|
I know that HP don't and have't reflected only pure,physical ,damage, but it's always been the majority of hp and what most people think about when they think about hp. Why else would the "cure" spells restore hp? 4E seems to completely remove physical damage from hp, except maybe when you are already unconcious and dying. If you don't think hp isn't mainly morale in 4E, how can a warlord heal anyone? they aren't magical, and they don't have divine or supernatural abilities. They just tell you to "walk it off" and "Bam! You're healed!" It's a purely gamist mechanism to allow non-magical healing, and it strains suspension of disbelief to the point of breaking.
I guess we better get rid of those pesky reality-straining dragons then... ;)
|
I guess we better get rid of those pesky reality-straining dragons then... ;)
There are some things in fiction, that IF presented in a plausible fashion, can suspend disbelief and become "real" to the imagination...
Take for example, if someone suggested that a dragon breathed fire, and the little "motes of flame" that came pouring out of its mouth were in the shape of tiny hearts, then disbelief has come grinding to a halt! Realism gone!
Same thing with game mechanics...
If a rule is presented in an illogical fashion, I don't buy into it...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
PS - Yes, FabesMinis, I got the "tongue-in-cheek" jest of your post. I still felt the need to write this...
So, like a lot of others, I managed to get my hands on a copy of the Core Rules and I must say I'm overwhelmed.
Let me preface this by saying I think 4e is still D&D and is probably the best version of D&D we'll have for a while. But it is so different in a lot of ways I find myself being irrationally nostalgic for 3e.
I'm in agreement. It feels weird that the spells are listed in the class section, and that the ability scores list Dex and Con in the opposite order. But, I still think it's going to be a better game in play.
Consider what people thought when third edition was first launched. It felt weird that THAC0 had been replaced with Base Attack, that the ability scores were listed in a different order, and that AC now went up instead of down. People eventually recognised that these were improvements.
|
|
Everything after that was non-physical a.k.a luck and divine providence.
Luck and divine providence are one thing, but you add morale to the mixture and you get an entirely new monster...
Healing Surges and Pep-talking Warlords work in 4e because that's the way the rules were written...
Just as a side note: 3.xe changed the definition of HP to a more physical representation of health...
*From another post (of mine) on a different thread*
page 136 3.5 PHB
Hit Points
Your hit points tell you how much punishment you can take before dropping...
it goes on to say how hit point total is based, but it says or implies nothing of luck, divine providence, or morale...
page 309 3.5 PHB (glossary)
Hit Points (HP) A measure of a characters health or an objects integrity. Damage decreases current hit points and lost hit points return with healing or natural recovery...
It goes into how you gain more hit points , etc...
Again, no mention (or implication) of luck, divine providence, or morale. Just simply how much it takes to kill you...
Personally, it makes more sense to me to have HP be a reflection of health and stamina. Leave luck to the die roll...
Just my opinion...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Personally, it makes more sense to me to have HP be a reflection of health and stamina. Leave luck to the die roll...
Just my opinion...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Really? I mean, really? No offense, but any system where a guy can jump off a 200' tower without any threat of death (because he knows how to fight) seems inherently unrealistic if HP is just health and stamina. Do you imagine high levels characters walking away from battle looking like pincushions with dozens of arrows sticking out of them?
|
|
Really? I mean, really? No offense...
None taken, but the same thing can be said of pep-talking warlords or healing surges (I just broke both my arms, my leg and oh my, is that my spleen? NO WORRIES, let me just sit down for a moment, then I'll be ALL better in no time!)
Hit points have always been abstract. It's a flaw of the game, but it's one of those things we learn to over look in the name of fun...
But I don't think that the "duck and cover" healing method used in video games (such as Halo, Rainbow Six Vegas, and the like) is a more realistic approach...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
I find the abstract 4e HP system to be a refreshing admission that HP have never been simply wounds. Now the abstraction has been codified and "healing" is not just about patching a wound. It feels like the game finally came to grips with one of its most bothersome aspects.
HP have always been unrealistic and the rules have finally begun to reflect it.
I find the abstract 4e HP system to be a refreshing admission that HP have never been simply wounds. Now the abstraction has been codified and "healing" is not just about patching a wound. It feels like the game finally came to grips with one of its most bothersome aspects.
