"Better direction", you´re kidding, right?And my goal is to keep the Realms firmly planted in the better direction it has gone these last 3 years.
I like it better, too. Not everyone thought the FR canon was worth preserving.
I like it better, too. Not everyone thought the FR canon was worth preserving."Better direction", you´re kidding, right?And my goal is to keep the Realms firmly planted in the better direction it has gone these last 3 years.
I do not understand this at all. If you do not like a setting ,then do not play it. YOu should not take a well loved setting, that you have a large vocal group of die hard fans, who will buy near anything with the logo. Then remove the things they like for a small group of people who do not like the setting and do not buy the products.
The Canon and lore, the history and everything printed for 20+ years made it FR. Without that you do not have FR, you have a new setting with some reused names and a map you used the old FR map to crib idea's from.
Its not the same setting. It brought in folks that disliked the setting ( who were not buying the product) and lost folks who had loved the setting ( and who did buy the products)
It was so badly revived they had to almost shut down the Forums, ban anyone who spoke a bad word about it and bring in Ed, after the fact to try and bring some of those lost players back.
Its like saying "I don't like eberron, so it needs changed and to hell with thoes folks who like it as is. They need to get with progress". well they planned that but backed out after the Fubar that was the new FR.
All this speculation about 5e is way off base. Monte is helping them with the release of D&D Classic, a fork from the 3.5 tree.
You are hereby formally charged with mixing your metaphors. Road and rivers have forks, trees have branches. Gah! ;-)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
All this speculation about 5e is way off base. Monte is helping them with the release of D&D Classic, a fork from the 3.5 tree.You are hereby formally charged with mixing your metaphors. Road and rivers have forks, trees have branches. Gah! ;-)
Code forks, Ideas fork :P
(Trees have forks too!)
(Trees have forks too!)
"This is true, they normally carry the silver wear, which by the way is normally not silver. In a little carrying case with their true name on it."
Good for you? It is much easier getting people new to table top gaming into 4e, especially Essentials, than it is for Pathfinder. I'm pretty such Paizo knows this. It's why they are releasing a trimmed down version of the game that is intended for beginners. See the beginner's box.Wow - I could not DISAGREE more with this.... I often convert Pathfinder modules to 4e because it makes for a better experience for my players and myself.
I really feel they are being held back by the archaic 3.5 ruleset.
My experience disagrees. I have GM'd no less than 6 people new to RP'ing in the last 4 months and were it not for scheduling issues I would have too many players. I think 4E is easier to pick up though. By the 3rd time I played I only needed the book to look up powers. Once I had index cards I did not need the book anymore.
I do admit you need someone willing to teach though, and be patient. One of my rules is don't kill the new guy in the first session.
Picking up a game system and staying with it are not the same thing. That is why I disagreed.
Which game, between any two, is better at keeping someone has so many factors involved that many times it is almost impossible to say.
Code forks, Ideas fork :P
(Trees have forks too!)
Code does, in fact, fork. As it happens, I can tell you some CVS merge horror stories. :)
Are you a developer?
From what I have heard, when WotC converted Dark Sun to 4e, they returned it to the era before the Prism Pentad novels, which drastically altered the setting much to the chagrin of many Dark Sun fans.Let me correct you:
"When when WotC converted Dark Sun to 4e, they returned it to the era before the Prism Pentad novels, which drastically altered the horrible changes TSR made to the setting much to the happiness and utter joy of many Dark Sun fans."
Nobody liked Prism Pentad.
+1
Those changes are why I stopped playing 2e, it just got retarded on Athas.
Rather long aside about the difference between 4E mentality and a 3.X/Pathfinder one
** spoiler omitted **...
I agree with what you wrote in the spoiler. Verisimilitude and or simulationism may or may not be the right terms to summarize them, but yes, the factors you describe are some of the major reasons why I do not play 4E. They are not the only reasons - things like lack of class progression diversity, more metagame references (encounter is NOT a defined a unit of time) and others also matter a great deal to me, but the foregoing are definitely extremely important.
If WotC wanted to get me to buy into the 5th edition, they would have to change their design philosophy and at the very least return to the 3.X/Pathfinder philosophy or even go further in that direction. Fluff is important to me too, but, as far as I am concerned, rules design philosophy is absolutely vital.
Aye, that has always puzzled me as well. Its like techno fans wanting metallic to change because they would like to enjoy metallic.
If it makes half the money it did before the new setting I'll eat my hat. Let me ask you just how active is the 4e FR boards? Lat I looked it was toxic and dying. You said yourself in this very thread they are Nealy dead. And thats not because more folks buy and ply it, that is because less folks do so.
Oh they're not very active, that much is plain and simple. Probably becaus a good portion of the posters there were very anti-4E FR. However, that doesn't equate to a majority of people who play FR or D&D. It was, at best 50 people who posted regurarly that gave the appearance of huge activity. And, lets be honest, the 4E Realms seriously lacks in content from prior editions. All of this I easily admit. And I feel this is a observation on how much people post about on the WotC forums. There just isn't enough source material to have a strong interesting discussions. Now'a days, it's mostly answering questions about introducing previous material into the current Realms and adding Homebrew content.
