Abandoning the fans?


4th Edition

251 to 300 of 638 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Digitalelf wrote:


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-

I didn't declare that there WEREN'T any differences. I'll admit there are many. But Russ declared that many of the similarities no longer mean the same thing, which I find patently true. Of those terms he listed, how do they differ from their meaning in 3E?

Grand Lodge

David Marks wrote:
I didn't declare that there WEREN'T any differences. I'll admit there are many. But Russ declared that many of the similarities no longer mean the same thing, which I find patently true. Of those terms he listed, how do they differ from their meaning in 3E?

Well, strip all my sarcasm away, and what I am really getting at is HP... It seems hit points are now just a number that tells the player how long he or she can survive in combat, and not thier overall health and well-being (can't begin to count how many times one of my players was running around with only half his hit point total because no cleric was nearby)...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-


Digitalelf wrote:


Well, strip all my sarcasm away, and what I am really getting at is HP... It seems hit points are now just a number that tells the player how long he or she can survive in combat, and not thier overall health and well-being (can't begin to count how many times one of my players was running around with only half his hit point total because no cleric was nearby)...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

That situation is still possible in 4E, if all of the character's healing surges are exhausted.

More over, HP has always been how long you can survive in combat. Said 3E character running around at 50% total health suffers no ill affects representing being at half of their total well being. They are not risking disease (unless fighting dirty monsters) because of their open wounds. They suffer no blood loss or diminished level of ability because of their injuries.

4E reduces the two or three days of rest needed to heal (unaided) in 3E to just one day, but this doesn't change the fact that someone who understands the concept of HP in 3E understands the concept of HP in 4E. They're the same.

Cheers! :)

Grand Lodge

David Marks wrote:

4E reduces the two or three days of rest needed to heal (unaided) in 3E to just one day, but this doesn't change the fact that someone who understands the concept of HP in 3E understands the concept of HP in 4E. They're the same.

Cheers! :)

In most RPGs the concept of hit points is the same (note, I said most), be they called health, wounds, or what have you. The concept is the same...

In prior editions of D&D, HP have always tried to be somewhat realistic (if not too simplistic), in that yeah, unaided it would take you two or more days to heal up...

So yeah, if you go by the stance of "a hit point is a hit point" then you are correct...

I just don't like my character totally filled with Uber-Goodness from day one...

Just my opinion...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

David Marks wrote:
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?

Keeping this brief, this is my no means exhaustive, just a few examples.

Class: the classes aren't even remotely the same. Enough said.

Level: The rules change at 11th and again at 21st. This is a fairly new concept, even for Epic (which mostly changed things *going forward*, not things you already had)

HP: The hp system is radically altered. Don't really want to go into this, but healing surges are a huge change to the hp mechanic, as is the process of dying.

The stats: Any ability can now control attack and damage. The meanings of which abilities help initiative and defense have been changed. Con doesn't affect your HP or healing much anymore. You can't say "I have a high Str, so I'm good at melee" now - it'll depend on your powers.

Races: wholescale revamping of races, so I don't see saying that a dwarf is still a dwarf as being a valid point. 2nd -> 3rd was just as radical a shift, though.

Move actions: most manipulation actions are now minor. This consitutes a large shift.

AoOs: Everyone now has combat reflexes and then some, and no reach with their AoOs. Consitutes a big change.

Skills: radically revamped. Some skills share a name, but not that many mechanics ported over.

Feats: major changes to what feats are there, and what many of them do. Many 3rdE class abilities turned into feats.

Sharing a name doesn't make something similar beyond the shared name.


crosswiredmind wrote:

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

How is that even vaguely possible given the dramatic pace of sales - outstripping even WotC's predictions.

That's apples and oranges. Yes, the preorders to book and game stores has been very high, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a significant minority that does somehow feel slighted and abandoned by the move to 4E. For the most part, this minority simply doesn't like where the new rules have taken the game so they are bothered that the game has gone somewhere that they don't wish to follow - the the feelings of abandonment.

There's also the terrible marketing job the WoTC has done. One of the ways they've been promoting the game is by saying that previous versions of the game are bad, wrong, and faulty. This means that people who enjoy these earlier versions of the game are likely to get defensive and angry. A much smarter tactic would have been to sell the improvements without attacking what many people do like.

Also, decisions like yanking Dungeon and Dragon from being published magazines without providing a working alternative (and what we've had for the past near year isn't really a working alternative) created a lot of bad feelings.

Finally, the whole fiasco over the GSL and the end of a true Open license for D&D bothers another portion of the community. Again, it's another case of WoTC taking D&D to a place some people don't want to follow.

So there are lots of reasons for some people to feel abandoned. Just because the game sells well doesn't mean that there aren't a number of people out there who feel abandoned. It's even possible that this group will still buy the core books, that wouldn't necessarily invalidate their feelings of abandonment. All it means is that they bought the books. It could have been for curiosity. It could have been so they could log on and post all the ways that the books prove their points on 4E not being D&D anymore. Or it might be because they were still hoping that they are wrong - that 4E is still D&D and that they were not really abandoned.

I think if you really want to have this discussion, you should do it a few months or even a year or so down the road and see what happens to those feelings of abandonment. Perhaps the "abandoned" crowd will have come to embrace 4E and no longer feel abandoned. Or perhaps there will still be a vocal group out there doing their own thing and still decrying 4E for abandoning the spirit of what they feel is D&D. Or perhaps they will have left the hobby completely.