HP have always been unrealistic and the rules have finally begun to reflect it.
I agree completely.
|
|
HP have always been unrealistic and the rules have finally begun to reflect it.
I see, the rule is silly anyway, so lets make it even more silly?
How is that a fix?
Like I said, Healing Surges work in 4e, because that is the way the rules were written...
But I still find the Cool-Aide to be too sweet for my tastes (I like a little less sugar thank you)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I ran my first session of 4E today. Our group had a blast!. However, I overestimated my encounters a little and ended up TPKing the party. Non the less the players all said that they found the new system was a lot of fun to play in. We had a Dragonborn fighter, a Dragonborn Warlord, and a human rogue. The problem was I scaled the encounters more for a party of 4 -5 (we had a couple of players that couldn't make it).
|
|
HP have always been unrealistic and the rules have finally begun to reflect it.I see, the rule is silly anyway, so lets make it even more silly?
How is that a fix?
No, not more silly. HP have alway been an abstract combination of luck, experience, morale, toughness, and physical wounds. The mechanics for the recovery of HP have always focused on just the physical wounds aspect. Now the recovery of HP embraces their multi-faceted nature. The warlord give a mighty shout and you recover some of the morale HPs, the cleric uses a healing prayer and cures some of your physical wounds, etc.
The point is that the rules now account for all of the facets of the abstraction.
That makes sense to me.
page 136 3.5 PHBHit Points
Your hit points tell you how much punishment you can take before dropping...
it goes on to say how hit point total is based, but it says or implies nothing of luck, divine providence, or morale...
But the rules of Monopoly say that I get 200$ when I pass go so obviously Settlers of Catan needs to give out 200$ too right?
If your expectation is that 4e will be the same as 3.5 then you will be utterly disappointed and have long repetitive arguments.
My first gut reaction to the new 4.0 edition is in fact my last reaction. There is very little, if anything I like about 4.0. I have ran the first 4-5 encounters of "Keep on the Shadowfell," and I wont even go so far as to say it is the "new" edition of D&D, it is a cross between D&D Minis and a fantasy board game. (IMHO) Every new edition that has come out in the past took the exsiting D&D game and made, arguably, improvements to the game. As I played / DM'ed through this module I kept finding myself asking the same thing; "Why?"
I have played every edition of D&D from Basic D&D to 3.5 over the past 23 years and as far as I am concerned, this is NOT Dungeons & Dragons.
I will not bore everyone with my complaining :)I will just say that I will not support this new non-D&D edition by purching anymore products related to to 4.0. As far as I am concerned I can play 3.5 indefinately. Besides 4.5 can't be far behind. I really think the publishers and play testers missed on this one big time.
Thanks for those who continue to support the traditional game of Dungeons & Dragons; and if you are ever in the Greyhawk, look me up :)
Bandit of LV
|
|
But the rules of Monopoly say that I get 200$ when I pass go so obviously Settlers of Catan needs to give out 200$ too right?
If your expectation is that 4e will be the same as 3.5 then you will be utterly disappointed and have long repetitive arguments.
Just as a side note: 3.xe changed the definition of HP to a more physical representation of health...
You missed that...
Everyone has been touting that HP have ALWAYS been a representation of luck, divine providence, yadda, yadda, yadda...
I used the above to say no, no they have not. 3e/3.5 took HP a step further by eliminating all that extra baggage, and 4e went back and put it all back in (and then some)...
So, I realize 4e is a different game...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
First gut reactions? Ok, here's mine. Huh? See, I, too was hoping for a SWSE D&D. I was hoping for talent trees. I was already aware that much of what I liked about 3.x had been removed, but I was still hoping for the addition of stuff I liked.
See, I never really played the other versions. We (my husband and I) did play 2AD&D but dropped it for the flexibility of GURPS. So, when 3e came out we looked at it...and stayed. 3.5 was the final boost to take us to one system. And it was D&D to us.
4e? Um, not so far. We bought it, we will try a few adventures, but I don't think we'll stay with it. Too much of what we like is gone. Skills? No flexibility at all. Multi-classing? Nope, just cherry-pick a few powers. The changed races? Not the problem for us that others seem to see...we've always had a dragonoid race in the world and don't really care one way or another about Tieflings, Gnomes & Half-Orcs.I personally like the Elf race split, no issue there. Classes? This is personal...I WANT MY BARD!
