|
And that's the big sub-group of this camp: the Faerun fans. A sizable portion of the FR fanbase were quite put off by the retconning of the Realms, including not a few 4e players.
I'm going to be curious to see the reactions of Eberron fans -- which includes myself, incidentally -- to the campaign and players guides later this year (June and July respectively). According to Keith, there won't be the time shift as in Forgotten Realms, so I'll be curious to see how tieflings and devas (from PHII) fit into the world.
Origins refer to where the creature comes from. Typically, this is its planar background. Fey creatures are usually from the Feywild, and Aberrant creatures are usually from the Far Realm. "Natural" is the origin of any creature that belongs on the material plane. Keywords are descriptors that usually describe some of a monster's traits. "Undead", "swarm" and "human" are all keywords. You're probably familiar with the third labeling category: type. It works a lot like it did in 3.5, with humanoids, magical beasts, etc.
It took me a few weeks to get the distinction down, too.
Also, did you figure out if you were actually using the Character Builder or not? The "unfriendly user interface" bit tipped me off, as I can't recall anyone really complaining about the UI of the Character Builder. The Compendium isn't particularly user-friendly, but the Character Builder is pretty intuitive for the most part.
Ah, yes, that was the Compendium. It was the first thing I looked at.
I've poked around a bit with the character builder. It's fairly pleasant, though will take some experimentation to figure out the tricks. And of course I'd have to be playing/running 4e to make that more important.
|
And that's the big sub-group of this camp: the Faerun fans. A sizable portion of the FR fanbase were quite put off by the retconning of the Realms, including not a few 4e players.I'm going to be curious to see the reactions of Eberron fans -- which includes myself, incidentally -- to the campaign and players guides later this year (June and July respectively). According to Keith, there won't be the time shift as in Forgotten Realms, so I'll be curious to see how tieflings and devas (from PHII) fit into the world.
Other than trying to explain to me how in the Mournlands they're going to explain dragonborn, considering existing (3.5) canon vis a vis dragons' attitudes about non "true" dragons, I think Eberron is a perfect fit for 4e's more cinematic style. I do have some slight reservations how 4e will pull off "pulp" (see my thoughts on 4e in the previous post), but that's more an issue for the GM, really.
|
I just wanted to comment, for the sake of nit-picking accuracy: the comment was made that you can't convert your 3e warforged into a 4e warforged without buying extra boks, getting a DDI subscription, and so on. Strictly, you couldn't do it in 3e either without extra books - notably the Eberron Campaign Sourcebook.
|
|
I just wanted to comment, for the sake of nit-picking accuracy: the comment was made that you can't convert your 3e warforged into a 4e warforged without buying extra boks, getting a DDI subscription, and so on. Strictly, you couldn't do it in 3e either without extra books - notably the Eberron Campaign Sourcebook.
Yeah -- it was sort of a peculiar, scratch-your-head criticism.
In a year or so, when we have a full slate of races and classes, I may circle back to 4E to give it a try in a new Eberron campaign.
I just wanted to comment, for the sake of nit-picking accuracy: the comment was made that you can't convert your 3e warforged into a 4e warforged without buying extra boks, getting a DDI subscription, and so on. Strictly, you couldn't do it in 3e either without extra books - notably the Eberron Campaign Sourcebook.
I did point out in all fairness ya had to have the ECS in 3.5 to do so
Other than trying to explain to me how in the Mournlands they're going to explain dragonborn, considering existing (3.5) canon vis a vis dragons' attitudes about non "true" dragons, I think Eberron is a perfect fit for 4e's more cinematic style. I do have some slight reservations how 4e will pull off "pulp" (see my thoughts on 4e in the previous post), but that's more an issue for the GM, really.
Seems dragons of Eberron changed that attitude. Let the reconnect begin
|
|
Yeah, I know what you mean about the dragons/dragonborn issue - that is the main impediment for me. But I've ordered the 4e books so we shall see. Of course, you can simply ban dragonborn from your Eberron world - I'm seriously considering that.