Zil wrote:


That's apples and oranges. Yes, the preorders to book and game stores has been very high, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a significant minority that does somehow feel slighted and abandoned by the move to 4E. For the most part, this minority simply doesn't like where the new rules have taken the game so they are bothered that the game has gone somewhere that they don't wish to follow - the the feelings of abandonment.

Unfortunately, you can't ever accommodate those who are not in favor of an overhaul of any product. The only way to prevent these ill feelings is by never putting out a new edition.

Zil wrote:


Also, decisions like yanking Dungeon and Dragon from being published magazines without providing a working alternative (and what we've had for the past near year isn't really a working alternative) created a lot of bad feelings.

Finally, the whole fiasco over the GSL and the end of a true Open license for D&D bothers another portion of the community. Again, it's another case of WoTC taking D&D to a place some people don't want to follow.

I can't argue that ending Dungeon and Dragon was a good move for us, but there are plenty of fans of D&D who didn't read either, and don't care for 3rd party material.

So, yeah, there are fans who feel abandoned, but is that feeling really disproportionate from the perspective of a major edition rollover?


Russ Taylor wrote:


Keeping this brief, this is my no means exhaustive, just a few examples.

Class: the classes aren't even remotely the same. Enough said.

I can tell this is going to be a long slog. I don't think the classes are as different as you claim. What does a Cleric do in 3E? Cast divine spells, mostly of the healing/buffing type, with some booms thrown in. 4E Cleric? Pretty much same. Rangers are a bit different in 4E, having lost all spell casting and their animal companions, and Wizards have lost a few schools of magic. But most classes? Pretty much the same.

Russ Taylor wrote:


Level: The rules change at 11th and again at 21st. This is a fairly new concept, even for Epic (which mostly changed things *going forward*, not things you already had)

I'm not sure what you mean about the rules changing for each tier. Are you talking about picking a PP or ED? I just don't see it ... if nothing else, the rules change LESS with level than in 3E, where switching to Epic levels (21+) changes everyones BAB and save advancement to 1/2 level.

Russ Taylor wrote:


HP: The hp system is radically altered. Don't really want to go into this, but healing surges are a huge change to the hp mechanic, as is the process of dying.

As I already said, HPs are still the same, and anyone understanding how HP work (in pretty much any game, really) understands how they work in 4E. Healing Surges introduce a new mechanic for healing, but that is really something separate from the concept of HP itself.

Russ Taylor wrote:


The stats: Any ability can now control attack and damage. The meanings of which abilities help initiative and defense have been changed. Con doesn't affect your HP or healing much anymore. You can't say "I have a high Str, so I'm good at melee" now - it'll depend on your powers.

The stats all have the same meanings as before. Your basic melee attack IS still modified by your Str, and your basic ranged attack is modified by your Dex. Con gives more HP. Skills haven't (as far as I've noticed) changed the stat they rely on for the most part (I think the Knowledge Religion and Nature analogues now use Wis but that was all that jumped out at me.) Some stats have additional affects, but the only one that seems to have been dropped was Int's extra skills.

Russ Taylor wrote:


Races: wholescale revamping of races, so I don't see saying that a dwarf is still a dwarf as being a valid point. 2nd -> 3rd was just as radical a shift, though.

I'm not sure what to say here. If you really think the change is that radical for races, I don't think we can really see eye to eye on any of these changes (which probably isn't surprising).

I'm not gonna finish your list, since this post is already pretty long, and it seems obvious that we disagree on some very fundamental concepts. I still stand by my assertion that 4E isn't as radically different as some here make it out to be, but I hold few delusions of being able to convince anyone of that fact.

Still, thanks for an interesting view of the other side. Can't say I totally understand it, but I always enjoy seeing things from different PoVs.


Eh, "sales figures" are just another form of statistic that can be twisted to mean what you want. Sure, 4e is selling many copies. Wizards could crap between two pages and put it out, and it'd sell more copies than a brilliant indie game, just due to their market share and store penetration.

It's like Windows Vista. By anyone's estimation, a clusterf***. But, Microsoft can say "well, it's selling more copies than any other OS! Woot!"

So their first print run sold out quick - unimpressive, since all those sales are prerelease, and no one had even seen the game yet! The test will be whether their sales remain good once the initial spike is over, and whether people will be pleased enough to continue to invest in it.


I'll compromise.
Advanced (IE Second Edition) to 3rd and 3rd to 3.5 were minor shifts.
3.5 to 4.0 is a major shift.

Most of my point is that some comparisons of 3.5 to 4.0 are moot,
not because of ignorance, but because the rules are so different.
The saves of various classes are not the same in 4.0.
There really are no saving throws in 4.0.
Are rogues better able to dodge spells in 4.0?
Are spell casters better able to resist mind control?
Are fighters better able to survive exposure to poison?

Comparisons have to be results oriented.

The Exchange

Russ Taylor wrote:
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.

level - same as it ever was

HP - same as it ever was
STR - same as it ever was
CON - same as it ever was
DEX - same as it ever was
INT - same as it ever was
WIS - same as it ever was
CHA - same as it ever was
elves - same as it ever was
dwarves - same as it ever was
orcs - same as it ever was
move action - same as it ever was
attack of opportunity - same as it ever was
skills - same as it ever was
feats - same as it ever was

Every edition tweaks the familiar to fit the new paradigm but the core remains the same.

The Exchange

Digitalelf wrote:
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)?

In 3e rangers, bards, paladins, favored souls, and some I am forgetting could all heal themselves. Heck - anyone with a potion could heal themselves with the same ammount of effort as Second Wind in 4e.