I do agree with an earlier poster that the class powers feel like a superhero game, albet a low level one. I even saw the power with a hole in it advantage from Champions.
I agree that the DMG has a very good section on DMing. I saw much of the same info in the 2AD&D Campaign Guide. The disease tracks could be usefull. We'll steal stuff but probably just stick with 3.x & Paizo.
Oh and 2 minor questions for the (smirk) ...obligatory... slap of the artwork. Why does the female on the PHB have an 'F' tattoed on her forehead? And...who got the job of piercing the horns of the red dragon on the DMG?
I think the new rules are so streamlined that the new edition will let you play with yourself.
|
|
I think the new rules are so streamlined that the new edition will let you play with yourself.
WTF? Can you just give it a rest?
Hmm?
In what way did 3E eliminate the baggage that was "hp doesn't represent health". I mean, the 3E's healing rate REALLY, REALLY is hard to say is a system that equates with "HP is all physical".
I may be mischaracterizing D-Elf's position (and sorry if so) but I think the idea is that 3E's abstractions are easier to swallow than 4E's. At which point, we're really only talking preferences and opinions, and you can't really argue for one or the other.
Cheers! :)
|
|
Hmm?
In what way did 3E eliminate the baggage that was "hp doesn't represent health". I mean, the 3E's healing rate REALLY, REALLY is hard to say is a system that equates with "HP is all physical".
What I said was that 3e/.35 HP does not reflect luck or divine providence...
I've directly quoted the 3.5 PHB at least twice now, on at least two different threads...
Want to read for yourself what HP are in 3.5, see pg 136 and 309 of the 3.5 PHB (or scroll towards the top of page 6 of this thread and see where I quote it, and why I was even talking about 3e HP in this thread)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I guess we better get rid of those pesky reality-straining dragons then... ;)
This is consistently the worst response that pops up to any questions of realism in D&D-related threads. Fantasy world still have to have their own internal logic and realism in order for there to be a suspension of disbelief. The 4E DMG says as much, and any fantasy author can tell you the same.
It was a joke.
|
|
I think the idea is that 3E's abstractions are easier to swallow than 4E's.
In a nutshell, yes, that is part of what I was saying. The rest of the point (with that particular post) was to say that 3e/3.5 changed the rules of HP from what they had been in earlier editions of the game.
Some have stated that the way HP are in 4e are the way they have always been but with the addition of morale, which is simply not so. HP in 3e/3.5 were different (even from previous editions of the game)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I think the idea is that 3E's abstractions are easier to swallow than 4E's.In a nutshell, yes, that is part of what I was saying.
It seems to me the 4E idea of HP is closer to 1E AD&D than to 3E, and I always found the 1E explanation to be pretty good in terms of how the abstraction works.
It seems to me the 4E idea of HP is closer to 1E AD&D than to 3E, and I always found the 1E explanation to be pretty good in terms of how the abstraction works.I think the idea is that 3E's abstractions are easier to swallow than 4E's.In a nutshell, yes, that is part of what I was saying.
Now this I agree with.
Now this I agree with.
Sorry, dude, I missed the smiley in your previous post. You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen that argument made as a serious response!
No worries. I like consistency but I think people get tied up in knots about it at times.
First reactions to play.
Our group gave it a shot last night. We played KotS with a dwarf ranger, an elf warlock, a half-elf wizard, and human cleric and paladin. It was interesting, and it definitely has more of a war-game vibe than a role-playing vibe.
Some interesting reactions from my players:
1. "So basically, most characters look the same?" in regards to the streamlined character creation. They liked the idea that characters were easier to create, but found even with feats, kinda looked the same.
2. "Whoa, is this a real monster or a bubble monster?" (in reaction to the 1-hp minion rules).
3. "Holy crap, how many HP does this kobold have?" (in reaction to the 24-30 HP the first encounter kobolds had.)
4. "So this fella is really any "class"?" (in reaction to the description of NPCs as monsters.)
5. "Man combat takes a long time." (in reaction to monsters having more HP in relation to the relative combat damage of the players.
