|
On the other hand, inaccuracies abound in the discussion of 4e, especially here (Paizo). Why exactly should Scott (or anyone) have to back down, just to make people who don't like 4e feel better?I think my point was more "Don't take the bait". Let the flame die, instead of feeding it fuel.
Which is generally what I do - I got involved in too many flame-fests over the gestation of PF to enjoy them in the 4e board. But that doesn't make Scott wrong. I'm not saying he's always right, but I am saying he has a right to respond even if his opinions are unpopular with certain individuals.
I've also noticed that the anti-4e babble has increased generally over the last few months. So you have to ask, is Scott's posting on this subject chicken or egg? He wasn't the OP, after all.
Beyond that, it sounds like what Hama is saying is that both 4e and MMOs are team efforts ("I use my powers and try to do something to complement the overall victory") and that makes 4e feel like an MMO. But you could say the same about nearly every cooperative tabletop roleplaying game, and clearly Hama doesn't think that they all feel like MMOs.
Well, imagine he's the optimized wizard and everyone else is a fighter or a monk in his PF game. Obviously, such a game relies on one character as a critical factor, and everyone else is just ... decoration.
Such an advantage from system mastery is possible only in 3.5/PF- and that might be a reason why some people really dislike the cooperative aspect of later systems. If you are used to 'win' and shine because of your knowledge of the system, being 'just' part of a team might feel like a step down.
This might also explain a hatred towards balance, as sunshadow21 mentioned recently, because a balanced system does not allow for such extreme optimization and allows everyone to shine.
Perhaps you should just put "With my DM, ..." before all your inflammatory assertions - they would be much less likely to spark flamewars.
He really did not say his DM sucks. In fact he emphasized that his DM made it so that he had a good time.
Should he keep up with this campaign for a good while I'm actually curious where he goes with it and how his views evolve.
He really did not say his DM sucks. In fact he emphasized that his DM made it so that he had a good time.
Perhaps you should just put "With my DM, ..." before all your inflammatory assertions - they would be much less likely to spark flamewars.
I agree, his posts seem quite confused and contradicting, having things like "4e has a steeper learning curve than 3.5" as well as "there are no non-combat skills in 4E".
I just read his complaints against 4e as a failure of his DM, because we know that they are not inherent in the system.
I agree, his posts seem quite confused and contradicting, having things like "4e has a steeper learning curve than 3.5" as well as "there are no non-combat skills in 4E".I just read his complaints against 4e as a failure of his DM, because we know that they are not inherent in the system.
Give it time.
So, the original designer's ideas of how the game is supposed to be don't matter any more?
Core mechanics that changed;
Saving throws are altered a lot
Moving and attacking more than once became impossible
Iterative attacks for everyone
Hit Points were massively inflated
Multi/Dual classing isn't a one-time choice
Skills, with certain classes being favoured far more than they were by NWPs (though I suppose it's possible to argue that NWPs weren't core)I rather obviosuly disagree that the core mechanics didn't change. The words may have stayed the same but the way things worked out in play changed a lot.
The original designer's ideas matter as much as the current developers see them as still being relevant, no more and no less. And I said the core of the classes themselves; wizards still cast spells in pretty much the same way and used the same basic spell list, ditto for clerics. Fighters were still fundamentally the meat shields. The underlying mechanics common to all classes changed, but the classes themselves stayed pretty much the same in their overall capability and expectations. Because the overall play experience of how the different classes worked relative to each other, which is the biggest thing that players see and deal with, stayed the same, the rest of the changes took some time to adjust to, but the flavor was still solidly intact.
I can't really comment on 1-3, but for 4 and 5...
4) Think old school. I know, I know, 4e, not old school, etc, etc. The thing is though, it really is as far as roleplaying goes. What you can do is not limited by your character sheet. In 3e there was/is a big rush to codify everything. In 4e, what's codified is, broadly speaking, "being a heroic fantasy adventurer." Wanna say your guy is a weaponsmith or a dancer? Go for it! My monk is a dancer and I didn't have to spend cross-class points on perform: dance to do it ;p
*edited and streamlined for cross-over appeal*
On topic:
Hama, I'm glad you gave it a go and had fun with it. Don't let anyone argue with you over your opinions, because they are your opinions. If you feel like a RPG reminds you of Pac-Man for Atari 2600, nobody is going to tell you differently. You had fun, and that's what counts.
