| Author |
 Topic  |
|
frapast1981
Acolyte
Italy
29 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Jul 2008 : 15:34:02
|
Hello All
just my 2 cents. I'm a DM and a player and I see the problem of class balance from two perspective. From the DM point of view I don't really have any problem with 3.5. I am the one that fix the "balance problem" because this is my duty as a DM. But when I am a player and subjected to another DM I found out that balance is a real issue. In our recent campaign our Bbr1/Drd8 halforc is a better warrior, through his spells, that our Figh9.
And our Rgr3/Sor6 is on pair with them during combat. And they are more versatile outside combat. That's not fair and can broke team-work.
4E try to solve the problem. Every class is more or less as powerful as the other ones (and I think this is true from 1 to 30 level). Same number of powers, more or less same damage at every level, with only a difference in role. Nobody is needed but everybody is useful in his own niche.
I prefer 3.5 flexibility, but 4E is simpler to use for unaccustomed DMs. |
 |
|
|
Tiziano
Acolyte
Italy
36 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2008 : 15:37:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
I think that's part of my problem with 4E, it claims to fix all sorts of things that I never had a problem with.
It is the same for me. I (and my group) were very excited when 3E came up, didn't feel the need to upgrade to 3.5 and now I definitely won't upgrade to 4E, just because for the group I play with I don't see the point.
I've browsed the books, none of the changes really tempted me.
On the opposite, I find the 'tone' they set first for the advertising and then in the books themselves quite irking after a while (the stress on 'simple', 'cool' and so on), it may be that I'm over thirty but it manages to feel both silly and condescending to me.
I'm happy for those who like 4E, I might try a game if somebody I know proposes one, but that's it for me. |
http://www.portraitadoption.com/ |
|
|
|
dwarvenranger
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2008 : 16:15:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
If you were to try out 4E rules, that wouldn't mean you could never use 3E rules ever again. :)
Very true, I've tried 4th ed found it too silly and now have fled back, as fast as my short dwarven legs would carry me (unfortunately the 4th ed halfling outran me  ) back to 3.5. Well actually to the Pathfinder Alpha system. |
If I waited till I knew what I was doing, I'd never get anything done.
|
Edited by - dwarvenranger on 03 Jul 2008 16:16:01 |
|
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2008 : 17:15:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by frapast1981
From the DM point of view I don't really have any problem with 3.5. I am the one that fix the "balance problem" because this is my duty as a DM. But when I am a player and subjected to another DM I found out that balance is a real issue. In our recent campaign our Bbr1/Drd8 halforc is a better warrior, through his spells, that our Figh9.
And our Rgr3/Sor6 is on pair with them during combat. And they are more versatile outside combat. That's not fair and can broke team-work.
Well, the brb/drd's spells can be dispelled and the brb/drd can't perform as many different maneuvers in combat (disarm, trip, sunder, etc). Same with the Rgr/Sor.
I'm not trying to invalidate what your saying, just that I don't see such things as an imbalance. Especially when the fighter could be buffed as well. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2008 : 19:14:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
Well, the brb/drd's spells can be dispelled and the brb/drd can't perform as many different maneuvers in combat (disarm, trip, sunder, etc). Same with the Rgr/Sor.
I'm not trying to invalidate what your saying, just that I don't see such things as an imbalance. Especially when the fighter could be buffed as well.
Combat maneuvers (i.e. disarm, trip, sunder, et cetera) do not require you to be a fighter to perform then, and the feats for their improved versions (i.e. improved disarm, improved trip, improved sunder, improved et cetera) do not require you to be a fighter to take them. However, having opponents with dispel could definitely counteract the spell buffs. |
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)
|
|
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2008 : 21:02:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Combat maneuvers (i.e. disarm, trip, sunder, et cetera) do not require you to be a fighter to perform then, and the feats for their improved versions (i.e. improved disarm, improved trip, improved sunder, improved et cetera) do not require you to be a fighter to take them. However, having opponents with dispel could definitely counteract the spell buffs.
No doubt, but a ranger/sorcerer or a barbarian/druid aren't going to be spending a lot of their few feats on improved disarm,trip,sunder or whatever. I mean, the first two should have roughly 4 feats each (depending on the race of the ranger/sorcerer) and the fighter should have roughly 9. That's a pretty big difference and that's what I'm really getting at. |
|
|
|
frapast1981
Acolyte
Italy
29 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 09:42:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
Well, the brb/drd's spells can be dispelled and the brb/drd can't perform as many different maneuvers in combat (disarm, trip, sunder, etc). Same with the Rgr/Sor.
