| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mkhaiwati
Learned Scribe
USA
252 Posts |
 Posted - 28 May 2008 : 06:15:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
I'm not defending or knocking 4e, just making an observation. But for what it's worth...I've played and GMed many games over the years, D&D editions 1 through 3.5, Champions, Call of Cthulhu, and DC Heroes to name a few. And it seems to me that when a game is strong on roleplaying, it's because the players and GM want a game that's strong on roleplaying. The particular system has virtually nothing to do with it. Has your experience been different?
I would agree with you. (and add that a GM can make or break a game system or setting, too. Most gamers that hate a system or world had a bad gm in the past)
However, to argue the other side, too, what does the fact that 4e is being portrayed strongly in the non-roleplaying angle say about the game designers or the people they are trying to impress/entice? |
"Behold the work of the old... let your heritage not be lost but bequeath it as a memory, treasure and blessing... Gather the lost and the hidden and preserve it for thy children."
"not nale. not-nale. thog help nail not-nale, not nale. and thog knot not-nale while nale nail not-nale. nale, not not-nale, now nail not-nale by leaving not-nale, not nale, in jail." OotS #367 |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36906 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 13:29:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
I'm not defending or knocking 4e, just making an observation. But for what it's worth...I've played and GMed many games over the years, D&D editions 1 through 3.5, Champions, Call of Cthulhu, and DC Heroes to name a few. And it seems to me that when a game is strong on roleplaying, it's because the players and GM want a game that's strong on roleplaying. The particular system has virtually nothing to do with it. Has your experience been different?
Well, I'll agree that it's what the DM and players bring to the table. It's just that in prior versions of the game, role-playing was something that was written into and emphasized in the rules. What I've seen thus far of 4E, role-playing is only in there as an afterthought, if it's included at all. Everything seems to be about combat, or about moving from one combat to the next. The impression I've gotten is that role-playing is not a focus or even a goal in 4E. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 15:12:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not that the new rules inhibit role-playing... Rather, the new rules seem to ignore role-playing altogether. Role-playing does not seem to be part of D&D Extreme.
My personal opinion about 3E, though, was that it went too far in assigning everything a number. When people say it became utterly bloated with rules for everything, I can't help but agree, although I'm aware that 4E could turn out that way too (WotC needs to put out new material all the time, or they won't make money).
I have to agree with RLB that if a group really wants to roleplay, that's what they're going to do regardless of what the rules are. As for whether or not the core rulebooks are going to foster roleplaying? Well, we'll see when they come out. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 28 May 2008 16:25:18 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 15:18:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mkhaiwati
However, to argue the other side, too, what does the fact that 4e is being portrayed strongly in the non-roleplaying angle say about the game designers or the people they are trying to impress/entice?
Well again, I'm going to play devil's advocate and say this: WotC is trying to showcase how the 4E mechanical system is different from the one in 3E. It only makes sense that they are mostly going to be talking about combat. Roleplaying, IMO, doesn't really need to have rules--if it has rules attached to it, then you can say that roleplaying is almost being reduced to something mechanical, couldn't you?
Having read the preview material, I can attest that there was discussion about roleplaying the various races and what to expect in the setting. It wasn't solely about rules. I've heard that the vast majority of the core rulebooks has to do with rules and mechanics, but they are rulebooks after all, and I haven't yet seem them for myself either. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 15:48:02
|
I briefly looked through the 4e books, meh
DMG has improved, particularly useful for new DMs
MM, anyone remembers Planscape Monstrous Compendium III, it was full of lore, now it's the opposite, everything is about combat. I especially dislike the new angels, dryads, elementals, overall mechanically seems alright, simplified, better for new players, useless
PHB, Correllon and Sehanine aren't good. Races, I don't like dragonborn, this is from the book:
''Play a dragonborn if you want . . .
- to look like a dragon.'' (wtf?)
Classes, again everything is about combat, most of the powers seem too similar, everything deals damage, but it gave me some ideas for my rogue character (homebrew system of mechanics)
can't bother reading through it all |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 16:08:20
|
lmao at this (from DMG):
''Playing without a DM
This might seem to be strange advice for a Dungeon
Master’s Guide, but it’s entirely possible to play D&D
without a Dungeon Master. If all you’re looking for
is fun and exciting combat, with no more than the
barest hint of plot or purpose, a random dungeon with
a random encounter deck is all you need. Someone
needs to prepare the deck, and someone needs to run
the monsters during the game. They doesn’t need to be
the same person. All the players can decide together
what the monsters do, and let the player who’s the
target of an attack make that attack roll (or have the
person to the left roll for the monsters).
