Abandoning the fans?


4th Edition

201 to 250 of 638 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Todd Johnson wrote:
It's no big secret that Eberron is the new golden child campaign setting for WotC; it's the basis for DNDOnline, it's the "points of light in darkness" model that WotC has now tried to shoehorn Faerun into. Eberron will be the litmus test for what is good and playable for D&D, and the other campaign settings will be brought along in contrived ways for many years to come.

I agree that Forgotten Realms was butchered to make it fit the 4th edition model..

But Eberron is not even close to a Points of Light setting. Far from it.

If anything I have no idea how Eberron will fit 4th edition without some serious butchering on a bigger level than Forgotten Realms. The fact that WotC is sayign they wont mess with the timeline really has me curious how it will be pulled off.

I know you love the Realms and probably wont touch Eberron with a 20 foot pole and never really read anying about it...But saying that Eberron is a Points of Light setting is WAY off.

The Exchange

Jason Grubiak wrote:
If anything I have no idea how Eberron will fit 4th edition without some serious butchering on a bigger level than Forgotten Realms. The fact that WotC is sayign they wont mess with the timeline really has me curious how it will be pulled off.

I am curious - what do you see in Eberron that would require "serious butchering" to fit with the new rules?


Jason Grubiak wrote:
If anything I have no idea how Eberron will fit 4th edition without some serious butchering on a bigger level than Forgotten Realms.
crosswiredmind wrote:
I am curious - what do you see in Eberron that would require "serious butchering" to fit with the new rules?

I don't know what Jason has in mind, but I remain of the opinion (until I see otherwise) that dragonborn and teiflings will be forced into any and all supported settings.

Mark my words :)


Tatterdemalion wrote:
On this note, people might look carefully at hit points and healing surges. A 4e first-level fighter (with Con 14) has nearly 200 hp he/she can go through in a single day. A Wizard 1 (Con 10) can go through nearly 60 hp.
crosswiredmind wrote:
True. However, in any given encounter the fighter has 32 HP he can count on...

Point taken. My post would be misleading to anyone unfamiliar with the reles of healing surge.

But I still think it's an interesting (and unpleasant, to some) evolution in the game.

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:
But I still think it's an interesting (and unpleasant, to some) evolution in the game.

True. It really is not that big a deal to me for two reasons:

1. It gives the cleric something to do other than spontaneously cast cures and watch all the cool spells drop from the list as they get swapped out.

2. In 1982 I started playing RunQuest. In RQ everyone had healing magic. When I came back to D&D in 3e it seemed odd that only one class could do it and that is that they ever seemed to be doing.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:
I am curious - what do you see in Eberron that would require "serious butchering" to fit with the new rules?
Tatterdemalion wrote:
I don't know what Jason has in mind, but I remain of the opinion (until I see otherwise) that dragonborn and teiflings will be forced into any and all supported settings.

Given that the Eberron setting followed a policy of "Anything in D&D can have a place in Eberron", and given that they even produced a book the whole point of which was to explain how all sorts of crunch from different 3.5 supplements could fit into Eberron (i.e. the player's guide), I'd personally be shocked if they didn't show how to incorporate new races and classes. That would just mean staying consistent with their design philosophy.

I've only run one session of 4E at this moment, and I can already see how 4E is an amazingly good fit for Eberron. The PCs are exceptional individuals who can do things that most other people can't do? Check. PCs can pull off pulp-style daring rescues with panache? Check.


Matthew Morris wrote:
It's the per day thing that breaks the fourth wall for me.

Well, if you think an encounter power like something requires opportunity and luck, a "daily" would be something that requires extreme opportunity, luck, and bit of heroism.

Matthew Morris wrote:
I am curious, speaking as a 3e player, do the abilities ever get defined as supernatural or spell like for the non-casters?

Abilities aren't defined as supernatural or spell-like anymore. For purposes of damage resistance/vulnerability, ranger attack powers deal "Weapon" damage type. They have the "Martial" descriptor, but I don't know if this have any consequence.

countbuggula wrote:

It's not that a fighter should be able to do that whenever he wants to, but he should be able to try to do it whenever he wants to. That was the big difference between fighter feats and spells - spells you use up but have a bigger chance of succeeding each time. A combat feat can be attempted whenever you want, but you are always going to have to be skilled enough to succeed.

For example - say you're fighting someone who's several levels below you (maybe a horde of them attacked you or something). Would it be believable in that situation that he'd be able to pull off his awesome parry attack every time he wants to? Yes, because the opponent lacks the skill to prevent it, not because the warrior himself is somehow limited in how many tries per day or encounter he has to do it.

I kinda agree, but very few feats on 3.5E allowed your character to do spectacular things. It's kinda something that could be done on theory, but was never well done on practice. Maybe you could require a PC to pass on a DC 25 Tumble check before doing some special maneuver, but these additional checks slow down the combat, and led to players making calculations if it's worth to sacrifice XX% of hit to deal YY% of damage. This is not creativity or dynamism - this is math, like 3.5E Power Attack.