I'm not trying to invalidate what your saying, just that I don't see such things as an imbalance. Especially when the fighter could be buffed as well.
Indeed you are correct. I will try explain myself better: the brb/drd buff himself, not the fighter (or anybody else). The same goes with the Rgr/Sor. It's possible to dispel their spells but this isn't something that my DM usually does. And the maneuvers are not always usable (on the othe other hand the bonus that "bull strenght" or other buff spells gives you are ALWAYS useful ).
My point however is that the DM, using 3.5, MUST balance the game (like you said earlier dispel the two caster). On the other hand 4E imposes balance between classes. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 15:21:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Like it or not, D&D is a game where you're supposed to use teamwork to accomplish your goals.
One wonders about the number of solo adventures that have seen print, then. Was that not really D&D?
It was, but those adventures are special cases. In general, D&D is built around not only teamwork, but also around having at least one member of each of the four main classes (warrior, rogue, priest, wizard). |
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!  |
|
|
|
dwarvenranger
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 17:20:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by frapast1981
My point however is that the DM, using 3.5, MUST balance the game (like you said earlier dispel the two caster). On the other hand 4E imposes balance between classes.
Well, even if I thought this was true, I would disagree with imposing anything that the DM doesn't want to. Of course, in our, allbeit low-level, game the wizard came out clearly imbalanced. That ability to put burning hands anywhere within 5 squares was certainly more powerful than my fighters ability to deal an extra 3 points of damage to an adjacent target. Likewise the ability of the eladrin to dim door was more useful than the abilty to have a healing surge as a minor action.
Really as I listen to the comments around the FLGS, more and more people are realizing that this edition isn't all it was hawked as, IMO (and the experience of the others) not every class and race is balanced against the others and combat, while made more simplistic has not been any faster. If this was just the group I play in, I could say it's just us. But the other three groups that play weekly at the FLGS are all reporting the same thing.
One example from another group; A player who was not really a fan of 3.5 due to combat mechanics(to the point of prefering other systems) joined a 4th ed group with high expectations. He had heard, like the rest of us, tha 4th ed fixed all this. When I spoke with him yesterday, he said, and I quote "4th edition sucks, I'd rather play 3rd edition". |
If I waited till I knew what I was doing, I'd never get anything done.
|
|
|
|
Venger
Learned Scribe
USA
269 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 18:01:30
|
quote:
Why should I check out Palladium games when I have 3.5 and Pathfinder?
Just thought I'd make a suggestion for those who don't like game balance at all, as Palladium doesn't even consider it. And considering that the Palladium system never gets updated, you won't ever have to worry about an edition change.
quote:
Plus what is this balance business anyway? I mean seriously... if all men and women were equal we'd have no pverty and stuff...
This is a game, one which is supposed to be fun for all the players. To put it another way, if you don't care about game balance, then why not let some players play dragons or titans while others play sprites? The simple answer is because the game would pretty much suck for the sprite players. They'd have to hide in a corner in order to avoid getting killed when a fight comes along. So an RPG does have to make some attempt at putting the PC's on a roughly even keel. Otherwise what's the point? I'm sure there're times when people don't mind playing the Shortround to another PC's Dr. Jones, but as a matter of course, that shouldn't be the case.
quote:
Also, in WoW there is a balance of sort, but a healer... err priest with healing focus... were to be attacked he won't last long, so that ain't balanced...
Once again, equal usefulness to the party doesn't mean each character doesn't have their specialties, or that some classes can't be better in some areas then others.
quote:
D&D has always been a game where teamwork matters. . . I'm not sure where you get the idea that it didn't matter.
It doesn't matter quite so much when some classes when do the job of other classes and then some.
quote:
Is it the cleric that's supposed to be "useless" at certain points? Because I totally disagree. They might not swing like fighters, but they aren't slouches.
I'm talking about the Wizard when it comes to low levels. In the last game I played the Wizard expended every spell he had in one hard fight, and after that, all he had left was his crossbow. Do we keep going, with one of the party members reduced to a glorified henchman, or do we call it a night after one fight?