Overall, it was fun. We enjoyed the streamlined combat; and it was easier to understand. However, my gut (and my party) has some concerns:
1. Attack powers really don't grow in relation to the power of the character. Kobolds were the cannon fodder of the gaming world, and with the advent of the new HP system, they seemed inordanately tougher than before. Granted the minion rules help with that, but our reaction was that it seemed very artificial, and a little off-putting. My party has already titled minions as "bubble monsters".
2. Character do seem very similar. You can vary the race, but not really the capabilities of the classes. This does have a positive aspect: all characters are now "combat ready". (Try running a published module with a druid, a bard, a wizard/rogue and a monk/cleric. :))
3. As a GM I really rebel against the production of "adventures" as a series of tactical combat encounters. The individual room maps and description of tactics kinda eliminates any need for creative GMing. And really, they are crap when you have a thinking party. Even the first session, my characters lured kobolds and goblins from their supposed starting combat areas. As well, they patiently waited them out and ambushed them. The combat area maps and encounter descriptions seem like fluff to me, am I alone in that thought? I'd rather have a short description, but more adventure area and better surroundings development.
Any way, my 2 cents.
Craig
|
|
Hey Craig,
I think you hit on a big problem with the 4e launch that a lot of folks are running into - KotS was not a great mod for roleplaying. If the mod had been different do you think your first impression of the rules would have been different?
I'm not trying to sound rude but out of his entire post only one point hinged on the adventure. Every other point was about the rules and how they felt to him, from character generation, to minions, to the way combat worked. It seemed like out of 8 or so points that only one was directly against the adventure itself.
Thank you Craig for the honest review, I now return you to the systematic tearing apart of your reasoning by other posters who don't want you post negative results.
Hey Craig,
I think you hit on a big problem with the 4e launch that a lot of folks are running into - KotS was not a great mod for roleplaying. If the mod had been different do you think your first impression of the rules would have been different?
Our group is older (we played KotB - when it was released) and there were a number of references to that module and the similar feel.
In answer to your question: we're going to find out. My group is not desirous of continuing with KotS; so I'll create something of my own and try it. Suprisingly, the backdrop to KotS, as printed in the back of the DMG is what I will probably use.
House rules as asked for by the table: an elimination of Minions and a return to a straight double damage mechanic for criticals. They were not so much concerned with things being tougher: the disjointed feel of "bubble monsters" really got to them (and honestly, me).
Craig
House rules as asked for by the table: an elimination of Minions and a return to a straight double damage mechanic for criticals. They were not so much concerned with things being tougher: the disjointed feel of "bubble mosters" really got to them (and honestly, me).Craig
They don't really trouble me at low levels, but having 1HP level 15 minions really throws me. I've seen it suggested that they should have at least 1Hp/level to help eliminate some of that, so you might give that a shot. Puts some housekeeping back on the DM potentially, because if they don't die in one shot you have to track them, but thus has it always been :)
|
|
Hey Craig,
I think you hit on a big problem with the 4e launch that a lot of folks are running into - KotS was not a great mod for roleplaying. If the mod had been different do you think your first impression of the rules would have been different?
Our group is older (we played KotB - when it was released) and there were a number of references to that module and the similar feel.
In answer to your question: we're going to find out. My group is not desirous of continuing with KotS; so I'll create something of my own and try it. Suprisingly, the backdrop to KotS, as printed in the back of the DMG is what I will probably use.
House rules as asked for by the table: an elimination of Minions and a return to a straight double damage mechanic for criticals. They were not so much concerned with things being tougher: the disjointed feel of "bubble mosters" really got to them (and honestly, me).
Craig
Cool.
Yeah - minions are a bit odd. I think there is a place for them but I am not quite sure where just yet.
[I'm not trying to sound rude but out of his entire post only one point hinged on the adventure. Every other point was about the rules and how they felt to him, from character generation, to minions, to the way combat worked. It seemed like out of 8 or so points that only one was directly against the adventure itself.
Thank you Craig for the honest review, I now return you to the systematic tearing apart of your reasoning by other posters who don't want you post negative results.
It didn't come across as rude. I was responding to the thread title: Gut Reaction to 4E. Since my first running was both tied to 4e and KotS, it was natural that both would be hit by my opinions.
