Sure, this is, in part, an issue of the mat. But I think it's only a side effect of having a clear, objective set-up of the battlefield.That's my main issue I guess. Battlefields aren't clear and they aren't objective. It's this side-effect that is part and parcel of the battle-mat that I take exception too. Melee classes counting squares to minimise AoO while maximising charges, wizards dropping fireball grenades left, right and center. For me if I want this level of board-game then I think (me, my thought) that 4e does it better ONLY because it was built from the ground up to be like this. 3.5e (3e less so) had these formal battle-mat system tacked on to the 1e/2e abstractions and for me they don't quite fit. Like trying to have your cake and eat it too.
My issues, I live with them everyday, but one day when we go back to 2nd ed. I'll get better...
:)
Which has always been a suggestion of mine I can't believe WotC never thought of.
Are they worried about losing customers? Need to make profit? They need to do just two things and then their revenue can start rolling:
1) Stop making new editions. All that does is further split the fanbase. By 6E, you've split your customers so many ways, you'll never make money. You will have 6 separate crowds of D&D players and access to only one group's paychecks. This gets worse with each new edition.
2) Continue supporting all older editions. It doesn't matter if it's 20%, 10%, or even 5% of their budget, use it to write a few books a year dedicated to new material for 1e, 2e, and 3e fans. You will get a huge investment return on all those people who see their style of play getting the support they wanted. They will start to trust WotC again and feel more loyal to the company. Convert some 4E stuff to 3E, make a 4E Paragon Path a new kit in 2E, give the 1e stats for a Lord of Chaos. Whatever works. Put it all in one big book (or separate into smaller books, one for each edition) and watch them sell out like crazy.
WoW still updates your game whether you play with Wrath of the Lich King or not. Heck, their Diablo 2 servers are still running! SquareEnix is continuing to support FFXI despite the soon-to-be-released FFXIV coming out. If WotC wants to model themselves so bad on them, they should do as they do all the way. The next best thing for WotC? Release a splatbook for the 3e crowd. Convert the Avenger into a full 3E class or give us more martial maneuvers from Tome of Battle, or more Warlock invocations, or mix it all! Give us 3E stats to a primordial, like that big thunder worm thing they had before (forgot the name). And so on.
Better yet, save money and don't print them as books, but as e-zines. A DDi subscriber can pay to get content to their older edition games, or 4E magazines, or both if they pay a few dollars more!
I'd love to meet their business management and ask why that hasn't been thought of after all this time? I don't think anyone likes Edition Wars. It's bad for both business and the community. Sign a peace treaty , offer amends and give sanction to the refugees already.
There really isnt a reason for the edition wars. The idea that 4E is bad design is nonsense. Every system has strengths and weaknesses and that includes pathfinder.
If you want to discuss the differences to try to help people make a choice for the right game for them thats one thing. But to openly attack a game system just makes you look like a troll.
The edition wars are over, we all won. Pathfinder exists and is going strong. 4E exists and will be supported by wizards of the coast for a long time coming. Its over, leave the hostility at home.
Sorry, not trying to be hostile, just stating a fact, thats all..
Why didn't you just use the 3E monster manual? The changes between it an the PF monsters aren't really that significant in most cases.
I don't know, I have 4e had PF and sold it off because they waited too long to bring out a Bestiary. I was ready to run it but got tired of the wait so sold the PF book on ebay. Well then 2 months later they bring out the PF Bestiary, figures.... I still play 4e and have not re-invested into PF, instead I picked up a copy of Fantasy Craft and I have to say, its far better than both combined, I think FC has hit the mark, oh and all the monsters are in the book plus a monster design feature and conversion rules from standard d20, its an all in one game. They also fixed the bloody Armor rules, armor has a DR now, no bonus to AC which has always been a thorn in my side in any version of D&D. IMO I say dump PF & 4e and go FC!
Well, I don't have a copy for one and when I tried to find one for sale, everybody wanted 10oz of gold for one.
|
Sorry, not trying to be hostile, just stating a fact, thats all..There really isnt a reason for the edition wars. The idea that 4E is bad design is nonsense. Every system has strengths and weaknesses and that includes pathfinder.
If you want to discuss the differences to try to help people make a choice for the right game for them thats one thing. But to openly attack a game system just makes you look like a troll.