That's why I could never play a Wizard starting at low levels. Once my spells were gone I no longer felt like I was playing a Wizard. I felt like I was playing a crossbowman, and if I wanted to play a crossbowman I'd play a crossbowman. For many people, playing through the low levels of a Wizard felt like a chore. As someone else said, you were "paying your dues". You shouldn't have to pay your dues to get to the real fun.
quote:
If it's a fighter at high levels, well, again I have to disagree. Sure the mage can blast away like a sherman on speed but if there's a high SR creature or something that can drop a few dispels then the mage is suddenly pretty useless.
We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because the Wizard is overpowered by comparison. And even in the above quote, what you describe is just situational usefulness for the Fighter (I.E. the Fighter gets to shine when the Wizard has been completely negated).
quote:
And, as a DM (and a player really), I strive for party balance.
Which is good. I prefer a game which does a better job of that right out the gate, though. No game is perfect, but some games are better in that regard then others. And I think 4E's a better game then 3E in that regard, just as I thought 3E was a better game then 2E, and so on.
quote:
I think that's part of my problem with 4E, it claims to fix all sorts of things that I never had a problem with.
The thing you have to realize, though, is that they didn't just imagine these problems. These're problems plenty of other people have had for years. I'd long been disappointed with the Fighter, for instance. When Bo9S came out, I was pretty thrilled with it, and was hoping that 4th edition would come out sooner rather then later so that all those options that the Warblade had would be given over to the Fighter, and he could become a much more interesting combatant. Likewise, people have had problems with the Wizard class for years. How quickly it runs out of spells at low levels, and how utterly dominating it becomes at high levels. These aren't new issues.
quote:
But, in the end, different strokes for different folks. I'm glad your enjoying 4E and wish you well with it. Perhaps someday I'll even play some 4E, I'm sure I'd like it fine but I'm going to stay more focused on 3.5.
Of course. Tastes vary, so play what you like. Despite the problems I had with it, I did enjoy 3E, just as I enjoyed 2E, despite the problems I had with it. And I'll probably be checking out Pathfinder, too (I noticed that a lot of the changes made in 4E, Pathfinder made, too :D ). If it's fun I'll play it. |
"Beware what you say when you speak of magic, wizard, or you shall see who has the greater power." |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2008 : 18:35:52
|
I know you weren't being overt, but the Palladium thing was a subtle cheap shot, and I'm not sure its the best thing to throw out there when trying to have a civil discussion. Its trying to redefine what the poster you are responding to was saying, by implying that he would like a game that doesn't care about game balance and never changes, and I don't feel that was a fair thing to throw into the discussion.
I've said that I think 4th edition is well designed and it can be fun to play, and I've seen a lot of people really have a blast with it. The designers did a very good job of creating a new system that is logical and flows well.
However, analyzing 4th edition as a "fix" for 3.5, its not really a success. The "fix" for many problems that they saw in 3.5 was to redesign the game from the ground up and in many cases solve the problem by never introducing it in the first place. Now, in some cases, people may have had a problem with a given rule or how it was implemented, but they didn't want it gone, just tweaked so it didn't cause the problems that it does in the current rules. Those people are not served by simply removing that issue from the game.
Also, some problems may have been commonly held to be problems. Other problems may have been commonly held to be problems by a certain kind of gamer. This doesn't invalidate those gamers, but it does mean that if you address the problems those gamers had, then you may very well cause problems with another set of gamers that doesn't address the game from that point of view.
Addressing problems with certain rules that many people are vocal about assumes that the vocal element is a representative sample of the people playing the game. WOTC may have research to indicate this, I'm just saying that people that aren't troubled by something usually don't post:
"Hey, just wanted to start a new thread saying grapple works fine. Thanks."
To a degree, I suspect there was some confirmation bias in the citation of some "fixes" that WOTC has touted. I think the goal was to make a new game that was different enough that they could move away from the OGL and anyone producing material that they had little control over, and to create a game that might be easier or more appealing to new people coming into the game.
I've got no problem with these goals, I've only got a problem with WOTC then trying to say that 4th edition is all things to all people, and more or less denying the two design goals I've mentioned above by saying that the primary focus was only on fixing 3.5 and creating a logical next step to D&D.
Also, I've seen a few comments intimating that Pathfinder is aping 4th edition, which would be a good trick considering WOTC didn't let anyone at Paizo see the game, in any form, until the public did. I know, I'm kind of touchy about this, but I've seen a few people almost try to invalidate Pathfinder by saying its trying to be 4th edition. Pathfinder is doing exactly what we were discussing above, addressing problems that people have voiced with the game, but not by redesigning the whole game to exclude troublesome elements so much as actually tweaking existing 3.5 rules.
