PDA

View Full Version : Will you be updating to 4th Edition?



Pages : [1] 2

Farcaster
03-24-2008, 01:32 PM
Wizards recently proclaimed that 4th Edition is at the Printer! (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080319a), and we are now only a little over two months away from the June 6th release date. I'm curious, with all of the information we've heard over the last many months, how many D&D players out there plan on updating to the new version. Was your decision to buy or not buy changed since the original announcement?

(Please limit this discussion to the merits of the new/old system, not the company itself)

Inquisitor Tremayne
03-24-2008, 01:39 PM
I will purchase the books simply because I collect RPGs.

I imagine it will be a long time before I actually run a 4e game or participate in one. Our group currently has no plans on starting a 4e game.

InfoStorm
03-24-2008, 04:04 PM
We just found out we've got another gamer in development, be another 8 months before release. There isn't a prayer that I'll have ANY money to buy anything 4th edition in the near, or FAR future, or any other games for that matter.

Kilrex
03-24-2008, 04:25 PM
I will purchase the books simply because I collect RPGs.

I imagine it will be a long time before I actually run a 4e game or participate in one. Our group currently has no plans on starting a 4e game.

Same here, but I gonna wait a bit just in case of 4.5.

fmitchell
03-24-2008, 04:56 PM
Honestly I'd rather play FATE, BRP, or nearly anything but D&D. Since D&D is The Most Popular RPG (tm), though, I've preordered the PHB ... just in case I end up in a D&D game. Plus, I'm a little curious.

spotlight
03-24-2008, 05:13 PM
Now, I MAY get some of the monster guides and such. There are just tooooo many simpler and easier games systems to run. My old champaigne world will prety much stay as it is.

Farcaster
03-24-2008, 06:49 PM
I cannot say for sure if I will upgrade to 4th edition or when. I have some concerns about some changes they have made in the name of "class balance," but I will reserve my final judgment until I have read the books and seen the rules in action. I'll pre-order the books, but I doubt I'll switch my current campaign over, since there is supposedly no direct translation between the editions. Besides, I currently enjoy a diverse bestiary of baddies from five Monster Manuals and dozens of supplements that I can throw up against my ragtag band of adventures. I don't think "over 300" monsters from the 4e Monster Manual are going to cut it for me.

I am kind of interested in doing a post Spellfire Plague Forgotten Realms game though, so I may give it a go when the new Forgotten Realms campaign setting comes out in August.

amardolem
03-24-2008, 06:54 PM
Let's see...I just "upgraded" to 3.5 in Sept. 07, and there's a 4th edition coming out? I haven't even got a character past 3rd level or DMed yet! Curses! Foiled Again! (I'll have to think about it)

Digital Arcanist
03-24-2008, 07:31 PM
I've pre-ordered my books and eagerly await the Amazon box that will bring my 4e books.

I've actually written a new campaign that places Gnomes as one of the key bad guys without even realizing their new status as monsters.

I like many of the announced changes to the system but there are a few things I have kept from 2e and will keep from 3.5 e.

cplmac
03-24-2008, 08:38 PM
For the price that the books will cost, it will probably take awhile to get them. Also, want to make sure that the 4.5 thing doesn't happen like with 3.0 and 3.5. Wouldn't mind eventually being able to have them though, since I seem to think that eventually will be the version of choice for play.

Grimwell
03-24-2008, 08:41 PM
I'm going to buy them when they come out, and my next campaign will be under the 4E rules. I have personal friends who have had their hands on the system and I trust their positive reviews. So I look forward to the system as it's coming.

Plus, their design conceits, and things like the 'points of light' concept radiate well with the sort of game I like to run, so I'm hoping this means it will be more or less 'my style of game' from the system level. Call me hopeful, I am.

:cheer2:

mrken
03-24-2008, 10:11 PM
I started on 2ed and quickly changed over to 3.0 and then moved into 3.5 only to throw up my hands in disgust over what I thought to be too many rules that made little sense to me but much cents to the TSR (or who ever). 4.0 is, however, looking like it might be more like how I run a game. Therefore I may purchase the game for the ideas it promises. But I am unlikely going to change my campaign just to change to the latest and greatest product of WotC, that would be dumb. IMNTBHO

Farcaster
03-24-2008, 11:19 PM
IMNTBHO

Dr. Laura fan?

Skunkape
03-25-2008, 10:12 AM
I might buy the books, but probably won't be running it for my next campaign. I'm leaning towards Basic Role-Playing, which is put out by Chaosium. I've always liked the RuneQuest system and that's Basic Role-Playing, plus they're in the process of updating the rules so when the new version comes out, I'll buy it and start converting my 3.5 game back into that system.

Frobozz
03-25-2008, 10:47 AM
I may flip through the things but unless the thing is a significant improvement such as "Spells work off a mana point system" or something, I'll probably pass on it.

tesral
03-25-2008, 11:55 AM
No. Too divergent from what I am doing and want to do. D&D is going in the opposite direction I wish to go. I'll lay my Talons on the SRD if/when it ever comes out to mine for anything useful. A game needs a consistent set of rules. Not rules that change every five years.

Tony Misfeldt
03-25-2008, 07:35 PM
I might buy the Players Handbook for use in playing in other peoples 4.0 campaigns, as well as for cannibalizing any ideas for my D&D 2.5 campaign. I'll also buy a copy of the 4.0 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting for much of the same reason. But that's about it. I won't be buying a DMG or Monsters Manual. As I won't most likely be running a 4.0 campaign there's no reason to waste my money on them. Of course it is concievable that they have made some of the changes that I've aleays felt needed to be made, but I think that's highly unlikely.

Frobozz
03-25-2008, 08:19 PM
Anyone know if there's a site or revie of it anywhere with a list of changes in 4e from 3.5e?

Webhead
03-25-2008, 09:47 PM
I'm pretty much with fmitchell and spotlight. There are a few other systems that I am much more interested in pursuing right now than "yet another flavor of D&D". FATE, Unisystem, WoD.

Certainly, when the 4e books are released I'll cruise down to Barnes and Noble and flip through them to get a more solid impression of what the game has become. I may even end up conceding and picking up a PHB just in case someone in our group tries to run a game.

I'm very "meh" on D&D right now. If anything, I'd prefer to be playing old Basic D&D, or better yet...I'd like to play a Battlechasers-inspired fantasy campaign using FATE, Wushu, or Risus.

fmitchell
03-26-2008, 12:48 AM
Anyone know if there's a site or revie of it anywhere with a list of changes in 4e from 3.5e?

Apart from the trickle of information WotC gives out, and guesses compiled by ENWorld.org, not really. Fourth Edition is apparently still a state secret.

Maelstrom
03-26-2008, 06:12 AM
Apart from the trickle of information WotC gives out, and guesses compiled by ENWorld.org, not really. Fourth Edition is apparently still a state secret.

Yeah, enworld.org is a good source.

But many have already played 4e, so its not such a secret any longer. We know how combat and healing works, the feel of 1st level characters, and the stats for a lot of the monsters (which I'm sure if they haven't made their way into enworld they will be there soon). Still up in the air is character advancement and the feel of what it takes to put together an adventure.

I loved how 4e kept the action going and incorporated so much strategy and teamwork as essential elements of the game. For DMs such as I where I only can find the time to play once a month or so, packing more action and plot into those times will greatly improve how much story I can deliver.

The online elements and utilities they are offering are quite enticing as well. I've already preordered the whole core set of books, and plan on starting my first 4e campaign as soon as they arrive.

nijineko
03-26-2008, 07:11 AM
no.

i will pick up the srd, however. and i'll mooch off of anyone within range that'll tolerate me long enough to learn the system. and i'll play with anyone who has the books, if the schedules and all work.

so make that a qualified no. ^^

Farcaster
03-26-2008, 11:24 AM
Anyone know if there's a site or revie of it anywhere with a list of changes in 4e from 3.5e?

Here's a quick rules primer that you might be interested in: Quick Rules Primer (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/news_20080228.zip)

MortonStromgal
03-26-2008, 11:58 AM
YES! because I'm hoping it will finaly end spells per day once and for all!

wolfy1488
03-26-2008, 12:45 PM
I may flip through the things but unless the thing is a significant improvement such as "Spells work off a mana point system" or something, I'll probably pass on it.

sorry D&D just has never worked like that and i hope it never does. But on the same note you could always design i manna point system your self. I tried it once at a players request and just gave up after two months.

Back to 4E Yes i will buy i have all ready started to write a campaign for it and i can't wait to give 3.5 a nice bath in the fire place. it really was the worse written rule system in the history of the game.

Frobozz
03-26-2008, 02:47 PM
I read through the Quick-Rules Primer and I'm somewhat intrigued. Mostly it sounds like patches to things they fubared in 3e and some change for the sake of change.

I don't know if I like the sounds of it or not. I've always hated the magic system though and at one time tried to do a mana-point system but the maintenance of it was ugly. I mean... what wizard in his right mind wakes up and thinks: "Hmm... I think I'm going to memorize 'Protection from Acid' today because I have a feeling I'm going to run into a green slime or a green dragon... yea... I'm definately envisioning something green..."

No, it's always: "Woah... the entire room is covered with green slime! Who's going to cross it and drag that chest back out here. Wizbang, you got that 'Protection from Acid' spell you scribed into your spellbook last week, right?" "Yea... gimmie about 3 hours guys... gotta memorize it..." *groans from entire party*

boulet
03-26-2008, 03:04 PM
very good point Frobozz, and a good laugh too :)

Anyone ever tried to adapt a freeform set of magic rules like Mage and incorporate it to a typical fantasy game like D&D ? I mean trying to keep a balance so the game isn't centered only around spell casters obviously.

fmitchell
03-26-2008, 03:52 PM
Anyone ever tried to adapt a freeform set of magic rules like Mage and incorporate it to a typical fantasy game like D&D ? I mean trying to keep a balance so the game isn't centered only around spell casters obviously.

Mage's mechanical predecessor Ars Magica didn't even try. Spellcasters were way more powerful. Their solution to "balance" was to have players take turns playing a mage, a skilled normal, or a "grog" (grunt/redshirt) on successive adventures.

fmitchell
03-26-2008, 03:58 PM
I don't know if I like the sounds of it or not. I've always hated the magic system though and at one time tried to do a mana-point system but the maintenance of it was ugly. I mean... what wizard in his right mind wakes up and thinks: "Hmm... I think I'm going to memorize 'Protection from Acid' today because I have a feeling I'm going to run into a green slime or a green dragon... yea... I'm definately envisioning something green..."

No, it's always: "Woah... the entire room is covered with green slime! Who's going to cross it and drag that chest back out here. Wizbang, you got that 'Protection from Acid' spell you scribed into your spellbook last week, right?" "Yea... gimmie about 3 hours guys... gotta memorize it..." *groans from entire party*

From what I hear, Wizards will get certain fixed powers to use per turn (e.g. Magic Missile), per encounter, or per day, plus the ability to memorize arbitrary spells for uncommon occasions. It avoids the complexity of spell points, but probably isn't what you want.

Frobozz
03-26-2008, 04:07 PM
No, that sounds like a good start, and a potential solution. I don't care if the system is like Mage or some type of mana using game engine, I just want the age-old problem that has existed since I got my little red Basic box set with the cool dice, Keep on the Boarderlands and wax crayon:

"Why the heck would an adventuring wizard, with 50+ spells in his spellbook, ever want to memorize anything but a half dozen mostly combat spells each morning?"

I just got done playing Baldur's Gate 2 and that game, as a simulation of the AD&D 2nd edition structure, made it painfully obvious how ugly the magic system is in D&D. I spent like 200 game-days from start to finish, and probably 120 of those were because I just didn't have the right situational spells to not die a horrible death on an encounter.

"Oh JOY! A room FULL of Mind Flayers... I sure wish I stocked up on those "Chaotic Commands" spells... I think I'll go kill my party now and save the Mind Flayers the effort!"

Webhead
03-26-2008, 04:47 PM
sorry D&D just has never worked like that and i hope it never does. But on the same note you could always design i manna point system your self. I tried it once at a players request and just gave up after two months.

If I'm recalling correctly, there was an optional system of "magic points" for AD&D 2e in the Player Option: Skills and Powers book. We only ever tried our hand at using it (rather half-baked-ly) once and that was about 10 years ago so I can't really speak to my impression of it.

I'm among those who never really cared for the "spell memorization" of D&D. I prefer a more "off-the-cuff" spell-casting system. Even implementing something like "you can cast X total spell levels per day" would be preferable in my view to playing Wheel of Spellbook.

The spell memorization system really just boiled down to one thing in actual practice: many spells were simply ignored because of the perceived unliklihood that they would be useful and thus just waste a spell slot. Consequently, wizards tended to memorize only the most common and combat-practical spells (magic missile, fireball, haste, etc.) over and over again and forget everything else.

Tony Misfeldt
03-26-2008, 08:01 PM
If I'm recalling correctly, there was an optional system of "magic points" for AD&D 2e in the Player Option: Skills and Powers book. We only ever tried our hand at using it (rather half-baked-ly) once and that was about 10 years ago so I can't really speak to my impression of it.



Actually it was the AD&D 2e book Players Option: Spells & Magic. I only perused the book myself in the bookstore. I never bought it, but I did commit enough of the Magic Points rule to memory to try using it in my next campaign (if I can ever find enough players who'll agree to play a 2e game to get it off the ground). It actually combines magic points with spell memorization. That's probably not what you're looking for though.

tesral
03-26-2008, 11:26 PM
Back to 4E Yes i will buy i have all ready started to write a campaign for it and i can't wait to give 3.5 a nice bath in the fire place. it really was the worse written rule system in the history of the game.

I can see you never played Zero Edition. There is always something worse, always.

Frankly if you really plan to burn your 3e books, I'll pay to have them shipped to me.




The spell memorization system really just boiled down to one thing in actual practice: many spells were simply ignored because of the perceived unliklihood that they would be useful and thus just waste a spell slot. Consequently, wizards tended to memorize only the most common and combat-practical spells (magic missile, fireball, haste, etc.) over and over again and forget everything else.

My solutuion was to ditch fire and forget. I did so back in the AD&D 1e days. Magicians memorize, but can use a different spell for each "slot". They can cast any spell memorized to a total of their spells per day. It solved the prolbem nicely. You still have to be creative with spell slection, but you are not up the creek because you have two spells memorized five times.

Maelstrom
03-27-2008, 06:25 AM
I read through the Quick-Rules Primer and I'm somewhat intrigued. Mostly it sounds like patches to things they fubared in 3e and some change for the sake of change.

From what I've seen, I disagree. They've been working on D&D 4e for a few years now, and play testing it extensively for the past year. Certainly, a lot is changed, but they made some early design decisions that nothing was sacred. They would stick to the D&D formula where it made sense, but were willing to throw out 30 years of precedent if a new formula is more fun.

Of course, what is fun for one is very different than what is fun for another.

And I wouldn't expect that they would be releasing a D&D 4.5 for at least a few years... they put a whole lot of dollars into this one in R&D and from a purely economic sense they won't be doing a major rule systems upgrade until 4e is well established. I'm sure they are keenly aware of the backlash from players who don't like to see their game changed on them.

Anyways, here is a list of events doing D&D 4e demos, all over the US:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080319a

I'm sure many hobby shops will also be hosting games as well once it comes out. I'd recommend everyone at least try it objectively, because I think most will find the new changes refreshing and even more fun.

Frobozz
03-27-2008, 08:00 AM
Yea, I think I will end up grabbing the first 3 books after all. Now, is this going to still be "d20-System" or have they deviated too far from that?

Webhead
03-27-2008, 11:27 AM
Yea, I think I will end up grabbing the first 3 books after all. Now, is this going to still be "d20-System" or have they deviated too far from that?

It's still "d20" at its core. It's just the sort of "next evolutionary step" as it were for the d20 system...d20 tweaked in an attempt to make D&D better and more fun. At least, that's the idea.

I'll probably have to play it at least once just to get an idea for how it changes the way D&D plays. I'm sure I will find both things I like and dislike about that game, but that's not really any different from any edition of D&D that I've ever played. Still, the idea of Tiefling and Dragonborn as core races just rubs me the wrong way. Definately not the direction I was hoping they would be taking 4e.

Frobozz
03-27-2008, 11:37 AM
Still, the idea of Tiefling and Dragonborn as core races just rubs me the wrong way. Definately not the direction I was hoping they would be taking 4e.

Ack! Didn't catch that change. Yea, I don't care for that change either. They always seemed the "races of choice" for aspiring Munchkins. :rant:

Farcaster
03-27-2008, 12:41 PM
They always seemed the "races of choice" for aspiring Munchkins. :rant:

If it makes you feel any better, all those dragon loving bastards are eventually damned to become lowly Abishai on the first layer of Hell. :biggrin:

Frobozz
03-27-2008, 12:57 PM
If it makes you feel any better, all those dragon loving bastards are eventually damned to become lowly Abishai on the first layer of Hell. :biggrin:

:pound:

*Rolls the first Priest of Farcaster and sketches the temple designs, complete with 50' statues of a dragonborn and a tiefling falling into a flaming pit with arms upstretched flanking either side of the main entrance.*

Webhead
03-27-2008, 09:07 PM
Ack! Didn't catch that change. Yea, I don't care for that change either. They always seemed the "races of choice" for aspiring Munchkins. :rant:

Exactly my feelings. To further elaborate my position on this, why would Tiefling be made a core race and not be accompanied by their counterpart, Aasimar (however it's spelled)? To me, this sets a precedent that it's cool to play half-demons, but not half-celestials. Why? :rolleyes:

And anything (race/class/feat/spell/item) with "dragon" in the title is usually the first thing that "munchkin" players gawk at when looking to build their "uber kewl butt-kicking dude" characters.

Kilrex
03-27-2008, 10:36 PM
Exactly my feelings. To further elaborate my position on this, why would Tiefling be made a core race and not be accompanied by their counterpart, Aasimar (however it's spelled)?

They are calling them Eladrin, not Aasimar.

Frobozz
03-28-2008, 07:38 AM
Whatever they're called, ALL that belongs in the Manual of the Planes, and not in a set of core books.

ronpyatt
03-28-2008, 08:28 AM
I pre-ordered the core 3 books last month.

4.0 will be perfect in every way: just like 3.5, 3.0, AD&D, AD&D 2nd Ed, and all the other D&D 1.x versions/material they've put out. (BTW - I'm not being sarcastic.) Every one of those versions is/will be broken. You might wait for version 5.0 to come out in 2012, but then you'd be missing out on the evolution of D&D. Market Selection should determine the best compromise, but good marketing and a brand name will insure that 4.0 is the best version they've put out.

Undesirable races and classes are only such to some. They've obviously thought about balancing everything out, and when you discover a loophole in the rules there will be a ban and an errata, just like always.

If 4.0 changes the way you feel about D&D, all the better. The evolution of RPG's demands change, and whether you like the changes or not, overall, the game will be better for most of us. I dislike parts of D&D for so many reasons, but I like to play it with friends. How many of us can say this?

For me: I'd still like to be part of making the gaming experience better. If you had not seen the flaws in the previous versions of D&D then you might still be playing in that version. Pre-3.x games are, dare I say, dinosaurs, and soon 3.x versions will be the old giants stomping around with useless wizards after the morning battle. That's not to say that they're bad, but the game is obviously growing.

Would I prefer everyone playing a simpler non-D&D game? Sure, but whatever game recipe you like, simply add imagination, stir, bake at 4.00+ degrees and see what comes out.

Webhead
03-28-2008, 01:33 PM
If 4.0 changes the way you feel about D&D, all the better. The evolution of RPG's demands change, and whether you like the changes or not, overall, the game will be better for most of us. I dislike parts of D&D for so many reasons, but I like to play it with friends. How many of us can say this?

I think part of my (very) general gripe about 4e is that it seems increasingly likely that it will not change the way I feel about D&D, which is what I was hoping it would do. Certainly it seems they have developed some very different approaches to many elements of the game, but to me these don't address what I wanted to see D&D become. It continues to look like just a new coat of paint on the same old barn.

I have some fond memories of my earlier years of playing D&D, but as I've gotten a little older, I have found that the focus of those who I see playing D&D has changed. I was hoping 4e would kind of change the "play perception" back to a more roleplaying-centric idea, and in that I feel a bit disappointed. But that's just me...different strokes for different folks as they say. Still, I want to like D&D again, but I'm afraid 4e isn't going to be what does it for me.

Not saying that others won't enjoy it and heck, I'll probably even play and enjoy a few games of it at some point, but I don't think it will bring back the true appeal of D&D for me, which makes me a little sad.