Does anyone know if this is the the James Wyatt Storm Dragon series? I tried reading the first volume but didn't enjoy it and couldn't finish it, but I'm wondering if it is important from a canon point of view?
|
|
On the more general conversion issue, I had a party that started off in 3e and converted to 4e. Now, big caveat - they were 1st level at the time of conversion. But, this is what happened:
- Monty, Human Rogue became Monty, Human Rogue
- Knight of Darkness, Human Cleric of Asmodeus, became Knight of Darkness, Human Paladin of Asmodeus
- Amaril, Elven Fighter (specialising in ranged combat, looking to multiclass into Wizard later) became Amaril, Eladrin Archer Ranger (multiclassing into Wizard now)
- Dingbat, Human Wizard became Dingbat, Human Wizard
I did the conversions, but it was interesting that I felt I managed to catch the essence of what the PCs were about (and the players seemed happy enough) based on the way they were played. The party was rounded out by the addition of a human cleric (a player who wasn't in the previous party) and the 2 strikers / 1 leader / 1 controller / 1 defender party was up and running.
Now, obviously if you have a complex character who has lots of PrCs and so on, or who is reliant on certain magic items, conversion is much more difficult (or if they are a monk or something, where the 4e rules just aren't there at all). But I don't think it is at all impossible. Nor do I think it is really that much more difficult converting a 3e character to a 4e character than it was converting a 2e character to 3e - you just have to accept that the basis for character creation is now different and that you need to approximate the feel of a character rather than expect you can do a straight conversion. In fact, with Amaril, I think we got closer to what the PC wanted his character to do at the outset through 4e than we could through the 3e rules (and maybe with Knight of Darkness too).
Nor do I think it is really that much more difficult converting a 3e character to a 4e character than it was converting a 2e character to 3e
I don't believe that is quite a fair statement.
3e to 4e, I think, requires more knowledge of the 4e rules than 2e to 3e required knowledge of the 3e rules.
That is because the fundamental design of some classes have changed rather radically.
An example would be, if you were a Ranger in 2e, you were a Ranger in 3e - not too much different. If you are a Ranger in 3e, you need to know that Ranger in 4e is focused on archery and that the Tempest (is it?) is focused on two weapon fighting.
I am not claiming it is hard, difficult, or even impossible. But it does require more in depth study of the new rules. More so than previous.
EDIT: Also, 3e introduced a slew of new "hybrid" classes, such as the beguiler and hexblade. Trying to convert those to more standard fair 4e classes can prove truly problematic - I think.
|
Your arguments, so far, have been: if you were converting a game a month ago you couldn't have played a half-orc,
No my arguement was it wasn't as black and white as the guy made it sound. And yes I didn't have access to the sources you cited, and I've never read any dragons or dungeon even when they were free online. Nor do I own anything but the PHb and while I am considering picking up a PHb II I don't have it yet.
Honestly I see with statements like that why some people get offended by your tone. My arguement was just that in all fairness it wasn't as easy or simple to convert as the guy made it sound. Breaking down my response with a bunch of use x and y and z doesn't change that. What if you have a core only DM, I'm not in that kind of group, but I've known DMs who refused to use anything outside of the core 3. And yes that statement quoted above even if you didn't mean it came across rude, so while I defended you earlier I now understand why some people get so bothered by your defensiveness.
|
|
Nor do I think it is really that much more difficult converting a 3e character to a 4e character than it was converting a 2e character to 3eI don't believe that is quite a fair statement.
3e to 4e, I think, requires more knowledge of the 4e rules than 2e to 3e required knowledge of the 3e rules.
That is because the fundamental design of some classes have changed rather radically.
An example would be, if you were a Ranger in 2e, you were a Ranger in 3e - not too much different. If you are a Ranger in 3e, you need to know that Ranger in 4e is focused on archery and that the Tempest (is it?) is focused on two weapon fighting.
I am not claiming it is hard, difficult, or even impossible. But it does require more in depth study of the new rules. More so than previous.
EDIT: Also, 3e introduced a slew of new "hybrid" classes, such as the beguiler and hexblade. Trying to convert those to more standard fair 4e classes can prove truly problematic - I think.
I suspect that, dealing with your last point first, you might get a reasonable fit using the multiclass rules, which can be used from the off.
That said, I'm not really claiming that you can get an easy fit as such. It requires some thought about what you are trying to do, and the "feel" of the character. I also don't really agree you need an in-depth knowledge of the system - I wouldn't claim to have it. Also, 3e has years of expansions to its name whereas 4e is about a year old, so expecting you could convert every variant class is a little unfair. That gap is gradually being filled with expansions.