Craig
Craig:
Question for you - my group also found the classes were fairly similar to one another; different fluff, similar crunch. Probably my main concern with 4E (and I'm really enjoying it so far, I might add, and I've been playing since the early 1980s) is that the players are going to become bored with the classes fairly quickly because of all the similarities. The one guy in my group who is absolutely opposed to 4E is the guy who plays the Wizard, and I have to admit I feel for the guy. They basically eliminated the Wizard as D&D has ever known it (and he didn't play Wizards for the power; if you knew my campaign you'd know Wizards have it rough and people tend to avoid them).
Any thoughts on how to deal with that sort of thing? I know there will be splats, more core books etc., but it seems like they've hampered themselves by the rules to some degree (and by sometimes misguided pursuits of balance) and I wonder if this isn't going to hurt the flavor of the classes long term.
Craig:
Probably my main concern with 4E [...] is that the players are going to become bored with the classes fairly quickly because of all the similarities.
I think this has been my main dispute as well. Sure many people may love 4e right now, but how long will it be before the newness disappears and players become bored with it? If people can actually sustain their exuberance for 4e for more than 6 months to a year, I think I'll be impressed ... but not before then.
Craig: The one guy in my group who is absolutely opposed to 4E is the guy who plays the Wizard, and I have to admit I feel for the guy. They basically eliminated the Wizard as D&D has ever known it (and he didn't play Wizards for the power; if you knew my campaign you'd know Wizards have it rough and people tend to avoid them).
I also feel for this guy and other people like him (and me) who play characters for other reasons than buffitude and power ... reasons like the artistry of crafting a unique character or the mystique of a truly magical character into whom you have put time, thought, and effort or even just because some of us like the challenge of being the extreme underdog just to see if we are clever and crafty enough to overcome the odds. I mean, isn't that the true measure of success and "winning" in a game designed to not be "won"?
You know how for even say the focused spellcasters like the beguiler, even with the restrictive list, you don't get bored easily since each level brings another beanie?I think that's the paradigm 4E was aiming for all the classes.
I think this works in the short run. When you've played for a couple of years and been various classes and all the beanies start to seem the same...well that's what I worry about. Of course, we'll be playing 3.5E and Pathfinder as well, in addition to other games, so that provides some variety.
They don't really trouble me at low levels, but having 1HP level 15 minions really throws me. I've seen it suggested that they should have at least 1Hp/level to help eliminate some of that, so you might give that a shot. Puts some housekeeping back on the DM potentially, because if they don't die in one shot you have to track them, but thus has it always been :)
If you want to go that route, I'd suggest keeping them binary - either alive or dead. A 14hp attack does nothing; a 15hp attack kills them.
I wouldn't expect 1hp/lvl to produce wildly different outcomes than 1hp, in all honesty. Might be more trouble than it's worth.
Actually, the binary idea might be the way to go across the board. It's staring at the "1 HP" on paper for a level 15 monster that throws me, I think. If I didn't assign minions hit points and just considered them either alive or dead, it might help. Metagame stuff like this really pulls me out of the game for some reason. I'm not sure why it necessarily should, but it's the same with "squares" instead of "feet." I'm keeping "feet."
It seems to me the 4E idea of HP is closer to 1E AD&D than to 3E, and I always found the 1E explanation to be pretty good in terms of how the abstraction works.
Yes, I agree.
To Digitalelf:
I admit when you first claimed that was how HP was defined in 3.x, I thought you were off your rocker, but I was surprised to be found wrong. That's what originally sent me scrambling to find that quote from Gygax I quoted you somewhere (in this thread?)
You are quite right indeed that HP is pretty exclusively physical in HP. I never realized! :)
Neither did I. My assumption was based on past editions. I actually prefer the abstract mix to the purely physical. Oh, well.
Aye, I agree whole heartedly CWM! I'll continue to consider it that way, since I find it much less verisimilitude breaking than how it is actually defined in 3.x. Color me surprised!
Craig:
Question for you - my group also found the classes were fairly similar to one another; different fluff, similar crunch. Probably my main concern with 4E (and I'm really enjoying it so far, I might add, and I've been playing since the early 1980s) is that the players are going to become bored with the classes fairly quickly because of all the similarities. The one guy in my group who is absolutely opposed to 4E is the guy who plays the Wizard, and I have to admit I feel for the guy. They basically eliminated the Wizard as D&D has ever known it (and he didn't play Wizards for the power; if you knew my campaign you'd know Wizards have it rough and people tend to avoid them).