Would I prefer everyone playing a simpler non-D&D game? Sure, but whatever game recipe you like, simply add imagination, stir, bake at 4.00+ degrees and see what comes out.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. The true test of the success of a game is how much fun you and your players have at the table. No game system is perfect and appeals to everyone. That's why there are a bazillion RPGs using a bazillion different systems out there. Any game can be awesome in exactly the same way any game can be mind-numbingly awful. It's all up to you.

GC13
03-28-2008, 09:22 PM
Where is the "I'm sure I'll get around to upgrading eventually" option? Much as I was a SAGA early adopter on DnDOG (which bodes well for how much I'll like 4E), I just, don't, care.

So I'm certain I'll get around to 4E at some point another. Likely when I find a group that's already made the switch.

nijineko
03-29-2008, 05:26 AM
i'll mooch. i know i will. it'll amuse me to be the guy with no books again after so many years of 'he's the dm cause he has the most books'. but... i'll wait till half-price books picks them up at the earliest, if then. i'm a sucker for a deep sale. yes, this amends my earlier posts. ^^

tesral
03-30-2008, 01:33 PM
I have some fond memories of my earlier years of playing D&D, but as I've gotten a little older, I have found that the focus of those who I see playing D&D has changed. I was hoping 4e would kind of change the "play perception" back to a more roleplaying-centric idea, and in that I feel a bit disappointed. But that's just me...different strokes for different folks as they say. Still, I want to like D&D again, but I'm afraid 4e isn't going to be what does it for me.


No it doesn't seem to encourage the role playing. What it does seem to do is encourage the wargaming aspects.

That said role-playing is systemless. You can role-play in any system. The GM has more ot do with the amount of role-playing than the system.

spliskamatyshak
03-31-2008, 08:40 AM
No it doesn't seem to encourage the role playing. What it does seem to do is encourage the wargaming aspects.

That said role-playing is systemless. You can role-play in any system. The GM has more ot do with the amount of role-playing than the system.

Here! Here!

I complete agree. I've been a DM for almost 30 years and gaming for years longer. It all started as wargaming. It turned into roleplaying and is now regressing back. Roll-players don't tend to like my games, but generally only the younger ones (playing for 10 years or less). I call this VGS (video gamer syndrome). The older ones are more patient and eventually get into their characters.

Since this thread commences with a poll on whether one is going to get 4e or not, let me answer more concisely than the choices on the poll.

Commercialism has finally taken its troll...uh...toll! I've crossed that bridge for the last time.

Through the years of 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions, I had bought nearly every rule book produced, switching editions with the ease of a katana slicing through air. My 1st edition books were ultimately destroyed in a flood including a first printing of Deities and Demigods :( and my 2nd edition books were given away to someone with the Wisdom/Will to not go to 3rd edition. Two 3rd editions left me to unceremoniously toss the 3.0 core books and trade paperbacks when I moved to a new state (of the Union, though consciousness seems appropriate also). Two heavily weighted shelves full of 3.5 relevant books and the continuing efforts to convert all of my old material to 3.5 leave me little choice but to say "enough is enough."

I don't have figures for 1st and 2nd editions, but there were a dozen hardcover books for 1st edition plus box sets for Forgotten Realms and other settings. 2nd Edition had the three core books, almost three dozen trade paperbacks and the five or six other hardcovers as well as the Monstrous Compendium binders and packs.

Except for the core 3.0 books and seven of the trade paperbacks, most of the other 3.0 books were usable with the conversion material for 3.5. By my calculations, I use material from 53 (yes that's 53) WotC books costing a total of $1,679.35. Having bought most of these on Amazon and receiving about a 19% discount; that works out to $1,360.27. :eek:

History and Extrapolation
Edition -- Date Range -- Number of Rule Books
1st -- 1977-1989 -- 12+
2nd -- 1989-2000 -- 45+
3.0 -- 2000-2003 -- 25+
3.5 -- 2003-2007 -- 40+
4th -- 2008-2011 (1) -- 48+ (1)
5th -- 2012 (2) -- 96+ (3)
(1) Projected
(2) Conjectured
(3) Conjectured based on $29.95/month online access + PC + internet

boulet
03-31-2008, 08:56 AM
History and Extrapolation
Edition -- Date Range -- Number of Rule Books
1st -- 1977-1989 -- 12+
2nd -- 1989-2000 -- 45+
3.0 -- 2000-2003 -- 25+
3.5 -- 2003-2007 -- 40+
4th -- 2008-2011 (1) -- 48+ (1)
5th -- 2012 (2) -- 96+ (3)
(1) Projected
(2) Conjectured
(3) Conjectured based on $29.95/month online access + PC + internet
:clap2: I think you have a great demonstration here :)

TAROT
03-31-2008, 01:44 PM
I'm going to wait for 5th ed.

mrken
03-31-2008, 01:56 PM
Wait hell; I think I'm going to kill something.

Webhead
03-31-2008, 03:01 PM
That said role-playing is systemless. You can role-play in any system. The GM has more ot do with the amount of role-playing than the system.

This is one of those very tricky instances where I totally agree, but with a caveat.

I'm a big proponent of "role-playing" over "roll-playing" and as a GM, I recognize that it is largely my job to set the precedent for what I would like to see happen in my game. However, the system of choice for a particular game sets the expectation that the players have for the way that game is to be played. For most players that I have known (but certainly not all), if you run a game using a rules set that has a deep focus on wargaming and fine-grain statistics, they too will focus on wargaming and minute statistical detail.

Like you said, 4e seems to encourage the more wargaming side of D&D and to me that translates into an expectation by the players that they will be doing exactly this. To the players, the idea is that the game more specifically and tangibly rewards a wargaming mindset, so they will try to think of their characters in those terms.

Does that mean you couldn't run a 4e game that emphasizes and rewards the role-playing over the wargaming? Of course not. But I'm sure I would get more than a few queer glances from players who were setting themselves up to expect a wargame based on the rules (no matter how much I try to dissuade them) and consequently feeling like what they thought was important about the game isn't. On the flip side, if I propose to run a Risus game, players will recognize right away that wild imagination and over-the-top role playing are the order of the day because there is very little wargaming at all for them to draw upon, so they don't expect it as a significant part of the game.

This kinda goes back to one of my problems with the bloating of D&D 3.X. There was so much rules material out there that the expectation seemed to become that the rules were the focus of the game. Consequently, many players I knew took the ball and ran with it. Try to play fast and loose with the tactical combat movement, for example, and characters who have any movement grid-dependant feats (of which there are many) feel cheated.

Anyway, sorry for the rant. I do very much agree that the balance of role-play versus roll-play is primarily in the hands of the GM and his group. But I also recognize that the game system itself has influence over how the group plays the game. My experience says that when I run "crunchier" systems, I should expect more focus on rules. If I run a less statistically-intensive system, I should expect more focus on role play.

My 2 cents.

tesral
03-31-2008, 09:15 PM
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I do very much agree that the balance of role-play versus roll-play is primarily in the hands of the GM and his group. But I also recognize that the game system itself has influence over how the group plays the game. My experience says that when I run "crunchier" systems, I should expect more focus on rules. If I run a less statistically-intensive system, I should expect more focus on role play.

My 2 cents.

One of the reasons I am a foe of the grid. The grid is a form of tunnel vision. Having it out there in front of the players makes them think in terms of a world divided in 5x5 squares. I will be running a game with minis for the first time in a long time. I plan to have a ruler and flip the mat to the hex side. Get people out of a square frame of mind.

I run a highly rules light system. Enough crunch. No endless optional rules, but a great deal of flexibility. Combat is a fraction the length in a straight up 3.5 game.

Webhead
04-01-2008, 12:10 AM
One of the reasons I am a foe of the grid. The grid is a form of tunnel vision. Having it out there in front of the players makes them think in terms of a world divided in 5x5 squares.

This is almost exactly word-for-word my grievance with my group the last time we were in a D&D game. I've generally been turning away from d20 in general for several years, more interested in pursuing other game systems (and generally admiring systems with less rigid concepts of spacing and movement). I've seen it happen where the instant the battle-mat comes out, everyone switches into "chess mode". It's like just playing a huge board game which is not something I really want in my RPG.


I run a highly rules light system. Enough crunch. No endless optional rules, but a great deal of flexibility. Combat is a fraction the length in a straight up 3.5 game.

Sounds very cool. I've always felt (in part because of the "grid-mentality") that combat in D&D 3.X takes much to long to resolve. I recall a particular combat in a previous campaign which took about 3 hours to resolve which really represented only 7 rounds of game-time. My barbarian never bothered wasting a feat on Extended Rage because I was never in a combat which outlasted the duration of my rage. Yet combat almost always took at least half (if not more) of the length of the session.

Sorry again...[/rant off] :)

Grimwell
04-01-2008, 02:29 AM
I've played and DM'ed every (A)D&D system released since the red box. I have yet to see one that is focused on roleplay. Each is a stack of rules for how to resolve combat and situations (spells, etc. used out of combat) but never have I seen a version of D&D that is a roleplay system.

It's always been the onus of the DM to set that course with D&D so that does not alienate me about 4.0. It's also been one of the major 'features' of 'other' systems out there over the years: "Our rules focus on roleplay!"

I don't need a rules system to adjucate rollplay. Players just need to be in their characters roll when they play, and I need to deliver real NPC's worth talking and interacting with. Dice don't help that for me.

Webhead
04-01-2008, 02:26 PM
It's always been the onus of the DM to set that course with D&D so that does not alienate me about 4.0. It's also been one of the major 'features' of 'other' systems out there over the years: "Our rules focus on roleplay!"

I don't need a rules system to adjucate rollplay. Players just need to be in their characters roll when they play, and I need to deliver real NPC's worth talking and interacting with. Dice don't help that for me.

Sure, but if you want a salad you don't go to a Donut Shop. It's been my experience that certain game systems encourage certain styles of play and some are less obtrusive to role-play than others. To be fair though, this probably has more to do with how tightly the GM/players cling to the "holy writ" of the game system than anything else.

nijineko
04-01-2008, 03:36 PM
i think i've been lucky in that i've always played with people who both enjoy tactical strategy and enjoy roleplaying. so i've enjoyed it when the combat went to "grid-mode", but i've also enjoyed it when it's more story-based descriptions and no maps. either way, we spice it up with insults and smack-talk to the enemy and friendly sniping (of comments) at each other. in other words, grid-mode or no, we bring our own roleplaying to the table. ^^

obviously this is not everyones experience. i'm very glad that i've had 95% good experiences with roleplaying. =D

Grimwell
04-01-2008, 09:53 PM
Sure, but if you want a salad you don't go to a Donut Shop. It's been my experience that certain game systems encourage certain styles of play and some are less obtrusive to role-play than others.
I fully agree with you on that. There are systems that really do lend themselves to specific play styles. I just reject claims from folks that 4E is going to be less focused on roleplay than any other edition. D&D has never had a roleplay centric version.

Webhead
04-02-2008, 10:20 AM
I fully agree with you on that. There are systems that really do lend themselves to specific play styles. I just reject claims from folks that 4E is going to be less focused on roleplay than any other edition. D&D has never had a roleplay centric version.

You're probably right. It's probably more me putting on my rose-tinted glasses and remembering the fun I used to have in my early D&D years when we seemed to only pay attention to the rules we thought we needed. The lesser portion of our characters (and the game world) was represented by the stats meaning that the greater portion had to exist solely within our imagination. I miss that.

Maelstrom
04-03-2008, 06:25 AM
In the last little while, I've had a difficult time encouraging role-playing at my table in 3.5.

At least for me, there has always been a mix of gamers, some that prefer role-playing and puzzles, some power gamers that build their character around certain unbalanced feats or spells, or hack and slashers that can't stand it if we don't have combat at least 50% of the session. I haven't been lucky enough to find players that have the same view.

When it comes to 3.5 at this point, the power gamer overshadows the rest by far. He has purchased a large number of books, and has found the most unbalanced combinations... I could force balance upon him, but at the expense of his enjoyment, so I have taken the tack of allowing him certain leeway as long as the others can still have fun. He couldn't care less about roleplaying... his choice is always based on what will give him the most power.

So here we have a game that must involve conflict much of the time, and we have a player that dominates when it comes to combat. That makes it difficult to encourage roleplaying, as the other players have to make choices based on power just to be anything more than useless during battle, rarely making a choice that aids roleplaying at the expense of combat.

So here's the point of my ramble: In 4E, which has been throughly tested for balance, everyone is on an even field again when it comes to choices. Though we don't see many choices that seem focused on roleplaying in 4e, the balance allows you to choose whichever role you want to play without limiting your usefulness in combat. I'm sure that things will get out of balance again down the road, but perhaps by then I will have improved my DM abilities enough to manage it better.

boulet
04-03-2008, 07:58 AM
At least for me, there has always been a mix of gamers, some that prefer role-playing and puzzles, some power gamers that build their character around certain unbalanced feats or spells, or hack and slashers that can't stand it if we don't have combat at least 50% of the session. I haven't been lucky enough to find players that have the same view.

It seems to me that it is an organic issue of your group of players and I hardly see how a game system or setting would solve the problem on the long term. I know it's difficult to align different personalities into a cohesive direction, and sometimes lack of available players leads one to compromises. I reached a point in my life where I'd rather not play any RPG at all rather than playing with people who don't care for role playing.

InfoStorm
04-03-2008, 08:23 AM
I've never had a problem with power gamers in my gaming group. I am honestly the most knowledgeable about character building and getting the best out of a character, but I also show restraint about what I would actually field. I suffer from a neutral good sense of fair play. I haven't really worried about what my players will put in play because of 1 simple threat. "If you use it, the DM can use it." I'm pretty sure one of my players could be as bad as myself in min/maxing, but he hasn't gone over the edge. I do my best to design encounters that are balanced for the level of that characters, haven't had any complaints yet.

Farcaster
04-03-2008, 12:59 PM
I'm sure that things will get out of balance again down the road, but perhaps by then I will have improved my DM abilities enough to manage it better.

This is almost certain the case, I agree. I have observed that WotC has a nasty habit of trying to one-up themselves with each supplement they release. So, as time goes on, the game becomes more and more unbalanced. You'd probably have just as balanced of a game if you went back to the core books for 3.5 though. If all you allowed were classes, feats, spells and prestige classes from the PHB and DMG, then I think your problems would be greatly alleviated. I'm not a big optimizer myself. But, from what I have seen, I have noted that a lot of the tweaked builds make extensive use of supplements. There's a reason. And I think the same thing will happen with 4e.

nijineko
04-03-2008, 01:00 PM
if the players don't or won't roleplay, they will tend to go with whatever direction the system sets, if they like or at least don't mind that direction. roleplaying is an unconscious play-activity which is natural. roleplaying consciously is either a learned overcoming of the barrier between the 'adult' and 'child' modes of thinking that a society teaches, or a natural lack of such.

maybe. ^^ this is just off the top of my head. =D

Webhead
04-03-2008, 02:19 PM
I have observed that WotC has a nasty habit of trying to one-up themselves with each supplement they release. So, as time goes on, the game becomes more and more unbalanced. You'd probably have just as balanced of a game if you went back to the core books for 3.5 though. If all you allowed were classes, feats, spells and prestige classes from the PHB and DMG, then I think your problems would be greatly alleviated. I'm not a big optimizer myself. But, from what I have seen, I have noted that a lot of the tweaked builds make extensive use of supplements. There's a reason. And I think the same thing will happen with 4e.

I agree with this assessment and I agree that I think 4e will end up becoming "more of the same". Of course, for those who liked 3.X and its evolution, this may not be a problem. But for me, 4e is just feeling like "next year's model". Sure, it's got bells, whistles and aesthetic changes that make it feel "different" and "new", but it drives the same as last year's model. 4e is starting to seem like it's got the same going on "under the hood" as 3.X, which is not what I was hoping it would be. Hence my general disappointment. But that's just wacky old me. :crazy:

tesral
04-03-2008, 02:24 PM
So here's the point of my ramble: In 4E, which has been throughly tested for balance, everyone is on an even field again when it comes to choices. Though we don't see many choices that seem focused on roleplaying in 4e, the balance allows you to choose whichever role you want to play without limiting your usefulness in combat. I'm sure that things will get out of balance again down the road, but perhaps by then I will have improved my DM abilities enough to manage it better.

Until the arrival of the countless books of extras that will unbalance it, again.

The solution is Power Word No. Be very careful what supliments you allow in your game.

Webhead
04-03-2008, 02:40 PM
Until the arrival of the countless books of extras that will unbalance it, again.

The solution is Power Word No. Be very careful what supliments you allow in your game.

And stand by your judgement and don't give in to whiny/manipulative players who say "just this one feat from this one book". As soon as you make an exception, you set the perception that other exceptions can be made if only the players try hard enough to convince you. It's hard to say no sometimes, but it's harder to convince a player to remove something that they were already allowed to have.

Maelstrom
04-04-2008, 04:12 AM
(I quote the following as general statements that seem to reflect thoughts of some of the other posters as well)


This is almost certain the case, I agree. I have observed that WotC has a nasty habit of trying to one-up themselves with each supplement they release. So, as time goes on, the game becomes more and more unbalanced.

I think part of this is that many who go out and purchase the new books do so because there is the next cool feat, spell, class, equipment, not necessarily because of new story elements. Thus a large segment of the market drives the unbalance.



You'd probably have just as balanced of a game if you went back to the core books for 3.5 though.

That was my initial approach, with exceptions taken on a case by case basis. As soon as something I allowed got out of hand I would slap it down. But this iron-fisted approach impacted the fun of the game for my players, and many of those players had invested heavily in books and supplements that they could not use. I made the decision to allow more and take a lighter approach, but then comes the arms race. Seems like a catch-22, at least with my group.

My hope is that WoTC has learned from 3.5e's bloat. Some of the fundamentals of 4e do allow for easier balancing, so I'm not convinced that that hope couldn't be fulfilled (at least for a couple years).

tesral
04-04-2008, 08:40 AM
And stand by your judgement and don't give in to whiny/manipulative players who say "just this one feat from this one book". As soon as you make an exception, you set the perception that other exceptions can be made if only the players try hard enough to convince you. It's hard to say no sometimes, but it's harder to convince a player to remove something that they were already allowed to have.

Simple rule, I will consider anything. Consider it. If I consider it harmless I will let it in provisionally. If it breaks the game, I will remove it. With that understanding I provisionally allow things in. I always reserve the right to fix a broken mechanic.

However once "no" has been pronounces, it is pronounced. Anything not in my core books will be considered on a case by case basis. Allowing one thing is not open season to allow everything, and I make that clear.

I have seen the effect on game of "every book in the line". You either power game without mercy or your character gets left in the dust. That goes for any edition.

Webhead
04-04-2008, 02:32 PM
Simple rule, I will consider anything. Consider it. If I consider it harmless I will let it in provisionally. If it breaks the game, I will remove it. With that understanding I provisionally allow things in. I always reserve the right to fix a broken mechanic.

However once "no" has been pronounces, it is pronounced. Anything not in my core books will be considered on a case by case basis. Allowing one thing is not open season to allow everything, and I make that clear.

I have seen the effect on game of "every book in the line". You either power game without mercy or your character gets left in the dust. That goes for any edition.

This is somewhat indicative of how I try to approach my campaigns as well. There is a part of me that wants to accomodate players' creativity by allowing them more flexibility. At the same time, as soon as one player is given an exception, then all other players need to be allowed the opportunity to do the same if they so choose or else you'll be cited as being "unfair", and rightfully so. With the right (or rather, wrong) players, this is where the slippery slope can begin.

Consequently, before I start a campaign, I make it clear what I'm setting as the "baseline" for the game. If, at some point, a player comes to me with some cool idea or something they are interested in, I will look it over to see if it is something worth considering to include in my game. But I'm also a "book-minimalist" as well, so I try to keep the scope of game books as small as possible. Oh sure, I use source materials for building adventures, but for actually consulting game rules and designing characters, I like to keep it simple.

I try to be accomodating while at the same time being resolute. I am the Game Master and my decision should be final, but the players should trust that I make those decisions in all fairness.

