To your argument of incompleteness I'll raise you one of "unchanging". I'd rather each edition axe a few races/classes and add a few new ones in, rather than be stuck with the same ones for all of eternity. A new edition should be about change, and revision. It should bring new ideas and thoughts into the existing mold. If all we get is a book with the same choices we had in 3E, why even switch in the first place?
Cheers! :)
Why switch? If the mechanics are better! I guess if the reason for a new edition is to change things then why not write a new game? Why include any continuity at all?
For me, a new edition implies fundamental continuity but with some variety of changes that do not change the basic identity of the work in question. If it doesn't preserve the basic identity (which I admit is a loaded term since different people will see different aspects of it as helping define its identity), then there's no point in calling it a "new edition" of anything that went before. It's a new game with a distinct identity.
Anyone else suffering from board wackiness today? Threads that lead back to the main forum? Posts that are missing?
Mostly I'm posting this because these problems sometimes seem to go away if you put something up ...
(Here's hoping it works!)
Why switch? If the mechanics are better! I guess if the reason for a new edition is to change things then why not write a new game? Why include any continuity at all?
For me, a new edition implies fundamental continuity but with some variety of changes that do not change the basic identity of the work in question. If it doesn't preserve the basic identity (which I admit is a loaded term since different people will see different aspects of it as helping define its identity), then there's no point in calling it a "new edition" of anything that went before. It's a new game with a distinct identity.
Note I did say a few races/classes, not all of them. Races and classes have been added and dropped in every edition. It's the nature of the game to start with a base set, and expand over time. Next edition, some of the original base set makes it through, a few don't, and maybe a new guy tags along as a new core choice.
I don't think any race/class that has been dropped going from 3E to 4E has been in place for the entire span of the game. I don't really think all 8 we have now will be around for 5E's eventual initial release either.
Cheers! :)
PS: Posting fixed the problem with this thread right away. This board is wonky.
Anyone else suffering from board wackiness today? Threads that lead back to the main forum? Posts that are missing?
Mostly I'm posting this because these problems sometimes seem to go away if you put something up ...
(Here's hoping it works!)
Yup. :)
My breaking point was easy. Remember that video promo they put out last year? This one?
That was it. That a company would tell me that they think I'm too stupid to find the index of their book, a book that I've owned for 5 years... obviously they don't want my business.
That a company would tell me that they think I'm too stupid to find the index of their book, a book that I've owned for 5 years... obviously they don't want my business.
Yeah, I warned them that they were going to piss you off, but they said they did not care about you.
To be honest, I doubt I would have wanted to switch to 4E even if the core books weren’t “incomplete.” The new fluff doesn’t appeal to my tastes anywhere near as much as the Great Wheel. My 3.0 / 3.5E experiences didn’t set me up to want a new edition yet. I’ve been DMing my home campaign since 2001 and we’re just now getting to 11th level. None of the players is interested in splatbooks, prestige classes or powergaming. I feel like I’m not nearly “done” with 3.5 yet, and I don’t want to end our campaign and start over – there’s a lot of mileage left in these characters and stories.
All that said, the “missing” classes made it a slam-dunk not to switch for the foreseeable future. Our party includes a monk, a bard, a half-orc barbarian, and an NPC sorcerer. We have a cleric, but her deity is Ehlonna, who’s also missing. That leaves the ranger as the only PC that would be straightforward to convert out of the box.
Before 4E, I would have thought my campaign was about as mainstream and generic D&D as any out there. Almost without exception, everything in the campaign was in the core books – no obscure prestige classes, broken feats or the like. Now, I’m not so sure how mainstream we are.
I hope lots of people enjoy playing 4E, and it would be a great thing if 4E attracts more people to the hobby. But as for me, I’m looking forward to the Pathfinder Beta release.
Doug
That a company would tell me that they think I'm too stupid to find the index of their book, a book that I've owned for 5 years... obviously they don't want my business.Yeah, I warned them that they were going to piss you off, but they said they did not care about you.