It is certainly true that the fighter has changed big time. Also, so roles filled by the cleric (the melee "battle priest", for example) are maybe better filled by paladins. Ranger is pretty similar, actually - you can go archer or two-weapon fiend. And it will obviously be much, much harder with high level characters. But in a sense I would avoid this by not getting bogged down in the character class name, but in what the character does.
|
|
Our major conversion hassle (and still not sorted really) is a Cleric in v3.5 converted to 4E BUT he never took any combat related spells (damaging I mean) in v3.5. His concept was that he was a complete pacifist, more about knowledge based spells etc. He is not happy that he is now forced to take "wizz-bang" spells. If we just use rituals for him then he really misses out on some "spells" per level. I guess this was what people meant by 4E being more like older editions and less flexible than the "wild-west" that was v3.5 (note we only ever used core books)?
Suggestions? We do not really "house rule", so something with the "core" (meaning also Martial/Arcane... handbooks OK) rules to help with this issue please.
Actually can someone please tell me, is the PHB the end of Martial classes in the core given the Martial Handbook is out or will there be a Martial Handbook 2? We are liking 4E but having now read PHB2 starting to feel like we did when Rolemaster came out with book after book after book - all of them sort of core. Sort of bloat-ware for RPG's. I know "use a computer", but have not and will not. Pen & paper group us, if we want to turn on a computer than we will fire up WoW and have a fun evening "adventuring" in cyberspace.
Really what I'm asking is are the "core D&D" rules is there even going to be at an end for 4E? I had no issues with 3 core + supplements - we just never used supplements. But calling anything "core" means we feel that if we don't use it we somehow don't have a complete game. I would have liked WotC coast to do something along the same lines as World of Darkness when it reinvented itself. A "rules books" that covered all the rules minus character making and then an Arcane/Divine/Martial/Primal book with ALL* the "core" classes within each power type, and of course a core MM (supporting all previous "core" monsters). Then everything else as a supplement.
S.
*Say one character from each "role" (Striker, Defender etc), so that's 16 classes presented. Not unreasonable in a single book, and more class choice than we have had before in D&D core.
Note I have always viewed Psychic as a supplement class due to it Sci-Fi ramifications.
An example would be, if you were a Ranger in 2e, you were a Ranger in 3e - not too much different. If you are a Ranger in 3e, you need to know that Ranger in 4e is focused on archery and that the Tempest (is it?) is focused on two weapon fighting.
The Ranger is also focused on two-weapon fighting in 4th Edition. Just like you had to pick a fighting style in 3rd Edition, 4th Edition Rangers can choose powers and class features that support archery or two-weapon fighting.
The Tempest fighter build is just an option for fighters who want to be able to use two weapons.
If you're converting a Ranger from 3rd Edition, chances are it'll still be a Ranger in 4th Edition.
|
|
What if you have a core only DM, I'm not in that kind of group, but I've known DMs who refused to use anything outside of the core 3.
4E is the first edition designed not to be complete with just the three core books.
By which I mean: there is a complete game in the core three 4E books. Small, but complete.
However large pieces of the core 3E game (Gnomes, Monks, etc) were shifted out to the ancillary products. These were partly replaced by material that used to be ancillary (Tieflings, Warlocks) and partly by new material (Dragonborn, Warlords).
This creates more of a mismatch than between previous editions, and it cynically appears to have been done to encourage the sales of ancillary 4E books like the PHB2.
Your arguments, so far, have been: if you were converting a game a month ago you couldn't have played a half-orc,No my arguement was it wasn't as black and white as the guy made it sound. And yes I didn't have access to the sources you cited, and I've never read any dragons or dungeon even when they were free online. Nor do I own anything but the PHb and while I am considering picking up a PHb II I don't have it yet.
Honestly I see with statements like that why some people get offended by your tone. My arguement was just that in all fairness it wasn't as easy or simple to convert as the guy made it sound. Breaking down my response with a bunch of use x and y and z doesn't change that. What if you have a core only DM, I'm not in that kind of group, but I've known DMs who refused to use anything outside of the core 3. And yes that statement quoted above even if you didn't mean it came across rude, so while I defended you earlier I now understand why some people get so bothered by your defensiveness.
Keep the personal digs out of it.
I was simply pointing out that none of your arguments for why things were difficult to convert actually apply anymore. I think that's a valid point to make. If you'd like to give us some examples of things that you consider important to the D&D experience that are still impossible to play in 4th Edition, go for it.
As for "core-only DMs," that sounds like a problem with the DM, not with the rule set. The DM is essentially telling you "Yeah, I could let you play that thing you want to play from another book, but in my game we only use these three books. Sorry, you're out of luck."