Another thing they tried on 3.5E were the Tactical Feats. These feats allowed the character to attempt some spetacular things if certain conditions (the so-called "opportunity") were met. Tactical feats, however, were complicated, difficult to track, and only useful on certain situations - something against the design principles of 4E.

I think that encounter/daily powers are a simple, efficient abstraction of things that your character can do, but "only at the right place and the right moment". There is no sacrifice of verisimilitude, unless the characters shout the name of the power before using them.

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Why else would they risk a possible disruption in supply? They wouldn't.

For the marketing value of being able to say "we sold out the first run already!". I wouldn't be shocked if capacity had already been reserved at their printer(s) of choice for a likely second run.

If that was the case there would be more than a tiny article about it. I doubt this was planned.

New to marketing ? :) Just kidding

This is exactly what i'do if I had doubts about my sales and wanted to boost them and claim a success regardless of truth.

Of course, this can't be verified either way.

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

Asmodeur wrote:
WotC boards are full of retards sadly, who are overly hostile no matter what. This hasn't do much to do with 4e, PFRPG or anything else, and more with the people who post there.

Please don't say things like that here.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Krauser_Levyl wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
It's the per day thing that breaks the fourth wall for me.

Well, if you think an encounter power like something requires opportunity and luck, a "daily" would be something that requires extreme opportunity, luck, and bit of heroism.

Matthew Morris wrote:
I am curious, speaking as a 3e player, do the abilities ever get defined as supernatural or spell like for the non-casters?

Abilities aren't defined as supernatural or spell-like anymore. For purposes of damage resistance/vulnerability, ranger attack powers deal "Weapon" damage type. They have the "Martial" descriptor, but I don't know if this have any consequence.

Interesting. 4e's still not my cup of tea, but now I'm really curious. Did the anti-magic shell go the way of ability damage? Or can a 10th level wizard be put in the bubble of no fun, but the 10th level fighter's daily 'mega-strike of death' works fine.

Liberty's Edge

Krauser_Levyl wrote:
I kinda agree, but very few feats on 3.5E allowed your character to do spectacular things. It's kinda something that could be done on theory, but was never well done on practice. Maybe you could require a PC to pass on a DC 25 Tumble check before doing some special maneuver, but these additional checks slow down the combat, and led to players making calculations if it's worth to sacrifice XX% of hit to deal YY% of damage. This is not creativity or dynamism - this is math, like 3.5E Power Attack.

I don't disagree here. Yes, like I've said before, the changes that they've made are great from a gameplay perspective. They make for faster combat with less math involved. But it also means we lose some of the flexibility we had before - and many of us liked that, even if it meant doing a few more calculations here and there. I know it sounds crazy, but some of us actually liked that part of combat.

Again, like I've said before, I don't think 4e is a bad rules set, and if they'd have just created a new IP for this new game I wouldn't have a single problem with it. The argument that WotC can't do that because they have few resources is bunk - they already have a Star Wars RPG, D&D, a D&D miniature rules game, etc. They could just as easily add one more to that. Instead they try to capitalize on the D&D brand name to exploit brand recognition, shoe-horning a very un-D&D game into the name in an effort to drive more sales. I mean think about it - if they have to introduce crazy cataclysmic events into every existing campaign setting just to explain all the changes, and writers like Rich Burlew decide not to switch Order of the Stick to 4e because half the characters simply can't exist anymore - is it really even D&D now or is it something else that's D&D in name only?


Matthew Morris wrote:
Did the anti-magic shell go the way of ability damage? Or can a 10th level wizard be put in the bubble of no fun, but the 10th level fighter's daily 'mega-strike of death' works fine.

Anti-magic shell, golem spell immunity, spell resistance, damage reduction, and similar concepts have all been eliminated as they prevented characters from fully participating in fights thereby making those fights boring for the effected players.


crosswiredmind wrote:
In RQ everyone had healing magic. When I came back to D&D in 3e it seemed odd that only one class could do it and that is that they ever seemed to be doing.

I understand if people don't like it.

But for thirty years character classes have been predicated upon the concept of filling different roles and requiring teamwork to survive. That's not part of the paradigm, now -- a party no longer needs a cleric, or a wizard, or a rogue, or any other specific class.

Not bad, maybe good, but I don't like it.


crosswiredmind wrote:
Jason Grubiak wrote:
If anything I have no idea how Eberron will fit 4th edition without some serious butchering on a bigger level than Forgotten Realms. The fact that WotC is sayign they wont mess with the timeline really has me curious how it will be pulled off.
I am curious - what do you see in Eberron that would require "serious butchering" to fit with the new rules?

Mainly the races.

Eberron does really revolve around the Dragonmarked Merchant Houses. Each house is dominated by a spacific race. Gnomes and Half-Orcs make up the Dragonmarked Houses.