Still, I don't think this explicidly shows a strong decline in the FR line because if that were the case WotC would be putting more emphasis on their more stronger and popular settings such as the big hit Dark Sun and Eberron. Yet they're not, their focusing attention to the Realms, more Realms DDI content, and books FOR the Realms. Take into account the still stron novel line and I think that it's still the most popular setting of D&D.
More active players NEVER means less active fans, less active message boards and less talk about the product."To busy playing to talk about it" No way, that's a flawed dodge if I ever saw one. No company wants active users not to talk about the product. And no gamer worth his salt will not talk about his game, system, last game or fav world to another gamer. Much less on line.
One thing is that players might not know about the messageboards for 4E, I surely didn't when I played D&D. I played from 1998 through 06' with no idea what the messageboards did or how they could help people's campaigns. And people are more likely to start threads about what they hate versus what they like and so you get disproportionate messageboard base.
Of course this is all my own speculation and I don't have WotC sale, FR specific sales, or a clue of how many people associate them selves as "Realms-Fans". Thus, I doubt anyone can get a clear picture of how the overall fan base's attitude to the Spellplague and 4E Realms is OR possibly know if the change was for ill or not. Personally, as a player of the Realms since the mid-90's, it's by far my favorite iteration of the Realms yet but I can acknowledge the fact that others despise it wholesale.
Take into account the still stron novel line and I think that it's still the most popular setting of D&D.
Ultimately I think this will be what determines the fate of FR in the future: novel line sales. If they've collapsed, I think they would consider a reboot of some form in the future in order to regain fans. If not, they'll continue on present course.
None of us have numbers for 4e FR novel sales though. Personally, I suspect they're lower, based on the cutting back on some titles and some recent ones which will be ebook only rather than print. But this may be indicative of other things besides lower sales. How many hard cover novels have they had in 4e compared to a similar period of time in 3e? How many times have they hit the NYT bestsellers list? That might be something to look at for comparison.
Tell me more about the verisimilitude of 3e.
*Makes peasant cannon*
*Hops on and off horses to cross the planet in one turn*
I like it better, too. Not everyone thought the FR canon was worth preserving."Better direction", you´re kidding, right?And my goal is to keep the Realms firmly planted in the better direction it has gone these last 3 years.
I do not understand this at all. If you do not like a setting ,then do not play it. YOu should not take a well loved setting, that you have a large vocal group of die hard fans, who will buy near anything with the logo. Then remove the things they like for a small group of people who do not like the setting and do not buy the products.
The Canon and lore, the history and everything printed for 20+ years made it FR. Without that you do not have FR, you have a new setting with some reused names and a map you used the old FR map to crib idea's from.
Its not the same setting. It brought in folks that disliked the setting ( who were not buying the product) and lost folks who had loved the setting ( and who did buy the products)
It was so badly revived they had to almost shut down the Forums, ban anyone who spoke a bad word about it and bring in Ed, after the fact to try and bring some of those lost players back.
Its like saying "I don't like eberron, so it needs changed and to hell with thoes folks who like it as is. They need to get with progress". well they planned that but backed out after the Fubar that was the new FR.
I was apparently unclear - I wasn't suggesting it was a good move for them commercially (or even ethically, I suppose though that's a harder thing to justify). I gave up on FR after the first few supplements (I read the time of troubles novels but had already left the setting far behind by then).
I was just making an aesthetic comment. Perhaps I misunderstood but I thought your "got to be kidding" comment was expressing disbelief that anyone would prefer the new realms to the old realms.
I think large scale changes to settings are a mistake - both the time of troubles and the shift to the 4E realms are errors of this sort, in my view.
Tell me more about the verisimilitude of 3e.
*Makes peasant cannon*
*Hops on and off horses to cross the planet in one turn*
Oh, sure. I've never said the rules were perfect. But they were consistent. And that's the key, to me. Does the peasant canon break the game? Of course. But the peasant canon can be done with peasant canons of any race, crede, or ethos. It doesn't matter. In 4E, it would be that the peasant canon can be done with any race creed or ethos of player, but it can't be done by monsters, or it could be done by monsters but not by players, or by NPCs but neither monsters nor players because they all have completely different rules.
And make no mistake, despite their very direct attempts at making all things balanced, there are very definite builds, powers, skills, feats, abilities, and rules that break the game in very strange ways. I would never argue that 3.X (or, by extension, Pathfinder) is perfect. But it's certainly more immersive (spelling?) than 4E.
3.X's failings include having rules for everything that were casually realistic, but failed to hold up to realism when stacked together in unrealistic ways*.
4E's failings include making any two elements of reality work together in anything remotely resembling the same way.