The Exchange

Goth Guru wrote:
Are rogues better able to dodge spells in 4.0?

Yes - higher reflex defense.

Goth Guru wrote:
Are spell casters better able to resist mind control?

Yes - higher will defense.

Goth Guru wrote:
Are fighters better able to survive exposure to poison?

Yes - higher fortitude defense.

Goth Guru wrote:
Comparisons have to be results oriented.

Yep. I agree.


crosswiredmind wrote:


level - same as it ever was
HP - same as it ever was
STR - same as it ever was
CON - same as it ever was
DEX - same as it ever was
INT - same as it ever was
WIS - same as it ever was
CHA - same as it ever was
elves - same as it ever was
dwarves - same as it ever was
orcs - same as it ever was
move action - same as it ever was
attack of opportunity - same as it ever was
skills - same as it ever was
feats - same as it ever was

Every edition tweaks the familiar to fit the new paradigm but the core remains the same.

Crosswiredmind:

The DRAGONWARRIORS game (published back in the 1980's) featured Strength, Reflexes, Psychic Talent, Intelligence, and Looks ability scores, hp totals, levels, orcs, dwarves, and elves. Would you say that that makes it D&D?

The Exchange

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Crosswiredmind:

The DRAGONWARRIORS game (published back in the 1980's) featured Strength, Reflexes, Psychic Talent, Intelligence, and Looks ability scores, hp totals, levels, orcs, dwarves, and elves. Would you say that that makes it D&D?

All RPGs have some similarities to some edition of D&D. 4e has more than some.

If a gamer that never liked D&D played 4e they would not like it for the exact same reasons.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

David Marks wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean about the rules changing for each tier. Are you talking about picking a PP or ED? I just don't see it ... if nothing else, the rules change LESS with level than in 3E, where switching to Epic levels (21+) changes everyones BAB and save advancement to 1/2 level.

You might need to read the PH more thoroughly. The rules are filled with things that change as you go into higher tiers, including the costs for raising you from the dead, the way various feats work, how often you can use magic items, how your at wills work, and how much damage you do on crits with certain weapons. It might be a little more tolerable to me if this was spread out better, rather than most all of it happening at 11th or 21st. As it is, it comes across as gain 1 level, play a different game. I don't see this as being that comparable to the Epic of old with BAB/Save changes, though the change in the rules at Epic in 3rd was one of the reasons I never bother with Epic play. Still, at least going Epic wouldn't make me suddenly harder to raise from the dead.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

crosswiredmind wrote:
If a gamer that never liked D&D played 4e they would not like it for the exact same reasons.

I don't see that as being true. This edition doesn't play like 3rd edition. 3rd edition didn't play that much like 2nd edition, although the spread wasn't as great as in this new version. 1st and 2nd did play mostly the same.

It's quite possible to love the mechanics of 1st and hate 4th, and certainly some people who hated D&D before like 4th now.

The Exchange

Russ Taylor wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
If a gamer that never liked D&D played 4e they would not like it for the exact same reasons.

I don't see that as being true. This edition doesn't play like 3rd edition. 3rd edition didn't play that much like 2nd edition, although the spread wasn't as great as in this new version. 1st and 2nd did play mostly the same.

It's quite possible to love the mechanics of 1st and hate 4th, and certainly some people who hated D&D before like 4th now.

I think you missed my point. The gamers that have never liked D&D site among their complaints thing like class, level, XP, armor that does not block damage, stereotypical character types, no active defenses, a bucket of hit points, going into dungeons, killing monsters, and taking their stuff.

To someone that has never liked D&D the similarities between 4e and every-other-e are so clear that they still see no reason to like it.


Russ Taylor wrote:


You might need to read the PH more thoroughly. The rules are filled with things that change as you go into higher tiers, including the costs for raising you from the dead, the way various feats work, how often you can use magic items, how your at wills work, and how much damage you do on crits with certain weapons. It might be a little more tolerable to me if this was spread out better, rather than most all of it happening at 11th or 21st. As it is, it comes across as gain 1 level, play a different game. I don't see this as being that comparable to the Epic of old with BAB/Save changes, though the change in the rules at Epic in 3rd was one of the reasons I never bother with Epic play. Still, at least going Epic wouldn't make me suddenly harder to raise from the dead.

The Raise Dead ritual is the only example that I could maybe buy. Your other ones are simply an increase at 11 and again at 21, and usually a small one at that. Just because a feat or ability increases every 10 levels doesn't mean Paragon or Epic tier uses completely different rules. I mean, going from +1 to damage from a feat at 1st to +2 to damage from a feat at 11th doesn't seem like that big of a change at all ... it's just simple scaling.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

crosswiredmind wrote:

I think you missed my point. The gamers that have never liked D&D site among their complaints thing like class, level, XP, armor that does not block damage, stereotypical character types, no active defenses, a bucket of hit points, going into dungeons, killing monsters, and taking their stuff.

To someone that has never liked D&D the similarities between 4e and every-other-e are so clear that they still see no reason to like it.

Didn't miss your point, don't agree that's what people don't like about D&D. Complexity is a big one. Huge numbers of supplements is another (that won't change). Endless rules arguments. Too obsessed with min-maxing. Doesn't promote roleplaying. Just a miniatures gme. I could come up with more, and listing them doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them.

There's a lot of reasons people won't list a game, and those aren't exhaustive any more than yours were.