The edition wars are over, we all won. Pathfinder exists and is going strong. 4E exists and will be supported by wizards of the coast for a long time coming. Its over, leave the hostility at home.
I didn't win. I wanted 2e back.
:(
The characters really did play like units on a battlemap.
My $0.02
One number and one word...
5' step
Correct me if I'm wrong but of the AD&D family 2e was the only one that didn't recommend the use of "wargaming" figures (i.e. miniatures).
I think it's fairer to say that 4e streamlined the battle-mat mentality that 3.5e cemented into my beloved game.
S.
Well I got news for ya, were do you think D&D came from, hummmm. Chainmail a wargame.
|
|
Well I got news for ya, were do you think D&D came from, hummmm. Chainmail a wargame.The characters really did play like units on a battlemap.
My $0.02
One number and one word...
5' step
Correct me if I'm wrong but of the AD&D family 2e was the only one that didn't recommend the use of "wargaming" figures (i.e. miniatures).
I think it's fairer to say that 4e streamlined the battle-mat mentality that 3.5e cemented into my beloved game.
S.
Yep where they came up with the idea that chainmail wasn't very good at a roleplaying game due to its requirement of miniatures and battle-mats/gaming-table and thus D&D was born...
Great so we have come full circle and made D&D a wargame again?
|
|
Over the top things are fine. But once you get firecubes (they call fireballs for some reason) or spatial anomalies where your speed is dependant on your direction (turn around 45 degrees and suddenly you're about 1.4 times as fast as before!), and stuff like that, the game gets close to the point (or past the point) where it stops to be a simulation and becomes a game.
Rules for rules sake are fine for chess and poker and the like, but not for RPGs.
TBH 4e's areas of effect and movement rules while a little less realistic are, for me, soooo much easier to actually play. And spending less time figuring out movement or areas of effect means I am less likely to be broken out of my immersion (YMMV).
One of my old PF GMs who hates 4e even dropped the diagonal movement rule because it was too much hassle. Though funnily he kept the PF area of effects so it could mean that you could move out of an area of effect if you moved diagonally but not vertically / horizontally.
Lets face it, using a square grid, even with diagonal movement rules isn't totally realistic either. All rules seem to be a balance between playability and simulation, and for me at least I would prefer to err on the side of playability (having played the old Aliens RPG I know I wouldn't want simulation at the expense of playability) - of course opinions will differ and for some simulation may be preferred to playability. So its a good thing that both 3.5/PF and 4e exist.
|
|
And that's why a lot of people won't bother with 4e: It feels like a game, and nothing but a game.
As opposed to what? It is a game, a roleplaying game, and yes it feels like a game, just like Pathfinder and pretty much every RPG out there does.
Like a more complicated version of chess with dice and expensive plastic miniatures.
And some people will feel exactly the same about Pathfinder - while it is possible to play without a battle matt and miniatures, it really is designed to work best with them; that for some people would make PF feel more like a game of chess than something like FATE (which uses more abstract Zones that don't require minis) or Don't Rest Your Head (which only requires one contested dice roll to decide who wins a conflict and then allows the winner to narrate exactly how that conflict occurred).
Compared to those games many would lump 3.5, PF and 4e into the same category of "chess gameyness" (for lack of a better term), possibly along with Savage Worlds.
I personally don't see PF and 4e that far removed in terms of "chess gameyness", but as stated YMMV.
|
|
I'd love to meet their business management and ask why that hasn't been thought of after all this time?
Who says it hasn't been thought of? Maybe it was and it was discussed, maybe some figures were crunched and maybe it was determined that it would provide less profit (perhaps more revenue, but if the extra revenue is out paced by the extra costs of production, marketing etc, then overall less profit).
Selling PDFs of previous edition books is probably the best you will get - no physical materials and print runs, no development effort, just a "little" effort to generate the PDFs (and yes I wish WotC were still doing this).
The OGL still allowed third party publishers to produce supplements for 3.0 and 3.5 once 4e was announced (and it became clear the GSL weren't be anywhere near as open) - of course now most 3PPs pursuing OGL supplements are doing so for Pathfinder now, so 3.5 loses even that (just like the 3.0 edition 3PP products died a death when 3.5 came out)
|
I truly hope the new boxed sets remedy what I perceive to be the biggest flaw in 4E: the lack of coherent and explicit rules for building monsters and NPCs. Now, I know many people feel the absolute "freedom" with stat blocks and powers is liberating, but I'd feel "paralyzed".[...]
