| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 03:56:12
Well met, all.
I have not yet purchased any 4E rulebooks, but the reviews of them appear positive. Many appear to be of the opinion that they streamline game play, give PCs more encounter options and encourage PCs cooperate in encounters. I am currently DMing with 2E rules in the 2E Realms, but I am considering the possibility of using 4E rules in the 2E Realms. I have no intention of adopting the 4E Realms abomination.
Has anyone attempted this? Does anyone have an opinion about the potential advantages, disadvantages and challenges of running 4E rules with 2E Realms material?
Afet |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Odysseus |
Posted - 07 Aug 2008 : 20:35:11
quote:
Originally posted by Afetbinttuzani
Well met, all.
Has anyone attempted this? Does anyone have an opinion about the potential advantages, disadvantages and challenges of running 4E rules with 2E Realms material?
Afet
I'm about to wind up my 3rd ed campaign and start a 4E one. And i'm debating the same thing.
Advantages. 4E design style , very very easy to use. Apart from changing the races & dieties, the rest of the rules would be pretty inclusive. You would need to add extra stuff particularly priest stuff.
Disadvantages. Classes very rigid. Classes and level represent what the PC does in combat. So to create a priest of Shar say, the PC class may be rogue or warlock. And then create feats that allow followers of Shar to use certain powers. Plus use of divine rituals. Thats how i'd try and do it. But trying to create characters like Cale or Jak , from Paul Kemps books, would be a problem.
Challenge. Races and priest, are to two challenges I think to making 4E work with the realms.
|
| Alisttair |
Posted - 28 Jul 2008 : 15:29:29
I've tried a 4E fighter a few times (level 1 only so far) and with the extra options (powers) I still find myself doing simple charges and regular attacks. Tide of Iron can come in handy and Cleave I use when I have a chance but when the Encounter and Daily powers are used up and there is no reason to use Cleave or push a guy out of his square with Tide of Iron (e.g. he is currently flanked) then the good old fashioned "swing your weapon" is still a viable option.
But on topic, with some minimal tweaking you can use 4E rules at any point in Realms time. |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 28 Jul 2008 : 07:55:39
When I switch to 4e, the big change (because I'm not going to run a game post spellplague) will be that I'm going to add Vancian magic to 4e. That is, wizards and clerics will be much more comparable to wizards and cerics from 2e and 3e. in the case of clerics, it'll be closer to in the novels. Spontaneous casting, and you dont know for sure if you'll get the spell.
Other than adapting your magic as necessary, running 2e realms with 4e rules shouldnt be that hard. should actually be easier than running 3e realms with 4e rules.
4e strips away the massive versatility that 3e gave and replaces it with a system a bit more restricted than 2e. 3e was about having choices instead of limitations. 4e is about fitting neatly into a defined role from the beginning of the game and staying with it the whole way through. 4e is kindof like how most players play in an MMO. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 13 Jul 2008 : 03:55:19
quote:
Originally posted by Afetbinttuzani
Simply take radiant or sacred light and turn it into radiant or sacred darkness.
Right--I was going to say that even the DMG (IIRC) says that evil clerics ought to have their "radiant" damage replaced by "necrotic" damage. |
| DorianAdricus |
Posted - 12 Jul 2008 : 18:17:05
I believe mostly my concern is that things feel.. well... stripped down. Like they boiled all the flavor out of things in the interest of making them more "balanced".
In the interest of leveling the playing field for the four basic archetypes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard), they've really done some damage to the "feel" of actually being any of these classes. There is little to differentiate you from every other wizard or cleric. Like any system, there are "good" builds, and "bad" builds. I do understand that the system is still VERY young, so there hasn't been time for the expanded material to begin to work its magic in fleshing things out, but, I was sorely disappointed with the initial offerings in terms of fun, and yes, even balance.
We, as a group, played two games simultaneously. The first we started as 1st level (ranger, wizard, cleric, cleric, warlock), the second we started at 21st level (fighter, paladin, wizard, cleric, warlock, rogue). In the former case, the game was actually pretty fun, lots of rocking and rolling against goblins and such. But, the real disappointment came much later.