Half-Dragons dont really exist. Well they do but dragons think they are an abomniation and destroy them on sight...So how do Dragonborn fit into the world?

And then theres the whole NOT being a points of light setting.


Why not just see what Keith Baker has to say about Eberron and 4E.

Eberron will have three products in 2009: a Campaign Guide, a Player's Guide and an adventure. That ends the planned run of Eberron books, though future books may be released if demand is high enough to justify it.

Keith Baker talks content on his blog:
Looking to the 4E Campaign Guide and the Player's Guide, I want to say that these are NOT simply 4E translations of the ECS and the PGtE. You're not going to see a lot of duplication of material between the two; because they are coming out around the same time, if there's material that is equally relevant to both PCs and DMs, it's going to go in the Player's Guide. So looking to the current ECS, things like feats, dragonmarks, racial descriptions, the artificer, spells, and so on would all go in the Player's Guide. Nation descriptions will be aimed at what you need to know to create a character from a particular region - as opposed to the Campaign Guide, which will tell you things like which noble may be undead, who wants to go back to war and who wants to stop it, and so on. First, this means that there will be a much clearer delineation of "These are things known to the public, and these aren't". Second, it means that we will have room in the Campaign Guide to present information NOT available in the 3.5 ECS... whether it's just a greater level of depth on old ideas or organizations (what's House Tarkanan up to? How do you actually use the Dreaming Dark?) or presenting a few entirely new ideas to play with. With the benefit of hindsight, there are certainly things I wish we'd done differently in the 3.5 ECS, along with issues where we've had conflicts and contradictions between sourcebooks in the following years. MY goal is to have the 4E core books provide a solid and consistent foundation for the setting, and to ensure that they are interesting and useful both to newcomers to Eberron and to people who have been playing it since the start. Of course, I'm not the only person working on the books, and a lot can happen over the course of a year - so I can't promise specific coverage on any specific topics or go into great detail about anything. However, I'm excited by the potential I see in these books, and I believe that we've got far more to offer than just a mechanical update to 4E.

Races

Dragonborn

In this post, Keith talks dragonborn:
I'll just say that I have a dragonborn PC in one of my Eberron playtest groups, and I love the backstory we've come up with for him. And this stage, I have no idea if it will turn out to be the final path the official setting material takes, but I think it's certainly possible to give the dragonborn a role that makes sense within the setting.

It's all how you define "relevant". As I've said before, what I want is a role that makes sense, and a role that provides players with a wide range of interesting hooks to use as the foundation for PCs. This doesn't require us to say "Oh, when we said 'orc' in the 3.5 Eberron, we actually meant 'dragonborn'."

Anything we do is going to require some shifting. If, for example, tieflings keep approximately the same role in Eberron that they have in the PHB (and I'm not saying they WILL, just saying IF), then they should be found in human cities, and you'd expect to have a tiefling community in Sharn... likely in Lower Dura or the Cogs. That's a change. However, it's not as much of a change as "House Thuranni? Don't you remember? They've always been tieflings."

Same thing with dragonborn. I want dragonborn to have a role that is both logical and supports a range of dragonborn PCs. This doesn't mean that we suddenly turn Karrnath into "The Kingdom of Dragonborn". But it may mean that when you encounter a dragonborn in Karrnath, people aren't all scratching their heads and saying "What is it? I've never seen anything like that before."

Dragonborn aren't half-dragons. They don't have dragon daddies. The relationship is far closer to Rhashaak and his blackscale lizardfolk... they are dragon-y, nothing more. The reason most of the dragons of Argonnessen dislike half-dragons is because they think they are disgusting - it's the way I'd expect most humans to feel if someone had sex with a dog and produced a creepy, stunted puppy with fingers on its front paws and a human nose and chin. It's an ugly, crippled little thing produced by perverse behavior, living proof that one of our own demeaned himself and his blood by breeding with one of these little rodents. Dragonborn, on the other hand, are more like a breed of dogs that are amusing because they act like humans - aww, look at his mouth, doesn't he look like he's smiling? And he can shake hands! But there's no creepy "When I look at you I am reminded that my uncle had sex with a maggot in order to produce you" that you get with half-dragons. (And not all dragons ARE against half-dragons - which is how you got Erandis d'Vol in the first place. Hey, some people LIKE having sex with dogs.)

Eladrin

Keith on Eladrin over at the official boards:
For what it's worth, I've come up with a way to work the eladrin into the world that I really like, both from a cosmological and roleplaying perspective. I'm not at liberty to provide details, and I don't know if it's the approach that will be used in the end. But as the guy who thought up the setting to begin with, *I* think that they can be brought into the world in a way that is both interesting and provides a wealth of story and roleplaying opportunities without completely shattering everything that's gone before.