And I don't feel like I should be "eyeballing" it every time I'm creating a new monster or NPC. If anything I feel more and more confused by powers to the point it'd take me probably two or three times more than statting them in 3E/PF.
Actually, eyeballing can be great. And I think PF does it really well.
Some people don't realise (or they do realise it but resist it strongly) that while PF has great rules and guidelines for monster creation, the game never intends to force you to use them.
In fact, Paizo writers themselves sometimes take some liberties to create the critter they need if the standard monsters don't quite fit and no template accomplishes what they need.
You have a really huge range of possibilities - if you want to use them:
Take a monster out of the book and make simple, cosmetic changes. I did it to create a swamp giant. There is no swamp giant in the core rules. I just used cloud giants (they were the right power level for what I needed) and gave them some different abilities, and different looks (stuff like swamp-stride and a bit of camouflage in swampy regions). BAM! Instant monster!
That's an easy way to put stats to your vision.
You can also use simple templates, regular templates, class levels, generic advancement by CR (with the tables that give you a hint of how the numbers should change).
And while you should sit down and do the real math if you put that stuff into a published book, you can wing it easily if you just need a quick fix. No need to get the HP and saves "exactly right". Just use the critter from the book, the changes the advancement table says are right for the advancement you want (or vary them a bit), and you're done.
Fast as a hasted quickling on speed in a time-stop (well, not that fast, since nothing is that fast except that quickling, and, of course, Chuck Norris).
And it's not even that new in PF - it was just expanded upon. 3e had those capabilities, too!
Oh, sure; but there are explicit rules on creating monsters and NPCs and how things relate to each other on the mechanical level. If you want variance, it's pretty easy to do that with re-skinning, templates and some cosmetic changes (as you put it). In PF this is easier than it's ever been (simple templates, for example). So, yes, I agree with you; and it's not usually even needed, because PF has pretty strong rules for building monsters.
You can also re-skin stuff in 4E, but if you want to build your own monsters, you practically need to "eyeball" it to get it at least approximately right; it's actually *VERY* easy to end up with something that's not properly balanced (and as we know, 4E is way more about absolute balance than any previous edition has been). My point was that I think this is the biggest "flaw" in 4E design, and something WoTC probably should concentrate on; I know DMs who (like myself) would feel paralyzed with the absolute "freedom" that comes with the lack of comprehensive monster/NPC building rules. And for some that's the main reason they won't ever touch 4E. Even some kind of optional/alternative rules would be fine.
Now, I love PF RPG... more than any other edition. But I *might* be also willing to try a 4E campaign if I felt the rules would "support" me; I'm fine with Skill Challenges, but I don't think I would feel comfortable with the confusing freeform "toolbox" method for building NPCs and monsters. It would just take me way too long to design new monsters and NPCs, so ATM I don't see running 4E as an option.
|
|
You can also re-skin stuff in 4E, but if you want to build your own monsters, you practically need to "eyeball" it to get it at least approximately right; it's actually *VERY* easy to end up with something that's not properly balanced (and as we know, 4E is way more about absolute balance than any previous edition has been). My point was that I think this is the biggest "flaw" in 4E design, and something WoTC probably should concentrate on; I know DMs who (like myself) would feel paralyzed with the absolute "freedom" that comes with the lack of comprehensive monster/NPC building rules. And for some that's the main reason they won't ever touch 4E. Even some kind of optional/alternative rules would be fine.
Slightly off topic but also agreeing with the point. For those that know Mage the old World of Darkness game by White Wolf. I am talking the old World of Darkness version. Anyways in that game magic was very free form, in that you could create a wide variety of magical effects based on what you knew about magic. I knew a lot of players that either hated mage or refused to play mage, all for the simple reason they thought the magic system was to free form.
Like trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Then why is there a cake in my fridge I just ate. Not reprocessed, but there in perfect condition.
Must be quantum.
Pathfinder - Now with more quantum!
Did anyone ever miss the 3m circle? If they were 3e/4e wizards they never would, in fact you could reduce the circle to 1.524 m and they would hit every single time. I say the military should recuit more D&D wizards they would have less friendly fire problems that way...