In the 21st level game, we found that combat and even other "encounters" were sorely lacking in options, and it also took WAY too long to kill anything. We're talking 3 hour combats against equal Encounter Levels here. And, the monsters we faced, though intimidating on paper, were no where near capable of actually injuring our party. They are dishing out at most 40 damage to one or two targets a round (and that's rare, it's usually more like 12-20), and for the most part can only actually hurt us with status effects. But, that was okay, because they had hundreds and hundreds of hit points, causing us to blow our most powerful powers just in the interest of ending the combat sometime in the same week.
In all, playing both high and low level, I get the feeling that they took a lot of effort balancing the low level game, playtesting the "heroic tier" quite a bit, but they didn't do much with the high level game, expecting the balance they imposed at low level to carry them through. I found it similar in feel to Bethesda's Oblivion, the more you level up, the more hit points the entire world seems to have, so any advantage you might get as a player is meticulously canceled out so that the illusion of actually getting "more powerful" is shattered and you begin to wonder why you should be leveling up at all.
Just my two cents (or maybe more) |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 12 Jul 2008 : 17:56:41
quote:
Originally posted by DorianAdricus
At this point, myself and my group have played quite a bit of 4th edition and we can safely say that the whole design philosophy is not for us.
Thanks for the detailed input, Dorian. I'm playing 4E for the first time this afternoon, so I'll refrain from making general comments myself until then.
However, with respect to the cleric of Shar, I'm not sure I understand about how 4E is limiting in a way that 2E isn't. While you may, of course, limit priests of Shar to cloth and darkness spells in your game, the 2E Adventures accessory indicates that they are allowed "bludgeoning weapons" and "Chain and shield" (p. 30). As far as the other "Granted Powers" are concerned, I don't see why they would be difficult to adapt to the 4E "Class Features". The fact that the spells granted to priests of Shar are listed as usable "once per day" falls neatly into the 4E "Daily Powers" category. Simply take radiant or sacred light and turn it into radiant or sacred darkness. The 2E +1 bonus to hit in the dark and -1 to hit under the full moon can be used without modification under the 4E "Class Features". Perhaps I misunderstood what your concern was, or maybe it will become clearer after I actually play 4E a few times.
Afet
|
| DorianAdricus |
Posted - 12 Jul 2008 : 16:49:32
At this point, myself and my group have played quite a bit of 4th edition and we can safely say that the whole design philosophy is not for us.
We've played 2nd ed, and 3rd ed, and 3.5 ed, so maybe that's coloring things a bit, but everyone in our groups felt that 4th was FAR too limiting. It basically channels your character options into a little box and then just sets up a series of "encounters" that you knock your way through.
I think it would be difficult to accurately represent the Realms using exclusively 4th ed rules, which, I guess, is why they are knocking the whole house down and rebuilding (I'm a little bitter about that too, but hey)
For an example, I present the priest/cleric/4th ed cleric. In 2nd ed, we had the advent the specialty priests in the Realms, those wacky powers and totally new feel that (at least I felt) totally defined the god(dess) you worshiped. Let's take a priestess of Shar. When I think priestess of Shar, I think dark hair, pale skin, mostly cloth, but maybe some leather, lots of shadowy powers, and darkbolts darkbolts darkbolts. 3rd ed could model that decently well, you had your darkness domain, etc., and if you liked you could multi cleric/sorcerer, or cleric/rogue/shadowdancer/darkbringer, etc. The options were completely there to model what you want. In 4th, though, you are stuck. A cleric of Shar will be a plate mail wearing, mace wielding, "I do damage, + heal", radiant damage swinging basic cleric. And that's it, without having to a LOT more work on your own.
Most NPCs in the 2nd ed Realms are going to be VERY hard to stat up in 4th ed as anything other than monsters with custom abilities and powers. |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 21:23:42
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I would say that those NPCs don't even need stats unless they're going to be used for combat.