Tieflings

Keith Baker on tieflings in the Players' Handbook, and as planetouched:
"In my opinion, if tieflings become a PHB race, the role of Eberron as a D&D setting means that Eberron must provide tieflings with viable and interesting roles as player characters. It's the PHB after all - emphasis on players. I feel that it is vital for tieflings to have a meaningful role in the world and to have a host of ideas for players to draw on for character inspiration. I do not feel that this in any way requires tieflings to exist in large numbers, to have a country of their own, or for that matter to be a true-breeding race. They might end up being any or all of these things - but I don't feel that we MUST do any of these just because it's the path the core setting follows. Eberron diverged from the 3.5 PHB in a number of ways, and I see no reason for 4E Eberron to be bound to do something a specific way simply because that's how the core setting does it. I want you to be excited and inspired to play a tiefling in 4E Eberron; I don't believe that this requires tieflings to be found on every Brelish street corner.

Now, I'll note that in the original message I posted, I suggested multiple possibilities for the tieflings. The idea of the tieflings as planetouched births was simply one of them - and an idea drawn off the top of my head, not an argument based on serious and extensive consideration of the issues involved. However, what most appeals to me about the tieflings - whatever path one takes - is the idea that their personalities are strongly influenced by one of the planes, the plane that has touched them at birth. So a tiefling tied to Shavarath is very different than one connected to Fernia. It's this that I think offers a vast trove to be plundered for character ideas; just considering it for a minute I can think of a half-dozen tiefling characters I'd like to play. And personally, I'd prefer them to be few in number in order to MAKE my Fernian tiefling feel rare and remarkable - not simply part of a village of Fernian tieflings in a nation of Fernian tieflings.

Again: the post I made way back when contained multiple ideas, and was more brainstorming than anything else. I can't say what will happen in the 4E ECS - and it's certainly valuable for me and the other designers to hear everyone's opinions and desires. But I don't believe that the presence of a race in the PHB requires equal representation in the world to all other races - provided that it has equal potential to create a wide range of fascinating player characters."
Keith again, this time on developing an identity for tieflings akin to racial cultures:
"Looking to the drow examples I gave, you could argue that it refers to drow cultures - Sulatar, Qaltiar, Umbragen - and that these are thus based on the drow having nations and population. My point is simply that whether or not the tieflings have a significant population, what they have are the planes, and that's what really interests me - the way in which the planes have touched them, and how this bond continues to influence them over the course of their lives. A connection to the Sulatar offers distinctly different options for a drow character than a tie to the children of Vulkoor. How is the child of Shavarath different from the scion of Mabar? This is what intrigues ME about tieflings, and what I really want to explore. The nature of tiefling births, the number of tieflings in the world, the question of whether they have a stronger presence than, for example, changelings - these are all still up in the air. But it's the influence of the planes that fascinates me, and one way or another, that's what I'd like to develop further."

Warforged

Races and Classes on Warforged: "They no longer carry a list of immunities, but warforged are still an attractive option for fighters, paladins, and warlords who can benefit from the stamina and endurance that come with this race."
In his blog, Andy Collins mentioned that warforged might be among the races in the Monster Manual presented for use as a player characters. This seems to confirm, at least indirectly, that warforged are appearing the in the first MM.
An article called Return of the Warforged is due to appear in the first 4th Edition Dragon magazine, #364. From the official site:
Return of the Warforged
Introducing new options for warforged characters, expanding on the material for the race in the Monster Manual.
So now we have confirmation warforged are in the MM, and that they'll be playable from the word go.

Shifters

A shifter miniature, the cliffwalk archer, appears in the Desert of Desolation set. Since "all Desert of Desolation creatures will appear in the 4th edition D&D Monster Manual", we'll have them right from the start, at least as monsters.
Concept art for a shifter ranger appears on page 95 of Races and Classes
Keith's first mention of shifters in 4e can be found in this thread.
I'll just note that I have a player in one of my playtest groups playing a shifter. While I can't give specifics, I think the 4E translation works well. I'm not claiming it's a revelation, since I'm providing no real information. I'm just saying that the MM provides enough information about shifters to have fun with them from day one.
Changelings


Tatterdemalion wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
In RQ everyone had healing magic. When I came back to D&D in 3e it seemed odd that only one class could do it and that is that they ever seemed to be doing.

I understand if people don't like it.

But for thirty years character classes have been predicated upon the concept of filling different roles and requiring teamwork to survive. That's not part of the paradigm, now -- a party no longer needs a cleric, or a wizard, or a rogue, or any other specific class.

Not bad, maybe good, but I don't like it.

The party no longer explicitly needs a cleric, but it does need a leader. You can only use second wind once per encounter, which consumes a healing surge. The bad part is that its a standard action, meaning that you can do that, and then try to move away. Perhaps some kind of minor ability if you have it. What this does is pretty much let the monsters have a free turn to rail on you.