Remember: These are fireballs. You don't have to aim, they fly where you want them. That is true whether you use the grid or not. That's why wizards tend to suck when they have to use regular weapons, like chocolates on Auditors.
Grenades should be compared to grenade-like weapons. They have to be aimed.
Well I got news for ya, were do you think D&D came from, hummmm. Chainmail a wargame.
Exactly! "Came from". It evolved.
Porsches more or less come from horse-drawn carts. Does that mean putting a horse in front of your sports car is good?
"Back to the roots" may have a nice ring to it (or have had, long ago), but not all changes back to things were before are good. Some are "Back to the stone age".
Lets face it, using a square grid, even with diagonal movement rules isn't totally realistic either. All rules seem to be a balance between playability and simulation
Simulation *is* approximation. If it were the real thing, it wouldn't be a simulation. The important part is that simulations do approximate.
1-2-1 is not 100% realistic, but it's a good approximation to simulate the real thing. 1-2-1 basically makes diagonals cost 1.5, which is close to 1.414something.
And, again, there is a different between not "100% realistic" and "The bishop moves diagonally because that's what the rule says".
And that's why a lot of people won't bother with 4e: It feels like a game, and nothing but a game.As opposed to what? It is a game, a roleplaying game, and yes it feels like a game, just like Pathfinder and pretty much every RPG out there does.
Let me make it clearer: It feels like a board game. Pathfinder doesn't. RPGs usually don't. There's more to it.
And some people will feel exactly the same about Pathfinder[...]
Compared to those games many would lump 3.5, PF and 4e into the same category of "chess gameyness"
How does that matter?
It's your arrogance; you don't CARE whether you spelled someone's name correctly or not.
Don't get all worked up because of trivialities like that, Asgatrion!
;P
(You're an evil man... I wish I'll one day be as ruthless and fiendish as you!)
It's a gift.
Septuple posting should be illegal. ;) KaeYoss, may want to combine multiple posts into a single one some time.
Septuple posting should be illegal. ;)
Oh, it is. That's why I do it.
KaeYoss, may want to combine multiple posts into a single one some time.
I have given it due consideration and no. Thanks for the suggestion, though.
(I thought about splitting this one up, but decided against it, just for you)
Which has always been a suggestion of mine I can't believe WotC never thought of.
My issues, I live with them everyday, but one day when we go back to 2nd ed. I'll get better...:)
Going by the way they tried their best to destroy 3e, I think they thought about it and decided to go the opposite direction.
FYI the 4E fireball basically works like the 3E one. Sure you have to roll an attack roll vs your enemies' reflex, but if you miss it still does half damage. In 3E you don't roll, but your enemy gets a saving throw and if they make it, the attack does half damage. So in essence the mechanics of fireball are still very similar.
Did anyone ever miss the 3m circle? If they were 3e/4e wizards they never would, in fact you could reduce the circle to 1.524 m and they would hit every single time. I say the military should recuit more D&D wizards they would have less friendly fire problems that way...
Remember: These are fireballs. You don't have to aim, they fly where you want them. That is true whether you use the grid or not. That's why wizards tend to suck when they have to use regular weapons, like chocolates on Auditors.
Grenades should be compared to grenade-like weapons. They have to be aimed.
|
|
Simulation *is* approximation. If it were the real thing, it wouldn't be a simulation. The important part is that simulations do approximate.
I understand that, never said otherwise (did I?), but how accurate an approximation is can vary - i.e. neither are totally realistc, but just how close they get to simulating that reality is what matters.
1-2-1 is a more accurate approximation than 1-1-1 for diagnonal movement but both are approximations so the questions for me are:
Is the less accurate approximation of 4e good enough of a simulation for me?
...and...
Is the loss of accuracy of simulation more than made up by the extra playability gained?
For me, the answer to both are Yes, for others one or both may be answered with a No.
If 4e's diagnonal movement rules are simply not a good enough simulation for you, so much so that you just can't enjoy the game even if you like the extra playability, then you're probably better sticking with 1-2-1.
If 4e's diagonal movement rules are somewhat annoying, but the extra playability for you removes a greater annoyance, then 4e diagonal movement is overall a better option.
And that's why a lot of people won't bother with 4e: It feels like a game, and nothing but a game.