This is, of course, part of the fundamental problem with "core-only DMs," - they place an often-unnecessary restriction on what players can play.
Our major conversion hassle (and still not sorted really) is a Cleric in v3.5 converted to 4E BUT he never took any combat related spells (damaging I mean) in v3.5. His concept was that he was a complete pacifist, more about knowledge based spells etc. He is not happy that he is now forced to take "wizz-bang" spells. If we just use rituals for him then he really misses out on some "spells" per level. I guess this was what people meant by 4E being more like older editions and less flexible than the "wild-west" that was v3.5 (note we only ever used core books)?
Suggestions? We do not really "house rule", so something with the "core" (meaning also Martial/Arcane... handbooks OK) rules to help with this issue please.
In the Player's Handbook there are a number of powers that don't do damage (at least they don't cause the character to roll damage dice) to a enemy directly in the cleric's arsenal up until 6th level where I don't see anymore. [Cause Fear (1e), Beacon of Hope (1d), Command (3e), Weapon of the Gods (5d)]
If you're converting a Ranger from 3rd Edition, chances are it'll still be a Ranger in 4th Edition.Just, y'know, without the druidy bits.
Right. And if you'd really like that whole spellcaster-ranger feel, multiclassing into Druid is always an option.
Actually can someone please tell me, is the PHB the end of Martial classes in the core given the Martial Handbook is out or will there be a Martial Handbook 2?
Martial Power 2 is already being worked on. I'm not sure when the release date will be, but it's coming at some point.
We are liking 4E but having now read PHB2 starting to feel like we did when Rolemaster came out with book after book after book - all of them sort of core. Sort of bloat-ware for RPG's. I know "use a computer", but have not and will not. Pen & paper group us, if we want to turn on a computer than we will fire up WoW and have a fun evening "adventuring" in cyberspace.
I don't understand what the issue is with using a computer to create your character. Really, is it that big of a deal? It's not like you're running your game off of it at the game table. It seems like you're missing the point of DDI.
Really what I'm asking is are the "core D&D" rules is there even going to be at an end for 4E?
I'm sure that at some point they will stop producing content for 4th Edition. But until then, no, there probably will not be a set end to what is considered "core D&D".
I had no issues with 3 core + supplements - we just never used supplements. But calling anything "core" means we feel that if we don't use it we somehow don't have a complete game.
Your game is complete with the Player's Handbook 1, Dungeon Master's Guide 1 and Monster Manual 1. Enjoy!
|
|
If you're converting a Ranger from 3rd Edition, chances are it'll still be a Ranger in 4th Edition.Just, y'know, without the druidy bits.
I may be in the minority, but I actually liked the fact that they got rid of spellcasting for rangers. I love playing rangers, but I never really liked the spellcasting aspect of them. The beastmaster ranger from Martial Powers was exactly what I was looking for.
Hey Scott, I would like you to take a look at the changes I made to the creatures I posted in the other thread.
I absolutely will, when I get the chance. I just woke up. It's on my to-do list. ;P
In the Player's Handbook there are a number of powers that don't do damage (at least they don't cause the character to roll damage dice) to a enemy directly in the cleric's arsenal up until 6th level where I don't see anymore. [Cause Fear (1e), Beacon of Hope (1d), Command (3e), Weapon of the Gods (5d)]Our major conversion hassle (and still not sorted really) is a Cleric in v3.5 converted to 4E BUT he never took any combat related spells (damaging I mean) in v3.5. His concept was that he was a complete pacifist, more about knowledge based spells etc. He is not happy that he is now forced to take "wizz-bang" spells. If we just use rituals for him then he really misses out on some "spells" per level. I guess this was what people meant by 4E being more like older editions and less flexible than the "wild-west" that was v3.5 (note we only ever used core books)?
Suggestions? We do not really "house rule", so something with the "core" (meaning also Martial/Arcane... handbooks OK) rules to help with this issue please.
It's also worth noting that I'd consider it possible to play a total pacifist in 4th Edition while still rolling damage. Remember, in 4th Edition (and, in fact, in 3rd Edition too) "damage" doesn't actually mean physical wounds, necessarily. It more accurately represents the creature's will to fight. That's why powers like "Vicious Mockery", where you demoralize your opponent with magically-infused verbal barbs, deal damage. In my mind, a Cleric can easily pick up party-buffing zone powers and still be a pacifist. Many of these powers also attack enemies within the zone, but you can decide that the damage is just coming from their awe at the power of your deity/devotion.