True. I wouldn't have to do up full conversions very often. In any case, 2E materials tend to give very limited NPC information (eg: CG hm F1).
Afet |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 20:46:51
quote:
Originally posted by Afetbinttuzani
Getting back to my question about 4E rules in the 2E Realms, one challenge I anticipate is having to rewrite the stats for major NPCs given in 2E lore books like the "Villan's Lorebook" and the "Hall of Heros". The problem there, though, is more a question of the time involved than with game mechanics; unless I can develop a simple way of converting them. I'm open to suggestions
Afet
I would say that those NPCs don't even need stats unless they're going to be used for combat. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 18:06:02
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I have downloaded that, I've just not looked thru it in any detail. 
I've actually got to make a point of getting around to that. 
Lol. You both need to!  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 17:03:02
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not enough to get me interested in 4E, but I will readily admit that I'm glad to hear they finally got that aspect of the game right.
So did Paizo with at least the Alpha 3 Release of the Pathfinder RPG. You should check it out Wooly, it is free.
I have downloaded that, I've just not looked thru it in any detail.
I've actually got to make a point of getting around to that. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 16:51:02
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not enough to get me interested in 4E, but I will readily admit that I'm glad to hear they finally got that aspect of the game right.
So did Paizo with at least the Alpha 3 Release of the Pathfinder RPG. You should check it out Wooly, it is free.
I have downloaded that, I've just not looked thru it in any detail. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 16:50:23
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
There was the conversion guide for 2E to 3E, as I recall. And you could couple that with the recent posts on Wizards.com for converting to 4E.
The 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition Conversion Manual can be downloaded from the bottom of this page. Surprisingly, the 3.5 FAQ was also updated recently. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 16:48:12
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
*The Sage suddenly has a disturbing thought about running the Word of Blake Jihad as the next Realms RSE in his home campaign*
There's as much logic in the Jihad as there is in the Sellplague... |
| IngoDjan |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 16:19:27
Cantrips can be easily adapted in 3.5 ed, what donīt occurs with anothers nice rules of 3.5 to be adapted for 4ed. Like Wizards versatility in 3.5, that canīt be applied in 4ed.
I think is cause of that, this angry about 4ed. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 16:13:43
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not enough to get me interested in 4E, but I will readily admit that I'm glad to hear they finally got that aspect of the game right.
So did Paizo with at least the Alpha 3 Release of the Pathfinder RPG. You should check it out Wooly, it is free. |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 15:44:53
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
Oh please! you know how cheap a wand of prestidigitation is? it comes with bloody 50 charges, each cantrip lasting up to one facking hour... that dumbass wizard could have played with kids for a whole day under any freaggin' edition of D&D! just use your head/imagination... 
I appreciate that you're passionate about the game, PDK, but that was a bit over the top. Please don't cause this scroll to be closed.
Getting back to my question about 4E rules in the 2E Realms, one challenge I anticipate is having to rewrite the stats for major NPCs given in 2E lore books like the "Villan's Lorebook" and the "Hall of Heros". The problem there, though, is more a question of the time involved than with game mechanics; unless I can develop a simple way of converting them. I'm open to suggestions
Afet |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 15:23:53
*The Sage suddenly has a disturbing thought about running the Word of Blake Jihad as the next Realms RSE in his home campaign*
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 14:24:20
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Accam
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I'm not sure what the problem would be..... exactly. I don't see any reason why you can't use 4e rules in 2e's lore.... granted, I don't have the 4e material so maybe I'm wrong. But I've always run the rules with the lore I want to use.... my Realms is still mostly 1e lore using 1e/2e/3e/3.5e rules..... cause I mix and match rules.
I do agree with this. My campaigns follow much the same style. In fact, I've even drawn rules from other non-TSR/WOTC settings and dropped them into my rules for Realms campaigns. My players love the rules that I've taken from most of the MechWarrior RPG books to use in my FR.
How much damage does a Clan PPC do in the Realms?