I think if you were to poll a group of a hundred D&D players, and ask them to rate how major the changes were, they'd answer very high on average. Star Wars Saga edition still has more in common with 3E than 4E does.


crosswiredmind wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Crosswiredmind:

The DRAGONWARRIORS game (published back in the 1980's) featured Strength, Reflexes, Psychic Talent, Intelligence, and Looks ability scores, hp totals, levels, orcs, dwarves, and elves. Would you say that that makes it D&D?

All RPGs have some similarities to some edition of D&D. 4e has more than some.

If a gamer that never liked D&D played 4e they would not like it for the exact same reasons.

Crosswiredmind:

I get the impression that you are taking a very general overview, of D&D as a whole, seeing 4E as only yet another facet, whereas Russ is looking at the technical details of how exactly the 4th Edition engine runs, and the ways in which things work differently in 4E from in previous D&D editions.

The Exchange

Charles Evans 25 wrote:


Crosswiredmind:
I get the impression that you are taking a very general overview, of D&D as a whole, seeing 4E as only yet another facet, whereas Russ is looking at the technical details of how exactly the 4th Edition engine runs, and the ways in which things work differently in 4E from in previous D&D editions.

What I am saying is that no one fights as fiercely as inside the family even though they have more in common than they realize.

The Exchange

Russ Taylor wrote:
Didn't miss your point, don't agree that's what people don't like about D&D.

Have you ever worked in a game shop or spent much time on the boards at RPG.net?

The very presence of class and level cause allergic reaction in "real role players".


crosswiredmind wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:


Crosswiredmind:
I get the impression that you are taking a very general overview, of D&D as a whole, seeing 4E as only yet another facet, whereas Russ is looking at the technical details of how exactly the 4th Edition engine runs, and the ways in which things work differently in 4E from in previous D&D editions.
What I am saying is that no one fights as fiercely as inside the family even though they have more in common than they realize.

Well why didn't you just say that half a dozen posts ago, if that is what you have been trying to say? :D

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

crosswiredmind wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
Didn't miss your point, don't agree that's what people don't like about D&D.

Have you ever worked in a game shop or spent much time on the boards at RPG.net?

The very presence of class and level cause allergic reaction in "real role players".

I've been gaming for 28 years, and talked extensively with gamers of dozens if not hundreds systems at game stores, conventions, game days, home games, and on and on and on. I've played a fairly ridiculous number of systems myself. I was talking games on the internet back before commercial net access.

So you don't need to slur my credibility to make your point.


Crosswiredmind:
Taking the family analogy further, it hurts most when you feel abandoned or let down (whether rightly or wrongly) by those whom you thought were closest to you. (Wow. I managed to get halfway back on topic for the thread. :D)

Grand Lodge

crosswiredmind wrote:
In 3e rangers, bards, paladins, favored souls, and some I am forgetting could all heal themselves. Heck - anyone with a potion could heal themselves with the same ammount of effort as Second Wind in 4e.

Yes Rangers and such could heal themselves WITH MAGIC (including those with innate magical ability, which is ALMOST universally arcane and not divine)... And last I checked, to use a potion or scroll was using magic as well...

My point is, what business does a fighter or thief (or any other non-spellcaster for that matter) with NO SPELLCASTING ABILITY at all, have in healing themselves without using some kind of magic device and/or magical aid (potion, wand, ointment, etc.)!?

I see no in game way of selling that to players other than it being some kind of neat new cool power that has no business in a campaign with any sort of approach to realism (or trying to give a reasonable well thought out in game explanation of those abilities)! I mean sure, you can give a feat to a fighter that lets him cast a single first level spell, but that is not something given to all PCs all the time. The player would have to give me a valid reason for his character to be so magically adept given he was a fighter and not a wizard (and I certainly would not let him use that feat to have access to divine magic)...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

*EDIT*

Man, I am sorry for sounding so crass...

But the pro 4e'ers (and I am NOT pointing fingers) seem to be missing the point! Speaking only for myself (and perhaps those that share my gaming table), I liked the way things were done "the old way". Further, I don't care for the new approach in 4e. Sure 4e is at it's core a fantasy RPG that shares many of the same mechanics as D&D 3.x, but it goes about them in a different manner. If this was NOT the case, then all of us here would be in D&D Land holding hands and singing Cumba-ya...

If it was SO much the same, why are there SO many against it? They can't all be old codgers resistant to change (leaving aside those that simply wish to be obtuse in the matter)...


Digitalelf wrote:


Yes Rangers and such could heal themselves WITH MAGIC (including those with innate magical ability, which is ALMOST universally arcane and not divine)... And last I checked, to use a potion or scroll was using magic as well...

My point is, what business does a fighter or thief (or any other non-spellcaster for that matter) with NO SPELLCASTING ABILITY at all, have in healing themselves without using some kind of magic device and/or magical aid (potion, wand, ointment, etc.)!?

I see no in game way of selling that to players other than it being some kind of neat new cool power that has no business in a campaign with any sort of approach to realism (or trying to give a reasonable well thought out in game explanation of those abilities)! I mean sure, you can give a feat to a fighter that lets him cast a single first level spell, but that is not something given to all PCs all the time. The player would have to give me a valid reason for his character to be so magically adept given he was a fighter and not a wizard (and I certainly would not let him use that feat to have access to divine magic)...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

*EDIT*

Man, I am sorry for sounding so crass...

