. Sad.
It solves the problem of only "brainy" types playing D&D. Now all types will be able to play it and comprehend it.
It also solves the problem WotC probably has had for awhile. Grognards complaints at what they're doing to a game that should've been left alone. Get as many as you can from the older crowd to not bother with D&D at all, and that leaves you with a brand new set of customers and fans and you can do whatever you want and get away with it...until those very same people get used to the game being the way it is and start complaining about what you did to the game in 5E and 6E. Then you just recycle it all over again.
4E does solve a problem for me, personally. The fact I don't have to pour money into their ludicrous actions with D&D by just sticking with 3.5E and also do something spiteful I can do in the process which I will not mention here for the possibility of inciting more angry flamers.
As a Savage Tide DM with little to no time to spend on stat blocks and new rules (let alone read ahead in the adventures), I welcome 4e with open arms for one simple reason. Simplicity.
I'd rather have the barebones rules to help me guide my players through an encounter or adventure than let them get in the way of my group having fun.
And I am a huge fan of the changes for monsters and NPC's, that use different rules than players do for character creation. It gives the DM a lot more toys to play with, without needing 30 splatbooks to surprise the players every week.
I'm not dissing 3.5 or 3.0 in any way, shape or form. I'm just saying that as a DM, I don't have enough time to memorize all that stuff every week prior to our game, so less is more for me :)
I should also add, that while I will move to 4e, I will be running the Pathfinder adventure paths with 4e, and thus supporting both Paizo and WotC.
IMO 4e solves WotC/Hasbro's problem that sales didn't match their expectations anymore
|
|
While many things are going to be familiar and fundamental mechanics and terminology is intact, there are many differences that have been stated or hinted too in the various articles that have been released by WotC site that make this look like new a new rules system.
Hence it is an evolutionary change - familiar and fundamental with some new stuff mixed in.
|
|
4E does solve a problem for me, personally. The fact I don't have to pour money into their ludicrous actions with D&D by just sticking with 3.5E and also do something spiteful I can do in the process which I will not mention here for the possibility of inciting more angry flamers.
So then why did you say anything at all?
I just don't get it.
I'll assume 3.p is Pathfinder.
I'll also assume you are saying that monsters in 4.0 do not cast spells. In other words Animate Dead and Clutch of Orcus are monsterous powers, not spells.
Is that right?
|
4E does solve a problem for me, personally. The fact I don't have to pour money into their ludicrous actions with D&D by just sticking with 3.5E and also do something spiteful I can do in the process which I will not mention here for the possibility of inciting more angry flamers.So then why did you say anything at all?
I just don't get it.
Because he disagrees with overly optimistic assessments of what all must admit are fragmentary experiences with the new system? I've been polite enough to avoid posting in the 4ed threads for awhile now (many of the anti 4ed crowd have done the same)so perhaps you have grown unused to disagreement. I see nothing inherently superior in 4ed mechanics on first blush. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see a change in attitude (and a demand for revisions) withing a few months. THat's just the way of things with RPGs.
But lets be real here, reading some of the reviews (LOOK AT MY SHINY NEW! Its perfect!) and they are obviously so biased by excitement and infatuation that I have resigned myself to not getting reasonable feedback on the system (warts and all. and warts WILL be found) until after Christmas at the earliest.
While Razz is far from a civil poster (crosswired, you have a fan club to rival Razz's if I'm not mistaken), try to consider him as the slave that rides behind a roman general during a military triumph whispering that all glory is fleeting.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
|
|
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I agree with 90% of your post. I like what I have seen and experienced so far but the full rules release will be the first true test. I also agree that some of the folks I have encountered on the WotC forum are just sycophants and see 4e as the holy grail of RPGs (no I do not use crosswiredmind there so don't go looking).
But I think you missed the point of my response to Razz. What I was referring to was the "I'm going to do something spiteful but I won't tell you people about it cause you'll just flame me ... neener neener neener" bit.
Actually 4e is not a total rewrite of 3.5. There are changes but not large enough that you need to learn a completely different set of rules. 4e still has class, level, AC, HP, standard actins, move actions, to hit rolls, damage rolls, skill checks, DCs, GPs, XPs, etc., etc.