[threadjack] Does anyone have any idea what is going to be in DMG 2? I felt that the 4e DMG was exactly the thing I had been hoping for as a DM for years, and I wonder what they are going to do to improve on it.[/threadjack]
We know some things.
First, it's going to have a focus on paragon-tier campaigns. It won't be exclusive in this sense, but it will offer advice and rules that fit best in a mid-level game. Presumably the DMG 3 will do the same for epic tier.
We also know that it's going to feature a full write-up on Sigil as the example "home base" of a paragon-tier campaign. I'm excited about this, too.
Beyond that, I haven't heard anything on what it might contain. There may be other info floating around, though.
|
|
However large pieces of the core 3E game (Gnomes, Monks, etc) were shifted out to the ancillary products. These were partly replaced by material that used to be ancillary (Tieflings, Warlocks) and partly by new material (Dragonborn, Warlords).
One of the feelings I got was that some of the things that got shifted out were things that just weren't as popular as the stuff that got added in. Honestly, in the 26 years I have been playing I can count on one hand how many times I have had someone play a monk or a gnome in a game I was in. Granted my experience is different then that of other people, but I have played in 12 different states and on three different continents. In other places, like including dragonborn for instance, the designers were up front about the desire to shift away from a Tolkenesque fantasy towards a more modern view of the fantastic. If nothing else, they designered had to assume that these changes would bring in customers, or at least not drive customers away in order for them to make them.
|
|
This is, of course, part of the fundamental problem with "core-only DMs," - they place an often-unnecessary restriction on what players can play.
I think you are a little off base with this statement and assumes entirely that class = character. Judging only on previous editions, new "classes" became very unbalanced with regard to the "core" classes. A fact pointed out in the PFPRG. Making a party unbalanced and difficult for the DM to keep things challenging for all players.
I think with the core classes presented, again I'll use v3.5 as an example, there are no "characters" I don't think that can't be reflected. If I were to make a statement in a similar but opposing vein to your statement it would be;
"This is, of course, part of the fundamental problem with "supplement PCs," - they place an often-unnecessary restriction on their imagination by needing a "canned solution" to something that can be created from "core classes" and a little thinking.
2 cents.
S.
I think you are a little off base with this statement and assumes entirely that class = character. Judging only on previous editions, new "classes" became very unbalanced with regard to the "core" classes. A fact pointed out in the PFPRG. Making a party unbalanced and difficult for the DM to keep things challenging for all players.
The community consensus even near the time of D&D 3.5's final days in print was that almost all of the most broken, unbalanced aspects of the game were to be found in the core books - Clerics and Druids in particular. The unbalanced nature of the game was clear even in "core".
I think with the core classes presented, again I'll use v3.5 as an example, there are no "characters" I don't think that can't be reflected.
I agree. A little imagination goes a long way.
If I were to make a statement in a similar but opposing vein to your statement it would be;
"This is, of course, part of the fundamental problem with "supplement PCs," - they place an often-unnecessary restriction on their imagination by needing a "canned solution" to something that can be created from "core classes" and a little thinking.
Now, this is different. I don't think it's possible to make the argument that a desire for a certain mechanical structure to a character you're designing by its very nature restricts imagination any more than being forced into a given mechanical structure by being limited to the first Player's Handbook.
|
|
I may be in the minority, but I actually liked the fact that they got rid of spellcasting for rangers. I love playing rangers, but I never really liked the spellcasting aspect of them. The beastmaster ranger from Martial Powers was exactly what I was looking for.
I wouldn't mind a little druidic multi-class in mine. I also loved the beastmaster and promptly made a beyotch of a Drow with a gribbly spider! YAY! Gives me shudders just thinking about it.
|
|
If I were to make a statement in a similar but opposing vein to your statement it would be;
"This is, of course, part of the fundamental problem with "supplement PCs," - they place an often-unnecessary restriction on their imagination by needing a "canned solution" to something that can be created from "core classes" and a little thinking.
Now, this is different. I don't think it's possible to make the argument that a desire for a certain mechanical structure to a character you're designing by its very nature restricts imagination any more than being forced into a given mechanical structure by being limited to the first Player's Handbook.