But the pro 4e'ers (and I am NOT pointing fingers) seem to be missing the point! Speaking only for myself (and perhaps those that share my gaming table), I liked the way things were done "the old way". Further, I don't care for the new approach in 4e. Sure 4e is at it's core a fantasy RPG that shares many of the same mechanics as D&D 3.x, but it goes about them in a different manner. If this was NOT the case, then all of us here would be in D&D Land holding hands and singing Cumba-ya...

If it was SO much the same, why are there SO many against it? They can't all be old codgers resistant to...

In every edition of DnD, HP have been described as more than just actual, physical wounds. 4E takes this a step farther, however, and follows the fact that HP is also luck, morale, determination, and sheer bad-assery and allows you to "heal" HP through non-magical means. Your questions is analogous to asking how the Warlord (a Martial Leader) heals people with only inspiring words. The Second Wind ability represents stepping back from the fray, catching your breath, and steeling your nerves for battle.

Since HP wraps all sorts of things up inside of it, it is represented in game as a heal.

Cheers! :)

Sovereign Court

Crosswired - hopefully, after 279 posts, you have finally gotten the answer to your question. They have abandoned the fans and abandoned the internal consistency of our traditions.

Congratulations for being the second most obstinant person I've ever met. Your inflexibility to on this issue continues to amaze me.

4th edition has made changes to the game so severe, that it is unrecognizable as dungeons and dragons. It is a jumbled mess that I may have enjoyed if they had marketed it as d & d miniatures (video-esque alternative.

Have a nice day.

Grand Lodge

David Marks wrote:
In every edition of DnD, HP have been described as more than just actual, physical wounds. 4E takes this a step farther, however, and follows the fact that HP is also luck, morale, determination, and sheer...

Now see, that is exactly why I find 4e unpalatable...

A leader can inspire morale, but what was wrong with giving the characters a bonus to hit because of a great speech (or even if within sight of the warlord)?

to view HP in that light, is SO not D&D (remember, 30 years of tradition)...

And it's not just HP that bother me...

Ability scores no longer come with a penalty...

Multi-classing is now taking one ability from a single class using a feat...

I never liked the old old old rules of humans dual classing, or that only demi-humans could multi-class. So when 3e made it [multi-classing] open to all, I was glad...

Yeah, so players took that too far sometimes, but what ever happened to DMs saying; No, you can't do that? Any good DM can tell if a player is min/maxing just to powergame...

I grew out of "monty haul/munchkin" gaming when I got out of Jr. High. Some never did because that is the style they like (and that's fine for them). 4e fits that bill in my opinion (and I know I am not alone in this)...

I don't think it is a matter of comparing apples to oranges. I think it is like comparing lemons to limes. Some see minor differences, others see glaring ones. The rules of D&D of always been open to interoperation. The differences I see, and perceive them as, make the game seem too over the top, and too much like a video game.

How do you heal in most video games? you find cover and hide for a moment. Sounds very much like second wind to me, only you don't even have to hide...

To me, it is wrong to have characters be able to heal HP simply by taking a "breather" because I don't view HP as being so nebulous as that (remember, the rules are open to interpretation)...

So all of this has made me feel alienated by WotC, because the game has been taken too far an extreme for MY TASTES...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-


David Marks wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:


Yes Rangers and such could heal themselves WITH MAGIC (including those with innate magical ability, which is ALMOST universally arcane and not divine)... And last I checked, to use a potion or scroll was using magic as well...

My point is, what business does a fighter or thief (or any other non-spellcaster for that matter) with NO SPELLCASTING ABILITY at all, have in healing themselves without using some kind of magic device and/or magical aid (potion, wand, ointment, etc.)!?

I see no in game way of selling that to players other than it being some kind of neat new cool power that has no business in a campaign with any sort of approach to realism (or trying to give a reasonable well thought out in game explanation of those abilities)! I mean sure, you can give a feat to a fighter that lets him cast a single first level spell, but that is not something given to all PCs all the time. The player would have to give me a valid reason for his character to be so magically adept given he was a fighter and not a wizard (and I certainly would not let him use that feat to have access to divine magic)...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

*EDIT*

Man, I am sorry for sounding so crass...

But the pro 4e'ers (and I am NOT pointing fingers) seem to be missing the point! Speaking only for myself (and perhaps those that share my gaming table), I liked the way things were done "the old way". Further, I don't care for the new approach in 4e. Sure 4e is at it's core a fantasy RPG that shares many of the same mechanics as D&D 3.x, but it goes about them in a different manner. If this was NOT the case, then all of us here would be in D&D Land holding hands and singing Cumba-ya...

If it was SO much the same, why are there SO many against it? They can't all be old codgers resistant to...

In every edition of DnD, HP have been described as more than just actual, physical wounds. 4E takes this a step farther, however, and follows the fact that HP is also luck, morale, determination, and sheer...

David Marks:

(edited)
As far as I understand, Hit Points in 4E (in terms of PCs and most monsters) represent purely how tired/fatigued they are currently feeling in the context of striving to stay alive (in a hostile environment).
Unless you happen to be a minion, at which point your ONE Hit Point simply represents that you are a speed bump, to be killed off as quickly as possible to make the players feel cool.
(Apologies for coming across as ranting on this latter point, but the brazen gamism trampling 4E's own redefinition of Hit Points particularly annoys me.)

Cheers. ;-)

The Exchange

Pax Veritas wrote:
Crosswired - hopefully, after 279 posts, you have finally gotten the answer to your question. They have abandoned the fans and abandoned the internal consistency of our traditions.