<Redacted because it's getting too far off topic>
In 4E, it would be that the peasant canon can be done with any race creed or ethos of player, but it can't be done by monsters, or it could be done by monsters but not by players, or by NPCs but neither monsters nor players because they all have completely different rules
Uhhhhh, monsters and PCs used different rules in pre-3e games too. That there's one set of universal mechanics meant to entirely encapsulate all creatures is a 3e-ism. As in, 3e-only.
And make no mistake, despite their very direct attempts at making all things balanced, there are very definite builds, powers, skills, feats, abilities, and rules that break the game in very strange ways. I would never argue that 3.X (or, by extension, Pathfinder) is perfect. But it's certainly more immersive (spelling?) than 4E.
I suppose I would have to disagree. I find 4e far more immersive because it's not trying to be a physics engine. 4e simulates heroic fantasy. And it does it really well! 3e tries to simulate "fantasy reality sorta except for all these other things" and doesn't do it so hot.
I mean, this whole idea that D&D has to simulate reality is bizarre and alien to me. I never saw that before 3e came out. And indeed, I didn't see it for most of 3e itself. It was generally accepted that this very obviously wasn't any sort of realistic or simulated world. It was a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean...
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!) AD&D is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity......
As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can only be deemed a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere.
...When did this switch happen?
|
** spoiler omitted **...
I guess it really does take all sorts. I find 4e monster system much superior. It's a giant pain when you come up with a cool concept like say 12th level quickling alchemists dropping confusion bombs and then have to spend hours just to figure out what their saves are.
Also, no need to put spoiler tags on the on topic post.
Tell me more about the verisimilitude of 3e.
*Makes peasant cannon*
*Hops on and off horses to cross the planet in one turn*
*Points out peasant cannon imparts no velocity by RAW and thus is only an item fast transit system.*
No one said 3.5 was perfect. Which is why I was hoping a 4th Edition or 3.75 (aka 3rd Edition 2nd Revisions) would look at oiling squeaky wheels like that. A 4e could have made the necessary changes that would have broken backwards compatibly but still have not been super radical.
An easy alteration would have been to Free Actions stating you could take no more then one type of free action per turn, and use exceptions in those free actions that are unlimited/DM-limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
alright, i'll come out and say it. 4e was easy to learn and easy to pick up (for the most part). 3.5 and Therefore pathfinder is richer and more rewarding then 4e. Hence why i like both but prefer pathfinder over 4e.
I am vgue for a reason. I say exactly what i mean and mean exactly what i say. The ease of 4e is not at a price, sometimes i find the worlds of 4th edition too shallow, so to speak.
Sorry if this confuses you. There simply isn't a better way of expressing my thoughts then my previous statement.
This does mean that 4e also feels more high-magic than PF does, and has a harder time adjusting to low-fantasy campaigns. A 5th edition might draw back on that a bit, but can't do it too much or it will feel to weird for those already playing 4e. On the other hand, a 5th edition might be able to succeed where both 3.x, PF, and 4e failed - at making high-level play interesting for everyone involved (DM and players, regardless of what characters they play).
Whaa? As a PF Player and 4th Edition DM, I have to totally disagree with you here. Mostly my PF is homebrew, but even the adventure paths that I've dipped my toe in are waayy more far out, creative, and "magical" than the 4E module that we're running. In fact, because the 4e group are ironically much better roleplayers than most of the PF players that I know, I've taken them completely off the rails of their dungeon crawl and have them exploring alternate universes using the same maps because the module as written is boring me to tears (and also because two of the players have been through it before). And I find the 4e material so thin that I'm going to have to make up some new magic items.
And make no mistake, despite their very direct attempts at making all things balanced, there are very definite builds, powers, skills, feats, abilities, and rules that break the game in very strange ways. I would never argue that 3.X (or, by extension, Pathfinder) is perfect. But it's certainly more immersive (spelling?) than 4E.I suppose I would have to disagree. I find 4e far more immersive because it's not trying to be a physics engine. 4e simulates heroic fantasy. And it does it really well! 3e tries to simulate "fantasy reality sorta except for all these other things" and doesn't do it so hot.
I mean, this whole idea that D&D has to simulate reality is bizarre and alien to me. I never saw that before 3e came out. And indeed, I didn't see it for most of 3e itself. It was generally accepted that this very obviously wasn't any sort of realistic or simulated world. It was a game.
I think this is pretty much a fundamental point of disagreement between edition partisans. While the "game rules as physic engine" perspective may not have been a part of D&D pre-3.5, there's a whole set of people who now want/expect it to be. I know I found 4E incredibly disappointing for precisely this reason, and I suspect for all the rising old school fervor, a contingent looking for verisimilitude modeled by rules cohesion is going to be around in the hobby as a permanent fixture.
|
This explains why they cut off his Internets in November.
Alright, I'm calling off my exercise in restraint. It doesn't seem to help any, people still think I'm being sarcastic, and I get responses like the above that I can't help but reply to. We'll see if I get banned before they shut down services out here.
All this speculation about 5e is way off base. Monte is helping them with the release of "Advanced D&D Revisited", a fork from the 3.5 tree.
