| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Devils Advocate |
Posted - 11 Jul 2010 : 07:13:40
So, am I a bad Forgotten Realms fan if I prefer 3.5e to 4e? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 17 Mar 2011 : 15:35:56
quote:
Originally posted by Snow
Hi Diffan,
Believe it or not, we are all Character Optimizers and Min/Maxers first and foremost ... *then* ... we are Forgotten Realms Lorekeepers second.
It took us a few years to collectively realize that the 4.0 game mechanics experience just didn't give us the full breadth of CO fulfillment that we got from 3.5. 4.0 is good. 3.5 is just outstanding in comparison.
There's more cerebral "oomph" in 3.5 for us. We like the combinatorial possibilities of character structure and gameplay sequencing in that edition as well.
Yea, I can definitly agree with you there. As someone who also stylizes himself as a Min/Maxer and Char. Optimizer I can see why 4E wouldn't stratch that itch. Though there is a whole board over on the Wiz-bro boards that are dedicated to 4E Char_Op, but I think most of the gimmicks are all said and done (Frost-Cheese, Radiant-Cheese, etc..) plus anything and everything that has to do with the Ranger class's Two-Weapon Fighting (which is just so damn good).
I think, though, that this is a testament to that edtiion. As much as I try to fully Optimize the characters I create, they don't necessarily out-shine my other party members which I think is a good thing. In v3.5 I had a 12th level paladin that was dishing out 200+ damage on a Charging Smite + Power Attack + Rhino's Rush spell with a Valorous Weapon. I mean.....it gets to a point when even as I'm doing it I feel bad, lol. |
| Snow |
Posted - 08 Mar 2011 : 20:13:13
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
With your already large library of 4E material, I hope you still give it a go every once in a while. As a fan of multiple gaming editions (I use v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E) I think variety is the spice of life, espically with RPG games.
As you stated, the Post Spellplage Realms didn't really give your group a good feeling, but it's a fairly simple tast to set a 4E game in any time line you see fit.
Hi Diffan,
Believe it or not, we are all Character Optimizers and Min/Maxers first and foremost ... *then* ... we are Forgotten Realms Lorekeepers second.
It took us a few years to collectively realize that the 4.0 game mechanics experience just didn't give us the full breadth of CO fulfillment that we got from 3.5. 4.0 is good. 3.5 is just outstanding in comparison.
There's more cerebral "oomph" in 3.5 for us. We like the combinatorial possibilities of character structure and gameplay sequencing in that edition as well. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 08 Mar 2011 : 11:39:32
quote:
Originally posted by Snow
Alisttair ... no, we 3 rotate DM'ing. After a 1 year campaign, we don't want to risk DM burnout, so a fresh DM works his magic on us for the next +/- 12 months.
On occasion, our group of 11 has neccessitated 2 DM's for a given night or campaign path. That 2nd DM is a local non-FR DM who we're friends with ... he helps with running/ajudicating battles (his speciality - both 4.0 and 3.5/Pathfinder) and leaves the primary adventuring and storytelling to the Main DM. It's a nice arrangement. We feed him well! Lol! Primarily because 2 of the houses we game have Cuisine Superstars in our midst (one a professional chef - the other a knowledgeable foodie).
Thats a pretty good arrangement.  |
| Diffan |
Posted - 08 Mar 2011 : 06:29:07
With your already large library of 4E material, I hope you still give it a go every once in a while. As a fan of multiple gaming editions (I use v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E) I think variety is the spice of life, espically with RPG games.
As you stated, the Post Spellplage Realms didn't really give your group a good feeling, but it's a fairly simple tast to set a 4E game in any time line you see fit. |
| Snow |
Posted - 07 Mar 2011 : 21:33:01
Alisttair ... no, we 3 rotate DM'ing. After a 1 year campaign, we don't want to risk DM burnout, so a fresh DM works his magic on us for the next +/- 12 months.
On occasion, our group of 11 has neccessitated 2 DM's for a given night or campaign path. That 2nd DM is a local non-FR DM who we're friends with ... he helps with running/ajudicating battles (his speciality - both 4.0 and 3.5/Pathfinder) and leaves the primary adventuring and storytelling to the Main DM. It's a nice arrangement. We feed him well! Lol! Primarily because 2 of the houses we game have Cuisine Superstars in our midst (one a professional chef - the other a knowledgeable foodie). |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 07 Mar 2011 : 17:51:49
quote:
Originally posted by Snow
We are 11 total members ... 3 of us DM. Each campaigns lasts about a year, and then we rotate DM responsibilities to keep everyone fresh. :-)
Interestingly, every single member is an ardent fan of the Forgotten Realms. Nobody is lukewarm in their interest about it. We had to close membership to the group, as we do have the occasional person who wishes to join. I hate turning people away though. :-( Especially since our mutual interests are so niche-oriented.