Let me make it clearer: It feels like a board game. Pathfinder doesn't. RPGs usually don't. There's more to it.
Okay, so can I read both those statements with "board" in front of "game"? But more importantly can I also assume you are not trying to state how 4e feels as an objective fact? I.e. can those statements be read as:
And that's why a lot of people won't bother with 4e: [To them] It feels like a [board] game, and nothing but a [board] game.
Let me make it clearer: [To me] It feels like a board game. [To me] Pathfinder doesn't. RPGs usually don't. There's more to it.
If that is correct, then I can only agree - a lot of people do apparently feel 4e is nothing but a board game (or war game or wanna-be MMO). However lots of other people do not feel like that, so I can equally say:
Lots of people will "bother" with 4e as to them it feels like more than a board game, it feels like a roleplaying game.
To me 4e combat can feel a bit like a board game, but then to me Pathfinder and D&D3.5 combat can feel like a board game too.
Basically to me whenever a battle mat and minis are pulled out that part of the game can start feeling like a board game to me. But never does it feel exactly like a board game such as chess or monopoly, as I am usually move invested in my "character" than a simple playing piece, and there is still in-character banter happening and a story being progressed. Combat can start feeling very much like boardgames such as Descent or HeroQuest however.
But then there can and often is more to 4e. 3.5 and Pathfinder than just combat (despite what some people say) and so overall to me and many others none of those games feel like a board game, and nothing more than just a board game.
How does that matter?
And some people will feel exactly the same about Pathfinder
[...]
Compared to those games many would lump 3.5, PF and 4e into the same category of "chess gameyness"
It matters in so much as I am trying to present an alternative viewpoint - to counterbalance your statements that:
"[4e] feels like a game, and nothing but a game.""[4e] feels like a board game. Pathfinder doesn't"
I was suggesting that considering the whole spectrum of roleplaying games including the diceless Amber, 3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars (with its two stats of Fighting Ability and Non Fighting Ability), Don't Rest Your Head (with its conflict resoltion as opposed to task resolution) etc, that Pathfinder and 4e might be seen as extremely similar games and considered to be just as "boardgamey" as each other, to some people at least.
Basically, if you take a broader perspective the differences between 4e and Pathfinder become much less noticeable, and the similarities much more noticeable.
FYI the 4E fireball basically works like the 3E one. Sure you have to roll an attack roll vs your enemies' reflex, but if you miss it still does half damage. In 3E you don't roll, but your enemy gets a saving throw and if they make it, the attack does half damage. So in essence the mechanics of fireball are still very similar.
Well, then the argument doesn't work for 4e unless you say that 4e firecubes still go exactly where you want them and those you don't hit with your attack roll basically make what used to be the saving throw.
The argument is mainly about how fireballs aren't aimed. You don't make an attack roll on the position you want it to go (against something like that position's AC) and when you miss it explodes somewhere else, probably making its own targets. You direct it, and people make saves to get out of the way.
It's magic. You don't really aim. You tell that magic ball of fiery distraction where you want it, and it obeys you because you have that big pointy hat.
You can play without a battlemat and it still works that way. Unless I'm wrong, which, you know, I'm probably not, 2e didn't have rules for aiming fireballs and having to make rolls for it.
Simulation *is* approximation. If it were the real thing, it wouldn't be a simulation. The important part is that simulations do approximate.I understand that, never said otherwise (did I?)
You did go on about realism and how 1-2-1 isn't realistic.
1-2-1 is a more accurate approximation than 1-1-1 for diagnonal movement but both are approximations so the questions for me are:
1-1-1 is not an approximation. It's ignoring reality altogether. It doesn't simulate anything.
Is the loss of accuracy of simulation more than made up by the extra playability gained?
In my experience, there is no playability gained. I did see a few people having problems with 1-2-1, but they were the same people who needed help calculating the attack roll when they have +5 and rolled an 8.
Okay, so can I read both those statements with "board" in front of "game"? But more importantly can I also assume you are not trying to state how 4e feels as an objective fact? I.e. can those statements be read as:
No, you can't. I only deal in universal truths. Obviously.
It matters in so much as I am trying to present an alternative viewpoint
And that viewpoint pertains to the development of D&D and a lot of people feel the game lost it how?
