Ok, but what is a great system then?Taking a look through my library for systems that I prefer to d20...
Retro D&D: Original D&D, Basic D&D (Holmes, B/X, BECMI, RC), AD&D, AD&D 2E, Swords & Wizardry, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Dark Dungeons, OSRIC, Stars Without Number
Basic Roleplaying: Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest II, Legend, RuneQuest 6E
Classic World of Darkness: Vampire 20th Anniversary
Tri-Stat: Big Eyes, Small Mouth (2nd & 3rd Editions)
GUMSHOE: Trail of Cthulhu, Esoterrorists, Fear Itself, Ashen Stars, Mutant City Blues
I'm interested in trying a couple of those. LotFP, BESM. So tri stat is better then D20 for BESM?
Also I do miss 2e sometimes.
How, exactly, did they know there was going to be no compatibility?
I would probably think that most likely it could be due to some sort of RPG industry Don't ask, I can't tell...unless my boss isn't looking policy.
We hear: "We are not allowed to talk about (insert item here) just yet."
They hear: "You know what is better than a beer? Five beers! So as I was saying about (insert item here)..."
The company links and friendships between many people in the Seattle area has been around for a long time now. Some beans will tend to spill in such an environment given enough time and/or job frustration (hence all that beer drinking that goes on).
Your sort of missing the point I was making, in that I believe Pathfinder would've come out regardless if 4E debued, but in light of some information, it could be from the loss of Dragon and Dungeon magazines. *shurggs* I honestly don't care at this point, lol.
I think the loss of Dungeon and Dragon was clearly the tipping point. So long as they had Dungeon and Dragon and where growing those magazines that was the focus.
As it was they where pretty overworked and sometimes they would mess up editing and the fans would b*@*# and moan. Until they lost this liscence they really just did not seem to have time to go all out on expanding the line though there was no doubt some talk about doing a campaign setting and such.
Once the magazine got cut they turned to the APs which was their premier innovation even in Dungeon. The next AP slated for Dungeon was to be one that focused on Giants - they took what they had on that and came out Rise of the Runelords.
In fact if you look around this point you will find Erik Mona 'lying' (success changes plans actually). Golorian was originally going to be developed like Greyhawk historically was. The adventures (in this case APs) would slowly detail the world and expand it. The whole separate game with hardcover books all its own came about later as it became clear that there was a real market for it and their sales in the APs and strong fan support made it believable that they could support it.
I think seeing Pathfinder as the result of some grand plan from way back during the magazine era is a mistake. It grew organically in ever more ambitious steps as each of their less ambitious plans turned out to be strong successes which allowed the company to support more staff which meant there was more people to focus on more product.
I would not be at all surprised if Paizo had some inkling of what was coming in 4e before the decision was made to terminate the Dragon license and they were cut off from further updates.
Those actions in themselves had to have been telling. The way the d20 license was terminated made 3rd party publishers leery of the upcoming 4E GSL -- unfortunately for Wizards, nothing they actually did in regard to the GSL was sufficient to reassure most of them. It cannot have helped that Ari Marmell, a game designer who was originally an enthusiastic proponent of 4E and who apparently had a law degree, looked over the GSL and declared that he could not support it.
Had things gone differently, I think Paizo would have liked nothing better than to quickly and smoothly transition to the new system and pick up with writing adventures -- but there were too many problems with 4E and the GSL relative to their predecessors for them to do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I don't think anyone (except the most ardent, possibly slightly-delusional, 4e fan) believed 4e would last 10 years. Nor even 8 years. A number of us pretty much guessed its short life span from the get-go. In the end, it just wasn't that (comparatively) popular. As noted by ex-WotC staff on ENWorld, if it was we wouldn't be having this conversation . That's just the way it is, whether certain fans believe it or not.
Agreed.
Just curious but does anyone have a list of the current designers for D&D: Next? Bruce Cordell, Skip Williams, and Monte Cook were old favorites. I know Cordell is working on D&D Next but I'm not sure if Skip Williams has any involvement.
Also, having Mike Mearls as a lead designer (again?) for your fresh-start, new edition is a mistake IMHO. Especially if you are trying to undo 4E (in a sense) and regain some of the target audience you lost.
To get me to even look at it, Next would have to have faster prep (lighter rules), strong support for a single campaign setting, and most of all, HUGE adventure support. I know alot of people like homebrew, but I think alot of us older hats don't have the time we used to these days.
On the negative side, keeping Mearls at the helm, and if WotC/Hasbro is still operating with the belief that adventures don't sell enough, will probably be enough to keep me from being even remotely optimistic.
|
@ Rockheim- I do wonder though if it was the fault of WOTC or if it was the puppet-master(HASBRO). The Christmas layoff's every year cant help moral in a company atmosphere like that.
I agree i would love to see a blanket statement consisting of..
" We screwed up/ this is why...
please take us back"But alas , I don't think we'll see that anytime soon.