Any thoughts on how to deal with that sort of thing? I know there will be splats, more core books etc., but it seems like they've hampered themselves by the rules to some degree (and by sometimes misguided pursuits of balance) and I wonder if this isn't going to hurt the flavor of the classes long term.
Well, ultimately the saying "This isn't your father's D&D" has never been more true. One thing that I'm still working through is the balance question. The hints in the DMG are pretty vague: you must be careful when giving powers to monsters, etc, etc. Well, that's great: they codify how individual monsters are going to react on one hand (with the tactical combat encounters) but on the other don't really give any guidelines for balancing powers, etc. This means for the GM who wants to put the work in and give his players something else to work with or try for, well, it's going to be an ungoverned balancing act.
My wizard-player is going to miss the scroll-hunt. He was a fanatic in past games: hunting down scrolls to fill out his spell book. To a certain extent Rituals might replace this obsession, but I'll have to wait to see it in action. In reality, differentiating games will probably distill down to roleplaying. But for me, I'm going to miss the days of looking for a master or trading spells with another wizard.
Following my next game, with my own setting, I'll post and let you know how it goes.
Craig
I am not going to try to over-articulate my response. First, let me say that I was very strongly against 4th edition when the news first came out and continued being a doomsayer for months thereafter. In the last few months I have totally ignored any information about 4th edition, including arguments against it. I wanted to be able to actually give 4th edition a good shake.
The verdict:
I like the idea of the classes being made more versatile, what I don't like is the skewing of the class abilities. I don't think the idea of abilities and frequency of use is a bad one, just one badly done.
I realize that rituals compensate for some of this, but I dislike that the spellcasting classes have been neutered, IMO. The Warlock has no real originality anymore, now becoming more of a bloodline sorcerer. The battle-oriented wizard is nearly impossible now, with the best spells restricted to 1/day abilities.
Before anyone jumps on me about Warlocks, no I do not, nor have I ever thus far, played a 3.5 Warlock. And yes, I do realize the inherent flaws in that incarnation of the class.
Another issue is the monster manual. I think while it is well laid out and overall in a good format. The monsters are...less than impressive. I realize again that streamlining is responsible and not altogether a bad thing, but stripping spell-like abilities from just about every monster, in favor of a few encounter powers does not a memorable encounter make. For example, take the Pit Fiend. Once a fearsome and sorcerous devil with many magical abiltities, now it is a Gargoyle on steroids with a few other abilities. I absolutely do not like this aspect of 4th edition and it caused nearly more negative reaction than anything else.
I also have a gut reaction of 'cookie-cutter' to the character classes. Not the abilities themselves, but the way that the classes are balanced. Every class is built along the exact same skein of power growth. There is no variance. This is not a bad thing for game balance per se, but I see it causing issues when someone starts getting multiple characters played over the course of a few adventures.
Final Overall: 4th edition does not flow. It is very hierarchal and strictly stratified. There are design and build choices that give some good flexibility, but gone is the ability to build a creative character for a specific purpose/path in favor of making sure every single character in the party stays at the exact same power level. Creativity should be encouraged and rewarded, not stifled.
Bear in mind folks, this is a GUT reaction. This is how the system seems to me after some in depth reading of the books.
After playing Kots I will have to say that the system is balanced combat has been streamlined. Class creation is somewhat easier with your character only gaining magic items a level below, above and equal to your level. Powers and abilities straight forward and easy to understand once yo know what you want to play.
Now my objections: Alignment. Putting CG and NG together as well as LE and NE together seems a bit much. No netrual alignments either just Unaligned. Remaining Unaligned seems to have the potential of being more abusive than CN 'I kill because I can and it I was right in the end anyways' argument or the LN 'no mercy attitude'.
This game is now basically a minis game or even more so a MMORPG. Me and my group have stated several times that this brings back memories and tactics that they have used in WoW and Everquest. I am the only one that has never played either of those games, but I am fan of FPS such as Rainbow Six and Socom so the tactics are not much different.
Aside from these two thing thats it. These things will not keep me from playing 4E or enjoying it. I truly believe though that my heart will always remain in 3E and 3.5. Beside unless Privateer Press releases that they are going to switch to 4E than I am most asured that I will continue to play 3.5. IK is, after all, my favorite campiagn setting.