Many of these tweaks and changes were informed by third party publishers like Green Ronin or Malhavoc's way of handling things, and many were similar to elements introduced in the open game content introduced in the 3.5 version of Unearthed Arcana.
In the end, it is sort of like saying that changing to a Mac is "fixing" problems with Windows Vista . . . its not really a direct fix, but it may work better for some people. |
Edited by - KnightErrantJR on 04 Jul 2008 19:23:20 |
|
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2008 : 14:28:04
|
| I think that 4e was designed from the ground up to be easy to be easy to integrate with a computerised application such as the Virtual Table Top. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2008 : 21:19:04
|
I'm seriously considering doing a comprehensive revue of the MM (not entirely scathing, despite the near-total lack of fluff). Most of the stuff I either love or hate - very little leaves me with a feeling of indifference.
Anyhow - to tell the truth, there is something I really like about the 4e rules, and yet I am entirely against using them in a D&D (fantasy RPG) setting. The rules appeal to me on 'the gamer' level - they are good, and you can play a fun game with them. The same can be said for Monopoly, Risk, Clue, etc, etc...
But there's been something nagging at me, and until I read through my son's 4e MM, I couldn't quite put my finger on it (and I have NO idea why the MM brought it to my attention).
The 4e rulesystem would make an EXCELLENT set of RPG rules for a super-hero game! Its perfect, with all its 'at will' powers, and 'once a day' and 'once per encounter' stuff. If WotC hasn't realized this, they are really missing out on what could be 4e's strongest genre - Super-hero roleplay.
The rules are already perfectly balanced (a little too so for fantasy, for my taste), and to me they already have that 'super-power' feel to them. In fact, even the three tiers of gameplay is ideally suited for this - you have your 'heroic' level for the Batmans and Punishers out there, the 'Paragon Level' for those with some decent firepower, but tend to be one-trick ponies (the Flash, Spiderman), and then you have your 'Epic' tier for all those 'cosmic' types (Superman, The Silver Surfer).
So now I've figured out why I don't care for the 4e rules for D&D - they feel too much like a different kind of game... but not neccessarily a bad one. If they release a comicbook-genre game with the 4e rules, you can bet I will use them, because they really are perfectly suited to it, and I've enjoyed playing in those kinds of games in the past. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2008 : 17:59:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Just imagine when they do this to D20 Modern. Your high-school dropout car mechanic will be just as adept at hacking as the computer engineering guy who graduated at 19 with a doctorate from MIT. And both of them would have to race to beat the stoner music store clerk, while trying to get into the NSA mainframe. 
Why should I check out Palladium games when I have 3.5 and Pathfinder? Plus what is this balance business anyway? I mean seriously... if all men and women were equal we'd have no pverty and stuff... Also, in WoW there is a balance of sort, but a healer... err priest with healing focus... were to be attacked he won't last long, so that ain't balanced... let's make all characters equal, with close to the same opportunities, like in the original Diablo.
Sorry coulsn't help myself...
I don't like the way Wizards/Hasbro has basically shoved this new thing on everyone invalidating thousands of dollars of books in a heartbeat, this (to me) is not about 4e in general but the idea that if I were to start 4e and leave 3.5 behind (because according to them it isn't fun!) all those books would become very expensive fuel for some fireplace, because they are useless in 4e. With 2nd and 1st edition stuff, I could still use the ideas and spells and items in 3e... this complete seperation is what drove me away from Wizards/Hasbro and 4e, not the system (which might be good in its own way) itself.
I agree with Woolly on the skill level bit, I always found that really strange myself. The one thing I truly dislike about Star Wars Saga/4th Edition skill system compared to the skill point system (which Pathfinder gladly put back in its place).
And Mace, I see what you mean exactly. I still go back to the older edition books and pull stuff from there to use in my 3E games. Some stuff it's easy (like the story, lore, and items) and others takes some guesswork (monster conversions and spell conversions, for example). But it worked and you got what you needed.
I don't see that with 4e at all because so much of the "sacred cows" has been, well, "slaughtered". It's a totally different game. I can't seem to pull anything from either end to work in a 4E or 3E game, they're just too different and incompatible. Which goes to tell me, is this even D&D at all? What happened to it? What did they do to it?