More likely it was someone at WotC trying to impress Hasbro and failing spectacularly.
VerantSimilar to Bioware trying to impress EA recently (DA2 and ME3) and now having to backtrack significantly. People want to impress the corporate masters and show how awesome they are and end up ruining what made their stuff popular to begin with.
See also: Verant Interactive/Sony Online, or any other time where little company gets bought by big company.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Rockheim- I do wonder though if it was the fault of WOTC or if it was the puppet-master(HASBRO). The Christmas layoff's every year cant help moral in a company atmosphere like that.
I agree i would love to see a blanket statement consisting of..
" We screwed up/ this is why...
please take us back"But alas , I don't think we'll see that anytime soon.
More likely it was someone at WotC trying to impress Hasbro and failing spectacularly.
Verant
Similar to Bioware trying to impress EA recently (DA2 and ME3) and now having to backtrack significantly. People want to impress the corporate masters and show how awesome they are and end up ruining what made their stuff popular to begin with.See also: Verant Interactive/Sony Online, or any other time where little company gets bought by big company.
That's pretty much it exactly, from what I've heard. It was something of a bid to save D&D from a potential shelving.
Sheesh, I wish I had my links.
EDIT:
Found one!
|
I think, to be fair, plenty of companies screw up projects even when they aren't tying to impress people higher up - projects get screwed up all the time, it's easy to do. And it's not really unrealistic to expect that a product should clear investment hurdles and make money for the investors. I think we need to stop demonising Hasbro and recognise that our hobby is a minority interest these days and probably declining. It probably doesn't mesh well with the need to hit investment targets in the short term, like most public companies are pushed to do by the markets. Paizo's main strength in that respect is that it is a private company owned by D&D enthusiasts (I assume - I have no particular knowledge about Paizo'c ownership and capital structure but that's the impression I get) who need to make enough to satisfy themselves but don't have to worry about competing with every other business and sector out there to ensure an ever-increasing share price. But that's capitalism and it's the worst system for running an economy except all the others.
|
|
Shame, I would have enjoyed a tabletop/mmo hybrid like that if they had done it as an additional project rather than trying to replace 3.5 with it.
Imagine if they had shifted the 3.5 focus to settings/adventures like Paizo ended up doing while working on VTT as a separate project entirely. Never put all your eggs in one basket is one of the prime mantras of investment.
|
No offense to the 4E fans, but really the only ways I will be interesed in 5E is if (well fist off frop that Next crap and just call it 5E), devorce it as much as possible from 4E, go back much closer to 3E's mechanics style, and also start branching out away from FR and Eberron.
It may be time for a new setting, though I would love to see some Greyhawk, Ravenoft, Planescape, and a personal favorate, dragonlance materials. Eberrona and FR have just done to death, and honestly, in both cases, I think that those two settings need at least a full year of "okay everyone hates what we did with FR in 4E, how are we going to fix that", AFTER we get some other settings, before they are even broached.
I think, to be fair, plenty of companies screw up projects even when they aren't tying to impress people higher up - projects get screwed up all the time, it's easy to do. And it's not really unrealistic to expect that a product should clear investment hurdles and make money for the investors.
This is so very true!
I think we need to stop demonising Hasbro and recognise that our hobby is a minority interest these days and probably declining.
I agree with the first half. I really don't want anyone to think that my post was "demonizing" Hasbro. If it came off that way... my bad. I don't think they made good decisions with the company, but then again I like J.C. Penny, but they didn't do anything good to Eckard Drugs when they acquired it (I was working there at the time), and it ended poorly. Does that make J.C. Penny bad? No. It just makes them a poor mesh what they acquired. I feel that Hasbro and D&D is the same: a poor mesh (though, of course, there was no way to know this at the time).
I don't think 4E was "t3h worst 3vah", but I do think it wasn't nearly as good (or complete) as it should have been, and I think competing pressures from several different angles created an environment that wasn't friendly to it's success. Add that to a campaign* that almost seemly (to my experiences with them) actively went out of its way to alienate former fans, and refusal to trust current or future fans made for a pretty rough transition and didn't hold interest as well as it should have. (Plus some really horrid early modules.)
I really hope 5E succeeds. I really do. I'll probably hang with PF, though, from what I'm seeing.
Paizo's main strength in that respect is that it is a private company owned by D&D enthusiasts (I assume - I have no particular knowledge about Paizo'c ownership and capital structure but that's the impression I get) <snip>
They've pretty much said that this is true about themselves.
* Not in game terms.
|
|
The demonising Hasbro comments were more a general observation on the tone about how Hasbro don't know what they are doing. I suspect that actually, overall, Hasbro has a reasonable handle on what they are doing - trying to extract shareholder value. I just don't think there is much in D&D, or TTRPGs in general. In a sense, Hasbro/WotC have done the best they can in the environment they operate. I agree that there has been some fairly poor management in the past, but I suspect really good management in a public company would be looking very askance at the D&D brand given the difficulty of extracting value from it.