Since its only once per encounter, you either need magic items to let you do it again, or a leader. The only magic item that springs to mind that lets you zap yourself with a healing surge is dwarven armor, which also lets you do it as a free action. Its only once per day, however.

Leader classes can trigger your healing surges as a minor action to themselves only: this doesnt affect your second wind ability, nor does it affect your actions. Clerics and warlords also have abilities that burn your healing surges but add a little to it (such as +1d6 to the normal amount).
Clerics have curing prayers that heal you for damage as if you did a second wind, but you dont: free healing!

The good thing is that in 4th Edition, you dont need certain classes. You need certain roles, and you can get away without some others. I think that a leader is key, and a defender is the next slot that needs filling. If you dont have a leader, I cannot foresee a party lasting very long once you start fighting things that deal ongoing damage and penalties that require saves to negate (leaders can trigger free saves). Do you need a rogue, specifically? No. You can always burn a feat to get training in Thievery to handle the trap element, but you dont absolutely have to have a rogue in order to get by traps or locks. This isnt a bad thing and could actually help role-playing, as a fighter could never keep up with the Disable Device/Open Lock/Search DCs in 3rd Edition, even if they somehow had six skill points to spend each level in order to max out their cross-class ranks.
Now, its possible that a fighter growing up on the street could have learned a trick or two before taking a more martial path (perhaps as a bodyguard to a local kingpin).


Abandoned? Not so much as this fan abandoning them. When 3.0 changed to 3.5 is was made smooth with conversion rules. Even though you left behind hundreds of dollars in books you still had your character and felt like they were fixing instead of replacing a set a rules.

Wizards crowded themselves out of broad audience books to produce. So like a community that has grown self reliant and comfortable but with little room to sell new the builder started to make plans. The builder now starts over, advertising that the old community they sold you is boring and hard to use. I see through their marketing plan and instead stay where I've like it for the past few years. No longer dependent on Wizards they can go to hades for all I care. Wouldn't notice a difference if they went belly up tomorrow.

Besides I have a renovator that asks what the community wants fixed without telling us to get a new one. Thank you Paizo I for one am very grateful for Pathfinder RPG. You have a fan now.

As far as 4ed and Role Playing. The game system has little to do with it. Heck, I role play at chess and warhammer fantasy. True role playing is something that can be done with or without a system.

Liberty's Edge

Antioch wrote:
Now, its possible that a fighter growing up on the street could have learned a trick or two before taking a more martial path (perhaps as a bodyguard to a local kingpin).

Yeah...um...in 3rd edition that would be called taking a level or two in rogue before multiclassing to Fighter.

A fighter that "learned a trick or two" about picking locks should never be nearly as skilled at the trade as a dedicated rogue.


Tatterdemalion wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
In RQ everyone had healing magic. When I came back to D&D in 3e it seemed odd that only one class could do it and that is that they ever seemed to be doing.

I understand if people don't like it.

But for thirty years character classes have been predicated upon the concept of filling different roles and requiring teamwork to survive. That's not part of the paradigm, now -- a party no longer needs a cleric, or a wizard, or a rogue, or any other specific class.

Not bad, maybe good, but I don't like it.

It's more accurate to say that on 4E you don't need a cleric, and on prev. editions you needed a cleric - but you didn't need anything else beyond a cleric. In fact, I've run a 45 adventures 2E/3E campaign where the party was composed by 3 wizards, 1 cleric, and 1 paladin, and later changed to 2 wizards, 2 clerics and 1 paladin. Once I started a 3.5E campaign without any clerics in the group, and I could see how players suffer by spending all their resources on potions of healing.

I don't see any reason for clerics having to be "more special than any other class". Or else, the game should be called "Dungeons & Clerics."

Dark Archive

Kruelaid wrote:

I'm not seeing the grognard accusations these days. A lot of L337 jabber, though.

Just an observation.

Well I'm going to throw my 3.5 books into my carry bag next to Frederic Grognard's thesis and ride to my next gaming session on my Grognard bicycle.

Dark Archive

tadkil wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

But yeah, it's a three year program, you take the bar after your done, sell your soul, and bam, begin practicing.

Dr. Sebastian

When do you get the number of the beast branded on your wrist and the government tracking chip installed?

Only after you sign up for the JAG program. Or maybe if you become an IG somewhere.

Dark Archive

Iron Sentinel wrote:
Forgottenprince wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Forgottenprince wrote:

Trust me, you don't want to know (and may not get) what lawyers find funny... Here's a tip, if you want to make a lawyer groan say "Pennoyer v Neff."

I'll see your Pennoyer v. Neff and raise you an International Shoe.
I'll see your International Shoe and raise you Asahi plus Grey since we're talking Civ Pro.
Oh yeah? Well I'll raise you an Erie Railroad Comapany. If that doesn't do it, then how about a change over to the Rule Against Perpetuities?

I see you Erie Railroad and raise you Reynolds V. U.S. and in the spirit of this tread Standard Oil v. U.S.