3e to 4e is an evolutionary step not a completely new game.
Thats a total rewrite. I agree that the d20 system is a huge influence on the game and that its still fundamentally in the d20 system family but it was a total rewrite.
That said we are quickly heading down some kind of blind alley and in reality we probably agree or are close enough to agreement that its a waste to argue about. My bottom line is that its simply inappropriate to look to 4E to to fix 3.5 issues in a 3.5 context. We are no longer in a 3.5 context.
Sure 4E will attempt to deal with issues that cropped up in 3.5 but their goal is less about fixing issues with things like spell descriptors and more with attempting to deal with broader metagame issues. Their not trying to 'fix' the current social encounter system - their completely rewriting the social encounter system from the ground up. They're not 'fixing' the classes their doing a full rewrite of them. Their themes will carry forward but the mechanics are not the same.
I'll assume 3.p is Pathfinder.
I'll also assume you are saying that monsters in 4.0 do not cast spells. In other words Animate Dead and Clutch of Orcus are monsterous powers, not spells.
Is that right?
My understanding is that they are essentially using powers, correct. Now there are various clauses depending on the source of their powers. So if their using an arcane power source for their power that probably interacts with the rules in a number of ways but it'll be stuff along the lines of being vulnerable to dispel magic powers, where as the Ninja/Acrobatic Knorker's Triple Spinning Kick power will not be vulnerable to a Dispel Magic power because its source is martial and not arcane.
To me, 4E solves the problem of making players actually RP and for DMs to bother being creative. It does the work for you and the players also get to do what the majority of D&D players only want to do: hack&slash.
I'm curious as to where you are drawing this from, as the rules for RP seem to...well, not be there, just as they werent there in 3rd Edition. You've brought this up before, and I'd really like to know where you got this notion. For that matter, I'd like to know what apparently your definition of RP even is.
Also, how does the game reduce the creativity of the DM? I dont see anything that prevents creativity, or dampens it.
It solves the problem of worrying about "D&D Canon", since they destroyed so much canon and so much of what was built on Gygax's stuff that it's a whole new game now.
Was worrying about Gygax's story stuff a problem? Once 3rd Edition hit, did people that played 3rd Edition use it outside of the fan-created Planescape? Can people not use it anymore?
I think it also solves the problem of people doing math and bothering to read. It also creates a "CCG" feeling since it involves constant updates and new powers and new super-killer moves and items and whatnot and nothing else. I mean, heck, the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills aren't event there anymore...because you can't KILL stuff with the skills. Sad.
There is math and reading involved in the game, so thats one wrong point. Also, since I cant kill anyone with Nature as far as I know, thats another wrong point.
It solves the problem of only "brainy" types playing D&D. Now all types will be able to play it and comprehend it.
If that was a problem, then this is something we can both agree to.
It solves the problem of only "brainy" types playing D&D. Now all types will be able to play it and comprehend it.I must have missed this one.
Anything that makes D&D accessible to more players is a darn good thing!
Because he's not special anymore...if D&D catches on with new people and has another boom period he won't be able to use is "us against the world" argument anymore.
And Razz long time no see...didn't miss you at all.
|
|
Because he's not special anymore...if D&D catches on with new people and has another boom period he won't be able to use is "us against the world" argument anymore.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile."
|
It solves the problem of worrying about "D&D Canon", since they destroyed so much canon and so much of what was built on Gygax's stuff that it's a whole new game now.
Dedicated to the memory of E. Gary Gygax
So sayth to credits page.
They credit the designers from all the previous editions, from Dave Arneson to Monte Cook.
Gary Gygax has had little to do with D&D since the beginning of 3.0.
Some claim the legal trademark of D&D hasn't been D&D since then.
In essence there wasn't much Gygax cannon to get rid of.
Just the 9 type alignment. Non-monsterous Gnomes.
The latest version of The Great Wheel.
What does 4th edition D&D solve?
Revenue targets for WotC and Hasbro :P
They've probably fixed some rules along the way...