A random dungeon with no DM makes for a good
way to spend a game session when your regular DM
can’t play. It’s also a fun activity over a lunch hour, as
long as your school or office is forgiving of a group of
people rolling dice and shouting battle cries!''
pathethic |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 16:15:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
MM, anyone remembers Planscape Monstrous Compendium III, it was full of lore, now it's the opposite, everything is about combat. I especially dislike the new angels, dryads, elementals, overall mechanically seems alright, simplified, better for new players, useless
Unless you're a new player. Or a new DM.
I had heard that Corellon is Unaligned now. I suspected the same for Sehanine, based on what I read of the new version of her. Lolth is still CE though. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 16:17:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
If all you’re looking for is fun and exciting combat, with no more than the barest hint of plot or purpose, a random dungeon with
a random encounter deck is all you need.
To each their own, but I have to admit I don't quite understand the appeal of simulated combat without some type of story or purpose behind it. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 28 May 2008 16:18:08 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 16:21:12
|
I'd have to agree with Rinon here - I WANT to hate the 4e rules, because of what they did to FR, but I'm also desperately trying (and usually failing) to remain neutral about non-FR things, like the rules.
It has been pointed out, numerous times and on numerous forums, that many people talk about and remember fondly "the good ol' days"... you know, when we really didn't have a whole lot of rules covering stuff outside of encounters. ODD and 1e were like this - the DM pretty much had to make up everything outside of encounters. I think THAT is what WotC is trying to re-capture. We really only need rules for the combat situations - everything else is part of the story, and its up to the DM and players how much they want to concentrate on RPing.
I remember having several sessions down at the beach with good friends, and NO rulebooks were present (run mostly by a fiend, but a few by me). In my WotC sig, I have that quote by Gary Gygax that basically says "People don't really need the rules".
WotC is only trying to provide us with a consise, easy-to-use, ruleset for encounters, so that we can let our imaginations fill in the rest. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have NEVER used reaction rolls, or 'bluff', or 'intimidate', or ANY other social-based skill. I INSIST these situations be role-played out. Dice shouldn't determine weather a player sways an NPC, GOOD RPing should.
So, even though I'm a 4e FR hater, I have to say that the simpler 4e rules might just be the way to go for me - I'm undecided though.
Pathfinder's backwards-compatibility is just SO enticing... thats why I will be trying both out over the next year. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 28 May 2008 17:00:10 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36906 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 17:41:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not that the new rules inhibit role-playing... Rather, the new rules seem to ignore role-playing altogether. Role-playing does not seem to be part of D&D Extreme.
My personal opinion about 3E, though, was that it went too far in assigning everything a number. When people say it became utterly bloated with rules for everything, I can't help but agree, although I'm aware that 4E could turn out that way too (WotC needs to put out new material all the time, or they won't make money).
I have to agree with RLB that if a group really wants to roleplay, that's what they're going to do regardless of what the rules are. As for whether or not the core rulebooks are going to foster roleplaying? Well, we'll see when they come out.
I'll agree that 3E went the wrong way in assigning a number for everything -- mainly in that we didn't need full-page statblocks, and I hated the idea that anything encountered was there simply to be fought. With monsters, for example, stripping away the ecology section from 2E was a major step away from doing anything other than killing a mob and moving on.
My point is, though, that while I don't see the need to have all possible aspects of role-playing covered with rules, I do want a rule system that supports role-playing. What I don't want is a rule system that is what 4E appears to be: nothing more than combat and moving from encounter to encounter. It seems that in 4E, role-playing is being entirely (or nearly so) ignored. And that's what irks me. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 18:40:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
My point is, though, that while I don't see the need to have all possible aspects of role-playing covered with rules, I do want a rule system that supports role-playing. What I don't want is a rule system that is what 4E appears to be: nothing more than combat and moving from encounter to encounter. It seems that in 4E, role-playing is being entirely (or nearly so) ignored. And that's what irks me.
Well, I hope that turns out not to be the case. When my books arrive (I did preorder them) and I've taken a good look at them, odds are I will be back here to share my thoughts. I'll pay attention to what the books say with regards to roleplaying. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Mkhaiwati
Learned Scribe
USA
252 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 18:42:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Mkhaiwati
However, to argue the other side, too, what does the fact that 4e is being portrayed strongly in the non-roleplaying angle say about the game designers or the people they are trying to impress/entice?