No offense to the 4E fans, but really the only ways I will be interesed in 5E is if (well fist off frop that Next crap and just call it 5E), devorce it as much as possible from 4E, go back much closer to 3E's mechanics style, and also start branching out away from FR and Eberron.
What, exactly, would you like to see in 5E that is close to 3E's mechanics style? I ask because I think it's pretty vague request and can incorporate A LOT of styles and mechanics.
From what I gather from the Playtest AND the latest articles, there's really nothing in this new edition that has much in the way of 3E mechanics. Meaning.....
• No BAB progression for anyone. The Bounded Accuracy pretty much guarentees that most attacks are going to be slow to grow and that AC's aren't going to high extreamly high levels.
• Saves are based on Ability scors, all 6 of them. Meaning no more Fortitude, Reflex, or Will (also called derived stats). Instead we're going to see spells and Abilities that call for Constitution Saves, Dexterity Saves, Wisdom Saves, Strength Saves, etc... And spells will also reflect this as well.
• At-Will spellcasting (wizard cantrips and cleric orisons) are the "bread-and-butter" of spellcasting classes.
• Healing is back down to it's abysmal levels, mostly healing in the 1d8 range for a full-turn (ie, no more class-baked abilities for healing on the fly).
• Progression is on a level-by-level basis for multiclassing. So returns the Fighter 3/ Bard 2/ Rogue 3/ Wizard 1/ Warlock 7 shenannigans (or utterly unplayable classes). I'm holding out hope they keep the reigns on this so we don't get the gambit of broken combos and crappy characters.
• So far in the playtest the Fighter has been restricted to Attack, Attack, Attack, Move, Attack, possibly Improv Action, attack instead of actually fun stuff to do. YMMV on this but I'm drastically disappointed with this thus far.
• Skill points are forever exiled from D&D. Instead of 20, 30, 50 ranks to place in 20+ Skills, we got 3 or 4 choices of skills based on Background that add a small modifier to your Ability scores. However, skills aren't iron-clad to one specific Ability score. So you use Wilderness Lore with Wisdom to find your way through foilage or with Charisma to influence a wild animal OR Intelligence to identify specific plants.
It may be time for a new setting, though I would love to see some Greyhawk, Ravenoft, Planescape, and a personal favorate, dragonlance materials. Eberrona and FR have just done to death, and honestly, in both cases, I think that those two settings need at least a full year of "okay everyone hates what we did with FR in 4E, how are we going to fix that", AFTER we get some other settings, before they are even broached.
I'd like to see more settings get some love too but they've already mentioned they'll be supporting the Forgotten Realms from the get-go. Hopefully we'll get slight changes as the edition go on in addition to some other stuff (namely Ravenloft) too.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may be time for a new setting, though I would love to see some Greyhawk, Ravenoft, Planescape, and a personal favorate, dragonlance materials. Eberrona and FR have just done to death, and honestly, in both cases, I think that those two settings need at least a full year of "okay everyone hates what we did with FR in 4E, how are we going to fix that", AFTER we get some other settings, before they are even broached.
I definitely think that WotC needs a new campaign setting and they need to develop and focus on it for several years, if they hope to convince the long-time players who left when 4e came out to take a look at the new edition. I have Forgotten Realms books from many editions in my bookcase and a new one would just reinforce the idea that WotC is reselling the same material which I've already paid for multiple times.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What, exactly, would you like to see in 5E that is close to 3E's mechanics style? I ask because I think it's pretty vague request and can incorporate A LOT of styles and mechanics.
From what I gather from the Playtest AND the latest articles, there's really nothing in this new edition that has much in the way of 3E mechanics. Meaning.....
• No BAB, • Saves are based on Ability scores, • At-Will spellcasting, • Healing is back down to it's abysmal, • Progression is on a level-by-level basis for multiclassing, • Attack, Attack, Attack, Move, Attack, • Skill points are forever exiled.
The level of custimization really. My greatest dislike of 4E was that I literally felt the same at level 8ish (I forgot when I gave up on it) as I did at level 1. The fact that I couldn't make the character I wanted by combining this or that, IF that is what I want, (and IF I do not, I don't do it).
No offense to PF either, but in my oponion, 3.5 was a better game, better balanced over all, and much more enjoyable over all, just a better game all in all. It was not perfect, but I do think it did a lot better job of explaining WHY mchanics worked the way they did, giving everyone a better sense for making calls on things. 4E was terrible about this, and PF is not that great either.
To be honest, I think reducing healing is a good thing. I hated 4E's healing surges, and I am not a fan of PF's vast amounts of easy healing either. I'd rather have less healing over all which will force players to both be more tactical and cautious and also add a more serious and gritty feel. I avoided the playtest, so I really do not know what you mean about skills, attacks, and as far as I recall, all editions of D&D Saves have been based on abilities (and other things). I'm not sure why that is a bad thing.