Xandros
04-09-2008, 06:35 AM
I do not plan to purchase or play 4th edition. I will check it out when it comes out and make my final deceision then. I have over a thousand dollars invested in 3rd edition material. Along with probably equally as many hours spent tweaking the rules and working on homebrew rules to work properly. I don't like the idea of having to torch my 'obsolete' books, or starting all over on tweaking a new rules system. I quit D&D at the start of 2nd edition, moving on to other games at the time. I came back with 3rd edition. The changes made sense and answered some of the problems with previous rules. ("My thief puts on the platemail armor." "He can't" "Why what happens?" "He just can't" "What he is actually unable to place it on his body or does he explode if he does?" "A thief just can't put on platemail okay!") 3.5 cleared things up and fixed some problems in ways that made sense. I haven't seen anything in 4th edition that needed to be done. If it aint broke don't fix it. Dwarves no longer have darkvision. Okay, that was never a problem and really doesn't make sense. I will take a look at 4th edition and maybe I'll take some ideas and add them to our game, which is already made up of a lot of alternate and house rules that we affectionately call D&D 3.7 5!

Moritz
04-09-2008, 10:14 AM
Those books sure are pretty..

But nope. I've spent enough money on gaming stuff and after buying this house, I'm broke like a joke. No more money for gaming.

Plus, currently all my books are on the top shelf of the closet in my hobby room. Oh, did I mention I got a hobby room in the new house? Yeah, it'll be for my HO scale train set.

InfoStorm
04-09-2008, 12:06 PM
I don't know if a simple "hobby room" is big enough for an HO scale train set. While people can game in a 10x10 space, those trains take up a lot of room. (Seen here) (http://home.comcast.net/~narogage/cwajrr/cwajrr.html)

One of the bonuses to PnP games, all you need is a living room and a coffee table.

MortonStromgal
04-09-2008, 01:12 PM
Based on playtesting the 'light' rules with the 4e minis game... My vote goes from maybe to yes! Necromancer bringing the Tome of Horrors makes it a resounding YES! 4e it taking out all the stuff that drove me nutts and bringing it over to Fast, Furious, Fun. And thats what I'm looking for out of it. It wont keep me away from my other RPGs but maybe now I can play/run something long term without wanting to burn all my D&D books.

Valdar
04-09-2008, 03:10 PM
From what I've seen of the new game, it will be MORE conducive to RP and non-combat challenges than previous editions:

Traps will now require several rounds to play out, and will involve the whole party. Not just a single die roll from the Rogue.
There are less skills on the skill list, and each skill will cover more ground. How your limited skill list applies to the task at hand will depend on your creativity as a player.
Division of classes between combat-focused and skill-focused is reduced. All classes will have something to do out of combat, even Fighters.To chime in on some of the other discussions:

--In 3e, you'd use the Protection from Acid in conjunction with Scribe Scroll (which all Wizards have) and make a scroll of it when you need it. Then yes, you'd load up on combat spells. This may be MORE of a problem in 4e when your wizard will have to pick which per-day spells you have, but at least you'll always have your Magic Missile handy.

--Splatbooks: I have in the past allowed things from splatbooks contingent on an explanation of how it adds to the depth of the character. This shuts down the munchkins right away, and gives the roleplayers more options (well, there was the one game that folded upon my making that pronouncement, but they were pretty much god-moders anyway.)

So, new here, and love the site- I've gotten lots of hits on my 4e game solicitation here and on other sites, but no contacts, but this is the only site that will point me to potential players. If I don't get responses by June, it will be great to be able to invite people directly here-

tesral
04-10-2008, 12:27 AM
Those books sure are pretty..

But nope. I've spent enough money on gaming stuff and after buying this house, I'm broke like a joke. No more money for gaming.

Plus, currently all my books are on the top shelf of the closet in my hobby room. Oh, did I mention I got a hobby room in the new house? Yeah, it'll be for my HO scale train set.


I have a hobby house. The Sactum is my hang out for computers. My wife has the Horse Room. The dining room is never eaten in we would have to move the hobby stuff, game in the living room and so forth.

Xandros
04-10-2008, 02:55 AM
I remember when 3rd edition came out and 2nd ed players complained that they had just released a bunch of compendium books (spell compendiums and such) for the 2nd edition rules and after they had bought them, out came 3rd edition and their newest investment was obsolete. I am also a little upset about the fact that they just brought out the rules compendium (I didn't buy it though) at the point that they are planning to bring in 4th edition. 'Here is a compendium of all the rules and errata that will all be obsolete in a few months' That really makes the whole thing look like a money grab!

Maelstrom
04-10-2008, 04:41 AM
'Here is a compendium of all the rules and errata that will all be obsolete in a few months' That really makes the whole thing look like a money grab!

That's one way to look at... or you can look at it as a "thank you" to 3.5 edition fans that don't want to make the leap to 4e anytime soon. If this thread is any cross section of the gaming community, only half of 3.5ers will even consider 4e right now, so to that half the Compendium is a nicely organized reference to all the changes made to 3.5 over its lifespan.

I looked through the book and found it very well organized and useful. I didn't purchase it though, since I wanted to give 4e a fair look first.

GBVenkman
04-11-2008, 11:14 AM
A friend of mine wants to start a DnD game once 4th edition comes out and I'm all for it.

I went from playing 3.5 to SW Saga and I must say I enjoy the stream lined Saga much more than 3.5.

If 4e has talents/reduced skill list, I'll be happy.

After all, 3.5 skills suck :D

MooseAlmighty
04-12-2008, 02:50 PM
Playtest reviews like the 3-parter on ainticool really have me excited for 4E. I am eager to try it out! I've enjoyed Basic, First, Second, and the 3/3.5 versions as well. And I don't feel ripped off. I've only ever bought the books that I plan to use or that I simply am interested in reading.

I would still play a 3.5 campaign as there is a ton of support material (Eberron!) and any game is fun with good people. I don't know that I would go to the Paizo stuff or the Monte Cook rules variants though. Seems like I would have to learn 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 THis isn't Squad Leader!:lol:

tesral
04-12-2008, 10:22 PM
4e is good for one thing. I look to be getting a bucket load of 3e books for a song.

Malruhn
04-13-2008, 10:57 AM
Oh, sing it, brother. Sing it!!

I am looking at tripling the size of my already huge library. A gaming store in Jacksonville, Florida is selling 3.0 and some 3.5 stuff at 50-90% off.

Only five hours away... can I get there, shop and back in a day without getting into an accident... and making my beloved bride hate me? Hmmmmm...

MooseAlmighty
04-13-2008, 01:40 PM
Very true! I can fill in the 3.x books that I wasn't interested enough in the first time around, now that they will be on sale in stores.

Being eager for 4E doesn't mean I won't still play 3.5. And some parts of the earlier editions never go out of use for settings, ideas etc. I still flipped through some 1st and 2nd edition materials when running my 3.5 campaign.

gdmcbride
04-14-2008, 07:51 PM
I have actually played a 4th edition D&D demo now. My full opinion is beyond the scope of a single post here but I'll give a few highlights. In short, I had a lot of fun. In four hours we read our rules packets; ran four complex, multi-bad guy fights; did a little roleplaying and took the new skill system for a spin. The Wizards adventure itself, Escape from Sembia, was a complete railroad and mostly forgettable. But whatever. I was mostly there for the system.

I like the combat. Combats are exciting, mobile, rapid, with lots of pieces moving all over the board (being blown back by attacks and so forth). The days of fighters merely walking up, attacking and then never moving again are mostly over. 4th ed fights are fights in motion and I like that. I know that regardless of whether I play 4th edition much, I'm stealing some of the refinements in the combat system. Mike Mearls and his crew have really out done themselves here.

Marking ... I didn't like marking. You engage someone and 'mark' them. If they attack anyone besides you, you gain a combat advantage or perhaps can use a special ability against them. Who marked who quickly became confusing. Perhaps this is something I will get used to in time. Or perhaps, its going to become my first house rule. Reply hazy. Ask later.

The skill system ... the demo didn't really show enough for me to completely form an opinion. So much was already pre-configured. But it seemed like skills (in particular with complex skill checks) have really gotten an upgrade. PCs can now decide whether they are shooting for easy, moderate or hard DCs. Succeed at an easy check and you just succeed (perhaps barely). Succeed at a medium check and you succeed perhaps with enough time to do something else. Succeed at a hard check and you've done something spiffy. It creates an almost bidding aspect to the game when skills are in opposition. Overall, very cool.

One thing I know many people aren't going to like ... character classes are basically all magical in some fashion. Fighters aren't exactly magical per se. Instead they have the martial power source as the basis of their power (I guess it's kind of like ki). But still, having an 1/day ability at first level feels very magical. Every class has gotten more fantastic. Clerics can hurl bolts of divine fire every round. Wizards can constantly bombard their foes with endless magic missiles (once per round, though they do need to roll to hit). Eladrin can teleport (a short distance) at first level. And so forth. This is almost a fantasy super hero game. Likely, you either love that or you hate that.

Anyways, I'm definitely picking up 4th edition. The demo has convinced me that I will without hesistation buy the three core books and give them a complete read through.

Gary

MooseAlmighty
04-14-2008, 08:42 PM
hey thanks for the notes! There is one store in Maryland listed for demos this coming weekend. I am going to give it a whirl.

The skill system you mention does sound interesting. I like the idea of powers - it was part of what appealed to me with Earthdawn's talents and the Runequest spells that everyone had (multi-arrow whoo hoo!) umm at least in the original Chaosium days - dunno if later editions kept it. Man, now I wanna dig out very old books. Maybe I should set a 4E campaign in Glorantha! :D Prax, barbarians, the Cube, chaos beasts, the lunar empire...

Inquisitor Tremayne
04-15-2008, 10:16 AM
This is almost a fantasy super hero game.

Sounds interesting to me.

Giddoen
04-15-2008, 10:30 AM
I've pre-ordered my books and eagerly await the Amazon box that will bring my 4e books.

I've actually written a new campaign that places Gnomes as one of the key bad guys without even realizing their new status as monsters.

I like many of the announced changes to the system but there are a few things I have kept from 2e and will keep from 3.5 e.

I am gonna go with DA on this I have been keeping up on the system and really like allot of the "shortcuts" they are giving the GM to help him/her run the game. If you have not yet seen the new D&D mini game check it out there is a hit of whats to come.

I am currently running Dark Heresy by Black Industries/FFG but that is coming to a close as we are gonna start a M&M campaign for a bit then it will be back to me to GM something and I think it might be 4th ed. If I like it as much as I think I will.

Giddoen:cool:

Xandros
04-16-2008, 02:13 PM
So far it sounds like I will probably get the PHB and Maybe DMG when the 4th edition comes out and possibly tranlate some of the ideas to our 3.5 game that has already strayed far from the basic 3.5 game other than the core mechanic. I don't like the idea of power sources. It seems cool, but something that should be more of an alternate rule or more world specific and not part of the general D&D. I do like the new skill changes. They need a revamp and the complex skill checks have already worked well.

Tony Misfeldt
04-16-2008, 03:13 PM
You didn't mention anything about feats or weapon proficies. Do they still have feats? Are weapon proficiencies still categorized as "Simple" and "Martial"? Are weapon proficiencies now skills?

I'm wondering because, as I've mentioned on other threads, I don't like the feat system in 3.X and I think they over simplified the weapon proficiencies in that edition. I think categorizing weapon proficiencies into the Tight Groups listed in The Complete Fighters Handbook and making them skills rather than feats is a more realistic aproach.

MortonStromgal
04-16-2008, 05:44 PM
Can't speak on the weapon groupings but feats are defiantly still in. You get one every other level I believe according to the leveling chart. My understanding is there will be cross-training feats ie giving you a mage ability to you fighter without having to take a level of mage. I imagine there will be some combat, social, and other feats as well. We will know more when the official light rules are released in May included with the first canned adventure.

gdmcbride
04-16-2008, 10:16 PM
You didn't mention anything about feats or weapon proficies. Do they still have feats? Are weapon proficiencies still categorized as "Simple" and "Martial"? Are weapon proficiencies now skills?

I'm wondering because, as I've mentioned on other threads, I don't like the feat system in 3.X and I think they over simplified the weapon proficiencies in that edition. I think categorizing weapon proficiencies into the Tight Groups listed in The Complete Fighters Handbook and making them skills rather than feats is a more realistic aproach.

There are feats. They were all prechosen for the pregenerated characters so I can't say much more than that.

There are weapon proficiences. Each class gets them. Again, pregenerated character so its hard to say who gets what. Well, except for the fighter. The fighter gets pretty much everything. Weapon proficiencies are not skills in 4th edition, so if you like that change, be prepared to house rule it.

Gary

Annshadow
04-17-2008, 09:26 AM
In our campaign, the DM and the wizard and cleric got so frustrated in the way they kept coming out with spells that we gave up and said only PHB DMG and PHBII can be used.

When a Level 3 wizard can One Shot a 9 headed Hydra or a T-Rex something is broke.

See Ray of Stupidity for the one shot one incap

I will gladly go to 4th.

I really enjoyed the Star Wars Saga ease of playing.

And not having someone HAVE to play the Cleric will be fantastic.

GBVenkman
04-18-2008, 12:50 AM
In our campaign, the DM and the wizard and cleric got so frustrated in the way they kept coming out with spells that we gave up and said only PHB DMG and PHBII can be used.

When a Level 3 wizard can One Shot a 9 headed Hydra or a T-Rex something is broke.

See Ray of Stupidity for the one shot one incap

I will gladly go to 4th.

I really enjoyed the Star Wars Saga ease of playing.

And not having someone HAVE to play the Cleric will be fantastic.

That's basically what I feel. Chances are any member of the group should be able to kick ass in multiple ways. I like how in saga, my girl friend's character can be half noble half scoundrel, and be able to be a great shot with a heavy blaster pistol, as well as a smooth talking senator's aid who can effectively sneak around and buff her team mates.

If you're a soldier, you are still able to be the mechanic and demolitions expert. I hope 4e mirrors the interchangeability of talents, skills, prestige classes, and feats.

Tony Misfeldt
04-20-2008, 02:55 PM
There are feats. They were all prechosen for the pregenerated characters so I can't say much more than that.

There are weapon proficiences. Each class gets them. Again, pregenerated character so its hard to say who gets what. Well, except for the fighter. The fighter gets pretty much everything. Weapon proficiencies are not skills in 4th edition, so if you like that change, be prepared to house rule it.

Gary

Been there, done that. I was hoping Lizards Of The Coast would save me the trouble this time around. Now it looks like I'll have to start me rewrites over from scratch.

agoraderek
04-21-2008, 08:36 PM
4.0? meh...

too much trouble converting everything.

also, doesnt sound like i can really go "low fantasy" with it easily. everyone has some "frou frou" new fangled "powers"? feh...

i'll probably buy the books just in case i ever go to a con and want to play, but for my home campaign, i think i'll stick to 3.5...

Farcaster
04-21-2008, 10:27 PM
So, as it stands today, it looks like about 53% plan on buying it at some point in the future, 37% don't plan to upgrade, and about 10% never upgraded to 3rd to begin with. Basically, we're split down the middle on this one it seems.

MooseAlmighty
04-22-2008, 06:12 PM
I am kind of interested in doing a post Spellfire Plague Forgotten Realms game though, so I may give it a go when the new Forgotten Realms campaign setting comes out in August.


Me too!

I really enjoyed the Realms in 1st edition. After years of Greyhawk or other medieval fantasy homebrews, I was drawn in by the new settings and open ends... wild frontiers, beholders working with clerics of a dark god, lots of open space to explore, fallen kingdoms. In 2nd, a lot of the published material declined in quality (in my opinion of course). By 3.x it felt like Drizzt DoUrden presents Forgotten Realms! Arch magi on every corner, each new thing more powerful than the last. Why would your pcs matter that much?

Kinda looking forward to seeing it all blowed up and starting from scratch.:cool:

Tony Misfeldt
04-22-2008, 06:27 PM
4.0? meh...

too much trouble converting everything.

also, doesnt sound like i can really go "low fantasy" with it easily. everyone has some "frou frou" new fangled "powers"? feh...

i'll probably buy the books just in case i ever go to a con and want to play, but for my home campaign, i think i'll stick to 3.5...

That's pretty much my opinion as well... except I play 2.5.

MortonStromgal
04-23-2008, 02:02 PM
I have this "gut" feeling that there will be an option to make it gritty. With all the cool things that have been coming out I just think someone at WOTC probably had the same feeling toward Healing Surges and total healing after 6 hours of rest that I do. Most of the official stuff that has come out make me think this is the D&D for me. I don't like the one round healing of 1/4 of your damage but I understand that anything less isn't really worth sacrificing a round worth of actions to do. And if you can do that 12 times a day you might as well instant heal overnight. The sheer amount of options I've seen for the PCs and DMs gives me hope that healing will have options to. They might even have an option to limit at-will powers, who knows! They sell me more and more on 4e with each new leak!

... and pulling numbers out of my bum, I would guess 50% of D&D players (any edtion) will switch out of the gate and add another 10-30% over the course of 2-3 years. The rest will stay happy in their old games. What I find more curious is how many people who gave up on D&D or never played D&D will this new version attract? You can count me in the gave up on.

JSorenson1979
04-23-2008, 11:48 PM
I may flip through the things but unless the thing is a significant improvement such as "Spells work off a mana point system" or something, I'll probably pass on it.

That wouldn't be an improvement. Spell Points have been tried numerous times with the game and the end result is always failure. The concept just plain doesn't work with D&D's spell tier system.

However, 4th edition DOES oust the traditional vancian style magic system...so it's at least a step in the right direction.

JSorenson1979
04-23-2008, 11:58 PM
sorry D&D just has never worked like that and i hope it never does. But on the same note you could always design i manna point system your self. I tried it once at a players request and just gave up after two months.

Back to 4E Yes i will buy i have all ready started to write a campaign for it and i can't wait to give 3.5 a nice bath in the fire place. it really was the worse written rule system in the history of the game.

Even worse than F.A.T.A.L. ?

Anyway, 3.5's failing is that it is a class/level based game that flirts with the notion of an open ended skills based character progression...two ideas that are ultimately incompatible with one another. I suspect that 3.X would have been a far better system if experience levels were ousted completely in favor of a system based around spending XP directly on skills, feats, etc.

JSorenson1979
04-24-2008, 12:43 AM
So, as it stands today, it looks like about 53% plan on buying it at some point in the future, 37% don't plan to upgrade, and about 10% never upgraded to 3rd to begin with. Basically, we're split down the middle on this one it seems.

I've seen MAYBE a dozen people post on this forum, I can't imagine many more than that have actually taken part in the poll. Internet surveys tend to focus on a relatively small microcosm of a larger demographic, therefore it's nearly impossible to extrapolate accurate data. There are just too many variables.

The best way to gauge the projected fiscal performance of the new Dungeons & Dragons edition is to look at historical precedent...In every case of a new D&D ruleset, the vast preponderance of players of the older editions switch over to the new ones. This is because of a bandwagon mentality...D&D is a group activity, and so the group either has to move forward with unified purpose, or else disperse...and since most of us have strong bonds with our playing group, it means paying WoTC a small sum to maintain our interpersonal relationships. The only variable that I can see is the advent of file sharing on the internet. 4th edition core books come out on June 6th..,I guarantee that by June 7th you'll be able to find a PDF of the PHB.

Also as an aside, I don't buy it when people say they won't be picking up the new edition because of all the money they had spent on 3.5 books...they have already proven, afterall, that they will go out and compulsively hand over the benjamins for everything that WoTC puts out...and they expect me to believe they won't do it for the newest shiniest, crunchiest sourcebook of them all? please:rolleyes:

Sorry for the wall of text.

GBVenkman
04-24-2008, 01:50 AM
I've seen MAYBE a dozen people post on this forum, I can't imagine many more than that have actually taken part in the poll. Internet surveys tend to focus on a relatively small microcosm of a larger demographic, therefore it's nearly impossible to extrapolate accurate data. There are just too many variables.

The best way to gauge the projected fiscal performance of the new Dungeons & Dragons edition is to look at historical precedent...In every case of a new D&D ruleset, the vast preponderance of players of the older editions switch over to the new ones. This is because of a bandwagon mentality...D&D is a group activity, and so the group either has to move forward with unified purpose, or else disperse...and since most of us have strong bonds with our playing group, it means paying WoTC a small sum to maintain our interpersonal relationships. The only variable that I can see is the advent of file sharing on the internet. 4th edition core books come out on June 6th..,I guarantee that by June 7th you'll be able to find a PDF of the PHB.

Also as an aside, I don't buy it when people say they won't be picking up the new edition because of all the money they had spent on 3.5 books...they have already proven, afterall, that they will go out and compulsively hand over the benjamins for everything that WoTC puts out...and they expect me to believe they won't do it for the newest shiniest, crunchiest sourcebook of them all? please:rolleyes:

Sorry for the wall of text.