Strange, somehow I knew it was personal. :p
|
so because of no 3PP support we have to wait until August (Goodman) for another module...
i like KotS but when we're done...ack..
don't feel like slogging through a quirky conversion.
so, have to wait to august to start something...(Known World is kinda meh to me so far though...FR a$$ploded..When's that Eberron book coming out again?)
Anyone else suffering from board wackiness today? Threads that lead back to the main forum? Posts that are missing?
Mostly I'm posting this because these problems sometimes seem to go away if you put something up ...
(Here's hoping it works!)
If the various servers go out of sync a lot of weirdness occurs, or at least thats my understanding of whats often happening.
so because of no 3PP support we have to wait until August (Goodman) for another module...
i like KotS but when we're done...ack..
don't feel like slogging through a quirky conversion.
so, have to wait to august to start something...(Known World is kinda meh to me so far though...FR a$$ploded..When's that Eberron book coming out again?)
Next month (I think?) H2 comes out, with H3 coming out in August (these are followups for KotS which is H1).
P1 and P2 come out later this year, as does FR1. These are all WotC modules. Also, there are a few 4E modules already up in the new Dungeon ... including a new one today for a party of 8th level chars ... looked pretty good from my skim. :)
What I do not understand is why they did not gave us more "horizontal" otption for Races (included Gnomes and Half Orcs) and Classes (Druid, Bard and Barbarian) instead of the whole "certical" options (levels from 1-30).
Money.
My breaking point was easy. Remember that video promo they put out last year? This one?
That was it. That a company would tell me that they think I'm too stupid to find the index of their book, a book that I've owned for 5 years... obviously they don't want my business.
That promo was pretty f-ing stupid.
That promo was pretty f-ing stupid.My breaking point was easy. Remember that video promo they put out last year? This one?
That was it. That a company would tell me that they think I'm too stupid to find the index of their book, a book that I've owned for 5 years... obviously they don't want my business.
Lol, really? I hadn't seen that one before. I thought it was funny. Maybe I'm a sucker for 70's style facial hair and cheesy French accents.
Cheers! :)
Just out of curiosity, I thought I'd look over what I'd do to try and convert over some of my campaigns from recent years. I know that direct conversion is out, and that there was a lot of talk about starting new campaigns, but hey, its still fun to try out.
Mistledale Campaign
Human Cleric/Fighter 11/2, LG: Probably the easiest character to convert over. He only picked up a few levels of fighter to show he had some formal "soldiering," and didn't envision himself shifting into being a soldier, so much as just learning a little more about weapons and armor. I would be fairly easy to see him as a Human Cleric with Fighter training and some armor training feats, and he would likely have stayed LG (of course, he deity got hosed in 4th edition Realms, but that's a whole other issue).
Net Result: Easy, fairly accurate conversion.
Dwarf Fighter/Dwarven Defender 10/3, LG: Not too hard to convert him over but not quite the no brainer that the cleric was. Armor training to get the heaviest armor, and the dwarf would probably not have been the "exalted" LG in 4th edition, so he'd just be "good."
Net Result: Not perfect, but pretty close.
Hellbred Warlock 12, CG: The hellbred started out as a lythari sorcerer, and became the poster child for why ECL can kill a character's effectiveness, the the first candidate for Player's Handbook II rebuild options. His "old" race and class would be problematic, but as he stood at the end of the campaign, he could have been converted as a Tiefling Warlock fairly easily. Given his attitude, I don't know that CG shows the same level of conflict in the character, so he'd probably be unaligned.
Net Result: Kinda fudged a bit, but looks similar.
Half-Ogre Monk 11, LN: Um . . . yeah . . . orc? . . . minotaur? . . . fighter or rogue using unarmed attacks with their powers instead of weapons? At a loss here.
Net Result: Nothing fits the bill, not even close for either class or race (to be fair, I know half-ogres aren't a typical race, just saying).