As I tell people over and over, "4th Edition on its own is not a bad system. It's a pretty good MMORPG on paper involving lots of teamwork and hack & slashing and can be easily played as a beer&pretzels game due to the ease of play and lack of complexity and story. I, myself, have made a Warforged Ranger for a 4e campaign coming up (that plans on randomly killing things and NPCs due to a magical malfunction, not really much else to play with in the 4e system but combat). But 4e is, in no way, possesses any similarity to D&D at all, not with any edition. Forget all you knew about D&D before, erase it completely. You'll enjoy 4e that much more when you stop comparing it to older editions and play it for the game it is... WotC's Game and not actual Dungeons&Dragons."
Saying that made some people feel a little bit better (and helped boost my local hobby shop's 4e book sales a bit), but the fact remains these same people that try out 4e, I've noticed, still yearn to go back to their 3.5e games...or 2e...or even 1e. Which goes to tell me 4e, for now, seems to be just one HUGE hype. Once the hype dies down, that is where we will truly be able to gauge where D&D is headed. Success or failure? |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2008 : 21:52:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
I don't see that with 4e at all because so much of the "sacred cows" has been, well, "slaughtered". It's a totally different game. I can't seem to pull anything from either end to work in a 4E or 3E game, they're just too different and incompatible. Which goes to tell me, is this even D&D at all? What happened to it? What did they do to it?
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: 3E is very different from 2E. Which one of those was "really D&D?" Did D&D stop being D&D when, say, "Elf" was no longer a class? Just because major changes have been made to the system for a new edition doesn't mean the game itself is different. I think even KEJR mentioned this subject in his review. |
"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) |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2008 : 23:13:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
I don't see that with 4e at all because so much of the "sacred cows" has been, well, "slaughtered". It's a totally different game. I can't seem to pull anything from either end to work in a 4E or 3E game, they're just too different and incompatible. Which goes to tell me, is this even D&D at all? What happened to it? What did they do to it?
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: 3E is very different from 2E. Which one of those was "really D&D?" Did D&D stop being D&D when, say, "Elf" was no longer a class? Just because major changes have been made to the system for a new edition doesn't mean the game itself is different. I think even KEJR mentioned this subject in his review.
Although I usually agree with you, I must note that to me 4E actually seems to be a different, new game (instead of a new edition). While you could argue this about 3E also, I think it had very precise design goals that 3.0 more or less met successfully -- i.e. streamlining the rules and making the system mechanically more coherent, consistent and uniform. 4E was built from ground up, and instead of concentrating on its original design goals, they focused on making the game actually much more incoherent and complex in parts (often the same parts that they originally declared would become more streamlined). In fact, the whole system consists of different "subsystems" that operate loosely together, but function and feel very different mechanically (e.g the Skill Challenges, Combat Rules, NPC/Monster Creation Rules, etc.). The end result feels very shaky to me, and I would have difficulties holding it all together, unless I (and my veteran players) would completely shake off any illusions of 'simulationism' and internal consistency in D&D. For example, I have no idea how certain powers work in the *story*, and I just can't get the monster/NPC creation system (I doubt even the designers themselves had any explicit rules on how to pick those "unique" powers or which sort of "budget" to use for them). |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2008 : 00:51:23
|
Hey, if 4E feels so different to someone that it doesn't feel like D&D to them, I wouldn't argue with that. It's their opinion. But I hope I made it clear enough why I don't think it's an argument against the new system in and of itself.
Mind you, I consider myself "edition neutral"--I like the new system but that doesn't mean I've formally "renounced" all previous systems. I'm playing in 3E games right now. |
"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) |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2008 : 01:07:38
|
The Realms are a really, really big place with a lot going on. I think that many people might run games that use a lot of Realmslore, but not any that relies on some of the specifics that have changed, like spellbooks and higher level magics and the like. For those people, if they like the system, it will probably work fine. On the other hand, I've had several campaigns that revolved around lost spells and spellbooks and knowing that various NPCs could cast certain spells at certain levels, and the specifics of the edition change will hamper the smooth transition of a campaign like that.
For what its worth, I do believe that this edition change was much more pronounced than any other, but I wanted to, in my review, address the "its not D&D" comments, mainly because I know a lot of people that like level based fantasy RPGs where you gain treasure and kill monsters to get more powerful that have no problem with 4th edition, but that doesn't mean that people don't, rightly, cling to some more specific aspects of the previous edition. |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
|
|
Mkhaiwati
Learned Scribe
USA
252 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2008 : 22:13:36
|
Regarding the "not D&D anymore" discussion, I've really had to think about it.