Pretty true. I know I'll read that PDF first and foremost.

Also, if your DM switches, you might have to switch if you want to keep playing. I think the only people that have the option of never ever ever switching from 1st edition are those that only DM and also have an unlimited supply of willing players :D

Valdar
04-24-2008, 03:11 AM
You can count me in the gave up on.

Me too. And I already know that 4e is fixing a lot of the stuff that made me give up on 3/3.5.

Xandros
04-24-2008, 03:53 AM
Also as an aside, I don't buy it when people say they won't be picking up the new edition because of all the money they had spent on 3.5 books...they have already proven, afterall, that they will go out and compulsively hand over the benjamins for everything that WoTC puts out...and they expect me to believe they won't do it for the newest shiniest, crunchiest sourcebook of them all? please:rolleyes:

That's like saying that surely someone who put thousands of dollars into a car they like and fixed it up the way they want it will obviously be willing to set it on fire even though it works great for them, and put thousands of more dollars into another car even if they don't really like it. I didn't go out and "compulsively hand over the benjamins for everything that wotc put out". I bought what I liked (in fact I had quit buying and playing D&D at second edition, because I didn't like it, so I didn't blindly buy stuff just because it was D&D), I bought what worked for my game and adapted other stuff to work for my game. Surely if you are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on steaks, you expect me to believe that you won't throw those steaks away and go spend hundreds of dollars more on beets? Please:rolleyes:

Alehound
04-24-2008, 05:53 AM
I, for one, will definitely be playing this when it comes out. I've already pre-ordered my books, and am actually COUNTING THE DAYS until June 6th.

I wasn't going to get into it until I picked up Wizards Presents: Races and Classes on a whim. My interest was piqued. Then I read about the 4e preview event in Feb, and totally fell in love with the system. The way combat is more fluid and dynamic, the slaughtering of sacred cows (No Great Wheel cosmology! Alignment represents personality, not a descriptor for Detect X spells, less Vancian magic!) were a welcome change.

While I like the cinematic/high-action approach they're taking to 4e, I also hope they'll do something less action-y, especially for modern settings. While I like John Woo movies, I wouldn't want all my modern campaigns to look like them. :)

I haven't been this excited about an RPG since TORG came out (and that system SUCKED!!)

Kilrex
04-24-2008, 08:45 AM
I haven't liked 2/3 of what I have seen for 4th edition so far. I am staking my money on Pathfinder. I haven't liked most of the adventure content WotC has put out over the last couple years. But I have enjoyed the Pathfinder stuff. I don't run adventures from books, but I buy them anyway just for content and flavour. Also Paizo has been putting out some amazing game aids. My favorite is the enlarge template. One of the guys in my group got it and it makes it easier since I am frequently enlarging him. Also inspired by their tile sets, I have started making my own out of 5x8 note cards.

The Pathfinder system gives Cleric and Wizards extra spells based on lvl, these spells don't count towards the spells per day and are mostly utilitarian ones that won't break gameplay. They have actually made the core classes better and I won't see myself taking Prestige classes.

I just got an email saying the second Pathfinder Alpha release is out and can't wait till I get home to read (can't open zip files at work, poopoo SAs).

Farcaster
04-24-2008, 01:09 PM
Spell Points have been tried numerous times with the game and the end result is always failure. The concept just plain doesn't work with D&D's spell tier system.

Really? Why not? I've been giving the spell point system provided in the Unearthed Arcana in my game and it seems to be working fine. What would say the downfall of that system is?


I've seen MAYBE a dozen people post on this forum, I can't imagine many more than that have actually taken part in the poll.

According to the poll statistics, 54 people have voted in this poll to-date. [EDIT] By the by, in the last 90 days, around 100 different people have posted in this forum alone. That's a wee bit more than a dozen.


Internet surveys tend to focus on a relatively small microcosm of a larger demographic, therefore it's nearly impossible to extrapolate accurate data. There are just too many variables.

The best way to gauge the projected fiscal performance of the new Dungeons & Dragons edition is to look at historical precedent..

My goal with this poll wasn't to try to determine how successful 4th edition might or might not be. The goal was to get a feel for how P&PG community members felt about the new edition.

GBVenkman
04-24-2008, 01:12 PM
That's like saying that surely someone who put thousands of dollars into a car they like and fixed it up the way they want it will obviously be willing to set it on fire even though it works great for them, and put thousands of more dollars into another car even if they don't really like it. I didn't go out and "compulsively hand over the benjamins for everything that wotc put out". I bought what I liked (in fact I had quit buying and playing D&D at second edition, because I didn't like it, so I didn't blindly buy stuff just because it was D&D), I bought what worked for my game and adapted other stuff to work for my game. Surely if you are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on steaks, you expect me to believe that you won't throw those steaks away and go spend hundreds of dollars more on beets? Please:rolleyes:


You're not throwing anything away if you've got good use out of it. That's a bit dramatic imo.

It's more like you enjoy working on cars, have built one up to the max, three years have gone by since you've last touched it, so you buy another fixer upper for cheap (sorry, dnd books aren't as expensive as buying a new car every 4 years. 60 bucks every 4 years or so thins it out) to work on while your other car is in the garage. And if your friends want to take a spin in the older car, it's still there.

knightserpent
04-24-2008, 04:21 PM
I will purchase the books simply because I collect RPGs.

I imagine it will be a long time before I actually run a 4e game or participate in one. Our group currently has no plans on starting a 4e game.


Inquisitor Tremayne is lieing! We do plan on running a 4e game as soon as we have it!

Inquisitor Tremayne
04-24-2008, 04:32 PM
Inquisitor Tremayne is lieing! We do plan on running a 4e game as soon as we have it!

Its true.

I am secretly plotting a playbypost 4e game starting with the first adventure that comes out next month.

russdm
04-24-2008, 04:38 PM
Hmm. Curious.

I am going to be using 4th Ed. I ran a bit of it for a game session and found it fun. I haven't yet written up the playtest report though. Will do this weekend and post on campaign blog.

I have already begun serious in-depth planning for the campaign and the very first dungeon. I have already begun thinking about the starting town and what it should be like.

4th! 4th! 4th! I wanted to buy you months ago!

GBVenkman
04-25-2008, 01:19 AM
Its true.

I am secretly plotting a playbypost 4e game starting with the first adventure that comes out next month.


I want in...

JSorenson1979
04-25-2008, 03:08 AM
That's like saying that surely someone who put thousands of dollars into a car they like and fixed it up the way they want it will obviously be willing to set it on fire even though it works great for them, and put thousands of more dollars into another car even if they don't really like it. I didn't go out and "compulsively hand over the benjamins for everything that wotc put out". I bought what I liked (in fact I had quit buying and playing D&D at second edition, because I didn't like it, so I didn't blindly buy stuff just because it was D&D), I bought what worked for my game and adapted other stuff to work for my game. Surely if you are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on steaks, you expect me to believe that you won't throw those steaks away and go spend hundreds of dollars more on beets? Please:rolleyes:

Your analogy is inaccurate, as is your citation of anecdotal evidence.

D&D sourcebooks, in addition to being fonts of errata and story elements mean to "enhance" the game, are also collectibles in a lot of ways...in that fact alone they can not be compared to cars or food.

But whatever, lets stick with this rationale for a bit longer. By your reasoning one should never buy a new car no matter how old and broken down it gets, nor should they buy new food, even when their old provisions spoil.

Furthermore, as you say, you didn't switch over to 3rd Edition. Congratulations...you're obviously better at D&D than the rest of us poor conformist drones. However your steadfast refusal to to release your death grip on silly outdated traditions leaves you firmly in the minority, so obviously my observations don't apply to you.

So I'm afraid that I'll have to stand by my assertions that the people with bookshelves lined with 3.5 splat books will dutifully shamble forth to their local retailers and fork over whatever currency they use for the shiny new edition.

In summation-

Progress: 4
Traditionalism: 0

Alehound
04-25-2008, 06:28 AM
I want in...

Me, too. Sign me up for that shizzle. :cool:

Inquisitor Tremayne
04-25-2008, 09:47 AM
Me, too. Sign me up for that shizzle. :cool:


I want in...

Duly noted.

I will send you a PM when I am set!

4e soon!!!!

Knightserpent is in too! I forced him to join just like I forced him to sign up to pnp.

Sorry to be off topic!

Now back on topic, I am still leary of 4e, but I am eager to see how the game works.

tesral
04-25-2008, 10:28 AM
Also as an aside, I don't buy it when people say they won't be picking up the new edition because of all the money they had spent on 3.5 books...they have already proven, afterall, that they will go out and compulsively hand over the benjamins for everything that WoTC puts out...and they expect me to believe they won't do it for the newest shiniest, crunchiest sourcebook of them all? please:rolleyes:

Well, you would be wrong on that one. I personally in my gaming circle of friends know of no one that is moving the 4th. BTW, that is the DMs speaking. Knee jerk consumerism isn't happening here. As I know these people well, I am certain they will not sneak out and buy the books.

I am bound by oath not to buy more D&D books.

Kilrex
04-25-2008, 11:18 AM
Well, you would be wrong on that one. I personally in my gaming circle of friends know of no one that is moving the 4th. BTW, that is the DMs speaking. Knee jerk consumerism isn't happening here. As I know these people well, I am certain they will not sneak out and buy the books.

I am bound by oath not to buy more D&D books.

No one is the 2 groups I play with or any friends I know of (5 groups total) are going to be buying 4th. Most of them are staying w/ 3.5. Me and one other DM plan on running Pathfinder when it is ready.

I wish I could say I won't buy any more D&D books. I plan on getting the 4th edition Realms books just for the setting.

Riftwalker
04-25-2008, 12:23 PM
I skimmed through the Pathfinder download. There are some good ideas in there (and some others that made me furrow my brow). I'm curious what you think of it. When do you plan to use Pathfinder? The non-alpha/non-beta version is a couple years out.

Tony Misfeldt
04-25-2008, 01:28 PM
I wish I could say I won't buy any more D&D books. I plan on getting the 4th edition Realms books just for the setting.

Same here. That's probably the only 4th edition book I'd buy direct from the gaming store. If I buy anything else, I'll wait until one of the gaming shops that sell previously enjoyed 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5 materials has a used copy I can buy on the cheap.

JSorenson1979
04-25-2008, 03:53 PM
Well, you would be wrong on that one. I personally in my gaming circle of friends know of no one that is moving the 4th. BTW, that is the DMs speaking. Knee jerk consumerism isn't happening here. As I know these people well, I am certain they will not sneak out and buy the books.

I am bound by oath not to buy more D&D books.

I would be willing to bet that someone in your group is going to break down and buy the 4th Edition PHB...and the rest of you will soon follow.

I give it a year.

Kilrex
04-25-2008, 03:55 PM
I skimmed through the Pathfinder download. There are some good ideas in there (and some others that made me furrow my brow). I'm curious what you think of it. When do you plan to use Pathfinder? The non-alpha/non-beta version is a couple years out.

I have actually started using it. We started 1 week after the 1st alpha release came out. I actually didn't have a problem getting a Cleric for the first time ever.

Yesterday, me and my roommate tried out the new Combat Maneuvers rules (sunder, trip, grapple, etc). I also like how Combat feats are a special category and only one can be used per round.

I didn't like the skills in the first release but they are better in the second. Combining Concentration and Spellcraft is probably one of the better moves they made. Skills are still not perfect but they are better. I like how you get a +3 for all trained class skills.

I am not too sure about some of the school/domain powers, the extra free spells are nice but I think they gave too freely on some of the use per day limits. Also the Sorcerer bloodlines are cool, we already are working some new ones. The first was the Alcoholic Bloodline, started as a joke about Dwarfs, but actually fleshed out nicely.

Inquisitor Tremayne
04-25-2008, 06:16 PM
I didn't like the skills in the first release but they are better in the second. Combining Concentration and Spellcraft is probably one of the better moves they made. Skills are still not perfect but they are better. I like how you get a +3 for all trained class skills.

*Emphasis mine.

They stole this from Star Wars Saga Edition. Except in SW its +5.

Which means it is also in 4e. Which means, I wonder how much else of 4e they are using?

3.75 is correct!

tesral
04-25-2008, 07:04 PM
I would be willing to bet that someone in your group is going to break down and buy the 4th Edition PHB...and the rest of you will soon follow.

I give it a year.

Want to put money on that? You will lose. I find your discounting of my word more than mildly insulting.

Webhead
04-25-2008, 07:55 PM
My group dynamic is kind of funny when it comes to D&D 4e. Most of my group is rather gung-ho about D&D 3.X (meaning they like it a lot and will happily play it when they can). All of them currently bear a very "anti-4e" attitude, due in part to the fact that many of them are pretty heavily invested in D&D 3.5. In their minds, the last thing they want or need is a new round of the WotC cash-cow and having to relearn D&D over again.

Me on the other hand, over the past several years, I've become decidely weary of D&D 3.X to the point that I place it very near the bottom of my list of preferred RPGs to play. Yet I've surrendered myself to the notion that I will probably pick up a copy of the 4e PHB simply because I find it likely that someone in my group will eventually try to run it. It's not that I'm genuinely interested in D&D 4e, but simply that I can see the likelyhood of it coming up at some point and I may as well be prepared for it.

It seems a little odd that the D&D fans of my group seem determined to dodge 4e, while I, self-proclaimed D&D non-enthusiast, have conceded to picking it up in part out of desperate hope that I may find it more enjoyable than I found 3.X.

JSorenson1979
04-26-2008, 12:16 AM
Want to put money on that? You will lose. I find your discounting of my word more than mildly insulting.

Well until I actually know you, I have to rate you the same as i would any other person, and the average person's word isn't worth shit to me.

I find your insistence that strangers take you at your word more than mildly naive.

And again...I give it a year. Tops.

Maelstrom
04-26-2008, 04:21 AM
And again...I give it a year. Tops.

1) Tesral has proven quite the reliable and honest poster in my time here at P&P Games and so I vouch for him and take him at his word. Of course that doesn't help with this logic because I also am a stranger.

2) Questioning one's honor and integrity is one of the quickest way to lead to shouting matches that have no value at a site such as this that encourages open and friendly discussion. There are plenty of other places that don't encourage such discussion if it doesn't fit your style.

3) You have shown a penchant for logically looking at things, which is always valuable in open discussion, so you have great value to bring here. Though I don't know you, your words have spoken for themselves.

So, taking it back a step... for the most part, people don't know each other in person at this site, but it really doesn't matter, because what is important is that we can hold interesting, informative, and civil discussions.

[/rant]

On to the topic at hand. I disagree that people in the D&D community will just hop onto the bandwagon. The tools of RPGs, pencils and paper, aren't going away anytime soon, and imagination is unlimited.

Wizards has to convince people that 4e is worth giving up a game customers have purchased supplies for, modified, and honed to something they enjoy. There is nothing forcing a group to stick with something old. Heck, as this poll shows, there are several that haven't even gone to 3rd edition.

I'm jumping into 4e head first because Wizards has convinced me, and also because I don't have the strong ties to 3.X that others have.

SpiffyBananaFoot
04-26-2008, 04:47 PM
My DM has selfishly attempted to maintain some semblance of a personal life by relegating our current (3.5) game to once every two weeks. He doesn't seem very excited about 4th, but on the other hand he seems to have a "Let's wait and see." attitude about the whole thing. A couple weeks ago he stated that he would like his next campaign set in the Forgotten Realms setting and provided us with some suggested reading material. I am thinking that in the interest of giving 4th a fair shot, he should consider continuing our current game once every other week and starting a 4th game on the off weeks. I'm sure the rest of the group with the possible exception of one would be game for it.

Maybe he would be interested in such a prospect in case he wanted to discuss the merits and flaws to 4th in a forum such as this...;)

tesral
04-26-2008, 05:20 PM
Rules changes and rule additions have a simple test they must passs in my game. A) Is it easier? If that is a yes the rule is generally in. B) If it is not easier does it add more play value than the additional complication? That is the killer for most rule changes right there.

I am always looking to simplify the system. Less rules is better than more rules.

Xandros
04-26-2008, 10:11 PM
But whatever, lets stick with this rationale for a bit longer. By your reasoning one should never buy a new car no matter how old and broken down it gets, nor should they buy new food, even when their old provisions spoil.
Well my 3rd edition books haven't spoiled. They don't even smell funny. You could say that there are parts of 3rd edition that are 'broke', but those are fixed with house rules.


Furthermore, as you say, you didn't switch over to 3rd Edition.
Um, no I said that it was 3rd edition that got me back to D&D, and that I have thousands invested in 3rd edition.


So I'm afraid that I'll have to stand by my assertions that the people with bookshelves lined with 3.5 splat books will dutifully shamble forth to their local retailers and fork over whatever currency they use for the shiny new edition.
I assume that people bought the 3.5 wares because they liked them (same reason I did) not simply because they bought anything wizards put out. I figure a lot of people will buy 4th edition also. Most of them because they like it I hope and not just because they are mindless drones. Mcdonalds sells billions & billions of burgers. If they one day they decide to stop selling burgers and sell sushi instead, would you reason that hey people have shown that they like mcdonalds hamburgers so I am sure they will continue to buy mcsushi whether they like it or not. Again, I agree that there are a lot of problems with 3.5 version. Most of those are fixed with alternate and house rules. If 4th edition is a revamp of 3rd edition that fixes those problems that would be good. It looks as though 4th edition may be a whole new system. In which case it will have its own problems and in a few months people will be complaining about how it is broken. I am not criticizing anyone who does buy 4th edition. In fact I think it will probably bring new players in more than convert others. I just have no need for it myself.

JSorenson1979
04-27-2008, 12:58 AM
1) Tesral has proven quite the reliable and honest poster in my time here at P&P Games and so I vouch for him and take him at his word. Of course that doesn't help with this logic because I also am a stranger.

2) Questioning one's honor and integrity is one of the quickest way to lead to shouting matches that have no value at a site such as this that encourages open and friendly discussion. There are plenty of other places that don't encourage such discussion if it doesn't fit your style.

3) You have shown a penchant for logically looking at things, which is always valuable in open discussion, so you have great value to bring here. Though I don't know you, your words have spoken for themselves.

So, taking it back a step... for the most part, people don't know each other in person at this site, but it really doesn't matter, because what is important is that we can hold interesting, informative, and civil discussions.

[/rant]

It's certainly not my intention to start a flame war with anyone, though I do have a tendency to make curt statements.

So please, allow me to elaborate on my point...

In the earlier years of my adult life, before finding a career, I spent a good amount of time working behind cash registers and selling malt liquor to guys with mullets & meth habits (hmmm...I think I just invented a new Chaosium game) so as you can imagine, someone like me would have found plenty of occasion to make snide remarks to the cliente'le...many of whom swore they would never give us their patronage again because of my pragmatic approach to customer service. But inevitably, they would walk through those doors again and again...no matter how many times I insulted them.

This odd phenomnon happened for one reason and one reason alone: convenience. We were the only market for miles swimming amidst a sea of trailer parks. and most people didn't want to drive 15 miles for a sixer of Hamms and a can of chaw.

And it's the same thing with games. I, personally, detest absolutely detest World of Darkness...and I always swore up and down that I would never ever, upon pain of unanesthetized surgical castration with a rusty steak knife, ever play a WoD game. That was until my friend decide to run us on a quick and dirty Hunter: The Reckoning game when we were burned out on playing D&D (happens periodically, as I'm sure a lot of you can relate) And hey, I actually wound up having fun, despite hating the mechanics and setting. But V:tM can still do unspeakable things to my unmentionables as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, this is what forms they basis of my opinion in this regard, is the fact that circumstances often drive people to be doing things they swore they would never do, especially for things as trivial as what games to play.



Wizards has to convince people that 4e is worth giving up a game customers have purchased supplies for, modified, and honed to something they enjoy. There is nothing forcing a group to stick with something old. Heck, as this poll shows, there are several that haven't even gone to 3rd edition.

As I recall, Wizards managed to convince most D&D gamers to abandon 2nd Edition for 3.X 8 years ago, and I don't see that trend ending now.

tesral
04-27-2008, 01:25 PM
In the earlier years of my adult life, before finding a career, I spent a good amount of time working behind cash registers and selling malt liquor to guys with mullets & meth habits.

And I have none of the above, mullet, meth or malt.

Convenience is never an issue. I will go out of my way to keep my word. If I told you I would not darken the door of you store again, so be it. It is a bad mistake to assume that a new person will meet that which you have experienced from others. It has also been my observation that you can tell more about what a person will do from what they expect others to do than what they say they will do themselves.

