|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I appreciate 4e as a game, and have even run a campaign of it, I had my issues with it and believed that I still preferred 3.5. However my recent experiences of running the 3.5 Freeport Trilogy and having to GM pre-written NPCs I found myself longing for the ease of use of 4e's NPC stat blocks.
And although I dislike house ruling things (adding in official optional rules I am fine with) I decided to try to put together a few house rules to patch the things I didn't like about 4e (you may have seen my threads on Lingering Wounds etc).
And now that I have put together a list of house rules and optional rules and material (from Dragon magazine) to use I find I am excited about GMing some 4e again and trying out some of these rules.
Indeed I am so enthused I bought Adventurer's Vault off Ebay (flagged up following reading of the Alchemist Theme from Dragon).
And yet funnily, I am also still looking forward to D&D Next.
I also am curious about running 3.5 campaigns where I create the NPCs and so am more intimately aware of their capabilities and spell choices. I hope that such games will run smoother.
D&D seems to be that odd game in my collection where I am actively enthused about multiple editions of the same game at the same time - something that has not happened before (normally I move on to the next edition and leave the old behind, or don't bother to upgrade).
I guess its because each edition 3.5, 4e and Next seem to be quite different in the mechanics whilst still retaining a familiar central core of rules (the d20 mechanics, abilities, classes etc) and so all interest me on a mechanical level and offer different things.
So hats off to WotC for producing a game that has done something no other game has managed to do!
I'd be interested to see what you do with optional rules for 4E. I've seen your lingering wound thread of course but anything else you might use might be fun to look over and debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad you enjoy multiple ediitons of the game and this has pretty much been my stance since 4E's launch. I hope with D&D:Next, we'll get something different and exciting yet keeping all the elements that I feel are aligned with D&D. I think that would be a big selling point with me, by NOT keeping things hugely similiar to 4E and definitly not similiar to 3E besides the d20 mechanic, level-based progression, iconic classes and races AND incorporate things that don't necessarily fit the tradition aspects of D&D (basically, things un-Tolkien like Warforged).
I guess because of this stance, it's been hard for me to understand why people got so mad at the Edition change, espically since the OGL/SRD will never go away and it's still being produced via Paizo. I like trying new things and new systems and new aspects of D&D (specifically) and if they end up supplanting what I'm currently playing, then more power to them. We're all going to have our favorite edition (mine has shifted multiple times in the last 4 years) and no one can really stop people from playing their favorite one except in organized play but no ones is going to take your books away (a common phrase throughout the Edition Wars).
So hopefully we can find some good times with the D&D:next system and add that to our repertoire of games that scratch a certain itch. I'm hoping this game can allow me a very quick immersion factor, speedy character generation, and fast play for those sessions that perhaps we only have an hour or two to kill in-between weeks where we're getting a new v3.5 or 4E campaign together. E6 was going to be my answer for this but I don't think my group is all too keen on the idea. I'm one for gritty realism in terms of Character Power and like the idea of monsters thought to be "common" (like trolls or manticores) to be serious threats at all levels (without the arbitrary motion of adding HD/Class levels), my group however......not soo much. Espically with the knowledge they have of the system and the expecation of "leveling" and gaining more powerful items to take on Gods and Titans. So perhaps this will be something we can both agree on?
Although I appreciate 4e as a game, and have even run a campaign of it, I had my issues with it and believed that I still preferred 3.5. However my recent experiences of running the 3.5 Freeport Trilogy and having to GM pre-written NPCs I found myself longing for the ease of use of 4e's NPC stat blocks.
...
I'd be curious to see which stat blocks in the Freeport trilogy you spent time converting (if at all) and what options you chose as I'm currently running those adventures using Pathfinder rules as the main RPG item at a yearly game weekend we have. We ran Death in Freeport last year and for the most part I ran it on the fly using either stat blocks as shown in the module or direct replacement with PF monsters from the Bestiary.
I too find I've enjoyed different aspects of 3E/PF, 4E and older editions and I'm looking forward to what they come up with for the base 5E/Next rules and if that becomes my new goto version or if it provides content/house rule ideas I can apply to a previous edition.