Arguably what you're asking for is something D&D isn't meant to give you. There are plenty of extremely flexible systems, ones which don't use classes and levels, that allow customisation to a degree that was not and should not be present in D&D. It's supposed to be a class-based game. So keep it as one.
Maybe, but apparently 3.5 did it for him. So I suspect your assertion is incorrect.
|
|
What, exactly, would you like to see in 5E that is close to 3E's mechanics style? I ask because I think it's pretty vague request and can incorporate A LOT of styles and mechanics.
From what I gather from the Playtest AND the latest articles, there's really nothing in this new edition that has much in the way of 3E mechanics. Meaning.....
• No BAB, • Saves are based on Ability scores, • At-Will spellcasting, • Healing is back down to it's abysmal, • Progression is on a level-by-level basis for multiclassing, • Attack, Attack, Attack, Move, Attack, • Skill points are forever exiled.
The level of custimization really. My greatest dislike of 4E was that I literally felt the same at level 8ish (I forgot when I gave up on it) as I did at level 1. The fact that I couldn't make the character I wanted by combining this or that, IF that is what I want, (and IF I do not, I don't do it).
No offense to PF either, but in my oponion, 3.5 was a better game, better balanced over all, and much more enjoyable over all, just a better game all in all. It was not perfect, but I do think it did a lot better job of explaining WHY mchanics worked the way they did, giving everyone a better sense for making calls on things. 4E was terrible about this, and PF is not that great either.
To be honest, I think reducing healing is a good thing. I hated 4E's healing surges, and I am not a fan of PF's vast amounts of easy healing either. I'd rather have less healing over all which will force players to both be more tactical and cautious and also add a more serious and gritty feel. I avoided the playtest, so I really do not know what you mean about skills, attacks, and as far as I recall, all editions of D&D Saves have been based on abilities (and other things). I'm not sure why that is a bad thing.
Weeell... 1st to 8th level isn't actually very far. You are still in Heroic tier at that point. On the customisation point, part of the reason they got rid of it was that the multiclassing rules in 3e led to lots of unbalanced builds, both highly-effective and ineffective. As Bluenose points out, that's not D&D strong point, and anyway only really came into effect with 3e. It's not a "D&D" thing as such, it's a 3e thing. Whether total customisability should be the aim of a class-based system is moot, considering that classes pull in precisely the opposite direction. A system not designed for that will break, as 3e did.
Arguably what you're asking for is something D&D isn't meant to give you. There are plenty of extremely flexible systems, ones which don't use classes and levels, that allow customisation to a degree that was not and should not be present in D&D. It's supposed to be a class-based game. So keep it as one.Maybe, but apparently 3.5 did it for him. So I suspect your assertion is incorrect.
I think 3E/v3.5 is the abberant edition when it comes to character customization, being probably the first level-by-level progressive system in D&D's history with an almost endless modular aspect. Sure, it's a edition defining aspect and some might say it's 3Es best feature, but Aubrey clearly shows that with this system comes a swath of complications and a HUGE disparity between broken/ultimate builds and ineffective builds (and by ineffective, I am strictly speaking from a combative POV).
I think 4E's multiclass system, coupled with the Hybrid rules makes for a great compromise in crafting the style of character you want to see. Putting Themes and Backgrounds into the mix just further enhances this process. However, there are a lot of people who didn't make it that far into the edition and don't know about these options and thus, make the assumption that 4E's customization is extreamly low.
with D&D:Next, I'm ok with the return of level-by-level multiclassing AS LONG AS there are some restrictions baked into the core system. I don't want to see Wizard 5/ Fighter 2/ Rogue 3/ Cleric 1 anymore. Yet there should also be guidelines to amend the core rules for more customization at the DM's discretion. Just because I don't like tons of classes all clumped into one character doesn't mean my preference should be the only one used. Put in guidelines on accepting a more loose multiclass system where there is no restriction and you can mix/match any class-level your heart desires. Just don't make that the default.
Arguably what you're asking for is something D&D isn't meant to give you. There are plenty of extremely flexible systems, ones which don't use classes and levels, that allow customisation to a degree that was not and should not be present in D&D. It's supposed to be a class-based game. So keep it as one.Maybe, but apparently 3.5 did it for him. So I suspect your assertion is incorrect.I think 3E/v3.5 is the abberant edition when it comes to character customization, being probably the first level-by-level progressive system in D&D's history with an almost endless modular aspect. Sure, it's a edition defining aspect and some might say it's 3Es best feature, but Aubrey clearly shows that with this system comes a swath of complications and a HUGE disparity between broken/ultimate builds and ineffective builds (and by ineffective, I am strictly speaking from a combative POV).
