PDA

View Full Version : 4e compilation



Maelstrom
03-27-2008, 04:52 PM
Someone went and took all released data he could find from various sources and put it together in the form of a Player's Handbook style publication. Inside this document are links to some community-created adventures, lists of monsters, etc. Very good work.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~amwhit/PHB_4E_Lite_v1_2.pdf

Farcaster
03-27-2008, 05:44 PM
Very cool, Mael! Thanks for sharing.

Kilrex
03-27-2008, 10:25 PM
I recently read the Pathfinder rules and the 4.0 rules. I like what I have seen so far from both. But I like more of what I have seen in the Pathfinder vs what i have seen of 4.0. I will have to wait till I have both systems in hand and tried them before I decide which to use.

Things I not to happy with in 4.0:
1) Healing surge concept.
2) One of my friends is upset about them removing the monk and I always liked the more savage/nature oriented role playing aspects involved with the barbarian and druid.
3) Also I can't believe they ditched the Gnome, my first character ever.
4) Not too sure about the abilities at will and per encounter. I need to try some combat and some adventuring to see though.
5) Turning
6) HP at higher lvls
7) Action Points, didn't like them in Eberron either.
8) No trip and disarm? Staple action stuff, I always liked Errol Flynn type action movies because of these.

Things I like in 4.0:
1) Eladrin and tiefling without +1 lvl adjustment
2) They did a decent job of equaling the races it seems and added a little
3) I like how they seemed to simplify durations alot.
4) Starting HP

Things I dislike in Pathfinder:
1) Necromancer gets 8 HD of undead per caster lvl.
2) Thats about it.

Things I like in Pathfinder:
1) Turning, except rebuke would be kinda hard to use in combat unless the whole group was undead.
2) They did a nice revamp on the 3 classes in the Alpha edition

Both systems I believe have done a good job with the skills. I might miss feats in 4.0 due to the amount of variety you could have between 2 characters of the same class in 3.5. Will they be in 4.0?

Pathfinder:
It is a Paizo product that is effectively their reinterpretation/update to the 3.5 rules.
http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8253&source=new

Maelstrom
03-28-2008, 05:11 AM
2) One of my friends is upset about them removing the monk and I always liked the more savage/nature oriented role playing aspects involved with the barbarian and druid.
3) Also I can't believe they ditched the Gnome, my first character ever.


Yeah, they had to make room for their new classes, so they cut the monk and gnome. I'm sure it won't be too long before there is a monk class (who knows, maybe in the martial powers book coming end of year?), but from what I've heard, the Gnome was entirely redefined, so may not ever make the cut other than as a playable monster.



I might miss feats in 4.0 due to the amount of variety you could have between 2 characters of the same class in 3.5. Will they be in 4.0?

Feats were mostly replaced by powers, but there will still be feats. This book gives a few examples. The fact that each class fits an archetype (striker, defender, controller, leader) will limit some of the cross-pollination possible in 3.5. Also, without the raw number of feats available by the end of 3.5, customization will probably feel limited. Too be expected with an incompatible ruleset though, and they will be correcting that with supplements over time. You could always create your own feats/powers mirroring 3.5... I know I will be to flesh out my pirate campaign.

InfoStorm
03-28-2008, 10:13 AM
Ok, so I've been playing D&D for 30 years and I'm used to some complexity, but reading the compilation makes it feel like D&D Lite. Everything is done to make it more streamlined, I will agree, but I don't see too much in making it faster, at least in my gaming experience. As I've comented before, 90% of my slowdowns are at the player decision, not the rules, and with all the various actions, I can see some of the players I've had taking longer.

Quick comments:
1. I remember reading: "No more attack of opportunities."
They are still there, called Opportunity Attacks now.
2. The "new" rules for Fort,Ref, & Will are just "optional" rules from Unearthed Arcana made official. I've even used them before now.
3. I'm still waiting to see ANYTHING in the prerelease material about roleplaying aspects of the game. So far it's just a combat simulator to me until the other shoe drops. It is a ROLE PLAYING game, not "Combat Encounters Game".

MortonStromgal
03-28-2008, 11:44 AM
Well I will say that if I want to play a Fantasy Superheros game (which is kinda the nature of D&D) it looks fantastic. It really invoces a Greek/Norse Myth feel to me.