Well again, I'm going to play devil's advocate and say this: WotC is trying to showcase how the 4E mechanical system is different from the one in 3E. It only makes sense that they are mostly going to be talking about combat. Roleplaying, IMO, doesn't really need to have rules--if it has rules attached to it, then you can say that roleplaying is almost being reduced to something mechanical, couldn't you?
Having read the preview material, I can attest that there was discussion about roleplaying the various races and what to expect in the setting. It wasn't solely about rules. I've heard that the vast majority of the core rulebooks has to do with rules and mechanics, but they are rulebooks after all, and I haven't yet seem them for myself either.
well, since I actually agreed with RLB to begin with, my heart isn't in it to continue playing Devil's Advocate.
I would suck at being a lawyer. |
"Behold the work of the old... let your heritage not be lost but bequeath it as a memory, treasure and blessing... Gather the lost and the hidden and preserve it for thy children."
"not nale. not-nale. thog help nail not-nale, not nale. and thog knot not-nale while nale nail not-nale. nale, not not-nale, now nail not-nale by leaving not-nale, not nale, in jail." OotS #367 |
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 18:48:14
|
| I'm going to stick my neck out here. In my opinion D&D 4e is the last RPG that WotC will produce. I'm not going to get into the WoW - nonWoW argument but I get the impression that WotC is pretty desperate to get new players into the hobby. Desperate enough not to really bother about the current fan base. I believe that the RPG market is going to shrink in the near future. It's not going to disappear, but it isn't going to be capable of generating the profit margin that Hasbro requires. So I reckon that 4e is WotC's way of squeezing the last drops of value out of the brand. |
|
|
|
Odysseus
Seeker
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 20:06:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It's not that the new rules inhibit role-playing... Rather, the new rules seem to ignore role-playing altogether. Role-playing does not seem to be part of D&D Extreme.
My personal opinion about 3E, though, was that it went too far in assigning everything a number. When people say it became utterly bloated with rules for everything, I can't help but agree, although I'm aware that 4E could turn out that way too (WotC needs to put out new material all the time, or they won't make money).
I have to agree with RLB that if a group really wants to roleplay, that's what they're going to do regardless of what the rules are. As for whether or not the core rulebooks are going to foster roleplaying? Well, we'll see when they come out.
I'll agree that 3E went the wrong way in assigning a number for everything -- mainly in that we didn't need full-page statblocks, and I hated the idea that anything encountered was there simply to be fought. With monsters, for example, stripping away the ecology section from 2E was a major step away from doing anything other than killing a mob and moving on.
My point is, though, that while I don't see the need to have all possible aspects of role-playing covered with rules, I do want a rule system that supports role-playing. What I don't want is a rule system that is what 4E appears to be: nothing more than combat and moving from encounter to encounter. It seems that in 4E, role-playing is being entirely (or nearly so) ignored. And that's what irks me.
I believe one of the things they have tried to do with 4E . Is to give all the combat stuff numbers. But left the role playing stuff more vague. Which IMO is an improvement on 3E. Which did seem to encourage roll Playing. |
“Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody’s power, that is not easy.” —Aristotle |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 23:00:45
|
| My little brother picked up Keep on the Shadowfell and says that he thinks that it should be pretty easy to convert from 3e to 4e. I told him that WotC says the opposite, but I guess I will have to wait until the SRD comes out before I can really analyze it. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 01:06:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
My personal opinion about 3E, though, was that it went too far in assigning everything a number.
If you thought that went too far you're going to love what they did. Basically every conversation with NPCs comes down to dice rolls. No longer do you just converse with someone and only roll when you're trying to get them to do or reveal more then they're NOT willing.
Now you ROLL after everything to find out how much detail the responses HAVE. Social encounters are literally chose you're own adventure encounters. If the PC wins by this.. the NPC says this. |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
Edited by - SirUrza on 29 May 2008 01:40:32 |
|
|
|
Dart Ambermoon
Learned Scribe
Germany
253 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 01:22:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
If you thought that went too far you're going to love what they did. Basically every conversation with NPCs comes down to dice rolls. No longer do you just converse with someone and only roll when you're trying to get them to do or reveal more then they're willing.
Now you rule after everything to find out how much detail the responses are. Social encounters are literally chose you're own adventure encounters. If the PC wins by this.. the NPC says this.