So .. basically they are not doing a 5e, they've instead realised that there is a huge marked for 3.x and are trying to claw back a chunk of it after trying to kill it dead? Now that is interesting.
Some of you are defending 4E Forgotten Realms? For real?
After all those years of high quality books and boxed sets? You think the 4E Realms book was even close to the quality we had come to expect from a Forgotten Realms product?
Changes be damned. I don't care when the Realms change. The books had so little to do with the rule set. Every good Forgotten Realms DM made the PCs the stars.
I disliked 4E Forgotten Realms because the product quality was a GINORMOUS drop off from previous products. Forgotten Realms books in the 3E era were beautifully done books filled with loads of crunch and fluff as well as enormously detailed maps and great art.
Thus was carried on the tradition from 2E of high quality, collectible Forgotten Realms material that included all the great box sets.
We still look at all the great 2E and 3E Forgotten Realms and wistfully remember when that was the best developed setting D&D had ever put out.
The changes to the Forgotten Realms are minor concerns compared to the enormous drop off in quality. That is not even arguable to anyone that owns old Forgotten Realms material. I don't care how much you love the 4E changes to the Forgotten Realms, don't even try and tell me the 4E Realms books hold a candle to 2E and 3E material. Not even in the same ballpark for quality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Another thing that astounded me about WotC and their decision to take D&D in a different direction was how big a miscalculation they made with their magic system. Did they really think that alienating their hardest core players was wise?
I'll have to step in to defend WotC here. Vancian casting has been one of the most criticized elements of the game since before 1E.
Who did they think spent more time reading the books? Mr. I want to play a simple fighter or Mr. Wizard. I would be real surprised if a demographic study of D&D players did not show that an inordinate amount of the hardest core D&D players play wizard/caster character's more often and are DMs more often.
Whose going to spend more time reading books? The guy making a simple sword swinging fighter or bow using archer or the guy that has to read every single spell and magic system over to gain every advantage he can. Then they design 4E to screw the guy that probably bought the majority of the books in his group and read them most religiously.
I'll freely admit to being fairly ignorant in regards to 4E...I took a look at it briefly, it didn't really grab me, and I haven't really looked back since. But are you seriously criticizing it for nerfing the wizard, which was almost universally decried as being unbalancingly overpowered in 3.x ?
I know the melee loving players in my group usually bought the Core Rulebook and the Complete Fighter. With maybe an extra melee book here and there. While the caster players buy the same books, but also the Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, Complete Divine, Arcana Unearthed, and every magic book they can get their hands on and read them like they truly are ancient tomes of knowledge.
And WotC decides to hamstring the caster players in 4E...
ZOMG! They nerfed the overpowered character! BURN THEM!
...One of the dumbest marketing decisions I've seen made in the 30 years I've been playing D&D. I was
Thus says the player that must not have played many casters over the years. You don't get it do you? It has little to do with the power. It has to do with the intersting ways to use magic. Not simply casting a Save or Die spell or Save or suck or launching a blast spell.
It has to do with knowing the intricacies of spell battle. Knowing the counters to spell tactics. Knowing how to manage a battlefield or what to cast to counter an energy draining creature or another wizard trying to break your party apart with walls.
It was all the strategy and tactics that went into the magic system. Designing spell strategy and learning to counter spell strategy. All completely out the door and a new system where every spell consisted of "Do a little damage and effect that had a 55% or better of ending each round". Continue to upgrade best effect for 30 levels.
3E had an extremely versatile and interesting magic system. You could spend a long time immersed in it coming up with a cool spell strategy that fit what you wanted to do. You want to be a mind controller, you can do it. You want to be a conjurer, you can do it. You want to be a blaster, you can do it. All of them were options and did involve direct damage.
4E threw that all out the window or watered it down to such a degree as to be virtually ineffective as an option. I love how all the magic haters are focused solely on the power of the caster rather than the interactivity of the system. For those of us that spent hours pouring over spells and mastering the system as both player and DM, it was a real kick in the teeth to give us this watery soup magic from 4E.
Uninteresting, lacking versatility unless you consider knocking someone around a few squares versatile, and overall a simplistic system focused almost solely on damage. Bored to tears is what I was with that system. No mastery of magic required in the 4E system. Every spell was simple and straightforward. Rituals were for out of combat. A real kick in the teeth.
Doubtful that you or your players remember the rules more than the adventures. I'd wager against it. If I met you at a random convention, your D&D experiences would either revolve around your characters or experience as a DM. And you'd be telling me how you took on this creature or won this battle or this great encounter you came up with. You wouldn't be reciting to me how stealth works or how the BAB system works and neither would your players.True, but the system has to allow those adventures to happen and better still encourage those types of adventures. For example, 4e having easy rules to adjudicate freeform stunts (DC to perform and damage to inflict) may mean players are more willing to try swinging from a chandelier to kick a foe into a hot brazier.