My issues aside, I have never told anyone to not play a game, regardless of edition. Sure, I'll rip on it plenty, but if someone else genuinely has fun with it, then they have my full support. My best friends play 4e and I don't, and I'm fine with that as long as everyone is having fun. It does make game conversations a little awkward sometimes, I'll admit.
|
THERE...a friend of mine convinced me to try it out again, and i did. Session lasted for six or so hours and it was quite fun. Combat was dynamic and there was even a little roleplay.
Cool, I assume you are someone who was quite anti-4e previously considering the nature of your post, so fair play to you for actually giving it a go and even more kudos for actually enjoying it as that shows that you didn't go into the game intent on hating it :)
1. It has an MMO feel, a slight one, but still it has it. Nothing wrong with that. It kidna suits the game
I was going to ask what specifically you found about 4e that gives this feel, but I think you and some others have highlighted things that could give that feel (raids, encounter powers = recharge powers etc). Still if you do have any other insights it might be interesting to hear them.
I only ever played City of Heroes so my MMO experience is limited and I am always curious to hear about how 4e gives that MMO feel.
3. I am sorry all you 4E lovers/defenders out there, but it does not feel like D&D. At all.
I don't think you need to apologise at all, simply for the fact that those people who love or defend 4e probably do feel like it is D&D :)
I only got into D&D with 3.5 (having only played a couple of sessions of previous editions, not sure which ones), and while I prefer 3.5 to 4e, I still feel overall both are D&D.
Of course the key thing is, "what D&D is" cannot ever be objectively defined, and so while one person may feel 4e is not D&D and therefore not like it for that reason, others may feel the opposite - and they are both right! :)
4. Roleplay was there, but it was not that backed up with mechanics...nor were non-combat skills. Maybe i am just used to having a lot more covered with mechanics, but it bothered me.
Out of interest, was your DM running a published scenario, or a self written game? Also how did 4e's non-combat skills not do the job, were some missing? Were those that were there lack explicit rules to do certain things?
It's like Trek vs. Wars.
I actually use the analaogy of Star Trek's various incarnations, Original Series, Next Gen, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise etc all do things a bit differently and because of those differences some people prefer different shows, and some will even go so far to say that those differences make some of those shows not feel like Star Trek anymore. But for most people, whether they are watching Kirk, Picard, Sisco, Janeway or Archer it feels like Star Trek and its fun.
Prologue: I did not read all previous posts.
Main comment: Commenting only on the OP. I played a short campaign with a group of guys in Iraq in 2009 when 4e was brand spankin' new. Previous to that, I had only played 3.5. It was a homebrew adventure with an experienced DM who had already been running 4e since it had been released. We had a lot of fun playing the game. It was a really good time. While we were waiting for our flight home (took a week to get a flight) we all advanced our players to level 20 and fought an epic battle against some Devil Lord. A great time was had by all.
That being said, I still prefer 3.5/PFRPG. I think that's mostly because that is what I started on and so it's what I'm used to. If I had started on 4e, that's probably what I would prefer.
If/when I deploy again, I'll probably be bringing along my Pathfinder pdf's and an adventure path to run while there.
Epilogue: There's my 2cp
|
|
I see this brought up a lot, but really, if there's nothing in the system itself built into what special skills your character is good at, then what are you doing outside of Magical Tea Party with some minis combat on the side?
[...]
If my character has a non-combat proficiency that he's good at, that at some point in the game I'm going to be spending in-game time doing(blacksmithing, crafting, etc), then I want something in the mechanics to justify my skill level, and the time my character has invested in getting good at that skill. Just because it's not in combat, doesn't mean it should be hand-waved away with an automatic success.
I think the key thing is whether that thing you're going to be spending in-game time doing is actually going to have an impact on the game on a regular basis - if its not then perhaps the need for mechanics isn't there.