Matthew Morris wrote:

Yes, yes it is. Any incarnation of Any RPG should reward a player for creativity and Player/GM Co-operation.

And I've no idea where you get Elephants from Helm's Deep.

Awarding a player for creativity does not necessitate that you let him move and make a full attack (3.x rules).

And about the elephant thing, I was thinking at the scene where he is climbing up and down the elephant at the end battle of "the return of the king" - my bad.

Either way, the point still stands. I apologize if you took it as inflammatory. It must be a cultural thing.

The shop-owner meant that 4e is will appeal to those who like the over-the-top heroics. His comment has little to do with powers or how often characters can do stuff in 4e. I think you have misunderstood the statement, as it in no way reflects the rules of 4e.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Krauser_Levyl wrote:

Once I started a 3.5E campaign without any clerics in the group, and I could see how players suffer by spending all their resources on potions of healing.

I don't see any reason for clerics having to be "more special than any other class". Or else, the game should be called "Dungeons & Clerics."

I was a little concerned when my players didn't make up a cleric for the Shackled City campaign. But they've got a druid, a paladin, and a dragon shaman and seem to be doing just fine half-way through the campaign. Yes, they go through wands of cure light and cure moderate wounds, but those aren't that expensive.


I don't feel abandoned. If anything, I feel like I'm a customer again. They abandoned me with 3E and I went back to Rolemaster, d20 Modern, and 2E (would have played more AD&D but all my players own 2E), which was by far more fun than any 3E game I've ever experienced. Tastes differ, though, so I'm sure each edition will abandon some while embracing others. It's the nature of the beast. You can't please everyone, and really shouldn't try.


Count Buggula wrote:
Antioch wrote:
Now, its possible that a fighter growing up on the street could have learned a trick or two before taking a more martial path (perhaps as a bodyguard to a local kingpin).

Yeah...um...in 3rd edition that would be called taking a level or two in rogue before multiclassing to Fighter.

A fighter that "learned a trick or two" about picking locks should never be nearly as skilled at the trade as a dedicated rogue.

Ah, just like the character that somehow a 3rd Edition character can have 15 ranks in a Craft skill despite never using it?

I'm sorry, but a 4th Edition fighter would be reliably competent enough to actually use his Thievery skill when the situation arose, therefore justifying his increased bonus in its use. A 3rd Edition fighter would not be capable in either Search OR Disable Device to do the same. Thanks for playing, though.

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:
But for thirty years character classes have been predicated upon the concept of filling different roles and requiring teamwork to survive. That's not part of the paradigm, now -- a party no longer needs a cleric, or a wizard, or a rogue, or any other specific class.

In 4e a party needs a solid and diversified composition. That has not changed. What has changed is that the slots are not filled by just one class - other than Wizard. Traps can be disarmed by Warlocks or Rogues since they can both have Thievery as a trained skill. A party needs a cleric or a warlord since they both have a decent capacity to heal.

4e has more flexibility when it comes to party composition but you would be hard pressed to function without certain classes being present.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Antioch wrote:


Ah, just like the character that somehow a 3rd Edition character can have 15 ranks in a Craft skill despite never using it?

You're assuming he's not doing some of that in his downtime? Since he's spending ranks in it, I would assume he's getting his practice in whenever he can. If he wants to invest in something he never uses in the foreground, that's his choice.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Antioch wrote:


Ah, just like the character that somehow a 3rd Edition character can have 15 ranks in a Craft skill despite never using it?

You're assuming he's not doing some of that in his downtime? Since he's spending ranks in it, I would assume he's getting his practice in whenever he can. If he wants to invest in something he never uses in the foreground, that's his choice.

No more than you were assuming that the fighter trained in Thievery wouldnt be actively using it, either.


crosswiredmind wrote:
I have heard from a more than a few people here that Wizards has abandoned their fans with 4e.

Maybe a different way of saying it is that WoC felt it was time to evaluate their market segments and design their product/strategy to meet different product segment needs. Since there are fundamental rule changes in 4.0 (like spell slots vs encounter powers, fluff changes, etc.) those of us in the the 'old' market segment feel the product is no longer right for us. We feel our product has been taken away. And to add insult to injury some of our favorites like Dragon Magazine (not eZine) are 'abandoned'.

4.0 might be 'better' but it is not 'my game' like the old one was. Or at least it is not 'my game' yet. ;p

Anyways, WotC did move their product into a new market segment. The revolution was predictable. The only thing left is to see how things are when the dust settles. What was unpredictable was the acidic nature of the boards. But being a fence sitter it can be fun to watch!

Liberty's Edge

Duncan & Dragons wrote:
What was unpredictable was the acidic nature of the boards. But being a fence sitter it can be fun to watch!

Voyeuristic Sadist...

J/K


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Duncan & Dragons wrote:
What was unpredictable was the acidic nature of the boards.