I see your point but the only way to avoid being forced into a mechanical structure is to stop using any rules full stop. Each "new class" is nothing more than another mechanical structure, I agree. So you have a case where you attempt to cover the "core" fantasy "classes" or have "million and one" slight changes to the above "core classes" to provide a mechanic for each and every possible "character concept" (the Rolemaster idea). In the first you provide a frame work (figthty person, healy person, zappy person, sneaky person) and in the second you produce endless "core books". I will admit that the second option makes much more sense for a company trying to make cash.
But I am at a loss to think of a character that couldn't be made with the rules as presented (excuse me if I use v3.5 I just know it better - remember this isn't about 4E vs v3.5 people just statement that "core" DM's are restrictive, i.e. stopping players making a "character" concept). It would seem your argument is that if there isn't a mechanic to give you some sort of in game mechanical bonus that you somehow can't play that "character", or am I missing your point?
OK, things like "I want to be a half toad, half elf with lasers coming out of my eyes and the ability to change matter into ice cream" would cause endless headaches, but I'm quite sure there isn't a supplement that would cover this example either?
Thanks,
S.
|
|
One of the feelings I got was that some of the things that got shifted out were things that just weren't as popular as the stuff that got added in. Honestly, in the 26 years I have been playing I can count on one hand how many times I have had someone play a monk or a gnome in a game I was in. Granted my experience is different then that of other people, but I have played in 12 different states and on three different continents.
You know all the standard caveats about anecdotal evidence, right?
In my case I have one player in my game who always plays a monk or martial artist of some kind.
One of the feelings I got was that some of the things that got shifted out were things that just weren't as popular as the stuff that got added in. Honestly, in the 26 years I have been playing I can count on one hand how many times I have had someone play a monk or a gnome in a game I was in. Granted my experience is different then that of other people, but I have played in 12 different states and on three different continents.You know all the standard caveats about anecdotal evidence, right?
In my case I have one player in my game who always plays a monk or martial artist of some kind.
I do recall some of the WotC guys talking about how they had conducted extensive marketing research and it showed that the gnome, half-orc, bard and monk received very little play, and very little enthusiasm compared to other classes and races.
I do recall some of the WotC guys talking about how they had conducted extensive marketing research and it showed that the gnome, half-orc, bard and monk received very little play, and very little enthusiasm compared to other classes and races.
I think this is a fair statement on the face of it, but it's partially the wrong question: "What do you like to play?" as opposed to "What sort of characters make the most interesting NPCs?"
Bards may not be great shakes as PCs, but as NPCs, they're Exposition Dude, convenient butts for jokes, and a hundred other uses. Monks and gnomes are likewise useful.
I've never cared for half-orcs, or orcs for that matter, and have found that in play and occasionally in print they lead to particularly ugly stereotypes I don't care to have at my gaming table, or for that matter, anywhere.
However large pieces of the core 3E game (Gnomes, Monks, etc) were shifted out to the ancillary products. These were partly replaced by material that used to be ancillary (Tieflings, Warlocks) and partly by new material (Dragonborn, Warlords). This creates more of a mismatch than between previous editions, and it cynically appears to have been done to encourage the sales of ancillary 4E books like the PHB2.
Emphasis mine. Bards, druids, monks, and half-orcs were never a part of “core” D&D until 3E. The mismatch is between players and designers. It seems more than a few players’ D&D experience is limited to 3E, while the designers had the whole of D&D history in mind when they created 4E. Half-orcs, for example, now have a bonus to dexterity because pre-3E they were a sneaky assassin race.
|
|
Emphasis mine. Bards, druids, monks, and half-orcs were never a part of “core” D&D until 3E.
Um, actually, Bards, Druids, Monks and half orcs are all in the AD&D 1e Player's handbook. You know, the core player's rulebook of the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Granted, bards were an optional "proto-prestige class", but your statement is still inaccurate.
It seems more than a few players’ D&D experience is limited to 3E
It seems some young whippersnappers forget there was D&D before second edition.
Our major conversion hassle (and still not sorted really) is a Cleric in v3.5 converted to 4E BUT he never took any combat related spells (damaging I mean) in v3.5. His concept was that he was a complete pacifist, more about knowledge based spells etc. He is not happy that he is now forced to take "wizz-bang" spells. If we just use rituals for him then he really misses out on some "spells" per level. I guess this was what people meant by 4E being more like older editions and less flexible than the "wild-west" that was v3.5 (note we only ever used core books)?
Suggestions? We do not really "house rule", so something with the "core" (meaning also Martial/Arcane... handbooks OK) rules to help with this issue please.