I don't think it is a reason not to like the game, but it does create certain problems. In the past, D&D had certain "sacred cows" that got sent to the BBQ in this edition. One example is the vancian spellcasting system. Other RPG systems had different mechanics, but may also have had classes, races with several flavors of elves, magic, dragons, orcs, maybe a single die-rolling convention (d20, d100, d10, etc) but with some of these differences now gone, what really differentiates D&D from the other systems?
They just keep getting closer and closer to resembling one another after a while. Again, it isn't a reason to dislike the new game, just an observation.
PS, what are action points and how do they work? I have heard several different ideas. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Lemernis
Senior Scribe
378 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 14:53:33
|
| Sorry, there's too many pages to read here, but maybe someone can answer a couple simple questions: when 4th edition is released, what year DR will it begin in? I vaguely recall reading last winter that it is slated to begin about a century in the future, with a kind of new world order emerging after the apocalyptic event of the Spellplague. Is that it in a nutshell? Or will 4th edition begin with the advent of the Spellplague itself? |
Edited by - Lemernis on 08 Jul 2008 14:54:21 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 15:20:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
Sorry, there's too many pages to read here, but maybe someone can answer a couple simple questions: when 4th edition is released, what year DR will it begin in? I vaguely recall reading last winter that it is slated to begin about a century in the future, with a kind of new world order emerging after the apocalyptic event of the Spellplague. Is that it in a nutshell? Or will 4th edition begin with the advent of the Spellplague itself?
The 4th edition FRCG is set in 1479. The Sellplague is long over by that point, though the mess it created will remain. |
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! |
|
|
|
Lemernis
Senior Scribe
378 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 16:01:13
|
| Thanks Wooly. Do we know when Spellplague occurs? |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 16:16:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
Thanks Wooly. Do we know when Spellplague occurs?
1385 DR (IIRC) |
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)
|
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 17:01:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Lemernis
Thanks Wooly. Do we know when Spellplague occurs?
1385 DR (IIRC)
Aye, Year of the Blue Fire...
I still wonder what kind of RSE they'd make of The Year of the Empty Tankard... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
1098 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2008 : 19:43:52
|
Dwarf uprising across the breadth of Faerūn of course!
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I still wonder what kind of RSE they'd make of The Year of the Empty Tankard...
|
Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer
Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2008 : 01:47:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Dwarf uprising across the breadth of Faerūn of course!
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I still wonder what kind of RSE they'd make of The Year of the Empty Tankard...
Depends - could be the year of very little dwarven activity, due to massive hangovers, etc.
Well, Brian didn't say what it was that was uprising. And if heavy drinking was involved... 
 |
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! |
|
|
|
Phillmare
Acolyte
1 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2008 : 05:35:03
|
Been lurking around these parts for a while and thought I would throw my two cents out there regarding 4E - nothing that hasn't been said of course but I feel like I'm at a wake and should say something about the dearly departed.
I think my most prominent emotion when reading the new PHB was a sense of sadness - sadness and nostalgia for the sense of wonder that I remember from the first time I opened the 1E PHB to the last 3.5 splat - and that is most definitely missing in the new bit. Partly it was the complexity, partly the sense that here were worlds bigger and deeper than could be guessed at from a quick perusal of the cover.
Rightly or wrongly WoTC has definitely simplified the system and in the process made the current DnD iteration with less depth and potential. - I know, I know - there is as much of either of those in any given DnD campaign as the players want, but, for me, the complexity of the system always seemed to enhance the complexity of the experience - it was 'other' and something of a mystery to those uninitiated in the arcana. It is now common and cartoonish.
And besides my inner geek always loved those crazy charts.
DnD is dead, long live DnD.
|
Arise ye desired storms!
-Chateaubriand |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2008 : 13:12:00
|
| what bothers, where are the ecology and habitat, what are people going to do with just numbers |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36909 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2008 : 13:32:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
what bothers, where are the ecology and habitat, what are people going to do with just numbers
The ecology and habitat sections of monster descriptions was lost with 3E. I regarded that as a design flaw in 3E: the concept that it was all about fighting. I think the ecology and habitat sections were valuable DM tools, not only giving them ideas, but also possible hooks with certain monster body parts having value. |
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! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