You're new to the internet, aren't you? ;)

One of the few really predictable things, I thought, was the acidity on the boards. Saw it in the run up to 3E. Even without the internet, saw plenty of it in the run-up to 2e (though of course in smaller scale).


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Antioch wrote:


No more than you were assuming that the fighter trained in Thievery wouldnt be actively using it, either.

Which is why, in 3e, I would expect the character to invest his ranks accordingly. If his main class development's focus on other skills limited his ultimate potential in roguish skills, that was fine with me. It's not like the character was living in a modern game with easy access to effective cross-training.

The Exchange

Duncan & Dragons wrote:
What was unpredictable was the acidic nature of the boards.
Bill Dunn wrote:
You're new to the internet, aren't you? ;)

LOL Yes, I am. I started going to ENWorld when 3.0 came out and did not knwow they had boards. Then I started coming to Paizo to look at their products and discovered the boards. I lurked until 4.0 and I guess I have recently seen the worst of our sub-cultures behavior.

'As someone once said, civilized men are coarser than barbarians because they know they can be rude without having their heads split open, as a general thing.' The internet society has devolved civilized men from being 'coarser' to being down right rude.

I acknowledge that this quote is someone's signature line. Maybe this is what they meant.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Bill Dunn wrote:


One of the few really predictable things, I thought, was the acidity on the boards. Saw it in the run up to 3E. Even without the internet, saw plenty of it in the run-up to 2e (though of course in smaller scale).

Sort of. Really, the online buzz about 3rd edition was very positive. With the game nearly dead, people were pretty excited about something new.

The Exchange

Bill Dunn wrote:
One of the few really predictable things, I thought, was the acidity on the boards. Saw it in the run up to 3E. Even without the internet, saw plenty of it in the run-up to 2e (though of course in smaller scale).
Russ Taylor wrote:
Sort of. Really, the online buzz about 3rd edition was very positive. With the game nearly dead, people were pretty excited about something new.

I also remember it being positive. It got me back in the game.

Grand Lodge

Russ Taylor wrote:
the online buzz about 3rd edition was very positive.

Sadly, I remember the negative when 3e came on the scene...

I remember comments that the "look" of most of the characters (i.e. the sketches that were to become the iconic characters), looked like they should have a blaster pistol at their hip instead of a sword...

Not to mention, the out-cry from the FR fans...

Such as, the Simbul had always been a sorcerer, nobody ever bothered to check...

Or the whole incredible shrinking continent...

Or the fact that the Realms were not a part of "The Great Wheel" (and never had been, it was all just a bad dream)...

The list goes on, and much of what I heard back then is being repeated now over 4e. The difference is that back then I saw 3e as still being D&D. I cannot say that of 4e...

My first thought after having read through the [3e] books was that they recaptured the feel of 1e (then Necromancer Games comes out with their "First Edition Feel" motto/slogan). I just don't see the feel of 1e with 4e that a few here on this thread have talked about...

Maybe I'm just an old dog that cannot be taught new tricks...

But at least I'm a happy old dog with my old school (3.x) D&D...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Mandor wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Did the anti-magic shell go the way of ability damage? Or can a 10th level wizard be put in the bubble of no fun, but the 10th level fighter's daily 'mega-strike of death' works fine.
Anti-magic shell, golem spell immunity, spell resistance, damage reduction, and similar concepts have all been eliminated as they prevented characters from fully participating in fights thereby making those fights boring for the effected players.

Ah, now this nails on the head why I said that WotC didn't 'abandon' me, we simply grew apart.

I like my anti-magic, golem immunities, spell resistances, material based DR and similar concepts. I didn't look at it as 'boring' simply as an additional challenge.

anti-magic was a chance for the fighter to shine, or the wizard to get creative. The classic spell 'Boulder to pebble' appears in Eldrich Sorcery (Necromancer Games) and was a good antimagic shell counter, when mixed with a sling.

Golem Immunities again allowed the fighter to shine, or the wizard to be creative. You could use knowlege Arcana/Religion to know the counters, or come up with your own. Golem charges towards you? Transmute rock to mud, dispel magic.

Spell Resistances simply added a level of variability to the game.

Material Based DR? Some argue about the 'Golf bag of weapons' Again I looked at it as a challenge to overcome, whether it by by the golf bag, power attack, or things like the rogue sneak attacking the werewolf.

Like I said, different strokes for different folks.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Mandor wrote:


anti-magic was a chance for the fighter to shine, or the wizard to get creative. The classic spell 'Boulder to pebble' appears in Eldrich Sorcery (Necromancer Games) and was a good antimagic shell counter, when mixed with a sling.

They "stole" that from WoTC :) It was originally in 2nd edition Tome of Magic, and already awesome there..


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Krauser_Levyl wrote:
Once I started a 3.5E campaign without any clerics in the group, and I could see how players suffer by spending all their resources on potions of healing.