L
|
I guess because of this stance, it's been hard for me to understand why people got so mad at the Edition change, espically since the OGL/SRD will never go away and it's still being produced via Paizo. I like trying new things and new systems and new aspects of D&D (specifically) and if they end up supplanting what I'm currently playing, then more power to them. We're all going to have our favorite edition (mine has shifted multiple times in the last 4 years) and no one can really stop people from playing their favorite one except in organized play but no ones is going to take your books away (a common phrase throughout the Edition Wars).
That is easy to say now. At the time 4E launched many folks didn't like the changes. Sure they had their 3E materials but the play style they liked was in jeopardy. Organized play means everything to some people. Organized play relies heavily on a supported system at least outside of Cons. Even home games were at risk. I pay close attention to the local meetups here and I can tell you right now 1E/2E threads die a long slow death while 3E/4E threads fill up within a week. Its not just about having the material or not its about opportunity to find gamers as well. To some people if 4E is the future it was goodbye D&D.
I am not saying people needed to be mad or nasty about it. They chose to be that way. If 4E had not been so divisive the pool of 3E players would have shrunk year to year. Sure it would never go away but it would get more and more difficult to find a group and that sucks.
I'm glad you enjoy multiple ediitons of the game and this has pretty much been my stance since 4E's launch. I hope with D&D:Next, we'll get something different and exciting yet keeping all the elements that I feel are aligned with D&D. I think that would be a big selling point with me, by NOT keeping things hugely similiar to 4E and definitly not similiar to 3E besides the d20 mechanic, level-based progression, iconic classes and races AND incorporate things that don't necessarily fit the tradition aspects of D&D (basically, things un-Tolkien like Warforged).
A lot has to do with presentation for me. One of the turns offs for my group was the inclusion of Dragonborn, Tieflings, and elfier elfs in the PHB. We like that kind of thing to be left to settings and not be core. It was hard telling people if I run a game many of the core rulebook choices were off limits.
I read that the design team was kicking around the idea of having common race and exotic race categories. I picture us both getting what we want here. If common are the traditional races and exotic are races like Warforged/Dragonborn I can say "starting a new game no exotic races." This paragraph I hope sums up the entire D&D:Next experience I hope for. I want to be able to add or subtract to a base model without much hassle. I am hoping the system can afford to emulate as many play styles as possible.
I guess because of this stance, it's been hard for me to understand why people got so mad at the Edition change, espically since the OGL/SRD will never go away and it's still being produced via Paizo. I like trying new things and new systems and new aspects of D&D (specifically) and if they end up supplanting what I'm currently playing, then more power to them. We're all going to have our favorite edition (mine has shifted multiple times in the last 4 years) and no one can really stop people from playing their favorite one except in organized play but no ones is going to take your books away (a common phrase throughout the Edition Wars).That is easy to say now. At the time 4E launched many folks didn't like the changes. Sure they had their 3E materials but the play style they liked was in jeopardy. Organized play means everything to some people. Organized play relies heavily on a supported system at least outside of Cons. Even home games were at risk. I pay close attention to the local meetups here and I can tell you right now 1E/2E threads die a long slow death while 3E/4E threads fill up within a week. Its not just about having the material or not its about opportunity to find gamers as well. To some people if 4E is the future it was goodbye D&D.
I am not saying people needed to be mad or nasty about it. They chose to be that way. If 4E had not been so divisive the pool of 3E players would have shrunk year to year. Sure it would never go away but it would get more and more difficult to find a group and that sucks.
I'll give you the fact that Organized play was at risk, and really I don't have any frame of reference since I never attened any in my area but I've heard through the grapevine that many Organized play groups switched editions multiple times, going back and fourth between 3E and 4E and Pathfinder. Early in 4E's release, it might have been different but wasn't the Pathfinder rules into the Beta stage during 4E's launch?