One Call of Cthulhu adventure I really remember was where I was playing the bad guy who had abducted another PC's wife, in the finale the other PC pulled a gun on my character at point blank range - this was it, not chance to dodge, my character was going to die... and then the player rolled a 100; the gun jammed! My PC went on to knock the PC unconscious and evil won the day :)
Now I don't remember exactly which edition of CoC that was (they are very similar) but the fact that it had a rule to indicate a gun jam allowed that memorable moment to happen - in another system that may not have been able to happen.
So I can't agree that system is immaterial and only the adventures matter - its a combination of both that makes for those memorable moments IMHO.
That's why D&D has lasted for so many iterations. If the rules were what mattered most, the game would have stopped evolving at the basic set.That doesn't make sense to me - if the rule didn't matter, then yes the game may have stopped evolving at the basic set, but they obviously do matter (at least to a significant degree if not "most") as people have evolved the game.
Hell, if rules didn't matter most why are some people so put off 4e...
I didn't say the rules didn't matter. I said they don't matter most.
I would have stuck with D&D 4E, a new iteration of the rules, if it didn't become something so unlike the D&D I knew. I was happy they improved options for the melees. That's great. They needed it. Cleaning up some of the magic system would have been wise as well.
But they seemed to think the versatility and power of the magic system was a turn off because of what must have been a very loud and vocal group. Because that's pretty much what killed my interest in D&D. I could have tolerated a ton of changes. Even like some of the 4E design concepts such as solo monsters, elites, and the like.
What I could not tolerate was a boring magic system that converted everything to damage and a minor effect in combat. That was an intolerable change for a wizard player that was used to do far more interesting things with magic than doing a little damage and enacting a minor effect.
Some of you are defending 4E Forgotten Realms? For real?
After all those years of high quality books and boxed sets? You think the 4E Realms book was even close to the quality we had come to expect from a Forgotten Realms product?
Changes be damned. I don't care when the Realms change. The books had so little to do with the rule set. Every good Forgotten Realms DM made the PCs the stars.
I disliked 4E Forgotten Realms because the product quality was a GINORMOUS drop off from previous products. Forgotten Realms books in the 3E era were beautifully done books filled with loads of crunch and fluff as well as enormously detailed maps and great art.
Thus was carried on the tradition from 2E of high quality, collectible Forgotten Realms material that included all the great box sets.
We still look at all the great 2E and 3E Forgotten Realms and wistfully remember when that was the best developed setting D&D had ever put out.
The changes to the Forgotten Realms are minor concerns compared to the enormous drop off in quality. That is not even arguable to anyone that owns old Forgotten Realms material. I don't care how much you love the 4E changes to the Forgotten Realms, don't even try and tell me the 4E Realms books hold a candle to 2E and 3E material. Not even in the same ballpark for quality.
I didn't think the 3.5 books were high quality. I thought they were confused, overly focussed on mechanics and uninspiring.
It's not defense, it's a difference in taste.
For a thread about 5e and Paizo, there are an awful lot of people arguing about 2e vs. 3e vs 4e.
Heh, while true, I think that's the crux of the question at heart. The changes from older systems to newer systems are what drew people in/drove people away, and that's basically what's going on here.
I think this is pretty much a fundamental point of disagreement between edition partisans. While the "game rules as physic engine" perspective may not have been a part of D&D pre-3.5, there's a whole set of people who now want/expect it to be. I know I found 4E incredibly disappointing for precisely this reason, and I suspect for all the rising old school fervor, a contingent looking for verisimilitude modeled by rules cohesion is going to be around in the hobby as a permanent fixture.
Pretty much this. I understand that the older editions didn't run things this way. I actually didn't attempt to indicate they did, and if I made that indication, I apologize. That's not my purpose or point. My only point is that, to me, 3.X/Pathfinder is more immersive*, to me because it enables me to have clear rules based off of most anything I wanted to do. I can have an NPC and a PC growing up together, having the same class, having the same options, and eventually being rivals using the same abilities. That would be an interesting story. I can do the same thing in 4E, except, of course, for them having anything remotely similar in terms of options or abilities.
If I have a PC mage fighting a BBEG mage, and the PC wins, and they say "Wow, that was a really cool spell, I'd love to learn that!" (which has happened), in 3.X/Pathfinder, I'd say "Well, you'll have to read his book and/or do lots of training, but it's doable" whereas in 4E I just have to go "no can do, sorry, nothing like that exists for PCs". That's kind of stupid. Yes, I know that I can make in-game justifications for it. But if I wanted to limit options, I could always do that. The fact that the system specifically says "PCs cannot cross this line" is, quite frankly, bizarre, to me.
Anyway, on this point, we'll have to agree to disagree agreeably. Again, 4E works for what it is. I do like the system, just not nearly as much as Pathfinder (or 3.X). There are issues with Pathfinder and 3.X, but there's more, in my view, with 4E.
As a 'consultant' or something. Not a full-time position, so he has plenty of time to take on other jobs. And most of the writing is passed out to freelancer writers, not full time employees. There are a couple 4E writers who wrote material for UM, I think.
That's really interesting. Thanks!