I have a reputation as a hard ass, because when someone tells me they will/will not do something, I have the gall to believe them, and hold them to it.

The only way 4ed is getting on my self is if someone gives it to me, or it's part of an e-bay lot with books I really want.

Oh, did I mention my Son bought the Saga edition SW? He sent it back.

MysticalForest
04-27-2008, 03:15 PM
Quite looking forward to 4th, going to run a campaign in it.

I run or play in three groups.

One is looking forward to it, one is wait and see, and the other won't play it because the DM has already made his mind up about it.

cplmac
04-27-2008, 08:57 PM
Quite looking forward to 4th, going to run a campaign in it.

I run or play in three groups.

One is looking forward to it, one is wait and see, and the other won't play it because the DM has already made his mind up about it.



And there you have it. To each his/her own.

JSorenson1979
04-27-2008, 10:56 PM
Well my 3rd edition books haven't spoiled. They don't even smell funny. You could say that there are parts of 3rd edition that are 'broke', but those are fixed with house rules.


People don't go to McDonald's because they like the burgers as much as they go because it's cheap and easy. If McSushi proves to be as cheap and easy, people will still go (much to their detriment I'm sure)

As for game rules, what I'm hoping for is a system that doesn't have to be house-ruled into oblivion to be fun and playable

I'll say right here, that I absolutely loathe and detest D&D 3.X and had given up on D&D completely, until I heard about the new edition.

In my estimation 3.X is a slowrunning, shoddily designed, wholly un-fun numbers crunching game. It features *profanity* poor exception based design, mechanics cobbled together from dozens of little sub-systems, and worst of all is fundamentally flawed in it's execution. WoTC tried to design a game with open ended progression like GURPS or Hero, and apply this design to a class/level based system...two concepts that are diametrically opposed.

So yeah, I'm sure that many people have fun with 3.X and find it very playable. I however, feel the exact way about 3rd edition that some people feel about 4th.

Anyway, that's just a side rant...the point I wanted to make is that anyone who invests thousands in a game, is buying habitually in my estimation. This can be illustrated by comparing the amount of material contained within said books with how much material is actually used in your games. And if people are inclined to buy habitually with one edition, then I have every reason to believe, based on historical precedent, that the same segment of fans will continue to buy habitually for another edition.



Convenience is never an issue. I will go out of my way to keep my word. If I told you I would not darken the door of you store again, so be it. It is a bad mistake to assume that a new person will meet that which you have experienced from others. It has also been my observation that you can tell more about what a person will do from what they expect others to do than what they say they will do themselves.


See if you can appreciate the circularity of this logic:

YOU: What I say is true...I give you my word.
ME: Why should I take your word?
YOU: Because I'm a trustworthy individual.
ME: Yes, but how do I know that?
YOU: Because I gave you my word!

Sorry, but this is the internet.

Take me for example,

I could be an elementary school teacher in Sarasota, FL

I could be an English major at the University of Nevada

I could be a Web Administrator from Portland, OR

I could be a Pharmacy Tech from Dearborn, MI

any one of these could be true, or none of them could be...you have absolutely no way of knowing.

So again, I have no reason to take anyone at their word in an online forum, no matter how honorable they say they are.

Digital Arcanist
04-27-2008, 11:53 PM
I don't care if this is the internet! On this board we do not use profanity of any kind. This is a family-friendly website and we wish to keep it that way. If you can not find more intelligent and civilized words to convey your feelings then keep them to yourself.

fmitchell
04-27-2008, 11:57 PM
In the old days, if someone insulted your honor or intelligence, you'd settle the matter with pistols at dawn.

Apparently the 21st century version is to bicker endlessly and tediously on web forums created to discuss Pen and Paper Gaming.

I almost long for the old days ...

Farcaster
04-28-2008, 12:45 AM
Just as a reminder to everyone, please read over the forum rules if you aren't familiar with them already. We very much value the friendly atmosphere we have here at Pen & Paper Games. We welcome everyone's opinion and I know I enjoy a good debate, but personal attacks do nothing to make anyone's point.

So please, knock gloves and lets keep all the punches above the belt. K? :biggrin:

EDIT: Also, I have split off the spell points discussion to its own thread.

agoraderek
04-28-2008, 12:47 AM
i start my +4 camaro of loudness, enabling a "cone of blue oyster cult", while quaffing a potion of pabst blue ribbon.

oh, sorry, thought this was the "mullets and methheads" pbp thread...my bad...

ok, a few things: first of all, if you want to play 4th ed. cool, have fun. if you dont want to play 4th ed. cool, have fun.

to be honest, the only reason im playing 3.5 is i lost all of my old 1st ed stuff, or i'd be playing my heavily house ruled version of that, and not 3.5. 3.5 just happened to be the system out when i decided to jump back in, and i really do enjoy the heck out of the 3ed faerun material, so it wasnt a hardship. now, the reason im not hyped about 4.0 is a combination of economic realities and apprehension about a few of the "fluff" things ive seen about the new edition. i dont care about the crunchy stuff, as i pretty much twist whatever rules system into my worldview anyway, but i dont want to argue about including anthropomorphic lizards in my game because its "core". minor issure, i know, but still...

the other fluff issue i have is it seems like the new edition is moving away from the origins of d&d a bit much for my tastes. i prefer a grungy, "low fantasy" game, not an epic "heroic" game, and from what ive read, the new edition is definitely "heroic" and "epic" in scope.

the other issue, which i alluded to in an earlier post, is it would take me a long time to convert everything ive already done for a campaign i want to start soon to 4th ed, and, frankly, im going to be 38 in may, have a job, am looking for a better job, have a social life and really dont have the time or inclination to relearn a game i should already know with 29 years of experience, and it looks like there is much to learn about the new system...

i dont blame wotc for revamping the game, most car makers come out with new models every five years to keep the product fresh and attract new buyers. and it look like the new game, with the new combat system and online tools, will appeal to a younger generation used to mmorps and whatnot.

but im old, set in my ways and have different priorities than i did when i was 10, 18 or 25, so, for now, i'll pass on 4.0...

Farcaster
04-28-2008, 12:51 AM
My DM has selfishly attempted to maintain some semblance of a personal life by relegating our current (3.5) game to once every two weeks...I am thinking that in the interest of giving 4th a fair shot, he should consider continuing our current game once every other week and starting a 4th game on the off weeks.

Hint, hint, nudge, nudge, huh? I'm definitely going to give 4e a try, unless I pickup the source books and just completely hate it. So no worries. I'm sure we'll be giving 4e a taste soon enough :)

Vulture
05-13-2008, 07:20 AM
I havent decided yet

mrken
05-13-2008, 09:40 AM
Hey Farcaster, forgive me for not seeing your question. This is a thread I don’t really care that much about since I already don’t use DnD much and will not be moving backwards to DnD. Having said that, I may use some ideas from the new version if I hear that it is suitable for my game as I do use minis for much of the tactical situations.

As for being a Dr. Laura fan. Yeah, sort of, but I hardly ever listen to her show any longer as I don’t really listen to the radio at the time she is on these days. I did find her to be pretty right on in many situations, it was just how she came off sometimes. She tends to be quite honest, and sometimes she can be very condescending.

Talmek
05-22-2008, 02:10 AM
I wish I could afford it. Alas, I have sunk too much money into 3.5e and will more than likely stay with it. Honestly, short of a play-by-post campaign, I don't see myself playing any table-top RPGs as long as I'm living where I'm at. There's just not enough exposure to gaming down here to justify dropping another 100+ dollars for more core rulebooks. Everyone seems to hunt, fish, or distill liquor illegally (that last one is mostly jest) and reading anything other than the Bible is grounds for questionable looks and early-morning invitations to revivals. *SIGH*

I don't mean to make this into a pity party, and I don't want to ruffle more feathers with this question...But what are those of us that have sunk a sizable amount of money in our 3.5e investments supposed to do with all of our stuff? Where are the OGL updates and new materials for 3.5e Eberron (I'm using that as an example since I spent the majority of my money in that setting)?

gdmcbride
05-22-2008, 04:05 AM
Where are the OGL updates and new materials for 3.5e Eberron (I'm using that as an example since I spent the majority of my money in that setting)?

Alas, basically nothing connected to Eberron is open content. So, everything Eberron must come from WotC. And since, if you believe their announcement at GTS, there will only be three Eberron-specific books EVER for 4th edition (and those next year -- A campaign books, a players book and an adventure), print Eberron material is about to get scarce. No doubt there will be Eberron content in the DDI if you are not adverse to digital material.

But Eberron-specific material using the 3.5 rules set? I'm afraid 'City of Stormreach' was the last hurrah there.

Still, its not all bad news. Many of Paizo's pathfinders adventures are very easily adaptable to Eberron. And they are all 3.5.

Might I recommend a visit to http://www.paizo.com?

'W2: River into Darkness' in particular (which is basically Heart of Darkness meets D&D) with its faux-tech steam boat journey into a jungle seems a perfect fit to the world of Eberron.

Gary

tesral
05-22-2008, 01:42 PM
I don't mean to make this into a pity party, and I don't want to ruffle more feathers with this question...But what are those of us that have sunk a sizable amount of money in our 3.5e investments supposed to do with all of our stuff? Where are the OGL updates and new materials for 3.5e Eberron (I'm using that as an example since I spent the majority of my money in that setting)?

I'll say it again. The print will not fall off the pages. Keep using them.

I'll look at 4e when gas is a buck a gallon.

Inquisitor Tremayne
05-22-2008, 03:34 PM
I'll say it again. The print will not fall off the pages. Keep using them.

I second that!

Just because 3.5 is not being supported (and by supported this means not publishing any more material for it) does NOT mean that the 3.5 books are now suddenly worthless.

In fact myself and the group that I play D&D 3.5 with will SUPPORT 3.5 and continue to do so by continuing to play 3.5.

OMG! Is it possible that I am still getting some WORTH or VALUE from my 3.5 books!!?? (Yes that is sarcasm my friends!)

cplmac
05-22-2008, 08:42 PM
I'll say it again. The print will not fall off the pages. Keep using them.


Tesral, you beat me to it. I was going to quote a wisened poster.



I second that!

Just because 3.5 is not being supported (and by supported this means not publishing any more material for it) does NOT mean that the 3.5 books are now suddenly worthless.

In fact myself and the group that I play D&D 3.5 with will SUPPORT 3.5 and continue to do so by continuing to play 3.5.

OMG! Is it possible that I am still getting some WORTH or VALUE from my 3.5 books!!?? (Yes that is sarcasm my friends!)


Amazingly enough, I am finding the same with my 2E books! Imagine that?:faint2:

Dimthar
05-22-2008, 09:06 PM
I don't mean to make this into a pity party, and I don't want to ruffle more feathers with this question...But what are those of us that have sunk a sizable amount of money in our 3.5e investments supposed to do with all of our stuff? Where are the OGL updates and new materials for 3.5e Eberron (I'm using that as an example since I spent the majority of my money in that setting)?

If we use "Ravenloft 2e" as an example, when it went out of print for several years, a group of "Fans" called the Kargatane took the lead to create "Fan Fiction" suplements and adventures for it, and some of it was even considered "Canon". They were so succesful, that some of them became part of the group that developed Ravenloft for White Wolf for 3.X.

So thanks to the Internet, I am pretty sure such a community is also likely to arise for Eberron.

.

MooseAlmighty
05-22-2008, 09:55 PM
Agreed!

I have every intention of getting continued use out of my Eberron and other 3.5 books whether that is in 3.5 or for 4E use!

Oh and here is a brand new 3.5 book that looks perfect as "new content" for Eberron (particularly Xen'drik) from a new company called Sinister Adventures (Nicholas Logue's design company). Razor Coast is on my buy list.

http://www.sinisteradventures.com/index.php/dark-vistas

agoraderek
05-22-2008, 10:11 PM
If we use "Ravenloft 2e" as an example, when it went out of print for several years, a group of "Fans" called the Kargatane took the lead to create "Fan Fiction" suplements and adventures for it, and some of it was even considered "Canon". They were so succesful, that some of them became part of the group that developed Ravenloft for White Wolf for 3.X.

So thanks to the Internet, I am pretty sure such a community is also likely to arise for Eberron.

.

no doubt. i have the eberron books, but i dont run an eberron campaign, but the settin gis interesting, has a fan base and should survive in some form or another in the age of 4e.

gdmcbride
05-22-2008, 10:42 PM
I have every intention of getting continued use out of my Eberron and other 3.5 books whether that is in 3.5 or for 4E use!

Oh and here is a brand new 3.5 book that looks perfect as "new content" for Eberron (particularly Xen'drik) from a new company called Sinister Adventures (Nicholas Logue's design company). Razor Coast is on my buy list.

http://www.sinisteradventures.com/index.php/dark-vistas

I too am very much looking forward to 'Razor Coast'. Fantasy pirate horror goodness. What's not to like?

Gary

Fooliobass
05-23-2008, 09:15 PM
I am a 2nd generation Player, my father played AD&D in college and has kept up on the books through 2, 3 and now playing 3.5. I just recently pre-ordered the set of 4e books on amazon and now am waiting for them to come in. I wont be changing the current campaign to 4e since they are exploring a corner of the underdark currently

Tamerath
06-02-2008, 09:57 AM
I'll definately throw my ring into the hat on this. I'm creating a 4th edition campaign as we speak using 2nd edition ravenloft sourcebooks and 3.5 suplements such as Cityscape and whatnot...and I gotta tell you friends it's shaping up to be my finest work (hopefully). Granted I need to get my hands on the 4th edition books myself BUT for flavor you can't beat that older stuff to help your newer games. I'm definately going to give 4th edition a chance...and with the free month that will feature the D&D Insider Tools...I think they just might have me sold from there on out.

tesral
06-02-2008, 10:37 AM
There lies the tale. For fee on-line tools. A conduit to your wallet. Like any addictive drug the first hit's free.

Funny, but I can still assemble an adventure with no tools but my head. I did it last Saturday. The whole thing, off the top of my head. People had fun.

Farcaster
06-02-2008, 12:35 PM
Tesral,

I think I would be accurate in saying that you probably aren't running a remote game for people spread about the country. I'm eying the Digital Table with interest for just that reason. It will allow me to run the tactical side of a remote game much more smoothly with my old group who are in Dallas, 1600+ miles away as the crow flies.

Webhead
06-02-2008, 01:09 PM
...It will allow me to run the tactical side of a remote game much more smoothly with my old group who are in Dallas, 1600+ miles away as the crow flies.

I didn't know you were from Dallas, Farcaster! Or did your old group move out here? Do tell...

Regarding 4e, I'll give it the good old "college try" just like I did with every new edition of D&D. At this point, having seen some samples of how the new system is laid out, I'm not sure that it will be my cup of tea, but if I find myself in the position, I'll give it a chance to try to convince me if it is worthwhile.

I'm not wild about the idea of a "optional-but-actually-mandatory" online/virtual element to the game. It's one thing to have those kinds of tools for those that want to bring those elements to their game, but it's quite another if the game is designed to be "less complete" without them. This sharp contrast with WotC not releasing any of their previous books in purchasable PDF format confounds me.

I understand, appreciate and even admire the value in this day of having virtual tool-sets for RPGs...especially considering the evolution and expansion of RPGs into the digital realm. But don't make a game that relies upon both a print an virtual component to be fully playable.

Valdar
06-02-2008, 01:18 PM
I've already gotten requests for having my 4e game be online so remote players can join in. Not sure I will tho- I'll probably do a separate Game Table game to try it out and see if it's workable for the kinds of games I want to do.

I don't understand why they didn't make it peer-to-peer though (apart from being able to get your money, though now they'll have to spend it on hosting). I don't see paying MMO prices for something that's not an MMO, and that I have to provide content for. How many people would have created content for NWN if they had to pay a monthly fee? Not many I think.

I'd be much more likely to use Game Table on a regular basis if I could just give them 60 bucks for it and host it myself. $15 a month means my table is going to be paying $120 a month for eight players, which is ridiculous if I'm providing the content. I suspect they'll mitigate this by having Dungeon come out as both PDF and Game Table-ready content, which I guess will mitigate the costs somewhat.

tesral
06-02-2008, 01:24 PM
Tesral,

I think I would be accurate in saying that you probably aren't running a remote game for people spread about the country.

Not if I can bloody well help it.




Regarding 4e, I'll give the good old "college try" just like I did with every new edition of D&D. At this point, having seen some samples of how the new system is laid out, I'm not sure that it will be my cup of tea, but if I find myself in the position, I'll give it chance to try to convince me if it is worthwhile.

I'm not wild about the idea of a "optional-but-actually-mandatory" online/virtual element to the game. It's one thing to have those kinds of tools for those that want to bring those elements to their game, but it's quite another if the game is designed to be "less complete" without them. This sharp contrast with WotC not releasing any of their previous books in purchasable PDF format confounds me. But don't make a game that relies upon both a print an virtual component to be fully playable.

College is too expensive anymore and they keep changing the textbooks, at yet a higher price.

That is my view as well. On line is fine as long as it is really an option, not a if you don't have it you suck.

I will stand by my option that 4e is unnecessary. Problems with the 3.5 system should have been dealt with not create yet another totally new system yet again that will call for yet more books with yet exactly the same thing in them, but different.




I don't understand why they didn't make it peer-to-peer though (apart from being able to get your money, though now they'll have to spend it on hosting). I don't see paying MMO prices for something that's not an MMO, and that I have to provide content for. How many people would have created content for NWN if they had to pay a monthly fee? Not many I think.

I'd be much more likely to use Game Table on a regular basis if I could just give them 60 bucks for it and host it myself. $15 a month means my table is going to be paying $120 a month for eight players, which is ridiculous if I'm providing the content. I suspect they'll mitigate this by having Dungeon come out as both PDF and Game Table-ready content, which I guess will mitigate the costs somewhat.

Money grubbing is what it's about. You make the point well. MMO prices but you have to write the content.

Webhead
06-02-2008, 01:48 PM
Money grubbing is what it's about. You make the point well. MMO prices but you have to write the content.

Aye! This concept sickens me. I pay a subscription fee to one MMO currently...and to me, that is one too many as it is. And I only use an MMO as a quick, cheap diversion when I can't play an actual RPG. The last thing I want from my PnP games is to feel like I'm playing some mutant-offspring of an MMO.

I will definately not participate in anything that WotC saddles with a "monthly subscription fee".

I too feel that a whole new edition is a bit overkill. Granted, I eventually grew to loathe D&D 3.X for what it had become and felt that a vigorous "cleaning up, streamlining and reorganizing" was in order, but a whole new edition seems a stretch too far.

Bah...give me Labyrinth Lord any day!

Skunkape
06-02-2008, 01:52 PM
College is too expensive anymore and they keep changing the textbooks, at yet a higher price.

That's no different from when I was in college, though they didn't call them textbooks then, they were slatebooks, oh and they do cost more, plus we used clams for money!:D

fmitchell
06-02-2008, 02:32 PM
I'm eying the Digital Table with interest for just that reason. It will allow me to run the tactical side of a remote game much more smoothly with my old group who are in Dallas, 1600+ miles away as the crow flies.

Have you looked at Screen Monkey and other third-party applications?

I dinked around with an old (free) version of Screen Monkey, and I liked the basic principle: the GM ran a specialized webserver/console on his machine, and players connected through their browsers. The non-free version is supposedly more customizable, albeit (ugh) with VB ... but at least you're not renting the software.

One of these days in my copious free time I'll put together a Ruby/Python/something equivalent with less of a tactical map focus, and the ability to show arbitrary visual aids.

Farcaster
06-02-2008, 03:00 PM
I didn't know you were from Dallas, Farcaster! Or did your old group move out here? Do tell...

Yeah, actually. I moved from Dallas a little over a year ago to come up here to Seattle where the weather is wet, but comfortable. Plus my parents moved up here sometime ago and it is nice to have the "grandparents" around for free babysitting ;)


I'm not wild about the idea of a "optional-but-actually-mandatory" online/virtual element to the game...But don't make a game that relies upon both a print an virtual component to be fully playable.

From every preview I have seen and all of the preview information they have distributed, I don't think 4e game play is lessened in any respect if you are not a Digital Insider subscriber. You're still getting print books. You can still play it as a table top game, just as you always have. The only difference is that you'll now have an option to use their Digital Table and get your subscription to Dragon and Dungeon magazines online.



Have you looked at Screen Monkey and other third-party applications?