As for home games, don't see it. A group at home might prefer one system to another (we change it up all the time, keeps things fresh) but if One guy in the group wants to change to 4E and everyone else wants to say 3E, then he can (should?) roll with the punches and every once in a while try to do 4E one-shot or go with two separate groups or change groups all together. I had a guy who hated 4E and left the table when we decided to play it for a while. When we went back to 3E, he came back for a time. We didn't see a problem with this.
I'm glad you enjoy multiple ediitons of the game and this has pretty much been my stance since 4E's launch. I hope with D&D:Next, we'll get something different and exciting yet keeping all the elements that I feel are aligned with D&D. I think that would be a big selling point with me, by NOT keeping things hugely similiar to 4E and definitly not similiar to 3E besides the d20 mechanic, level-based progression, iconic classes and races AND incorporate things that don't necessarily fit the tradition aspects of D&D (basically, things un-Tolkien like Warforged).A lot has to do with presentation for me. One of the turns offs for my group was the inclusion of Dragonborn, Tieflings, and elfier elfs in the PHB. We like that kind of thing to be left to settings and not be core. It was hard telling people if I run a game many of the core rulebook choices were off limits.
I read that the design team was kicking around the idea of having common race and exotic race categories. I picture us both getting what we want here. If common are the traditional races and exotic are races like Warforged/Dragonborn I can say "starting a new game no exotic races." This paragraph I hope sums up the entire D&D:Next experience I hope for. I want to be able to add or subtract to a base model without much hassle. I am hoping the system can afford to emulate as many play styles as possible.
See, this is just different gaming styles and preference. For one, as a DM you have every single right to allow/disallow whatever race, class, build, feat, magic item, theme, background, or even alignment in your games. I feel DM's don't need rules to give them power because they've never lost it to begin with. The PHB is a set of options for players to choose from, and sometimes those options aren't always allowed or there in the setting. Were I to play in the Dragonlance setting, I'd probably restrict Dragonborn PCs and eliminate Tieflings/Devas all together. They've never been mentioned in the setting and there really is no reason to include them. But I'd allow Minotaurs (lots of Minos on Krynn).
As a player, they should expect the wishes of the DM in this regard or at least work with them to come up with a character that they like. Perhaps they LOVE the Dragonborn aspect of breathing fire but you're against the idea of Lizard-esque men in your setting. So the PC says "why not make the Dragonborn's flavor a divine-aspect of the Fire god and allow me to breath fire? I could reskin him to be a Human in all but the stats, gaining the benefits of a Dragonborn but looking completley human in every way". The game still works and it's still balanced and he gets to breath fire and you don't have dragon-men walking around your homebrew world.
|
Paizo should not be afraid of D&D 4E or D&D Next. Eventually Pathfinder will HAVE to be updated and there is a lot to be learned from your competitor. There ARE good things about 4E, and there WILL be good things about Next.
Learning from them will make Pathfinder 2E even better.
Which will make D&D Next 2E even better.
Which will make Pathfinder 3E even better...
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a couple posts. Lets try to let the edition wars die, eh?
Guess my post wasn't as clearly tongue-in-cheek as I thought it was. My bad, should use more emoticons.
Anyhow, kudos to DigitalMage for an open mind to editions and house rules!
|
|
I'd be interested to see what you do with optional rules for 4E. I've seen your lingering wound thread of course but anything else you might use might be fun to look over and debate.
I have written some up but they need playtesting to see if they have the desired effect. I may start another thread to discuss them.
I'm hoping this game [D&D Next] can allow me a very quick immersion factor, speedy character generation, and fast play for those sessions that perhaps we only have an hour or two to kill in-between weeks where we're getting a new v3.5 or 4E campaign together.
This is the sort of thing I am hoping for as well, previously I had looked at things like QUERP for something this light, but thought that no one would be interested in playing it, but such a game with the D&D name attached would likely be an easier sell.
Also because the same core game can be expanded upon with modules, I am hoping it will be easier to then move from a quick game to a more involved campaign without having to change systems or radically re make characters.
I'd be curious to see which stat blocks in the Freeport trilogy you spent time converting (if at all) and what options you chose as I'm currently running those adventures using Pathfinder rules as the main RPG item at a yearly game weekend we have.