3. I'm still waiting to see ANYTHING in the prerelease material about roleplaying aspects of the game. So far it's just a combat simulator to me until the other shoe drops. It is a ROLE PLAYING game, not "Combat Encounters Game".

Well I would say if you go back to the old D&D basic it was a combat simulator with extras ;)

Frobozz
03-28-2008, 03:01 PM
Well I would say if you go back to the old D&D basic it was a combat simulator with extras ;)

Bah! We role-played in original D&D because we couldn't figure out the crummy combat system and figured that was better than spinning dice on a table...


:fencing:

MortonStromgal
04-08-2008, 11:47 PM
So my wife and I took the 'Light' book and she created a halfling wizard and I went out and got the 4e minis. I took an orc out of the box and we tried out a combat. While it was pretty rough (trying to figure out the rules on the fly) I was first impressed by how the wizard really could do something every round but still want to save the good spells. Now this was one on one but I dare to say at an encounter level it feels faster and with even more of the superhero feel than previous editions. I'm sure we got some stuff flat wrong :rolleyes: but it was a good teaser all the same.

Maelstrom
04-09-2008, 04:40 AM
Very cool, thanks for sharing!

I love how they made the mini game so close in combat rules to the 4e RPG. This will make big fights a lot easier to run, if I use the Minis rules for the monsters while the players and major enemies use the full D&D rules.

wizard_in_motley
05-20-2008, 06:03 PM
Ok, so I've been playing D&D for 30 years and I'm used to some complexity, but reading the compilation makes it feel like D&D Lite. Everything is done to make it more streamlined, I will agree, but I don't see too much in making it faster, at least in my gaming experience. As I've comented before, 90% of my slowdowns are at the player decision, not the rules, and with all the various actions, I can see some of the players I've had taking longer.

I've played the new edition quite a bit and the combats are probably about the same length. On the plus side for the mage types they're a lot more involved through the whole of combat. You're also much more likely to push on to the next combat instead of going back to town for a rest.



3. I'm still waiting to see ANYTHING in the prerelease material about roleplaying aspects of the game. So far it's just a combat simulator to me until the other shoe drops. It is a ROLE PLAYING game, not "Combat Encounters Game".

There's a mechanic for 'skill challenges' but for some odd reason they're talking a lot more about the combat.

Valdar
05-20-2008, 06:19 PM
Ok, so I've been playing D&D for 30 years and I'm used to some complexity, but reading the compilation makes it feel like D&D Lite. Everything is done to make it more streamlined, I will agree, but I don't see too much in making it faster, at least in my gaming experience. As I've comented before, 90% of my slowdowns are at the player decision, not the rules, and with all the various actions, I can see some of the players I've had taking longer.

In my experience, players take their time trying to figure out a meaningful action, which 4e will provide more of. Now it's, "Burn a daily/encounter power, or choose one of your also-good at-wills?". Too often, the best choice in 3e was a basic attack, which most people think, "Is that the best I can do?" as they try to figure out something more meaningful.



Quick comments:
1. I remember reading: "No more attack of opportunities."
They are still there, called Opportunity Attacks now.
2. The "new" rules for Fort,Ref, & Will are just "optional" rules from Unearthed Arcana made official. I've even used them before now.
3. I'm still waiting to see ANYTHING in the prerelease material about roleplaying aspects of the game. So far it's just a combat simulator to me until the other shoe drops. It is a ROLE PLAYING game, not "Combat Encounters Game".

Opportunity attacks are simpler, but yeah, I wish they were gone completely. Hopefully by 5e something better will be thought up. I hated phases even more, so I was glad when AoOs replaced them (in terms of interrupting spellcasters).

The noncombat challenge system looks awesome from what I've seen. Basically, the DM creates a challenge in terms of # succeed/# fail, and players take turns describing how a given skill applies against the challenge. They then roll (easy=15, avg=20, hard=25), and the DM keeps track of successes and failures. Failing an Easy roll counts as two failures, and succeeding a Hard roll gives a +2 to the next roll. When the number of successes or failures matches the #/# of the encounter, the whole encounter is a succeed or fail. So now, everyone gets to play when it's time for traps or social encounters, not just the character that's rolling the single D20 against a single DC.

I see this as a very good thing in terms of having non-combat stuff still be a game- before now, it's toss a single D20 and back to the killin. The drawback I can see is that now you have to optimize your RP aspects too, otherwise you'll be the one causing the party to fail all the time...