I think 4E's multiclass system, coupled with the Hybrid rules makes for a great compromise in crafting the style of character you want to see. Putting Themes and Backgrounds into the mix just further enhances this process. However, there are a lot of people who didn't make it that far into the edition and don't know about these options and thus, make the assumption that 4E's customization is extreamly low.
with D&D:Next, I'm ok with the return of level-by-level multiclassing AS LONG AS there are some restrictions baked into the core system. I don't want to see Wizard 5/ Fighter 2/ Rogue 3/ Cleric 1 anymore. Yet there should also be guidelines to amend the core rules for more customization at the DM's discretion. Just because I don't like tons of classes all clumped into one character doesn't mean my preference should be the only one used. Put in guidelines on accepting a more loose multiclass system where there is no restriction and you can mix/match any class-level your heart desires. Just don't make that the default.
Diffan, did you ever actually use the hybrid rules? Because I did, and they more than slightly sucked, in most of our experiences. Any semblance of balance was thrown right out the window (unless you really, really knew what you were doing, or the rules were bent into submission) - it was substantially worse than 3.X multi classing.
I never particularly liked 4E's multi class either, but it was at least sort of balanced ish, for the most part. It still didn't make feel very much like a rogue-wizard though (for example).
As you know, we both disagree on 4E, so I'll leave that one alone. :D
Devil's Advocate: while I love me some 3.5 - it may be my favorite of the five-or-so editions (if you separate 3.0, 3.5, and PF, as you do) I've played, it was, by NO MEANS the better balanced system between the three. 4E: perfect balance. It feels a bit flavorless sometimes, as a system, but it's really well balanced. PF: rather well balanced, and very "clean", in comparison. 3.5: much better than 3.0, but still with some issues. 3.0 had some nice features, but eh. 2nd was all over the place.
Still, I love me some 3.5: one of my favorite things about it? Literally everything on the sheet was "real" in terms of the game world. XP? It was affected (more than just gaining it). Your ability scores actually mattered. Hair color? Magic could permanently change it! Literally everything mattered and was "real" to the game. Man, I love that. Doesn't mean it was terribly balanced, though.
Gun, sorry for how the last post looks. iPad auto-correct and such makes it look ugly. Also, it's the reason I didn't "quote" Devil's Advocate. Anyhow, I'll try to be better in the future!
Diffan, did you ever actually use the hybrid rules? Because I did, and they more than slightly sucked, in most of our experiences. Any semblance of balance was thrown right out the window (unless you really, really knew what you were doing, or the rules were bent into submission) - it was substantially worse than 3.X multi classing.
Oh yea, I really loved the Hybrid rules. Allowed me to build all sorts of interesting characters and fun shenannigans. To name a few...
• Elf Ranger|Seeker with emphasis on bow attacks. Because the elf gets both +2 to Dex/Wis, it worked out quite nicely. I could control the battlefield with mystical primal effects or straight out strike at enemies far away. Was really shifty too.
• Human Paladin|Warlock that was from Damara and a Warlock Knight of Vaasa (Forgotten Realms). Used platemail and a flail to knock people prone at-will, attacked with ranged blasts and smited foes in the name of Bane. Had a catch 22 which allowed me to damage a foe if he attacked me OR didn't attack me.
• Human Paladin|Warlord that emphasiszed team leadership and healing.
• Tiefling Assassin|Rogue that was all about teleporting in, killing a foe, then teleporting out. Sorta on the "Meh" side DPR-wise, but plays pretty much like Azazel from the X-Men movie. And lots of fun too.
• Eladrin Wizard|Swordmage that supposed to defend people while controlling enemies on the battfield. Never got to play him though.
I never particularly liked 4E's multi class either, but it was at least sort of balanced ish, for the most part. It still didn't make feel very much like a rogue-wizard though (for example).
With the emphasis on ability scores leading class attacks, I can see why a Rogue/Wizard might be hard to pull off unless your playing the right race or not using point-buy for Abilities. Since both stats (Dex and Int) are used in their primary attacks, it doesn't leave much room for bettering your Fortitude (using Str/Con) or Willpower (Wis/Cha). Still, Elven Rogues that multiclass Wizard can do some pretty interesting stuff if they go with Dex and Intelligence for their two +2 stats. Add in some roguish spells that allow you to set up attacks or just fun Utility spells plus perhaps Ritual Caster feat to use rituals and it seems like it could work well.
For me, I found that I love it's implementation. I don't have to worry about keeping up certain BAB or Spellcasting levels nor do I have to worry about silly stuff like Spellcasting Failure with armor. Some of my MultiClassed characters are:
• Human Knight (essentials Fighter) multiclassed Cleric. Pretty much a conversion from v3.5 Knight/Cleric character that is at 13th level and can be extreamly defensive AND heal too. He follows Torm and uses a Radiant Fullblade to smite his enemies. Couple that with the party's cleric of Amaunator who dishes out Radiant vulnerability and it's a fearsome combo.
• Eladrin Bladesinger multiclassed Swordmage. Did it primarily for Eladrin Swordmage Advance but the combo was pretty interesting and gave me a wealth of options outside of Melee-Basic Attack. Plus I like the inclusion of both classes.