Just to clarify, you mean 3 of you DM simultaneously? |
| DBG |
Posted - 07 Mar 2011 : 17:34:44
In ans to the op:
I only play a homebrew version using bits from 1e, 2e, 3e & 3.5e.
I take the bits I like and dump the rest.
|
| Snow |
Posted - 07 Mar 2011 : 17:29:54
We are 11 total members ... 3 of us DM. Each campaigns lasts about a year, and then we rotate DM responsibilities to keep everyone fresh. :-)
Interestingly, every single member is an ardent fan of the Forgotten Realms. Nobody is lukewarm in their interest about it. We had to close membership to the group, as we do have the occasional person who wishes to join. I hate turning people away though. :-( Especially since our mutual interests are so niche-oriented. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 07 Mar 2011 : 17:04:09
quote:
Originally posted by Snow
After 3 years of consistent once-per-week 4.0 sessions (Saturday mornings/afternoons), our local Forgotten Realms mega-group [11 players!)...
Holy Cow!! And I thought one group I was in was huge when it hit 8 players + DM at one point. |
| Snow |
Posted - 07 Mar 2011 : 17:00:11
After 3 years of consistent once-per-week 4.0 sessions (Saturday mornings/afternoons), our local Forgotten Realms mega-group [11 players!) has decided on a vote of 9-2 to re-convert back to version 3.5. It took a long time and a lot of handwringing to come to this vote. We are a fairly affluent group ... with the majority of the players being full-time members and each owning about 75% or more of the entire 4.0 manual line.
For the first 2 years, the majority of our group members became hardcore advocates of the 4.0 line - me included. Then we noticed a bit of "nostalgia creep" coming back into your games. We were also noticing a bit of disenchantment with the 4E F.R. cataclysm timeline. What finally pushed a lot of our players over the edge was the fulfillment factor of playing either 3.5 rules or Pathfinder rules in other gaming groups (non-F.R., mind you) and noting that we had strategic and mutual preferences for the game mechanics and crunch material of 3.5.
So ... the last 3 weeks has been spent converting our mega-campaigns (being played from Dagger Falls to Zhentil Keep) back to 3.5-modified Pathfinder rules. While awkward at first, we now seem to be hitting on all cylinders. The fulfillment factor has been *HUGE*. Only 2 of our 11 members still prefer 4.0, but I think they both enjoy playing with a group is overall happier and more creative in gameplay.
This is not meant as a clobbering bash to 4.0. It's still a viable gameplay system. We just found the enormity of the 3.5 game mechanics to be more intricate, nuanced, and combinatorial expansive. Plus, the pre-Spellplague F.R. (we moved back to the old timeline) is just a million times more interesting and graspable from a continuity standpoint.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 04:12:20
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
4E just hasn't hit its stride yet, given enough time it'll be dripping with tons of disconnected lore (new and old, balanced and breaking) and will eventually require a 5E cleanup just to become playable again. I approve of the Essentials concept, and I understand what Wizbro is attempting to accomplish (with some success), though I'm a little puzzled about why they would deliberately introduce what will be seen by many as a "fork" into a parallel D&D "edition" ruleset after they invested so much effort into unifying the product line in the first place.
Everything is still unified for the most part. I think a lot of people complained that some major Errata occured at approx the same time Essentials came out. People linked the two together and said "edition-revision!" Simply not the case. They've introduced different style of classes (which work perfectly fine in most regards to the original set) and are harmonious with the current set of rules. And the Errata that changed over in Oct/Nov were going to happen regardless of the Essential debut.
From my own experiences of using the normal 4E material and Essential material together, I can pretty much say I've found little change in the way the game plays and no change in how Essential classes work against the 4E Monster Manual and Monster Manual 2 creatures. Different mechanics, same outcome. I link the changes more to that of additional 3.5 content that branched from the norm. Classes that came from the Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle work far differently than normal 3.5 classes, but they relatively change the game little. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Dec 2010 : 10:11:48
4E just hasn't hit its stride yet, given enough time it'll be dripping with tons of disconnected lore (new and old, balanced and breaking) and will eventually require a 5E cleanup just to become playable again. I approve of the Essentials concept, and I understand what Wizbro is attempting to accomplish (with some success), though I'm a little puzzled about why they would deliberately introduce what will be seen by many as a "fork" into a parallel D&D "edition" ruleset after they invested so much effort into unifying the product line in the first place. |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 23 Dec 2010 : 09:44:57
Listen up you berks: 4th edition is totally useless. Except for the parts of it I use. Which are mainly High Elves=Eladrin, Primordials, the Feywild concept, the new take on the war of light and darkness,,, and a few other things. Besides that, it's rot. Of course, I AM looking it over for some more gleanings. And I DO have a lot of 2E spells and magic items, not to mention 2E lore. But 2E lore is piddle compared to 1E lore. Which makes 3E lore look like what the cat dragged in. Except where 3E lore deals with cultures left untouched by 2E. But other than that, all those editions are bad b/c I use the AGoT d20 system. Modified by house rules of course. Which someone probably hates. Which is OK, since I hate them. Personally.