So with 4e there are a number of non-combat skills that are there and do have an impact mechanically and also on the plot, stuff like Diplomacy, Theivery, Bluff, History, Nature etc.
However skills like Profession (Farmer) were jettisoned because they don't normally have an impact on the type of story D&D 4e focuses on, and if they did it would be only once in a blue moon.
So when a player says their character was a veteran farmer before becoming an adventurer, rather than forcing the player to "waste" precious in game resources (skill training slots) on such a skill to justify their background it is better just to say "okay you were a veteran farmer", and if it should ever come up as an issue in-game allow the GM to simply ask for an Intelligence check or something assigning a bonus for having a relevan background, sort of like Savage Worlds' Common Knowledge checks. I just wish 4e had spelled this option out explicitly like SW did as often it isn't seen as an option because it isn't codified in the rules.
Now Crafting is a thorny issue because in 4e as opposed to 3.x, crafting is not one of those things that the game focuses on. It is a design change and one of the differences that may not be liked by everyone, but in 4e if you craft an item (and you can) there is no skill check, though you may need a feat and a ritual for magic items, but you don't make it any cheaper than if you bought it either. This allows the wealth by level calculations to stay stable and also focus on the adventuring rather than the crafting.
I am not necessarily saying 4e's way is better, but there is method behind the madness :) And having GMed a 4e campaign I think there was maybe only 3 or so occassions when I wanted to ask for a perform check or something, but in the end on analysing what the goal of the player was, how well the bard played didn't make a bit of difference only that his song had a certain content so as to provoke a reaction. And so I can accept how 4e handles things.
EDIT: I think "fluff" skills that might come in handy could be handled in 3.x and 4e, but in both I would prefer a seperate pool of points to assign to those skills, seperate from the skill points you spend on Stealth, Perception and Knowledge (Arcana) - sort of like Shadowrun 3e's active vs knowledge skill points.
Of course in 3.x Crafting maybe an active skill whilst in 4e it may be a fluff skill :)
I see this brought up a lot, but really, if there's nothing in the system itself built into what special skills your character is good at, then what are you doing outside of Magical Tea Party with some minis combat on the side?
[...]
If my character has a non-combat proficiency that he's good at, that at some point in the game I'm going to be spending in-game time doing(blacksmithing, crafting, etc), then I want something in the mechanics to justify my skill level, and the time my character has invested in getting good at that skill. Just because it's not in combat, doesn't mean it should be hand-waved away with an automatic success.
I think the key thing is whether that thing you're going to be spending in-game time doing is actually going to have an impact on the game on a regular basis - if its not then perhaps the need for mechanics isn't there.
So with 4e there are a number of non-combat skills that are there and do have an impact mechanically and also on the plot, stuff like Diplomacy, Theivery, Bluff, History, Nature etc.
However skills like Profession (Farmer) were jettisoned because they don't normally have an impact on the type of story D&D 4e focuses on, and if they did it would be only once in a blue moon.
So when a player says their character was a veteran farmer before becoming an adventurer, rather than forcing the player to "waste" precious in game resources (skill training slots) on such a skill to justify their background it is better just to say "okay you were a veteran farmer", and if it should ever come up as an issue in-game allow the GM to simply ask for an Intelligence check or something assigning a bonus for having a relevan background, sort of like Savage Worlds' Common Knowledge checks. I just wish 4e had spelled this option out explicitly like SW did as often it isn't seen as an option because it isn't codified in the rules.
Now Crafting is a thorny issue because in 4e as opposed to 3.x, crafting is not one of those things that the game...
We pretty much said the same thing(changed alias for clarity and updatedness), I said that if you planned on doing it in-game, there should be a mechanic to cover it. If your character had abandoned farming(even temporarily) in the pursuit of adventure, and had no intentions of farming in-game, then you shouldn't spend your character building resources for something you have no plans on doing in-game. Yes, I am the run on sentence master!