• Air Genasi Warlord multiclassed Wizard (current character) is just plain fun. I reflavor most of my wizard powers as "Air Blasts" or some such wind effect and all sorts of fun repositioning my allies and enemies for favorable attacks. I like to use spells to push people off ledges, into fires, into eachother all the while urging on my wife's Shadar-Kai Berserker character to kill more things when she's in a Frenzy OR the Drow Hexblade to flay the enemies skin.
As you know, we both disagree on 4E, so I'll leave that one alone. :D
Disagreement doesn't mean "don't discuss". In fact, I find that disagreement leads to better discussions than both agreeing and preaching to the choir.
Diffan, did you ever actually use the hybrid rules? Because I did, and they more than slightly sucked, in most of our experiences. Any semblance of balance was thrown right out the window (unless you really, really knew what you were doing, or the rules were bent into submission) - it was substantially worse than 3.X multi classing.
Are you seriously arguing that you need more knowledge of 4E to use the hybrid rules effectively then you needed in 3.X?
I certainly found that some knowledge of the underlying game was very useful in using this sub-system effectively in both systems but I was a hell of a lot more comfortable with near newbs becoming hybrids in 4E then I was in the same circumstance in 3.X. It was a heck of a lot more difficult to mess your character up and there where a lot fewer critical errors one could make. You needed a lot less understanding of all the surrounding rules to make it work (for example you did not have to seriously understand concepts like spell level and when it would be worthwhile to mix spell casters with non spell casting classes).
Beyond that there is the character builder - this makes experimenting really friggen easy. Second character I ever created was a hybrid Ranger/Alchemist. The idea was to use the alchemist powers that enhance weapons to pretty much create a Ranger that pumped out awesome ranged attacks by enhancing my crossbow with things like bolts that have been blessed by Tymora and are also acidic. Technically I was a striker/leader - in reality what I build was 90% striker since I eschewed all the elements of alchemist that did not involve enhancing my crossbow...rangers ability to fire a crossbow an insane number of times backed by the alchemists ability to significantly enhance all those attacks was a winning combo.
What really made this build possible though was the character builder - I had no idea it would work (nor a real idea what I was making) until I experimented with it with the character builder trying different options...it was when I realized I could use the Alchemists primary ability (intelligence) as a dump stat if I was careful about what powers I chose for my Alchemist to insure they never actually did attacks - just enhanced them so that I would do all my actual attacking through Ranger powers that this all came together. It was this ease with fiddling with the build via the character builder to see what would result that made the realization reasonably possible since I got instant feedback about what would happen when I dumped intelligence.
I will say this: yes, 3.X was easier for basically everyone I've ever gamed with to not mess up, and it seems that we've had very, very different experiences. Also, rogue/wizard was but one example. iPad typing isn't terribly conducive to long points of interaction. I'll see more about getting into real talking about my experiences later (after the thunderstorms, if I remember/don't get distracted by my baby). :)
Edit: actually, we are really off topic. Anyone want to start a new thread here?
|
|
Weeell... 1st to 8th level isn't actually very far. You are still in Heroic tier at that point. On the customisation point, part of the reason they got rid of it was that the multiclassing rules in 3e led to lots of unbalanced builds, both highly-effective and ineffective. As Bluenose points out, that's not D&D strong point, and anyway only really came into effect with 3e. It's not a "D&D" thing as such, it's a 3e thing. Whether total customisability should be the aim of a class-based system is moot, considering that classes pull in precisely the opposite direction. A system not designed for that will break, as 3e did.
You are right, and thinking back, it must have been at least 11th. I forgot that 4E went 1-10, 11-20, and then 21-30th levels, so it was essentually not to long after going into the second tier, though the feeling I describe was basically unanimous at the table for the entire game of about 7 players. The combination of the 4E powers system, the way magic items worked, and a lot of other aspects, including the basically auto-level feature of the system all drove us away as well, but for the most part, it was that we all felt so generic and so much the same mechanically as we had always been.
I think 3E/v3.5 is the abberant edition when it comes to character customization, being probably the first level-by-level progressive system in D&D's history with an almost endless modular aspect. Sure, it's a edition defining aspect and some might say it's 3Es best feature, but Aubrey clearly shows that with this system comes a swath of complications and a HUGE disparity between broken/ultimate builds and ineffective builds (and by ineffective, I am strictly speaking from a combative POV).
Devil's Advocate: while I love me some 3.5 - it may be my favorite of the five-or-so editions (if you separate 3.0, 3.5, and PF, as you do) I've played, it was, by NO MEANS the better balanced system between the three. 4E: perfect balance. It feels a bit flavorless sometimes, as a system, but it's really well balanced. PF: rather well balanced, and very "clean", in comparison. 3.5: much better than 3.0, but still with some issues. 3.0 had some nice features, but eh. 2nd was all over the place.