Bard/rogue, paladin, ranger, wizard. Three wands of cure light wounds (cost 750 gp for 50d8+50 points of healing each, or 15 gp per 1d8+1). The bard, paladin, and ranger can all use the wands without needing Use Magic Device checks from 1st level. Plus, all of the healing eggs aren't in the same basket.

Antioch wrote:
A 3rd Edition fighter would not be capable in either Search OR Disable Device to do the same. Thanks for playing, though.

*cough*

Rogue1/fighter (Thug variant) putting maximum ranks in Search and Disable Device (4 each as rogue at 1st level, 2 CC ranks each as thug)
*cough*

A human with 12 Int would also be able to max out Open Lock. Alternately, a human rogue 1/fighter could take the Able Learner feat from Races of Destiny (all skills cost 1 skill point per rank) and max out Disable Device, Open Lock, and Search without needing more than 10 Int or using the Thug variant.


Actually KODT's boards are pretty much like here.
http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=211
They won't tolerate the same type of flaming as this place doesn't allow.

The fact that 4E is D&D in name only is born out by the impossibility of compairing 3.5 and 4E.
It's a totally different game engine.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Asmodeur wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Mandor wrote:


anti-magic was a chance for the fighter to shine, or the wizard to get creative. The classic spell 'Boulder to pebble' appears in Eldrich Sorcery (Necromancer Games) and was a good antimagic shell counter, when mixed with a sling.
They "stole" that from WoTC :) It was originally in 2nd edition Tome of Magic, and already awesome there..

Thus my comment of 'classic.'

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

...I have nothing constructive to add. I play Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

DitheringFool wrote:
...I have nothing constructive to add. I play Pathfinder.

What a strange coincidence, so do I!

The Exchange

Goth Guru wrote:
It's a totally different game engine.

How so? It is still d20+modifiers compared to target number. It still has class, level, HP, XP, AC, Fort, Ref, Will, STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, CHA, elves, dwarves, orcs, standard action, move actions, attacks of opportunity, skills, feats, etc. etc. etc.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Antioch wrote:


No more than you were assuming that the fighter trained in Thievery wouldnt be actively using it, either.
Which is why, in 3e, I would expect the character to invest his ranks accordingly. If his main class development's focus on other skills limited his ultimate potential in roguish skills, that was fine with me. It's not like the character was living in a modern game with easy access to effective cross-training.

The difference is that in 3E, the fighter will gradually fall behind and eventually become useless at doing what he was doing before. The 4th Edition character will not. The notion of Skill Training is yet another "multiclassing" feature in disguise, allowing more flexible and useful character concepts.

Pump your cross-class ranks into two out of three skills all you want, you wont be good at it, and you'll also suck at the stuff that you might have been good at (Climb and Jump, for example).

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

crosswiredmind wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
It's a totally different game engine.
How so? It is still d20+modifiers compared to target number. It still has class, level, HP, XP, AC, Fort, Ref, Will, STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, CHA, elves, dwarves, orcs, standard action, move actions, attacks of opportunity, skills, feats, etc. etc. etc.

Well, let's see....

D20+modifiers vs. DC: check

Words that have drastically changed meanings or implementations:
class, level, HP, XP, Fort, Ref, Will, Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha, elves, dwarves, orcs, move action (other than using it to move), attack of opportunity, skills, feats

Words that mostly mean the same thing:
AC, standard action, move action (when used to move)

A lot of the key words are the same, but they don't stand for the same things.


*cough*
Rogue1/fighter (Thug variant) putting maximum ranks in Search and Disable Device (4 each as rogue at 1st level, 2 CC ranks each as thug)
*cough*

And all it takes is using an optional rule source and ensuring that you have no other skills at your disposal. Meanwhile, I dont need an optional source to achieve the same thing but without burning all my skill resources.


Russ Taylor wrote:


Well, let's see....

D20+modifiers vs. DC: check

Words that have drastically changed meanings or implementations:
class, level, HP, XP, Fort, Ref, Will, Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha, elves, dwarves, orcs, move action (other than using it to move), attack of opportunity, skills, feats

Words that mostly mean the same thing:
AC, standard action, move action (when used to move)

A lot of the key words are the same, but they don't stand for the same things.

I'll spot you Fort/Ref/Will, although really its just a use of the "attacker always rolls" variant from Unearthed Arcana. But how do you see the other ones differing from their 3E implementations?

Grand Lodge

David Marks wrote:
But how do you see the other ones differing from their 3E implementations?

Oh, I don't know, let's see...

How about non-clerics being able to heal themselves (and I don't bloody care if it's a once per day use or not)?

How does one that likes to ground game effects/abilities with some sort of believable explanation explain that one in-game?

With retro-fit: It was always like that? Okay, that's a good one...

Sorry, starting to bash 4e...

I'll just step away from the keyboard right now and take a breather (or is that my "second wind"?)...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

201 to 250 of 638 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Abandoning the fans? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.