I guess it really does take all sorts. I find 4e monster system much superior. It's a giant pain when you come up with a cool concept like say 12th level quickling alchemists dropping confusion bombs and then have to spend hours just to figure out what their saves are.
Also, no need to put spoiler tags on the on topic post.
First: sure. I heartily agree. I just like the 3.X/Pathfinder better, but I know several, personally, who disagree. I was just attempting to state my reasons and thoughts.
Second: you couldn't actually do that in 4E anyway (even if there was an alchemist class), and, personally, I don't have too much trouble with it. I do know of applying classes to monsters, but it's a poor conversion, at best. It also is strange that monsters are either static, or they change so much as to be inhuman in their power (i.e. as they grow in level-power, so do their stats at bizarre rates).Third: eh, I use spoilers to cut down on the rather over-whelming size my posts can reach, but you're correct that they're probably not necessary. I just like to let people get what they want or not easily.
* Again, spell-check doesn't like the word "immersive"... I need to find a new word or ignore spell check. Does anyone know?
Still, I don't think this explicidly shows a strong decline in the FR line because if that were the case WotC would be putting more emphasis on their more stronger and popular settings such as the big hit Dark Sun and Eberron. Yet they're not, their focusing attention to the Realms, more Realms DDI content, and books FOR the Realms. Take into account the still stron novel line and I think that it's still the most popular setting of D&D.
I know even in the first ed days that a large amount of people read the Novels but did not even know they were based on a D&D world. Obviously they knew the Forgotten Realms, but didn ot connect it to D&D.
One of my friends in college who I shared an interest in scifi/fantasy with but not gaming, was excited to tell me that they made VIDEO GAMES based off of those novels. It was odd, I would have expected someone that new of D&D to know FR was part of it but he didn't.
MANY MANY students I have read Forgotten Realms books but do not have the idea it is from Dungeons and Dragons. I think WOTC will keep the FR going for Novel sales alone.
Some of you are defending 4E Forgotten Realms? For real?
After all those years of high quality books and boxed sets? You think the 4E Realms book was even close to the quality we had come to expect from a Forgotten Realms product?
Changes be damned. I don't care when the Realms change. The books had so little to do with the rule set. Every good Forgotten Realms DM made the PCs the stars.
I disliked 4E Forgotten Realms because the product quality was a GINORMOUS drop off from previous products. Forgotten Realms books in the 3E era were beautifully done books filled with loads of crunch and fluff as well as enormously detailed maps and great art.
Thus was carried on the tradition from 2E of high quality, collectible Forgotten Realms material that included all the great box sets.
We still look at all the great 2E and 3E Forgotten Realms and wistfully remember when that was the best developed setting D&D had ever put out.
The changes to the Forgotten Realms are minor concerns compared to the enormous drop off in quality. That is not even arguable to anyone that owns old Forgotten Realms material. I don't care how much you love the 4E changes to the Forgotten Realms, don't even try and tell me the 4E Realms books hold a candle to 2E and 3E material. Not even in the same ballpark for quality.
I don't know if I would say the quality of the 4e FR bound book was necessarily any worse. Simplicity does not mean lower quality. One thing that is very easy for me to do is analyze text for simplicity. The FR 4e campaign was distinctly written for accessibility and simplicity. The Language, the Layout. They even had bullet points near some regions that described it and you could then read the text, without needing to learn but reinforce. I will not say 4e and 4e realms were published poorly for this reason. I don't like the format, but I see the goal.
If I was choosing a text book for class, I would have definitely used the 3rd edition realms for the Honors classes, and the 4e realms book for regular level. I can't fault them for that, if you are a new player and want to explore the realms, the 4e guide is much less intimidating. It was designed that way. In Fact it takes so many cues from education, I would not be surprised if there was an education consultant working on 4e. (I am NOT, N*O*T, saying this would be a bad thing).
I didn't think the 3.5 books were high quality. I thought they were confused, overly focussed on mechanics and uninspiring.
It's not defense, it's a difference in taste.
I can only disagree if you say that about the FOrgotten Realms books. I thought those books were very well done. I never did like the third edition, layout.
I have to say, for SOME reason, I think Pathfinder books LOOK better. I thought the 3rd edition Monster Manuals were pretty crappy. I did not like the borders, I did not like the page 'background', I really didn't like the confused layout of 3rd edition books. The dress was poor. Like in the epic handbook, you have a Wizards table 'floating there' not actually attached to the text. I think Pathfinder does a much better job of this for whatever reason.
I do think the Forgotten Realms books were very well done in third edition. By contrast I liked the borders, I liked the background, I did not think things were too far out of place.
I will also say the 3rd edition Iconics? Who cares? I never cared for one of them, except maybe the dwarf fighter. Pathfinder Iconics, are just awesome (except for Lem, his name should be Lame).
I'm sure its not intentional but the Pathfinder layout and dress seems closer to the 3rd edition forgotten realms rather than 3rd edition core. For that I am thankful.