Basically, if you take a broader perspective the differences between 4e and Pathfinder become much less noticeable, and the similarities much more noticeable.
That perspective is useless to a D&D fan. They didn't play Amber, Vampire, HoL or My Little Pony, the Bondage RPG. They played D&D - a combat-centric RPG, but still an RPG to them.
A lot of people don't like 4e because it went over the edge for them.
If 4e is still good enough as an RPG for you, that's great for you. Apparently, the OP, me, and a lot of people think otherwise.
Where in MA? I live in and run some games in Worcester (3.x, Pathfinder, and 4e).
PM for ghettowedge
GW - I'd like to talk to you about your current gaming schedule - looks like we're nearby. If you're interested, what would be the best way to contact you?
|
|
You did go on about realism and how 1-2-1 isn't realistic.
I think I said it wasn't totally realistic. But okay, lets assume my choice of words may not have been perfect, but when I said...
"Lets face it, using a square grid, even with diagonal movement rules isn't totally realistic either"....what I meant was that given that neither methods of counting diagonal movement are totally realistic*, it comes down to how close to reality you want your simulation to be and how much of the accuracy of the simulation you are happy to give up in return for playability.
*The simple use of a square grid puts in place an unrealistic constraint in how characters move.
1-1-1 is not an approximation. It's ignoring reality altogether. It doesn't simulate anything.
It is an approximation to me, just like saying a yard is approximately a metre - its not particularly accurate, but for purposes of describing how a fictional character moves across a fictional piece of terrain its good enough for me.
The thing it is trying to "simulate" is the measure of movement across the field of play - it is not trying to simulate how diagonal movement across a 5' by 5' square requires 7.07' of movement.
Where only a portion of a character's movement is diagonal that simulation is good enough.
Take for example a character moving 1 square diagonally, then 2 forward, then 1 diagonally, then 2 forward, then 1 diagonally (with each diagonal being forward and to the right.
PF movement: 8 squares
4e movement: 7 squares
But if you ignore the grid and measure direct, i.e. moving 3 squares to the right (the 3 diagonals), and 7 squares forward (the two forward 2s plus the 3 diagnonals), then you move:
Square root of (3 squared + 7 squared)
Square root of (9 + 49)
Square root of 58
7.62 squares (2 decimal places)
So, PF and 4e in that example are pretty close (though PF is more accurate) - 4e is good enough for me.
However, pure diagonal movement results in a greater inaccuracy in 4e's simulation:
PF 12 squares of movement
4e 8 squares of movement
Reality 11.31 squares (2dp)
Am I willing to accept that big difference in exchange for playability? Yes. For others, some will say yes and others no.
In my experience, there is no playability gained. I did see a few people having problems with 1-2-1, but they were the same people who needed help calculating the attack roll when they have +5 and rolled an 8.
I can still have problem with diagonal movement, despite being good at maths I struggle keeping numbers in my mind (I am crap at mental arithmetic) and I occassionally have to ask the players "how many diagonals have I moved?"
My old GM also must have had an issue with them as he dropped them for movement.
But the place where it is a real pain is determining area of effects which may catch multiplt targets - basically you have to count movement to each target. I guess this is why my old GM got those AoE wire template things.
Good on you if you don't see any difference in play, but I know that I do.
No, you can't. I only deal in universal truths. Obviously.
Okay, so can I read both those statements with "board" in front of "game"? But more importantly can I also assume you are not trying to state how 4e feels as an objective fact? I.e. can those statements be read as:
I will take that as a sarcastic yes then but too often I have seen people try to proclaim their opinion as objective truth.
A statement of "4e is just a boardgame!" is extremely likely to elicit a response declaring "no it isn't", whereas something like "I realy can't enjoy 4e, it just has too much of a board game feel for me" may get less of a vociferous response.
And that viewpoint pertains to the development of D&D and a lot of people feel the game lost it how?
It matters in so much as I am trying to present an alternative viewpoint
Your statement was "And that's why a lot of people won't bother with 4e: It feels like a game, and nothing but a game. Like a more complicated version of chess with dice and expensive plastic miniatures."
I didn't see that "lot of people" being limited to those who played 3.5 or Pathfinder. So basically I am saying that a lot of people might feel the same about Pathfinder, so using it as a criticism of just 4e seems a little unfair.