And for emphasis, I'm not saying the crafting rules were better in 3.e, they were horrible. But, there was something to work with at least.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If somebody calls out a poster's opinions as "silly", it's a slam. It's not "well I disagree", it's not "I doubt that's correct", what Scott did was pure, 100% flame.This is an example of someone reading something in a post that wasn't actually there. I didn't call Hama's opinion silly. I was commenting on his preemptive apology, and noting that there's really no sense in apologizing for one's own opinion. One should always have a certain amount of pride in one's opinion; else, why would one hold it if it were not worth defending? So no, Hama's opinion wasn't silly. I was saying that, if his opinion were silly/offensive/bad/evil, no amount of apologizing upfront would matter..
Yeah, see that is not how it came out though Scott.
3. I am sorry all you 4E lovers/defenders out there, but it does not feel like D&D. At all. It is a great game, but it is not D&D in the sense of what D&D was for the past 36 or some years.You don't need to apologize to us for your opinion. Keep in mind that no matter how hard you apologize, if your opinion seems silly, it will still seem silly even after you apologize for it.
You are saying his opinion is silly, not the OP, you. The OP knows how testy making this statement makes some people and he is doing what many people do: Offering an apology for saying something that others will find offensive.
Now maybe it is the case where what you typed sounds one way in your head and comes off different on the screen You know how it is meant and as you read it over it still seems fine, but as others get a hold of it they do not see it in a similar way. I think this is the most obvious way to interpret your statement since many have read it different than how you now describe how it was meant.
I am not necessarily saying 4e's way is better, but there is method behind the madness :) And having GMed a 4e campaign I think there was maybe only 3 or so occassions when I wanted to ask for a perform check or something, but in the end on analysing what the goal of the player was, how well the bard played didn't make a bit of difference only that his song had a certain content so as to provoke a reaction. And so I can accept how 4e handles things.
You might also have simply used a charisma check instead.
lots of appropriate stuff
Very much agree, although I would add during 2nd edition it even got to the point where that was said about which optional rules you were using. "You use Skills and Powers, what are you some crazy power gamer? " ;)
|
|
I've also noticed that the anti-4e babble has increased generally over the last few months. So you have to ask, is Scott's posting on this subject chicken or egg? He wasn't the OP, after all.
I try and avoid the 4e forums and official 4e site now that I am not a player of the system anymore. More of a stance against the developers of the system than the system itself. I played and enjoyed 4e. Not everything but most, I just didn't let the things I disliked get in the way of the things I did like, which is what I got out of the OP.
He said he played it and had fun. There were things he didn't like but he had fun. He made comparisons and said he will not bash the system any more cause he had fun. He will play it again, maybe only infrequently, cause he had fun.
Guess what? He had fun.
Then along came Scott and started to make comments that could have been better tempered.
|
|
You might also have simply used a charisma check instead.
Oh yeah, I could have done, but when I actually reflected on it, I shouldn't have been asking for any sort of test to determine how well he performed because it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.
In the situation the bard player was basically wanting to sing about a village that had recently succumbed to a mini-mournland (Eberron reference) and was looking to see if mentioning the village and its fate provoked a reaction. As long as he mentioned the village in the song, it didn't matter how badly or how well he sang, what mattered was actually whether he made his Insight check to notice any looks of recognition on the faces of his audience.
But yes, in general if the quality of performance was importance I may have asked for a Charisma check assigning a +2 or +5 bonus for having a relevant background.
|
|
I am not necessarily saying 4e's way is better, but there is method behind the madness :) And having GMed a 4e campaign I think there was maybe only 3 or so occassions when I wanted to ask for a perform check or something, but in the end on analysing what the goal of the player was, how well the bard played didn't make a bit of difference only that his song had a certain content so as to provoke a reaction. And so I can accept how 4e handles things.You might also have simply used a charisma check instead.
Now don't get me wrong, I like the 4e skill system as a general rule due to it's concentration in what is used.
However.
I do not agree with the idea that there is no training bonus for things like a perform check. I like an optional system that gives each PC a few background skills that get bonuses like training and such.
|
|
I've also noticed that the anti-4e babble has increased generally over the last few months. So you have to ask, is Scott's posting on this subject chicken or egg? He wasn't the OP, after all.I try and avoid the 4e forums and official 4e site now that I am not a player of the system anymore. More of a stance against the developers of the system than the system itself. I played and enjoyed 4e. Not everything but most, I just didn't let the things I disliked get in the way of the things I did like, which is what I got out of the OP.