Anyway, I'd say you're OK here, DA. I bet someone here is open-minded enough to deal with your heresy. |
| mensch |
Posted - 23 Dec 2010 : 09:26:12
Yup, I'm always amazed by the amount of Forgotten Realms lore which can be salvaged from 2e and used in 3.5e. Take the whole Netheril set or the Bloodstone Lands campaign, which have never been reprinted in full in the subsequent updated rulesets.
The only acquaintance I had with 2e was in the Baldur's Gate computer game. It took me quite a while to find out that having a negative armour class was actually a good thing... |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Dec 2010 : 06:18:21
quote:
Wooly Rupert
... I myself favor something between 2E and 3.xE. I've said more than once, though, that there are elements of 4E that I think can be readily backported to earlier editions and that would work quite well.
The hamster has the truth of it; 2E is (so far) the richest trove of D&D lore to draw from, yet 3.5E is generally the "best" rules system for my tastes.quote:
Hellblazer
... According to my DM, we are playing with 3.5 in 4e settings
lol, my group does much the opposite: we import some amount of 4E lore into the older FR setting. 
I kinda wish Essentials carried a better name, "4E Expansion" or something, to deflect some of the perceived confusion/criticism with this "Edition" rewrite. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 23 Dec 2010 : 05:44:27
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Thanks for the clarification!
To explain what I was talking about, and what I think Matt meant: circumstantially, calling Essentials 4.5 is sort of a pejorative, since people use the whole "They're rewriting the game again!" attack against it. That's the implication of the term "4.5", and it really isn't true in this case.
I'm not entirely sure I agree, Erik. For me, 3.5 was a vast improvement over 3E, and it's what I believe 3E should have been in the first place; particularly the changes to barbarians, druids, and rangers. However, by the same reasoning, Pathfinder (including the Advanced Player's Guide options) is exactly what I hoped to get with 4E: a system that presented a vast array of customization options for the character classes, instead of one that pigeonholed them all into dictionary-definition roles and giving all classes the same abilities with different names.
And before you say "Oh, here goes Jakk trolling 4E again":
Mechanically, I quite like 4E, and I have adopted the 4E opposed-roll mechanic into my Pathfinder house rules (along with the Castles & Crusades mechanic of a saving throw category for each ability score). Where I think 4E went wrong (imho) was in not going all the way to a classless character advancement system in which skills, feats, spell ability, and other abilities are purchased directly with earned XP, similar to White Wolf's system. Such a move would have far better suited the feel of the rest of the game as a whole. I tried to convert 4E to a classless system, but then I read the beta version of Pathfinder and decided that classless 4E was a project best left for someone else.
In short, if they'd called Essentials "4.5," they might have attracted my attention more than they did by not doing so. But either way, my hard copies of the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide and Bestiary 2 arrived today (still Dec 22 here on the Pacific coast of North America), and I have tomorrow off work, so I'll be reading into the wee hours tonight.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Essentials is indeed difficult to classify, as WotC's doing something it hasn't done before--adding another level without revising the game, so as to serve multiple functions: draw in players used to "how things used to be," simplify some of the rules, add options for older players, etc.
I compare it to writing a companion story for a novel that doesn't *have to* be read to enjoy that novel, nor does the story rely upon you having read the novel to enjoy it. You can enjoy either or both and in any order.
Cheers
So... Essentials is the "New Spring" of 4E? Given that the 4E ruleset may have now exceeded (in number of volumes, at least) the Wheel of Time, I think the analogy is a good one.  |
| Therise |
Posted - 30 Nov 2010 : 01:04:41
My group is using 1E Realms with bits and pieces of 2E and 3E, and we use it with the rules for Lord of the Rings / Rolemaster. How's that's for totally different?
|
| Hellblazer |
Posted - 25 Oct 2010 : 19:03:35
I joined the FR by trying out the 4e last year.However, last month my friends forced me to try 3.5e and I simply loved it.According to my DM, we are playing with 3.5 in 4e settings |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 19:35:28
Sic et non?
Cheers
(P.S. Spam +1!) |
| IngoDjan |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 17:13:21
Au contraire! |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 16:27:45
Thanks for the clarification!
To explain what I was talking about, and what I think Matt meant: circumstantially, calling Essentials 4.5 is sort of a pejorative, since people use the whole "They're rewriting the game again!" attack against it. That's the implication of the term "4.5", and it really isn't true in this case.