The way I view it is like a polar scale, and 4E is on one end and 2E on the other for balance. The 2E is "we are still kind of learning here" and the 4E is "<beyond> critical mass". Or better yet a scale of under and over balanced, with both ends being equally bad and undesirable. I didn't mean exacty that 3.5 was MORE balaned than 4E, but that it was balanced to a point that was both better over all and more desirable, at least to myself and everyone I know. I feel the same way with PF. They didn't change the amount of balace, just shifted it to more of their (general) personal preference.
You misquoted Diffan as me! Also, I understand your point, but we're reeeeeaaaly off topic (also, take THAT, autocorrect!).
|
|
No offense to PF either, but in my oponion, 3.5 was a better game, better balanced over all, and much more enjoyable over all, just a better game all in all. It was not perfect, but I do think it did a lot better job of explaining WHY mchanics worked the way they did, giving everyone a better sense for making calls on things. 4E was terrible about this, and PF is not that great either.
Are you talking 3.5 as it was originally released or the way it looked after the splatbooks and power creep? I can not conceive of anyone thinking 3.5 near the end of its life was more balanced that PF was originally. (PF has had its own power creep issues, particularly material released after the APG).
Quick question guys (havent been able to check do to net issues) has there been anything playtest wise to come out since the first pack?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you talking 3.5 as it was originally released or the way it looked after the splatbooks and power creep? I can not conceive of anyone thinking 3.5 near the end of its life was more balanced that PF was originally. (PF has had its own power creep issues, particularly material released after the APG).
Well, honestly, I mean both games at their most recent. I think that a lot of the percieved balance of early PF was that the flaws hadn't shown yet and we didn't have a lot of the errata and Dev rulings that really shifted that. Don't take this as me besmirching PF, I'm not. I just think that sometimes fans hold it up a litter higher than they should and forget some of the bad when viewing PF vs other editions.
|
|
I think 3E/v3.5 is the abberant edition when it comes to character customization, being probably the first level-by-level progressive system in D&D's history with an almost endless modular aspect. Sure, it's a edition defining aspect and some might say it's 3Es best feature, but Aubrey clearly shows that with this system comes a swath of complications and a HUGE disparity between broken/ultimate builds and ineffective builds (and by ineffective, I am strictly speaking from a combative POV).
I don't know, it's an opinion I do not share. While 3E was the edition that allowed the most personal custimization for characters (and monsters/NPCs), it was not by far the first. 1st and 2nd also had (albeit more restricted) Multi/Dual classing, which could be level-b-level, in some ways. In my experience, ineffective builds (combat or otherwise) tended to be more due to a groups misunderstanding or house style of play, with the occasional player not knowing what they are doing.
In my oninion, way, way too much stock was put into class build forums, listening to advice that was strictly based on a certain playstyle (like shows like Briliant Gamoligists), and various statistics which while they may wor on paper, do not translate to the actual game and really only mislead people.
While 3E was the edition that allowed the most personal custimization for characters (and monsters/NPCs), it was not by far the first. 1st and 2nd also had (albeit more restricted) Multi/Dual classing, which could be level-b-level, in some ways.
Really? In what ways could AD&D multiclassing be level-by-level?
I came back to D&D after many years hiatus and the chop-and-change, modular levelling of 3.5/PF is one of the few things I actively dislike. I'd be interested to hear if there is some parallel with the earlier editions.
Personally, I think that 3.x/PF is conceptually one of the better balanced editions. The idea of pure DM fiat is great in the right groups, but it doesn't work well on a broad scale, so having something a bit more codified was a good thing; the flexibility with multiclassing helped tremendously as well. It, and PF, falls apart in two main areas, though. First, the material needs to be reorganized completely; the vast majority of the information that people, especially DMs, try to look for is there, it's just really hard to find and often scattered. Second, it needs to be made much clearer that it is perfectly ok to ignore and/or bend the rules and mechanics as they are presented in the books. If Next can pull off the equivalent of those two things while retaining the flexibility and customization present in 3.x/PF, it has a good chance of finding a solid place in the market. Otherwise, it's going to find itself being second best at a lot of things, but not good enough at anything to really get people to pay serious attention to it.
Bloat and balance are going to be issues that every system has eventually if the company behind it wants to maintain it as a steady income stream, and 3.x/PF handled/handles them as well as any other system I've seen; they are far from perfect in that regard, but not fundamentally worse or better than any other system that has consistently turned out new material. Even 4E, which so many people hold up as the holy grail of balance, received more and more complaints about balance and bloat as time went on, so it's clear that no system is immune to the challenges presented by the need to put out new material on a regular basis. If anything, it's been made clear that the company behind the system is more important than the system itself is in this regard. WOTC clearly lost the ability to do both quality and quantity years ago; Paizo is learning the challenges of doing both on the scale of an entire system rather than just the APs, and how well they adapt is anybody's guess at this point in time.
|
|
Really? In what ways could AD&D multiclassing be level-by-level?
I came back to D&D after many years hiatus and the chop-and-change, modular levelling of 3.5/PF is one of the few things I actively dislike. I'd be interested to hear if there is some parallel with the earlier editions.