He said he played it and had fun. There were things he didn't like but he had fun. He made comparisons and said he will not bash the system any more cause he had fun. He will play it again, maybe only infrequently, cause he had fun.
Guess what? He had fun.
Then along came Scott and started to make comments that could have been better tempered.
I agree that Scott's comments could have been better phrased, but ShinHakkaider's wobbly was more of a personal attack (if you read his posts, he mentions previous encounters with Scott) than anything to do with 4e, or even Hama. Hama's views didn't seem to have much to do with it.
As for Hama's comments, I'm glad he had fun but he clearly hasn't given the game a fair crack of the whip, nor could he do so in a single session (as those of us who have made the transition from 3e to 4e already know from experience). It's also worth pointing out that Hama is one of the more hysterical anti-4e-ers on this site (and he posted up in the Pathfinder 4e thread how he sometimes would prefer people who like 4e to entirely vacate the Paizo website - no great lover of diversity he). His comments were still pretty unformed after playing 4e. You can say "He is entitled to his view" and he is, but when someone has been slagging a game for months they appear to have hardly played at all I personally think that view can be legitimately challenged. If his reasons seemed more cogent, there would be no problem.
With all due respect to Gygax, I'm frankly more interested in hearing from current developers, not someone who ceased to have an active role a long time ago. I know he still has a strong influence, but since he's not the one actually developing the system at this point, his opinion is not the one that ultimately matters.
Also, I never said the transition from 2nd ed to 3.x was flawless, just that the core mechanics behind the different classes remained largely intact, therefore the flavor of the classes themselves didn't really change....
@ Cirno:
You are both missing entirely my point.
You are saying "4e is not D&D" as if 3e is.
I am stating that there is a very sizable group of people to whom "3e is D&D" is fighting words.
With all due respect to Gygax, I'm frankly more interested in hearing from current developers, not someone who ceased to have an active role a long time ago. I know he still has a strong influence, but since he's not the one actually developing the system at this point, his opinion is not the one that ultimately matters.
Also, I never said the transition from 2nd ed to 3.x was flawless, just that the core mechanics behind the different classes remained largely intact, therefore the flavor of the classes themselves didn't really change....
@ Cirno:You are both missing entirely my point.
You are saying "4e is not D&D" as if 3e is.
I am stating that there is a very sizable group of people to whom "3e is D&D" is fighting words.
Not nearly as many to whom "4E is D&D" is fighting words, though time may be a factor in that as well as other things.
|
|
Not nearly as many to whom "4E is D&D" is fighting words, though time may be a factor in that as well as other things.With all due respect to Gygax, I'm frankly more interested in hearing from current developers, not someone who ceased to have an active role a long time ago. I know he still has a strong influence, but since he's not the one actually developing the system at this point, his opinion is not the one that ultimately matters.
Also, I never said the transition from 2nd ed to 3.x was flawless, just that the core mechanics behind the different classes remained largely intact, therefore the flavor of the classes themselves didn't really change....
@ Cirno:You are both missing entirely my point.
You are saying "4e is not D&D" as if 3e is.
I am stating that there is a very sizable group of people to whom "3e is D&D" is fighting words.
So over time, 4e becomes D&D, based on your analysis - presumably just at the point 5e comes out?
It is my belief that anyone that states 4E mimics a MMO/video game, goes into that experience with the thought in the back of their mind.
I couldn't agree more. The first time I played it I had never played any other MMO except Runescape(unless you also count AdventureQuest and DragonFable). I still haven't, but I don't get the whole "It feels like an MMO!" thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Skills
4e still has 'em!
4e bills itself as a game of heroic fantasy. So did 3e! In fact, 3e's advertising was based around "Return to the dungeon" as an open appeal to gamers who were lost either in 2e or by White Wold (Yes, 3e's advertising was just as much of a dig at 2e as 4e's was at 3e, that seems to go unmentioned quite often). What 3e did was combine thief skills with several NWPs into one unified system. It makes sense - the d20 system founded in 3e was, after all, based in unification of multiple different systems.