Human Druid/Rogue/Daggerspell Shaper/Master of Many Forms 4/4/4/1, NG: Yeah, I know, this guy was a trip, but at the same time, other than rogue, there isn't much for him. Even if there was a druid class, he was a reformed rogue that became a druid, so a druid dabbling in rogue or a rogue dabbling in druid doesn't quite seem right. As a nature oriented "striker," ranger might have worked, except that ranger doesn't have any real "nature magic" feeling abilities. Alignment wise, he'd probably work out to "good."
Net Result: Not much really works, unless he was willing to change is "conversion" to clerical abilities or ranger abilities. Not even close to perfect, would take a lot of fudging to work, and some revision of character history for the player.
Human Barbarian 13, CG: While fighter doesn't work perfectly, its not too bad a fit to say that he was a fighter from a barbaric culture, as long he still gets to use his great axe. Alignment would probably default to unaligned, not because he wasn't good, per se, but because he chaos was fairly important to his outlook as well.
Net Result: Fairly accurate if a little fudged to get it to work. Story wise it would work fine.
Total Party Analysis: Out of six characters, about 4 out of 6 characters could be converted without much problems with the character concept, one of them might be possible, and the other is completely out.
66% conversion in this case, if you "squint" at the specifics . . .
Okay, let's try another campaign:
Skullport Campaign
Human Cleric/Necromancer of Velsharoon, 3/2 CN: Wizards aren't really good at affecting, raising, or controlling undead, and there aren't many necromantic effects. His clerical abilities as a devotee of Velsharoon really don't translate well as radiant abilities. He would work out to being unaligned . . . the closest thing I can come up with might be a Warlock with Warlord training, but, man . . . that's pretty far from where we started here.
Net Result: Not really hitting the mark.
Human Wizard (Diviner) 5, N: Well . . . his divinations wouldn't be as good or as useful in combat, but he could pick up some as rituals, and he could probably work fairly well as a new wizard, those he looses some of his "details." He'd be unaligned fairly obviously.
Net Result: As close as a wizard will get under 4th edition.
Human Rogue 5, NE: This guy makes out fairly well, since he was a fairly typical sneaky/assassiny type rogue. More greedy than vile, he'd work out to be Evil under 4th.
Net Result: Pretty close approximation.
Human Psychic Warrior 5, N: Unaligned, but without any psionic abilities, hard to fudge. A fighter with some wizard training would be the closest thing, but her backstory didn't just make her a "supernatural" fighter, but specifically a psionic one. Maybe some wizard power that does psychic damage? We'll say yes just for the sake of things.
Net Result: Yeah, but its takes a bit of fudging.
Drow Hexblade 5, NE: I have to say, this guy makes out a lot better in 4th edition, because as a warrior with some "curse" like powers, he's probably much more effective as a fighter with warlock training than he ever was as being a Hexblade. He'd work out to Evil under 4th Edition.
Net Result: Story intact, and mechanics actually more favorable.
Half-Orc Bard/Barbarian 4/1, CN: Saying this guy is an orc mechanically, even if he is a half orc, but its not too hard to fudge. Even without a barbarian class to take training in, the orc abilities would do nicely to replicate the barbarian level, for the most part, but the bard part doesn't work out too well. The guy was suppose to be a warrior skald, and warlord doesn't quite cut it flavor wise. Maybe he could deal with it if asked to "re-envision" the character, but its not really a perfect fit.
Net Result: Not really a good fit.
Total Party Analysis: Again, 4/6 characters seem to be close enough with the tools provided to work out without major rework. So again, about a 66% conversion.
Not bad for a system they advised against converting at all. ;)
Did you see their 3.5 conversion suggestions? It's on their site here. For Monks, they suggest a fudge you could use until a real Monk shows up is:
Monk
At a glance, the player with a 3E monk might think that he’s out of luck until the 4E monk releases—there’s no unarmored, unarmed melee fighter option anywhere in the Player’s Handbook. However, with your DM’s permission you can create a martial-arts striker who captures much of the monk’s style by following this process:
1. Choose the two-blade ranger build (p104). (Don’t worry, this will make sense in a minute.)
2. Give up your leather and hide armor proficiencies, gaining a +3 bonus to AC when wearing no armor or cloth armor. You’re now only a point behind the normal ranger’s AC.