Maelstrom
05-21-2008, 04:35 AM
The noncombat challenge system looks awesome from what I've seen.

I really like the 4e system so far, but the challenges are the one thing I can't get my head around. It just seems so contrived.

At D&D Experience, one of the Forgotten Realms adventures had a skill challenge, where you were trying to evade an army by using whatever methods you could, and rolling dice to determine success. All fine and good if the situation were role played, but instead people just took turns trying to figure out how to apply their highest skill level to roll it, and some of the ideas were pretty unrealistic.

I suppose a good DM would force you to come up with a reasonable suggestion, but for evading and army, the whole skill challenge concept seemed to turn it into a mechanic rather than a desperate chase.

I have seen one skill challenge in 3.5 though, in an RPGA adventure. The players needed to talk to a philisophical Warforged General to convince him to support them. The situation was very well planned... the players took turns trying to give him a point to consider. Based on what they said, the players may or may not need to roll (if they roleplayed well enough or came up with a reason that struck home to the general). If they got enough successes he would agree, if they got enough failures he would send them away, unconvinced and thinking they were wasting his time. Now that was an interesting situation in which a skill challenge makes sense, and was DMed well.

MooseAlmighty
05-22-2008, 09:19 PM
I have seen one skill challenge in 3.5 though, in an RPGA adventure. The players needed to talk to a philisophical Warforged General to convince him to support them. The situation was very well planned... the players took turns trying to give him a point to consider. Based on what they said, the players may or may not need to roll (if they roleplayed well enough or came up with a reason that struck home to the general). If they got enough successes he would agree, if they got enough failures he would send them away, unconvinced and thinking they were wasting his time. Now that was an interesting situation in which a skill challenge makes sense, and was DMed well.

Sounds like a great example and probably the way people will end up running social encounter skill challenges. If you RP well or think of something clever, you can include successes that way. I think using the dice roll mechanic for each and every success is intended for players who don't RP much (either by choice or by just being new and not comfortable with it yet).

Meanwhile other types of skill challenges that are dice based can make it worthwhile having ranks in useful skills. Multiple successes digging through a moldering library to find the information you need; a conversation that shows that the character is well versed in the History of Myth Drannor even if the player has not read any FR materials; pushing beyond human limits with Endurance; using Arcana to tap into a magical wellspring to boost your effects but at the risk of injury; and so on. Anything occurring over multiple stages with success/fail options (and of course other things might be going on at the same time)

MooseAlmighty
05-22-2008, 09:38 PM
3. I'm still waiting to see ANYTHING in the prerelease material about roleplaying aspects of the game. So far it's just a combat simulator to me until the other shoe drops. It is a ROLE PLAYING game, not "Combat Encounters Game".

No Spoilers -
Reading Keep on the Shadowfell now. Very much geared at beginner DMs and Players. In addition to the combats, there are pointed notes about cooperative storytelling, non-scripted options, setting the scene, inventing NPC mannerisms, and weaving player ideas/actions into the plot. And there are RP opportunities beyond the obvious ones in the village.




I'd argue that EVERY edition of D&D is just a combat simulator unless the group adds the roleplay, whether it's Keep on the Borderlands or Keep on the Shadowfell...

A friend of mine made a comment about it becoming World of Warcraft - my answer was pretty much the same. All D&D has been kill, loot, level up, repeat - unless you add a story. (heck the computer rpgs I've tried from Wizardry through Oblivion have all copied the early D&D model in that regard)

agoraderek
05-22-2008, 10:28 PM
In my experience, players take their time trying to figure out a meaningful action, which 4e will provide more of. Now it's, "Burn a daily/encounter power, or choose one of your also-good at-wills?". Too often, the best choice in 3e was a basic attack, which most people think, "Is that the best I can do?" as they try to figure out something more meaningful.

i dunno, a lot of times, the basic attack IS the best option. but then, i like low fantasy, mud on the boots type gaming, not epic superhero stuff.

some people are going to dig 4e, some people arent, i, for one, dont want lizards as pc's. call me old fashioned, but thats just how i am. people in midaeval type settings are xenophobic enough, but at least elves and dwarves look kinda human, some half dragon running around with the party is just going to freak people out, especially in the forgotten realms setting, where critters that look like the new pc race are generally evil cusses trying to kill everyone...

i'll have to play in a game before i give my final judgement, of course, but i think im just too old and set in my ways to relearn d&d...