Essentials is indeed difficult to classify, as WotC's doing something it hasn't done before--adding another level without revising the game, so as to serve multiple functions: draw in players used to "how things used to be," simplify some of the rules, add options for older players, etc.
I compare it to writing a companion story for a novel that doesn't *have to* be read to enjoy that novel, nor does the story rely upon you having read the novel to enjoy it. You can enjoy either or both and in any order.
Cheers |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 15:34:34
I just call it 4.5 because calling it "Essentials" doesn't allow my brain to place it in order with earlier printings of the game.
Like I have said many times, 4e isn't what D&D used to be to me but it is a good system that I like. My "4.5" I like very much too because it is more attractive to my kids than thick rule books.
So, for the purpose of my usually medicated mind keeping track of things, I call it 4.5...though as others have said...it is not OFFICIALLY another edition of the game in any way; but instead just a simpler way of explaining things and getting younger children to play.
The box says 12+ years; but my 8, 7 & 5 year old children all grasp it very easily...especially the choose your own adventure stuff! I miss those days myself! |
| Matt James |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 07:40:29
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I'm actually teaching my kids 4.5 edition now (bought the nifty new Starter Set...pretty nice actually!).
A not so subtle stab at the Essentials books that just came out? The system hasn't changed-- at least nothing like D8D was to AD&D or 3.0 was to 3.5. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 16 Sep 2010 : 15:16:01
To echo everyone, play what you want, read what you want, love what you want.
And lest there be any confusion . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I'm actually teaching my kids 4.5 edition now (bought the nifty new Starter Set...pretty nice actually!).
I believe DD's referring to the 4e Essentials products, which aren't actually 4.5 but rather just expanded options for 4e--the difference being that they don't contradict 4e rules the way 3.5e over-wrote much of 3.0e. I can see why one could see it that way, but it isn't the same animal.
If you ever *did* get interested in playing 4e, you might check out the Essentials products. I think part of the idea is that they are more similar to 3.5 D&D than 4e D&D is.
Cheers |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 16 Sep 2010 : 06:28:44
Where are you from Devil's Advocate? I'm playing 1st edition these days...though I honestly don't have any problem with any edition out there right now!
I'm actually teaching my kids 4.5 edition now (bought the nifty new Starter Set...pretty nice actually!).
If you lived in Missoula Montana I'd let you join my upcoming 1st Edition Forgotten Realms game. I tried to start it online...even had some really good players here from Candlekeep, but I really botched it and things went south badly. One of my greatest gaming regrets of all time in truth...
Anyway...I hope you find a good group to game with...and welcome to the Candlekeep Forums!
EDIT: for minor hallucination while typing before. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 16 Sep 2010 : 05:34:50
Heh... the three campaigns I've been playing in over the last three years have all used 3.5. The campaign I'm preparing to start up (and have been doing so for the better part of two years now) will be using Pathfinder plus some rules tweaks of my own (mostly conversions from 3.5 things that don't yet exist "natively" in Pathfinder). I was almost going to set the campaign in Golarion, but I got such a massive flood of cool ideas for the Realms that I had to use them... which is why it's taken me two years and counting to get this thing going. 
We're reaching the end of one of the campaigns I'm playing in, and I might fill the gap with a blast from the past if the DM isn't yet ready to start his new game... I re-acquired a copy of the second-oldest FRP game out there a few weeks ago... the game that got me into role-playing in the first place... the Fifth Edition of Tunnels & Trolls! It would be neat to run the Realms with that system, just for kicks...
Anyway, everything Markustay said in his last post goes for me too. 
Heh... now I have Weird Al Yankovic's "When I was Your Age" stuck in my head... I guess I have to listen to it now. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 12 Jul 2010 : 05:08:48
They've gone and digitized plastic army men too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Men_RTS |
| Dracons |
Posted - 12 Jul 2010 : 03:54:47
Really Markustay? I used to play make belive!
That's right! We didn't even have a blanket. It was all in our heads.
Then the special doctors our parents made us go to made it all go away with electricty. Nice electricty. No more heroes in my head anymore. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Jul 2010 : 03:27:56
Oh yeah?!
Well I played in No-e! Thats right, back in MY day we used rubber bands shot at army-men!
We didn't have the Realms! We didn't even have a 'region', or even an 'area' - all we had was an old blanket we used to scrunch-up and pretend it was hills!
Damn whipper-snappers.... stay off my lawn! {grumble... grumble}
  |
| Devils Advocate |
Posted - 11 Jul 2010 : 18:08:48
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Considering we have people playing in 4E, 3.5, 3E, 2E, 1E, Pathfinder, Burning Wheel and I even heard rumors of RoleMaster; I'd say you fit in.
I wish I could find people where I live who are interested in playing 1 & 2e. I'd like to at least try those editions. |
|
|