3. Gain a +2 bonus to Will defense (in addition to the ranger’s normal defense bonuses).
4. Replace Dungeoneering and Nature on your class skill list with Arcana, Diplomacy, Insight, and Religion. Choose five trained skills from your class list.
5. Give up your martial weapon proficiencies. Grant your unarmed strike a +3 proficiency bonus, increase the damage to 1d8, and add the off-hand property. Now you’re wielding two melee weapons that are as good as the martial melee options available to the ranger.
6. Rename Hunter’s Quarry as Monastic Battle Focus, and lose the Prime Shot class feature. (You thought you were getting that +2 bonus to Will for free, didn’t you?)
7. Focus on mobility-oriented powers, particularly those that reward a high Wisdom score (such as evasive strike, yield ground, and weave through the fray). As desired, you can rename those powers with a flavor that befits your monkish heritage (peerless balance of the crane instead of fox’s cunning, for example).
8. Pick up feats to recreate other 3E monk class features—Evasion, Fleet-Footed, Long Jumper—and use multiclass feats (p209) to replicate the supernatural features. For example, the warlock has several teleportation powers reminiscent of abundant step.
This doesn’t faithfully recreate every element of the 3E monk, but it’s definitely a reasonable stopgap if you’re really committed to sticking with the character. Feel free to experiment with additional tweaks, and by all means please share your results on the D&D message boards!
I think the result there is better than their suggestions for Druid, but that is really just an opinion.
For your reformed Rogue come Druid, I'd say the character could have started as Rogue then eventually taken Druid training, and maybe switched over to a Druid with Rogue training, at some point. Only let that fly if you have good story reasons though. ;)
Cheers! :)
Not bad for a system they advised against converting at all. ;)
Did you see their 3.5 conversion suggestions? It's on their site here. For Monks, they suggest a fudge you could use until a real Monk shows up is:
Yeah, I've seen their conversions. The monk is workable, but it would be a better sell (keep in mind, I'm not planning on converting, because I'm happy with 3.5, but if I were) if I could tell the player that the class was in the books, instead of using a conversion article.
For that matter, the fan created bard over on EN World wasn't bad either, but once again, its a lack of something official in the core books that might be the sticking point, were I to try this.
Hey, this is kind of fun, thought I don't know if this is useful one way or the other . . .
My Former DM's Freaky Campaign
Human Fighter 7, LG: Okay, so this guy is pretty easy. Not quite an "exalted" guy, his alignment would change to "good," otherwise he's a fighter pretty simply.
Net Result: Not a problem here.
Half-Dragon Ranger 6, CN: Yeah . . . I'm guessing making this guy a dragonborn unaligned ranger would work pretty well for this guy, even though he's actually the son of a dragon (still, it works out mechanically). Fairly close approximation.
Net Result: Slight revision, not much of a problem.
Human Sorcerer 7, CG: Its a bit of a departure, but I don't think his backstory would suffer too badly if he was shifted into a good fey pact Warlock.
Net Result: Eh . . . kinda works.
Halfling Druid 9, NG: Not only was this halfling very dependent on his animal companion, using his riding dog as a kind of weapons platform, and often buffing the dog and sending him into battle, but his main tactic was to constantly flood the room with summoned animals. No really good analogy for this guy in 4th.
Net Result: Not feeling this one.
Asherati Rogue 9, N: Hm . . . unaligned rogue is pretty easy for the first part of the conversion . . . Not seeing many pre made races really suited even for renaming . . . I'm calling this one a wash unless the player really wanted to revise this guy.
Net Result: I hate to call this one, since its a corner case race, but there really aren't many races to model an alternate on at this point either.
