|
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 :)
That to me would be more of a specfic than a general item - but I can see how that could be a deal breaker for you if its a common thing to do in your games - animate dead and command undead (except by NPCs) has ever come up in the games I have played and so I didn't notice its omission from 4e.
Having said that Open Grave apparently has a ritual called Undead Servitor that lets you animate a corpse to do your bidding (it is a non-combatant though, so acts as a Minion in combat and doesn't make attacks).
I guess 4e doesn't support the evil campaigns as much perhaps, or at least not necromancy by the players so yes, I can understand not wanting to go 4e for that reason.
|
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.
But... but... you wouldn't do such a thing, would you? After all, it was you who negotiated that deal for me! Nah, not even *you* couldn't stoop that low... or could you?
Urk... Little Tim! You and Daddy are going to make a short trip... to another universe!
But... but... you wouldn't do such a thing, would you? After all, it was you who negotiated that deal for me! Nah, not even *you* couldn't stoop that low... or could you?
Oh, I'm sorry. Is there some sort of rule against that? I break those for fun.
|
|
I find your implication that I need to stoop as low as twisting people's words offensive.
As do I your aftershave Sir!!! Hang on that's mine I'm smelling, never mind carry on being offended, very good.
I do however think that it's much harder while using a mat to introduce grey areas in the rules. Yes a fireball lands exactly where you want it, no problems there, but the automatically being able to judge the exact radii of effect?
I use and like miniatures for larger battles for sure, it's the little county squares that add a layer of exactness that I personally don't find adds are much as it distracts from the games I run.
Personal experience from MY games,
S.
I removed a post. Personal attacks are bad.
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?
Not really, 3e had miniatures as well, in fact I still have the things, oh and 2e had miniatures as well, come to think of it, wow so did 1e, hummm, looks like the miniatures really never left D&D, it was never a circle but a straight line, the system just evolved beyond what some 3e advocates wanted, they are all tied to the past, so be it but its time to move on.
If you aren't into running combats with minis and battlemats then stay away from 4E. That is certainly a somewhat anti 4E statement that I can agree with. The combat portion of the game really does feel like an evolution of the dnd minis game. However I would say that if you don't like running games with minis and battlemats then 3E/Pathfinder is probably not your best choice either.
the system just evolved beyond what some 3e advocates wanted, they are all tied to the past, so be it but its time to move on.
How am I tied to the past? I play Pathfinder, which is quite new (newer than 4e), and there's some books in the making that I highly anticipate.
Now be quiet and get off my lawn you young whipper-snapper!
Some posts removed. This edition war skirmish is over. Behave.
What about the Pathfinder 1st edition vs Pathfinder 2nd edition war?
Is that one over too? :-(| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a post. Personal attacks are bad.
You forgot to say "Umkay".
|
|
the system just evolved beyond what some 3e advocates wanted, they are all tied to the past, so be it but its time to move on.
Evolution has dead-ends, just saying...
Miniatures = yes (for me)
Grid based battle-mat = no (for me)
I find a rough indicator of relative positions is normally enough to keep the flow of the battle running smoothly. With "squares" people are counting the best route to avoid AoO, cherry picking AoE's, etc. Easier and faster for the player to ask "can I get from A to B without getting bashed", followed the DM deciding either yes or no. Simple and quick.
Each to their own,
S.
|
|
If you aren't into running combats with minis and battlemats then stay away from 4E. That is certainly a somewhat anti 4E statement that I can agree with. The combat portion of the game really does feel like an evolution of the dnd minis game. However I would say that if you don't like running games with minis and battlemats then 3E/Pathfinder is probably not your best choice either.
Now here's the kicker... I play and like 4e. But I accept 4e for what it is. It's taken the more formal board-game idea of combat started in 3e and built from the ground up a system that embraces this, and it does a great job. 4e for ME is a pick up game, I really enjoy playing it, but I haven't got the "character connection" I have with 1e/2e/3.xe because classes do things very differently and in a way doesn't doesn't engage my imagination so much as the tactical protions of my little mind.
I like the concept behind 3.53/PF in terms of the character development (assuming you not staying awake at night "optimising"). It is a shame that 3.5e decided that combat should be a board-game rather than just an extension of the imaginary roleplaying done in non-combat. Pathfinder is a work of art, I love that book and reading it inspires my DM mind - it is possible to play without a Grid even with some game systems that sort of require it. I hope that PF chooses not to increase the requirement of a Grid (not talking Miniatures per se here) in it's rule development. Leave that to 4e I say.
Hope that goes someway to explain my position,
S.