Yes, I have. My group was previously using KloOge for our tactical maps. What we would do is setup a video conference using Skype and when we had a battle, we'd use KloOge for the miniature placements, etc. We'd also use it for sharing various visual props. It was pretty good, actually. But, based on the G4 preview, I think the Digital Table is going to blow it away. It's certainly going to be far more visually stunning. They are also doing some other cool things like voice fonts in their integrated chat. So, if you want to sound like a pixie when you talk or perhaps like Satan himself, you can use one of these voice fonts to make yourself sound that way.. How cool is that?

Tamerath
06-02-2008, 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by tesral There lies the tale. For fee on-line tools. A conduit to your wallet. Like any addictive drug the first hit's free.

Funny, but I can still assemble an adventure with no tools but my head. I did it last Saturday. The whole thing, off the top of my head. People had fun.

Yes I agree with Farcaster on this. I don't have a problem making adventures, campaigns or any of this as I'm no novice to the game...BUT...I did relocate and having "online tools" that will let me play with my old friends and possibly new ones with ease appeals to me a great deal.

You also gotta look at this guys...I don't know how many of you out there purchased subscriptions to Dungeon and Dragon Magazines when they were in print...but you were looking at paying around 7 bucks, if memory serves, for each. Okay so they are going to continue those products but have them online....As well as the virtual table, a voice over IP that supports up to 10 players (I think more than that but I know it's at least 10), a character generator that looks to be on par with any mmorpg out there, a messenger...and I think a couple more I'm forgetting for the price of 15 dollars...hell the magazines alone would be 13 or 14 / month subscription. If I use it to connect to old friends and play regularly than...once or twice a month then I say it's well worth the cost.

Webhead
06-02-2008, 03:17 PM
From every preview I have seen and all of the preview information they have distributed, I don't think 4e game play is lessened in any respect if you are not a Digital Insider subscriber. You're still getting print books. You can still play it as a table top game, just as you always have. The only difference is that you'll now have an option to use their Digital Table and get your subscription to Dragon and Dungeon magazines online.

If this is the case, then it may not be as bad as I am imagining. As long as the 3 core print books feel like a complete game and not a "you can use these books to get you started until [Component X] comes out" type of deal, I think it'll be easier to accept.

I just don't like the idea of "if you're not subscribing to [Online Component X] you're really only playing half the game". It's a difference between "optional" content and "technically optional but you'd be screwed if you don't have it". Having a DVD player in your car is optional. Air conditioning in Texas...sure, you don't have to have it...but you might as well ride on the hood.

Maelstrom
06-03-2008, 05:11 AM
On the DDI expense, keep in mind that with each subscription, you get a number of free passes for others to be able to use the system when you run a game.

I'm citing this off the top of my head from what the game designers said at DDXP, but each account will be able to allow others to play. You'll get a few of these free (24 hour) passes every month, so depending on how often you play, and how many are in your group, you may only need one or two subscriptions for a group.

starfalconkd
06-03-2008, 06:37 AM
I read the 4e books. It seems too dumbed down for my taste. And everything is completely balanced to the point of it being silly. A wizard can be as a good with a sword as a fighter of the same level. Everybody gets immortality at some point in their epic path. It just lacks the artistry and continuity of previous editions. Certain aspects also seem to detract from the roleplaying element, which to me is unforgivable. So I may cherry pick one or two worthwhile rules but I won't be using the system as a whole.

Webhead
06-03-2008, 09:00 AM
I read the 4e books. It seems too dumbed down for my taste.

In what ways do you feel it has been "dumbed down"? My general outcry against D&D 3.X was that I felt it needed to be simplified and streamlined (maybe akin to the direction WotC went with Star Wars Saga), but simplifying and dumbing-down are two different things. Would you say that 4e is a "simpler and more direct" game, or are they going in the direction of "it's D&D for people who don't know what a d20 is"?

tesral
06-03-2008, 09:34 AM
I'm citing this off the top of my head from what the game designers said at DDXP, but each account will be able to allow others to play. You'll get a few of these free (24 hour) passes every month, so depending on how often you play, and how many are in your group, you may only need one or two subscriptions for a group.

<VOICE="cold as ice"> How generous. </VOICE>

I run a game twice a month 5 people. I play a game once a week, 5 people. I have a running on-line game 2 people PbP. With one person four threads pbp. A few 24 hour passes a month eh? That has the active gamer in mind it does ... For dredging his wallet.

List me "not thrilled".


Dragon and Dungeon. I stopped buying the print versions because it had become increasingly useless fluff. However, when I did buy them I had them. I still have them and reference them. I didn't have to keep paying the subscription to access my back issues. I could drop them in my gaming case or book bag and take them places with me. I didn't need a computer and wifi access. Again what is the advantage to me here?

I either keep paying the pusher for more hits, or it all goes away. They are trying to move the game from a product to a service, one they hope you can never do without. One they will keep you paying for month by month.

Yes I am being a tad cynical here. Be aware of where this is going. Content control and fair use in the long run. Will 5th edition be an on-line subscription only? Something you can never actually hold in your hands? Never save to your own computer? Better they can jack up the price on you a few cents at a time as do the cable companies. Never say it could never happen.

Tamerath
06-03-2008, 12:11 PM
hehehe...damn man...cynical is the understatement here. I have read back through this whole post...not to mention the stuff that Farcaster posts..which is stuff on the D&D home page. What's not to understand about it? It seems like you aren't really even paying attention to what is said and you are just down on the product itself. You WILL have actual product that you will have in your hands...books....with pages...pictures and whatever you fancy to take to your gaming groups. The game is going to remain a table top game. All that subscription stuff is if you want access to 2 magazines, and if you plan on gaming online. If your not interested in all that (which you clearly said you weren't a couple of posts back) then forget about the subscription... We, all know what you are going to do anyway....almost gamer out there is going to take a peak at the 4th edition books at his local hobby/bookstore...check it out first..and if they like it, they'll buy it. If they think it's garbage they'll probably put it back on the shelf...but it seems to me that you know hardly nothing about the product and you are just down on it because...well...you just are. I followed D&D 4th since it was just a rumor....listened to every piece of juicy info wizard puts up about it...and I was cynical too...but I educated myself on the topic and I find that I'm increasingly sold on it.

Demandred69
06-03-2008, 01:53 PM
The new core books are a bit dissapointing. Mainly, the Monster Manual. Alot of favorites are not there; Rustmonster, Luecrotta, Peryton, Barghest, Centaur, Cloaker,Cockatrice, Darkmantle, Blinkdog,Frost or Stone Giants, animals beyond the wolf and horse. The art is good. Some of the monsters are as we new them- even better. But 6 pages on Orcus and like 8 on Archons (which are like elementals and kinda dull). I know some of you like monsters like the Distrachen and Chuul, but I don't use them. There's about 30 pages I'd only use here and there , if at all. Don't get me wrong- it's not a terrible book. I just hate waiting so long for some key stuff. And having to have 288 pg. counts for these books , I think, kinda suffocates the creativity and limits how you put together your book. I'm still getting them. The Amazon price tag isn't bad. And I wanna give the game a chance.
This is the apparent way of the future. We won't like everything, but I don't think we liked everything about 3.5 either. I love D&D. It's my most important hobby. Even over Halo nights or fishing trips. To keep the game alive, it needs to evolve a bit. I just worry that it's evolving a bit too much. And combat seems very tactical. I enjoy tactics and strategy. And so I made a Drow Warlord. However, I worry that new people to the game, mainly females, will feel taxed by the tactical stuff.:confused:

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-03-2008, 02:25 PM
However, I worry that new people to the game, mainly females, will feel taxed by the tactical stuff.:confused:

You may or may not realize that this comment can be construed as sexism. And consider this an advanced warning on watching this sort of thing in the future please.


Anyway, back on topic.


So far the only thing different that I can tell between the way 3.5 and 4e will run is in combat. Now depending on how you DM your game if its combat heavy then you will either like the focus on tactical miniature combat or you will not like it or somewhere in between. If your games are role-play heavy then there is going to be very little change for you, except may with the addition of skill challenges which thus far have come across to me as an optional rule.

Other than that it really isn't that much of a different D&D. I can see running it very much like I would run a 3.5 D&D game to be honest.

As far as monsters not being included in the Monster Manual, I have a hard time seeing this as a justifiable excuse to call the entirety of 4e bad. I'm not pointing fingers I am speaking generally. Its the same thing as someone saying why didn't they include Asaimar (sp?) if they included Tieflings, etc... Its a poor argument.

The only truly worthy critiques of 4e should be in its playability. If it is clumsy, cluncky and as problematic as 3.0 was then yes, poopoo on WotC for jumping the gun on a new edition.

If you don't like dragonborn as a race or you don't like magic missile as an attack roll, or whatever, frankly those things are personal preference and really have no impact on the quality of the game.

Sorry, rant over.

To sum up, from simply reading over the introductory adventure, Keep on the Shadowfell, 4e feels like it can be played like any other D&D game.

Tamerath
06-03-2008, 02:26 PM
The new core books are a bit dissapointing. Mainly, the Monster Manual. Alot of favorites are not there; Rustmonster, Luecrotta, Peryton, Barghest, Centaur, Cloaker,Cockatrice, Darkmantle, Blinkdog,Frost or Stone Giants, animals beyond the wolf and horse. The art is good. Some of the monsters are as we new them- even better. But 6 pages on Orcus and like 8 on Archons ( Don't get me wrong- it's not a terrible book. I just hate waiting so long for some key stuff. .

Ouch! those are some of my favorites too! I know there are going to be more Monster Manuals, but I agree...to have to wait on them seems sad. I don't even think I like Orcus (I always confuse him with the Orc god Grummish because of his name) As for the Archons....I could see my characters fighting one as a mid-boss monster for the campaign I'm working on. Did you see many templates in there?

tesral
06-03-2008, 04:38 PM
As far as monsters not being included in the Monster Manual, I have a hard time seeing this as a justifiable excuse to call the entirety of 4e bad. I'm not pointing fingers I am speaking generally. Its the same thing as someone saying why didn't they include Asaimar (sp?) if they included Tieflings, etc... Its a poor argument.


Actually I would call that a rather good argument. Why did they include the fell planers as a core race but not the celestial planers? Eight pages on Orcist? Wouldn't that be better in a splat book and put the bloody ANIMALS back in?

Animals are something core, not splat book material. Extra planer that is splat book material. MM One needs to be the kind of thing you find in the "average" world. So we are being told that the average world now contains Orcist.

Maelstrom
06-03-2008, 04:41 PM
So far the only thing different that I can tell between the way 3.5 and 4e will run is in combat.

Another difference to include in a short assessment is that 4e has a lot less downtime. It will make a big difference that time between encounters is so streamlined.

tesral
06-03-2008, 05:08 PM
Another difference to include in a short assessment is that 4e has a lot less downtime. It will make a big difference that time between encounters is so streamlined.

That has a lot more to do with the DM that any feature of the game. "What exactly is "time between encounters"

InfoStorm
06-03-2008, 06:53 PM
Time between encounters is where ROLE PLAYING is supposed to take place. Healing, recovery from battle... only a couple minutes between encounters, Role playing, 30+ minutes or more.

I'm mostly agreeing with Tesral. I am currently not excited about 4e and agree with the comments about the MM. With the way things have been described, I'm expecting an expansion book, or a Dragon Mag (only available to people buying the subscription to online services) to have creatures like "Small Ground predator" or "Medium Flying predator" and making the DM give them real names. Not attractive to me.


That has a lot more to do with the DM that any feature of the game. "What exactly is "time between encounters"

starfalconkd
06-03-2008, 07:37 PM
In what ways do you feel it has been "dumbed down"? My general outcry against D&D 3.X was that I felt it needed to be simplified and streamlined (maybe akin to the direction WotC went with Star Wars Saga), but simplifying and dumbing-down are two different things. Would you say that 4e is a "simpler and more direct" game, or are they going in the direction of "it's D&D for people who don't know what a d20 is"?

I felt more the second one, that it was D&D for non-gaming types. It's a simpler game to learn though, I would think.

tesral
06-03-2008, 11:27 PM
Time between encounters is where ROLE PLAYING is supposed to take place. Healing, recovery from battle... only a couple minutes between encounters, Role playing, 30+ minutes or more.

Ayup, give the man a cookie. So we are being told that "time between encounters" is being reduced. Ergo role-playing is being reduced.

I've played in games were there was no breathing space between encounters. I didn't much like it.

Maelstrom
06-04-2008, 05:47 AM
Ayup, give the man a cookie. So we are being told that "time between encounters" is being reduced. Ergo role-playing is being reduced.


I meant downtime not time in general. Noone is telling anybody that they shouldn't role-play between encounters. And encounters in my mind mean more than just combat, they can mean interaction with NPCs, dealing with a stuck door, etc.

To clarify, 4e combats downtime with its new take on healing, its simplification of spell and effect durations, and end of day recovery (picking spells, using the last healing spells to make sure with a nights rest everyone is fully recovered, etc etc.). That doesn't mean you can't role-play between encounters, it just means you don't have to spend time on the (in my opinion) not-so-fun aspects of D&D.

For those like myself that don't have much time to play, that's a big boon. That means we can cram more adventuring, and yes, role-playing into our monthly 3 hour long D&D night.

InfoStorm
06-04-2008, 08:26 AM
With all of the newer recovery options, they are taking away some of the challenge in a long adventure. Part of the challenge was managing out resources to finish the entire adventure. In 3.5 (and earlier) you would go through an adventure, end up slightly bloodied and drained on resources when you reached the highpoint of the adventure. Picture Die Hard's McClain prior to him facing the master criminal. Now, in 4e, give the 5 minutes and they are back to nearly full stats.

tesral
06-04-2008, 10:40 AM
To clarify, 4e combats downtime with its new take on healing, its simplification of spell and effect durations, and end of day recovery (picking spells, using the last healing spells to make sure with a nights rest everyone is fully recovered, etc etc.). That doesn't mean you can't role-play between encounters, it just means you don't have to spend time on the (in my opinion) not-so-fun aspects of D&D.


Hmm, I am sensing a solution to a problem I am not seeing here. Downtime as you have just described it has been part of the adventure.

As the post before this one mentions. Managing resources has been part and parcel of the game forever. I don't consdier this a bad thing. To the point that I would not remove it at all. I want the players to consdier their characters as flesh and blood people that hunger and hurt.

When my PC was hired as a caravan guard, I made a point of doing the caravan guard things. Placing the party around the wagons. Riding point. Seeing that the night camp was secure.

Raphael has been wounded twice from 1st to 6th level. Getting wounded hurts. And he doesn't like getting hurt so he avoids that like the plauge. I don't play "I still have plenty of hit points, wade back in".

Are we going to have heroes now that like the video game counterparts never have to eat or sleep?

InfoStorm
06-04-2008, 10:42 AM
Are we going to have heroes now that like the video game counterparts never have to eat or sleep?

I wouldn't say, "Never." They will still need to, but definately a lot less often.

tesral
06-04-2008, 10:43 AM
I wouldn't say, "Never." They will still need to, but definately a lot less often.

Than at least once a day?

ronpyatt
06-04-2008, 11:21 AM
Interesting points have been made: *Balanced to the point of silliness. *Wizards wielding swords like a fighter. *Mini-rest stops of recovery between encounters. *Missing monsters, races, and classes.

This all sounds so new and wonderful. I can't wait to read it.
4ed is a completely different game from 3.x, just like 3.x is completely different from 2.x and the other previous major releases of D&D and AD&D. I can assume there is still the STR, CON, DEX, WIS, INT, and CHA.

Has anyone actually played 4ed to know that the balance is silly or that wizards can fight like fighters? Or to find out that resting between encounters is a bad thing?

I hear that Paladins are required to be the same alignment as their deity, and that chaotic-good and lawful-evil are not included in the now only 5 alignment system. Spot, search, and listen are replaced with Insight and Perception, and there is no such thing as Skill Ranks. Oh, my Fey! They've fixed so many problems that 3.x had.

Where are these people getting these advanced copies of 4ed? And how long have these copies been out? Does anyone have the 4ed Modern or Future releases?

tesral
06-04-2008, 11:50 AM
This all sounds so new and wonderful. I can't wait to read it.
4ed is a completely different game from 3.x, just like 3.x is completely different from 2.x and the other previous major releases of D&D and AD&D. I can assume there is still the STR, CON, DEX, WIS, INT, and CHA.


It's new, wonderful is under advisment.

The layout is a thousand times better than 3e, I'll give them that.

Three ways of getting stats, rolling is the third and least advised.

Yes 5 alignments. Good, Lawful Good, Evil, Chatoic Evil, and Unaligned. None would have been better.

Races: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half Elf, Halfling, Eladrin, Teifling, and Dragonborn.

Classes: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rouge, Warkock, Warlord, Wizard.

The roles are written in as a hard choice, not just a concept. I can start dislikeing that at once. "Pick your combat role" right off the bat.

Yes everything is an attack roll. No saving throws. I like saving throws. It gives one at least the idea that your fate is in your own hands.

Yes, I am reading the rules. I have a right to get snarly about the stuff I don't like.

Warlord has me tilting my head to the side here. It looks like a bard back bred into fighter with a side of cleric. More reading required.

Webhead
06-04-2008, 12:44 PM
The layout is a thousand times better than 3e, I'll give them that.

Thank goodness!


Three ways of getting stats, rolling is the third and least advised.

I'm intrigued. If there are "standardized" non-rolling options for stat generation, I can see myself supporting that...depends on how they handle it.


Yes 5 alignments. Good, Lawful Good, Evil, Chatoic Evil, and Unaligned. None would have been better.

Agreed. If they had to keep Alignment, I would have prefered a return to the 3-alignment "Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic" breakdown of Basic D&D.


Races: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half Elf, Halfling, Eladrin, Teifling, and Dragonborn.

Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half-Elf, Halfling = yay!

Eladrin (aka Aasimar?), Teifling = meh

Dragonborn = ugh


Classes: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rouge, Warkock, Warlord, Wizard. The roles are written in as a hard choice, not just a concept. I can start dislikeing that at once. "Pick your combat role" right off the bat.

Hmm. Not sure what I think about this yet. I like the smaller selection of classes, but my concern is whether they "pigeon-hole" each class into a specific path or if they allow some branching off of the "core concept" of your class.


Yes everything is an attack roll. No saving throws. I like saving throws. It gives one at least the idea that your fate is in your own hands.

I don't mind this, actually. Thus far in Star Wars Saga, I've found Defense scores far preferable to Saving Throws in terms of speeding up and smoothing out combat.


Warlord has me tilting my head to the side here. It looks like a bard back bred into fighter with a side of cleric. More reading required.

Hmm. I'd have to read more about it to form an opinion one way or the other.

starfalconkd
06-04-2008, 01:02 PM
Three ways of getting stats, rolling is the third and least advised.

Classes: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rouge, Warkock, Warlord, Wizard.

The roles are written in as a hard choice, not just a concept. I can start dislikeing that at once. "Pick your combat role" right off the bat.

Didn't much like these factors either. The idea of not rolling stats and hp is kind of lame and bordering on appalling. I don't like the Warlord much and I miss the Bard. And I don't like the idea of your role being assigned as soon as you pick your character.

Webhead
06-04-2008, 01:13 PM
I was always on the fence about random rolling for stats. Granted, I've always sucked it up, but my experience has shown that it isn't all that desirable a method. You always have someone who rolls terribly for starting stats and someone who rolls like a god. I've seen players with all but one of their stats hovering around 8-11 in the same party with the guy who (in front of everyone) rolls two 17's and an 18.

It never turned out to be a game breaker or anything, but it is kind of jarring that such things seem to happen so frequently, and it feels more than a little annoying being the low-rolling player (yes, I've been that player on occasion).

Valdar
06-04-2008, 01:33 PM
Eladrin (aka Aasimar?), Teifling = meh


"Eladrin" is the new "High Elf". They distilled all the Elf variants into magicky (Eladrin) and woodsy (Elf). Oh, and Drow, which will probably be playable either from the MM or the PhB2 next year.

And there will be some wiggle room within your chosen role. Paladins can still heal, for instance. The thing they wanted to do is give each character a default role that they would be doing most of the time- a Fighter who dips into spellcasting will still be primarily a defender, for instance.

Maelstrom
06-04-2008, 06:20 PM
Than at least once a day?

Yeah, they have to sleep.

They still have resources to manage, just not as many as before. You have per encounter abilities and per day abilities, and a limited number of healing surges. You get the per encounter abilities back after a 5 minute rest (plus some healing if you use some of your healing resources), and the (very nice) per day abilities after 8 hours of rest.



Has anyone actually played 4ed to know that the balance is silly or that wizards can fight like fighters? Or to find out that resting between encounters is a bad thing?