I know even in the first ed days that a large amount of people read the Novels but did not even know they were based on a D&D world. Obviously they knew the Forgotten Realms, but didn ot connect it to D&D.One of my friends in college who I shared an interest in scifi/fantasy with but not gaming, was excited to tell me that they made VIDEO GAMES based off of those novels. It was odd, I would have expected someone that new of D&D to know FR was part of it but he didn't.
MANY MANY students I have read Forgotten Realms books but do not have the idea it is from Dungeons and Dragons. I think WOTC will keep the FR going for Novel sales alone.
Agreed, which is a good thing. And this is probably a BIG reason why Dungeons and Dragons brand name is heavily featured on the covers of the newer setting novels and not the big letters of the Forgotten Realms. It associates both as the same where as people, like you mentioned, didn't get the connection.
Still even if the novel line of FR isn't a good indicator of how well the product is selling, I'd still rely on the amount of info published for the setting since 4E's debut compared to other settings. Really, were I a huge fan of Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Eberron I'd be pissed to see FR still getting all the spot light they they're getting now. That, to me, doesn't show a decline in players or interest of the setting.
Thus says the player that must not have played many casters over the years. You don't get it do you? It has little to do with the power. It has to do with the intersting ways to use magic. Not simply casting a Save or Die spell or Save or suck or launching a blast spell.It has to do with knowing the intricacies of spell battle. Knowing the counters to spell tactics. Knowing how to manage a battlefield or what to cast to counter an energy draining creature or another wizard trying to break your party apart with walls.
Actually, that's exactly why spells were changed in the direction they were. Eveyone knows that, while potent, Save or Die and blasting spells were boring and unoptimized and didn't show the true power of a spellcaster. It's one's who took HUGE liberties with the spells that seemed to be the greater problem in mid- to high-level range. Sure, it's easy to cast disintegrate with a less than chance of destroying the target but it's much more simpler to create a huge Iron Wall and just topple it onto the monster (that way the rules do all the work for you instead of DM fiat). Sure you could blast the enemies coming over the wooden bridge, possibly killing a few while the Fighter in front does mop up but isn't it simpler to warp the wooden bridge to slop to one side and they all fall off, thus eliminating the need for the fighter to be there. When spell's descriptions are manipulated into being instant-win buttons it becomes rather boring to everyone else at the table.
It was all the strategy and tactics that went into the magic system. Designing spell strategy and learning to counter spell strategy. All completely out the door and a new system where every spell consisted of "Do a little damage and effect that had a 55% or better of ending each round". Continue to upgrade best effect for 30 levels.
Yea problem is many mages didn't want to worry about spell strategy all the time. One rule in v3.5 that was horrid was Counter-Spelling. Mainly because if you've waisted your turn "preparing to counter" then you've already lost. It's much better to take your turn and attempt to instill the best status effect of "dead" instead of wasting your turn countering a possibly offensive spell. And I don't know too many people who play wizards with the spell "Slow" memorized just in case the enemy spellcaster casted "Haste". Much simpler to simply waste a Dispel Magic on it and possibly dispel other effects too.
This doesn't take into account for enemy offensive spells that work exactly like yours. So a DM who also takes liberties with spell descriptions puts the PCs (mostly melee ones first) at risk of instant-kill possibly because of one bad saving throw. Personally I'm not a fan of seeing a character I created, RP'ed, and developed a nice backstory on see die because I missed a Fortitude save by 1 OR if the effect is bad enough to render me useless that I just sit at the table with my laptop on Facebook because I have nothing to contribute to the game. But your probably right, I'm sure others loved these real-world aspects of the rules while sitting around watching others have fun.
3E had an extremely versatile and interesting magic system. You could spend a long time immersed in it coming up with a cool spell strategy that fit what you wanted to do. You want to be a mind controller, you can do it. You want to be a conjurer, you can do it. You want to be a blaster, you can do it. All of them were options and did involve direct damage.4E threw that all out the window or watered it down to such a degree as to be virtually ineffective as an option. I love how all the magic haters are focused solely on the power of the caster rather than the interactivity of the system. For those of us that spent hours pouring over spells and mastering the system as both player and DM, it was a real kick in the teeth to give us this watery soup magic from 4E.
I'm gaining the opinion that you didn't play 4E spellcaster for very long. Yes, some of those elements were missing from the PHB. However, Conjuration and Summoning are there, blasting is there, mind control is there. 4E Hypnotism = making a monster hit it's allies or itself with an attack OR you can move it anywhere you want, like off cliffs. But with that same enthusiasm, drive, and mastering of the system you can easily create your own spells that can be as diverse and versatile as you desire.
Uninteresting, lacking versatility unless you consider knocking someone around a few squares versatile, and overall a simplistic system focused almost solely on damage. Bored to tears is what I was with that system. No mastery of magic required in the 4E system. Every spell was simple and straightforward. Rituals were for out of combat. A real kick in the teeth.
Yea there is actually less system mastery required so people who can't pour tons of hours into the game still get something fun and enjoyable from it. Problem is system master was pretty much a requirement for v3.5 if you wanted to contribute to adventuring on or around the same level as your buddies. And there is plenty of versatility in the wizard, I'd dare say one of the most versatile classes in 4E. Their spells run the gambit of close burst, close blast, area blast, single target, multiple target spells in the game.