I am running the game using D&D3.5 rules so I haven't had to convert anything. However, I have to either look up feat or spell descriptions mid game, or if I have the time copy the text of those feats and spells from the SRD and paste into a Word document that I can reference during play.
I do the same thing when I run PFS - for example PFS 3-11 On Hostile Waters resulted in a 5 page Word document with the stats for Horses, Flyby Attack, Chill Metal etc.
With 4e all the info apart from maybe the meaning of some key words is in the NPC stat block. It may not have as much flexibility as the 3.5 version but it is much, much easier to run at the table.
At the time 4E launched many folks didn't like the changes. Sure they had their 3E materials but the play style they liked was in jeopardy. Organized play means everything to some people. Organized play relies heavily on a supported system at least outside of Cons. Even home games were at risk.
[...]
If 4E had not been so divisive the pool of 3E players would have shrunk year to year. Sure it would never go away but it would get more and more difficult to find a group and that sucks.
I think it was someone on RPG.net who put this most eloquently when the usual comments about your old books not disappearing was made: "A new edition doesn't steal your books, it steals your players".
SO yes I can agree with this and when 4e was initially announced I had only just started getting into D&D with v3.5 so I was annoyed that 4e may mean people would want to play 4e and I would struggle to find 3.5 players. Luckily, because so many players didn't like 4e I realised that 3.5 wasn't going to be as affected as I had thought.
That was until, ironically, Pathfinder came along. I ended up leaving my weekly group because they converted two campaigns to PF (there were other reasons as well but that was a significant one). And at the conventions I attend PFS organised play has become it seems 99% of 3.x games out there (hence why I play PF).
It was because of this that I actually gave 4e a go (I figured if I had to change editions to be able to gain players I would at least pursue the game that offered something new and supported my favoured setting of Eberron). So I guess I have PF to thank for making me give 4e a chance :)
After all that though my local Meetup group members seem to be fairly evenly split between 3.5 and 4e (with one group now playing PF) so I haven't had my fears of not finding any 3.5 players realised which is cool. Unfortunately I am not a FR fan and so the 4e living campaign did not appeal and to be honest is way less popular than PFS.
So in the end I play 3.5, 4e and PF (for PFS :)
...but I discuss that on the forum of WotC's biggest competitor ;)
Yep, mainly because I find the WotC forums to be terrible (too many sub forums, no easy way to list threads you posted in that have had more comments since your last view etc). I also post on RPG.net for 4e stuff.
Here, Paizo are great enough to give us forums for PF, 3.5 and 4e so I thank them for that. The games are closely enough related that there is a crossover of fans and some useful insight into how the games differ and offer different things.
I find 4e's main charm is that it is accessible. In ten minutes you know how to play.
Several in our current group had never done a table top RPG before, and with 4e they were quickly brought up to speed.
That said, I've done a fair amount of modification to ensure a logical setting and some reasonable non-combat focus. (For example two sessions ago, the party was on trial, ad there was only one combat encounter the nature session.)
In service,
Rich
Http://www.drgames.org
|
|
Another 4e purchase has made its way into my clutches: Monster Manual 2! I love the fact that it gives extra variations on existing races, including humans - human pirates, great for a Freeport game or Eberron in the Lhazaar Principalities.
I also bought the two Essentials Heroes of.. books and Monster Vault, mainly for the nice digest sized versions of the books and also out of curiosity of the alternate builds.
So, yes 4e has definitely got my interest at the moment! I just wish WotC would release PDFs as well so I could buy the Power books (I don't have the shelf space to get them in hard copy).
That said, I've done a fair amount of modification to ensure a logical setting and some reasonable non-combat focus. (For example two sessions ago, the party was on trial, ad there was only one combat encounter the nature session.)
I think Backgrounds and the Background Bonus is a very useful tool to fill some gaps in the Skills, but apart from that I found 4e a pretty robust toolset to run non-combat encounters, indeed in my first campaign we had a couple of sessions with only a single combat, and some of that was purely thrown in to appease one player who likes a good fight :)