Actually, I have considered flipping Mechs to D&D terms. My simple method was to multiply everything by ten - 1 armor point is 10 hit points, a ER PPC does 150 points of damage, etc. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 14:21:14
Okay, first: tone it down. That really wasn't necessary. 
Second: Prior editions of D&D handled cantrips quite poorly; for example, in 2E, cantrips were a 1st level spell. As I recall, in 1E, you got 4 cantrips for a single 1st level spell slot. Neither approach is good; both approaches, in fact, discourage the use of cantrips, because they take up a valuable spell slot. With that in mind, it's no wonder that people simply overlooked them in prior editions -- they simply weren't valuable enough to bother with.
You can't fault people for overlooking a potential bit of flavor because the rules discourage it.
3E was a step in the right direction with cantrips, though it still wasn't great. If 4E finally got them right, then great.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to be happy and enjoy using an aspect of the game that was finally gotten right after 20+ years. It doesn't matter that it could have been house-ruled before; the fact that the game discouraged cantrips meant most people never even thought about using cantrips, much less making a house-rule to make them viable. |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 09:15:30
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Simply put, a mage can't know as many spells as they used to.
FWIW I had a player in my Monday game extolling the virtues of low level spellcasting in Fourth Edition because his character (a female Eladrin Wizard) could use cantrips pretty much indeffinitely.
We were running the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure and she spent part of a day entertained some kids in the town of Winterhaven by conjuring a colorful effects, sounds and so forth.
That's one thing prior versions of D&D never handled right... There was in Dragon magazine an article about doing cantrips as a proficiency, back in 2E. I had a character use that proficiency -- and he was constantly tossing off cantrips, for all sorts of minor things: fixing his clothes, drying off after swimming, adding spice to food, etc.
It's not enough to get me interested in 4E, but I will readily admit that I'm glad to hear they finally got that aspect of the game right.
Oh please! you know how cheap a wand of prestidigitation is? it comes with bloody 50 charges, each cantrip lasting up to one facking hour... that dumbass wizard could have played with kids for a whole day under any freaggin' edition of D&D! just use your head/imagination...
But noooooooo! I'm the NewCokeD&D generation and I need a specific at-will power that officially says I can do these parlor tricks at will. Whoop-dee-do! Ever heard of DMs and their ability to craft a feat for you or approve one that you come up with?
There: for those who don't plan to play in 4E, I have your solution here, and it comes with 8 years of 3.X playtesting to back it up:
PRESTIDIGITATOR [General]
You can pull bunnies out of hats anytime you want, and such. These bunnies, however, are not edible and give a severe stomach ache to anyone attempting to consume them. The bunnie meat is green in color, and stinks of rotten meat, so you can't use it to poison other creatures with these.
Prerequisites: able to cast 1st level arcane spells.
Benefit: You can cast Prestidigitation, Ghost Sound, Mage Hand and Open/Close at will (caster level equal to your character level or total hit dice, whichever is higher) |
| Brother Accam |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 06:35:16
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I'm not sure what the problem would be..... exactly. I don't see any reason why you can't use 4e rules in 2e's lore.... granted, I don't have the 4e material so maybe I'm wrong. But I've always run the rules with the lore I want to use.... my Realms is still mostly 1e lore using 1e/2e/3e/3.5e rules..... cause I mix and match rules.
I do agree with this. My campaigns follow much the same style. In fact, I've even drawn rules from other non-TSR/WOTC settings and dropped them into my rules for Realms campaigns. My players love the rules that I've taken from most of the MechWarrior RPG books to use in my FR. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 02:54:06
quote:
Originally posted by Afetbinttuzani
I know, I know But I don't want to spend $90 on the PHB and DMG if it's not going to work for me. I'm test playing 4E as a PC this coming weekend, so I'll have chance to get a first hand sense for it.
That is very helpful. Thanks, Rin.
Cheers
Afet
You're welcome. BTW, you can probably find a way to peruse a copy of the rules before actually purchasing it. See if a friend owns a copy, or look a book over in a store. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 01:41:59
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Simply put, a mage can't know as many spells as they used to.