I recommend rebuilding the character as an Artificer, possibly multiclassed as a Cleric. A lot of Artificer powers target an ally and only attack an enemy as a secondary effect. He can just take Religion training and play the character as extremely devout and viola, a (mostly) pacifist healer.
|
|
Emphasis mine. Bards, druids, monks, and half-orcs were never a part of “core” D&D until 3E.Um, actually, Bards, Druids, Monks and half orcs are all in the AD&D 1e Player's handbook. You know, the core player's rulebook of the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Granted, bards were an optional "proto-prestige class", but your statement is still inaccurate.
It seems more than a few players’ D&D experience is limited to 3EIt seems some young whippersnappers forget there was D&D before second edition.
The point is more that what is and is not core varied between editions, and always has done. All of the above have been in, and out, in and out again (as has the barbarian, too). The main constraints are, I suspect, the fact that class powers are now unique to each class, so classes take up much more room in the books. Something has to give. <shrug> They are back in again now (with the exception of monks, which are doubtless on their way).
|
|
The point is more that what is and is not core varied between editions, and always has done. All of the above have been in, and out, in and out again (as has the barbarian, too). The main constraints are, I suspect, the fact that class powers are now unique to each class, so classes take up much more room in the books. Something has to give. <shrug> They are back in again now (with the exception of monks, which are doubtless on their way).Emphasis mine. Bards, druids, monks, and half-orcs were never a part of “core” D&D until 3E.Um, actually, Bards, Druids, Monks and half orcs are all in the AD&D 1e Player's handbook. You know, the core player's rulebook of the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Granted, bards were an optional "proto-prestige class", but your statement is still inaccurate.
It seems more than a few players’ D&D experience is limited to 3EIt seems some young whippersnappers forget there was D&D before second edition.
No, if that were the point, the lad would have said "You know, what has been defined as "core" has varied over the editions, 4e is no different." And that would have been a polite, accurate statement.
However, he said what he said, so I reserve the right to call him out on his wildly inaccurate statement, a statement he made to challenge his debate partner's knowledge of the game and experience.
Goose and gander, and all that.
|
|
I do recall some of the WotC guys talking about how they had conducted extensive marketing research and it showed that the gnome, half-orc, bard and monk received very little play, and very little enthusiasm compared to other classes and races.One of the feelings I got was that some of the things that got shifted out were things that just weren't as popular as the stuff that got added in. Honestly, in the 26 years I have been playing I can count on one hand how many times I have had someone play a monk or a gnome in a game I was in. Granted my experience is different then that of other people, but I have played in 12 different states and on three different continents.You know all the standard caveats about anecdotal evidence, right?
In my case I have one player in my game who always plays a monk or martial artist of some kind.
Strictly anecdotal:
I've seen maybe three gnome PCs in all the years I've played, and they were all 1e gnomes, back when they were still interesting, and not just a halfling/dwarf mash up. (Thank you, Paizo, for making them interesting again). Edit: I forgot there was a gnome in our current SD game. He uses a halfling mini. Gnomes are forgettable even when you sit next to one four hours every Sunday...
Half orcs? I've seen TOO MANY half orcs played in 3x (mostly barbarians, for some odd reason). In 1e, not so much. Other than assassin, half orcs didn't have a niche, and most groups didn't play evil, so they were odd man out.
Bards were almost impossible to qualify for in 1e, never actually saw one in action back then. They got some run in 2e, but they took a step back in 3x.
Monks? They've always sucked. No wonder no one played them. They were worse than wizards in first level survivability in 1e, and every other martial class blew them away in 3x. Plus, a lot of people I knew (including me) thought it was silly to have Shaolin dudes running around our quasi-medieval sandbox. After Oriental Adventures was released for 1e they made a little more sense, and the martial arts rules helped fill them out, but they were still second banana to the samurai and kensai of the world.
|
|
One of the feelings I got was that some of the things that got shifted out were things that just weren't as popular as the stuff that got added in. Honestly, in the 26 years I have been playing I can count on one hand how many times I have had someone play a monk or a gnome in a game I was in. Granted my experience is different then that of other people, but I have played in 12 different states and on three different continents.You know all the standard caveats about anecdotal evidence, right?
In my case I have one player in my game who always plays a monk or martial artist of some kind.
You did notice that I admited that my evidence was anecdotal and placed a caveot that my experience may not be typical, right?