Total Party Analysis: Running about 60% here. I'm seeing a pattern for the people I played with . . . hm. Maybe its just an intrinsic pattern to us though, ;)
Yeah, I've seen their conversions. The monk is workable, but it would be a better sell (keep in mind, I'm not planning on converting, because I'm happy with 3.5, but if I were) if I could tell the player that the class was in the books, instead of using a conversion article.
For that matter, the fan created bard over on EN World wasn't bad either, but once again, its a lack of something official in the core books that might be the sticking point, were I to try this.
Yeah I hear ya. I'm kinda saddened that the PHB II isn't going to be having Psionic classes (since I always liked Psionics) but its probably best to not spread out the power sources too thin between the books. I expect PHB II is going to give us Bards, Barbarians, and Druids, with Sorcerors being a pretty distinct possibility as well. Maybe once it's out converting will seem more do-able.
No idea when an official Monk will show up though. Possibly in PHB III but that seems a long way off! :)
Edit: Out of curiosity, are the characters who are most challenging to convert from one player, or from different ones? Any chance for a % breakdown per player?
The Only Other D&D Campaign I Haven't Run in the Last Few Years
Human Cleric of Ilmater 3, LG: Straight cleric at Lawful good would work pretty well for this guy, not loosing too much of the feel in the conversion.
Net Result: This one works out fairly well.
Half-Elf Ranger 3, N: Unaligned ranger 3 using the archery abilities works perfectly for this guy.
Net Result: Two up, two down . . . so far so good.
Human Monk 3, LN: Um . . . same "out of the box" monk problem with this guy. We'll call this one a strike.
Net Result: Not without some serious tweaking (though not impossible).
Human Druid 3, N: Same out of the box problem with the monk. Unaligned and human, but hard to fudge the rest for now, especially since the druid mainly used his abilities to buff himself for combat.
Net Result: Not fully working here.
Total Party Analysis: This one fell down to 50% . . . hm . . . I thought it would work out higher than the others, but I guess with a smaller party that's what happens.
Edit: Out of curiosity, are the characters who are most challenging to convert from one player, or from different ones? Any chance for a % breakdown per player?
I'm enough of a geek that I was going to do that anyway, so I'll start figuring it up after I post the last campaign (my current one that I'm DMing right now).
I'm enough of a geek that I was going to do that anyway, so I'll start figuring it up after I post the last campaign (my current one that I'm DMing right now).Edit: Out of curiosity, are the characters who are most challenging to convert from one player, or from different ones? Any chance for a % breakdown per player?
Lol, don't feel too bad, I had the same thought! ;)
The Featherdale Campaign
Human Paladin 4, LG: This one works out really well, and she remains LG.
Net Result: One for the plus column.
Human Cleric/Rogue 4/1, LG: This one isn't too hard to picture either, with some stealth training and maybe some rogue training, and he should stay LG.
Net Result: Another for the plus column.
Gnome Beguiler 4, NG: Surprisingly, I think that with the dragon article with the illusory powers, and with some rogue training, this one may not convert too badly overall, coming in with a good alignment.
Net Result: Gnome still standing.
Goliath Rogue/Barbarian 3/1, CN: Hm . . . he'd be unaligned, and primarily be a rogue. There are a couple of races that might fill in the gaps for his abilities, but honestly, it would be up to the player if he wanted to be a goliath in name only. Gonna say no for now on this one.
Net Result: Not feeling this one.
Half-Elf Bard 4, CN: Once again, unaligned . . . I've actually talked to this player and posited the "what if," and if he were inclined to do 4th edition, he isn't inclined to fudge a Warlord for it, so this one would not work out as is.
Net Result: Another miss.
Total Party Analysis: 3/5 worked here, and it comes out to 60% again.