They synergise well with ANY class and perform exceptionally well with other PCs who can move targets around the battlefield to keep in the wizard's zones and bad terrains. What I feel you have the hardest time accepting is that wizards aren't "1 spell wins the encounter" anymore and that's hard for people to take.
No more "Anything you can do, I can do better with magic" attitude that seemed to permeate players of past editions. In 4E they saw a large number of players who were sorta sick of the amount of content and "brokeness" that became common with most full-spellcasters and it's no wonder the Druid, Wizard, Cleric, Archivist are all Tier 1 classes and the Fighter is tier 3 (4 even?), because tier 1 classes can do the Fighter's job too and mostly better. That sort of class disparity went from annoyance in the later heroic tier (for lack of a better description) around levels 6 to 9 to exasperation around levels 13 to 17 and in Epic....well most just hope their character would die so they could roll up a brand new 17th level Wizard to play right along side everyone else.
A number of things that I've never really seen, save in optimized situations.
I've run into inter-class jealousy, but here's where the jealousy, in my games, has always come from:
1) The psion going nova (after an entire session of doing nothing but hanging on the back of a half-giant) and one-hit-killing the (very low level) boss of one micro-adventure. Once. Never in the entire rest of the game did he do anything else like that. He never could, because he lacked the power. Didn't stop a few people from howling about how "broken" he was, or how horridly over-powered. And they only ever had one example to use. As opposed to: the Barbarian (who constantly crit-killed), the Swashbuckler (see Barbarian), the Cleric/Druid/Red Wizard (who was, in turn, a cleric, a druid, and red wizard). Nice.
2) The rogue feeling redundant and complaining about it because the BARD was too versatile/powerful. Yes. That was a real thing that happened. It wasn't a lot of complaining, but, yeah, the BARD completely outclassed the ROGUE in terms of power.
3) The wizard (who turned against the party) who complained the monk was too good at shutting him down.
I, myself, am something of a ridiculous power-gaming optimizer and something of a holy terror to my GMs. But I really try to make sure that everyone has a chance to shine at some point or another. The things you point out as problems are the things that I don't often do, as a rule. And I can do it in 4E too.
Now, that said, I understand you were responding to someone who was talking about the versatility of magic. I'm just explaining that, in my gaming career, that's about it for class-complaints. While online, true, I run into this stuff often, and as a player, personally, I can make the rules weep and bow before me, I've not run into too many people in person who do this to "win" over their friends. That is boring.
I didn't think the 3.5 books were high quality. I thought they were confused, overly focussed on mechanics and uninspiring.
It's not defense, it's a difference in taste.
I can only disagree if you say that about the FOrgotten Realms books. I thought those books were very well done. I never did like the third edition, layout.
I meant the FR books. I'm not really arguing, since arguing preferences is a little pointless, I'm also reasonably confident I'm in the minority. Nonetheless, it's not a universal view that all the lore and dramatic changes of 3.5 FR were essential parts of the setting, nor that the books were higher quality than the 4E books. I personally would have preferred the realms remained as it was in the grey box. Given that didn't happen, I foundthe realms as it was after 3.5 was uninteresting and confused. Whereas the 4E FR is usable to me and much more reminiscent, in my view, of the realms as I first encountered it.
Comments about the new FR being a travesty or similar, always strike me as opinion stated as fact. I think it was a commercial error and a misjudgment of their fanbase. I don't accept that arguments based in quality or aesthetic preference have much weight.
|
Some of you are defending 4E Forgotten Realms? For real?
After all those years of high quality books and boxed sets? You think the 4E Realms book was even close to the quality we had come to expect from a Forgotten Realms product?
Changes be damned. I don't care when the Realms change. The books had so little to do with the rule set. Every good Forgotten Realms DM made the PCs the stars.
I disliked 4E Forgotten Realms because the product quality was a GINORMOUS drop off from previous products. Forgotten Realms books in the 3E era were beautifully done books filled with loads of crunch and fluff as well as enormously detailed maps and great art.
Thus was carried on the tradition from 2E of high quality, collectible Forgotten Realms material that included all the great box sets.
We still look at all the great 2E and 3E Forgotten Realms and wistfully remember when that was the best developed setting D&D had ever put out.
The changes to the Forgotten Realms are minor concerns compared to the enormous drop off in quality. That is not even arguable to anyone that owns old Forgotten Realms material. I don't care how much you love the 4E changes to the Forgotten Realms, don't even try and tell me the 4E Realms books hold a candle to 2E and 3E material. Not even in the same ballpark for quality.
I didn't think the 3.5 books were high quality. I thought they were confused, overly focussed on mechanics and uninspiring.
It's not defense, it's a difference in taste.
While I may not agree with Steve about the 3.5 FR books I do agree about with his post about someone having a difference in taste. I wish posters would stop acting like they speak for everyone and that everyone opinion matches theirs 1000%