That perspective is useless to a D&D fan. They didn't play Amber, Vampire, HoL or My Little Pony, the Bondage RPG. They played D&D - a combat-centric RPG, but still an RPG to them.
Basically, if you take a broader perspective the differences between 4e and Pathfinder become much less noticeable, and the similarities much more noticeable.
That's funny I have played Amber, I definately played Vampire, I even played a game of HoL at a US GenCon (and got the dead parrot misprint t-shirt to prove it) - I have to concede defeat on My Little Pony and the Bondage RPG :) So do I not count as a D&D fan? Because I thought I was.
The point being, that is my perspective and it isn't useless to me, I see great similarities between the two games when I consider all my RPGs together and so can appreciate that if I was able to roleplay in 3.5 I cna definately do so in 4e.
I must admit when I first read 4e I did balk at how all the powers seemed to be quite combat focused (i.e. very short durations, mostly focussing on attacks) etc. But then I had a bit of epiphany - I still had Abilities, I still had Skills, I still had Feats, I still had all the same general stuff I had in 3.5 - Powers were an addition! And once I understood how Rituals tooks the place of non-combat spells it all fell into place. The point was I was able to focus on the similarities, not the differences.
If 4e is still good enough as an RPG for you, that's great for you. Apparently, the OP, me, and a lot of people think otherwise.
Thats fine, luckily as well as me there are also a lot of people who think 4e is good enough as an RPG (so much so that the D&D campaign I am trying to recruit players for is likely to be 4e rather than 3.5).
Wow, so apparently subtlety (such as it was) ain't working.
All games are simulations. Period. Which simulation you prefer is AN OPINION. There is no objective truth to be had, and this argument has been done to death. Everyone knows both sides. You may believe you have a stunning insight. You don't. Can we put it to bed, already?
Wow, so apparently subtlety (such as it was) ain't working.
All games are simulations. Period. Which simulation you prefer is AN OPINION. There is no objective truth to be had, and this argument has been done to death. Everyone knows both sides. You may believe you have a stunning insight. You don't. Can we put it to bed, already?
But, but what about my validation? I NEED to be right! Are you insinuating that a perfect stranger via a message board can't/should't change someone else's opinion regarding their preference? Whatever shall we do?
Different games. different folks. Have your own kinda fun.
1-1-1 is not an approximation. It's ignoring reality altogether. It doesn't simulate anything.
Of course it does. It is, frankly, ridiculous to claim that it doesn't. The 4e bashing is so old, KaeYoss.
1-1-1 is not an approximation. It's ignoring reality altogether. It doesn't simulate anything.Of course it does. It is, frankly, ridiculous to claim that it doesn't. The 4e bashing is so old, KaeYoss.
And so it continues... It was almost over.
Welcome to the boards! Have some cookies!
*Xaaon steals the virtual cookies, as he's never gotten any in 3 years of posting...he runs off cackling like a madman. Then he feels bad and returns the cookies to their rightful owner...*
|
|
Did anyone ever miss the 3m circle? If they were 3e/4e wizards they never would, in fact you could reduce the circle to 1.524 m and they would hit every single time. I say the military should recuit more D&D wizards they would have less friendly fire problems that way...
Remember: These are fireballs. You don't have to aim, they fly where you want them. That is true whether you use the grid or not. That's why wizards tend to suck when they have to use regular weapons, like chocolates on Auditors.
Grenades should be compared to grenade-like weapons. They have to be aimed.
On the subject of your quantum cake. Until you opened the frigde you couldn't be certain the cake was there at all.
As for fireballs under 1e/2e/3e but found too tricky under 4e (but not bashing 4e, just requirement for a battle-mat is harder to ignore) a mage would say "casting fireball, how many can I get". As DM I would quickly decide the number that could be "safely" got and the maximum that will involve (back in 1e/2e I may it an INT check, became Concentration in 3e) so the perfect shot each time with the fireball wasn't always that perfect. At times the mage would catch a player or two. Screams of it's not in the rules you bloody cheating house-ruling DM. Guilty. D&D isn't a "fair" boardgame, it's guidelines to tell an interactive story. So under 1e/2e/3e my groups have had area of effect oops. 4e we use the battle-mat and haven't had one amusing moment with a area spell (Kae - you know what I mean not NO fun in 4e full stop).