Player A: Characters played were the cleric/fighter and the cleric/necromancer. 50%
Player B: Character played was the Dwarf Fighter/Dwarven Defender. 100%
Player C: Characters played were the half-ogre monk and the human psychic warrior. 50%
Player D: Characters played were the hellbred warlock and the drow hexblade. 100%
Player E: Characters played were the rogue/druid/daggerspell shaper/master of many forms, half-orc bard/barbarian, half-dragon ranger, and gnome beguiler. 60%
Player F: Human Barbarian, Half-Elf Ranger. 100%
Player G: Human Wizard (Diviner), Halfling Druid, Human Monk. 33%
Player H: Asherati Rogue, Human Druid, Goliath Rogue/Barbarian. 0%
Player I: Human Paladin 100%
Player J: Human Cleric/Rogue 100%
Player K: Half-Elf Bard 0%
Player L (me, that is): Human Fighter, Human Cleric 100%
Something that was kind of surprising to me is that is not a straight line that the people that picked exotic races weren't always the people with the hardest conversions.
Interesting results! Thanks for sharing. It seems like players G and H like to make things tough for the converter. Lol. :)
Interesting results! Thanks for sharing. It seems like players G and H like to make things tough for the converter. Lol. :)
I guess that would make me a pushover ;)
Indeed. I still don't like the tiefling being a core race, but the dragonborn has grown on me.
We've had a couple of (3e) tieflings IMC, but none of my players like tieflings as a core race. And while the dragonborn don't appeal to most of us, we agree there's a place and demand for such a race.
For the record, I think getting rid of half-orcs because of the sordidness of their origin is somewhat shaky and perhaps disingenuous -- are the offspring of humans consorting with the evil and demonic forces of the multiverse more palatable? And just wait for the religious D&D-haters to get hold of this.
And worse yet, 4.0 is not backwards compatible.
My big problem, too. We haven't given up on it, but if it can't be adapted to our campaign it's gone. And I'm not getting too hopeful.
|
My breaking point? Rust monsters. Remember that drawing of the knight jumping in the wizard's arms?
Drop warlord and give me monk. Drop the second page on minotaurs/ griffons/ halflings/ magmas, etc. and give me mimics, iron golems, etc.
I don't like the changes to fighter. No plate armor? No exploits for ranged attacks?
I dislike how they've watered down the paladin's code. I always liked the core pantheon, and I see no improvement in the new set of core religions. Finally, they put gnome PC stats in the MM -- why not the half-orc too?
|
|
to get the new "Dungeon" don't you have to pay for DDI? If so..I'll pass, thanks.
I wonder if its easier to convert 2nd edition mod's to 4e since the monsters are also on a different 'build system'. Anyone try?
I still have the Night Below boxed set, the sahuagin trilogy, and some FR modules.
Also with FR, anyone not advancing the timeline and playing 4e?
to get the new "Dungeon" don't you have to pay for DDI? If so..I'll pass, thanks.
I wonder if its easier to convert 2nd edition mod's to 4e since the monsters are also on a different 'build system'. Anyone try?
I still have the Night Below boxed set, the sahuagin trilogy, and some FR modules.
Also with FR, anyone not advancing the timeline and playing 4e?
I've not tried yet but it should be pretty easy. Reality is it was pretty easy in 3.5 as well, it was just time consuming.
The Sahuagin Trilogy eh, IIRC thats our buddy Cordell right there. Sadly not exactly his best work IMO. When I say I think he is hit and miss on writing modules its the Sahuagin trilogy I'm thinking of in the 'miss' category. Not awful by any means but not really all that inspiring either. I'd rather run Ex Libris.
My breaking point was easy. Remember that video promo they put out last year? This one?Try this one :)
That video, as near as I can tell, was not produced by WotC.
It's one thing for those outside the hobby to insult us by perpetuating the stereotypes, it is another for the very company who sells us the tools of the hobby, to do so.
Pook is right.
to get the new "Dungeon" don't you have to pay for DDI? If so..I'll pass, thanks.
I wonder if its easier to convert 2nd edition mod's to 4e since the monsters are also on a different 'build system'. Anyone try?