I played it at D&D Experience where it was unveiled. Others have played it at various demo events, and many will play for the first time this weekend for a worldwide game day as 4e is released.

No, Wizards cannot fight like fighters. They get squished real easy if not protected, as always has been the case. Since the monsters are deadlier, they need even better protection, and fighters are perfect for that role.



I don't mind this, actually. Thus far in Star Wars Saga, I've found Defense scores far preferable to Saving Throws in terms of speeding up and smoothing out combat.

Oh yeah, speeds things up quite nicely. Spell durations are much easier to deal with too, and the new and streamlined conditions (dazed, stunned, etc) keep things interesting.



And there will be some wiggle room within your chosen role. Paladins can still heal, for instance. The thing they wanted to do is give each character a default role that they would be doing most of the time- a Fighter who dips into spellcasting will still be primarily a defender, for instance.

Yeah, in the previews of classes they always show two almost diametrically opposed builds for the same class. Players can mix and match to their choosing, and they've revealed that players can make even further changes to get the class they want at higher levels. No pigeonholing here from what I can see.

Another example: A rouge can be built to be a down and dirty melee fighter, good at getting into a flanking position and bringing down the hurt, or they can specialize more in sneakiness and precision.

Vulture
06-05-2008, 08:34 AM
i plan on buy the corerules for 4.0 and reading them but for now since im in the middle of a 3.5 campaign i wont make the change, maybe later

mrken
06-05-2008, 11:40 AM
My kids books shipped this morning. Glad he is using his money on this edition.

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-05-2008, 02:40 PM
Actually I would call that a rather good argument. Why did they include the fell planers as a core race but not the celestial planers? Eight pages on Orcist? Wouldn't that be better in a splat book and put the bloody ANIMALS back in?

Animals are something core, not splat book material. Extra planer that is splat book material. MM One needs to be the kind of thing you find in the "average" world. So we are being told that the average world now contains Orcist.


Its a completely subjective opinion. To some certain monsters are more important than others and to others (like myself) find it really rather trivial and then there is everyone in between.

What should be important and what is my biggest concern is, the editing. WotC, thus far, has an excellent reputation for horrible editing and I can only hope that this new edition has a better editing effort put behind it. Its things like this that should be the basis on what makes or breaks 4e.

After all, I can always create my own stats for any monsters or NPCs that I need, I don't HAVE to have them pre-statted and in a book.

Webhead
06-05-2008, 03:06 PM
What should be important and what is my biggest concern is, the editing. WotC, thus far, has an excellent reputation for horrible editing and I can only hope that this new edition has a better editing effort put behind it.

I absolutely agree. Pages of rules errata is one of my pet peeves and WotC is far too flagrant an offender as of late. It's one thing if a few rules get errata'd after the release of the game because of issues uncovered by players. It's another to have pages of typos and "the book says [X], but what we really meant was [Y]..." references. :rolleyes:

agoraderek
06-08-2008, 02:11 AM
man, im even more upset than i already was (and that was mightily upset...) that i dont have my 1st ed. stuff any more. sorry, but 4th ed just sounds more and more like trying to turn a pen and paper game into a computer game.

now, about orcus. i was always a bigger demogorgon fan anyway.

Valdar
06-08-2008, 11:17 AM
sorry, but 4th ed just sounds more and more like trying to turn a pen and paper game into a computer game.



That argument has been going around for a while. The best response I've heard has been, so what if there are similarities between D&D and some of the computer games out there? When you're at the table, the only thing that matters is whether or not the game's fun.

There will be a lot of similarities between tabletop and successful computer games as both industries come to the same conclusions about what things work in a game.

tesral
06-08-2008, 12:38 PM
From what I hear the EN World crowd is trashing 4e something awful. That being hearsay take it as you will. I can see that reactions are hot and cold.

I am discouraged by the fact that 4e discourages one from building a cohesive world. A game world that world internally is something I have prided myself on for years. Now is just build the adventure, the world exists for the adventurer to kill something.

I'm not going there.

Tony Misfeldt
06-08-2008, 03:19 PM
The more I hear about 4th Edition, the less I like what I'm hearing. Eliminating Barbarian, Bard, and Monk from PC classes? Eliminating Gnomes from PC races? Eliminating rolling dice for stats and hit points? Instant overnight healing? And how are skills supposed to improve without Skill Ranks (only way I can see this working is if they changed it to d20+level vs DC)? I've even heard that abilities are described in WoW terms (Black Button Abilities, Red Button Abilities, etc). No thanks, I'll stick to my hybrid rules.

tesral
06-08-2008, 07:57 PM
The more I hear about 4th Edition, the less I like what I'm hearing. Eliminating Barbarian, Bard, and Monk from PC classes? Eliminating Gnomes from PC races? Eliminating rolling dice for stats and hit points? Instant overnight healing? And how are skills supposed to improve without Skill Ranks (only way I can see this working is if they changed it to d20+level vs DC)? I've even heard that abilities are described in WoW terms (Black Button Abilities, Red Button Abilities, etc). No thanks, I'll stick to my hybrid rules.

They are basically giveing everyone and the dog "spells". Everyone and the dog has some effective melee attack. And the flavor is stressing melee as the only worthwhile thing to do.

Valdar
06-08-2008, 08:10 PM
I am discouraged by the fact that 4e discourages one from building a cohesive world. A game world that world internally is something I have prided myself on for years. Now is just build the adventure, the world exists for the adventurer to kill something.

I'm not going there.

What are you basing this on? There's nothing in the books that discourages world-building. In fact, since there's no longer a default setting for D&D, it seems like it encourages world-building more than previous editions.

Dimthar
06-08-2008, 10:23 PM
What are you basing this on? There's nothing in the books that discourages world-building. In fact, since there's no longer a default setting for D&D, it seems like it encourages world-building more than previous editions.

In the 15 years of playing I haven’t heard of anyone using the DMG for “World Building” activities, not in ADnD, or 3.X. in any of the 3 cities I have lived. But perhaps it was that I kept my exposure to “Internet Forums” limited almost all this time.

When creating our own world (a friend and I), all that was needed was a Concept, then came the Deities Pantheon, after that the Geo-Political situation and voila!. Never during this process any of the Core books was required.

It was until we were dealing with the Character’s Creation that the PH was picked up, and based on our definition of the world we decided what was available (or suggested) to the players.

.

Kilrex
06-09-2008, 04:39 AM
In the 15 years of playing I haven’t heard of anyone using the DMG for “World Building” activities, not in ADnD, or 3.X. in any of the 3 cities I have lived. But perhaps it was that I kept my exposure to “Internet Forums” limited almost all this time.

I use the 3.5 DMG alot. Has good info for setting up a random city quickly. I esp like the chart of available wealth per size. Has lots of good info to add detail and a bit of realism.

Skunkape
06-09-2008, 10:28 AM
I use the 3.5 DMG alot. Has good info for setting up a random city quickly. I esp like the chart of available wealth per size. Has lots of good info to add detail and a bit of realism.

I also used the DMG quite a bit for helping me with world building. Granted, on a macro scale, it was all done without the DMG, but when I got down to the community level, I went to the DMG because I wanted to build those pieces using the information that was available through the DMG.

MooseAlmighty
06-09-2008, 04:51 PM
man, im even more upset than i already was (and that was mightily upset...) that i dont have my 1st ed. stuff any more. sorry, but 4th ed just sounds more and more like trying to turn a pen and paper game into a computer game.


That's kind of a funny comment since dozens (hundreds?) of video games from MUDs to consoles to MMOs are modeled on 1st edition D&D...

MysticalForest
06-10-2008, 12:33 AM
Eliminating Barbarian, Bard, and Monk from PC classes?False.


Eliminating rolling dice for stats and hit points?False.


Instant overnight healing?An oxymoron?


And how are skills supposed to improve without Skill RanksIt's laid out pretty clearly in the PH.

starfalconkd
06-10-2008, 06:00 AM
Uhm, actually 4e does not allow for rolling of hp and discourages rolling stats.

Annshadow
06-10-2008, 08:13 AM
Uhm, actually 4e does not allow for rolling of hp and discourages rolling stats.


Which is an improvement if you ask me. Roll a few 2s and 3s and suddenly your mighty tank is gimped.

Shadow Dweller
06-10-2008, 09:31 AM
@MysticalForest

1)Partially false. Those classes wern't eliminated from 4e all togeather, but were turned into supliment classes. They're released in PHBII this fall, but the question is will all DM's allow them in a "Core" game since they're not in the big 3 books?

Webhead
06-10-2008, 10:14 AM
Uhm, actually 4e does not allow for rolling of hp and discourages rolling stats.

4e discourages rolling for stats but it does make obvious that the option is there for those that wish to use it. The attribute generation options are ordered: 1) Standard Array, 2) Point Buy, 3) Roll. In no way does 4e tell you not to roll for your attributes, it just suggests that the non-random methods will offer a little more intra-party balance. Most other RPGs have eschewn random attribute generation, why shouldn't D&D make viable such options (they are only options afterall).

I haven't gotten to the healing system yet, so I'll have to reserve judgement on that until I have a clearer understanding of it.

Dimthar
06-10-2008, 11:37 AM
@MysticalForest

1)Partially false. Those classes wern't eliminated from 4e all togeather, but were turned into supliment classes. They're released in PHBII this fall, but the question is will all DM's allow them in a "Core" game since they're not in the big 3 books?

I guess that question will depend on the quality of the PHBII. See the quote below:


The balance they've created appears to open the way to inexhaustible character class design. Each class follows the same framework, which means that creating new classes will be simpler and more elegant. Multi-classing is a set of feats, but those few feats in the core rules hint at the possibilities awaiting us in the future, because multi-class feats appear to follow a framework that can be patterned and expanded on for other types of multi-classes.

Some DMs don't like "Supplement Books" because some of the "Optional Classes/Feats/Skills" are simply unbalanced. WotC will have to prove themselves worthy of our money.

.

Shadow Dweller
06-10-2008, 11:43 AM
True. I'm just one of those unreasonable fans of Monks...so them not being in 4e "Core" is a sticking point for me. Luckly I've recently taken over DMing duty for our groups D&D games, so if I want stick with 3.5, it's my call. :)

Webhead
06-10-2008, 12:08 PM
Some DMs don't like "Supplement Books" because some of the "Optional Classes/Feats/Skills" are simply unbalanced. WotC will have to prove themselves worthy of our money.

At the same time, it's nice as a DM to have the authority to say "that's a supplement and thus optional...so I can choose to include it in my game or not". Sure, one so inclined could do the same for any material that appears in the core books, but players are more likely to be annoyed by changes to "core material" than by the allowing/disallowing of "non-core material". Just an observation.

Valdar
06-10-2008, 12:26 PM
The rules discourage a lot of things that are generally a bad idea by giving you a very good, balanced, respectful explanation of why they're a bad idea, and then they go on to say that you're welcome to go ahead with it if the DM allows it. Rolling stats. Playing a monster race. Evil PCs in a non-Evil party.

With the explanation of rolling stats, I'm confident that things will be fair if I give the party the choice of the four options listed in the book: Standard array (which is really just one of the point-buy choices), Point Buy, Rolling stats with safety net (reroll stats outside +4 to +8), and Rolling stats without safety net. Risks are greater than rewards, but people put value on the game aspect of the random element (much like how a casino stays in business). If someone comes out of the gate a gimp or superhero, I'll deal, but it's unlikely.

Rolling HP when you've already rolled Con is redundant- there's already a random element there, so why introduce a second degree of randomness and make HP a "stat" that varies widely between otherwise identical characters?

ithil
06-10-2008, 03:22 PM
Instant overnight healing?

Stopping to rest will still be unsafe, but a party should be able to catch a total of six hours of sleep minus interruptions, which brings them back to 100% in every way but consumable items. In practice, I'm not sure how much that'll differ from 3e parties resting until they're back to 100%.


They are basically giveing everyone and the dog "spells".

A fighter's powers are much more melee-flavored. I wouldn't consider them spells any more than I'd consider a bull rush or a cleave to be a spell (in fact, cleave is a fighter at-will power).


Everyone and the dog has some effective melee attack. And the flavor is stressing melee as the only worthwhile thing to do.

My understanding (my MM hasn't arrived yet) is that the monsters are tougher, so you don't want to be using melee if you have better ranged options. If you're a wizard, you don't want to be using melee at all: you only gain 4 HP per level (compared to 5 or 6), you have the minimum number of healing surges, you're wearing cloth, and you're only proficient (modulo racials) in daggers and quarterstaffs.

A wizard in melee is a soft target using a weak weapon with a basic melee attack that adds nothing but their (likely low) strength score. There are better options.


Rolling HP when you've already rolled Con is redundant- there's already a random element there, so why introduce a second degree of randomness and make HP a "stat" that varies widely between otherwise identical characters?

Rolling HP gives you a range of possible values that approaches a wide bell curve as the player gains levels. Rolling Con in 4e gives you a uniform spread of random values that never widens, so the contribution of the random element decreases as the player gains levels.

Of course, it's trivial enough to add a house rule for rolling HP.

Maelstrom
06-10-2008, 04:07 PM
A wizard in melee is a soft target using a weak weapon with a basic melee attack that adds nothing but their (likely low) strength score. There are better options.


In practice, wizards get creamed in melee. The monsters are tougher, wizards have poor ACs, and they don't have any defensive powers, making them really inviting targets, especially for enemy defenders, who have a wide range of abilities up close. Yeah, Wizards want to stay out of melee.

Valdar
06-10-2008, 04:42 PM
Rolling HP gives you a range of possible values that approaches a wide bell curve as the player gains levels. Rolling Con in 4e gives you a uniform spread of random values that never widens, so the contribution of the random element decreases as the player gains levels.

Of course, it's trivial enough to add a house rule for rolling HP.

My point being, why do this? Why should fighter A have more hit points (derived attribute) than fighter B, when all their other stats are identical? A and B will have the same armor class, weapon damage, etc, but with rolled hp, they can have different abilities to do one of their main jobs, which is take damage.

I've heard of a very misguided DM who did not let PCs "take 10" on their base armor class- that value was rolled at character creation on a d20. While this is a little extreme, it's also an example of applying a random element to a figured stat, and I think it makes about as much sense.

Anyway, I'm used to having players that show up with characters for whom they obviously clicked "Roll HP" about 30 times, and am glad that those days are gone.

Player: "But I ROLLED it!"
Me: "You do know that you're only supposed to use the number on the top of the die, right?"

tesral
06-10-2008, 06:58 PM
Player: "But I ROLLED it!"
Me: "You do know that you're only supposed to use the number on the top of the die, right?"

So we use a general rule to fix a personal problem.

I'll stick with rolling hit points even if I get the occasional 1. On the balance scale I'm due a few. I have rolled very well for hit points.

Valdar
06-11-2008, 12:42 AM
So we use a general rule to fix a personal problem.


Well, it was all the players, all the time, so I tend to think it was a problem with the rules that encouraged that kind of behavior.

Again, why only HP? Why no other second-degree randomization of a figured stat anywhere?

ronpyatt
06-11-2008, 01:00 AM
Randomized stats deal out unbalanced characters. As an experiment, I can see the fun in statical analysis, and programming in dice rollers. In practice, however, I can see why 4ed has the rolled abilities as a 3rd option.

Shadow Dweller
06-11-2008, 07:01 AM
Personally I like the rolled option MORE than a PB system(s) or the arrays. My personal method of rolling is best 3 of 4d6, reroll any stat that comes out < 10. Also everyone get's 1 free 18 that way there aren't any truely gimped characters. A spell caster will always be able to cast spells decently, fighters will always(assuming they don't do a Dex build or something) have high str and hit for good amounts. I enjoy the randomness, makes things more interesting and your more likely to have a character with a "flaw", but not something that's going to criple them.

ithil
06-11-2008, 07:10 AM
My personal method of rolling is best 3 of 4d6, reroll any stat that comes out < 10. Also everyone get's 1 free 18

Wow, what does that work out to, a 36-point buy?

Shadow Dweller
06-11-2008, 07:31 AM
All depends on the rolls. One game I had no stat under a 14, including another 18 rolled, while in the same game a friend had the rolls of 10, 11, 11, 12, 13 and the free 18. So yeah, sometimes you get a better deal than others. It also just so happened that in that game my friend was playing a caster(Psion) so while he was relitively ok, especailly in the 7 person party we had. He could just hang back do his thing, and let the rest of us take the beating while he did BF controll along with the party Wizard.

tesral
06-11-2008, 07:36 AM
Well, it was all the players, all the time, so I tend to think it was a problem with the rules that encouraged that kind of behavior.

Again, why only HP? Why no other second-degree randomization of a figured stat anywhere?

If rolling dice is the problem why roll dice at all? They could cheat on the to hits as well.

Why roll for hit points? Well it was the only secondary stat in which an increase of more than one was possible per level. I also see where hit points represent more than just physical stamina. They can reflect the character's willingness to take a hit.

You can take two guys, both tall blond and broad, both can press 210 all day neither has been sick a day in his life. Slug sample 1 in the nose and he grabs same, yells and thrashes about in pain. Slug sample 2 in the nose and you have a fight on your hands. You did the same real damage to each, but the reaction is very different.

That to my mind is the function of random hit points. No player is going to declare that Bob the Barbarian has a glass jaw. It's pain threshold, willingness to take a hit and keep fighting. That can and will vary from person to person even if they have the same damage-taking potential.

Shadow Dweller
06-11-2008, 08:09 AM
tesral, that is probably the BEST description of 3.5 HP I think I've ever read. That's a GREAT way to look at it!

tesral
06-11-2008, 08:14 AM
tesral, that is probably the BEST description of 3.5 HP I think I've ever read. That's a GREAT way to look at it!

One of the reasons I like wounds/vitality systems. They separate those factors. Wounds, how much real damage you can take, Vitality, your willingness to take a hit.

Wound/Vitality system also make critical hits easy. You don't increase the damage, you have it go straight to wounds.

Now strangely enough I don't use it in my game. Old habits and all.

ronpyatt
06-11-2008, 09:28 AM
That to my mind is the function of random hit points. No player is going to declare that Bob the Barbarian has a glass jaw. It's pain threshold, willingness to take a hit and keep fighting. That can and will vary from person to person even if they have the same damage-taking potential.
I've seen Bob the Barbarian get a glass jaw when his player rolled a few 1's during the leveling process. If you want to go further, then it might be better said that bulk and luck are a function of DNA, Deities, and Danger, which has a very strict function during the leveling a person, and for an adventurer (PC) even more so. An occasional one rolled by a player hardly seems fair to the character that worked so hard for said player. Randomized HP is a punishment that DM's inflict on their players, but it is the character that suffers. Well, yes, I guess the players suffer, too.

4ed fixed all that.

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-11-2008, 11:19 AM
Point buy is the wave of the future!

It is far superior to rolling!

Why roll and take your chances on having crappy scores across the board when you can point buy and CHOOSE the scores you want to have!!??

That being said, the only way to FIX rolling has been through severe modification on the part of the DM. Some allow rerolls of 1s, some have you roll 3 sets of scores and pick the best, some have your reroll scores lower than x, and it goes on and on.

You would be better off choosing point buy, and you can make it a high point buy if you want, 36 points are no problem, and have your players be happy that they can choose which scores they want for what ability.

I offer my players these options: they can point buy away from the table and use 30 points or they can roll in front of me and they are stuck with what they roll unless they do not have a single ability score that is over 12, then they may reroll a whole new set. I strongly encourage the point buy though!

tesral
06-11-2008, 02:04 PM
Eh what, you guys have dice that all think they are d2s? The possibility of rolling low is balanced by the possibility of rolling high.

I'm getting this definite impression of people who's dice hate them. Who can't roll decent stats and can't roll decent hit points and somehow it's the DM's fault. They are being punished, somehow. Shesh, man up and play the game. What next, no attack rolls lest the dice unfairly make you miss?

My experience with point buy systems is sure they make all characters equal. They all suck equally.

Part of the appeal of RPGs is taking that so so character and using creative thinking to make something out of it. And sure gloating a bit when you get those great stat rolls. But you have to take a bit of a risk there. Is risk no longer in fashion? I think creative thinking is out of fashion.

Valdar
06-11-2008, 02:20 PM
Is risk no longer in fashion? I think creative thinking is out of fashion.

Silly risk was never in fashion. Rolling poorly on your to-hit roll is ok because you suck now, but you get a new roll in a couple of minutes. Missing on your HP or attributes meant you suck now, and would continue to do so until you made a new character (which led to character suicides). Save-or-die was another example of silly risk- just too much riding on one die roll.