Actually, after all of these posts I am convinced that the folks that hate 4e have lost perspective. The mountain is just a mole hill and 4e is indeed a worthy successor to the D&D name.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:
Crosswired - hopefully, after 279 posts, you have finally gotten the answer to your question. They have abandoned the fans and abandoned the internal consistency of our traditions.
Actually, after all of these posts I am convinced that the folks that hate 4e have lost perspective. The mountain is just a mole hill and 4e is indeed a worthy successor to the D&D name.

I'm curious, do you really think that this kind of arrogant, high-handed insult is really likely to help you persuade people that you're right? I'll grant you were provoked this time, but even so, if this is the attitude of 4E people I don't want it anymore than I want Razz's similar childishness. I dub thee the "4E Razz" with my grognard stick.

The Exchange

Digitalelf wrote:
If it was SO much the same, why are there SO many against it?

In my opinion the strident opposition comes from the fact that change can be a scary thing. The only exception to that are the FR fans who have the most legitimate gripe.

People that look at 4e a simply decide that they do not want to play it because it simply does not appeal to their tastes don't tend to try to shout down those of us that like it.

I do not go on to 3e or PFRPG boards to complain about 3e/OGL rules. I found the version of D&D that I want to play. I respect the choice of those that don't want to play it. But I have no patience for anyone that want to come here a belittle me, post disinformation, or generally vent their spleens all over the board just because 4e is a game that people want to play.

WotC is not abandoning fans. WotC is moving the game and the hobby forward. Some people have chosen not to come along for the ride and they are confusing that choice with willful abandonment on the part of WotC when the two are not the same.

The Exchange

Paul Watson wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:
Crosswired - hopefully, after 279 posts, you have finally gotten the answer to your question. They have abandoned the fans and abandoned the internal consistency of our traditions.
Actually, after all of these posts I am convinced that the folks that hate 4e have lost perspective. The mountain is just a mole hill and 4e is indeed a worthy successor to the D&D name.
I'm curious, do you really think that this kind of arrogant, high-handed insult is really likely to help you persuade people that you're right? I'll grant you were provoked this time, but even so, if this is the attitude of 4E people I don't want it anymore than I want Razz's similar childishness. I dub thee the "4E Razz" with my grognard stick.

I am not trying to persuade anyone. I have no GMed over seven rounds of 4e and many of my pre-release concerns, and many of the arguments made here, are not reflected in the way the game actually plays.

So when I hear "the sky is falling" and I see that it actually is not falling then the only conclusion I can reach is that folks have lost perspective.


Digitalelf wrote:


Now see, that is exactly why I find 4e unpalatable...

A leader can inspire morale, but what was wrong with giving the characters a bonus to hit because of a great speech (or even if within sight of the warlord)?

to view HP in that light, is SO not D&D (remember, 30 years of tradition)...

You must have missed the first three words in my post which stated "In every edition". The fact is, HP have ALWAYS been an abstraction of both physical damage and morale/luck/bad-assedness. Check your older editions and they'll bear me out here. Admittedly, no edition has taken this fact and run with it like 4E, but if anything this is precisely within the tradition of DnD (30 years and all!) It is this fundamental abstraction of HP that has caused more online DnD arguments that could probably fit in the Library of Congress.

While true that many didn't play this way over the years, any such play constituted a (cosmetic) house rule. In 4E that's not as viable an option, since many non-magical forms of healing are available.

Cheers! :)


Charles Evans 25 wrote:


David Marks:
(edited)
As far as I understand, Hit Points in 4E (in terms of PCs and most monsters) represent purely how tired/fatigued they are currently feeling in the context of striving to stay alive (in a hostile environment).
Unless you happen to be a minion, at which point your ONE Hit Point simply represents that you are a speed bump, to be killed off as quickly as possible to make the players feel cool.
(Apologies for coming across as ranting on this latter point, but the brazen gamism trampling 4E's own redefinition of Hit Points particularly annoys me.)

Cheers. ;-)

4E HP are not purely how tired/fatigued you are, but those two ARE a factor in your current HP total. Luck, skill, and actual physical toughness all play roles as well.

Minions just aren't that lucky. Somedays you're Ewok and somedays you're the Stormtrooper.

Cheers! :)

Grand Lodge

I know I haven't lost perspective...

I just simply do not want (or like) this particular mole-hill...

TO ME, 4e is not how I envision D&D, nor is it how I enjoy playing it...

So therefore, TO ME, 4e is NOT a worthy successor...

If it is to you (that's the "royal" you), fine, great, WOO HOO even...

It may seem to the pro 4e'ers that I am splitting hairs over this, but I see more differences than not (lemons to limes maybe, but I don't like limes)...

But telling "us" that "we" are making mountains over mole hills is wrong. We are pointing out how we see the new edition, and why we feel WotC in our eyes has done us a disservice (at least that is what I am doing), nothing more...

You can point out how 4e plays the same until your fingers fall off from typing. You asked the question, we gave you several answers. You don't agree them. That's fine, no one is making you interpret the rules as we have (or feel the same "abandonment/alienation" from WotC as we have either for that matter)...

I don't know...

It's sad to see this "rift" in our community over a simple game...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:
Crosswired - hopefully, after 279 posts, you have finally gotten the answer to your question. They have abandoned the fans and abandoned the internal consistency of our traditions.
Actually, after all of these posts I am convinced that the folks that hate 4e have lost perspective. The mountain is just a mole hill and 4e is indeed a worthy successor to the D&D name.
I'm curious, do you really think that this kind of arrogant, high-handed insult is really likely to help you persuade people that you're right? I'll grant you were provoked this time, but even so, if this is the attitude of 4E people I don't want it anymore than I want Razz's similar childishness. I dub thee the "4E Razz" with my grognard stick.