Seriously? *begins to gnaw off own foot* |
~ In Finder I trust, for danger I lust ~ |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 01:41:28
|
| Seriously. A social encounter will be a full page or more now instead of being a side bar of what info the NPC will reveal with 1 or 2 bits that have a DC if they wouldn't openly give that info out. |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
Dart Ambermoon
Learned Scribe
Germany
253 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 01:51:34
|
Phew...seems they don´t really have a lot of trust in their customers ability to roleplay...or simply use friggin common sense when using encounters. I´m really sorry, but I´ve never believed social interaction to need ANY rules (player´s wit and DM logic should do), but I could live with the last changes as an aid for those that are less sure or less experienceed of how to handle that stuff. But the changes you´re describing...I fear for a new generation, weaned on such rules.
*whimpers* |
~ In Finder I trust, for danger I lust ~ |
|
|
|
Odysseus
Seeker
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 12:58:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
My little brother picked up Keep on the Shadowfell and says that he thinks that it should be pretty easy to convert from 3e to 4e. I told him that WotC says the opposite, but I guess I will have to wait until the SRD comes out before I can really analyze it.
From what I've seen from KotS I believe you should be able to convert any edition to 4E. |
“Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody’s power, that is not easy.” —Aristotle |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 17:02:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odysseus
From what I've seen from KotS I believe you should be able to convert any edition to 4E.
Then why make a public statement that they are not going to make a conversion guide because the systems are so different that it is near impossible to convert from previous editions to 4e? That would be one of the best selling points of 4e, and was one of the major things complained about from the point of its announcement. Wizards, why, oh why, do you not go about things in a logical way?  |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
Edited by - Hawkins on 29 May 2008 17:03:34 |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 19:45:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Then why make a public statement that they are not going to make a conversion guide because the systems are so different that it is near impossible to convert from previous editions to 4e?
Because they're idiots. It's very simple to convert up from 3e to 4e. Whatever XP your character has in 3E he still has in 4E. Just find out what level he'd be, if he loses a level just figure out what percentage he is to his next level in 3E and put him in the equivalent spot in 4E so he doesn't lose the level.
Attribute scores remain the same. Just like AD&D > D&D, skills change, abilities change, and feats change.
For adventures, you're going to have to add monsters because 4E adventures have more monsters and the area an Encounter Level encompasses is much large then a party now, it can be an entire floor of a dungeon or an entire building. |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2008 : 23:18:01
|
For those interested, the 4e rules have 'accidently' hit the shelves in some places early. There is a thread about it over at WotC, but I think This thread at Paizo gets more into the nitty-gritty of the new system. There may be an even better one over at Enworld, but I haven't checked there today.
It seems the general consensus is that they indeed were successful in creating a fast moving, simple game that everyone can learn and enjoy in a single session.
They also sucked all the flavor out of the game. 
I was very excited by the new rules, and was looking forward to them, but now it seems that the very things I liked about it made it "not D&D". Everything is carefully calculated, all distances are in 'squares', they've eliminated just about any situation where a Dm may have to may a decision "off-the-cuff", etc...
It has been compared to heroclix - you just point and shoot... thats it. The best analogy I saw over there was by Selk -
"It's hard for me to pin down my feelings here, but I feel like a real castle has been demolished to make room for a theme-park castle"
There is nothing wrong with the rules - they are both fun and readily playable... its just that something feels like its missing.
I'm still going to ge them - they might be good for single-session romps, like 'PUG runs' in a MORPG. Its basicaly just a very well made tactical simulation at this point. There's nothing wrong with that - it's just not D&D IMHO. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2008 : 08:12:11
|
*nods*
The monster manual is the most disappoint aspect, all the information about the various monsters is almost not present. They included almost 2-3 stat blocks for every monster and the majority of the monsters in the book get 1 page. |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2008 : 11:26:15
|
From the thread at Paizo (on page 1 from tallforadwarf, the whole post is very interesting, especially his words about the rape of the FR):
quote:
Voice activated weaponry! The PHB seriously suggests that shouting the name of your attack is roleplaying. Heck we do sometimes, but that's not roleplaying and we certanly don't sit around joining every one of our class features with an anime battle cry.
 Not only WoW-style gaming, even Manga and Anime have influenced 4th ed. This is a little bit too much to swallow ...  |
"What mattered our lives now? When our world had been torn from us? Folk wept, or drank, or stood staring out over the land, wondering what new horror each dawn would bring."