My players are at least as invested in their 4E characters as their 3E characters if not more. The PCs definitely have all the depth, personality and backstory that any of their characters did from previous editions. I think this is more to do with how you choose to run the game than the game itself. I can definitely see how 4E makes a good pick up game. Encounters are pretty fast to throw together, all the info a player needs is on the sheet. The game is a lot of fun to play tactically (for many people). However, I'm running a homebrew campaign. We play basically every week, and the adventures for the most part revolve around the goals and interests of the players and their characters. As a result, the campaign has had all the depth of any game I've run in the past. Now if I were just working my way through the published WotC as written, I doubt the campaign would be as engaging for them, but you get what you put into it (regardless of system IMO). The great thing about 4E for me as a dm is that overall the preparing for the combat portions of the game are faster for me than 3E. This means more time to develop story, NPCs etc... I don't really understand why some people feel like it isn't a good system for long term campaigns are character development. From the play experiences I've had it works as well for this as any previous edition of the game.
|
|
The great thing about 4E for me as a dm is that overall the preparing for the combat portions of the game are faster for me than 3E. This means more time to develop story, NPCs etc...
I never spent much time developing combat portions - My 3e combats were prepared as much as I prepared 1e/2e or 4e, meaning put some things in the encounter I want and adjust on the fly if it's too hard/easy. For me if I've spent more than 30 about mins from start of a combat encounter to finalising all the critters etc ready for play I've spent too long. For me I think "why bother" the purpose of most combat encounters is for the PC's to win - spending too long seems a slight waste of time given all you time invested will end up PC-fodder. If it was a game about me the DM vs the Players then I would invest more time perhaps. I as DM always have more monsters it's the PC's that should be spending the time on their character's, I should be spending my time on the story. Guess I'm too much of a big picture DM --> when 3e came out I had my 2e players turn Athas into the Forgotten Realms and then become the FR gods, nice end to their 2e characters and their new 3e PC's got to choose themselves as patron deities!
I was not implying 4e doesn't has as much depth as ANY RPG, just that the very obvious changes to the way characters work I can't get into the "feel" of from a characterisation point of view - from a mechanics point of view I like it a lot.
These are MY subjective opinions,
S.
I recenally got sick of pc gaming. The games were just getting old and nothing new. i spend my money only to find the product sucks. So i decided to look at some thing new, I decided on table top rpg gaming, specifically D&D 4E.
Being the unhinged, shoot before I look, nut job that I am I went and bought the core books, a books of small adventures to run, three quest line modules, and a but load of dungeon tiles. I dove in like a maniac before even playing the game.
I got all my 4E materials, and began to pore over them. Then I found Pathfinder.Once again, being the unhinged, shoot before I look, nut job that I am I went and bought the pathfinder core book.
So there I was with a whole bunch of D&D 4E books, as well as the pathfinder core book. This is all very recent, like only a few weeks.
My whole point comes down to this. after beginning my reading of both products i have come to the conclusion that the people who wrote pathfinder are far better writers than the ones who wrote 4E.
I can barely stomach reading the 4E player handbook. While the pathfinder book read so much more smoothly.
Only problem now is that i have a whole bunch of D&D 4E books to deal with.
.
There's games in MA, I run one, but there's issues in central MA particularly with finding games, given the lack of a gaming store as an anchor for the community. There's a convention in SE mass in February that has a good PF showing, tho, and I can't speak for outside central Mass.
(Put up my KM Pathfinder game on Obsidian Portal, if you want to have a look, Triga particularly. My ID there is the same as here.)
I am thankful Triga got to have her [or his?] "little story."
Don't we have enough edition wars without thread necro?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't we have enough edition wars without thread necro?
The last posts seem to be pretty civilly discussing the topic. Why not let it go for now? If it turns into Edition Wars, Flags can fly and the Mods will respond accordingly.
I've checked 4th Edition when it came out... and then I came across Pathfinder and never looked back. I hate the 4th Edition for gimping just about everything I love about the 3.5, that Pathfinder got it right.
1- The "Once per Encounter" powers: biggest rip-off ever. Who actually suggested that some abilities would be usable once for fights ? What kind of logic defines that principle ? You know how the 4th Edition tries to mimic a MMO ? Well guess what ? In a MMO, your abilities, similar to the "once per encounter" powers have a recharge/cooldown state. The game would probably be more enjoyable if the powers all had a recharge time, like 1st-level powers having a 1-round recharge, 6-th-level powers having a 6-round recharge and 30th-level powers having a 30-round recharge. It might be hard to keep track, but at least you're not getting screwed because you rolled a 2.
2- The damage is ridiculously underwhelming for PCs. The monsters have like 50% more hp than in either 3.5 or Pathfinder, but the removal of iterative attacks impairs you a lot and, while you get multiplers for your weapon damage, that barely reflects your level. If there's a good way to fix this, it would be like this:
* For At-will Powers, all weapon damage gets multiplied by 1/3 of your level.
* For Encounter Powers (or the recharge mecanics I've stated above), all weapon damage gets multiplied by 1/2 of your level.
* For Daily Powers, all weapon damage gets multiplied by your level.
3- Who in their right minds decided to remove the gnomes as a standard PC race from the start ?
If the combat has been redone to go with a standard of "one attack per character per round", might as well make it count, because right now, I see little to no difference using daily or encounter powers if they deal the same amount of damage.
Some say that the 4th Edition can be fun if the DM changes the rules... by then again, that just means that the 4th Edition is poorly conceived.
I didn't buy 4th Edition books, but after reading them (in a bookstore), I chose Pathfinder after reading them.