I am not trying to persuade anyone. I have no GMed over seven rounds of 4e and many of my pre-release concerns, and many of the arguments made here, are not reflected in the way the game actually plays.

So when I hear "the sky is falling" and I see that it actually is not falling then the only conclusion I can reach is that folks have lost perspective.

Or maybe you just have a different perspective than other people. I've played the game in pretest back in december or November and yesterday observed several groups playing the game for the first time at Game Day. To me, the game has changed too much for me to be interested in fully supporting this version. To me it seems like a fun game but has really been simplified to a point where it doesn't feel like D&D anymore. I know that that's a sentiment that you've heard over and over again, but it's one that holds true to me and trying to force people to quantify that feeling does nothing to bolster your particular PRO 4E argument. It's like trying to make people prove that they're in love. YOU CAN'T.

The game feels different. It plays different. For some people that's a good thing, for others it sucks. There are things that I like about 4E (some of which I'd already incorporated into my home game prior to 4E's announcement others that I plan on adding), there are others that I think just flat out suck.

And frankly the subtle (okay not so subtle notion in your case) insinuation that those that haven't jumped on board the 4E bandwagon have lost perspective is a little insulting and likely not one that you would make to someone's face in real space. I love my hobby, but it's times like this I hate the fandom. Razz is really no better and it some cases ALOT worse but both of you are pretty much cut from the same extremist cloth. The difference is that Razz doesn't pretend to mask his contempt under the veneer of civility and I can almost (ALMOST) respect that.

I havent't lost perspective. I plan on staying with 3.5 / Pathfinder or my houseruled combo.
If that somehow makes me less worthy of being called a gamer then sobeit.


Digitalelf wrote:

...

Multi-classing is now taking one ability from a single class using a feat...

I never liked the old old old rules of humans dual classing, or that only demi-humans could multi-class. So when 3e made it [multi-classing] open to all, I was glad...

Yeah, so players took that too far sometimes, but what ever happened to DMs saying; No, you can't do that? Any good DM can tell if a player is min/maxing just to powergame...

I grew out of "monty haul/munchkin" gaming when I got out of Jr. High. Some never did because that is the style they like (and that's fine for them). 4e fits that bill in my opinion (and I know I am not alone in this)...

Your multiclassing feat also opens up A) the ability to switch out one Encounter/Utility/Daily power with your multiclass, at the cost of a feat each, B) the ability to qualify for any feats/PPs that require your multiclass as a prereq, and C) the ability to further multiclass in lieu of taking a PP at all.

All races can still multiclass all classes, although you are limited to only one other class now. Not really similar to dual-classing though, since you had to totally halt advancement in the class you were leaving, and couldn't even use its powers until your second class was equal level or risk "backsliding" (oy was dual-classing whack ... insanely strong once your second class equaled your first, terribly weak until then ...)

Personally, I think 4E toned down a TON of the overpowered stuff from 3E, although admittedly a large part of that is simply because only the 3 core books are out so far. As splats come, we'll have to reevaluate how 4E is doing with keeping down power creep. More importantly, however, 4E has gone out of its way to make it very difficult to produce a gimped character. 3E's multiclassing was a trap for anyone who did not know precisely what they were doing (and a giant power boost if you did!) Many players in my group have tried to multiclass without really understanding the underlying systems and ended up with characters unable to compete with single classed characters in the group, while the more knowledgeable players were able to blow them out of the water with their strong multiclasses. In 4E it will be much harder to gimp yourself via multiclassing (or even from just poor feat/skill/power choice).

I consider this all a good thing, as it helps out the players in my group less inclined in mastering the rules and more interested in just rolling a character and getting with the playing.

Cheers! :)


Digitalelf wrote:


If it is to you (that's the "royal" you), fine, great, WOO HOO even...

I'll take you up on that offer! Woo hoo! :P

Grand Lodge

David Marks wrote:
The fact is, HP have ALWAYS been an abstraction of both physical damage and morale/luck/bad-assedness. Check your older editions and they'll bear me out here.

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, 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 or morale. Just simply how much it takes to kill you...

That was obviously just the 3.5 PHB, but still...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:


In my opinion the strident opposition comes from the fact that change can be a scary thing. The only exception to that are the FR fans who have the most legitimate gripe.

People that look at 4e a simply decide that they do not want to play it because it simply does not appeal to their tastes don't tend to try to shout down those of us that like it.

I do not go on to 3e or PFRPG boards to complain about 3e/OGL rules. I found the version of D&D that I want to play. I respect the choice of those that don't want to play it. But I have no patience for anyone that want to come here a belittle me, post disinformation, or generally vent their spleens all over the board just because 4e is a game that people want to play.

WotC is not abandoning fans. WotC is moving the game and the hobby forward. Some people have chosen not to come along for the ride and they are confusing that choice with willful abandonment on the part of WotC when the two are not the same.

Actually, it does mean that they are abandoning some fans... the fans who don't want the game to change in the way that the game is changing. That's what a lot of us have been saying and you keep denying.

There are plenty of us not afraid of change. The game changes with every rule supplement and splatbook that comes out and, still, many of us buy them. The question is whether or not we like the nature of the changes. I happen to not like the nature of most of the 4e changes and I prefer it if you do not spin that like I'm insecure or something.


Regarding perspective: I think there's a huge amount of perspective that's being missed here due to an unwillingness to admit a loss of perspective. On both sides.