The problem is that NWPs were legendarily touchy. Also legendarily crap. I'm pretty sure for every one person who liked them, five didn't. The 3e skill system unfortunately inherited a lot of the problems and overall spread itself too thin.
Skills in 4e are representative more of pre-3e thief skills then the are NWPs. They are the things you roll while out adventuring. The thief didn't have a skill for tying ropes, he had one for climbing sheer walls. Tying ropes was considered "an adventurer's thing," something they'd already know how to do. The thief had pick pocket, but didn't have a skill for juggling. If you wanted to be a juggler you said "my thief is a juggler."
This ties into a second thing that has changed a lot throughout D&D - how powerful the adventurer is. In 0e, each class had a title by level. A level 6 cleric was a Bishop. A level 11th magic user (yes, that was the class) then) was a Wizard.
And a level 1 fighting man (Again, that was the class name!) was a Veteran.
See, in 0e, it was assumed that all the level 1 characters weren't just chumps straight out of fighter's school, they were veterans. Level 1 wizards had finished their apprenticeship and had a few spells to boot. The basic idea was that adventurers were powerful people who had been around the block a few times and dungeons were horrifying death traps.
Each edition all the way to 3e changed that. By the time 2e hit, level 1 characters were more or less chump change straight off the farm - not even having been to fighter's school! It also lessened the danger of dungeons to some degree. In both games your level 1 fighter had best watch the hell out as death was around the corner. But the 0e fighter was a veteran, which made that death all the scarier - your seasoned veteran was one step away from death! In 2e, it just meant your local farmboy got killed by some kobolds, who may as well just be vermin. 3e capitalized this in many ways, with very low hit points at level 1 and very high weapon damage at level 1, with hit points dramatically scaling up as levels went on. In 0e, hit points had a vague balance - your standard Fighting Man at level 1, if you rolled well, could take a longsword blow and keep living, and there were no crits. As time went on, the fighter was able to keep taking blows and live through it - not so for the magic user, who had no constitution increases to health and such a pathetically small Hit die that ran out long before fighters did! (In older editions, at higher levels you no longer rolled, but simply gained a static bonus)
What 4e did here was go back to the old school. Level 1 adventurers are veterans again. You don't have skills for Make A Joke and Tie Rope and Be A Farmer Once. That's stuff you have as flavor. Sure, it might come up, and if it does, your DM can totally have you do an attribute roll on it with whatever bonus you can convince him to give you! But there's no reason you can't Be A Farmer Once and Swim and Tie Ropes and Make A Joke.
I think one of the big disconnects with 4e is that a lot of the "non-43e-isms" that is has ARE decidedly old school. You're complaining about distances being measured in squares? Feel lucky - at one point they were measured in inches, because the assumption was that you were not only using minis and a battlemat but that you were measuring everything to be strictly to scale!
So over time, 4e becomes D&D, based on your analysis - presumably just at the point 5e comes out?
It very well might, only time will tell. Depends on how many new players it can get and keep over the course of its active life.
|
|
I've played some 4E, but my group mainly plays PF (although up to last summer, we were playing 3.5).
I've noticed a few things about 4E that may be more related to what the DMs takes away from the game that anything about the game itself.
Several DMs who ran 3.5 for years and prefer 4E have told me that they prefer 4E because it is much less labor-intensive for them to produce and balance encounters. Their lifestyles are such that they'd like to spend less time prepping a game, and more time running it (or spending time with family), and 4E lets them do this. These are guys who don't live in my area, and I play in their 4E games when I visit my friend out of state, which is a couple of times a year.
I've tried 4E with several local DMs, and I haven't really enjoyed the results, but I've played with those guys from out of state, and I always have a fun time.
The DM that I game with every Friday loves 3.5 and PF, spends an inordinate amount of time prepping his games (he's retired, and so he can), and really enjoys spending hours statting up baddies (I imagine that much of his alone time is punctuated with evil chuckles).