Elender Stormfall of Suzail
"Anyone can kill deities, cause plagues, or destroy organizations. It takes real skill to make them live on."
Varl
FR/D&D-Links • 2ed Downloads |
Edited by - Ayunken-vanzan on 30 May 2008 11:36:28 |
|
|
|
Bakra
Senior Scribe
628 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2008 : 16:24:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Then why make a public statement that they are not going to make a conversion guide because the systems are so different that it is near impossible to convert from previous editions to 4e?
Because they're idiots. It's very simple to convert up from 3e to 4e. Whatever XP your character has in 3E he still has in 4E. Just find out what level he'd be, if he loses a level just figure out what percentage he is to his next level in 3E and put him in the equivalent spot in 4E so he doesn't lose the level.
Attribute scores remain the same. Just like AD&D > D&D, skills change, abilities change, and feats change.
For adventures, you're going to have to add monsters because 4E adventures have more monsters and the area an Encounter Level encompasses is much large then a party now, it can be an entire floor of a dungeon or an entire building.
No they are not idiots. The first time it was mentioned that 3.5 may not be possible to convert was in the early stages of 4e. And guess what? Things changed since the first time the topic came up.
Will we ever see an official conversion document from WotC? No clue. Why doesn’t someone ask in a polite non-snarky way on their message boards? And reading your conversion, it doesn’t sound that easy to me. If you start having to rely on percentages in order to find the characters placement on the level advancement table it is not simple anymore. You said it yourself, the skills have changed, the feats have changed, the abilities have changed, you failed to mention magic has changed and the little thing called powers. It is easier to end the 3.5 edition and start with the new one. It would take less time.
I would like to point out that some of the game designers have been in the business a lot longer than some of us have been breathing.
Rich Baker has been in the industry since 1991 that is 17 years of non-idiocy game designing. I have two new players in my gaming group, one is 14 the other just turned 16, I would be ashamed if they came here and called him or any other WotC employee an idiot because they dislike the new rules.
|
I hope Candlekeep continues to be the friendly forum of fellow Realms-lovers that it has always been, as we all go through this together. If you don’t want to move to the “new” Realms, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either you or the “old” Realms. Goodness knows Candlekeep, and the hearts of its scribes, are both big enough to accommodate both. If we want them to be.
(Strikes dramatic pose, raises sword to gleam in the sunset, and hopes breeches won’t fall down.)
Enough for now. The Realms lives! I have spoken! Ale and light wines half price, served by a smiling Storm Silverhand fetchingly clad in thigh-high boots and naught else! Ahem . .
So saith Ed. <snip>
love to all,
THO
|
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2008 : 17:40:30
|
more I read from these new books more I get the feeling that this is will flop, the beginning of the fall of wotc
check this (Monster Manual)
quote:
Bear Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful
Nature check.
DC 15: Bears generally live in forests and caves.
|
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2008 : 18:30:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
more I read from these new books more I get the feeling that this is will flop, the beginning of the fall of wotc
check this (Monster Manual)
quote:
Bear Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful
Nature check.
DC 15: Bears generally live in forests and caves.
Is that meant to be a super-easy check? It seems like an obvious factoid, but I think it is important to point out that the people in the 4E PoL setting didn't grow up in the modern "information is at your fingertips" world. On the other hand, PCs are supposed to generally bit more knowledgable and/or capable than the average person.
As for the bit about shouting the names of attacks--again, that's silly, but it was also just a suggestion. It's the kind of thing that a group can just write off as dumb advice.
Not trying play 4E apologist here, so much as offering possible explanations. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 30 May 2008 18:32:34 |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2008 : 19:50:48
|
agreed, good explanation, DC 15 is common knowledge, 20 is expert
this is full bear lore (was amusing, unrelated with the overall feeling I get that 4e will fall)
quote:
Bear Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful
Nature check.
DC 15: Bears generally live in forests and caves. Cave
bears are ferocious predators that make their lairs deep
underground and are accustomed to darkness. Dire bears
are savage hunters that eat humanoids as readily as game
animals.
DC 20: Dire bears typically maul prey with their claws or
crush them to death with their thick, bestial arms.
tough 1st level characters are now super heroes and I haven't seen nothing on commoners yet, guess they aren't intended for roleplaying !? |
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2008 : 14:04:04
|
Does it mention what the DC for the question "Do bears crap in the woods?" is?
Mod edit: Watch the language, please.  |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 01 Jun 2008 13:38:16 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