The people who don't like 4e demonstrate their (at times extreme) misunderstanding of the system regularly and it gets more frustrating when they insist that they understand 4e. I've been reading blog entries and articles by WotC designers for about 2 years now and I can see what they're driving towards, and it's very clear that a significant number of people do not. As a GAME, 3rd edition took the hobby and the industry to a new level and 4th edition builds on that, and it does so very well.

The people who can't understand why everyone doesn't love 4e demonstrate their misunderstanding of where the others are coming from. People have a game that they like. WotC's marketing has, at times, been abrasive and rubbed people the wrong way by implying that this popular game is "broken" (which caused them to defend their game rather than make an effort to really grok 4e and really understand why they consider 3e to have flaws). More abrasiveness is not likely to help. When you pile on the jettisoning of things that are very popular (Paizo, for example, and the FR timeline for another) you're going to see a lot of negativity towards anything WotC related. As a TRADITION, 4th edition leaves a lot of well-loved things behind. It does so for a reason, but that reason isn't applicable to everyone.

My thoughts.

I've been burned out from this discussion for a while and I just want to play D&D.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Antioch wrote:

*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.

True, but it's possible to have a fighter act as an effective trap detector/disarmer in 3.5 (and it's not as if a 3.5 fighter has any "critical" skills that need to be taken, apart from Ride for Mounted Combat or by concept)...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Antioch wrote:

*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.

True, but it's possible to have a fighter act as an effective trap detector/disarmer in 3.5 (and it's not as if a 3.5 fighter has any "critical" skills that need to be taken, apart from Ride for Mounted Combat or by concept)...

And under Pathfinder rules, you don't even need to spend 2 CC points on each so even a bog standard Fighter can do this.

Grand Lodge

DudeMonkey wrote:
make an effort to really grok 4e

Why do I have to really grok 4e? Why can't I just not like the concept of a given rule (healing surge, to flog a dead horse)?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:
David Marks wrote:
The fact is, HP have ALWAYS been an abstraction of both physical damage and morale/luck/bad-assedness. Check your older editions and they'll bear me out here.

That was obviously just the 3.5 PHB, but still...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

Yes, it WAS just the 3.5 PH.

Here's the DMG from 1e:

"Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses - and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the 'sixth sense' which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection."

So, yes. The "change" in the conception of hit points in 4e is not really a change in general D&D lore, nor even in behind-the-scenes 3.5 assumptions even if the rulebooks are less discursive and more direct in explaining what they mean to the game than previous editions.

But even so, it's quite alright to not be fond of the healing surge rules. Personally, I'm not. But it's not because of some supposed changes to the meaning of hit points.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:
It's sad to see this "rift" in our community over a simple game...

I have an extensive list of things I don't like regarding how 4E actually plays (and yes I have played). I am miffed at how WotC is treating its 3.x players through their advertising campaign of "it was broken, you shouldn't like it". I promised myself back in the CCG craze of the 90's that never again would I buy another "subscription based" game, which hasn't endeared me to 4E.

But absolutely none of that holds a candle to the biggest problem I have with 4E, the divide it has caused in the community. Regardless of whether you like or loathe 4E, at this point nobody can deny that the new edition has done nothing but split our community apart (just go read 80% of the posts of 4E reviews). Yes there are people in the middle, but I can say that for the reasons I mentioned above, if my "regular" group wants to play 4E, I'm likely taking my dice to a group that plays 3.x, as will many others. It's not because I hate my friends, but because frankly, I have zero interest in playing the game. Of course I consider myself lucky, the eight of us, none have any interest in switching, but it does make pulling in new players harder if all they've been playing, or want to play is 4E. People say "have fun" which is what I plan on doing, but I sure wish my pool of people to "have fun" with wasn't now potentially much smaller.

It's sad, but it apparently is happening, and doesn't seem likely to stop anytime soon.

[Edit: For a horrible double-double negative]


Digitalelf wrote:
David Marks wrote:
The fact is, HP have ALWAYS been an abstraction of both physical damage and morale/luck/bad-assedness. Check your older editions and they'll bear me out here.

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, 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 or morale. Just simply how much it takes to kill you...

That was obviously just the 3.5 PHB, but still...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

Dragon 24, Sorceror's Scroll, Gary Gygax, pg 18 wrote:
...This melee system also hinges on the number of hit points assigned to characters. As I have repeatedly pointed out, if a rhino can take a maximum amount of damage equal to eight of nine eight-sided dice, a maximum of 64 or 72 hit points of damage to kill, it is positively absurd to assume that an 8th level fighter with average scores on his or her hit dice and an 18 consititution, thus having 76 hit points, can physically withstand more punishment than a rhino before being killed. Hit points are a combination of actual physical consititution, skill at the avoidance of taking real physical damage, luck and/or magical or divine factors. Ten points of damage dealt to a rhino indicated a considerable wound, while the same damage sustained by the 8th level fighter indicates a near miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, a bit of fatigue piling up against his or her skill at avoiding the fatal cut or thrust. So even when a hit is scored in melee combat, it is more often than not a grazing blow, a scratch, a mere light wound which would have been fatal (or nearly so) to a lesser mortal. If sufficient numbers of such wounds accrue to the character, however, stamina, skill, and luck will eventually run out, and an attack will strike home . . .

As a side note, in trying to find this quote for you, I ended up digging through quite a few of Gary's obituaries on the web. I miss him still. :(

251 to 300 of 638 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Abandoning the fans? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.