S.
Some posts removed. This edition war skirmish is over. Behave.
So... Ross... how's it goin'?
As someone who plays both editions, it's pretty clear I've won the edition war.
It's cool guys. You can stop fighting. I won.
That sounds like a good enough reason to keep on fighting. Which I'm not going to do, out of consideration for Ross, but you know...
|
|
As someone who plays both editions, it's pretty clear I've won the edition war.
It's cool guys. You can stop fighting. I won.
The 2e-5th Column continues unabated - we'll have our day, well, again! When you least expect it all Halfling Fighters will be reduced to a righty deserved role of comedy interlude!
Play your games you 1e grognards, play your games you number crunching 3.x accountants, play your games you square counting 4e'ers. But some day soon you will be washed away in the flood that is the 2e-5thC! Chants of "Zeb! Zeb!" will ring out in the night and all will kneel in awe before the d10+speed factor intiative system!
Ha, ha-ha, ha, ha!
Thinking I should get out more,
S.
On the subject of your quantum cake. Until you opened the frigde you couldn't be certain the cake was there at all.
That only applies if your cat is named Schrödinger.
As for fireballs under 1e/2e/3e but found too tricky under 4e (but not bashing 4e, just requirement for a battle-mat is harder to ignore) a mage would say "casting fireball, how many can I get". As DM I would quickly decide the number that could be "safely" got and the maximum that will involve (back in 1e/2e I may it an INT check, became Concentration in 3e) so the perfect shot each time with the fireball wasn't always that perfect. At times the mage would catch a player or two. Screams of it's not in the rules you bloody cheating house-ruling DM. Guilty. D&D isn't a "fair" boardgame, it's guidelines to tell an interactive story. So under 1e/2e/3e my groups have had area of effect oops. 4e we use the battle-mat and haven't had one amusing moment with a area spell (Kae - you know what I mean not NO fun in 4e full stop).
I find your implication that I need to stoop as low as twisting people's words offensive. I never intentionally do that, but often find myself victim to this. There are some real tossers out there who need that sort of subterfuge to win their arguments. Not as much as in other places, but still.
Again, the mat has nothing to do with this: You can have the mat and still require some sort of check to see whether the spell effect is placed where you want it. May not be in the core rules, but if everyone is okay with it, go with it. After all, al though the game is round-based, the in-game action takes place in "real" time, and if you prefer to bring back the fast-paced excitement / rush of the battlefield, there are numerous ways to simulate that.
But the standard rules just assume that you can place the effect exactly where you want it, with no roll required. Again, that is true for games with mat and without (though without the mat, it does become more difficult, as it isn't as easy to track positions, and the GM can always take advantage of this and make arbitrary adjustments).
But frankly, if you don't use the mat to visualise the battlefield, you'll have to cut the players some slack. Tell them beforehand when they are running a risk of targeting their own people, or at least give them a chance (perception check). Then it's either a pure chance roll, or some sort of "skill" (not in the sense of skills like Stealth and Knowledge, but skill/ability in general) to try and avoid that.
The game dynamic does change a bit, but not as much as you may think: It's just that each option comes with a number of expectations, things people think are implied, but are just options, decisions people dedice and take for granted.
Who cares about editions? I will fight *ANYONE*... even Sean or Wes! With all my fiendish powers, I'm totally INVINCIBLE! Har har!
You still have those? Moloch was really pissed at you when I told him of your blasphemies against the Hellish Order. Mumbling about taking them back. Ripping them out, or something, and I think I heard "spiked gauntlet", though maybe he was talking to the tailor/smith that did the costume for his next public function.
Asgetrion: Do you have the power of self-basting?
I must admit when I first read 4e I did balk at how all the powers seemed to be quite combat focused (i.e. very short durations, mostly focussing on attacks) etc. But then I had a bit of epiphany - I still had Abilities, I still had Skills, I still had Feats, I still had all the same general stuff I had in 3.5 - Powers were an addition! And once I understood how Rituals tooks the place of non-combat spells it all fell into place. The point was I was able to focus on the similarities, not the differences.
Not all the same general stuff. Players of evil clerics cannot animate dead or command undead like they can in Advanced/2nd Ed/3.0/3.5/Pathfinder.
This to me was the biggest dealbreaker :)