I played a Gnome Knight in a short dungeon crawl we ran under 3.5. He did rock verily. AC of around 36 at lvl 5 and did a massive 1d6 damage. I think he was called Sir Fonk of Fonking. Not the most serious character ive ever played.
EDIT: Actually it was Sir Merk of Merkin..which I beleive is type of pubic wig. I knew it was something rude and fonking sounded wrong.
In our longest running game we had a humanmonk. He got from lvl 1 to 14, and my god did he suck BUT I must admit the guy playing him was a bit...."special" when it came to his choices. For example, he took weapon prof longsword, then weapon focus longsword AND NEVER ONCE PICKED UP A LONGSWORD!! He also took some other craziness that my mind has tried to block out (he was thinking about multiclassing into wizard and took spell mastery, but then never multi-classed into wizard). He was always adamant that he had made the right choices and they were totally in character despite him being possible the biggest metagamer I have ever met. He doesnt play with us anymore.
|
|
annecdotal completely just felt like chiming in for the fun of it. Gnome is my favorite race(especially dragonlance style gnomes cause I like inventing gadgets for my characters in game) in fact the first character I ever made was a gnome battle sorcerer, bard is my favorite class, and while half-orc I've only seen played once (by me) it was a very interesting character. However in every game i've played in there has been either a gnome or a bard, and in two games I've played in (one as dm one as player) there has been a gnome bard :) My current character is a gnome bard that wield a human sized earthbreaker[/threadjack]
|
|
The point is more that what is and is not core varied between editions, and always has done. All of the above have been in, and out, in and out again (as has the barbarian, too). The main constraints are, I suspect, the fact that class powers are now unique to each class, so classes take up much more room in the books. Something has to give. <shrug> They are back in again now (with the exception of monks, which are doubtless on their way).Slight nitpick: Barbarians have *never* been core before 3rd edition.
Untrue. Unearthed Arcana (1e AD&D) was an official rules update for both players and DMs. It is "core" for the 1e AD&D game. We just didn't think in terms of "core" back in the day. There were just rules. The "optional" splatbook phenomenon didn't rear its ugly head until 2e.
Edit: I take that back. I suppose Dave Hargrave's Arduin books could be considered splats for OD&D. The "O.G. 3PP" (along with Bledsaw at Judge's Guild) if you will.
|
|
Untrue. Unearthed Arcana (1e AD&D) was an official rules update for both players and DMs. It is "core" for the 1e AD&D game.
Where oh where have all the -2nd Level Cavaliers gone?
In v3.5 we had a few Gnome Sorcerers, these weren't WoW players either?
As to the splat books, yep blame 2E for that. 2E was the reason my gaming groups since then have had a "core books only" policy in our games. I believe the one player who brought ALL the 2E "complete" books was carrying around more books than the average library! 4E seems to have come up with a cure for groups like mine not constantly spending money, make multi-core books! To avoid the "but its in a core book" discussions we have indeed agreed if it has "core" on the cover its allowed in the game. This time I fear my group will now have to cart around said library as the years roll on.
Anyway enjoying the 4E overall, finding it a little less "serious" than previous editions, more heroey (if that's a word).
S.
|
|
Where oh where have all the -2nd Level Cavaliers gone?
I loved those guys, immunity to mind effects and all.
Back around 2001, when I picked up the 3.0 PHB, after having been a GURPS Fantasy guy for 14 years, one of the things that impressed me most about the Third Edition was that it was clearly designed by guys like me, who harbored a nostalgic fondness for 1E AD&D, and the strange array of core classes from the 1E PHB + UA. These were guys who hadn't drunk the 2E Kool-Aid.
I guess it may seem dissonant to some to have wushu chopsocky guys right alongside the medieval European paladins and druids, but that was AD&D all over the place.
|
|
Anyway enjoying the 4E overall, finding it a little less "serious" than previous editions, more heroey (if that's a word).
S.
Like I said earlier, I think 4e "breaks he chain" with the "AD&D" line (1e, 2e, 3x) and is the spiritual successor to the Holmes/Moldvay-Cook/Mentzer "Basic" D&D line. It is, in my opinion, less daunting for new and inexperienced players to learn, and still has a lot to offer experienced players who may have been less than enamored with some of D&D's "sacred cows". I like holy beef myself, but then, I'm not really the target audience for the new game.
I am glad that you're enjoying the game! Anything that keeps people gathering together and rolling dice, and away from the CRT/flat panel, is a good thing, AFAIC.