I still have the Night Below boxed set, the sahuagin trilogy, and some FR modules.
Also with FR, anyone not advancing the timeline and playing 4e?
Last I read they were planning on letting you purchase Dungeon and Dragon without subscribing to the DDI now, but until they start charging, I'd expect things to change.
Of course, while it's all free, you're really shooting yourself in the foot if you aren't grabbing it up. It's pretty nice stuff!
I think monsters from nearly any edition could be converted to 4E pretty easily, if you take in mind the same things the devs said re: converting characters over. Aim for a conversion of the idea of the monster, not a wholesale conversion of the mechanics and you should be fine.
When the changes to FR were first announced, there were at least a few people on ENWorld saying they'd stick around in the 3E time period with 4E rules. No idea if that's still there plan (maybe they're waiting for the actual FR books to come out before they fully choose?)
to get the new "Dungeon" don't you have to pay for DDI? If so..I'll pass, thanks.
I wonder if its easier to convert 2nd edition mod's to 4e since the monsters are also on a different 'build system'. Anyone try?
I still have the Night Below boxed set, the sahuagin trilogy, and some FR modules.
Also with FR, anyone not advancing the timeline and playing 4e?
I've not tried yet but it should be pretty easy. Reality is it was pretty easy in 3.5 as well, it was just time consuming.
The Sahuagin Trilogy eh, IIRC thats our buddy Cordell right there. Sadly not exactly his best work IMO. When I say I think he is hit and miss on writing modules its the Sahuagin trilogy I'm thinking of in the 'miss' category. Not awful by any means but not really all that inspiring either. I'd rather run Ex Libris.
Now see, I disagree... I think the of the Sahuagin trilogy as some of Cordell's most inspired work.
But then, I like almost anything Sahuagin related.
- Ashavan
I'm in that same boat.Ditto.Now see, I disagree... I think the of the Sahuagin trilogy as some of Cordell's most inspired work.
But then, I like almost anything Sahuagin related.
- Ashavan
Mel Odom's trilogy of books on the Sahuagin were good.
I'm in that same boat.Ditto.Now see, I disagree... I think the of the Sahuagin trilogy as some of Cordell's most inspired work.
But then, I like almost anything Sahuagin related.
- Ashavan
A boat is the last place you want to be if talking about Sahuagin. ;)
Why switch? If the mechanics are better! I guess if the reason for a new edition is to change things then why not write a new game? Why include any continuity at all?
For me, a new edition implies fundamental continuity but with some variety of changes that do not change the basic identity of the work in question. If it doesn't preserve the basic identity (which I admit is a loaded term since different people will see different aspects of it as helping define its identity), then there's no point in calling it a "new edition" of anything that went before. It's a new game with a distinct identity.
Note I did say a few races/classes, not all of them. Races and classes have been added and dropped in every edition. It's the nature of the game to start with a base set, and expand over time. Next edition, some of the original base set makes it through, a few don't, and maybe a new guy tags along as a new core choice.
I don't think any race/class that has been dropped going from 3E to 4E has been in place for the entire span of the game. I don't really think all 8 we have now will be around for 5E's eventual initial release either.
Cheers! :)
PS: Posting fixed the problem with this thread right away. This board is wonky.
Third edition did not cut any existing race or class....
Besides the huge fonts, acres of white space,don't forget the huge reams of artwork slashing pages in half throughout the book. And every chapter intro in the PHB and the DMG took up two full pages with nothing but artwork/lean text. I agree wholeheartedly with this being a purely marketing decision as i feel more content could have been included. This is the first edition i am aware of that actually offered this much less than the previous one. This does not seem like an evolution to me.|
|
A boat is the last place you want to be if talking about Sahuagin. ;)I'm in that same boat.Ditto.Now see, I disagree... I think the of the Sahuagin trilogy as some of Cordell's most inspired work.
But then, I like almost anything Sahuagin related.
- Ashavan
Idiom worked as intended!
cheers!
Thanks for the suggestion of checking out the free Dungeon stuff.