So since the rules punished people so harshly that were unlucky and then played fair, you have lots of people that get unlucky and then cheat, with or without their DM's permission. And yeah, it's the cheaters that love the system, because they get to be better than those who play fair, every time.

Ideally, a system would involve some random element, but also be balanced- I could see a hybrid where you assign a reasonable range of assigned stats (8 to 16, say) and a point buy total, and you start rolling stats until the remainder of them are determinable by the remaining points. So you could conceivably roll a 3 or an 18, but once you got too many one way or the other, the rest of your stats would become 8s or 16s or whatever it took to make up for your previous rolls- 8s or more to use up the last points if you've rolled too well, 16s or less if you've rolled too poorly.

This is pretty complicated, and the only thing it does is define your standard deviation (and gives you the ability to have a stat that gives you a -4 to something), so it's probably not worth it over straight point buy.

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-11-2008, 02:49 PM
Eh what, you guys have dice that all think they are d2s? The possibility of rolling low is balanced by the possibility of rolling high.

That is not a risk I as a player am willing to make anymore. My time is too valuable to waste on a sub-par character that I am not happy with.


I'm getting this definite impression of people who's dice hate them.

The dice can not possibly hate someone. The probabilities are simply weighted toward middle of the road characters, averages, with the CHANCE of having a high stat or two.


Who can't roll decent stats and can't roll decent hit points and somehow it's the DM's fault. They are being punished, somehow.

I don't think anyone is blaming the GM/DM. But if I roll a subpar character you better believe I am going to petition for a reroll or new character!



Shesh, man up and play the game.

Why don't you "man up" and get with the times. Rolling is simply a thing of the past. As it should be. Point buy offers more flexibility.


What next, no attack rolls lest the dice unfairly make you miss?

As Valdar said:


Rolling poorly on your to-hit roll is ok because you suck now, but you get a new roll in a couple of minutes. Missing on your HP or attributes meant you suck now, and would continue to do so until you made a new character (which led to character suicides). Save-or-die was another example of silly risk- just too much riding on one die roll.




My experience with point buy systems is sure they make all characters equal. They all suck equally.

Then increase the point buy value. Otherwise this is no different then rolling a poor set of ability scores.



Part of the appeal of RPGs is taking that so so character and using creative thinking to make something out of it. And sure gloating a bit when you get those great stat rolls.

So-so characters do fit in here but I think we are looking at the extremes. A character that is below so-so vs. one who is blatantly more than heroic with multiple 18s in different stats.



But you have to take a bit of a risk there. Is risk no longer in fashion? I think creative thinking is out of fashion.

I rather take that risk with all of the other die rolls that are made throughout the characters career rather than risk it with my attributes that are going to stay fairly static throughout my character's career.

If I roll a 3, 6, 7, 8 10, 12, I rather not have to deal with the character that is going to make and try to think of some creative way to play that character. To me this is unfair. This character is going to be ineffective vs. everything it encounters. And no amount of role playing is going to allow this character to get out of a combat situation, especially if his or her companions are eager for combat.

even with a 25 point buy I can have a character far superior than the one above.

Grimwell
06-11-2008, 03:01 PM
I know this is a fun dice vs no-dice debate... but isn't it just OK for each individual DM to decide (with his players) what's going to work best for their game?

I don't really give a hoot how you generate character stats for your game, and there is room for both camps in the hobby. :)

Webhead
06-11-2008, 03:02 PM
Eh what, you guys have dice that all think they are d2s? The possibility of rolling low is balanced by the possibility of rolling high.

Agreed. I'm not particularly opposed to rolling stats, but I'm not particularly attached to the idea either. I don't think that there is another (non-d20) RPG that I own that uses randomized attribute generation, and none of those games suffer at all for it. Rolling for stats in D&D is nostalgic, but also feels a little unnecessarily archaic.


I'm getting this definite impression of people who's dice hate them. Who can't roll decent stats and can't roll decent hit points and somehow it's the DM's fault. They are being punished, somehow. Shesh, man up and play the game. What next, no attack rolls lest the dice unfairly make you miss?

I'm not one of those people, but I have met some of them and have had bad luck streaks of my own. It's not the DM's fault, but as often (and in as many different ways) as I've seen DM's create house rules for rolling attributes, it seems indicative of some perceived undesirability of the game's basic formula for doing so.

I'm also not an advocate of diceless RPGs. I like a lot of rules-lite RPGs, but I also need at least some dice to keep things unpredictable. Attack rolls are definately not something that should be diceless, but attributes don't fall into that same category for me.


My experience with point buy systems is sure they make all characters equal. They all suck equally.

I personally haven't had this experience, but I also accept and have experienced that one player's definition of what is sucky may differ from another's. It's all about expectation and perceived value.


Part of the appeal of RPGs is taking that so so character and using creative thinking to make something out of it. And sure gloating a bit when you get those great stat rolls. But you have to take a bit of a risk there. Is risk no longer in fashion? I think creative thinking is out of fashion.

Agreed. I also think that common sense is far less common than it used to be. I like the challenge of taking a "sucky" character and making them "cool". Though, different players have different opinions about this based on what they're trying to get out of the game.

agoraderek
06-11-2008, 07:15 PM
tesral, that is probably the BEST description of 3.5 HP I think I've ever read. That's a GREAT way to look at it!

actually, its a good description of "every version of D&D except 4.0 hp...":lol:

Shadow Dweller
06-11-2008, 08:30 PM
Yeah...well...I've only played 3.5, so that's all I can base off of. :)

Tony Misfeldt
06-11-2008, 08:35 PM
actually, its a good description of "every version of D&D except 4.0 hp...":lol:
I agree. I look at hit points in very much the same way as Tesral does, although I've never expressed it as well as he has.

Malruhn
06-11-2008, 09:40 PM
That is not a risk I as a player am willing to make anymore. My time is too valuable to waste on a sub-par character that I am not happy with.

...

The dice can not possibly hate someone. The probabilities are simply weighted toward middle of the road characters, averages, with the CHANCE of having a high stat or two.

...

I don't think anyone is blaming the GM/DM. But if I roll a subpar character you better believe I am going to petition for a reroll or new character!
If I roll a 3, 6, 7, 8 10, 12, I rather not have to deal with the character that is going to make and try to think of some creative way to play that character. To me this is unfair. This character is going to be ineffective vs. everything it encounters. And no amount of role playing is going to allow this character to get out of a combat situation, especially if his or her companions are eager for combat.

...

even with a 25 point buy I can have a character far superior than the one above.After reading this, all I can think of is... try a video game or an old fashioned module that has pre-generated characters.

The possibility of having an AVERAGE character is, in my opinion, a wonderful part of the game!! If there's no chance of even having an average character, why bother establishing a character in the first place? Just take a Xerox of an old character... change the name and voila! Instant character that you feel is "acceptable."

RivenNookRavenClaw
06-11-2008, 09:53 PM
(Rubbing hands together vigorously)
YES! I am updating right away.
"Definitely, Definitely, Definitely"-The Tick, Sewer Urchin

Laugh Out Loud

ronpyatt
06-11-2008, 10:29 PM
I did not say 4ed stopped using dice. (That's a different game system, Amber). If the DM "requires" rolled stats in 4ed, then it is the DM's fault if there are glass-jawed fighters.

Dwarf up and play fair or bully around your own players; It's your choice as a DM, but that's not how 4ed was designed to be played.

Yes, I'm one of those players that will choose my own dice rolls (cheat) when it comes to ability scores and hit points, as I often roll six, seven, and eight on a 4d6. When you roll a 1 four levels in a row, you start to consider your options. The stat rolls part of D&D has been a broken element in previous versions.

4ed fixed that. I don't have to cheat or force my own house rules on the DM. I can play the game as it was designed to be played. (As you can tell, I don't play well with bullies.)

D&D 4ed is meant to be played with characters that are above average. If you want to have a challenge and reduce the points in your point-buy, ask your DM. I'm sure she/he will consider it. There's always pre-4 versions you can play, house rules, and other games.

The option is there for the players to <snicker> "roll" for ability scores. If you ask nicely, the DM might even let you roll for your HP.

But before you pick up those dice, you should know that 4ed now has rules about HP that make the whole rolling of HP a very sticky point. Or I should say a very bloody point.

Since half your HP is considered your threshold for being bloodied, then the luck thing has just been cut down a notch as a theory. Healing works off a character's surges, which is derived from HP. Certain powers are also based on these values. So, playing around with HP using dice is a whole other game.

Better to stick with 3rd Ed if you want to roll for HP.

boulet
06-11-2008, 10:31 PM
After reading this, all I can think of is... try a video game or an old fashioned module that has pre-generated characters.

The possibility of having an AVERAGE character is, in my opinion, a wonderful part of the game!! If there's no chance of even having an average character, why bother establishing a character in the first place? Just take a Xerox of an old character... change the name and voila! Instant character that you feel is "acceptable."


My experience with point buy systems is sure they make all characters equal. They all suck equally.I can't see why Inquisitor Tremayne should be ashamed of prefering point buy systems and not enjoying bad luck when rolling character stats. Point buy systems never hindered players to create John Smith type of PCs. Hell you could even create a anti-heroes or whatever your fancy is... Tesral is claiming every other day "it's not about the system but about the soul you invest into your character". And suddenly he changes speech and say that this type of system is hindering role play. Doesn't seem very coherent to me.

Some people play competitive kind of games where lame duck type of PCs aren't much fun on the long run... It's not the only way to play, it isn't wrong either. Let's keep in mind it's all about enjoying the time at the table.

Personally I've run away from class based and random character creation a long time ago because it felt like shackles and chains to me and it encouraged cheating. I never regretted it. But I don't push the envelope so far as saying that people who think differently should play yahtzee or sth lame like that.

Grimwell is right, all this gibberish is as dull as arguing if first came the egg or the chicken. Can't we get along ?

Xandros
06-12-2008, 02:50 AM
Grimwell is right, all this gibberish is as dull as arguing if first came the egg or the chicken. Can't we get along ?


Agree! I like hearing how different people or groups do things, but I get sick of all the 'This is the only right way to do things and anyone that doesn't play like we do sucks!'. As for the HP, with my group I let the players choose (at each level) to either take the average possible roll +1 point, or to roll with an option for 1 reroll if the result is too low, but they must keep the reroll. Rolls of 1 are rerolled free.

fmitchell
06-12-2008, 04:29 AM
After reading this, all I can think of is... try a video game or an old fashioned module that has pre-generated characters.

OK, let's try and keep the discussion civil.

Personally, when I set out to create a character I've already worked out a concept and a backstory before I even start working out stats. If I've decided on a "battle-hardened mercenary" I'd rather not expend my creativity rationalizing a 5 Str and a 8 Dex, or coming up with yet another concept and backstory to explain what plastic cubes have decreed for me. (Ways to skew probability, like 4d6 drop 1, are just a patch to the problem.) HP are even worse, as someone upthread cited: why does my stoic Defender (monk without the Shaolin nonsense), halfling though he is, only go up 1hp per level just because my d8 hates me?

Randomness is fine during an adventure -- heck, that's the appeal -- but I'd rather create characters through resource allocation. Then again, I never understood the appeal of Traveller and other old-school systems where characters could die before character generation was complete.

(Caveat: I'm also used to systems where stats have a more direct effect on one's character, like GURPS, Basic Roleplaying, or HERO.)

Shadow Dweller
06-12-2008, 07:04 AM
To everyone who's complaining that when you roll you get stuck playing a character with , as the example Inquisitor Tremayne gave, 3, 6, 7, 8 10, 12 for stats, I suggest you find a new GM. There is NO WAY that playing a character with those stats would be fun for anyone I've ever met, especailly as the commoners will have better stats than you. ANY DM/GM worth their weight in coppers would let a re-roll of that, or already have a built in rule to hadle that.

I enjoy rolling for ability scores. The group I'm in now doesn't do that, they use an overpowered point buy system, and when I said I wanted to change that for the games I'm running, I nearly got laughed out of the room. I can tell you that using all highpowered characters get's just as anoying because you end up getting stuck fighting things a good chunk above your level just to make the fights interesting and give the PC's a chance at dying/feeling mortal.mediocre rolls can be interesting to RP, shit rolls, like above aren't.

Talmek
06-12-2008, 08:16 AM
Here's a small house rule that alleviated alot of the "low-roll" problems for my group. When a character is creating their character, I give them three attempts to roll entire ability score sets (4d6-lowest for each ability). That way, if a player was unhappy with their first set of rolls, they had two more opportunities to get better scores. I suppose it just depends on what you as the DM and the player decide upon.

Just my two cents...

Inquisitor Tremayne
06-12-2008, 08:18 AM
To everyone who's complaining that when you roll you get stuck playing a character with , as the example Inquisitor Tremayne gave, 3, 6, 7, 8 10, 12 for stats, I suggest you find a new GM. There is NO WAY that playing a character with those stats would be fun for anyone I've ever met, especailly as the commoners will have better stats than you. ANY DM/GM worth their weight in coppers would let a re-roll of that, or already have a built in rule to hadle that.

I wouldn't say it is the GMs fault. Ever. Its not. Its bad luck with the dice. FORTUNATELY, 3.5 included the caveat that when you are rolling your stats if none of them are above a 13 or if your ability modifiers total less than 0, you get to reroll the entire set. So there are ways around it according to RAW. HOWEVER, although our GM allows this, if your second roll comes up with, 8, 7, 6, 14, 10, 11 then he is going to make you play it and by.

Anyway I would just like to note that there is no wrong or right way to roll your ability scores and everyone is entitled to how they want to handle it.

I am just of the strong opinion that point buy is better. It also gives you PCs who are on equal footing across the board.

And I would like to apologize if I have offended anyone.

Webhead
06-12-2008, 08:43 AM
OK, let's try and keep the discussion civil.

Yes, there's no need to start a flame war here. There's no "right and wrong" to this situation, only a difference of opinion. But then, that's probably why 4e kept the option for rolling attributes, because they felt that many people would prefer that method for one reason or another. They wouldn't have put it in there if it wasn't some perceived value to it.

As far as Hit Points, I think I've spoken my peace on random vs. static HP, but if someone playing 4e wants more randomization to Hit Point totals in their game, it should prove supremely simple to create house rules for it. The precedent and structure is there from previous editions that will offer insight into the matter.


I enjoy rolling for ability scores. The group I'm in now doesn't do that, they use an overpowered point buy system, and when I said I wanted to change that for the games I'm running, I nearly got laughed out of the room. I can tell you that using all highpowered characters get's just as anoying because you end up getting stuck fighting things a good chunk above your level just to make the fights interesting and give the PC's a chance at dying/feeling mortal.

True. The same way random rolling can be problematic, point-buy or point-assortment systems can be an issue because of the subjectivity of what defines "good" and "bad" in terms of the capabilities of a character. For example, I find 3.5's standard attribute assortment of [15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8] to be more than fair in terms of attribute scores. You've got 2 scores that you are very good in, 2 that you are fairly competent in, 1 that is average, and 1 that is not so good, that will prove a little challenging to your character at times. However, I have met players of the sort that would refuse to play a game if they were given those stats. Why? Because they perceive that a character with no "+3" stats or one with any negative stats is gimped, unfair and undesirable. For the same reason, they will dislike any point-buy that doesn't offer them 35 points or more for their attributes.

In the end, it's really all about what the DM and the players expect to get from the game. It really doesn't matter how you get there, just that your group finds the solution agreeable.

Valdar
06-12-2008, 12:30 PM
I started my 4e game last night, and gave the players the choices I listed above (standard array, point-buy, roll with +4-+8 safety net, roll without net).

Everyone took point-buy. That tells me that telling my players to roll their stats would have been an unpopular decision.

In the game (which was really just a trial run to learn the combat rules, so don't start with me about my game being all combat), one character kicked ass with good rolls. One character completely sucked with to-hit rolls of 3 after 3 (that was the Striker, so the encounter was a bit tenser than it should have been). Next time, the dice will give a different character the chance to shine. Rolling stats could have made it the same character shining every session, which is fun (and selfish) if it's you, but how many rolling-advocates would stick around for that if it's not?

Rolling stats leads to one character (the statistical outrider) being a prima-donna, which is contrary to the purpose of the game, and should be discouraged. Similar to playing an evil character- if your idea of fun is less fun for your friends, then you need to be shown the door.

Speaking of statistics, it's common in analysis to toss the low and high result. That could be a wicked way to do stats- roll those bones gentlemen, and we'll total your point buy, but the lowest and highest characters will be forced to reroll. You can even show up with numbers you pretended to roll- the result is the same as long as players don't collude- if you were too dishonest or lucky, the system accounts for you. If you were too honest or unlucky, the system does the same.

ithil
06-12-2008, 12:30 PM
Rolls of 1 are rerolled free.

I played under that house rule once. I rolled 2s until 9th level. It mostly balanced out by 12th level, though.

Engar
06-13-2008, 05:23 AM
Let me concede first... rolling stats has nothing to do with upgrading to 4e. That said I want my 2 cents in here...

Point buy is a great equalizer and is really useful for online TT play (like fantasy grounds, etc). I like rolling my stats because it helps forge my character. Old Rolf never could read, but he sure could lift a wagon to fix the wheel (I found that out from his 4 INT and 16 Str - some might call 16 bad too).

I get it, Old Rolf is good at something. That's important. So is being balanced with others in the party. I don't want to play Old Rolf the fighter with a wizard and rogue who have 18's in Str. That is just lousy and devaluing. But I don't mind if we all have lower scores. They used to publish stats for Raistlin, Caramon, Tanis, etc... You might be surprised at thier modest scores. Perhaps when they made the characters they didn't have a clue. Think they enjoyed the game in spite of that or because of it?

Many players fall easy prey (myself included) to min/max or at least a certain focus on best exploiting the system. This is one very bad direction DnD has headed in the last years. I think it comes from knowing to much and wanting everything now (lack of self disciplin for me too). It is a flaw to be overcome for the enjoyment of the game. "No" is rarely fun, yet all "yes" is equally pointless.

I think most games might improve if players toss all but their PHB, quit looking at other materials and work with what they have instead of looking for the next best thing.

DM's equally might stick to just the PHB, DMG, MM and homebrew creativity. Change up some monster stats and introduce your own race. Keep the players guessing. Let NPCs have prestige classes (remember, they are not in the 3.5 PHB). If the player is upset, tell them to have the PC ask the NPC about it (not the player ask the DM). Maybe tweek the prestige class so they do not know all the stats before they must decide about the training.

Want to see a player engaged? Leave them guessing and see what happens. I know games I have run that way lasted years and when people missed a game it was for good reason. Other games where I got lazy, relied heavily on published ideas and let players do whatever, they faded in weeks and clearly players freedoms did not help.

If your DM is good thank them, they work hard for no tips. So let go of the "perfect" race, feat, or class from some obscure book or whatever it is you want to beat them over the head with lately. Better yet, take a "standard" character and play them like they were part of that obscure race or class despite having none of the actual abilities.

Webhead
06-13-2008, 09:59 AM
I think most games might improve if players toss all but their PHB, quit looking at other materials and work with what they have instead of looking for the next best thing.

DM's equally might stick to just the PHB, DMG, MM and homebrew creativity. Change up some monster stats and introduce your own race. Keep the players guessing...

Want to see a player engaged? Leave them guessing and see what happens...

Better yet, take a "standard" character and play them like they were part of that obscure race or class despite having none of the actual abilities.

It's funny that you bring this up because this has been my overall stance on RPGs for years. I prefer to run my games from the fewest books possible and would rather use my own creativity to make new things or adapt new ideas to the game.

Have an idea for a specific race/spell/feat/macguffin but don't have rules for it? Use the closest thing and change the description a bit. Want your character to shoot magical exploding pixies from his nostrils? Use the Magic Missile spell or something similar and just change the flavor. Want to be a dancing scimitar warrior with swashbuckling panache? Be a fighter, take some feats and add a little style.

I've just seen too many people get hung up on perfecting the "rules" of an idea over the idea itself. Often (but maybe not always) the simplest answer is the most fun. Be creative.

Valdar
06-13-2008, 10:52 AM
DM's equally might stick to just the PHB, DMG, MM and homebrew creativity. Change up some monster stats and introduce your own race. Keep the players guessing.

I've found that changing the monster fluff text is sufficient. I once introduced a monster called a "Blareling", and described it as the next Goblinoid above Bugbear. Stat-wise, it was a by-the-book troll. Once they figured out that its regeneration was stopped by fire, they took it handily and enjoyed the challenge of the encounter. An actual troll would have been quite dull by comparison.