The guys from out of state I've played with for years (again, a couple of times a year), and I've played in their 3.5 games. Here's something I've noticed in their 4E games.
They don't engage in nearly as much role playing as they used to. That's not flame bait, btw, it's just an observation of these two particular groups. They both play about a 4 hour or so session, and it's always one singular combat encounter with very little role playing to get them there.
I should point out in these two groups (both of which include a few of the same people), they've always preferred a bit of a combat heavy game, and that if the DM were to run a night of just role playing without combat, many in the group would be disappointed. In their 3.5 games, they generally ran 2 or so encounters with some role playing sandwiched in between. In their 4E games, they only seem to have time for one encounter.
So, I don't think that the game itself discourages role playing. I think (in this particular case) the group wants to get in at least one combat, no matter what, and that pretty much takes up their short play session. Their games are still a blast to play, though, and the guys are a lot of fun to be around.
My Friday night group runs for about 5 hours with Pathfinder, and we generally get through two or three combat encounters, with some role playing in the middle. Our sessions are a little longer, but it definitely feels as though our encounters are resolved more quickly than what I've seen in the 4E games I've played in.
BTW, I think 4E's skill system is a vast improvement over 3.5. I also like that Pathfinder eliminated the x4 skill points at 1st level, and the 1/2 ranks for non-class skills. Pathfinder's skill system is much improved over 3.5, but I personally prefer the more limited skill list in 4E to Pathfinder.
I'm not a huge fan of Skill Challenges in 4E, but a part of that may be that one of the local 4E groups I'd played with seemed way too enamored of them. The DM liked to use them way too much for my taste.
|
One D&D comic literally made fun of the changes from AD&D to 2e
Pr0 tip: if you copy paste links, make sure you copy ones that ain't dead. ;)
One D&D comic literally made fun of the changes from AD&D to 2ePr0 tip: if you copy paste links, make sure you copy ones that ain't dead. ;)
Works for me.
|
|
Works for me.One D&D comic literally made fun of the changes from AD&D to 2ePr0 tip: if you copy paste links, make sure you copy ones that ain't dead. ;)
You're obviously using a different Internet than I do, because both IE and FF point me to lunarpage hosting.
Works for me.One D&D comic literally made fun of the changes from AD&D to 2ePr0 tip: if you copy paste links, make sure you copy ones that ain't dead. ;)
Something screwy with browsers or cache or some such. Basically it did not work for me but I went and looked up your link...no dice still did not work. However I just typed Dorkgasm, the first part of your link, into google and went to their site where I found the article that included the image...now, for some strange reason its working fine even though the only thing that has changed is that I visited the site hosting the image.
I am guessing he meant to link to this.
I especially enjoyed how the runes of his spells are a mix of Vaudeville and "yo mama" jokes.
Bingo!
Sadly, too late to edit it now.
|
I note that ShinHakkaider's frothing attack on Scott Betts has had seven people so far flag it as a favorite. Is this the level to which Paizo has sunk? Even if you don't like Scott's posts on 4e, a personal attack on the man is in your favorites? I'm disgusted that the people on this site have sunk to this.
Maybe they faved it, so they could show people how not to post?
We can live in hope.
Even a bad example can be a good example in its potential for change?
I think Scott is one of the classier posters here; his Zen-like calm is truly a marvel to behold.
I note that ShinHakkaider's frothing attack on Scott Betts has had seven people so far flag it as a favorite. Is this the level to which Paizo has sunk? Even if you don't like Scott's posts on 4e, a personal attack on the man is in your favorites? I'm disgusted that the people on this site have sunk to this.Maybe they faved it, so they could show people how not to post?
We can live in hope.
Even a bad example can be a good example in its potential for change?I think Scott is one of the classier posters here; his Zen-like calm is truly a marvel to behold.
I was going to say something on this, but then I looked at the forum name. Carry on.
Nobody on a message board draws the sort of ire he does without a reason. It just so happens most of those "reasons" have been closed, lock, and/or deleted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edition wars are locked.
Edit: And a bunch of posts were cleaned up.