I'm not sure the dragonborn and an extra elf (but these ones wear _mauve_!) are worth what we lose in the race department.
You know, much as people complain about the way 4e was marketed, this constant petty, "zinger" sniping at 4e by the people behind paizo leaves the same bad taste in my mouth.
You know, much as people complain about the way 4e was marketed, this constant petty, "zinger" sniping at 4e by the people behind paizo leaves the same bad taste in my mouth.
I'd be willing to bet, given what I've seen of Erik, on the boards and in his editorials, its nothing he wouldn't be willing to say to someone's face, and on top of that, he's giving his honest opinion that the new races may not be worth what was in 3.5 that has been left out of 4th edition.
Erik has also defended the reputation and professional skill of the people that worked on 4th edition, and I've not even seen him indict the game on its own, only that its not the right tool to use to convey some of the classic D&D feel of the past.
to be fair, the use of white space and a larger font is the current cutting edge in text books & similar printings. It does greatly enhance the ascetic appearance of the book, and improves readability to boot. Unfortunately, everything is a trade off."Becuase you would be adding at least another 70 pages to the PHB. Anyone know how much its costs to add 70 pages to a book from a publishers end?"
Had they chosen to use a similar typeface and font size as 3rd edition, I suspect that they could have cut that 70 pages down to around 15.
I would suggest that letting, kerning, font choice, appropriate levels of heading and font styling have more to do with overall readability than minor changes in font size or overall available whitespace.
I'm not terribly fond of the table style, but whatever. The one page index is criminal and completely unforgivable. I understand the reasoning (increase dependency on DDI) but it hurts product, imo.
The art, whether you like it or not, does take up a massive amount of space, for example, we get two full pages worth of art from ages 32-34.
The PHB is also like 100 pages longer than the DMG. I think editorial probably could have bulked up the DMG by moving portions of the PHB to the DMG, cut some of the same encounter material from the DMG to free up space and given us 1 or 2 extra classes with full power lists in the PHB.
I really should photocopy a characters powers and mount them on individual cards. I realize some may see this as a CCG bash on 4e (that said, as someone who has put down the 90 or so bucks for all three books, I think I'm completely entitled to my opinion), but I'm being quite sincere. Much like I've advocated that players make "spellbooks" for caster pcs out of a stack of notecards, having all a classes known powers in card form would be extremely useful (in terms of tracking power recharge/useage and reducing page turning.)
To respond to the OP. I'm not at a breaking point yet, but am still attempting to grokk the fundamental changes to campaign structure introduced by 4e, which may well break things for me.
I'm not sure the dragonborn and an extra elf (but these ones wear _mauve_!) are worth what we lose in the race department.You know, much as people complain about the way 4e was marketed, this constant petty, "zinger" sniping at 4e by the people behind paizo leaves the same bad taste in my mouth.
The eladrin are basically high/grey elves that can teleport 25' anywhere in line of sight, once every 5 minutes. "Elves" in 4e are basically wild elves from previous additions.
I think the change in 4e is unwarranted structurally, and was only made to support 4e fluff (the new points of light cosmology.)
My breaking point was easy. Remember that video promo they put out last year? This one?Try this one :)That video, as near as I can tell, was not produced by WotC.
It's one thing for those outside the hobby to insult us by perpetuating the stereotypes, it is another for the very company who sells us the tools of the hobby, to do so.
Pook is right.
It was posted to Youtube by GamerZer0, aka Scott Rouse, WoTC's 4e PR guy...
It was posted to Youtube by GamerZer0, aka Scott Rouse, WoTC's 4e PR guy...
Not according to what I see on the site from the link?
FROM: rpgmp3
Added: September 06, 2007 (Less info)
A short video consisting of photos from around the net regarding Dungeons and Dragons 4e (4th Edition) combined with a song written by one of the members of www.rpgmp3.com
Is rpgmp Mr Rouse? Or are they connected in some way?
I'm confused. :)