Humans had the option at Level Up to change their class, and take another one (or more). Once they got that next class to a higher level than the prior one, they had free access to both classes abilities. It was costly, and restricted, but it existed. Non-Humans had the ability to (depending on their race/stats) to basically take 2 or 3 classes at the same time, dividing their xp evenly between them all, and leveling up in them individually. This is similar in many ways to 3E's Gestalt play, but because you leveled up in each class seperatly and had to divide the XP evenly, the character was lower level and weaker than other characters who focused.
Yeah, I know the system, we played it for quite a while. In my view a fighter/magicuser in that kind of system is quite different from multiclassing in 3.5/PF.
I over interpreted what you meant by "level-by-level". Cheers.
Yeah, you did mean dual classing.
There was no advantage to NOT taking a multi-class and dual-classing (and triple-classing if you wanted to be a bard) was beyond painful and clearly constructed to discourage its use.
That's why I have a love-hate relationship with the 3.X way. It allows for greater character creativity, but the concept "level-dipping" makes me cringe. That's the point where characters stop being characters and start being constructs. (IMHO, YMMV, blah, blah, blah.)
It cannot have helped that Ari Marmell, a game designer who was originally an enthusiastic proponent of 4E and who apparently had a law degree, looked over the GSL and declared that he could not support it.
I think you must mean Clark Peterson of Necromancer games. Ari Marmell has been designing stuff for 4e. Clark was one of D&D's biggest cheerleaders and was gung-ho for supporting 4e... until he got the GSL. I wouldn't be surprised if his initial issues with it helped with the push to revise the GSL after its initial formulation, but it was for naught anyway. And yes, Clark is a lawyer (judge now, I think) in his day job.
|
|
The cost for mulitclassing was that you tended to be more fragile than your strongest classs in whatever area, (having partial HP and things) whle also being overall lower level. Add to that that the balancing factors in 1st and 2nd Ed where over the entire game, not level by level, and that you would cap out at usually level 9 - 13ish in classes (but still have to split your xp thereafter) means that yu paid the price later.
For Dual Classing, if you used any of your old classes abilities at all, (besides HP, and a few other things I forget off hand) before you surpassed the old class's level with the new, you recieve no XP for the adventure. Not the game, the whole adventure. Again, the prize came later, and it was extremely difficult to do. But the style of balance was over the entire game, not level by level.
Wait, wait, wait .... the true problem that I had with 4E wasnt the power based character classes, the ease of adventure structure thanks to monster stat blocks, or the total change of core classes to essential class models .... it was the total lack of support for their own core campaign setting. The Nentir Vale was a good area for adventure. It was full of interesting people, places & organizations that were both fulfilling & entertaining; but referencing a board game to map the world south of the Vale was tiresome. I know I could have just created all this on my own but I truely love going back on all my world-building to keep a campaign world on track with the core system. I don't care what system you play, if it makes you happy & keeps your imagination then so be it, but a campaign system MUST have the support of the game designer or that game is nothing more than pure home-brew. Wizards gave the 4E fans a taste of Eberron, Athas & the Forgotten Realms but that is where their support ended. I know that another edition of Dungeons & Dragons will be received by all in the gaming community, Wizards will supply all the usual source material in a new format & we will either hate it or love it .....
Bottom line here is: Support your game systems! Home-brew or not but support the game systems or those of us who do home-brew, will create on our own & new editions of old favorites may become the do-do of the beloved industry.
Just my two cents.
|
|
4E is relevant as long as people keep playing it. Just wondering, did you declare 3.5 irrelevant as soon as 4E was announced?
4.0 is irrelevant because it is now a dead edition. There is no "4.0 v Pathfinder", just like there is no "3.5 v Pathfinder" or "2e v Pathfinder" or "BECMI v Pathfinder". 4.0 IS 100% irrelevant in the marketplace.
Until 5.0 (or whatever they're going to call it) is released, Pathfinder is pretty much competition free in D&D derived games in the marketplace. The OSR stuff isn't a serious commercial competitor.
And, yeah, 3.5 was pretty much irrelevant when they announced 4.0. Other than the Pathfinder APs, 3pp support for the edition dried up, which meant, commercially, it was irrelevant.
|
|
4.0 is irrelevant because it is now a dead edition.
I think you need to clarify what you believe 4.0 is irrelevant to, because at the moment I also see 4e as being relevant (as well as 3.5 etc) - because while some people continue to play those editions (perhaps buying supplements they missed or didn't bother with first time round) they may not be purchasing PF.
I for example have purchased much more 3.5 books since 4e was announced, and more 4e books since D&D Next was announced than I did before.
And my purchase of 3.5 and 4e books far outweigh (in physical terms at least, alas WotC don't release PDFs now) my Pathfinder purchases.
So yeah, past editions not being actively supported doesn't mean that Pathfinder has no competition for a gamer's money (and that is ignoring the 1st Ed AD&D and D&D 3.5 reprints!)