FWIW I had a player in my Monday game extolling the virtues of low level spellcasting in Fourth Edition because his character (a female Eladrin Wizard) could use cantrips pretty much indeffinitely.
We were running the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure and she spent part of a day entertained some kids in the town of Winterhaven by conjuring a colorful effects, sounds and so forth.
That's one thing prior versions of D&D never handled right... There was in Dragon magazine an article about doing cantrips as a proficiency, back in 2E. I had a character use that proficiency -- and he was constantly tossing off cantrips, for all sorts of minor things: fixing his clothes, drying off after swimming, adding spice to food, etc.
It's not enough to get me interested in 4E, but I will readily admit that I'm glad to hear they finally got that aspect of the game right. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 01:34:12
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Simply put, a mage can't know as many spells as they used to.
FWIW I had a player in my Monday game extolling the virtues of low level spellcasting in Fourth Edition because his character (a female Eladrin Wizard) could use cantrips pretty much indeffinitely.
We were running the Keep on the Shadowfell adventure and she spent part of a day entertained some kids in the town of Winterhaven by conjuring a colorful effects, sounds and so forth.
Later she used a 1st level power (Burning Hands) for the first time and wiped out for Kobold minions and a Kobold Dragonshield.
|
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 01:10:17
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Well, reading the rules is probably your first step.
I know, I know But I don't want to spend $90 on the PHB and DMG if it's not going to work for me. I'm test playing 4E as a PC this coming weekend, so I'll have chance to get a first hand sense for it.
quote:
As for more elaboration? Simply put, a mage can't know as many spells as they used to. However, the Vancian system of magic is mostly gone. Everyone in the game has at-will powers, encounter powers, and daily powers. A wizard's powers are called "spells", and they can cast certain spells at any time (at will), once per encounter, and once per day. Non-combat spells have been regulated to the group called "rituals".
That is very helpful. Thanks, Rin.
Cheers
Afet |
| Kuje |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 23:59:16
quote:
Originally posted by Afetbinttuzani
That's encouraging. I don't actually anticipate any problems with respect to lore. My concern is more mechanical. There must be some game mechanics challenges when adapting materials written for a given rule set to a different rule set, No?
Afet
I can't say I've ever had any problems with writing mechanics to the lore, but as I said, I mix and match mechanics..... and I don't expect, ever, to purchase the 4e material so I can't comment on how hard that might be to write 4e mechanics with 2e lore. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 23:06:06
quote:
Originally posted by Afetbinttuzani
Could you elaborate a bit. I haven't read or played 4E rules yet.
Well, reading the rules is probably your first step.
As for more elaboration? Simply put, a mage can't know as many spells as they used to. However, the Vancian system of magic is mostly gone. Everyone in the game has at-will powers, encounter powers, and daily powers. A wizard's powers are called "spells", and they can cast certain spells at any time (at will), once per encounter, and once per day. Non-combat spells have been regulated to the group called "rituals". |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 22:58:50
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
The first thing that comes to my mind is that mages aren't nearly as versatile as they were in previous editions.
Could you elaborate a bit. I haven't read or played 4E rules yet.
quote:
On the other hand, mages can cast more than just a few spells at lower levels, and all the other classes have tons of options (whereas the fighters sole option used to be "swing your weapon").
That sounds encouraging. I like to idea of PCs having more options during encounters. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 22:40:47
quote:
Originally posted by Afetbinttuzani
Has anyone attempted this? Does anyone have an opinion about the potential advantages, disadvantages and challenges of running 4E rules with 2E Realms material?
Afet
The first thing that comes to my mind is that mages aren't nearly as versatile as they were in previous editions. If that doesn't bother you (or your players), then you've probably gotten over one of the main "hurdles" of 4E. I don't know how well that would mesh with the design principles of the Realms, though.
On the other hand, mages can cast more than just a few spells at lower levels, and all the other classes have tons of options (whereas the fighters sole option used to be "swing your weapon"). |
|
|
